Senate
8 May 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1525

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 23.

Dried Fruits Export Charges Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 24.

Transport Workers Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 38.

Passports Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 32.

page 1525

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA MINES

Employmentof Native Labour: Medical Treatment - Areas of Leases - Rights of Alluvial Miners

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– On the 10th April, Senator Payne asked the following questions, upon notice - 1.How many natives have had to receive medical treatment at Salamaua, New Guinea, or on the fields, during the last three years through causes arising from their employment on the gold-fields at Edie Creek and other gold-fields in the Morobe district, or as carriers to the fields?

  1. How many natives have died during the same period whose death could he attributed to the climatic conditions on the fields?

The replies to the questions are as follow.: -

  1. The hospital records do not discriminate between the several classes of natives treated, but dysentery and respiratory diseases are believed to be more common, and injuries from accidents more frequent, amongst natives engaged in mining and carrying than amongst other natives.

Admissions to Salamaua and Wau hospitals from April, 1927, to March, 1930, were as follows: -

  1. Deaths recorded from April, 1927, to March, 1930, amongst the whole of the indentured population were as follows: -

The total number of indentured units of the population of the mining area during this period was approximately 10,000, making the death rate 1.68 per cent. from these causes, compared with a death rate amongst indentured labour generally of 2.05 per cent.

On the 1st May, Senator Lynch asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. How many gold-mining leases have been granted in New Guinea?
  2. What is the maximum area of such leases?
  3. Has the Government taken care to see that the land granted forsuch leases has been exhausted of all gold that could be recovered by alluvial miners of small means?
  4. If not, does not the Government recognize that Australian gold-miners have been disinherited of their inalienable right - alluvial gold?
  5. If so, what steps does the Government propose to take to restore that right?

I am now in receipt of advice from the Administrator, which enables me to furnish the following replies: -

  1. 173 dredging and sluicing leases, of which 129 are current; 248 gold-mining leases, of which 244 are current; 281 applications for gold-mining leases are under consideration;
  2. The maximum area of a dredging and sluicing lease is 90 hectares (240 acres); of a gold-mining lease 20 hectares (50 acres).
  3. Yes. 4 and5. See answer to No. 3.
Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Whether, in view of a statement appearing in the SydneyMorning Herald, of Monday, 5th May, 1930, to the effect that Mr. Boyd was about to apply for 7 miles of auriferous country upstream in New Guinea, has the Government examined this and other corresponding areas to see that all alluvial gold that can be mined by persons of limited means has been exhausted in those areas 7

    1. If not, will it cause such examination to be made before mining leases of any description are granted?
Senator DALY:

– The answer* to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. The Government is not at present in possession of information in regard to the particular area referred to by the honorable senator, but full effect is being and will be given, in respect of alluvial ground in the Territory, to the provisions pf the mining ordinance and to the recognized mining practice.
  2. See answer to 1.

page 1526

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE IN MEAT WORKS

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

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

  1. Is it a fact that a strike has taken place in one of the largest meat works in Melbourne (Messrs. Angliss & Co.’s) owing to a demand for double pay by the men?
  2. If so, in view of the financial situation of the Commonwealth and the urgent necessity to increase exports overseas, will the Minister take all lawful steps to bring this strike .to an end and to urge the men to produce more?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– I am advised by the Minister for Markets that this dispute has been settled.

page 1526

QUESTION

LAND TAX VALUATION PERIOD

Iri reference to Federal and State land taxation in Western Australia, is it a fact that the State Land Tax Act provides for valuations every five - years, whereas the Commonwealth law prescribes that valuations shall be made every three years?

If so, in view of the loss and annoyance that such variation must cause to land taxpayers in Western Australia, will the Government open up negotiations with the Government of that State for the purpose of harmonizing this legislation?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes.
  2. It is considered that the land taxpayers concerned should make representations direct to the State Government of Western Australia in the matter.

page 1526

QUESTION

PAST REFERENDUMS

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What were the respective subjects of previous referendums submitted to the people, giving the dates of submission, in order of date?
  2. Which of the subjects were approved by the people?
  3. Are the successful referendums recognized officially by consecutive numbers, as in the United States of America?
  4. If not, will the practice be instituted?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions .are as follow: -

  1. Referendums as follows have been submitted to electors of the Commonwealth: -

Subject and Date of Submission.

Constitution Alteration ( Senate Elections ) - 32th December, 1906.

Constitution Alteration (Finance) - 13th April, 1910.

Constitution Alteration (State Debts) - 13th April, 1910.

Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers)- 26th April, 1011.

Constitution Alteration (Monopolies) - 26th April, 1911.

Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) - 31st May, 1913.

Constitution Alteration (Corporations) - 31st May, 1918.

Constitution Alteration (Industrial Matters) 31st May, 1913.

Constitution Alteration (Railway Disputes) 31st May, 1918.

Constitution Alteration (Trusts) - 31st May, 1913.

Constitution Alteration ( Nationalization of Monopolies) - 31st May, 1913.

Military Service Referendum - 28th October, 1010.

Military Service Referendum - 20th December, 1917.

Constitution Alteration (Legislative Powers) - 19th December, 1919.

Constitution’ Alteration (Nationalization of Monopolies) - 19th December, 1919.

Constitution Alteration (Industry and Commerce) - 1th September, 1926.

Constitution Alteration (Essential Services) 4th September, 1926.

Constitution Alteration (State Debts) - 17th November, 1928.

  1. The following were approved by the electors : -

Constitution Alteration (Senate .Elections) 1906 (Act No. 1 of 1907).

Constitution Alteration (State Debts) 1909 (Act No. 3 of 1910).

Constitution Alteration (State Debts 1928 (Act No. 1 of 1929).

  1. No. 4.Each successful referendum bears a short title, together with the number and the year of the relative act, e.g.: -

Constitution Alteration (Senate Elections) (Act No. 1 of 1907).

The use of a further identifying number is thought to be unnecessary, and might lead to confusion.

page 1527

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL

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

page 1527

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (POWER OF AMENDMENT)

Secondreading

Debate resumed from 7 th May (vide page 1476) on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– This is a measure that can be more effectively debated by members of the legal profession, and those well versed in constitutional law than by any layman. I listened with attention to the speech of Senator McLachlan, who has devoted many years to a study of the law, but who carefully avoided going fully into the constitutional aspects of this proposed amendment. I also followed very attentively the speech of Senator Colebatch upon this measure which was, I contend, one of the finest I have heard in this chamber. Senator Colebatch had the privilege of being a member of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which performed a tremendous amount of work, and presented a report which, together with the evidence, would take two or three weeks to read. It is a very valuable report, and I congratulate the members of the commission upon the way in which they carried out their responsible duties. We find, however, in reading the report, and in perusing the speeches delivered in this and another place, that the highest legal authorities differ in regard to the effect of the proposed amendment. After listening to the speeches of the representatives of the Labour party I have no doubt concerning the object of the Government and its supporters in submitting this measure. Early in the speech of the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin), in introducing the bill in another place, and which was reported in the press through out Australia, he said that the object of the bill is to confer full power upon the Commonwealth Parliament to amend the Constitution. As Senator Colebatch has pointed out, this, according to its title, is “A bill for an act to alter the Constitution by conferring upon the Parliament full power to amend the Constitution.” The Prime Minister was also most emphatic, and stated later ‘that this amendment, if adopted, would give power to this Parliament to alter the Constitution in any direction desired.

The attention of the Prime Minister was drawn to the last paragraph of section 128 concerning which there has been a good deal of argument. That paragraph reads -

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in theJEouse of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

The Prime Minister distinctly stated that the qualification in that paragraph is capable of alteration after a reference to the people by way of a referendum. He further stated that the only restriction placed upon the power of the Commonwealth to amend the Constitution is contained in the first eight covering clauses. The concluding paragraph of section 128, which I just quoted, is a part of the Constitution itself, and those words are not contained in the first eight sections. Therefore, according to the Prime Minister and other authorities that section may be altered by the method laid down for altering the Constitution. If the power of alteration is given to Parliament, Parliament may alter the Constitution in any way desired and, if the referendum is carried, it could also alter that section. As the first eight covering sections of the Constitution have not previously been quoted during the debate I propose to place them on record in the official report. They read -

Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble federal government under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Ireland and under the Constitution hereby established :

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian colonies and possessions of the Queen :

Be it therefore unnoted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, as follows : -

This act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The provisions of this act referring to the Queen should extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

It shall bc lawful for the Queen with the advice of the Privy Council to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia shall be united in a federal commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth shall bc established and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect on and after the day so appointed. But the parliaments of the several colonics may at any time after the passing of this act make any such laws to come into operation on the day so appointed as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this .let.

Section 5 relates to the operation of the Constitution and laws, section 6 to definitions - as to what “ Commonwealth “ and “ States “ shall mean, section 7 to the repeal of the Federal Council Act, and section 8 to the application of the Colonial Boundaries Act. Section 9 begins the Constitution which is divided into eight chapters and 128 sections. In the last section of the Constitution the framers provide a method by which it can be altered, and there is no doubt that that section is part of the Constitution itself. I have already said that it is clear that it is the object of the Labour party to obtain full power for Parliament to alter the Constitution. Already differing opinions have been expressed and we shall doubtless have further legal wrangling, but whatever the verdict may be the people of Australia will be incurring a grave risk if they support the proposed amend- ment. If they vote for it believing that their decision may be subject to slight alteration by the High Court, they may be voting under a misapprehension. 1 advise the electors that if they do not want the Federal Parliament to have absolute power, they should take no risk and should vote against the Government’s proposal. The amendment has been cleverly and deliberately framed. It proposes to add the following new section to the Constitution : -

  1. The Constitution is altered by inserting, after section one hundred unci twenty-eight, the following section: - “129. Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section, the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution in the following manner: -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must, after the lapse of one month from its origination in a House of the Parliament, be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and be assented to by the GovernorGeneral.”.

I desire to draw particular attention to the words “Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section”. The preceding section provides that certain things shall not be done without the consent of the majority of the electors of the States affected. One of the things which may not be done without the consent of the majority of the electors in the State concerned is the alteration of the Constitution to diminish the representation of a State in either House. Federation would not have been consummated had the Constitution not provided adequate safeguards of the rights of the States by giving the States equal representation in the Senate. The people of the less populous States felt that if the representation in the Senate were fixed on a population basis they would be at the mercy of senators from New South Wales and Victoria. If the Government’s proposal becomes law a Labour majority in both Houses of Parliament could abolish the Senate and so make the less populous States powerless. Tha representation of the various States in the House of Representatives is, New South Wales, 28 members; Victoria, 20 members; Queensland, 10 members; South Australia, 1 members; Tasmania and Western Australia, each 5 members, with an additional member to represent the Northern Territory. New South Wales and Victoria together have 48 members in a House of 76 members. Honorable senators will see that in a House so constituted legislation which might be quite good for New South “Wales and Victoria, but detrimental to the other States, could be carried, notwithstanding the united protest of the representatives of the other States.

We are told that this measure has been introduced in a nonparty spirit, and that it should be dealt with in that spirit. The Government must have known, that honorable senators on this side of the Chamber would oppose its proposals. Senator Pearce strongly opposed the bill, but not in any factious spirit. Senator O’Halloran objected to the right honorable senator describing the Government’s proposal as revolutionary and destructive of the rights of the States. I regard this bill as the most revolutionary political proposal ever introduced in this Parliament. If it is carried, it will be possible for Parliament to undermine the legislation of the States to such an extent that the rights of the States will disappear. I regard it as a breach of faith with the States. The Labour party says that it is prepared to trust the people. That is the principle underlying the Constitution; the people must approve of constitutional alterations. Now the Labour party, which professes to trust the people, has introduced legislation which, if agreed to, will mean that the people need not be consulted about the most vital amendment of the Constitution. The Labour party is not prepared to trust the people. At present the Constitution can be altered only after both Houses of Parliament have approved of the proposed alteration, and it lias also been approved by a majority of the electors in a majority of the States. There is also that provision that should the Senate not approve of the proposed alteration the people may, nevertheless, be consulted, and if they approve of the alteration it becomes law. Notwithstanding that provision, the Senate has its responsibilities in this matter. If honorable senators do not approve of this legislation, they are justified in asking the people of Australia to cast a negative vote at the referendum. A large portion of the speech of Senator Daly dealt with the varying decisions of the High Court. In reply to an inter- jection inquiring whether that difficulty would be overcome by amending the Constitution in the way proposed, the honorable senator said that, before he concluded his speech, he would show that the only way to overcome the difficulty was by adopting the proposal before the Senate. Senator Pearce interjected “ and dispensing with the High Court,” to which Senator Daly replied, “ There is no necessity to do that.” If the High Court is to continue in the future with the same powers that it now possesses how can the Government obviate the recurrence of varying decisions? Varying decisions artinevitable from any court, and we shall always have that kind of thing. Senator Daly did not indicate how it is to be avoided. Senator McLachlan suggested that the object of the Labour party was to dispense with the High Court and make the Commonwealth Parliament the final arbiter. Our Constitution specifically lays it down that the Commonwealth and State Parliaments shall each have certain powers, but that in the event of a dispute over those powers, the High Court shall be tho arbiter. If the proposal of the Government is accepted, and a dispute occurs between a State and the Commonwealth, this Government, a party to the dispute, will be the arbiter, which would be an entirely unjust position.

Senator Daly was quite frank as to the intention of the Government. He said -

The proposal is to transfer to Parliament a rig-lit at present vested in the people, namely, the right tn alter the Constitution. . . The Constitution Act will remain.

I suggest that the honorable senator is merely endeavouring to draw a red herring across the trail. The Constitution, of course, will remain, but with a vital amendment giving Parliament the power to alter i,t. The honorable senator was asked by Senator Colebatch, “ Would not the words ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section’ apply to the last paragraph of section 128 ?”, and replied, “I do not think so.” Senator Colebatch has already pointed out how indefinite that- reply is. I ask Senator Daly if that is not the meaning of the words, what is their meaning, and why were they employed by this Government? I contend that they were inserted with the deliberate purpose of over-ruling the last paragraph of section 128. Surely if the Labour party did not want to touch certain matters they could have excepted them in plain language. Surely they could have provided that “ Subject to the last paragraph of section 128” Parliament shall have power to alter the Constitution. The Labour party must believe that the wording of the proposed amendment, as it stands, will over-ride the last paragraph of section 128. It may be claimed that we still have the protection of the High Court, but the dissertation on that court by Senator Daly was enlightening, and indicated that the final say will rest with the Federal Parliament if this amendment is carried. I consider that the last part of Senator Daly’s speech was tragic, and contained the strongest reasons why the people should reject these proposals. The honorable senator said -

The people, under this proposal, can, if they have a mind to, have a stronger voice on national questions than they have to-day

That is so, not only with regard to national questions, but to all questions. Senator Daly continued -

Until they exercise their right and delegate power to the Federal Parliament, what voice have they on national questions?

The proposed alteration of the Constitution would give this Parliament power to make future alterations that would enable it to supersede any legislation passed by the States. It would not only allow the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in regard to national matters, but in any way that it chose. Senator Daly dealt in a trenchant manner with the Upper Houses of the States, and asked -

What chance has the South Australian elector, for example, of wresting from the Legislative Council measures necessary to make effective a national insurance scheme for unemployment? What chance has he of improving industrial arbitration? What chance has he of influencing these elect of vested interests to give sympathetic consideration to any residuary trade and commerce questions? No chance whatever.

I particularly draw attention to the words that immediately follow. They are -

Therefore, as the effect of this proposal is to liven into action the dormant rights of the one people which comprise this one nation to be heard’ in a Parliament where they have full audience. . . .

Those words plainly mean that if a State Labour Legislative Assembly were unable to pass certain legislation, because of the restrictive action of the Legislative Council of that State, that council could be over-ruled by a Federal Labour Government if the Constitution were altered in the manner proposed. The Federal Parliament could alter the Constitution to give itself the power to legislate on that subject. It follows that if this amendment is accepted by the people, and if a Federal Labour Government had a majority in both Houses, it could introduce and pass legislation that might be entirely against the views of five anti-Labour State governments. That condition of affairs is possible in the circumstances I have indicated, and I suggest that it would result in political chaos, because each succeeding government would be disposed to pass bills repealing extremist measures enacted by a previous administration. There’ would be no stability in federal legislation.

Senator Rae:

– We have that state of affairs at present. *

Senator CHAPMAN:

– I disagree with the honorable senator. Invariably a new government accepts legislation passed by a previous administration unless it is returned upon some definite pronouncement of policy diametrically opposed to that of the previous Government. There can be little doubt that if this authority to amend the Constitution is given to the Parliament extreme measures passed at the behest of a majority in one political party will be repealed by a succeeding government.

This amendment, if accepted by the people, can be used to strip State Parliaments of practically every vestige of legislative power. The framers of the Constitution, whose handiwork is respected by all sections of the people, wisely provided for a distribution of the legislative powers of the Commonwealth and the States, and, as far as possible, protected the States in the discharge of those functions which, under the federation, properly belonged to them. In many respects the Commonwealth Constitution is analogous to tha executive authority given to the board of directors of a company. Acting under the authority given to them a board of directors may, on behalf of the shareholders, engage in certain commercial activities, but must abstain from others. For example, it may be empowered to conduct a retail establishment, but not to establish a factory or do certain other things. Similarly, the Commonwealth Parliament, under the Constitution, is authorized to legislate in regard to certain matters only. The framers of the Constitution; realizing that at some future time certain amendments might be necessary, provided the means to alter it, and stipulated that the people should be consulted.

This subject was recently investigated by the Constitution Royal Commission, which, in a report submitted to Parliament, indicated a number of directions in which the Constitution should be amended. Unfortunately, the recommendations of that body have been absolutely disregarded by this Government. I believe that if Parliament had an opportunity to consider the recommendations of that body, and if both branches of the ‘legislature agreed upon proposals to be submitted to the people, they would be endorsed. Instead of adopting that course this Government has introduced an entirely different set of proposals. As Senator Colebatch pointed out last night, these amendments go far beyond the proposals enunciated by the executive of the Labour party, which gave evidence before the Royal Commission. I may add, too, that, there was no mention in the policy speech of the Prime Minister of his intention to submit these proposals to the people. It is believed that members of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party represent the moderate element in that party, and that the extremists are in the industrial organizations. The Government has introduced amendments which, if carried, will enable this Parliament to legislate in regard to any subject. This course plays right into the hands of the “ red “ element in the Labour movement. We have had assurances from time to time that this Government would not attempt to do anything drastic, but Ave know the strength of the “ red “ element in the Labour party. If at some future time it secured complete control of the party it would introduce extreme legislation under the wider powers now sought. At present the people have certain safeguards which should not lightly be cast’ aside. Mr. Theodore, has stated on more than one occasion that the Constitution will not allow him to do certain things. If it is altered in the direction indicated in this proposed amendment, and if the “reds” secure control of the Labour movement, they will be able to pass any legislation they desire - legislation that will drag Australia down. I wish to place on record an extract from the evidence given before the Constitution Royal Commission by Mr. J. J. Kenneally, the President of the Australian Labour party.

Senator Rae:

– There is nothing very “ red “ about him.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– No. His proposals were not as “ red “ as those which have been put forward by the present Government. It is evidently willing to go further than the executive of the Labour party would go. Mr. Kenneally told the royal commission that his evidence was tendered after consultation with the federal executive. We can therefore take full notice of the proposal he placed before the commission on behalf of the executive of the Labour party, and note that what he asked for was not the full power sought by the present Government. The Labour party, through Mr. Kenneally, excepted quite a number of amendments which it was thought should not be made except by way of a referendum. Mr. Kenneally said -

The power of Parliament to alter the Constitution should not include power to extend the life of Parliament or to defeat the operation of the initiative and referendum and- recall, nor to interfere with the adult franchise. These powers .’being fundamental should be embodied in the Constitution and be alterable only by a vote of the people toy referendum.

In a different category, but also fundamental to popular liberty and security, is the principle that the power of Parliament to alter the Constitution should not include power to impose conscription for military or naval service.

To give effect to these views we suggest that section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution should be amended to read - “ 128. The Constitution may be altered in the following manner: -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must- be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parlia- ment.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.”

The Labour party, through Mr. Kenneally, didnot seek to repeal the provision in the Constitution which guarantees the rights of the States, whereas the bill now before us proposes to insert after section 128 the following: -

Notwithstanding any thing in the last preceding section the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution.

Mr. Kenneally, on behalf of the executive of the Federal Labour movement, also proposed that -

No alteration of the Constitution extending the life of Parliament shall become law unless a majority of the electors of the Commonwealth voting by referendum approve the proposed law.

No alteration of section 8 or section 30 of the Constitution shall become law unless a majority of the electors in the Commonwealth voting by referendum approve of the proposed law.

The executive of the Labour party was clearly of opinion that the Constitution should not be amended on certain lines without a referendum, but the Labour Government is prepared to do away with the whole of the rights of the States. Mr. Kenneally furnished to the royal commission a copy of an opinion given by Mr. Owen Dixon, now Mr. Justice Dixon, upon the effect of section 128 of the Constitution. That opinion was as follows -

My opinion is sought upon the questions whether the proposal to amend the Constitution so as to confide to Parliament alone the power of constitutional alteration, subject to specified restrictions, can be accomplished and how.

The proposal is, as I understand it, that save for a few definite constitutional “guarantees “ or “ checks “ Australia should receive a flexible Constitution, and in the future constitutional alterations should be effected by the Federal Parliament. The guarantees or checks suggested are that without a referendum no alteration should be permissible which related (a) to the adult franchise, (b) to the initiative referendum and recall if established, (c) to the proposed prohibition of conscription.

The existing power of amending the Constitution is contained in section 128, and the question is whether that power authorizes the alteration in section 128 itself which would be required in order to confer for the future the power of amendment upon Parliament alone. In my opinion, it does authorize such an alteration.

When section 128 speaks of “ this Constitution “ it refers to the whole “ Constitutionof the Commonwealth “ mentioned in the following section 9 of the covering clauses. It includes section 128 itself. I do not think that there can be any doubt that complete power of amending the whole instrument, including the provision prescribing the methods of alteration, was intended to be given by section 128.

That opinion was obtained by the Labour party, and it makes me think that the Leader of that party has been guided by it in believing that the amendment now proposed will confer upon Parliament full power to alter the Constitution. Mr. Brennan, a. legal light in the Labour party, discussing a contrary view put forward by Sir Edward Mitchell, has said that he entirely endorses the views of Mr. Owen Dixon, and. that the Government has launched its major proposal for the amendment of the Constitution with the utmost confidence in its validity, meaning that the words “ notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section “ are effective. Mr. McTiernan, another legal light in the Labour party, has said -

This proposed law for amending the Constitution says, “Notwithstanding anything in thelast preceding section and “ anything “ includes those limitations mentioned in the last paragraph of section 128. Therefore, if this proposed law is accepted by the people, it will enact a new method of amending the Constitution which is free from the restrictions imposed by section 128.

It is quite plain to me that the Labour party claims that under the proposed amendment of the Constitution, Parliament will have full power. Mr. McTiernan, again, dealing with the words, “ or in any manner affecting the provisions of the section in relation thereto”, very vital words, has admitted that they refer to “ the proportionate representation of any State in either House or the minimum representation of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing or diminishing or otherwise altering the limits of a State.” He has said that the proposal in the bill now before the Senate “does not in itself affect any of those matters which have been mentioned in the final paragraph of section 128 “. His opinion is .that it becomes’ effective if passed.

Now I desire to refer to the constitutions of various countries, because a good deal has been said about them. The country whose constitution because of similarity of conditions most resembles ours is the United States of America. It has been said that the method of altering the Constitution .now proposed is in existence in other countries, but the conditions in those countries prior to federation were quite different from those which existed in Australia. They had no States and there was no contract between existing States and a uniform centra] government.

Senator Rae:

– Before the Union of South Africa was formed the members of that Onion were separate States.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– That may be so, but according to reports I have, the present system of government in South Africa has been condemned to a very large extent. In Australia we have a proposal to alter the Constitution by a bare majority. In South Africa, where the form of government is not strictly federal, parliament may by law repeal or alter any of the provisions of the Constitution Act provided that as to certain sections, no repeal or alteration shall be valid unless the bill embodying such repeal or alteration be passed by both Houses of Parliament sitting together and at the third reading be agreed ro by not loss than two-thirds of the total number of members of both Houses. A bill so passed at such joint sitting is taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament. A twothirds majority is required, whereas we are asked to provide for an alteration in the Constitution by a bare majority. The Gorman Constitution of the 11th August, 1919, may be amended by legislation (Art. 76). For a decision by the Reichstag, which directly represents the people, two-thirds of the members must he present, and at least two-thirds of those present must give their consent to the proposed amendment. A decision of the Reichsrat, which represents the States, in favour of an amendment, also requires a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast. If the Reichsrat objects, it may demand that the measure be submitted to the people. In Mexico the Constitution may be added to or amended, but no amendment or addition can become part of the Constitution until it is agreed to by the Congress of the Union by a two-thirds vote of the members present and approved by a majority of the State legislatures. There the States are taken into account, and a two- thirds majority is required. The proposal of the Government under which an amendment of the Constitution may be made by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament, is sufficient to condemn it at the outset.

In the Austrian Federal Constitution, which came into being in 1920, there is provision for constitutional decisions requiring adoption in the National Council in the presence of at least one-half of the members, and by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. A general alteration must, and a partial alteration may, if desired by one- third of the National or Federal Council, be submitted to the vote of the people before promulgation by the president.

Finally, .1 quote from the Constitution’ of the United States of America, a country in which the conditions more closely resemble those 111 Australia than any of the other countries mentioned. That Constitution provides that Congress may by a two-thirds majority in each House, propose amendments which are submitted to the States and become law if ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures. There is a further provision for initiation and ratification of legislation by conventions, but this has never been used. Although the American Constitution is not as elastic as is ours, it has not prevented that country from developing to a remarkable extent. The legislation of the Australian States goes far, and money has been freely spent in the States to encourage industry. South Australia, for instance, has spent large sums on water conservation in order to encourage agricultural development; but, under this proposal a Commonwealth Parliament could deprive a State of the power to legislate in regard to something which may be vital to its progress. The members of the Labour party in the Senate should be anxious to protect the rights of the States, upon the success of which the prosperity of the Commonwealth depends. The people will not readily favour an alteration of a Constitution under which they are the masters. A number of proposals have been submitted to the people by way of a referendum, and most of them have been defeated; but nothing so revolutionary as that now proposed has ever been suggested. The change proposed is vital and I have no doubt that the people of the Commonwealth will vote solidly against it.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– This is the most extraordinary bill that has ever been presented to this Parliament. I direct, the attention of honorable senators to section 128 of the Constitution, which reads- 128. This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner: -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall besubmitted in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the GovernorGeneral may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors ,in each State qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such . manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a ‘ majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

It is proposed to amend section 128 by inserting after it the following section : - 129. Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section, the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution in the following manner : -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must, after a lapse of one month from its origination in a House of the Parliament, he passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament and be assented to by the GovernorGeneral.

If section 128 of the Constitution were embodied in a measure brought before this chamber, and an honorable senator moved an amendment in terms of the proposed new section 129, you, Mr. President, would decline to accept it on the ground that it was a direct negation of the section immediately preceding it. The proper course to adopt is to bring in a bill providing for the repeal of section 128, with the object of substituting proposed new section 129. If such a bill were brought before the electors they would, by closely studying the provisions of section 128, be able to determine the extent to which their rights were being undermined; but they may regard as comparatively harmless the proposed new section, which will be all that is before them of the bill as it stands is submitted to a referendum. The object is to play the same confidence trick on the electors as was played on them by the Labour party at the last general election.

Senator Daly:

– Is the honorable senator in order in saying that?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable senator is scarcely in order, although I understood him to refer to a party and not to an individual.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– In introducing this measure the Minister did not object to the terms of section 128. He cited a number of cases in which differing opinions had been expressed by members of the High Court Bench, but he did not suggest that if this proposed amendment were adopted by the people that difficulty would be overcome. Instead of improving the position in that respect, this extraordinary provision, if agreed to, will provide a much wider scope for differing opinions. Obviously the proposed new section must affect the preceding section.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– It will not affect anything in that section; it will only give the power.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– It will give the Parliament the power to act without consulting the people. This proposed amendment will have to be read in conjunction with the preceding section, and to me it appears invalid. If this measure becomes law, the Labour party with a majority in both branches of the legislature could, for instance, deprive the State of Victoria, which had a Nationalist government in power, of its Constitution. It would give the Commonwealth Government complete power to do exactly as it wished. As pointed out by Senator Sir Hal Colebatch and Senator McLachlan, there seems to be no basis upon which the Constitution could, if this amendment is adopted, be regarded as a Federal Constitution. It was reported in the press’ yesterday that it is not intended to issue an explanatory pamphlet in connexion with these proposals as has been the case in the past. In answer to an interjection, the Minister was unable to give a definite answer as to the effect this will have upon a section in the Constitution. It seems amazing that this question should virtually be thrown at the people without a word of explanation from either side as to its effect.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– The Bruce-Page Government did not issue a pamphlet in connexion with the last proposal submitted to the people.

Senator Crawford:

– It was agreed between the two parties not to issue a pamphlet.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– That is so.

Senator Daly:

– There has been no disagreement here.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– If amendments of the Constitution are to be determined by a chance majority as the result of an election, which might have been decided on an entirely different issue, what would prevent the dominant party from altering the Constitution to provide that no person who owned property worth more than £100 should be permitted to vote, or from prolonging indefinitely the life of Parliament?

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– It might even go so far as to introduce a bill to nationalize eggs!

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– A Labour Government might introduce legislation to nationalize banking, or even farming, in which latter case the poor unfortunate farmer might, like his fellow farmer in Russia under a Soviet Government, be allowed £3 a week.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– In Russia a person probably has to belong to an approved union before he is entitled to a vote.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I feel certain that if the people are properly informed as to the meaning of the Government’s proposal they will reject it..

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.^ - Any proposal to amend the Constitution is of such importance that every honorable senator should express his views concerning it. That is more particularly desirable at this time, when, in both Houses of this Parliament, and in the country generally, there is a wide divergence of opinion as to the effect of the Government’s proposals, if carried. I approach this subject from a somewhat different angle from that from which other honorable senators who have spoken approached it. I have a very high opinion of the ability of the gentlemen who framed our Constitution, and of the great work that they did for the Australian nation; but we have now reached a more advanced stage of . national development, and are able to view matter’s in the light of the experience gained in the working of the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were, to a great extent, bound by the political necessities of their day. The political situation at the time of the federal conventions must be taken into account when we. in the3e clays, are considering any proposal for the alteration of the Constitution. We must have regard’ to the state of public opinion regarding federation in pre-federation days. It was then extremely difficult to reconcile the conflicting interests of the States, or to break down the strong feeling that existed as to’ the rights of the States. Throughout Australia there were tens of thousands of people who were opposed to federation. There were others who, while favoring federation, were not prepared to hand over to a Federal Parliament the full control of Australia’s future destiny. They were not prepared to agree to a constitution which would take from the States powers which they believed the States should retain. The framers of the Constitution realized that a constitution which would be acceptable to the people of Australia must make due allowance for the strong feeling in favour of the rights of the States. As practical men, for the most part members of the various State legislatures, they knew that if their efforts were to be successful they must frame a constitution which would embody, not necessarily their own ideas, but principles which would be acceptable to a majority of the people in each of the States. .They had to enumerate certain powers to be exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament, and make it clear that all other powers would still be vested in the States. They also took particular care not to overload the Constitution. J submit that what would have been regarded then as overloading the Constitution would not necessarily overload it to-day.

We have gone a long way since the Commonwealth was founded. We have had some terrible experiences which have welded the States and the people of Australia into a real living Commonwealth. We have overcome many of the initial difficulties. There is not now so much rivalry, amounting almost t;o hatred, between the various States ; nor is there such a strong feeling in favour of the sovereign rights of the States. We have, in fact, reached that stage in our national development at which we can take a further step forward as a nation. Realizing that -fact, the Australian party advocates an extension of the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is no new doctrine, for all parties recognize the inadequacy of the Constitution to meet present day needs. Both the Labour party and the Nationalist party have made attempts to amend the Constitution in the direction, not of limiting the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, but of extending them. In advocating extended powers for the Commonwealth Parliament all parties knew that they were advocating a diminution of the powers of the State Parliaments. The Australian party, which I have the honour to represent, believes that the Constitution should he amended almost immediately if this Commonwealth Parliament is to legislate effectively in the interests of the people as a whole. It is not in favour of unification. It believes that the ideal of unification - if unification can be called an ideal - is outside the realm of possibility at the present time, even wore it desirable. The excellent speech of Senator Colebatch last night should dispose for all time of any desire to bring about unification. The honorable senator made it clear that unification would result in injury to the Commonwealth and its people.

Senator Daly:

– I thought that the Australian party stood for unification.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It does not. The Labour party believes in unification. The Labour party is prepared to wipe out the State Parliaments, and even the States themselves as we know them, and substitute provinces with provincial councils to control them. I do not think that the majority of the people of Australia desire unification. Indeed, the Labour party, which professes to believe in it, can have but little faith in its doctrine, or at least in the possibility of its being accepted by .the people, because in this bill it proposes to make unification possible without the people being consulted at all. The passing of this bill through Parliament, and the acceptance of the Government’s proposals by the people, would make possible the fulfilment of Labour’s ideal of unification. The people ought not to be asked to give their approval to proposals which would enable the Constitution to be altered in a way of which they might not approve. If the Labour party and the Government mean by the proposal to amend the Constitution that they seek to bring about unification, they should in all honesty tell the people what they are after.

Senator Daly:

– It is impossible to bring about unification under federation.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This proposal to amend the Constitution is an outrage to that Constitution. If carried, it will certainly bring about unification and break down federation as we know it to-day. An honorable agreement has been entered into between the people as a whole, representing the Commonwealth and the States.

Senator Daly:

– The whole of the States wouldhave to agree before there could be any unification.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is certainly a safeguard, and because of that the first proposal of the Government should have been couched in different terms. I wholeheartedly support its proposals with regard to industry, and trade and commerce. I am merely consistent in doing so. Ever since I have been a member of Parliament I have realized the futility of this Parliament with regard to the control of industry, and trade and commerce. Various governments have endeavoured to enlarge the scope of the Constitution with regard to those matters. I remember the occasion when the BrucePage Government and its supporters went to the country telling the people how absolutely impossible it was for the Conv monwealth effectively to control what were really national services and activities, such as industry, and trade and commerce, under the Constitution as it stands to-day. That Government went even further and told the people at one time how impossible it was for the State Parliaments, because of their geographical limitations, adequately to provide for the control find regulation of industry, and trade and commerce. I believe that on these matters the present Government has put forward something that is reasonable and proper. It leaves the decision in the hands of the people, who will determine whether this Parliament shall have the power to legislate and administer laws dealing with the control of industry, and trade and commerce. The party that I represent stands for the rights of the people. I realize that those rights under the Constitution should be preserved. But the proposal of the Government to give the Federal Parliament power to amend the Constitution is an attempt to take away the rights of the people, and is an outrage on the Constitution. It is a truism that under any system of parliamentary government worthy of the name, the people have the right to be consulted if there is to be a change in the Constitution, or if legislation is to be introduced which vitally concerns them. Those rights must be preserved. The people are very quick to resent any violation of that custom. Foolish governments sometimes introduce legislation that is not only opposed to the issues that decided the preceding election, but that is almost diametrically opposed to the opinion of the people.What happens to those governments when the people have a chance to deal with them? Like the wicked, they “ cease from troubling.” If one needs an example he has merely to think of the fate of the Bruce-Page Government.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– Surely the honorable senator does not think that like the wicked they have ceased from troubling for all time?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not know. The Government endeavoured to hand over thecontrol of industrial matters to the States. That had never been an issue atany election, and the people knew nothing of it.As a result of a certain motion in this Parliament the matter was referred to the electors. They clearly showed that they were not in favour of such authority being handed over to the States, and declared unequivocally that the matter should be controlled by the Commonwealth .

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Yet the same people said twelve months earlier that they would not give any powers to the Commonwealth in regard to the control of industrial matters.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator is wrong. The electors said that they would not hand over additional powers to the Commonwealth in the form proposed by the Government. They also declared in no uncertain way that they were not in favour of taking away the powers already enjoyed by the Parliament; that the power of arbitration on industrial matters at present vested in the Commonwealth must remain with it. Now this Government proposes to increase these powers to meet the growing industries of Australia and the peculiar set of circumstances in which we find ourselves, circumstances that change almost from week to week. I hope that the granting of those additional powers will be agreed to by the Senate, not that by such agreement they will be embodied in the Constitution, but because the people will then have the right to determine for themselves whether the Constitution shall be enlarged in this way or not. The other alteration of the Constitution vesting in the Commonwealth Parliament complete power of amendment is an entirely different matter. It is something outside the Constitution; something that seeks almost to destroy the Constitution altogether.

The Government claims to speak for the trade union organizations and the Labour party of Australia. I want it to consider for a moment what would have happened had the Bruce-Page Government possessed the power that it is now seeking to obtain for this and future parliaments: that of amending the Constitution as is proposed in the power of amendment bill? The arbitration power and the control of industry would have been handed over to the States and the various Commonwealth authorities would have been disbanded.

Senator Daly:

– But would not the honorable senator’s party still have saved Australia ?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It may have done so. I am expressing a hypothetical case. Had such a state of affairs eventuated, the control of industry would have been handed over to the States, and the various Commonwealth authorities abandoned.

Senator Lynch:

– Tes; but the first part of that Government’s policy was that the Commonwealth alone should have full authority. When the States would not agree to surrender to the Commonwealth the increased authority for which it asked, the Bruce-Page Government had to resort to the other alternative.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am speaking of the final stage of their political decisions, which contemplated that the States should have authority over those activities. It must be obvious to everybody that the States could not have administered the industrial authority previously exercised by the Commonwealth without setting np new authorities, which would havevolved increased and heavy expenditure. A subsequent election may have indicated that the electors were not in favour of stripping those powers from the Commonwealth, and the Labour party would have been returned in order to restore the Commonwealth authority. That is obvious, in the light of the political history. It is easy to visualize the Gilbertian position in which we should have found ourselves. New Commonwealth ‘ authorities would then have had to be set up and the recently established bodies in the States disbanded.

Senator HERBERT Hays:

– The State of New South Wales carried the referendum the year that it was submitted by the Nationalist Government.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It did, and it is a pity that the Bruce-Page Government did not give some consideration to that fact. I do not think that the platforms of the Nationalist party or Country party have been changed recently. I was a delegate from New South Wales at the conference held at Adelaide that drew up the Nationalist platform with regard to its attitude concerning industrial affairs. That conference pronounced itself in favour of an immediate and widely extended Commonwealth authority, and the granting of additional power to the Commonwealth under the Constitution. I believe that that still stands. Yet, during the debate on the bill now before honorable senators, members of the Nationalist and Country parties strenuously opposed any attempt to clothe the Commonwealth with additional powers.

During this debate I have listened to the speeches of honorable senators belonging to those parties, and they have not said one word as to what would be done by a future Nationalist or Country party Government, or a composite ‘Government consisting of those parties, if the extended powers now proposed were granted. I have been asked inferentially whether there is any possibility of there being such a government. I do not think that there is, but that does not destroy the logic of the argument. I ask any honorable senator from either of those parties who speaks after me to say what would be the attitude of their parties with regard to these matters if this additional power of amendment were given to the Commonwealth Parliament? Would they hand back to the States the activities that had been handed over to the Commonwealth? They are at present bitterly opposed to the proposed amendment.Would they seek to secure a further amendment, eliminating that which is now proposed? Would they retain their love for State authorities and State activities as against the control by the Commonwealth of industrial affairs and trade and commerce? I am afraid that my question will not be answered. These honorable senators would not like to say at the moment what attitude their parties would take in this regard, even if they knew it. Actually, I do not believe that they know what is the policy of their organizations in the matter. I have already stated that the policy of the Nationalist party with regard to amendments of the Constitution was clearly outlined at the Adelaide convention. Apparently the party turned its back upon its policy at the bidding of the Government.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– The attitude of our party towards constitutional amendments has always been the same.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– Tell us about the policy of the Australian party.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have already done so. I am convinced that the acceptance of the first of the proposed amendments will not mean finality; on the contrary, it will make the political foundations of the Commonwealth more insecure than ever, because what one Parliament does, another Parliament may undo. This proposed amendment is a leap in the dark and will result in legislative chaos.

Senator Rae:

– There never is finality in legislation.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator may be right, but I know it is claimed by some members of his party that if this particular amendment is ac cepted by the people, the constitutional limitations of the Commonwealth Parliament will be removed for all time. I am afraid that we shall have more industrial and political conflict than ever before. But I have not any doubt as to the attitude of the people towards this suggested amendment. I am firmly convinced that they will not accept it. Knowing the state of public feeling throughout Australia on this matter, I am certain that this proposal will be ignominiously defeated. Unfortunately the hostility of the people towards this amendment will endanger the other constitutional alterations outlined in bills Nos. 2 and 3, which will come before this Chamber later for consideration. Those amendments are proper and reasonable, but I fear that they, also, will be rejected because of the people’s objection to the first proposal.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Will not the people discriminate between the several proposed amendments?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The great majority of the people are not always capable of discriminating in the way suggested by the honorable senator. We all have had some experience of the manner in which political issues are clouded during an election campaign. I am afraid that, when these amendments are submitted, the people will be so confused by the flood of literature and by the speeches of supporters and opponents of the Government’s proposals that they will be disposed to reject all of them. We shall hear very little of the merits of the proposed amendments in respect of the industrial and trade and commerce powers. Practically all of the speeches will be directed to the criticism or defence of the Government’s proposal contained in this bill. Consequently the minds of the electors will be confused. Those whose passions are stirred by this suggested amendment to vest in the Parliament authority to amend the Constitution, will vote against the whole of the proposals. It would be most unfortunate if, because of the intrusion of this proposal, Parliament is once more denied the authority to legislate effectively with regard to industry, and trade and commerce.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Are there many supporters of this proposed amendment outside?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have not met many.

Senator Dunn:

– Australia is full of them.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am aware, of course, that a certain section of the people stand for unification. Naturally, they will vote for this amendment, and possibly a percentage of other electors who do not realize the significance of this amendment will also vote for it. But there is no possibility of its acceptance, and even at this late stage the Government would lit; well advised to concentrate on the proposalsto give this. Parliament increased legislative power over industry, and trade and commerce. If this were done, the issue would be unclouded. I believe that the time has arrived for those two amendments to be made to the Constitution. I believe also that the people would accept them. But I am very much afraid that if thisproposal is included in the referendum questions, the whole of the amendments will be rejected.

Senator Rae:

-Would not the honorable senator be wise if he kept in mind Mark Twain’s advice, never to prophesy unless you know?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No doubt the honorable senator is right. But his remark is capable of more than one interpretation. He may have in mind my prophecy concerning the result of the referendum or he may be thinking that the proposed amendment now under consideration might not be put to the people at all. I hope the latter interpretation is the right one. I trust that the Government will not persist with it. At times we are given to prophecy. We all would like other people to believe that we know what is going to happen when an appeal is’ made to the electors. I have never yet heard of a government that wasnot certain it was going to be returned, and I have never yet heard of an opposition that was not equally sure that it was going to defeat the Government. Likewise, I am convinced that there is not the remotest chance of this amendment being accepted by the people. It appears to have been submitted as a compromise for political reasons, and I have yet to be convinced that the majority of the party supporting the Government are in favour of it, and will fight for it with that earnestness which one would expect every government proposal to command if it is going to secure acceptance by the people.

Senator Dunn:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that there are certain hidden forces behind the Government?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Unification is one plank of the Labour party’s platform. May we not assume, therefore, that to conform with its platform, the Government has included this amendment in its referendum proposals? I believe it will endangerthe other two amendments which have been urgently needed for many years. It has, I suggest, been submitted because unification is a plank in the Labour party’s platform, and the Government considered that it had to make some sort of a show of giving effect to its policy. I trust the Senate will reject the bill. I hope, however, that when the other measures come before us, they will be given favorable consideration so that the people may have an opportunity to say whether or not they desire enlarged powers over industry and trade and commerce to be embodied in the Commonwealth Constitution.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The bill has been so thoroughly debated that there is very little that is new to say concerning it. The people have, on other occasions, declared emphatically that the existing legislative powers of the Commonwealth are ample for the needs of the nation. In his speech last night. Senator Sir Hal Colebatch referred to the position in the United States of America. As is well known, our Constitution is modelled upon that of the United States of America, which has stood the test for over 100 years without any fundamental alteration. Can any honorable senator say that its progress has been hampered by lack of a more liberal Constitution?I do not suggest that minor amendments of the Commonwealth Constitution may not be necessary to facilitate administration, but from the experience of the United States of America I believe that the chance of securing the approval of the people to any fundamental amendment is very remote. Since federation, I chink we must all agree, there has been a marked change in Commonwealth legislation compared with what was believed in the earlier days of federation to be within the Commonwealth sphere. It is well for us to remember that it was the States that created the Constitution under which the National Parliament is working. The States thought that the position in regard to defence, customs and many other matters was unsatisfactory; as a matter of fact, there was a spirit of hostility growing up between the States on what were really national questions, and in those circumstances the people of the States agreed to federate. They made it quite clear that the central power was to deal only with matters of a national character, but there has been, during the last quarter of a century, a gradual process of peaceful penetration, as I may term it, by the Commonwealth into a sphere of activities properly belonging to the States.

The Leader of the Senate has noi shown that the proposed amendment, of the Constitution is required for the good government of the people of Australia. The powers sought are in excess of those which could have been used by this Parliament under the War Precautions Act, and there is no limit to which they could be applied if granted. It cannot be argued that Australia has suffered as a Commonwealth because these powers have not been available to it. If the Government says that it cannot carry on the industrial activities of this country without an amendment of the Constitution the difficulty can be overcome by the people agreeing to the proposed amendment of the Constitution relating to industrial powers, but the arguments against the proposal now under consideration have been so strong, and those who are supporting the Government have so completely failed to advance any reason why this extended power should be granted - except that it is in conformity with their policy of unification and the abolition of the Senate - that I cannot do otherwise than oppose the bill.

If it is the desire of the party in power to bring about unification and the abolition of the Senate, let us for a moment see how the

States would be affected if this general power of amendment were granted. If at a State election the people decided by a majority that effect should be given to a certain policy, the Commonwealth Parliament, by legislation, could nullify the expressed desire of the people of that State. This power of amendment proposal has nothing whatever to recommend it to the people of Australia. The electors have never, directly or indirectly, indicated their willingness to accept it, nor did Labour candidates, when they were before the people a few months ago, suggest that they stood for it. I am opposed to the bill because it is contrary to the spirit of federation, absolutely contrary to the terms under which the States federated, and an attempt to destroy the fundamental principles under which the Commonwealth was founded. I shall vote against it in the belief that it is in the best interests of Australia that, the power now sought to bo obtained should not be given.

Senator Dunn:

– Has the spirit of federation changed during the last 80 years ?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– The people have shown very clearly that they are of opinion that the fundamental principles of the Constitution should not be changed. They have said so definitely every time an appeal has been made to them for an alteration of any fundamental principle of the Constitution.

