7th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 972
SenatorNEEDHAM asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– This is a question which, affecting the Treasury, should have been addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I understand that the answers to the questions are on the way. If the honorable senator will ask the questions at the adjournment hour I shall be pleased to give him the information.
page 972
Milk and Butter Rations
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 972
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
Referring to the followingannouncement in the Herald of Wednesday, 8th August, 1917: - “ Following upon the dislocation of services as a result ofthe strike, the closing of mails to America andthe United Kingdom, which was fixed for to-day, was postponed indefinitely. Mails for Raratonga and Papeete’ have also been postponed; but the New Zealand mail, which closed at 4 p.m., will not be affected “ -
Melbourne to Sydney left as usual on the date advertised for the despatch of the American mail, viz., Wednesday, 8th August, 1917 ?
SenatorRUSSELL. - The PostmasterGeneral cannot undertake responsibility for statements that appear in the press other than in official notifications from the Department. The answers to the specific questions asked are -
page 973
Labour Newspaper
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 973
Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives, and, on motion by Senator Millen, read a first time.
page 973
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 9th August, vide page 902) :
Clause 12-
The Minister may remove any Commissioner from office on an address praying for his removal being presented to the GovernorGeneral by theSenate and the House of Representatives respectively in the same session of the Parliament or by the House of Representatives alone in two consecutive sessions thereof: Provided that not less than six weeks have intervened between such addresses when made by the House of Representatives alone.
– When progress was reported yesterday evening I was endeavouring to show the unfair discrimination which is made in this clause between the respective Houses of the National Parliament. I was pointing out the evil effects which might arise if further Federal railways were built, linking up, say, Western Australia and South Australia with New South Wales. There would be in the House of Representatives an absolute majority of thirty-nine members representing those three States, and, of course, they could dominate matters as they pleased’. But taking: the case of the east-west railway, Victoria has twentytwo representatives in the other House, South Australia seven, and Western Australia five, or a total of thirty-four members who might, with every justification, and in the best interests of their respective States, and believing, perhaps, that they were doing the best thing in the interests of Australia, constitute themselves a solid body to support this project. An active party of thirty-four men in a House of seventy-five members is very material, because we know from our experience of parliamentary life what four or five men, acting together, can do in even a House of seventy members, for instance, in the matter of a “ stone-wall.”
I do not desire to amplify my remarks, but I cannot conceive of the motive which actuated the Minister for Works and Railways in putting before Parliament a provision of this sort. It was very pertinently pointed out yesterday by Senator Bakhap in an interjection that such power is not given to the House of Representatives to the exclusion of the Senate in the case of the Judges of the High Court, that House not having the power to remove a Judge without the concurrence of the Senate. Nor has it that power in regard to members of the InterState Commission, who, if they were to be displaced, would have to meetthat fate at the hands of both Houses acting concurrently. Just to point out the existence of an anomaly, I refer honorable senators to clause 60, which lays down the principle that the construction of no new railway can be authorized without the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament. While it is necessary to invoke the concurrence of the Senate in the construction of a new railway, after that linehas been constructed, and the first cost entailed, another branch of the Legislature alone can virtually have power to direct the policy of the railway. In the construction of railways we all know that the first cost is not the only cost, and I may go so far as to say that it is not the main cost. The main factor is the revenueproducing abilities of the railway during its tenure of operations. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the amendment I intend to move, and if it be indorsed by the Senate I sincerely trust that never again will ft Minister in another chamber take such action as was taken in clause 12 of this Bill. I move -
That the words “ the House of Representatives alone,” lines 6 and 7, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ either House of the Parliament.”
SenatorDe Largie. - Either House?
– Why not both Houses ?
– May I suggest to Senator Ferricks that he would accomplish his object by stopping at the word “ Parliament,” in line six.
– You do not want to give the powerto one House of the Legislature.
– It is given in clause 12.
– I was about to look up the provision in the J udiciary Act, and the InterState Commission Act. Speaking from memory, I think that neither of those Acts makes the peculiar discrimination which is sought to be made in this clause. I am at a loss to understand how the provision, worded as it is, came to be passed in another place, and why it was submitted here without any special reference to it by the Honorary Minister. Section 3 of the High Commissioner Act reads -
That provision is very clear, plain, and simple, and I believe that a somewhat similar provision is contained in the Judiciary Act, and the Inter-State Commission Act. In none of these cases is it mentioned that an official may be removed on a petition from one House of the Parliament. My attention has been drawn to section 9 of the Inter-State Commission Act -
Exactly the same provision is made in that Act as in the Judiciary Act, and the principle of concurred-consent has been recognised all through our legislation.It will be interesting to know why this particular method of dealing with incapacity or misbehaviour on thepart of a Commissioner has been put in this Bill. Was it a notion of the Minister for Works and Railways, Mr. Watt, who thinks, as an honorable senator opposite when he was in another placealways thought, so far as I was able to judge from his conversation, that the Senate should nothave equal powers with the House of Representatives.
– Whom does hemean ?
– I mean Senator Thomas, who is smiling because I happen to be taking this stand.
– Do you refer to a conversation with me?
– Not to a private conversation. The honorable senator knows that I would not refer here to private conversations with him. But after all, he jokes so much that one does not always know whether he is in earnest or jesting. I havea pretty shrewd idea that when he was a member of another House he did not think that the Senate should have the same rights in all respects as that House, but now that he has been transferred to the more sedate and rarer atmosphere of the Senate, he will, I am sure, be just as anxious as any other honorable senator to uphold its rights.
– Order ! The honorable member is not in order.
– Do you, sir,, rule that I am not in order in stating that an honorable senator, now that , he has. been transferred here from another place, should be just as anxious as any other honorable senator to conserve the privileges of the Senate? If you rule in that way I shall have to disagree with theruling .
– You are getting pretty close to the margin.
– Without wishingto argue with you, sir, I do not know how much closer I can get to the subject under discussion than to say that one honorable senator here will probably be as anxious as any Other honorable senator to conserve the privileges of the Senate.
– Why should we not all be?
– The subject under discussion is whether or not the privileges of the Senate are to be conserved by its members. If the Railways Commissioner is to be removed for proved incapacity or misbehaviour, it should be done by an address from both Houses and not by an address from one House. I do not agree with the suggestion by Senator Ferricks that this right should be exercised by either House, though I submit that if the privilege is to be extended to one House it should certainly be extended to the other. We should make it clear that the Commissioner shall not be removed except upon a joint petition from both Houses, and I am sure this course would safeguard the rights of every official .
– The Government sees no objection to the amendment moved by Senator Ferricks, but I suggest that his purpose would be achieved by striking out all the words of the sub-clause after “ Parliament.” The sub-clause would then read -
I think a mistake was made by lifting this clause from the Victorian Act, and as honorable senators know, the Upper House in the Victorian State Legislature is constituted on lines different from the Senate. We do not desire that the Commissioner shall be removed lightly, but if it is the desire of Parliament to remove him, that power should only be exercised by an address from both Houses.
– I will accept the suggestion of the Minister, and move -
That all the words after “ Parliament,” in sub-clause 1, be left out.
Amendment amended accordingly.
– I understand we are not discussing either the privileges of the Senate or its constitution, and, therefore, I can hardly understand why Senator O’Keefe should have made reference to me, because
I had not said a word about the Bill or this particular clause.
– We want to get you converted.
– I am not aware that we are discussing the bicameral or the single chamber system of legislation. The question under review is the removal of the Railways Commissioner, and* so long as we have the bicameral system in operation, this authority must be exercised by both branches of the Legislature. I desire that the Railways Commissioner should be remove.d as far as possible from political control; but if power to remove him is vested in one House - in this case in the House of Representatives - the Commissioner will be absolutely under political control, because the fate of the Government might depend on whether he should be removed or not. Even now I think the Bill places too much power in the hands of the Minister, and personally I should like to see greater authority vested in the Commissioner. Personally, I would rather the privileges of both Houses should go by default if, as a result, we could get a better railway service. I would not have supported Senator Ferricks’ amendment in its original form*-
– Would you have voted for clause 12 in its original form, giving power to the House of Representatives to remove the Commissioner ?
– No, but I will gladly support the amendment in the form suggested by the Minister, and I do that, not to protect the privilege of either House, but merely because I think we shall be removing the Commissioner from political influence.
– I compliment Senator Ferricks on having brought this matter forward, but I do not agree with Senator Thomas in his reference to the rights and privileges of the Senate. As I understood him, he cares very little whether the privileges of this Chamber are swept away, provided we can get a better railway system,, and it would seem, from his remarks, that the Parliament of the country is of less consequence than its railway system. I would not ?o so far as that, because I have a lively recollection of the most outrageous incident ‘in connexion with the construction of the transAustralian railway. I refer to the laying of charges and the removal of a high official from his position, viz.. Mr Chinn. the supervising engineer. Those charges were investigated by a Royal Commission, Mr. Justice Hodges, a Judge of the Victorian Supreme Court, being the Commissioner, and not a single one proved against him. The officer was reinstated, but when a change of Government took place, so strong was the prejudice against this officer that he was removed. I do not mean to say that it was altogether on account of political bias, because there were other prejudicial influences of a personal and social kind operating against him. The Senate took up the matter, and a Select Committee, which was appointed to inquire into his case, unanimously recommended that he be reinstated. That recommendation, however, was not adopted, and this man’s privileges, and, indeed, almost his very right to earn a living, were ignored. We do not want a repetition of such an incident. It is right that every individual should get’ a fair deal, and it is well, therefore, that theprivileges of the Senate in regard to matters of this kind shouldbe jealously safeguarded. In accepting the amendment, with the object in view,the Government is acting wisely.
.- The thanks of the Committee are due to Senator Ferricks for having discovered this flaw in the clause under discussion. I cannot understand how it found its way into the Bill in its present form. It appears to me that the Minister who introduced the measure in another place was either indifferent or was a party to this attempt to wrest from the Senate its undoubted rights.
– The Government is meeting you on that point.
– I am glad to know that, because the Senate has almost co-equal rights with the other branch of the Legislature, and I cannot understand how the clause escaped the attention of seventy-five gentlemen in another place.
-It does not follow that it did escape their attention.
– Perhaps, as Senator de Largie suggests, they desired the clause to pass in its present form. If so, it. was nothing more or less than a reflection on this branch of the Legislature, and Iam glad Senator Ferricks called attention to it. This incident should teach us to scrutinize even more carefully in the future all measures coming from another place. I congratulate Senator
Thomas on having realizedthat, after all, the Senate is of some use, because I remember that when the honorable gentleman was a member of another place he used to look with scorn upon the Senate. Senator Thomas. - I cannot say that I have altered my views very much in that matter.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 (Preservation of rights of person appointed Commissioner).
– I should like to know from the Minister in charge of the Bill whether the Railways Commissioner will be entitled to a pension upon his retirement from office?
– No. There is no provision for the payment of any compensation or pension to him on the expiration of his term of service.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 -
No rates, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any railway or other property vested in the Commissioner, except as may be sanctioned by the Minister.
– I desire to direct attention to an anomaly in connexion with this clause. It frequently happens that the railway authorities purchase land outside of railway property, and erect buildings thereon for the convenience of their officers. These dwellings axe often situated within a township or municipality. In such cases the municipality is compelled to provide footpaths, roads, &c, without receiving any payment for the services which it renders. I consider that when buildings are erected on land outside of railway property, the persons occupying them become ordinary citizens, and should contribute to the municipal rates in common with other citizens.
– Does not any town benefit considerably from the construction of a railway?
– That is a curious argument to advance.
– The very presence of a railway is a compensation to the municipality.
– If my honorable friend had had municipal experience-
– Oh, I know all about it.
– There have been dozens of law cases in South Australia over this very matter.
– Exactly. The municipalities are obliged to discharge certain functions for which the railway officers pay nothing.
– We shall pay all reasonable charges, but we cannot permit a municipality to tax the Commonwealth.
– My point is that this clause will give the Commonwealth power to appropriate certain benefits without paying anything for them.
– We will pay for them.
– I think that the Minister will recognise the justice of the claim which I have advanced. If I receive a privilege I am surely expected to pay for it. The same argument should apply to the Commonwealth.
– The presence of a railway increases the value of land in its vicinity a hundredfold.
– Then the honorable senator’s argument is that the municipality ought to contribute to the railway ?
– At the present time no municipality has the power to tax the Commonwealth. This clause will enable the Minister to make an arrangement under which he will pay for municipal services.
– Then the matter is to be one of arrangement with the Minister!
– This clause makes it legal for the Minister to authorize payment for such services.
– A municipality has of necessity to perform certain duties, but apparently it is to have no claim to be paid for the discharge of those duties. I wish to remove that anomaly. When the Railways Commissioner goes outside of lands purchased for the construction of railways and erects buildings upon lands within a township, he should he subject to the same conditions as are other residents of the place.
– It should be quite the other way, I think.
– I am not responsible for any twist in the mind of the honorable senator. I know that considerable litigation has resulted from the anomaly, and that there has never been any attempt made to evade the claim of a municipality on the ground of equity.
It is because the existing arrangement is an inequitable one that I have called attention to it.
– If the Railways Commissioner assists to beautify the municipality the honorable senator would tax him for it?
– It is not a question of whether he assists to beautify a township, or whether he enhances ‘the value of property in the neighbourhood. For any services that he renders he has a right to exact payment. In such circumstances I fail’ to understand why he should not pay for the services that he receives.
– If he puts up a fine building in a municipality he should be taxed for doing so ?
– He should contribute t’o the municipal rates in just the same way as do other citizens.
– Why a man should be taxed for rendering a service to the community I do not know.
– For every service rendered by the Railways Commissioner he is entitled to receive payment. When once that is conceded, my contention that he should pay for any benefits that he derives from a corporation, becomes unanswerable. /
– The honorable senator’s contention ia very weak.
– Order ! These interjections are distinctly disorderly.
– Do not stonewall the Bill.
– I resent the suggestion that I am stonewalling. I think -that rates and taxes should be levied on the Railways Commissioner equally with other citizens in respect of buildings which are within the corporate town. But I certainly would not tax, for example, a > stationmaster’s house which was situated1 on railway property. To illustrate my point, I may mention that at Terowie there are a number of railway employees living outside of railway property. They constitute a large portion of the inhabitants of the township.
– But they are liable for municipal rates.
– They are not. Thus an added burden is thrown on the other inhabitants. I quite admit that municipalities should not be permitted to tax employees who are’ resident on railway property. But iti frequently happens that - as in the case of Hamley Bridge, where there is a break of gauge - the buildings are erected by the Railways Commissioner outside of railway property, and those buildings are occupied by railway employees. In such cases, the Commissioner I contend, should contribute to the municipal rates, just aa ordinary citizens do. The clause leaves it entirely to the discretion of the Minister to pay rates, taxes, or assessments, and thus makes it, in a sense, a matter of charity on his part.
-I think the Committee will be unanimous in agreeing to the clause when it j.s properly understood. I remind Senator Senior that the Government are, in this clause, endeavouring to do what he desires, not by permitting the compulsory taxation of Commonwealth properties, but by mutual arrangement. Section 114 of the Constitution provides that -
A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth.
No other power in Australia can tax the supreme power of the Commonwealth without the consent of this Parliament. That is a perfectly sound and well recognised principle. Under clause 17 of this Bill, by the sanction of the Minister, and that is to say by mutual arrangement between a municipal or other authority and the Minister or Commissioner of Railways, permission may be given for the payment of rates, taxes, - or assessments upon property vested in the Commissioner. For instance, if we take the case of the Flinders-street station, the Metropolitan Board of Works has no power to tax the Victorian Government to meet the cost of sewerage works which might run into thousands of pounds. Under such a provision as clause 17 the Railways Commissioners of Victoria would be enabled to come to some arrangement with the Metropolitan Board of Works in respect of the advantage to the Flinders-street station’ due to the sewerage system provided. Despite the experience of Senator Senior on some parochial council in South Australia, I think it is the wish of members of this Parliament generally that the Commonwealth should liberally recognise the value of services rendered to it. Clause 17 will make it legal for the Commissioner,, with the consent of the Minister, to pay charges in respect of property vested in the Commissioner. I hope. that the Committee will pass the clause, and trust toour having a generous Minister for Railways, who will be prepared to deal fairly with the municipal corporations concerned, in this matter.
– I can quite understand the contention put forward by Senator Senior,, but I hope the Committee will not agreeto what he proposes, the clause from my point of view is exceedingly objectionable, because it reflects the conservative, obsolete, and exploded idea that is still, I” regret to say, followed largely in South Australia, and entirely in Victoria, under which, if a man dares to employ any person in the improvement of his property,, he is immediately pounced upon by Lord Mayor 4 Hennessy and other persons holding similar position, and compelled to paytaxation in proportion to the improvement of his property. It is seriously proposed in this Chamber to-day that wegive the Minister for Works and Railways .power to enable the Commissioner to consent to the levy of taxation upon improvements. In New South Walesthat principle of taxation was wiped out years ago. There was a deputation herethe ‘other day of a number of Victorians begging for employment, and that kind of thing is largely caused in Victoria by the practice of fining any man who dares to employ a worker in the building trade. I hope the Committee will not include in this Bill any provision to enable the Commissioner for Railways- to agree to the taxation of improvements upon property vested in him.
– Suppose we desired to have water supplied by a water trust to a railway station for our locomotives, the honorable senator would urge that we should not pay anything for it. In that case ‘we should get no water.
– I could mention many, municipalities in New South Wales where the owner of a vacant block of land who uses no water has to pay just as much in water rates as a man livingupon the adjoining block, and making full use of the water.
– May I ask, on a point of order, whether the honorable senator is in order in discussing the general principles of the single tax on this Bill?
– If I. thought the honorable senator were out of order I should call him to order.
– I regard this clause as making possible by consent of the Minister, the levy of a direct tax upon industry. I move-
That the words “ railway or other property “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ land values.”
– The honorable senator proposes to leave in the final words of the clause, thus giving power to the Minister to sanction taxation on land values.
– I have no objection to the Minister having that power, but I object to giving him any power to consent to the taxation of anything but land values. I can understand Senator Senior being concernedabout municipal councils in South Australia being unable to impose rates upon property away from railway lines vestedin the Railways Commissioner. That does appear to be unfair, but in this connexion I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that, for a very good reason, the head office of the Commonwealth Bank was erected in Sydney. The municipal council of Sydney, where the foolish idea so persistently followed in Victoria of taxing improvements has been abolished, considered that some revenue should be derived fromthe block of land upon which theCommonwealth Bank now stands. They did not suggest that they should be permitted to levy a tax in proportion to the value of; the improvements made on that block, but they did suggest to the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank that he should make a contribution to the municipal council to enable them to keep the footpaths and streets in front of that magnificent building in properrepair. I am glad to say that the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank agreed to contribute the sum of, I think, £1,000 per annum for the purpose. That is a voluntary contribution to the municipal council of Sydney. I should have no objection to an arrangement of that sort, but I do protest against giving the Minister power to consent to the fining of people who employ labour in the improvement of their property.
– I look upon this matter quite differently from Senator Senior, but I am not prepared to go so far as Senator Grant would suggest. Failing to achieve what I desire, I should, however, be prepared to support Senator Grant’s amendment. I should prefer that the words “ except as may be sanctioned by the Minister” be struck out. The Commissioner then could not pay any tax or assessments.
– How would we get a station sewered?
– I remind honorable senators that a very big question is being raised, which has been fought out since the establishment of Federation, and that is whether Federal Government buildings should pay municipal taxation. I have always been opposed to that. In this clause the Government appear to me to be making an important and dangerous concession. If under this provision the Railways Commissioner pays a single sixpence of ‘ municipal taxation, that may be followed by a claim that the Postmaster-. General should pay municipal rates upon all post-offices throughout Australia.
– The letter-carrier pays to-day.
– In respect to his house the letter-carrier pays rates, and so does the honorable senator, I take it.
– But the district engineer does not.
– A municipality desires a post-office to be erected within its confines, and, as honorable senators know, it asks for a good building - a building which sometimes is quite beyond what is needed for the actual work to be done; bub, in order to give a certain amount of beauty or respectability to a particular part of the town, the municipal wish is accededto.
– Senator Senior’s argument was in relation to a private residence.
– It is the same question. Once a Government Department concedes this point in regard to any building which it has put up to carry on its work, a whole avalanche will fall- I suppose that time and again honorable senators have received from municipalities. letters asking that the Commonwealth Government should pay rates, but up to the present I think the claim has successfully and rightly been resisted.
– It has been said that the Commonwealth Bank has agreed to pay £8,000 in rates.
– That is not a bad precedent. Who will pay the rates to the municipality? Of course, it will be the members of the community. Everybody pays for letters and telegrams.
– But the Commonwealth, does not ask the States to carry its mails for nothing.
– No, because the States are doing something for the Commonwealth.
– So are the local authorities.
– It comes back to Hie same people in the long run. This claim has been raised again and again in the other House, but it has always been turned down. Strong pressure was brought to bear by municipal councils, but so far the Commonwealth Government have been successful in resisting iti. By including this provision in the Bill the Government did an act which will take us a long road. Once this claim is , recognised, it will cost the Commonwealth many hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, in taxes. I shall be glad to see the provision excised, but if that is not done I am prepared to support Senator Grant that the rates shall only be levied on the land values.
– I trust that on this clause we are not going to have a general discussion on the principles of taxation, lt has nothing whatever to do with the question of taxation. A’U that it does is to empower the ‘ Minister to sanction the levying of rates upon any railway or other property vested in the Commissioner. For the Lithgow Rifle Works we derive our supply of gas and power from t(he municipality. Would it render those services if we did not pay for them ?
– This clause gives the municipality the right to levy a tax.
– No; it provides that no levy shall be made upon railway property except with the sanction of the Minister. If the honorable senator will look at the definition of “levy” he will find that he is in a difficulty. Again, take the Commonwealth Clothing Factory, which is operated with electric machines. The electric light is supplied by the City Council. Surely honorable senators would have the electric light supplied to a railway station if it were available. The municipal authorities could not impose an electric light tax on ‘the Commonwealth Government, bub the latter makes a contribution for the service which is equal to the amount of the tax.
– That is not what Senator Senior is asking for.
– He is asking for a municipality to have the direct power to tax the property of the Commonwealth. If he desires to secure that power to a municipality he must resort to the ordinary constitutional procedure of getting a measure carried through both Houses, and submitted to the electors by means of a referendum, when, if it is carried by the necessary majorities, he will attain his wish. This Bill has nothing to do with the question. Under the Constitution ho power in Australia can tax the Commonwealth. Leave out the clause, and there will be an end to the matter, but we desire to be generous to the municipalities and to do a fair thing when they help us.
– Up to the present time, have not all Commonwealth Departments paid for light, water, and so forth ?
– Yes. Senator Ferricks. - Can they not continue to do that?
– We will continue the payment, whatever is done with the clause, because common sense suggests that we must make arrangements for these services. No point is involved in this clause. It is merely a provision to continue what we are doing now.
– I can quite understand the Honorary Minister arguing for the clause as it stands, but let honorable senators consider how public utilities are being increased everywhere. The Minister has just mentioned the supply of gas to the Commonwealth, and, as honorable senators are aware, very often gas works are municipally owned. Lighting works, waterworks, police buildings, post-offices, in fact Government buildings generally, might1 all claim, as the Railways Commissioner will claim, to be exempt from municipal taxation.
– How do you get over the constitutional point raised by the Minister ?
– That point has to be raised at some time. ‘ia& South Australian Government recently acquired the wharfs at Port Adelaide. The rates from the wharfs represented a very large percentage of the money received by the corporation. The acquisition of the wharfs has brought very great .trouble to it. Again, take the case of Port Augusta. This provision, if passed as it is, will mean that there will be a dual Government staff, and that each one will be free from the liability to pay any tax to the municipality. The letter-carrier, the letter-sorter, and the telegraph operator are all citizens of the corporation, and pay the municipal rates; but the district foreman, who is an officer of the Commissioner of Railways, may reside within the corporation, and although his neighbour may be a letter-sorter or a letter-carrier, who pays rates and taxes, and is, like himself, a Government officer, yet, because he is living in a Government cottage, he will not pay municipal rates, nor will the Railways Commissioner.. Is it equitable that one Government officer should contribute to the municipal funds, and that another Government officer should be exempted ? I am putting a case which crops up a thousand times. It is a most unfair position. The Minister may shelter himself behind the point that an arrangement may be made with the sanction of the Minister, but is not that a covert acknowledgment that some contribution is due from the Government? If it is so due it should come to the municipality in the same way as a contribution which is due from an individual; The Government can put a man into a house, and he can enjoy all the advantages which other citizens have provided and yet not pay a penny to the municipality. I ask honorable senators to look at the matter from an equitable point of view, and if they do I think they will acknowledge that something more than this should be done. The Minister is sheltering himself behind the Constitution.
– Do you think we have the power to alter the Constitution by an Act of Parliament?
– No.
– Then, why do you say that I am sheltering myself behind the Constitution?! I simply pointed out the difficulty which confronts you.
– The Minister admits in the Bill that the Government should do a fair thing.
– Hear, hear ! And we have done all that we possibly can. We have gone the maximum.
– If that position is admitted here, and a case should crop up by-and-by, I shall be quite satisfied. I have seen the application of this principle result so injuriously that I was very anxious that when the question did arise here it should be cleared up thoroughly. I accept the Minister’s statement that it is clearly understood that the Commonwealth Government, like a citizen, should take its fair share of the responsibilities which rest on a citizen.
– I confess that I cannot quite follow the Minister : probably it is my own fault, as he always speaks clearly He told us that under the Constitution no rates, taxes or assessments can be levied on Commonwealth property by a municipality. He said that both Houses could not impose that obligation upon the Railways Commissioner.
– Not by an Act of Parliament.
– This clause is going to do what the Minister says both Houses cannot do. We are given to understand that only as the outcome of a successful referendum can any municipal rates be levied on Commonwealth property.
– This clause does not give power to tax, but it gives power to enter into a mutual contract.
– The Minister is prepared to allow the Railways Commissioner to go behind the Constitution.
– Did we not do the same thing in regard to income tax ?
– In that case an Act of Parliament! was passed. The Minister says that while the Government cannot do this constitutionally, it may be done with the sanction of the Minister, and as the result of a mutual arrangement. I do not think the Constitution lays it down that the Commonwealth cannot pay rates or taxes, but I understand it does provide that a State Government or any other local authority cannot compel the Commonwealth to pay local rates or taxes, and that, obviously, is the meaning of the clause under discussion.
– A similar section appears in the Postal and other Acts.
– The Commonwealth pays for gas, electric light, and similar services, but in this clause it is provided that assessments for rates or taxes shall not be made except with-the sanction of the Minister, and Senator Senior is asking for the payment by the Commonwealth of municipal taxation.
– The same as any other citizen.
– Yes, that is so. If, say, the National Bank or the Bank of New South Wales erected premises at Terowie, in South Australia, all municipal taxes would have to be paid in respect” of the property; but a Commonwealth post office would escape the municipal tax. This is a principle that has been fought for ever since Federation was established, and apparently the exemption of Commonwealth property has been included in other Acts.-
– It is a very good thing that this discussion has taken place, because it will indicate the views of -honorable senators and also the attitude of the Government as to the future. I point out that in Port Augusta alone the Government have acquired the whole of a section of the town known as Conway Town for the erection of public buildings and residences for employees.
– Subject to certain restrictions by the South Australian Government ?
– No.
– The whole place has been bought outright. In addition, the Commonwealth several years ago purchased four or five cottages in the centre of the town, and also erected a residence for the resident-engineer, who has been living there ever since the railway was started. If the Commonwealth is not to be liable for municipal rates and taxes who is going to lay down and maintain the roads and footpaths at Conway Town ?
– I said there was no power under the Constitution obliging the Government to pay.
– If the Commonwealth is not to pay the municipal rates and taxes, who will prepare and maintain the ‘streets in Conway Town when Commonwealth houses are erected in that section, and’ who will pay the cost of filling in the inequalities of the land to keep the sea water out of the back yards of those residences?
– The Commonwealth will do all that, and keep the streets in order.
– The Commonwealth Government) has not contributed one penny piece up to the present time.
– Under this clause the Commissioner will have power”, with the consent of the Minister, to review the whole position and make a mutual arrangement.
– I am not quarrelling over that, but I would point out that if it is optional for the Minister, or Railways Commissioner, to pay the municipal rates, the burden falls upon the rest of the taxpayers. This is manifestly very unfair, and the position should be rectified in the Bill. I accept the Minister’s assurance, and I know that the fair thing will be done. The time may, however, come when the Commonwealth will refuse to pay rates and taxes of this description, and this discussion on the subject will indicate to the people the attitude of honorable senators towards the proposal.
– It seems to me that Senators Grant and Thomas are absolutely sound in their arguments, and that a most viciousprinciple is sought to be introduced in this Bill. Even if the same principle does exist in the Post and Telegraph and other Acts, that is not to say that it should be indorsed in this Bill. Senator Newland pointed to the inequality in the burden imposed on the. community generally by the man who escapes his fair portion of taxation. This inequality has been in evidence throughout the whole of our history of land settlement in the case of large landholders, and still there% has never been any serious objection to it. Lest I should be getting away from the subject under discussion - although I do not think I am, -in view of the amendment moved by Senator Grant - I w*ould point out that a holder of 640 acres of unused agricultural land does not pay his due proportion to the upkeep of roads adjacent to his property in comparison with an adjacent holder of 160 acres. It has been argued, however, that, after all, the community is only spending its own money, and, in a sense, that is true.
– Suppose the singletax system were in operation at Port Augusta, and the municipality wanted to tax railway property on that principle, it could be done with the consent of the Minister. That is the effect of the clause.
– The object of Senator Grant’s amendment, I take it, is to exclude railway property, but I think this question of charges has been convincingly dealt with by Senator Thomas. Hitherto we have been paying for all our supplies of pens, ink, and paper, for our gas and electricity and, water services, as ordinary commercial charges, and surely this principle may be extended. For the past seventeen years there has been an insistent demand concerning the right of the lesser bodies to tax the Federation, and without endeavouring to give party colour to this question, I ask honorable senators to imagine what kind of a time the National Parliament, with a Labour Government in power, would get at the hands of the States municipal and shire councils, in regard to assessments on Commonwealth properties. Gigantic deficits would probably be created, and, therefore, I am not prepared to allow these smaller governing bodies to dictate to the Federation what taxation should be paid. I shall support the amendment, and, if necessary, go even further than Senator Thomas suggests.
– Senator Ferricks appears to be under a misapprehension with regard to this clause and the amendment, for he practically makes it appear that it is a question of land tax as against other means of taxation. The amendment is put in a negative way -
No rates, tax, or assessment’ shall be made, charged, or levied upon land values.
No tax can be levied upon land values unless with the consent of the Minister. In some districts in New South Wales there are land valuers. In that State the municipal authorities provide such public utilities as roads, streets, electric light, gas, &c. Under this clause they will be able to say to the Railways Commissioner : “ Under the Commonwealth Constitution we have no power to tax you, but surely you are going to contribute something to our municipal rates in return for the services we have rendered you? “
– But we cannot allow them to say what our contribution, shall be.
– The Minister can arrange to pay for all these services. A similar clause has been embodied in every; Railways Act for the past seventeen years. The Railways Commissioner will have no power to pay for any of these services unless, he is authorized to do so by this Bill.
– The Minister stated just now that the Constitution would not permit of the municipal authorities taxing -the Commonwealth.
– That is so. I am afraid that honorable senators are mixing this matter up with some high principle, when it is simply a question of whether we are going to be honest with our tradesmen. We all know that most public utilities are supplied by the municipalities, and that the people in those municipalities pay rates in return for such cervices. But as no municipality has power to tax the Commonwealth for such services, we propose by this clause to authorize the Minister to pay for them. In the absence of this provision no communityowned enterprise will supply any of our requirements.
– It appears to me that the Minister is mixing up matters for which definite provision is made later in the Bill. For instance, paragraph (d) of clause 22 empowers the Commissioner to contract - for any other matter or thing whatsoever necessary for enabling him to carry the purpose of the Act into full effect.
Under that provision he will be entitled to contract for electricity, for gas, or for any other service.
– Why should it not apply to municipal services, such as roads and bridges?
– The Commonwealth is not prepared to permit a State or a municipality to tax it. That point has been finally settled. Whatever moneys the Commonwealth may grant to a municipality will be granted in the same way as the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank has agreed to hand over £1,000 yearly to the Sydney Municipal Council. It appears to me that the clause contemplates an innovation which ought not to be tolerated.
– As a new member, and in view of the statement made by the Minister, (I have not audacity to support a proposal which would involve a sacrifice of the privileges of this Parliament. But it seems to me that the Commonwealth occupies a very peculiar position in regard to the payment of rates and taxes, inasmuch as these can be paid only in the form of a voluntary contribution. Since this debate commenced, I have recalled an incident which occurred in connexion with the State railways of Queensland. I think it was in the township of Inglewood, that a saw-mill was established on Government property, at which, approximately, thirty men were employed. Whilst working there, typhoid fever broke out in the saw-mill, and threefourths of the men were attacked by it. Naturally, they went to the nearest place to obtain medical attention, and that place happened to be the local hospital, which was under the control of the municipality. There they received treatment at the expense of the municipal authorities for a considerable period. Not one penny was paid to the municipality by the State Government for that treatment.
– Does not the Government of Queensland subsidize the hospitals?
– Even if that be so, it does not subsidize them specially for the treatment of Government employees. As a result of that outbreak of typhoid fever, the expenditure of the Inglewood hospital increased by leaps and bounds, so that at the end of its financial year ‘there was a considerable deficit. In that case the municipal authorities had to plead with the Government to grant them some return for the benefits which they had conferred upon these saw-mill employees. It has been suggested that in such circumstances the township benefited from the establishment of the saw-mill. But it did not benefit to any appreciable extent. Usually the men employed upon railway works camp upon railway reserves, and their food is brought up to them by train, so that the local storekeepers do not benefit by their presence. Under the proposal embodied in this Bill it seems to me that the amount paid to the municipalities by the Railways Commissioner will entirely depend upon the reasonableness or otherwise of the Minister.
.- I understood the Minister to say that this clause has appeared in every Railways Act during the past seventeen years.
– It embodies the usual practice.
– I understood the Minister to say that it had been embodied in every Railways Act during the past seventeen years. If that were the case, I would not press my amendment. But the Minister now assures me that effect has been given to the clause by practice. That is an entirely different proposition. No honorable senator objects to the Commonwealth paying the municipal authorities for such services as water, gas, or electricity. The Minister might just as well have said that unless this clause were included in the Bill, the Railways Commissioner could not go to the Eveleigh workshops in New South Wales and purchase a locomotive.
– He would not have the authority.
– If that be so it would be a serious matter to strike out the clause.
– There is nothing funny about it. It is true that things are done every day without authority. A strong Government will do what they desire to do, but that does not excuse us if we do not make provision for doing things in a legal way.
– The point raised by Senator Senior is quite distinct from that dealt with by the Minister. I do not say that there is not a good deal to be said in support of Senator Senior’s contention, but the balance of argument is against it. If during the last seventeen years a similar provision were to be found in Commonwealth Acts, I should withdraw my objection to it, but such a provision is not to be found in those Acts. I intend to move when the opportunity occurs -
That the words “ except as may be sanctioned by the Minister,” be left out.
– I have listened with interest to the diverse views which have been expressed upon this question, but I have been at a loss to know what all the argument has been about. It seems to me that the clause makes provision for a. very simple and a very necessary power which. should be placed in the hands of the Minister. There should be power to negotiate with local authorities for the payment of services rendered to the Railways Department.
– The honorable senator is missing the point.
– I am not satisfled that Senator Senior has grasped the meaning of ‘ the clause. He is battling for one thing, whilst the clause provides for something else. It is not the intention, under this clause, to give the Minister power to consent to any tax that any municipal or local authority may desire to levy upon the Commonwealth, but only power to negotiate with local authorities for trifling or important services necessary for the proper carrying on of our railways.
– There is not a word about services “ in the clause which refers to “ rates, taxes, and assessments.”
– Where services are rendered to the ‘Railway Department by a local authority it is not unreasonable that some compensation ‘ should be made to that local authority. We do not expect to have these services rendered for nothing. It occurs to me that unless some power were placed in the hands of the Minister to negotiate with local authorities for these services, the proper conduct of the railways would be hampered. I intend to vote for the clause as it stands.
– I have before me the sections of the Railway Acts of the different States bearing upon this matter, and it will be seen that they are all in the one direction. Under this Bill it is proposed that no rates, taxes, or assessments shall be levied except as may be sanctioned by the Minister. Under “the Victorian Act the section reads -
In every municipal district all tenements or property vested in the Commissioner -
I find that that does not bear on the question.
– I think that the Minister should complete the quotation.
– No; it is foreign matter, and, unlike some other honorable senators, I am able to recognise foreign matter when I see it. The New South Wales Act provides -
No rates’, taxes, or assessment shall he made, charged, or levied upon any railways, pier, wharf, jetty, station, yard, building, works, or other property vested in the Chief Commissioner unless the contrary is expressly provided” In any Act.
The Queensland Act has this section -
No rates, taxes, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any property whatever vested in the Commissioner.
The Western Australian Act provides that -
No rate, tax, or assessment shall be made,’ charged or levied upon any Government railway unless the contrary is expressly provided in this Act.
The whole debate has been based upon amisapprehension as to the intention of the clause. We have certain railways under the control of the Commonwealth, but in connexion with them no one has power to turn a wheel, to engage an engine-driver, or to do anything else .until authority to do so is given by this Parliament. This Bill is intended to give authority for the appointment of a Commissioner, and will authorize the Commissioner to appoint a staff, to prepare time-tables, to fix fares and rates, and to obtain electric light and gas. I ask honorable senators not to drag in the question of the single tax, or any other matter that is foreign to the Bill. I hope the Committee will accept the clause in its present form.
– I wish to point out to Senator
O’Keefe that I never raised the question of whether the Commissioner should be taxed in respect of railway or station buildings. The point I raise is that where the Commissioner acquires cottages within a municipality, these should not be exempt from the municipal taxation which would be paid in respect of them if they were occupied by private citizens.
– What is done with’ these cottages after the Railways Commissioner acquires them?
– He puts some of his servants into them.
– Where has this occurred?
– At Mount Gambier, and at many other places in South. Australia. Senator O’Keefe tried to make out that I referred to taxation of railway stations and buildings upon recognised railway property. I remind honorable senators that because we have acquired land and property in Port Augusta, upon which rates were previously paid to the local authorities, those rates will no longer be paid, and this will involve a serious reduction in the income of the Port Augusta municipal council. Again, rates or rents were derived from the wharf at Bort Augusta, but since the Commonwealth Government have taken over the wharf the local corporation will lose the revenue which it previously obtained from that source. If the corporation asked that it should he subsidized by the Commonwealth in lieu of the loss of revenue due to the acquisition by the Government of land and property within the municipality, that would he regarded as an impudent demand. It is quite right that no charge should be made in respect of what is distinctly railway property; but I am speaking of property within a municipality upon which rates were previously levied, and which ceases to ‘.pay rates upon acquisition by the Commonwealth. I have already pointed out that a letter-carrier, who is a Government officer, is called upon to pay rates in respect of the property upon which he resides, whilst a resident railway engineer, living next door to him, and enjoying the same municipal advantages, does not pay Id. of rates. “When the Government receive privileges from a municipal corporation similar to those for which the citizens have to pay rates, the Government should contribute just as the citizens do to maintain the services provided by the corporation.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.80 p.m.
Amendment negatived.
– In order to raise a practical issue I move -
That after the word “ property “, line 3, the following words be inserted, “(except where such property is used for . residential purposes).”
The gist of the argument all along has been that where a property is used for residential purposes the owner should pay rates to the municipality in exactly the same way as any other citizen, for the simple reason that he is getting privileges which are received equally by other citizens.
– This amendment will prevent us from doing it.
– No.
– As the amendment is submitted it will prevent the thing from being done, but if it is inserted after tha word “ Minister “ it will say that it shall be mandatory in these cases. .
– I am quite willing to introduce the amendment after the word “ Minister “ if it will meet the case. I recognise that railway pro.perty pure and simple is a Government utility, and should _ be free from taxation, but in every community residential property is regarded as a subject for taxation. I remember a case in which a resident engineer lived next door to a journeyman cabinetmaker. Previously the cabinetmaker’s neighbour paid rates, but after the resident engineer came to reside in the house no rates were paid, and the corporation naturally felt that it had suffered a loss, for it had to incur the same expenses as hitherto. This evil will be accentuated in Port Augusta, because the whole of the headworks for the eastern portion of the transcontinental railway will be situated there. The residences occupied by the railway workers will benonrateable, and therefore a very heavy burden will be thrown upon Port Augusta. The proportion of those residents’ who will be exempt from municipal rates will be found to be very large indeed, seeing that the line is being constructed through the town itself. That will withdraw a large area of what is now rateable property. It must be patent to honorable senators that, as the workshops will be built at Port Augusta, a large number of men will be employed there. The Commonwealth Government acquired within the municipality a large tract of land on which they will build workmen’s cottages,., and so a very considerable portion of the municipality will become non-rateable.
– And the other portion of the town will have an added value of 150 per cent.
– That is beside the argument altogether. I admit that a public utility should not be taxed, but I contend that citizens who receive and enjoy citizen rights the same as other persons should be liable to pay rates. I donot think it will be argued that the Government, because it is a Government, should be exempted from the obligation which falls upon citizens. The Government very jealously guards its own rights, and a corporation ought, in the same degree, to jealously guard its finances. This grievance has been felt in many places, and -will become accentuated at Port Augusta. I am quite willing to submit to ‘the view of the Minister as to where the amendment could be best introduced. I am striving to put an end to an inequitable practice, and therefore I submit the amendment.
– I cannot agree with Senator Senior in his desire to bring the Commissioner’s property under the ordinary taxation of a municipality. I recognise that when a railway is constructed through a township the township becomes so enormously enriched thereby that it is quite reasonable to ask the municipality to exempt that property from local taxation. Suppose, for instance, that the taxable value of a township before the construction of a railway is £5,000. What is the immediate result of building a railway through the township? The taxable value of the municipality is enhanced by several hundredfold. Does any one argue that it is not fair that the property in connexion with a function which so enhances the taxable value of the municipality should not be immune from local taxation ? I think that it goes without saying. Like Senator Grant’, I do nob believe in taxing improvements or industry, but I cannot agree that this is a proper clause in which to .deal with that question. My principal object in rising was to suggest to Senator Senior a slight alteration in his amendment to give the effect which he desires. I suggest that the clause should be amended so as to read -
No rate, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any railway or property vested in the Commissioner, except that used for residential purposes, unless sanctioned by the Minister.
– That is a very much more cumbersome proposal than mine.
– In my opinion it is more complete, and I believe that as nearly as possible it meets what the honorable senator seeks. If I understand his amendment correctly, under the Constitution, he is giving the municipality power to levy taxes on the station and the railway property, but not on the cottages which may be purchased or built by the Government in town for residential purposes by the officers. That seems to me to be the effect of the amendment. It was only iti the fullness of my good nature that I tried to help my honorable friend to make his amendment more effective. I shall oppose the proposal whichever way it is submitted, because I believe that municipalities which are immensely benefitted by the expenditure of Commonwealth money should exempt its property from local taxation.
Senator THOMAS (New South Wales [2.45]. - I congratulate the Minister on the extreme fairness -with which he is piloting the Bill through the Committee, for he has been good enough not only to state his own case but the case also of those who are opposed to him. in regard t’o the amendments. Nothing can be stronger in favour of my argument than the provisions included in the various State Acts. In order to make my position clear, let me read the clause under discussion. It states -
No rates, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied, upon any railway or other property vested in the Commissioner, except as may be sanctioned by the Minister.
I am anxious to have the words ‘ ‘ except as may be sanctioned by the Minister “ deleted, but the Minister has informed us that if my amendment is carried, the activities of the Railways Commissioner will be paralyzed, because he will not be able to buy water, gas, electric light, or any other of the necessary services.
– No. I said he would not have the necessary legal authority.
– Let us see what! the New South Wales Act says in regard to this matter -
No rates, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any railway, or upon any pier, wharf, jetty, station, yard, building, works, or other property vested in the Chief Commissioner, unless the contrary is specially provided in the Act.
It will be seen, therefore, that unless the contrary be specially stated the Railways Commissioners of New South Wales cannot pay rates, taxes, or assessments.
– But it is possible that the New South Wales Railway D~epartment is paying for every house and railway building occupied.
– Yes ; that is quite possible. The Queensland Act states -
No rates, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any railway or any property whatsoever vested in the Commissioner.
That section is very emphatic, and I point out that if the words to which I take exception in the clause under discussion are deleted, it will then be in absolute conformity with the section of the Queensland Act referred to. If, as the Minister states, the activities of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner will be paralyzed by deleting the words objected to, I am at a loss to understand how Queensland is able to carry on. TheWestern Australian Act has this provision : -
No rate, tax, or assessment shall be made, charged, or levied upon any Government railway unless the contrary is. expressly provided in any Act.
Now, I am prepared to adopt this form, or have the words of the clause under discussion deleted. Either will suit me. I am not aware what provision is contained in the South Australian Act, but the following is contained in the Victorian Railways Act: -
In every municipal’ district, all tenants of property vested in the Commissioners, and here, after leased or rented to such tenants, shall, except in the case of railway refreshmentrooms and premises in the occupation of railway employees, be liable to the payment of rates and taxes, but the Commissioners shall not be liable as owners of such property.
Thus, in Victoria the tenant pays rates and taxes, but the Railways Commissioners are not liable. There is something to be said for the argument that if a man is. the tenant of a railway property he should be obliged to pay municipal rates and’ taxes. I am prepared to accept this provision. I do not want the Government to be liable, because I think there is a big principle behind the amendment, and that other Departments may be affected. From my own limited experience of the Minister I know that it would be possible for a Railways Commissioner, at the time having nothing else but railways in view, to advise his Minister to pay certain rates and taxes, but that if this course were adopted probably many other Departments would be similarly affected. A matter of very important policy is involved in the amendment, and if provision is inserted to the effect that no rates, taxes, or assessments shall be paid except with the sanction of the Minister, I shall have no objection to the clause. I trust the Committee will delete the words “ except as may be sanctioned by the Minister,” because I feel certain they involve a dangerous principle.
– I suppose Imay say, without offence to any honorable senator, that if there is one thing for which this Senate stands in a pre-eminent position, it is a practical common-sense attitude towards all problems brought before it. We have been discussing this matter for a considerable time. I take no exception to that, of course, and I have nothing very much to say about the arguments for and against the various propositions. I would, however, point out that one section in this chamber apparently thinks that the Commonwealth should be called upon to pay taxes in respect to property it holds, while others, like the last speaker, prefer to see set out in the Act the particular classes of property in respect of which taxes should be paid; and others again, like myself, think it would be better to leave discretionary power in the hands of the Minister. As far as I understand the position, these are the three points of contact, and I suggest that this, surely, is a matter which ought to be made general in its application to all public Departments of the Commonwealth. The Post Office, Customs, and Defence Departments, and before long the new organization dealing with repatriation, must be affected by this question, and I ask honorable senators therefore to . consider whether this subject could not mora properly and more satisfactorily be dealt with as applying to all Commonwealth! activities rather than to be determined so far as our railways alone are concerned.
– Will the Government promise to bring this question forward ?
– No; but I can assure the honorable senator that he will have every opportunity of bringing it forward on a general motion.
– It would be better for the Government than for a private member to do that.
– Let us consider the position of the town of Port Augusta. What will be the attitude of its citizens if they find that, as the result of some amendment in this Bill, the Commonwealth railways are paying rates and taxes for certain buildings in their town, while alongsideof those railway buildings is perhaps a Commonwealth post-office which is escaping all obligations in respect of municipal taxation ? It is possible also that there is a Customs building in that town; if so, the people of Port Augusta surely will have to throw on one side all the ordinary activities of life in order to indulge in a series of indignation meetings because one Commonwealth public, property is paying rates and taxes while others are escaping. I recognise that there is very debatable matter in the clause under review, and that being so ought we not, instead of dealing with it in this piecemeal fashion, to regard it as involving a principle which should be applicable to all Government Departments? I suppose the Committee is fairly unanimous in the belief that no subordinate Legislature should have the authority to tax Commonwealth properties. We must maintain inviolate the sovereignty of the Commonwealth, otherwise it is conceivable that we might be placed in an unsatisfactory position by the taxing proclivities of either a State or a local governing authority.
– The sovereign authority should not neglect to do its obvious duty.
– But the difficulty is for us to see our duty in the same way. What is our duty ? It is the old question of “What is truth?” But we can all agree that whatever is decided upon as the Commonwealth’s duty ought to be made applicable to all Government property and Government activities. For that reason I invite the Committee to accept the clause as it stands.
– And to give way upon a principle.
– I know that if there is one thing for which Senator Thomas is distinguished it is his rigid adherence to principle. In its present form the clause offers a very reasonable means of avoiding the difficulties which honorable senators have mentioned. In my own State the Railways Commissioners quite recognise a distinction in the case of property which they have resumed, but which they have leased to tenants. In such circumstances they become ordinary landlords, and pay rates and taxes. When the Railways Commissioners in New South Wales resume a property it often happens that there is upon it a cottage which it is undesirable to demolish. Where that occurs they let the building just as an ordinary landlord would do, and they pay rates and taxes in respect of it. I assume, of course, that whilst paying those rates and. taxes they collect a slightly increased rent for it by reason of the circumstance that the tenant is not liable for their payment. But that is a very different proposition from saying, for example, that the caretaker of a level crossing shall come under the same dictum, which certainly would be the case if Senator Senior’s amendment were carried. Until we can decide the main issue as to whether these properties shall pay rates and taxes, is it not advisable to clothe the Minister with discretionary power to meet special cases, and to enable him to see that the practice of his Department conforms to that of other Departments ?
– Ministers are unlike Tennyson’s brook,in that they do not go on for ever.
– I admit that fact mournfully, but it is one which we cannot alter, unless we can devise a means by which Ministers may secure fixity of tenure. I do, however, suggest that we should adopt the clause as it stands, seeing that it does not turn down any reasonable proposal for the payment of rates, and at the same time does not impose on the Railways Commissioner any definite obligation to meet the demands of local governing bodies.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment (by Senator Thomas) proposed -
That the words “ except as may be sanctioned by the Minister “ be left out.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 7
NOES: 19
Majority . . 12.
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 (Lease of railway property).
– I move -
That the following words be added to subclause 3 : - “ and may provide house accommodation for employees” on such terms andconditions as he determines.”
The amendment is designed to enable the Commissioner to provide housing accommodation for employees on the railway.
– Upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill I inquired whether South Australia had imposed any limitation upon the land immediately alongside this line. I understand that Western Australia has given the land on either side of the railway free of all restrictions, but, that South Australia has imposed certain limitations. I desire to ask the Minister whether that is so.
– I understand that, under the agreement, South Australia has granted to the Commonwealth ten chains of land upon either side of the line. It has also been decided that the township at Port Augusta shall be built subject to the approval of both the Commonwealth and the State Governments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 -
Senator SENIOR (South Australia) (3.13]. - This appears to me to be a very general clause. There surely ought to be some means provided by which we may know what are regarded as “ dangerous “ goods. The term is one of those general descriptions which may possibly cause a great deal of inconvenience to passengers travelling on this line. There are some goods which I regard as very dangerous, but which other persons look upon almost as essentials. I would like to know what the Minister regards as “dangerous” goods. Gunpowder is dangerous, but it is only dangerous in certain circumstances.
– This clause will confer power under by-laws to define those circumstances.
– If it is to be subject to . a by-law to be laid on the table of the Senate before approval, we shall know where we are.
– Under the Bill power is given to the Commissioner to make by-laws, and these will provide that certain dangerous commodities must be properly protected before being transported over the railways.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 -
Amendment (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That the words “ fares, and charges “ line 2, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ fares, charges, and conditions “.
Clause consequentially amended, and agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 -
The Commissioner may provide land on lease and house accommodation for railway employees.
– I propose to negative this clause, which is unnecessary, in view of the provision already made by the amendment of clause 21.
– Upon this clause it is desirable to emphasize what is required in connexion with the housing accommodation to be provided for railway employees. I do not wish, even by inference, to suggest that the Commonwealth Government are not likely to treat their employees fairly; but. I happen to know that in times past it has been the practice of Railway Departments to provide accommodation that has been scarcely fit for human habitation. Because a man happens to be a railway fettler, that is no reason why he should not be given a comfortable house to live in. Many of the places provided for such employees in the past have been neither comfortable nor healthy. The only matter considered appears to have been the convenience of the Railway Department. I am aware that an amendment has been carried in another clause providing for house accommodation for railway employees; but I think it would have been well to have specified in some way the kind’ of accommodation to be provided. Men employed on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, because of the adverse climatic conditions under which they will have to live, should be provided at least with comfortable dwellings. I am urged to refer to this matter at the present time because of considerable efforts which I made some years ago to secure some improvement upon the miserable galvanized-iron sheds which were provided for railway employees and their families in a very dry district. I say nothing against the building of a commodious residence for the man who will have control of our railways; but it is equally necessary that fettlers charged with the safety of railways, over which human beings have to pass, should be properly cared for.
– The Committee has , already agreed tq an amendment of clause 21, giving the Commissioner power to provide house accommodation for employees on such terms and conditions as he may determine, and the acceptance of that amendment has rendered this clause unnecessary. “We are not in a .position to bring down plans and specifications of the accommodation to be provided; but I am satisfied that the Minister for Works and Railways, in the present or any future Government, may he, trusted to see that adequate accommodation is provided for employees on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway.
– I should like to know whether, under this Bill, the Commissioner is given the power to provide educational facilities, and to build schools for the children of employees of the Railway, Department. I think he should be given the opportunity to do so. Many families of employees on our railways are far removed from educational facilities, and it would be well if the Commissioner were given the power to provide them.
– There is no specific power given under this Bill to enable the Commissioner for Railways to provide educational facilities for the children of employees. I am satisfied that the Commonwealth Government will always be sufficiently broad-minded to recognise the necessity of doing all that, is possible for .the children of Australia from an educational point of view. But we could scarcely give the Railways Commissioner any power with - respect to the education of children, which is specifically ‘the duty of the Education Departments of the different States.
Clause negatived.
Clauses 39 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 -
– I direct the attention of the Committee to the necessity of amplifying this clause, in order to provide for a report and balancesheet showing the stock in hand of the Commissioner and the depreciation of railway property. I do. not know whether the experience of Railway Departments in the other States has been similar to that of the Department in Tasmania, but I know that in that State we have found it a very great advantage ito the Minister and to Parliament to know exactly the stock in hand and the depreciation of railway property from year to year. I suggest that after the word “report” it would be well to insert the words “ and balance-sheet, showing stock in hand and depreciation of property.”
– The honorable senator will see that, under the next clause, the Minister has full power to call for such information.
– The Minister may demand a balance-sheet from the Commissioner under clause 43; but the difficulty is that he may not demand it. It is quite a proper thing that the Commissioner should be asked to supply such fi balance-sheet as I suggest, in addition to his annual report.
– “Would not the report be incomplete -without a balancesheet?
– No. Very often the Managers or Commissioners for State Railways furnish a report, but give no information concerning the amount of stock they have on hand.
– In which State?
– In Tasmania, for one, until recently. When an investigation was made for the present Commissioner it was found that thousands of pounds worth of stock had been lying idle for years. We had no idea as to the depreciation of engines and other rollingstock until these balance-sheets had been prepared.
– There is no harm in setting out clearly that the Commissioner shall provide a balance-sheet with his annual report.
– I see no harm in making the amendment. If anything better than I suggest can be done, well and good; but in order to test the feeling of the Committee I move -
That after the word “ report “, line 3, the following words be inserted, “ and balancesheet showing stocks on hand, depreciation of property “.
If that amendment is made I shall ask the Committee to omit the words “ of his “ in the next line.
[3.321. - I feel sure that the Committee are unanimously in accord with the desire of Senator Earle, but I would point out to them that absolute power in this regard is given to the Minister in the following clause, which reads -
The Commissioner shall furnish all such reports, documents, and information relating to the railways and the railway service, as the Minister requires.
– Yes, but Parliament may require something more than the Minister needs.
– It is quite apparent to me that if the Minister is not prepared to provide Parliament with what it requires it ought to get another Minister. If the Minister does not see fit under his unlimited powers to call for a report on any special item, or for a complete balance-sheet, honorable senators will have a full and free opportunity to discuss the details of the annual report, and to demand exactly what they need. This provision is quite comprehensive; it could not be made wider, I think, by the use of any language, and I trust that it will be .accepted in its present form.
– I am very glad that Senator Earle has submitted this amendment. I venture to say that if in connexion with the Post and Telegraph Department a stock-sheet were prepared as to when articles were obtained it would surprise Parliament.
– The Post Office has a complete balance-sheet up to date.
– I am not thinking of a balance-sheet with regard to moneys, but of a stock account. A balance-sheet would indicate the value of the stock, but a stock-sheet would show exactly what was in stock ; and that information is very desirable indeed. It should show, too, what stock we were deficient of, and very likely it would open the eyes of Parliament. It would disclose, I think, that orders had been duplicated where there was no necessity, and that stock had been enlarged in certain directions, but diminished in other directions. No such balance-sheet is available in connexion with any of the principal Departments. A balance-sheet is a necessity to a business man.
– Why do you not point out where any Departments are weak in their balance-sheets instead of making these general statements ?
– I have carefully turned over the balance-sheets of the Postal Department. I approve of the action of Senator Earle, because the production of a balance-sheet is very necessary and will become more necessary as we enter other fields of activity. It is absolutely requisite that we should “have a balance-sheet from the Commissioner.
– The amendment would require the Commissioner, without a request from, the Minister, to furnish a statement annually showing the condition of the rollingstock. Surely the Honorary Minis- ter can depart so far from the letter of the Bill as to admit of a reasonable amendment of this kind. The Minister will have multifarious duties to attend to; many matters will come before Parliament, and, however desirable it might be for this information to be disclosed annually, it is quite possible that the Commissioner would not disclose it unless it had been definitely laid down as part of his instructions, not by the Minister, but by the Act itself.
-Read sub-clause 1 of this clause requiring the Commissioner to submit “ an account of all moneys received and expended during the year.”
– It does not deal with depreciation of stock or with the stock on hand.
– Neither clause 41 nor clause 42 would render it necessary for the Commissioner to disclose to the Minister thecondition of the rolling-stock. The underlying object of the amendment is to provide that, without a request from the Minister, a balance-sheet shall necessarily form pant) of the annual report furnished to Parliament by the Commissioner. Apparently the Honorary Minister is in favour of this information being disclosed, and probably he will ask the Commissioner to disclose a good deal more. It is so desirable to know the condition of the rolling-stock that I hope he will agree to the amendment.
Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 12
Majority . . 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment (by Senator Earle) agreed to -
That the words “ of his,” line 3, be left out
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 (Adjustment of weights and measures on railways).
– The clause appears to have been somewhat loosely drafted. It provides that the Commissioner shall cause all weights, measures, and scales, as well as other weighing machines in use on the railways, to be adjusted from time to time by “ some employee “ in the railway service. It appears to me that this duty should be intrusted to a qualified person, for if itbe perfunctorily performed, the general public may suffer. If it is worth while to specify that the Commissioner shall appoint some person in the service to adjust the weights, measures, and weighing machines, surely it is worth while to see that this work is done by a qualified employee. It is the practice, when a plumber is called in to do certain work, to see that he is properly qualified, and the same principle should be observed in the appointment of an employee to adjust weights and measures.
Progress reported.
page 993
The following papers were presented : -
Electoral -
Statistical Returns in relation to the Senate Election and the General Election for the House of Representatives, 1917, and Summaries of Elections and Referendums, 1903-1917.
Statistical Returns, showing voting within each subdivision in relation to the Senate Election, and the General Election for the House of Representatives, 1917, viz.:-
New South Wales.
Victoria.
Queensland.
South Australia.
Western Australia.
Tasmania.
Public Service Act 1902-1916 - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1917, No. 160.
Senate adjourned at 3.65 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 August 1917, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1917/19170810_SENATE_7_82/>.