House of Representatives
19 July 1910

4^th Parliament · 1^st Session

RICHMOND RAILWAY ACCIDENT
QUESTION
- ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE MINISTRY
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- EXPORT DUTY ON HIDES
QUESTION
- JOHNSON-JEFFRIES FIGHT
FEDERAL CAPITAL
MINISTRY AND LABOUR COUNCIL
PAPERS
QUESTION
- COMMITTEE OF ACCOUNTS
QUESTION
- UNIFORM CONDITIONS OF MANUFACTURE
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH : PORT DAVEY
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENTOVERTIME
QUESTION
- APPEALS FROM COURTS MARTIAL
NEW ZEALAND TELEPHONE RATES
QUESTION
- SALARIES : SEMI-OFFICIAL AND NON-OFFICIAL POST-OFFICES
QUESTION
- OFFICES : SMALL ARMS FACTORY
ELECTORAL ACT
- Applications for Enrolment
SURPLUS REVENUE BILL
- Second Reading
EXCISE (SUGAR) BILL

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 488

RICHMOND RAILWAY ACCIDENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yesterday I took it upon myself to write to the Premier of Victoria expressing sympathy, on behalf of honorable members, with those who were injured in the railway disaster at Richmond, and with the relatives of those who were killed. To-day I received the following reply : -

Premier’s Office,

Melbourne, 19th July, 1910.

Dear Mr. McDonald,

I am in receiptof your letter of this day’s date, expressing the deep sorrow felt by’ the members of the House of Representatives respecting the railway disaster at Richmond yesterday, and their sympathy with the relatives and friends of those who were killed, as well as with those injured by the accident.

In reply, I beg to request that you will be so good as to convey to the members of the House of Representatives the thanks of the people of this State for their kindness and thoughtfulness, which will be duly brought under the notice of those concerned, through the medium of the public press.

Faithfully yours,

MURRAY.

– It would appear, from a paragraph in yesterday’s Argus, that members of the Political Labour Council are exerting coercive influence upon individuals.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not, under cover of an allusion to a newspaper paragraph, use arguments in asking a question.

Mr PALMER:

– Mr. Hannah, a member of the Victorian Parliament, has been compelled to resign from the Commonwealth Protectionist Association because he is a member of the Political Labour Council. I wish to know whether the members of this Ministry are being coerced by the Council into resigning their position on other political organizations.

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I decline to reply to that question.

page 489

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers -

Northern Territory Acceptance Bill - Opinion of the Attorney-General regarding the interpretation of the clause in the agreement relating to the Transcontinental Railway.

Fisheries - Report by the Director on the work of the Endeavour, Sydney to Brisbane, 20th June to1st July, 1910.

Beer Excise Act - Regulation Amended (Provisional) - No. 15A (1) - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 65.

Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act - Regulations Amended (Provisional) - Nos. 26A, 31A - Statutory Rules 1910, No. 23.

page 489

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF ACCOUNTS

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the beneficial effect it would have in shortening the time occupied by questions, replies, and discussion in dealing with the Estimates of Expenditure submitted by the Government, he will consider the expediency of appointing a Standing Committee of Accounts to report annually upon past and proposed ex penditure, after investigating the same, and examining, if necessary, the permanent officials of the service with reference thereto?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– In reply to the honorable member’s question, I have to state that it is not considered desirable to appoint such a Committee at present. Consideration will be given to this matter later on.

page 489

QUESTION

UNIFORM CONDITIONS OF MANUFACTURE

Sir JOHN FORREST:

asked the PrimeMinister, upon notice -

In further reference to the questions asked on 1 2th inst, as to the different rates of wages paid in the various States to persons engaged in the same industry, and producing the same kind of goods in competition with one another -

How soon, approximately, does he think he will be able to give a reply to Resolutions 1 and 2 placed before him by the Western Australian Chamber of Manufactures?
Does he propose to submit to Parliament any plan by which manufacturing may continue to be possible in States where wages are highest, and prevent such manufacturing business gravitating to States where wages are lowest?
Does he favour uniform wages in all States for persons engaged in the same industry and coming into competition with one another?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

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

As soon as practicable. 2.The matter is under consideration.
No.

page 489

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH : PORT DAVEY

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken up to the present to instal telegraphic communication with Port Davey, on the West Coast of Tasmania?

Mr THOMAS:
Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In reply to the honorable member’s question, I have to state that no definite steps have been taken in this matter, but inquiries are being made as to the cost, &c, of providing such communication.

page 489

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENTOVERTIME

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

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

Is the Minister aware that officers of the

Pay Branch of the Defence Department, Sydney, have been compelled to work, during the last six months and particularly during the last three weeks, from9 a.m. to hours varying from 9.30 p.m. to11 p.m.?

Is he aware that during June last up to 100 hours overtime have been so imposed?
Is it a fact that “tea money” only is allowed in such cases?
Will he see that the same principle is maintained in his Department as prevails in private firms - that of reasonable payment for overtime?

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

A monthly return of overtime worked by all public servants is received at the Central Administration, and those returns show that officers of the Pay Branch, Sydney, have worked overtime during the period stated.
The overtime returns show such to be the case. June is always a particularly busy month in view of the close of the financial year, which renders overtime unavoidable in all the Pay Branches.
Payment has been made for 20 hours’ overtime, and tea money has been paid on all other occasions.
No uniform principle can be said to prevail with regard to the payment of overtime by private firms. The officers referred to are subject to Public Service Regulation No. 61.

page 490

QUESTION

APPEALS FROM COURTS MARTIAL

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In order to maintain the principle of a citizen before a soldier inconnexion with the Defence Forces of the Commonwealth, will he consider the suggestion that a citizen soldier shall always have the right of appeal to the Civil Courts of the Commonwealth from any court martial, and that such principle should be incorporated in our Defence Acts?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– It is not proposed to amend the law in this respect, as it is now open to the Civil Courts to relieve any illegal or excessive punishment. The following is a fuller statement of the law -

The Defence Act 1903 has now been in force for over six years, and during that period there have been only four district courts martial on members of the Citizen Forces. Three resulted in acquittal, and in one a fine was inflicted. It has been found that breaches of discipline in time of peace can ordinarily besufficiently punished by the powers of fine and discharge now given to commanding officers. It is, however, provided by section 265 of the Commonwealth Military Regulations, that, whenever a commanding Officer proposes to inflict any but a minor punishment upon a soldier the latter shall be so informed, and that he shall have a right to demand trial by court martial.

In time of war it is obvious that offences cannot be dealt with by civil courts, and therefore the Imperial Army Act comes into force under section 55 of the Defence Act 1903-4. In the area of active operations no civil courts would be in operation, and it would be impracticable to send the officers and soldiers, whose presence would be required at a trial, back to the base for the purpose. The application of the Army Act is, however, limited by sections 96,98, and 106 of the Defence Act 1903-4.

The following will show that the rights of the citizen are amply safeguarded, and that the civil courts can always prevent illegal punishment : - “ It is, therefore, highly important that the mistake should be corrected, which supposes that an Englishman, by taking upon him the additional character of a soldier, puts off any of the rights or duties of an Englishman.” - Chief Justice Sir James Mansfield in Burdett v. Abbott, 4 Taunton’s Reports, page 401. “ The members of courts martial and officers in the exercise of individual authority are, like the inferior civil courts and magistrates, amenable to the superior civil courts for injury caused to any person by acts done either without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.” - Manual of Military Law, 1907, page 119.

The writs of prohibition, certiorari, and habeas corpus, as also actions for damages, are all available to one who feels aggrieved, and there are many such reported in the English Law Reports.

page 490

NEW ZEALAND TELEPHONE RATES

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON (for Sir

John Quick) asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether he will give some information respecting the telephone rates in force in New Zealand?

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

– The following extracts are from the New Zealand Postal Guide, January, 19 10 : -

Charges. “ In addition to the entrance-fee of £1, the charge per annum payable in respect of the hire for any telephone instrument connected with the Government Telephone Exchange is as follows : -

To every subscriber for a single wire as from the date of connexion - At exchanges which are open continuously -

The above rates are for connexions of warehouses, stores, shops, and business places not more than half-a-mile from, and of private residences not more than one mile from the telephone exchange. For every additional quarter of a mile or fraction thereof for each year commencing from the date of connexion, and for every following year, 10s. per annum.”

From the Postmaster-General’s report for the year 1909, it is seen that the four largest exchanges in New Zealand were - Wellington, 4,258 ; Auckland, 4,016 ; Christchurch, 3,472 ; Dunedin, 3,219; connexions on 31st March, 1910.

The following are extracts from a report by the Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department, New Zealand : -

Onmy arrival at Vancouver I was astonished to find that the number of telephone exchange connexions was about twice as many as those in Wellington, although the cities are about the same size, and Wellington rates are considerably cheaper.

In the exploitation of the business the telephone companies are assisted by the almost universal system of the measured rate charge, i.e., a charge for each call made over a certain number. For branch exchange work this is the only method that can be well employed, as nohotelkeeper is likely to go to the expense of paying a flat rental for 100 or 200 telephones for the use of his guests.

While I am not convinced that the measured rate system should be adopted in its entirety, I think it is likely that the rigid flat rate as in use in New Zealand, is largely responsible for our failure to develop on the lines I have indicated, and it would be well to consider whether a measured rate could not be adopted for branch exchanges,&c., which would give satisfaction alike to the Department and telephone users; that is to say, the present flat rate to be maintained for single connexions, particularly with private residences, and a measured rate introduced for branch exchanges and party lines.

page 491

QUESTION

SALARIES : SEMI-OFFICIAL AND NON-OFFICIAL POST-OFFICES

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

– On the 8th inst. the honorable member for Cook asked the following questions : -

Is he aware that less than £110 per annum is being paid in semi-official post-offices and nonofficial post-offices?
Will he see that a minimum of £110 per annum is paid in all semi-official and non-official post-offices to any adults engaged in conducting postal business?
Are any adults employed permanently in the Postal Department on a less wage than£110 per annum, in any capacity whatever?
If so, will he see that£110 per annum is paid in every case where a permanent employe reaches 21 years of age?

An interim answer to the questions was furnished when they were asked, but the following are the complete answers to them : -

The arrangement in force in the Depart ment is that as regards semi-official offices the personal allowance of the postmaster, together with the allowance for maintenance ofthe office (light, &c.), and the rental value of the premises as quarters shall equal the minimum wage of £110 per annum. I was not previously aware that in four cases in New South Wales and one in Tasmania this had not been carried out. In two of these cases the total is £2 less than£110, in one case £3 less, in one £7, and in the other £12. In the last-mentioned £52 per annum additional, and in the other cases £26 per annum additional is allowed for assistants. Steps have been taken to rectify the anomalies in these instances. In all other cases it is reported that the equivalent of the minimum wage is being paid. With respect to non-official (allowance) offices, which are in the hands of persons who maketheir living by other occupations, the allowance is paid according to a scale based on the statistics of postal work performed. A nonofficial (allowance) office is established on a revenue of£15 per annum. The work does not occupy the whole time of the postmaster, and the minimum wage does not apply.
See answer to No. 1.
Yes, but with the exception of five, they have not completed the three years’ service required by law before they are entitled to receive £110 per annum. The five exceptions comprise three postmasters in Western Australia and two female telegraph messengers in South Australia. The revenue derived from the offices controlled by the postmasters in Western Australia referred to is £17, £21, and£87 per annum. In each case the postmaster receives an allowance in excess of the revenue. These persons became permanent employes of the Department owing to a technicality, they having been appointed by the Governor in Council of the State prior to Federation. On the retirement of these officers, whose salaries are at present fixed under section 20 of the Public Service Act, the permanent positions will be abolished. The two female telegraph messengers referred to are over twenty-one years of age, and are receiving a salary of £52. per annum (fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act). One of these has declined to accept transfer from her present position, while the other (fifty years of age) is unfitted for any other duties.
Parliament has provided that in addition to being twenty-one years of age, an officer must have been three years in the service before being entitled to £110 per annum.

page 491

QUESTION

OFFICES : SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of his Depart ment to take over the old Post Office, Lithgow, for the purposes of offices for the Small Arms Factory ?
If so, does he not consider it advisable to acquire the building early, to prevent it falling into bad repair?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is -

The premises are the property of the Commonwealth, but not now being required for Defence or other Federal purposes, the New South Wales Government have been asked if they will accept a re-transfer of the property. A reply is expected in a day or two.

page 491

ELECTORAL ACT

Applications for Enrolment

Mr SINCLAIR:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of

Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Govern ment to adopt the card system of application for enrolment on the Electoral Roll, as provided for in the present Electoral Act? 2, If so, will he make provision to have an application signed by each elector qualifiedto vote when the census is being taken next April?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

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

Yes. A single card will shortly be substituted for the existing enrolment forms.
The matter is under consideration.

page 492

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

Second Reading

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON.Amongst others, by the present AttorneyGeneral. But I will deal with that aspect of the matter later on.

Mr Batchelor:

– Nonsense.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Minister of External Affairs may ejaculate “ Nonsense,” but I will presently supply him with the proof of my statement. I do not suppose that he will impeach the accuracy of Hansard. In speaking in this Chamber last session, the Attorney- General first claimed that the Financial Agreement was practically the Brisbane Labour Conference scheme. He afterwards denied that there was any resemblance between them and opposed the agreement, declaring that a contribution by the Commonwealth to the States of 25s. per capita was altogether too much - that the Commonwealth could not afford it. He urged that the late Government proposed to return that amountannually to the States because they desired the States to reap such an advantage in promoting immigration schemes as would place the workers of this country under a disability. He argued that the proposal was a move in the direction of promoting immigration in order that persons from abroad might come here for the purpose of sharing in and lowering the wage fund. For that reason he denounced the agreement, and declared that the most which the Commonwealth could afford to return to the States was £1 per capita. Will the Minister of External Affairs deny that?

Mr Batchelor:

– What?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not going to repeat my statement. While it is true that this Bill embodies the same proposal as that which was put forward by the late Government, it is the same proposal with a very vital difference, inasmuch as the agreement which was entered into by the Deakin-Cook Ministry would, if adopted, have given to the State finances that element of stability which is entirely lacking under this measure. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to rise in his place, and in that pompous lordly autocratic style which he has affected so much of late, to say “We “ - that is, he and his friends- “ guarantee to the States that the provision incorporated in this Bill shall continue for ten years.” But he cannot guarantee that it will continue for more than twelve months. He has not the power to do so. He can pledge nobody but himself. He cannot pledge even his own followers, because none of them is his own master, while they are all his masters, and in turn he and they are but the recording agents of another set of masters above them. Their masters are a body of men who meet and decide these things outside of Parliament. Notwithstanding anything that the Prime Minister may affirm in this House, he is merely the mouthpiece, and not the leader, of the Labour party. He is here, in the first place, to voice the decisions which are arrived at by an outside body, and, in the second, to register the decrees of another body which meets within the precincts of the building, obedient slaves to the irresponsible outside body. No matter what his own views may be, he has to voice those decisions, and in no sense can he be regarded as a leader.

Mr Mathews:

– It is enough to make the honorable member weep.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is a most humiliating position for the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth to occupy, no matter to what party he may belong. It is utterly subversive of all ideas of responsible democratic government.

Mr Kelly:

– He has to follow because he is the Leader of the Labour party.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The agreement which was entered into between the late Libera] Government and the State Premiers, would, if ratified by the electors, have been embodied in the Constitution, and thus would have given to the finances of the States that element of stability which, under the present Bill, is entirely lacking. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to urge that the Bill secures the payment of 25s. per capita for ten years. It secures nothing of the sort. It may possibly continue in force during the life of this Parliament, and it may conceivably last for ten years. But this Parliament cannot bind any succeeding Parliament. It cannot legislate for more than three years ahead. Indeed, we cannot guarantee that the provision shall continue operative for three years, because nobody can foresee what political exigencies may arise which may result in the Government being suddenly deprived of office.

Mr Page:

– Do not hold out the olive branch.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I admit that there does not seem much probability of the Ministry being deposed during the life of the present Parliament. But, whilst we may regard the proposals of the Government as likely to continue operative during the term for which this Parliament has been elected, we cannot guarantee their continuance even for that term and certainly not for any longer period. As a matter of fact, the Government cannot guarantee that they will remain undisturbed even during the life of this Parliament, because the next InterState Labour Conference may not approve of them. The Ministry may find themselves obliged to bow to the decision of a majority in that Conference, and to make some amendment in the Bill, even if they are not driven to a pretext for its repeal.

Mr Mathews:

– Cannot the honorable member tell us something about the caucus ?

Mr. Holman saw the element of danger as I saw it then and as I see it now. Notwithstanding anything the Prime Minister may allege, the guarantee that the new arrangement will last for ten years is not worth the printer’s ink used on the Bill. We have heard a good deal about the Brisbane Conference scheme of the Labour party. Notwithstanding anything that has been said during the elections, and notwithstanding anything said in this House, anybody who has read the proceedings of the Brisbane Conference can come to no other conclusion than that the original intention of the Labour party in regard to the financial arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States was that it should be of a permanent character, and that it should be embodied in the Constitution. Mr. Bowman, the Leader of the Queensland Labour party, said so ;. the present AttorneyGeneral said so ; Mr. McGowan, the Leader of the Labour party in New South” Wales, said so j Mr. Holman, the Deputy Leader, said so ; every State Labour member in the party in New South Wales said so; and many members of the party in other States said so. I propose to prove what I have said by reading a few quotations -from statements which they made. Mr.

Bowman, the Leader of the Queensland Labour party, said -

The agreement (the Premiers’) the Conference came to is largely based on the scheme that was laid down by the Labour party last year. With very little alteration, the scheme brought up by the Labour Convention in 1907 is the scheme adopted by the Premiers’ Conference:

I have referred to the attitude taken up by the present Attorney-General, and the Minister of External Affairs has interjected that what I have stated is “nonsense”; so any sane person would naturally believe ; but no.w I produce the proofs. In Hansard for 1909, page 2430, the AttorneyGeneral is reported to have said on the 12 th August -

But whatever may be the shortcomings of the Brisbane scheme it had at least the merit of practicability. That was not merely a temporary expedient for the next year or two, but a settlement for all time.

Here is a positive declaration, made in the most unequivocal terms, by one of the members of the present Government, that the scheme of the Brisbane Conference was not merely a temporary expedient, but a settlement for all time. How. is the element of permanency to be secured unless the arrangement made be embodied in the Constitution? There is no other way in which permanency can be obtained, because there is no other way by which a future Parliament could be prevented from repealing an Act passed by this Parliament. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill, a future Parliament will have the same power to repeal it as we have to pass it. It was this undeniable fact that caused several members of the Labour party in the different States to recognise that’ in order to secure permanency there must be an alteration of the Constitution to prevent any tampering with the agreement, which, otherwise, would be at the mercy of every change of Government, of every party occupying the Treasury bench, and of every impecunious Treasurer. But notwithstanding that the AttorneyGeneral, on the 1 2th August last, made the declaration that I have quoted, in less than a month he made an absolutely contradictory statement, which will be found on page 56 of the volume of reprint of Parliamentary Debates on the Financial Agreement -

To make the agreement permanent would be an outrage to which I hope Parliament will not agree. I hope that even the most abject of the Ministerialists will make some sort of a protest against this.

In August the Attorney-General insisted that there should be an agreement for all time, and that the Brisbane Labour Conference had so decided; but in September he declared that to make the agreement permanent would be an outrage. I notice the Minister of External Affairs is now silent. There is no defence to such incredible inconsistency. What are we to think of a party that changes its opinions so frequently, and whose leaders make certain statements one day and exactly opposite statements on the morrow ? Yet this is the party that claims to be above all other parties in respect to consistency - the party which keeps steadily on one course with one objective in view.

Mr Roberts:

– How does the honorable member like this quotation from one of his own speeches, Hansard, 1909, page 5352 ?-

The Premiers would have been well advised to have agreed to a limitation of the duration of the arrangement.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I have already explained that very phrase. I do not object to a limitation of the period, so long as security is afforded for giving effect to the Bill. This can only be done by putting it into the Constitution. I put my views before Parliament clearly in saying that the Premiers would have been well advised to adopt a certain course, but since they did not see their way clear to adopt that course the only thing to do was to take the agreement as it was presented to us. I did not commit myself to the agreement as such, but simply to the proposal to refer it to the electors, so the honorable member’s attempt to misrepresent my attitude is at once defeated. The Bill before Parliament was not a Bill to ratify the agreement, but to allow the whole matter to be referred to the people for their decision, and I was not going to block that, whatever my opinion as to the merits of the agreement might have been. That is all I have to say in regard to that matter. This element of permanency was really the strong feature of the Brisbane Labour Conference scheme, the belated denials of the Labour party to the contrary notwithstanding. Again, I will put into the witness box one of the prime movers in the matter, and quote his own words from the New South Wales Hansard. Mr. Holman said -

I would ask the patience of the Committee for one moment, whilst I put before it what has been the action of my own party, the Labour Party, during the past twelve months, because, like my leader, the honorable member for Redfern, I took a share in that work myself; and I would like to explain to the Committee, and, if possible, to the country, what I believe to have been done.

This conference sat twelve months ago in Brisbane, when a financial scheme was drawn up. I was a member of the sub-committee which drafted the scheme, and I was the member of the committee appointed to present the scheme to the conference.

I take it that a gentleman occupying that position should be, above all others, an authority on what was intended by the agreement which was accepted by the Conference. He said unmistakably that it was intended to be a permanent arrangement, and to be embodied in the Constitution. He went on to say -

I attended every meeting; I was present in the conference right through the debate on which the scheme was adopted, and I have therefore as intimate a knowledge of the scheme and its intentions as any man at the conference could have had. And I should like to say this : there is not the remotest room for doubt that the gentlemen at that conference who voted for the scheme voted for a permanent allocation of the Customs revenue between the State and the Commonwealth on the lines laid down. . . .

I am bound to confess that after a careful reading of the report the words “ constitutional provision “ are nowhere to be found, either in the scheme or in the discussion, but I will ask the Committee, if I am not wearying them, to allow me to read two or three very brief passages, which will show the principle underlying the proposal.

Then followed another matter which it is not necessary to quote. Mr. Holman continued -

Mr. Watson addressed the conference, and he said - this is a very abbreviated report; but it is truthful : - “ This scheme met the objection raised by the Premiers’ Conference against Sir William Lyne’s proposals; the Premiers objected through there not being any provision after thirty-five years.”

