House of Representatives
20 July 1904

2^nd Parliament · 1^st Session

MILITARY ATTACHE IN JAPAN:
ADVISORY BOARD TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES
PAPERS
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ACT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS
COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
TASMANIAN FORCES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL QUARANTINE CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- FEDERAL EXPENDITURE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH MASTERS
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS REVENUE AND ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MONEY ORDER BUSINESS
QUESTION
- VOLUNTEER FORCES
QUESTION
- NEW SOUTH WALES PATENT REGISTER
QUESTION
- VICTORIAN ARTILLERYMEN
QUESTION
- GEELONG LETTER-CARRIERS
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL
- Second Reading

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., andread prayers.

page 3392

MILITARY ATTACHE IN JAPAN:

Mr.CROUCH.-I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the non-receipt of advice’ from Colonel Hoad at Tokio that he has been allowed to proceed to the front, he will cause representations to be made to the Japanese Government with a view to induce them to permit the’ only military attaché representing the Commonwealth to pursue the object pf his journey, and not occupy hig time in Japan, itself.

Mr WATSON:
Prime Minister · BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My honorable colleague, the Minister of Defence, has been considering that matter already. I have not had an opportunity of speaking to him on the subject to-day, but 1 understand’ that his intention is to endeavour to induce the

Japanese Government to grant permission to Colonel Hoad to go to the front. Fail- ing such permission, he will instruct Colonel Hoad to return to Australia.

page 3392

ADVISORY BOARD TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES

Mr CARPENTER:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of External Affairs to a statement in the press, to the effect that a proposal is being made’ that the High Commissioner of Australia, together with similar representatives from Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, should be appointed an Advisory Board to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I would ask, further, whether the Minister has any official information with regard to the proposal, and, if . ‘so, whether he will lay it before the House, so that, in dealing with the High Commissioner Bill, , we may be able to define, as far as possible, the powers attached to the office, particularly in this connexion.

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not in possession of any official information, or of - any information other than that which the honorable member has indicated as having been derived from the press. If such a proposal be made to this Government officially, every opportunity will be afforded honorable members to consider the’ powers and duties of the Commissioner as a member of the proposed board, when the High Commissioner Bill is before the Chamber..

page 3392

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid, upon the table the following papers : -

Report by Mr. Chesterman upon the proposed Federal Capital site, in the Tooma district.

Report on opium smoking in New South Wales.

page 3392

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Motion, (by Mr. McLean) proposed -

That the Select Committee on Electoral Act Administration have leave to move from place to place.

Mr WATSON:
Treasurer · Bland · ALP

.I would urge upon the Committee the advisability of presenting their report to the House as soon as possible, because, if it is intended to amend the Electoral Act during the present session, it would be well to have the report before us at an early date. .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3393

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken any steps to redistribute the electoral divisions in those States in which no redistribution took place prior to the last election ?

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– I announced, when I outlined the Ministerial programme for the session that we purposed doing something in that connexion as soon as particulars were available. My honorable colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs, has already taken preliminary steps in all the States, and in some of them, including New South Wales, arrangements have been completed for there-collection of the rolls for Federal purposes.

Mr Batchelor:

– The whole work is nearly finished

Mr WATSON:

– As soon as the necessary particulars are available the Government will take steps for -aredistribution of the electorates, if, as we anticipate, the rolls show that such a course is neccesary.

page 3393

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee of Public Accounts. The late Government promised that this matter’ should receive attention, and I think it is desirable a committee should be appointed, if only to preserve the simplicity that is at present observed in the public accounts.

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– I have not yet given any detailed attention to the suggestion, but I think that the principle is a good one. It has been adopted by a number of the States and also in Great Britain. I must say, however, that looking at the matter as a private member for a considerable time, I thought that the system followed by my predecessor, the late Treasurer, was such a good one that there was no urgent necessity for making a change.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– We should taks measures to preserve the present simplicity.

Mr WATSON:

– Quite so. In view of the desirability of preserving a good system of keeping the public accounts, it may be necessary to create such a body as that indicated by the honorable member. The Government will consider the matter shortly.

page 3393

TASMANIAN FORCES

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– Last week the honorable member for Franklin asked me what steps, if any, had been taken in connexion with the Southern Tasmanian Forces, since the recent unfortunate trouble in that State. At the time I was only able to state that I would have, inquiries made. I now have the following information to offer: -

Provision is being made on the Estimates, 1904-5, for the placing of the Military Forces in Tasmania upon the same footing as regards pay as their comrades in other States, i.e., by conversions from volunteers into militia.

In view of the large additional outlay involved, it is not considered practicable to proceed at present with the reconstruction of the corps recently disbanded; and it is proposed, therefore, to postpone the consideration of this question until the financial year 1905-6.

The grant of militia rates of pay in Tasmania represents an increase of about ‘ £6,000 ; but, owing to the decrease in the number of troops by 484, the nett increased expenditure involved will be about £4,000.

page 3393

QUESTION

FEDERAL QUARANTINE CONFERENCE

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to lay upon the table the report of the recent Conference on the question of Federal Quarantine, and, if so, when.

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– My honorable colleague, the Minister of Trade and Customs, is now absent from Melbourne, and I am not aware of his intentions in this respect, but if the honorable member will repeat his question next week, my honorable colleague will furnish him with an answer.

page 3394

QUESTION

FEDERAL EXPENDITURE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice - _

Whether there is any justification for the following statement by the Honorable R. W. Foster, ex-Commissioner of Public Works for South Australia : - “ The increasing burdens consequent on Federal extravagance cannot be much longer borne with equanimity. It is exasperating to know that, as .the State is economizing at every point, the Federal powers continue to spend with airy prodigality.”

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– I find it difficult to compare the present expenditure with that which was incurred before Federation, for the reason that certain services are now charged to the votes of the Departments, which, in the various States, were either free or charged to votes of other Departments under State control. The principal of such services now debited to the Departments are

cost of maintenance of buildings and works; (&) rents; (c) water and sewerage rates ; (d) printing, advertising, and stationery; (e) postage and telegrams; (/) railway travelling; (g) audit. Of course, it is possible that certain of these services were charged to the Departments in South Australia, but I have no accurate information to guide me on this point. It is admittedly difficult to glean from the mere perusal of the Estimates or Appropriation Acts of the various States the exact position prior to the transfer of the Departments to the Commonwealth. It would, therefore, be impossible to make an accurate comparison, unless a special officer were sent to South Australia to collect proper data. Another difficulty presents itself owing to the fact that, in order to institute a fair comparison, the expenditure for arrears should be eliminated from the years to be. compared. As caref ul an examination as has been possible without incurring the expense of sending an officer to South Australia, has been made, with the following result : - The cost of the Customs Department in 1900-1 was £25,846; in 1901-2, £27,295; in 1902-3, £25,951; in 1903-4, £25,618. Thus, there has been a net reduction of £200. The expenditure in connexion with the Defence Department was, in 1900-1, £55,’999 :j in 1901-2, £54,188; in 1902-3, £49,583;. in 1903-4, £66,457, or .an increase of -approximately £10,000. The expenditure upon the Post’

– The Federal Departments in South Australia are administered on a more economical scale now than was the case under State control.

page 3395

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH MASTERS

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Are those post and telegraph masters who, in the State of New South Wales, have to perform the duties of registrars of births, deaths, and marriages, and electoral registrars, to perform such work without being remunerated for doing so ?
Did the Public Service Commissioner, when grading and fixing the salaries of post and telegraph masters in New South Wales who have to perform the duties referred to in question i, take those duties into consideration?
If not, will he, the Postmaster-General, see that arrangements are made for the payment of such postmasters for the extra work entailed upon them by having to perform such duties?
And will he see that remuneration is made to such postmasters for the four years they have been performing the above work without !remuneration ?

Mr MAHON:
Postmaster-General · COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Yes, when the work is performed during regular hours ; overtime payments have been made for States electoral work performed after the usual hours. Postmasters who are Divisional Returning Officers receive £26 per annum.
1. Yes.
Answered by replies to 1 and 2.
Any claims that are made for remuneration for such work, necessarily performed outside regular hours, and prior to the operation of the Commonwealth Public Service Act, will be considered.

page 3395

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REVENUE AND ADMINISTRATION

Mr LONSDALE:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Was the Customs revenue for each of the two last financial years larger in New South Wales than in Victoria; if so, what were the figures for each State?
Why did the Public Service Commissioner classify the salaries of forty-nine Customs officers in Victoria at .£19,235 - he, at the same time, classifying forty-seven officers doing similar work in New South Wales at £14,415?
How was it that under the circumstances the salaries of the forty-nine Victorian officers were increased £576, and the salaries of the forty-seven New South Wales officers increased only £360?
Why are a Chief Clerk and an Inspector of Accounts, at salaries of £750 and £650 respectively, required in Victoria, and not in New South Wales?
For what reason is the Excise Inspector in Victoria to receive £535, and the corresponding officer in New South Wales to receive only £360?
Are not the collections of Excise revenue about £250,000 greater in New South Wales than in Victoria. In addition, has not the officer in New South Wales to control the payment of £40,000 per year as bonus on white-grown sugar ?
Why are the Accountant. Cashier, Clerks in charge of Jerquery Statistics and Correspondence Rooms, and Revenue Detective Inspectors in New South Wales to be paid lower salaries than similar officers in Victoria?
Why is there such a marked difference between the salaries of the Clerks in the Long Room, Warehouse Accounts, and Statistical branches in New South Wales, and those of like officers in Victoria?
Why are thirteen Examiners in Victoria to receive a total of £5,120, and thirteen examiners in New South Wales to receive only £4,290?

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Customs, I bee to reply as follows : -