Senator Rae:

– There has never been an appeal to the people for an alteration of a fundamental, principle of the Constitution.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– I do not think Senator Rae is serious in making that statement. The last proposal to extend the trade . and commerce power of the Commonwealth if carried would have considerably altered the fundamental principles under which the States federated, and could have been interpreted in a way that would have absolutely changed some of the fundamental functions the States rightly believed to belong to them.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I register my disapproval of the proposed alteration of the Constitution now under consideration. The people would have been very much better served had the Government looked upon the matter in a more conciliatory spirit - if, instead of rushing this proposal in the way it has done, it had worked not on party lines, but had taken the members of the Opposition into its confidence and endeavoured to reach, a decision more on the lines of a conference that would be acceptable to all parties. Looking back on what happened prior to the elections last October we are rather apt to regard this proposal as a palliative to the extremist section of the Labour party. Last October, a prominent leader of the Labour party, and now a Minister said that if Labour was returned to power the coal-mines would be opened within a fortnight. The promise was evidently made to catch the votes of the workers of New South Wales. I have no doubt that the miners who voted for the Labour candidates believed that it was made in earnest, and that if Labour was returned to power not only would the mines be opened, but, in all probability, they would also be nationalized. When Labour assumed office it discovered that the Constitution prevented it from doing anything of this kind, but the extreme element in the party was urging it to make some attempt to get rid of the provisions of the Constitution which stood in the way and Ministers therefore immediately set about taking steps to submit the present proposals to Parliament. If this alteration of the Constitution were made the nationalization of the coal mines could become an accomplished fact and the Commonwealth could assume control of police, education and other State functions of that nature. The control of taxation could automatically come under one central head and there would be nothing to prevent the central Parliament from using revenue collected in an individual State in any way it pleased and not necessarily for the benefit of the people of the State in which it was collected. That is one reason why I think this power of amendment bill should not be passed. The supporters of the Government have said that the adoption of this amendment will not have the effect of destroying the Constitution in any way; but undoubtedly the basis upon which the States agreed to federate will disappear. It will certainly have a very serious effect upon section 128 of the Constitution; it will deprive the High Court of the power to interpret acts framed under the Constitution and place that responsibility in the hands of Parliament. One of the main reasons advanced in favour of the federal system was the need for uniformity in the matter of administration, particularly in connexion with the Postal, Defence, and Customs Departments. We have been informed by the members of the party opposite that under a central system of government, the costs of administration are lower; but it is on record that prior to federation departments that I have mentioned were estimated to cost the federal authorities about £500,000 a year and are now costing the country £5,000,000 a year. There is no guarantee that if additional power is granted ‘to the Federal Government, the cost of departmental administration will decrease. This contention is supported in the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. On page 242 of the majority report it is stated that -

It has been suggested that the cost of government is increased by the existence of the several Parliaments in Australia. We are of the opinion that under a unitary system, it would be necessary to have a much larger parliament, and to have provincial councils and provincial heads of departments, and that the total cost of government under federation is not higher, and may be less, than it would be under a unitary system.

If the people of Australia adopt the proposal embodied in this bill, they will be virtually signing a blank cheque and giving this or a succeeding Government with a majority in both Houses power to do practically what it wishes.

Comparisons have been made between the Governments of Australia and those of Great Britain, South Africa and New Zealand. Australia is far removed from the closely populated centres of Europe, and, owing to its area and the sparseness of its population, large sums of money have to be spent on railway and harbour construction and water conservation, to assist development, to an extent which does not obtain in the countries I have mentioned. The area of Australia, which is approximately 3,000,000 square miles, is only about 700,000 square miles less than that of Europe, including Russia. It is the fifth largest country in the world, rich in mineral, pastoral, agricultural and timber resources. These European countries are governed by 21 different authorities. If we provide for only one governing authority for the whole Commonwealth, which is but slightly smaller in area than the countries of Europe which have 21 different parliaments or authorities to govern them, we should be faced with considerable difficulty. The conditions in European countries vary almost to the extent that they vary throughout the Commonwealth, and a central government could not govern to the satisfaction of the people. At present Australia is governed by State Governments with sovereign powers and by a Federal Government under a federal constitution. Great Britain, South Africa, and New Zealand are governed by central parliaments with sovereign powers, but there is a marked difference between the form of government in those countries and that of the Commonwealth. The power of the Commonwealth Parliament is defined by the Constitution, but Great Britain has no written constitution. There has been great conflict of opinion concerning the best method of governing England and Ireland, and it was only after years of turmoil that Ireland was granted selfgovernment. That is a striking example of the desire for decentralization at the present time.

This bill is an attempt to clear the way for a sweeping extension of the functions of the central government. This point has been dealt with by the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which states -

Many definitions of federalism, or of a federal system, have been framed by writers on political science or constitutional law, but in recommending that the federal form of government be retained in Australia, we are referring to a system which possesses features common to the Constitutions of Australia, Canada, and the United States. Between the Constitution of these three countries there are important differences, but all three have in common certain elements or institutions which may be described as fundamental. In all of them there is one central government having authority over the whole area, and there are a number of governments having authority over areas less than the whole. The powers of these governments and their relations to each other are limited and defined by a written document, the terms of which cannot be .altered by the Parliament either of the whole or of any lesser area. It cannot be interpreted except by a court, and it is for this court to determine whether any act of any of the legislatures has the force of law, or is a nullity because it transgresses the limits defined by the Constitution. Another feature which these three systems have in common is that the powers exercisable by the provincial or State Parliaments are not merely administrative, but are of sufficient importance to the. people governed to attract political interest and to give to the decisions of the legislatures or executives of the States or provinces an important influence on the well-being of the community.

In the Constitution, referred to in the report as “ a written document,” lies the safety of our legislature. The limits within which the Federal Government can legislate are clearly defined in it, and it is a Constitution which at present cannot be altered by Parliament. If, however, this proposed amendment is adopted by the people, the power of amendment which the framers of the Constitution determined should rest with the people will be transferred to the Parliament. The acceptance of this proposal by the people would definitely take from them that safeguard which they have enjoyed during the past 30 years - the definite power to express an opinion on any proposed alteration of the Constitution. It would also mean the slow but sure destruction of the States. The less populous and more distant States would be more or less dominated by the other States, and in time absorbed by them. New South Wales and Victoria, because of their greater population, and consequently their greater representation in this Parliament, would be able to out-vote the other States. In the House of Representatives, New, South Wales has 28 members or more than the number representing Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia combined. It may me said that the Senate would still exist to preserve the rights of the States; but if this bill is passed there is no guarantee that the Senate will not be abolished. If it were abolished, the less populous States would indeed be at the mercy of the others. The members of the Royal Commission on the Constitution regarded this matter seriously, for on page 241 of their report they say -

The advantage of an independent right of self-government may not be so obvious to the residents of those States which are in close couch with the central authority, but it is of fundamental importance to States which arc situated at a distance from the seat of government, and which by reason of the sparsemisa of their populations, have a relatively small representation in the Commonwealth Parliament.

They saw the danger of the less populous and far-flung States being neglected by a central governing authority. As a representative . of Queensland sent here primarily to safeguard the rights of that State,- I shall oppose the bill, and do all in my power to ensure its rejection by the people of Queensland.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

.: - In supporting .the bill, I desire to assure those honorable senators, who appear to be greatly concerned as to the fate of the Senate, should the referendum be carried, that, in the - event of full powers being given to the Federal Parliament, there would still remain the. provision that the abolition of the Senate, could only be brought about by an absolute majority of both Houses of this Parliament. If the Senate did decide that it was desirable to abolish this chamber, then I take it that there would be good grounds for its decision. The passing of this bill will leave the Constitution where it now is, so far as the Senate is concerned.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Does not the platform of the Labour party provide for the abolition of the Senate?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The platform of the Labour party is not now before us. There seems to bc a fear, either real or imaginary, on the part of some honorable senators, that the Labour party represents some unseen black hand. Sena-, tor Ogden appeared to be afraid that some future conference of Labour leaders might give certain directions to a Labour Government regarding the policy it must adopt. Would it really be a catastrophe if a conference of working-class people decided that, in the interests of the workers of Australia,, certain legislation should be placed, ou ‘the statute-book, and brought pressure to bear on the Government to give effect to such legislation ? Honorable senators know that political parties appeal to the electors, placing before them their several policies and making all sorts of promises, yet the party which is returned is helpless to give effect to the policy endorsed by the people. The carrying of this bill will tend to prevent irresponsible persons from making rash promises. No policy which is not possible of accomplishment should be placed before the electors. Too long have we tolerated political parties mak.ing promises to the people, which they know are impossible of accomplishment. If the referendum is agreed to and this Parliament empowered to give effect to the platform of the party in power, there will be less likelihood of rash promises being placed before the people by irresponsible persons.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Are we to understand that if the Government’s proposals are accepted, the Labour party will delete from its platform that plank which provides for the abolition of the Senate?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I have said nothing of the kind; nor is the platform of the Labour party now in question. From time to time that platform is placed before the people of this country. The Labour party is sincere in its endeavour to give effect to its platform. Senator Chapman. - The whole platform of the party was not placed before the people at the last election.

Senator DOOLEY:

– It has been placed before- them from time to time.- The last election was decided on one issue- arbitration - and it was decided in no uncertain manner.

Honorable senators interrupting-

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am a most, attentive listener, and very infrequently interject when other honorable senators are speaking; yet the moment I rise to speak, I am subjected to interjections from all sides. I appeal to you, Mr. President, for protection.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– Honorable senators must allow liberty of speech to an honorable senator who appeals to the Chair for protection. It is verY discourteous to do otherwise.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I thank you, Mr. President. Although I do not make a habit of interjecting when other honors able senators are speaking, because I realize that interjections are disorderly, I have no objection to an. occasional interjection while I am .speaking. But it is impossible to answer simultaneous interjections from different parts of the chamber.

The last election was decided on one issue only. The people returned that party which gave them an assurance that ii would continue the policy of arbitration. The Government realizes that if the interests’ of the wage-earners are to be effectively safeguarded, there must be protection against exploitation by those who would either rig the markets, or increase prices. Who objects to a government having that power? The present Government desires to stimulate our primary and secondary industries, believing that by so doing it will help to solve our economic difficulties. In order to avoid a repetition of -the experiences of the nineties, the Government desires to make the country more self-supporting. It desires to develop our industries, but it lias no guarantee that manufacturers who benefit from the Government’s assistance will not exploit the people. The Government should be in a position to prevent, exploitation of the people by Australian manufacturers. Is it asking too much that a government should have power to prevent the exploitation of the people?- T feel confident that if the electors properly understand the Government’s proposal they will heartily support it. “

Senator McLachlan said that the proposals of the Government would create friction’ between the States. Iti’ is- true that in pre-federation days a man from Victoria was ‘ regarded almost as a foreigner by the people ‘of New South. Wales. That was the case even in the realm of sport. A team of Victorian footballers visiting New South Wales, or a. team of New South Wales footballers visiting Victoria, was regarded as a team of foreigners.

Senator Sir John Newlands:

– -Th, position is much the same to-day.

Senator DOOLEY:

– That is not so. To-day Australia has a united people, but it,’ is absolutely necessary that that bond of unity should be strengthened. The framers of the Constitution realized that they were laying down a foundation, upon which an adequate superstructure would be erected. Will any honorable senator claim that there is no need for a change in our Constitution - that things are as they were 30 years ago? Times have changed to such an extent that it is necessary that we should alter our Constitution in conformity with the requirements of the day, and in order to do that it has been necessary to take many things into consideration.

From what I can gather from a study of the Constitution, the Commonwealth has very little authority other than that concerning defence. But the matter of defence has not been elaborated by honorable senators. It has been proved that Australia can construct the vessels of war that are necessary to defend its shores, and we have an excellent dockyard ‘for the purpose. Yet, if any honorable senator cares to make a tour of inspection of the Cockatoo .Island dockyard he will dis cover that there are millions of pounds worth of machinery there rusting, going to waste, because the High Court has held that the Commonwealth has no legal power to enter into contracts, or to accept business other than that relating to the defence of the realm. It may be years before that machinery is again used for that purpose. Near that dockyard can be seen another great workshop established for the purpose of. erecting the Sydney harbour bridge. There has been a duplication ‘of expenditure, which must detrimentally affect the pockets of the taxpayers. No doubt when that bridge is completed that extensive workshop will also be thrown into disuse.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Why did not the honorable senator’s party put forward the recommendations that the commission suggested on that subject ?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I believe that if the Government had been given power to take those things into consideration it would not have consented to the establishment of that second workshop. There would not have been any need for Dorman, Long and Company to erect it had it. been possible to make use of the plant at Cockatoo Island dockyard.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– That would- have been impracticable at , the costs obtaining at that dockyard.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Any additional costs would not have been comparable with those found’ necessary by Dorm ai

Long and Company to duplicate the plant. Much of the machinery at Cockatoo Island dockyard could have been adapted for use in the erection of the Sydney harbour bridge. “Why should that great plant remain idle when there is work to be done? Why debar the dockyard from entering into competition with private institutions?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Because it does not compete on equal terms. It does not pay taxation.

Senator DOOLEY:

– So much the better for the taxpayer. That condition of affairs must be altered.

There are many other aspects of the matter that confront parliaments from time to time. This is not the only Government that thas appealed to the people’ to alter the Constitution. I understand that the principal objection of honorable senators opposite is against the bill which seeks to clothe this Parliament with power to alter the Constitution. Not one word has been spoken in support or rejection of the other separate proposals.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– They are not yet before us. We shall leave no room for doubt on that score when the bills come up for consideration.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– Honorable senators may refer to those measures for purposes of comparison, but I remind them that we are now dealing with bill No. 1, which concerns the power of amendment only.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Honorable senators who oppose this bill have consistently opposed every other measure that the Government has brought forward, so that I expect opposition from them, irrespective of whether a proposal has merits or otherwise. If the Commonwealth Parliament is to be master of its own business it must have the power of amendment sought in this bill. After all, the element of safety rests with the electors. The passage of this proposal would not take any privilege from the electors. Rather would it give them greater security than they now enjoy, and I sincerely hope that it will be approved.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I am opposed to the measure at present under consideration by the

Senate, and am confident that when it is submitted to the people it will be rejected by a considerable majority in each State. I cannot understand why the Government has been so unwise as to bring these proposals forward. Not only do’ they represent a futile effort to amend the Constitution drastically by destroying its federal character, but their mere submission must have a very disastrous effect upon the commercial and industrial life of the Commonwealth. We are all painfully aware of the unfortunate economic position in which Australia now finds itself. These proposals cannot have other than a detrimental effect upon enterprise and employment in the Commonwealth. They will give rise to grave doubts with regard to our future in the minds of those who have money to invest, either in the expansion of existing industries or the establishment of new ones.

It has been suggested that the Senate should agree to this and the other two bills, and leave the matter to the people to decide. I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to express its opinion in no uncertain manner concerning this attack on the contract entered into between the States. It must be remembered that the Constitution is a contract between the States, one to which the Commonwealth was not a party, because at the time that it was adopted by the people of Australia there was no Commonwealth in existence. The reason why I am of the opinion that the Senate should reject these proposals is that if we passed them they would be taken to bear the imprimatur of honorable senators.

I cannot understand why such undemocratic proposals should be submitted by any government. There can be no doubt about the undemocratic nature of this bill. I have frequently heard it said by those who support the measure that we should trust the people. To my mind the provisions of this bill indicate a very clear and definite mistrust of the people in regard to proposals for the amendment of the Constitution. Our Constitution was not adopted hurriedly. It was under discussion for many years by conventions and by the State Parliaments, and when the people agreed to its terms, I believe that for the most part they were well informed on the subject. The example of certain other British communities has been cited as worthy of emulation, but those who brought forward those instances were unfortunate in one of their examples, that of Great Britain itself. We all know that in recent years the Imperial Parliament has seen fit to create two new Parliaments, that of the Irish Free States and that of Northern Ireland. In contradistinction’ this Government seeks, in effect, to destroy six Parliaments.

Comparisons have already been made between the population and area of Australia, and that of other countries. I have extracted some figures from the Official Y ear-Book of the Commonwealth that may be of interest to honorable senators. Queensland, which I, with five other honorable senators, have the honour to represent in this chamber, has an area of 670,000 square miles and a population of less than 1,000,000 people. The area and population of some of the principal European countries are as follow : -

It will be seen from these figures that the total area of the eight countries mentioned is about 4,000 square miles less than that of Queensland, which has a population of less than 1,000,000 people. It is said that those who are opposed to unification are little Australians. I contend that those people who think that Australia can be governed from one centre are, in fact, the little Australians of the Commonwealth. They are absolutely without vision, and can have no conception of the great country which Australia, given a fair opportunity, is destined to become. We have it on the authority of those who have given deep and serious study to this problem that the abolition of the State Parliaments and the concentration of legislation and administration at Canberra would not be more economical than the present system under which seven Parliaments are functioning.

There certainly are difficulties in the way of amending our federal Constitution. Necessarily, the Constitution under which this Parliament functions should have a broad and lasting foundation. If we ask the people to give their approval to the bill now before us, we shall be asking them to exchange a solid foundation for one which is as shifting sand; a foundation that may be altered at any time by a government commanding a bare majority of members in both branches of the legislature. If this amendment is accepted by the people we shall not know from one election to another just what our Constitution is likely to be. It is true that a number of proposals to amend the Constitution have been submitted to the people of Australia and in the majority of cases they have been rejected. Who can say that the people were wrong?

Senator Rae:

– They are never wrong.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Some people, I know, claim that the voice of the people is the voice of God. It would appear that the present Government does not share that view. Apparently, this Government considers that it is a better judge of what form the Constitution should take than are the people, its masters. The Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet have carefully avoided stating to what extent they purpose amending the Constitution, if given the power; but speaking in Sydney only a few days ago the Treasurer, Mr. Theodore, is reported to have said -

Under the present Constitution the Government could not give effect to the Labour platform.

Senator Dooley:

– That is true.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Many people believe that if full effect is given to the Labour party’s platform, the position of this country would be worse than ever, and we have abundant evidence to support this view.

Senator Rae:

– The majority of the people thought otherwise at the last election.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Only one. question was prominently before the people when last we appealed to them.

Senator Dooley:

– Bread and butter !

Senator CRAWFORD:

– They decided, in effect, that they would rather have both Federal and State arbitration courts than dispense with either of them. Senator Dooley has just said that with many people the paramount issue at the last election was bread and butter. Undoubtedly, it has been more difficult for a great many people to obtain sufficient bread and butter for themselves and those dependent upon them since the present Government took office than it was before.

Senator Dooley:

– Because of the aftermath of the legislation enacted by the Bruce-Page administration.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not propose to debate . that issue with the honorable senator at the moment. Undoubtedly, Australia is suffering from the effects of a world-wide depression in trade and industry. Our position may be likened to that in which this country found itself in the ‘nineties, as the result of the much-quoted policy of “ borrow, boom, and burst.” We know which party has been responsible for borrowing in the various States of the Commonwealth, and upon what party chiefly rests responsibility for our present position, which will be aggravated if this proposal is agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Private business taking precedence after 8 p.m.,

page 1548

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM

REPORT of Select Committee: Motion for Adoption.

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 1319) on motion by Senator Sir Hal Colebatch -

That the report from the select committee on the standing committee system ho adopted.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

’. - I find myself in a somewhat difficult position in dealing with the report of the Select Committee on the Standing Committee System. While I feel that the committee deserves the very best thanks of the Senate for the capable manner in which it has conducted its investigations,

I cannot agree to its first recommendation without a slight amendment, nor can I agree at all to its second recommendation. The first recommendation provides -

  1. That a standing committee of the Senate, to be called the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, be established.
  2. That all regulations and ordinances laid on the table of the Senate be referred to such committee for consideration and report.
  3. That such standing committee shall be appointed at the commencement of each session on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the President, the Leader of the Senate, and the Leader of the .Opposition, shall consist of seven members, and shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; and that four members shall form a quorum.

The amendment I propose is to substitute for the method of selection recommended the method which is already in vogue in connexion with other standing committees of the Senate. That is to say - of the seven members of the committee, four shall be nominated by the Leader of the Senate, and three by the Leader of the Opposition. I invite honorable senators to look at the functions to be performed by this particular committee, and consider what is likely to happen if the Leader of the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition cannot agree upon the choice of the personnel of the committee. In such an event, I presume the President would be called upon to give a casting vote. At the present time the Government has a following of seven in the Senate, and the Opposition a following of 29. In such circumstances, although in theory the members of this committee should divorce from their minds all political ideas, the committee would probably be constituted of five chosen from the Opposition and two from the Government side of the chamber. I fail to see how the -President could apply any rule other than that of taking the numerical strength of the parties” in the Senate. He must say to me, “ By some fortuitous circumstance you are the Leader of the Senate, but in reality you have no right to be the Leader, because you are only leading seven against 29 ; and on this committee I must give the party of 29 greater representation than I can give your party.” Honorable senators can easily realize what would happen in those circumstances. ‘ <

There is, however, a more serious aspect to be considered by the Senate, when we come to the recommendation of the select committee that a standing committee of the Senate to be called the Standing Committee on External Affairs be established. I gave the matter consideration to-day, and then referred the committee’s recommendation to Dr. Henderson, the Director of External Affairs, asking him to peruse it and furnish me with a report upon it. With the indulgence of the Senate I propose to read Dr. Henderson’s report upon the matter. He says -

In accordance with your request for a report concerning the proposed Standing Committee on External Affairs from the point of view of the powers to be conferred on such a committee in respect to sending for papers and records, I have to state that the external affairs records of the Government may roughly be divided into two classes.

I am sure it was an oversight on the part of the committee that the Director of External Affairs was not examined by it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– He should certainly have been called as a witness.

Senator DALY:

– It is a matter for regret, because I feel sure that if the committee had examined Dr. Henderson the conclusion it arrived at would have been different. The report of the Director of External Affairs continues -

Firstly, there are the documents which are the property of the Commonwealth Government. Secondly, there are the documents which are the property of the British Government, and which are communicated to us or placed at our disposal by the British Government.

Many of the documents belonging to the first class arc, of course, confidential, but it rests entirely with the Commonwealth Government itself to decide whether it is in the public interest to make thom public, and if so, at what moment..

Honorable senators can see the significance of that paragraph. The Commonwealth Government should have the right, to decide what are private documents and should be given a discretion as to the moment at which any or all of such documents should be published.

When negotiations on a question are proceeding, it is, of course, difficult in some cases to make public the texts, of relevant documents. In other cases documents can be published. But it must rest with the Government itself to decide when it is in the public interest to publish them.

A standing committee on external affairs would meet and under its powers would call for all papers and documents, f do not for one moment suppose that nil the Ministers in the Senate would be members of the committee; the Prime Minister would certainly not be a member of it, and the Director of External Affairs would therefore be called upon to exercise a discretion as to what documents he should withhold and what he should make public.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– He would do that after consultation with his Minister.

Senator DALY:

– He might do it after consultation’ with the Prime Minister, but what I am pointing out is that the procedure is a dangerous one. In this chamber any honorable senator may ask me whether I am prepared, on behalf of the Government, to lay a paper on the table, and if I refuse to do so the Senate has a right to debate the question; but that does not force me to disclose the contents of the document. The standing committee, however, could demand its production and then present a report to the Senate on what was submitted to it by the Director of External Affairs. Dr. Henderson’s report continues -

In respect to the second class of documents, most of which are confidential, and which ordinarily contain information relating to questions in which the Commonwealth is interested, it would be improper for the Government to publish them or otherwise place them at the disposal of any outside authority without the prior approval of the Government to whom they belong, that is to say the British Government.

In these circumstances, the conferring o:° power on the Standing Committee on External affairs to send for papers and records of this department on the subjects which arc set out in the select committee’s report, which, as they cover “ any other matters of International or Empire concern embraces the whole range of the Commonwealth’s external affairs, might give rise, to difficulties.

I am not quite sure whether the position in this respect was fully appreciated by the select committee when considering this question. This office, however, would have been pleased to have placed fully before the select committee all the facts concerning the position had it been asked to do so.

It would, of course, ultimately rest with the Minister to decide what documents could be placed before the committee. The power of the committee “ to send for papers anil records” would therefore he restricted to this extent. In order, however, to avoid any misapprehension that might arise in the future

I would suggest that consideration be given to omitting all reference to the power of the committee to send for papers and records, or, alternatively, to making it clear that the power of the committee in this respect shall be subject to the discretion of the Minister to make such documents available.

I suggest that if the select committee’s recommendations are to be adopted they should be adopted with the amendment suggested by me to the first recommendation that, instead of the seven being selected by a selection committee, consisting of the President, the Leader of the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition, they should be selected, four by the Leader of the Senate and three by the Leader of the Opposition, and that the second recommendation relating to a standing committee on external affairs should be struck out altogether.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– There are three courses open to the Senate in dealing with the report of a select committee. It may be adopted, rejected, or recommitted, but it cannot be amended, except by the committee itself whose report it is. If an amendment were allowed it would no longer be the committee’s report ; it would be the committee’s report plus the ideas of some one who was not a member of the committee. If any alteration is required to be made in the report of the select committee on the standing committee system before it can be adopted by the Senate it will be necessary for the report to be recommitted to the committee. That is the only body which can make any amendment in its report.

Senator DALY:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. President, and therefore move -

That the motion be amended by leaving out the word “ adopted “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - “recommitted with a view to consideration by that committee of the following suggestions: - (a). That clause 1 (c) be struck out and the following clause inserted in lieu thereof : - 1. (c) That such standing committee shall consist of seven senators and shall be appointed at the commencement of each session in the following manner: -

The Leader of the Government in the Senate shall, within four days from the commencement of the session, appoint, in writing, four senators to be members of the committee; and

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall, within four days from the commencement of the session, appoint, in writing, three senators to be members of the committee.

That such committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and that four members shall form a quorum.

That clause 2 be struck out.”

Senator Sir GEORGEPEARCE (Western Australia) [8.12]. - I second the amendment. I join with the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) in tendering to the select committee my thanks for the research it has carried out in connexion with this matter and for its very interesting and valuable report, but I remind the Senate that we are here laying down a procedure not only for the Parliament of to-day but for all parliaments. We must, therefore, look at the question, not as it appeals to us to-day with the Senate constituted as it is, but as it will affect the position when the Senate is quite differently constituted. We must look at it entirely apart from the aspect of government or opposition. We should have some regard for the position of the ministry under our system of responsible government. Although it may happen that for the time being the ministerial party is in a minority in the Senate, that condition of affairs should not affect our judgment in laying down any procedure in regard to standing committees; we should do so entirely apart from any party consideration. It is true that private senators can introduce bills but the main responsibility for initiating and carrying through legislation rests with the Government. We already have standing committees. The Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications has nothing to do with legislation; neither has the Standing Orders Committee, the Library Committee, the House Committee, or the Printing Committee. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has some relation to legislation, but can only make recommendations in regard to legislation initiated by the Government for expenditure on public works. It cannot make any recommendation on legislation initiated by a private member, because no private member can initiate legislation providing for the expenditure of money. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts can deal only with matters of expenditure that have arisen from legislation enacted by the Government of the day or by past governments.

The select committee has proposed first of all a standing committee on regulations and ordinances. That committee would deal entirely with legislation. It would be a legislative committee, because regulations and ordinances have as much legal force as have statutes. We are therefore asked, under this proposal, to initiate a practice under which the legislation of the government of the day, in the form of regulations or ordinances, as a matter of course shall be referred to a committee of the Senate. It has to be remembered that a large proportion of such legislation will naturally be of a party character. A government brings forward legislation to give effect to its programme, and the committee will have referred to it regulations or ordinances designed to carry out the Government’s policy. It does not seem to me that it is proper to refer such matters to a standing committee of the Senate. In my view it is the duty of individual members of the Senate - they can, if they so desire, divide themselves into parties and act as members of parties - to take into consideration these regulations and ordinances, in the same manner as they do the bills introduced into this chamber, and which express the policy of the government. I quite agree with the view expressed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly).

Let us consider what is likely to happen in connexion with the work of a standing committee to consider and report upon regulations and ordinances. All the other standing committees which I have mentioned are set up on a numerical basis in proportion to the party representation in this chamber. That system does not work unjustly, because the committees appointed upon that basis do not deal with legislation, and it is only right that, in appointing them, some regard should be paid to the strength of the various parties in this chamber. But as this committee is to deal with legislation, I consider that the objection expressed by the Minister is sound. If the standing committee on regulations and ordinances is to be constituted in the manner suggested the unpleasant task of apportioning the representation will be thrown upon you, Mr. President. The Leader of the Opposition would probably contend that, as all other standing committees are appointed on a numerical basis, this committee should be appointed in the same way. He might contend that those honorable senators who are not supporters of the Government should have five representatives and that the Government should have two, or that the proportion should be four and three, as is the case with other standing committees. Upon you, sir, would be thrown the responsibility of deciding the Vice-President of the Executive Council’s claim, as already made, that the Government, although numerically in a weak position in this chamber, should have four representatives, and that the Opposition, with its overwhelming numbers, should have only three. In these circumstances the obligation would be cast upon you, sir, of deciding a very awkward question. I do not think that is a position in which you should be placed, or that it is a question which you should be asked to decide. If you, sir, should give the benefit of your judgment to the Government, the Government would then be in the secure position that every regulation or ordinance brought forward by it would be investigated by a committee on which it had a majority. In such circumstances any reports from the committee would be in accordance with what the Government desired. On the other hand, if you, Mr. President, decided that the Opposition, because of its greater numerical strength, should have four representatives on the committee, and the Government should have only three, we should in a sense have a government within a government. We should have a standing committee to deal with regulations and ordinances setting itself up as a super-government to supervise all regulations and ordinances, and reporting to ‘the Senate according to its party complexion.

The powers proposed to be given to this committee are fairly wide. Paragraph d of the select committee’s recommendations reads -

That such standing committee shall be charged with the responsibility of seeing that the clause of each bill conferring a regulationmaking power does not confer a legislative power of a character which ought to be exercised by Parliament itself; and that it shall also scrutinize regulations to ascertain -

that they are in accordance with the statute……

I submit that that is a legal and not a political question. Such a committee might consist of honorable senators, not one of whom was a legal man, and consequently would not be competent to determine whether regulations framed were or were not strictly in accordance with the statute. The recommendation continues -

  1. That they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties.
  2. That they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions.
  3. That they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment.

These are entirely matters of opinion. I venture to say that the question whether “ they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties” is entirely a matter of opinion. Let us take the views of Senator Sir Hal Colebatch as compared with those of Senator Rae. We know they are as far apart as the poles.

Senator Rae:

– They may be more in accord than the right honorable senator thinks.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Perhaps in going round the circle they will eventually meet. Let us, however, consider the views of an orthodox Labour senator as compared with that of Senator Sir Hal Colebatch. They would be diametrically opposedto each other. Whether certain regulations do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties is a political question. Is it right for a standing committee of the Senate to express its views on what, after all, is a matter of opinion ? It is for the Senate itself, in the exercise of its legislative functions, to do that. If this committee is constituted, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council says it should be, the Government will always have on it a majority of the members, and they will report that the regulations or ordinances under review do not trespass unduly on the personal rights and liberties of the people.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– What does that matter, so long as the views of both political sections on the committee are placed before the Senate?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.We could not have two expressions of opinion coming from the committee. If we are to have the individual views of the members of the committee, they may as well be ventilated on the floor of the chamber itself.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– But they are not expressed.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I have been expressing mine quite freely lately, and although I did not get much support from Senator Sir Hal Colebatch, I am living in hope. Whether the Government, or the Opposition has a majority on the committee will not make the slightest difference. If the Opposition had a majority it might bring in a report to the effect that regulations framed by the Government were unduly trespassing on the personal rights and liberties of the people ; but thethree stalwart representatives of the Government would assert that they were not.The contest having been fought in committee, the fight would then be transferred to the floor of the Senate. I frankly say that I cannot see the use of appointing such a committee to deal with regulations and ordinances. It is the duty of every individual senator to examine them. That is what we are elected and. paid for - not merely to express views on bills -

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Would not, the right honorable senator’s remark apply to the work of the Public Works Committee or the Public Accounts Committee ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No, the Public Works Committee deals with proposals for expenditure referred to it by Parliament, and the report of the committee comes before the House from which the reference originated. The Public Accounts Committee initiates its own inquiries.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That does not relieve each member of his individual responsibility.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No, but individual members of Parliament have not the opportunity of obtaining that detailed information that is necessary to enable them to fully consider: such matters. I confess that I cannot see how such a committee could achieve any useful purpose, and suggest that the select committee should re-consider its first recommendation.

I now come to the second recommendation. It is very unfortunate that the committee did not summon before it some witness who had had direct personal experience in dealing with external affairs and inter-Imperial relations. I have looked through the list of witnesses and so far as I can see, there was only one who may have had some experience in that connexion, and that was a long time ago. I refer to ex-Senator Keating, who has been a Commonwealth Minister. He held office as Minister for Home Affairs, but in that office had no knowledge, except that which came to him in a secondary way, of external affairs or Empire relations. A majority of the witnesses were men whose knowledge of this subject is entirely theoretical. They consisted of University professors and others who have had no intimate or personal knowledge or experience of the problems with which governments are confronted, with respect to foreign affairs and Empire relations. Sir Robert Garran, who was one of the witnesses examined by the select committee, is an eminent legal officer, but his experience has not been along those lines. He is a man of great learning and wide reading, but his knowledgeof foreign relationships would be entirely academic. It is unfortunate that the committee did not call before it Ministers actually in control of these matters, or who had dealt with them, or that it did not examine the Director of External Affairs in the Prime Minister’s Department. That officer knows intimately the difficulties that would confront such a committee as this, and I imagine that his evidence would have been of considerable help to the select committee.

I take exception to the appointment of this proposed committee, because I believe it would be eminently dangerous. As it is not yet in existence, and its proposed personnel is unknown, I can speak in. this way without being accused of making any personal reflections. I think it would be mischievous. The subject of foreign relations is a dangerous one to handle. Under normal conditions, in times of peace, when everything is proceeding smoothly, probably no harm would result. It may be said that the League of Nations’ report could be considered by such a committee as this. That probably is the least dangerous phase of our foreign relations.

Senator Rae:

– That report comes to honorable senators through the post.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Yes, but it is not so much the report of the League of Nations as matters arising out of it. that we have to consider. As an illustration of the danger I may cite this case: Australia has a mandate over New Guinea, concerning which the Government has to submit an annual report to the Mandates Commission. It is not so very long ago since a member of another place made a speech concerning New Guinea. I read that speech, and I do not believe the honorable member who made it intended any harm, or thought that his remarks would be regarded in the way they were afterwards taken up. I do not think he intended the use to be made of his speech that was subsequently made of it, but it was taken up by the Mandates Commission, and was a source of great trouble to the Commonwealth Government before the whole matter was cleared up. That was because some careless phrases in the speech were capable of being construed to mean that Australia bad not managed the mandated territories well. I do not believe that the speech intended to convey that impression ; but that was the construction put upon it. We cannot avoid speeches being misconstrued; but if harm can be caused by a speech, how much more dangerous would it be if a committee appointed by the Senate issued a report based on only partial information? As the VicePresident of the Executive Council has said, some of the communications which pass between the Government of Great Britain and the governments of the dominions, and between the governments of the various dominions, are of an extremely confidential nature, and cannot be made public. Yet because of the information contained in them, governments adopt a certain course of action. A standing committee would have no knowledge of those communications, and would base its report only on the evidence that came before it, such as a report of the Mandates Commission, or of the League of Nations, or of the Australian delegates to the assemblies of the League of Nations. Such a report might unwittingly cause a great deal of mischief. It would be regarded more seriously than a speech made by a member of either House of Parliament, for it would go out with some imprimatur of authority. Honorable senators should not make the mistake of thinking that our control of the mandated territories will pass without criticism. There are some critics who are only too anxious to find causes for criticizing Australia’s administration of those territories. What would be the position if a standing committee of the Senate issued a report in connexion with the mandated territories which was counter to the policy of the Commonwealth Government; especially if that report were founded on insufficient information ?

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That position might arise in any debate in Parliament.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That is so; but a speech in Parliament would not carry the same weight as would a report by a properly-constituted committee of the Senate. My object is not to minimize the harm that an indiscreet or uninformed speech in Parliament might cause, but to emphasize how rauch more dangerous would be a report along similar lines by a standing committee.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The Government would have its representatives on the committee.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That may be so; but the view of the Government might be the view of the minority on the committee. In any case, a government has no more right to show confidential documents to its supporters on a committee than it has to make them public; and no government would do so.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What is the practice in the United States of America in relation to the Standing Committee of the Senate on Foreign Affairs?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– As Senator Colebatch has pointed out, the Senate of the United States of America is entirely different from the Australian Senate. The Senate of the United States of America must approve of treaties. That is not the case here. In relation to foreign affairs, the Senate of the United States of America stands practically in the position of a Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is no analogy between the two countries. In Australia the responsibility for dealing with foreign affairs rests with the government of the day, and is not shared with either branch of the legislature, excepting that the Government is responsible to Parliament for its conduct of foreign affairs, as it is for its administration generally.

I desire to point out a further danger in relation to the committee’s second recommendation. There is at present complete confidence between the British Government and the; governments of the Commonwealth and the other portions of the Empire, because each knows that the other will regard as absolutely confidential any opinions desired to be so regarded. In considering this matter we must not lose sight of the fact that the Government would have to recognize the authority of the Senate in constituting these standing committees, and that if it failed to comply with a request that certain documents be placed before a standing committee there would be a conflict between the Senate and the Government.

Senator Daly:

– I do not agree with that view.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I do not ask the honorable senator to subscribe to it; I am merely pointing out a position which might arise. I agree that it is arguable whether or not a Government should feel bound to submit to a committee appointed by the Senate any document for -which it might ask. But irrespective of any likelihood of a conflict between the Senate and the Government, what would be the effect on interEmpire relations of any fear that the contents of confidential communications would be divulged?’ It certainly would lessen that confidence that now exists. There would be a disposition on the part of other governments to be extremely careful as to the contents of documents they sent to us if they thought that there was any possibility of their being the subject of a report by a committee, or a discussion in the Senate.

I cannot support these propositions in their present form. I hope that the committee will agree to reconsider them with a view to submitting them in another form. I remind honorable senators that if we now agree to set up these standing committees they will be set up for all time, not merely during the life of this Parliament. While there may be some honorable senators who believe that the Senate should not be a party house, the fact remains that in Australia we have responsible government, and whether we like it or not, responsible government means party government. Sir Richard Chaffey Baker, the first President of the Senate, when speaking at one of the conventions for the framing of the Commonwealth Constitution, said, respecting the Senate, that one weakness that he saw in the Constitution then being framed was that we had engrafted the British system of responsible government on to the American system of a federal legislature. In his opinion, there was a danger either that responsible government would kill the Senate, or that the Senate would kill responsible government. ‘

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– That is not what he said. His fear was that either responsible government would kill federation, or that federation would kill responsible government.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I have given my recollection of what he said. People frequently criticize party government. It is easy to do so, for the system has many faults. But notwithstanding its faults, I have not yet heard of a better system of government. I am not prepared to take any action that would lead the Senate to fight against the principles which underly responsible government until LJ see a better system than that of party government. In the Commonwealth the Labour party is in power to-day; but tomorrow the party represented by honorable senators on this side of the Chamber may he in office. In considering this question we must have regard to the fact that the government of the day is responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. Should the government do anything worthy of censure, Parliament has its remedy. It has the right of criticism, but it cannot share the responsibility of management. The responsibility for the conduct of the foreign policy of the country rests with the government of the day, and with no one else. To set up these standing committees with the wide powers proposed to be vested in them would be to bring the Senate into conflict with the Government; and the result could be nothing but disastrous, either to the Senate or to our conduct of foreign affairs. I hope that the committee will reconsider this matter, and also that the second proposition will not come forward at all.

Amendment, by leave, altered to read -

That the word “ adopted “ he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ recommitted.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The committee is grateful for the complimentary remarks made regarding its work. They will help to compensate for the mixed reception which has so far been accorded to its report. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) does not agree with the recommendation of the committee in relation to external affairs, nor does the Leader of the Opposition (Sir George Pearce) agree with it. The Minister also disagreed with the committee’s recommendation regarding the appointment of a standing committee to scrutinize regulations. While he approved the principle he did not agree with the composition of the committee, but suggested that the Government should be represented on the committee by a majority and the Opposition by a minority. That is not a serious matter, and can easily be overcome. Senator Daly could well adopt the simple and approved method of choosing the Public Accounts and Public Works Committees. The acts under which the committees function contain no suggestion as to the direction from which their constituent elements should be drawn. There is merely a bald intimation that the committee should ‘be composed of such and such a number of members. The same procedure could apply in this instance. However, I am not quarrelling about that,

I merely regret that theMinister did not show himself more warm-hearted over the proposal. As everybody knows, the starting point of Australia’s participation in external affairs occurred, comparatively speaking, only the other day. But its interest in external affairs is growing apace, and that branch of the Government’s activities is to-day of considerable importance. We should keep in mind the fact that other departments of governmental activity are designedly the subject of very close scrutiny. No public work estimated to cost over £25,000 can be undertaken by the Government without the matter first being closely investigated by the Public Works Committee. It was also recognized that the expenditure of the taxpayers’ money should be carefully supervised, and that care should be taken to see that the money reached its proper destination. For that purpose Parliament, in its wisdom, appointed another watch-dog, the Public Accounts Committee, and that body has done some remarkably useful work since it was established. So that, in all other spheres of activity except that of external affairs, the actions of the Government of the day are subject to the closest surveillance - and that designedly, by the will of Parliament. When it is proposed to impose a slight form of scrutiny upon external affairs, a good deal of cold water is immediately east upon the suggestion. Why? What is there sacred about that department of governmental activity that should prevent the appointment of a sectional committee of this Senate to act as a kind of public auditor of the Government’s action? The erection of a small country post office is the matter of careful inquiry by the Public Works Committee, but any action that might commit the Commonwealth to considerable obligations, say, in connexion with the League of Nations, is not to be subjected to preliminary parliamentary scrutiny.

I am rather sorry that Senator Sir George Pearce was so short-minded in this matter. In the past he has admitted the increasing importance of external affairs, as the following words, uttered by the right honorable senator on a former occasion will indicate: -

Unfortunately, in the stress of domestic politics we do not have an opportunity to devote sufficient attention to international affairs. Nevertheless, we are being drawn more and more into that maelstrom, and for that reason it behoves us to give the matter some thought.

Senator Sir George Pearce then regarded the subject as a most vital one, demanding increasing attention and thought on the part of this Parliament. What better form could that take than the appointment of the suggested committee? Does the right honorable senator now suggest that we should continue in our old haphazard manner, shambling along unconcernedly, and placing the onus on the shoulders of a few conscientious and enterprising members of the Senate ? Should we not endeavour to inaugurate a more orderly system?

Senator Dunn:

– Does not the honorable senator consider that the proposal seeks to confer too great a power on the committee?

Senator LYNCH:

– No. The committee would merely take into account the several matters enumerated in the report. Too much importance has been attached to the need for secrecy in connexion with external affairs. I remind honorable senators that very few matters that are discussed by the League of Nations or at an Imperial Conference arekept secret. They are broadcast to the world. The ratio of those that are kept secret compared with those that are broadcast is practically infinitesimal. The select committee has made a genuine; effort to place the affairs of this Parliament on a systematic basis, as has been done by other parliaments throughout the civilized world.

Particular attention has been paid in Great Britain to the abuse of government by regulation, and Lord Chief Justice Hewart wrote a very interesting and revealing work on. the subject, The New Despotism. Unlesswe can safely assume that the system is not abused in this country, the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) on this pointgoes for nothing. The select committee in the course of its investigation found that there was room for suspicion that the system was operating in Australia with evil results. It learned that many citizens have had to seek the aid of the High Court in order to prove the invalidity of certain regulations. It also discovered that because of the expense of such a procedure, many other citizens of Australia were denied the opportunity to test the validity of regulations which adversely affected their interests. It was, therefore, thought high time to take steps to make the position of the citizens more secure When Senator E. D. Elliott originally advanced his proposal for the appointment of a select committee he was much more .ambitious in his ideas than he was when the investigations of the committee were concluded. The committee, realizing that its report had to run the gauntlet of the Senate, reduced its recommendations to an almost irreducible minimum. It recommended that an experienced officer should be appointed to examine all the rules and regulations that are put before this Parliament, in an effort 10 safeguard the interests of Australia. That would meet the objection of Senator Sir George Pearce when he claims that it would merely be a matter of opinion. It would not. It would be a matter of legal knowledge. The officer would he of considerable assistance in seeing that all regulations were in consonance with the acts themselves. If such rules were equivalent to substantive legislation they should be embodied in the act, and not be enacted at the whim of a Minister armed with this lawmaking power. Consequently we narrowed down the ambit of our ambitious desires and presented recommendations relating to only two subjects. One, unfortunately, had an unfavorable reception. The Minister breathed icily upon it, and other honorable senators viewed it with a certain amount of indifference. “We are, however, prepared to re-enter upon our task if the Senate wishes us to do so. The time has come for the Senate to take stock of the passing of the years and its own increasing legislative cares and duties, and to bring its procedure into conformity with modern practice, as is done in other countries. Our object should be to see that legislation passed by the Senate has upon it the hall mark of efficiency. I am disappointed that the work done by the committee has not met with the entire approval of the Senate, but I can promise honorable senators that if the committee is requested to re-consider its proposals, it will spare no effort to present a recommendation that will meet with the approval of this chamber.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– As this is the age of specialization, I am surprised that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should consider that the recommendation of the select committee implies the introduction of a procedure that is entirely novel or is unheard of in connexion with other legislative bodies. As a matter of fact the report indicates that committees of the nature indicated have been set up in many other countries, including Great Britain. Of course we have to admit that the circumstances in the Mother Country differ somewhat from circumstances in the Commonwealth, particularly in relation to foreign affairs, but no danger need be apprehended if the Senate appoints a committee to discuss foreign relations. I understand the right honorable gentleman takes the view that “ a little learning is a. dangerous thing,” particularly in relation to foreign affairs which are capable of being misunderstood by a committee, in the absence of that complete knowledge which Ministers alone possess. But surely the right honorable gentleman does not suggest that the proposed committee would be so lacking in discretion as to present a report implying censure or criticism of a government’s action or inaction, unless it had all the data necessary to reach a conclusion.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is it not a fact that most of .the committees referred to as having been appointed in connexion with the Parliaments of other countries deal’ mainly with public bills? The recommendation of the select committee omits mention of public bills.

Senator RAE:

– That was one of the subjects which, as Senator Lynch indicated, was lost by the wayside. If, however, the proposed committee were charged with the responsibility of reporting upon public bills, under our party system of government it would unhesitatingly condemn government proposals if the majority of its members were oppositionists, and as unhesitatingly applaud government measures if the majority were ministerial supporters. While I agree with the right honorable gentleman that under our party system of government the Ministry of the day must accept full responsibility for all its actions, the details of a public bill might well receive consideration at the hands of such a committee as is contemplated. My experience is that when a government succeeds in carrying a bill through its second-reading stage, members of the Opposition, realizing that they can no longer fight effectively against the principle involved, direct their attention to the details of a measure in committee to ensure that it gives logical and consistent effect to the subject matter of the bill itself. Senator Pearce will, I hope, admit that a committee such as is suggested should be appointed, would do its work honestly and fearlessly and would endeavour to present a report embodying the considered opinions of all its members and be entirely free from party prejudice or bias. Some honorable senators may have had the benefit of living or being born in some other part of the Empire; but the majority of the people of Australia are Australian-born and have never been outside this country.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator regard it as a misfortune to live in Australia?

Senator RAE:

– Not at all. I was simply referring to the fact that the average Australian who has not been outside his own country is woefully ignorant of all that is involved in the foreign policy of this country. I believe it would be very much to the advantage of the average Australian if he paid more attention to inter-imperial and international affairs. - Most honorable senators will, I think, agree with me. Members of this chamber do not study all the regulations and reports that are laid on the table for the simple reason that it would be a physical impossibility to do so. If the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) bears now that character for truthfulness which once he enjoyed, he will admit that scores, if not hundreds of regulations that were laid upon the table of the Senate during his occupancy of ministerial office were not read by him.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If they are not now read by honorable senators would they be read by those honorable senators who might be appointed to the proposed committee?

Senator RAE:

– No; certainly not. I do not mean that members would not desire to read them, but that they would not have the time to study and understand all the regulations and ordinances that are laid on the table in this chamber. For this reason many regulations of vital importance to the people are overlooked. I am aware, of course, that the majority of regulations promulgated are necessary to make our acts workable and effective. Most of them relate to routine, and even if they were read by honorable senators, would be passed without comment. Under our present system some regulations of importance escape attention. The Leader of the Opposition also said, I think, that members of the proposed committee would not be competent to deal with all the regulations. On that point Senator Lynch has reminded us that a public official with legal knowledge would be appointed to assist the committee if his services were required. But sometimes regulations relate to matters which any laymen with ordinary intelligence can see trench dangerously upon - the real or avowed objects of the act under which they are framed. Time after time my attention has been drawn to regulations which, while being within the four corners of the act, would have been ignominiously rejected if they had come before the Senate as clauses in a bill. Some of these regulations have been proved to be ultra vires.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The same may be said of certain acts.

Senator RAE:

– Yes, but there is this difference: Legislation which subsequently may be challenged in our courts comes before the Senate openly and sometimes its constitutionality is questioned by the legal members of this chamber, whereas regulations laid on the table of the Senate are frequently overlooked, and years may elapse before it is discovered that they are ultra vires. Meanwhile, heavy burdens may have been laid upon private individuals. A private citizen may feel injured or aggrieved by the operation of a regulation made under an act, but will hesitate to challenge it in the High Court, well knowing that the resources of the State will be behind the Government to defend it. Consequently, regulations which work an injustice upon the community may be allowed to go unquestioned simply because no one can afford to risk the cost involved in a High Court action. In view of these facts surely it is a reasonable proposal to appoint a committee of this Senate to study find report upon regulations laid upon the table of this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) suggested that we lacked competent witnesses concerning legislation relating to external affairs.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I did not say that they were incompetent, hut that they lacked experience.

Senator RAE:

– That is so. I have no wish to misrepresent the right honorable gentleman. I have to confess that until recently I was not aware that we had in the Commonwealth Public Service a Director of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Daly:

– That is a compliment to the modesty of the Director.

Senator RAE:

– That may be so; but it is also further evidence that our foreign affairs are kept so secret that I did not know of the existence of the official charged with these duties. I am quite in accord with the view expressed that the select committee might have done better. I am not one of those who think that its members are beyond criticism in presenting their report. But if they are deserving of reproof for not having obtained sufficiently reliable evidence in regard to foreign relations, the same cannot be charged against them in regard to regulations and ordinances, on which matter Senator Pearce was, if anything, more severe than on the matter of foreign relations. The committee had as witnesses Speakers and ex-Speakers, members of Parliament and ex-members, legal gentlemen and those associated with the management and procedure of Parliament, and the evidence was overwhelmingly strong in favour of having some @heck on the indiscriminate issue of regulations. Such floods of these have come upon us that it is recognized that it is beyond the competence of any individual member to read them all, and thus prevent those which are dangerous from coming into effect. The committee had a mass of evidence - it was even superfluous - as to the tremendous danger involved in the constantly growing and accumulating mass of legislation by means of regulation. As pointed out by Senator Lynch, Lord Chief Justice Hewart has written a book entitled, The New Despotism, in which he says that the custom of passing legislation of a more or less skeleton character, and then embodying in a mass of regulations the principal means for operating it has become so common and of such growing intensity in Great Britain, that it is a positive danger. It has, as it were, led to the creation of a new estate, which acts not merely despotically, but secretly as well, and inflicts all sorts of injuries and dangers on the community, of which the people know nothing until they find themselves in the trap. When a man of the judicial eminence of Lord Hewart finds this evil so great and so prone to increase that he feels impelled to write a book about it, surely there is nothing to be objected to if this chamber appoints a committee to examine that phase of modern parliamentary procedure and suggest remedies for an evil which we find is growing here, in proportion to our size and population, just as much as it is in the Old Country.

In regard to external affairs, it seems to me that hitherto in regard to those matters in which it could fairly be argued that the public took some interest after publicity has been given to them in either House of Parliament, governments generally, irrespective of party complexion, have been prone to treat their own party even, and Parliament generally, with contemptuous indifference. It did not matter what individual members knew about imperial or international affairs the government itself, being charged with the high and mighty duty of entering into diplomatic relations through the Imperial Parliament with other nations, not only took the sole responsibility upon itself, but often denied to the bulk of its own followers any knowledge of what it was doing or why it was doing it.

It is time that wheel ‘was spragged ; it is time members generally of this and every other House of Parliament had some knowledge of what commitments, which involve them and the people generally, are being made by a ministry which somehow, owing -to the natural egotism of mankind, seems to think that, once it has assumed office, it has the brains of the whole party in its own heads. Ministers in cabinet can secure an interchange of knowledge with experts, and because of their knowledge of public affairs gained in that way, they are apt to think that their brain-power is greater than that of others. That is a tendency that has to be resisted. Members of Parliament must make it clear that they also have some brains in their heads, some little knowledge and some light to acquire more. The more legislation that is enacted the greater the tendency to hurry it through Parliament. Of course, I may remark, in parenthesis, that I think the whole parliamentary make-up which originated a few centuries ago is almost obsolete and should be revised altogether. If we cannot do it wholesale there is no reason why we should not make some retail attempt to do so. We should realize that the growing mass of legislation makes it right and proper that all those charged with the responsibility of legislation should take a hand in it, and that is one of the things which could be brought about were the proposals of the select committee adopted. Instead of the work being done in the haphazard way in which it is now done - sometimes it is not done at. all - systematic action would be taken with a responsibility resting on the committee to give the Senate the advantage of the knowledge acquired by reason of the facilities placed at its disposal. There would, therefore, be a means by which the general enlightenment of honorable senators on any particular subject would be immensely increased beyond what Ls now possible. One honorable senator may go into the library, and, looking round, come across a book or magazine article which gives him an insight into some phase of current affairs in which he is interested. No other honorable senator may have seen that article or book accidentally discovered in that way. A committee, as proposed, dealing with external relations, would not be seeking only to pry into these marvellously important’ secrets of the. Government which, since secret diplomacy was abolished, seem to be more plentiful than ever. It would be trying to get an understanding of the broad principles operating in regard to inter-imperial and international affairs, and, by its reports, would broadcast that knowledge among all honorable senators. At any rate, it could show them where they could obtain further knowledge on points of importance.

In regard to the personnel of the committee, of course I am not adverse to the proposal of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly). Neither do I think that it really matters very much. I think that there would be a general attempt on the part of the members of the committee to justify its existence by doing the best they could to present a- report dealing with the subject on its merits. So far as external affairs are concerned I trust that this reference back to the committee for further investigation will not mean the abandonment of that project or the complete elimination of it, but simply a’ modification of it in order to avoid the more or less mythical dangers that so greatly concern the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [9.25]. - I do not propose to traverse any of the ground already covered by two members of the select committee, Senator Lynch and Senator. Rae. So far as the objections of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) are concerned I point out to him that in its recommendation regarding the appointment of a Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Select Committee merely followed closely the language of our standing orders and did not suggest that because the Opposition has a majority in the Senate, it should have a majority of the members on the committee. The committee had no such desire. I can see no harm in the Government having four nominees on the committee and the rest of the chamber having three. After all is said and done, it is not a committee to decide things. It is a committee to investigate and report, and so long as it does that it does not seem to me to matter a straw whether there are four from one side and three from the other or if the position is reversed.

So far as the second recommendation is concerned, it was never contemplated by the select committee that a Standing Committee on External Affairs should be at liberty to demand the production . of confidential documents. I agree with ‘Senator Lynch on the point that there is not so much of this secret diplomacy as has been suggested. Acting on behalf of Senator Ti. D. Elliott, who was the proposer of the select committee, I do not propose to resist the amendment of my motion, but I should like to draw attention for one moment to a phase of the question raised by Senator Pearce. The committee recognized, and every witness who appeared before it emphasized, that it would be extremely difficult to work this system in a purely party House.

Senator Sir George Pearce said that in the early days of federation Sir Richard Baker prophesied that responsible government would wreck the’ Senate or else the Senate would wreck responsible government. I invito the right honorable senator to refresh his memory, and if he does so he will find not only that he has forgotten the exact words, but also that, after the lapse of time, he has missed, to a large extent, their meaning and their application. Sir Richard Baker’s prophecy was that responsible government would kill federation or else federation would kill responsible government. The conflict between these two elements has proceeded for the last 30 years, and during the first portion of that time, particularly during the early part of the ministerial career of Senator Pearce, responsible government had all its own way to the very serious detriment of the smaller States of the Commonwealth. That conflict between the federal principle and the principle of responsible government is not yet finished. It is not yet certain that the two cannot exist together. If it is to go on, it is quite competent for the right honorable senator to throw his weight on whichever side he chooses, but I suggest that he has no right to complain if he finds that I, as a representative of one of the smaller States, say that so long as this conflict does continue, I shall fight for the principle of federation even if it may be opposed to the principle of responsible government I recognize that the federal principle cannot endure if the Senate is to be entirely dominated by party considerations. I am quite sure that not only can the federal system not continue, but that this smaller matter of a system of standing committees cannot be satisfactorily worked unless the members of this Senate, no matter what their party predilections may be, are prepared to sink party ideas and determine the questions brought before them on the simple basis of whether in their opinion they are or are not in the best interests of the country. I offer no opposition to the amendment by the Leader of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dunn) adjourned.

page 1561

QUESTION

PETROL SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTION

Proposed Select Committee

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 1325) on motion by Senator Foll -

  1. That in view of the surplus production nf .coal and sugar cane in Australia, a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into the desirability of enforcing in the Commonwealth the use of power spirit manufactured from coal, and/or power alcohol manufactured from sugar cane and other primary products, as an admixture with imported petrol, or in substitution therefor.
  2. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and have leave to report its minutes of evidence from time to time.
  3. That such Select Committee consist of Senators Cooper, Dooley, H. E. Elliott, Johnston, Ogden, Rae, and the mover.
Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– The mover of this motion conferred with me on this matter, and, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, certain opportunities have been made available to the honorable senator to pursue overseas his studies on the subject. In order to give the honorable senator an opportunity of being present when the debate is resumed I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1562

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Commonwealth Assistance

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide. page 1325) on motion by Senator Lynch -

That the Senate reaffirms its previous decision when it declared that the gold-mining industry had rendered special service to the nation during the critical war period, and that on this account, amongst others, it is justly entitled to substantial help from the Commonwealth in order to arrest its increasing decline and restore to it the prosperity it once enjoyed.

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– This is another motion with which the Government does not disagree. If it were necessary for an honorable senator to present a strong case in support of the gold-mining industry and the service it has rendered the nation it will, I think, be admitted that that submitted v by Senator Lynch was unanswerable. That the gold-mining industry is entitled to assistance cannot be doubted.

Senator Ogden:

– “Will it get it?

Senator DALY:

– That is the only problem that has to be solved. All governments seem to be in agreement on the point of whether the industry is entitled to assistance, but the difficulty is to evolve a system for rendering practical assistance to the industry and at the same time doing a fair thing by the taxpayers. I listened with considerable attention to what Senator Lynch had to say with reference to other industries, but I do not propose to prolong the debate by answering the contentions put forward by the honorable senator relating to the bounties paid to them by this and other Governments from time to time. I can, however, assure the honorable senator that this Government is anxious to assist the gold-mining industry and has already declared its policy in that respect. It is a policy which I sincerely trust the States more directly concerned will closely study in order that this Government may be able to render that practical assistance which it desires. Western Australia is under a debt of gratitude to Senator Lynch for his fine exposition of that State’s claim for special consideration; but as pointed out on numerous occasions, the gold mines of Australia are under the “control of the States; the Commonwealth has no control over the resources of any State. This Government’s promise to the late Western Australian Government stands, and if the present Western Australian Administration, by reason of its disabilities, is unable to render that assistance to the industry which it considers it is entitled to, this Government will give the most sympathetic consideration to any practical scheme that it” puts forward. As Leader of the Senate I am prepared to support the motion, as I interpret it to mean substantial help from the Commonwealth either directly or indirectly. The policy of this Government is to indirectly assist the goldmining industry in the State which the honorable senator represents by assisting the State itself to overcome the difficulties under which it feels it may be labouring in its desire to help that industry.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– I desire to say a word or two in support of the motion moved by Senator Lynch not because Western Australia is. producing the great bulk of the gold at present produced in the Commonwealth; but because the gold-mining industry stands out among other industries, both primary and secondary, as one which has done more for Australia than has any other. Moreover it is an industry that- has received less consideration than any other that I can recall at the moment. The Minister (Senator Daly) has been most generous in his support of the motion, and his remarks are in marked contrast to those of his colleague, the Honorary Minister (Senator Barnes), who, the other night, unequivocally opposed the motion from every angle.

Senator O’halloran:

– That was another motion.

Senator Daly:

– In supporting the motion I was not endorsing the reasons advanced for its adoption.

Senator CARROLL:

– -With due respect to Senator O’Halloran I may say that I am not under a misapprehension as to the motion on which the honorable senator was speaking. Senator Barnes rose after Senator Lynch had resumed his seat and condemned the proposal before the Senate to which the Minister (Senator Daly) has now given his unqualified support.

Senator O’Halloran:

– I thought the honorable senator was referring to the payment of a gold bounty.

Senator CARROLL:

– I am prepared to take the words of the Vice-President of the Executive Council rather than the statement made by Senator Barnes the other night as to the attitude of the Government. The Minister has just said that if the State Government can bring forward a good case why assistance should be given to this industry the Government will consider the matter very favorably.

Senator Daly:

– I do not agree with the views of the mover of the motion as to why assistance should be given.

Senator CARROLL:

– I am not under a misapprehension. The Minister simply said that if the State government submitted a proposal showing the necessity for assisting this industry this Government would sympathetically consider it. We claim that the gold-mining industry has suffered considerably from legislative enactments, not of State but of Federal Governments. These enactments have dealt a very severe blow to the gold-mining industry. Although the industry is under the control of States governments the Commonwealth Parliament has undoubtedly placed a very heavy burden upon it. As mentioned by Senator Lynch, it was unable to secure any of the advantages accruing to other industries during the war period.

Senator McLachlan:

– The gold producers do not even control the gold when they get it.

Senator CARROLL:

– No. That is a point which escaped the attention of the Leader of the Government. Although as the Minister said the gold-mining industry is under the control of State authorities, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that recent legislation has placed gold production entirely in the hands of the Commonwealth Government or the Commonwealth Bank or the two working in conjunction.

Senator Daly:

– I said that the actual resources of the States were the concern of the States.

Senator CARROLL:

– Yes ; but the action taken by the Federal Government has undoubtedly given the industry some right to consideration. This Government has now stepped in and made itself a party in the matter of gold production. It was said the other night by Senator Barnes that it was foolish to pay more for a commodity than it was worth. Yet we have been doing that kind of thing for years. We have been paying more for many articles than they are worth. Large numbers of the people of Australia believe in that policy when applied to other industries. It is useless to deny that we have granted bonuses for the production of articles when, from a purely financial point of view, we could have spent the money to much better advantage by importing them. If, for instance, we had imported our iron and steel requirements, including galvanized iron instead of granting a bonus on their production, we should have saved an enormous amount of money thereby conferring a great benefit on the primary producers of this country, including the gold-miners. The mining industry has had to pay enormously increased costs for mining machinery and other articles necessary to recover a product which has remained at the old price. The result is that many mines which, prior to the imposition of higher duties were just able to pay their way, have had to close down, thus throwing numbers of men out of work. I remind honorable senators that on a previous occasion, when Australia was suffering from a. severe depression, the country was saved by the discovery of gold at Coolgardie and elsewhere in Western Australia.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The discovery of gold is about the only thing that will save Australia to-day.

Senator CARROLL:

– I have great faith in Western Australia, and believe that that State will again step in and save Australia. The granting of a gold bonus will stimulate production in existing mines and will also encourage prospectors to seek new deposits, thus creating employment, not only in the gold-mining industry, but also in other industries. The Assistant Minister . (Senator Barnes) said the other night that gold was not worth the trouble and misery experienced in winning it. It is, therefore, surprising that the Government, of which he is a member, has made such tremendous efforts to obtain control of the bullion in

Australia. I do not think that even the Minister would suggest that the acquisition of that gold has been other than beneficial to the Commonwealth. I go further and say that the Minister would be a much happier man than he is to-day if he could lay his hand on twice ‘as much gold as he knows is deposited in the Treasury vaults. I trust that the motion will be agreed to, and that the Government will regard it as a direction to grant the gold-mining industry that assistance which has been so long withheld from it, and which it so richly deserves.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I congratulate Senator Lynch on having brought forward this important matter, and also on the splendid speech he delivered in support of his motion. I listened with interest to the remarks of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly), and was gratified to learn that the Government is accepting the motion at least in its abstract form. But I was disappointed with the Minister’s speech generally. He said that if the Government of Western Australia made a request to the Federal Government for assistance, an endeavour would be made to comply with the request. The Minister has entirely misjudged the desire of the mover of this motion and of the people of Australia. They are not asking for anything for the State of Western Australia alone, nor do they ask that the Federal Government should invite the Government of that State with its large area and small population to share some additional burden. The people of Western Australia ask for a gold bonus for the whole of Australia in order to assist the gold-mining industry. Successive governments of Western Australia, as well as the people of that State, have made representations to the Commonwealth for assistance to the goldmining industry, not of Western Australia only, but of Australia as a whole. The only thing that would stimulate the gold-mining- industry is a bonus on gold production.

We appear to be embarking on an entirely new policy in the Commonwealth. In connexion with the proposed compulsory wheat pool, the guarantee of 4s. a bushel for wheat is not to be made solely by the Commonwealth Government. The States are asked to share in the guarantee and to pay one-half of any loss which may be incurred. When a firm in New South Wales asks for assistance by way of a bounty on the production of iron and steel, the Commonwealth Government agrees to the payment of a bounty. Those bounties are paid from Commonwealth revenue, to which the people of Western Australia contribute. But when the gold-mining industry in which Western Australia is particularly interested, seeks assistance, the Government says that it will endeavour to do something, provided the Government of Western Australia asks for assistance, and it will probably be expected to share the cost. The decline of the goldmining industry is due chiefly to federal legislation in the form of customs duties and taxes. The remission of customs duties would remove much of the burden now resting on the gold-mining industry, and Western Australia, would get along without any assistance from the Federal Government.

Senator Daly:

– That- State has benefited considerably from the tariff.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Certainly not. I know that some duties have been remitted; but it is difficult to know what ha3 been done, because of the secrecy which has prevailed. I understand that a portion of the duties on the machinery for the Wiluna gold mine has been remitted. Why is only a portion of the duty remitted in that case, when the whole of the duty on the steel imported for the arch of the Sydney harbour bridge is remitted? I offer no objection to the remission of the duties on the steel for the bridge - indeed, I do not object to the remission of any duties, for I believe that we would be better off without them - but why is it that in the case of machinery for a bridge to serve a great metropolis, the whole of the duty is remitted, whereas in the case of the machinery required for the Wiluna goldmine, only a portion of the duty is remitted? I made representations some time ago for the remission of the duty on the power plant at Collie, in the south-western portion of Western Australia, which will provide power to many Hundreds of scattered producers, and the most the Government of the day - it was not the present Government - would do, was to remit one-half of the duty. What is the reason for this differential treatment?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is not the steel for the Sydney harbour bridge being manufactured locally?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

-.- No. The steel for the arch - the part of the bridge now being constructed - is being imported from Great Britain; that for the remainder of the structure, which will have a wider range of expansion and contraction, will be manufactured in Australia. Machinery required for goldmines, which cannot be manufactured in Australia, should be admitted free of duty.

Senator Daly:

– That is the case now.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Will the machinery required for the Wiluna goldmine be admitted free of duty?

Senator Daly:

– Yes, if it cannot be manufacturedin Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I shall be glad to pass on the Minister’s assurance to the people concerned. The Government of Western Australia cannot assist to provide a bonus on the production of gold. It is an entirely federal responsibility. Indeed, under the Federal Constitution, the States have no power to grant bonuses. It is a duty that rests entirely with the Federal Government, which should give a bonus of at least £1 an ounce, as asked for by the gold producers of Australia. That amount should be paid in each of the States where gold can be produced. Nothing could solve our financial and other difficulties more quickly than the production of gold, and, in my opinion, there is only one way in which that production can he stimulated, by the payment of a gold bonus by the Commonwealth. The gold-mining industry is in grave difficulties at the moment, principally due to the operation of the tariff, the Navigation Act, and other federal legislative restrictions.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator must admit that many of the gold-mines have been worked out.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That may be so in the eastern States, but there are, in Western Australia, a large number of mines which have a considerable deposit of low-grade ore, but that cannot be worked to-day because of the high cost of production. A recent report of the Development andMigration Commission on the gold-mining industry contains articles from the Government geologists of the various States, setting out the position of the industry in the respective States. Those reports indicate that there are many well-equipped mines in Western Australia capable of producing large quantities of low-grade ore and many other proved auriferous ore bodies, which cannot be worked because of present-day excessive costs. I instance, the mines at Boulder, Kalgoorlie and Wiluna. Each of those towns is situated inland, in an arid area, where all commodities with the exception of meat have to be brought long distances, and so the costs of living and production are excessively high. The Federal Government should assist the industry, and the only way in which it can act, as has been pointed out by the representative for Kalgoorlie in another place, is by paying a gold bonus on all gold produced in Australia.

Senator Lynch called attention to what the gold-mining industry has done for Australia in the past. We all know that the whole basis of Australia’s prosperity rests on the discovery of the precious metal. Victoria and New South Wales were in a stagnant position, with a small and scattered population, until the discovery of gold in 1851. The population of Western Australia was only a little over 40,000 when gold was discovered in that State in 1892-93. Those gold discoveries induced men of the highest calibre from every other part of the Commonwealth, and from other parts of the world, to migrate to Western Australia, and to them the progress of that State is largely attributable.

During the war period, as is mentioned in the resolution, the gold-mining industry was of enormous value to the Commonwealth. For that reason alone the Government should now come to its assistance. Whilst heavy subsidies have been made to the protected industries of the eastern States, the gold-mining industry has had to stand entirely on its merits, and has had to pay its proportion of the cost of those subsidies. Yet I suppose that gold is to-day of greater value to the Commonwealth than it was at any other time during its history. An endeavour is being made to rectify our adverse trade balance by increasing the export of our primary products, but, unfortunately, the market for two of the greatest of those, wheat and wool, is very much depressed. Fortunately gold suffers no such disadvantage. The world’s market is always open to it, and if its production were stimulated in Australia much would be done to right our adverse trade ‘balance.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That should not be done regardless of cost.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No, but consideration should be given to the indirect value that the Commonwealth would derive from the procedure. If a bonus were paid on the gold produced those concerned would set to work and properly equip the mines, and only after the product was won would the bonus be paid, and then only in relation to the ratio of the result achieved. I suggest that the industry would respond immediately to the payment of a bonus, and that large sums of money would be attracted from abroad for investment. I have here some remarks by the Mining Association of Western Australia, which I commend to the Minister. They read -

A point which is also well worthy of consideration is the fact that no industry can respond so rapidly to Government assistance as asked for under the conditions laid down for a gold bonus, as the gold-mining industry. We believe that immediately a gold bonus over a period of ten years was granted by the Federal Government, many millions of British capital would be made immediately available to develop the gold-mining industry of Australia, not alone in Western Australia, but throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth, and as no mines can be developed and ‘brought to the producing stage in less than two or three years, the expenditure of this enormous amount of English invested capital would do a tremendous amount of good in the direction of relieving the immediate stringency of unemployment which is now looming above the horizon.

The Minister suggested that the State of Western Australia should apply for assistance. I do not know what more “can be done by the State in that regard. I shall read a widely published statement made by the ex-Premier of Western Australia, Mr. P. Collier, who has always been a prominent advocate of a gold bonus. It says - “ My Government has definitely decided that, as a means to provide permanent work and directly and indirectly absorb many of the unemployed, there is nothing better or more equitable than the granting of a gold bonus,” said the Premier (Mr. P. Collier) when questioned yesterday. “No other means could be adopted which would ensure so ready and rapid a revival both in the production of new wealth and in the introduction of fresh capital in large sums. “ Quite apart from the direct benefit which would accrue to the mining industry, there is the very important aspect of the general welfare of the community. The incidence of the new customs schedules issued by the Commonwealth Government will benefit greatly, no doubt, the secondary industries of the eastern States. In the east there are secondary industries established; they are part of the community and industrial life, and comprise a very considerable part of the activities of those States. It is, therefore, painfully obvious that Western Australia will be at a distinct disadvantage under the new tariff, as the State has few or negligible secondary industries, and is so constituted in relation to the heart of Australia’s population that it cannot hope to establish them in time, if at all, to benefit by the protection afforded. “In view of this, it should be obvious to Western Australians - and I hope to be able to impress this view also upon the Prime Minister and the Federal Cabinet - that Western Australia should receive some sort of compensation for the inequalities in the circumstances. Western Australia dates her agricultural and commercial prosperity from the inception of profitable gold production of the early ‘nineties. There are vast latent gold resources which could be brought above the low tidemark of marketable production and made profitable, not only to the mining industry, but to the whole community, by the introduction of this great incentive. “One may ask, what would the investment men-for an investment it would he - in comparison with what has been done to assist the sugar industry on the other side of Australia V The financial position in Australia today is that the country needs gold more than it needs -sugar or almost any other protected or assisted product. “ I feel that in view of the recent tariff developments, Western Australia has an emphatic and unanswerable claim to this consideration, which would not only be Australianwide in its benefits, but would equalize the disability which undoubtedly the new tariff schedule has cast upon this State. If returned to power my Government will do its utmost to convince the Federal Government, which, I have reason to believe, is extremely sympathetic to us, that this gold bonus should be declared. These views are being communicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin).”

So that it would appear that already the State of Western Australia has made representations to the Federal Government on the subject. Mr. Collier assures us that the Prime Minister is sympathetic. To-night the Minister has stated that he also is most sympathetic. I point out that people become tired of receiving only sympathy and promises of assistance. Sympathy without assistance is like mustard without beef. What they need is action. I submit that this is a matter of great national importance.The Commonwealth vitally needs gold, and the payment of a gold bonus at the rate of £1 an ounce would be the quickest means of bringing about the desired result. I commend the proposal to the favorable consideration of the Government.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I cannot allow Western Australia to have a monopoly in this matter, because I come from a State that at one time loomed very largely in the matter of gold production in Australia. The granting of assistance to the gold industry is a very difficult problem. As everybody knows, gold is a wasting asset. Unlike sugar, to which reference has been made, it does not recur from year to year, with annual crops, providing continual employment and revenue. No matter how rich a gold-mine may be, it must be recognized that every ounce that is taken from it makes it so much the poorer. Therefore, the gold-mining industry is not in the same economic category as the sugar industry. At the same time, it must be recognized that, with our exchange difficulties, an increased production of gold would be one of the best things that could happen in this country at the present time. We want gold for export. Increased production would have the advantage of the increased exchange rate, representing 6½ per cent., if exported, and it could be utilized to pay for imports at the other side thus earning another 6½ per cent., so really in the exchange rate alone there is almost a case for a gold bonus. But of course there is the risk that, although a bonus might be paid, there might not be an increase in output.

Senator McLachlan:

– It is increasing already because of the advantage in the exchange rate.

Senator THOMPSON:

– Nevertheless, there is the possibility that very little more gold might be produced following the payment of the bonus. We must not lose sight of the fact that the high cost of production is not entirely responsible for the decline in the industry, although I admit it is an important factor. Ore values throughout Australia are vastly different from what they were in the earlier stages of gold-mining. This is well illustrated in the Mount Morgan mine, with which I am familiar. At one time it would not have mattered what the cost of production was. The ore values in that mine were so high that it could have risen superior to all difficulties, and have paid handsome dividends. But as time went on, the ore values declined appreciably, and the cost of production rose steadily, until the mine is now practically closed down.

Senator McLachlan:

– Has the honorable senator any proof that there are substantial ore values in that mine?

Senator THOMPSON:

– Yes. I am gratified at the Government’s intention to assist generally the mining industry through the various State Governments. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) has not indicated precisely whatform this assistance will take, but from his statement I assume that some financial aid may be given to enable the Mount Morgan Company, among others, to extract the wealth which the mine is known to possess. Some time ago the directors of the old company engaged an expert from America to examine and report upon the ore values, because for some years the mine had been losing money to the share holders, although it was paying high wages to its employees and had to meet high production costs. Prior to engaging the expert referred to, the directors had from time to time made a complete investigation, by bores and otherwise, of the assay contents of the known ore bodies, and proved beyond all doubt that there exists in Mount Morgan to-day between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 worth of gold and copper in the proportion of about fifty-fifty.

That wealth is awaiting recovery if the mine can be worked economically. I have no request to make on behalf of the Mount Morgan Company; but I think it possible that a proposition may be made, through the Queensland Government, for the assistance which the Leader of the Senate has said will be available. It has occurred to me that if the company could install a modern treatment plant, and if contractual arrangements could be made with the workers, much might be done to put the mine on its feet again. I am informed that the goodwill of the workers has been promised recently. At one time their attitude was, in no inconsiderable measure, responsible for placing the mine in its present position, but since then the workers have been repentant, and I understand that offers of a generous character have been made. If the company had the goodwill of its workers, and if arrangements could be made for the installation of up-to-date plant, a good deal of the £16,000,000 or £17,000,000 of copper and gold could be recovered at a cost which would allow a substantial margin of profit. It is possible that the present owners may see their way to make a proposal through the Queensland Government to the Federal Government for assistance. I am not suggesting a bonus, because there are certain objections to that form of assistance. I hope, however, that if a proposition is placed before the Government for assistance it will receive sympathetic consideration. I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I thank the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) for his encouraging statement to-night that the Government will give some form of assistance to the gold-mining industry. When the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) spoke the other day I was apprehensive that this subject would not receive the consideration which it deserves, but the Minister’s statement to-night has lifted the veil of doubt, and I am gratified to know that the Government is inclined to look with a friendly eye upon this much neglected industry. The Minister made special reference to Western Australia, which, as honorable senators are aware, is the prin cipal gold-producing State in the Commonwealth. But I understand his remarks did not necessarily imply that assistance would not be given to goldmining in other States. I take it that, if feasible proposals are made by goldmining companies in Queensland or any other State, for assistance by way of subvention, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to them. I realize, of course, that the Government is facing a difficult financial position, and that this proposal to assist the gold-mining industry means that the Ministry will have to find a considerable sum of money. For this reason the friendly attitude of the Government is the more gratifying. We have appealed to former governments, and the case for the industry has been stated on the floor of this chamber on more than one occasion during the last twelve or fourteen years.. Previous governments have shown a kindly interest in the industry, but the assistance given has fallen short of what is required to enable the industry to regain its former prosperity. We are very thankful to the Leader of the Senate for the promise which he has given to-night. It only remains now for those States which have gold resources to put up a case for government assistance. If they do so I see no reason why they should not receive that financial aid which the importance of the industry warrants. Something must be done, for the simple reason that unless assistance is forthcoming, the industry will continue to decline. I again thank the Minister for the assurance he has given us that the Government will give substantial aid to the industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1568

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Labour Party

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall be brief. I desire to direct attention to statements made by Senator Ogden during the course of a debate onWednesday. The honorable senator referred to two members of the Australian Labour party, who to-day have received the endorsement of the executive of the party in New SouthWales.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I remind the honorable senator that if a statement is objected to, attention should be directed to it at once. He is out of order in doing so at this stage, some 24 hours or more after it was made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 May 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300508_senate_12_124/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant