The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 5221
QUESTION
SALE OF WHEAT TO EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT
Senator ROWELL: SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether his attention has been drawn to a statement appearing in the press this morning by a member of the New South Wales Government to the effect that the Commonwealth Government have sold 300,000 tons of wheat to the Egyptian Government at 13s. per bushel f.o.b. Is the statement a fact?
Senator RUSSELL: Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT
– I have no information beyond what appears in the paragraph referred to by the honorable senator, but I shall try and have the statement confirmed or otherwise during the day.
page 5221
QUESTION
PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
Senator RUSSELL: President of the Executive Council · Vice · NAT
– On many occasions questions have been asked, by Senators Earle and Newland and other honorable senators, on the subject of the pensions to be paid to blind persons. I have this morning received the following statement from the Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) in reply to those questions : -
The Government have decided to permit an increase in the amount which blind pensioners may earn without their pensions being reduced, but it will be necessary to pass legislation to give effect to that decision. This legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.
page 5221
ASSENT TO BILLS
Assent reported to the following
Bills: -
New Guinea Bill.
Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill (1920-21)
page 5221
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-
That Senator E. D. Millen be granted leave of absence for six months on account of urgent public business.
page 5221
INCOME TAX BILL
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
– I move -
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the
Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
This motion, if agreed to, will not be used to in any way limit the right of honorable senators to debate the Bill. The object is to avoid possible delays in connexion with the transmission of the Bill between the two Houses.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Is it proposed that the Senate shall meet next week ?
Senator RUSSELL:
– I am afraid that we shall have to do so.
Question resolved in the , affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
page 5221
LOAN BILL
Second Reading
Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
.- I move-
That this Bill be now read a second time.
The amount which the Government desire to borrow under this Bill is £4,286,490. That is the total estimated cost of the works proposed to be carried out. There is already available under appropriations made by previous Acts, £305,768, and the total amount required is £4,592,258. This is essentially a Committee Bill, and in moving the second reading I shall content myself with stating the total amounts required for the different Departments. For the Prime Minister’s Department the amount required is £186,500; for the Department of the Treasury - for the construction of ships - £3,000,000; for the Home and Territories Department, £96,175; for the Works and Railways Department, £976,269 ; for the Department of the Navy, £69,500 ; for the Trade and Customs Department, £40,000; and for the redemption of Northern Territory Loans, £223,814. These figures make up the total of £4,592,258. Two-thirds of the total amount covered by the Bill is required for carrying on the ship construction programme, particulars of which were given in the Budget speech.
Last year £2,198,000 was spent on the construction of ships, and the amount was charged to the War Loan, but from the 1st July last all expenditure in connexion with ship construction will be charged to the Works Loan. Provision is made in this Bill for £150,000 for initial settlement and preparatory work (at the Federal Capital. The other principal items are, £100,000, subscription to the capital of the Refinery Company in accordance with the Oil Agreement Act; Mobilization stores for the Defence Department, £167,000; Naval Bases, £1S7,000; Murray Waters scheme, £132,000; Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway, £100,000; and for the redemption of Northern Territory loans, £223,814. There are a number of smaller votes for works already in progress, and for additional works in connexion with these establishments. In Committee I shall be pleased to give honorable senators any information they may desire in connexion with these items.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– We hare before us now a Bill which includes many heavy items of proposed expenditure, some of which will probably be debated at some length. The biggest item is one of £3,000,000 for shipbuilding, but in order that we may get on with the business I propose to confine my remarks on the second reading of this Bill to the debatable question of expenditure on the Federal Capital. I wish to set out the case as I see it in a fair, calm way, and from a national point of view, without any reference whatever to parochialism, for the passage of the item in this Bill to enable the Government to go on with the work of establishing the Federal Capital.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens: QUEENSLAND
– If the honorable senator proposes to confine his remarks to that subject I point out to him that Federal Capital expenditure is dealt with in one item of the Bill, and it would be very much better that it should be discussed in Committee.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I desire to remind, you, sir, that under the Standing Orders our remarks in Committee are limited to fifteen minutes at any one time. While I have no wish to unduly prolong the debate on this Bill, T have a good many figures at my disposal in connexion with this subject, and I should like to be in* a position to make a connected narrative. I, therefore, propose, and I assume I am strictly in order in doing so, to confine my remarks at this stage of the passage of the Loan Bill to the question of Canberra.
Of course, the foundation and basis of all this business is to be found in section 125 of the Constitution, which provides that -
The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament and shall be within the Territory, which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth, and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth, and shall be in the State of New South Wales, and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney.
Such territory shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles, and such portion thereof as shall consist of Crown lands shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor.
The Parliament shall sit at Melbourne until it meets at the Seat of Government.
I shall not take up the time of the Senate hy recapitulating all that has been done to lead up to the present position. I have before me the index of the many parliamentary .papers issued since the inception of Federation under the heading of “ Federal Capital, Proposed Site.” I need not follow the various steps that have been taken, and the references -to the numerous reports of various districts suggested as suitable for the establishment of the Capital. Step after step was taken leading up to selection of the site by the Commonwealth Parliament, and it is set out in the Seat of GovernmentAct of 1908 that -
It is hereby determined that the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be in the district of Yass-Canberra in the State of New South Wales.
The territory to be granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth for the Seat of Government shall contain an area not less than 900 square miles, and have access to the sea.
This territory was surrendered by’ the Government of New South Wales to the Commonwealth by Act of Parliament upon the 18th October, 1909. Various committees sat in connexion with the different phases upon which further inquiry was required in regard to the selected territory, and as a result the Prime Min,ister forwarded to the Premier of New South Wales particulars of what the Commonwealth desired. An arrangement waa:- then arrived at under which New South Wales handed over to the Commonwealth all Crown Lands within the territory. Upon 13th December, 1909, the Seat of Government Acceptance Act was passed by this Parliament. That Statute ratified the agreement made between the Commonwealth and the State of New South Wales, and became operative on 22nd January, 1910, under a proclamation dated 18th January of that year.
The next milestone in connexion with this matter took the form of a Loan Act, which was passed by this Parliament on 22nd December, 1911, and which authorized the Commonwealth to borrow up to £600,000 for the acquisition of land in the Federal Territory. I shall not follow the many steps that were taken in connexion with the acceptance of a design for the laying out of the Federal Capital. Honorable members know that architects, town-planners, and designers throughout the world were invited to send in plans for the lay-out of the Federal Capital city. The net result was that, after various Boards had been appointed, a design was accepted, and the ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the commencement column, and of naming the Federal Capital itself, was performed by the then Governor-General, Lord Denman, upon 12th March, 1913.
Coming to matters of more recent history the Minister for Home and Territories, in another place, recently gave particulars of the money which had been ex- pended upon the Federal Capital.
Senator Senior:
– Up to what date?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– He said that the total expended upon the Federal Capital up to date was £1,738,639.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Scandalous !
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Of that amount £740,000 has been expended upon the resumption of land, and the balance of £980,000 upon works which, if considered fairly, will be admitted to be necessary for the carrying out of the Federal Capital scheme. He included in that expenditure such sums as £110,000 for essential power, £244,000 upon the water scheme - one of the finest in the Commonwealth, was his comment - £39,000 upon a sewerage system, £57,000 upon the railway, £45,000 upon the brickworks, and £83,000 upon roads
Senator Senior:
– Are the brickworks working now?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I do not think so. I understand that they have already produced a million bricks which are available for the commencement of building operations at the Capital. The Minister, in another place, also stated that so far, only £58,000 has been expended upon buildings within the Capital area. I would point out to honorable senators that the land belonging to the Commonwealth in this Territory embraces an area of 900 square miles, and that most of that land has been given to the Commonwealth by the State Government without fee or other charges, in the performance of its part of the compact for the building of the Federal Capital Nine hundred square miles, roughly, represents 600,000 acres, so that if the sum of £740,000 has been expended upon the resumption of land in the Federal Territory, that expenditure represents an average of only 25s. per acre.
Senator Duncan:
– It is worth £10 an acre.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– When the war broke out all expenditure within the Federal Territory, with the exception of the minimum that was required for- the upkeep of works that had already been started, was suspended, and rightly so.
Something will probably be said in regard to the feeling of the people of New South Wales upon this matter. The Sydney Morning Herald - and I quote its statements as fairly reflecting the opinion which exists in the Mother State upon this question - only a month or two ago wrote -
The Federal Constitution solemnly provided that the Federal Capital should be built somewhere in New South Wales beyond a radius of 100 miles from Sydney. The years roll by. A site is chosen with great deliberation, and. more years roll by. Melbourne acquires a vested interest as the Seat of the Commonwealth Parliament, and regards herself as the capital, dc facto, if not de jure.
Another extract from the same journal reads -
It is a commonplace that Federal administration and legislation are coloured by the fact that the Seat of Government is in Melbourne, and that Melbourne exercises an influence in Federal affairs which the Constitution was expressly designed to deny to any State capital.
Senator Earle:
– - Why illuminate these State jealousies?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Assertions are being made in Melbourne to-day that New South Wales does not care whether she gets the Federal Capital or not, and I am attempting to show, by extracts from the leading newspapers of that State, what is the feeling of her people upon this matter. As one of the representatives of the Mother State I affirm that the extracts which I am quoting fairly reflect the feeling of a majority of the electors there. The Sydney Daily Telegraph, writing upon this question, says-
There cannot be a satisfactory Government of Australia until that Government is housed in its own Territory, away from the local influences, which have now grown so strong that any serious movement to transfer the Federal Government to its proper home is actually resented as an attack upon the long-established privileges of Melbourne.
Still another extract reads -
The unearned increment of property and values in the Federal Territory would accrue to the Government, and we know that a substantial set-off to the cost of the Capital at Canberra would be represented by the rents which the Commonwealth Government now pays to private owners in Melbourne. But this is not an occasion for counting merely the cost. The Government of Australia cannot be truly national until it functions from its own home. The aspirations of Australia, as well as its Constitution, demand the creation of a Capital in whose serene air the national business may be conducted as remote from the influence of cities like Sydney and Melbourne as Washington is from that of Chicago or New York.
Senator Benny:
– Is it a fact that the electors of New South Wales accepted the Constitution when it did not contain provision for the establishment of the Federal Capital within the borders of that State?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– It is not a fact. Upon the occasion of the first referendum, New South Wales rejected the Constitution.
Senator Keating:
– She accepted it, but she did not obtain the majority for which provision was made in the Statute.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Consequently she rejected the Constitution upon the first occasion upon which a referendum was taken on the matter. When the electors of New South Wales accepted the Constitution, it did contain provision for the establishment of a Federal Capital within the borders of that State. In the course of a reply to a deputation upon this mat ter some little time ago, the Prime Minister stated -
Unless the Federal Government was established in its own home, it was in danger of being involved in a maelstrom of State politics and the clashing of State influences. America supplied us with as example.
I should now like to touch for a few moments upon another aspect of this question, which, so far as I am aware, has not previously been dealt with. References have been made to the choice of Washington, and to the creation of the district of Columbia in connexion with the building up of that great nation, the United States of America. Those who have read the history of the first twenty, thirty, or forty years of that country must be struck by its many points of similarity to our own history. There were State jealousies, threats of secession, and controversies regarding the capital site. The wise builders of the great American nation, therefore, decided that the Federal Capital should be established altogether outside the influences of the States.
Senator Earle:
– Was that the reason?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– As a result, Washington and the district of Columbia were chartered in the year 1803 - a little less than thirty years after the establishment of the United States Federation.
Senator Earle:
– Was not the main reason for establishing the Federal Capital at Washington a desire to obtain protection from attack by sea?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– If it were, the same reason would remain for us to-day.
Senator Keating:
– A much stronger reason to-day.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– That is so.
Senator Earle:
– The attack would be from the air.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– But coming, in the first place, from the sea. The city of Washington is co-extensive with the district of Columbia, which is 60 square miles in extent. When Washington was first established, it contained only about 8,000 or 9,000 people; but in 1860 the population was 61,000 ; it grew to 109,000 in 1870; 203,000 in 1885; 230,000 in 1890; and in 1920 it was 437,000. Ottawa was originally incorporated in 1827, and the population of the city municipality grew from 24,000 in 1871, to 31,000 in 1881; 44,000 in 1891; 59,000 in 1901; and in 1917 it was 101,000. The value of the old Parliament House, which I assume was the cost of it, was about £200,000. What is important also is that the assessment of Ottawa in 1913 was over £26,000,000; and in 1917, over £29,000,000.
I am trying to put up a reasonable business case for the building of our Federal Capital, and it will be interesting to make an analysis of unimprovedcapital values in two or three directions, to enable us to make some sort of guess or reasonable forecast of what will happen in the way of increment, which will eventually come to the Commonwealth, upon land in the Federal Territory. I have given figures for Ottawa, which do not directly bear upon the unimproved capital value position of the Federal Territory, because the assessment of Ottawa also includes improvements. But in Sydney and suburbs the unimproved capital value in 1907 was £39,791,000, or about £72 per head ; while on the 31st December, 1917, a little more than ten years afterwards, when the population had increased from 550,000 to 762,000, the unimproved capital value had gone up to nearly £68,000,000, or an average of £89 per head. To take an illustration at the other extreme, let me make a comparison with an average country town in New South Wales, such as Orange. There are about 7,000 people in Orange. The local government area consists of 1,325 acres, and the unimproved capital value is £335,000. We get, then, a creation of land values by 7,000 people at nearly £50 per head, and a creation of land values by 750,000 people in Sydney at approaching £100 per head.
In 1909, the Commonwealth Statist predicted that the population of Australia in 1920 would approximate 5,227,000 people. The actual population of Australia in March, 1920, was 5,274,000 people, or about 50,000 more than the Statist predicted over ten years ago. I think, therefore, we may pay a little attention to some figures that he gave in connexion with the possibilities of the Federal Capital to the then Minister, who I believe was Mr. (now Sir George) Fuller. Remember that these figures were given by the man who, ten years ago, made that marvellous prediction about the population of Aus tralia to-day. He estimated in 1909 that, for the then Commonwealth requirements, the minimum population that the Federal Capital could possibly carry was 8,000 people, .and that there would be a minimum increase of 4,000 people at the Capital for every addition of 1,000,000 to the population of the Commonwealth. He estimated that there would be over 6,000,000 people in Australia in 1930, and over 7,000,000 people in 1940. Starting, then, with a minimum population of 8,000 people in the Federal Capital, based on the Commonwealth requirements at the time he- made the prediction, he estimated that in ten years the extreme minimum population would be 12,000, and in twenty years 16,000. But since 1909, the Commonwealth activities may reasonably be said to have quite doubled; so that, based on the Statist’s figures, the minimum population with which we can start Canberra to-day to carry out all our functions of government, i.<s 16,000 persons. Again, based on the Statist’s figures, those 16,000 persons in ten years’ time will show a minimum increase of 50 per cent. Consequently, if we start the Federal Capital now, there must be in- Canberra in 1930 a population of nearly 25,000 people, based on the Statist’s computation. I have shown that in a small local government area like Orange 7,000 people have increased the unimproved value of land from nothing to £50 per head.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Then you admit that the Federal Capital land now is worth nothing?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Let me proceed with a further computation based on the figures I have given. If we are going to have in 1930 a minimum population of 25,000 people in the Federal Capital to carry on the services, administration, and government of the Commonwealth, the actual experience of Orange and other country towns proves that that population will add at least £50 per head to the unimproved capital value of the Territory, or an increment of £1,250,000. But it is reasonable to assume that they will add more than that, because, as I showed in the case of Sydney, a population adds value in a geometrical and not in an arithmetical ratio. That increment to the unimproved capital value will take place in a Territory of 900 square miles, or 600,000 acres in extent. In addition to this unearned increment, which will all accrue to the Commonwealth, we shall save a good many thousand pounds per year in rents that are paid in Melbourne. We shall save the total per capita tax on the whole of the population in the Federal Territory. We may reasonably assume that, capitalized, the Federal land will return the Commonwealth 5 per cent.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Does it do so in the Northern Territory?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The Northern Territory is no illustration of the present position. I am speaking of the addition that population gives to the value of land. Consequently, we approach the sum of £150,000 ner year which will accrue to, or be saved to, the Commonwealth as the result of removing the Seat of Government to Canberra. That represents interest on £3,000,000. I submit, therefore, that the Federal Capital will not cost the Commonwealth Government the many millions that some of its critics say it will.
As a business man, I think we have a liability to New South Wales that should be discharged. There are also other liabilities to which the Commonwealth is committed. We should convert this Federal Capital liability into an asset. No candidate dares to go upon any political platform in New South Wales, whatever party he belongs to, and say that he does not believe in carrying out the compact with regard to the Capital. Mr. Storey, the present Premier of New South Wales, said only a week or two ago in the New South Wales Parliament that his l abour Government would give every facility to the Commonwealth Government to get on with the work. The whole of the people of New South Wales, so far as their views are expressed by their political representatives, are unanimously in favour of going on with the work forthwith. The Capital will give some hope of decentralization. It has access to the sea so far as Jervis Bay is concerned. The New South Wales taxpayers themselves will pay half of the money that will be spent upon this scheme. We of New South Wales are the people who are concerned as a State, and we are the people who are chiefly concerned as taxpayers. I hope that this State’s House, formed originally by the Constitution to protect State rights, will take a larger minded view of this matter, and pass the item as one long overdue in connexion with the foundation of our Federal Constitution.
Senator EARLE: Tasmania
. As a second-reading debate has been started on this measure, I may be permitted to refer to certain items upon which I desire some further enlightenment. The first, I notice, is the proposed vote for the London office, £60,612. I should like to know the policy of the Government concerning Australia House and the London office generally ; whether, by the expenditures of this vote, it is intended to make the London office more characteristically Australian and more actively concerned with our interests than has been the, case for some years past. All the Tasmanian representatives in this Chamber have received an extensive letter from the Agent-General for Tasmania stating that Australia House might very well be used to a greater extent as an’ advertising medium for’ the products of Australia than it is to-day. He points out that there are several very fine display windows on the Strand side, and that at present these are used practically exclusively for the lighting of the banking chamber. The whole of these windows, as well as the main hall, he says, should be used for the display of Australian products in order to attract the attention of the millions of people who pass down the Strand. Honorable senators know that if people have to enter any special hall for the purpose of viewing products, the chances are they will not do so; but, that if these products are properly displayed in a convenient location, their attention will be drawn to them.
Senator Rowell:
– Have not most of the State Governments taken possession of Australia House?
Senator EARLE:
– They had not up till lately, at all events.
Senator Rowell:
– The Victorian Government secured one of the best sites.
Senator EARLE:
– The Agent-General for Tasmania states that the majority of the States are in the main hall.
Senator Keating:
– And I think he says that the whole of the windows on the Strand side are not even occupied.
Senator EARLE:
– That is so. And he draws attention particularly to the fact that if used as an advertising medium, they -would be of incalculable benefit to the Commonwealth, because then the people would be able to see the products as they passed along the Strand. They would then probably be induced to make further inquiries into the resources of the Commonwealth, whereas if _ they were required to make a special trip into some hall to view the products of this country probably they would never see them.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Why does not Tasmania secure some part of Australia House ?
Senator EARLE:
– The Government have done so. They were the first among the State Governments to recognise the value of Australia House; but, as Tasmania is a small community with a comparatively small business and small revenue, the cost, at that time, was too great; but they have now shifted from Victoria-street to Australia House., They recognised from the very beginning the desirability of the whole of the States being associated with Australia House.
I come now to the item £15,000 for Kirribilli House, Sydney. I have not the remotest idea what the vote is for, but if it is to be expended on a residence, already erected, for the Admiral, it seems to me a considerable sum of money.
Under the control of the Department of Works and Railways there is also a proposed vote of £14,787 for the Williamstown Ship Building Yards pumping plant. .In connexion with this matter, I would remind honorable senators that the Public Accounts Committee made an investigation recently and found that the work was not being carried out in the most economical manner. It is desirable, if the Commonwealth is to continue in the ship-building industry, to have ample room for the laying down of three, four, or five ships instead of only two, so that the overhead charges may be spread over the whole of the operations. The question which exercises my mind is the suitability. of Williamstown as a shipbuilding yard. I should like to know if the Government have made inquiries as to the possibility of purchasing more land at Williamstown to allow of an extension of the yards to provide for the most modern system of shipbuilding, including, the use of overhead cranes, and to make it possible to lay down at least three, and, for preference, four, keels at’ one time. If they have made these inquiries and find that they cannot get a - sufficient area at Williamstown, the best thing they can do is to shift operations to some other locality, because the local conditions at Williamstown are by no means favorable, the rise and fall of the tide being only about 3 feet. Its principal recommendation, of course, is its proximity to a large population.
The next item to which -I desire to refer is that mentioned by Senator Pratten, at some length. The honorable senator’s address was reminiscent of the past. Tt was historical, interesting, and reminded us forcibly ox our obligations under the Constitution. We are, no, doubt, all agreed upon that point, but I should like to state my own position. An obligation is imposed on us by the Constitution to proceed with the building of the Capital City, but in my opinion the condition is a foolish one and should never have been inserted in the Constitution. Some time ago I threw out a. suggestion that, even at this late hour, if the Government are not too far involvedin construction works at the Capital site, the whole position might be reviewed.
Senator Russell:
– We are only involved by the action of this Parliament.
Senator BENNY:
– Sometimes it is better to cut the loss.
Senator EARLE:
– ‘The main reason for the establishment of an inland capital - I refer to the danger of attack from the sea - has now been removed. An enemy would not now attack a capital city from the sea only, but from the air as well, and so I suggest that a referendum be taken of the people in New South Wales to see if they are agreeable to an amendment of the Constitution, to provide that the Seat of Government be fta Sydney, or to allow it to remain where it is. I do not care personally.
Senator Duncan:
– You could not leave the settlement of that question to the people of New South Wales alone.
Senator EARLE:
-Let me finish what I intended to say.. After we had obtained the opinion of the people of Nev/ South Wales, the question could then be submitted to the whole of the people, who alone have the power to amend the Constitution. I shall be quite satisfied with their decision.
Senator Duncan:
– A referendum would cost as much as the amount on the Estimates.
Senator EARLE:
– No; it could be taken at a suitable time, and the cost of a special referendum thus avoided.
Senator Russell:
-What kind of a judgment would we get from such an appeal?
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– Order! A discussion along the lines now being taken is entirely out of order. I allowed Senator Pratten to discuss, in some detail, the minor provisions of the schedule, and I cannot therefore very well prevent Senator Earle.
Senator Earle:
-I do not want to continue, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT:
– I merely wish to point out that if every other honorable senator were allowed to debate the Bill and schedule in detail the discussion on the second reading would be interminable. I draw the attention of honorable senators to the practice laid down in the latest edition of May, page 356 -
The second reading is the most important stage through which the Bill is required to pass, for its whole principle is then at issue, and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House: though it is not regular on this occasion to discuss, in detail, its several clauses, and this principle has been enforced. . . .
The practice is quite clear. It was entirely my fault that I allowed Senator Pratten to make an extended reference to certain items in the schedule, and therefore I do not propose to limit . Senator Earle; but I must remind honorable senators that detailed discussion of every item is not in order at this stage of the Bill.
Senator EARLE:
– I agree with your ruling, Mr. President, and bow to your decision. I felt that we were indulging in rather a detailed discussion. All I am going to say, in conclusion, on this question is, that the present is the very worst time for the Government to indulge in expenditure on the Federal Capital. All the material required for the construction of the Federal Capital, which it is proposed to purchase with the £150,000, is at present at inflated values, and the expenditure of the amount I have mentioned, if deferred for a few years, would do 50 per cent. more than it can to-day.
Thereis also another point of great importance. The time is not far distant when this Parliament will be called upon to find employment for a large number of Australian people. To-day there is undoubtedly a dearth of labour in Australia, but the occasion may arise when the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliaments of everyState willhave to find work for the people, and we would be fortunate indeed if we had the amount that is set down in the schedule for the Federal Capital to expend in this direction. While recognising the justice and accuracy of Senator Pratten’s statement, I appeal to him to agree to this item being deferred to a more opportune time. For the reasons given, it is my intention to record my vote against the expenditure.
There is also an item dealing with the erection of cottages at Lithgow. The amount already available under appropriations made by previous Acts is £29,858, and we are appropriating under this measure an additional £18,923. I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) to give the Senate some information on this particular item, as I am anxious to ascertain whether, in connexion with the construction of these cottages, a system of modern town planning is being followed.
Senator Plain:
– Absolutely.
Senator EARLE:
– I am glad to have that assurance, because there are many places in Australia where extensive building operations are proceeding, and where the most modern practice is not being adopted. I shall not inflict any further punishment upon theSenate, but will record my vote as I have indicated on one particular item, and will be guided on the others by the explanation of the Minister.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Mr. President, do I understand that we are not allowed at this juncture to discuss the items in the schedule in detail, particularly as regards the contemplated waste of money in a certain direction?
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– The honorable senator will be quite in order in referring to itemsin the schedule, but he cannot discuss each item in detail on the second reading.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I think it would be wise to adjourn the debate at this stage, ‘because we are being asked to sanction the expenditure of an amount of £4,286j490 without having had an opportunity of giving the items of expenditure the close attention they deserve. Honorable senators representing Queensland and Victoria are nearly all absent, helping their own party in the Queensland State election campaign. This measure has only just been circulated, and,’ as an enormous expenditure of money is involved, I shall be glad if the Minister will be prepared to grant an adjournment at this juncture.
The PRESIDENT:
– As the honorable senator has already commenced his speech, he cannot now move the adjournment of the debate, but can ask leave to continue his remarks, which really amounts to the same thing.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Then I ask leave to continue.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I do not understand the position.
The PRESIDENT:
– What is being asked for is equivalent to an adjournment of the debate; and, if that is granted, the Government will ‘then proceed with the next item of business on the notice-p.aper. When Senator Earle concluded his remarks, it was open to Senator Guthrie to move the adjournment of the debate, but he did not adopt that course. He is now asking for leave to continue, which will amount to the same thing, as the debate will automatically be adjourned if the’ Senate so agrees.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Would I be in order, Mr. President, at this stage, in making a few remarks?
The PRESIDENT:
– No. In order to make the position quite clear, I may explain that Senator Guthrie has asked for leave to continue his remarks. Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the honorable senator have leave to continue his remarks on the resumption of the debate?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No.
The PRESIDENT:
– As the decision of the Senate must be unanimous, I ask Senator Guthrie to proceed.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Senator Pratten has delivered an able speech from his point of view. ‘He is a keen representative of the State of
New South Wales, and one can understand his attitude on the question of commencing work at Canberra. Going through the items in the schedule, we see that there is an amount of £150,000 for temporary buildings in the Federal Territory; but surely the time is not opportune for an expenditure of such magnitude, which cannot be considered reproductive. We are up to our eyes in debt, and have a huge external obligation. The Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook), in hia Budget speech, time and again referred to our enormous debt, and to the necessity for economy. We know that Australia’s total external debt is £656,000,000, or £131 per head of population. The Treasurer, in his Budget speech, says on page 5, “ We shall act prudently if we brace ourselves meantime to the alternative of paying our own debts.” Later he says, “ Greater production, less consumption of goods, and reduced expenditure, both public and private.” In face of these very wise remarks of the Treasurer, it appears that a keen attempt is being engineered, no doubt by the Federal Capital League of New South Wales, to, as Senator Fairbairn has said by interjection, “bullock” this item through, and at a time when the Victorian and Queensland representatives in the Senate are away helping our own party in a strenuous election campaign. As regards our own debt we are indebted , to the British Government for money paid in connexion with our soldiers and sailors, approximately £42,000,000. Again referring to the necessity for economy, the Treasurer, in his Budget speech, on page 23, under the heading of “Economy,” says -
There is considerable public opinion, which is urgently asking for economy in the shape of large reductions in Government expenditure. With this there should be no quarrel.
That is the opinion of the Treasurer. On page 24 he further states -
Over all there is a very serious extra cost of commodities to be faced. Nearly all of the very large supplies of stores and materials which are used in Government Departments have greatly increased in cost.
That is a very strong argument against the expenditure of this money on temporary buildings at Canberra, but we are setting out to waste a very large sum on building a bush capital at a time when all the material required is at its very highest cost, higher, in fact, than it has ever been in our history.
Senator de Largie:
– It will still be a bush capital when it is completed.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– It will always be bush. I do not believe in the policy, but I presume it has to be carried out at some time. It is not wise to proceed with the work at present, because the position is totally different to what it was before the war. No one knew that we were to be engaged in such a conflict at so great a cost, and it could not be perceived in the early days of Federation that we were to be loaded up with a huge debt that may be very difficult to liquidate. It is absurd for the representatives of the Government, or any honorable senators, to take the public platform and refer to the need for economy, and then advocate the spending of millions on a bush capital. I do not approach this question in a parochial spirit, and I realize that some honorable senators may think that, because I represent the State of Victoria, I am opposed to the Federal Capital being constructed in New South Wales. That is not my attitude. I would not protest if the Seat of Government were transferred to Sydney, but I do object to unnecessary expenditure of the taxpayers’ money at such a critical time in our national history. The whole thing is reeking with extravagance. We are, as it were, on the crest of the wave, and Australia, both publicly and privately, is living beyond her means. I was glad to see that New South Wales was not altogether unanimous on this question, because, last week, two or three resolutions were carried in New South Wales protesting against the expenditure of the money on useless unproductive public works.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The honorable senator can only name one authority that has protested.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Instead of throwing away £150,000 on iron huts at Canberra, when iron is at a very high price, we should be spending money on such reproductive works as the conservation and distribution of water, which should really be our religion in this country, and on railways and immigration. There is a paltry sum of £100,000 for immigration. We are holding a great empty continent, and at a time when population is necessary in the interests of production, and for defence purposes, we are not spending nearly sufficient on immigration. The cheapest way to defend the country is to populate it.
Senator Russell:
– That amount is to cover only a few months.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– What period will expenditure of £150,000 on the Federal Capital cover? This is merely a commencement. In relation to the necessity for population, which is more important than anything else, I desire to quote the latest figures of the Government Statist. The Commonwealth consists of 2,974,581 square miles, and we have a population of 5,247,019, or 1.76 persons to the square mile. Victoria has 17.02 persons to the square mile - an easy first; Tasmania has 8.27; and New South Wales 6.47. The Northern Territory has . 009.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– I cannot allow the honorable senator to proceed, as his remarks have not a direct bearing on any items in the schedule.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I was endeavouring to show that it is unnecessary to waste public money by spending £150,000 on a bush capital when it could be more effectively spent in other ways. There is no public outcry for the “ bush “ capital, but quite the reverse. The whole trouble in connexion with this matter is due to two curses that are afflicting New South Wales; that is to say, the Millions Club, composed of people who desire that there should be a million people crowded in one city instead of being scattered over the. country, and the Federal Capital League. Already no less than £1,738,000 of the people’s money has been squandered by the Government on this project. We heard that from Senator Pratten this morning.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The honorable senator did not hear the word ‘’ squandered “ from me.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– No, I added that word myself.”
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– I have already ruled that there cannot be a prolonged debate on this matter on the second reading of the Bill, and I have allowed one honorable senator to reply to Senator Pratten. Whilst a passing reference to particular items in the schedule to the Bill is in order, each of the items cannot he discussed in detail at this stage. To permit that to be done would only lead to duplicating discussion and to debate on the measure being interminably prolonged. There will be plenty of opportunity for honorable senators to discuss the item that has been referred’ to when the Bill is being considered in Committee.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I do not quite realize how far I am permitted to go in opposing the proposed expenditure in the Federal Territory. I am at a disadvantage in not knowing to what extent I may discuss the matter now.
Senator Buzacott:
– Let the honorable senator ask leave to continue his remarks.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I ask that I may have leave to continue my remarks.
The PRESIDENT:
– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that Senator Guthrie have leave to continue his remarks?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No.
The PRESIDENT:
– The leave must be unanimous, and as Senator Pratten has expressed his dissent, Senator Guthrie must proceed.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Perhaps Senator Guthrie will explain the reason why he asks for leave to continue his remarks.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I simply wish to make my protest, as a member of the Senate, against this item of expenditure.
Senator de Largie:
– That is not much of a reason.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I ask for an adjournment of the debate because the item is of so much importance, and several honorable senators representing Queensland and Victoria are absent upon public business.
Senator Duncan:
– They have been paired, and there are two Ministers absent.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I am at a disadvantage as a new member of the Senate if I am not granted leave to continue my address.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– How would that help the honorable senator?
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– It would help me, because I wish to prove that I am right in this matter and that Senator Pratten is wrong.
Senator Duncan:
– Why not do it now?
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Because I can speak for only a few minutes on this particular item.
Senator Duncan:
– The honorable senator can do no more if he is given the adjournment of the debate.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Very well, I shall go on until I am pulled up again.
I say with respect to this huge expenditure of £1,738,000 on the Federal Territory that, as a business principle, the first loss is the best, and we should not continue such expenditure. I notice that the Labour party are not in favour of it. It will be of no advantage to them. I find at page 3169 of Hansard that Mr. Considine, the member for Barrier, said -
It makes no difference to the working man of Australia whether the Capital is at Broken Hill, Canberra, Newcastle, . or Melbourne.
A representative of a Victorian constituency in another place said that, rather than continue the waste of money at Canberra, he would let New South Wales have the Capital in Sydney.
One statement made by Senator Pratten has my support, and that is his reference to the fact that what we need in Australia is decentralization. I remind the honorable senator, however, that whilst the Federal Territory at Canberra comprises an area of 900 square miles, the area of another Federal Territory, the Northern Territory, is 523,620 square miles, and we should be doing more for the policy of decentralization, and would be further removed from the bogy of the press if the Federal Capital were established at Newcastle Waters, or. at the Government “Freak” Farm, at Batchelor.We might, at the same time, introduce a tax on bachelors.
On the subject of economy, and the present disturbed state of finance throughout the world, including Australia, I might direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that recently an international memorial was addressed by a representative of each of the following countries to their Governments: - United Kingdom, United States of America, France, Holland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, in which the following clause was contained : -
There can be no social or economic future for any country which adopts a policy of meeting its current expenditure by the continuous inflation of its circulation, and by increasing its interest-bearing debt without a corresponding increase in its tangible assets.
I say that to erect at Canberra a number of unnecessary buildings, and particularly temporary buildings, which in time will become valueless–
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– I am afraid that the honorable senator is again disobeying my ruling by discussing in detail a particular item of the schedule.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I ask leave to continue.
The PRESIDENT:
– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that Senator Guthrie have leave to continue his remarks ?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– May I ask what would be the result if leave were given ?
The PRESIDENT:
– It would be equivalent to an adjournment of the debate, and a particular date would have to be set down for the resumption of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the Senate that Senator Guthrie have leave to continue his remarks?
Senator Cox:
– No.
The PRESIDENT:
– The leave must, be unanimous. The honorable senator must proceed.
Senator Duncan:
– The honorable senator can refer to the matter in Committee.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– If I deal with the matter in Committee, I may have to cease speaking when I have but half completed what I desire to say.
In my opinion, temporary buildings erected at Canberra cannot be regarded as a tangible asset. Much of the present prosperity in Australia is artificial. We are all too optimistic. The seasonal position is good, but we must remember that enormous losses of stock have taken place. In 1891 we had in Australia 106,000,000 sheep. To-day we have only 76,000.000. This represents a decrease of 30,000,000 head of sheep. We are living in a fools’ paradise, and in conditions of inflated prosperity, due largely to the circulation of too much paper money.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Our sheep may be worth to-day twice what they were previously worth.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– That may lie so, but it is due to the intelligence of
Australian sheep breeders, who have proved themselves past masters at their work. We are now looking forward to an enormous income from wheat. But, whilst the crops are looking well, you have ‘never got” wheat until you have it in the bag.
I take exception to item after item in the schedule to this Bill, and I wish to protest against the extravagance of the Government in expenditure. Not enough consideration is .given to items of expenditure, and if “we go on spending in the ratio of the past, and have strikes and a . slowing-down policy as well, we have a very bad time ahead of us. I think that we should drop parochialism, and all pull together to economize and produce. If we continue this extravagance we must look for trouble. Extravagance by the Government will lead to a financial crisis, and a financial crisis breeds the very gravest form of discontent. We have a much more serious political, financial, and industrial time ahead of us in Australia than people are generally inclined to think, because we are enjoying an inflated prosperity at the present time, and I wish again to protest against this unnecessary expenditure of money upon temporary buildings at Canberra.
Motion (by Senator Bolton) proposed -
That the debate be now adjourned.
Question put. The Senate divided.-
AYES: 10
NOES: 11
Majority . . . . 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Senator ELLIOTT: Victoria
– I am disappointed at the attitude adopted by the Minister in regard to the request for an adjournment of the debate.
Senator Russell:
– I think that the Minister has a grievance against supporters of the Government for not having consulted him in this matter.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– It is well known to honorable senators that many members of the Senate are absent upon political business elsewhere.
Senator Earle:
– They are paid to be here.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– There are very important reasons why they are absent, and it would be a fair thing if the VicePresident of the Executive Council(Senator Russell) afforded them an opportunity of being present to vote upon this measure. -
Senator Russell:
– Put private business before public business? I would not think of it for a moment.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– Those honorable senators are engaged upon public business at the present time. All the Queensland representatives are absent, and so are the Victorian representatives in this Chamber.
SenatorThomas.- There are five Victorian senators present out of six.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– At any rate, a great many honorable senators are absent.
Senator Keating:
– They all knew that this matter was coming up for discussion.
Senator Russell:
– The Queensland senators certainly knew it, because I have been receiving wires from then.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Were they asking foran adjournment of the debate?
Senator ELLIOTT:
-I know that they have asked for pairs upon this question, and that their request has boon refused. I am greatly disappointed with the attitude that has been taken up by the Vice-President of the Executive Council upon this matter.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Eon. T. Givens) . -The honorable senator is not in order in discussing the question of an adjournment of the debate. He must confine his remarks to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– When we were invited to support the Ministry at the recent elections, one of the main planks in their platform was that the strictest economy would be observed during this session.
Senator Duncan:
– And another of the main planks was that the work of building the Federal Capital at Canberra should be proceeded with.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– So far as I am aware that matter was never mentioned.
SenatorDuncan. - Look at plank 12 of the party platform; to which the honorable senator himself subscribed, and upon which he was elected.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I never saw it.
SenatorDuncan. - The honorable senator says that he was elected upon a platform which he never saw.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– The pledge to observe economy given by the Ministry at the recent elections is not being respected. I feel very strongly upon this matter of proceeding with the building of the Federal Capital at Canberra.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The expenditure of the other £4,000,000 provided for in the Bill is all right?
Senator ELLIOTT:
-It is very difficult for a private member to put his finger upon any spot, and to say that too much money is being expended here or there. ‘-But, obviously, the proposed expenditure upon the Federal Capital is quite unnecessary. “When we find the Government disregarding an opportunity to save £150,000 or £160,000, we naturally look with great anxiety upon the other items in the schedule to the Bill - items about which it is not possible to gain. adequate information, and upon which, therefore, one is not qualified- to speak. Take, for example, the proposed expenditure of £64,000 upon the London offices. Are we in a position to say whether that expenditure is warranted? We can only assume, from the attitude of the Government with regard to the operations at Canberra, that they are equally indifferent to the welfare of the country in other directions.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Did the honorable senator subscribe to the Bendigo platform atthe last election?
Senator ELLIOTT:
– I certainly did not support any proposal for expenditure upon the Federal Capital.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Did not the honorable senator say that he agreed with the Prime Minister and with the policy of the National party?
Senator ELLIOTT:
– I do not know what Senator Pratten signed, but I certainly signed no platform whatever.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I did not ask the honorable, senator what he signed, but what he said.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
– Order! Senator Elliott has a right to be heard in silence.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Did the honorable senator ever support the Bendigo platform?
Senator ELLIOTT:
– I gave a general support to the policy of the Ministry, but I did not support any expenditure upon Canberra. ‘ In fact, I feel so strongly upon this matterthat I have no desire to sit behind the Ministry if they are going to incur this expenditure. I would rather form a party of my own.
Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– We shall join the Country party.
Senator ELLIOTT:
– I again express my profound dissatisfaction with the general policy of the Government in this regard.
Senator FAIRBAIRN: Victoria
– I suppose that it is useless to appeal to the Vice-President of the Executive Council for an adjournment of the debate?
Senator Russell:
– When honorable senators had an opportunity to appeal to me they did not do so.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Well, I am now appealing to the Minister because I do not wish to take the businessout of his hands, especially when his two colleagues are absent But seeing that our finances are in such a straightened condition, this matter certainly demands the fullest discussion.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– We wanted to save £750,000 yesterday, but the honorable senator voted against our proposal.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I do not know to what the honorable senator is referring. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council will not consent to an adjournment of the debate I shall have to join Senator Elliott’s party.
Senator Cox:
– Make it a Victorian party.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– It will notbe a Victorian party, because it will embrace representatives of a good many other States. We certainly do not desire to rush expenditure, and I am afraid that the Government are not treating the financial position of the Commonwealth in the serious way that it deserves to he treated.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Why not make these remarks upon the Budget ?
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I should like to make my own remarks in my own way, and without a hint from my colleagues I am here to represent Victoria - the garden State of the Commonwealth. In looking over the items contained in the schedule to’ this Bill, I feel bound to ask myself how the Government have arranged their financial policy. I understood that they intended to borrow only for reproductive public works.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Canberra willbe a reproductive work.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Bother Canberra. The honorable senator has Canberra upon the brain. The Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook)’ has declaredthat the policy of the Government is to borrow only for reproductive works. Yet the very first item thatI notice in the schedule is one for the expenditure of £40,500 upon a research laboratory at Maribyr- nong.
Senator Russell:
– That is to provide ammunition for the Defence Department.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– That will not be a reproductive public work, and, consequently, the money for it should be provided out of revenue. Is the £4,000,000 odd, which is to be expended under this Bill, to be taken out of the last loan that we floated ?
Senator Russell:
– No. This Bill is intended to authorize the flotation of a fresh loan of £3,000,000 odd for various public works.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Is the money to be raised locally?
Senator Russell:
– We mustleave that to the discretion of the Treasurer.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Then I understand that the money for which provision is made in this Bill will be expended only after it has beneborrowed?
Senator Russell:
– That is so.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– We are now reading a stage in our history when we shall find,it impossible to borrow any more money, and, that being the case, the building of theCapital City at Canberra must be a work of the distant future. The Bill ‘also provides for an expenditure of £187,000 upon Naval bases: This money should also come out of revenue, because Naval bases cannot be said to be’ reproductive works’ in any sense of the term. It is further intended to expend £100,000 upon the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway. . Nobody can call that a reproductive work.
Senator Russell:
– The honorable senator must recollect that a great portion of that line is not ballasted.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I agree with the Vice-President of the Executive Council that the ballasting of the line should be proceeded with, but I contend that the money for the work should come out of revenue. Then it is proposed to expend £6,000 upon the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta railway. That is nota very large amount, but I suppose its expenditure is merely for the purpose of keeping the line in repair. Ought we to borrow money to expend upon works of this description . seeing that they are. not of a reproductive character?
Senator Russell:
– Does the honorable senator say that a railway is not a reproductive work?
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– There is a huge deficit upon the working of the Oodnadatta railway every year.
Senator Russell:
– I never heard of a man who expected that line to pay when it was built. ‘ It was constructed with a national object in view.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– But the expenditure upon it should come out of revenue. That is my point.
Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The honorable senator has no objection to work at Canberra being proceeded with if it be paid for out of revenue?
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I would not have so much objection to it then. But I have not come to Canberra yet. I shall be glad if the honorable senator will permit me to “continue my conversation,” if I may be permitted to use the words that were employed by a friend of mine in another place. I object to the amount which it is proposed to expend upon the London Offices. I do not knowhow the £64,000 provided for in the Bill is to be spent.
Senator Russell:
– We had three floors which we let temporarily to the Departments in England. Their tenancy has now been terminated.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Did the Prime Minister look into this matter when he was at Home? Three floors must be agood part of the building. Here is another £64,000 on the London Office. My goodness! No doubt the office is a splendid advertisement, situated, as it is, in one of the finest parts of the city of London, but I thought we had done with the expenditure on it. I wonder what return we shall get.
Senator Rowell:
– They will be able to let a large part of tie building for offices.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I suppose so.
Senator Russell:
– Most of the States are negotiating for space there for exhibitions of their goods.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– We should have some sort of estimate before passing this money, because we are, after all, the custodians of the public purse. We ought to know what interest this £64,000 will earn.
Senator Russell:
– It is to complete the job that has been going on for three or four years, and that was delayed by the war. You have had the estimates in full detail. We would not start to put up a new building in London now, but we have to finish the one that is partly built.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– The matter has arisen so suddenly that I have not had time to look up the details.
Senator Russell:
– All these things have been in the Budget Papers for about five weeks.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– I suppose I have to swallow them whole.. I have mentioned some items of which I should like an account.
Senator Russell:
– I will give you all the detail you want about any of them in Committee.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– There is an item for a residence for the medical officer at Thursday Island. ‘ Are we. to have a special medical man there, with a special residence?
Senator.Russell. - We always do it. He is the quarantine doctor.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-Does he not live at the hotel now? Are we to launch out in the expenditure of another £1,000, which will not . build a house at Thursday Island fit for a doctor to live in? It is a most expensive place for building, and this amount will be only a first- -instalment. Later on we shall have to swallow another vote.
Senator Russell:
– This . is the complete vote. It is the purchase price of a property which is suitable.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– That is not so objectionable.
I notice that we are to build more lighthouses. I suppose they are required, because I understand that the lights on the Australian coast are very deficient.
Senator Russell:
– We want about four times as many as we have now.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– There are also alterations to lighthouses ; but, no doubt, those are necessary. The items I have mentioned; such as the London Office, Kalgoorlie to Fort Augusta Railway, and the Port) Augusta to Oodnadatta Railway, I should like to see transferred from Loan Account to Revenue Account. Then we should be paying our way, and know where we. were.
There are also debatable items connected with the Capital at Canberra, which Senator Pratten has put forward in a very moderate light, lie put it as a fair business proposition, but no doubt a great deal of sentiment attaches to it also. We have made a bargain, and our hands are, to some extent, tied; but when we made that bargain the people of New South Wales, had no idea that such a terrible war was going to intervene, and that we would have to spend such: an ‘immense sum of money on the Federal Capital. Mr. Watt estimated it at £ 3,000,000. Senator Pratten calculated that 16,000 people would go there right away when the Capital was opened up.. The housing accommodation alone for 16,000 people would come, at present prices, to about £3,000,000 more.
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– But it will not all be paid by the Government. . Those 16,000 people are principally civilians.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– The whole lot of them will be officials. Nobody is going to live at Canberra if he can possibly help it.
Senator ‘ Thomas__ Have you been there?
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– Ihave been within a few miles of it, but havenever; been actually there. What class of people do honorable senators expect will’ live there?
Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The butchers, the bilkers, and the candlestickmakers, and the hundred and one different people who make up a large city.
Senator FAIRBAIRN:
– There will not be a candle in the whole place, but do doubt there will bo a lot of “gas.’’
The people of New South. Wales never contemplated that we would owe. such a huge sum of money as the Commonwealth now. does. . We owe at the present time. £437,500,000, including the note issue.
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- And you are kicking up a row about £150,000!
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- Yes. **Senator Thomas** could never have been in straitened circumstances or he would know that the time when a man really has to save is when he owes a lot of money. It is not a matter for joking, when we find that the Federal debt amounts, including the note issue, to £437,500,000. Of course, there are many assets against it, but we may say that that is the absolute . debt. No New South Wales man, when he voted for the Federal. Capital site, contemplated or . ever dreamed - although he might have had a nightmare - that this country would owe such an enormous sum.
There is no doubt that Australia has had a dreadful time in every way during the war, and its people have been greatly handicapped. So far as the Empire is concerned, we are the hardest hit part in every possible way. Our situation cannot be compared with that of Canada, which made good money out of the war.
{: .speaker-JRT}
##### Senator Cox:
-- Did not we make good money out of it?
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- We certainly did not. What is the use of making good money when it all goes in taxation? I am surprised at the honorable senator's interjection. State and Federal income taxation in Queensland, on the top rates, is11s. 6d. in the £1, and a great number of other things, not included in income taxation, have to be met out of income. Australia, both in the number of our poor fellows who were killed, and the number wounded, was, next to Great Britain, the hardest hit part of the Empire, and, from a financial point of view, I can produce figures to show that we have been at least as hard hit, and that we owe as much, on account of the war, as the Old Country herself. Canada actually made money out of the war. Her income tax is only £2,000,000.
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- Do you mean that we owe as much per head for the war as the people of England do?
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- Very nearly, when we take off what England advanced to other countries, although some of that she may not get back. Taking those amounts off, she owes only about £4,000,000,000 owing to the war. Dividing that by ten gives £400,000,000, and that is about what we in Australia have spent on the war in one way and another. I will give these figures more in detail on the Budget, when honorable senators will find that, from every point of view, Australia has been very hard hit through the war. Years ago nobody contemplated anything of that sort. The New South Wales people had no idea of it when they voted for a big expenditure on Canberra. We shall have to borrow all this money. What is the good of making two bites at a cherry? What is the use of spending a little money now to build workmen's homes, ( many of which will have to be removed later on to make room for more permanent buildings? What is the good of doing this until we know whether we can go on and finish the job? It is not likely that we can finish it for many years to come. No doubt we must keep the bargain with New South Wales.
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- You have been twenty years over it already.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- But the war intervened. We were going on to keep the bargain 'in an honorable fashion when the war came along, and we had not the money to do it. At one time we did not know whether this country was not going to belong to Germany. Look at what a legacy the war has left to us ! Look at the mass of debt that is hanging over us ! It is a terrible incubus, which will continue for generations.
{: .speaker-K1W}
##### Senator Benny:
-- Perhaps New South Wales will cancel an " unconscionable bargain."
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- Just the same as South Australia, will cancel the NorthSouth Railway.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- When the matter is put properly before the people of New South Wales, and they are told that it will mean a tremendous addition to their income tax, I think we shall find that they have changed their minds about it.
**Senator Pratten** read us some extracts from Sydney newspapers, giving the Sydney feeling. They are the mildest things I ever heard. They are nothing like the comments of twenty years ago. The feeling of jealousy be tween New South Wales and Victoria is dying out. We are now all Australians.
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator de Largie:
-- Why don't they follow the good example of the *Age,* for instance?
{: .speaker-JXV}
##### Senator NEWLANDS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
-- We know where the *Age* is on this matter.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- The *Age* generally knows where it is.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- The *Age* is not Victoria.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- Of course it is not. If the matter had to be decided to-day the position would be very different. No frightful expenditure of another £3,000,000 would be sanctioned. A move of this sort means swapping horses as we are crossing the stream. The people know now where to find some of the Commonwealth offices, although they are scattered about in a terrible fashion, but if they were closed up and taken to Canberra, when we are facing the terrible financial load, I do not know where the people would be. We shall have to borrow this £3,000,000, because the money cannot possibly come out of revenue. There is no revenue left for it to come out of. If the New South Wales people were told the facts, they would say, " We want to help the people of the other States; we do not want to impose a huge burden on them. We must see that no burden beyond what we can bear is placed upon ourselves and them." That is the view that the high-spirited people of New South Wales would take.
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- You should have heard them at the last election. If we had not given definite pledges, not one of us would have been here.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- We should have missed the new senators very much, but I would not take the pessimistic view that the honorable senator does.
I would urge our Sydney . friends to think the matter over again seriously. What is the good of spending a wretched little amount like £150,000 in a year or two?
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- Move an amendment to make it a million - something worth while.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- I cannot, at this stage, because the extra £150,000 may be just the extra straw that breaks the camel's back. It may be just the little thing that will bring the general financial edifice to the ground.
*Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.3G p.m.*
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- It is not my intention to detain the Senate very much longer. I have put the grave financial position of Australia as clearly as I caD to honorable senators, and I feel sure that if it were made abundantly clear to the people of New South Wales, they would not be any more inclined than are other people in the Commonwealth to borrow another £4,000,000. We can see by the market quotations for 6 per cent, stock what rate of interest we are likely to pay for our money in future. Altogether, the financial situation seems to be surrounded by so many difficulties that we should not encumber ourselves further by expenditure which might, for very good reasons, be deferred to a later date. I have endeavoured to put this position as clearly as possible.
{: .speaker-K8L}
##### Senator THOMAS: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- You have done very well, so now let us have a vote on the Bill.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- I hope the representatives of New South Wales will put the position to their constituents as clearly as representatives of the other States have done in regard to their electors, and that they will realize that the present is not a time to incur an avoidable expenditure on top of the £25,000^000 which we understood was to be the last, except for repatriation work, that we should have to undertake for some time to come. This additional expenditure is not in accord with the policy of the Government. They are pledged to economy, and. to save every penny possible to meet our just liabilities.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s9 .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON: Victoria
**.- Mr. President-**
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
-- Order! I remind the honorable senator that he moved the adjournment of the debate. But evidently he was under a misapprehension as to his right to speak after he had resumed his seat, and, therefore, I shall allow him to proceed.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- I acknowledge your courtesy, **Mr. President.** In the present financial position- of the Commonwealth, it is essential that every item in a Bill of this nature which authorizes Parliament to raise and expend the sum of over £4,000,000 should be carefully reviewed.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- (Nobody has any objection to that course.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- The first item in the schedule is a proposed vote of £60,612 for the London Offices. I have heard a good deal about these offices, but have not seen them. I should imagine, however, from what I have heard, that, if properly administered, they should be a splendid advertisement for Australia. It has been said, that it is the intention of the Government, in the near future, to re-organize these offices at Australia House, and I think that a short time ago one member of the Government went to London with instructions to re-organize them on a practical basis.
The next item is £100,000 for subscription to capital of the Refinery Company in accordance with the Oil Agreement Act of 1920. I congratulate the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** upon what I regard as the most statesmanlike enactment passed by this Legislature. I have no objection to this expenditure.
Then there appears the sum of £2,500 for the Williamstown Shipbuilding Yards, buildings, plant, and machinery. I have no doubt that is all right, but honorable senators are at a disadvantage in that no details of the expenditure have' been furnished.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- I shall give you all the details you ask for in Committee, not on the second reading.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- Honorable senatorswould be very greatly assisted if these details were furnished, because they would then know what they were talking about.
Then I notice there is a vote of £20,000 as a loan to the Westralian Farmers Limited, for the erection of wheat silos, and other appliances. A good deal has been said for and against this proposition. I am inclined to agree with **Senator Fairbairn,** who says that if the Federal Government assist a private enterprise of this kind applications will be received from other organizations not anticipated at the present moment.
These four items under the control of the Prime Minister's Department represent a total proposed expenditure of £183,112.
Under the control of the Treasury, there appears a vote of £20,000 as a loan to Papua for public works. I must confess I would like very much to know more of this item. We merely have the bald statement of proposed expenditure. It would be helpful if we knew some of the details.
There are two other items under Home and Territories Department that I do not understand. One is "Land in Federal Capital Territory, £10,800." I always understood, and I think the people of Australia understood, also, that when the Federal Territory was handed over by the New South Wales Government, it came to the Commonwealth free of cost; but now we have a vote of £10,800 for payment in respect of certain lands in the Territory.The other item to which I refer is £15,000 for Kirribilli House, Sydney. Is that the Admiralty House?
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- Yes.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- Then does this vote represent rental?
{: .speaker-K1J}
##### Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- (No. It is for the fee-simple of the land.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- Well, we did not know that before.
I have no doubt that most of the items in the schedule are justifiable, but at present honorable senators have no information at all about them. I am in favour of a spending policy, provided expenditure is upon reproductive and developmental works. It is the duty of this Parliament to examine carefully all items of expenditure, particularly those that are not likely to be reproductive.
There is, under the Department of Works and Railways, a vote of £14,787 for the Williamstown Shipbuilding Yard pumping plant, £90,000 for Federal Capital Territory initial settlement, and £60,000 for preparatory work, or a total of £150,000. I have heard all that has been said to-day in connexion with this proposed expenditure. I can quite understand that Senators Pratten, Duncan, and Cox should support the vote for the Federal Capital, and pose as the champions of upright parliamentary conduct. They tell us that we are only asked to give effect to a certain promise. On the face of it, this seems a fair proposition, and I ask them to accept my assurance that I am not speaking in a spirit of animosity towards them when I say that they are merely doing what their supporters expect them to do.
{: .speaker-K1J}
##### Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- Hear, hear !
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- But this is a very serious matter. They should remember that the promise was made twenty years ago, and that we are dealing with it now in another day and generation. I recollect, quite well, when this issue was a burning question throughout the Commonwealth, and I remember, on one historical occasion, a visit to Ballarat by the late Hon. C. C. Kingston and the late **Sir George** Reid. At that time, it was practically a public secret that Ballarat was to be the Federal Capital, and I believe that city would have been chosen but for the indiscretion of our worthy mayor of that time. Many things have happened since the agreement as to the Seat of Government was arrived at, and I think the most encouraging feature about the whole matter now is the attitude of the New South Wales people themselves. I have interviewed many prominent business men in Sydney, and have been informed by them that the great majority of the people in New South Wales do not care two straws where the Seat of Government is.
{: .speaker-K1J}
##### Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- That is not correct.
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- If I thought that, I would not be very much concerned about the matter, I can assure the honorable senator.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- I can quite understand honorable senators, on a platform during an election, being pinned down to a definite promise by some individual; but it is quite a mistake to think that the issue is so vital. Prominent business and public men have informed me that the people of Australia, as a whole, do not care where the Federal Capital is. I consider **Senator Earle's** proposal a fair one.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
-- I ask the honorable senator not to discuss in detail the item relating to expenditure on the Federal Capital, because .he will not be in order in doing so. On the second reading he can only make a passing reference to any particular item in the schedule.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator Bolton:
-- Can I not refer to what has previously been said during the course of the debate?
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- I have already explained the position. I have allowed considerable latitude, and the honorable senator will be in order in making a passing reference to any particular item, but he cannot discuss in detail the items in the schedule, as he will be duplicating" the discussion which will, take place in Committee.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- Very well, I will summarize my remarks by saying that the circumstances and conditions which existed twenty years ago are not present to-day. When it was- decided to erect a Federal Capital, it was thought that it should be away from the sea-coast to be immune from attack from the sea. That condition, however, does not now exist, as has already been explained by some honorable senators. I am not in any way advocating a repudiation of an agreement which has been entered into, but we have to remember that it is the policy of the Government -to exercise economy in every possible way. It has frequently been stated from public platforms that economy in public expenditure is absolutely essential, and, in view of this, I do not see how we can justify the action of the Government in recommending the expenditure of such a large amount on work which cannot be regarded as reproductive. Under these circumstances, I consider the item unjustifiable, and shall record my vote against it. It is somewhat difficult for an honorable senator to advocate economy, because he will doubtless be twitted with the fact that he did not 'hesitate to increase his own salary. I know that all honorable senators are worth £1,000 per year; but I must confess that in view of the need for economy, my conscience has been somewhat twinged in receiving the extra remuneration. I strongly protest against the expenditure on the Federal Capital, and shall record my vote against it.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s10 .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR: South Australia
-- I regret exceedingly that no provision has been made in this Bill for an amendment to extend the north-south railway.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator Fairbairn:
-- Here is a representative of another State at work.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- Would it not be better for the honorable senator to confine his remarks to items that are in the schedule? There is no reference to the north-south railway in the Bill.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- That is what I am complaining of. Clause 2 of the Bill reads -
>The Treasurer may from time to time, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1918, or under the provisions of any Act authorizing the issue of Treasurybills, borrow moneys not exceeding in the whole the amount of £4,2S6,490.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- Provision for a work of the character mentioned would have been made in a special Act, and not in such a Bill as this.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- There are items in the schedule that should also be covered by special Acts. It must be admitted that the work to which I have referred is of an important national character. * **Senator Russell.** - What are the items to which the honorable senator is referring ?
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- Seeing that we are borrowing money for public works, and that a definite promise has been made to South Australia. - one that is as equally binding as. that to which reference has been . made by **Senator Pratten** - one would have thought that provision would have been made for it in this measure.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
-- I direct the honorable senator's attention to the fact that there is -a motion on the notice-paper in the name of **Senator Newland** dealing with that specific question, and I cannot allow him to discuss the question at this juncture, as he will be anticipating a discussion that has -to come on later.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- Then, I understand your ruling, **Mr. President,** is that, the motion in the name of **Senator Newland** prevents me from referring to the question at all ? Am I to be debarred ?
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- I am not debarring the honorable senator from making a passing reference to it, but I cannot allow him to devote the whole of his time to an item which, in the first place, is quite irrelevant because it is not covered by the Bill, and which, in the second place, is to be dealt with by a specific motionon the notice-paper in the name of **Senator Newland.** If the honorable senator is allowed to address himself at length to the north-south railway question, he will be anticipating the discussion that may take place on that motion, and may, perhaps, use arguments that would be brought forward by **Senator Newland** in support of his motion. It is distinctly out of order.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- Then, would I be in order in moving an amendment that an item be included ?
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- No.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- Then, I am forced to take up the attitude of voting against the items in the schedule, seeing that provision has not been made for a work of great importance,and on which a definite promise has been made.
{: .speaker-JXV}
##### Senator NEWLANDS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
-- To make sure that other honorable senators will vote against you when it is brought on.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- If that is the position, important questions are not to be considered from the national point of view, but merely from a parochial standpoint.
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- That is the attitude the honorable senator is adopting.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-No, it is not.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- Is that an offer to sell your vote?
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- No ; my vote is not for sale. In dealing with such items as are contained in the schedule, and realizing that a distinct promise has been made in connexion with the north-south railway, I am astonished to find that I am precluded from alluding to it, and that the discussion is to be limited. We should have the right, not only of discussing the items in the schedule, but those which should be included. I do not blame the representatives of New South Wales, because they are supporting the interests of their own State, and I am fighting for the interests of the State I assist in representing.
{: .speaker-K1J}
##### Senator PRATTEN: NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
-- But the proposal we are supporting is embodied in the Constitution.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- That does not make it sacrosanct. There is no limitation upon the value of promises of this character, and they should be as equally binding.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- They should be.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- I think I should be permitted to express my regret that no provision has been made in this measure for the important national work to which I have referred. It seems to be the real pivot on which this Bill is to revolve, if it is to revolve at all.
In connexion with the grant for carrying on the work at Canberra-
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- That amount is a mere detail when compared with the total amount covered by the Bill.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- It seems to me that the Senate is placed in an unfair position in discussing a Loan Bill if we are not allowed to refer to the details in the schedule until we reach the Committee stage. We have to pass the second reading without having any information as to the manner in which the money is to be expended. The Bill is for an amount of £4,286,490, and on one single item which absorbs £3,000,000 we have not had a two minutes' explanation from the Minister. Honorable senators will realize that our time in Committee is limited to a quarter of an hour, and that we have then to confine ourselves to a particular item. Honorable senators are prevented from discussing the Bill as a whole.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- The honorable senator must not misrepresent the position, as no honorable senator has been prevented from discussing the Bill as a whole or from referring to any particular item during the second-reading debate. What has been decided is in accordance with the proper parliamentary practice, and that is that no detailed discussion can be allowed on any particular item on the second reading. That is a wellrecognised parliamentary rule. The honorable senator hascomplained that honorable senators have not the right to discuss any particular item.It seems that there has been too much detailed discussion on some particular items, and no reference at all to others.
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator Senior:
-- Some honorable senators have been allowed greater latitude than others.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- I have already explained that it was my fault, and I asked to be excused. I committed an error, which I have admitted; but that is no reason why honorable senators should persist in following a course which is not in accordance with proper parliamentary practice.,
{: .speaker-K5R}
##### Senator SENIOR:
-- If that is the position, I have nothing further to say.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s11 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- It is not my intention to reply in detail to the statements made by honorable senators in discussing the second reading of this Bill. It would have been practically impossible for me to have given detailed information on every item during my second-reading speech. But the information is available, and will, if necessary, be supplied in Committee There are certain well-established parliamentary rules, which I have endeavoured to follow, and I am sure honorable senators will admit that the expenditure can be fully justified and satisfactorily explained when we are in Committee. During the whole of the debate there appears to have been too much of a desire to pit one State against another. It must be remembered that this is a National Parliament, and, whilst New South Wales representatives are anxious to quote the New South Wales .public opinion on an important question, as expressed in the press, they should also be ready to admit that newspaper reports can also convey the public opinion of Victoria. We should endeavour to be fair. One honorable senator said that to discover the morality of a man we must examine his teeth. Although I was not sufficiently advanced in years to vote on the Referendum Bill, I was in sympathy with the movement for the establishment of a Federal Capital. But the people of Australia - not a few, and not a section - entered into a compact with the people of New South Wales, and that arrangement can only be altered by the voice of the people. The Parliament has to honour that compact. The past generation of Victorians entered into this contract, and I am not going to be a contract breaker at the invitation of any one. At four different elections in Victoria, at one of which
I was returned at the top of the poll, I always gave the answer to questions on the subject of the establishment of the Federal Capital, that the people of Australia had deliberately entered into a contract in connexion with the matter, and whether it was good or bad I, as .a Minister of the Crown, would not consent to break it. As to whether it was a good or bad contract, I am prepared to say quite candidly that I personally would not have been a party to it. The majority of the people of Australia, by a large democratic vote, have, however, committed the Commonwealth to the contract, and no one can .break it now without being guilty of dishonorable conduct. Where contracts are made between Governments, our very civilization depends upon their being kept. What is wrong in the industrial world to-day but the disregard of contracts? What is wrong with international relations which create war but the dishonouring of treaties and the breaking of contracts? Let Governments fail to observe contracts made between them and other people, and it will be a case of God help our civilization, because its foundations will have gone.
I personally would prefer that the Federal Capital should be established at some more suitable place than Canberra, but we cannot continue to ignore the contract which has been made. The representatives of the people of Australia in this democratic Parliament, declared by a majority that the Federal Capital should be established in the district of Yass-Canberra. I stand by that vote. Whatever the merits of the selected site may be, I shall uphold my personal honour in giving effect to the contract which has been made, and which can be altered only by the people who made it.
This is a Loan Bill, and I hope that honorable senators will take a national view of its proposals.
{: .speaker-JYG}
##### Senator Elliott:
-- Will it be a compulsory loan?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- No, I am glad to say that the spirit of Australians is such that it is not necessary 'to use compulsion in connexion with these loans. I suppose that behind every War Loan there is a shadow of compulsion, but we need not discuss that, and Australians have shown themselves willing to respond with men, and with wealth when appealed to, to achieve a big purpose. I hope that the day will never come when it will be necessary to use compulsion in this country in connexion with these matters. I have said that we are bound, in my opinion, by a contract deliberately entered into, and by a vote of a majority of this Parliament, to establish the Federal Capital on the site which has been selected. That site was selected after great consideration, and I may say that I visited nearly all the sites that were suggested. If. after all that has transpired, the Government did nothing in this matter, they would be dishonoured as a body of men for failing to observe a contract.
Only one excuse can be put forward for hesitation in supporting the proposals of the Government in this Bill, and it is that because of the war and the condition of our finances, it may not be judicious to spend ' any large sum of money in fulfilling the contract with- respect to the Federal Capital at the present time.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Hear, hear!
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- I suggest to honorable senators who argue in that way that they should consider the position of residents of the Federal Capital Territory to-day. This Parliament has passed an Act under which the Commonwealth acquires the lands in that Territory at their value at the time when it was selected, and we have kept owners of the land in the Territory for nearly twenty years out of their money.
{: .speaker-JXV}
##### Senator NEWLANDS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
-- It is a shame.
SenatorRUSSELL. - Of the increase in the value of the land due to the Commonwealth expenditure, the owners are not to receive a penny, but much of the land has. still to be acquired. The position with respect to the acquisition of land in the Federal Capital Territory up to date is that we have acquired 203,054 acres, at a cost of £760,000. The area of unacquired freehold land in the Territory is 41,269 acres, and the area of unacquired land in process of alienation, under conditional purchase, or conditional lease, is 79,124 acres. This represents a total of 120,393 acres of land still unacquired in the Federal Territory. The estimated cost in 1917 of this balance of unacquired land was £328,000. No valuation has been made, and I have been informed that this estimate is only approximate. The revenue from the acquired lands is £35,43311s. 3d. I wonder what any member of the Senate would think of the position if he held £5,000 or £6,000 worth of land on the conditions on which land is held by people in the Federal Capital Territory. I think that honorable senators must agree that if we desire to do the honest thing by the holders of land in that Territory, we must give them their money, and take over their land at once. I know that I would never have stood the treatment to which they have been subjected for the last twenty years. I should, in similar circumstances, have been on the Government doorstep every year to know what was going to be done.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Pay them their money, but do not pay for useless iron.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- I have stated before that Commonwealth Ministers have been asked to work in dog boxes, and our public servants to carry on their duties in unhealthy offices, whilst we have been waiting for a home of our own. We have been afraid to take our courage in our hands, and provide proper office accommodation for Commonwealth servants. The complaint is often made 'that Melbourne desires the erection of permanent buildings by the Commonwealth for temporary occupation, but I can inform honorable senators that the accommodation provided in some of the offices occupied in Melbourne is an absolute disgrace. What is worse is that they are nearly all rented premises, and are costing us annually more than would pay the interest on the cost of constructing permanent suitable office accommodation. Members of this Parliament should be ashamed of the conditions under which some public servants are obliged to carry on their work.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator Bolton:
-- Would a removal to Canberra remedy that difficulty immediately ?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- I remember that, on one occasion, though a Minister of the Crown, I was accommodated in a box of a place about 10 feet by 12 feet, and members of the Public Works Committee, on a visit of inspection, were greatly surprised to find me there. I called it "the morgue," and I found, upon inquiry, that it had previously been used as an operating theatre.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- We shall need a number of them if we go to Canberra, and we shall require, a couple of asylums.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- We have to live somewhere. I appeal to honorable senators not to continue to view this matter from the point of view of a particular State. The newspapers of Melbourne do not express the real opinion of the people of Victoria on the question. Whenever it has been tested, they have shown that they are prepared to be true to the contracts they have made. I want honorable senators to say when they propose to redeem the promise which has been made. It is now twenty years since it was made.
{: .speaker-KUP}
##### Senator MILLEN: TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- And every day it will become more costly to redeem.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- That is so. Although no particular time for the redemption of the promise is specified in the Constitution, it was certainly understood that the Capital would be established within a reasonable time, and passing the work of its establishment on from1 one generation to another is not fair play. I am not an advocate of the spending of millions on the Federal Capital, but I say that we must observe the contract which has been made.
There is an area of 900 square miles in the Federal Capital Territory, and land there suitable for the settlement of returned soldiers, some of whom. I hope, will assist to develop it. I will not say that it is all good agricultural land, but it is all available for pastoral and other purposes, and honorable senators can understand what its possibilities are.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Why should it be so sparsely populated if it is not because it is miserable country?
{: .speaker-JXZ}
##### Senator Duncan:
-- The honorable senator cannot have been to Queanbeyan and other towns in the district.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- **Senator Guthrie** should adopt a definite course in the matter. He should stand by the contract made in the past, or should demand a referendum of the people to alter that contract. I shall not ask any one to break a contract made in good faith by the people of Australia. I ask honorable senators to take a national view of the matter. It is not a question of the interests of Melbourne, or of Sydney either, but of what honorable senators think necessary for the proper development of the Federation. I need not refer in detail to what other Federations have done. They have selected neutral sites for their capitals. Honorable senators may say that there are no State prejudices in this matter, but we know that one cannot live in this world without being influenced by his environment. Still I ask them to consider this matter from a national point of view, and so preserve the honour and dignity of the Commonwealth.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
*In Committee:*
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s12 .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: Victoria
-- May I remind the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Senator Russell)** of his promise to supply honorable senators with some details regarding the expenditure of £64,000 upon the London offices? The total cost of Australia House is, I understand, more than £1,000,000. Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council tell me how many Agents-General are quartered there? Personally, I am of opinion that the representatives of all the States should be gathered together in that building. I never could understand why they did not go there in the first instance.
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator de Largie:
-- Because of jealousy of each other.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- It seems extraordinary. It would be to the interests of Australia if .all the Agents-General were accommodated under the one roof. They could then organize to much better advantage.
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator de Largie:
-- It is a pity that we have not the power to levy upon each State for its share of the expenditure upon Australia House, irrespective of whether its representative occupies offices there or not.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- The London offices were certainly built for the purpose of .accommodating the Agents-General of all the States. But at the present time a visitor to London, when walking along Queen Victoria-street, will see the New South "Wales Agent-General's office, whilst if he visits a different thoroughfare he will see the office of another AgentGeneral. I *an* glad to know that the repre- sentative of Tasmania is now quartered at Australia House. Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council tell us. precisely the position which obtains there.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s13 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- Even though there was no contract entered into between the Commonwealth and the States upon this matter, there was certainly an understanding that the State Agents-General would be accommodated in Australia House. I am not enthusiastic about Agents-General, but Australia should certainly be unitedly represented in London under the one roof. At the present time there is* unnecessary duplication. For some reason all of the States, with the exception of one, have held aloof from Australia House. But we have learned a lot during recent years, and to-day there is a great tendency for representation to be concentrated under one roof. ' Everybody who has visited London lately speaks most highly of the possibilities of Australia House if it be conducted upon proper lines. I hope that in the future we shall have a more united form of representation in London, particularly in regard to trade matters. We must secure the services of first-class commercial men, Apart from the representation of the Commonwealth by the High Commissioner, we need special commercial agents in London at the present time. I have been asked how the £64,000 set down for the Commonwealth offices in this Bill will be expended. My reply is that there were odd contracts which had been entered into prior to the war, and in which it became necessary, under the stress of war conditions, to offer a small bonus. In the case of some contractors, for example, the increase of wages which they had to pay amounted to, probably, 100 per cent. It would not have been fair to ruin these men because they could not overcome difficulties which were created by war conditions. The balance of the expenditure is needed to complete Australia House. This is not an original vote. It is intended to be expended upon the completion of contracts which were entered into prior to the war, but which were suspended during the war period.
{: .speaker-JYG}
##### Senator Elliott:
-- Will this vote finalize the expenditure upon Australia House ?
SenatorRUS SELL. - I believe that it will. Of course, there will always be small jobs to be done in a building of that sort. Recently certain art decorations had to be knocked out.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- We want a commercial building, not an art gallery.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- It was with a good deal of regret that we agreed to defer the making of these art decorations, recognising as we did the desirableness of encouraging Australian artists. It is necessary to have this building in London, and we desire it to be occupied by men who are engaged in pushing the interests of Australia to the best of their ability. I' repeat that the vote in question does not represent new expenditure. I suppose that 95 per cent, of the building has already been completed, and the proposed vote of £64,000 represents the balance of 5 per cent, which is required to finish the job.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s14 .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Senator Russell)** whether all the employees at Australia House are Australians, and whether, in appointments to the clerical staff, preference has been given to soldiers? Instead of the Commonwealth spending money upon art decorations there, I suggest the wisdom of taking advantage of the windows of Australia House to advertise the wares of this country, as, for example, by making a proper exhibit of wool. Although our wool clip in Australia is worth from £40,000,000 to £45,000,000, it is a fact that we have not asingle exhibit of wool there. I therefore suggest to the Minister the advisableness of employing as much of the window space of Australia House as possible for the purpose of displaying a proper collection of Australian wool, timbers, grain, fruits, &c. We know the crying need which exists for attracting immigrants to our shores.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s15 .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator DE LARGIE: Western Australia
-- Year after year we find the same conditions presented to us in regard to Australia House. We are like a little dog chasing his tail. The taxpayers of this country would be glad of some means by which the expenditure connected with the London offices could be terminated. At present the various Agents-General have their offices in London just as if there were no Australia
House. That building is equal to the very best structure in London. It is a handsome edifice, and is in every way a credit to the Commonwealth. Yet, despite all its advantages, quite a number of the States refuse to house their representatives there. If we have not the power to levy directly upon the States for their share of the expenditure upon that building, which was erected for the entire Commonwealth, we certainly have the right to tax them indirectly, seeing that it is the same taxpayers, who have to provide the money. But we might present the position to the people in a somewhat different form from that in which it has hitherto been presented to them. The Treasurer might outline in his Budget that each State will be required to contribute a certain sum towards the upkeep of Australia House. If it went forth to the people of Australia, for example, that they had to pay £50,000 for offices in that building, whilst they also had to maintain offices for their Agent-General in another part of London, the folly of the position would be brought home to them.
{: .speaker-K3B}
##### Senator Rowell:
-- Are not all the States represented at Australia House now ?
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator DE LARGIE:
-- No. It is about time that the Government did something practical in this matter, with a view to awakening public opinion upon it. The present position is due entirely to petty jealousy between one AgentGeneral and another. The High Commissioner stands upon his dignity and the Agents-General stand upon their dignity like a lot of children. I hope that the Vice-President of the Executive Council will induce the Government to take such action as will shame these people into doing what is right.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s16 .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON: Victoria
.- I should like the Vice-President of the Executive Council to give us some information in regard to the progress that is being made in connexion with the oil agreement.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s17 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council' · Victoria · NAT
-- I understand that there are already several experts in Papua. A number of geologists have been making preparatory, examinations there, with a view to determining the most suitable places in which to put down bores for oil. I cannot give any indication of the deve lopments, but very successful work has been done in connexion with the selection of a site for our own refinery in Australia. I believe that there will be big developments in connexion with that matter in a very short time.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s18 .speaker-JYG}
##### Senator ELLIOTT: Victoria
.- I should like to know how it is proposed to expend the £3,000,000 which is set down in the schedule to .this Bill for the construction of ships. I observe in the newspapers cables to the effect that big shipping companies in England are cancelling their contracts for new shipping right and left. They hold the opinion that the present cost of shipping construction cannot be justified by the profits which can be made from running the ships. It looks as if the Commonwealth is going on blindly constructing ships with the cost of material and labour at the very highest. We can never hope to make them pay under normal conditions if that is the case. . .
{: #subdebate-5-0-s19 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- Phrases, such as "going blindly on," are hardly suitable to a discussion of this sort, because the people of Australia were quite aware that we were not starting on any light venture in taking on the business of shipping and shipbuilding. As one who has had control over shipping for four out of the last five years in Australia, I assure the honorable senator that, had it not been for our action, freights would have been at least 50 to 60 per cent, higher now. I can prove clearly that we saved many millions to the producers of this country on the one hand, and to the consumers on the other, by our organization of shipping. The question now asked is, " What are we going to do? " Certain rumours and reports are going about, but I tell **Senator Elliott** that our ships in Australia, that is the seven we now have, and a number on the keel, have been built at the cheapest boat-building rate of any boat building country in the world to-day.
{: .speaker-JYG}
##### Senator Elliott:
-- That is, during war conditions.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- Yes. We have several Contracts in Great Britain for big boats. If there is one danger to a country like Australia, that has a large oversea commerce, it is the development of the British Shipping Combine. If the- honorable senator thinks it is judicious to do so, there -will be no difficulty in selling our boats to-day at very high prices; but, if those boats are sold, the producers and consumers of Australia will' eventually pay the whole amount in the way of extra freights. We have not yet reached the stage at which we should sell our vessels. The bulk of this money is for completing contracts already entered into. Six boats have been ordered in England, of the latest and most up-to-date type, and all the contracts for them are signed.. The only difference is that we were building them as war measures, and we are now transferring the expenditure from War Loan Account, as we do not think it legitimate to build them out of that account now, to the ordinary Public Works Loan Account.
{: .speaker-K1W}
##### Senator Benny:
-- Under what section of the Constitution do we get the power to build ships?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- I think the Constitution was practically suspended in that regard during the war. Peace has not yet been finally signed, and we still have the power to take such action as we think essential for the safety of the nation. The High Court said that, during the war period, it was lawful for the Commonwealth Government to take every action deemed necessary for the protection of the country, and that to that extent the Constitution was practically suspended. The High Court added that the Executive was not compelled even to give reasons for its actions, because it might, during war-time, have secret information which it would not be judicious to reveal to. the public. Now that the war is over, and we are making our financial statement as a Government, we tell Parliament that we are not going to charge these things to War Loan Account any longer. Therefore, in order to complete our contracts, it is necessary to borrow the money. We have not the revenue available for the purpose. This money is for the completion of contracts, and not for new contracts. Most of them are already in hand. I sum not enthusiastic about the State running lines of steam-ships, but, until we know the real basis upon which the British Empire is going to conduct its shipping, whether, for instance, it is to be managed directly by the British Parliament, I hope we shall not sell one plank of our boats. Except for that important consideration, we could, discuss the question as an. open one. I regard it, at this stage, as largely a matter in which we have no option. .We must either have our own ships or leave ourselves at the mercy of the British Shipping Combine.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Are these running contracts?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- Yes, generally speaking;
{: #subdebate-5-0-s20 .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: Victoria
.- I understand that the £3,000,000 covers not only the contracts let in Great Britain, but also the cost of locallybuilt ships.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- I take it to cover all new ships to be constructed.
{: .speaker-JYR}
##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
-- Will the Minister indicate how much we have to pay per ton in England and Scotland, and how much in Australia ? Rather alarming statements have appeared in the press, and, if the Minister has official information, I shall be obliged to him for it.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s21 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- I have not the figures in the exact form asked' for by **Senator Fairbairn,** but our boats cost us here in Australia about £28 per ton, which, I am given to understand, is from £5 to £12 cheaper than most other parts of the world have been able to do the work up to date.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- What are they costing us now ? The papers said the other day it was about £60 per ton.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- I do not think there is anything in that. If I can get the information from the Shipping Department, I shall let the honorable senator have it before the Bill is finally passed.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s22 .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON: Victoria
.- Can the Minister give us some idea as to the definite policy of the Government with regard to ship-building? He says that the power to build ships was taken under the War Precautions Act during the war period, but I was hopeful that the policy of building ships would become a national policy carried out by the Government irrespective of war conditions. The successful development of this country depends largely upon transport and communication. It is vital to the interests of the people of Australia that we should be in a position to construct our own commercial vessels.
{: .speaker-K1W}
##### Senator Benny:
-- We have no power under the Constitution to do so in time of peace.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- I should like a clear statement on that point.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- These are mostly contracts entered into during the war period, and the question is whether we are able to complete them or not.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- Then, are all our equipment and ship-yards and so on to be sold off when our power under the War Precautions Act lapses?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- I take it that Parliament must eventually determine that question, but we cannot finally settle our position, so far as shipping is concerned, until Great Britain determines hers.
{: .speaker-K2C}
##### Senator BOLTON:
-- I trust that this very valuable industry, initiated by the Government under war conditions, will be continued as a national undertaking for Australia.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s23 .speaker-JYF}
##### Senator EARLE: Tasmania
.- Will the Minister give the Committee some information concerning the item "Kirribilli House, Sydney, £15,000?"
{: #subdebate-5-0-s24 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- The house referred to is the old Admiralty House on Sydney Harbor. Some additional land was to be put up for public auction, and the Government recognised that it would be essential before very long to secure it for naval purposes. I understand that that was the last opportunity of obtaining a suitable block adjacent to Sydney Harbor for those purposes. The land will probably be much more valued later on.
{: .speaker-JYF}
##### Senator Earle:
-- Is this item for land as well as the house?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- It is mostly for land. We had previously bought the house, but there was not sufficient land around it. We had to make a quick decision, as the land was to be put up for public auction. I think we acted with foresight in securing adequate land on the banks of Sydney Harbor for subsequent naval purposes.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s25 .speaker-JYF}
##### Senator EARLE: Tasmania
-- In order to carry out the determina tion which I previously expressed, and to test the question, I move -
>That the item "Federal Capital Territory, Initial Settlement, £90,000," be left out.
Question - That the item proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 6
NOES: 13
Majority . .7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s26 .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Under the Department of Works and Railwavs there is an item of £187,000 for Naval Bases, works, and establishments, also a vote of £50,000 towards the cost of the Perth General Post Office. I am loath to vote for any expenditure without knowing something about it. Apparently, the Government have money to burn.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- That work at the General Post Office, Perth, has been going on for the last five years, but it was hung up during the war. We must either repudiate the contract or go on with it.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- Well, I only asked for information. The Minister cannot expect us, as representatives of the people, to agree to vote millions of money without knowing something of the details.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator Russell:
-- You were not asking for information when you said that we had money to burn.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- I still say that, apparently, the Government have money to burn. A few years ago they imported an American to draw up plans for Canberra. I understand he is drawing a salary of £1,000 a year, but I do not know whether he is shooting opossums or what he is doing. Recently the Government paid him the huge fee of £3,298 for doing something in connexion with the Sydney General Post Office. I understand this gentleman, **Mr. W.** B. Griffin, is not a member of the architectural staff of the Commonwealth. I contend, therefore, that the Government are not giving sufficient consideration to the necessity for economy. It is not going to do us any good at the next election as Nationalists if money is going to be " chucked " about in this fashion. It is up to the Minister to give us some explanation as to why this sum of £3,298 was paid as a special fee to a gentleman who is retained in connexion with Federal Capital work.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s27 .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL: VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT
-- **Mr. Griffin** came out under engagement to theFederal Government to do certain work, but still had the right of private practice. Three or four years ago there was a clamour in Sydney for alterations and extensions to the General Post Office there, and, by an arrangement with the ex -Postmaster-General **(Mr. Webster)** and the ex-Minister for Home and Territories **(Mr. King O'Malley), Mr. Griffin** was instructed to go into the matter. He has a great reputation as an architect, and as there was no clause in his contract to prevent his employment, the transaction was quite clear. He waited two years for his money, and was paid last year. Whether his plans are adopted or not, I trust that before long substantial improvements will be effected in the Sydney General Post Office, which is a very badly designed building.
{: #subdebate-5-0-s28 .speaker-JXP}
##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: Western Australia
-- I should like some information with regard to the Naval Base works, and particularly wish to know if money is provided for carrying on work at Henderson Naval Base, at Fremantle.
**Senator RUSSELL** (Victoria - VicePresident of the Executive Council) [3.541. - The particulars of the expenditure are- Naval works staff, £27,635;
Flinders Naval Base, £84,000; Henderson Naval Base, £33,000; New South Wales establishments, £31,000 ; Williamstown Naval Depot, £7,050 ; Geelong Submarine Base, £3,000. We have been going very slowly in connexion with most of these undertakings, but as the work at the Flinders Naval Base was practically completed it would have been foolish to stop it for the sake of a few pounds. Generally speaking, only essential work is being done.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- You are making the best of a bad job in both cases.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- We are. That is generally admitted, though we acted on the best advice available.
{: .speaker-JXP}
##### Senator Drake-Brockman:
-- The Government did not act on the advice to establish Naval Bases at Sydney and Fremantle. They established one down here somewhere.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- We acted on the advice of the best engineers available. As laymen, we could not determine these matters. There was a strong recommendation by first class engineers to cut down the Henderson Base a good deal - from, I think, £11,000,000 to about £3,500,000. We are not spending large sums of money on these works. We are simply finishing up and clearing the decks, so to speak.
{: .speaker-KN7}
##### Senator J F GUTHRIE: VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
-- I understand that there is not a dock in this part of the world capable of accommodating a battleship.
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- It is proposed to have the best floating dock in Australia, but we must leave these matters to the Naval authorities.
{: .speaker-K3Q}
##### Senator Buzacott:
-- Does it take £84,000 for Flinders Base, and only £33,000 for the Henderson Base?
{: .speaker-K3E}
##### Senator RUSSELL:
-- That is because the Flinders Base was nearly finished, and it was thought better to finish the job.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment Standing and Sessional Orders suspended report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
{: .page-start }
page 5249
{:#debate-6}
### POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL
The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens)** announced the receipt of a message from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill.
Assent reported.
{: .page-start }
page 5250
{:#debate-7}
### PAPER
The following paper was presented: -
>Northern Territory Acceptance Act, and Northern Territory Crown Lands Act (of South Australia). - Proclamation, dated 25th August, 1920, resuming portion of Manassie Aboriginal Reserve, together with map showing area resumed.
{: .page-start }
page 5250
{:#debate-8}
### ADJOURNMENT
{: #debate-8-s0 .speaker-KLS}
##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
-- The hour being 4 o'clock, I must now, under a sessional order, put the question " That the Senate do now adjourn."
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.
Cite as:Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 October 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19201001_senate_8_93/>.