Yes, the figures for the periods stated were as follow : -

The difference is accounted for owing to the dissimilar tariffs in the two States prior to Federation. Under the State iaw, Victorian officers, as a rule, had more responsible positions, owing to the Protective tariff, and received higher salaries than in New South Wales, and in accordance with the principles upon which classification is made, no salary has been reduced. When the Commonwealth tariff was introduced in New South Wales, the staff had to be supplemented by a number of new hands at lesser fates of pay than those received by the Victorian officers who had longer periods of service to their credit. In time, however, the New South Wales officers will work up to the higher salaries, the. law providing that officers must progress through the subdivisions of their classes ; they could not be suddenly raised to the same rates as the Victorian officers who had worked through their subdivisions.
It is not known, what particular officers are referred to out of the large number in both services, but the difference probably arises from the fact that there were a large number of Victorian officers receiving salaries between subdivisions, and being meritorious were adjusted to a subdivision under the Act.
The Chief Clerk in Victoria occupies a position with relation to the Collector similar to that of the Chief Inspector in New South Wales. In each case the officer is next to the Collector, and acts in his absence. The difference is practically only a question of title. The officer in Victoria is shown at a salary of £750 because he was receiving such salary when the Department was transferred from the State. The Commissioner has, however, ruled down the salary in classification, and any future occupant of the position will be appointed at a minimum of £520, and cannot exceed £600 per annum. The Inspector of Accounts and his staff are really Audit Officers. Under the system in Victoria, the audit of the Customs transactions is performed by a special Customs staff. A. proposal is now being considered to transfer this staff to the Audit Office. The Inspector of Accounts also received his present salary prior to classification.
The Excise Inspector in Victoria receives £535 per annum because he was receiving such salary at the date of transfer. The classification of the positions by the Commissioner in New South Wales and Victoria is now, however, made the same, the maximum salary of which is £500 per annum. The maximum salary of each class will be attained by an officer through length of service and ability displayed in his position. For instance, if the officer in Victoria were to retire at once, he would be replaced by an officer promoted from a junior class, who would commence at the minimum, and if meritorious, would in course of time progress through the subdivisions of his class to the maximum value of the position. The officer, in New South Wales will follow the same course. The Inspector in Victoria has 38 years’ service, and has had the full responsibility of the Excise Branch for many years. The Inspector in New South Wales has thirteen years less service, and has not been very long in his present position. He has had, moreover, an addition of £60 made to his salary - the greatest given to any officer in the Department - under classification, with the prospect of further advancement.
Yes. The excess of New South Wales for 1903-4 was £242,920. The amount of sugar bounty paid during 1903 was £40,154, but was controlled by the State Collector.
The differences in these positions may arise from a variety of causes. The position itself having been considered, and placed in a certain class, the officers themselves have to be dealt with, their length of service in the position, the Departmental reports on the ability they have displayed therein, the measure of responsibility taken by each officer, are’ all factors to be taken into account, and though two officers may be occupying similar positions, they themselves may be dissimilar in any of the respects mentioned. For instance, the Revenue Detective Inspector in New South Wales has seventeen years service - the Victorian officer twenty-eight years. In the Statistical Branch the difference is merely that of a subdivision, which will disappear as the effects of classification come into force. . The New South Wales officer had an increase of £35 on his present salary - the Victorian officer £20. The Jerquer in Victoria has charge of a staff of Drawback officers, which increases the responsibility of his position. In New South Wales these officers constitute a separate branch. The differences in other positions are due to one or other of the causes previously mentioned.
Work is done in the Long Room in Victoria which is not done in New South Wales. In Victoria five officers in this Branch with salaries of £450, £300, £200, £200, and £180 respectively, were in receipt of such salaries under the State, but in each of these cases the position has been marked down, and the salaries that will be obtained by future occupants of the positions will be much less in every case. The same applies to the Statistical Branch. The Commissioner’s classification of the positions is similar in each State, one Third Class, two Fourth Class, and the remainder Fifth Class officers. Four Victorian officers receiving salaries of £300, £300, £260, and £200 respectively, do ‘ not get theseby the Commissioner’s classification, but received them Under the State. There is a marked difference also in the service of these officers. The average service in the Statistical Branch in Victoria is seventeen years, in New South Wales seven, hence the salaries of the former “were higher. In the Warehouse Branch the positions of the Victorian officers have been marked down in a number of cases, amongst others, officers receiving salaries of £325, £325, £300, £300, obtained these amounts under the State, and not by classification. There are a larger number also of Fifth Class officers in this Branch in New South Wales as compared with Victoria, and they will receive annual increments until they reach the maximum of their class.
It is assumed the thirteen Senior Examining officers in each State are referred to. In Victoria, the three highest salaries with five others were obtained under the State, and not by classification. The systems of the two States also vary. In New South Wales a separate Invoice Branch is in existence, which shares the responsibility borne in Victoria by the Landing officers alone. Going beyond these thirteen officers, and taking the whole of those engaged upon the work, the difference is in favour of New South Wales, the total number of officers in the Landing

Branch (including Invoice Room and Laboratory), being sixty-eight, with total salaries of £15,500, while an almost exactly similar amount is divided in Victoria for the same branch among seventy-four officers.

page 3397

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MONEY ORDER BUSINESS

Sir JOHN FORREST:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What was Hie total amount of Post and Telegraph Money Order business fo and from Western Australia from and to each of the other States of the Commonwealth for the years 1901, 1902, and 1903?

Mr MAHON:
ALP

– The following figures have been furnished by the Acting-Deputy Postmaster-General of Western Australia :-

page 3397

QUESTION

VOLUNTEER FORCES

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What was the number of volunteers in each of the States of the Commonwealth in January, 1902, when General Hutton took office?
What was the number in each State on the 30th June last?
By what number does General Hutton now recommend that the Volunteer Forces be further reduced in each State?

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. There are no records at Head-quarters showing the strength of the Volunteer Forces on the 1st January, 1902. The following return (marked “A”), however, shows the strength on the 1st March, 1902, and the 30th June, 1904, which will, perhaps, answer the purpose.

The General Officer Commanding has recommended the conversion of . Volunteers into Militia, as shown in the following return (marked “B”); but no disbandment has been recommended. te A »

Return showing strength of Volunteers in each State of the Commonwealth on 1st March, 1902, and 30th June, 1904.

No Volunteers when Commonwealth Government took over the Defence?, but Militia have been converted into volunteers since then.

Number of Troops of the Existing Establishment to be converted from Volunteers to Militia.

page 3397

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES PATENT REGISTER

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether the Register of Patents for New South Wales has been removed to Melbourne for. duplication ?
Whether (he duplication of the Register could not be as easily accomplished in Sydney as fh Melbourne ?
Whether, in” the absence pf the Register, it is possible to obtain immediate and accurate information on the subject of existing patent rights in New South Wales? -4. If such important information is not now readily available, will he cause it to be made no as speedily as possible, in view of the dislocation of business involved?

Mr WATSON:
ALP

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

Yes. The New South Wales Registers have been removed to Melbourne.
1. No. The registers must be duplicated under supervision. Moreover, they are required in Melbourne for the purpose of completing, pending proceedings, and of giving effect to existing rights of New South Wales Patentees.
Yes. In point of fact it is often necessary for the Commissioner of Patents to refer to the records in New South Wales for the information he requires.
Copies of the Registers will be made as speedily as possible for the State use.

page 3398

QUESTION

VICTORIAN ARTILLERYMEN

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the statement that “ there are 103 permanent artillerymen kicking up their heels in Victoria Barracks, Melbourne,” been correctly attributed in the press to the Honorable the- Minister of Defence?
1. What number of guns are there at these barracks on which these scientific artillerymen can be practised ?
What reason is there why these men should not ‘be stationed at the guns at the Heads, and not in Melbourne?

Mr WATSON:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes. The Minister of Defence stated in the Senate that there were over 100 Permanent Artillerymen stationed at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne; and that therefore he saw no reason to increase the Force to man the forts. Subsequently, the Minister received a return showing the actual number to be 116. The Assistant Adjutant-General for Artillery, in the absence of the General Officer Commanding, reports as follows in reply to 2 and 3 : - ¥ «/
Eight. ^ recruit
With the exception of twentyfour recruits completing musketry course” under their instructors, the “ C “ Instructional Cadre of thirty-six men, and twenty-eight non-commissioned officers and men required to furnish the guard over the residence of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, they are employed at duties which would not permit them to be stationed elsewhere. The recruits will join- their comrades at the Heads as soon as- their musketry course is completed.

page 3398

QUESTION

GEELONG LETTER-CARRIERS

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Are there several letter-carriers employed in the Geelong Post Office who, under the new classification, will receive ^132 yearly?
Were these men paid, prior to 1st Jul)’, £i$o yearly?
ls not this reduction inconsistent with the practice in other cases, where the pay is not reduced, although the rate of the office may be, in future, decreased?

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

– The Public Service Commissioner reports -

Yes.
Yes; under the provisions of the State Act 1 72 1, section 19.
There is no inconsistency in the classification, because at the time it was made these officers were in receipt of” ^132 per annum. The Victorian Reclassification Board had previously reduced the maximum for letter-carriers to £108 per annum, but the Commissioner, by his classification, fixed as a maximum ^138 per annum for letter-carriers throughout Australia.

page 3398

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of Home Affairs · Boothby · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I prefer, not for every purpose, but as a business proposal for this purpose, the system of leasing, with periodical re-appraisement on fairly long leases. I do so for this reason, that as the expense of going further in the erection of the capital increases, as if may largely increase, there will be a progressive settlement which will tend to swell the revenue derivable from the land within the Federal area, and thus provide a fund not only for meeting interest, but also for the extinction of debt.

This was put, not as a wild socialistic experiment in land legislation, but purely as a business proposal.

I regard this matter as quite different from the ordinary proposal in regard to land nationalization.

The right honorable gentleman proceeded in a similar strain for half a column. He said : -

If I had had to consider the question of the disposal of land at a time when scarcely any part of Australia had been alienated, I might have been inclined to look with favour upon a general system of leasing, but I am afraid that in our ordinary methods and transactions we have gone beyond the point at which that appears to be a business possibility. That consideration, however, does not apply to a limited area such as that within which it is proposed to place the Commonwealth Capital, and which is to constitute a small territory governed by the Commonwealth. The considerations that apply in this case are entirely different.

Taking these matters into consideration, I think that as a mere business proposal, a system of leases with periodical re-appraisement will be about the best manner in which we can set about the meeting of any expense which we may incur in connexion with this project.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable gentleman has made a great fuss about nothing.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Then we had a speech by another authority, who, I understand, has lately taken an opportunity to denounce the project for an area of 900 square miles as a proposal for experiments in socialistic land legislation. While Sir William McMillan was acting temporarily as leader of the Opposition, he said, as reported on page 5283 of Hansard -

I think that the Government should adopt the leasing principle in dealing with all the lands within Federal territory. .All private lands within the Federal area should certainly be resumed in order that the leasing system may be carried out in its entirety. There is a salient difference between leasing land in a compact territory like the Federal area, and applying the leasing principle to agricultural areas, or to remote localities. In remote places, such as Papua, it is necessary to offer persons inducements to settle, but the asset which a man would hold in the shape of a leasehold in a narrow, confined territory, such as the Federal Capital area, would always be a good negotiable security, and it would be comparatively easy to find purchasers for any rights held by the lessee.

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr BATCHELOR:

– It can be printed, if honorable members so desire. In conclusion, I wish to express the hope that, in choosing the site of the Federal Capital, no personal, party, or parochial considerations will have influence. The question is absolutely a non-party one, and the site, when chosen, will stand, either as a monument to the sagacity of the members of this Parliament, or as a permanent proof of our incapacity. We may fairly hope, therefore, to obtain such a choice as will reflect credit upon us.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I wish to intimate to the House that, as the Minister of Home Affairs has not in any way referred to the comparative merits of the respective sites, and as I have understood from his speech that a later opportunity will be given for such a discussion, I propose, with the concurrence of honorable members, to rule against their discussion now. Mr. WILSON (Corangamite). - I move-

That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof, the follow, ing words : - “ in the opinion of this House it is inexpedient that a selection of the site for the Federal Capital be proceeded with at the present time, and’ that with a view to securing greater freedom of choice in the future, steps should be taken to alter the Constitution by striking out the words 1 and be distant not less than one hundred miles from Sydney ‘ in the 125th section of the Constitution, and to add the words ‘ or Sydney ‘ after ‘ Melbourne ‘ in the same section. “

Mr WILSON:

– I believe that the events to which I allude have occurred largely because the legislators of the United States have become a kind of political ascetics, who have established themselves in a place distant from the great centres of population, and removed, to a great extent, from the influence of the press.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr ROBINSON:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I do not entertain any fear. I am only answering the argument used by the honorable and learned member for Wannon. I wish it to be understood that, in the remarks which I am about to make - and I shall have occasion to refer to some statements which have appeared in the press - I do not wish to imply that either the people of Victoria, or the members of this Parliament, desire to commit any breach of the bond entered into with New South Wales. I know that a section of the people of Victoria, which is represented by a portion of the press, may entertain such an idea, but I believe that neither the people of that State as a whole, nor the people of the other States, contemplate such an injustice. I desire to point to the reasons which the people of New South Wales have for believing that something of the kind is intended by some Victorians. The following statement appeared in the Age when this matter was previously before Parliament : -

A divergence of opinion between the two Houses will secure a further opportunity for inquiry, and above all for delay. It will be impossible at this late period of the parliamentary session to adjust any disagreement between the two Houses, and this will insure just what ought to happen - that the selection of a Federal Capital shall be left to a future Parliament, one which will take a higher view of its duty in the matter than that which operates with the present New South Wales Opposition.

The article was written during the life of the last Parliament, and we are now in another Parliament. It continues:

In time, when we have broken down the unreasoning jealousy of the mother State, and when the Commonwealth is financially in a position to turn its thoughts to the establishment of a capital city, we may repeal the fettering conditions of the 125th section, and leave Parliament absolutely free, as it ought to be, to take the very best site available, wherever it may be found.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is what the amendment means.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I do not believe that the honorable member who has moved the amendment means anything of the kind, but his amendment would probably have that effect if it were carried. Here we have a great press organ advocating absolute repudiation of the agreement with New South Wales. The same newspaper, in its issue of to-day, publishes the following statement : -

There is a belief amongst members that New South Wales would not be averse to boxing up the Federal Capital area in a territorial trap, and cutting it off from free means of ingress and egress. For this reason there is a strong desire to have either the Murray River or Twofold Bay as the boundary of the Federal area. A territorial limit of 900 square miles in the centre of New South Wales would be the same as if a man were to give his friend one acre out of a 340 acre paddock, and were to fix it in the centre without any means of access.

There is an insinuation that ordinary consideration and fair play will not be given by the State of New South Wales to the Federal Government, if the capital is situated within its territory ‘in such a place that it cannot be approached without entering the State of New South Wales. It is extraordinary that the Age, which is quite satisfied that we should be boxed up in a territorial trap in Victoria - as we are at present, according to its own line pf argument - for any length of time, should tell us that we must’ not trust ourselves to the tender mercies of New South Wales. The case put by the Age is similar to that of a State Government objecting to erect its Parliament Houses within a municipality because of a f ear _ that the municipality might bar ingress’ or’ egress - just ‘ as if they could not trust the people whom they were to govern. The Age cannot recognise that we are not separate peoples, but are all people ‘ of the one Commonwealth, and that it is the Government of that people, which is seeking a site for its own buildings, for its own Departments, and a home for its own officials. Surely, arguments of that sort indicate that, at any rate, there are some who would make a breach of the condition in the Constitution, and who, though ready to trust their own State to deal fairly towards the Commonwealth, are not ready to trust any other State to deal with equal fairness. There is a further statement in the newspaper to which I refer, advocating trie resumption of a larger area of land than that provided for in the Constitution. But the writer objects to expenditure, and speaks pf the cost of the land. He says -

It has to be remembered that in any site chosen the Federal Government must absolutely purchase all the private land it requires at the valuation which that land bore last year. This might amount to some millions more, and the interest on that purchase money must be met before anything can be said about the profits of unearned increment.

The writer objects to the cost of the land, and gives that as one reason for not establishing the Federal Capital at the present time, while immediately afterwards he says that a much larger area than that provided for in the Constitution should be taken. I hold that, the provision in the Constitution is a protection to the interests, not only of New South Wales, but of the other States as well. There is no doubt, in my mind, that, if that provision had not been placed in the Constitution, the Federal Parliament would have commenced its sittings in Sydney, and would probably have remained there. The other States, however, are protected from the dominating influence of Sydney, by the condition that the Federal Capital shall not be situated within 100 miles of that city.

Sir John Quick:

– Quite right.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I do not say whether it is right or not; but it is a security for the interests of the other States. I have also noticed that, in certain quarters, attempts have been made to have the Federal Capital located as far away from Sydney as possible ; to place it on the borders of New South Wales, and, if possible, nearer to some other capital than to the capital of that State. I think that such action is reasonably regarded by the people of New South Wales as unfair, and in support of that belief, I will quote some of the statements which were made when the matter was being discussed in New South Wales prior to the acceptance of the draft Constitution by the people of that State. This is a statement as to the resolution which was passed by the Conference of Premiers in 1899 -

It is considered that the fixing of the site of the capital is. a question which might well be left to the Parliament to decide; but in view of the strong expression of opinion in relation to this matter in New South Wales, the Premiers have modified the clause so that, while the capital cannot be fixed at Sydney or in its neighbourhood, provision is made in .the Constitution for its establishment in New South Wales at a reasonable distance from that city. 6 b 2

The writer of the article in which that statement is published adds -

Victoria insisted upon two conditions : that it should not be within 100 miles of Sydney, and that Parliament should sit in Melbourne until it met at the seat of Government.

There is no doubt that an effort is now being made to do something which is quite opposed to the understanding then arrived at. The effort to which I refer has for its object the location of the Capital, not “ at a reasonable distance from Sydney,” but at a place as far away from Sydney as is possible. It is being made one- of the conditions of eligibility of a site that it shall be as distant from the capital of New South Wales as it can be. When this question was raised in New South Wales by those who opposed the acceptance of the draft Constitution by the people of that State, certain prominent men in Victoria replied to the objections of the leaders of the movement against the Bill. In the first place, let me quote what was published on the subject in the Argus -

The broad fact is that no English community is ever guilty of deliberate “treachery and deceit, and that in this instance the people of Victoria will be as the people in any of the Colonies would be, faithful in word and spirit to their bond. They will nol be allowed to break their compact, and they would not seek to do so if allowed.

I have already shown the spirit in which the Premiers framed the provision in the Constitution after passing a resolution which requires, first, that the Capital shall not be situated within 100 miles, of Sydney, and, secondly, that it shall be within a reasonable distance of Sydney. Then we have the statement of the right honorable member .for Balaclava, who, on behalf of Victoria, made the compact with New South Wales. He said -

I am perfectly certain that the representatives of Victoria won’t attempt in any way to prevent the Federal Parliament fixing the site in New South Wales, an3 getting the necessary buildings erected at ah early stage in the Federation. No doubt the question will be submitted to Parliament during its first session and decided, providing that New South Wales is ready with the necessary area of land and several alternative sites. I am sure none of the Colonies will do anything unfair. We in this Colony have made a compact with New South Wales, and we are not going back on it.

That statement was quoted from one end of New South Wales to the other by those in favour of the Bill, as evidence of the intentention of the- people of Victoria to act fairly towards the provision in the Constitution. Then Mr., now Sir Alexander, Peacock, at a later date, said, when interviewed by a reporter of the Sydney Daily Telegraph -

There is an unaccountable impression in New South Wales that Victoria will keep the capital, once she has the Federal Parliament sitting in Melbourne. I assure you that no good ground whatever exists for such a belief…… The talk about ‘Victoria intriguing with the Federal Parliament, plotting against New South Wales to have an alteration made in the Constitution -

That is the present proposal - or throwing difficulties in the way of the selection of a site, is utterly without foundation, utterly unjustifiable, and unworthy.

In answering the reporter’s question as to whether Albury was the site likely to be chosen, he said -

Albury is too near to Melbourne, you know. A province of Melbourne. You might as well have the capital in Victoria as in Albury. Oh no, this is a serious business. Albury is impossible. We admit it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Commonwealth could not construct railways upon State territory.

Mr WEBSTER:

– No ; but the return would be profitable, by whatever authority these railways were constructed. I do not agree with those who are opposed to reasonable borrowing. It is always wise for the public, as well as for private individuals, to borrow money for the construction of works which will pay a good return upon its investment. If we got a good return for the money we borrowed, we should not be acting injudiciously in borrowing it. Whatever site we select, we must borrow -money before we can build upon it.

Mr Spence:

– Why? The Commonwealth has plenty of money.

Mr Bamford:

– There should be no more borrowing.

Mr WEBSTER:

Mr WEBSTER:

– It is all very well for the honorable member to view such evidence in the way that suits his purpose, but I am quite certain that money spent on such a railway as I contemplate would provide work for men engaged in legitimate occupations - artisans, railway men, navvies, and mechanics, whilst at the same time it would open up opportunities for the settlement of the people, and for increasing the production of the country. I must say that I doubt the sincerity of any man who says that he is willing to construct the Federal Capital, but is not prepared to borrow money for any works connected with it.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Would the honorable member borrow money in order to find work to relieve the depression caused by the present over-borrowing ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I would borrow money only where I was sure that by means of it I could provide work that would be profitable to the men engaged in it and profitable to the Government that employed them. That is what I mean. I do not wish the honorable member to misunderstand me. He has got himself into a peculiar position by saying that he desires to carry out the Federal compact with New South Wales, whilst at the same time he is prepared to break it. I do not wish him to get into further difficulties by misunderstanding ray meaning. I am always prepared to indicate what I am willing to do quite independently of anything that may have been said either bv a Minister or by a colleague on my own side of the House. Before a site is definitely selected, I hope to say a word or two about it. The question certainly is a most important one. It will have to be settled only once in the history of Australia. The site once determined upon, it will be of no use complaining that a mistake has been made. It will be of no use to say, as has been said in the course of this debate, that it’ is a pity that a clause was inserted in the Constitution which limited the allocation of the Federal Capital to an area at least I00 miles from Sydney. I do not want to have any regrets, so far as my action is concerned, after the site is chosen. I hope that every honorable member who has the interests of the Commonwealth at heart will read the reports or visit the sites, and go into the merits of the relative localities for himself, so that he may know that so far as his vote is concerned, he is helping to choose the best possible position. I trust that we shall be able to decide upon it without any considerations of parochialism affecting the issue. I trust it will not be settled because we wish to have a site near to some railway, or in some honorable member’s electorate. It should be decided broadly, and upon strictly Federal lines, in the knowledge that in a few. years io come all the parochial jealousies which now tend to disturb our judgment will have passed away. Let us act in accordance with the’ Federal spirit that was referred to so eloquently by the leader of the Opposition when he was appealing to the New South Wales people to come under the Federal Constitution, and by the head of the late Government, when he appealed to the people of Australia in his own eloquent style, inviting them to accept the Commonwealth Bill. I remember sitting in my place in the New South Wales Assembly, and listening, to a discussion upon the action of the last Federal Parliament in reference to the enlarged area which it was desired to take for Federal Capital purposes. . Member after member rose in protest against the large area that was asked for. But I can assure the House that when this question is brought to an issue, so that the alternative is as to whether New South Wales will give us the territory that we ask for, or remain without having the Capital within the borders of that State, thev will soon see the wisdom of acquiescing in the proposals of this Parliament. Here Ave have the game of politics played in the way Ave used to see it played bv oldtime politicians. We have the Premier of New South Wales pleading Avith the Federal Parliament not to decide the question until after the elections. I remember the Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, appealing to Sir John See, Premier . of New South Wales, to assist the Federal Parliament in coming to some conclusion: and Ave know that, from time to time, in the New South Wales Parliament, the matter Avas burked and set aside. Now. at this time, when we are about to decide the question, Ave have this appeal by the Premier of New South Wales to delay the matter until after the general elections - that is, until he comes back Avith a majority, to do what? The Premier of New South Wales has stated publicly that his intention is to recommend Garland-Carcoar as the site which the Government of that State are prepared to hand over to the Commonwealth. This is playing the game top low on the part of a man in the responsible position of Premier of the mother State. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the Garland-Carcoar site is closely adjacent to the Premier’s own electorate, and he is endeavouring to make a little political capital out of the circumstance, ‘ in the hope that it may be to his advantage on polling day. The Premier of New South Wales does not show a true Federal spirit when he talks of selecting a site against the wishes of the members of this Parliament, whose duty it is to decide the question. He does this, not sincerely, but merely as a piece of political claptrap, for the purpose of pandering to the electors, whose votes he wants ; and I should have no hesitation in telling him so if I were alongside him on a platform, even in his own electorate. What guarantee have we that this matter will be fairly dealt Avith if Ave do w ait for the new Parliament in New South Wales? If the Premier of that State is returned Avith any force behind him. it naturally follows that he will exercise a certain sway in the local Parliament .; and his action will have the effect of harassing the Commonwealth Parliament and Govern-‘ ment in trying to arrive at an honest conclusion on this important question. I have another appeal to make. I have heard several honorable members say that they have never visited any of the proposed Capital sites, and I am rather surprised to find that most of those honorable members represent Victorian constituencies. Other members are favorable to one site, because they think they will be able to proceed to Eden by boat ; but I do not Avant to see an important question like this decided on such grounds. We know that, in this Chamber there are men not actuated by a broad, comprehensive view or knowledge of the various sites, but by parochial influences which should find no place in a Federal Parliament. Because of this I ask honorable members, if they have not seen the sites, at least to endeavour to visit as many sites as they can before the day comes to finally decide the matter. If ‘honorable members cannot find time to pay any visits of inspection, they ought to read the reports of trusted officers. When we decide this question, as I trust we shall do next week, once for all’, I hope our conclusion will be such as will redound to the

Credit of this Parliament, and be of lasting benefit to the Commonwealth. When Ave have decided on the site, I shall be prepared, as I said before, to go forward and make a home for this Parliament as early as possible, so that Ave shall not, as now, have to travel long distances in order to visit our homes for a few hours each week, but may have an opportunity to enjoy some domestic comfort.

Sir John Forrest:

– What about other honorable members besides those from

New South Wales ?

Mr WEBSTER:

Mr Poynton:

– The geographical position belongs to South Australia.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am speaking of the geographical position of Sydney in relation to the,, commerce of the world, especially in the light of the new developments promised by the construction of the Panama Canal. It’ does not matter where we place the Federal Capital, the prestige of Sydney, as the chief city of Australia, is fully established. The Panama Canal will shorten the distance from Europe and America to Australia to such a considerable extent as to make it a foregone conclusion that it will be the highway of commerce between Australia and the rest of the world, just as the Suez Canal is the highway between east and west. I should like to mention incidentally that in this connexion the strategic position of the New Hebrides group of islands in the Pacific is a question of grave significance to the future of Australia and British commerce on the Pacific Ocean, and their importance to Australia should not be overlooked in the consideration of this question. I am not in accord, however, with the mover of this amendment in his argument about the use of park lands in the neighbourhood of Sydney for the purposes of a Federal Capital. I hope that all lands which have been dedicated to the public for recreation purposes will be jealously guarded against appropriation to any other purpose. But if the 100miles limit were once repealed, I could call the attention of honorable members to an ideal place for the establishment of a city, perhaps one of the fairest sites in the whole world, and that is a site between George’s River and Port Hacking River. To my mind, in all the vast areas in which we are asked to make a selection at the present time, there are not to be found any areas equal to those which are contained within the 100-miles limit. The area bounded by George’s River on the one side, and Port Hacking River on the other, with its picturesque bays, its magnificent stretches of water, the beautiful undulating character of its conformation, and its contiguity to water and fuel, would certainly incline me, but for the knowledge of the certainty of the whole question being shelved, to give my adherence to the amendment. Although I opposed the acceptance of the Constitution as strongly as I could, still I should be one of the last to lightly agree to any attempt to alter one of its provisions until it has had a fair trial. I recognise that once we do make the attempt to alter the Constitution in any one direction - quite apart from the difficulties to be met-we shall open the way to its alteration in various other directions, of which we may not approve. If we adopt the plan of supporting the amendment, it will simply mean that the question of selecting an area for the Federal Capital will be hung up indefinitely, to the great prejudice of everybody concerned, and to the great inconvenience of not only the representatives of New South Wales, but the representatives of other States. There is a point which has caused me much perplexity ever since I read the Constitution, and that is in regard to the question of the Seat of Government. Section 125 reads in this way -

The Seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth.

In a note on the Seat of Government, in the Annotated Constitution, Quick and Garran say, at page 979 -

The phraseology of this section, and its involved grammatical construction, raise several difficult questions of interpretation. How is the Seat of Government to be. acquired by the Commonwealth ? What is the effect of its acquisition ? And what is to happen pending the determination of the Seat of Government? These and other questions must be answered ; though the obscurity of the section makes it impossible, in the absence of judicial interpretation, to answer them with absolute confidence.

Shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory which shall have been granted to or acquired by the Commonwealth.

No doubt, even the legal members of the House will find it difficult to decide what is the difference between the meaning of the words “ granted to “ and the words “ acquired by.” My opinion is that the words “ granted to “ apply to Crown lands, which “ shall be granted to the Commonwealth without any payment therefor,” and that the words “ acquired by “ apply to freehold land, and to land in process of alienation, which will have to be purchased by the Commonwealth. The power of the Commonwealth to acquire land to add to the area granted fo and acquired for the Seat of Government, except under the provisions of section 125 of the Constitution, is doubtful. We have, of course, power to acquire property for public purposes, but I am not sure that that power would enable us to extend the area of the Seat of Government. There is no doubt, however, that we have power under section 125 of the Constitution to acquire for the Seat of Government territory containing an “ area of not less than one hundred square miles.” I am surprised at the amendment of the honorable member for Corangamite. It is a specific provision of the Constitution that the Federal territory “ shall contain an area of not less than one hundred square miles.” It was on that condition that New South Wales entered into the Federation. In my opinion it is impossible . for us honorably to interfere with that provision in any way, unless at the express wish of the people of New South Wales. On any other condition I cannot lead myself to think that we should be justified in departing from that specific provision of the Constitution. It would be an act of gross repudiation - I would even say an act of gross treachery - towards the people of New South Wales to attempt, without their consent, to alter the Constitution in such a way as to reverse what was specially agreed to when the Commonwealth was established. It was on this statutory undertaking that New South Wales joined the Federation. Other States may also have statutory undertakings that must be respected in the same manner ; but there is no more binding undertaking in the whole Constitution in regard to any State than this one, and I could never think of assisting in the slightest degree to alter, unless asked to do so by New South Wales, what was agreed to by the whole of the people of Australia. There are some other understandings upon which I need not dwell just now which are not statutory. The construction of a railway to

– I really cannot follow the honorable member. I could understand honorable members’ anxiety for a larger area if a precedent could, be established in the United States or in Canada,, or if any great necessity could be shown. My own idea is that a large area is not wanted, and that was the opinion of the Convention. At any rate, weought to try to definitely make upour minds on the subject. I have decided opinions on the matter, and I express them, because I think it is far better that we should understand one another. I shall act on my opinion, and vote for an area of between 100 and 200 square miles, but not fpr any further extension. I have also strong opinions as to the site which I think should be chosen, but I am well aware that it is undesirable to discuss that phase at the present juncture. I may say,- however, that from all I have seen, I prefer the Dalgety site, for which I intend to vote at the proper time. We have heard a good deal to-night about the necessity for economy, and I do not suppose that any honorable member would be found speaking against such a policy. It is a politician’s most common expression that he believes in economical administration; and, therefore, it is rather late to tell us that economy should be the order of the day. On the question’ before us, the desire for economy goes so far as to lead to a suggestion to build some shanty in the wilderness in order to house the Federal Parliament ; but I fancy that when we entered into this shanty its present advocates would not then be satisfied. In those States where the cry for economy is loudest, there would appear to have been a good deal of extravagance in the past. We often hear railway construction blamed - most unjustly, I think - for the waste, of public money ; but my opinion is that railways have made Australia what it is. If money has to some degree been wasted in connexion with railway construction, the extravagance has not been carried to the same extent as in connexion with other public works. It appears to me that those who were parties to the borrowing policy of the States and who joined in spending the money as fast as possible, until it was difficult to borrow more, are now on the opposite tack and are opposed to any further borrowing. Only . the other day, when a very advantageous offer was made in connexion with our naval defences, we were told, by these advocates of economy, that we ought to have a local navy, apparently unmindful of the fact that it meant a large loan expenditure, In fact, those who preach economy one day, support extravagance the next. I think, however, that when the time comes for us to establish ourselves in the Capital city, we shall find that the people and their parliamentary representatives are in favour of good, substantial buildings which will be no discredit to the Commonwealth. I hope no’ long speeches will be found necessary on the motion for the second reading of this Bill, and that we shall dispose of the amendment quickly. I feel quite sure that there is no large number of honorable members who would vote for the amendment in the shape in which it is presented. It would be most unwise, and most improper, for us to allow it to be thought in New South Wales,’’ or any other part of Australia - in our constituencies’ or anywhere else - that we are inclined to depart in the slightest degree from the

Sir John Forrest. erms oof the compact entered into with New South Wales.’ We should show that we are determined to carry out that compact to the fullest extent It is only bv so doing that we can uphold our own good name, and expect upright and honorable treatment to be extended to us. I shall oppose the amendment, and be glad when the time comes to vote for the second reading.

Debate (on motion by Mr. G. B. Edwards) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.25 P m-

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 July 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1904/19040720_reps_2_20/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 July 1904

MILITARY ATTACHE IN JAPAN:

Mr WATSON:Prime Minister · BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

ADVISORY BOARD TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES

Mr CARPENTER:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:Minister for External Affairs · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Mr WATSON:Treasurer · Bland · ALP

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Mr BROWN:CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:ALP

Mr Batchelor:

Mr WATSON:

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:

TASMANIAN FORCES

Mr WATSON:ALP

Sir John Forrest:

Mr WATSON:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Storrer:

Mr WATSON:

QUESTION

FEDERAL QUARANTINE CONFERENCE

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:ALP

QUESTION

FEDERAL EXPENDITURE IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WATSON:ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr WATSON:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr WATSON:

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH MASTERS

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAHON:Postmaster-General · COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

CUSTOMS REVENUE AND ADMINISTRATION

Mr LONSDALE:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:ALP

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MONEY ORDER BUSINESS

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr MAHON:ALP

QUESTION

VOLUNTEER FORCES

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr WATSON:ALP

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES PATENT REGISTER

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:ALP

QUESTION

VICTORIAN ARTILLERYMEN

Mr CROUCH:

Mr WATSON:ALP

QUESTION

GEELONG LETTER-CARRIERS

Mr CROUCH:

Mr BATCHELOR:ALP

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr BATCHELOR:Minister of Home Affairs · Boothby · ALP

Mr Crouch:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr Cameron:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr BATCHELOR:

House of Representatives
20 July 1904

Mr WATSON:
Prime Minister · BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CARPENTER:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr WATSON:
Treasurer · Bland · ALP

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAHON:
Postmaster-General · COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr LONSDALE:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr MAHON:
ALP

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr WATSON:
ALP

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of Home Affairs · Boothby · ALP

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT