Senate
16 August 1922

8th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 8th Parliament
  3. 1922

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1319

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

MeetingsDuringSittingofSenate.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That so much of the Standing Orders bc suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Committee of Public Accounts attending meetings of such Committee during sittings of the Senate.

The motion is submitted by special request of the members of Committee, who desire that effect shall be given to it.

There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1319

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Defence Act - Regulations amended - StatutoryRules 1922, No. 102.

Defence - Report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Military Forces (Part I., 31st May, 1922).

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act - Statement re Pensions for the- twelve months ended 30th June, 1922.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired - For Defence purposes - Bargo, New South Wales.

For Postal purposes - Clermont, Queensland.

Public Service Act - Promotion of H. J. Drosten, Department of the Treasury.

Territory for the Seat of Government - Ordinance No. 4 of 1922 - Vine and Vegetation Diseases and Fruit PeBts.

page 1319

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Agreement with New South Wales Government.

Senator GARLING:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What is delaying the conclusion of an agreement between the Federal Government and the State of New South Wales in connexion with the immigration policy of the Government? 2.. If the delay is due to failure on the part of the Federal Government to appoint a representative to inquire into and report on the proposals of the State of New South Wales as to areas for the settlement of immigrants, will the Government take earlysteps to have the necessary appointment made and the inquiry proceeded with?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answer is - 1 and 2. The Commonwealth Government has selected two representatives to act in conjunction with the New South Wales and Victorian Government experts in connexion with this matter. Two Commonwealth representatives were selected; ‘but one has since expressed his inability to act. As soon as a suitable substitute is appointed, the proposed examination of the areas available will immediately be commenced.

page 1320

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITIES AND PENSIONS

Amounts Offered byroyal Navy and Royal Australian Navy.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount of gratuity offered to an officer of the Royal Navy, a lieutenant of four years’ seniority, and what is the amount of pension allowed on voluntary retirement under the Admiralty scheme of retrenchment?
  2. What is the amount of gratuity offered to an officer of the Royal Australian Navy, a lieutenant of four years’ seniority, and what is the amount of deferred pay in lieu of pension?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following replies : - 1. (a) £950; (b) £112 10s. per annum, which may be commuted for a cash amount of £1,570. Total lump sum obtainable, £2,620. 2. (a) £450; (b) £300. £750.

page 1320

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Buildings Rendered Unnecessary by Revised Defence Scheme - Compensation to Officers on Retirement.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many drill halls will be unused by reason of the revision of the Defence scheme?
  2. What is the capital value of these?
  3. Have any buildings (other than drill halls) been rendered unnecessary for the same reason ?
  4. If the answer to the last question be in the affirmative, how many are there of these and what is the capital value thereof?’ 5: Are there any training or other grounds formerly used for military purposes now unnecessary for such purposes?
  5. Will the Department consider applications from individuals desirous of utilizing any of the above for industrial or other useful purposes?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following replies : -

  1. Approximately fifty-two drill halls (Commonwealth property).
  2. Approximately £56,000.
  3. To date no other buildings have been rendered unnecessary.
  4. See reply to question 3.
  5. There are no training or other grounds immediately unnecessary .
  6. The Defence Department has handed over those buildings not required for present use to the Department of Home and Territories for letting to the best advantage.
Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Was compensation on retirement payable to officers of the Defence Department or in the military service of the Commonwealth who resigned their positions as from 30th June last?
  2. If so, to what amount?
  3. Has same been yet paid to them?
  4. If not (a) why the delay; (b) when will payment be made?
Senator PEARCE:

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following reply: 1, 2, 3, 4. Payment has not yet been authorised by Parliament. The Government have setaside a sum of money, out of which the compensation provided for in the Bill now before Parliament will be paid. Arrangements for making the payments as soon as they are authorized by Parliament are well advanced, and no delay will take place once the Bill becomes law.

page 1320

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Competitive Designs for Buildings

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for “Works and Railways, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to invite competitive designs for the buildings about to be erected at Canberra ?
  2. If so, will the Government invite architects outside, as well as within, the Commonwealth to take part in the competition?
Senator EARLE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · TASMANIA · NAT

– The Minister for Works and Railways supplies the following answer : - 1 and 2. The Government have already given an assurance that the designs of the monumental buildings at Canberra, when they come to be erected, will be the subject of competition; but they will not be constructed for years, and some provisional arrangements are being made.

The question of throwing open to competition the design of any of the residential buildings now about to be provided is under consideration.

page 1321

QUESTION

WHEAT

Commissions Paid on Purchases.

Senator MacDONALD:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

  1. Is the Minister able to supply the names of the variousfirms in each State that received commissions in connexion with wheat buying during the war?
  2. If so, will the Minister state what was the amount of commission received by each firm, and the rate allowed in each case?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answer supplied is - 1 and 2. The payment of remuneration in connexion with the receiving of wheat in the various States was a matter for decision by the different State authorities. The Commonwealth has no knowledge of the arrangements entered into.

page 1321

QUESTION

METALS

Commissions Paid on Purchases.

Senator MacDONALD:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

  1. Is the Minister able to supply the names of the various firms in each State that received commissions in connexion with the purchase of tin, wolfram, molybdenite, copper, &c, during the war?
  2. If so, will the Minister state what was the amount of commission received by each respective firm, and the rate allowed in each case?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answer supplied is - 1 and 2. It is presumed that every firm throughout the Commonwealth purchasing, as agents, tin, wolfram, molybdenite, &c, received commission from their principals, but the information asked for by the honorable senator with respect to such commissions is not in the possession of the Government.

page 1321

QUESTION

COMMOWEALTH WOOLLEN MILLS

Advertisements of Sale

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Regarding the contemplated sale of the Federal Woollen Mills, have particulars been advertised in the United States of America andCanada; if not, is this going to be done?
  2. When are the Federal Woollen Mills to be advertised for sale in the press of Australia?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers : - 1.Particulars have been made available in the several States of the Commonwealth, in New Zealand (through the New Zealand Government Agent), and in Great Britain (through the High Commissioner). It is not considered that any further publicity is necessary. 2: Advertisements have been appearing in the press throughout Australia at intervals since 22nd July, and will continue up to the date of the closing of tenders.

page 1321

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT ACCEPTANCE BILL

Motion (‘by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That leave be given, to introduce a Bill for . an Act to ratify an agreement for the variation of the agreement for the surrender and acceptance of territory for the purposes of the Seat of Government of the Commonwealth. .

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 1321

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Earle) read a first time.

page 1321

ELECTORAL BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 9th August, vide page 1228) :

Clauses 19 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 (Form of ballot-paper for Senate election).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for H&me and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- I move-

That, the clause be amended by leaving out Form E, and inserting in lieu thereof the following :: - forme.

page 1321

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Ballot-paper.

State of [here insert name of State].

Election of [here insert number] Senators.

Directions. - Inmarking his vote onthis ballot-paper the voter must place in the squares respectively opposite the names of at least - [here insert the number which represents twice the number of Senators to be elected plus one, or, if the number of candidates is less than that number, the total number of candidates] candidates the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, up to and inclusive of the number [here insert the number which represents twice the number of Senators to be elected phis one, or, if the number of candidates is less than that number, the total number of candidates], so as to indicate the order of his preference for such candidates, and if there are any more candidates may in addition indicate the order of his preference for as many of them as he pleases by placing in the squares’ respectively opposite their names other numbers next in numerical order after those already used by him.

Honorable senators will observe that this form is similar to the original form with the exception that it provides for a space between the groups of candidates, and for the insertion of small letters to indicate the respective groups. In the original form there was no space between the groups of candidates, and the original alphabetical letter indicating a group candidate, being a capital letter, might be mistaken by an elector for the initial letter of a candidate’s Christian name. The substitution of small letters to indicate a group candidate is an obvious improvement.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– If the names of the candidates were bracketed together, it might convey to the mind of the elector that he was only required to vote- for a group, and that when he had so voted he had discharged his duty. It seems to me that the form of ballot-paper pro posed in the amendment is an improvement on the other, and is less likely to mislead the public.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I do not approve of the way in which the groups are proposed to be lettered. I understood, when the Senate agreed’ to the provision for groups, that the groups, and not the individual candidates1, would be lettered in alphabetical order.

Senator Earle:

-That would involve bracketing the groups.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Not necessarily. The idea’ was to assist the elector by enabling each political party to advise its supporters that the candidates representing that party would be found in group “A,” “ B,” or “ C.” Now we find that it is not the group that is proposed to be lettered, but each candidate’s name, and in a way that will make it almost impossible, except in certain circumstances, for the electors to determine to which group a candidate belongs. I do not know whether my experience has been different, from that of other honorable senators, but I have been in polling booths late in the afternoon when it was so dark that it was almost impossible to see the names of candidates, although they were printed in large letters. If very small letters are printed in front of each name, I can easily conceive that electors, and particularly those who are aged, will not be able to distinguish between them. What objection could there be to the letter being placed in front of the squares, and a large capital letter instead of a small one being used ? This would make it quite clear to the electors which candidates were grouped together.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I agree with the suggestion put forward by Senator Duncan. The amendment proposes to put the letter in the wrong place. It should be on the other side of the square, . and in bolder type. I can see no objection to printing the letter * A,” “ B,” or “ C,” so large that it would instantly catch the eye of the elector, and make the ballot-paper clearer to him. We have to remember that many people: have imperfect sight; that the ballot-papers are frequently printed on inferior paper, and that some of the polling booths are very, badly lighted. Owing to these causes it is exceedingly difficult for many people to pick out ‘the lettering. In dull places, I sometimes have difficulty in deciphering reading or writing on inferior paper, and I am quite sure that many other people have had the same experience. I do not think that the electors, after having voted for one group, of candidates, would think that they had fulfilled their duty. If they were informed that they would have to vote for seven names, they would vote for seven. If the Minister will not accept the suggestion, 1 intend to move an amendment.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I hope that Senator Reid will not move the suggested amendment. I feel quite sure that the effect of itwould be confusion to the electors. If a. large “A” were placed opposite the names in each’ group, some of the electors would certainly have it impressed upon their minds that when they had voted for the group, or groups, without voting for the individual candidate, they had fulfilled their duty. The position of the names on the ballot-paper shows all that an elector requires to know.

Senator Reid:

– Why not have the letter on the outside ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I think it is better where it is. If we altered it, we might not be improving matters. I have had samples of various ballot-papers printed. The electoral officers tell me that the form proposed is least likely to lead to informal voting, and I agree with them.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– When I first saw the suggested ballot-paper I objected to it because of . the smallness of the letters “A,” “B,” and “C,” but, having examined a facsimile of the real ballot-paper, I have formed the opinion that, although the letters are small, they could be discerned readily in any polling booth. I. do suggest, however, that there should be a double space between each of the squares, opposite the ungrouped candidates, in order to avoid confusion in the minds of electors. There should be as much space between the names of the independent candidates at the bottom of the list as there is elsewhere on the ballot-paper. On the sample paper the ungrouped candidates appear to be in a group at the bottom. If the letters “ A,” “ B,” and “ C “ are to be adopted as shown on the sample ballot-paper, it will necessitate an amendment of section 105a d, which we have dealt with in a previous clause1, and where we have already declared that capital letters shall be used. My whole reason for supporting this proposal is to make the issue plain, and it will clarify the position if We keep the groups separate and allow each ungrouped candidate to have a double space after his name, so as to make it clear that he is not in a group.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It is quite clear, from the comment of honorable senators, that this innovation for the ‘ purpose of enabling electors to cast their votes intelligently presents fresh difficulties every time we examine it. We could scarcely expect anything else, when we are asked to adopt a; practice that has been cast aside in the country in which it has been most exhaustively tried. There is a danger in determining .too hastily to adopt a new proposal until every aspect of it has been . thoroughly discussed, and I am afraid that, in this case, we have made up our collective mind rather hurriedly. I am reminded of an old pitcher. Every time one tries to patch it up, it breaks in a fresh place. This proposal is .an old pitcher which was discarded long ago - the ticket system of the United States of America. Previous speakers have referred to the difficulty of enabling an elector to record his choice intelligently. Let me put in a word on behalf of that much-neglected type of candidate, the man who chooses to have an independent mind on political issues, and also on behalf of another type who may not happen to be in favour with the governing body of his party at the time of an election, but who may choose to take his chance in the contest. We provide a means for that unfortunate: man to have his name placed on the ballot-paper, but we put him at the tail-end of it, because he does not happen to be the appointed and anointed of his party for the time being. Some of us, as old political campaigners, have known men in the past who would not bow the knee to party domination, but preferred to try their chances alone. Sometimes this type of candidate succeeds. More often he fails, but why should we make his failure more assured by this device, and why put additional aid to his downfall in the hands of the group of candidates who happen to be within . the charmed circle of party nominees, and whose desire is to excludethe less-favoured candidate from the group ? In a free Democracy the independent candidate, if he is not to be encouraged, should certainly not be handicapped. Honorable senators, who have initial letters near the end of the alphabet, would, probably, like their names to commencewith “A” or “ B,” but, under this proposal, candidates with names beginning with “ A,” “ B,” or “ C “ would be put at the bottom of the list, if they did not happen to come within the charmed circle of those who bear the imprimatur of a party. Suppose the Labour party had three nominees. By the procedure proposed in the. Bill, they would stand an excellent chance of being placed at the head of the list, and of securing that wayward vote cast by jaded electors who cannot cast their eye downa ballot-paper. The independent candidate, however, is at the mercy, for the time being, of the very men whose special object it is to see that his name is not included on the ballotpaper at all. It is a wrong policy, and subversive of that fundamental principle of justice, of giving a chance to an independentminded candidate, who should not be discouraged as he would be under this proposal. If such men come forward, they should have the opportunity of forming a group and having an equal chance with the white-haired boys who happen to be selected by a particular party, but contrary to past practice, they will have to place their fate in the hands of selected candidates. Is there any reason why selected representatives of a party should sit in judgment on independent candidates? If Smith, Brown and Robinson are the selected candidates of, say, the Nationalist party, why should O’Brien, Edwards and Jackson, who are also members of the same party, and who wish to come forward as independent candidates, not have the same rights as the selected three? Under the present proposal they will be placed at the bottom of the list because tiiey do not happen to be the selected representatives of any particular party.

Senator Garling:

– If the proposed ballot-paper is to be amended in the way the honorable senator suggests, clause ‘10 will have to be amended.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Bill has not yet left our hands, and that can still be done. Surely selected candidates have sufficient political chivalry to say that, although they have no power to keep independent candidates out of the contest, they have no desire to handicap other members of their own party who are willing to have a “go.” Why should not Abraham Anderson or Benjamin Buckley be in their proper alphabetical order near the top of the paper instead of at the end, as is proposed ? Senator Garling has said that the position cannot be altered unless certain clauses which have already been passed are reconsidered. That may be so, but as we are discussing the schedule, I wish to extract from the Minister an assurance that independent candidates representing any political party, although they may not have the indorsement or benediction of their party, shall have the right to come forward as members of an independent group of that party.

Senator Pearce:

– There is nothing to prevent them forming another- group.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am glad to have that assurance. But the Minister will readily recognise that, in such circumstances, there is likely to be two Nationalist and two Labour parties in the field, which clearly demonstrates the chaos into which ‘this discarded ticket system is leading us. Candidates should appear on the ballot-paper in their alphabetical order, and should stand on merit alone.

Senator PLAIN:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the amendment (proposed new Form E) be amended by leaving out the lower-case letters and ‘brackets appearing opposite the names of grouped candidates and inserting in lieu thereof capital letters “A,” “B”“C,” &c, before the square opposite the candidate’s surname.

Honorable senators will see that, if the amendment is adopted, the capital letter in the position I have indicated will be more pronounced than the lower-case letter in the position suggested. The object of the proposal is to simplify the work of electors, and if my amendment were agreed to, confusion would be avoided because an , elector, when perusing the ballot-paper, would see at a glance a capital letter indicating the candidates for which he wished to vote. The letters proposed are too small, and would be difficult to understand, especially by those whose eyesight was at all defective.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the letter should be before the square, and that the vote should be recorded within the square?

Senator PLAIN:

– Yes. The amendment is one that should he adopted, as it will be a means of assisting electors in recording an intelligent vote.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In agreeing to clause 10 we have committed ourselves to the group system, and also to the lettering to be used. The object of the altered form of the ballot-paper is to assist some electors - not the candidates or group of candidates - who may not be as familiar with the method of recording a vote as others may be. In examining the ballot-paper, which the Minister (Senator Pearce) now wishes to withdraw, it would appear that the lettering may be somewhat confusing, as there may be a group A candidate named Brown, and also a group B candidate of the same name, and it might be thought by some that one was named A. Brown, and the other B. Brown.

Senator Pearce:

– I am prepared to accept Senator Plain’s amendment.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am glad to have the Minister’s assurance, because I believe it will be a means of assisting electors. It has been suggested by some honorable senators that independent candidates may wish to form a group outside the recognised party nominees. I can quite understand a candidate from each of the three present political parties in this Parliament agreeing amongst them.selves to form a group.

Senator Pearce:

– There is nothing to ;prevent them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I fail to see that any candidate or group will be at a disadvantage by’ being placed at the bottom of the ballot-paper. There must be some name at the bottom of the paper. I would advise that there should be spaces between the names of individual candidates as well as between groups of candidates. Our . intention is to make the ballot-paper as clear as possible to the elector. I direct attention to the fact that it has been the practice at elections to use a ballot-paper of one colour for Senate elections, and of another colour for elections for the House of Representatives, and if there should be a referendum taken at the time - and God forbid that one should ever be taken again at the same time as a Federal election! - a ballot-paper of yet another colour is used for the referendum. Small letters on these coloured papers would be difficult to read, and that might lead to confusion. We often hear of the number of informal votes that are cast at elections, and the purpose of the proposed amended ballot-paper is to reduce the number of such votes. I am glad to learn that the Minister intends to accept Senator Plain’s amendment.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I do not desire that honorable senators should be under any misapprehension. In accepting Senator Plain’s amendment I do not accept any proposal, and as far as I know none has so far been made, to provide spaces between the names of individual candidates. That is not involved in Senator Plain’s amendment.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the amendment (proposed new Form E) be further amended by making the spaces between the names of candidates who are not grouped, the same as the spaces between . groups of candidates.

I think it is unnecessary to argue the matter. Unless the amendment I submit is agreed to, the names of candidates that have no distinctive letters opposite them on the ballot-paper will appear as if those candidates had grouped themselves together, though, as a matter of fact, they may not have done so.-

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I ask Senator Garling not to press his amendment. I think he will realize that when capital letters appear on the ballot-paper opposite the names of persons included in groups, that will make a sufficient differentiation between candidates in groups and those who are not included in groups. It would make the ballot-paper very lengthy if there were many individual candidates, and it were necessary to have spaces between their names.

Senator Garling:

– I appreciate the objection the Minister has raised, and ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment of the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– What I desire to say has no particular bearing on the question now under discussion, but when the Bill was previously under consideration in Committee I made a statement which unfairly reflects upon one of our returning officers. I wish to refer to what I said in order to make an explanation to put that officer right. While I was speaking Senator Pearce interjected -

In the disputed Ballarat election it was contended that certain people had been improperly allowed to vote, and if those questions could have been asked on that occasion the trouble there would have been prevented.

I replied to that interjection in these terms -

I am glad the Minister has mentioned that election. The upsetting of it was due to the action of the returning officer. Are we to give more power to those officers?

When I made that statement I had in mind the report of the Ballarat case, in which there appears the following: -

Errors of Officialsheld to have affected the Result of the Election.

The Court decided -

That three persons who claimed to vote under section 121 of the Act had been refused the right to vote owing to error of judgment on part of tho Presiding Officers at the polling booths at which they presented themselves for that purpose;

that, through oversight, one elector, whose name appears on the Certified List of Voters for the polling, was refused the right to vote:

that three persons who claimed to vote as absent voters at small country polling places in divisions other than Ballarat, were not permitted to so vote;

that a Presiding Officer, in an endeavour to assist an elector, misled her as to the name of the division for which she was entitled to vote as an absent voter; and after taking evidence as to how certain of the persons concernedhad intended to vote, voided the election, on the ground that official errors were proved to have affected the result,

The errors referred to were those of the Presiding Officers, and not, as I said, of the Returning Officer. I have no desire to reflect upon the Returning Officer for Ballarat; and I take this opportunity of withdrawing my statement so far as it applies to him, and of offering any apology which may be due to laceration of his feelings because of the publication of what I said.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– As consequential upon amendments we have already made, I move -

That the amendment (proposed new Form E) be further amended by omitting the lower-case letters and brackets “ (a),” “ (b)” and “ (c)” in the footnote and inserting capital letters in lieu thereof.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know whether this is the right place to do so, but I ask the Minister whether it is not necessary, in view of the amendments which are now being made, to amend clause 10, which we have already passed?

Senator Pearce:

– I shall have to consider that.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I wished merely to direct the Minister’s attention to it.

Amendmentof the amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That in proposed new Form E after the word “ before,” in the first line of the footnote, the words “ the square opposite “ be inserted.

Amendment (proposed new Form E), as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 14 -

Section115 of the principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - “115. (1) The Presiding Officer-

shall put to every person claiming to vote the following questions: -

If any person refuses to answer fully any question put to him by the Presiding Officer under the authority of this section, or by his answer shows that he is not entitled to vote, his claim to vote shall be rejected.

The voter’s answer to any question put to him by the Presiding Officerunder the authority of this section shall be conclusive, and the matter shall not, subject to this section, be further inquired into during the polling.

Where a person’s claim to vote has been rejected in pursuance of this section, and that person alleges that his claim to vote is wrongfully, rejected, and states the ground of his allegation, the Presiding Officer shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, permit him to vote if he makes a declaration in the prescribed form before the Presiding Officer as to the grounds of his allegation.” . . .

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia. · NAT

– I move -

That the words “ or by his answershowsthat he is not entitled to vote,” lines 9-10, be- left out.

When this clause was under consideration, Senator Gardiner pointed out that sub-clauses 2, 3, and 4 did not sufficiently safeguard the rights of an elector to pur* sue his claim to vote if the Presiding Officer proposed to reject it. The intention is that, if a Presiding Officer is not satisfied with the answers given, the elector may persist in his claim to vote; but that his vote shall be sealed up pending a decision by the Returning Officer as to whether it shall be allowed or rejected at the scrutiny. I promised that I would look into the matter, and, having done so, I am submitting amendments to remedy the defect complained of.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

Leave out proposed sub-section (3), insert the following new sub-section : - “ (3) If from the answers of a person to the questions put to him by the Presiding Officer under this section, the Presiding Officer is of opinion that that person is not entitled to vote, the Presiding Officer shall inform him that, in his opinion, his claim to vote should be rejected, and shall thereupon reject his claim to vote, unless that person alleges that his claim to vote should not be rejected, and states the grounds of his allegation, and makes a declaration in the prescribed form before the Presiding Officer as to the grounds of his allegation.”

Leave out sub-section (4).

At end of clause add the following new subsection: - “ (6) The voter’s answer to any question put to him by the Presiding Officer under the authority of this section shall be conclusive, and the matter shall not, subject to this section, be further inquired into during the polling.”

Clause as further amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Clause 23 reconsidered and consequentially amended, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, Standing and (Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Amendment (by Senator Earle) agreed to -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 10.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 10 -

  1. before the surname of each candidate in the first group in the ballot-papers there shall be printed the letter “ (A) “; before the surname of each candidate in the second group in the ballot-papers there shall be printed the letter “ (B) “ and so on, as the case requires;

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That paragraph (d) of proposed section 105a be left out, and the following new paragraph inserted in lieu thereof : -

  1. before the. square opposite the sur name of each candidate in the first group in the ballot-papers there shall be printed the letter “ (A) “; before the square opposite the surname of each candidate in the second group in the ballot-papers there shall be printed the letter “ (B) “; and so on, as the case requires;
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I direct attention to an apparent oversight on the part of the Minister (Senator Pearce). If my memory serves me aright, Senator Garling, when the Bill was ‘going through Committee, directed attention to clause 3, and proposed an amendment of sub-clause (2). It was accepted by the Minister, but now appears in an altered form as placed before the Committee. Sub-clause 3 is not in the form accepted by the Minister and passed by the Committee. I pointed out that the clause would presuppose the existence of two different classes in the same group. It is now worded differently, and conveys what Senator Garling thought it should convey. I think that the approval of the Committee will be required for that.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– The only tiling wrong with clause 3 is the words that are used to express it. As we passed it the clause said, “ a group shall include the names of those candidates only who notify . . . that they desire to have their names included in the group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group.” The singular number should have been used instead of the plural. My suggestion is that sub-clause 2 should read - .

A group shall include the names of those candidates only who shall each notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after each has been nominated, and not later than 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that he desires to have his name included in the group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.

That would prevent any possibility of a mistake.

Senator Pearce:

– The draftsman is satisfied with the wording.

Senator GARLING:

– I have seen the draftsman, and understood that he agreed with me that the wording as it appears in the amendment already passedis objectionable. He handed me, a few minutes ago, a proposed further amendment, and I assumed that the Minister was going to move it himself.

Senator Pearce:

– I am not in the draftsman’s confidence, apparently. I do not intend to propose any amendment.

Senator GARLING:

– We have passed a clause which is absolutely absurd in its wording. Any committee of men who could read English would agree with that statement.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

Thatthe reports be adopted.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I move-

That the Bill he recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 3.

I have already intimated that, in my opinion, the clause, as it stands, is not good English, and is incapable of being interpreted in a way which will give effect to our intentions. I desire that the Bill should be recommitted to enable us to make the meaning of the clause clear.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I ask the Senate not to accept this proposal for recommittal. I trust that Senator Garling will not think me discourteous, but will realize that the Bill is in my charge. The officers ofthe Government are at the disposal of honorable senators,if theywishtomove amendments, to assist them to draft their amendments in legalform. It is the primary duty of officers, however, to advise Ministers if they think that any drafting amendments are necessary. The officer, inthis instance, has notat any time advised me that anyamendment of clause 3 is necessary an order to giveeffect to thedesire of the Committee. He contends that the clause, as it stands, does give effect to the desireof the Committee. Senator Garling consulted him, because theclause did not meet Senator Garling ‘a view, and the officer has told me that he drafted an amendment, as it was his duty to do, at the request of Senator Garling, to give effect to Senator Garling’s view. That does not mean that the officer admits nhat there is a defect. It simply means that Senator Garling thinks that there is a defect, and that the officer, as a draftsman, drafted an amendment to give effect to Senator Garling’s view. If the draftsman had thought that the clause was defective, it would have been his duty to have reported the matter to me. When Senator Garling made that statement it surprised me that the draftsman in charge of the Bill should express dissatisfaction “to a private member, and not to me. *I have questioned him on the matter, and he has told me that he did not do so. He said that Senator Garling expressed a certain opinion as to the clause, and he took that to be a request to put in form an amendment to meet Senator Gar. ling’s views, which are not the draftsman’s views. It is a somewhat risky adventure to have too many cooks engaged on the business of framing this clause. The draftsman who has framed it has been engaged on the Bill throughout, and I desire Senator Garling to know that, in opposing the recommittal of the clause, I am not acting in any spirit of personal antagonism to him. I feel that I must do so because I am satisfied, with the assurance of the draftsman, that the clause does carry out the Committee’s intentions.

Senator Garling:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. When I spoke to the officer who handles these matters for the Minister, I placed my opinion before him, and he concurred with my view that the clause required amendment. He said, “ I will further consider the matter. It will be brought up again.” As I had heard nothing further of it I walked across the Chamber to him to-day, and he handed me a draft proposal forthe amendment ofthe clause. Ithought thattobe Minister would move it. I did not ask for it, and did not presume to move forit, but, seeing that nothing has beendone, I think it my duty to drawattention to an obvious defect in the clause.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) . - The honorable senator is not in order in arguing the question undercover of a personalexplanation.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 3 - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 12

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 3

  1. A group shall include the names of those candidates only who notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after they have been nominated, and not later than twelve o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that they desire to have their names included in that group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.
Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

. -I move-

That proposed sub-section (2) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : - “(2) A group shall include the names of those candidates only who shall each notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribed manner after each has been nominated, and not later than 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that he desires to have his name included in that group with the name or names of the other candidate or candidates in that group, and with such name or names only.”

The term “ those candidates only “ obviously indicates the plural, and manifestly presupposes a group who desire to be included with the names of ‘ ‘ other “persons, and there cannot be other persons in addition to the two or three who make the request to the Electoral Officer. Each should ask to have his name included in the group with the names of the other candidates.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– We should make provision for agreement on the part of the other candidates.

Senator GARLING:

– The Minister (Senator Pearce) stressed the fact that the wordsin the prescribed manner’’ would necessarily imply asking for the consent of those candidates. My point is that, as the clause stands, it is not sense, and the alteration I have suggested makes the meaning plain.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– The honorable senator has furnished evidence as to how foolish we should be to accept his amendment, because, since he first submitted it, two alterations have been made. He has now altered it so that an individual could notify the Electoral Officer that he desired to have his name included in a particular group. This would enable any candidate to have his name placed in a group without the consent of the other members of that group. The clause to which the Committee agreed is perfectly clear. The honorable senator has employed the expression “ name or names.” That is entirely unnecessary,because the Acts Interpretation Act makes the singular include the plural, and the plural the singular, as the case may require.

Senator Lynch:

– Did not the Minister accept Senator Garling’s amendment in the first place?

Senator PEARCE:

– What I accepted from Senator Garling is included in the Bill now.

Senator Garling:

– That is not quite correct.

Senator PEARCE:

– It was framed by the draftsman, and reads as follows: -

A group shall include the names of those candidates only who notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State in the prescribedmanner after they have been nominated, and not later than 12 o’clock noon on the day of nomination, that they desire to have their names included in that” group with the names of the other candidates in that proposed group, and with those names only.

The protection in this case against the interloper is that there is to be a joint and separate agreement; but, under Senator Garling’s present proposal, if Smith wished his name to be associated with those in a particular group, “ and with those names only,” the Electoral Officer would have to include him. If honorable senators accept the amendment they do so on their own responsibility. The draftsman is satisfied that the clause now in the Bill does what the Committee desires, that is, it enables a group to be formed by a joint agreement among those who constitute the group.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– When I voted with Senator Garling to recommit the Bill, I was not quite clear as to what form his amendment would take, but, unless he makes it more clear, I shall not vote with him any further. At present I think that the clause as already amended is preferable to the proposed further amendment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– When clause 3 was under consideration previously, Senator Garling proposed an amendment in the terms that the Minister (Senator Pearce) has just read. I referred at the time to the danger of accepting hastily an amendment drafted practically on the floor of the House. I pointed out the anomaly that there were two classes of senators referred to in the group. Senator Garling went to the draftsman, who recognised the necessity of recasting Senator Garling’s original amendment in order to convey its true sense. There was no intention to force the hands of the Government. When the amendment appeared in its altered form, with the approval of the draftsman, the Government would not accept it.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is overlooking the fact that there was an interval during which the Government had an opportunity of considering the matter.

Senator LYNCH:

– The clause in Senator Garling’a original language is unworkable, and will permit of a group within a group.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– Perhaps I may explain that I had only a typewritten copy to work upon, and I had drafted an amendment on. the lines I have mentioned this afternoon, which the Minister (Senator Pearce)’ said he would hand over to the draftsman for his approval. He then handed me a typewritten copy of the form in which it had been approved by the draftsman, and, looking at it hurriedly, I thought that it expressed what

I desired. Senator Lynch then drew attention to certain weaknesses in it, and I mentioned the matter to the Minister, who said that the clause could not then be recommitted. As I was not accustomed to the procedure adopted in Committee, I allowed the matter to stand over in the hope that I would be able to bring it up again, because, with Senator Lynch, I agree that the Minister’s amendment does not express what was intended in the amendment originally drafted.

Senator Pearce:

– It was not my amendment; I had really nothing to do with it.

Senator GARLING:

– The Minister said said that even at the last minute I found it necessary to make certain alterations, which showed the danger of introducing hurriedly drafted amendments. That is hardly fair to me, because I was not using my own language, but that employed by the draftsman. I still assert that as it now stands it means that a group can include the names of certain candidates, who notify the Commonwealth Electoral Officer that they desire to have their names included in that group with the names of the ‘ ‘ other ‘ ‘ candidates in that group.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Thirty could comprise a group if twenty-nine agreed to the thirtieth candidate being included.

Senator GARLING:

– There might be a possibility of that. It would, however, be clearer and more understandable if we used the words, “ each candidate shall notify the Commonwealth Returning Officer in the prescribed manner “ as I have mentioned, and less likely to lead to misunderstanding than if left in its present form.

Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.

Bill reported without further amendment; reports adopted.

page 1330

NATIONALITY BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 28th July, vide page 916) :

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Extension of Act to Territories) :

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This is really the main provision in the Bill, as it extends the provisions of the Nationality Act at present on the statute-book to Papua and Norfolk Island and other Territories brought under the authority of the Commonwealth by a proclamation of the Governor-General.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Revocation of Certificate of Naturalization) :

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · “Western Australia · NAT

– Under section 14 of the Nationality Act a certificate of naturalization means a certificate issued under a State Act as well as one granted by the GovernorGeneral. The words “ granted by him “ may mean the revocation of a State certificate, and the amendment under paragraph b will enable notice to be given by the Minister which is now given by the Governor-General. This is really a relic of the procedure under Crown Colonies administration, where notices were issued by the GovernorGeneral, and which, under this Bill, will now be issued by the Minister.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 11, and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1331

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 27th July, vide page 838) :

Clause 2 (Definitions):

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– References to leasing are proposed to be expressly included in the Act. At the same time ‘ ‘ Convey “ will now cover a grant of an interest less than the fee-simple and the release of land from an encumbrance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Persons under disability who may sell land to Commonwealth) -

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This provision will expressly authorize the owner of land who is under a disability to grant to the Commonwealth a lease or easement or other interest less than the fee-simple in the land. This is rendered necessary by the decision of the High Court in Rex v. Registrar of Titles (Victoria) ex parte The Commonwealth (20 Commonwealth Law Reports, 379), when it was held that the section does not, in its present form, include the power to lease. This provision will also enable any owner under disability to take such steps as are necessary under the Act to obtain compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition. At present such persons have no power to agree as to compensation payable or to give a receipt for money paid.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-brockman. - What is the meaning of the phrase “ person under disability?”

Senator PEARCE:

– It means a legal disability in regard to the transfer “of the land - for instance, not having a clear title.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Application of rent, purchase money, or compensation where parties not entitled to sell).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This clause is partly consequential on clause 3 in so far as provision is made for the application of rent. The new provisions are in sub-clauses 6, 7, 8, and 10, and these are intended to facilitate administration. In these cases rent, purchase money, or compensation may be paid to the trustee or other person under disability, and his receipt will be a good discharge for the payment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Person claiming under 40 years’ title to be deemed owner).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– Section 12 of the Act as it at present stands has been found to be of little or no use. The proposed amendment is intended to bring it into line with the Conveyancing Acts of the States, under which forty years’ use of land is a sufficient title for the vendor, and it will apply only to land not under the Torrens system. There are still some considerable areas of land which are not under that system, and which it may be desiraible for the Commonwealth to acquire.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 -

Section 14 of theprincipal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2), and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - . “ (2) The Minister may, where the total rent or consideration payable by the Commonwealth for the period certain does not exceed One hundred and sixty pounds, approve of the Commonwealth -

taking a lease of the land for a period certain not exceeding three years; or

accepting a licence to enter thereon for any period certain, on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit.”

Section proposed to he amended - “ (2) The Minister may, in any case where the interest proposed to. te acquired is a lease for a term not exceeding three years, ata rental not exceeding Fifty pounds per annum, approve of the acquisition by the Commonwealth of the lease of the land by agreement with the owner. “ (3) The Attorney-General may thereupon, for and on behalf of the Commonwealth, execute or apcept any conveyance or document, or enter into any covenant or agreement, and do anything necessary for the purpose of effecting the acquisition of theland.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This proposed amendment of the existing Act will make it clear that the Commonwealth can take a lease of land for certain periods at certain rentals, and also that the Commonwealth may accept certain licences. It is rendered necessary because of a legal decision in a case of the Registrar of Titles exparte the Commonwealth, to which I have previously referred, and which will be found in 20 Commonwealth Law Reports, page 379. It has been held that some amendments are necessary to make the proposed amendment of the existing law more clear, and those amendments have been circulated.

Amendments (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That after the word “amended” (line 1), “ (a) “ be inserted.

That the following words be added: -

by omitting from sub-section (3) the word “ thereupon “ ; and

by adding at the end of sub-section (3) the words “ or the taking of the lease or the . acceptance of the licence.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 -

Section 15 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: - “ (2a) The Governor-General may in the notification declare that the estate or interest of any lessee or occupier of the land shall, subject to the conditions (if any) stated in the notification, continue until it expires by effluxion of time or is otherwise lawfully determined.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– At the present time, on the acquisition of any land any leases of the land are converted into claims for compensation.. That is not always desirable, and the amendment as proposed will enable a lessee to continue to occupy the land until the termination of the lease. A case in point which will readily occur to those who have followed the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth is that of the acquisition of certain land for the General Post Office, in Perth. Similar cases may arise in any of the capital cities. iSome of the land may be under occupation with” shops or hotels, and the Commonwealth may not require to use that land. A claim for compensation may be made, although the lessee of’ the land may not be disturbed in his rights. It is obviously necessary that in such cases the Commonwealth should have the power of resumption, and should be able ito allow a lease of property not required to run its course in the ordinary way. A drafting amendment of this clause is also necessary.

Senator Keating:

– Have these drafting amendments been circulated?

Senator PEARCE:

– I understood that they had ; but I am sorry to say that I have just learned that they have not been circulated. I will not ask honorable senators to accept any amendment that has not been circulated, and I therefore move -

That clause 9 be postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause postponed.

Clauses 10 and 11 postponed.

Clause 12-

Section 19 of the principal Act is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead: - “10. Whenever any land has been acquired by the Commonwealth by compulsory process -

either House of the Parliament may, within thirty days after a copy of the notification of acquisition has . been laid before it, pass a resolution that the notification shall be void and of no effect, either wholly or as to any part of the land acquired; or”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– The proposed new section is intended to remove the limitations at present existing on the power to revoke a notice for the compulsory acquisition of land. The object is to enable the Commonwealth to give back land where exorbitantclaims for compensation that are difficult to combat are made. The proposed section does not take away from any person on whose land a notice of compulsory acquisition may have been posted any claim he may have for damages because of the posting of the notice. But if, for some reason or another, the Commonwealth Government desire to revoke a notice of compulsory acquisition, the proposed new section will enable them to do so. That is eminently desirable, although the power is likely to be exercised only on very rare occasions.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I see that the proposed new section provides that whenever any land has been acquired by the Commonwealth by compulsory process either House of the Parliament may, within thirty days, pass a resolution that the notification shall be void and of no effect. That seems to imply that an opportunity would be given for the consideration of such a proposal. I point out that the Government might delay the laying of the copy of the notification of acquisition before Parliament until the dying hours of a session, and Parliament might thus lose its, chance of exercising the power which the proposed new section would appear to confer upon it.

Senator Keating:

– I think that under one of our Acts it is provided that the “ thirty days “ shall mean thirty sitting days.

Senator LYNCH:

– It occurred to me that such a thing as I have suggested might happen under this clause.

Senator Pearce:

– There has not been a case of the kind in twenty years.

Senator LYNCH:

– If , these notices were to be laid before Parliament at the commencement of a. session time would be given to consider the proposals made. If the copy of the notification of acquisition is laid before Parliament in the dying hours of a session, it may render the power apparently given to Parliament to deal with the matter a shadow rather than a substance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Registration of notification).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This clause proposes to bring under the Torrens system any land required by the Commonwealth by compulsory process, which is not at the time of acquisition under that system. This will greatly facilitate any dealings by the Commonwealth with the land, and is most desirable from that point of view. Those of us who are admirers of the Torrens system will cordially approve of this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 -

After section twenty of the principal Act the following section is inserted in Part II.: - “(20a) The specification in a notification of any land which the Commonwealth is not empowered to acquire shall not affect the validity or effect of the notification in respect of any other land specified in the notification which the Commonwealth is by this Act empowered to acquire.”.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This proposed amendment of existing law is desirable in order to prevent the possibility of a notification of compulsory acquisition being declared wholly void by reason of the fact that it may include a portion of a public park vested in local authority and intended for the recreation of the people. The clause will not give the Commonwealth Government any power to acquire such areas, as their acquisition is not permitted by the principal Act, but what it will provide for is that, if any such land is included in any notice of compulsory acquisition, the notice shall not be voided in respect of the land referred to therein’ which we can lawfully acquire.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Power to examine lands).

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– The question of the supply of water available on land is an important factor in determining its suitability for Commonwealth purposes. It is, therefore, proposed to take the power to search for water, by boring if necessary, and that is the object of this amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 -

Section twenty-eight of the principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (1) the following sub-section : - “ (1a) The lessee of any land acquired by compulsory process shall be entitled to compensation “in respect only of that portion (if any) of the term of the lease which is unexpired at the date upon which he ceases occupation of the land, but in determining the compensation payable to the owner of the reversion the lessee shall be deemed to have ceased occupation of the land on the date of acquisition.”

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · “Western Australia · NAT

– This proposed amendment is consequential upon proposed sub-section 2a of section 15. It will be noted that, for the purpose of determining the compensation payable to the owner of the land, the lessee is deemed to have ceased occupation of the land on the date of acquisition. This is to prevent the owner of the land from claiming compensation in respect of the improvements made to the land by the lessee after the date of acquisition.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– Many of these leases carry the option of extension.

Senator Pearce:

– Is not that the term of the lease?

Senator Keating:

– This clause does not deal with the term of the lease, but the period of the lease.

Senator GARLING:

– I arn very much afraid that the clause as worded will have a harmful effect upon the holders of certain leases.

Senator Pearce:

– But this is only one of many clauses dealing with leases.

Senator GARLING:

– At all events, I am pointing out that the clause will probably prevent a lessee from receiving full compensation at the expiration of his term, because it disregards the fact that he may have entered into contracts to effect important improvements, and had an option of renewal which would be a valuable consideration to him. I think the clause should be so worded as to include the lessee’s interest in any option.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– Senator Garling appears to assume that this provision stands alone, and that we have not a Lands Acquisition Act in operation.

Senator Garling:

– I am not speaking with that idea in mind at all.

Senator PEARCE:

– Well, that is the only conclusion one can draw from the honorable senator’s remarks. He assumes, evidently, that* because the clause contains .no mention of a lessee’s option in respect of a renewal of a lease, such a contingency is not provided for. As a matter of fact, hundreds of cases have been decided under the existing Act, and a lessee’s option has always been a factor in determining the amount of compensation to be paid. This clause deals with only one phase of a lease, and that is its term. it does not take away from a lessee any light which he may hold with regard to an option for a renewal. That is covered in the principal Act.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I do not think the Minister (Senator Pearce) has cleared up the point that has been raised by Senator Garling. In fact, I think his remarks support somewhat what Senator Garling has said. The Minister mentioned that hundreds of cases had already been dealt with, in which a lessee’s option was considered as a factor in determining the amount of compensation to be paid. If that is the law, then this clause appears to have been deliberately designed to abolish the practice and repeal the law. It states: -

The lessee of any land acquired by compulsory process shall ‘be entitled to compensation in respect only of that portion (if any) of’the term of the lease which is unexpired at the date upon which he ceases occupation, . . . and so on. That is to say, if at the date of acquisition, a lessee’s term has two and a-half years to run, he will be entitled to compensation for only two and a-half years, and if he has the option to extend the lease for another, ten years he will be deliberately prevented from claiming compensation in respect of his option.

Senator Pearce:

– No. In that case the lessee’s term would be the two and ahalf years, plus his option for renewal.

Senator KEATING:

– I am afraid that . will not be the interpretation of the law unless we have some definition of the word “term.” The term of a lease is a technical expression, meaning the period for which the lease runs. An option is a right which may or may not be exercised by the lessee.

Senator Pearce:

– And will that not be regarded as his interest in the lease?

Senator KEATING:

– No. It is interest in futuro, but not in esse - contingent, not vested. It must be exercised by the lessee within the period, and subject to the conditions of the lease.

Senator Pearce:

– It is a saleable interest.

Senator KEATING:

– It is. But if a lessee holding an option for renewal of a lease sells the lease, he has to enter into a covenant that he will exercise his option within the prescribed period. As far as the Lands Acquisition Act is concerned, it looks to the owner of the land, and compensation is paid to the owner. The point raised by Senator Garling requires a little more elucidation than has been given to it by the Minister.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– The term of a lease is binding upon both lessor and lessee, but an option for a renewal is binding upon neither party. It is not a term of a lease, and as a condition it becomes binding upon a. lessee only if he exercises his right. A lessor cannot force him to renew.

Senator Pearce:

– It is a dormant interest until it is exercised.

Senator GARLING:

-Yes. Lessees enter into contracts with this condition attached to leases every day of the week. Therefore, an option is a valuable portion of a contract, but under this clause it will be terminated at the expiration of the “ term “ of the lease and without compensation.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– Surely my honorable and learned friends, Senators Keating and Garling, will not argue that an option is not a saleable interest.

Senator Keating:

– Nobody suggests that it is not.

Senator PEARCE:

– In this clause we are dealing with the term, not the interest, in a lease. There may be other interests, such as good-will. Unless an option is exercised the term is fixed definitely. How can an option be recognised until it is exercised? A lessee may have an option for a renewal of from five to twenty years, but until he definitely exercises his option, how can any’ one say what the term of his lease will be? A lessee’s interest in the matter of compensation is safeguarded in the Act.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– What section ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Section 30, which provides -

If any person having a greater interest than as a tenant at will of any land acquired by compulsory process makes a claim for compensation in respect of any unexpired term or interest, under any lease, the Attorney-General may, by demand in writing, require him to produce the lease in respect of which the claim is made, or the best evidence thereof in his power.

If the demand is not complied with within twenty-one days after service thereof on the claimant, he shall be deemed to be a tenant holding from year to year, and shall not be entitled to further compensation than as such a tenant.

Senator Keating:

– That does not touch the point raised.

Senator PEARCE:

– It deals with the interest of a tenant in the lease. I can assure honorable senators that I am not trying to trick them in this matter. The Law Officers have assured me that this clause does not touch a lessee’s interest in the lease as expressed by an option.

Senator Keating:

– I do not think it does.

Senator PEARCE:

– Senator Garling says that the clause will interfere with a lessee’s interest in an option. We say it does not.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is not a question of doubting the good intention of the Minister or the Government; it is a question of whether the amendment will or will not operate to the prejudice of a lessee, according to the interpretation placed upon it by the Department. No doubt hundreds of lessees of Crown lands have carried out extensive -improvements, feeling certain that in the ordinary course of events they will get a renewal of their leases. The Minister would do well to look into the point raised by Senator Garling.

Senator Pearce:

– I shall do that, because I have no intention of injuring a lessee’s interest in an option.

Senator GARDINER:

– My view is that in a matter like this “the officials of a Government Department would stick hard and fast to the letter of the law. They would throw upon some one else the onus of proving that their interpretation of the law is not correct. I do not say that they would not be right, from their point of view. I think Senator Garling is correct.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- We cannot make the law too clear. I have looked at section 30 of the Act, and I cannot see how it is going to meet the case mentioned by Senator Garling. It appears to me that the case could be met by the inclusion of a few words. I suggest to Senator Garling that, after the word “ unexpired “ in sub-clause 1 (a) the following shouldbe inserted, “ and any option of renewal thereof.” The sub-section would then read -

The lessee of any land acquired by compulsory process shall be entitled to compensation in respect only of that portion (if any) of the term of the lease which is unexpired, and any option of renewal thereof.

There is a good deal in the contention that the clause, as at present drafted, doe3 not cover contingencies which are likely to arise very frequently with regard to the vested interests that a lessee of land may have other than the actual lease under which he is working the land at the time when the acquisition is made.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– On a cursory reading of the clause I am inclined to think that the interpretation put upon it by Senator Garling is correct. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has informed us that if that be the correct reading it certainly does not convey the intention of the Government or of himself, and he has undertaken that the matter shall be looked into, and if it is found that Senator Gariing’s contention is correct, the mistake will be corrected. Personally, I am prepared to accept that assurance, ‘although I feel strongly that Senator Gariing’s view is correct. I am sure that it is not the desire, either of the Government or of the Senate, that a man who possesses a very valuable right under a lease should, by our inadvertently passing a clause of this kind, be denied monetary compensation for a valuable right of which he is deprived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 -

Section twenty-nine of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section - “ (3. ) The compensation payable to a lessee for the value of his interest in any land acquired by compulsory process shall not exceed the value of such interest on the date upon which the lessee ceases occupation of the land.”. .

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– This clause is necessary, owing to the fact that, under proposed new sub-section 2a of section 15, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 9 of the Bill, the lessee may continue in occupation until the termination of the lease by effluxion of time.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It is provided that the compensation to be paid shall be based on the value of the land acquired by notification on the date on which the lessee ceases occupation of it. If we consider the provisions relating to acquisition, it appears that the process is a very slow and uncertain one. Whatever notice of acquisition is given it is always subject to approval by Parliament, if Parliament so desires.

Senator Pearce:

– That is not so. Parliament has only a power of veto.

Senator LYNCH:

– Whenever land has been acquired by the Commonwealth by compulsory purchase, either House of Parliament may, within thirty days after the copy of the notification of acquisition has been laid before Parliament, pass a resolution. If the Government makes up its mind to acquire certain land it gives notice to the owner thereof, and the power is retained by Parliament to revoke that notice. The process obviously may take months to complete. It is, as I have said, slow, tedious, and uncertain. If Parliament were not sitting the completion of the process might take six months.

Senator Pearce:

– The Minister can acquire land at any time, subject to the power of veto, which, as a matter of fact, has not been exercised for twenty years, and is only exercised in exceptional cases of corruption, and so forth.

Senator LYNCH:

– There seems to be some doubt as to the meaning of the words “thirty days.” Do they mean thirty ordinary days, or thirty sitting days ?

Senator Pearce:

– Thirty sitting days.

Senator LYNCH:

– There is a difference of opinion on that point among men who axe better qualified to speak than I am. The fact that the Government gives notice to a lessee does not necessarily mean that the pro- perty will be acquired, but it means that it will swing in mid-air until Parliament exercises the right that we have deliberately placed in its hands. When it comes to a question of compensating the lessee, it is proposed to give him the value of the lease, not at the date upon which the notification is given, but at the date upon which the lessee gives up the land to the Government. Between these two dates there may be an interval of several months. The fact that a Government is in the field as a prospective, potential buyer of leasehold property means that the value of the property becomes very much enhanced. As a result, Governments are sometimes driven to the necessity - I do not know how praiseworthy or justifiable it is - of obtaining properties, not exactly surreptitiously, but by very quiet means, so as to avoid enhancing their value in the market by reason of the suspicion that the Government is a prospective buyer. It is proposed in the Bill to give the lessee the utmost benefit of the doubt - that is to say, if there is going to be an enhancement of value the lessee will get the benefit of it. I think that is a reversal of past experience, and I think, also, that we should recast this clause so as to give a fair deal to the lessee on the one hand, and the prospective purchaser, the Government, on the other. The value that should be fixed is unquestionably the value which a Court or other machinery constituted under the Act would agree that the land was worth on the date when thenotice of acquisition was given. Although the appearance of the Government in the field as a prospective buyer may, as we know it does, send values up and although that may give a tangible increase in the value of a leasehold, we propose to say that the Government must pay that enhanced value.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator suggests that the lessee should be. paid compensation for a longer period ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I want the lessee to be given the value of his lease, less the value which his leasehold acquires by reason of the presence of the Government in the field as a buyer. The clause declares that the compensation should be based upon the value atthe time when the lessee is walking out and the Government is walking in.

Senator MacDonald:

– Does not the principal Act safeguard the Government ?

Senator Pearce:

– Of course it does.

Senator LYNCH:

– As I understand the language of the clause, it refers to the value when the lessee is giving up occupation to the Government.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– It seems to me that Senator Lynch suggests that we should allow as a claim for compensation the increased value given to a lease by the knowledge that the Government is about to acquire the property. Has the taxpayer no rights in this connexion? Has Senator Lynch no bowels of compassion for him? What has the Government done to the lessee?’. It does not do him any injury until it takes away his lease. If Senator Lynch’s contention were upheld we would turn into a claim for compensation the increased value given to the lease between the date of notification and the date of resumption. Why should we make a present of that to the lessee? Why has he a right to take that out of thepublic revenue? We do not propose to give him that right, and the honorable senator misreads entirely the words of the clause. The clause has to be read in conjunction with, clauses 9, 10, and 11, because on the acquisition of any land any leases on it are converted into claims for compensation. The amendments that we axe making by clauses 9, 10, 11, and the one the Committee is new considering, will enable lessees to continue in occupation of the land until the termination of the lease, if necessary. As it enables them to continue to occupy the land, and as thevalue of the land is enhanced by the fact that the Government has notified that it is going to resume, why should we turn that enhanced value into a claim for compensation ? All the clause says is that whenever we terminate a lease by entering into possession we shall compensate the lessee for the unexpired period of the lease. What more has he any right to expect? Senator Lynch has referred to the delay that may occur in dealing with the acquisition of land. As a matter of fact, there is very little delay. The Minister, may acquire land by notification in the Gazette, and there is provision whereby, if the parties cannot agree as to the claim for compensation they shall go to the Court. That might take some little time, but any delay would not be due to Parliament. Parliament votes the necessary sum for the acquisition of land. The power of veto has never yet been exercised. It is only provided for in case some Minister does an improper thing. I do not see why Senator Lynch should want to give a lessee any more compensation than he would get under this Bill, or under the original Act. There have been no cases of ill-treatment of lessees under the original Act, except where the Commonwealth, through not having the power now proposed to be given it, had to terminate leases. Under this clause we are obviating that, and, in many cases, we shall not disturb the leases, perhaps, for a number of years. Whilst it is very desirable not to inflict any damage on a lessee, we do not want to allow fictitious values to be attached to land simply by reason of the fact that the Government are putting up a post-office or some such building, thus allowing lessees to obtain compensation from the Government for value due merely to such an act of public policy.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– Clause 19 has to be read in conjunction with clause 18, which provides that, in determining the compensation payable to the owner of the reversion, the lessee shall be deemed to have ceased occupation of the land on the date of acquisition. There is some slight conflict between the two clauses, so I suggest that the Minister refer the matter back to the draftsman. Section 29 of the principal Act states -

  1. The value of any land acquired by compulsory process shall be assessed as follows : -

    1. In the case of land acquired for a public purpose not authorized by a special Act, according to the value of the land on the first day of January last preceding the date of acquisition ; and
    2. In the case of land acquired for a public purpose authorized by a special Act, according to the value of the land on the first day of January last preceding the first day of the Parliament in which the special Act was passed.

Standing alone, the meaning of the words, ‘ the value of any land ‘ ‘ includes any estate or interest in the land. In the clause under consideration the draftsman has added a third sub-clause, dealing with the manner in which the compensation payable to lessees shall be arrived at. It seems to me, therefore, that sub-clause Ishouldbegin - “ The value of any land other than leasehold land.”

Senator Pearce:

– That is unnecessary. We have altered the system of dealing with leases.

Senator GARLING:

– If the Minister does not alter it there will be a conflict with the words “ any land.” I merely suggest that the matter be referred to the draftsman, to see if there is anything in the point or not.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am afraid that the Minister (Senator Pearce) has unintentionally supported my view, when I pointed out that it would be wrong for the Government to pay an enhanced value because of the Government being a buyer. The Minister replied that there would be very little time for the giving of notice until the acquisition was accomplished, and that is partly a recognition of the soundness of my argument.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator is dealing with the acquisition, whereas I was dealing with the fact that you acquire the land before you determine the lease. When you have acquired the land, you do not necessarily determine the lease.

Senator LYNCH:

– The land is not acquired until Parliament fails to exercise its veto.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, it is.

Senator LYNCH:

– Is not the last determining factor the veto of Parliament? Does it mean that land could be acquired during the recess ? The process of acquiring land might be a matter of weeks, or it might extend over months. The Minister said that very little time would elapse, but there would necessarily be delay. Parliament should have the right to review the acts of Governments. It is common knowledge that the presenoe in the market of any Government as a buyer enhances: the value of property, and the Minister said that we should not allow fictitious Values to be created. That is a value that could only come about by the presence of the Government as a prospective buyer. When the Government decide to purchase land, it should be at the value on the day on which notice of acquisition was given.

Senator Pearce:

– That is provided for in the Act.

Senator LYNCH:

– The present clause is quite against that. It is entirely mandatory. According to this clause, there is one value, and one value only, which should be taken, and that is the price the property is considered to be worth on the date the lessee walks out and the Government walks in. That is fundamentally wrong.

Senator Pearce:

– If you look, at subsection 2 of section29 of the Act, you will see that what you are talking about is already provided for.

Senator LYNCH:

– If the Minister is satisfied that the position is safeguarded, I shall leave it at that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 -

Section thirty of the principal Act is amended -

by inserting after the word “produce “ the words “at his own expense”; and

by omitting the words “ tenant holding from year to year “ and inserting in their stead the words “ monthly tenant”.

Section proposed to be amended -

If any person having a greater interest than as a tenant at will of any land acquired by compulsory process makes a claim for compensation in respect of any unexpired term or interest under any lease, the Attorney-General may, by demand in writing, require him to produce the lease in respect of which the claim is made, or the best evidence thereof in his power.

If the demand is not complied with within twenty-one days after service thereof on the claimant, he shall be deemed to be a tenant holding from year to year, and shall not be entitled to further compensation than as such a tenant.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– The object of the amendment is to protect the Commonwealth from unfair and unnecessary charges, and if the lessee does not produce evidence) of his lease, it is considered that to make him a yearly tenant would be giving him too great an advantage. It might put him in a better position than under his lease. It seems perfectly reasonable to require a lessee to produce the lease at his own expense, and if he does not produce the document, which establishes his claim, he should be treated as a monthly tenant. There is an easy way for him to establish his claim, and that is by simply producing the document.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I differ from the Minister. This is a case of compulsory process. When a man iscompulsorily dispossessed of his property, an entirely new feature is introduced under this Bill whereby he would be compelled at his own expense to produce a certain document. He should be put to no expense at all. A man who is being dispossessed should not be asked, to bear any expense in making out his title to the land. It will be seen on reading through the Bill that an attempt is being made to introduce the principle that holdings are to be resumed at the expense of the one who is being dispossessed, and that is a principle which we, as representatives of the people, should not support. If the original Act had been framed when I was a member of this Chamber I would have pointed out that the provisionin which a lessee is given twenty-one days in which to present his documents is unjust, because in 50 per cent. of the cases dealt with they are” held by the. mortgagees. A person who may be holding land with a lease of five or ten years to run is under the hard conditions of the clause to be treated not even as a yearly tenant, but merely as a monthly one, and the compensation to be paid must be on that basis. It is such a striking instance of taking advantage of the subject that I shall oppose the clause.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I sympathize with those honorable senators who desire to see that the Commonwealth is not vested with power to victimize or to inflict undue hardship on any person; but at the same time we cannot shut our eyes tothe fact that when land is being acquired for public purposes there is, unfortunately, in the public mind the opinion that the Government is fair game, and that any expense we can be put to, and any inflated value obtained, is a tribute to their business ability. The way to do this is to place as many obstacles in, the way of the Government acquiring land, and to saddle them with costs, especially legal costs, obtain writs of discovery, and employ legal gentlemen. Where a lease is involved it may be very profitable to certain professional gentlemen, but not very profitable to the Commonwealth taxpayers. A man is either a lessee or is not, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the lease is in his possession. The original property may be mortgaged, but it is very seldom that the lease is. When the land is being acquired in a proper legal fashion he should produce his claim to compensation. It is intended to exeroise this provision only where refractory persons, either from a sense of resentment or a desire to get at the Government, create obstacles. In the original

Act a penalty is provided. A tenant is there from year to year; but, notwithstanding that, there have been cases where persons have adopted an obstructive attitude in an endeavour to extract the last penny from the Commonwealth in the form of compensation. Legal obstacles have been put in the way of acquiring land, and the departmental officers inform me that it is necessary to have a penalty clause to show those people that they must produce the documents before they can claim compensation from the Government.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I am strongly in favour of the argument adduced by Senator Garling. It is all very well for the Minister (Senator Pearce) to assure the Committee that this provision will not be used except in the case of troublesome persons; but from my experience in dealing with some Government Departments, I am convinced that they are ready to exercise their authority to the fullest extent. We should, therefore, be very guarded in placing such a power in the hands of the Government.- Quite recently I had experience in a case where a person entered into a contract with the Government under which a property was taken over, and the officials of the Department were aware for months of. the terms of the contract under which it was. fully understood that the employees also would be taken over. But for various reasons they have decided that they shall not be taken over.. After having the property in their hands for months, the Department turned around and said that if their officers agreed ‘ to take the undertaking over as a going concern they had no authority to do so from the Minister. If that sort of thing could go on for month’s without the knowledge of the Minister he can then disown all knowledge of it, or responsibility for it. A Department conducting business on those lines should have its authority limited and denned in the plainest terms. I refuse to give the Government a blank cheque, although it has been said that the provision will be applied only where difficulties are raised. I shall support Senator Garling in rejecting the clause in its present form.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am quite in agreement with the views expressed by Senator

Elliott; but I- rose merely to reply to a statement made by the Minister (Senator Pearce), in which he expressed the opinion that there was a general desire on the part of the community to take advantage of the Government. We should analyze that statement to ascertain what creates that desire. Where resumptions are made and owners demand from the Government more than a fair price, that demand is generally brought about because the Government, in acquiring property, assume that appeals will be lodged, and when appeals have been made the Government have gone down and the position has been adjusted by the Courts. If we look closely into the position we will find that representatives of the Government have been coming down on a weak individual and compelling him to accept their terms, which are usually low, so that in the event of an appeal being successful the purchase price will not be high. I remember in my younger days attending the Court in connexion with a case where the Government were resuming land for waterworks, and the whole question appeared to hinge on the Crown case of what was the value of the land for the production of, say, wheat, oats, or potatoes. The barrister handling the case for the farmer was the .late Sir George Reid, who took up the stand of the value of the land for a reservoir, and proved out of the mouths of the Crown witnesses that no piece of land in the district was as good, and, of course, the claim for compensation was not based on the productive capacity of the land, but its value as a site for a reservoir. To every one’s surprise the Court awarded the claim up to the hilt. The farmer who owned the land was like a good many others, and if he had been selling the property as a farming proposition would not have appealed. He was, however, driven to appeal because the land was taken at a miserable price, and those preparing the appeal did not value the land merely as a farming proposition, but as a water supply proposition, and rightly decided that if he held the most suitable water site he should be paid on that basis, which was done. That is an illustration of what often happens when the Government, in their desire to see that no one gets at them, press unduly upon the weak individual.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– This is another attempt, at the instigation of public ser- vaats, to take away valuable rights from the members of the community. I can quite realize, as the Minister (Senator Pearce) suggests, that there are some who endeavour to get as muchas they possibly can out of the Government whenever the opportunity occurs, but they should not inflict hardships on the community because there are some dishonest individuals who cause trouble and expense. Assuming a man were a tenant of a property for ten years, and he happened to be absent when served with a notice, and the documents were not produced within twenty-one days, he would then be deemed to be a monthly tenant, and would be compensated accordingly. He would lose the value of his ten years’ lease. Such a person may be in Queensland, and his leasehold may be mortgaged to some one resident in Western Australia, the Northern Territory, or even outside the Commonwealth, and because he could not produce his title within twenty-one days, he, would be treated as a monthly tenant.

Senator Pearce:

– He could produce the best evidence thereof in his power.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes; but this provision bristles with all sorts of difficulties for the unfortunate tenant. The Government appear to’ be adopting the principle of “ Heads I win and tails you iose,” which is one I do not subscribe to. Those to be affected by this provision should be considered, and if it is to be pressed in its present form I shall oppose it.

Senator Payne:

– A time must be fixed.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The Act in its original form is quite good enough. One knows perfectly well from experience in dealing with public Departments that officers adhere to the law, and rightly so, too. What the law lays down they shall do, they must do. That is my experience, and frequently extreme injustice is done to individuals concerned. Consequently I cannot support the clause in its present form. In this case a lessee is to be called unon to produce his lease at his own. cost. Who can say what this will cost some men ? The course proposed is most improper.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I am at a loss to understand this indignation on the part of some honorable senators. I can only come to the conclusion that they have not read the section of the Act dealing with this matter.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-brockman. - Yes, I have.

Senator PEARCE:

– Let me read it -

If any person havinga greater interest than as a tenant at will of any land acquiredby compulsory process makes a claim for compensation in respect of any unexpired term or interest under any lease, the Attorney-General may, by demand in writing, require him to produce the lease in respect of which the claim is made, or the best evidence thereof in hig power.

That is all a lessee is asked to do now.

Senator Garling:

– But it is now proposed to make him produce the lease at his own expense.

Senator PEARCE:

– If he cannot produce the lease, he may be able to produce something else, such as a receipt from his landlord.

Senator Senior:

– In most cases there is a duplicate lease in the Crown Lands Office, so the information could be obtained there.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is just as well that the Committee should know that at present it is necessary to commence an action at law to compel some lessees to produce evidence of their leases. ‘ Of course, they have a perfect right to compensation, and there is provision for this in the Act. We should remember that we are here to protect the interests of the taxpayers.

Senator Wilson:

-Are not these lessees also taxpayers?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, but in a matter like this they are the persons who will receive the compensation.

Senator Wilson:

– And they are entitled to receive consideration.

Senator PEARCE:

– They do receive consideration. All a lessee is asked to do is to produce his lease upon which his claim for compensation may be based. At present lessees are in a position to make itecessary for the Government - that is, the people of the Commonwealth - to spend money to compel them to produce evidence that they are in the possession., of certain rights, for the surrender of which the Commonwealth is willing to compensate them. Whilst we do not desire to place anybody in an unfair position, we still have to safeguard the taxpayers’ interests.

Senator Duncan:

– Can the Minister say if costs involved in the production of the leases will be added to the amount of compensation ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course not. We have no Pandora’s box from which we oan extract this money. It must come out of revenues, and it must be charged against the cost of resumption. For the information of honorable senators I may state that in one case at Liverpool a lessee claimed £18,000, and the Commowealth offered £6,000. Subsequently this offer was accepted. I have here quite a long list ofclaims by lessees for compensation, in some of which the Government offered more than was subsequently awarded by the Court.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 6.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 August 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220816_senate_8_100/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant