View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
16 December 1913

5^th Parliament · 1^st Session

LIBRARY COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- SELECT COMMITTEE ON GENERAL ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- INTERFERENCE WITH LETTER
QUESTION
- POSTAL WORKS
MILITARY LAND, UNLEY
QUESTION
- NAVAL BOARD
QUESTION
- INMAN VALLEY TELEPHONE LINE
QUESTION
- LEGISLATION FOR FARMERS
QUESTION
- PRIVATE BUSINESS
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ACT
QUESTION
- FITZROY DOCK
LOAN BILL
PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER RAILWAY BILL
- Second Reading
APPROPRIATION BILL (1913-14)
LOAN BILL
NORFOLK ISLAND BILL

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4386

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I shall make inquiries into the matter, and put the honorable senator’s representations before the Postmaster-General. I shall be glad if he will see me directly, and explain the matter to me. I did not hear the first part of his question, owing to the fact that I was speaking to some one here.

Senator Russell:

– Shall I repeat the question ?

Senator McCOLL:

– No, I will see the honorable senator directly.

page 4387

MILITARY LAND, UNLEY

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.Last week I asked the Minister of Defence a question regarding the drainage from the military depot at Keswick,in South Australia, in reference to a claim by the Unley Corporation, and the reply was that the Department was not responsible, and that the drain was sufficient. I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, in whose Department, I understand, the matter comes, whether, in the event of it being proved that the drain is insufficient, and that water has been artificially diverted on to the Bay-road from its natural flow towards the creek, he will give instructions to immediately remedy the defect as to the size of the drain, and also construct a channel for the diverted water, if it has been proved that it is defective?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– All that I can say, in the circumstances, is that I would like an opportunity to make a further inquiry. In that inquiry I will include a request to the municipal council to elaborate the objection which is taken.

page 4387

QUESTION

NAVAL BOARD

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– Is the Leader of the Government here disposed to give the Senate an opportunity, either to-day or to-morrow, to discuss my motion in favour of the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the organization and administration of the Naval Board ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The honorable senator, I think, will see that he can hardly expect the Government, of their own volition, to disturb the regular course of business to permit a motion of that kind to be discussed. I need not remind him that the matter is entirely in the hands of the Senate, but he can scarcely expect me to go out of my way to pave the way for the discussion of a motion of that kind.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister of Defence any information to convey to the Senate regarding the Naval Board? It will be remembered that we have discussed this matter considerably, that there has been a great deal of outside comment, and that last week I asked a question in regard to the abolition of the Naval Board. As we are drawing towards the close of the session, perhaps a statement from the Minister would be very valuable to the country, as an indication of the Government’s attitude?

Senator MILLEN:

– With regard to the question submitted last week, and which, to some extent, was revived by the remarks of Senator de Largie, I have not the slightest intention to abolish the Naval Board. At the same time, it does appear to me, as I informed the Senate some time ago, that the question of the duties of the Board and the apportionment of those duties between the various members, is a matter which requires consideration. I frankly admit that I have not been able to give to it, during the last month or two, close attention, nor have I had an opportunity, owing to the pressure of other work, to consult with the Cabinet, but I propose, the moment the opportunity is provided by the recess, to, bring the matter before my colleagues, with a view of discussing it in its entirety.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister of Defence has stated that he has not had time to consult the other members of the Cabinet. Is there any intention on the part of himself, or Other members of the Ministry, so far as he knows, of putting the control of the Australian Navy more directly under the British Admiralty than it is at the present time?

Senator MILLEN:

– No.

Senator Rae:

– Thank you.

page 4388

QUESTION

INMAN VALLEY TELEPHONE LINE

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General institute inquiries to expedite the construction of the proposed telephone line from Port Victor to Inman Valley, or, as an alternative, from Yankalilla to Inman Valley?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I shall bring this matter before the Department, and ask that the honorable senator’s request that thework be expedited be attended to.

page 4388

QUESTION

LEGISLATION FOR FARMERS

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the announced intention of the Government to bring the labours of this session to a close on Wednesday, will they take Thursday, Friday, and, if need be, Saturday, to introduce into this Parliament, and pass, legislation to benefit the fanners of this country? I might say in elaboration of my question that the Government were returned to office by the farmers, but in six months they have done nothing to benefit them.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not argue the matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– Will the Government redeem their promise by taking a couple of days, when the Opposition will help them, to pass some legislation for the benefit of the farming community ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I remind the honorable senator that the Government is already making an effort in the other branch of Parliament to bring forward and pass into law a measure which, I believe, will be of very great benefit to the farmers, namely, the Bureau of Agriculture Bill. Assuming that there is that strong desire on the part of my honorable friends opposite to assist the Government in that direction, I am hopeful that the Bill will become law this session.

page 4388

QUESTION

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Senator RAE:

– In view of the fact that the Government have a large and docile majority in the Senate, will the Minister give time, before the session closes, for consideration to be devoted to the numerous items of private business standing upon the paper?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– There is some force in the request submitted by Senator Rae. If the Senate desires to discuss all the matters of private business on the paper, it will be within their power to do so. If, however, the Senate is determined to discuss those matters, the effort to close the session this week, or even next week, will prove futile. But it does appear to me that there is one matter which the Senate might desire an opportunity to have discussed briefly. I allude to the matter of which Senator de Largie is in charge. I submit that for the convenience of everybody the Senate should rest content with the discussion of that subject, leaving the other numerous and important matters to be dealt with next session.

page 4388

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator DE LARGIE:

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

Has any hitch occurred in the contract. between the Commonwealth Government and the Western Australian Government for the supply of sleepers for the transcontinental railway ?
Is the Government aware that delay in supplying sleepers is due to the excessive wet weather in the timber districts of Western Australia?
Is it the intention of the Government to allowa reasonable time to the State timber mills to fulfil the contract?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The answer is -

to (3) The Premier of Western Australia desired an extension of time in connexion with the contract for supply and delivery of powel- lised karri sleepers. He was informed that, after full consideration, the Commonwealth Government finds itselfunable to accedeto the application, and that, unless the stipulations in the contract relating to the time of delivery are fulfilled, the Government will feel constrained, in the public interest, to cancel the contract.

page 4388

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Prosecutions for Non-Enrolment

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

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

Why were the prosecutions for nonenrolment under the Electoral Act at Stanley initiated by the Government?
Is it intended to initiate similar prosecutions in any other centre in any other State?
If not, why was Stanley singled out for such a course?
Is it a fact that one of the defendants was a woman who is practically incapable of understanding her obligations in the matter?
Why was Mr. K. Laughton engaged as a solicitor in these cases, and what were his professional fees?
Will the Minister supply a report dealing with the whole circumstances, and forward to Tasmanian senators as early as possible?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The answers are -

The prosecutions at Stanley for nonenrolment were instituted by the Divisional Returning Officer in accordance with the general instructions issued by the Central Electoral Administration in relation to carrying out the provisions of the Electoral Act.
and (3) Similar prosecutions have been instituted in all the States of the Commonwealth.
and (5) The matter was dealt with locally under general instructions, and only came under the notice of the Head Office yesterday, when a report was asked for, which is not yet to hand.
I will acquaint the senators of the facts when the information is to hand.

page 4389

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the

Minister of Defence, uponnotice -

What attitude does the Government intend to take up on the report of the Select Committee on the partial closing down of Fitzroy Dock, adopted by the Senate on nth December?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The answer is -

The report in question was only adopted by the Senate on the11th inst., and owing to the pressure of work the Government have not had an opportunity of considering it.

page 4389

LOAN BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 15th December, vide page 4335) :

Schedule -

Item5 - “ For the purchase of land for Defence purposes,£300,000.”

Senate’s Amendment. - Omit the item.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment disagreed to.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) again proposed -

That the amendment be not insisted on.

Upon which Senator Millen had moved -

That the following words be added : - “ Provided the following words be added to clause 2 - ‘ and that an amount of stock equal to the amount which is issued and applied in respect of the item numbered five in the schedule to this Act shall be redeemed by annual payments of not less than Thirty thousand pounds on the thirty-first day of December in the year One thousand nine hundred and fourteen and each succeeding year until the whole amount so issued and applied has been redeemed.’ “

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

– Last night I submitted an amendment upon the motion moved by Senator Clemons. But I had overlooked the fact that cer tain limitations are prescribed by the Constitution affecting the free action of the Senate. Under those limitations the amendment which I submitted would be unconstitutional. Therefore, I can only say, with some regret, that I feel called upon to withdraw it.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Is it in order to raise the question of constitutionality? I do not like to see the rights of the Senate surrendered without an effort.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is that Senator Millen have leave to withdrawhis amendment.

Senator RAE:

– I have a right to object to that, I presume?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not in order to debate the question of giving leave to withdraw an amendment.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– Senator Rae seems to be under a misapprehension in thinking that the Senate is surrendering any rights which it pbssesses in regard to this matter. Another place has no more rights than we have. In the amendment submitted by the Minister of Defence last night, an appropriation is provided for. The amendment provides for an appropriation of £30,000 each year for a specific purpose. That appropriation could not be made by the Senate, nor could an amendment to the same effect be received in another place without a distinct message from the Governor-General, asking that such an appropriation should be made. As no such message has been received, neither the Senate nor another place could consider or deal with the matter.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I hope that honorable senators at this late stage of the session will not debate the question at any length.

Senator Pearce:

– Senator Millen has asked leave to withdraw his amendment.

Senator McGREGOR:

– He has not been allowed to do so, because Senator Rae has objected. That is fatal to the withdrawal of the amendment, and consequently the best thing we can do is to take a vote upon it without taking up any more time in discussion.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I think that the suggestion of the leader of this side a very wise one. I do not know, but I gather from what has occurred that the honorable senator and Senator Millen are prepared to do all the work of the Senate for us. In the circumstances, I do not see why we should waste any more time. We should let them do what they want to do.

Senator Rae:

– I withdraw my objection.

Amendment (SenatorMillen’s), by leave, withdrawn.

Question - That the Senate’s amendment be not insisted on - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 23

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment insisted on.

Amendments of Title, and clause 2, consequentially amended.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 4390

PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill to which I may safely say some reference has. been made during the past few days. When we were discussing another matter, I intimated that in moving the second reading of this measureI would give honorable senators all the information in my possession regarding the proposed railway, including that relating to the question of survey and the estimated cost of the line. After the Senate had adjourned last night, I had an opportunity of securing a map, which, with your consent, sir, has been hung in the chamber, with a view to assisting honorable senators to understand this proposal. Before I supply the information that I promised in connexion with this undertaking, honorable senators will observe that none of the clauses in the Bill are of a debatable character. They are just typical standard clauses dealing with railway construction, and enabling us to undertake railway construction.

Senator Pearce:

– There are a few omissions.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That interjection does not throw any doubt upon what is contained in the Bill. I come now to the information which I promised to furnish regarding this railway, and if I may say so, without offence, especially to Senator Mullan. On the 30th August last year, a Bill authorizing the survey of this line was introduced into Parliament and carried. That survey was to cover a distance of 54 miles. It has recently been completed, and it practically follows a survey which is known to many honorable senators who come from South Australia as that which was made by Mr. Graham Stewart, the then Engineer-in-Chief, in 1889. Practically speaking, the survey of this line adopts his survey. In the year I have mentioned, Mr. Graham Stewart estimated the cost of the line at £510,000. The present estimate is £482,000, of which £370,000 will be required for the construction of the first 40 miles, and £112,000 for the remainder of the line to the Katherine River, where it will stop.

Senator Mullan:

– Does the Honorary Ministerthink that the line can be built cheaper now than the original line was built with Chow labour ?

SenatorPEARCE(Western Australia) [11.56]. - I am heartily in accord with the main principle of this Bill. But there are certain omissions from it to which I wish to direct attention.First, the Government have not said whether they propose to carry out the work by day labour or contract. If it is to be done by contract, absolutely no provision has been made in the Bill for a minimum rate of wage and for proper labour conditions. I have drafted a clause which I propose to submit to the Committee later, to provide that -

In any contract under this Act such contracts shall provide for the payment by the contractor of minimum rates of wages and the observance of labour conditions, which shall be attached as a schedule to the contract, due penalties for breaches of such schedules shall be provided. The rates of wages and labour conditions shall be such as are approved by the Minister. For the purpose of dealing with any dispute arising as to rates of wages and labour conditions in relation to such contracts, the Chief Judicial officer of the Northern Territory shall be deemed to be, and have the powers of a President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-11.

It is useless to shut our eyes and to drift into trouble. There is no part of Australia where there is more likelihood of trouble arising of an industrial character than where this particular job will be undertaken. We have nothing to guide us as to what would be a fair rate of wages. A rate might be laid down which might seem to many of us to be fair, but the men who had to work on the railway might find that it was not a fair rate at all. It would be impossible to put in this Bill a minimum rate. Any such rate might be grossly unfair.

Senator Russell:

– Why not provide for the work to be done with day labour, pure and simple?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Government have frankly told us that they are opposed to day labour. We have to recognise that they have a majority in another place. If we insisted on a day-labour condition it would simply mean hanging up the Bill. I am not going to take the responsibility for doing that. It is not to be expected that the Government will back down on what they regard as an important principle and remain in office.

Senator Russell:

– They would remain in office all right.

Senator PEARCE:

– In all probability they would drop the Bill, and throw the responsibility on us.

Senator Clemons:

– We are not going to drop our principles, Bill or no Bill.

Senator Mullan:

– The Government will drop anything before they drop their portfolios.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator RAE:

– If all parties were agreed to stand by that, and make it the recognised gauge of Australia, it would end controversy on that point. Can the Minister inform the Senate what is the elevation above sea-level reached by the highest point on the line? I asked just now what the ruling grades were, and the

Senator Clemons:

– I told the honorable senator. The ruling grade is 1 in 75. That is a good working grade.

Senator RAE:

Your decision to reduce the hours weekly to forty-four, and to grant an increase in wages to 25 per cent, over the Southern rates, pins a further allowance to be recommended uy Public Service Inspector Skewes, was generally appreciated, though it was hoped Mr. Skewes’ rates would be greater than they were. You, yourself, drew attention to the advisability Lt working men in the cooler hours. Mr. Skewes emphasized the point. But the men did nothing. There was some little difficulty in securing an earlier start, but this was overcome, though owing to an impasse regarding meals at hotels and boarding-houses, work does not yet commence so early as it should.

I feel sure that if Senator Pearce’s idea is carried into effect it will go a long way towards obviating this difficulty, which, in my opinion, is sure to arise, because the men will be dissatisfied with tropical conditions. Indeed, it is only human nature for anybody like Senator Rae, and, may I say, sometimes Senator Gardiner and Senator Stewart,- to be dissatisfied with any conditions.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is in quite a different direction, and would not be affected by this railway. The Government have provided communication by water from the Daly River, and in future people taking up lands in that district will be able to get their produce to market by steamer. Those who would vote against this proposal, because of small considerations which they think ought to be provided for, cannot have the interests of the country at heart. Senator Rae, I understand, desires to know something about the physical features of the country. I would point out to him that a map is hanging in this chamber, a glance at which will show him that only one hill will require to be crossed by the proposed line. The railway will pass between two ranges of mountains, and the only difficulty in the way of its construction lies in the fact that rivers will have to be bridged.

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I gather from this debate that there is very little use in discussing the development of the Northern Territory on ordinary rational business lines. The Territory may be one of the richest portions of the Commonwealth, but, unfortunately for it and the people of Australia, the nightmare of South Australian influence hangs over it. The trail of that influence is over everything that has been done, or is likely to be done, in connexion with the Northern Territory. I think it would be proper on this occasion to glance at the history of the policy with which we are dealing. Adelaide-I will not say South Australia, because I would be libelling the honest people who live in the country districts of that State - the beautiful city of the south, which possesses a larger population proportionate to the people who live in the country portions of South Australia than does any other capital in the Commonwealth, was ambitious to become the highway between Europe and this continent. Her idea, after she had got hold of the Northern Territory, was to open a magnificent port at Port Darwin, and connect it by rail with Adelaide. No other portion of Australia entered into the calculations of her people.

– I advocate nothing. I want information, and I have not got it. With the exception of Senator

Senator STEWART:

– He says that if the railway is built, the country will blossom. We have heard that kind of thing before. Some of us may believe it to be true. I have heard it so often that I never hear it now without thinking that it is false. We want evidence. The whole proposal is a splendid leap in the dark. We ought to proceed with the development of the Territory in a business fashion. Let us have an examination of it. If it takes five years, the time will be well spent. The first thing that a mining company does with a property is to put money into development and exploration to find out what the mine contains. The policy of the management is governed by the result of that investigation. We ought to do exactly the same thing here. We ought to ascertain what the Northern Territory is capable of. Having discovered that, we can proceed to build railways, make roads and bridges, and do all the other developmental work which is necessary. But at present we are absolutely in the dark. If we come out of it on the right side, we shall be fortunate. Apparently, however, honorable senators have made up their minds. Some of them are like Shylock. They are determined to have their “pound of flesh.” Unfortunately, there is no Portia here, or, perhaps, the weapon might be turned against our Adelaide friends. I am determined to vote against this Bill. I do not say that I am opposed to building railways in the Territory. There must be railways there. Australia must be much more thickly interlaced with a network of railways than she is now.

Senator Blakey:

– Why does not the honorable senator start on a necessary one, such as this is.

Senator STEWART:

– I want information . The only excuse for building a railway is that it will pay its way. I do not know whether this line will pay its way. The portion already built has not paid its way. On the contrary, it has piled up a deficit probably in excess of its first cost. The advocates of this line say that it will pay, but they confess that the land between Pine Creek and the Katherine is valueless.

One honorable senator said it was the poorest stuff he had ever looked at. I think that it is Senator Blakey, the optimistic young man from Victoria, who has such great faith in the future of this continent. Even this would not be sufficient to induce me to vote against the Bill, if I were informed that beyond the Katherine there are huge areas of country capable of maintaining large numbers of cattle and sheep, or of being used for agriculture. I would then say, “ By all means; never mind the streak of bad country; build your railway through it into the good country.” That is exactly where the Government failed, and it is where the last Government failed, if honorable senators on the front Opposition bench will pardon me for even suggesting such a thing. They did not get the necessary information. They were obsessed by the idea of getting right down to Oodnadatta at the earliest possible moment, never thinking of the probable consequences to the people of Australia, and, apparently, not even caring for the consequences. I trust that ‘a majority of the members of the Senate will vote with me against the second reading of this Bill, and that they will be able to defeat the proposal until the Government are in a position to give us more information on the subject.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I listened carefully to Senator Stewart, and the only regret I have is that his wonderful enthusiasm and eloquence are not enlisted in a better cause. 1” remind the honorable senator of the remarkable progress of our country, notwithstanding the presence in it of so many people who have been always ready to disparage it. At all stages of the history of Australia we have had men in our midst ready to cry stinking fish, and to say something nasty of the prospects for the future. We have always had these men of stunted minds and a narrow outlook. No matter what ha? been proposed, they have been ready to say, “ We cannot stand it at all ; what you propose is wrong; there is no bright future at all in our prospect.” T remind Senator Stewart of the history of the State from which he comes, and of what was said about the Darling Downs, probably by a progenitor of the honorable senator. It was said that it would not grow cabbages, yet the Darling Downs has turned out to be one of the most fertile areas in Aus tralia. What was said about the plains beyond Bathurst in New South Wales? The wiseacres described all the country beyond the Blue Mountains as a desolate waste, yet to-day we find that that district is going to be the granary of New South Wales.

Senator Findley:

– The same thing was said about the lands at Mildura.

Senator LYNCH:

– The same thing was said about the Mallee country of Victoria. The Stewarts of those days said that the Mallee country was a dead asset, and it would be better if it could be wiped off the map of Victoria. We know what has been said of Western Australia, a land which has been described as a land of sin, sweat, sorrow, and some other alliteration. Western Australia was described in that way by the Stewarts of the day. They said that it was a part of Australia that held out no hope whatever of a living for a human being. What is the existing condition of things there ? We know that that country of sin, sweat, sorrow, and something else is to-day producing satisfactory yields of wheat. But everything is wrong with Senator Stewart. The bond is wrong, the project is wrong, the route is wrong, the calculations are wrong, and the Government are wrong. I believe that the last is the only point on which I can agree with the honorable senator. We know that everything was wrong with the lamb because the wolf was hungry. The fact was, not that the lamb disturbed the stream, but that he continued to exist whilst the wolf had his appetite to satisfy. Senator Stewart was against the bond in the first instance, and because he was he intends to be a stumbling block to the fulfilment of the bond to the bitter end. He is against this railway root and branch. He says, “ We want to develop the Northern Territory,” but, according to the honorable senator, the best way to do so is to see that there shall be no railway constructed in it. The honorable senator reminds me very much of a story I heard in Western Australia of a man who, I suppose, must have been another member of the Stewart family. He was an old kangaroo shooter. A proposal was made to build a railway into the wilderness where this man earned his living as a kind of hermit by shooting kangaroos. A meeting -in support of the railway was held, and this old fellow turned up at the meeting, and said, “ Look here, Mr. Chairman, about this here railway. I do not know much about railways, but I am a kangaroo shooter. I earn my living by shooting kangaroos, and taking the skins in 90 miles to Bunbury. Well, if this railway is made, and the engine comes along, and whistles when I have my rifle levelled at a boomer, I shall lose a kangaroo, and therefore I object to the railway.” Senator Stewart has adopted the attitude of this smallminded man, who objected to the construction of a railway in Western Australia. I want this railway. I would suggestto Senator Stewart, in connexion with what he had to say about South Australia, that it should be rememberedto the credit of that State, that she shouldered the burden of the Northern Territory at a time when no other State of the Commonwealth would undertake the business. The fact that she took over the management of the Territory with her limited resources prevented it passing under the British Crown, and we were saved the possibility, perhaps the risk, and perhaps the certainty, of the British Government running it as a Crown colony, and introducing a horde of alien races to work and develop the country under the rule of the capitalist.

Senator Stewart:

– The South Australians themselves proposed to do that, and hand it over to a syndicate.

Senator LYNCH:

– It should be remembered in all fairness to South Australia that by her action in taking the Northern Territory under her protecting wing we were saved the possibility, if not the certainty, of having there to-day the alien curse with which the United States of America are confronted through a weak Government planting in the country an alien race for the purpose of advancing the interests of the capitalist class. South Australia has preserved this large part of Australia white, and that should stand to her credit for all time in the mind of any impartial man. Senator Stewart wants information and he wants figures to show that this line will pay from the jump. The honorable senator has only to remember his experience of railways in Queensland. He must know that the Townsville line, and the line from the Gulf, of which I know something, were for years a source of expense to the Queensland Government, and that they only began to pay after they had been established for years. We do not want to wait until railway construction from the Northern Territory will pay from the jump. What we want to do is to keep faith with the intention of this Parliament in taking over the Territory, and that was to develop it more vigorously than it was possible for South Australia to do. We took over the Territory on the understanding that South Australia, with her limited resources and the problem she had to face in the development of her own territory, could not do justice to the Northern Territory. We took over the Territory with the intention of pushing forward the development of that hitherto unoccupied land. We have to consider how to make it attractive to settlers. We cannot do that without spending money, and the Northern Territory must for many years be a moneyeating concern for the Commonwealth, but it will be for our safety and interest in the end that we have taken it over. We cannot expect people to go from other parts of Australia to this uninviting land unless we make it attractive to them. I spent years in North Queensland when I was younger, and though, of course, a person can stand a good deal of knocking about and hardship when he is young, ifhe is given the choice he will naturally prefer a temperate to a tropical clime. The fact that population in Australia is concentrated largely in the southern and more temperate parts is a proof that they have more charms for the white settler than have the tropics. To overcome that natural disadvantage, we must spend money in this tropical country, and demonstrate to the world that it is capable of carrying and maintaining a white race. The first step in this direction is to build a railway to enable settlers to get their produce to the seaboard, to cheapen production, and to make the country a place where settlers will be able to make a fortune, because they will deserve to do so more easily, and in a shorter time, than they could in any other part of Australia. I say that this is the first step in that direction, and I am surprised that there should be stunted-minded Australians, even of my own party, in this Chamber who regard this proposal as one that should not be supported. On the question of building the line under the contract system, I am hoping that the Government will open their eyes to the experience of every State in Australia. Apart from New South

Wales and Queensland, we have demonstrated in Western Australia beyond question that the Government can build stretches of railway by the day-labour system, and save the taxpayers £-0,000. That has been demonstrated even to the satisfaction of the most exacting critic of the day-labour system. Senator Mullan has pointed out that in Queensland, in the construction of 1,000 miles of railway by the day-labour system, as compared with the construction of a similar length of line by the contract system, there was a saving of over £2,000,000 to the taxpayers of the State. Furthermore, it has to be remembered that the men who take upon their shoulders the actual work of constructing these lines receive a much better wage under the day-labour system than they receive under the contract system. Upon this point I can speak from my own personal experience. I have worked for a railway contractor in Queensland, where I was employed in the ballast-pit, in the plate-laying gang, and in carting rails, and the highest wage I ever received was from 7s. 6d. to 8s. per day. The line upon which I was engaged was that from Roma to Charleville. When the contract was “finished the contractor purchased a sheep station, while I humped my “bluey” looking for work. I helped him to buy that sheep station, for the reason that, while I was in his employ, I, along with scores of others, received, a lower wage than that to which I was entitled. A Liberal Minister in Queensland, Mr. Paget, has dealt with this very subject of day labour versus the contract system. He says -

The average rate under the regime of the contractor was 7s. 6d. per day, whereas the average rate under the day-labour system so profitable to Queensland was not 7s. 6d., but 9s. 6d. and 10s. per day.

It will thus be seen that in the first place there was a saving to the Queensland taxpayers of the enormo’us sum of over £2,000,000 on these lines, and in the second, that the men engaged upon them received something more approaching a living wage than they would have received from contractors. I know of contractors who, when they had finished their contracts, took trips to Europe. The men who helped them to build these lines assisted them to take those trips. The policy of the Labour party is to enable the men who work upon these big undertakings to obtain better wages, instead of giving contractors an ‘opportunity to take trips to Europe, or to purchase motor cars. Our policy is to enable the workmen to purchase a bit of land on their own account. That is all I have to say on this matter. I am supporting the Bill, and I am surprised that there should be any opposition to it. We have taken on the development of the Territory from patriotic motives. We want to people it, and we cannot hope to do so unless we put money into the venture and make the place an attractive one to ‘people who go there. If the Northern Territory had been an inviting place, there would have been thousands of persons there to-day. But, unless we make a special effort, we cannot hope to induce people to go there. Through all the years it has remained practically unoccupied, it has been one of the vulnerable points of Australia, and it has provided every country in the world which may have designs upon it with an opportunity to point to it and say, “If you do not occupy that area, what claim have you to it?” This Bill represents an attempt to destroy that argument, and therefore it has my hearty support.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.0]. - The proposal which is now before us is one to construct 54 miles of railway from Pine Creek to the Katherine River. Senator Stewart, who’ has spoken so energetically upon it, and who has announced his intention of voting against the Bill, also intimated his desire to open up the Northern Territory by means of railways, and to connect the more populous States on the eastern side of the continent with the Northern Territory. As I interjected when he was speaking, if he is in favour of such a line, this proposal will form a part of it.

Senator Stewart:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of it?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I am supporting the proposal which is now before us. If I entertained the honorable senator’s view that the proper route to be followed by our transcontinental line from north to south is one through Queensland and New South Wales, I should still be in favour of the proposed line as a part of that railway. I wish now to say a few words upon the question of “defence, of which Senator

Stewart made a great deal. He told us that if the Northern Territory were invaded by the Japanese or some other enemy, the majority of our troops would have to be transported from New South Wales and Queensland. Now, the position is that six States constitute the Commonwealth, and the direct line from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek would, in case of invasion from the north, be more convenient to four of those States for the transport of troops than would any other. It would be more convenient to Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, and also to the bulk of Victoria. I would further point out that a railway from Condobolin to Broken Hill has already been authorized by the New South Wales Parliament, and that in all probability it will be constructed before the transcontinental line from north to south has been completed.

Senator Rae:

– There will then be a chance for the State which the honorable senator represents to show its patriotism.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLINAs a matter of fact, the direct line from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek would then be most convenient for the transport of troops to the north in the case of five of the States of the Commonwealth. Only a few days ago, I heard an honorable ‘senator argue that the transcontinental line, if constructed from the northern end, might be a convenience to’ invaders rather than to our defenders.

Senator Rae:

– I argued that way.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.Those who entertain that view, if they come from Queensland or New South Wales, might rest in perfect security if the transcontinental line were extended from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek, because the Japanese would not then have an opportunity to get at them. I am not averse to the idea of connecting the Northern Territory with New South Wales and Queensland by means of a branch line after the main line has been completed. Over twenty years ago I was a member of a Royal Commission which recommended that a line should be constructed from Her gott to Innamincka or Birdsville to tap the north-western portion of New South Wales, and the south-western portion of Queensland, and I was a member of a Government which embodied that proposal in its policy. Had it not been for the imminence of Federation, and the general idea which obtained that the Northern Territory was too large a proposition for one State to develop unaided, that line would have been constructed. South Australia has always been ambitious to run a line from Adelaide to Port Darwin. But for Federation having intervened, I venture to say that that railway ere this would have been extended as far as the Macdonnell Ranges. South Australia does not fear the running of a trunk line into Queensland and New South Wales, because, from her geographical position, she would secure a good deal of the traffic which would pass over it. With the exception of Brisbane and Sydney, there are no ports on the eastern coast of Australia which can compare with Port Augusta. I recollect taking a trip along the Queensland coast some years ago in the Peregrine, and I know that we had to lie outside Mackay for some’ time until a lighter craft came along and took us off the steamer. We were then conveyed further into the port, where we had to be transferred to a boat, and finally we had to be carried to the shore.

Senator Mullan:

– Why should we give this Government an opportunity of letting their friends construct these 54 miles of railway, and extract a big profit out of the work when they are failing completely to carry out the undertaking that is in progress.

Senator McColl:

– That is not correct.

Senator GARDINER:

– We have just been informed that not 5 miles of earthworks have been carried through during the six months since the Government came into power. Answers given by Ministers themselves have shown that there has been a great weakening in the progress of the work. I believe it is their deliberate policy not to proceed expeditiously with the task on the daylabour principle with the object of handing it over to their contractor friends. What can we expect from a Government whose principal anxiety is to hang on to office by their slippery majority of one? How can we expect them to undertake works of this kind when their main concern is how to get over the next obstacle that will confront them? Having uttered these words of warning about the Bill, I have to say that, as I know we shall not be able to vote it out, I intend to submit to its passage. Generally, I am in favour of the construction of railways, because I am in favour of any policy that will afford opportunities for opening up country and for settling people on wider areas of our rich Australian territory.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I listened very carefully to what Senator Stewart said about this proposal. I could not discover that his conclusion followed from his premises. He argued that because South Australia transferred the Northern Territory to the CommonWealth, and thereby relieved herself of liabilities, she was actuated by pure selfishness. As a South Australian, I take strong exception to that argument, which is very wide of the actual truth. Those who know the circumstances are- aware that brave attempts were made by South Australia to develop the Northern Territory with the scanty capital she had at her disposal. The reason why the railway for the development of the Territory ought to run to Port Augusta is not because it will benefit Adelaide, but simply because it is the. best route through the centre of this great land. Senator Stewart lost sight of the very elements which must be taken into consideration regarding the construction of the line. * One has only to look at the map of Australia to see that the projected railway from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek will almost of necessity take in the Katherine River; and if Senator Stewart, before launching out into such diatribes, had made himself acquainted with the character of the country, he would know that the proposed route is absolutely the best from the developmental point of view. One of the reasons for constructing the line is that it is required for defence purposes. If we build from the northern end only we shall have no means of reaching an enemy that may enter Australia from Darwin. The purpose of such an enemy would not be to assail Queensland, lt would be to send here a sufficient force to occupy Darwin, and penetrate south. Senator Stewart said that the bond entered into with South Australia is a wicked one. Surely that is a; sweeping statement. There was a period in the history of New South Wales when she governed Queensland. Will Senator Stewart say that it was wicked of Queensland to claim to be independent territory? He will admit that it was wise. Suppose that South Australia had developed the Northern Territory from the northern end. It would then have been possible, immediately sufficient population had gathered, to start a separate State. If that occurred, South Australia would have had all the care and anxiety of development for a State that could have separated when it chose. South Australia, however, kept the Northern Territory intact, and when the proper time came, handed it over to the Commonwealth, which ia better able to develop it. I claim that the sanest proposal is that the development should take place from the southern end. Once the tract of country between Oodnadatta and the high tableland beyond the Macdonnell Ranges is bridged by a railway, there is no doubt in the minds of those who, by reading or by actually traversing the country, have made themselves acquainted with it, that it can be developed by white people. If for defence purposes this transcontinental railway is to be built, it should be from Oodnadatta northwards. If it should be built “for developmental purposes, it should be from the southern end also. I remind honorable senators who have taken such a strong objection to this proposal that when it was suggested that the line should divert somewhat towards Queensland from the original route chosen, representatives of South Australia raised no objection, but we do contend that South Australia offers in Port Augusta the best terminus for the railway and the best facilities for the development of the central portion of Australia. We raisedno objection to the Commonwealth taking over the Territory, because wo felt that the Commonwealth could develop it better than could South Australia. I regret very much that Senator Stewart should suggest that we are dealing with this matter merely as South Australians. We look upon this proposal as a railway for the development, not of South Australia, Western Australia, or Victoria, but of the Commonwealth. The Northern Territory is Commonwealth territory to-day, and I regret that my friends from Queensland should so firmly object to this proposal. Coming to the question of the bond, I grant that it was part of the bond that, on talcing over the Territory, the Commonwealth should construct this line. There was nothing selfish in that on the part of South Australia, in view of the fact that the route suggested had been, to a certain extent, surveyed, and the country examined by several expeditions carried out by the South Australian Government. The Honorary Minister told us, in introducing this measure and also in speaking on the Loan Bill, that the line now proposed follows very closely the route surveyed by Mr. Graham Stewart, Engineer - in-Chief for South Australia. Senator

Stewart speaks of the wickedness of the bond, and suggests that it rests upon us as a sort of nightmare, but I think that in making that statement he was influenced by a desire to say something that was strong rather than something that was truthful. I think the honorable senator was led away by his imagination to overlook the facts of the case. I do not imply for a moment that if he had been acquainted with the facts, he would have made such statements. The honorable senator probably regarded this as a question on which Queensland would desire that he should say something strong. Conditions were made with the Commonwealth when the Territory was taken over, and it is but an act of justice that they should be complied with. As an act of justice, the Fisher Government complied with those conditions in connexion with the construction of the railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta, and Senator Stewart, if he be consistent, must apply his view as to the wickedness of the bond to the construction of that railway also. I think that the honorable senator is like the good old Scotchman who said -

They are a’ wrang, a’together wrang,

There’s no’a man about the town, but’s a’together wrang.

Senator Stewart has taken a very narrow outlook, and his conception has been that of a man representing a particular State rather than that of a member of a council of the nation. He has overlooked the evidence gathered by South Australia as to the best means of developing this huge Territory. He has overlooked the fact that South Australia has transferred all the knowledge she gained of the Territory to the Commonwealth.

Senator Stewart:

– Oh, let us go to a division.

Senator SENIOR:

– My honorable friend had his say uninterruptedly. He said all the bitter things he could on the matter. He charged us with being selfish and one-eyed, and he took a good while to do so. When we are forcing the truth upon him, he says, “ Let us go to a division.” The honorable senator wishes to run away when his own arguments are being driven against him. The only fault I have to find with the Government in this connexion is that they have not supplied a considerable amount of information, which they should have been in a position to put before the Senate, for the benefit of honorable senators who have not heard the condition of affairs in the Northern Territory as frequently discussed as have honorable senators coming from South Australia. The Senate should have been informed as to the character of the country through which the line will pass, the difficulties to be overcome, the length of the bridges required, the conditions existing when there are heavy summer floods, and so on. This information should have been put before the Senate that honorable senators might be in a position to decide whether an overestimate of the cost has been submitted. I agree with honorable senators who have expressed the opinion that the conditions of labour to be observed in the construction of the line should be incorporated in the Bill. If the Government intend to substitute the contract system for the day-labour system, we should know whether they propose to safeguard the men engaged in the construction of this line, as we should certainly safeguard the men who take their lives in their hands, go into this strange land, face many difficulties, and who may possibly become the victims of malaria or fevers arising from the nature of the climate. There must be some human spot in the breasts of members of the Government, which should induce them to safeguard men called upon to work under such conditions. We ask them in this measure, which is to authorize the construction of only the first of many railways in tropical parts of the Commonwealth, to establish such a precedent that, in connexion with all railway construction’ in tropical regions, care will be taken of the men engaged in the work. We should not lose sight of the fact that this line should not be built only 50 miles at a time. We should adopt in connexion with its construction the principle adopted in connexion with the construction of some of the South Australian lines. As soon as one line is tendered for, an extension of it is surveyed. A definite plan of railway construction should be put forward, and there should be something like consecutiveness in the work. The object is that contractors, when sending in tenders for an extension, may know that when they have gone to the expense of transporting a plant to an out-of-the-way district, there will be some reasonable possibility of having work for the men they will have gathered around them when their contract is finished, and for the plant they will have collected. In this way it is possible to secure a second contract at a cheaperrate. This is a matter which should certainly be taken into consideration. I have no wish to delay the passing of the Bill, but I desire to answer some of the strictures by Senator Stewart, which were unjust in their character, were clearly not carefully thought cut. and gave evidence of but little knowledge. Following upon the lines adopted by Senator Lynch, may I quote an example to show that development is to be expected by carrying this line forward? I may refer honorable senators to the railways which have been constructed in the Pinnaroo district of South Australia. There was some delay in the construction of the first of the railways, because it was made a condition by one of the Chambers of the State Legislature that 200,000 acres of land in the district should be taken up before the Bill authorizing the construction of the railway could be signed by the Governor. That condition was fulfilled, and what has been the consequence of that first experimental line? Other lines have since been constructed, and the district is to-day a new province for South Australia, because of the facilities of communication afforded by railway construction. Some of the richest agricultural land is to be found in that district to-day. If we have the courage and foresight to anticipate thefuture, we need not fear that railways in Australia will not do for us what railways have done for America. Australia will, with railway construction, become, not a land of empty spaces, but a land thickly peopled by successful settlers.

Question- That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Route of the railway).

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– While I do not expect the Honorary Minister to be in a position to state definitely how all public works are to be undertaken during the present Government’s tenure of office, I think that he ought to be able to inform us what are the intentions of the Ministry in respect of the construction of this line. Is it intended that the work shall be done under the contract system or by means of day labour ?

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– Although that question has been answered seventy times seven, I am prepared to answer it again. The Government do not intend either on this or any other projected railway to depart from their declared principle. But, in addition to believing in the system for which they have already declared, they desire to be practical, and it may be that for reasons either of compulsion or of necessity they may have to deviate from that system in connexion with this undertaking. That is where we differ from honorable senators opposite. While we are just as strong as they are in the affirmation of a principle in which we believe, we recognise that circumstances may sometimes arise which demand the setting aside of that principle. I would remind my honorable friends that even lunatics have sane intervals. I can assure Senator Findley that if it is practicable this railway will be constructed in accordance with the system which we advocate. But, nevertheless, we are practical men, and it may be that circumstances may dictate the wisdom of departing from that principle.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 -

The gauge of the railway shall be 3 ft. 6 in.

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia) [5.6]. - I move -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ but provision shall be made in the construction of the permanent way and works for subsequent alteration to a gauge of four feet eight and a half inches.”

We have the Minister’s assurance that the Government intend to make provision in the works for a subsequent conversion to the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge, and in such circumstances I think there can be no objection to the insertion of the words I desire as a direction from Parliament that that shall be done.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [5.7]. - Whilst I agree with the general purpose of the amendment, I desire to amend it, and with that end in view I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ four feet eight and a half” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the standard gauge of the Commonwealth.”

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- I think the Committee ought to adopt Senator Pearce’s amendment. The Honorary Minister argues that if we accept it we shall tie the Government down to the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge in the event of any alteration being made hereafter. If that is the attitude of the

Minister, lie ought to propose to excise from clause 5 the words “ shall be 3 ft. 6 in.”

Senator Clemons:

– The reason of that is obvious - because we have to make this railway in conjunction with the existing line.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is still more obvious why the amendment moved by Senator Pearce should be inserted. Senator Hae expressed some doubt as to the opinion of experts concerning the best standard gauge for Australia.

Senator Rae:

– I know that some experts are adverse to the 4-ft. 8-in, gauge.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Senator Rae indicated that he would move a further amendment to make the clause read, “The standard gauge of Australia,” and when I indicated that one conference had been unanimous for the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge, he raised an objection on that point. I have before me the report of the conference of railway engineers, which considered the uniform gauge question. Here is a paragraph from it -

As our estimates indicate that the cost of conversion would be very greatly in favour of the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge, we recommend the adoption of that gauge as the standard for Australia.’

That report is signed by Mr. H. Deane, Engineer-in-Chief for Commonwealth Railways; Mr. James Fraser, Engineer of Existing Lines in New South Wales; Mr. J. H. Fraser, Chief Enginer of Ways and Works, Victoria; Mr. J. C. B. Moncrieff, Engineer-in-Chief, South Australia; Mr. E. C. Light, Chief Engineer of Existing Lines, Western Australia ; and Mr. Norris G. Bell, Chief Engineer, Queensland. There was only one State, Tasmania, that was not represented at that Conference, and I see in the report no opinion on the’ subject from the Engineer-in-Chief of that State.

Senator Rae:

– Tasmania, as an island State, is not interested in the matter.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– From the Chief Engineers of the five States of the mainland we have a recommendation that the standard gauge should be the 4-ft. 8^-ia. gauge. It is stated in the report that the cost of the conversion of existing lines to the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge would be £12,142,000. In another part of the report, dealing with the question as to which is the better gauge, the 4 ft. 8J in., or the 5 ft. 3 in., the statement is made -

In this connexion, Western Australia has agreed to construct a. standard gauge Une, a portion of which has already been authorized by an Act of Parliament, to connect Fremantle and Perth with the Commonwealth line at Kalgoorlie.

This Parliament has authorized the construction of a line from the east to the west, from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, oh the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge, and the Western Australian Parliament - long before this Parliament decided to begin the construction of the line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta - agreed to adopt the 4-ft. 8-in. gauge for the line between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle, so that there should be no transhipment of passengers, mails, or forces between Port Augusta and Fremantle. The report further says -

In South Australia, while “ conversion “ to the broad gauge lines would, if supplemented by a direct standard gauge line between Port Augusta and Adelaide, provide for a uniform gauge between the capitals, there are isolated lines, the alteration of which will not be needed until their connexion with the main lines becomes necessary ; and there are also some spur lines which might, without difficulty, be left over for future consideration.

Senator Pearce, and should decide that if this line is to be constructed at all, following the example set by the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, it shall be constructed on the 4-ft. 84-in. gauge.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I ask Senator Rae to temporarily withdraw his amendment, because I think that by an alteration of mine it may be made to SUit his views also. If the honorable senator will temporarily withdraw his amendment I shall ask permission to amend mine by inserting the words “not less than 4 feet 8J inches.”

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I have no objection to withdraw my amendment temporarily to permit Senator Pearce to do what he proposes, but before doing so I should like to refer to a matter which has cropped up in the course of the debate. We have been informed by the Honorary Minister that we have a guarantee of his word that provision will be made in the construction of this railway for the adoption ultimately of a wider gauge than 3 ft. 6 in., in the fact that the Government propose to lay down 80-lb. rails in building the line. If Ministers have come to such a determination, I wish to say that I consider it a very foolish step to take. It will take a considerable time to build this 50 odd miles of railway, and it will be very many years before it will be part of a transcontinental line linking up with the railway systems of the States. It will, when that time arrives, be necessary to relay the existing 145 miles between Port Darwin and Pine Creek on a wider gauge. In my opinion, it would be ridiculous, in the meantime, for us to lay out our money upon 80-lb. rails in the construction of this railway, when 60-lb. rails would be sufficient for all the work of the line for many years to come. The proposal would involve an enormous additional cost for freight and construction, and the rails would possibly be worn out before rails of such strength would really be required. This seems again to indicate that proper business capacity is not being shown in connexion with this line. The making of earthworks, bridges, and that sort of thing, which may be regarded as permanent, should be carried out from the first with a view to the adoption of the wider gauge, if we are not to be involved later on in huge expenditure for alterations. Senator Russell argued that a road-bed sufficient for a 4*ft. 8^-in. gauge might easily =be altered to carry a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. But that really does not touch the matter. I have conversed with many men of practical engineering knowledge on the question, and I have been informed that what really makes the distinction between the 4-ft. S£-in. gauge and the 5-ffc. 34n. gauge is the width of the curve. “Very much wider curves are required for a wide gauge than for a narrow-gauge line, and to secure a sufficiently wide curve in converting a narrow gauge into a broad-gauge railway it may be necessary to deviate hundreds of yards from the original line. That is where the extra cost will be incurred. In New South Wales, in order to get up greater speed, a tremendous amount of deviation work has had to be done, and, looking out of a train, one may see the original line half or three-quarters of a mile away from the. existing, line. In order to get a wider curve, it is often necessary to deviate widely from the original route. Wisdom is therefore shown in choosing a route with widely sweeping curves sufficient for a line on any gauge. I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment of the amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Senator Pearce:

Senator Stewart:

– Is the honorable senator “ stone- walling “ ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No ; but my honorable friend did a lot of it this afternoon. I am now giving him some of the information which he complained he had not got. I am anxious that the Commonwealth shall continue the construction of its railways on the gauge that has been adopted so as to obviate confusion in the minds of the people upon this question. I hope that. Senator Pearce’s amendment will be carried.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 4

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 -

The Minister may provide all things necessary or convenient for the efficient construction and working of the railway.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ and the railway shall be constructed by day labour.”

– If I have to choose between the doctrine and the railway I shall stick to the doctrine.

Senator Mullan:

– The honorable senator would not have been here at all except for his adherence to the doctrine.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Exactly ; and I io not think that I have yet reached a stage when I have to choose between adherence to a principle and the acceptance >f a Bill of this character. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.0 p.m.

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Needham:

– The Government in power then were pledged to the daylabour system, and I knew they would carry it out.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is not an answer to my question. If the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway were being considered in this Chamber, and it was proposed to carry it out by contract, and to refuse to agree to that proposal involved the loss of the railway, I ask

Senator Needham to say how he would vote. Before the honorable senator replies, I am prepared to give him my reply, and say that I would vote for the contract system rather than lose the railway.

Senator Needham:

– My reply is that the question put by the honorable senator is not involved in my support of Senator Stewart’s amendment.

Senator LYNCH:

– I repeat that if a refusal to agree to the contract system would involve the loss of the Bill authorizing the construction of the railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta, I should be prepared to vote for the contract system, provided the Bill embodied the safeguards which will be provided in this Bill if the amendment , of which Senator Pearce has given notice be carried.Under that condition I should besatisfied that themen engaged in the construction of the line would get a fair deal, and I ask honorable senators to say whether in this case there is any reason why we should concern ourselves very much more ? It is quite true that the taxpayers’ point of view should be considered, but the amendment suggested by Senator Pearce will secure a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work for the men engaged in the construction of this line, and conditions as ideal as possible in those latitudes. Certain honorable senators are going to uphold that policy while risking the loss of this railway, but, as I am not prepared to do that, I shall vote against the amendment.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I am sorry that Senator Lynch should have attempted to put a monetary value on the principles of the Labour platform. Unless the party are prepared to stand by their principles, the members of it are not worthy of the positions they occupy here. If we are going to put a personal or a State advantage against adherence to our principles, we shall be met with all kinds of temptation so long as we are members of this or any other House of Parliament. If our principles are not to be above all other considerations, we are only playing ducks and drakes with them in order to deceive and delude the public. Senator Lynch has indulged in a good deal of talk about consistency, but I am not aware that any of us claim to be models of consistency. I remember that, when

I was a young fellow, I learned a hymn which went something like this -

But while the lamp holds out to burn,

The vilest sinner may return.

To say that we should not do right because we have not always done right is a doctrine that I do not for a moment subscribe to. I consider myself a poor, frail mortal, committing sins of all kinds, sometimes wilfully and sometimes through weakness; but I certainly like to be good now and again in spots. When a man is trying to do the correct thing, he should not be gibed at because he can make no pretension to being perfect. I do not think that any of us are yet enrolled amongst the saints, and I do not expect to be canonized myself for several generations after I am dead. Then I may be. There have been instances, I know, when Estimates involving expenditure of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 have been passed practically on the voices, although there may have been differences of opinion concerning many of the items. But I have not known honorable senators to be, on that account, charged with dereliction of duty, because they have criticised the next Estimates. An honorable senator is not absolved from doing the right thing when it is clearly presented to him, because there have been times when he did not do the right thing. No rule of life prescribes that, because, accidentally or wilfully, a man commits a sin once, he is therefore licensed to sin for all eternity. The question of a railway or no railway is nothing when we have to face the question of principle or no principle. Senator O’Loghlin has stated that, in this Bill, the Government have not declared against the principle of day labour. But the Honorary Minister has told us in unmistakable terms that upon this public undertaking, as upon all others, they will, if possible, adopt the contract system.

Senator Clemons:

– I stand by those words exactly.

Senator RAE:

– If they can get a tender, they will probably let this work on the contract system. If the insertion of the amendment proposed will enable us to escape all the evils of that system, it will strike away our claim that the daylabour system is the better. I desire to put it to honorable senators that we have to consider the interests of the taxpayers as well as those of the workmen who will be employed upon the proposed railway, more especially as it will involve the expenditure of loan money, for which the present and future generations will be taxed. In my judgment, Senator Gardiner put the strongest argument in favour of this line being built by day labour when he urged that the cost of a plant to enable it to be undertaken by contract would be so out of all proportion to the length of the line as to render its purchase unjustifiable. He pointed out, too, that there would be no guarantee that the same contractor would get the contract for the next section of the railway. Further, I maintain that, in a tropical climate like that of the Northern Territory, it is not possible to secure the same good conditions and the same sanitary arrangements in the construction camps under the contract system that it is possible to obtain under the day-labour system, especially if the latter be administered sympathetically.Upon the question of whether the construction of the line should be deferred, I want to know whether a principle is not of more importance than is the expenditure of a few thousand pounds? A man who values principle does not put money into the scale at all.

Senator Senior:

– But the honorable senator has made this principle a rather belated one.

SenatorRAE. - It is better late than never. Senator O’Loghlin asked why we did not insist upon the insertion of a similar provision in regard to the expenditure of £175,000 at Cockatoo Island. My answer is that it was impossible to do so in a Loan Bill. This is the only apportunity that we have had of putting that principle into black and white.

Senator Senior:

– No.

SenatorRAE. - It is the only opportunity that I have had. It is true that I have been absent fighting the battles of Labour candidates in New South Wales, and if, during my absence, Bills have been passed in which this principle might have been inserted with advantage, that is no argument why we should not insert it now. What sort of reasoning is if which says that, because we may have omitted to do our duty on one occasion, we should never attempt to do it again?

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator admits that we have failed to do it ?

SenatorRAE. - I do not know. But if it will strengthen the specious arguments of the honorable senator, he is welcome to the admission that we have allowed things to slip through whichwe should have prevented. This particular principle is good enough for me to argue upon from now till Christmas. Since the Government Preference Prohibition Bill was “ biffed “ out of this Chamber-

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator MULLAN:

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I do not know that I should have spoken on this question but for the fact that I wish to give honorable senators some evidence on the subject which we have been able to obtain from the antiLabour Government at present controlling affairs in Queensland. It is over twenty years ago since we endeavoured in that State to induce the Government to carry out railways and other public works by day labour. They always refused on the ground that it would be a very costly system to adopt. We used to be gibed at by the Government and their supporters, and we were told that if the works were done by the day-labour system there would be the Government stroke, and we should not be able to get the best work out of the men employed. We were told, further, that we must have the contract system by which men would be driven to give the last ounce that was in them. We were a long time before we could secure any protection at all for men employed on Government works in Queensland. I have seen men in that State under the contract system doing pick and shovel work for 4s. 6d. per day within 2 or 3 miles of Brisbane.

Senator Mullan:

– While the contractors were making fortunes.

Senator TURLEY:

– I would not say that, because the works I referred to were only small contracts. I refer especially to deviation work carried out within 2 miles of the place where I live in Brisbane. After a considerable agitation in the country, and after the Labour party, as they have done in connexion with other matters, advocated the principle from the public platform, throughout the country they were successful in convincing a great many people that the day-labour system should be given a trial. Some of those opposedto the Labour party said, “ All right, we will give the system a trial.” The system was tried, and the further it was adopted the more the people realized that it was not only in the interests of the men employed, but in the interests of the taxpayers as well, since it was found that public works were being constructed for less than they would have cost under the contract system. I quote from the Queensland Hansard for 1912, page 1290. The Secretary for Railways, in Queensland, Mr. Paget, put the case from the departmental point of view, and he certainly had a very good case to put. He said -

I have in my hand a statement prepared by Mr. Robert Armour, of the Engineers Department, in 1897 -

That was before Mr. Paget had anything to do with the Department at all - which shows the cost of 1144.94 miles of railway built by contract in Queensland between the years1881 and 1896. That return has been in the Department since 1897. I asked the Chief Engineer some months ago whether he would, for my information, prepare a return at his convenience, showing the cost and mileage of railway constructed by day labour since the inception of the day-labour system in Queensland in 1900. This statement was prepared, and I again say it is a most remarkable coincidence that during the eleven or twelve years the daylabour system has been in operation there were 1144-44 miles of railway constructed, so that we have a return of contract work made up in 1897, and a return of day-labour work made in 1912, and the difference in mileage construction is exactly one half-mile.

Mr. Kirwan asked, “ What about the cost?” and the Secretary for Bailways replied -

I am handing in for the information of honorable members a return prepared in 1897 for the then Chief Engineer of all railways built by him under contract between 1881 and 1893. The total expenditure was ?5,491,720; the mileage, 1,144.94; and the average cost per mile, ?4,795.

This return includes all railways built between 1881 and 1896 in the Southern Division, a few in the Central division, but none in the Northern division, as the Central division was only taken over by the then Chief Engineer in 1887, and the Northern division in 1892. A return has been prepared by me of all railways built by day labour since its inception, in 1900, up to 191 1. The total expenditure was ?3,413,249; the mileage, 1,144.59; and the average cost per mile, ?2,982.

Opposition Members. - Hear, hear.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS.- The fact that the mileage in both returns is practically the same is meTely a coincidence. This return includes all the railways built throughout the State during these years. The total difference in expenditure is ?2,078,471 in favour of day labour.

Opposition Members. - Hear, hear.

Mr. Kirwan. I hope the Liberals in the Federal Parliament will read this.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS.- The average cost per mile is ?1,814permilein favour of day labour.

He then made a comparison of the conditions and cost of material, and showed that the wonder was that the Government had been able to do the work as cheaply as the contractor. Again, quoting the return, he said -

The difference between the contract and day labour cost is increased when it is considered that-

between 1881 and 1896 a considerable mileage was laid with lighter rails than was the case in the day-labour period ;

the day-labour returns includes a large mileage in the North division, where labour and materials are more costly than in the Southern and Central divisions, and where the climate militates against the best work being got out of the men;

between 1881 and1896 timber for bridges and sleepers was more plentiful, and a more suitable class of labour for railway work was obtainable than between1900-1911 ;

bridges built in the contract period were for 8-ton axle loads only, whilst nearly all those built in the day-labour period are for 12-ton axle loads, to provide additional strength for heavy rollingstock.

the wages rates generally were higher in the day-labour period than in the contract, and the prices for explosives, cement, &c, has largely increased;

a greater number of sleepers per mile were used in the day-labour period than in the contract in the Southern division.

It was shown that, after allowing for the cost of plant, and a considerable increase in the cost of materials, the work cost very much less under the day-labour system than under the contract system. Later on in the same debate, Mr. Kirwan said -

If you could get a table showing the cost of maintenance on those two classes of lines it Would be interesting - and the Secretary for Railways replied -

In reply to the honorable member for Brisbane, who knows what he is talking about, I may say that maintenance is included in the day-labour figures to a certain extent. The engineering department have to maintain the line for four months until it is handed over to the traffic department, and even that is included. I have no hesitation at all in saying that the lines that are being built by our own staff cost less for maintenance than those built by contract.

Senator Rae:

– Every point is in favour of the day-labour system.

Senator TURLEY:

– The statement I have quoted is not that of a Labour man, but of one who is as strongly against the Labour party as is any man in Australia to-day. This statement goes to show that the day-labour system is not only in the interests of the taxpayer, but also in the interests of the men doing the work. We find that, under this system, everything is done by the Government to make the conditions of the workmen far better than they are in any contractor’s camp. The idea of the contractor is to get all the work possible out of the men he employs. We may put all the conditions we please in the Bill. Every individual who has had any experience of hard manual work knows that in every gang of workmen men are placed with the object of speeding up its members. These men, possibly, receive 3s. or 4s. a day more than do their comrades. I would further point out that the contractor has nothing whatever to do with his employes, except to pay them. He is not concerned with the sanitary conditions which obtain in the camps or with the prices that are charged for stores. As a matter of fact, he does not provide the stores. Instead, storekeepers establish themselves along each section of the line which is being built, and they are naturally imbued with a desire to make as much profit as possible. But what happens when the Government assume control? On the Queensland railways, I may tell honorable senators that under an anti-Labour Government, stores are provided for the men at practically the cost price of landing them on the ground. The Government always look after the water supply, and also the sani tary provisions of the camps. Besides all these advantages, upon every section of line which has been constructed in Queensland during the past three or four years, a large marquee has been erected for the purposes of a library. Has any contractor in Australia ever attempted to provide such facilities for his employes? The fact that an anti-Labour Government in Queensland was able to save more than £2,000,000 on the construction of a little over 1,100 miles of railway should be convincing proof of the superiority of day-labour over the contract system. I am not going to taunt any honorable senator with having gone back on his principles, but I am not going to ignore the promises which I made to the electors to secure the recognition of this principle upon our public works, even though it may mean the loss of this railway.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

.- I. have no desire to prolong this debate. So much has been said upon the question that it would be idle for me to labour it further. I merely wish to affirm my sympathy with the amendment. During the last Parliament most of our Commonwealth works were carried out by day labour, and our boast was that it resulted in incalculable benefit to the workmen, as well as in economy. Consequently, I can scarcely understand the position taken up by some honorable senators who urge that because a certain course was adopted in respect of the Loan Bill we should turn down a principle in which we have declared our belief, lest we may sacrifice this measure. If it is to be a question of choice between dropping the Bill and abandoning the principle of day labour, I prefer that the former course should be adopted.

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

AYES: 12

NOES: 11

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13-

The Minister may charge such fares and rates for the carriage of passengers and goods on the railway, and make such incidental charges in connexion with the railway as he thinks reasonable. . ..

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That after the word “charge” the following words be inserted : - “ or in the case of a contractor operating any portion of the line before it has been declared open for traffic, may permit the charging of.”

Of course, it may be argued that the adoption of the amendment which has just been carried has rendered this proposal unnecessary. But I would point out that if that amendment be rejected in another place, and the Bill be returned to us, we shall then have no opportunity of amending this clause. Consequently, if we desire to make any change in it we should make it now.

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– Inasmuch as I understand this amendment to mean that the Minister shall retain control of the rates and fares that may be charged by the contractor during the preliminary time when he, in accordance with the practice, will have the right to operate the line, I will accept it, and Ihope that we will get on with business.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Although I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would accept the amendment, yet I take it that its acceptance will in no way involve any surrender on the part of those who voted just now for the day-labour system, because, if I am here and the Bill should come back, I intend to fight if need he from then until the Christmas pudding is cooked before I will give in on the day-labour principle.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

– Senator Gardiner has framed an amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 14A. - (1.) In any contract relating to the construction of the railway provision shall be made for the payment by the contractor of not less than the prescribed minimum rates of wages, and for the observance of the prescribed conditions of employment, and also for the recovery of penalties for non-payment of the prescribed rates of wages, or for non-compliance with the prescribed conditions of employment. (2.) The minimum rates of wages and the conditions of employment shall be prescribed by the Minister, and shall be set forth in a schedule to the contract. (3.) Where a dispute arises between the contractor and his employes as to the rates of wages to be paid to or the conditions of employment of any employe, the dispute shall be referred to the Judge of the Northern Territory, whose decision shall be final and binding on both parlies to the dispute. (4.) For the purposes of the settlement of

dispute referred to him, the Judge of the Northern Territory shall have all the powers which, under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1911, belong to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration with regard to the summoning and examination of witnesses, the production of books and documents, and the entry and inspection of any place, premises, materials, machinery, or appliances ns if the proceedings were proceedings before that Court.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [9.45]. - I think that this amendment is going too far. Any disputes arising as to rates of wages or conditions of labour should be dealt with in the manner suggested in the amendment, but we should not make elaborate provisions as to how this pi’ocedure is to be carried on under the contract system, even though it might be possible afterwards to amend the clause, or to amend it in another place, in order to bring it in conformity with the day-labour principle. Without in any way wishing to impute motives, the fact of having a number of clauses dealing with this work as though it was to be carried out under the contract system, will hold us up to the ridicule of honorable members in another place. They will say, “ In one clause you propose that the work shall he carried out on the daylabour principle only, and yet you provide an elaborate set of conditions to deal with the contract system.” It will he “an invitation to them to knock out the first amendment, and then to say that the Bill will read smoothly and in conformity with the other amendments. If we have any regard for the principle of day labour at all, and we are not simply putting forward a placard to the electors, our duty is to amend the proposal of Senator Pearce so that it will cover all that is required, without giving anything away to the contractor. It will be perfectly possible to do so by omitting all words relating to contract and contractor, and letting the other place put them in if they are not sufficiently democratic to accept our first amendment. Certainly I might have raised this point in regard to the first proposal of Senator Pearce. But I am not going to say that it is too late to do so, because over and over again the contract system is referred to as though it was an integral part of the machinery by which this Bill is to be carried out. I ask the Committee to omit all words in which contractor or contract are referred to, because, otherwise, it will involve us in a charge of absurdity and folly from the members of the other House, who will have to deal with our amendments, and it will be an open invitation to them to defeat the work which was done after a strong debate, in which all sides expressed their opinions fully. I protest against the proposal embodied in this amendment, and therefore I move -

That the words “contractor” or “contract,” wherever occurring, be left out.

If my proposal is adopted, it will lead to the drafting of the proposed new clause so that it will cover the employment of labour without mentioning the employer.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I wish to point out that if these words were omitted the proposed new clause would not read. The first paragraph reads -

In any contract relating to the construction of the railway–

If the amendment of Senator Rae to omit “contract” were carried, the paragraph would read -

In any relating to the construction of the railway.

I have not gone right through the proposed new clause to see the effect of striking out the words “contract” and “ contractor.”

Senator RAE:

– I wish to point out, sir, that you cannot prevent an amendment from being moved simply because it will spoil the sense of a clause before the Committee. Time after time I have seen amendments carried which, if they had not been followed up, would have made nonsense of a clause. After an amendment to eliminate has been carried, the rvistom is to put in whatever is necessary to make sense of the provision.

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– I wish to state the Government’s attitude in regard to this proposal, and T make the statement in the hope that it will enable us to get on with business. Senator Stewart interjected that he did not know what the proposed new clause of Senator Pearce is. I shall read it again, although he read it quite distinctly. The first paragraph reacts - (1.) In any contract relating to the construc tion of the railway provision shall be made for the payment by the contractor of not less than the prescribed minimum rates of wages, and for the observance of the prescribed conditions of employment, and also for the recovery of penalties for non-payment of the prescribed rates of wages, or for non-compliance with the prescribed conditions of employment.

Without that amendment, the Government would insist on these conditions in any contract which is let under the Bill. But the Government will accept that amendment if honorable senators want it incorporated in the measure. From my point of view, it comes in precisely the same category as an amendment which was inserted just now. I would have been perfectly ready to give the assurance of the Government that these conditions would be complied with. As a matter of fact, the conditions are in force, to the best of my knowledge, in every contract that the Government have let. Further, we- believe that they ought to be enforced. The second paragraph of the pro posed new clause reads -

The minimum rates of wages and the conditions of employment shall be prescribed by the Minister, and shall be set forth in a schedule to the contract.

Sub-clause 2 will be made to read -

The minimum rates of wages and conditions of employment shall be prescribed by the Minister, and shall be set forth in a schedule.

Sub-clause 3 will be made to read -

Where a dispute arises as to the rates of wages paid, or conditions of employment, it shall be referred to the Judge of the Northern Territory.

I propose to allow paragraph 4 to remain as it is. Dealing with sub-clause 1, I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out after the word “ In,” line i, the words “ any contract relating to.”

Senator RAE:

– Sub-clause 3 of the proposed new clause, as amended, will read-

Where a dispute arises as to rates of wages to be paid -

Now a dispute may arise between the Government as the direct employer and its workmen.

Senator Clemons:

– I shall have some observations to offer upon that aspect of the question presently.

Senator RAE:

– Senator Pearce’s amendment is necessary, and even if we eliminate the contractor it will be none the less necessary. I ask Senator Pearce whether he is convinced of the necessity for retaining the first two sub-clauses ?

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment (by Senator Rae) agreed to-

That the words “ by the contractor,” in subclause1, be left out.

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– Apart from any party considerations whatever, I wish to point out, in quite a friendly way, that this paragraph as it now reads is absolute nonsense.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– As Senator Pearce is responsible for this provision I would like him to give us an explanation of its meaning Personally, I think it is illogical, but £ am not going. to arrive at a hasty conclusion upon it. I prefer to await its explanation.

Senator Pearce:

– I have already explained it twice, and do not desire to “ stone-wall “ the Bill.

Senator MULLAN:

– But we do not desire to do anything absurd.

Senator Pearce:

– At the present time I am suspect, and, therefore, I had better say nothing.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator has submitted an amendment, portions of which would constitute an improvement of the Bill. But there is one portion of it, namely, sub-clause 1, which now reads nonsensically. I am sure that Senator Pearce, as a practical man, will

Senator Pearce:

– I do not think that they should be dispensed with, for the reasons which I have already given, and which I do not wish to repeat.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Rae’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 3

Majority … 20 realize the fairness of the position which I have put, and propose the elimination of paragraph 1 of this clause.

AYES

NOES

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– The first sub-clause of Senator Pearce’s amendment was specially designed to apply to a contractor, and now that the contractor has been eliminated it is altogether unnecessary. The Committee have decided that this railway shall be constructed by day labour, and, therefore, no contractor canbuild even a portion of it. For that reason sub-clause 1 of the amendment of Senator Pearce is unnecessary. I suggest to Senator Rae that he should move the omission of subclause 1, because it is entirely unnecessary and makes the provision read stupidly.

Senator de Largie:

– Move that while you are on your feet.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no necessity, as I shall put the question that subclause . 1 of the proposed new clause be agreed to.

Question - That sub-clause 1 of the proposed new clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Rae) agreed to -

That sub-clause 2 be amended by leaving out the words “ to the contract.”

Sub-clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I move-

That subclause 3 be amended by leaving out the words “between the contractor and his employés.”

At present the provision reads -

Where a dispute arises between the contractor and his employés as to the rates of wages to be paid to, or to the conditions of employment of, any employe, the dispute shall be referred to the Judge.

If my proposal is carried the provision will read -

Where a dispute arises as to the rates of wages to be paid.

That would apply to the Government if they were the direct employers of the men. There would be nothing uncertain in it.

Senator RUSSELL:
Victoria

– It seems tome that Senator Rae is attempting to do something which he has no intention of accomplishing. I understand that in connexion with railway works there are more persons engaged than those who do the actual work of laying the line. Supposing, for instance, that a tender for steel rails is let to an Australian firm, and a dispute arises. This provision will certainly cover a case of that kind. Therefore, it is necessary to retain the word “ contractor.”

Senator Rae:

– No, because in the first part of the sub-clause the words “ the construction of the railway “ are used.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Will not the supply of rails and. other material be part of the construction of the railway?

Senator Rae:

– No.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Take the case of the culverts, the embankments, and other works which are let sometimes by a contractor. The present Government might take it into their head that they are to do this work by direct day labour. They might prefer, as I would like, to take the course of letting certain lengths of the line to parties of men. The butty-gang system, as it is called, would not be bad: for the men, and they would be able to make far better wages than they ever get from a contractor. If the Government did decide upon letting a mile, or half-a-mile, or a quarter of a mile of the line to a party of men, a dispute might arise between that party and the Government, and there would be no machinery in this provision to deal with that kind of case. So far as I can see, the attempt to amend this proposal bristles with difficulties, and the better course, I think, would be for the Minister to postpone its consideration until a provision can be drafted which will ex- press in plain terms and in a commonsense way the sense of this party or of the Senate on this question. At the present time this is anything but a creditable production, as hasty amendments made on the floor of . the Senate are always slipshod and slovenly, lacking consistency and order. I hope that the Minister will agree to postpone the consideration of this proposal until something approaching a decent amendment conveying the sense of the Senate can be framed. There seems to be little hope of our hitting upon any amendment which will satisfy this party, or the Government, or the Committee as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That sub-clause 3 be further amended by leaving out the word “ both,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “all.”

At present it is proposed that the decision shall be binding on both parties to the dispute, and my object is to insure that it shall be binding on all parties.

Senator Clemons:

– May I understand the idea of that proposal ?

Senator RAE:

– I want to put it beyond doubt as to what is meant, because in a complaint before the Judge there might be more than one section.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

– The Government cannot accept the sub-clause for reasons which must be apparent. Suppose that the Government decides to do the work by day labour. If any dispute arises with their employes, the sub-clause declares that the Government are to have a master, whose decision is to be absolutely final, and he is to be, not a member of the High Court, but an official of the Northern Territory. We are going calmly to tell the Government that, no matter what wages they fix, if there is a dispute, it is to be settled by one of their own employes. I venture to say that if honorable senators opposite were supporting a Government they would not be expected to accept such a decision as that.

Senator Pearce:

– The officer is a Judge.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Surely honorable senators appreciate the difference between the Judge of the Arbitration Court, who is a member of the High Court, and this official, who has been appointed to exercise a limited jurisdiction in the Northern Territory.

Senator Russell:

– What about the chairman of a Wages Board, whose decision is final?

Senator CLEMONS:

– There is no analogy. Here we are to adopt the procedure of the Arbitration Court, and a final decision is to be given by the judicial officer of the Northern Territory, who is to exercise powers which, under statute, we have vested in a Judge of the High Court. .

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– There is nothing in the Minister’s contention. While the Judge of the Arbitration Court may be an excellent man for his position, it is impossible to ask him to go to Darwin to settle a dispute. If he did, it might hang up the whole work for weeks. Senator Clemons draws an imaginary distinction between a Judge of the High Court and the judicial officer of the Northern Territory. I remind the honorable senator that if he got into an altercation he might have to submit to the decision of a common justice of the peace. A lot of nonsense is talked about the assumed dignity, importance, and immensity of chaps who happen to get into high positions. It is all flam. There are as good men outside as are any of those who are appointed to dignified offices, and I never met one of them who was any better than an ordinary individual. Here is a practical proposal to get the man on the job to deal with an emergency if it should arise. We ought to accept it.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I remind the Committee that when the Northern Territory was administered by South Australia, an Administrator was appointed who exercised in the Territory the full powers possessed by the Chief Justice in South Australia. He held the lives and deaths of accused men iii his hands.

Senator Pearce:

– So does this judicial officer.

Senator SENIOR:

– Nothing serious is likely to arise in connexion with disputes. Surely if the judicial officer is fit to try a. man for his life he is fit to settle an industrial dispute.

Question- That sub-clause 3, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 3

Majority … … 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sub-clause 4 agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new clause be added :- 14b. In the supply and sale of stores to the men employed in the construction of the railway, the prices charged shall not be more than the prices for such stores obtaining in Port Darwin.

I do not want the men employed on this railway to be victimized, either by the Government or by storekeepers. They ought to receive their stores at the retail prices obtaining at Darwin:

Senator Pearce:

– They ought to pay freight, surely?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not see why they should be burdened with the cost of ‘freight. It was the intention of the late Government, in the construction of the east-and-west railway, to supply the men engaged upon the line with stores at prices obtaining in Kalgoorlie.

Senator Pearce:

– Plus freight.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no knowledge of that. I do not think that the storekeepers in Darwin will lose anything, and we ought to set an example by insuring that men working under arduous conditions shall receive their stores at fair prices.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That the amendment be amended by the addition of the words “ plus freight.”

I think it is only fair that freights should be added to the Darwin prices. I do not think that the men would have any right to expect that their stores should be carried free.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– W - Who is to supply the stores?

Senator PEARCE:

– I take it that it is intended that they shall be supplied by the Government. If they are not supplied by the Government, the amendment will not operate. We cannot, in a clause of this Bill, ask the keepers of private stores to supply the men at certain prices.

Senator Millen:

– We might as well insert another clause in the Bill to make the Government supply the stores.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [11.1.1].- It has not been made quite clear who is to supply the stores. We do not know whether they are to be supplied by storekeepers, the contractor, or the Government. Before we can deal intelligently with the proposal, we should know more definitely what it means. Perhaps Senator Needham will clear the matter up before honorable senators are asked to give a vote.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I had in the original draft of my amendment the words “ Department or contractor,” but, in view of the fact that the Committee has recorded a vote against the contract system, I left the matter open.

Senator Millen:

– If no one is compelled to supply the goods on the terms stated, no one will do it, and the men will be left without any goods.

Senator Rae:

– Put in “by the Government.”

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Clemons:

– No, I wish to have a division upon it as soon as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the proposed new clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 3

Majority … … 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- On Friday last I asked the Government to consent to the adjournment of the Senate for two hours longer than was proposed, to enable me to return to my home in New South Wales, and to be back in Melbourne in time for the re-assembling of this Chamber. They refused to do so, but I am glad to say that more reasonable counsels prevailed in another place. To-day we met at 11 a.m., and it is now half-past 11 o’clock in the evening. We have sat continuously for twelve hours, and the Government now deliberately ask to suspend the Standing Orders to enable them to rush this measure through the Senate.

Senator Clemons:

– Is it our own measure?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have treated the Government reasonably throughout the day. I voted with them on one occasion, in addition to acting as Whip for them. With the threat of a double dissolution hanging over our heads, we are asked to suspend our Standing Orders. I have protested against the adoption of that course, even when there was a Government in office which I supported. I would point out that nothing is to be gained by the proposed suspension of the

Standing Orders. If the Government treat this Bill in the ordinary way, it will not be returned to us before Thursday or Friday of this week, and until then we shall be fully occupied in considering the Appropriation Bill. I know that Senator Rae desires to criticise some of the items at length. Moreover, we have two hours of leeway to make up. Instead of suspending the Standing Orders, I ask the Government, with a view to expediting business, to consent to the adjournment of the Senate now, so that we may reassemble to-morrow at the usual hour. I should like the assurance of the Honorary Minister that this Bill represents the last business which will be considered to-night.

Senator Clemons:

– Absolutely.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– There would be no necessity for these lengthy debates if the Government would consent to an innovation which, I am sure, would be appreciated by all honorable senators, from you, sir, downwards. My suggestion is that we should be permitted to have a quiet, comfortable smoke in the chamber. That, I am sure, would conduce to a more reasonable consideration of public questions, and to a more Christian feeling. So far we have nowomen senators, and I do not see why you, sir, and other honorable senators, should not be allowed to have a comfortable smoke while we are discussing the business of the country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4456

APPROPRIATION BILL (1913-14)

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and Standing and Sessional Orders suspended to enable it to be passed through all its stages without delay.

page 4456

LOAN BILL

Bill returned from the House of Re presentatives, with a message intimating that that House had agreed to amendment No. 4 insisted on by the Senate, and to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 as consequentially altered by the Senate.

page 4456

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL

Bill returned from the House of Re presentatives, with a message intimating that that House had disagreed to the amendments made in the Bill by the Senate, for the reasons shown in an annexed schedule.

Senate adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 December 1913, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1913/19131216_SENATE_5_72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate16 December 1913

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON GENERAL ELECTIONS

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

QUESTION

INTERFERENCE WITH LETTER

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McCOLL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKS

Senator RUSSELL:VICTORIA

Senator McCOLL:LP

Senator Russell:

Senator McCOLL:

MILITARY LAND, UNLEY

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

NAVAL BOARD

Senator LONG:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:LP

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Rae:

QUESTION

INMAN VALLEY TELEPHONE LINE

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McCOLL:LP

QUESTION

LEGISLATION FOR FARMERS

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:LP

QUESTION

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Senator RAE:

Senator MILLEN:LP

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator McCOLL:LP

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Senator READY:TASMANIA

Senator McCOLL:LP

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator MILLEN:LP

LOAN BILL

Senator MILLEN:Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

Senator RAE:New South Wales

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator RAE:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator GIVENS:Queensland

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator Rae:

PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator CLEMONS:Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

Senator Pearce:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Mullan:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Mullan:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Senior:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Maughan:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Maughan:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senate
16 December 1913

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McCOLL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · LP

Senator RUSSELL:
VICTORIA

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

Senator McCOLL:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator CLEMONS:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · LP

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator RAE:
New South Wales