8th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at3 p.m. and read prayers.
Senator NEWLAND brought up the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, ‘ relating to proposed establishment of an automatic telephone exchange,South Brisbane, Queensland.
The following papers were presented : -
Consolidated Revenue Fund - Comparative Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for Financial Years 1920-21 and 1921-22.
Income Tax Assessment Act - Regulations amended- Statutory Rules 1922,No. 89.
Public Service Act- Appointments and Promotions -
Department of Health - A. J. Bothamley,
C. R. Wiburd.
Prime Minister’s Department - H. J.
Cross, F. Strahan.
War Gratuity Acts - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules . 1922, No. 87.
RedistributionofDivisions- Naming of Electorates.
– I ask the Minister for Homo and Territories, in view of the notices of motion on the businesspaper re the distribution of seats, whether it would be competent for the matter to be dealt with in the Senate before it is considered in another place.
– It is perfectly competent, but the Government do not propose to adopt that course. They propose to wait until the matter has first been dealt with in another place.
– I wish to ask a question of the Minister who will have charge of the motion relating to the redistribution of seats. I do not know whether this is the right time at which to bring forward a petition with regard to the naming of Federal electorates in Victoria, but I will have a petitionto present asking that the name “Corio” should be altered to that of “ Geelong.”
– The petition referred to by the honorable senator will be dealt with when presented. If it is in order it will be accepted, but not otherwise. I am unable to say whether or not it is in order until I see it.
– I ask the Minister for Home and Territories if the Government will take into consideration in the naming of Federal electorates the alteration of the name “ Corio “ to that of “ Geelong,” in view of the fact that Geelong is tho second largest provincial city in Victoria, and the electorates of Bendigo and Ballaarat are called after the chief centres in those electorates.
– Order! The honorable senator must not argue his question.
– The Government took into consideration all the reports of the Electoral Commissioners, and they are recommending certain alterations of names in one or two instances. The fact that they have not proposed the alteration suggested by Senator Guthrie must be taken to be an indication that they do not at the present stage favour it.
asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -
If the answer is in the affirmative, will the Minister inform tho Senate what is the experience regarding sleepers cut from the various timbers used -
– The answers are -
So for as the trans-Australian railway is concerned, these timbers are not being attacked by white ants to any extent; but on the Northern Territory railway only the Powellised karri can be said to resist attack, and even they ure not entirely immune.
Senator BOLTON (for Senator
Elliott) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers supplied by the Defence Department are: -
Minister and his advisers in dealing with the matter of the retirement of members of the Permanent Military Forces. The case of each member has been carefully examined, and the claims of the individualand the best interests of the service have been fully considered before a decision has been arrived at. Obviously, it would place an unnecessary and unjustifiable reflection upon thoBe who are being compulsorily retired, as well as upon those who are retiring voluntarily, to assume that their retirement is due in any way to unsatisfactory or inefficient service.
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
– The answers are -
Tenure of Office of Transferred Offi cers - Officers of Electoral Branch.
asked the Leader of tho Governmentin the Senate, upon notice -
With a view of obviating costly litigation, and also to remove the cause of dissatisfaction amongst officers of the Commonwealth Public Service in Tasmania and South Australia, will the Government appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon - ‘
The extension of the judgment of the Le Lue case to all persons compulsorily transferred from a State to the Commonwealth Service?
Tenure of office of such officers?
Existing and accruing rights of such transferees?
– It is not considered that the matter is one calling for the appointment of a Royal Commission.
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
Do the Government propose to make provision in the Estimates for 1922-23 to raise the status of 5th Class officers (Clerks to Divisional Returning Officers) to that of 4th Class?
– This is a question for recommendation by the Public Service Commissioner as required by the Public Service Act. The matter will receive consideration.
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
When final payments will be made of balances due from the operations of the Wheat Pools?
– This cannot yet be stated. Reference is invited to an official statement made on behalf of the Board in the press of 9th June.
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
– The answers are-
Debate resumed from 29th June (vide page 37), on motion by Senator Garling -
That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to : -
ToHis Excellency the Governor-General.
May it Please Your Excellency -
We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
– I think I shall be pardoned, by some people at any rate, if, as a representative of New South Wales, I say that I personally am disappointed at the amount of work done at Canberra during the recess. I do not altogether blame the Government, nor do I attach personal responsibility to members of the Public Works Committee; but I do complain of the system under which we are attempting to build the Capital City. The Public Works Committee has made its inquiries expeditiously, and, I have no doubt, nas done its work well, but, through no fault either of the Committee or of the Government, there has been delay, owing to the works authorized by Parliament having to be referred to the Public Works Committee for report, and the reports having to be submitted to Parliament. If there is a majority in the Parliament who think that the Federal Capital should not be built, then letus abandon the project, and stop wasting money. If, on the other hand, we believe in keeping the compact with New South Wales, let us have the Capital built without any unnecessary delay and consequent waste of money.
– There is a waste of money now.
– Doing the work in dribs and drabs is a waste.
– It is all waste.
– We can report progress; we axe getting on.
– If Parliament said frankly that the undertaking was to be stopped, the people of New South Wales would know exactly where they stood. As I stated last session, the only possible way to carry out the scheme satisfactorily is to hand the work over to experts, so as to avoid the necessity to refer various matters to the Public Works Committee.
The only fault I have to find with the Governor-General’s Speech is that it is unnecessarily long. It is very unwise for any Government to draw up a programme which cannot possibly be carried out during the time at our disposal. The whole of the work outlined in the Speech certainly cannot be completed in this, the third, session of the present Parliament.
There is no more important matter referred to in the Speech than that of the unification of the railway gauges of Australia. We cannot develop our country without railways, and unless our system is the most up to date obtainable we are to that extent hindering progress. Last year I raised the question of the unification of gauges, and one or two honorable senators thought it was somewhat unfair to ask the Government to carry out this proposal, seeing that a Commission of experts had been appointed to decide the gauge for the Commonwealth.
Senator Crawford.How can the Commonwealth Government do anything without the consent of the States ?
– I intend to deal with that point in a moment. The Royal
Commission, comprising experts, has gone into the whole question, and furnished its report. One of the members was a financial man, and an Australian, but he was not a railway expert. I understand that he expressed no opinion- as to what the gauge’ should be, leaving this matter absolutely to the other two experts, who, as I have shown, were not Australians. One had been brought from England and the other from America. Consequently, they were not in any way dominated by State influences or State jealousies. They simply stated in a valuable report, which I presume honorable senators have read, what in their opinion the gauge should be. I may be pardoned if I extract from their - report one or two paragraphs of interest. They refer to the opinion expressed by Mr. Eddy, who came out to New South Wales as Chief Railway Commissioner many years ago, and who, it is generally conceded, was one of the greatest railway experts ever associated with our railway system. As far back as 1889 Mr. Eddy expressed this opinion -
The adoption of a universal gauge is absolutely necessary, looking at the future growth of the country and the annually increasing intercourse of the people and the exchange of goods.
Nine years passed, and the Railways Commissioners of Australia, at a conference to deal with this problem, agreed to the following: -
That in view of the contemplated Federation of the Australian colonies, and tho desirability of providing the utmost facility for intercommunication, we are impressed with the necessity of having as soon as possible a uniform gauge.
This, I remind the Senate, was the opinion of railway experts. I come now to this resolution, passed in 1921 at a Conference attended by the Prime Ministor of the Commonwealth and the Premiers of the several States -
That the adoption of a uniform gauge is, in the opinion of this Conference, essential to the development and safety of the Commonwealth.
If these words mean anything, they mean that an exceedingly strong case has been made out for the unification of the gauges, and should remove any objection that can be raised against the proposal. In their reports the Commissioners point lc the great amount of waste resulting from the present unsatisfactory position due to the various breaks of gauge. We frequently hear a great deal about the need for business men to bo elected to our National Parliament. I am not quite so enamoured of that view as are some people, because I think that what we really want is a man who knows his business when he is elected rather than a man elected because of his supposed business ability. We hear, as I said, much about the great undertakings of .the Commonwealth being conducted on business lines, and I emphasize that a great deal of waste is duc to the existing system of gauges. This, -of course, ought to .be self-evident, but I should like to furnish tho Senate with information which has come into my possession within the last few weeks from Queensland. I have been informed that one firm of fruiterers last month lost £2,000 worth of fruit owing to delay caused by transhipment of goods at Wallangarra and Albury. Of course, this firm did not actually lose £2,000. They simply added the amount of loss to the cost of the other fruit.
– But how much will unification cost US.
– I hope to deal with that aspect of the proposal shortly. Tho Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has lately been travelling about urging that the future of this country lies along the path of greater production, and business mon like Senator Guthrie are indorsing that sentiment; yet we tolerate a system which, as I have shown, has caused a loss of £2,000 to one firm, alone.
– I would not agree to spending £20,000.000 to save £2,000.
– Nor would any one else. But is the los3 only £2,000? Last session Senator Guthrie declared that we had no right to spend millions of pounds merely to accommodate passenger traffic.
– Quite right! That is practically all it means. Very little produce is carried over the Inter-State railways.
– Does Senator Guthrie and tho honorable senators from Queensland ever read the reports of tho Railways Commissioners of that State? If not, let me tell thom that.in their last report they stated that at Wallangarra last year there were transhipped from
Queensland to New South “Wales 90,695 tons of goods, 3,300 horses, 86,000 cattle, 233,520 sheep, and 20 tons of fruit.
– It costs only 2s. per ton to tranship goods.
– Even if there was not a break of gauge at the border, the stock would have to be taken out of the trucks and bc given a drink.
– Does the honorable senator mean to say that if there was a uniform gauge the stock would be taken out and given a drink?
– Of course they would. Stock are taken out at Miriam Vale, where there is no break of gauge, for drinking purposes.
– Well, what I have said shows that substantial losses arc resulting from the present system, and I point to the United States of America, where the railways are privately owned and where it is possible to ship goods right from San Francisco to New York, which is about the same distance as from Perth to Brisbane, without any break of gauge.
– But what is the population of the United States of America?
– It is, of course, infinitely greater- than that of the Commonweath, but that is a factor that need not be considered at this juncture, because if we were to start to lay the first railways in Australia to-day, how many people would object to a uniform gauge? The people of» the United States of America decided at the outset that one gauge was in the interests of commerce and pf the travelling public, and the result is that goods can be transported, if necessary, from one end of the country to the other without transhipment.
Owing to the imposition of a very high tariff on Fiji bananas that product is not now entering the Commonwealth, and supplies are being obtained from Queensland and New South Wales. If the people of Western Australia, for instance, are to be supplied with this product in a condition fit. for human consumption, we should be able to transport it without transhipment a,t four or five break-of-gauge stations as at present. Before the inception of Federation the Colonies were working under different fiscal systems, and there were people in those days who believed that by preventing an interchange of commodities development in an individual Colony in a particular direction would be greater than if products had to enter into competition with those from adjoining Colonies.
– If the proposal were adopted, does the honorable senator suggest that the railways should be controlled by the Commonwealth authorities?
– I would not favour the Commonwealth Government taking over the railways while we have a Senate in which the representatives of Tasmania or South Australia, with their small populations, have the same representation as New South Wales. Before the inception of Federation there were Protectionists who did not favour the interchange of commodities, and who, possibly, regarded breaks of gauge as an excellent means of assisting in achieving their objective. It was thought, perhaps, at that time that a system of breaks of gauge would assist their fiscal policy; but that day has now passed, as we have Inter-State Free Trade. Breaks of gauge are as great an impediment to the interchange of commodities . between States as a high Protective Tariff would be. ‘
– But nearly all commodities go by sea.
– I have informed the honorable senator that 90,695 tons of goods were transferred from the Queensland to the New South Wales railway system. The arguments in favour of a standard gauge are so strong and overwhelming that I cannot understand any opposition being raised, particularly by business men. To have brought the gauges of Australia into conformity with the New South Wales system twenty-five years ago would have cost £2,000,000; but, to-day, the cost would be £21,000,000.
– That is for trunk lines only.
– I am referring only to trunk lines. In order to standardize the wider gauge twenty years ago it would have cost £4,260,000 ; but to do the work to-day would involve an expenditure of £57,000.000.
– That is without any alteration to the rolling-stock. The figures are double what the honorable senator is quoting.
– I am quoting the figures from the report. It ia obvious to every one that the longer the work is delayed the greater will be the cost.
– But present costs, including rates of interest, are abnormal.
– As Senator Crawford suggested, by interjection, the work cannot be undertaken without the consent and assistance of the States. The railway experts, who have fully inquired into this matter, have recommended the’ unification of the gauge from Fremantle to Brisbane, vid Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney, and the work cannot,, of course, be undertaken unless those States are agreeable. I understand that the South Australian and Victorian Governments are opposed to the scheme, and the Governments in those States remind me of Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor of England, who said that the time was not ripe for Catholic emancipation; that it was not ripe for altering the Courts of law; that it was not ripe for making landlords pay their debts; and, in fact, that it was not ripe for doing anything more or anything less. There are some people in Australia who, while not possessing his ability, are still adopting his attitude. It seems strange to me that honorable- senators should find so many reasons f 6^ doing nothing instead of doing something. The variety of railway gauges in Australia calls for action by the Government.. The New South Wales Government is now dealing with the city railway, the building of which ha3 become inevitable. The Railways Commissioners have declared that they cannot guarantee the safety of the travelling public in Sydney unless they have this railway. They asked for it some years ago, but their advice was rejected by the gentlemen who said, “ Let us wait for a more opportune time.” Now, when the work has to be undertaken, it will cost at least £1,500,000 more than it would have cost a few years ago. Is the Commonwealth Government, after having placed the unification of the railway gauges upon its platform, going to stand still, just because Victoria or South Australia raises an objection? Another proposal that might be considered, is to unify the gauge from Fremantle to Brisbane, via Hay, or Condobolin. If South Australia or Victoria do not want the improvement made, then I would say, “ All right. Let South Australia and Victoria please themselves, but do not allow them to play ‘ dog in the manger.’ “ W-hen
I last spoke on this subject, I referred to the fact that there were different gauges from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie, and from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. I think the Western Australian Government ought to have fulfilled their contract and built that portion of the line, and I have been surprised that some Western Australians were prepared to defend what I thought was the very indefensible position of their Government. Since then, I understand that Sir james Mitchell and his Government have agreed to do their part towards making a 4 ft. 8£ in. gauge from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie. Sir George Fuller, in New South Wales, has said that he will link up with the East-West railway, either via Hay or Condobolin, according to which route the experts recommend. Mr. Theodore,, in Queensland, is willing to bring Brisbane in touch with New South Wales on one gauge.
– That was arranged many years ago between the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales.
– Whether it was arranged or not, if it is a fact to-day, the Federal Government, if they are really in earnest and not indulging in camouflage, should do something to give effect to the arrangement. The Western Australian, New South Wales, and Queensland Go- vernments are willing to help.
– It would » still be necessary to get the- consent of South Australia.
– It is an open question whether the consent, of South Australia would be required. If the other Governments are willing, shall South Australia be allowed to stand in the way of carrying out an undertaking which would be for the benefit of the whole of Australia, seeing that the other States will have to pay 97A per cent, of the cost?
– If your statement is correct, that South Australia would only have to pay 2£ per cent., I would say, “ Blaze away to-morrow.” When the honorable senator quotes figures he should make sure that they are correct. ‘
– Even if South Australia’s percentage is 5, the proposition is still a good one. If South Australia will not do her share, then the Commonwealth should do it. The Commonwealth Government could convert the South Australian portion of the line, and the result would he beneficial to the whole of Australia.
– The New South Wales Government undertook to build the railways in that State of the same gauge as the Victorian railways, namely, 5 ft. 3 in., and they broke the contract. That was before Federation.
– It was before the flood, but, giving that in, there is no doubt that the experts now say that the 4 ft.8½ in. gauge should be the one adopted. The Premiers of South Australia and Victoria were parties to referring the settlement of the matter to the Board of experts who have come to that decision. I ask the Minister, when replying to the debate, to be good enough to say whether, if the State Governments of Victoria and South Australia are not willing to carry out the original proposal for a uniform gauge, the Federal Government will be prepared to do their fair share in giving effect to the alternative scheme to which I have referred, if the Governments of New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia will do theirs.
– It is with feelings of considerable trepidation that I rise to speak to the motion for the adoption of the AddressinReply. I said a few words on another occasion when particular circumstances justified me in doing so; but this is really the first occasion upon which I have the honour to address the Senate, and I am sure that I shall receive a sympathetic hearing from honorable senators. Although I have spoken on other occasions, it is needless to say that I am not a practised speaker, and am not yet a politician.
– I hope the honorable senator never will be one.
– I shall do my best to become one within the next year. I am very sensible of the great honour of membership of the Senate. As one of the third generation of an Australian family, if there is any part of the world which I can claim as my country, it is Australia, these lands under the Southern Cross, and I feel that it is indeed a great occasion for pride for any young Australian to find a place in this Senate, which is the highest political Court in the Commonwealth. With such thoughts in my mind, I express the hope that my conduct as a member of this Chamber, and outside of it, will cast no discredit on my people who have preceded me, in trying to make this country what it ought to be.
I must compliment Senator Garling, who moved the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply, on his very fine effort. Like myself, he clearly felt the importance of the occasion; but despite that, delivered a very careful and able address. I compliment him upon it, and I shall be very pleased if I can approach his effort. .
There were two matters dealt with in the speeches of the mover and seconder of the motion to whichI should like to refer. I was unable to be present during the delivery of the whole of their addresses, but I heard a good deal of them, and subsequently took the opportunity to peruse the report of them. Whilst naturally I take exception to some of the views they expressed, I shall not to-day be very critical, because of my desire that nothing I say should lead to an acrimonious debate or be inconsistent with the intention with which I have risen to address myself to this Chamber .
When Senator Garling was dealing with the question of immigration, an honorable senator representing South Australia interjected that it was necessary that there should be some stirring up of the State Governments, and Senator Garling indorsed that statement. I should like to say that not only should there be a stirring up of certain State Governments, but there should be a very decided forward movement on the part of the Federal Government, who have the principal responsibility in this matter, and who, in my opinion, should have done a great deal more than they have done. Senator Garling mentioned the Western Australian Government as having done something special in the matter of immigration.. I believe that the Premier of that State, when in England recently, did a great deal in connexion with immigration ; but I submit that the State Government of Queensland have shown themselves to be more in earnest in this matter than the Governments of other States, and, further, that Queensland offers a better opportunity for a comprehensive plan of immigration than does any other State in the Commonwealth. None of the speakers who have preceded me has referred to this question, and I claim to have a personal knowledge of it. Mr. Theodore, the Premier of Queensland, as lon? ago as June, 1921, was particularly earnest in his desire to settle the Burnett lands. He asked me to accompany Mr. Gullett at the time, and it was only some personal matter that prevented me from closely inspecting those lands in connexion with the proposed immigration scheme. At that time the people of Queensland fully understood that the then Federal Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) and the Federal Government were prepared to enable the Queensland Government to obtain a sum of £2,000,000 to assist tin the opening up of the Burnett lands, with a view to the settlement of immigrants in the only way in which an immigration scheme can be effectively carried out, and that is by malting land ready for occupation by immigrants, and thus preventing them from being forced into the labour markets of the cities. Mr. Theodore took great pains to give effect to that scheme, and no one can doubt , the honesty of his intentions. But what was the result? We found that, owing to some secret or unknown influence, the offer of £2,000,000 from the Federal Government was withdrawn, and the Queensland Government were therefore unable to proceed with the scheme.
– What was the secret influence referred to?
– It was one of quite a number which have been exercised with a view to embarrass the Labour Government in Queensland. We know that political cards are not always laid on the table, and for certain reasons, that probably are not very well known in the southern States, it was desired by certain people that the Queensland Government should be embarrassed. 1 might point out to Senator Foll that one influence at work was due to the desire on the part of the two Conservative sec- tions in Queensland to ride into power on the backs of the unemployed, and the settlement of the Burnett lands would have materially helped to absorb the workless in Queensland. The figures supplied by the Statistical Department show that there is more unemployment in Queensland than in the other States.
– Hear, hear !
– I would remind the honorable senator that from 40 to 70 per cent. of the unemployed in Queensland is composed practically of newcomers to that State from Victoria and New South Wales.
– The State Government’s policy of giving out doles is re sponsible for attracting those people to Queensland.
– That may be the honorable senator’s opinion, but if he will consider the geographical position of Queensland, and to a lesser extent that of New South Wales, he will agree with me that when men who are unemployed in Melbourne or in Sydney desire to secure work, they move out to the larger territories, which may be called the feeders to the great metropolitan areas. The first thing which a man unemployed in the large metropolitan centres does, if he honestly desires worK, is to move north, and, as a consequence, there is quite a considerable traffic of men who have failed to find work in Melbourne and Sydney, and in the smaller State of Victoria, moving northwards to the greater opportunities which Queensland offers.
– That has been to for the past fifty years. The trend has ever been northwards.
– That is just my point. I do not dispute Mr. Knibbs’ statement with respect to unemployment, but I should like to interpret the figures for the beuefit of the Senate, and they do not, without explanation, convey a true impression of the position of Queensland or the efforts of the Queensland Government to carry out the proper function of aGovernment, which is to keep the people continually and usefully employed.
– Can the honorable senator mention the features of the Queensland proposition which the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) said were unacceptable to him?
-Some time after the original proposal had been made, the main exception which the Prime Minister took to the Queensland proposal was the leasehold tenures suggested for tho land.
– A practical objection, too.
– It is so regarded by some people, but iu New Zealand, where there never has been a Labour Government in power, the system of perpetual leaseholds has been in operation for many years. With my family, I was myself interested some time ago in a. leasehold property in that Dominion. The system provided practically the only way by which men of small means could secure the possession of land. It was provided by a Government that was not a Labour Government, and one by no means greatly concerned with economic theories of labour and capital.
– Are not the New Zealand leaseholds convertible into freeholds?
– Some are occupation leases with a right of purchase, but the greater number, and one in which a brother of mine is interested, are not convertible, but are perpetual leases for 999 years or shorter periods.
SenatorRowell. - Subject to revaluation?
– The leasehold to which I specially refer was not subject to re-valuation. I do not wish to labour the point too much, but I have personal knowledge of the sincerity of the Queensland Government in this matter. Any one can picture the addition of a whole province to Queensland in the settlement of the Burnett lands. It would mean the addition of 100,000 people to the population of tho State and would lead to the absorption of quite a number of tho unemployed of this country. The Prime Minister has taken shelter under the plea, and there is a good deal of truth in his suggestion, that the unemployment of many of that 40,000 or 50,000 estimated to be out of work in the Commonwealth is due to the world’s economic crisis, for which no member of this Parliament can, be held accountable.
– Has there been any substantial settlement in. Queensland under the leasehold conditions?
– Yes. A very fair amount. In every State where these conditions have been tried, there has been a certain amount of settlement as a result. The resignation by Mr. Gullett of his position as Director of Immigration, at a salary of £1,500 per annum, is an instance I feel I should refer to in support of my attitude. Any stirring up required in connexion with immigration should begin with the Federal Government, as Mr. Gullett’s action suggested strongly.
– Did not Mr. Gullett have another job before he resigned?
– I do not think so, because I understand that he is a candidate for a certain Federal constituency.
– He got out before he was pushed out because of his unsuitability.
– Is he not writing for a Melbourne newspaper now ?
– If he is in receipt of as high a salary as £1,500 a year, I shall be surprised.
– Do you know if he was a qualified immigration officer ?
– He had as much qualification for the work as Mr. Percy Hunter, or any other official now employed by the Federal Government. From my knowledge of his work, which extends to Great Britain, he has taken a very keen interest in the question of Australian settlement. I realize the importance of numbers. Safety is the first thing to be secured. ‘ With a population of only 5,500,000, Australia is hardly safe, when we remember the hundreds of millions facing us from the north. This country certainly needs more people, but unless the newcomers are settled here in a proper manner, and unless we strive to make every Australian a good citizen, increased numbers can act to the detriment of the nation rather than to its advantage. Borne and Greece, though small countries, have left a greater heritage to civilization than have Indiaand China, with their hundreds of millions of people. This shows that quality in population is a very . important factor. Immigration, which merely means flooding Australia with probably the poorest elements of Europe, and failure to give the new settlers a proper opportunity to better themselves, would undoubtedly do more harm than good.
– Nobody is advocating that the lowest elements of Europe should be brought here.
– While no one is openly advocating that, the net result of unrestricted immigration would be to reproduce in Australia the awful conditions of slumdom existing in London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Dublin. I have seen the degradation of life that takes place under unwholesome conditions, and we do not desire to experience them in this beloved land. As an Australian, I have great hopes for the future of our country. We have a great mission before us. Here is a. Democracy of selfgoverning States which, if properly guided, will probably produce the greatest nation the world has ever seen. It rests with those who rise to high positions, whether in industry or politics, to see that our policies are directed to the uplifting of the race and the strengthening of our people, both in numbers and quality.
To one remark of Senator Bolton, who seconded the motion now before us, I take exception. He spoke of Official Labour’s miserable failure in its conception of its duty towards the people during the war. The honorable senator said that he did not desire to be offensive, and I accept his remark in that spirit; but I cannot let it pass without saying that, so far as I understand the Labour party’s attitude during the war, it was entirely in consonance with that of the great Radical and Liberal sections in Great Britain in other wars, and the Radical and Labour sections in the late war.
– That is rather questionable.
-If we take Henry Sidgwick’s Development of European Polity, we find that in the history of Greece there was the same antagonism between the rich and poor that exists today. In another work by that author, who is an Englishman of great note, he points out that in every country at a time cf war there are always those two great classes - the rich and the poor, and that, even in time of war, there are really two “ nations “ or classes in a country.
– The division in Australia was not between the rich and the poor. There are plenty of rich who were against the war.
– There may have been some. Some were against the war for entirely other reasons than that of wealth or poverty. I can say that of the Society of Friends, and I have heard the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce) in other circumstances in past years admit that the Quakers were genuine in their opposition to all wars.
– Were you about to apply your quotation to the position in Australia during the war period?
– In no country, I contend, can the interests of the poor be the same in war time as those of the ruling classes - the wealthy - who make wars, and this opposition of interests existed in every country during the late war, and in this country, found expression in those who supported the Labour party.
– It has been said that 80 percent. of the wage-earners went to the war.
– I believe the war could not have been won without British Labour, and to a smaller extent, Australian Labour. My point is that I take exception to the seconder of the motion saying that Official Labour failed miserably in its duty during the war.
– Will you admit that the Labour party pledged itself and the country to do a certain thing and did not carry it out?
– To “ the last man and the last shilling.”
– That was a pledge given by one man.
– It was made on behalf of tho party. It was given by two men, the leader (Mr. Fisher) ‘ and the secretary (Mr. Watkins).
– Some men who get into power will make any promise, but whatever pledge appeared to have been broken by Labour, it was small compared with the pledges broken by the Federal Ministry in recent years. If honorable senators will dismiss the present war ‘ from their minds and think of war in general, they will see that the attitude of any party during a war must necessarily be progressively intelligent.
– That pledge was made during the election campaign, and members of the Labour party were returned upon it while the war was on.
– It is natural that we all desire to take sides with the Empire in any quarrel, but we should not be “ like dumb driven cattle “ in a dispute iu which the decision for war is made by a Government or rulers who are not subject to the electors of Australia. As a war progress, surely the conduct of the campaign, and the time for its termination, should be matters for consideration by the great political parties of Australia. I do not wish to discuss this subject in any acrimonious spirit. I feel that there was room for great diversion of opinion, and, perhaps, some reason for the tremendous upheaval which occurred. We all know what an important influence is exerted over individuals by national sentiment, as witness the love of river, valley, or range, which have bounded the homes of ourselves and our ancestors, and which lead at times to the utter destruction -of our reasoning powers. That unfortunately is the trouble with the world to-day, and that was the material and basic reason behind the war. This condition of affairs will not be altered until we rise to a higher conception, if I may be permitted to paraphrase a remark of . the honorable senator who seconded the motion, of our duty to our own people and to the peoples of the world. The influence of tho Radical and Liberal in England in former years has been responsible for a similar division of opinion during great national crises such as the Crimean war and the wars with France, Holland, and Spain.
– The Crimean war was a crime.
– I was of accountable age at about the time of the Boer war, and in my capacity as a member of the daily press I stood by the current opinion of the time. I believed then that it was being waged by Great Britain in the interests of civilization, of liberty, and democracy, which were threatened, so we believed, by the attitude of the Dutch in denying the Outlanders the right of free citizenship in the Transvaal. Because I had not then seen the other side of the picture I felt that our view-point must be right. But two years after the conclusion of the war I was in New Zealand, and read an article in the “Wellington Evening Post, one of the Conservative organs that loyally supported the war, and I was much impressed with a memorable sentence. The Post declared that if the people in New Zealand had known that one result of the South African war would have been the introduction of Chinese labourers to the Rand - if they had known that the great British victory over the Dutch farmers meant the introduction of Asiatics to oust the white labour from the mines - not a single soldier would have been obtained in New Zealand to go to the war. I mention this to show that no matter how certain we may be about the rights of any such struggle, there is always a possibility that later information and events will show that to some extent we may have been mistaken, and that we may see that Imperialist aggrandizement or exploiting interests are factors.
– What the honorable senator has just said does not seem to affect the question of the justice of the Boer war. It refers to something that came afterwards.
– If honorable . senators will read Lord George Hamilton’s Reminiscences they will find that he believed the Boer war was a mistake.
– I thought- that it was a mistake, but Senator MacDonald is referring to something that occurred after the war.
– On this subject I do not wish to disturb honorable senators unduly. Any one who reads the history of the rise of the British Empire, and, indeed, of any other nation, must be impressed with the fact that the same material reasons actuated all the struggles by Imperialisms long before the British nations or England began to climb the bloody path of Empire.
– Does the honorable senator say that the late war was caused by the British Empire?
– The Minister must not misunderstand me. I do not say that. I say that the basic causes of the late war were the same as those which for thousands of years have actuated all nations, including the British Empire, in the struggle for Imperialism. The historical facts are there for. any one who cares to delve for them. I realize that, so far as Australia was concerned, we were obliged, in the late war, to stand in an attitude of defence. I take it that the attitude of countries in times of war should be the same as that of individuals when attacked. They should fight. But when it comes to a question of clearing up, and determining whether there shall be a continuance of the struggle, any right-thinking man should at least consider whether terms of peace cannot bs accepted, and thus avoid the further shedding of human blood.
– Do you think it is right that, when your fellow citizens are at the war, you should say that you will not send them reinforcements?
– Or refer to them as “’ six-bob-a-day murderers “ ? ,’<,
– Senator Duncan is now referring to something with which I was not connected.I never said that of our Australian soldiers, and I did not indorse it.
– But I am referring to the decision of the Perth Conference.
– The Labour party has been undeservedly charged with many things; but I do not wish to deal further with that matter at this stage.
I desire now to say, something with regard to the unemployment problem, and certain governmental activities during recent years, particularly the Burnett lands proposal and the Canungra sawmill hold-up. These are matters with which I am particularly conversant, because they affect my own State. Prior” to its acquisition by the Commonwealth Government the Canungra saw-mill proposition employed a couple of hundred mien, and also gave employment to quite a number of people in the other States. As soon as the Government assumed control the mill, for some reason, was closed. Sonator Foll a little while ago wanted to know what secret influence prevented the Queensland Government from proceeding with the Burnett land proposal. That influence is the Tory section, who are fiercely opposed to State trading or Commonwealth ownership, and the same secret influence induced the Commonwealth Government to close the Canungra mill.
– It may be the same secret influence as that which compelled the State Government to close up its Brisbane fish shops. Perhaps it did not pay to keep the mill going.
– The circumstances were quite different.
-Other mills have not paid very well lately. Supplies had got ahead of the demand.
– But the Government did not give it a trial.
– Is this an argument for private enterprise as against State enterprise?
– No. It is a disclosure that the secret influence which was responsible for the closing down of the timber mills was exerted by the Timber Combine, and the objection on the part of the Tory section behind the Government to anything in the nature of State trading. That there is need for cheap timber is seen from the following, which appeared in the Melbourne Age recently : -
As is well known, the prices of timber and bricks are subject to the will of two powerful combines, one of brickmakers and the other of timber merchants. . . . These huge increases cannot be explained by the war. Australia is largely self-contained in respect to timber, and is wholly so in respect to bricks. In the war years, when imported timber could not be secured, a local substitute was used with success. There is no need for any but Australian timbers to be used in the construction of houses, so that a shortage of imports or the adverse rate of exchange cannot affect the question. . . . There does not seem to be any prospect of immediate relief as long as these combines are allowed to bleed thepublic.
Though there is this heavy demand for timber, the Canungra mill is closed, and there is no prospect of its re-opening.
– But the War Service Homes Department are not buying private timber.
– The latestposition with regard to the Canungra mill is disclosed in the newspaper’s statement that the Queensland Government had mode an offer considerably less than that paid by the Commonwealth Government to the vendors. That is taken from the Daily Mail of 1st July, 1922. The following is also taken from the same source, which is a paper giving general support to the party, behind the Federal Government-
In the meantime, too, the properties continue to remain grimly idle, and mutely testifying to the deplorable muddle made by the Federal Government of its venture into Queensland timber.
It was rumouredat the time that not only was the mill idle for a year, but that the loss to the taxpayers would be in the vicinity of £100,000. I have been reminded by interjection that some very peculiar things were done in connexion with War Service Homes. I do not intend to deal with the administration of that Department at this juncture; but on some future occasion I shall quote some facts and figures in regard to the purchase of land for War Service Homes, and the action of certain officials in that connexion.
The topics enumerated in the Speech are so extensive that a cursory examination of the document is almost sufficient to paralyze one. Prominence is given in the Speech te the Treaties with which the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce) will later deal, and it is gratifying to realize that for at least a generation the principal nations of the world are likely to work out their destinies in peace; but I do not believe that under the present capitalistic system war will be an impossibility. A permanent peace must be based on working-class organizations throughout the world bringing sufficient pressure to bear on those controlling the destiny of any capitalistic country, and the fast great struggle proved such to be the case, although Germany was as keen to go to war as any other nation. It is regrettable that references have appeared, particularly in the Tory press in this and other countries, to the effect that Japan has designs on Australia, because utterances of that character breed the war spirit, not only in Japan but in other countries, and I trust that anything we can do will be designed to remove that impression. Before 1914 it was freely stated that the great American Republic had no desire to interfere with European politics; but, notwithstanding that opinion, American troops numbering over 2,000,000, crossed the Atlantic in support of the Allied cause, and I am convinced that any attempt by an Asiatic race to overwhelm Australia would meet with an even more prompt and emphatic response.
Reference is made in the Speech to the desirability of establishing a uniform railway gauge for the trunk lines of the Commonwealth, and it is generally admitted that such a great national undertaking should be grappled with as early as possible as delay will only entail additional expenditure.
It must be obvious to every honorable senator that there is something radically wrong with the constitution of the Senate, when an important political party has only two representatives in this Chamber. Senator Bolton said, that the party which I have the honour to represent miserably failed in its conception of its duty to the people ; but great or small as the cardinal issue between the two parties may have been several years ago, it must be remembered that there are other issues which have1 to be considered.
– But this is not a party House.
– I have known it for fifteen years, and, like other institutions which are supposed to be nonparty, it is a party Chamber. If the two Labour representatives in the Senate were dispensed with, honorable senators would have to divide amongst themselves, the Radicals going one way and the Tories another. When the position was not as it i9 to-day, that mighty organ, the Melbourne Age, referred to the iniquity of this Chamber having only three or four Conservative representatives, but it has little to say now the position has been reversed. The present constitution of the Senate enables it to be attacked by those who believe in the unicameral system of government with the initiative and referendum, and before very long the position will have to be modified. As the Government have outlined their proposed legislation in such detail, it is regrettable that they have not been able to include in the Governor-General’s Speech a reference to some proposal by which this deplorable state of affairs could be rectified.
– The present position has been brought about by the voice of the people.
– The voice of the people spoke in 1914 on the question of preference to unionists, and so decidedly that the Conservative section were placed in a similar position to that of the Labour party on a certain issue arising out of the war. We are only creatures of a day, doing our best for those whom we represent ; but we must not forget that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) and I are the only spokesmen for about 1,000,000 electors, whilst other honorable senators in this Chamber represent approximately only 1,100,000.
– What is the remedy?
– Proportional representation.
– Would it not be better for the Labour party to regain the confidence of the community?-
– They will inevitably do that. It is patent in every country and in every age that during a period of war the people’s minds are largely influenced by the Tory or Conservative section of the community. Conservative-minded . people, who liar most to gain by war, shout loudest for war, and they by this means gain the support of the majority of the people. The Labour party in any country is more concerned with internal reforms and social betterment than with wars. Their eyes are fixed more on the industrial fight, and when they are asked to brush that aside and look to the “ enemy beyond the seas,” they do not see it in the same light as the Conservative.
– It is significant that the honorable senator speaks of the industrial “fight.”
– I am willing to drop that term and call it a struggle.
– We want indus- trial peace, not industrial warfare.
– We get war sometimes, even when we do not want it: We got it in 1914. During a war the people of a country are naturally Tory or Conservative minded, and necessarily the (Labour or Radical party, because of its actions and long associations on behalf of -social reforms and less keen attention to troubles outside the country or with other nations, gets into disfavour.
– It got into disfavour, not because it was radical, but because of its outrageous behaviour during the war.
– The honorable senator is entitled, to his opinion; but inevitably the time will come when the attention of this country will be directed again to economic issues, and to the industrial struggle. Then the fevers of war will pass away, and there is no doubt that a majority of the people will once more .incline towards Liberal, Radical, or Labour representatives to manage their affairs. That has been the course of history in every country, and I do not fear but that it will happen in this country. It may not occur for three, six, or nine years, but the day will come when these Opposition benches will be occupied by the few representatives remaining of the senators who are now on the other side of the chamber. There ought to be something on the notice-paper recognising this defect in the representation in this chamber. The absence of it almost breaks a pledge and falsifies a promise.
– The subject is on the notice-paper under the heading of “Amendment of the Constitution,” and “Amendment of the Electoral Act.”
– That may he so; but I do not think there is any proposal on the notice-paper to alter the representation in this Senate. There is no reference, at any rate, that any reader of the notice-paper could take literally. If everything on the notice-paper is to be covered up in that way, we might as well have it printed in Sanskrit. It is obvious why I am representing the Labour party in this chamber, and I believe that the presence here of my honorable friend the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) is due to fortuitous circumstances rather than to the working of the electoral machine. I do not think that even the honorable senator f-rom New South Wales who has spoken will deny that the Labour party should have something like seventeen out of the thirty-six senators who are members of this Chamber when we consider the enormous number of electors who vote for Labour.
This is not the only important matter that has not been referred to in the Speech. There is the question of the sugar agreement, and here I expect to receive some support from at least three or four honorable senators.
– The honorable senator will find that this Chamber is not a party House on that question.
– This Chamber is supposed to be a State Rights House; but on the main issues there is no doubt that it is a party House. That is shown by my isolated position on these benches. The sugar agreement is a very important matter, and some reference to it could very well have been included in this programme of thirty-eight or thirtynine articles. No doubt we shall hear something more about it when the Leader of the Government in another place (Mr. Hughes) sees the light.
I do not intend to worry the Chamber any longer, for I feel that I have already taken up probably a great deal too much time. The circumstances in which I appear to-day are decidedly those which would unnerve or embarrass’ a much abler speaker than I profess to be. I have to thank honorable senators for their kindness in hearing me; and the fact that a large number of them have remained to hear me out is a source of considerable pleasure to me. There are other attractions for honorable senators which might lead them outside the Chamber, and, therefore, I feel that I should be doubly grateful for their kind attention and patient hearing. I conclude by again thanking them for their attention to my scattered remarks.
Debate (on motion by Senator Lynch) adjourned.
Senator Pearce laid on the table a statement of the approximate receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund for the years 1921-22, compared with the actual receiots and expenditure for the year 1920-21.
– (By leave.) - The honorable the Treasurer (Mr. Bruce) thought it desirable, in accordance with the promise he made, that Parliament should be advised as early as possible of the approximate financial position of the Commonwealth, as far as it can be calculated up to the end of the financial year. I have made arrangements for copies of the statement I have laid upon the table to be distributed to honorable senators, and I desire briefly to set out a few of the main headings, so that they will be in possession of a summary of our financial position. The total approximate expenditure out of revenue for the year 1921-22 amounts to £65,118,265. This compares with the actual expenditure of £64,624,087 for the year 1920-21, an increase of £494,178. In comparison with the estimated expenditure for 1921-22 of £64,104,458, it represents an increase of £1,013,807. The four main headings of expenditure are as follows: - The ordinary votes of Departments were : -Estimated, 1921-22, £15,745,769; approximate expenditure to 30th June, 1922, £16,200,164; approximate excess of expenditure over estimate, £454,395. Special appropriations other than war appropriations were : - Estimated, £14,637, 025 ; approximate expenditure, £14,972,586; approximate excess of expenditure over estimate, £335,561. For additions, new works, and buildings, the estimate of expenditure out of revenue was £2,518,411, and the approximate actual expenditure £2,584,359, representing an increase of £65,948. For war services the estimate was £31,203,253, and the approximate expenditure £31,361,156, an increase of £157,903. Those headings show a total approximate increase over the estimate of £1,013,807.
I shall now give . the figures for each of the Departments separately, so as to explain to honorable senators where the principal increases occur. For the Prime Minister’s Department the estimate was £416,798, and the approximate expenditure was £539,658, representing an . increase of £122,860. This increase is explained by the following main headings : - Wheat contribution, which had to be paid in connexion with shipments of wheat to South Africa, £32,500; contribution to League of Nations, £14,500.
– That item ought no,t to have been overlooked in framing the Estimates.
– I may remind Senator Duncan that at the time the Estimates were framed discussion was proceeding as to what the Australian contribution to the League of Nations should be. The honorable senator will remember that when Senator E. D. Millen left Australia one of the questions he was charged to deal with was the settlement of the contribution to the expense of the League of Nations on a basis more satisfactory to Australia.
The Royal Commission on Taxation accounted for an increase of £5,500; the Australian Delegation to Washington, £8,500 ; relief of distress during maritime strike. £4,450; and relief of distress in Europe, £49,000. These items together account for an increase of £114,410.
Coming to the Treasury, the estimate was £1,207,280, the approximate expenditure amounts to £1,330,834, showing an increase of £123,554. The chief items accounting for this increase are: Cost of taxation, £50,000; maintenance of persons in charitable institutions, £12,000; coinage, £26,000; remission of fines under Taxation Acts, £6,000; Government and Stamp Printers, £9,000; and inscribed stock frauds, £7,000. These figures make a total of £110,000, and the balance of the increase is made up of small items.
For the Home and Territories Department the estimated expenditure was £771,788, the approximate expenditure £860,255, showing an increase of expenditure over the estimate of £88,467. This increase is due to the purchase of the British Government’s interest in the oil investigations. There are two items covered, one the actual purchase of the
British Government’s interest accounting for £25.000. and the other the actual cost of investigation, including arrears, amounting to £71,000. These sums together amount to £96,000, so that, apart from these amounts, the actual expenditure qf the Department was below the estimate.
– The items referred to relate to the New Guinea oil enterprise?
– Yes. For the Air Service the estimated expenditure was £100,000, the approximate expenditure £152,058, showing an increase over the estimate of £52,058. The amount provided in the Estimates proved insufficient to meet the expenditure of the establishment existing at the beginning of the year. The additional amount was provided conditional upon the saving of a like amount under the vote for New Works.
– A good way of financing.
– The other money has been provided, and it can scarcely be said to be an ‘excess expenditure if what _is saved on one item is used to meet expenditure on another.
The estimated expenditure for the Post and Telegraph Office was £7,455,533, the approximate expenditure was £7,758,399, showing an increase over the estimate of £302,866. It will be seen that the provision on the Estimates was inadequate for the maintenance of the services which the people have long been accustomed to. The increase is very largely due to increases in salaries following upon arbitration awards. Had additional funds not been provided it would have been necessary to discontinue many services, and to discontinue work in connexion with repair and maintenance of lines and instruments. This would have seriously impaired the efficiency of the Department, and would have involved the dismissal of a large number of returned soldiers.
The estimated expenditure for the De>partment of Health was £108,568; the approximate expenditure was £144,106, showing an increase over the estimate of £35,538, the whole of which was due to the outbreak of bubonic plague, to meet which special provision had to be made.
The estimate for special appropriations other than war was £14,637,025, the approximate expenditure was £14,972,586, showing an increase over the estimate of £335,561. Of the increase, invalid and old-age pensions, maternity allowances, and payment to States under tho Surplus Revenue Act together account approximately for £100,000. Other special appropriations account for £12,000. Defence compensation, being provision for personnel retiring under the reorganization scheme, accounts for £300,000. Soldiers’ Co-operative Woollen Mills account for £25,000; and interest and sinking fund for a decrease approximately of £100,000.
– Does the amount of £300,000 in connexion with the Defence expenditure include the provision about to bo made for officers who are to be retired?
– Yes, that is the amount out of which they will be compensated.
The estimated expenditure for additions, new work’s, and buildings was £2,518,411. The approximate expenditure was £2,584,359, showing an increase over the estimate of £65,948. This increase was due to the necessity for making provision for paying the British Government the sum of £163,000 for munition making plant ordered some years ago.
The estimate of expenditure for war services amounted to £31,203,253. The approximate expenditure was £31,361,156, showing an increase of £157,903. In connexion with this expenditure two decreases and one increase are shown. The two decreases are repatriation of soldiers, approximately £160,000, and other w;ir services, approximately £61,000. But in connexion with war pensions there has been an approximate increase of £378,000. These groups of figures considered together account for the excess of £157,903.
Coming to the Revenue the estimate for the year was £61,787,350, tho approximate revenue received was £64,913,085, showing an increase over the estimate of £3,125,735. The principal increases are Customs £3,499,392, and income tax £1,790,645. Assessments outstanding at the beginning of the year represent £4,494,2S5, and payment on account of the Army of Occupation amounts to £835,000. The principal decreases shown are: - War-time profits tax, estimated revenue £2,000,000, approximate revenue £1,306,708, showing a decrease of £693,292; the Commonwealth Government Lino of Steamers, estimated revenue £300,000. In connexion with the revenue from the Line of Steamers tho Treasurer does not consider it prudent at this stage to put forward any figures, though at a later stage they will be submitted. The figures show an approximate loss of revenue of £300,000, but that is not to be taken as indicating that there has been a loss of that amount. The estimated revenue from Australian note issue is £1,400,000, the approximate £1,261,482, showing a decrease of £138,518. The advances made necessary by war finance are now being paid ofl’ and consequently the earnings of the note issue are less.
The estimate of transactions for 1921- 22 made at the beginning of the year showed receipts £61,787,350, expenditure £64,104,458, showing a deficit of £2,317,103. So far as they can be given, the actual transactions foi’ the year show receipts £64,913,085, expenditure £65,118,265, showing a deficit of £205,180. The estimated deficit of £2,317,108 has been turned into a deficit of £205,180, or an improvement of £2,1.11,928 iu the position as foreshadowed in the last Budget.
On the approximate figures as now estimated, an amount of £6,413,147 will be carried forward by way of surplus for the present year, as against the estimated amount of £4,301,219.
As we shall bo adjourning presently, I thought it’ would be convenient and’ of value to honorable senators to have these figures on record, that they may peruse them at leisure, and form their conclusions upon them.
– I think the Treasurer’s statement last year indicated that a sum of £7,000,000 of taxation was outstanding. Can the honorable senator say how much of that amount has been collected f
– I am not in a position to do so. There is a great deal of information which will have to he given in the Budget, which is not now available. There has been no time to examine the figures in detail, hut I think that this is the first time iu the history of the Commonwealth when this Parliament has been placed in possession of such figures as I have to-day submitted, lit such an early stage of the financial year. Obviously, detailed particulars of the various accounts must await the delivery of the Budget, some time in August.
– 1 understand that in another place the position of the Government has been challenged, and I therefore move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday next.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 6.17 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 July 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220705_senate_8_99/>.