This scheme met that objection- that was to say, it did contain a provision after thirty-five years.

It will be seen that the question of that period, viz., thirty-five years, was considered at the Conference, that it was not considered a permanent agreement, that thirty five years was regarded as too short a period, and that they wanted something more permanent than that. It will also be seen that they made a provision, which was not to be for thirtyfive years, but which was to be a permanent agreement for all time. Mr. Holman’s extract from Mr. Watson’s statement continued -

And Mr. O’Malley’s proposition was open to a similar criticism.

Then Mr. Holman remarked -

Mr. Watson said that. I myself said, when introducing it, that it was to be a permanent arrangement, and I gave this illustration of how it would work. “ For example, if Queensland’s population doubled in ten years the return would be double in the aggregate to the Queensland Treasurer.

Therein this scheme differed from that of Sir William Lyne, who made no allowance for increase of population ; no provision for the future.”

No man could have said that, knowing as I did, that Sir William Lyne’s scheme did propose an increase for the first thirty-five years unless I intended that the scheme went beyond thirty-five years.

That remark was made by the man who drafted the proposal, brought it before the Conference, and was familiar with all the details. He rejected Sir William Lyne’s proposal because it was limited only to thirty-five years ahead. The proposal of the present Minister of Home Affairs was rejected because the element of permanency was absent. Mr. Lamont, who is well known in Labour circles, also addressed the Conference. Referring to the question of the complete separation of the Commonwealth and State finances, he said -

He had to say that it was utterly impracticable to carry it out. Seeing that it was impossible to dissociate the finances of the Commonwealth and the States, he believed the scheme submitted was the only one which gave freedom to the Federal Parliament and security to the State Parliaments.

Later, he said -

My impression is that Mr. Fisher thought he would be driven to depart from the proposal of the Brisbane Conference, and to bring forward some alternative suggestion. I do not think Mr. Fisher has anywhere asserted that the Brisbane Conference proposal did not provide for a steadily increasing aggregate return in proportion to the population of every State. . . . I am in full accord with my leader in the stand he has taken here, and I say that the Labour Party in its conference determined that there should be an allocation of this particular fund - saying nothing, of course, of the revenue raised from other sources - between the Commonwealth and the States to provide for old-age pensions, the reasonable necessities of defence, certain other expenditure which is directly or indirectly connected with defence, and other matters such as the site for the Federal Capital.

Referring to the proposal of the late Government, Mr. Holman concluded his speech with these words -

I rejoice to think that I am urging the adoption of a proposal which in its present shape was first suggested by the Labour Party, which emanated from the Brisbane Conference, and which the party I belong to has brought as a valuable contribution to the national policy.

That is the proposal which has been so roundly condemned by the present Federal Labour party, and roundly condemned, even since that statement was made, and since a further conference of the Labour leagues has been held, by the very men who gave utterance to the statements which are recorded in cold print in the State Hansard. The members of the State Labour party drew up a manifesto, in which they complained of the attitude adopted by the members of the Federal Labour party towards the agreement between the Deakin Administration and the Premiers. They repudiated what was done by the Federal Labour party, and justified their position, explaining that the settlement of the finances suggested by the Labour Conference was intended to be permanent. Let me read a statement concerning this manifesto which has appeared in the public press - in their recent attitude, in connection with the financial debate in the New South Wales Parliament, had only repeated for the third time what they had said on two previous occasions with the full approval of the Labour movement. The statement gives an outline of the Brisbane Conference financial proposals, and the party’s reasons for regarding those proposals as permanent, and to be embodied in the Constitution.

The statement was signed by several members of the State party, including its leader,deputy leader, secretary, treasurer, and whip -

The scheme was particularly supported by the State Labour members, because, as they alleged, it had the backing of members of the Federal Labour party, as well as of their own. It was the only scheme which had a strong body of support in both the Federal and the State Houses.

The manifesto points out that -

No one objected to the assumption that the Brisbane scheme was to be a permanent one, and that it bound Federal as well as State members, and nobody objected to the assertion- that it would have the support of Federal as well as State members.

The crux of the position is expressed in these words -

The last step taken by the State Labour party was when they laid down for the third time the Brisbane Conference scheme as the one they supported, and this was the occasion that had given rise to all the criticism that had been indulged in in certain quarters.

The State Labour party’s view of the controversy is then summed up into three propositions - one, that the Brisbane Conference scheme was intended to be a compact between the States and Federal interests represented within the Labour movement; second, that such a compact was binding upon both parties to it, and that neither party was free to depart from or alter it without previously consulting and obtaining the assent of the other; third, that the compact was intended to be final and permanent.

Thus we have the three propositions laid down, that the scheme was to be a compact between the State and Federal sections of the Labour party, that it was binding upon both sections, and that it was to be permanent. These statements have been, denied by members of the Federal Labour party, and with most positive insistence affirmed by the State Labour party ; but since another conference has been- held, some of those w-ho originally objected most strongly to the position of the Federal Labour members have had to re-adjust their views and swallow everything they said. The Minister of External Affairs contradicted me when I said that the AttorneyGeneral had stated that 25s. per capita was too large a sum to return to the States, and that £1 would be enough. He denied, too, that the honorable gentleman had stated that the proposal to return 25s. per capita was intended to bring about an influx of immigrants to reduce wages. Again, let me give proof of my assertions. Speaking on the 9th September last - the remarks are to be found on page 49 of the reprint of the Financial Debates - the AttorneyGeneral said -

Now it is obvious, I venture to say, that under the 25s. per head arrangement, we can do none of these things - -

That is, provide for large railway developments, the taking over of the Northern Territory, the building of a Federal capital, and other matters which he had mentioned -

The very most that we can give to the States at the present time, and pay our way, is £1 per head. lt will take some little time, and no little ingenuity, to explain away those words. In the same speech - page 55 of the reprint - the Attorney-General said -

Under the agreement we shall not have enough money to take over the debts of the States, and to take over only h’alf of them would not do good but harm, because there would be a Commonwealth stock competing with State stock.

He further said - page 51 -

Last year the Customs and Excise revenue amounted to £2 10s. 8d. per head of the population, but the average has been about £2 6s. per head. If we return to the States 25s. per head of their population, and it takes over 25s. per head to govern the Commonwealth, it is very clear that we must lose on every additional person that comes to the Commonwealth.

It is recognised that the adjustment of the financial relations is a matter that rests with the Commonwealth Parliament.

He courteously makes that acknowledgment, but he says further - and under these circumstances I shall be glad to know whether you are prepared to put before the States any proposal withregard to our mutual financial relations.

– The honorable member misreads the letter.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I have read it exactly as it is printed. Nothing could be more definite than the quotation I have made. This can be seen from the Prime Minister’s reply. The honorable gentleman wrote -

In reply to your letter dated 26th ultimo, relating to a proposed conference on the subject of financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, I have to remind you that a conference has never been suggested by me.

Whom was it suggested by? If it was not suggested by the Prime Minister, it must have been suggested by the State Premiers. Yet the Prime Minister denies that there is any suggestion for a conference. In paragraph 2 he says : -

On being approached by the Premier of Victoria

Mr Fisher:

– Hear, hear!

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What for ? The paragraph proceeds : -

I readily consented to meet the Premiers in conference if they so wished.

It would appear, therefore, that the Premier of Victoria did approach the Prime Minister with a view to a conference, and that the statement that there was no suggestion or request to that end is not in accordance with fact. And, furthermore, seeing that at first the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to meet the Premiers in conference, I cannot understand his denials in the face of the letters I have read. In paragraph 3 the Premier says : -

I am still willing to meet them if they desire to discuss the matter, but I have always been of the opinion that, as the determination of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States is left solely to the Federal Parliament, it is not advisable that the Prime Minister should formulate a scheme for the consideration of the Premiers.

– But they will receive only 2s. 7½d. per head during the second half of the current financial year.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– In my opinion, the Bill, instead of becoming operative as from1st July of this year, ought not to come into force until 1st January, 191 1. That is the view which was expressed the other day by the honorable member for Darling Downs. In reply, the Prime Minister stated -

I will consider that seriously. Nobody in my position can do more than that.

The honorable member for Darling Downs then said -

The general opinion was that the ten years would date from the expiration of the Braddon clause.

To that remark, the Prime Minister replied -

That is impossible financially.

What does the honorable gentleman mean by declaring that for the Bill to come into force on the1st January next is financially impossible? However, I am glad to have his assurance that until the end of the present year the States will receive their full three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No thanks to him. Under the Constitution he is bound to return them that proportion of Customs and Excise revenue .

Mr Fisher:

– The proposals contained in the Bill are, with one exception, . the same as those which were embodied in the agreement submitted by the late Government, which the honorable member supported.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– They are not quite the same.

Mr Fisher:

– This measure is a little more favorable to the States.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– Those who supported the agreement which was entered into between the late Government and the State Premiers desired to have that agreement embodied in the Constitution. But the electors refused to ratify it, although it could have been eliminated from the Constitution at any time by the self same electors. However, I am not so dissatisfied with the Bill now that I have the assurance of the Prime Minister that for a period of ten years it is certain the States will annually receive from the Commonwealth 25s. per capita.

Mr McWilliams:

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– The Prime Minister ought to know better than I do, but I still think the States would succeed on such an issue. I regret that the £450,000 is to be deducted from the States’ share of Customs and Excise revenue, and do not think that the Prime Minister has shown much generosity towards them. He tried to impress upon us how very generously he was dealing with the States, but his generosity certainly does not go to very great lengths. Rather does his treatment of them tend in the opposite direction. However, the principles of the Bill have been thoroughly threshed out, and the sooner we pass the second reading the better. I do, however, once more appeal to the Prime Minister to deal with the States, after a full consideration of their claims with as much generosity as he can afford to do.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- As this Bill is likely to pass and to remain on the statute-book in substantially its present form for a number of years, I desire to make a few remarks explanatory of my views and attitude concerning it. During the recent election I was one of the strongest supporters of the Financial Agreement, and did my best to secure its adoption. I am glad to say that in my constituency I was able to secure, not only a majority for myself, but also a majority for that mode of settlement. The Financial Agreement is now, however, athing of the past, and, as practical politicians and statesmen, we must make the best of the means and opportunities at our disposal. Subject to certain comments which I shall make upon the form of the Bill. I welcome it as the nearest obtainable equivalent to the ill-fated Financial Agreement. There are three elements in the Bill to which I desire to draw attention as being somewhat approximate to the fundamental provisions and principles of that scheme. First, there is the principle of the per capita allowance; secondly, there is the 25s. per capita amount; and, thirdly, there is the element not of constitutional stability, but of parliamentary continuity within the period of ten years. Those were, no doubt, the broad outlines and the organic principles of the Financial Agreement. The claim has been put forward this afternoon that the principle of the per capita allowance originated with the Labour party at the Brisbane Conference. That is not historically accurate. As a matter of fact, the principle of the per capita distribution of the surplus revenue was considered by the Federal Convention at its first session held in Adelaide. A proposal was put forward there that the surplus revenue should be distributed per capita among the peoples of the various States ; but objection was strongly taken to that principle by the representatives of some of the States, especially New South Wales. It was held by them that owing to the vast revenue that would be received under the Federal

Tariff, a per capita distribution would be hardly fair to New South Wales. Sir Frederick Holder, on behalf of South Australia, gave his approval to the per capita principle, and said that he believed it would prove to be fair. Sir George Reid, then Premier of New South Wales, said that he would agree to a sliding scale ending in a per capita system after ten years. So that those leading members of the Convention were advocates of the principle of a per capita distribution after a certain time - that is, after the expiration of what is known as the book-keeping period, which was limited to five years. This Parliament could have brought into operation the per capita principle at the end of the five-years’ period. But, unfortunately, parties were so distributed, and opinion was so divided, that we could not arrive at any settlement of the question. Then came the Financial Agreement arrived at by the representatives of the late Federal Government and the State Premiers. That agreement recognised the per capita principle for the first time in this Parliament. Consequently, it is hardly fair to say that the Labour party at the Brisbane Conference was the originator of this system. At any rate, I believe that we are now unanimously agreed as to the 25s. and as to the mode of distribution according to population. I welcome this Bill also, because I think it is a manifestation of a desire on the part of the Ministry and the Labour party to do some measure of justice to the States in the distribution of the surplus revenue. It is also, I consider, a refutation of some of the misrepresentations made, and objections urged, against the Financial Agreement during the last election. I believe that the agreement suffered defeat to a very large extent owing to misrepresentations, and to some extent also through misapprehensions and misunderstandings as to its possible results and its probable effect upon the finances of the Commonwealth. In some quarters, the very strongest objections were urged to the amount of 25s. per capita. It was said that that was too large. The honorable member for Lang has quoted to-day the strong argument that was pressed by the present Attorney- General in Sydney, to the effect that 25s. per capita would lead to the Commonwealth revenue being unduly strained and straitened. No doubt that argument went a long way. There were columns of articles in some of the newspapers urging that the payment of 25s. per capita would mean that the Commonwealth would be crippled, would be leg-roped, would be manacled, would be starved, and would be unable to carry out such national works as the transcontinental railway, the taking over of the Northern Territory, and the establishment of the Federal Capital. It was urged that we would be short of money for defence purposes. All these arguments no doubt told in the minds of a considerable number of Federal electors, who thought that the Commonwealth had better have the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, they refused to ratify the agreement. I should like to know what has become of the great outcry that was raised against the agreement based upon (the necessities of the Commonwealth? We do not hear it urged now in the House that 25s. per head is too much. It is not said now that we shall be short of money for the Northern Territory or the transcontinental railway or the Federal capital or for Defence purposes. There is a remarkable silence on that side of the House, as to the possible shortage of Federal funds. Apparently we are all going now merrily and strongly for the 25s. per head. We hear a murmur here and there that it is not sufficient; but very little is said now under the heading that 25s. per head is toomuch.

Mr West:

– You would not give us a land tax?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– At the very time that some members of the present Ministerial party were fighting the Financial Agreement tooth and nail in every part of the country, and saying that it must rob the Commonwealth, they also contemplated a land tax as a part of their policy. They further contemplated the revenue from the issue of bank notes as a part of their policy. It cannot be said that the Commonwealth can pay 25s. better now under the Labour policy than it could under the late Ministerial policy. Therefore, to some extent the Ministry are to be complimented on the promptness with which they have dealt with the question, and their desire to remove all doubts in the minds of the State Governments and State Parliaments. It is only fair that they should know at the earliest opportunity what are to be their financial rights under the new regime. It is said by the Prime Minister that this is practically a crystallization or re-enactment of the Financial. Agreement. His intention may be such, but I hardly agree as to the possible realization of that. Under the Financial

Agreement we proposed to shorten the period of the operation of the Braddon section by at least six months. That was an important feature of the agreement which cannot possibly be realized by this Bill. An attempt is made in the form of the Bill. I admit, to make it appear to the general public that the new arrangement will begin on and after 1st July of this year. I do not know how the Government propose to do that, except in the cutting down process of the last six months, as was suggested just now. I fail to see how the arrangement can possibly begin on1st July. It cannot possibly begin until1st January, 191 1, because the Braddon section is still in operation, and will automatically require the Treasurer to pay to the State Governments monthly their three-fourths share of the net Customs and Excise revenue. Therefore, I agree with those honorable members who have said that it would have been far more straightforward, consistent, and in harmony with the Constitution, had the Treasurer stated straight out, “ This is a ten years’ agreement, to come in force on1st January next.” That would not have prevented him from deducting the amount which he claims to deduct as representing the shortage or the deficiency for the past year. I agree with him that it is only fitting and proper that that deduction should be made at some time or other. That could have been made within a ten years’ period, beginning on1st January, without the Bill assuming its present form. As it is, the Treasurer will be in a difficulty. Under the Bill there will be two appropriations operating.’ First there will be the month’s appropriation of three-fourths of the net revenue from Customs and Excise from month to month under the Constitution, which goes on automatically and cannot be stopped. Secondly, it may be contended by some smart lawyers that in the Bill there is a second appropriation of 25s. per head, because it says -

The Commonwealth shall, during the period of ten years beginning on1st day of July, 1910, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, pay to each State by monthly instalments, or apply to the payment of interest on debts of the State taken over by the Commonwealth, an annual sum amounting to 25s. per head of the number of the people of the States.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The Surplus Revenue Act1908 is amended -

by omitting from paragraph (b) of section five the words “ (subject to section eighty-seven of the Constitution) “.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.- I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether during the next six months these moneys will be paid on the basis on which they have hitherto been paid under the Surplus Revenue Act, by monthly instalments, or whether they will be paid on a per capita basis ?

Mr Fisher:

– The per capita basis.

Mr GROOM:

– So that during the six months we make a change in law.

Mr Fisher:

– Yes.

Mr Fisher:

– One-fourth - yes.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am assuming that the Commonwealth retains the whole of that one-fourth.

Mr Fisher:

– It must pay over the remainder.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The section continues

The balance shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be paid to the several States or applied towards the payment of interest on debts of the several States taken over by the Commonwealth.

The Constitution does not say that the Commonwealth must pay to Queensland so much of that balance in proportion to its population. It does not declare that it must pay to Tasmania so much of that balance in proportion to its population. Neither does it affirm that the Commonwealth shall pay the amount monthly to Queensland or Tasmania. Consequently, the Treasurer must come to Parliament to obtain the necessary authority to pay its proportion of the balance to Queensland, and to prescribe the mode in which the payment shall be made. The difficulty which was suggested prior to the suspension of the sitting was supposed to be overcome by clause 6 of the Bill. But that provision has nothing whatever to do with this point. It reads -

In addition to the payments referred to in section four of this Act, the Treasurer shall pay to the several States, in proportion to the number of their people, all surplus revenue (if any) in his hands at the close of each financial year.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Is the honorable member speaking for the AttorneyGeneral ?

Mr HALL:

– If the honorable member will do- me the justice of listening to what I have to say, so far from suggesting that I am speaking for the Attorney-General, he will probably come to the conclusion that the Attorney-General does not agree with my contention. I understand that what we purpose doing is to try under this measure to reach the result which would have been reached under the Financial Agreement. We want to pay 25s. per head to the States from the ist July of this year, and we desire also to deduct a sum which it was estimated would amount to £600,000, but which it turns out now will amount to £450,000. I am concerned to know whether under this Bill we shall reach the result at which we are aiming, and I am bound to say that I think there is more in the criticism of the honorable member for Flinders than has been answered up to the present. Clause 4 of the Bill says that-

The Commonwealth shall, during the period of ten years beginning on the ist day of July, 1910, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides - pay to each State, by monthly instalments, the sum of 25s. per head per annum. I understand from that that we desire to make two deductions. We desire, first of all, to deduct an amount of £450,000, as set out in the schedule. We desire, in addition, to deduct for the first half of the financial year the difference between 25s. per head and three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is the intention.

Mr Chanter:

– That is to be deducted during the second six months of the year.

Mr HALL:

– Yes. I look at the part of clause 4, which governs the deductions, and I do not see where any provision to make that second deduction is to be found. The clause says -

Provided that in the year ending the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and eleven, the Commonwealth may deduct from the amount payable in pursuance of this section the amount set out in the schedule.

– I have read the Bill and I have also read the face of the Attorney-General during the discussion of the Bill. Seeing that this Parliament has the power to review and settle every provision in the Constitution affecting the relations between the States and the Commonwealth, we ought to make one settlement of the whole of them at one time, and that time is at the expiration of the Braddon section. Make what arrangements you like, no matter how easy or how hard they are on the States; but tide over the time between now and then, and when you get to that point solve the whole block of them - including section 94, which I have held all along ought not to be left there, and without which you would not want clause 6 of this Bill - by a commutation of the whole arrangement for the payment of 25s. per head for ten years. We shall then have something that he who runs may read; but at present we have before us a Bill on which there are almost as many opinions in this Committee as there are men.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I had “not the advantage of hearing the honorable member for Flinders, and am therefore in a little difficulty as to the precise point that was taken, but so far as I understand it it amounts to this, that the Bill abolishes the bookkeeping sections of the Constitution, but does not say how or in what proportion the three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue under the provision of section 87 is to be returned. If that be the point, then it is necessary to emphasize the distinction between section 87 of the Constitution which deals with the aggregate minimum to be returned, and sections 89. 93, and 94, which deal with its distribution. This Bill substitutes for those sections a per capita distribution. From the date of its passage there is a per capita distribution, which, until 31st December, 1910, is to be of not less than three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue, and thereafter during the currency of this measure not less than 25s. per capita per annum. As to whether it is advisable to legislate in advance of the expiration of the ten years’ period, or whether section 87 by the word “thereafter” purports to limit the right of this Parliament to legislate in advance, that, with all respect to other honorable members., is a matter-

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Nobody has questioned that right.

Mr HUGHES:

– Very good. My opinion, which I give with great diffidence, and with all respect to those who are much better able to speak with authority on these matters than

I am. is that we have the powers which we have claimed under this Bill, and further we have a right in any case to expect, from the only parties who are entitled to challenge us, the same amount of consideration as they were willing to give under the Financial Agreement. They will be not one penny piece the poorer for any legislation such as this. We cannot take from them one penny that is their due, and the whole question, as the Treasurer has frequently pointed out, is simply whether we should take it from there when we have a right to take it, after the first day of the coming year, or whether they should not, seeing that we and they are partners, do what is proper by making allowances for the position. The whole thing is simple, and I do not see why, in the circumstances, there should be any hesitation on their part or doubt on ours. As to our right to deal with the matter, and the manner in which the three-fourths is to be paid, it was laid down clearly by the Chief Justice in the judgment of the High Court on the Surplus Revenue Act, as reported on page 190 of volume VII. of the Commonwealth Law Reports, that for certain reasons given it is impossible to hold that the balances are to be finally struck as of the last day of every month. He went on to say that the plaintiffs rested their whole case on this contention, which, in his opinion, was untenable, and added -

But the real foundation of the claims of the States is, I think (although disavowed by the plaintiffs’ counsel), a notion that the “ financial year” is part of the order of nature as regards government finance, so that the surplus must be finally ascertained and distributed at intervals not longer than a year.

– It need not be so. If the States stand honorably to the propositions which they have put before the country it ought not to be so. They ought to pass Bills through their Parliaments authorizing the Commonwealth Parliament to make use of the whole amount of the Federal revenue, subject to the return to the States of 25s. per capita. But if they do not adopt that course, the result will be the same, because I believe that this Parliament will authorize the Government to give legal effect to the will of the people. That is all that I wish to say upon the matter. _ Its legal aspect I leave others to deal with. I have never made any statement different from that which I have just made, as reference to Hansard will show. The monthly balances will be adjusted as nearly as it is possible to adjust them in relation to the different States.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The explanation which the Treasurer has just made is a little more difficult tq understand than is the Bill itself. With whatever may have passed between the Treasurer and the honorable member for Werriwa, I am not concerned, but certainly the remarks of the Treasurer have made clear the position which he took up in moving the second reading of the Bill. In reply to an Interjection by the honorable member for South Sydney, the honorable gentleman - as will be seen by reference to. Hansard, page 415 - said -

I should be more stupid than I look if I thought that we could pay less than threequarters of the net Customs and Excise revenue to the States during the first six months of the current financial year. I am under no such hallucination. But, at the same time, it is, I presume, a right thing for this Parliament to pay that amount during the first half of the financial year, and then during the second half arrange the payments in such a way as to enable the net 25s. per capita to have been paid to the States during the whole of the financial year.

Mr Fisher:

– That isvery clear.

Mr.W. H. IRVINE.- I should like to proceed with my exposition of the difficulty which confronts the Government, at the point at which the Treasurer Began his personal explanation. In the quotation which I have just made, he clearly stated the intention of the Government. With the. merits of that intention I have nothing to do. But under this Bill he will be required to return to the States, during the first half of the current financial year, 25s. per capita plus the difference between that amount and three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue. During the second half of the financial year his intention is to deduct from the monthly contributions to the States the amount necessary to bring down the total average payments during the year to 25s. per head.

Sir John Forrest:

– That is what he previously said he would not do, but what he now says he will do.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No. To do justice to the Treasurer I have always understood him to put the position as I have just stated it. But it is a position to which this Bill will not give effect, and for the reasons which I have stated. I ask the Attorney- General for an answer to my contention. The Bill can very easily be made to give effect to the desire of the Committee. I am not going to cavil at language if it clearly expresses the intention of the Government. The only other point which I raised when I previously addressed the Committee was that under this Bill we shall entirely wipe out the provision relating to the distribution as between the States, of the three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue. We shall wipe out the whole machinery of the Constitution and also that which has been substituted for it.

Mr Hall:

– We propose to substitute a per capita distribution for that machinery.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is precisely what the Bill does not do. The per capita distribution applies only to the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth, and if there is one thing which the AttorneyGeneral has made clear, it is that the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth does not include the three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue which is payable to the States. Therefore, the provisions relating to the distribution of the surplus revenue do not touch the particular subject with which I am dealing, namely, the difference between the 25s. per capita and the three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue. The Bill deals with a contribution of 25s. per capita, which is only a portion of that revenue. The remainder is left unprovided for. Neither the Constitution nor the Surplus Revenue Act, which this Bill will to some extent repeal, nor the Bill itself, makes any provision as to how the Commonwealth shall pay that difference, or in what proportions it shall be paid to the several States. The Government require parliamentary directions in this matter - why not take them? Why not frame the Bill in such a way as to make it give specific directions? The Committee have a right to have these legal difficulties removed, apart altogether from questions of policy. It is true that questions of policy have been introduced into this debate by some honorable members, but by none more than by the Prime Minister himself. I put to the AttorneyGeneral the two points which I have raised, and which seem to me to require explanation. Another point has been put by the honorable member for Bendigo which did not occur to me, but which seems to carry equal weight with the points which I have raised. The Constitution provides the mode in which the apportionment to the States of their share of the Customs and Excise revenue shall be determined. It sets revenue against expenditure, and under the Surplus Revenue Act that disposition has been continued with slight modifications. But under this Bill it is proposed to wipe out that Act. . If the Government are attempting to federalize our revenue, they are making no provision for the other side of the account, by which to arrive at the amounts which will be payable to the States. Without unduly pressing Ministers upon the matter, I think that we are entitled to have these points made clear.

Mr HUGHES:
AttorneyGeneral · West Sydney · ALP

– I wish that I were able to see the many exceedingly subtle points which the honorable member for Flinders has raised, as clearly as he himself sees them, and as clearly as I feel sure a number of honorable members opposite are endeavouring to see them, although I venture to say they are not meeting with that degree of success which might be expected of them. In my opinion, there is no difficulty and no inconsistency in this, Bill. There is nothing contradictory in clause 4. Two points require emphasis. The Bill cannot affect the provisions of section 87 of the Constitution before 31st December next. The three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue must be returned by the Commonwealth to the States until 31st December of the present year. Twenty-five shillingsper capita per annum must be paid to the States as from the1st of July, 1 910. Now clause 4 provides for both of these things being done. It says -

The Commonwealth shall, during the period of ten years beginning on the1st day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, pay to each State by monthly instalments, or apply to the payment of interest on debts of the State taken over by the Commonwealth, an annual sum amounting to Twenty-five shillings per head of the number of the people of the State.

Very well ; since this Bill is to take effect as from the1st day of July, 1 9 10, the Commonwealth cannot pay at the rate of the 253., if that is less than the three-fourths of net Customs and Excise revenue, until after the 31st day of December, 1910. Section 87 of the Constitution prohibits that, and clause 4 of the Bill is not inconsistent with the Constitution. But, after 31st December, it can pay at the rate of 25s. per annum. Now, since the arrangement starts on the1st of July, 1910, all the Commonwealth has to do to comply with section 87 of the Constitution and clause 4 of this Bill is to pay 25s. per capita in the year that starts on the1st July, 1910, and ends on the 30th June, 191 1. And there is nothing in clause 4 that regulates the amounts to be paid each month or during each six-monthly period. The Bill thus complies with section 87 of the Constitution, and also with the condition to pay the 25s. per head. The 25s. has to be paid during the year, and as from the 1st July, 1910. It is perfectly clear that if you pay 18s. out of 25s. before the expiration of this year, you will only owe 7s. during the six months of the year which starts on the1st day of January, 191 1. Clearly, then, this Bill does not violate the Constitution, nor attempt to take from the States anything to which they are entitled. If I agree to pay a man 25s. in a fortnight, and I am also bound by a prior agreement to pay him £1 in the first week of the fortnight, the second agreement does not necessarily conflict with the first at all. I pay him the pound when it is due.

Mr Deakin:

– Why not put that plainly, instead of pretending to pay him the 25s. ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I am asked why not state the intention plainly. I contend that it does so. When I contrast the ideal clarity of the terms of this clause with some sections of Acts of Parliament, I stand amazed and reproved at having invaded that special preserve which affords the members of our profession such opportunities of profitably doing that which some honorable members have been doing gratuitously this afternoon. There is absolutely nothing in this clause inconsistent either with the Constitution or with the intention of the Bill. That is to say, we can pay the 25s., and we can pay the threefourths. And we need not pay to any State which, as the Prime Minister puts it, demands its pound of flesh, a penny more than it ought to get. Each State will get just what it is entitled to, neither more nor less. The States cannot complain. They have no right to complain. Those rights which were given to them under section 87 of the Constitution remain unimpaired. When they contended that they had a right to monthly balances, the High Court held that they had no such right. Mr. Justice Barton, in delivering judgment, said -

The construction contended for is plainly unreasonable. It would mean that in some months, when receipts fell below Federal disbursements, the Federal Treasury would have a debit balance, and therefore could not give the States anything with which to meet their needs. On the other hand, when the Treasurer found that he had received in a month a vast sum more than he had actually paid out for the purposes of the Commonwealth, he would have to pay the whole excess over to the States at once, knowing, perhaps that there were millions to be met the next month and, ex hypothesi, a depleted treasury to meet them.

.- One part of the reply of the Attorney- General struck me as particularly valuable to the Committee at the present juncture. The honorable member referred to the fact that the instalments could, under this Bill, be paid in unequal amounts during the course of the year, to any States, provided the States received the full amount of 25s. per capita in the year. How is that going to affect the finances of Australia and the general Government agencies that are absolutely essential to the wellbeing of the people, whether those agencies be operated by this Parliament or the Parliaments of the States? Almost as important as getting the money to any governing body that wishes to remain solvent, is getting it in even proportions and amounts, so that they may know what they have to expect. What is going to happen in the future with regard to the Bill should be pointed out now, because it seems to show the necessity for more definite and clear machinery than the Bill embodies. If in the latter half of this financial year we may give the States something less than 2s. 6d. per head in order to make up for the excess they have received in the first six months, equally properly - if that is proper - we could, in the next nine years, give any State the same amount in the first month, practically nothing the next, more the third, and so forth, right through the year. If the amounts are going to be paid unequally for the next nine or ten years, a very serious state of affairs will be brought about by the Bill. If the instalments are not to be regular equal instalments, it will be within the power of any party which may happen to be in control of the Federation to bring to its knees any particular State Government with which they happen to be in disagreement.

Mr West:

– The honorable member has an unequally balanced mind to make a statement like that !

Mr KELLY:

Mr ATKINSON:
Wilmot

.- The statement of the honorable member for Adelaide may be quite correct, that he stated on the platform in South Australia that the agreement that” he and his party were prepared to make should start from the ist July last. But I am afraid that all that he said to his constituents will not help us very much if this matter comes before the High Court and it is contended that we are contravening the Constitution by an attempt to get round It.

Mr Chanter:

– If we pay three-fourths to the States, do we not comply with the Constitution ?

Mr ATKINSON:

– If we pay threefourths to the States until the end of this year, and then deduct from them so much that we do riot really pay them more than 25s. per head for the’ twelve months running from the 1st July last to the 30th June next, we may be contravening the Constitution by endeavouring to do indirectly something which we could not do directly. The High Court may say, “ You shall not do by indirect means what you cannot do directly.” Then, again, if the monthly instalments are not to be equal, the whole field is left very wide. We are going to pay to the States a’ fixed amount. That amount is known beforehand, because it is to be based upon the census to be taken on the 31st December next. If that arrangement does not bind us to equal monthly instalments, I should like to know what it does mean. This is a serious matter. It is not a party affair. We are trying to pass a Bill which should do credit to Parliament. If we are overruled by the High Court, we shall place the Commonwealth in a worse position than it would otherwise occupy. It would’ suit the States to have our legislation overruled, because, until we could pass another Act of Parliament, they would be entitled to the continuance, under the Braddon section, of payments which would be more than we are prepared to make to them.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– There is a great difference between the proposal of the Bill which was submitted to the people at the referendum and that to which we are now asked to agree. The Premiers representing the States made concessions in order that the Financial Agreement might be embodied in the Constitution. The clause under consideration proposes to repeal certain legislation passed by Parliament to effect the distribution of revenue to the States. The Government propose to pay 25s. per head per annum. The point has been raised that they have not provided the machinery to deal with the apportionment of the revenue hereafter. The honorable member for Adelaide says that the opposition is based on political motives. It is not so in my case, because I am prepared to approve any reasonable arrangement to settle the difficulty. I state at once that the1 proposal of the Government is a reasonable one ; not perhaps so reasonable as I should have hoped to get, but that is another matter. Are the Government satisfied that the provisions of the Bill will give effect to their intention? The arguments to the contrary have been clearly put from this side. With all due deference to the Attorney-General, whose ability in dealing with general questions is well known, I hold that he has not given any clear answer to satisfy the Committee that the Government are even carrying out their own intention. After the second reading of a Bill has been affirmed, our duty is to make its provisions as perfect as possible. Now the question is, will this clause carry out the intention of the Government. Certain discrepancies have been pointed out by legal members on this side, and the AttorneyGeneral has been asked to specifically answer their objections. He has risen and made a declamatory address, hut he has not answered them in any’ sense. 1 for one now wash my hands of all responsibility, which of course the Government must take. I have been in no way actuated by party hostility to them. I desire to see this question settled, and, even though the Government’s proposal may not be what I should like altogether, still I am prepared to accept it. But I am unable to see that the provisions in die Bill will carry out definitely, without fear of controversy in the High Court, their intention.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 545

EXCISE (SUGAR) BILL

In Committee of Ways and Means: “Motion (by Mr. Tudor) proposed-

That section two of the Excise Tariff i§o; he amended by omitting therefrom the following proviso

Provided further that the doty of Excise payable on sugar produced from cane delivered for manufacture in the years One thousand nine hundred and eleven and One thousand nine hundred and twelve shall be respectively two-thirds and onethird of the aforesaid rate.”

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– It will be remembered that on a previous occasion the members of this House were called upon to consider a Sugar Excise Bill and a Sugar Bounty Bill. Very great difficulty was then experienced, because it was not possible to discuss one Bill without referring to the other - the two measures were inseparably connected. If a general discussion could take place- on this motion, it could cover the whole ground of the two Bills and thus save time. I suggest that at this stage progress might be reported, and that on another occasion the Minister should place the whole question fully before the Committee so that a general debate could take place on his statement.

Mr FISHER:
Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– * would remind the honorable member for North Sydney that the Bill is not yet introduced. I shall be very glad to co-operate with him in securing an opportunity, if possible, to get the two measures discussed at the same time. We are only now asking leave to’ bring in a Bill.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– -We want to avoid two discussions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and adopted.

Ordered–’

That Mr. Tudor and Mr. Hughes do prepare and bring in a Bil! to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Tl-dcs, arid read a first time. .

House adjourned it 16.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 July 1910, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1910/19100719_reps_4_55/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives19 July 1910

RICHMOND RAILWAY ACCIDENT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FISHER:Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Sir JOHN FORREST:Swan

QUESTION

ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE MINISTRY

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BATCHELOR:Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

EXPORT DUTY ON HIDES

Mr GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

JOHNSON-JEFFRIES FIGHT

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:ALP

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Mr PALMER:ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

MINISTRY AND LABOUR COUNCIL

Mr PALMER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr PALMER:

Mr FISHER:ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF ACCOUNTS

Mr G B EDWARDS:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

UNIFORM CONDITIONS OF MANUFACTURE

Sir JOHN FORREST:

Mr FISHER:ALP

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH : PORT DAVEY

Mr ATKINSON:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr THOMAS:Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENTOVERTIME

Mr JOHN THOMSON:

Mr HUGHES:Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

APPEALS FROM COURTS MARTIAL

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr FISHER:ALP

NEW ZEALAND TELEPHONE RATES

Mr THOMAS:ALP

QUESTION

SALARIES : SEMI-OFFICIAL AND NON-OFFICIAL POST-OFFICES

Mr THOMAS:ALP

QUESTION

OFFICES : SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Mr CANN:NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

ELECTORAL ACT

Applications for Enrolment

Mr SINCLAIR:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr KING O’MALLEY:ALP

SURPLUS REVENUE BILL

Second Reading

Mr MCWILLIAMS:Franklin

Mr Chanter:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr Joseph Cook:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr Chanter:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr McWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

Mr Roberts:

Mr MCWILLIAMS:

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Batchelor:

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Batchelor:

House of Representatives
19 July 1910

Mr FISHER:
Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister for External Affairs · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr ATKINSON:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr THOMAS:
Postmaster-General · BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

Mr FISHER:
ALP

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

Mr THOMAS:
ALP

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr SINCLAIR:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr G B EDWARDS:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917