View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
17 December 1914

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- EUROPEAN WAR
QUESTION
- COASTAL GUARD
QUESTION
- TEMPORARY EMPLOYES
QUESTION
- EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
QUESTION
- QUARANTINE STATION: TOWNSVILLE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ORES
QUESTION
- ARMAMENT ARTIFICERS
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
PAPERS
QUESTION
- QUEANBEYAN WATER SUPPLY
QUESTION
- STATE INTERFERENCE WITH WHEAT CONTRACTS
QUESTION
- GOLD CURRENCY: CHINESE
ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL
TREASURY BILLS BILL
WAR LOAN BILL
LOAN BILL (No. 2)
- Second Reading
LOAN BILL (KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY)
- Second Reading
WAR PENSIONS BILL
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
WAR PENSIONS BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Inter-State Wheat Contracts - -Order of Business - Queanbeyan Water Supply - Federal Capital Designs - Military Maps

The President took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2071

QUESTION

EUROPEAN WAR

Reported Naval Engagement

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister of Defence received any official intimation, either in confirmation or in amplification, of the newspaper reports as to a naval engagement proceeding in the North Sea?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I regret that we have received no official communication yet. I have only heard of press reports.

page 2071

QUESTION

COASTAL GUARD

Reduction of Garrisons

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister of Defence give me any information about the demobilization of the Australian Garrison Artillery at the forts of Sydney or any other demobilization in connexion with forts ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Owing to the destruction of the warships which were likely to be a menace to Australia it has been found possible to demobilize a considerable number of troops stationed at different parts throughout Australia.

The whole of the troops are not being demobilized, but a considerable portion are, sufficient being left to keep watch on danger points and also to meet any sudden emergency.

page 2072

QUESTION

TEMPORARY EMPLOYES

Payment for Holidays

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister of Defence in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday in connexion with the payment of temporary employes during the Christmas holidays?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answer to the question is -

The casual employes willbe treated in the same way as the permanent employes of the Government in regard to Christmas holidays.

The understanding, I believe, is that they will be treated as that answer indicates.

page 2072

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Rates of Pay

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister of Defence able to reply to the question I asked yesterday regarding the pay of cooks and motor-drivers at Broadmeadows camp?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The honorable senator asked whether it was a fact that cooks were directly employed by the Department and wore paid 10s. a day of seventeen hours, and are now paid 36s. a week, and that drivers in the motor transport were paid 8s. a day and are now paid only 6s. The answer is that the Department is not aware of any such rate as 36s. a week being paid to cooks. The only cooks directly employed by the Defence Department are those engaged in connexion with German prisoners of war at the depot, and they are paid 10s. a day. and have suffered no reduction. In regard to the motor transport, I understand that Senator O’Loghlin is going to ask a question, and perhaps Senator Barnes will accept the reply to it.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– Has the Minister of Defence any information to give to the Senate in regard to the alleged reduction of the pay of motor-drivers and mechanics in the Expeditionary Forces from 8s. to 6s. a day ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer to the question is-

The advertisement mentioned appeared in the principal daily papers in Brisbane, Sydney,

Melbourne, and Adelaide.

Over 200 first-class driver-mechanics were required, and the rate of pay for these was fixed at 8s. per diem. The total personnel of the two units for which these driver-mechanics were required, viz., the “ Divisional Ammunition Park (M.T.),” and “Divisional Supply Column (M.T.)” is 12 officers and 704 men, made up as under: -

After the date for application had closed a preliminary selection was made, and later on each applicant was put through an exhaustive competitive test to fill the vacancies. The most efficient men were’ appointed to the non-commissioned ranks on probation, while the others were made driver-mechanics. Those who were unsuccessful in obtaining appointment as drivermechanics were offered the position of cleaner, which many accepted. (The cost of these motor lorries was so large that it was in the interests of the service to get the best men to drive them.)

The rate of pay for cleaners has been fixed at 6s. per diem prior to embarkation. Subsequent to embarkation, the rate will be 5s. per diem, plus1s. per diem deferred pay.

Anything in the nature of the reduction of driver-mechanics to the rank of cleaner has not reached the Motor Transport Board, but it is considered that as these drivers were only taken on probation, and as the Commanding’ Officers of the units above mentioned have power to promote members of their unit, it is only natural that some changes would be found to be necessary, especially as the first selection was not in any way final, but subject to later confirmation, and possibly this is the reason for the complaint made.

page 2072

QUESTION

QUARANTINE STATION: TOWNSVILLE

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs answer to-day the questions I asked yesterday respecting the building of a Quarantine station at Townsville?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– The following information has been supplied: - 1 to 3. Tenders closed on the 5th June last, but owing to the excessively high estimate which was received a fresh scheme was drawn up, and the Public Works Department, at Brisbane, were asked to furnish the necessary provisional sketches, together with an amended estimate. Advantage was taken of this opportunity to include in the general scheme a disinfectingshed and laundry. Further action is awaiting the receipt of these plans, which are expected at an early date.

Senator FERRICKS:

– In view of the number of carpenters who are out of employment in the northern part of Queensland, as advices received by me seem to indicate, will the Assistant Minister impress upon his colleague the advisableness of proceeding with the construction of the quarantine station by day labour as soon as the plans are prepared ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– I will bring the matter under the notice of the Minister of Home Affairs, and I feel confident that he will treat it sympathetically.

page 2073

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ORES

Contracts with German Firms - Patent Rights.

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence aquestion concerning the following cablegram in the Age of to-day : -

London, 16th December. Messrs. Harland and Co., steam-ship brokers, in a letter to the MorninyPost, state: - “It is understood that a group of financiers has fully considered the question of laying down a plant for the reduction of Australian ores, but it is impossible to proceed if the German group is able to claim damages after the war for the non-delivery of ore. The Government should pass a short Bill limiting the liability of Australian mining companies for deliveries to date from the declaration of war.”

Have the Government taken into consideration the question of the liability of the companies for the delivery of ores to German firms, and will they bring in such legislation as will obviate that defect in pre-existing contracts ?

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will bring the matter under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral. and if the information can be obtained to-day it will be furnished to the honorable senator.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– Arising out of the question asked by Senator Senior, and Senator Gardiner’s promise to have an inquiry made and a reply furnished if possible, I would ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if it is not correct that in the second Trading with the Enemy Bill, passed this year, provision was made in the last clause for Australians who were indebted to enemy subjects through pre-existing contracts to pay over to the Comptroller-General or other officer authorized by the Government such sums as they deemed were due.If so, will he draw the attention of the AttorneyGeneral to the provision with a view to ascertaining whether it does not cover the matter mentioned by Senator Senior ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I think the honorable senator’s recollection in regard to the Bill is quite correct, and I shall call the Attorney-General’s attention to the clause.

Senator Millen:

– That does not meet Senator Senior’s point.

Senator Keating:

– I think it will.

Senator SENIOR:

– Provision was made in the Bill dealing with enemy subjects’ patents for the suspension or abrogation of the claims of enemy subjects to patents in existence. Similar provision should be made in regard to these contracts. I am urging that the mining companies here should be protected, because during a time of war-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It is not permissible at this stage for the honorable senator to “ urge “ a certain course on the Minister. He has the right now simply to ask a question to elicit information.

Senator SENIOR:

– I used the word “ urge “ to emphasize my point, in order that the Minister might know the real object of my question. If the Minister is seized of the fact that there were contracts existing prior to the war, he will recognise that it may be necessary to take legalaction with regard tothem, in order that we may benefit those who are seeking to establish similar industries in Great Britain.

Senator GARDINER:

– The AttorneyGeneral has considered that aspect of the matter. The honorable senator’s question will be put before him, with a view to directing his attention to that portion of it.

page 2073

QUESTION

ARMAMENT ARTIFICERS

Rates of Pay

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Is the Minister of Defence in a position to-dayto answer the question I asked yesterday in connexion with the payment of armament artificers ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The question asked by the honorable senator was -

Was any representative of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers present when EngineerOverseer Barnes made his investigations into the request of armament artificers for increased pay.

The answer is “ Ko.” The next question was, “ If not, why not ?” the answer is -

A deputation waited upon me from the Engineers Society to give reasons why the armament artificers should get a rate of pay higher than that of engineers outside the Department. One of the reasons put to me was that the men did a specially high class of work, more difficult and technical than that of the ordinary engineer outside. 1 knew that EngineerCommander Barnes had himself worked as an engineer, and was a skilled man, and I thereupon promised that I would have an inquiry made as to the class of work these men were called upon to perform. I instructed Engineer-Commander Barnes to make an independent investigation of the work of the engineer artificers. It was not necessary for a representative of the Engineers Society to be with him to explain the work, because as an engineer he would understand its nature. He accordingly inspected the work, and made a report to me. That was the reason why no representative of the Engineers Society was asked to accompany him.

The third question was -

Has any attention been given to the recommendation of Captain R. Harding asking that favorable consideration be given to the request of the armament artificers.

The answer is -

Recommendations submitted by Major E. Hard hip; have been considered, but inquiry has shown that the pay and privileges of armament artificers are more favorable than those of workmen doing similar work outside the Service.

It is, therefore, not proposed at present to give effect to his recommendation.

page 2074

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Day Labour and Contract Systems

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yesterday I asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs if any work in connexion with the trans- Australian railway at either the Port Augusta or Kalgoorlie end was being carried out under contract, and, if so, would the Minister see that all the work connected with the line was carried out by day labour.

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– The information supplied by the Department is as follows : -

Yos, excavation of Cardonia Reservoir (western end).

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Is the whole of the work going to be carried out on the day-labour principle?

Senator RUSSELL:

– So far as practicable, it is the intention of the Govern ment to carry out all work on the daylabour system.

page 2074

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act 1903-1912 - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1!114. Nos. 171 and 172.

page 2075

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 16th December, vide page 2002) :

Clause 35 -

Subject to any different disposition made by a testator in his will - ….

The duty shall, in the first instance, he apportioned among all the beneficiaries in proportion to the value of their interests; and

where there are any beneficiaries under the will each of whom takes only specific bequests or devises of a value not exceeding Two hundred pounds, the duty which under paragraph (a) of this section would be payable in respect of the interests of those beneficiaries shall be apportioned among all the beneficiaries in proportion to the value of their interests….

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

. -We had what at this stage of our proceedings may be called a somewhat lengthy discussion on this clause last evening. I was hoping that the Minister would have some communication regarding it to make to the Committee today. As he has said nothing on the subject, I must assume that he is still disposed to resist any attempt to amend the clause. I do not propose to go over the ground traversed last night further than to point out that by the wording of the clause it is apparent that the Government are anxious to be a little generous to the smaller beneficiaries of an estate. I have no objection to that, but they should be generous at the expense of the Treasury, and not at the expense of the other beneficiaries in an estate. If they think that the beneficiaries up to £200 should be treated leniently, let the Government introduce a proposal to exempt them from the duty under this Bill. It is indefensible to propose to relieve the smaller beneficiaries of duty payablein respect of the benefits they receive by transferring the liability to the larger beneficiaries.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- The position is that each estate as a whole will be liable to the duty. The difficulty arises in connexion with the apportionment of the duty amongst the beneficiaries. The Bill provides admittedly for a rule of thumb, and under it, in an extremely limited number of cases, some injustice may be inflicted. Under any other system which could be suggested I think injustice would be inflicted in a majority of cases. I take the case of an estate in New South Wales upon which the duty under this Bill would be 15 per cent., and the State duty also 15 per cent. I assume that there would be a small beneficiary to the amount of £200 in that estate. In my view, it would not be at all equitable to take 30 per cent. off that amount by way of duty as compared with the position in which a beneficiary to the extent of many thousands of pounds from the estate would be placed.

Senator Millen:

– What about a beneficiary to the extent of £250?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have admitted that in a limited number of cases the clause may work a little injustice, but it would be a greater injustice to compel a small beneficiary to pay duty at, perhaps, the highest rate under the Bill because he happened to be a beneficiary in a large estate.

Senator Millen:

– Why not exempt the small beneficiaries from duty?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think that that would be desirable.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is nothing short of an iniquity to say that in a matter of taxation one man shall carry another man’s burden. The Minister has pointed out that a beneficiary to the extent of £200 in a big estate would be liable to duty at the rate of 15 per cent. but for this clause. I ask him what will be the position of a beneficiary to the extent of £250. He will have to pay the 15 per cent. duty plus his share of the duty, which, but for this clause, would have to be paid by the beneficiaries in the same estate who receive amounts not exceeding £200. Whatever justification there may be for taking money from people to meet the necessities of the Treasury, it is nothing less than downright robbery to take money out of the pocket of one man in order to put it into that of another.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 50, and title, agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That the Bill be reported with amendments.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That clause 8 be reconsidered.

Clause 8 (Duty on estates).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (8) In this Act public educational purpose includes the establishment or endowment of an educational institution for the benefit of the public or a section of the public.”

– As the Committee are waiting to get the Bill through, I cannot pause to study this provision now.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2076

TREASURY BILLS BILL

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is purely a machinery measure. Honorable senators will recollect that the Treasurer’s Budget contained an announcement that a sum of money, in aid of revenue, would be raised by means of the issue of Treasury-bills. This is the ordinary machinery measure empowering the Government to do that. It merely contains the necessary provision for the punishment of offences such as the forging and uttering of Treasury-bills, or of the coupons attached to them. In these circumstances, it is not necessary for me to speak at further length.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not propose to discuss the measure, but I venture to take advantage of this motion to raise a matter that I intend to raise in Committee. I do so now for the purpose of affordingthe Minister an opportunity of considering it in the interim. It seems to me that, under the Bill, there is an extraordinary discrepancy between the punishment which is to be meted out to offenders guilty of two classes of offences. For forgery, a penalty of ten years’ imprisonment is imposed, whilst for being in possession of forging implements, a punishment of only two years’ imprisonment is inflicted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 -

Any person who, with intend to defraud, forges, or utters knowing it to be forged -
1. any Treasury Bill, or
2. any coupon for the payment of money in respect of a Treasury Bill, or has in his possession any forged Treasury Bill or coupon with intent to utter it, shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for ten years.

Any person who, without lawful authority (proof whereof shall lie upon him) -
1. makes or has in his possession, any form of Treasury Bill; or
2. makes, or has in his possession, any form of any coupon for the payment of money in respect of a Treasury Bill; or
3. makes, or has in his possession, any instrument or thing for the purpose of making any imitation of any descriptive mark or signature on any Treasury Bill or coupon for the payment of money in respect of a Trea sury Bill, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for two years.

In this section “ form “ in relation to any Treasury Bill or coupon includes any form resembling, or apparently intended to resemble or pass for, a form of a Treasury Bill or coupon.

Senator PEARCE:

– It might be very difficult for the person to show that he had no unlawful intent. In my opinion imprisonment for two years is quite adequate punishment. I must confess that Senator Millen has raised a doubt as to whether paragraph c is not in the wrong sub-clause. I think that it ought to follow paragraph b in sub-clause 1. I admit that if any person has an instrument or thing for the purpose of making an imitation of a descriptive mark or signature, it is a crime equally as heinous as the forging of a bill. It is the means by which the ill-deed can be done. I move -

That sub-clause 1 be amended by the insertion, after paragraph (b) in sub-clause 1, of the following words : - “ or (c) makes or has in his possession any instrument or thing for the purpose of making any imitation of any descriptive mark or signature on any Treasurybill or coupon for the payment of money in respect of a Treasury-bill.”

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales; [2.52]. - I was disposed at first to think that the Minister’s suggestion was a great improvement. Certainly it met the case I defined, but I am disposed now to think that the proposed alteration would rather destroy the symmetry of the clause. Subclause 1 deals with a particular class of offence, the forging and the issue, while sub-clause 2 deals with the making of the note and the making of the instrument to produce the note. I think that the offences ought to be kept together, and the only question, to my mind, is whether the penalties are im properly apportioned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by Senator Pearce, agreed to -

That after the word “ it,” in sub-clause 1, line 7, the following words be inserted : - “ or makes or has in his possession any instrument or thing for the purpose of making any imitation of any descriptive mark or signature on any Treasury-bill or coupon, for the payment of money in respect of a Treasury-bill.”

Clause also consequentially amended.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I wish to refer to the penalties provided for the two classes of offences. There is nothing to indicate that it is other than a minimum penalty.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - According to the Acts Interpretation Act, when a clause of a Bill mentions a penalty, that is the maximum.

Senator SENIOR:

– It is not mentioned here in any form. The hands of the Judge would be tied if he had no discretion as to penalty.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

.- The Acts Interpretation Act covers all the Acts that we pass. In that Act we provide that the penalty mentioned shall always be regarded as the maximum penalty. We thus avoid putting it in every Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15, preamble, and title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2078

WAR LOAN BILL

Bill received from the House of. Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

, - I move -

That this Bill bc now read a second time. It is only a little Bill, but it represents a great deal of money. I suppose it is the biggest Loan Bill ever brought before an Australian Parliament. The unfortunate circumstances with which we are faced compel the Government to make this provision, and we are happy to be able to say that we have already made arrangements with the British Government for the loan. The money is being borrowed at the rate of £95 per £100, with interest at 3J per cent. Including the disco.! nt and expenses of flotation, the interest works out at £3 19s. 7d. per cent., and the term is fourteen years. The fact that the money is being raised by the British Government in a time of war, and is, after all, only a small proportion of the total amount raised by the British Government for war purposes, is a wonderful illustration of the financial strength of

Great Britain, and a striking tribute to the confidence which those who have money to lend have in the future of the British Empire. The Bill itself is in the usual Loan Bill form, and there is nothing out of the ordinary in it. It authorizes the Government to borrow £18,000,000 from the British Government. The arrangements have been completed and the first £1,500,000 has been already paid to the credit of the Commonwealth with the Commonwealth Bank in London.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - What amount are you going to issue in debentures- enough to get £18.000,000 net?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. The total amount raised will be £18,940,000. That provides for the discount of £5 per £100 and the expenses of flotation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The Treasurer may borrow from or through the Government of the United Kingdom moneys to such an amount that, after discount and expenses incurred by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Government of the Commonwealth in connexion with the borrowing are allowed for, there will remain for expenditure an amount not exceeding eighteen million pounds.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– Does not the clause mean that in addition to the £18,000,000 all sums necessary to meet .the flotation expenses must be raised?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator Millen:

– We shall get £18,000,000, but will have to pay more than £18,000,000.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- The total liability will be £18,940,000, repayable in fourteen years.

Senator Gould:

– Is there any provision for sinking fund ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Not in the Bill, but the British Government have a general provision for a sinking fund in connexion with all their loans.

Senator Bakhap:

– But this is our loan.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:

– On the contrary, the sinking fund may be used as an excuse to justify borrowing more than would otherwise be borrowed. The Government in a State Parliament pressed by the members of that Parliament to embark upon a lavish public works policy submit, for instance, a Loan Bill for £1,000,000, with aclause requiring £50,000 to be paid every year into a sinking fund. What will happen after a few years ? I believe 1 am right in saying that there is not one sinking fund in the whole of Australia that has not been violated by the Treasurer of the country in which it has been established when he has become impecunious. Therefore, I say that sinking funds not only become an expensive delusion, so far as the purposes for which they were created are concerned, but they inevitably fail, just as they will fail in the Commonwealth arena if ever we have the misfortune to become financially involved.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– In reply to the remarks of Senators de Largie and Mullan, I wish to say that I am not prepared to announce any policy on the part of the Government in regard to sinking funds - first, because I do not think that such an announcement is called for upon this Bill, and second, because I have not been authorized to make it. The question of the desirableness or otherwise of establishing a sinking fund” may well be threshed out by itself, apart from any particular loan. If it be a good thing, it is a good thing to establish in connexion with all loans. If it be a bad thing, it is a bad thing to establish in connexion with all loans. The Leader of the Opposition has put forward a view with a considerable amount of force, and one which merits consideration. But the question that he has raised does not crop up under this Bill, because no sinking fund is contemplated in connexion with it. In answer to Senators de Largie and Mullan, I can only say that the Government have no policy in regard tothe establishment of sinking funds at the present juncture. That they will have a policy in the near future, I have no doubt.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.35].- I do not propose to emulate the example of previous speakers by discussing the attractive subject of a sinking fund. But I would point out that in the Inscribed Stock Act of 1911, provision is made for the establishment of such a fund. That Act sets out that -

The Treasurer shall on the last day of March, and on the last day of September in each year, pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated for the purpose, into the Trust Fund, under the head of the Stock Redemption Fund, such sum as is fixed by any order directing the sale of any stock, being not less than 10s. per centum on such stock.

It will be seen, therefore, that we have adopted the principle of providing for a sinking fund. If we desire to redeem any loan in this way, the order directing the sale of any stock will specify that it is to be redeemed, and the amount paid must not be less than 10s. per centum per annum on such stock. If we were simply to provide that there should be in the hands of the Treasurer a sinking fund, which should be applied in redemption of stock when it matured, what would happen? When hard times were experienced he would come to Parliament and say, “ We have so much money in our redemption fund, and I am in a position to hand it over, so that it may be used for the ordinary purposes of government, provided that you will enact a law authorizing me to so appropriate it.” The only way in which we could establish a proper sinking fund would be by placing it in the hands of trustees, with instructions to them to purchase stock as they thought fit. Then the Treasurer would not be able to get hold of that money in time of emergency.

Senator Senior:

– Imperceptibly we should be getting a loan without interest.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Imperceptibly also we should be wiping off the loan. But it may happen that we shall have to borrow more money to carry out fresh works. I remember a rather amusing incident in this connexion. In the good old days in the New South Wales Parliament, we determined to build a lot of bridges out of loan moneys, and to establish a sinking fund in connexion with them. Then when £1,000,000 was required for the purpose of building bridges over all sorts of creeks, and anybody asked the ques tion “ How are you going to pay for these works?” the reply always was, “ Never mind. We have established a sinking fund for that purpose.” But as the years rolled on we found that that sinking fund was a formidable charge on the Consolidated Revenue, and action had to be taken to retrieve the position. So that we must be certain that we borrow wisely, and that we shall be able to pay a small percentage year after year towards redeeming the loan. I recognise that by paying only 10s. per centum per annum, a long time will be occupied in redeeming a loan. Still, each year it is becoming less. A sinking fund is only safe when it is put in the hands of trustees who will utilize if for the purpose of buying stock in the open market when it goes below a certain value.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2083

LOAN BILL (No. 2)

Bill received from the House of Re presentatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Do I sleep ? do I dream ?

Is there visions about?

That a Labour Government which hasalways expressed itself with a Spartan severity on the subject of borrowing, should present such an extraordinary borrowing proposal as this would not have been believed if the prediction had been made before the event happened.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’loghlin. - If made before the war.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is not owing to the war, as I can show. The “honorable senator, by an interjection just now, put his finger on a weak spot. He could not fail to see that this borrowing proposal goes much beyond what is required; or if it does not do that, the Government already feels that its estimates of revenue will not be realized. We are asked today, not merely for authority to borrow for the deficiency disclosed by the Budgetpapers, but for every penny which we assume will be received from the land tax, as if not one penny had been received in this financial year.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’loghlin. - That is so.

Senator MILLEN:

– We are also asked to believe that nobody is going to die in time for his estate to pay probate duty before then, and having done that, and gone on that assumption, £800,000 is borrowed beyond the amount necessary to meet those three purposes. I cannot resist the conclusion that the Government feel that they will either spend more than Parliament has authorized, and want the money for that purpose, or have already begun to fear that their revenue will not reach the Treasurer’s estimate.

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

– They take power to borrow if necessary.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator, whose interjection shows that he has a logical mind, knows that some portion of the land tax has been paid already, leaving the new taxpayers out of the question altogether. Last year the major portion of the land tax came in during the last portion of the financial year, but about a third was received before then. The Government are asking authority to borrow on the assumption that they will not receive a single penny of land tax or probate duty until the 30th June. In addition to the £2,500,000 deficit which they have disclosed, they ask power to borrow another £800,000. Do they anticipate a further deficiency? Instead of a £2,500,000 deficit, do they think there is going to be a deficit of £3,250,000?

Senator Pearce:

– In a state of war, any ti ling is possible.

Senator MILLEN:

– A state of war is not going to prevent a man dying.

Senator Pearce:

– It may prevent his estate being worth anything when he does die.

Senator MILLEN:

– The war is not going to prevent all, or, at any rate, some portion of the laud tax being paid. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer has received some of it already, and no state of war will get that amount out of the Treasury into the taxpayers’ pockets again. There is evidently a fear in the minds of the Government that the finances are even now developing in a direction less favorable than the Treasurer estimated when presenting the Budget. If so, the Government, when asking authority for such an extraordinary borrowing proposition, should make a supplementary statement of our true financial position. My honorable friends are learning very rapidly. For years many of them said borrowing was an evil policy ; but what has happened reminds one of the saying about the rapidity with which people slide down a slope. We have had in New South Wales an instance of the extremely virtuous non -borrowing party going of late years on a real financial drunk. Our discussions on wet and dry canteens were nothing to it. When once they taste the thing there is no holding them back, and I venture to predict that, in a few years’ time, they will be found apologizing for, instead of denouncing, borrowing.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– The present extraordinary circumstances afford a quite sufficient explanation of a Bill of this kind. Even in ordinary times estimates are only estimates, and we can never be quite sure whether our forecast of revenue will equal our estimated expenditure; but in a time of war it would be folly to think we could absolutely rely on getting the requisite revenue from taxes without having power to raise the money necessary to pay our way. We know that accounts have to be paid, and it is only right and proper that the Government should have sufficient funds to meet them. I am not at all surprised, therefore, at the introduction of a measure of this kind. The sittings of Parliament will be suspended during the next few months, and it is, therefore, necessary for us to take precautionary steps. Whilst I am with the Government so far, I do not altogether agree with them on another aspect of the case, about which we should certainly have a clear understanding. Our gold reserve is in the most dangerous and critical position of any in the world. We have no control over it, and a question put by Senator Ferricks in the last few days discloses the real position. The world is at war. we maintain a gold standard, and we all know the demand there is for gold at this time. All other countries have means of preventing the export of gold from within their borders, but we have taken no precautions in that direction. That is an extraordinary position, and it is time we provided the necessary safeguards. The Government should certainly have introduced a short Bill to safeguard our gold reserves before the Houses rose. As things stand, I quite recognise that the Government require the money which they propose to raise by this Bill, because there is no knowing what claims may be made on them within the next few months. Many of our industries have already been dislocated, and if others are adversely affected, the Government will have to come to their aid. This measure may provide funds for that purpose. Since the war began, the Western Australian Government have had to come to the rescue of the tin industry and the timber industry. Similar surprises may be sprung on any of the States, and if Parliament is not in session, and the Government have no funds in hand to render help to industries, the evil effects of the war will be intensified.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Tasmanian Government had to come to the assistance of a number of mining companies by purchasing tin and other ores.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Then Western Australia was not the only State which had to come to the rescue of private enterprise. When Senators Gould and Millen talk about the generosity of capitalists in lending their millions, they forget the help that the Government of the day are rendering to others of the same class engaged in Australian industries.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Government of Tasmania had to come to the assistance of thousands of men who were thrown out of employment by the shutting down of private mining companies.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We had the same state of affairs in Western Australia within a few days after the war broke out. I hope the ordinary sources of revenue will continue to supply the Government with funds, but we cannot be sure that this will be the case. The Government are, therefore, acting wisely iri submitting a Bill of this kind to give them authority to raise loan money to be used if necessary.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [4.5].- The position of the Labour Government with regard to borrowing is most interesting. Whatever honorable senators may say to the contrary, in the early days of the Labour party they expressed themselves as entirely opposed to borrowing in any circumstances. Everything had to be paid for out of revenue, but as time went on they began to discern that to carry on the business of the country they would, under certain circumstances, have t©> borrow money. They then put forward a plank discountenancing borrowing except for reproductive purposes.

Senator McKissock:

– You said they were against borrowing in all circumstances.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Originally that was so, but they began to realize that money would have to be obtained somewhere, and they then said that borrowing would have to be limited to reproductive works. In that they went back to the principle upon which borrowing was first started, because money was originally borrowed to provide for works necessary to carry on the business of the country. Our great railways were all built in that way, and no one will say that we made a mistake in borrowing the money we did to open up the country. Our honorable friends, however, are advancing at a very dangerous rate. They say, “ We expect to get £7,000,000 out of particular sources of revenue during the next year.” They are not content to wait for it, but propose to borrow, in anticipation of its collection. A sum of £2,500,000 is to be raised by Treasury-bills to meet the deficit, and the Treasurer intends to anticipate the receipt of the land tax and probate duties. If the Treasurer finds he has made an over-estimate of his receipts from those sources, and does not get the revenue he has anticipated, he will nevertheless have received from loan sources the money which he anticipated getting, and if any one asks why the money is not paid, the answer will be, “ We have borrowed the money by means of a Loan Bill, and it will be repaid in due course.” We do not know when the money is to be repaid.

Senator de Largie:

– Did you hear Senator Millen on sinking funds a few minutes ago?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I am not dealing with sinking funds now. Nothing is said about the term of the loan, and that is information which we ought to have. If the Treasurer obtains the revenue he anticipates, is he going to apply it to redeeming the loan ? He may be in the happy position of borrowing £7,000,000, and receiving his full revenue of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 from the sources named, and when he brings up in the House his statement of receipts and expenditure in connexion with the Consolidated Revenue, he will not take into account the fact that he has borrowed £7,000,000 in augmentation of his revenue, but will put it to loan account, saying, ” We have received so much revenue, and can show a surplus- instead of a deficit at the end of the financial year.” We all recognise that the £18,000,000 war loan was inevitable, but we are now asked to authorize the borrowing of an additional £7,000,000. The Government are proposing to borrow that £7,000,000 in anticipation of the revenue that will be coming in during the next six or twelve months. No provision is made by law to have that revenue appropriated for the repayment of the money which it is proposed to borrow in advance of its receipt. If a member of the Senate went to a bank and said, “ I receive £600 a year salary as a member of the Federal Parliament. I have one or two years yet to run, and I wish to borrow £500 or £600 on the strength of my parliamentary salary.” Honorable senators will agree that he would have to make it very plain to the authorities of the bank before he would get any money that they would be entitled to receive his salary each month as it became due. There is no provision made here for the application of the anticipated revenue to the repayment of this £7,000,000 within twelve months, or within any other period. The Government are proposing this session to borrow this £7,000,000, £18,000,000 of a war loan, and £10,000,000 from the banks, or, in all, they propose to add £36,000,000 to our debt. They propose to advance £18,000,000 to the various States by way of loans, in order that certain necessary works may be carried out; but we have had no statement as to the way in which this money is to be raised. I ask the Government to say whether they are going to borrow it, or issue paper for it. Mr. Holman, the Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales, deprecated very strongly the issue of bank notes to meet these particular loans, and his State is to be the largest borrower of the lot. He gave an address in which he said that this money should be obtained in the ordinary way. He pointed out to the Conference recently held that it was a very serious thing to issue notes to so large an amount. We have had no estimate as to how much the country can absorb in the way of notes. It is possible that we may be able to absorb more notes than we have hitherto done, because, so far, our currency has been partly in notes and partly in gold. Now it is proposed that the gold shall be taken by the Commonwealth Treasury, and notes issued to a much greater extent than has ever been, the case before. Where is the £18,000,000 which is to be given to the States to come from? Some honorable senators were under the impression that a portion of it would be provided by the £7,000,000 which it is proposed to borrow under this Bill, and another portion by the £10,000,000 in gold borrowed from the banks. The Minister tells us that that is not the case. Is it the idea of the Government that because they have £10,000,000 in gold in the Treasury, in view of the 25 per cent, reserve required, that will enable them to issue £40,000,000 in notes. We ought to know whether the £10,000,000 in gold which is being borrowed from the banks is to be utilized to enable the Government to lend the States £18,000,000 in paper, or partly in paper and partly in gold. There has been so much mystery surrounding these affairs that we do not know how the finances stand. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that we are getting into a position when it has become necessary that we should have a further financial statement, in order that before we rise we should know exactly what are the financial proposals of the Government. We are told that this £7,000,000 is to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue; that £2,000,000 of it is to be used for the redemption of Treasury-bills which have been issued to enable us to pay our way, and that the balance is in anticipation of the money we are to receive from the new taxation for which we have made provision, if the Treasurer’s estimate of the revenue to be derived from it is correct. We ought to know whether it is intended to pay this money within a limited period, and, if so, what that period is. If it is to be paid from the revenue to be collected during the current year from the new taxation which has been imposed, and if it is found that that is insufficient for the purpose, we ought to be told what the Government intend to do to meet the unpaid balance of the loan. It is possible that the Minister of Defence may be able to give a perfectly clear explanation of the whole matter. He may say that it is the intention of the Government only to borrow the money day by day as they find it necessary. He may say that this money will be repaid from the £10,000,000 in gold paid into the

Treasury by the bants. So far as the money borrowed from the banks is concerned, we do not know the circumstances in which it has been borrowed, or what representations were made to the banks as to how it is to be repaid. An agreement was published in one of the newspapers to the effect that the banks were to hold the notes for this money for a period of twelve months, and that it would be repaid after the war is over. Mr. Fisher says that that is not so. He says that the banks are to hold these notes, and are not to apply to the Treasury for their repayment in gold. Of what use will these notes be to the banks if they are merely to hold them ? Are the banks to hold the notes without interest, while the Government lend the money which they represent at interest? We are confronted with the greatest emergency which Australia or any other part of the British Empire has ever been called upon to face. In the circumstances, it behoves us to look ahead as far as we can. If the Government were to say that it is necessary to borrow, not £18,000,000, but £36,000,000, for the purpose of prosecuting the war, there is not a member of this Parliament who would object to give the Government authority to borrow all that may be necessary to carry the war to a successful termination, and secure the independence and integrity of the Commonwealth. That must be clearly understood, though honorable senators feel justified in criticising these loan proposals. I hope the Minister of Defence will be able to give us a better explanation than has so far been given of the way in which the Government propose to deal with the finances. The honorable senator may not b« able to do so while this Bill is under consideration, but if he will say that, before we rise for the special adjournment, he will be prepared to make a statement explaining the exact financial position, it may be the means of preventing a great deal of misunderstanding and, perhaps, misrepresentation of what the Government propose to do.

Senator FINDLEY (Victoria) [4.221- At the close of his remarks, Senator Gould said that, in view of the present great emergency, we should look well ahead. I think that the Government are to be complimented for having done so, and for seeing that we shall be in a state of preparedness to meet any emergency that may arise before we re-assemble next year. What a serious position the employes of the Commonwealth would be in if the Government had not introduced this Bill. It is admitted that we have a deficit of £2,500,000. It is necessary to make good that deficit and to be in a position to pay our way. It is anticipated by the Treasurer that the revenue from the land tax with the recent amendment of the Act Will amount to £2,750,000. He expects to derive a revenue of £1,000,000 from the estate duties. But until that revenue is received, it is imperative that the Government should have money with which to carry on the services of the country and to pay the employes of the Commonwealth. If Parliament did not make provision for this purpose we should find ourselves in a very serious position. Whilst on that point, I wish to say that we are now experiencing exceptional times. I do not recollect a period when there were so many unemployed in Victoria. Day after day I receive the most pathetic letters from men who for weeks past have been unable to secure employment. 1 think that the Government ought to make a supreme effort to keep going the works which are in hand, and that, with the surplus of probably £750,000 which they will have after this Bill be passed, an earnest attempt will be made to relieve the distress which exists in every State. We are now approaching the festive Christmas period. But I fear it will be a very sad Christmas to quite a large number of persons who in previous years have been able to enjoy a holiday at this particular season. But, bad as times ai-e, the distress which exists would be intensified twenty-fold in the absence of this measure.

Senator Millen:

– But is it intended to go beyond the expenditure which has been authorized by Parliament?

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– Provision is made in the Bill for borrowing £7,000,000 to meet the deficit, and in anticipation of the revenue which will be derived from the land tax, and from probate and succession duties. Totalling the figures, I find that, after allowing for a deficit of £2,500,000, and for the revenue which it is expected will be collected from the land tax. and from probate and succession duties, there will probably be a surplus of about £750.000. The Government will be doing the right thing “if they expend that surplus on Commonwealth services.

Senator Millen:

– Is it proposed to spend the amount set out in this BiU, in addition to the sums which have already been authorized by Parliament? The honorable senator is advocating that that should be done.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am.

Senator Millen:

– If the Government intend to do that, they ought to tell Parliament.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I quite agree with the honorable senator. May I point out that there is one large work; in progress - that in connexion with the building of the Federal Capital? The Minister will probably tell me that some of the money raised under this Bill will be devoted to that work. I admit that the progress which has been made at the Federal Capital during the past two or three years has been much more satisfactory than the progress made previously. But there is no reason why the building of the Federal Capital should not be proceeded with now at express speed. If that were done, employment could be found for all kinds of artisans. Then there are other works on which additional men might be given employment. In my experience, I have never known so many men who are deserving of sympathy and support to be unemployed.

Senator Needham:

– Practical sympathy.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said “ sympathy and support,” which means practical sympathy. In my judgment, Ministers should put forward a special effort to relieve the distress which exists in all the States. I give my support to this Bill, knowing that the money which it authorizes the Government to raise is required, and that Ministers will be able to justify the expenditure of every pound of it. In conclusion, I would again impress upon the Minister the necessity which exists “between now and the re-assembling of Parliament for a special effort being made to relieve the acute distress which exists in various spheres of industrial activity.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I do not complain of the criticism of Senator Millen and Senator Gould. But it may not be out of place to remind them that they are prominent members of a political party which only two or three months ago loudly protested its intention of assisting the Labour party - if that party were returned to power - in all legislation necessary to meet the abnormal circumstances occasioned by the war. It is well within the recollection df everybody in Australia that on the occasion of the last elections one manifesto was issued by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Cook, and another by Mr. Fisher. Each of those gentlemen, as the leaders of their respective parties, promised the electors that if the opposing party were returned to power they would cordially cooperate with them in putting on the statutebook any legislation rendered necessary by the war. The electors returned the Labour party to power, and since Parliament met various emergency measures occasioned by the war have been submitted for our consideration. In dealing with those measures we are entitled to expect a little more generosity from the Libera] party than has been exhibited by its members. It does not lie in the mouths of Senators Millen and Gould to censure the Government for borrowing in this time of crisis. Ministers are pursuing a borrowing policy which is entirely the result of the war, whereas Senator Millen was a prominent member of a Government which decided to borrow for defence purposes in time of peace. Seeing that we are suffering from a disastrous war, as well as from an almost unprecedented drought, and that the two evils combined have produced such a condition of affairs in our commercial and industrial life as is without a parallel, our opponents might well have been a little more generous in their treatment of Government measures. Senator Findley has opened up a phase of this question which is a very important one. Speaking on behalf of Tasmania, I wish also to urge Ministers, if it be possible through any of the channels which are controlled by the Commonwealth, to lessen unemployment, and to do so by all the means in their power. To-day there are tens of thousands of honest working nen in Australia who are lacking employment.

Senator Grant:

– What does the honorable senator suggest should be done?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am indorsing Senator Findley’s suggestion that the Government should push on as rapidly as possible with necessary works. Wherever the Commonwealth has works in contemplation, those undertakings should be pushed on during the next few months with as much expedition as possible.

Senator Grant:

– There is no reason to think that Ministers are not doing that.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– And there is no reason why they should not continue to do it. I am not attempting to say that the Government are not doing all they possibly can to meet the existing circumstances. I am quite sure that in the short time they have been in office they have done all that they could. I am putting in a word on behalf of the Government, and of this Bill, which has met with pretty strenuous criticism, not only here, but in another place. The measure is necessary.

Senator Grant:

– What has Tasmania done with the £90,000 which it gets from Australia every year?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator ought to try to be Federal, and not to single out a part of Australia. I am not speaking on behalf of a particular State, but supplementing what Senator Findley said; and if Senator Grant is fair he will admit that in every State the Commonwealth ought to do something. What has the grant of £90,000 to Tasmania to do with my argument, or with this Bill? Nothing. I am commending the Government for having brought in the Bill, which is perhaps of an unusual kind because of the extraordinary times in which we live. I do not think that the Government could have expected to meet with quite so much opposition to their measures, which they admit to be of an unusual character, but which are necessitated entirely by the exceptional circumstances of the time. That being so, the Government might have expected a little more generous treatment of this measure, and not quite so much criticism. I, as a member of the party supporting the Government, have no apology to offer for their introduction of the Bill, and will certainly support it.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– If the Government purpose spending any portion of this £7,000,000, I think that they ought to spend some money in connexion with the Federal Capital. So far as I can see, there is no proposal to spend a penny there during the present financial year.

Senator Pearce:

– That is not correct. You helped to pass a Bill only a week ago authorizing an expenditure of £270,000.

Senator GRANT:

– I am aware that £270,000 was voted for the Federal Territory, but, so far as I can see, no portion of that sum is to be expended on what I term the Federal Capital. I pointed out here some days ago that the plans for the Capital were so far advanced by Mr. Griffin that the main thoroughfares could be laid out. The Government have made no provision to do any of that work. I take advantage of this opportunity to suggest that at least a portion of this money should be used for the purpose of levelling the main thoroughfares. According to the information supplied to me, the plans are advanced sufficiently far for that work to be undertaken. Why they are not completed is to me quite inexplicable. There are plenty of draftsmen available, and, apparently, Mr. Griffin knows his business. Why is not the work completed ?

Senator O’Keefe:

– Senator Findley and I are urging the Government to do all these things as soon as possible.

Senator GRANT:

– I suggest that a portion of the £7,000,000 should be devoted to that work. It can be done now, and if my information is correct, as I believe it is, it will not be necessary to remake the streets at a future time. There are, no doubt, many other directions in which this money could be advantageously expended. Why cannot honorable senators realize that all these efforts to deal’ permanently with the unemployed problem are futile? No one should know that better than Senator O’Keefe. When we get back to first principles; when we realize that the unemployed difficulty prevails, not only here, but all over the world-

Senator O’Keefe:

– These men might starve while we are getting back to first principles.

Senator GRANT:

– They are always starving under the honorable senator’s system. We have this discussion time after time, but when a scheme is laid before the honorable senator to mop up the unemployed difficulty, not for a day, but for all time, he carefully insists upon retaining things as they are.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I do not think so.

Senator Findley:

– Do you want to stop other works!

Senator GRANT:

– I do not suggest the stopping of any works. I have suggested that a portion of this money should be spent in a certain direction.

Senator Findley:

– Let us do something. I do not want a moral lesson or a lecturette on first principles. I want bread and butter for the men who are on the border line of starvation.

Senator GRANT:

– No doubt the honorable senator desires the poor to be always with him.

Senator Findley:

– Nothing of the kind.

Senator GRANT:

– A scheme is placed before the honorable senator whereby the unemployed difficulty could be permanently removed, and he steadfastly refuses to adopt it.

Senator O’Keefe:

– “What scheme is that? I do not know what it is.

Senator GRANT:

That is regrettable; but there is the solid fact. Thousands of men and women in Australia will not be able to have a merry Christinas this year; but the Government are taking extraordinary measures to do their best to insure that Australians shall have some sort of a peaceful and merry Christmas. Our friends opposite, however, are not satisfied, but criticise us. William Ewart Gladstone, whose memory we allrevere, said on one occasion on the floor of the House of Commons that it would be cruel to borrowmoney for defence purposes in times of peace. The Labour party the wide world over fully indorse that sentiment ; but in the closing days of the session of 1909, during a time of complete world’s peace, the Fusion party, to which Senator Bakhap belongs, rushed through this Parliament a Bill to borrow £3,500,000 for the purposes of Australian naval defence. The Labour party returned by the people in 1910immediately repealed the Act, and, during their three years’ term of office, built up the Australian defence scheme, which to-day is the admiration of the world, out of revenue.

Senator Bakhap:

– Would there not have been a deficit this year, even if there hadbeen no war ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is just possible that, in a country expanding as this is, with so many requirements to meet, there might have been a deficit, but it would have been much greater had the other side remained in power. I regret the necessity of voting for this Bill, and every man in the Empire regrets that such a policy is imperative. The House of Commons is asking for hundreds of millions, and why should we not bear our share ? We are simply trying to help the Empire in the struggle in whichit is engaged. We learn by to-day’s cables that a naval battle has begun. The enemy is at the very heart of the Empire, although Britain claims to be mistress of the seas, and will, I hope, always remain so; but it is very surprising to us at this outpost of the Empire to learn not only that submarines have entered the port of Dover, but that the north-east coast of England is being attacked by German cruisers. What has happened is alarming, but I am confident that the final result will be that Britain will retain her present proud position. When the Government are trying to assist those who are suffering in this country as the result of this terrible conflict, our friends opposite ought to carry out their platform pledges by assisting the Government, no matter what they may do, to tide over this time of national difficulty. Our honorable friends made certain promises to the people, which today they seem to have forgotten.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 2093

LOAN BILL (KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator BAKHAP:

– But the honorable senator must take into consideration the large area that is embraced in Western Australia, and the long distances which have to be traversed between the coast and the gold-fields for example. One or two of the lines in that State would aggregate a greater mileage than is possessed by the railways of my own State. I hope that the Government will prosecute the construction of this line with great vigour, so that within the next year or two a large amount of labour may be absorbed by it, and I trust that my prediction in regard to the unprofitable nature of the undertaking will not be realized.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I will ask my colleague, Senator Russell, to bring the representations of Senators de Largie and Needham under the notice of the Minister of Home Affairs, who, I have no doubt, will be quite willing to have the question of constructing a line from Eucla looked into again. Regarding the delay ‘in the construction of the transcontinental railway, particularly at the Kalgoorlie end, honorable senators know that when the late Government came into office they announced their intention of not carrying out the construction by day labour, but of letting the work by contract. As soon as they could, they proceeded to do that. Tenders were called for at each end of the line, and a few days before the election took place they did let a contract at the western end. Of course, they made no attempt to push the day-labour staff, and I understand now that the contractor has thrown up his contract. That, naturally, has disorganized matters, and now we have to get in motion again our recognised policy of day labour. As soon as that can be clone - the staff is fully organized - there is no doubt that the Department will push forward the line as quickly as possible. In the meantime Senator Russell will bring under the notice of the Minister the suggestion about constructing a line from Eucla with the view of having that matter again inquired into.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Purpose for which money may be expended).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I would like the Minister who represents the Minister of Home Affairs to state how much money has already been expended on this railway, the mileage which has been constructed, and the mileage which has yet to be constructed.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I am not in a position, unfortunately, to tell the honorable senator, because I do not come armed with that class of information except when we are dealing with the Works Estimates.

Senator de Largie:

– From each end it is 130 miles to the head of the line.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am obliged to Senator de Largie for supplying the information.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2098

WAR PENSIONS BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

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

The Bill is being reprinted owing to one or two amendments having been made, and we hope that fair copies will be available by8 o’clock. I would like the Standing and Sessional Orders to be suspended and the Bill to be read a first time now, so that I may move the second reading after the dinner adjournment.

Senator Millen:

– Are the amendmen ts material to the measure?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have a copy of the Bill with the amendments written in. None of them is material.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

page 2098

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

The PRESIDENT:

– In view of the state of the business-paper, and the probability that other measures will come from another place for consideration later, I think that this will be a convenient time for me to leave the chair, and, accordingly, I suspend the sitting until 8 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 8 p.m..

page 2098

WAR PENSIONS BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

. -I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– The question is governed by the same principle as in the case of workmen’s compensation. We assume that the man who has been living at a higher rate of income deserves a higher rate of pension, and the wife naturally lives at the same standard as the husband. Some figures have been supplied by Mr. Knibbs, Commonwealth

Statistician, who was requested to work them out by my predecessor, Senator Millen, who had this Bill in contemplation. Those figures have been modified, because the amounts of pension have since been altered. The rates ran from £50 to £150 in the schedule I found when I took office, and we have made them from £52 to £156 to correspond with the number of weeks in the year, with £13 for each child instead of £12 10s. Mr. Knibbs says-

Figures based upon past years, spread over 100 years, give the death rate per annum from wounds and illness of armies engaged in war at5 per cent. In the American Civil War the rate was estimated to be 7 per cent. In the South African War the death rate from wounds and illness per annum was 5.32 per cent. for officers and 3.82 per cent. for noncommissioned officers and men.

– It is ; and we are producing that spirit in Australiatoday.

Senator de Largie:

– It is the spirit of the French Army.

Senator KEATING:

– Senator Bakhap referred, when Senator de Largie was speaking, to what Napoleon did for his men, and Senator de Largie replied that Napoleon recognised the value of his soldiers. The Minister and the exMinister of Defence could give numbers of instances of men who have thrown up everything to enlist as privates, recognising the duties in times of war of those who, in times of peace, occupy official positions. I am certain that the estimate given by the Statistician of the amount that this Bill will cost is based to a large extent on an average rate of £11 per man for a contingent of 20,000 men. If we send 20,000 men away, £230,000 may possibly measure the sum for which the country will be responsible under this Bill. We have to take into consideration the fact that a certain proportion of the men will not call for this assistance. Any question of differentiation can be better dealt with in Committee. Many men have joined our Forces worked up from the ranks, become commissioned officers, and have gone away with our Expeditionary Forces. Their whole household is maintained and carried on upon the assumption of a continuous income. They have entered into obligations it may be, in respect of the education of their children or other matters of that kind. I think the Government wisely and properly are considering the difference of income as the basis of the allowance to be made to them. The Government rightly and democratically are providing that, so far as the children are concerned, the allowance shall be uniform, irrespective of whether they are the children of a ranker or of an officer. So far as the widow of an officer is concerned, she has been bearing with him the heat and burden of the day in relation to their domestic circle, and the Bill, in my opinion, properly provides that she shall not be abruptly deprived of an income commensurate to some extent with the obligations she has incurred. I think it is desirable that no impression should get abroad that, so far as this war and Australia’s participation in it are concerned, there is any divided opinion or any divided sense of duty. All persons in the community feel that we are at war, and that those who are voluntarily taking upon themselves the responsibility of representing Australia at the scene of action have been drawn from every class in this community.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Appointment and constitution of Board).

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I ask whether this is not a Bill increasing the burdens of the people, and on which amendments should be moved by way of request.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Needham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I am putting the clauses to the Committee in the usual way, when considering such a measure. This is not an annual Appropriation Bill, nor yet a Taxation Bill, upon which amendments are submitted by way of request.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 -

The rates of pensions payable under this Act shall not exceed the following : -

In case of the total incapacity of a member of the Forces -

to the member, the rate specified in column 3 of the schedule, opposite to the rate of pay of the member, and

to the wife of the member, 50 per centum of that rate, and

to each child of the member, the rate of Thirteen pounds per annum.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then I will leave out the advantages derived from a national insurance scheme in England, and I still say that a pension of 14s. a week there is quite equal to one of £1 a week here. The Imperial authorities have recognised the difference which exists between the absolutely helpless position of a totally incapacitated man and the position of the not incapacitated widow. They grant the former twice the pension which is granted the latter. I know that the Minister is naturally desirous of getting this measure through in its present form. But I cannot help thinking that if the scheme had been thought out a little more than it has been, and if the view which I have put forward had been pressed previously, ho would not have been unsympathetic towards it. I hope that it will not go forth to the world that members of this Parliament think they have discharged their duty by granting a pension of £1 a week to totally incapacitated single men, and that they are also of opinion that those men can live upon that small amount. I move -

That in paragraph 1 of sub-clause B the words “ the rate specified in column three “ ha left out.

Senator Millen:

– I would be satisfied with that.

Senator BAKHAP:

– To that extent the honorable senator will have my hearty support. In the case of soldiers totally incapacitated who are at present receiving substantial rates of pay, I do not think that any increase in the pension is required. Senator Millen has, I think, made out an exceedingly good case for the further liberalization of the schedule in respect of totally incapacitated men who are in receipt of 6s., 7s., or 8s. per day. Senator Gould has pointed out that the wife of a soldier who returns totally incapacitated will find her time fully occupied in personal attendance upon him. He will be merely a living log - one of those crushed egg-shells which Carlyle describes as having littered the battlefields of Europe in the Napoleonic period. A good deal of talk has been indulged in concerning the cost of this scheme. I say that our war-worn, incapacitated soldiers, who may be incurably distressed both in mind and body, should have the advantage of a liberal pension scheme. Honorable senators opposite are too fond of charging us with a desire to criticise their proposals with a view to obtaining popularity. I say that we could have formulated a much more popular pension scheme than is contemplated in this Bill if we had adopted conscription, because we would then have been in a position to give gratuities to our troops who return from the war safe and sound, and to provide more substantial pensions in the case of those who come back partially or wholly incapacitated. I recognise that it is quite possible that a strong, courageous advocacy of conscription might cost any parliamentarian his seat until the electors become more fully seized of their responsibilities. But I am not concerned with that, and when a better opportunity presents itself I shall have no hesitation in telling them what I think of the entire position. A man should not expect to be paid for fighting for his country. It ought not to be a mercenary matter with him. I believe that if the men who comprise our Expeditionary Forces were going to be merely fed and clothed they would have volunteered for service just as1 readily. Surely it is their patriotism which we are lauding at the present time. It is a duty which is cast upon every citizen to fight for his country when stern necessity calls upon him to do so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Needham:

– I would remind the honorable senator that there is nothing connected with conscription in this clause.

Senator BAKHAP:

– But the adoption of conscription would largely solve our difficulties in connexion with the war, and would enable us to prosecute it on sound lines if it should prove to be of long duration. It would be more satisfactory to enlarge our pension scheme than to continue what we are doing at present. I have great pleasure in supporting my leader in this matter, so long as my vote is not taken as an indication of my personal desire to increase the pensions of those who are at present in receipt of substantial remuneration, and in whose case the schedule may be regarded as satisfactory.

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

AYES: 4

NOES: 16

Majority … Ayes.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 9 agreed to. Clause 10-

A pension payable under this Act to the widow of a member of the Forces shall cease upon her remarriage.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Is the Minister favorably disposed to the excision of this clause, which, I think, is an exceedingly injudicious one, seeing that it proposes to penalize a widow who desires to remarry. A great many marriages have been made within a few days of the Expeditionary Force leaving. It is most undesirable to ask a woman, so to speak, to discount her charms. If a woman is sufficiently attractive and young to make a good wife for a citizen, let her marry by all means.

Senator Russell:

– I thought that love laughed at locksmiths.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The Assistant Minister will recognise that statisticians deplore a tendency on the part of the people, not only of the Commonwealth, but of other countries, to defer marriage until a period which, perhaps, is a little too late in life to allow for the necessities of the nation. If, unhappily, our Forces are going to sustain many casualties, there will be many young widows in Australia. If a young woman desires to remarry, I think it is very bad public policy to put a brake on her inclination.

Senator Ready:

– You want to give a bonus to the man who takes her.

Senator BAKHAP:

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I have persistently from the beginning of the session asked for definite information regarding the percentage of married men in the Forces enlisted and being enlisted. The information ought to- be forthcoming, at any rate, in regard to the Force that has gone away. If there are great difficulties in the way of its preparation I do not want to press the Department unfairly.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister cf Defence · Western Australia · ALP

f 11.2]. - I want the honorable senator to realize some of the difficulties in the way of immediately placing at the disposal of Parliament the information which he has very properly asked for, and has a right to obtain. Enlistment has taken place, and is still taking place all over the continent. Particulars are taken down in the various military districts, but not all of those enlisted are eventually accepted. The information is available in the -district office, where the first organization into units takes place, and the rolls have to be kept in the district while the units are in the district. When the. unit is brought together the rolls are brought together, but they are not tabulated or worked out. Up till the time General Bridges left Australia he had to have, for the purpose of reference and pay, full possession of the nominal roll. After he left they were sent to head-quarters, but the small staff there is very busy with the question of the allocation of pay to -the wives and families left behind. Men are coming in to the second Force, and a mass of material has to be dealt with in regard to them. When they go away, and the work slackens, we hope to be able to -take out of the nominal roll all the necessary particulars as to ages, married state, nationality, religion, &c, for the whole of the Forces, but it is going to be a big work. All this will have to be tabulated in order to present it to Parliament in an intelligible form, and it will -take a fairly good staff to work out all -these details, but we are endeavouring -to get the information as fast as possible. The Pay Branch is working night and day, and we have put on as many temporary men as we safely can, because it is not work on which inexperienced men can be put.

Senator Bakhap:

– I shall be quite satisfied if we get the information before Parliament re- assembles.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2121

ADJOURNMENT

Inter-State Wheat Contracts - -Order of Business - Queanbeyan Water Supply - Federal Capital Designs - Military Maps

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn. 1 hope another place will have made sufficient progress to let us get on with the business at 11 o’clock to-morrow morning. I was asked by Senator Bakhap to-day whether any further information could be given in regard to the Inter-State transfer of wheat. The Minister of Trade and Customs informs me that the Crown Law officers have not yet given an opinion on the matter.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs to-day a question with regard to the Queanbeyan water supply. Has he any further information ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– The Department has informed me that they are communicating with the Queanbeyan Municipal Council with regard to further information to be supplied by the council.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

.- I asked ibo Minister representing the Minister of Home Affaire yesterday a question regarding the preparation of designs for the Federal Capital. Has he any further particulars?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Russell, who represents the Minister of Home Affairs, having spoken to the question, cannot speak again.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I asked a question the other day relating to the advertising for sale of maps published under the authority of the Defence Department. Has any further information been obtained ?

Senator Pearce:

– - The question was asked and answered in the honorable senator’s absence yesterday.

Senator KEATING:

– My first impression was that these were maps of Australia, but I found subsequently that they were European maps.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 December 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1914/19141217_SENATE_6_76/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate17 December 1914

QUESTION

EUROPEAN WAR

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

COASTAL GUARD

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

TEMPORARY EMPLOYES

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

QUARANTINE STATION: TOWNSVILLE

Senator FERRICKS:QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ORES

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GARDINER:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Millen:

Senator Keating:

Senator SENIOR:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator GARDINER:

QUESTION

ARMAMENT ARTIFICERS

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator RUSSELL:ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator RUSSELL:

PAPERS

QUESTION

QUEANBEYAN WATER SUPPLY

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:ALP

QUESTION

STATE INTERFERENCE WITH WHEAT CONTRACTS

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

GOLD CURRENCY: CHINESE

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Pearce:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MILLEN:

TREASURY BILLS BILL

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senate
17 December 1914

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP