House of Representatives
23 November 1910

4th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6579

QUESTION

INVALID PENSIONS

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Is the Acting Treasurer in a position to say what arrangements have been, or will be, made for the hearing of applications for invalid pensions in country districts such as Bendigo, Ballarat, Kalgoorlie, Bathurst, and Newcastle? I understand that special arrangements have been made for the metropolitan districts.

Mr FRAZER:
Minister (without portfolio) · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– So far as possible, the organization now in existence for the hearing of old-age pension cases will be used for applications for invalid pensions, and for applications from those desiring oldage pensions under the new conditions. Should the number of applications necessitate additional arrangements, the matter will be immediately attended to

page 6579

REFERENDA

Mr PALMER:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– I wish to know from the Minister of Home Affairs whether, in the taking of the referenda next year, the rolls used at the last election will be used, and whether supplementary rolls will also be used.

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

– Yes.

page 6579

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Destruction of Trees - Wireless Telegraphy - Provision of Post Boxes, Thirroul - Peak Hill Postmaster - Sorter’s : Sydney and Melbourne - Postal Commission’s Report and Public Service Commissioner

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– On Monday last a paragraph was published in the South Australian newspapers, stating that a meeting was to be held at Hahndorf to protest against what was alleged to be the wilful destruction of trees there in connexion with the erection of telegraph lines. Will the PostmasterGeneral look into the matter, and prevent unnecessary interference with ornamental trees?

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

– I have not seen the paragraph, but I shall have inquiry made into the matter.

Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the PostmasterGeneral any further information regarding the arrangements with theWireless Telegraph Company ?

Mr THOMAS:

– I have received the following letter from the company -

Referring to your conversation with our chairman of directors through the telephone this day, and to the request made by you for certain information in regard to the materials and apparatus in connexion with the erection of the Pennant Hills Station, we beg to reply as follows : -

Part of the apparatus has already been constructed at our factory, at 16 Underwood-street, Sydney.

Part of the material is in stock, and will be purchased locally during the erection.

Part of the apparatus, and the whole receiving plant has already been shipped, and will arrive in Sydney before the middle of December next.

Part of the apparatus has been constructed in Europe, and will be shipped during this month.

All the rest of the apparatus and materials in connexion with the station (including the mast, engine, and generator), was ordered by cable, on the 10th October last, and will arrive in Sydney in February next.

You will see from the above that no time has been lost by us in carrying out our contract in connexion with the erection of the Pennant Hills Station.

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Postmaster-General whether the contract has yet been signed?

Mr THOMAS:

– It has not been signed.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Has the Minister taken the advice of the Crown Solicitor regarding the Government’s position respecting the Wireless Telegraph Company’s contract? If so, does he intend to carry out the contract which has not been signed ?

Mr THOMAS:

– The Department is taking the advice of the Crown Solicitor at every step.

Mr WEST:

– Is it not a fact that the necessary guarantee bonds in reference to the contract for the erection of wireless telegraph stations have been furnished?

Mr THOMAS:

– Yes.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the PostmasterGeneral willing to inform the House as to the reason why the contract has not been signed?

Mr THOMAS:

– Two or three days ago, the adjournment of the House was moved to discuss this matter, and a very long explanation was given. If the company is not what it ought to be, that is a heritage from the last Government.

Sir John Forrest:

– I want to know why the contract has not been signed during the last few months ?

Mr THOMAS:

– The reason why it has not been signed has been on account of the difficulty of fixing upon sites. As regards Sydney, we have arrived at a satisfactory conclusion as to site, price, and everything else. The trouble now is with regard to Fremantle, where we suggested a certain site. The company turned that site down, and suggested the site on which it desires to put up its plant. Acting on the advice of Admiral Henderson, we turned down that site, and suggested a site on which we expect the company to build the station. The company was communicated with on Saturday last, and I think that a meeting was held on Monday or Tuesday to deal with our suggestion, but we have not yet had a reply. As soon as a site is fixed upon, of course, the contract will be signed.

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yesterday, I received a letter from the Department of the PostmasterGeneral pointing out that, after inspection, his officers recommended that the postal requirements of Thirroul would be met by the erection of two post-boxes at the expense of the public there. Is it the policy of the Department to grant only such postal facilities as the people are prepared to pay for ?

Mr THOMAS:

– I shall be glad if the honorable member will see me about the matter, or give notice of his question.

Mr Fuller:

– I shall send back the letter to the Minister.

Mr THOMAS:

– On the 27th October, the honorable member for Lang asked whether the late postmaster at Peak Hil! had complained of overwork and applied for, and been refused, assistance. He also asked whether there is a considerable overworking in various ranks of the service at the General Post Office, Sydney. To these questions, the Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has furnished the following replies : - ‘

  1. There is no instance where a postmaster in New South Wales has complained of overwork and applied for, and been refused, assistance. 2.. There is a considerable amount of overtime being worked in the General Post Office in the Accounts and Telephone Branches owing to the want of space to allow additional officers to be employed, and the inconvenience caused by the alterations to the building now in progress. Every possible inquiry is being made by an officer, specially deputed for the purpose, with a view to securing additional accommodation in order that temporary assistance may be engaged, and so relieve the strain on the permanent officers required to work overtime. Extreme difficulty has been experienced in obtaining oilers of accommodation of any description.
Mr HEDGES:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In view of the fact that a 3,000-mile wireless telegraphy station is being built at Washington (the Federal Capital of the United States of America), which is to have a tower 600 feet high, and about 60 feet diameter at base and about 10 feet diameter at top, built of reinforced concrete, will the Minister make provision for the chief wireless station. of the Commonwealth to be built at the new Capital Site?

Mr THOMAS:

-The question of establishing a wireless telegraphy station at the Federal Capital will be shortly considered.

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

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice-

  1. Is it a fact that sorters in the General Post Office, Sydney, are compelled to work much longer hours than in the General Post Office, Melbourne, with less facilities and shorter time allowed for meal hours?
  2. If so, will he take steps to bring about uniformity ?
Mr THOMAS:

– I am obtaining the information, and shall be glad if it is asked for on Friday morning.

Mr WATKINS:
for Mr. Webster

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. ’ Whether the Public Service Commissioner has authorized a sectional committee to report on the condition of the staff throughout the principal towns of the Commonwealth, with a view to rebutting the recommendations of the Postal Commission ?
  2. Has such committee furnished a report?
  3. If so, will the Postmaster-General lay such report on the table of the House at an early date?
  4. Is it a fact that such report is to furnish the necessary guidance to the Deputy PostmastersGeneral at the proposed conference with the Postmaster-General to consider the Commission’s report?
Mr THOMAS:

– The following replies have been received from the Public Service Commissioner : -

  1. No. 2, 3, and 4. See answer to No. 1.

page 6580

SUGAR COMMISSION

Mr ARCHIBALD:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire, during the recess, into the condition of the sugar industry.

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

– So far as the information at hand goes, it is not considered desirable that that should be done, but a Cabinet meeting is to be held at an early date, possibly to-day, to consider finally the representations made on the subject, and when its decision has been arrived at, information regarding our intention will be conveyed to the House.

page 6581

QUESTION

PRESS CABLE SERVICE

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

– Is the

Minister of External Affairs yet in a position to reply to certain questions which I asked yesterday in reference to the subsidy paid to the Independent Press Cable service ?

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

– No.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When may we expect the information asked for by the honorable member for Lang? We desire to know what newspapers are benefiting by this new service.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The subsidy is not granted to newspapers, but, on compliance with certain conditions, to a company which transmits news by cable. We do not know anything about the newspapers which take that news.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is not that more or less a quibble?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– No.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Will the Minister say whether we may expect information on the subject beforeParliament prorogues ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Information has to be obtained from Sydney, and I am writing for it, as I told the honorable member for Bendigo last night I would do. I do not know whether it will be available before Parliament is prorogued.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Cannot it be telegraphed or telephoned for? Is the Minister aware that nearly the whole of the daily newpapers in Australia, against which the subsidy was arranged, are partaking of its benefits? Is he aware that the subsidy is, in practice, more or less a subsidy to the great dailies ? Is he further aware that only about three other fresh newspapers are interested in the service?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not asking a question when he merely prefaces a statement with the words “ Is he aware.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am doing what every other honorable member does every day.

Mr SPEAKER:

– When I notice it, I shall draw attention to the matter.

Mr.JOSEPH COOK. - I ask the Minister if it is true that thiskind of thing is going on. I have brought certain facts under his notice, and I ask him if he is aware of them.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– If the honorable member asks me whether the statements which he has put forward are true, I say that they are not. If he asks me whether I am aware that things are as he says, I say that I know that they are not.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Has the Minister taken any steps to inform himself as to whether any cablegrams are being sent to Australia in addition to those which are contained in the ordinary newspapers?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Yes. I think that this is the question on which the honorable member for Bendigo stated last night that he wanted some information. I have asked for that information to be obtained.

page 6581

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL PROCLAMATION

Mr FULLER:

– After the recent visit of the Premier of New South Wales and some of his colleagues to Melbourne it was stated in the Sydney press that they had received an indefinite promise from the Acting Prime Minister that the proclamation in connexion with the taking over of the Federal Capital site by the Commonwealth would issue before the end of this month. Can the honorable gentleman say on what date it is proposed to issue that proclamation ?

Mr HUGHES:
ALP

– I have not had time recently to look into the matter, but, so far as I know, no action remains to be taken except such as is purely formal. I stated last Friday that the proclamation would be issued at the earliest possible moment, that is, in the course of a few days.

Mr WEST:

– I wish to ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether it is not a fact that the Premier of New South Wales has furnished the Commonwealth Government with every facility to settle the question of the Yass-Canberra site?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The Government of New South Wales is doing everything that is possible to help the Commonwealth to advance.

Mr Fuller:

– The late Government did it, too.

page 6581

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Manoeuvre Area, Liverpool

Mr CANN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I observe that the Federal

Government has resumed land for defence purposes in Tasmania land Queensland, the latter case comprising some hundreds of acres. I should like the Minister of

Home Affairs to state if the same procedure can be applied to the Liverpool manoeuvre area as was applied in those cases.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
ALP

– The Liverpool manoeuvre area is now under the consideration of the Government of New South Wales.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– And has been for the last twelve months.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Much longer.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is time that it was finished.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– As soon as the matter can be properly arranged, there is no doubt that under the auspices or the aegis of the grand Democratic Government of New South Wales everything will be fixed up to meet the wish of my honorable friend.

Mr FULLER:

– From the answer just given by the Minister it would appear that the cause of delay in connexion with the manoeuvre area at Liverpool rests with the New South Wales Government. The late Government of that State did everything to bring about a settlement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order. The honorable member is transgressing the rule.

Mr FULLER:

– I wished to preface my question, sir. Will the Minister urge the present Government of New South Wales to have this matter settled as speedily as possible,so that the landholders in the area may know without delay the position in which they stand?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– As soon as this session closes, I am going up to see about the matter.

Mr Fuller:

– This is only humbugging the thing. Why does not the Minister get it done?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Why did not the honorable member do it?

Mr Fuller:

– I brought the matter almost to completion. This is only humbugging the business.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Is it not extraordinary to hear honorable members who were in office for years talking to me in this way ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order.

Mr Fuller:

– I was not there a year.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Since the1st July we have spent most of our time in this chamber, but as soon as I can go and talk to the Government of New South Wales we will probably fix up this business in twenty minutes, and so do away with the red-tape of communication.

page 6582

QUESTION

HIGH COMMISSIONER

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I desire to ask the Minister of External Affairs whether it is true, as reported, that the Government intend to add . £1,000 or £2,000 to the allowance which is provided for the High Commissioner in the Act?

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

– The report has not yet reached me. I have not heard of it.

page 6582

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Did the Minister of

External Affairs notice in yesterday’s newspapers a paragraph intimating that the High Commissioner had selected a site for Commonwealth offices in London? I desire to know whether or not that selection is final ?

Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

– I understood the paragraph to state that the High Commissioner had recommended a site. It is true that he has recommended one of a number of sites which were submitted. Of course, as I have stated before, no selection will be made except by the House.

page 6582

QUESTION

AUDIT OFFICERS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

With respect to his refusal to pay overtime to the Audit officers, will he say why officers in other Departments are paid overtime while those in the Audit Department are not so paid?

Mr FRAZER:
ALP

– Overtime is granted only in cases where time in lieu cannot be arranged for. In this case arrangements can be made for allowing the officers time in lieu.

page 6582

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister state what is the nature of the item “New Hebrides,£750 “ (see Estimates, 1910-11, page 18)?
  2. What are the names of the persons who received refund of duty during 1909-10?
  3. Is the maize or other product of the New Hebrides on which duty is refunded grown entirely by white labour?
Mr BATCHELOR:
ALP

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

  1. The item is similar to one which has appeared on the Estimates for several years past. Its purpose is to assist British settlers in the New Hebrides by making them a grant to the extent of half the duty paid on maize imported into the Commonwealth, and to the amount of £4 per ton on coffee. Beforepayment is made a certificate is received from the British Resident Commissioner that the articles have been grown by British settlers.
  2. A return will be prepared giving the in formation desired.
  3. Nothing is known on this point.

page 6583

QUESTION

ANALYTICAL DEPARTMENT

Mr FENTON:

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. How do the rates of pay of the central staff of the Federal Analytical Department in Melbourne compare with the salaries paid for like work to the Sydney staff of the same Department?
  2. How do the rates of pay of the central staff of the Federal Analytical Department in Melbourne compare with salaries paid in the Analytical Departments of the various States, except Victoria and New South Wales?
Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Every effort will be made to make the information desired available by to-morrow.

page 6583

QUESTION

BUDGET: ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from 7th September, vide page 2690), on motion by Mr. Fisher -

The Parliament

That the item “ The President,£1,100,” be agreed to.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- I feel entitled to claim some credit over my colleagues, because, by considerable labour spent in what might be termed prehisroric research, I have satisfied myself by a perusal of the original document that there was a Budget speech delivered in a remote era of this session. So long an interval elapsed that the memory of man was not sufficient to satisfy us of the fact, except after an examination of what purports to be a faithful report of the speech delivered here in September last.

Mr Batchelor:

– Do we still speak the same language?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes, it is not the language that is strange. There never has been such a Budget - I doubt if there ever will be such a Budget again. That is owing to a very remarkable combination of circumstances. It is also like no other Budget, inasmuch as we have, evidently by the exercise of the prophetic faculty in excelsis, the production of a balance for next June in which the receipts balance the expenditure to the last penny.

Mr Hall:

– What more does the honorable member want?

Mr Archibald:

– That is original.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The finances of Australia, for some twelve months to come, are there summed up precisely, and the result stated in plain figures : - Revenue, £16,841,629; expenditure, . £16,841,629. Not one penny-piece is to be left in the coffers of the Commonwealth when the Treasurer completes his first twelve months’ experience. That, in itself, is a remarkable result, on which, seven months hence, we may be able to congratulate ourselves. It must have been a complex calculation, but it has been prophetically foretold with a simplicity which is absolutely charming.

Then again there never has been a Budget delivered in such circumstances. Never before has a Treasurer of the Commonwealth been so absolutely free from all possible causes of apprehension as to the reception of his Budget. It came to the Opposition with some surprises; it came to my honorable friends opposite, to a majority in both Houses, without any shock, even of mild surprise. There was in that one feature another innovation worthy of note.

Nor do I think that any Budget has ever been announced, certainly not in the Commonwealth, or, so far as I remember, in any State, under such favorable circumstances. The conclusion, of a constitutional obligation, which has hitherto occasioned immense anxiety to every Federal Treasurer, enabled the present Treasurer to lay before the House such a financial harvest as. had never been reaped by any predecessor. Finally, and above all, the bounty of nature, generous for several years, has been more lavish than ever. There never was such a Budget; there never will be

In one sense, this miraculous Budget falls far short of most of its predecessors, even making allowance for the special circumstances of the case. While the balancesheet is a political and financial curiosity, an examination of the Treasurer’s exposition of it discloses a mere recapitulation of the heads of the policy of the Government, related in each case, if at all, in only the loosest way to their actual financial bearings. The recital of details was, in order, usual and necessary. Never do I remember having heard a policy propounded in many respects so remote from, and in some respects untouched by, its financial setting. In point of fact, reading the Budget speech again with a comparatively fresh mind, it appears as if it had been intended as a serial ; this was the first number, but owing to causes over which we, at least, have no control, the succeeding numbers, that were to have brought it up to date financially, will not be forthcoming until next June. Never has any Budget been treated in this fashion. We have repeatedly listened to those of my honorable friends opposite who were in previous Parliaments demanding the early consideration of the Estimates, and dwelling upon the financial control of the Parliament, as exercised by- the criticism of the Estimates, as the very palladium of liberty. Although our proposals formerly meant a postponement of the Budget debate for a week or two, at the outset of the session, in order that other measures might be fairly launched, we have been goaded and gibed at by those honorable members because of that trifling and necessary suspense.

Mr West:

– Time makes changes.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If one had only been gifted then with the faculty of prophecy as discovered by the Cabinet in that eminent balance-sheet, and one could have prophesied the manner in which this Budget would be dealt with in this House when a Government of their own, with a majority of its own, was in power, all of us can imagine the shouts of repudiation and derision that would have arisen from the gallant band then insisting on the immediate consideration of the Estimates. . Do not let me, even by imputation, convey a mistaken idea. The same demand for the Estimates early has been followed by the Opposition here, and in every State Parliament, no matter what party happened to be in power. The Labour party having been in Opposition for the bulk of the ten years of the life of this Parliament, have consequently played this part.

Mr Fenton:

– They were the strongest supporters the honorable member ever had.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Excellent supporters, but the withdrawals of their support were always untimely. If the honorable member had sat in previous Commonwealth Parliaments, he would know that a number of his party always sat in Opposition, and that a certain number always acted in Opposition. I am not, however, complaining. Every Opposition takes up this stand, and does so properly. But every Ministry has hitherto recognised, and properly recognised, the force of that argument.

We have this session ari entirely new precedent, certainly new to the Commonwealth Parliament, as well as in the Victorian Par liament for twenty years before the establishment of Federation. We have been told, with perfect truth, on innumerable occasions, that Parliament derives the whole of its authority from the power of the purse ; that this power can be exercised only by a vigilant scrutiny of the Estimates of expenditure, and a rigid examination of every proposal to increase the revenue of the country out of the pockets of the taxpayers. By the fulfilment of these allied duties, Parliament raises itself to its highest position constitutionally, asserting itself as representative of the people in the control of the government of the country. When we go back to the electors at the close of this session what can we say for our use of the power of the purse? What plea can we submit for our authority as a Parliament, in view of the fact that this Budget was not delivered until September, and never debated until within a day or two of the prorogation ? What scrutiny is possible of the Estimates either of revenue or expenditure? What examination of the position of the Commonwealth in relation to either its past or future finances can be effectively accomplished between now and Friday night, when we are to receive a parting blessing? This House has parted with the power of the purse, or rather, so far as the Opposition are concerned, it has been taken from us. We have not been allowed to exercise it, but I shall not essay at this late hour to attempt to discharge the unfulfilled financial obligations that have rested upon us ever since September. They ought to have been so far achieved by this time as to leave nothing to be done, save to sum up in conclusion.

But then this Budget is not a key to the policy of the Government. It is a catalogue. It is not the financial axis on which the business of the country is to revolve. It treats the situation as if by some happy accident all the necessities for financial adjustment and exposition were removed. I have already emphasized the fact that we are faced by an entirely unprecedent position of affairs, and certainly nin not bearing with undue severity upon the Budget, having already alluded to the sudden and golden transformation of our financial position. I have made full allowance for that, and shall throughout. But even apart from that, apparently intoxicated by the outlook, Ministers, except in the departmental figures and the extraordinary balance-sheet, have not provided us with more than an inkling of what their real financial position. or policy is, nor how they propose to give effect to their several projects.

In these novel circumstances, one did not expect this year a repetition of previous Budgets. Every Budget with which I have been associatedin this House has been one of parings and savings - indeed, of cheeseparings, economies, and postponements for the want of necessary funds. Every Budget was marked by a keen struggle, prolonged through several years, to resist what we regarded as encroachments on the part of certain State Governments, and at the same time by an endeavour to be perfectly just to the requirements of Australia, and, so far as we legitimately could, to give assistance to the local Governments whenever they could make out a good appeal. In good years or in bad, there was never submitted to this Parliament a Budget that did not contain upon its face marks of a strenuous examination of every source of revenue, and of a prolonged scrutiny of the expenditure necessary before making choices - and painful and difficult choices they were - between a number of reasonable demands upon our Treasury that we found ourselves from time to time unable to meet. A number of them in good years we have been able to fulfil by means of supplementary Estimates. Still, every Budget represented a struggle, represented privations and severe economies; every new expenditure was most zealously and jealously studied. All these anxieties have vanished now as if by the touch of a magician’s wand.

Mr Archibald:

– What was the cause of the cheeseparing?

Mr DEAKIN:

– There were a number of causes. There were always far more demands on the Australian Parliament than the Australian revenue could then meet. That is the case in every State.

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

– Was it not that strong pressure was brought to bear upon the Federation by the State Governments?

Mr DEAKIN:

– At the beginning that did occur. During the serious drought in the early years of Federation, when the revenues of the States fell off very seriously, the Commonwealth most generously, and in the wisest spirit of national cooperation, came to their relief and gave them enormous assistance. That, however, ceased with the return of good years.

Nothing comparable to the present financial situation has existed prior to this. In deed, we now have, by a curious combination of circumstances, the position of the Commonwealth Treasury entirely reversed. In the first place, this is due to the expiration of the Braddon section period, with its obligation for the payment to the States of three-fourths of our Customs and Excise revenue. That period would have ended in any case, whether or not the Financial Agreement submitted to the people had been accepted by them. It has been accepted now, though for only ten years; but if accepted for an indefinite period, we should have been in the same position as we are to-day. This is the fulfilment of an expectation which we have been cherishing ever since Federation - the first opportunity afforded to the people of the Commonwealth to readjust the whole of their financial affairs as they please. In addition, this Parliament enters into the heritage of our labours in the ten years of preparation. While our greatest national projects could not be carried out then, they could at least be investigated and preparations made for’ them. Hence this Parliament approaches tasks that have been long foreseen, not only under this most favorable change of circumstances for dealing with them, but also equipped with the results of a long and careful study of the situation and of the preparatory steps necessary to enable all these National enterprises to be launched either now or at some early period. We accomplished that essential work of preparation and investigation.

But now the mere termination of the Braddon section and the control of the extra millions means a sudden translation, so far as the Treasury of the Commonwealth is concerned, from poverty to riches. That is the first transformation. Then, again, the Treasurer, who addressed us in September last, spoke as the head of a party with an absolute majority of one colour in both Chambers. That is a condition of affairs never hitherto witnessed ii> the Commonwealth. Every Government that previously held office had depended for at least a portion - if not a large portion - of its strength upon some party allied, but not immediately associated with it in the whole of its programme. We have always had majorities built on the twoparty system. This is the first majority we have seen in either House, on the one-party system, in which all the supporters of theGovernment are of one mind and pledge- That in itself removes a number of the restrictions which our partnerships, however fully and fairly carried out, necessarily imposed on certain subjects.

The work of the Commonwealth speaks for itself, arid needs no eulogy at this juncture. But those who judge it looking backward will have to imagine a condition of affairs entirely different from that which now obtains. They will not be likely to do justice to past Parliaments as a whole, unless they realize how keen our threeparty struggles constantly were and what elements of uncertainty they introduced into the conduct of business in this House. Then, again, the seasons, fortunately for us, appear to have taken a longer cycle of excellence than we have been accustomed to expect, and each year has filled the cup of the Commonwealth more bountifully. This current year promises to be no exception, and we shall all of us be very much disappointed if the total returns from Australia - there will, of course, be disparity between different districts and different States - do not outstrip all previous records of prosperity. We have every reason to hope and to rejoice that our entrance into the new period, so much more advantageous for this Parliament than for any that preceded it, will also be assisted by this strongly flowing tide of prosperity in every part of Australia. Consequently it is not wonderful that with such a hopeful outlook the Treasurer himself, and this House as a whole, can regard the present financial situation with a light heart.

Mr West:

– Has not the fact that our party has come into power inspired confidence in the people of Australia?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The- public must have had confidence or the honorable member’s party would not have come into power.

We have to note to-day four great and new factors - first, our inheritance of the work done by previous Parliaments; second, the expiration of the Braddon section ; third, the absolute majority obtained by the Ministry in both Houses of the Legislature; and, fourth, the bountiful seasons throughout Australia making an amazing record of national growth. The consequence is that this Parliament finds itself in the position of an heir who has not only entered into very great estates, but has found that the entail and all limitations hitherto imposed have been removed in his favour. He can now spend his ample means according to his pleasure. Nothing approaching the present situation has occurred in the past; and I doubt whether any of us can reasonably foresee a period likely to occur within the life-time of any among us in which a similar combination of circumstances is likely to set any Parliament of the Commonwealth in the happy position in which this Parliament finds itself on account of these accumulated advantages.

Mr West:

– I anticipate that the future will be still better.

Mr DEAKIN:

– May the honorable member never be disappointed.

Mr Archibald:

– You cannot beat faith.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Nevertheless it would be surely a mistake if, in a situation so propitious we allowed ourselves to remain blind to the fact that circumstances over which we have no control, and conceivably circumstances not originating in Australia - world markets and world politics - may possibly affect us seriously. The suggestions of prudence, although not likely to be listened to by the thoughtless at this hour, cannot be ignored by any who reflect upon the immediate responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the possibilities of changing circumstances.

It is in times such as this, when, without any strain upon the national finances, without a refusal to undertake progressive works, and without holding back national enterprises, we are fortunate enough to have a margin so considerable that provision can and should be made for a possible, if not probable, rainy day - whether it be soon at hand or more distant. Surely at this juncture all the counsels of prudence are that we should show some foresight for those possibilities, and set aside a reasonable provision for the purpose, if necessary, of equalizing accounts in years less prosperous. Now that the Braddon section has ceased to operate there is no longer the prohibition upon such a course which’ has hitherto governed the finances of the Commonwealth. Until now, no Commonwealth Government could save if it desired so to do. It was not possible, except in minor ways. We generally had a little money to our credit in the Mother Country to meet expenditure, and so forth, but nothing worthy of mention. Hitherto the hands of the Commonwealth have been legally tied against making provision for the future. We are free to-day to make whatever provision we think fit. We have the means - the flowing means - at our command. We have the opportunity.

Now one of the most disappointing features of this Budget, when you carefully examine it, is that you will find no trace of any such foresight, or any such provision. Instead of that, the statement of our expenditure shows that we are to spend up to the last farthing of the last shilling of the last pound of our estimated receipts. We enter upon the next financial year, therefore, as far as the policy of the Government goes, without anything in the nature of an emergency fund, without anything in the way of reserves upon which we can depend. That, I think, while an unfortunate omission in any Budget, is especially unfortunate since this is a most favorable opportunity of exercising forethought, in view of the fact that the finances are flowing so freely in. Of course, our progress for several years has been continuous. Last year showed an admirably rising tide.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable member forgets that we have invested in banknote printing machinery.

Mr DEAKIN:

– And have printed our millionth note. This year has not only been excellent in itself, but is a culmination of many good years. Last year we did remarkably well - much better than was expected. We obtained an extra £750,000 from Customs. Our little Coinage Act brought the country a profit of . £70,000, and this year a profit of £150,000 is estimated. That is all clear profit. Taking the totals together, last year showed receipts of £1,200,000 above the careful and prudent forecast of the right honorable member for Swan, the former Treasurer. But in addition to that rising tide, we find that this year the cessation of the Braddon section makes our payment to the States £2,800,000 less than they would have received if that section still continued in operation. During the four months that have transpired in the current financial year, up to the end of October, under the old circumstances we should have paid to the States £3,000,000. The returns show that we have paid rather less than £2,000,000. The estimate that has been given for the return from the land tax amounts to £1,000,000, but that is generally regarded - on every hand - as far below what the tax is likely to realize. A yield of £2,000,000 is considered a modest estimate.

Mr Hall:

– -For this year?

Mr DEAKIN:

– How can the Govern ment carry forward the tax from one year to another? They will, it seems to me, make the citizens of Australia pay in land taxation at least £2,000,000 this year.

Mr Hall:

– We shall probably get a law suit this year.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Exactly; if the Government do not actually receive the whole of the money due, that will be attributable to causes over which we have no control. It looks, however, as if they will receive £2,000,000, whilst still leaving a good deal not collected this year. Then there were the temporary loans, to the extent of about £2,000,000, which the Treasurer employed to help him from the one period to the other. Altogether, these sums make up a magnificent total - one which, as I am continually repeating, is absolutely without any parallel in our previous history. We may say of the Government that they have had millions to right of them, millions to left of them, picked up, and - Squandered? Stored? Certainly not “ stored “ ; there is no provision of that sort. I should hesitate to use the word “ squandered,” so excellent are most of the projects to which this money is intended to be devoted. There may be leakages. Under these circumstances, a certain amount of exhilaration may lead to extravagance ; but, after all, the great needs of Australia are so imperative, and involve the expenditure of such considerable sums, that these obligations should operate as a check upon that tendency - I hope an effective check.

The taxation just imposed comes, it must be noted, not in consequence of any shortage in the National finances, not on account of any drying up of our sources of supply, since we have already at our disposal some millions more than we had in any previous years. Our Land Tax is levied in pursuance of a double-headed policy - a policy which aimed at taxation, and also at land settlement; but whose double aims, unfortunately, cross each other to so considerable an extent as to deprive that measure of very much of the advantage which would have accrued to this country had . it been wholly devoted - as it should have been, subject to its taxing form - to the purpose of land settlement. This is not the place to recapitulate the criticisms we felt bound to offer upon a measure in which the revenue side has been given undue prominence. The censure was, in many respects, due to a contradiction caused by the sacrifice of the other aim, which made for the subdivision of land and the encouragement of agricultural and pastoral developments by a more numerous population. That is a great misfortune, because we had a great opportunity. We were not under any pressure from want of revenue. We were not bound to obtain money by any scheme of land taxation. If the measure had been devoted wholly and solely to the purpose - the great and perpetual purpose, the great ultimate source of revenue - of multiplying and encouraging settlement, we could then have gone to the country with much greater confidence, and asked it for a much warmer approval of our work, than we can hope to do under the unfortunate existing circumstances. Of course constitutional requirements obliged us to make the measure in essence one of taxation ; but it should not have been penalisation. There is no pressure of necessity to excuse some of its provisions, and yet we resorted to methods that are penal in many cases. Responsibilities are cast on all classes of owners, including those minors, legatees, and others who, finding themselves in the ownership of land, often without preliminary training or experience, and incompetent to discharge those responsibilities, are yet liable to criminal penalties for error, without a single legitimate means of escape by accepting a Government valuation or otherwise. That is the most objectionable feature of the measure, in which it approaches, in some respects, very closely to that “ third-degree “ treatment which, in the last extreme, is employed by the police upon those who are treated as criminals, whether innocent or guilty.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that the honorable member is in order in likening the legislation of this House to the “ third-degree “ treatment.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I shall not argue the point. Land taxation, being financial legislation, naturally comes within the scope of the Budget ; and when one believes that the provisions are capable of being extravagantly unjust in many cases, one is entitled to use almost any figure in condemnation.

The expenditure under the various measures passed has been outlined only in the vaguest fashion. That expenditure is being steadily added to. without the necessary Estimates being placed before us; indeed, in some cases, no attempt at an estimate is made, and in all cases there is no precision in the statements as to the actual cost. It is all very well to say, “ Hang the expense”; but every one of these departures has to be paid for ; and the House would be well within its duty - in fact, it will otherwise fail to discharge its obligation - if it does not require the Government to give a frank statement of the outlay on each and every one of the propositions. Most of the proposals are laudable, and have, I think, the heartiest support of honorable members on this side. None of the great projects for Australian development should be starved, and there is no tendency in that direction. But if we are challenged hereafter, in our constituencies or elsewhere, for having taken leaps in the dark, without sufficient information as to the burden we are imposing by these particular undertakings, however admirable they may be in themselves, we shall lie open to serious imputation. We should not close this Parliament with a great number of commitments as to the extent of which we have no just notion.

Mr McWilliams:

– What provision is made for the transferred properties?

Mr DEAKIN:

– None whatever. Without economies being enforced on us, without the reserves to which I have already alluded, and without Estimates, we certainly find ourselves in a very peculiar position at the end of this session. We have not been shown, or had outlined, a balance-sheet of the cost or revenue effects of the work we have done. Such a balance-sheet would resemble nothing yet seen; and I can only imagine that it would be of the kind that the prodigal son presented to his creditors just before he was persuaded to go into the pig business. We are prodigally piling up obligations, most of which, as I have said, represent excellent propositions; but we are doing so without anything like the acquaintance we should have with the expenditure that must follow, even when the Estimates have in the loosest way been suggested in the House. None of these projects will be completed this year, most of them are only beginning ; even if next year, or the year after, or the year after that proves as prosperous as the present year, we shall still find ourselves far from the completion of the projects. If the people then turn to the circumstances under which the projects were inaugurated, and regard the speed with which they were dealt, they will find, as I have said, the very scantiest material in any records of the House for this session throwing light upon our commitments.

The Opposition are, I think, practically behind all the larger proposals, although we may differ as to particular methods and means. The railways to Kalgoorlie and to Port Darwin were in the programme of the late Government; and the taking over of the Northern Territory has been consummated on the terms of the Agreement we made. The State debts have not been touched or alluded to in this session. Under the circumstances, perhaps, the Government ought not to be pressed for a determination of this great issue; but, at least, some steps ought to have been taken, and some progress made. So far as we know, there is no advance to report, although we have the authority of the whole of the people of Australia for an undertaking, which is one of the most truly national, and which can be carried out to the immense advantage of all the Governments and the people of Australia. This is one piece of our policy which I regret to see postponed even for another session, although admitting that this session we could not have hoped to solve the great problem in all its intricacies. But we could have made a commencement and laid down lines of general policy ; and the Ions; recess about to ensue could have been utilized in making the necessary preparations for the better handling of that enormous sum of our obligations which presents one of the finest potentialities in the possession of this Parliament.

In regard to the proposals for defence by land and sea, most were formulated by the late Government, and all have been adopted by honorable members on this side; they represent, in fact, I think, the mind of three-fourths of the members of both parties. The Federal Capital project is, I believe, being pushed forward, although the late Government were accustomed to be criticised for delays which are now discovered to have been reasonable and necessary, even at this stage, and when friendly Ministries have to be dealt with. -Then there are the various reforms foreshadowed in the Post Office, most of them such as we can welcome. The development of wireless telegraph stations has formed the subject of too much comment for me to add anything; if I have a question to ask, it is one to which no sufficient answer has yet been given. How was the sum of £2,000 fixed as the fair value of the work proposed to be done at the new stations? It may be quite a satisfactory amount, but no attempt has been made to explain how it was arrived at. The oldage pensions scheme was enlarged by us last year, and is being enlarged still further this year, with further developments about to come.

There is, of course, a distinct departure by the present Government from the industrial policy being pursued by the late Government - ours I venture to term a “ building-up “ policy. It aimed at the multiplication of Wages Boards in every industry, building up from these to higher Courts, harmonizing their decisions throughout the Commonwealth, with the object of preventing unfair competition. We were creating an industrial self-government in the fullest degree possible all over Australia. The question has been approached by the present Government from the opposite stand-point, with a centralization of authority, which appears to me, though it may promise more at the first, to be certain to be more tardy in arriving at any* thing like universal effect, and which, in fact, can only be applied to some few of the most widespread and important industries of the country. The other method of procedure would have brought in the smallest and the medium sized, as well as the great, industries, and would also have operated over the whole continent, instead of principally in and from the metropolitan cities of the various States.

The Bounty Bill is certainly very much less extensive than the Bill the late Government had in view, but possibly more will be done in another session. I am sorry, however, that twelve months have been lost, and still more sorry that no steps have been taken to create an Agricultural Bureau, which ra necessary concomitant in the” country of the assistance given to labour in the towns. The closer settlement in Australia at whicli we aim, like that of America, must follow the course of linking together the scientific man, or the knowledge of science, with the habits of the business man. The farmer in America, as I am told by those who have just visited that country, is no longer distinguishable from the townsman by any of those idiosyncracies which used to make material for the comic papers. “ Old farmer Hayseed “ is passing out of sight. The modern “ Hayseed “ is an up-to-date, keenly alive, business man, whose study is how to make the best of a small area with limited means but unlimited intelligence, acquired in the shape of scientific knowledge and of practical experience. The west of America, since I visited the country, has been transformed. What were then desert plains are now covered with large populations, obtaining most satisfactory results, which compare favorably with the earnings of successful business men in towns.

Farming can be made to pay as pastoral pursuits can - can be made to pay better in a small way than in a large way - on small areas better than on large areas - and to pay best, of- all under irrigation or some other system which takes the greatest advantage of scientific knowledge and judgment. Brains pay better than water, and brains are making farming pay to-day. The hope of Australia, with its great cities on the seaboard, lies in those enormous tracts which have yet to be brought into the service of man and made productive of wealth for the whole community. I am no stickler for names or forms, but do wish I saw somewhere a proposal to supply the necessary scientific knowledge and equipment to the sons of our farmers, and to the farmers themselves. The grown man is not too proud, nor the grey-haired man too old, to attend the courses at agricultural colleges in the United States. They go in throngs to illustrated lectures, and return to their farms to use the knowledge thus gained for their own profit and the benefit of the community. Considering the agricultural future of the Commonwealth, T cannot believe that we are fulfilling our obligations while we leave this large area of usefulness untouched. I do not suggest that we should put aside the State Departments ; let the States spend as much more ns they like in the same excellent work, but let as supplement their efforts, and tackle large questions from an Australian, and not from a district or provincial, stand-point. I had not intended to make this digression, but the subject is endlessly attractive.

The rectification of Tariff anomalies ought to have included a score at least of practical propositions in addition to mere departmental alterations, about which, by the way, a great number of complaints are coming in, though whether these be well or ill founded we are unable to judge.

I regret the absence of any proposal to create an Inter- State Commission, a body provided for in advance by the Constitution, and capable of rendering immense national services to Australia, which there is no competent body in existence at the present time to render I say nothing of preferential trade, though I should have been glad of some reference to the progress effected by the Prime Minister’s visit to South Africa, and negotiations with the neighbouring Dominion of New Zealand. I mention the matter now, hoping that by next year it will have received further and full attention.

In the same way I should like to have had more assurance of a spirited conduct of a real immigration policy. We have a special . reason now for considering this matter, inasmuch as we have become the governing body of the Northern Territory, and must deal with it now with at least as much enterprise, and let us trust a great deal more, than is exhibited by the State Governments. I know that in the Northern territory a new problem confronts us, but it is one of the problems that an Agricultural Bureau is above all things qualified to deal with. On all these matters, with the exception of a few, the members of this House are generally in accord.

The new departures need not be dwelt upon. These useful matters cover the total work of the session. In addition, the Government have put forward certain measures and proposals, of the credit for which we have no desire to rob them. The Australian Notes Act now represents a far better measure and a more efficient piece of machinery than it was when introduced to our notice.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Better for the t) tinkers ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I was alluding to the safeguards provided in the interests of the public. As introduced, that measure was open to very dangerous political interference which would have been fatal to its success. Although the Government have strengthened it in that respect, we know that in this Parliament they are assured, with their majorities in both Houses, that they can pass any Act they require, relaxing its conditions without the slightest difficulty. No preceding Government was, and perhaps no succeeding Government will be, placed in so fortunate a position. The land tax has been already alluded to. The industrial proposals contained in two Bills go far beyond the present necessities of the case, and beyond those we submitted which were adapted to our resources. The temporary loans and the referenda are condemned by their excesses. All these, of course, are part of the work of the session, and we have no desire to deprive the Government of any credit they may obtain for them.

In conclusion, I have - a more serious subject to touch upon, the full importance of which may not be perceived by honorable members on the spot, and may be overlooked by the people outside. I refer to the transformation of Parliament which has been accomplished in this session, comparing it with those preceding it. We are now for the first time associated with the working of a caucus, including majorities of both Houses, engaged apparently from day to day, and often from night to night, in long sittings, doing behind closed doors the bulk of “the work, so far as they are concerned, which should be done on the floor of the House. I do not know that the public outside, or that honorable members themselves engaged in this way, realize the consequences of this innovation. It alters the whole balance of power in Parliament, in addition to the grave alteration to which I have already alluded, by which this House and another place to almost the same extent have been deprived of that power of the purse which every previous Parliament has exercised.

To take a few out of many instances which have recently occurred let me remind honorable members that this Parliament has not yet reached the Estimates, and that we who sit in Opposition have not yet had an opportunity of discussing them. The Department of the Postmaster-General has not been reached. We have had the report of a Royal Commission laid before us, but have not yet touched the questions with which it deals. But we find that the caucus of majorities in both Houses has been engaged on those questions for many days in making a searching inquiry. As a result, honorable members on this side, who could not attend the meetings of the caucus, and have not had the advantage of hearing the discussions which took place there, suddenly obtain an intimation of what the intentions of the Government are, arrived at after prolonged and, it may be, searching debate on the necessities of the Department. All, therefore, that we know is that the majorities have decided what to do during this session or between this session and the next. It is all settled, and in our absence.

The same thing applies to the Defence Bill. Even that measure was passed through the ordeal before being introduced, and was submitted to us in a way which deprived us of the advantage of the independent criticism which no doubt it received in the Ministerial room. But when an amendment was carried by a majority which included some honorable members who had taken part in the caucus debate as well as members on this side, on a point on which both thought it advisable and necessary to improve the Bill, we find that it was sent back to the same body, and discussed there without us. A new form of amendment was agreed upon, and is being submitted in another place. It will come back to us in the shape of a recommendation from the Senate; where the Government majority is, of course, able to carry it. It will be approved here, and again we are blackballed.

Then there is the case of the vital amendment of the Ministry’s most import rant measure - the first referendum Bill. That really recast the whole of the definition of the control exercisable by the Commonwealth over industrial affairs by specifically establishing Federal authority over the railway servants of all the States. That grave alteration had evidently been threshed out in caucus in the same manner, and the decisions arrived at which we are obliged to accept. This is not parliamentary in any sense. We are out of it all the time.

Another consequence is that, although there are, as every debate proves, originalminded men in the Labour party, the originality here is nearly altogether gone out, even of them, because they have already exercised it with more or less success elsewhere, leaving us without the advantage of the political education to be gained by listening to them.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Oh !

Mr DEAKIN:

– I mean what I say.

Mr Fenton:

– Is this not satire?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No, not in the least degree. I hope that many honorable members on this side are, as I am, attentive listeners to most of the speeches made by honorable members opposite when they are not rehearsing for performances outside. Listening attentively to their speeches, one can learn continually. That is what Parliament is for. It is bad for those shut in the caucus, but not for them alone. We, as the Opposition, are suffering, too, because we lose all the advantage which might be gained from the opinion, judgment, experience, or criticism of honorable members opposite, which they now most cruelly bottle up for their own consumption. The practice also deprives debate of much of its zest ; we are not properly put upon our mettle.

Mr Archibald:

– The honorable gentleman will admit that honorable members opposite have not done badly.

Mr DEAKIN:

– I can assure the honorable member that we should have done much better if we had the advantage of his assistance. As it is, we come here apparently as lecturers or protesters, rather than as debaters, with no hope of accomplishing any change in fact, even if we can effect a change of mind. It is too late for that. You are bound. We lack the stimulus to bring us up to our best, in order to discuss thoroughly the proposals laid before us. They come second-hand ; we want them fresh and wild. We want to catch the fish or see it caught. Kept a few days, even in cold storage, after the Caucus has settled its fate, it is astonishing what the difference is.

Mr Sampson:

– What about the interests of the public?

Mr DEAKIN:

– By the adoption of this system we lose, Parliament loses, and the public loses. Whatever be the effect on that section of the public that worries itself about parliamentary debates - and I shall not guess what fraction it represents, though I suspect it is not a large one - the effect upon Parliament is certainly most injurious. Its effect upon Hansard, always a dull publication, has been to make it more dull, ft needs variety and spice, and this practice takes variety and spice out of it. There may be variety and spice in the discussions which are carried on within other walls, but our honorable friends do not give us the benefit of them. Dull as we are, T believe they might strike sparks out of us if they would only come down here with fresh and open minds, and give us the benefit of their originality.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– The honorable gentleman should not forget that his party deliberately gagged the Opposition when they had the power to do so.

Mr DEAKIN:

– We had listened to my honorable friends for three months without doing a stroke of work before we arrived at the conclusion that it was necessary to use means, which were even then very reluctantly forced from us.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How much did the honorable members behind the honor able member’s Government assist in the debates ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– As much as they could in the trying and distressing circumstances to which I refer. But I have no wish to recall what happened last session on one side or the other.

It does seem to me that the effect of this caucus system is to reduce this Parliament, in a sense, to the status we used to give Legislative Councils in the State Parliaments. It makes it a mere Chamber of review. We, who were in the Legislative Assembly, were always willing that the Legislative Council should review so long as it did not alter. The Legislative Council was far from accepting that limit, but it was called a Chamber of review. Certainly, under this system, I think that this Parliament tends to become, in fact, such a Chamber of review. Where the dominant party has majorities in both Houses, it is indeed only a registration Chamber, because nothing more can be done here than to register decisions already arrived at in secret. A minority on the other side, which,- when assisted by the Opposition, constitutes a majority of this House, is deprived under this system of its proper influence on the legislation of the country. It is impossible under this system for honorable .members on both sides to unite with their natural allies as we, when on the other side, were able to join at times with our natural allies in the Labour party.

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

– The honorable member for Wentworth succeeded in carrying two important amendments in the Defence Bill without the Caucus being able to consider them.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Such things are possible, but one swallow does not make a summer. Those accidents merely serve to mark the contrast.

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

– But the fact takes seme of the sting out of the honorable gentleman’s remarks.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No, because I. have not said that no alteration is permitted to us. I have not said that we may not dot an i or cross a t. We may make alterations which do not matter, but we wish to be able to do things which will matter ; otherwise, we have no business here.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Surely the honorable gentleman’s criticism has some effect?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I do not think it affects my honorable friends opposite in the slightest practical way.

There has also been evidence that Executive acts and work are criticised by honorable members opposite, so that, in effect, the Caucus becomes the Cabinet as well as the Parliament, and we are shut out from participating in it in either case. We _ get our policy settled for us outside, our compromises are made there, and the real reasons for our measures are expressed there only. Everything is private and confidential. It is most unconstitutional, because, under existing conditions, with Ministerial majorities in both Houses, the Caucus is really the Parliament of the country. It is there all the actual work is done, measures prepared, and the Administration controlled. It is the real Parliament of the country. This is only the official bureau, where the acts of the real Parliament are registered, where apologies are offered, and criticisms of a didactic kind which very few people read are meekly suggested from this side.

Mr Higgs:

– But there is no time to do in caucus all that the honorable member Says is done there.

Mr DEAKIN:

– We ought to do as much as possible in Parliament, and at present we are not doing more than a fraction of anything but its formalities.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Parliament is merely a registry office.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The result is that we get a policy which is developed with as much solicitude and isolation as a new culture in a laboratory. The policy is prepared, figuratively, in a cellar; nobody outside knows anything about it. It is true that we may sometimes guess from the faces of honorable members opposite what their feelings are, and also infer some of their thoughts. But that is of no use to us. Their policy is not prepared in the open light of day. There is not the clash of mind and mind in respect to it. They are thus reducing Parliament to a dead level of uninteresting records. Is that a desirable state of things ? Why do honorable members opposite not come out into the open, and give us the benefit of their ideas and aims ?

Mr Fenton:

– Nature performs most useful works in secret.

Mr DEAKIN:

– At first I thought the honorable member alluded to Hansard, which, as far as I can see, is rapidly be coming a publication of answers to correspondents.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thought it was a record of the speeches of members of the Opposition.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If it were, it would serve a useful purpose, though, unfortunately, the people do not read it. The statute-book itself bears little evidence of our labours here. This condition of things Ls unhealthy for the Parliament, for honorable members opposite, as well as for this side of the Chamber. It has only one merit - it enables some business to be put through. But it does not enable if to be put through in the form which is favoured by a majority of honorable members, because, in many cases, your minority, added to our minority, would constitute a majority, representing a majority of the electors. Thus a blow is being struck at the root of our system of parliamentary government.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is the effect of the two-party system.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No. As a further consequence, our system of responsible Government no longer consists of the Executive only. This condition of things most materially affects our Commonwealth Constitution, especially in regard to another “place, which both in legislation and administration has but its numerical strength in caucus, without any regard to the numbers or interests senators represent.

However, I have spoken much longer than I had intended, although a Budget is always a challenge in respect to the policy of the Government, and the position of the country. Repeating myself once more, my conclusion is that a most dangerous condition of political affairs has been caused by this abnormal separation of a great body of honorable members, who hold kindred views, from the minorities associated with them. We ought to work together upon a great many more subjects than we do. We would, and could do so, if we met in frank and free debate, retaining the right upon all great questions of policy to express our best individual judgments. But we cannot hope for any such result while we have to adopt the particular solution prepared for us in a dose which we pre obliged to swallow, however injurious it may be to us and to the country.

Under existing conditions, Parliament is ‘ hampered, if not hamstrung. In view of the amendments of the Constitution now before the country, which press us further in the same foreign direction, I venture to say that we are passing out of the main stream of Constitutional progress. Where we shall ultimately end nobody can foretell. But it is at least clear that as a result the country is not getting from Parliament what it deserves, and Parliament is not getting from the country the inspiration to which we are entitled. We are mutually suffering, and shall continue to do so until this unhealthy state of affairs is terminated. Let us ally ourselves one with the other upon great matters of principle, remaining free to adopt here in the sight of all the people whatever course we believe should be recommended to those who trust us.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

– I thank the Government for having afforded me an opportunity of saying a few words upon the Budget before my departure for my own State. It is an extraordinary circumstance that it is only during the closing hours of the session that we are permitted for the first time to debate the financial position of the Commonwealth as set forth in the Treasurer’s Budget statement. I suppose the position is unprecedented. It is difficult to understand the reasons which prompted the Government to adopt that course. If they had not had such a large and docile majority behind them they would not have been able to act as they have done. I do not think that any other Government, however strong, would have dared to treat the House in the way that the Ministry have treated it. As a matter of fact, we are almost precluded from discussing the Budget, inasmuch as all the important matters which are mentioned in it have since been dealt with in various Bills. During the session we have had a good dose of what is commonly called “spoils to the victors” legislation. We have passed many measures, one of which, in my opinion, is of a very confiscatory character. The extraordinary feature about that very drastic measure of taxation is that it is directed at those who are not supporters of the Ministry. It is intended to effect an influential class - but a very small one - whose members have acquired some wealth in the country, and who are deemed to be fit subjects for spoliation.

Mr Higgs:

– They cannot comprise a small class if the tax will yield £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 annually.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not think that their number will be found to be very great. At the same time the Government and their supporters have exempted from the operation of that measure those whom they regard as their political supporters, and through whom they have been returned to this Parliament.

Mr Higgs:

– That statement is not correct.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– In my opinion it is absolutely true. The exemption of £5,000, which was inserted in the Land Tax Assessment Bill, was nothing more nor less than a bribe to those persons who returned honorable members opposite to this Parliament.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member would not make the twenty-acre man pay?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It was intended to exempt from the operation of the Bill the persons to whom I have referred, because honorable members opposite get a large measure of their political support from them. I say that the confiscatory land tax which we have passed is a class measure. Honorable members opposite, by supporting it and by voting £6,000 to subsidize a press cable service, have shown that in their desire to support those who support them they will stop at nothing. Labour newspapers have been subsidized, and now get cheap news at the expense of the country. The reluctance of the Minister of External Affairs to tell us how many newspapers are getting this news, and how many additional words are now being transmitted over the Pacific Cable, evidences that he does not desire to give information to the public. The action of honorable members opposite in voting money to bolster up newspapers which are devoted to their cause is one of the most gross of which I have heard during my political career. I look upon it as an absolute job. I regret, too, that during the session we have had a long series of attempts to undermine the Constitution and to place the whole control of this great country in the hands of Labour unions.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is another unfair statement.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Labour unions nominated the honorable member for this House.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They did not.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– They must have done so.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They did not.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Then who did nominate the honorable member?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The electors of my constituency.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– But who first nominated the honorable member?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The electors of my constituency. There was only one nomination.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I must express my regret that we have not been given an opportunity of dealing with these important matters until so late in the session. I cannot think that it is in accordance with the courtesy which one side of the House owes to the other. However strong a side may be in numbers, it ought always to afford an opportunity to discuss the finances within the first week after the Budget has been delivered, as has been the case in the past.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member refused every opportunity; he applied the gag.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member is not just in that remark. When he has any feeling in a matter he is somewhat unreasonable, and sometimes unfair. He cannot say that an opportunity was not given to the House, within a very few days of its delivery, to discuss the Budget speech delivered either by himself or myself. The revenue of the Commonwealth is estimated at £17,248,329 ; the expenditure, which includes £406,700 brought forward from the previous year, is the same amount; there is no balance. I listened to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on that subject, but I take no exception to there being no balance. There never will be any balance under the procedure laid down by the Government for themselves. They have passed Acts appropriating the balances to the Trust Funds. These will absorb any balance that there may be at. the end of the year, so that the revenue and expenditure will always equal one another. That is done in order to drive a coach-and-tour - perhaps it is legitimate - through the Constitution, section 94 of which provides that any balances that there may be at the end of the year are returnable to the States. As we have now fixed an amount for payment to the States, it would, of course, not be reasonable for them to expect any payment of surplus revenue. That is the reason why the expenditure and revenue of the Commonwealth will always balance. They will be made to balance by means of payments into the Trust Funds.

Mr Frazer:

– The right honorable member did not get them balanced last year.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I was subject to the operation of the Braddon section.

Mr Frazer:

– There was a substantial deficit when we began.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– If the present Government had had the Braddon section in operation during the whole of this financial year, they would have had a deficit, not of £400,000, but of nearly ten times as much. The estimated revenue of £17,248,329 is very much inflated, because it includes all revenue received. The same remark applies to the estimate of expenditure, but, of course, we cannot deal with the matter in that way. The Post and Telegraph Department, for instance, shows on one side a revenue of £3,899,000, which helps to make up the £17,000,000 odd. On the other side appears £4,408,939 as the total expenditure of the same Department. There is, therefore, no net revenue there; in fact, there is a loss of ^£509,939. Other items of a similar kind could be referred to, but that is the main one.

Mr Higgs:

– How, otherwise, would the honorable member state the items?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am not finding fault with the way they are stated. I am simply pointing out that they do not show the real revenue available for the services of the Government, until we take out all those concerns which cost as much as. or more, than the revenue received from them. Although I have shown that there is a deficit on the Post and Telegraph Department of over £500,000, the Department itself shows an estimated profit for the year of £364,248, but new works and buildings are estimated to cost .£874,187, bringing the deficit on the whole transaction to what I have stated.

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

– Does the honorable member think that those works and buildings should be charged to one year only?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not; it is bad financing and bad management, and if we had remained in office we should have changed the system. No one year should pay for buildings that will last for twenty years, and we should adopt some such system as that obtaining in the British Postal Department, whereby capital moneys are obtained from the Treasury -by the sale of temporary annuities or financial bonds of some sort, and gradually paid off by the Department in practically the same way as a sinking fund. The Postal Department of Great Britain is self-supporting, and also provides a large amount of revenue. Our system of charging, say, £874,000 odd against one year for work which is to last for twenty years is unscientific. It is very interesting to know the actual revenue available, after paying for the upkeep and maintenance of Departments. The Commonwealth’s sources of revenue are not very many, and Departments which spend all their revenue, and more, such as the Post and Telegraph and Telephone Department, are not revenue producers at all. The revenue of the country can be stated shortly in this way : The Customs and Excise revenue, less £291,222 for cost of collection, is £11,421,928. That is a real revenue available for the administration of the affairs of the Commonwealth. It is, in fact, our main source of revenue ; but out of it we must pay the States £5,267,500. There is also to be paid this year an amount of £451,832, charged against the States to repay the deficit on the Commonwealth accounts of last year, so that, if it were not for that fact, the amount that we should pay the States would be £5>7i9,332- That leaves us £5,702,596 of net revenue from Customs and Excise, after paying the States and paying for collection. We have also other sources of revenue. The proceeds of the land tax are estimated at £1, 000, 000, which, less £35,000 for collection, represents a revenue of £965,000. There are profits of £137,500 from coinage, a new revenue of £44,129 from small items, and £3.850 from miscellaneous sources. That is the whole of the revenue which the Commonwealth has available for its expenditure this year. It amounts to £6,853,075 - a very different statement from that which showed a revenue of over £17,000.000. The actual cash which we. have available for all the services of the Government is, therefore. £6,853,075. The Acting Treasurer remarked that we left a deficit last year. We certainly did, but last year, notwithstanding the good times that came at the end of the year, there was available only £3.682.884, and this included £451^832 taken improperly from the Trust Funds, or withheld from the States. It will be seen, therefore, that £3,170,191 more is available for the services of the Treasury this’ year than last. If that had not been so, if it were not for the large additional amount from Customs and Excise, and the new revenue from the land tax, I should like to know where the present Treasurer would be at the end of this financial year. Notwithstanding the fact that over £3,000,000 more revenue is available this year, the Government have to borrow £1,500,000 from the Note Issue Fund, in order to carry them on for the first half of the financial year. Of course, I know that the reason is that the Braddon section operates until 31st December next. The Acting Treasurer’s remark was, therefore, most ungenerous, seeing that last year we had to pay over £8,000,000 to the States, whereas this year the Government are paying only £5,719,000 odd, or about £3,000,000 less. How do the Government intend to spend the £6,853,075 available this year? First, they propose to spend £2,070,000 on invalid and old-age pensions, and on defence, less a small amount °f £7.- 000 received in revenue from sales of rifles, &c, a sum of £2,826,895. Those two items alone will absorb £4,896,895, leaving only £1,956,180 available for all the other services of the Government. Those figures should give us cause for reflection and consideration. The two large items referred to absorb nearly 70 per cent, of the whole revenue, including £965,000 net receipts from the land tax, and leave only 30 per cent, for all other expenditure.

Sir William Lyne:

– Does the honorable member think that the land tax will not bring in more than £1,000,000?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That is the Treasurer’s estimate. Honorable members know that I regard the tax as confiscatory and unfair.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What method would the honorable member propose, in lieu of it, for the raising of extra revenue?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do’ not feel myself called upon to discuss that question now. In addition to the expenditure on oldage pensions and defence, there is an estimated loss on the Post Office amounting to £509,939, and departmental expenditure totalling £740,592, made up of the following items: - Governor-General. £23,520; Parliament, £18,126; External Affairs, £110,971; Attorney-General, £34.634; Home Affairs, £190,907 ; Treasury, omitting coinage, £82,579; New Works, other than Post Office and Defence buildings, £116,164; loss on Patents, £554. Further, we must provide £635,950 for bounties on sugar, iron, and other things, £10,272 for pensions and re- tiring allowances, £22,574 for quarantine, less £3,000 revenue, £19,539forrent, repairs, &c, and £17,314 for miscellaneous expenditure. The expenditure can, therefore, be classified as follows: - Old-age pensions, £2,070,000; Defence, £2,826,895; loss on Postal Department, £509,939 ; expenditure on Departments, £740,592; sugar and other bounties, and miscellaneous, £705,649,which absorbs every penny of the revenue, making a total of £6,853,075. The affairs of the country are clearly set out in the statement which I have made, which shows more clearly how we stand than can be seen by dealing with the whole of the items of expenditure and revenue. I have dealtonly with surpluses and deficits. By doing that it is easier to ascertain the exact position of our finances.

Mr Webster:

– Is the cost of the transcontinental railway included?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The expenditure in connexion with that work has been very small. There is an amount of £5,000 on the Estimates for it. I wish now to deal more in detail with the subject of Defence. As I have shown, it is proposed to expend on Defence £2,826,895, from which must be deducted a credit balance of £7,000. The sum of £850,000 has to be found in connexion with the payments for the fleet unit. The revenue necessary to cover this expenditure will be obtained by what I consider an obnoxious and class land tax, which invades the province of State legislation, and confiscates the property of all coming within its reach. The last Government proposed to get the necessary funds by raising a loan repayable within sixteen years, and that proposal carried out the principle that permanent works, or works which will endure for a considerable time, should be provided for, not by harassing the people by increasing taxation, and half-ruining the taxpayers, but by spreading the expenditure over a number of years.

Mr Higgs:

– Did not the honorable member propose to tax tea and kerosene?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not remember having made such a proposal.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member’s party made it.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not look upon tea and kerosene as more sacred than sugar, but, so far as I know, the Governments with which I have been associated have not proposed a tax on tea and kerosene.

Sir William Lyne:

– It was so stated.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I should like the honorable member to say when, and by whom. I never made any such statement, nor did any Minister of a Government of which I was a member. The honorable member may have made some such statement himself.

Sir William Lyne:

– No.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I certainly did not. Why does the honorable member try unfairly to fasten these things upon me?

Mr Webster:

– If a Government of which the honorable member was a Minister made the statement, he should take the responsibility for it.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I say thatno such statement was made by any Government of which I was a member.

Sir William Lyne:

– I think that the honorable member does not know.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member for Hume owes it to himself, if he wishes to act honorably and uprightly, to substantiate his statement by giving authority for it. He throws out these innuendoes hoping that some of the mud may stick. I have no patience with those who act in that way. His present position shows where his dodges and trickery have led him. I do not desire interjections which convey untrue suggestions. Last year the Defence expenditure was £1,513,972, less £21,820 revenue, and this year the expenditure is to be , £2,826,895, or £1,312,923 more than last year. This increase is to continue. The Prime Minister is reported to have stated in South Africa that he will not be alarmed if the defence expenditure increases to £10,000,000. Honorable members opposite are quite ready to take the necessary money out of the pockets of the few. They laugh and cheer when measures harassing and half ruining many of our fellow-citizens who have borne the heat and burden of the day are passed.

Mr Frazer:

– Did the honorable member vote against either of the Defence proposals ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am not speaking about them. My objection is to the manner in which the revenue for Defence is to be obtained. A small section is to be called on to contribute all of it. It is shocking to me to know that some of my fellow-citizens will be practically ruined by this legislation which honorable members cheer, and which they supported as if they had a vendetta or some wrong to avenge. On old-age pensions were expended last year £i,497.-33°j and this year it is proposed to expend £2,070,000, an increase of £572,670. The cost of old-age pensions for this year is estimated at 9s. 3d. per head of a population of 4,474,000, or upon those of the supporting age, that is, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five years, who number about 2,500,000, about twice as much. The cost per head to these people- will be - Defence, 22s. ; old-age pensions, 17 s. ; and all other expenditure, 1 8s. j making a total of 57s. I did not rise with the object of finding fault with the items on the Estimates. It seems to me that the Acting Treasurer, and those who are responsible for the administration of our financial affairs, must give to these matters careful scrutiny, because the expenditure is growing.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member has always said that we did not pay enough for defence.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Yes.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Government propose to spend more.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am- not finding fault with their proposal, ‘ but calling the attention of honorable members to the manner in which the expenditure is increasing, and bringing it home to the Acting Treasurer that the greatest care in management, and the establishment of a sound system, is necessary. In regard to one question, which has been talked about a good deal during this session, and that is the question of immigration, I regret to say that there is hardly any provision made on the Estimates in that regard. The scheme which was propounded by the High Commissioner does not seem to have found favour. I have not seen a copy of the scheme, and, therefore, I do not know whether it is a good or bad one. There seems to be a general consensus of opinion that some action should be taken to increase our population by introducing immigrants from abroad. I am aware, of course, that, for the last twenty years, perhaps longer, the Labour party has been ^ opposed to immigration. Their influence has been sufficient to prevent Governments from embarking on a scheme.

Sir William Lyne:

– Does the honorable member know how many immigrants are coming in now?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– No.

Sir William Lyne:

– There are a great many .more than the honorable member thinks.

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

– The number is increasing largely.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That is what we want. The Government should give their earnest attention to this matter. The party which they represent has done nothing in the past, but that is no reason why they should not do something in the future. As we were taught at school, no man is wise at every hour. There is no reason why, if we have been unwise in the past, we should not be wiser in the future. I commend this to the Government - that the only way to make this country great is to bring in people. I am not one of those who advise the introduction of a number of persons to walk about the streets and to be out of employment. That is a matter for the Government to look. after. They should work in harmony with the Governments of the States, who have the land under their control, so that we can bring people here, and they can settle them on the land.

Sir William Lyne:

– The States should not dominate the Commonwealth Government.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not see any reason why each should not work out its destiny, within the Constitution, in its own way. I will not believe that the Commonwealth Government cannot work in harmony with the States in regard to the provision of land for settlement when immigrants arrive. I do hope for better things from the Labour party in the future than have resulted in the past. Hitherto, they have been the strong opponents of the introduction of immigrants. I hope that, under better auspices and also better management for the reception and settlement of immigrants, a new era will arise. I desire to say a few words regarding the sugar bounty. According to these Estimates, the Excise is estimated to yield £684,000, while the bounty and other expenses are set down at £579,000, leaving a profit of £105.000, which goes to the general revenue of the Commonweal th .

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

-“ Profit “ is a funny word to use.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member can call it what he likes, but £684,000 goes into the Treasury, and £579,000 is paid out. I regret very much that on a commodity in daily use, from the richest to the poorest, the Government should impose a burden of £105,000 for no purpose other than revenue. Every endeavour should be made to make sugar as cheap as possible, and, without discussing the question of the bounty or the Excise at the present time, my opinion is, as every one knows, that we should do away with both, and allow the Tariff to operate in regard to sugar as it does in regard to any other commodity.

Mr Bamford:

– It would not be anycheaper under those conditions.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– This Government, which poses as a poor man’s Government - I do not believe for a moment that it is, but that does not matter - unnecessarily takes £105,000 from the people. Surely an impost of £5 on every ton of sugar consumed is taxation enough without imposing this addition of £105,000 ? That is the way in which the Government and the Labour party show their sympathy with poor people. They encourage the poor to get cheap sugar by levying £105,000 more on it than is necessary to pay expenses and bounty.

Mr Bamford:

– The’ right honorable gentleman was a member of the Ministry which did this thing.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member, who is generally so very fairminded, is at times ungenerous, like the whole of his colleagues when it suits them. He knows very well that he was one of those who forced it upon the Government of the day. He and his colleagues would not sleep or rest, day or night, until they got this system carried out. He knows very well that he was responsible for this thing, but now that the Braddon section is about to expire, there is no reason why both the bounty and the Excise duty should not be abolished. Apart from that, the Excise ought not to exceed the amount required to provide the bounty and meet expenses, and the difference ought to go into the pockets of the people in the form of cheaper sugar. The honorable member poses as the poor man’s friend - by putting £105.000 more duty a year on sugar than is necessary.

Mr Bamford:

– If the Excise and the bounty were done away with to-morrow, sugar would not be any cheaper.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

-My proposal would be to reduce the import duty to £5 a ton. It would be better for the people if this sum of £105,000 were not collected. However, it is useless to speak to dull ears. My honorable friends who come from Queensland ought not to allow this wrong’ to be perpetrated on the whole people of Australia.

Mr Bamford:

– The Commonwealth gets only 25 per cent, of the £105,000, anyhow.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It gets the whole of the money now.

Mr Bamford:

– Not until next year.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– It will get the whole of the money from January until the end of the year. So long as the honorable member is all right, he does not mind. He shows his sympathy with the poor people of Queensland by not only providing enough to pay the bounty and the expenses on sugar, but by fastening on the people of Australia a burden of £105.000 a year for no purpose whatever.

Mr Higgs:

– That must be why the honorable member submitted to the forcing process.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I desire to say a few words about another important matter, and that is the Trans-Australian railway. I urge the Government to begin the work as soon as possible. I have seen statements in the press that they propose to make a start, but they have not yet made an announcement to the House. As I intended to speak on this matter if I got an opportunity, I did not wish to ask any questions, but I do think that when the Prime Minister, ‘or any other Minister, has any important statements to make on matters of policy, he might make them first to the House. I do not know why the press should get important information as to what the Government propose to do, and the House be kept in ignorance of it. It has been stated in the press that the Government intend to . proceed at once with the construction of the Trans-Australian railway. Only a sum of £5,000 has been placed on the Estimates, but there is a foot-note to the effect that the work will cost £3,988,000. As the item was passed without demur, I suppose it may be taken that both Houses have acquiesced in the proposal that the work should be proceeded with. I urge the Minister to begin as quickly as he can. The work will not cost more than £3,000,000, and when it is finished we shall know who was nearest to the mark. It must be remembered that the engineer’s estimate of £3,988,000 includes £600,000 for water supply. During the last six months there have been great changes in that respect, for good water has been found in two places. The authority to proceed with the work in Western Australia was given by Statute years ago. It gives the Commonwealth an exclusive choice as to route and gauge, and authorizes the State Government to lay down a line from Kalgoorlie Junction to Fremantle, on any gauge which the Commonwealth may adopt. South Australia has at length passed a law enabling the Commonwealth to choose the route of the line, although I believe that that has been already surveyed, and to adopt whatever gauge it pleases. There are no legal difficulties in the way of the Commonwealth Government making a beginning. The only question is whether they consider that they have sufficient authority from this Parliament to make a start. That is a matter which, of course, they will.judge for themselves. I hope, however, that they will think that they have sufficient authority, seeing that the Parliament has already voted the sum to which I have referred. A foot-note that the work is to cost so-and-so has generally been taken as an authority to the Treasury to spend on the work more than the amount actually voted, and to charge to the Treasurer’s Advance. I can see no reason why there should be any delay in this matter - that is, if we believe the work to be necessary and good. I believe that everything is ready in respect to plans, sections, and quantities. It has been stated that the quantities have not yet been obtained, but I think they have all been prepared, and that all the Government has to do is to proceed with the work. A whole year will be saved if arrangements are made to start at once. Without even laying down the rails, there is a great deal to do in the preparation of work-shops and other things, and the formation of a staff. It will take a good while to get the plant together. In the first instance, it will be necessary to decide the question of gauge. Had the late Government remained in office, the work would have been put in hand. Seeing that Parliament is practically unanimous - there may be a few here, though not many, opposed to the scheme - there is no political or other reason for delay. I ask the Acting Treasurer to make a note of my remarks, so that if it is possible before the close of the session to make a statement as to the Government’s intention, one will be made. Of course, financial matters are always a trouble to a Government. At the same time, the expenditure in making preparations would not be very large, and the payments would not be made at once. After 31st December, the Government will have complete control of the finances. I hope, therefore, that, in the interests of the country, there will be no further delay, and that before the session closes the Government will make a definite statement on the subject.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I wish now to refer to the proposed referenda in April next to secure certain amendments of the Constitution. I notice that the date on which it was rumoured that these referenda would be taken has been extended by a month.

Mr Frazer:

– With the object of securing the most suitable day for the whole of the people of Australia.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Although the procedure proposed to be followed is that for which the Constitution provides, it seems to me that our experience in regard to the efficacy of these referenda as a means of ascertaining the will of the majority of the voters of Australia is not altogether satisfactory. Unless we obtain a better system of recording the votes of the electors on the roll these referenda will become a farce. Other countries have experienced a like difficulty, although it has not been so marked as it has in the Commonwealth. In Switzerland, for instance, in 1898, out of sixty-eight laws submitted to the referenda, only one obtained the votes of half the number of electors registered. Where a Bill receives the support of half the registered votes the position is fairly satisfactory, but our experience is altogether different. The Financial Agreement was made a test question at the last general election. Candidates for both Houses of Parliament took part in the campaign, and the agreement was defeated by the votes of one-third of the people on the roll. In other words, only about one-third of the electors of Australia voted for the Bill, whilst a little more than one-third voted against it. The voting was 670,838 against the Bill and 645,514 for it, whilst no fewer than 942,130 electors refrained from voting. That shows that the system is an unsatisfactory means of obtaining the will of the people. We do not know what were the views held by those who abstained from voting. We hear in this House far more than is justifiable as to honorable members opposite having on all questions a mandate from the people. It is ridiculous to talk of legislation based on a mandate of the people in this connexion when out of a total of 1,316,352 who voted on the Financial Agreement there was a majority of only 25,324 against the Bill, whilst 942,130 electors refused or neglected to exercise the franchise. More electors refused to vote than actually voted for or against the Bill.

Mr Riley:

– Perhaps it is just as well that they did not vote - they might not have known much about the Bill.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That is not a logical remark. The majority of the people did not vote on the Financial Agreement, and whatever may be the views of the Government, the present Opposition like to win or to lose by the will . of a majority of the electors. Having regard to the number of votes recorded, the less said about the mandate given by the people to the Labour party at the last general election the better. On the authority of this supposed mandate we have had foisted upon the people during this session a lot of very harsh and discriminating legislation, in passing which the Government and their supporters have displayed political partisanship to an extent unprecedented in any Australian Parliament. To those who say that such an observation is unwarranted, I can only reply, “ Have we not listened in this House to the gibes of some honorable members opposite? Have we not heard them say, ‘ Now is our chance, and we are going to avail ourselves of it, to undo the wrongs under which those whom we represent have suffered for many years?’ “

Mr West:

– Hear, hear.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– If that is not harsh and improper language to use in this House, I should like to know what is. The honorable member for East Sydney says, “ Hear, hear.” His interjection is uncalled for and unwarranted, and serves only to show how deep is his bias and venom.

Mr West:

– Do not be downhearted.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am not, but I like a little reason and proper feeling to be exhibited by public men in discharging their public duties. I can see by the honorable member’s appearance that he has been well treated, and has done very well. He has no cause to complain. Probably, many people have just as much cause to complain of his actions as he has to complain of the actions of others.

Mr West:

– The right honorable member is off for a holiday this afternoon. Let him be generous.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I am not going to do anything which the honorable member may not do if he is a free citizen. Perhaps, after all, he is not. I am a free citizen, and am not bound hand and foot by any Caucus.

Mr.Ozanne. - The right honorable member was bound on the Financial Agreement.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I was not pledged, but, on the contrary, was as free as any one could be. I was one of those who took part in the making of that Financial Agreement, and surely it was right that I should support that to which I had agreed.

Mr.Jensen. - And when we agree to our platform, surely we have a right to support it.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Honorable members opposite agree to their platform in order to get into Parliament. They could not secure their return unless they belonged to the Labour party. Scarcely any of them would be able even to put his head inside this chamber but for the fact that he is a member of the Labour party. The Opposition, on the other hand, are returned to this Parliament on the votes of the people, and are absolutely free. We have also behind us a record of some service to the people. Some honorable members on the Government side of the House, however, cannot point to anything of the kind. A man has no right to expect to be returned to the Federal Parliament unless he has rendered some good service to his country. He has no right to be pitchforked into this Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must discuss the question.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– An honorable member opposite has talked of the wrongs which the people have suffered. Is the Commonwealth system of old-age pensions a wrong to the people? Is free education a wrong? Who provided for that system? Not the Labour party.

Mr West:

– Yes, the Labour party.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I introduced the system in Western Australia long before the Labour party was known there. Then, again, are free hospitals a wrong? The charitable effort of Australia comes, I suppose, mostly from those who have got something. Yet the honorable member for East Sydney says, “ Hear, hear,” when I quote a statement as to the Labour party saying that they intend to redress wrongs. He has no regard for the past, or gratitude for the present. I wish, however, to point out that the Ministerial party, who claim that they have a mandate from the people, represent only 673,697 votes, whilst 1,584,785 voters either voted against them, or refrained from voting at all.

Mr Riley:

– What is the point?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The point is that the Labour party represent a minority of the electors of Australia.

Sir William Lyne:

– And the right honorable member and his party represent a still greater minority.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member represents the electorate of Hume, but could not secure his return without the assistance of the Labour party. He had to go on all-fours to them, just as he has been doing for some time. The hounds, however, will have him; the fox will yet be caught. I wish to show how ineffective is our system of referendum with a view of obtaining the opinion of the people. The trouble is that thousands of electors refrain from voting.

Mr Spence:

– What is the remedy?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That has yet to be ascertained. I am not here to lay down a cut-and-dried scheme, but surely a remedy can be found. The present system is unsatisfactory, and we ought to adopt one under which a majority of the people would carry a measure submitted to them.

Mr Spence:

– Would the honorable member make voting compulsory?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Something should be done, and compulsory voting might be a very good thing; at any rate, it would have better results than this bogus mandate given at an election at which more abstained from voting than voted. At the last general election, out of a roll of 2,258,482, there were 942,130 electors who did not vote.

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

– They were at work on election day, perhaps.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not know why they did not vote. It is now proposed to take a referendum when there is none of the excitement that attaches to a general election; and it is not at all likely that a larger number of the electors will vote than in April last. On the contrary, I am inclined to think that there will be a small poll. Only about 30 per cent, of the electors voted for the present Ministerial majority, and 70 per cent, are not represented by honorable members opposite, or in this House. I deny that there is any great urgency before the next general election for the settlement of these questions by a process which will cost £40,000 or £50,000. On the score of economy and convenience, the elections for both Houses are held at one time, and a general election has, on two occasions, been taken advantage of for the taking of referenda. There may be some disadvantage in submitting so many questions at one time ; but there is the compensation that there is greater interest and excitement, with the result of larger polls than otherwise would be the case.

Mr Tudor:

– More voted in April last than at any previous Commonwealth general election.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– At any rate, it appears to me that we are not likely to have a large poll for the referenda, and that, therefore, the result is not likely to be satisfactory, whichever side wins. What is desirable, above all, is that questions submitted in this way to the people should be thoroughly understood, and that cannot be accomplished between now and next April unless there is considerable canvassing, which is not likely in the absence of the ordinary inducements of a general election. Altogether, I think it’ most ill-advised to take the referenda at the time proposed. A great number of honorable members are going to other parts of the world in search of recreation and health after a long session; and yet, in the next three or four months, they are to be exposed to the trouble of practically another election. As to the State debts, although we heard much from honorable members opposite last session in regard to the absolute necessity for their being taken over by the Commonwealth, in order to secure the solvency of the country, little or nothing has been heard of the matter since the Labour Government came into power. Apparently, the taking over of the State debts was only useful to the Government as a placard during the elections. When before my constituents I advocated the taking over of the debts, though I said that the world, of course, would not come to an end if the people decided otherwise. I took the view that as we had the right to take over £200,000,000 of debts, we might as well take over another £50,000,000, though I knew that that was not the opinion held by the whole of my colleagues. The question was carried in the affirmative in all of the States, except New South Wales, where there was a large majority against the proposal. At any rate, the Government have r.ow been seven months in office ; and, beyond answers to one or two questions to the effect that the matter will be dealt with next session, no intimation or information has been vouchsafed to us. In 191 1, there will mature, in round figures, loans representing £7,000,000, for which provision will have to be made. Are the States to be left to make that provision, or is the Commonwealth going to undertake the work? In 1912, debts representing £11,000,000 will mature ; in 1913, debts representing ^£10,000,000; in 1914, debts representing £2,000,000; and, in 1915, debts representing £20.000,000 ; or debts -to the amount of £51,000,000, with an interest bill of £9, 000,000, will have to be provided for in the next five years. This is a question so important to Australia that it ought to be grappled with at once; and I should like to know whether the Government have done anything in the matter. Have they written to the authorities at Home, and is there any correspondence that can be communicated to honorable members? If the Government have not done anything, what do they propose to do?

Mr Fenton:

– I’ thought that, in the honorable member’s opinion, the Government have already done too much !

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The honorable member is not seized of the serious importance of these questions, or he would not make such interjections.

Mr Fenton:

– I am as strongly in favour of taking over the debts as is the honorable member !

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Then the honorable member ought to help me to rouse the Government to action, because something ought to be done quickly. There is in the Treasury correspondence with the financiers in England years ago, when I was Treasurer; so that something has been done already. Of course, we do not desire the Government to tell us everything that transpires ; but we ought, to have the satisfaction of knowing that they are active, and whether the prospects are good or bad.

Mr Fenton:

– What about taking over some of the State assets - the railways, for instance ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– The Commonwealth has already taken over the Customs and Excise revenue.

Mr Fenton:

– We should take the railways, too !

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– I do not see any force in that argument. The honorable member talks like the man who made a bargain, and then turned to the other party, and said : “ Well, now, I think this is too fair an arrangement, so I am going to dispossess you altogether, and take the lot.” That is the sort of dishonest ideas to which such interjections give rise. If we desire to take over any properties, we must pay for them, and give a fair price. The Government have an obedient majority in both Chambers. We have heard that another place has ceased to be a deliberative assembly ; and I think we may say the same of this House. Honorable members opposite vote en bloc on all subjects; if they do overstep the mark one day, the are rounded up the next, and made to toe the line. We saw an example of that the other day, when honorable members opposite, on a popular proposal, voted against the Government, but subsequently came back like “ dumb, driven cattle,” to quote Longfellow, and recanted all they had previously said. Honorable members opposite settle these questions in caucus, and are bound to act accordingly in the House ; and the Government are using their obedient majority for carrying out a species of oppression and injury on those opposed to them>. If they have a mandate, as they declare, it is not honest to say one thing before an election and another thing after gaining the victory. Before the election we were told that the land tax was to be 4d. in the £1, but when the Labour’ party had attained power the figure was made 6d. Then, as to the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, every Labour man in Western Australia declared that the payment was to be 25s.- for twenty-five years, whereas now we find that it is to be 25s. for ten years. The expenditure of the Government is already very large, and is constantly being added to. The opening up of the Northern Territory will cost £20,000,000 in the next ten years. I do not make that statement without some reason. It is already provided that our Fleet shall- soon be doubled in size and strength. There is also the building of the Trans-Australian railway, and other large works. All these matters will entail an immense expenditure on the Commonwealth within the next ten years. The question which we on this side of the House have to ask ourselves, and which I have already asked myself again and again, is,” Are the party at present in power capable of dealing satisfactorily with all these matters?” My answer is an emphatic “ No.”

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The speech of the honorable member for Swan has at least been very interesting, but if it is to be regarded as his “ Swan song “ it has been a very discordant one. I have always been led to believe that the two places in Australia where extravagant language might be heard were the Yarra bank, in Melbourne, and the Domain, in Sydney; but for extravagant language commend me to the honorable member for Swan when he approaches any question connected with the Labour party. I may instance his ravings in regard to the land tax. The burden of his song was the enormous amount of expenditure that faces us in the future, and the immense number of responsibilities which the Government have shouldered. He has been good enough to tell us a great deal about how we ought to discharge those responsibilities, but he becomes extremely amusing when he approaches the question of raising the extra money necessary for the development of Australia. That is where he baulks. He refuses to tell us any alternative to the method we have adopted. I cannot help thinking that his extravagant language with regard to our “ confiscatory “ land tax is about the last shriek of those gentlemen who are going to be dispossessed of something of which they have not been making good use.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Then they are going to be dispossessed?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope so. I have absolutely no objection to any of them calling their dispossession by us the confiscation of their large estates, but it is simply the transfer of those large estates from them to thousands of others who will make better use of the land. Call it what you will, that dispossession must take place in the interests of Australia. If those people who have been so fortunate, by legitimate or illegitimate means, as to obtain large areas of Australia to the detriment of proper settlement really share our idea of what is proper to develop this country, as they say they do, they ought to be the very last to squeal. It ill-becomes them to talk in the manner just adopted by the honorable member for Swan, when we say, “ We have to defend this country, and it will cost millions. We must build great railways, and we ask you, who have an abundance of money, to give a little more than you have been giving in the past to meet these obligations.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How can they give it if they are to be dispossessed of their property ?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If they hold on they will give it, but if they are dispossessed they will get out of paying the tax and allow others to pay it in another way. The bulk of the money for the use of this Parliament is paid to-day by what we term the working classes. The honorable member has said that this party represent the poor of Australia. We are the enemies of poverty. We hope to abolish the poor. The idea of there being poor people does not commend itself to us at all, and our object is the same as that of Lloyd-George at present in the Old Land. He is trying to place the burden on the shoulders best able to bear it, and I hold that the Government deserve the support of Australia in effecting a similar purpose through a progressive land tax. Our position is absolutely unassailable when looked at through the spectacles of the naked truth, but an attack such as we have listened to is only to be expected from people like the honorable member for Swan, who have had the field of government to themselves for so long, and were not confronted as are the present Government by a caucus. They could simply put their measures down, and they were passed. I do not know how to describe the obedience of the party behind them.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member for Swan has done more for Australia than the honorable member will do if he lives for a thousand years.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Only lunatics and innocent people attempt to make prophecies of that magnitude. I prefer to believe that the honorable member is innocent. If he can prophesy for a thousand years, he is too great or too innocent a man to waste his time in a foolish little place like the Federal Parliament. The honorable member for Swan while in office must have done some good, and we give him credit for it, as we give credit to any other member on the other side who has done good things ; but when the honorable member for Swan misrepresents the actions of those on this side, he must submit to a reply being made to his statements. Any one who listened to the honorable member for Swan and the Leader of the Opposition would believe that all the work of the Government is now done in caucus, but do those honorable members think that the people of Australia object to more scrutiny being given to measures than is given on the floor of this House? Do they disapprove of a party working so hard that it not only meets in this chamber, but in its caucus room also? It would be well for this country if a little more scrutiny were given to legislation, and a little more work done, especially in connexion with the finances, in this Parliament. One of the weak spots of all Governments under our system is the want of grasp of the details of administration in the various Departments. I hope no Minister will pretend for a moment that he has an all-comprehensive grasp of his Department, no matter which party he belongs to.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Not even these Ministers ?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Not even these Ministers. They have been in office for a comparatively short while, and have done wonders. They have given us in one session enough work for two. In fact, I cannot understand their great anxiety to cram all they have done into one session. If the Government ask us to put two sessions’ work into one, a long recess such as is now before us is justified, even without the all-sufficient reasons which already exist for it. It is an absolute absurdity to say that the Labour party settle everything in their caucus, that members come into the Chamber hide bound, and that Bills cannot be altered here. It is even a greater absurdity to make that statement about the Budget. Honorable members, if they look at the programme to which we pledge ourselves, will find in it only two important financial matters - a National Bank and the restriction of public borrowing. Those are the only two financial questions on which we are bound in the fighting platform. We, as a party, believe in trusting the Government, the men who are on the spot, with the administration of the finances. I am sure that that is the feeling among the rank and file of the party. So far as this Government have gone, I see no reason for distrust. They are, of course, on their trial, and on their mettle. They have had only a few months of office, and if they had accomplished more than they have done it would have been surprising. I hope it will be understood that the party are absolutely sincere in watching the drift of legislation and the obligations into which we are entering. We feel, in all seriousness, the difficulties that confront us. We realize that in carrying out the enormous programme laid before us we shall have to use a good deal of brain work to discover how to finance the Commonwealth as we go along, and how to do everything well and properly. It is all very well to talk about taking over the State debts. I am in favour of that, and hope it will come about-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does it take very much brains to clap on a tax or two ?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member’s record would indicate that he has found it very easy to vote for the imposition of taxes. In his term as Minister of Defence he committed this country to a very large expenditure, and I hope that he, although in opposition, will assist the present Government to solve the financial difficulties ahead of this Parliament.

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

– The Opposition have been doing nothing but assist the Government all the session.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They have assisted to a certain extent, and, so far, I am grateful to them.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member never saw an Opposition so quiet.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think our Opposition was half as quiet, but one reason was that the gag was always ready for us. We have shown an example to the Opposition by giving them a free hand. Had they done the same to us when we were in opposition we should have met them with the greatest magnanimity. In fact, I think they have lived to regret applying the gag to us at all.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The use of the gag last session was the best thing that ever happened to this country.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honorable member insists on directing my attention to last session, would he mind running through Hansard to see how many speeches were made by the followers of the then Government on the measures put before the House last session? Will he show us the grand independence of the men who sat on these benches then? They were like the dumb, and it used to be a great pleasure, on rare occasions, to hear them speak. We used to get quite a shock when a follower of the Minister made a speech.

Mr McWilliams:

– That is what happens to us now.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The members of this party have not been required to remain as silent as were the supporters of the last Government. I acknowledge that I have taken as little part as possible in the debate, so that the Ministry might get their big programme through ; but I consider that it would be better to pass fewer measures, and to discuss them at greater length. We do not gain a great deal by pushing through a large number of measures without full consideration. I hope that we have heard the last of the accusation that the Labour party’s programme is formulated in caucus and passed in the House by the solid vote of the party. Even if that were so it would be better than to have the Ministerial supporters voting solidly for a programme which had been considered only by the Cabinet Ministers. As to what has been said about the domination of the Labour party by the unions, honorable members must know that it is untrue. The members of unions who vote for us are few compared with the total number of our supporters. It is absurd, too, to say that we are nominated by the unions. Any person, whether an employer or an employe may join a political labour league, and it is the leagues which nominate candidates. A great deal has been said about the degradation of the Constitution, the Labour party having been accused of trying to take away the rights of the States, and to bring about Unification. It must be remembered that the Constitution was framed by a Convention whose members were not elected in accordance with the principle of proportional representation, and that the Labour party was not represented in the Convention. We had nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution, and cannot be responsible for the mistakes which were made. It was drafted by those who believe in the government of the wealthy by the wealthy for the good of the wealthy, while we desire the government of the people by the representatives of the whole people for the people. I trust that the referenda will be carried by overwhelming majorities. The fears of the honorable member for Swan in that respect are likely to be realized. This will be the first occasion when the people will be fairly consulted in regard to an altera tion of the Constitution, and I think that they will speak with no uncertain voice. It is a thousand times better to let them consider these constitutional questions calmly than to mix up their consideration with the irrelevant and personal issues of an election. The vote which will be taken will not be a party or a personal one, and I think that the minority against our proposal will be a very small one. I share the regret of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government cannot give more time to the consideration of the Estimates, though I am willing to accept their financial proposals. I hope that in future sessions more time will be given for the consideration of these matters. The Government have hitherto followed too closely the methods of former Governmentsin regard to finance. Let me draw attention to the main proposals for absorbing revenue. In the first place, the Post Office is continually crying for more expenditure. We know that for the development of the country an immense sum must be expended on postal facilities. The Postal Department is one of the sinks into which our revenue falls. But those who wish to help the pioneers, and to promote development, must not allow expense to stand in the way of the extension of telephonic and telegraphic facilities, and those on whom the progressive land tax will fall should not squeal, because they will benefit by this expenditure. The railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie will cost many millions, and so will that from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek. I trust that no parsimonious spirit will be shown in the development of the Northern Territory, which will cost a great deal, and for many years be a burden on the Commonwealth. Ultimately, if it is properly administered, it will cease to be a white elephant, and will produce revenue which will cover its expenditure. Speaking as one who has had practical experience in mining, I feel convinced, after reading the geological and mineralogical accounts of the Territory, that in future years fields better than the Bullfinch field will be found there. I hope that the Government will incur all reasonable expenditure for the creation of depots which will enable the thorough prospecting of the country. I trust that the Minister will take a two-handed grip of his duties, and do all that is possible to provide for the opening up of the Territory. We also have to expend money on the building of the Capital city, though that can go on more slowly than the construction of the transcontinental railways. It is the Defence Department which soaks up most of our revenue. Whatever party is in power must provide for the defence of the country, much as they may dislike militarism and detest war. I trust, however, that the Government will not spend much on naval defence. It is one thing to spend money in training the citizens in the art of warfare, so that they may be fitted to defend their country, and another thing to spend money on Dreadnoughts or other vessels of war which the progress of invention speedily makes obsolete and fit only for the scrap heap. This country is too young to stand the strain of such expenditure. I am not prepared to indorse wild-cat navy proposals, though I am willing to go the whole hog in regard to the training of our citizens, so that, should the need occur, they will be able to defend themselves as the Boers did.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member would neglect the first line of defence to develop the second.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We cannot afford to spend much on the Navy. In regard to naval defence, I would borrow some of the honorable member’s spreadeagleism, and rely on the British Fleet to protect British interests in the Commonwealth and the Empire generally. When we become strong enough to afford naval defence, I shall be ready to vote for it, should I still be on deck as a politician. At present we cannot afford the money necessary both for the building of ships and the training of our citizens. Money spent on the training of our citizens, and in making them brighter, better, healthier, and smarter, cannot be regarded as money wasted, though we may never have to defend ourselves from an enemy, and I hope never shall. Other causes of our expenditure are the old-age and invalid pensions, and bounties. No matter what Government might be in power, their responsibilities would be similar to those of the present Ministry, and they would find it necessary to impose extra taxation to obtain revenue. This Government is to be commended for placing the burden of the taxation on those who can best bear it. Those who will be called upon to pay the land tax are those who will benefit most by the development of the country. I am sorry that Ministers have not explained their financial proposals at greater length. We have heard very little of them, and know little of their intentions regarding finance, beyond what we have learned in connexion with the submission of measures. Returned as I was to this Parliament pledged to support a National Banking scheme, I expected to see the Labour Government base their administration of the finances of the country on a National Bank. I expected them to establish such an institution, to take over the State debts, and to work the finances of the Commonwealth in connexion with it, with a view of solving the problems that face them. When I speak of a National Bank, I have in mind an institution that will be entirely divorced from political control, and not one with which the Treasurer may do as he thinks fit. My desire is that we should avoid the waste that takes place in carrying on our financial arrangements through private avenues, so that the people may be relieved of an expenditure amounting to some hundreds of thousands of pounds. I view the government of the country as a business concern, and I trust that its business side will be conducted in a businesslike way. The followers of the Labour party - those who vote for us - give us an absolutely free hand in this regard. They do not profess to be able to guide or to instruct us in regard to the administration of the financial side of government; and they leave the matter in our hands. I ask the Government to seriously consider the whole position. I ask them to consider the great assistance that the National Bank would give them in dealing with the debts of the States and administering our finances. I sincerely hope that we shall see no more accumulations of borrowing from foreign parts. We do not need to go to the Jews’ in London to raise a loan. I hope that the Commonwealth is strong enough to finance herself, and that within our own boundaries we shall find the accommodation and credit necessary to enable us to carry out all legitimate Commonwealth schemes.’ I should not stand in the road of any Government raising money within the Commonwealth by means other than taxation. It has been said over and over again that the Labour party are opposed to borrowing. Whilst I am against borrowing beyond the borders of the Commonwealth, I have never opposed borrowing from people within the Commonwealth. The pledge I signed in this connexion was to fight for the restriction of public borrowing, and the first restriction I would impose would be in regard to foreign borrowing. If the Government will but establish a National Bank, and take a two-handed grip of its finances, we shall have another source of revenue, apart altogether from that of borrowing or taxation. I have in mind, in speaking thus, the profits to be derived from the nationalization schemes in which we shall enter in the early years of Australian history.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Controlling the instruments of exchange.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Perhaps no honorable member has given greater thought to this question than has the honorable gentleman who interjects. Certainly an enormous saving could be effected in the direction he suggests. In financing our nationalization schemes, we shall find the National Bank acting as a king pin. It will be the foundation of the whole system. To talk of nationalizing industries in the absence of a National Bank is very like talking of conducting a business without a banking account. I hope to see a National Bank established as the basis of our nationalization schemes, and thatwe shall nationalize many facilities, and especially services that are, in effect, monopolies. I should not, however, stop at monopolies. I should not fear the Government taking over any service which they could perform better than could private enterprise. At the same time, I do not give a thought to “ going the whole hog,” so far as Socialism is concerned. That is utterly impossible, and, even if we were to start upon it to-day, the scheme could not be realized within the next fifty years. I feel, however, that we should grip the monopolies, and obtain from them profits that would help to finance our great transcontinental railway schemes, the development of the Northern Territory, and the defence of Australia. Is not that a system which the public of Australia ought to indorse? Critics of the Labour party should take cognisance of that side of the question. We must come to it. We are forced on to it. Has any honorable member the temerity to say that the public of Australia are going to refuse to this Parliament at the referenda next April the right to nationalize monopolies? I cannot conceive of one-third of the voters who opposed me at the last general election voting against the proposed amendment of the Constitution to provide for the nationalization of monopolies. I expect many thousands of those who voted for the Fusion to support us in this respect, and that is why I am pleased that the question will go before the people apart from personal or party warfare.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– I am afraid that party warfare will be introduced.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It may be introduced by interested persons who wish to prevent the people from gettingtheir rights. That is always the effort of aggregated wealth. I give the wealthy of this country credit for shrieking against the nationalization of monopolies, the establishment of a National Bank, and the passing of a progressive Land Tax Bill. After all, they are only defending the privileges which they secured in days gone by. But I utterly condemn those who are outside that little coterie for not fighting for their rights. When I speak of the workers, I have in mind all the legitimate workers who do Australia’s work. The right honorable member for Swan referred in eloquent terms to the pioneers. He sees, however, only the king-pin pioneers. He has in mind only the man who got ahead of others, spied out the land, took up a big estate, and to-day is almost a millionaire. He forgets the men who constructed the roads and built the railways, who cleared and fenced the land, and drove the bullock teams with the first wool to market. He forgets the man who did the first work for Australia, and our battle is to obtain for the sons and daughters of those less fortunate pioneers some of the good things of this world, so that they may enjoy them just as do the sons and daughters of the more successful pioneers. Thousands of men went into the bush, and got what? What did the workers who built the railways and developed the country receive? Nothing but a mean, paltry, miserable wage. In this connexion, I cannot help recalling a story told of an election at Bathurst, where one of the candidates was a gentleman named Suttor. In the district there lived a funny old chap who usually barracked for the man for whom he was fighting, and he was one of Mr. Suttor’s supporters. One evening during the campaign he rose to say a few words to a crowded open-air meeting, and when he stepped forward the crowd, expecting something funny, yelled and cheered themselves hoarse. The old man said, “ Gentlemen, vote for Suttor. Yes; by gad, he is the man. When other gentlemen gave their men a wage of only 6d. per day Mr. Suttor gave his men is. 66. per day.” That is an illustration of how the pioneer workers were paid. The right honorable member for Swan had nothing to say about the thousands of pioneers who were so treated. He confined his attention to the pioneers who succeeded in securing big estates. He pleaded for them, and it is for us to take up the cudgels on behalf of the thousands who developed Australia. When we speak of the workers we mean miners, farmers, and other wageearners, public servants, business men, and others who are doing the legitimate business of the country. We are absolutely opposed to the monopolists being allowed to dictate the policy of Australia. We resent also the way in which some of these men arrogate to themselves all the virtues of government. The words of the right honorable member for Swan this afternoon suggested something from the pages of ancient history. He made me think of the troglodyte who said,- “You cannot do anything unless you have a stone axe.” The methods adopted by the right honorable member in carrying on the administration of the affairs of his State in days gone by - even the methods of conducting elections there until recent years - were those of the troglodyte, the ultraConservative. It is only since the development of our great party, within the last twenty years, that any semblance of Democracy has been infused into our great political compaigns In speaking thus, we have no desire to detract from the individual work of any by-gone Democrat. I do not wish to detract from the work achieved by the right honorable member for Swan in carrying out, by means of borrowed money, the Coolgardie water scheme. But God forbid that he should be the Minister charged with the administration of the Northern Territory to-day. As one of the pioneers who went to Western Australia when the right honorable member for Swan was in power there, I cannot help recalling the way in which thousands of would-be prospectors and others were obstructed by the effete and abominable mining laws passed by him. I am indeed glad that he is not in charge of our great Northern Territory scheme, and I am thankful that we have in power a Ministry that will place all pioneers on the same footing - who will treat the man who goes to the Northern Territory with a few pounds in his pockets, a blanket, a pick and shovel, and some ex plosives, just as they will treat the man who goes there to represent a company with a capital of .£500,000 to develop great areas. I do not think the Territory is going to be such a burden as some honorable members imagine it will be. With proper handling, it should give us a return at an early date, although it must be carried on for some time at a loss. Its position to-day is much like that of Western Australia when Bayley’s Reward was found. In those days every croaker in Australia condemned Western Australia. Yet look at the development that has taken place up to to-day ! The Northern Territory offers greater chances and possibilities than ever Western Australia did. I may say one word or two on the details of the Estimates ; and I only desire now to add that whatever smalt mistakes the Government may make in their finances, they are thoroughly honest, and their intentions are right. I am willing to trust them up to the hilt ; and I hope there will be forthcoming that sympathy and assistance which a new Government, undertaking such a task, deserve.

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

– - I regret that we are called upon in what I hope are the last days of the session to deal with the financial proposals of the Government. The palladium of liberty in all Constitutions such as ours is the power of the purse ; and it is the practice here, as elsewhere, to withhold supplies until the last days. But for the adequate consideration of business, it is essential,- or should be, that the financial proposals in all their details should be dealt with at a much earlier period. I do not think honorable members should .delay the Committee long by addressing themselves to this Budget; but I entertain views somewhat different from those of honorable members on my own side, and certainly different from those of honorable members opposite ; and I feel constrained to, as briefly as possible, put those views before the Committee, seeing that we have not had an opportunity this session of reviewing the financial situation of the Commonwealth as ahole. TThe ‘proposition which I have made several times in this Chamber that there should be a Committee of Public Accounts has been passed over with scant attention by one Government after another. The present Government have promised to consider the matter; and I hope they will do so to some practical purpose during the recess. I can understand that the

Government, in withholding the debate upon the Budget until the last days of a very full and trying session, have been actuated by a desire that much time should not be occupied in discussing it. Certainly it is a fact that discussions on the Budget and Estimates have in the past, in this and other Parliaments, occupied an unreasonable amount of time. The cause of that is not far to seek, and the cure of it, to a large extent, is the adoption of the proposal to appoint a Committee of Public Accounts. Such a Committee would have power to call for persons and papers, and examine the chief officers of the Commonwealth on the Estimates and Budget papers, and thus throw what light they deem to be necessary on the financial proposals of the Government. By this means honorable members would be relieved of the task constantly thrown upon them of seeking information, and thus delaying business while the Estimates are going through Committee. There would be the further advantage that, instead of receiving answers which frequently mean nothing, honorable members would, through the Committee of Public Accounts, obtain explanations which would adequately cover the whole ground covered by the Estimates. Honorable members would be enlightened to such an extent that they could, if they wished, pass the Estimates very rapidly, and be relieved from the rush that is now taking place in the dying days of an already overburdened session. It would only be on questions of grave consideration that the Estimates would be delayed, and honorable members would feel satisfied that their duty as custodians of the public money had been fairly discharged. The Prime Minister put before us a very plain business statement, and no one could complain of failure to understand what it meant. On the other hand, the statement was too restrictive; it was merely a recapitulation of the receipts and expenditure of last year, with an estimate for the current year. If there ever was a time in the history of the Commonwealth - and I do not -think there can ever be such a time in the future - that called for something more, it was when ‘.the Prime Minister delivered his statement. Great changes were being made; we were face to face with the end of the Braddon section, with a mandate from the people for a final financial adjustment with the States, and, for the 6rst time, with the consideration of efficient naval and military protection for the Commonwealth, together with the large votes that would be requisite for carrying out all these proposals. We had at last to solve the question - which had been pressing on us for many years by reason of its importance, not only to the general development of Australia, but to our future protection - of the taking over of the Northern Territory, and with that we had to consider the initiation of transcontinental railways for linking up the railway systems of Australia. Further, we had to adopt some means of taxation to meet the large expenditure which will necessarily be involved by the proposals of the Government. Measures of such importance demanded something more than an ordinary Ministerial statement of the receipts and expenditure last year and an estimate for the current year. We required a rough forecast of how the Commonwealth will stand next year and the year after ; in other words, we required a financial statement which would deal, however roughly and restrictedly as to outline, with the position of the Commonwealth in relation to its own affairs and in relation to the States for the next two years. Such Budgets have frequently been presented in this and other Parliaments in the past, and having regard to the momentous changes before us, and the new and heavy system of taxation to be introduced, I regret the Treasurer did not see his way to forecast the position of the Government as nearly as he could during the next two or three years. The abstract of the financial position put before us by the Acting Prime Minister shows that the expenditure includes £2.] 334, 496 for special public works, to which I should like to briefly refer, on account of their importance. There is towards the new Fleet, £850,000; military stores, £200,000; cloth for uniforms, £50,000; Federal Capital, .£45,000 ; and other items making up the total I have mentioned. The expenditure, including the £2,334,496, and eliminating the amount brought forward from last year for the purpose of squaring with the States, is shown as £16,841,629. The Commonwealth estimates of expenditure have always been adequate. Year after year, since the careful days of Sir George Turner, the amount estimated has not been spent.

Mr West:

– More is the pity !

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

– In one way, yes; but not in another, because there is shown a very careful administration and estimate of what was required.

Mr Webster:

– A parsimonious estimate !

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

– The honorable member is referring to works in connexion with the Post Office, with which. I shall deal later. The general expenditure has been very rationally estimated in the past, and the government has been carried on with a trifle of saving. The Prime Minister, in his estimate of revenue to meet the expenditure, makes it exactly the same amount, namely, £16,841,629, showing neither surplus nor deficiency. The accounts are made square after a singularly cautious estimate of the revenue under the main headings of receipts. There would have been a deficiency of £1,044,129 only that the Prime Minister estimated £1,000,000 from the land tax, and then credited the receipts from the miscellaneous items for the balance, £44,129. The receipts under this heading in the previous year were £62,806. That is the simple chandler-shop way in which the Treasurer of the Commonwealth balances his accounts; and I think 1 have every justification for regarding the estimate of revenue as a singularly cautious one. If honorable members will follow me for a few moments, while I lay before them a few facts relating to the position of the Commonwealth, they will be inclined to agree, I think, that the estimate is not only singularly cautious, but shows a singularly pessimistic view of our future prospects. I could show, on the back of an old envelope, a Budget that would give a far more accurate idea of the results of the current year’s finances than do all the pages of the Treasurer’s Budget papers. I should set down the cost of the Federal Government in the current year as, roughly, £1,000,000; to be returned to the States, £5,250,000; defence, “and those abnormal works to which I have referred, £2,750,000; the Post Office, and works in connexion therewith, £4,500,000 ; pensions, £2,000,000; sugar bounties, £500,000 ; and miscellaneous items, which include many that cannot be specified, £1,000,000 ; or a total expenditure of £17,000,000. On the other hand, I should show receipts - Customs and Excise, £13,000,000; Post Office, ,£4,000,000; land tax, £1,750.000; miscellaneous, £250,000, or a total of £19,000,000. According to my estimate, there would thus be a surplus at the end of the current financial year of £2,000,000.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member is forgetting the loss on penny postage.

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

– No; nor did the Prime Minister forget it, because the Estimates for the Department were framed with a view to carrying out penny postage during the current year. If I am correct in my estimates - and each day brings us closer to a realization of my figures, and further from those of the Treasurer - there has been a reckless piling up of surplus, or a skilful creation of a surplus. for ulterior purposes.

Mr Fenton:

– Has the honorable member calculated the expenditure on the Northern Territory?

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

– No, because the current year will not bear any Northern Territory expenditure.

Mr Fenton:

– How is that?

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

– Before I finish I shall show, I think, a very businesslike estimate of what the Northern Territory is going to cost in the immediate, succeeding years. The Treasurer estimates the loss from penny postage at between £400,000 and £600,000. For the Federal Capital £45,000 is provided as ample for present purposes; and I believe that if we handle the subject in the right way we shall require no further votes on this score, or, at any rate, we ought not. If the place is properly handled and financed the increment in the value of land in the Federal Territory and the Capital itself ought to defray every pound of expenditure on it, without it being necessary to ask this House to vote any of the people’s money. There are also the questions of the Northern Territory, and the railway to Western Australia, which I for one confess that I am now willing to support. Having opposed that railway for some years, I now think that I can support it, for defence and other reasons, seeing that we have settled matters with the States, and have the use of our own independent revenue, .with a prosperous future before the Commonwealth. The highest estimate given during the discussion of the Northern Territory Acceptance Bill,, by the most hostile critics, of the expenditure necessary on the Territory was that itwould involve the Commonwealth in theimmediately succeeding years in a capital; expenditure of, roughly, £10,000. 000. The Government’s estimate of the cost of the Western Australian railway is, I believe, £4,000,000, but the right honorable member for Swan to-day almost pledged his reputation that it will be very little over £3,000,000. Putting it, however, at £4,000,000, with £10,000,000 of capital expenditure on the Northern Territory, we get a total of £14,000,000, which, at 3I per cent., will require at the utmost £500,000 per annum to meet it. We shall have available, not only that £500,000, but a great deal more, with a condition of affairs in Australia pointing to continued prosperity, to an increasing population, arid to everything which would make us believe that we shall be able to begin to discharge the new and necessary duties and functions which we have taken upon ourselves.

Mr Mathews:

– I hope the honorable member is correct, but I think we shall be short.

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

– I am almost prepared to swear that we shall have a surplus. We shall see by-and-by who is correct. The Treasurer in his Financial Statement referred with considerable regret to the facts as they appeared to him with regard to population, saying, at page 2688-

I desire to say a few words regarding population and immigration. If our population is not so large as some of us would desire it to be, the natural increase is satisfactory from one point of view, when compared with other developments. ‘ The speed of the plough, for instance, in agricultural development has been much slower. Our population has increased at a greater ratio than has the area of cultivated land.

Here, again, the Treasurer is woefully at variance with the facts that he put before us in the returns attached to his own Budget statement. Those facts show that the population is now increasing at a greater ratio than for some years past. From every State there comes the news that population is increasing now more than it did last year. The census of 1901 gave us a population of 3,775,356, the estimate for 1909 is 4,374,138, and the estimate for the close of the current year is, I think, only 4,474,000, a lower rate of increase than for the immediately preceding year, although every honorable member knows that in every great port of the Commonwealth a larger number of immigrants is arriving to-day than in any other period of our history, unless we go back a quarter of a century. Possibly, therefore, the estimate of the Treasurer’s officials of the increase of population for the coming year may be found to be very conservative. The increase in 1906 was 67,000, in 1907 78,000, in 1908 78,000, in 1909 98,832, and for 19 10 it is estimated at only 100,000, or a lower proportionate rate of increase than for the past year, notwithstanding the condi tion of prosperity which surrounds us on all hands, and our knowledge that steamers are bringing additions to our numbers every day. The percentage of increase for last year is put down definitely at 2.31, which is 50 per cent, higher than the average of the decade. When we consider the speed of the plough which the Treasurer says is proceeding at a less rate than the development of population, we find that he pays no attention whatever to one of the largest factors in connexion with our agricultural development for the past twenty years. I allude to the great increase in the area under permanent grasses. The total area under crop per thousand of population varied from 2.219 acres in 1901-2 to 2.237 acres in 1908-9. During, the same period the increase iri the area of land laid down under permanent, sown grasses has been most marked. In 1896 the area was 845,000 acres ; in 1901, 1, 001,000 acres ; in 1902, 1,413,000 acres; in 1903, 1,901,000 acres; in 1904, 2,004,000 acres; in 1905, 2,144,000 .acres ; in 1906, 2,301,000 acres; in 1907, 2,416,000 acres; and for 1908-9, the last year for which figures are available, 2,445,000 acres; showing a most remarkable growth, accompanied, also, by an immense growth in the export of butter to the markets of the world. Here alone we can account for a greater development in . agriculture than is shown by the growth of the population, although the population growth is somewhat greater than it has been during the last few years. The Treasurer’s estimates seem to me to be largely based upon the Statistician’s figures for years previous to last year, when the rate of increase in many of these items was not so high. He gives, in his own Budget, statements showing the development during the last two years, and containing figures which are : very hopeful indeed to all who desire to see a constant growth and expansion of the agricultural interests. The total area under crop in 1907-8 was 9>355>052 acres, and in 1908-9 it was 9,892,393 acres, a considerable, although not too great increase; but the estimate for the current year, as given in the additional figures in the Budget papers, shows that the total area is expected to rise from, roughly, 10,000,000 acres, to, roughly, 11,000,000 acres, or an increase of 10 per cent, for the current year, as against a growth of 2.31 per cent, in population. There is, therefore, no reason for the Treasurer to lament the slow speed of the plough, par- ticularly when we consider that, side by side with this growth of agriculture, there is the enormous growth to which I have referred in the area under permanent grasses throughout the Commonwealth. While the acreage of land under agriculture or permanent grasses has been growing at a rate in excess of the population, the production from tthat land has been growing at a still higher rate. The production of wheat in 1908-9 was 62,500,000 bushels; in 1909-10 it was 90,500,000 bushels, a rise of about 45 per cent. The production of wheat, of course, fluctuates, but last year’s yield was the highest in our statistics, and it is almost certain that this year’s will exceed it.

Mr Fenton:

– I do not think so.

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

– It all depends on the weather for a few days to come. Given favorable conditions, we can safely anticipate breaking last year’s record. An increase of 7 per cent, was shown in butter and cheese, as against the 2.31 per cent, increase of population, which must be considered in relation to all these matters. In hay, oats, potatoes, vines, sugar, &c, matters” are comparatively stationary; but the number of horses has risen to 2,000,000, an increase of 5 per cent. ; of cattle, to 11,000,000, an increase of 5 per cent.; and of sheep to 91,500,000, also an increase, roughly, of 5 per cent. In 1891 there were 106,000,000 sheep in the Commonwealth, and I suppose 40,000,000 were swept off by the terrible drought experienced in the few succeeding years ; but Australia to-day is better capable of holding and maintaining 106,006,000 sheep than she was of holding half that number in 1901. Things have improved, owing to the way in which the pastoralists have made provision for preventing the decimation of their flocks by droughts. Fodder has been conserved, water brought on, and various other means taken to prevent the awful ravages experienced in the decade from 1890 to the beginning of the twentieth century.

Mr Higgs:

– And there are a good many more small holdings.

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

– The small holdings are already having their effect. The figures I have given with regard to trie increase of agriculture and dairy farming show that, naturally, and without any interference on the part of the Government, we are ‘getting a fair growth in that direction. One item worth referring to is that of pigs. It is extraordinary to consider how important a part is played by the pig in other parts of the world, while in the Commonwealth, where everything is practically booming, the figures regarding pigs show a fluctuating line of rise and fall during the last twenty years. Australia, which should be capable of holding and turning to good account a very large number of pigs, is probably the holder of the lowest number of any similar community in the world. It would be well worth the consideration of the Government to discover some means of educating our people as to the profit that awaits the man who with brains and industry can handle the pig. When we turn from the land to the statistics showing the wealth of the people, we find still more reason to flatter ourselves that the condition of the Commonwealth is rosier than ever before in our history. The coin and bullion in the banks of issue rose from £24,000,000 in 1908 to £27,500,000 in 1909, an increase of nearly 14 per cent., with an increase of only 2.31 per cent. in the population. The deposits in the banks of issue rose ‘ from £112,000,000 in 1908 to £120,000,000 in 1909, an increase of 7 per cent. The deposits in the Savings Banks rose from £46,000,000 in 1908 to £49,000,000 in 1909, or an increase of nearly 6 per cent. The average amount to the credit of the individual depositors in our Savings Bank, which in 1901 was £8 3s., had risen in 1907-8 to ,£io 18s. 8d., and in the following year to £11 7s. IIa., which I am inclined to believe is the world’s record. The figures I have given show that in Australia one person in three has money to his credit in some sort of bank, a state of things which does not obtain in any other community. In the face of these facts, I naturally ask why the Treasurer has submitted Estimates showing that the Customs and Excise duties are practically stagnant? Why does he take such a gloomy view of the future? His predecessors, from Sir George Turner onwards, were forced to give cautious Estimates; and Sir George Turner was eminently justified in doing so, because he had to deal with the States month by month, and year by year, and any over-estimate would have upset the calculations of the State Treasurers, and given them cause for complaint. But I have exclaimed against the inadequate Estimates of his successors whenever I have addressed myself to financial statements. Only last year, the honorable member for Swan underestimated the revenue by £750,000. He received nearly £1,250,000 above his estimate; but there were manipulations in connexion with the pension fund to be taken into account. The day has come when we should insist on a closer approach to accuracy. Two months of the financial year had passed when the Treasurer ‘ delivered the last Financial Statement; but the utmost he would admit was that there might .be a surplus sufficiently large to fill up a hole here and there. My opinion is that we shall have a surplus of something like £2,000,000, which will be sufficient to fill a mighty void. We have no right to take so much from the people unless the money is needed ; and it will not be needed for a decade. The Customs and Excise receipts during 1909-10 amounted to £11,593,000, while the Treasurer’s Estimate for the current year is £11,700,000, a paltry increase of a little over ,£100,000 ; notwithstanding the continuing prosperity and development. To check that Estimate, let us turn to the actual figures available. On the 3rd November, a return was published in the Gazette showing the Customs and Excise receipts for the quarter which ended 30th September last. They came to .£3,303,160, which is equivalent to £13,212,640 for the year; there being an increase of £480,000 in the three months over the figures for last year. The returns from the Post Office were £948,325, an increase of £73,000 on the returns for the same period of last year. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition moved for a return of revenue for the four months ended 31st October last, and was informed that the receipts from Customs and Excise were £4,349,124, which is equal to £13)047,372 for the year; and from the Post Office, £1,292,933, which is equal to £3,878,799 for the year.

Mr Finlayson:

– The Post Office receipts may fall off.

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

– I do not think that the period embracing the months from July to October inclusive is the best from a revenue point of view. Probably the months including the Christmas season give a better return, whatever may happen in the months including the Easter season. At any rate, the receipts to date show that the revenue for the year is likely to amount to ,£17,168,464. The Prime Minister estimated that he would receive from Customs and Excise, and the Post Office, £15,841,629. If the revenue for the whole year is as good as the revenue for the first four months has been, he will be under the mark by £1,327,000. In addition, he will have the revenue from land tax. What is it required for?

Mr Finlayson:

– For defence.

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

– Defence is absolutely provided for. We have put aside ,£2,750,000 for that, and have increased the expenditure for the current year by refusing to pay for the Naval Unit in a manner which would spread the payments over a period of twelve or fourteen years. Therefore, three years hence, we shall be relieved of a portion of our naval expenditure. The land tax was advocated as an agrarian reform, to discourage the aggregation of estates. Apparently, however, the Jacobite Club upstairs decided that it should be used for revenue purposes. If it was required for a purpose other than that for which it was advocated’ during the electoral campaign, the Treasurer should have given an early justification for the change. Although the tax was advocated as one for the dividing up of large estates suitable for agriculture, it will fall most heavily on city and suburban properties, for which at least half of the revenue derived from it will come. Had the Bill gone through as it was introduced, the tax would probably have yielded nearly £3,000,000 ; but in Committee we struck out the provisions dealing with lessees, and made many restrictions by definition or exclusion. Notwithstanding these amendments, there will probably be a return of £1,750,000; though it is difficult to make an accurate estimate. Only in regard to three of the States is it possible to ascertain the number of estates above and below a certain acreage; but, in regard to the other three, an estimate can be made by applying the law of averages in connexion with the figures supplied by the Statistician. I estimate that in the Commonwealth ‘there are 75,660 estates under 50 acres each, and 23,114 over 500 acres and under 1,000 acres. It is the existence of those estates which make it difficult to .estimate the probable return from the land tax. As to estates between 5,000 and 50,000 acres and over, it would be possible to make something approaching an accurate estimate. The city and suburban properties are probably all under 50 acres each. Under the aggregation sections of the Act, that land will be taxed at various rates running up to 6d’. in the £1. Taking a rough average on what has been realized by similar taxation in the States and in New Zealand, the Go- vernment estimated return of £1,000,000 is ridiculous, though anything approaching an accurate estimate is impossible.

Mr Fenton:

– I think that we shall need it all.

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

– I would like the honorable member to show what we shall want it for.

Mr Fenton:

– To begin with, we need £2,000,000 to bring the PostmasterGeneral’s Department up-to-date.

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

– Assuming that we do - and I very much doubt it - we shall not need that amount every year. Surely one of the elements of the reform of the Department will be that we shall have some definition of capital expenditure, and that its works will be spread, as the late Government proposed, over a series of years. Surely we are not going to spend £2,000,000 in any one year in the ridiculous belief that we can thus make this a great business department ! If we are to make it a business department we must eliminate abuses, and there must be a judicious expenditure of money to develop business. I regret exceedingly, with other honorable members, that the Prime Minister did not see fit to give us at least a bold outline of the intentions of the Government with regard to the State debts. Throughout the session honorable members opposite have told us over and over again that they have a mandate to pass all sorts of legislation ; but the most emphatic mandate that we have ever had from the people is that we shall devise some means of consolidating the State debts, and have, in conjunction with that system, some fund by which those debts will be gradually extinguished. Honorable members on all sides of the House received that unmistakable mandate from the people. I admit that the Government have had before them sufficient to fully occupy their time, but I did hope to hear a definite intimation that they proposed early next session to carry out this mandate. They might well have gone further. They might have taken some steps, by the appointment of a preliminary Commission or Board, to facilitate the carrying out of this mandate. They could thus have acquired information within the Commonwealth and elsewhere to assist them in solving the problem. When we carried the Bill - which I had the honor of supporting - providing fora Commonwealth note issue, I had hopes that the view which I have held during all the years that I have favoured the national control of paper money would be carried out. . I hoped that we should use the money obtained from that source as a fund for some such purpose as that of the consolidation of the whole of the debts of Australia. In that way we could start a system by which we should gradually absorbthe State debts. Whilst we were upholding our currency by substantial securities we should be gradually acquiring the State debts, and gradually extinguishing them. The Government were favourable to making some such use of the funds derived from the note issue, but when it came to pinning them down they seemed to lack the necessary faith to enable them to boldly state that the money obtained in this way would be set aside for that particular purpose - that after putting by a gold reserve of 25 per cent, to meet any sudden emergency, the rest would be funded in trust and used for the gradual acquiring of the State debts. That could be done, whilst at the same time we could have a constantly increasing security to stand behind, not only our paper money, but the results of any possible world’s upheaval affecting currency. This brings me to another interesting point upon which I have had the honour of addressing this House on numerous occasions. I refer to the question of coinage. Year in and year out I urged that the Commonwealth should coin its own silver, and when I left Parliament the reform was carried out. The committee which sat upon the question, and of which I had the honour to be chairman, always urged mat the seigniorage or profits derived from our coinage should not be passed into, and eaten up like ordinary revenue. They contended in their report, as well as in supporting it, that the money should be funded. If there are amongst us any capable financers they must see the wisdom, propriety, justice, and safety of having the seigniorage put aside with the proceeds from the note issue, and used as a. lever to acquire and extinguish the State debts. We have no right to use as revenue the profits on our coinage. Honorable members opposite strongly protest against borrowing for any purpose. They say, “We must pay our way; we shall not saddle posterity with the payment of our debts.”

Mr Frazer:

– When did they say that?

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

– Then what is it they do say ?

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

– That we should restrict public borrowing.

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

– As a matter of fact, the present Government are not paying their way. Of the sum of £150,000 taken into the revenue this year as the proceeds of our coinage, we shall be called upon twenty years hence to re-furnish £75,000, representing worn-out coins. The silver must be re-coined in about twenty years’ time, so that the Government are saddling posterity with the payment of £75,000, or half the £150,000 that they are now taking into their revenue. This should not be done. The sum is of sufficient importance to be funded with the proceeds of the note issue, and used to consolidate and gradually extinguish the State debts. I have had to condemn some parts of the Budget, but I am happy to say that there are other parts of it which we can praise. I look forward with satisfaction to the realization of the Treasurer’s promise that the Postmaster-General’s Department shall be placed on a business footing, and that we shall have a balance-sheet showing whether a loss or a gain is made in the several branches of the Department. At present, when we have before us a proposal to amend the postal or telegraph rates, it is impossible for honorable members to come to any conclusion as to whether the Department is making or losing money. We do not know whether a profit is being made in the telegraph branch and a loss in the telephone service, or vice versa. We do not know whether a profit is being made in the postal branch of the service, or in the telegraphic branch. If the House is to have, as it should, a thorough business grip over the national finances, one of the first steps taken must be to provide for a plain business statement showing the operations of any such great business institution as the PostmasterGeneral’s Department undoubtedly is. We should then know exactly what was being done, and could shape accordingly our policy of reform. Another part of the speech made by the Treasurer of which I approved was that in which he referred to the proposal, mentioned by the honorable member for Gwydir, of having a scheme of work which shall be carried over a number of years. At present we vote money for certain necessary works, and if, by reason of dearth of men or other causes, those works cannot be carried out within the financial year, the vote lapses, and the money has again to be re-voted. As Parliament does not always meet at the beginning of the financial year, there is often a gap of three months between the lapsing of a vote and the re-voting of the money. Meantime the people on which the Department concerned has had to depend to carry out the work in question go elsewhere, or do not care to tender. We ought to be able to look ahead a year or two in regard to all works of magnitude, and the Government are to be commended for proposing to take power to outline a scheme of works for, at all events, a considerably longer period than the one year at present possible.

Mr West:

– Has not the Braddon section hitherto operated against that being done?

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

– I do not know, but the proposal is that this change should be made, and I hope that it will be. Then, again, the Government have every justification for asking for an amendment of the Audit Act to carry the expenditure of any one year over a certain portion of the next financial year. It behoves the House, however, to be careful how they extend that power. We must always have a perfect grip over the Government of the day. After the last election, however, it was very desirable that this Parliament should not be forced to meet almost immediately, in order to secure Supplies for July. It would have been far better to give even our friends of the present Government a little more time to prepare their measures. Such a delay is sometimes necessary. An amendment of the Audit Act, giving the Government Supplies on the same ratio as the Estimates for the previous year, is most desirable, but there must be some stringent limitation. The power should be guarded in some manner from abuse. I am heartily in accord with the Government so far as these two or three proposals are concerned, and certainly think that we ought to have a more business-like review of the whole position of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer is, unfortunately, away on public business. If he were present, the circumstances of the Commonwealth to-day would call for a statement from him at the end of this session, showing what, in the opinion of the Government, as advised by their highest officials, is going to be the result of the various financial measures we have passed and the financial proposals upon which we intend to embark. It is very desirable that we should have this information, because, despite the fact of these Estimates having been framed by officials, I cannot help thinking that those officials must either be woefully wanting in capacity to deal with the figures, or that the Government have put their own proposals before us, over-riding, for political reasons, the opinions of their officers. Many business people think that the Estimates which we have had are under the mark. The returns up to date show that the Estimates are being more than realized, and we believe that a large balance next year will be at our disposal. We cannot see what we are to do with so much money as we shall Have next year. Even if we allow for the building of the transcontinental railways and the development in the Northern Territory, all that can be done for £14,000,000. We shall have £2,000,000 in excess of our expenditure.

Mr Frazer:

– This year?

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

– The honorable member, like his colleagues, thinks that the Government will just about make things meet, but unless there is any unforeseen expenditure beyond that for which the Estimates provide, I believe the Government this year will have a surplus of nearly £2,000,000.

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

– - Unlike the Opposition, I have no fault to find with the Government for failing to submit the Budget earlier than they did. They had more important measures to place before the House, and were anxious to pass them as early as possible, so that the people of Australia would have an opportunity, within the next two or three years, of marking their effect. I was rather amused at the criticism of the Leader of the Opposition this morning, in view of the fact that, although he had the opportunity to bring about many of the reforms that he now says we should accomplish, he did nothing. The Opposition - the Government of the past - did nothing but toady.or submit to the wishes of the various State Governments. We hear much about caucus rule; but what system did we have under the late Government? It was simply a system of government by the various State Premiers. The Prime Minister was afraid to take his proper responsibility; and, from time to time, asked the State Premiers what policy should be submitted for the conduct of the affairs of the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition should be the last to criticise the Government for not introducing what he termed more progressive measures. What more could the Government have done during this session? I quite agree with one honorable member that sufficient work was submitted to the Parliament to occupy two long sessions ; and we have been worked altogether too hard. I am glad to say, however, that the Government have carried out, or endeavoured to carry out, the policy on which they were elected by a large majority of the electors. In my opinion, the principal measure passed is that of the land tax, on which we had a clear mandate from the people. It was said by some members of the Opposition that, if the Labour party came into power, they would be afraid to place such an Act on- the statute-book; but events have quite falsified that forecast. Under all the circumstances, I have no fault to find with ‘the Government for delaying the consideration of the Budget, even to this late hour. Some honorable members opposite have commented on the fact that honorable members on this side have not spoken at length on every measure submitted; but it would be a great waste of time if any such course were adopted. I believe that in the House of Commons members have to arrange beforehand to speak, and that some have been for years in that Chamber without ever receiving a call. I emphatically declare, however, that on this side there has been no stifling of discussion on any important measure.

Mr Fenton:

– There is no “ gag “ with us !

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

– Quite so; we agreed with the Government that, no matter how long honorable members opposite might, speak, no “gag” should be applied. This is in direct contrast to the conduct of the late Government; and Hansard of last year records scarcely anything but the application of the “ gag “ on every measure of importance. Further, honorable members who sat behind the late Government did not speak at all, but submitted like “ dumb, driven cattle” to any proposal placed before them. In the biography of the late David Syme, we read that that gentleman made and unmade many Ministries ; and we cannot suppose for one moment that, having made a Ministry, he exercised no influence upon its conduct of public affairs. Is the caucusany worse system of government than that? Honorable members opposite simply make speeches in order to blind their constituents; but the day has gone by for such tactics. They have cried out “ wolf “ so long that if a wolf did appear the public would take no notice. One very progressive measure passed by this Government is that to provide penny postage throughout Australia. It ‘ will be noticed how Labour members differed on this question, thus showing the freedom of action that they exercised ; indeed, the honorable member for Bass, who represents the next largest constituency to my own in Tasmania, supported his own private view and voted against the Government. I voted for the proposal, because I felt that something must be done in this connexion, and that it would be impossible to increase the rates in Victoria. As to defence, I ask honorable members to contrast the measure submitted by this Government with the measure submitted by the honorable member for Parramatta as Minister of Defence. The late Government brought down a scheme, but made no financial provision for carrying it out beyond the initiation of a borrowing policy. No British-speaking country in the world has ever borrowed for defence purposes ; and, fortunately for Australia, a hint seems to have been given to the late Government that the time was inopportune for floating a loan. We were thus saved from a debt which the people of Australia are not able at the present time, at any rate, to bear. As to an Agricultural Bureau, I ask what opportunity have the Government had during the session to introduce a measure in this connexion? There was neither the time nor the money at their disposal ; and as the State Governments have little enough to do, they ought to look after their own development in the way of agriculture. The Commonwealth are going to make the lands available, and it is to be hoped they will be developed as they should. Later on, when we are stronger financially, I should have no objection- to the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau. The honorable member for Lang, until his visit to the Northern Territory, when he had the misfortune to sit on a crocodile, instead of a log, was in favour of the Commonwealth taking over the administration of that part of Australia.

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

– That is not so.

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

– But now we find the honorable member arguing in a contrary direction. No scheme for the. taking over of the Territory was ever submitted until the present Government came into power; and the measure passed will also assist in the defence of the country. The honorable member for Parramatta would lead us to believe that

Lord Kitchener was the only adviser Australia has had on the defence of Australia as a whole; but I may say that twenty-one years ago, Major-General Edwards urged the absolute necessity for a railway through the Northern Territory, and the provision of a small warship in the northern seas to keep up communication if the cable should be broken. That officer also suggested that Australia should have a naval force, and that there should be a railway to Western Australia. During the last ten years the question of defence has been neglected, simply because the Governments of the past have desired to hand over to the States some £6,000,000 more than they were entitled to under the Constitution. In my opinion, a portion of that £6,000,000 should have been retained for the purposes of defence, and of supplying the deficiencies of the Post and Telegraph Department in the way of telephones, telegraphs, and so forth. On the other hand, the telephone system has been allowed to deteriorate, and the Government have now to face the work of belated repairs and the carrying out of new works which ought to have been provided years ago out of the revenue returned to the States. I hope that the Government will place the Post and Telegraph Department on a sound business footing; this can be done without any great increase in the expenditure, by a judicious outlay throughout the Commonwealth ‘in the construction of telegraph and telephone lines, and other needful extensions. This Department ought to be placed under a Board of . management similar to that proposed by the Postal Commission. At present a highly-trained man like the Chief Electrical Engineer of the Department, if he requires an assistant or an employe1 in his branch, has to apply to the Public Service Commissioner, with whom is- left the decision as to whether an appointment is necessary. I do not think it right that a gentleman in the position of Chief Electrical Engineer should have to apply to the Public Service Commissioner under such circumstances; on the contrary, he ought to have a free hand to employ whom he chooses. At present the Commissioner is no longer responsible after the appointment is made; and altogether I consider the position as not quite fair to the technical man. The Board I suggest should consist of a chairman, an electrician, and a postal officer, who should take the responsibility of running the Department on business lines. The members »f the Board should be responsible to the Postmaster-General, who, in turn, is responsible to the House and the people; and such a system would, I feel sure, replace the present unsatisfactory position with effective management. At present, officers of the Department, owing to the restrictions placed upon them, have not proper opportunities to show what ability they possess ; and I hope the whole question will be taken into earnest consideration during the recess. The right honorable member for Swan was very severe in his criticism in regard to the land tax; but I regard that as a very just imposition, necessary for the purposes of defence. It is the land-owners who are principally going to benefit by the defence of Australia, and surely, therefore, they should pay a little towards the cost of the scheme. The rank and file of the people will be called upon, not only to pay small sums of money, but to give their lives if necessary, for the defence of the country. Surely an individual who is residing in England, and drawing £62,000 in rent values from the lands of Victoria alone, should be called upon to pay a fair amount towards the defence of the Commonwealth. We are not indulging in a system of revenge. What would be the result if we did? May I remind honorable members that it is not so long ago that men were unable to earn their living in Australia because they were boycotted at almost every shearing board. One member of this House -told me that he found it impossible to get employment throughout New South Wales and Queensland, and when his wife was keeping him by doing needlework, the squatters went to the storekeepers’ and told them that! if they bought anything from that woman they would buy no more goods from them. Is it revenge to take at the outside half the economic value ? Of course, there is no revenge about that. We are simply asking for what is a just and fair share for these people to pay towards the cost of the government and defence of their country, and so the right honorable member for Swan was not justified in making such a strong indictment against this party. He said also that we did not welcome immigration. We do welcome it, but we want to make provision for the people to earn their living when they come here. We do not want them to walk about Australia with swags on their backs. We wish to make it possible for them to get on the land as soon as they arrive, so that, instead of being a burden on the State, they may become producers of wealth, and play an important part in the development of this young nation. I wish to refer to the referenda which are to be taken. They are, to my mind, far more important even than a general election. I am going to take the matter up just as seriously at any rate, and am, I think, safe in saying that the members from our little State will address no fewer than a hundred meetings on this important subject. I fully realize that the Commonwealth Parliament cannot do much towards making this a better and more progressive country unless the restrictions imposed on its powers by the Constitution are removed. When they are removed the Government will be able to introduce progressive measures that will still further assist to develop this great Commonwealth. That is why I am so anxious to see the referenda carried. One measure that I am sorry has not been submitted to the House this session is that which will establish a Commonwealth bank. Such an institution would be invaluable to us. Had it been established earlier in the year, we should by this time have had about £8,000,000 of capital, most of which would have been bearing interest at 3 or 3J per cent. That would have meant a great deal to the Commonwealth, because I am not so optimistic as the honorable member for North Sydney. I believe we have great financial troubles before us, and are passing through a most trying time at present. It will be absolutely necessary for the Government to go along very slowly, or they will find themselves in great financial straits. If we had had our Commonwealth Bank side by side with the operation of the land tax. we should have been able to place the Commonwealth on a sound, financial footing. I hope the Government wiN endeavour in the future to introduce the Bill to establish a Commonwealth Bank, because we must keep control of the money volume if we wish the Commonwealth to develop as _ it should. Fortunately, we are living in prosperous times. The seasons are bountiful, and this prevents huge sums of money being withdrawn from the Commonwealth. Should the financiers of the Old World take it into their heads to withdraw capital, their action, while it might not prove altogether disastrous, would certainly hamper the Government very much indeed. A great deal has been made of the sugar bounty question, but we have to pay the bounty this year, and, no doubt, we shall have to do so for a considerable time to come, in order to keep Australia white. The people have demanded a White Australia, and if they want it they should be prepared to pay for it. The only way to secure it is to pay bounties to those who employ white labour on the plantations of Queensland. I am not so optimistic as the honorable member for North Sydney. I only hope his words may come true; but I believe Ave are face to face with great financial problems, and if the Government come out with a good surplus, I shall be overjoyed.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

. -The Committee can hardly fail to be struck with the remarkable difference in the tone of the speeches of the honorable member for North “Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable member for North Sydney has taken a very sanguine and hopeful view of the financial prospects of°the Commonwealth. Far be it from me to condemn him, or any other honorable member, for doing so; but, as public men, it is well for us, while having great hopes of the future, to recognise that there is no great harm in a Treasurer’s Budget being framed on somewhat cautious lines. The honorable member’s proposal for the creation of a Committee to inquire into accounts, and place honorable members in possession of financial information, if they so desire, may be novel in regard to the Commonwealth, but has been often heard of elsewhere. I take it that the honorable member’s proposal is that such a Committee would be largely responsible for the financial side of the affairs of the Commonwealth, but I have never looked with very great favour upon the idea. My principal reason is that I have no desire to weaken the responsibility now thrown on Ministers of the Crown. I do not know what view the Government take of the matter, but I should imagine that any proposal to diminish the cares of office would not be distasteful to them. The difficulty is that responsibility for the Estimates, and for the whole management of the financial affairs of the Commonwealth, would be taken off Ministers and thrown very largely on to the Public Accounts Committee. There would, at any rate, be a dual control, which we should be very careful in creating. Where divided control exists, it is always easy to shift re sponsibility from one authority to the other, and very difficult to sheet home responsibility for error. The honorable member’s proposal, therefore, does not, I think, deserve very serious consideration at the hands of the House at the present time. The Treasurer may have erred in framing his Estimates on a very cautious basis, but I do not propose to condemn him for that. It is all very well for the honorable member for North Sydney, when we are almost in the early days of December, to tell us about the prospects of a bountiful harvest, and give us information about the wool clip for the season, but it must be remembered that the Treasurer’s Estimates were framed in September, and based largely on the conditions and prospects of the Commonwealth in August. It is, therefore, not fair to challenge the Treasurer’s figures in the light of our present knowledge. Those who framed them, and the Government who sanctioned them, were not in a position to know the favorable prospects that would be before the Commonwealth at this date. At that date the amount that we are likely to receive as the result of the Land Tax. Act was an unknown quantity to the Government, and is, in fact, an unknown quantity to-day. It is all very well for honorable members to speculate as to the probable figure, but speculation is not a very safe plan to guide a Treasurer in framing his Estimates of revenue. There is a probability of the legality of the Act being challenged in the High Court by some who are called upon to pay taxation under its provisions. Our experience in the past has been that, however careful and cautious we may be in our legislative work, it has actually been on occasions when we have felt ourselves on perfectly sure ground that the Courts have riddled our Acts and shown them to be defective. I hope that it will not be so with regard to the land tax. The Government would not have been wise in relying on revenue which a decision of the Court might prevent it from obtaining. It was forced also to have regard to a prospective loss of £500,000 through the reduction of postage rates, and to face the chaos in the Postal Department, into the causes of which it is not necessary now to enter, though a starving of the service for a number of years, and the operation of the Braddon provision has, no doubt, had something to do with it. I hope that the sanguine views of the honorable member for North Sydney will be realized ; but the Government was justified in making a cautious estimate, in view of the tremendous undertakings to which it is pledged. I hope that at the end of the financial year it will come out on the right side of the ledger, but I should not be surprised if it did not. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the financial statement as a sort of serial. He said that we had had one in September, and were now having a second. When he was speaking, I was reminded of the saying uttered by Napoleon III. when he and Richard Cobden were engaged at St. Cloud in1860 in signing a treaty between England and France. Cobden complimented him on what he had done for France, and he replied, “ You make reforms; we make revolutions.” The tremendous change in political parties that followed the last election may well be described as a revolution, its effects being not less important than those of the recent revolution in Portugal. The Liberal party is practically annihilated, the only representatives of it in the Chamber now being the honorable members for Gippsland, Hume, and Eden-Monaro. The revulsion of feeling against the Fusion Government and its supporters was so strong that the Labour party was returned by a tremendous majority. Honorable members opposite fail to realize the greatness of the change. It has made possible a programme of legislation of a very remarkable character. The present Government having legislated for land tax reform, post-office reform, and constitutional reform, the measures necessary to give effect to its programme have left little time for the discussion of other matters. The Government could not do much more than give a skeleton Budget, and Ministers are not to blame because the financial information made public by them is meagre. Its undertakings justified extreme caution is estimating the revenue. But I see no reason why in future sessions we should not resume the jog-trot methods of the past. Next year the Government will be expected to mark its financial operations with greater accuracy. Australia, like any other country, does not desire revolutionary methods every year. Such occurrences as followed the last election come as a rule only once in a generation, and sometimes at even greater intervals. The circumstances having been exceptional, the fact must be recognised. I do not think that there is much in the contention of the Leader of the Opposition that the present occasion is a very favorable one for making provision for a rainy day be cause by reason of the expiration of the Braddon provision we know exactly what our obligation to the States will be for the next ten years. We have incurred large liabilities in respect of old-age and invalid pensions, and experience teaches us that the succession of good seasons which we have had in South Australia for the past several years, and in other States for long periods, will not continue indefinitely. He complained that honorable members on this side have not given the House the benefit of their opinions on the questions which have been brought before it, and suggested that we express them with great freedom elsewhere. That, he said, was not fair to the House nor to the country. The suggestion regarding the expression of our views elsewhere is refuted by the fact that we are here all day, and to a late hour at night, and are not likely to spend the rest of the night in meeting in caucus. If there has not been a great deal of speaking on the part of Ministerial supporters, it has been made up for by the speaking of the members of the Opposition. Parliament being created’ for the purposes of legislation, and not merely for the making of speeches, there must be some limitation to debate. If the Opposition desire lengthy speeches from this side of the House they will have no cause for complaint, provided that they give us the opportunity. The application of the closure is unthinkable, but a commonsense decision should be arrived at as to what should be the length of the debate on any particular question, and that decision having been made known both sides of the House should avail themselves of the time alloted. If, however, debate is to be used, as it can be, to prevent legislation, then those who have the good or the bad fortune to support the Government of the day must be content to vote and not to speak. That the practice can be abused is shown by the history of the House of Commons. A matter of vast importance to our English brothers is to be dealt with in a few days under the method of procedure adopted there, and for what reason ? Because, years ago, the right of speech in the British House of Commons was abused to such an extent that it was utterly impossible for any Government to do any legislative work.

Mr McWilliams:

– The position was the same in this House last session.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I was not a member of this Parliament last year, and I am not at all anxious to resurrect Hansard in order to learn of the iniquities of which the present Opposition were guilty. I can find a better job. I rose, however, principally to speak of another matter, the importance of which I hope will be recognised by the Ministry. In speaking of the Government in this connexion I am referring, not to the present Administration, but to the government of the Commonwealth generally. There are dangers ahead to which I desire to call attention. I may be mistaken, but honorable members will believe that I am thoroughly honest in the opinions I express and, if I commit an error of judgment in this regard, it will be easy for them to refute my statement. It is very desirable that our legislative work should be carefully thought out and thoroughly debated before it receives the Royal assent. I confess, however, that the good government of Australia depends more particularly upon administrative, than it does upon legislative, work. Despite indifferent laws, if we have strong administrators the country must be prosperous, and such grievances as there are will not come very forcibly to the front. But the passing of the best laws that it is possible for the ingenuity and ability of the Commonwealth Parliament to devise must be a mere waste of time, unless those laws are strongly administered. I am not finding fault with the present Government, for the good and sufficient reason that they came into office only about June last and, under the Constitution, had to meet Parliament almost immediately, so that they had but little time to prepare their legislative work. Then, again, some of the Ministers were new to their offices, and none of them had been sufficiently long in office to know the run of their Departments. Then, again, wisely or unwisely - possibly it was inevitable - we have been legislating from 10 in the morning until 11 at night. Whether it is well that we should work long hours I am not going to say, but under such a system the administration of our Departments cannot be improved. Ministers have not sufficient time to attend to the work of their Departments and to consult with each other. They cannot obtain a full mastery of their offices and do justice either to the Parliament or to their Departments.

Mr Fuller:

– Hear, hear; the Government ought to do away with morning sittings.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– There will be no future morning sittings so far as I am concerned. No one who has had experience in legislation would favour morning sittings. To return to the question, however, let me repeat that I am not finding fault with the present Government. Having regard to the way in which they are handicapped it would be downright meanness for any honorable member of our party to find fault with them, but the Opposition are free to do so.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member cannot complain of the Opposition.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I am not; I am merely sounding a note of warning. The danger that we have to face is that we are going to be governed, not by the Cabinet, but by the permanent heads of Departments. Let me direct attention to one or two remarkable methods of government at the present time. Let us take the two most important Departments under the control of the Commonwealth, those of the PostmasterGeneral and the Minister of Trade and Customs. What is the position in regard to them? In each Department, there are a few prizes and a great many blanks. Any common-sense person would say that the prizes in the Department of Trade and Customs should go to Customs officers, and that the prizes in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department should go to the postal officials. But what is the position? Was the head of the Department of Trade and Customs in Victoria trained in any Customs service? Has he any knowledge of the Department, or has he been more intimately associated with the Audit than with the Customs Department? Is there in Australia a merchant who would manage his affairs on the same lines? Honorable members talk about the great Socialistic undertakings upon which we are to embark ; but if we do enter upon them and conduct them upon the lines on which the Government are running the Departments to-day, we shall make a nice mess of them. Under the Public Service Act, the Public Service Commissioner is given practically the power of a Czar. He is above the Government, above the heads of Departments, and, indeed, every one else. He has practically supreme power.

Mr Fuller:

– The honorable member did not object to the Minister of Trade and Customs being given the same extreme power, under practically the last Bill passed by us.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The honorable member is talking about some little Bill-

Mr Fuller:

– It is a big matter to the producers of Australia.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The honorable member, when he has the butter regulations in mind, can see nothing but butter in the Commonwealth.

Mr Fuller:

– It is the one thing that honorable members opposite cannot see, so far as those engaged in the industry are concerned.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I am not prepared to admit that. There are on this side of the House honorable members who know as much about the industry as does the honorable member.

Mr Fuller:

– I am free to’ admit that.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– To return to the question that I was discussing when interrupted, I would point out that sometimes an officer of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, or of another Department, is promoted to a position in the Department of Trade and Customs, although the officers of that Department feel that what prizes there are in that branch of the service ought to go to them. Every man who has had anything to do with Customs administration recognises that a lot of training is necessary to make an able and efficient Customs officer, capable of being of any service to his Government. The same remark will apply to the officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I do not say that the Government themselves are responsible for these appointments, but they allow the permanent officials ‘ to work this system, with the result that we are practically being governed at the present time by permanent officials. Any one can see what is going on at the present time. I have been long enough in Melbourne to realize that there is no patronage on the part of Ministers, but that there is patronage on the part of the Commonwealth bureaucracy.

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

– That is a serious charge !

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– It is not a serious charge at all, but simply a common-sense statement.

Mr Higgs:

– How would the honorable member alter the conditions?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I hope the present Government will alter the conditions when they have been a little longer in office. I am not quarrelling with the Government, but with the system; and I say that the only way to prevent this patronage is to have strong Ministers, who are masters in their own Departments, and who are prepared, after proper investigation, to override the advice of their officers if necessary.

Mr Fuller:

– We have never had a Government who listened more to officials than the present Government do!

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I regret that the honorable member for Illawarra should have made that remark, because this is by no means a party question. I am talking of the Government of the Commonwealth, of which, a short time ago, the honorable member was a member, and may be again. No honorable member, whether of Ministerial experience or otherwise, can but realize that if the statement I am making is true, there is danger to the future interests of Australia in the fact that our Ministers are simply figureheads, to be turned this way or that by permanent officials. Honorable members opposite do not, I fancy, regard this matter so seriously as they should; but the state of affairs to which I am drawing attention I have noted for some years past, not only here, but elsewhere. I recollect once askings an exMinister of the Crown why he did not do so and so when he was in office, and he said that he was only the executive officer of the Department.

Mr Fuller:

– A “ rubber stamp” !

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I am not talking of “ rubber stamps.” There is every necessity to look into this matter; and I hope that before next session the powers of the Public Service Commissioner will be investigated. It is unthinkable, of course, that this House should interfere in promotions or the ordinary routine work of the Departments.

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

– The very , worst thing would be to restore Ministerial patronage !

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I do not desire Ministerial patronage ; but there is no necessity to go from one extreme to the other, and invest a man with power to over-ride the whole of us and make what appointments he likes without giving any reasons for them.

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

– Parliament has power over the Public Service Commissioner.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– That may be, but it is not right on the part of this House, on every occasion when we think the Public Service Commissioner has committed an error of judgment–

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

– He is one of the fairest-minded men we could obtain for the position 1

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I do not know the Public Service Commissioner personally, and I have no feeling in the matter.

Mr Fuller:

– We have the same power over the Public Service Commissioner that we have over the Judges.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I am not complaining about this particular Public Service Commissioner, but of the office; and I say that we are responsible for any mistakes that the Commissioner may make, seeing that we invested him with his present powers. In my opinion, there is no necessity for the Commissioner to exercise such powers uncontrolled; but I admit that, at the pace we have been proceeding with legislative work this session, there has not been time to look into such matters. The stupid and ridiculous system under which officials may. be removed from one Department to another, has culminated in the fact that the head of the Customs Department in Melbourne is not a Customs officer. This is not calculated to contribute to the smooth working of the Department, in regard to* which there is another matter requiring attention. What is very essential at ali the chief ports is a Central Approving House, such as there is at Sydney, to the great advantage and convenience of merchants, shipping people, Customs officers, and all concerned. There is no such house at either Port Adelaide or Melbourne, and one, I know, is desired at the former place for very obvious reasons. The work of inspection, particularly under a protective Tariff, is always of a highly technical character, demanding the services of thoroughly trained men. When goods are landed at various wharfs, it may be a mile or a mile and a half distant, the ‘present system of sending these trained men out in order to perform their duties of inspection is absurd. The goods, or such portions of them as are considered necessary, ought to be sent into a Central Approving House, where they can be efficiently examined. I do not know what effect this system would have on the revenue, but I feel certain that it would be better protected than under the present plan, while, as I have already pointed out, all those having business at the Customs House would be greatly convenienced, and business gene- rally greatly facilitated. If we were to seek the advice of the able and experienced, men of the Department - I do not mean men who have been pitch-forked into positions while knowing nothing of the business - I am certain that the evidence would be overwhelmingly in favour of the suggestion I have made. Another great, evil is the concentration of the whole administration in Melbourne. The Collectors of Customs in Sydney and Port Adelaide should be able to give decisions, and deal with matters generally just as well as does the Comptroller of Customs in Melbourne. The Deputy PostmastersGeneral should be called upon to act similarly in their Department in the various States. The technical points, of course, might be referred to the central authority, or to the Minister. It has been said that some of the officers decline to take the responsibility; but, if that be so, the Government’s one duty should be to supersede them, and obtain the services of men who are prepared to act on their own initiative.

Mr Higgs:

– What would the honorable member- do in the case of inconsistent decisions ?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Of course, there may be elements of doubt, and the honorable member has placed his finger on a weak spot. But why are there inconsistent decisions? I undertake to say that we shall not find such a rich crop of inconsistent decisions in Sydney as in Adelaide or Melbourne, simply owing to the fact that there is an Approving-house system at the first-mentioned port.

Mr Higgs:

– We might get over the difficulty by placing all the items in the Tariff.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– That is a matter of detail, and I am now dealing with principles. I do not say that under the method suggested, or any other method, difficulties may not arise; but I think this reform might be carried out in the interests of the revenue and of business generally. The Department, while guarding the revenue, should do nothing calculated to interfere with the quick’ despatch of business; indeed, the Department ought to be as up-to-date as any private business concern. We should then hear no complaints from business men about the antiquated methods of the Department; and I shall not be satisfied until I see some great change for the better in this respect.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I am of the opinion that the projects we have in view will take a lot of financing before the end of the present financial year. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we are making no provision in a good year for a surplus, but are spending all that we are receiving. The honorable member for North Sydney, however, was more optimistic, believing that there was plenty of money, and that a large surplus would be available. I hope his surmise is correct, and that the Ministry, although adopting penny postage, and other undertakings that will cause the loss of revenue, will not find that they have bitten off more than they can chew. I trust that they have made full provision for paying, especially the lower paid branches of the service, the increments that they have not given them in the past, and for giving them a real, and not an assumed, living wage. We must admit that, in certain walks of life, the more a man receives the more his expenditure grows. The conditions of modern civilization demand it of him, but the same conditions in Australia to-day demand that no man should be paid below a real living wage. No one in Australia, however thrifty he may be, can live under 8s. per day at his start in life, and there .should be a chance for men who apply themselves to their work, and whose calling demands mechanical skill or study, to receive higherwages as they become fitted to earn them. Many honorable members ask, “ Would you pay a man a wage that he was not worth?” I must admit that there is something in that contention, but there is no position in the Federal Public Service that is not worth 8s. a day, while men with mechanical skill who have to study for the positions they occupy ought to receive a minimum of 10s. a day. As- a man reaches, and goes over the £200 per annum mark, I admit that I am not very much concerned about him, because I think that he can then look after himself, and fight to maintain his own position. Men in the Public Service who are receiving only 7s. 3d. a day should be considered more than are men receiving £200 a year. Those in the lower paid branches of the service have no hope of rearing a family, and making provision for the time when they will have to retire. I sincerely hope the Treasurer is saving enough money to insure that such men will receive an advance on what they have been paid in the past. While the heads and sub-heads of the different Departments are looking after their own increments, and making their own positions fairly secure, many of them will not assist those who are lowly paid to get a better chance than they have had up to the present. Of course, I do not blame any man for trying to advance himself, and the heads and sub-heads of Departments are quite justified in taking any fair and legitimate means to improve their positions, but most of them decry the work done by those in the lower paid branches as not being worth any more, while maintaining that their own work is worth a lot more than they are getting for it. I admit that that is human, but it should not obtain in the Public Service, where the conditions are quite different from those outside. We pass laws insisting on the payment of fair wages outside, where employers are largely subject to the conditions of the money market, or bad seasons, or other conditions that affect their business, and, seeing that that is the case, we should insist on a better wage being paid to those in our own employment. The Public Service Commissioner is the biggest transgressor in this direction. I propose to give the Committee details of, at any rate, one case in which that gentleman has fought Government after Government who have recognised that certain work should be better paid. He, in his position of Czar, has taken up the stand that the work is not worth more than a certain amount. In 1907, during the regime of the Deakin Government, when Mr. Mauger was Postmaster-General, the men working in the pole yard claimed that the wage of 8s. a day that they were then getting was not sufficient, because they were really mechanics of a high order. The then PostmasterGeneral recognised the justice of their claim, and as they were only temporary employes, he, by regulation, assessed the value of their work at 10s. a day. The Commissioner, in order to outwit the Minister, immediately decided that the positions should be made permanent, and fixed the wage at 8s. 5d. a day. That is what those men are now paid. The Commissioner says that the work that they do is only labourers’ work, and does not warrant the payment of more. I wish to exhibit to the Committee a model of a telegraph pole. I am sorry that I have had to resort to this method of ventilating the matter, but there was no other way open to me. 1 am not an expert in woodwork, but I think I am as good a judge of it as the Public Service Commissioner. He says it is labourers’ work to construct this pole, and place on it the arms and all the mechanism necessary. This model is for carrying double lines, with bars on each side, connected with bolts. Each crosspiece is pined to- the pole with bolts that go right through. Everything must be kept level, and yet this is work which the Public Service Commissioner says is only labourers’ work.

Sir John Quick:

– Is it carpenters’ work ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Most of it is really shipwrights’ work.

Mr Higgs:

– It looks like the work of a skilled mechanic.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Undoubtedly, because in doing this work everything has to be kept absolutely level. When the pole is in the air the work is even harder to do, and the permanent men who do that work outside get only 7s. 3d. a day, while the men doing the work in the yards are getting 8s. sd. This matter has caused more trouble in the Department than anything else since I have been in Parliament. Men who were shipwrights were willing to take the work a.t 10s. a day. The stand which I have here is of an octagon shape, and this work has to be done with adzes; yet the Public Service Commissioner sets himself up as a judge, saying that any rough and handy man can do it for 8s. 5d. a day. It does not need a skilled woodworker to say that the work is not what the Public Service Commissioner says it is. A great deal of trouble has been occasioned in determining how the arms should be put on, how the posts should be cut at the top, what wood should be used, and other matters, and a Board has just finished an inquiry into the subject, though I fear that the public will be as badly off in the future as it has been in the past, because the officials are not practical men. When a practical man is employed, the work is described as that of a labourer, and paid accordingly. If the Public Service Commissioner is of opinion that this is labourers’ work, he is not fitted for his position. Some time ago I met a gentleman who came here from the Old Country, who ridiculed the expensive practice of using copper wire where iron wire would do, the latter costing only 1 1/2 d per lb., and the former 10 1/2 d. The price of iron wire does not fluctuate much, but that of copper fluctuates a good deal. The year before last it was about nd. a lb.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Copper is used for greater efficiency.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The practical men in the Department, not the theorists, think that nothing is gained by using copper wire for short lines. Some of the iron wire lines have been in use for thirty years, and give as good results now as copper wire lines. Last year an iron wire line, put up when I was a boy, to connect the Age office with Mr. David Syme’s house on the Yarra, at Hawthorn, was still giving satisfactory results, although for a good part of its length it ran parallel with the railway line, and was exposed to the smoke of locomotives, which was prejudicial to its life. There is an iron wire line to Bacchus Marsh, and those who have spoken over it know that its conductivity is better than that of many copper wire lines. I do not say that copper wire should not be used for long-distance lines like that from Sydney to Melbourne, but for short city lines iron wire is sufficiently good, and is much cheaper. When the honorable member for Bendigo was Postmaster-General, the instruction was given that iron” wire must be used where suitable. At the time there was not a. great quantity of iron wire in stock, but when a new supply was obtained, the onus of determining whether iron wire or copper wire should be used was thrown on the line foreman, who naturally did not care to run any risk. Why should responsibility of this kind be thrown on men receiving only £156 a year? It would not be allowed in a business office. No doubt it is done to shield the official “heads, who, if anything goes wrong, can blame their subordinates. When there was an outcry against the increase in the telephone rates, many persons stated in letters to the newspapers that- they did not object to paying rates which would make the service profitable, but objected to making good losses due to extravagant or incompetent management, and demanded that a better system should be provided. The PostmasterGeneral has shown that the auditors appointed by the last Government were of opinion that the rates should be increased, and the Postal Commission recommended an increase, so that the action of the PostmasterGeneral has justification, but, at the same time, the subscribers are right in demanding efficiency and economy of administration. For some time I was trying to get the conduit system extended. Two years ago, I stated in this Chamber that the officials are too fond of seeing their work in the air. In up-to-date towns overhead lines will soon be abolished. The conduit system is not so expensive as the tunnel system. Tunnels would be necessary in busy parts of the city, but conduits con- nected with them would be used for the suburbs. The ratio of the cost of having wires overhead to that of having them in conduits is about as one to six, but the Department would do nothing in the way of getting rid of the overhead lines until an agitation for their abolition commenced. It is a pity that the officials are not more ready to accept suggestions for improvements. The Acting Prime Minister has promised that reforms shall be inaugurated, and that the Deputy Postmasters-General shall be brought together to discuss matters, but unless more notice is taken of the suggestions from outside, little improvement will be made. I desire the improvement of the service in the interests of those who are employed in it, because I do not wish to see their wages reduced. The service should be run as economically as possible, consistent with efficiency, and with the payment of fair wages. The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that a private employer would never put a man who had been trained in one Department at the head of another, and. referred to the appointment of Mr. Whitton to the Customs Department. There is a good deal in what he said.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Whilst I think that there is a good deal in the remarks made by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, I feel that, so far as heads of Departments are concerned, the introduction of new blood is often advisable. We have had experience of the growth of cliques in Departments, and the introduction of new blood must be beneficial. Such a procedure must be purely experimental, but an officer trained in the Audit Department might more readily fit himself for a position in another Department than would an officer in some other branch of the service. The Federal services are increasing. We are taking over more and more services from the States, and whilst I do not wish to interfere with the promotion of Federal officers, I consider it only fair that when we take over a State Department we should take over at the same time the officers belonging to it. The Public Service Commisisoner should not be allowed to exercise a discretion in such circumstances as to who shall be left stranded in the State service. If that system be allowed to continue, we shall breed in the State service a feeling of discontent, with the result that State officers will bring their grievances before the local Legislatures, and endeavour to place obstacles in the way of

Federal management. Let me draw attention to a case in point : Some time ago we took over the old-age pensions services of Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales, and one would naturally think that since we had had no old-age pension system of our own, the officers of the Old-age Pensions Departments of the States would be considered the most suitable to carry on the Federal system. Those whom we took over naturally thought that, since with their transfer they would forego all chance of promotion in the State Departments, their rights would be conserved, and that they would be retained in the Federal Oldage Pensions office. That belief has not been justified. I know of an officer who, whilst in a State Treasury, was almost wholly associated with the payment of oldage pensions. He was brought over temporarily on four different occasions to the Federal office, and as soon as our old-age pensions system had been made fairly effective, he was told that he was wanted no longer, and was returned to the State service, where he will have to be employed in a Department in which he has not been trained. That is a practice that should be stopped. If the Ministry are not strong enough to prevent the Public Service Commissioner doing an injustice of that kind, it is time that they made some attempt to do so. Since we are approaching the prorogation, and a long recess, the Public Service Commissioner’s wings should be clipped so that he will not be able to ruin men’s lives in the way I have described. This is a very glaring case, and I feel strongly upon it. I do not blame the Treasurer, nor the Treasury officials. The only man who can be blamed is the Public Service Commissioner, who took it upon himself to ruin this man’s prospects. I hope that this system will not be continued. The Public Service Commissioner may say that Federal public servants object to the transfer of State officers, but since this officer had been employed in the payment of old-age pensions, and was temporarily transferred to the Federal service, surely there could be no objection to his permanent employment by the Commonwealth. Under the Public Service Act, a’ State public servant may be appointed to a position in the Commonwealth service when no Federal public servant suitable for the office is available.

Mr Thomas:

– Resort must be had to the service before we go outside.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The peculiarity of this case is that the man had been in the State service for ten years, but was not allowed to come over with his fellow oldage pension officers.

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

– In the consolidated office, room cannot be found for all the men who were employed under the State system.

Mr MATHEWS:

– When I assure the honorable member that the position formerly occupied by this officer has been filled by another officer who was not previously engaged in old-age pension work he will recognise that an injustice has been perpetrated. The continuance of this practice will be to the signal discredit of the Commissioner. I wish now to refer to the Defence Department. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have in my electorate a great many of the men employed in that Department, and, naturally, they look to me, as their representative, to secure redress of any grievance under which they suffer. Very often what are only assumed grievances are brought under my notice, and are easily disposed of, but I find it impossible to secure the redress of genuine grievances. I think that the office of Minister of Defence should be occupied by a member of this House. No man is more capable than is the Acting Prime Minister of taking charge of a Bill at short notice, but in dealing with defence measures he must be placed at a disadvantage. Every Minister looks upon a Bill relating to his own Department as one of his own special bantlings, and, naturally, objects to another Minister, when in charge of it, allowing it to be cut up and amended out of recognition. The Acting Prime Minister must be at a disadvantage in taking charge of defence measures in this House, just as Ministers in another place are in taking charge of measures relating to Departments other than those over which they preside. I have a grievance against the Defence Department. I find it impossible to secure redress of any wrong ; and I know of no procedure to which I can resort to secure the remedying of anomalies. We all recognise that the main body of our Defence Force must take the form of Militia, but if we are to have an efficient army we must have a larger proportion of permanent men than we have to-day. The Permanent Naval Forces will also have to be increased with the growth of our navy. If we are to have an up-to-date artillery we must certainly have more artillerymen.

Every one must admit that the artilleryman is not what he was some years ago. The artillery and the artificers associated with that branch of our forces are practical mechanics or engineers of high order. They have to thoroughly understand what are really delicate pieces of machinery, rather than guns of a gas-pipe order, to which some of our old-time ordnance might well be compared. The men who are charged with the handling of these delicate pieces of mechanism must be paid a fair wage. It is reported that it is very difficult to secure recruits for the Royal Australian Artillery. I hope that that difficulty will continue, and that the manhood of Australia will refuse to enlist in the Royal Australian Artillery as long as the miserable pittance now paid is continued. The qualifying examination is as stringent as possible. An applicant to be successful must be of high moral character, and of really fine physique. Our artillerymen are superior to those of any other part of the world. I have seen many of the crack British regiments, and I do not hesitate to say that there is no finer body of men than is the Royal Australian Artillery. We have the audacity, however, to offer these men only 2s. 6d. per day, with rations and housing, and a certain quantity of clothing: Unless we pay a considerably higher wage the ranks must be depleted. If the men in the ranks had any hope of securing, after a few years of training, higher positions in the service, and were eligible for a pension on reaching the age at which they are no longer fit to be in the fighting line, it would be only reasonable to start them at fairly low rates. But that is not the position. I should not object so much to the wages paid to a man on entering the service provided that he could work up, but the position is that these men, after they have been years in force - after they have acquired expert knowledge and, perhaps, have married and have a family to keep - continue to receive the same beggarly pittance that was paid them on entering the service.

Mr McWilliams:

– And they have nothing to look forward to.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Absolutely nothing. We cannot have the Force all generals or sergeants ; there must be some men in the lower ranks. We know, however, that by the time a soldier is forty he is really “ done “ as a gunner or a private in the infantry, as is proved by the retiring age. But, after paying a man the magnificent wage of 2s. 6d. a day, we cast him on the world unfitted for any other avocation, following the example elsewhere in the world that we have condemned more than once. Similar conditions prevail in the Navy, for which men must be thoroughly fitted, physically and otherwise ; and yet, no matter how meritorious their conduct, or how long their service, the highest wage they can reach is 5s. a day. It is only very recently, after much agitation, that good-conduct badges were provided; but there seems considerable repugnance on the part of the officials to recommending recipients for these badges; and all that the men can look forward to is an old-age pension, with the difference that pensioners outside the service have had opportunities that those men inside, with their small pittance, could not avail themselves of. Seeing that a large present has been made to the merchants of Australia in the form of penny postage,. I hope that something will be done to provide a living wage for those in the Defence Forces.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the honorable member tell me why hisparty turned right-about-face on a proposal to give these men a little work? Last year the Labour party were all in favour of this course; but last night they voted against it without a word of explanation.

Mr MATHEWS:

– In the past, there have been positions into which these men could be drafted in the Pay Branch, the Stores Branch, and the Ordnance Branch. This was done at the instance of the honorable member for Parramatta, when he was Minister of Defence, and unanimously approved by the House ; and yet, without a trial, the system has been abolished at the behest of civil public servants, who are the head officials in the Defence Department.

Mr.Mc Williams. -Whoabolished it ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I do not like to take advantage of my position here, and, therefore, I shall not mention names.

Mr McWilliams:

– But the Government must be responsible.

Mr MATHEWS:

– No doubt the Minister is to blame; but this is done at the behest of civil servants who wish to keep their positions a close preserve. I think I am correct in that view, because, in every other army in the world, those positions are offered as prizes to men in the ranks of good character and ability. I should like to give a little advice to some of the . sub-heads in the Defence Department. I have no desire to name them, but I remind them that they are not there in their own interests, but in the interests of the people of Australia, and to do justice to all beneath them in position. When we find them failing signally in that duty, some method must be adopted to bring them to book ; and I warn them that if they continue either the pin-pricks or the bludgeoning to which they have resorted, I shall name them from the floor of the House, and make it so “ hot “ for them that they will wish they had been more careful.

Mr McWilliams:

– Whynot blame those who are really responsible?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have already admitted that the fault lies with the Minister. I was born and reared in the Army, so that I know the conditions ; and it is impossible to change the old order of things until some one takes a firm stand. Any man in a position of authority has his difficulties ; but he is paid a big wage, and if he lacks tact, or ability, he only proves his unfitness.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Minister is paid a great deal larger salary !

Mr MATHEWS:

– The difficulties may be greater than the Minister imagined, or, perhaps, than I imagine. I may say that there seems a determination on the part of some of the officials to discourage the use of Australian manufactures ; and when they are forced by the Minister, by public clamour, or the newspapers, to take another view, they do so grudgingly, and in a manner calculated to discredit the local product.

Mr Atkinson:

– Is that general?

Mr MATHEWS:

– It is so in most of the Branches, but not in all.

Mr McWilliams:

– Does not the Minister sign all the orders?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have already admitted that it is the Minister’s fault; but those othergentryaretoblamealso.After years of agitation, it was decided to have ammunition waggons manufactured in Australia, and a contract was carried out two years ago, followed by another which has been let. The sub-heads of the Department would rather not have the work done here, because, when the articles are imported, they have to be inspected only when they arrive, whereas, when they are manufactured here, they have to be inspected periodically, and the officials are responsible for their quality. In the case of the axles, the Iron Trades Council have raised an objection that those imported for the present contract are not so much in the rough as those for the former contract. It is calculated that about fourteen hours more work was required for the axles in the first contract than is required for the axles in the second contract. In the former case, four or five hours’ work was provided for a blacksmith and his striker, and two or three hours’ work for a fitter and his assistant; but in the second case, the axles sent out are, as I said, in a more finished condition, and, naturally, the men here, who are ready to do the work, object. Allowing for all official prejudice as to the quality of the steel and so forth, surely it is the duty of the departmental heads to give as much work as possible to the artisans of Australia. The Minister was brought to book, and there has been an exhibition in the vestibule of Parliament House of a finished axle and an unfinished axle for a second contract. The work, I am assured by men who know, is excellent ; but what was really required was an unfinished axle sent out for the first contract, and an unfinished axle sent out for the second, so that the difference might have been seen.

Mr Frazer:

– The Minister’s advice is that five days and eight hours are required under present conditions to complete the axle, while, in the case of the first contract, four hours longer were required. The alteration was made for the purpose of obviating the re-tempering of the steel after it had once been tempered by the oil hardening process.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If the Minister’s advice is no more credible than other advice tendered to him, itis not worth much ; and I prefer to take the word of men outside the service, who are engaged in similar work, in preference to that of the Inspector of ordnance machinery. It seems petty to labour at this one question of the axles ; but, unless we take a stand, we shall find the officialsimportingmore finished work. The officials may mean well, but they are not regardful enough of the welfare of other people who have to earn their living. I have had seven men come to me with regard to Public Service pensions to which they claimed they were entitled. They said they had been in the service since about 1878, but throughsome set of circumstances, the Department say that they are not entitled to pensions. I have brought five of the cases before the Departments, and the answer is to the same old effect, that the Commonwealth is not responsible for the whole of the pension. The State is responsible for a portion, and if the Commonwealth paid it without getting the sanc tion of the State concerned, the State would take the Commonwealth to the High Court, as has been done in other cases. Consequently, these men’s pensions are not paid. I do not say that the Departments are treating the men unfairly, but as there are so many cases of this sort, and a lot of other men are now reaching the retiring age, and will expect to receive pensions, only to find that they are refused, the least the Government can do is to appoint some kind of board to investigate the claims. The men claim that they were entitled to pensions in the State service, but the Departments say they were not. They are not educated men who can write out a brief that will carry their case through the whole of the Departments. They are hardworking men who have been sailors, watchmen, or firemen in their time. I have appealed on this matter to three Governments, but I have not been able to get satisfaction. I appeal to the present Government to appoint an officer in each State, and ask the State to appoint another man, and let these claimants go before them, and state their case.

Mr Frazer:

– I give the honorable member my word that if he presents a specific case, it will be fully investigated.

Mr MATHEWS:

– And will these men have an opportunity togo before some one to state their case?

Mr Frazer:

– If the honorable member will give me a specific case, we shall see on the results of the investigation whether we are justified in making a comprehensive inquiry.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Will the Minister agree that whoever takes the matter in hand shall have the particular man of whose case I am thinking, before him, so that he can state his case?

Mr Frazer:

– Ifthe honorable member will name a specific case, I shall bring the man before me, and investigate the case.

Mr MATHEWS:

– That will satisfy me. The whole of these men who are suffering under an injustice will now, I hope, have an opportunity of stating their case. I am sorry to have to ventilate another grievance, but some twenty-two years ago, a petty officer named Critten, employed in our Defence Force, was in charge of a boat. A child was accidentally knocked into the water, and he placed himself, in order to save the child, in such a position that he was crushed. He was ill for some two years, and was physically unfit to take his place as a petty officer in the naval service. While convalescing, and after starting work again, he had to move nearer to the depot, and lost a house which he was buying, and on which he had paid some money. He spent over £100 for medical attendance and medicine. The Government of the time gave him £200, not for compensation, but to make up the loss that he had incurred on his house, and for medical attendance and medicine, and with regard to compensation, they said to him, “ As you are not fit to pass a medical examination to be placed under the Discipline Act of the Navy, and cannot get promotion, we shall put you in the stores, make you storekeeper, and you shall hold that position as long as you are physically fit.” He is sixty years of agethis year. Men who were subordinate to him, and no better in the service, are retiring to-day on pensions of from £120 to£160 per annum, but he, because of his injury, and the impossibility of securing advancement in the service for which he got no compensation, is retired on £52 a year. He claims that the Government of the time said he was to hold the position while he was physically fit.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is he being retired ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– He has been retired. The Minister of Defence must take the blame for what is done in his Department.

Mr Carr:

– Why not blame his predecessor ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Because the man was sacked during the time of the present Ministry. It is the fault of the present Minister, and of no one else. Some time ago the status of the storekeeper was increased. This man wanted the position of storekeeper, and applied for it, but the authorities would not give it to him. Being somewhat of a sailor or bush-lawyer, he stated his case so well, and made it so warm for those who stopped his getting the position, that he was given a Board to consider whether he should get the post or not. The Board decided that he was not entitled to it. After that, from sheer spite and nothing else, he was dismissed from the service. He was no longer allowed to continue as acting storekeeper on the miserable pittance of 7s. a day. When a man is discharged from the Army or Navy he gets his bit of parchment stating the reason for his discharge, and immediately receives his pension, but this man has been discharged now for three and a-half months, and has received no dischargepaper, and no money by way of pension. How is he expected to live?

Mr Frazer:

– Has the honorable member made any representations to the Minister about the case?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have had the man before the Minister myself, and have been reluctantly compelled, as a last resort, to bring the matter up in this Chamber in order to show what contemptible practices are followed by the Defence Department, for which the Minister is to blame.

Mr Frazer:

– What had the Minister to say ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– All the Minister said was that a Board had sat on the case and decided that the man was not to get the position ; that if he had been satisfied with the position he held he would have been allowed to remain, but as he was not, and his time was up, he had to go.

Mr McWilliams:

– Why did he not get his discharge?

Mr MATHEWS:

– That is what I want to know. I have persistently and consistently hammered away at the matter, and can get justice from nobody. I blame the naval officers for persecuting this man, and the Minister, for not being able to discern that they were not giving him justice.

Mr Atkinson:

– Does the honorable member think that the Department are hoodwinking the Minister?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Minister has no right to be hoodwinked by them, and must take the whole of the blame for what has occurred. The man is now eating his heart out on account of the ill-treatment he has received. He is practically told by the Department, “ You can starve. Although entitled to £1 a week, you shall get nothing until we choose to give it to you.” I trust the Honorary Minister will take notice of this matter.

Mr Frazer:

– I have represented the Minister of Defence in this Chamber for six months, andthe honorable member has said nothing to me about it before.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I had to deal with the Minister of Defence in the matter, but I can get no redress from him or his officers.

Mr McWilliams:

– What explanation was given?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The explanation is that the man made himself a nuisance in trying to get justice from the Department. I hope that officers of the Army, or Navy, or any other portion of the Public Service, will not be allowed in the future, as they have been in the past, to damn any man who happens to “look ugly “ at them, or thwart them fairly and justly in some procedure which they want to carry through.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Who has the power to refuse a man his pension?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The Departments handle the case, and judge whether a man is entitled to a pension or not.

Mr Frazer:

– Only the law can prevent a man from getting his pension.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I hope something will be done through my bringing this matter up. In conclusion, I wish to have another “smack” at the Public Service Commissioner. I hope .that in the future he will not be so biased in his judgment as to tell a practical man who wants fair pay for his work,, that it is labourer’s work, when, oh the face of it, it is mechanic’s work.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

– I . am sorry the debate has taken this turn. I thought I was listening te a debate on Grievance Day. Seeing that this is the first Budget which the present Government have had the honour of introducing, I think honorable members on this side of the House should give them some credit for what they have done, but in place of that there seems to be a general desire to find fault. Looking back on the work of the session we can see that the Ministry have been very busy, and out of compliment to them we should pass the Estimates without demur. The Ministry have been instrumental in the passing into law of Acts for the imposition of a land tax, for which no word of praise has been given to them, though these measures are likely to be productive of greater good than has resulted from any other measure on the statute-book, as they will cause a great many people to come to this country, and will have a great effect on its development. The Government have also passed into law measures for the establishment of a Commonwealth note-issue, which will have farreaching and beneficial effects. Provision, too, has been made for referring to the people proposed alterations of the Constitution, having for their object the extension of the powers of the Commonwealth, so that we may control, and, if necessary, nationalize, monopolies. Tt would be foolish for us to waste time in passing legislation such as has been passed in the United States, which powerful combines could defeat, and, therefore, it has been felt necessary to ask for the power to nationalize monopolies. For all these measures the Ministers are to be complimented, as having proved themselves desirous of advancing the interests of the country. To continue to provide for new Protection by Acts which the High “Court could declare invalid would be .absurd. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports had a great deal to say about postal reform, and repeated the oft-told story about the defects in the administration of the Department, but he forgot to tell us that no Government has done more for the re-organization of the Department. On the Estimates for this year the amount for post, telegraph, and telephone services is more than £250,000 in excess of the vote for last year, in addition to £180,000 for new works. Furthermore, from the 1 st January next every man and woman in the service, no matter how short a time they may have been there, will be paid not less than £110 a year, if of the age of twenty-one years. -I had to do with bringing this matter before the Government, and it is creditable to Ministers that they have been willing to increase the public expenditure by more than £23,000 to give effect to this humane reform. Then the . Postmaster-General has instituted the toll system of charging for the telephone service, which is a step in the right direction, and, by the passing of the Postal Rates Bill, provision has been made for the extension to all the States of a privilege which has hitherto been enjoyed only by Victoria, that of penny postage. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports forgot to mention that, because, no doubt, Victoria . has always under Federation enjoyed penny postage.

Mr Mathews:

– I was willing to raise the Victorian postal rate to 2d., to place all the States on a level.

Mr RILEY:

– The Government have also provided for the hearing of the grievances of postal officers by- the Arbitration Court. That is a change which we should hail with pleasure, because in the past a great deal of our time has been occupied in the discussion of these grievances. Those in the service should not be treated differently from those out of it, and every man and woman who thinks that justice is not being meted out will have a right to go to the Court, and ask for its decision as to the wages, conditions, and hours of labour. This reform will do a great deal to remove discontent from the Public Service. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports has complained about the way in which the Military Forces have been treated.

Mr Ozanne:

– Does the honorable member think that 2s. 6d. a day is a fair wage?

Mr RILEY:

– No; but this Government has increased the military expenditure by over £1,000,000, as well as providing for a big general increase. Personally, I think that too much is being spent on defence preparations, and that the time will come when the people will object to this expenditure. But in view of all the reforms which Ministers have brought about, we might pay them the compliment of carrying their Estimates without much loss of time. They have passed more legislation than any. other Government has passed in the same period, doing not only the work of their offices, but attending the sittings of Parliament for three days in the week- from 10.30 a.m. until late at night. They have dealt with great national questions, such as the transfer of the Northern Territory, which contains an area four and one-half times as great as the British Isles. .1 hope that that Territory will be properly developed, and that, if necessary, money will be borrowed to assist its development.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– That is opposed to the Labour platform.

Mr RILEY:

– The Labour party wishes to restrict public borrowing, and would not borrow for Defence purposes, but we do not object to borrowing for the construction of reproductive works. This Government has not yet borrowed, but I trust that it will not hesitate to borrow for the development of the Northern Territory, should that be thought to be necessary. In doing so it will have my support.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- At this stage I propose to deal chiefly with one matter connected with the Postal Department, so that honorable members may give attention to it when the Postal Estimates are being considered. What has been said by the honorable member for South Sydney - regarding the Government was sp much jam, which it was not necessary to spread on the Government bread.. We . expect Ministers to do what they have done, and have always said that when a

Labour Government came into power it would not follow the example of its predecessors. This Government has only done what we expected it to do.

Mr Riley:

– The Government should be - given credit for what it has done.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Not more credit than belongs to the party which supports it.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is it not an axiom that this is the best Government that ever was ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes, but there are spots even on the sun. I do not think that sufficient attention has been paid to the proposed introduction into the Commonwealth of the Telefunken system of wireless telegraphy. The Postmaster- General and his predecessor have given the history of the contract alleged to have been made by the Department with the Australian Wireless Company, but I have since looked into the matter more closely, and am of opinion that a serious mistake has been made, though it may not be evident to those not acquainted with the subject. The company calls itself the Australian Wireless in order to appeal to the patriotism of Parliament and of the public, but the name is merely a cloak. The company was created because it was thought that in no other way could a German system of wireless telegraphy find acceptance in a British community. This company came into existence. I take it, to play “ the confidence trick “ on the Commonwealth Government. It was put forward as an Australian company, and consisted of a few men brought together evidently to exploit Australia in this regard. The main parties to it were Messrs. F. W. Staerker and Martin. Becker, trading in Sydney under the name of Staerker and Fischer. This firm seems to have met Mr. Denison, of Tobacco Combine fame; Mr. McLeod, of the Bulletin; and some other gentlemen, and to have told them that it was possible to exploit this market if an Australian company could be formed. Ultimately, a company was formed, with a capital of £5,000, and it arranged to purchase the Australian rights of the Telefunken Company for £4,500, payable in the form of shares to the German company. Subsetquently tthis company, which was floated with a capital of £5,000, increased its capital, or watered its stock, so as to bring it up to £12,000, and it tendered for the erection of two wireless stations in Australia.

Mr Hedges:

– Can the honorable member say how they managed to get the specification altered after it had been issued?

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is a matter which the Minister will probably explain. The company secured the Telefunken patent rights for Australia and the adjacent British Possessions. Apparently the contract into which they entered with the Commonwealth Government was as nothing to them. Their main object was to secure a footing, and to extend the system in Australia. The registered shareholders in the concern in May last were as follows : - Hugh R. Denison, 1,451 ; William McLeod, 251; F. W. Staerker, 1,101; F. W. Bott Humphrey, 701; Albert F.. F. Wheeler, 1,000; Edward A. Gaden, 100; D. W. Roxburgh, 100; George Tallis, 92; Arthur Lindsay, 50 ; John McCallum Jolly, 151; and R. W. King, William Wright, and A. W. Perriam, 1 each. According to a statement in a document which I have seen, it was estimated that it would cost from £12,000 to £15,000 to carry out the work which the company tendered to do for a little under £9,000. By reason of an alteration of the sites, they claimed an increase of £2,000on the contract price, and they are proposing to erect at Pennant Hills, near Sydney, for a little over £6,000, a wireless station, for which the Marconi Company ask £19,000. A Wireless Telegraphy Conference, consisting of experts of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the Defence Department, and other branches of the service, met in 1909 to investigate the matter of erecting these stations, and the Electrical Engineer of New South. Wales made a statement that each of them would cost at least £12,000. The company itself has undertaken to construct for a sum slightly exceeding £10,000 works which they say will cost from £12,000 to £15,000. There must have been something more than this contract to induce the company to put in such a tender. Let me give a history of the systems in operation in other parts of the world. It is well that we should have the facts on record, otherwise, when the day of adversity arrives, we shall have no means of showing that we advised the Government, in the best interests of the country, to hasten slowly in this matter. I find that Germany has 162 stations, of which 139 comprise the Telefunken system. None of these have a greater range than 600 kilometres, or, roughly speaking, 500 miles.

Mr Fenton:

– They say that they have a range of 2,000 miles.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have taken these figures from the latest register.

Mr Finlayson:

– Five hundred miles is not the maximum range.

Mr WEBSTER:

– No one can say what is the maximum range. We have no evidence as to whether this company will be able, by means of the system that it proposes to install, to transmit messages over the distance specified in the contract. Of the 139 German Telefunken stations, 93 are on German warships, whilst of other German vessels only 20 are fitted with that system. There are in Germany 16 Marconi stations, and 16 de Forrest stations. In Russia there are 15 wireless stations, of which 6 are on the Telefunken system, 6 on the Marconi system, and 2 on the de Forrest system. In Sweden there are 27 stations, particulars of which are not given in the register. In Austria there are 24 stations, every one of them being on the Telefunken system. That fact is worthy of note, in view of the relationship between Germany and Austria. Both those countries have practically adopted the Telefunken system.

Mr Fenton:

– Has the honorable member also got the German war scare?

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member is trying to make light of a very serious matter. It seems to be becoming the practice in this House to treat nothing seriously. In Belgium there are 10 wireless, stations, all of them being on the Marconi system. In Holland there are 40 stations, 15 of which are on the Telefunken system, and 25 on the Marconi system. For the information of the honorable member for Brisbane, let me say that Holland has one vessel, the Hertzog Hendrik, fitted with a Telefunken apparatus of an alleged range of 1,200 kilometres - the only Telefunken long-range station recorded. In Italy there are 42 stations, and they use only the Marconi system. Japan has 16 wireless stations, and has realized the desirableness of keeping her system as private as possible. There, neither the Marconi nor the Telefunken system has been installed. Japan has installed a system of her own; and one of her stations has a range of 1,000 kilometres. In Denmark there are 17 wireless telegraphy stations, the Telefunken system alone being used. Of these nine are installed on warships. In France, there are two stations, in connexion with both of which a French system has been installed.

Spain has installed 5 Telefunken stations, and 2 Rochefort stations, the Telefunken system being installed on her warships. Chili has 7 stations, on which the Marconi system only is used. In Brazil there are ten installations, three Telefunken and seven Marconi, and one Telefunken has a radius of 80 kilos. In Norway there are twelve installations, all Telefunken, and all on warships. In Roumania there are five installations, neither Telefunken nor Marconi, but of the. curious name of Brandy Popp. In Great Britain there are 313 installations, none of which are Telefunken, but consisting of 291 Marconi, nine Lodge-Muirhead; nine De Forrest, three United Wireless, and one British Radio. There we have the other side of the picture. The British authorities deem it wise to adopt one system both for land stations, and on ships of war.

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

– Why is that?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Because they believe that it is the best system.

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

– It is because the British authorities have got themselves tied up in an agreement.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is not so, as is shown by the fact that there are other systems in vogue in Great Britain. The total wireless installations in the countries named number 709, consisting of 221 Telefunken, 402 Marconi, 17 De Forrest, and 69 others. This record excludes all American and Canadian stations ; but we know that America and Canada, like Great Britain, have adopted the Marconi system. There are some Telefunken installations in America, but none in Canada. There are twenty-seven stations in Canada, one of which, of the highest power in the world, is on the Marconi system, which has been adopted, of course, with a regard to unity ofactionasbetween Great Britain and her dependencies. Even in South Africa the authorities have adopted the same system; and honorable members should ask themselves why it is that, while England has chosen the Marconi system as a safeguard of the Empire, Germany, and those countries sympathetic with Germany, have adopted the Telefunken system? These facts are very suggestive; and I am sorry that the Commonwealth Government should have looked at this matter merely from a pounds, shillings, and pence point of view, because it may mean the jeopardizing of the safety of this part of the Empire.

Mr West:

– The Commonwealth Government have adopted the best system.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is not so. There is another point as to which I am not certain whether the Government have considered it or not. The Marconi Company have taken out nineteen patents through the Australian Patents Office; and if that means anything, it means that some protection is due to that company under the circumstances. I should say that the Marconi Company will not take any infringement of their rights “lying down”; and yet the Australian Government have adopted the system of a company which has pirated, at any rate, a portion of an invention patented in their own office. It seems to me that the Marconi Company will have an action at law; indeed, in other countries action has been taken with success; but, the defendant company being of straw, damages could not be recovered. The result was that it cost the Marconi Company £20,000 to defend its rights.. In Australia the circumstances are different. The Australasian Wireless Company has only £12,000 capital, with only the good-will of the Commonwealth Government to enable them to commence work in the hope of profit in the future. If the Marconi Company, under their rights as granted through the Australian Patents Office, should proceed successfully against the rival company, and the latter is not able to meet the verdict, the Government, having stood behind that company, will practically be liable for any damages awarded.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– That will not be so, I think.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I admit that in the contract the Government are indemnified against any claim made under that head, but the Government can have no protection against a company that may not be able to satisfy a verdict recorded against it. Another pointis that thesystem adopted does not give Australia anything like the advantage that the more matured and developed system would give. With the Marconi system there would be a continuous line of stations, and it is installed on nearly every merchant ship that trades to and from Australia. It may be easy to transmit messages from a land station to a vessel 1,250 miles at sea; but in the case of return messages, it often happens that they have to be repeated from station to station in order to reach their destination. It will be seen, therefore, that by the adoption of the Telefunken system, Australia will be at a disadvantage, because there is only one ship in Australian waters installed with it, and at present that ship cannot be spoken to. According to the information I have received, the installation on this vessel is very defective indeed ; and I am afraid that we are really getting an expensive and not a cheap system, seeing that it does not give the service that we have a right to expect. There are other and more momentous reasons why this matter should be carefully looked into before final action is taken. An installation was made in the Bulletin office, Sydney, for the purpose of communicating with Messrs. Huddart, Parker’s vessel, on which the Telefunken system is in operation, the object being to prove the validity of their claim to communicate over the distance mentioned in the contract. Owing, however, to amateur operators or engineers, or to the weakness of the system - I know not what - there has so far been no communication. I understand that the installation has been removed from the Bulletin office to the Hotel Australia, but there is no guarantee that communication will be obtained there.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is the Bulletin in the business?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have mentioned Mr. McLeod, and I need not say anything more. There is no guarantee that the Telefunken system is capable of transmitting messages 1,250 miles.

Mr West:

– Messages have been sent 2, 000 miles.

Mr WEBSTER:

– There are freak wireless messages, just as there are freaks in other spheres of activity; but experts take no notice of them. Very frequently, owing to climatic or other influences, messages travel much longer distances than usual ; but the cases being isolated, they prove nothing. We must be sure that messages are, and can be, transmitted over agiven distanceat all times. Experts hold the opinion which I accept, that the Telefunken system will not give that service which Australia has a right to expect ; and if I am in possession of information to that effect I should be recreant to my position if I did not make it known in this House. I desire, therefore, to place on record that, in the opinion of experts, the Telefunken system as established to-day has the one weakness that it cannot be guaranteed to perform its contract as to radius. Let any man with an idea of engineering consider the fact that the power necessary at any of the high grade stations of the Marconi Company to furnish a current to send a message 1,250 miles by wireless is 120 horse-power, whereas the power which this company is going to use is 30 horsepower.

Mr Hedges:

– What distance can the Marconi speak?

Mr WEBSTER:

– They are sending every day thousands of words from Canada to Ireland, a distance of 2,400 miles. The Telefunken people have told the Government, whose responsible officers have indorsed the statement, that they will be able to transmit wireless messages for the distance required with 30 horse-power. In the first place, the price asked by this company is too low. Secondly, the installation will not be satisfactory. The apparatus is not strong enough, and the power is not high enough to give the service that the contract demands. From a commercial stand- point, there is no comparison between the advantages to Australia of the two systems. If we were merely to consider the matter as a defence proposition, and leave out the question of commerce, the question would be a different one. Commerce, after all, is the great consideration. I admit that communication will be able to be made with the Telefunken system in time of distress by merchant ships and others, according to the international agreement, but those are only small matters, compared with the great advantage of the Marconi system, to the commercial world. During 1909, something like £5,000,000 worth of property was saved from destruction, and thousands of lives have also been saved, by reason of the timely warning and assistance given through the system which is being so widely used to-day. There is no record of the Telefunken system having done anything to save either life or property, because it is a system which is largely installed on warships, and not on merchant ships. The limitatioris of itsusef ulness to the community must therefore be apparent to all.

Mr Fenton:

– Are not the systems interchangeable ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Only in time of distress. The Marconi system is installed today on all ships of the British Navy, on 400 principal mail and passenger steamers, in the fleets of thirty- two British shipping companies, and on the whole of the lines of mail steamers trading across the Atlantic. I have pointed out what I consider to be the disadvantages and disabilities of the Telefunken system, and wish now to point out the national dangers involved in its adoption by the Government of the

Commonwealth. The difference between the two systems is the difference in what is called the spark. One is called a ringing spark, and the other has rather a dull sound. You can distinguish between the . Telefunken spark and the Marconi spark at the receiving station, and it is because of that distinction that the danger to Australia or Australian interests may ultimately be involved. . We may instal the Telefunken system on our land stations, and trouble may occur - between England and Germany. That is no child’s talk, considering what we know is happening, and the competition that is going on both in Defence matters and in trade and commerce between the two nations. If we have the German system installed here, it will be possible for a German man-of-war to send to a British or Australian warship, or a British merchant ship, a message purporting to come from the Australian land station. Such a thing could not occur if the Marconi system were introduced here. A grave national mistake has been made by the Government in applying the Telefunken system to this great part of the British Dominions.

Mr West:

– Can the honorable member explain the action of the British Admiralty in recommending it?

Mr WEBSTER:

– The British Admiralty sounded one note of warning that ought to have been sufficient when they told the Commonwealth Government that they thought the offer was too cheap. They would not attempt to dictate to Australia, but, when -asked for advice, they -gave it ; and their statement ought to have been enough to show that there was something wrong.

Mr Hedges:

– They also told the Commonwealth Government that there would be no harm in accepting the system, if it complied with the requirements.

Mr WEBSTER:

– We have to experiment to ascertain whether it will comply with the requirements. If it turns out a failure, after being in use, we shall have to stand the brunt of the delay in inaugurating a more efficient system. Engineers state that the great weakness of the Telefunken system lies in the fact that they cannot apply to their apparatus power sufficient to transmit messages 1,250 miles. If they were to apply the necessary current, it would practically eat the material away. It is because of that difference that these people have been able to get patent rights for what” is acknowledged to be a weaker and less complete system. I have dealt now with this matter; but I know the Government take no notice of what any honorable member may say. I would rather have spoken when the PostmasterGeneral was present. I do not know whether he ought not to be here when matters of this kind are being discussed.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– The PostmasterGeneral is not very well.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That is very unfortunate, if it is so. Another matter on which I wish to speak at this stage, because we are entering upon a long recess, relates to the toll telephone system recently introduced. I am quite prepared .to allow that system to work out its own redemption or otherwise for twelve months, but there is a factor in connexion with it that should have been attended to. Under the Sydney system, there are what are called purchase lines, upon which some 330 subscribers are receiving a service. Some of these people are . among the largest users of the telephone in Sydney. They get the largest service out of their telephones, or a service, equal even to the largest under the old flatrate system, and they get it for an average of only 4d. per day. There was an anomaly in -the flat-rate system ; but it is not a tithe of the anomaly that exists under the purchase-line system that is still allowed to exist.

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

– This Government is not responsible for that.

Mr WEBSTER:

– They are responsible for not making an alteration. There are some 260 subscribers in Sydney, 78 in the suburbs, and 30 or 40 in the country, on the purchase-line system. They still ‘have an advantage over their fellow subscribers. The abolition of the flat rate was necessary, and that system should not have continued so long; but a still more iniquitous arrangement, namely, that to which I refer, should not have been allowed to remain. It is objected that the abolition of the purchaseline system requires an Act of Parliament, but it would have been as easy to deal with it in that way as it was to give the Department- a monopoly in the publication of telephone “lists.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Those to whom the honorable member is referring put up their own lines.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes, but they have had a good service for many years, which has more than compensated them for their comparatively small initial expense, and there is no reason why they should now receive an unlimited service for £5 a year, when other users of the telephone are charged so much per call. The purchaseline system should have been abolished when the flat rate was abolished. The Department has suffered because reforms have been carried out prematurely, or without due consideration, so that the Department has become the laughing-stock of business men who are acquainted with its methods. Another matter upon which I wish to touch is the attitude of the Government towards the Arbitration Court. The Postal Commission recommended the establishment of a Court for dealing with the grievances df the postal servants. We claim that those grievances should be dealt with by men having a knowledge of the Department and the intricacies of the service, which are greater than most persons think. Ministers propose to allow the grievances of the Postmaster-General’s Department to be settled by the Arbitration Court; but they do not see what that will involve. The Postal Commission in its report indicates that the establishment of a Court for the remedying of postal grievances will necessitate the retirement of the Public Service Commissioner. His occupation will br. gone directly another authority is appointed to regulate hours, wages, and conditions of employment. The same thing will happen if the Government proposal is carried into effect.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– In New South Wales there is a Public Service. Board, notwithstanding that the railway servants of the State are under the control of Commissioners

Mr WEBSTER:

– The railway servants of New South Wales are only a part of the whole Public Service, which is made up of a number of large Departments, such as the Lands, Mines, Justice, Works, Education, and others. The Commonwealth Public Service is much smaller, and if we took the postal officials away from the control of the Public Service Commissioner, we should merely leave the Customs officials under his control, and their number is only one- tenth of that of the postal officials. Whenever a Court gave an award there would be no need for classification.

Mr West:

– Why not provide for an appeal from the Commissioner to the Arbitration Court?

Mr WEBSTER:

– There would be no need for the Commissioner after’ an award had been given.

Mr West:

– The Commissioner oan improve conditions.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes; but, unfortunately, he has not done so. That is why a change of system is proposed.

Item agreed to.

Remaining items of proposed -vote (Senate, £6,579) agreed to.

Division 2 (House of Representatives T £9> 358) agreed to.

Division 3 (Parliamentary Reporting

Staff, £7,197)-

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– It seems to me that the Government might be more generous in granting facilities to honorable members for the transaction of correspondence. Unless a member is an expert typist - and I am not in that position - the conduct of correspondence is almost slavery. The Government might well consider the advisability of placing a typist at the disposal of honorable members, who are inundated with correspondence. In other Parliaments assistance is given.

Mr Anstey:

– In the State Parliament a member can get typewriting done.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Leader of the Opposition is provided with no facilities other than he chooses to procure for himself, and the mechanical drudgery of answering his correspondence1 is more than any one should be asked to undertake. I hope that the Government will consider the matter very seriously during the recess.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of External Affairs · Boothby · ALP

– There is a good deal to be said in favour of the honorable member’s suggestion, for no doubt the greater part of the correspondence of honorable members relates to public business.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– My suggestion is that it should be for public business only.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The matter will be considered during the recess, and the Government will announce in the next session what they are prepared to do. I do not think that the request is unfair, but the matter is one on which I should like to consult my colleagues before giving a definite promise.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– During last session some mention was made of the position of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, and a promise was given that it would be reviewed by the President and Mr. Speaker. I wish to know whether anything has been done.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby · ALP

.- It will be seen that the members of the staff are each to receive two increments of £25. Mr. President Gould and Mr. Speaker Salmon when dealing with the Estimates last year recommended that the reporters should receive those increments, and one has now been granted to them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I think it my duty to mention, after long experience of what the position of the Leader of the Opposition involves, a certain proposal which I make entirely on my own responsibility. It is that whilst the Government are considering the other matter to which I have alluded they might very well take into account the propriety of supplying the Leader of the Opposition with a private secretary to assist him in the discharge of his duties. Only those who have had to do the work of a Leader of the Opposition know the absolute drudgery to which that honorable member is condemned in getting ready to do his duty in this Parliament.

Mr Webster:

– But there are three Leaders of the Opposition.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am asking for the appointment of a secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable member may make fun of the proposal, but to me it is a serious matter. Such assistance as I suggest is not denied to the Leader of the Opposition in any National Parliament of which we know.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of External Affairs · Boothby · ALP

– The whole matter of the assistance to be granted honorable members in connexion with their correspondence will be considered together with the suggestion just made by the honorablemember.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I rather favour the system in vogue in Canada where a special annual payment is made to the Leader of the Opposition. If honorable members are to be rewarded for the services they render to the State, the Leader of the Opposition should receive a special allowance, for he is just as important a part of the Parliament as is the Leader of the Government. If he faithfully discharges his duties he is the watchdog of the people whom the Opposition represent, and I think that the time has arrived to consider the advisableness, not only of appointing a private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, but of recognising the responsibilities of the office by a payment equivalent to the duty that he has to perform.

Mr Finlayson:

– The Leader of the Opposition in the Queensland Legislative Assembly receives an allowance.

Mr WEBSTER:

– That shows that the Queensland Parliament recognises the responsibilities of the office. I was not joking whilst the honorable member for Parramatta was speaking. I wished only to know whether his proposal applied to the Leader of the Opposition alone. I take it that in this Parliament the Leader of the Opposition does not require so much assistance as does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The work of leadership, so far as attention to business in this House and general alertness is concerned, is done really by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Why raise that point ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I am anxious only that justice shall be done.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I indorse the remarks that have fallen from the honorable member for Gwydir. In many of the State Parliaments the Government of the day are recognising the work performed by the Leader of the Opposition, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament has rightly had an officer discharging secretarial duties for him. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition, who has to keep in touch with all measures brought before the Parliament is, in many cases, more overburdened with work than is a Minister of the Crown. If we are to pay according to work performed the Leader of the Opposition is as much entitled to a salary as is any responsible Minister of the Crown.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 4 (The Library), £4,248; division 5 (Refreshment Rooms), £1,105; division 6 (Water Power for Parliament House), £225; division 7 (Electric Lighting, Repairs,&c.), £1,411 ; division 8 (Queen’s Hall), £462 ; division 9 (Parliament Gardens), £507 ; and division 10 (Miscellaneous), £1,208, agreed to.

Department of External Affairs

Division 11 (Administrative), . £13,923.; division 12 (Executive Council), £812; division 13 (High Commissioner’s Office), £13,756, agreed to.

Division 14 (Papua), £29,000

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- I ask the Minister to be good enough during the recess to take into consideration the treatment of the natives of Papua. Honorable members will recollect that some of us objected to the Commonwealth taking over British New Guinea, on the ground that we had enough to do to look after this vast continent of ours without undertaking the administration of any other Territory. But, for some reason or other, it seemed unavoidable that Ave should take over Papua. It is time, however, that British communities altered their mental attitude towards native and subject races. We have no right to use our superior strength to make wealth out of the natives of New Guinea. Missionaries of various denominations have been there for some years doing their level best to make Christians of them; and when we read missionary publications, we must feel much sympathy with those gentlemen and their wives in the trying experiences which they undergo. The clergymen suffer ill-health and hardship, and face risk, while their wives lose congenial society, and generally have to leave the Possession e’ery ten years or so on health grounds. It would seem that capitalists in various parts of the world are not satisfied Avith the 21 per cent, that they could get for their money in the Old Country, but look abroad for higher dividends. Honorable members will observe that British consols have fallen to about 79J, the lowest point reached, I believe, for many years j and . that is due to the fact that we have succeeded in establishing security of life and property in various parts of the world and men are turning their attention to such places as New Guinea. Mr. Jenkins, a former Agent-General for South Australia, and a former Governor of New Zealand were promoters of the British New Guinea Development Company, the prospectus of which, as one of the reasons for taking up shares, declared that labour was to be obtained there at the cheap rate of 2s. 6d. -a week, or 10s. a month. This and other companies propose, Avith the aid of native labour, to grow maize, sugar, tobacco, rubber, and other tropical and semi-tropical products. I take the view that the 3,000,000 square miles of country on the continent of Australia include all classes of land, and all climates, from that of the Snowy River to the hottest part of the tropical north. Within the Commonwealth anything can be grown and produced, and our attention ought, therefore, to be devoted to the development of this country. If Ave have any money to spare, as would appear from the Estimates, let it be spent in the interests of the native races of New Guinea. Let us not be hypocrites and pretend that we go there for the benefit of the natives, and then kill them off, as the natives . of the New Hebrides have been, and are being, killed off. If Ave desire to do any good and enhance our reputation, Ave ought to spend money in teaching the native races trades of all kinds. They are not, I believe, the lazy people some would have us believe ; if any one here is of that opinion, I invite him to visit the Museum in Melbourne, and examine their successful art work, and most praiseworthy attempts at making boats, mats, and weapons of various kinds. It suits capitalists. however, who wish to use the native labour, regardless of life or human happiness, to. describe these people as lazy ; but, if Ave are a Christian people,

Ave should back up the efforts of the missionaries, and not surrender the natives to company promoters to enable dividends to be made, so that people may live in idleness in Paris, London, Berlin, New York, or elsewhere. This Government has, I believe, high ideals, which they will endeavour to act up to; and I hope that my remarks will not be considered in any way as a reflection upon them, because I know they have not had time to deal Avith the question. It is a fact, however, that these natives are being treated as slaves, although slavery is supposed to have been abolished throughout the British Dominions. The companies in operation there promise investors 10 to 15 per cent, or more, and they are recruiting the natives by cajolery, and, in some cases, I believe, by force. The natives are taken into the country, where they are kept.

Mr Batchelor:

– These are very strong statements !

Mr HIGGS:

– The statements can be proved from the papers in the honorable gentleman’s own Department. The Government Inspectors have visited the plantations, and found that natives have been beaten, and that, instead of being properly housed, the poor creatures are merely covered Avith a calico roof with nothing to protect them from the winds. When people go to such places to make wealth, they are brutalized by contact Avith the natives. Any one who doubts the statements that I asn making may remember what happened when the kanakas were in Queensland^ or when slavery was in operation in America, or in parts of the British Dominions. There are in New Guinea 5,185 natives under .contract. These people formerly lived in a state of comparative luxury in their own villages, obtaining fruit, fish, and vegetables with great ease. But now they dare not leave the plantations, and are paid 2s. 6d. a week, with a pound and a half of sago or rice, sweetened with a little treacle, every day. There is no doubt that this monotonous diet is responsible for the epidemics of dysentery which have broken out. The Minister has said that I have no reason for making these statements.

Mr Batchelor:

– I asked where the honorable member got his information from ! .

Mr HIGGS:

– I got my information from the papers in the honorable gentleman’s own Department. I am sure that the Minister has no sympathy with those companies who exploit these guileless children of nature. As a matter of fact, they work in gangs, and without any proper system of sanitation. The details are too horrible to be mentioned here. In answer to an objection that too much money was spent in New Guinea, the Minister has said that the administration is primarily in the interests of the natives, and I hope that that is so. We ought, as I have said, to teach these natives trades, so that they may produce wealth for themselves in a cooperative way. My honest conviction is that it would have been far better if Great Britain had set her own house in order under a proper system of government instead of in the past, from the sixteenth century on- wards, driving her people to America and other parts of the world, where slavery has been iri operation. I do not believe that money gained in this way is of any good to those who receive it. Why are emigrants leaving the Old Country? Simply because the government there is in the interests of a class. If we want to build up a great race in Australia we must keep our attention directed to its development. If we insist on diverting our attention to a place like Papua, let us spend money there solely in the interests of the natives, and not in the interests of London or Australian capitalists. I know some capitalists in Australia who have made money out of the Protectionist Tariff. They are not satisfied to employ their money here now, but are going to the islands to exploit them and their labour. What is the use of our pretending that we are doing this, as Christian people, for the benefit of the Papuan natives if we are going to kill them off as the natives have been killed off in various islands by the slave traffic that existed in Queensland and part of New South Wales, but that has, happily, been stopped? I hold in my hand a little paper distributed at Sunday schools, called the Heralds of the King. It contains .letters from the Anglican Bishop of Papua, in which he states what the missionaries are trying to do for the natives and in the teaching of the children. The missionaries are appealing for funds, but their work is being arrested by the New Guinea development companies, which are taking the natives away from the villages, killing them off gradually, and letting the wives and children look after themselves. The proposal now is that the companies shall be allowed to break up the villages and remove the wemen and children to the plantations. Once they do that the population will begin to go down, as has happened in the New Hebrides. I hope the Minister will look into the matter. It is a problem that confronts the Labour Government, among many others. I sympathize with them in the work in front of them, but they must tackle the Papuan native question, because, no doubt, some honorable members will propose that the products of the New Guinea development companies shall be allowed to come freely into Australia, and compete with the products of Australian people.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Is the Minister aware whether any indentured coolie or Indian labour is being imported into any part of Papua, as has been done in the case of Fiji and other islands?

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of External Affairs · Boothby · ALP

– I was glad to hear the honorable member for Capricornia express sympathy with the Department in the work of controlling the natives of Papua in their own interests, and assisting to develop that country on right lines. May I tell the honorable member that he does not make the work at all easier for the Department by making such statements as those to which he has just given utterance? His statements are very much exaggerated. The matter of looking after the natives is not a new question to me. I have paid a great deal of attention to it, and look a trip up there in order to see the conditions on the spot for’ myself. I am, therefore, not making an idle boast when I say that I have looked into the matter, and know something of the circumstances under which the natives are employed. It is absolutely a fact that the government of New Guinea is primarily in the interest of the natives. Unless we are to stand off altogether, and allow them to continue under the old conditions, with cannibalism, strife and murder rampant, letting them gradually destroy each other-

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Those methods are not nearly as destructive as the white man’s methods when he gets a free hand with them.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– If it were true that the Government were allowing the natives to be exploited, and not attending to the question of sanitation or proper feeding, it would be far better, in the interests of the natives, to leave them in their old savage state; but quite the contrary is the position. We cannot leave them in their savage condition, and the natives are very much better off, even as they are treated on the worst labour plantations, than they were originally. I do not say that circumstances do not sometimes arise in connexion with the employment of native labour requiring very careful investigation, and calling for improvement; but a Department for the Protection of Native Affairs has been established, and a Protector, with a staff of assistants, has been appointed, whose sole duty is to look after the interests of the natives. He makes representations first to the Administrator, and then his reports are sent down here to be investigated. Any recommendations or suggestions of his for the amelioration or improvement of the conditions of the natives are invariably adopted, unless it is impossible to give effect to them. We have purposely given him a free hand and removed him from the control of any one, except whoever may be administering the affairs of the Territory. He is also made a member of the Executive Council, -so that, if he deems it desirable in the interests of the natives, he may place his views directly before that body. His reports come before the Minister also. We, therefore, go to considerable trouble to see that those who have the special control of the interests of the natives have the fullest opportunity of bringing about an improvement.

Mr Higgs:

– Do the Government spend any money in educating the children, or teaching the adults any trades ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The Government do not spend money directly on the education of the children in the shape of native schools. For the most part the missionaries look after the education of the children, but I am not prepared to say off-hand that there is not some expenditure directly on the education of the natives at Port Moresby and Samarai. The teaching of trades to the adult natives is not at present the business of the Government. The Papuan is primarily an agricultural worker; that was his occupation, when not employed in hunting down his fellows, before we went to the country at all. We are teaching him to develop his agricultural instincts, and the only way in which that can be satisfactorily done is to permit his employment. Under the conditions which we have established their old employment of hunting each other is gone.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– It is not nearly gone yet.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I can assure the honorable member that he can go from one end of Papua to the other with his hands in his pockets, totally unarmed, ‘ and be a great deal safer than he would be in Collinsstreet. I do not say that he could go in that condition everywhere; but he could go along the coastline.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A great deal of the interior, is still unexplored.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– But the extent to which a large part of the country has been brought under comparative civilization is extraordinary. We are seeking to develop the Papuan on the best lines, by making him a still better agriculturist. It is better for himself that he should be occupied. We take all sorts of good care that no native is employed without knowing where he is going and the conditions of his employment, so far as that is possible. lt would be most unfair to those who are trying to do their best, who are as humane as any missionary, and as any member of the House, and anxious to do everything possible for the protection of the natives, if I allowed statements such as have- been made to-night, reflecting upon them, to go out without refutation.

Mr Higgs:

– It all depends on the point of view of those individuals - whether they think the native should work for himself, or for the capitalist.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The natives must first be encouraged to work. I do not say that unfair pressure must be put on them, and all sorts of care must be taken to see that they understand the proposals made to them. In making certain that the native leaves his district only of his own free will, that he is paid in cash according to the scale determined by regulation, and is given the rations required, it cannot be said that we neglect his interests, especially when it is remembered that inspectors are employed to see that the regulations are complied with. The report shows that in only one case in which the need for an alteration was pointed out was it not effected by the next; visit of the inspector. If those who are employing natives do not treat them properly, we shall prevent them from getting more, because we have the whip hand, and intend to keep it. The Government will be no party to the surrender of the natives to capitalists. Should cruelty be done to them, those responsible will be punished with the utmost severity. But the almost universal complaint, even of missionaries; as well as of the other white men generally, is that the interests of the natives are the sole concern of the officials, and of the Department. The honorable member may rest assured that I shall lose no opportunity to see that effect is given to the desires of the people of Australia, and shall always regard the protection of the interests of the natives as the paramount consideration.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– The statement of the Minister contains many satisfactory features, and I know that he would be the last to complain of any action taken to insure that the administration of Papua shall always be in the interests of the natives. As to a question which I put to him yesterday afternoon, and the other statements which have been made, he will recognise that honorable members are interesting themselves in the administration of the Territory, not because they believe that the ill-treatment of the natives is an acute danger, but because we wish to prevent the occurrence in Papua of such disgraceful episodes as have marked the commercial intercourse of white men with the natives in other parts of the world. Some time ago there were published in the press, advertisements offering fabulous inducements to speculate in rubber plantations. I was in Brisbane at the time, and took the opportunity, with some of my friends, to ask a New Guinea missionary, who was there, and whom I had known for years, what the position was. I was pleased to learn that the Government has hitherto carefully safeguarded the interests of the natives, and got from him the promise that, should there be any attempt to repeat, even in a modified degree, atrocities such as those which, in the Congo, aroused the indignation of the civilized world, he would quickly let me know, so that I might inform the Government of what was taking place. We must not -wait until the steed is stolen before locking the stable door. Those who are responsible for the administration of New Guinea must be made to know that the Commonwealth, which contributes annually £25,000 towards the cost of administration, insists that the natives shall be properly treated, and not deprived of the liberty which, as children of nature, they have hitherto enjoyed. It will be a sorry clay for Australia should the natives of New Guinea decrease in numbers because of the ill-treatment of the whites. The Minister says that all sorts of care is taken to ascertain that the natives understand the proposals made to them when recruiting takes place, but those who are acquainted with natives know how difficult it is for the native mind to grasp conditions of which it has had no experience. A man who has been free to go and come as he likes, and to rest at will, cannot understand conditions under which he will be expected to contine himself to one place, and to undertake a monotonous round of duty.

Mr Batchelor:

– The conditions are explained before a magistrate, but difficulty arises by reason of the diversity of languages. The natives can now roam about much more freely than they used to.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Tribal hostility is not so strong as it was, but it is still very marked, and I could tell some strange stories in regard to it did I not fear to unfairly tax the patience of the Committee. Even with the exercise of the greatest care, hardship will occasionally be inflicted on the natives, but I desire that everything possible shall be done by those in charge to protect them, so that no stigma shall rest on the reputation of the Commonwealth in connexion with the administrationof Papua.

Mr. THOMAS BROWN (Calare? [10.56]. - I sympathize with the remarks of the previous speakers, though I understand that every precaution has been taken to safeguard the interests of the natives of New Guinea. I hope that the present policy of the Administration will be continued, and that, in connexion with the indenting of labour, the paternal intervention and care of the Government will not begin and end with the making of agreements. It is also necessary to provide for efficient inspection and the enforcement of proper conditions.

Mr Batchelor:

– The natives who are working are visited several times a year by the inspectors.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– It is also necessary that the inspectors shall be in sympathy with the Administration. If they sympathize with the exploiters of labour, they are useless.

Mr Batchelor:

– Those who did would not continue in office very long.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– Unsympathetic administration in other Departments has often done much to undermine the policy of the Legislature, and I desire that that shall be safeguarded against in the case of New Guinea. I applaud the action of the Minister in visiting the Territory, and I hope that he will be able to go there again, and that his example will be followed by his successors. I trust, too, that honorable members may be able to get a greater knowledge of the conditions than they have now. When the administration of the Territory was last under consideration, a strong desire was expressed that the sale of liquor there should be abolished, it being assumed that the Territory offered a promising field for prohibition. It was thought that if prohibition could not be instituted, the next best thing would be to provide for the control of the liquor traffic by the Government, and thus to remove the incentive to push the sale of liquor for the sake of gain. I am informed that recently a proposal was placed before the Minister, and if he has come to any decision, this would be a good opportunity to inform the House.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.- The Minister is, no doubt, conscientiously desirous of controlling the Possession in such a way as to earn the approval of all Christian people; but we have to remember that there are a certain number of natives engaged in the mines and plantations under circumstances totally different from those of their previous life I am not certain that we can call it civilization if we take a native from his. happy village, even if he does occasionally indulge in a little cannibalism, and make him work in places where the death-rate exceeds that which, in all probability, prevailed when he lived according to his own desire. A return placed in our hands only a few days ago shows that, out of a total of 5,895 natives engaged in various occupations different from those they previously followed, the number of deaths for the year ending 10th June was 415, or at the rate of about 80 per 1,000.

Mr Batchelor:

– That was owing to an epidemic of dysentery, and the deathrate was much higher in some of the villages.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I should be glad to have official information on that point, because it would remove an impression that the natives are subject to employment which largely increases the death-rate. Even at its worst, the death-rate amongst the kanakas in Queensland was from 40 to 44, and 50 per 1,000, while the rate among the whites, including children, was only11 or 12 per 1,000. I ask that special attention should be given to this point, so that there may be no possibility of its being said that, under the control of the present Minister, at any rate, there is anything in the nature of recruiting, or, in other words, dragging the natives from their villages, where they live in comparative luxury, to make them work in mines and on plantations. Commerce knows no law, and has no soul, no heart, and no conscience. If it be a question of making a plantation or a mine pay, the death-rate among the native workers isa matter of no concern. If the dividends are thereby increased, the natives may be killed off as quickly as need be; but it would be a great blot’ on the Commonwealth if. having deported the kanakas from Queensland, we complacently allow a worse system of slavery in another, if more distant, portion of what is practically the Commonwealth. I am confident that the Minister will see that no such stigma shall attach to us, and we may leavethe administration safely in his hands. I have never felt justified in contending that it is right to first take control of a Territory, and then compel the natives, by recruiting or indenture, to work for individuals or companies, merely in order to earndividends, and then assert that all this isfor the natives’ own good. I have some practical experience of the South Sea Islands and Queensland ; and, although there were protectors in every direction, and each vessel carried a Government agent, all the restrictions, laws, and Ordinances, did not prevent a criminal condition of slavery, which I hope will not be repeated in Papua.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- The Minister has suggested that the natives are happier under present conditions; but, while they did go head-hunting occasionally, that practice was not so prevalent as we might be led to believe ; and, without doubt, they would rather choose swift death in an expedition of that kind than be killed off on the plantations. I ask the Minister, during the recess, to consider the advisability of giving the white residents an elected representative, with the right to speak in this House, and, further, of giving the natives a native representative, when one is found able to speak our language intelligently.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 15 (Mail service to Pacific Islands), £18,752.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.- It is to be regretted that honorable members are so anxious to get away, considering the fact that we have often complained of the insufficiency of time allowed for the discussion of the Estimates, and that we are dealing with the expenditure of many millions of money. There is a so-called mail service to the Pacific Islands, the cost of which has grown from £4,000 or £5,000, when I was a member of the Senate someyears ago, to £18,752.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is mostly for New Guinea.

Mr HIGGS:

– That contract is carried out by Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Company, a firm I know very well ; and I remember one of their representatives doing a little “lobbying “ here. The firm evidently have a strong influence in the Commonwealth. I am not blaming this Government. Burns, Philp and Company have evidently had considerable political influence, and have been able to arrange the so-called mail contract just as they pleased. Whatever they proposed was accepted. At one time they had the vessels calling at one island en route to New Guinea, and at another’ time at another, evidently desiring to visit all the islands of the New Hebrides, Solomons, and New Britain groups for the purposes of trade. Burns, Philp and Company are not merely a carrying company, but deal in all kinds of trade and commerce. They have, in the first place, been’ allowed to get their mail service without proper competition. Smaller people have not been given a chance, and the company by a gradual process have been able to persuade the Ministry of the day to include certain services until they alone were able to tender. I remember the honorable member for Parramatta and the honorable member for Lang protesting in this House that the French people were given facilities that were denied to the British residents in the New Hebrides - that they were allowed to sell drink and arms to the natives, while British people were not, with the result that the British were disadvantaged from a trade point of view. It struck me as very singular at the time that the Britishers did not get the same facilities as the French people, seeing that there is not a policeman following each individual about in the islands. Shortly after that discussion I saw in the paper that a British vessel had been wrecked. I asked the Minister the following questions : -

  1. Is it true that a British-owned schooner, named the Countess of Ranfurly, trading between Australia and the New Hebrides, was recently wrecked near Noumea, and that part of the cargo saved consisted of numerous cases of gin, which were sold by auction in the New Hebrides ?
  2. Was the said schooner loaded at Sydney?
  3. What are the names of the owners of the vessel? and received the following replies : -
  4. A schooner named the Countess of Ranfurly was recently wrecked in New Caledonia. Her cargo included - 2 cases ale, 10 cases rum, 10 cases dry gin, 10 cases geneva, 1 qr.-cask whisky, 30 cases beer.

For all of which items permits to import had been given by the British Resident Commissioner in the New Hebrides.

The Department has no information as to spirits having been sold by auction in the New Hebrides.

  1. Yes.
  2. Messrs. Kerr Bros., of Vila, New Hebrides.

I also asked the result of the Commonwealth’s attempt to settle people in the New Hebrides, and was informed that sixty families were sent there from Australia. Do honorable members realize the silliness of trying to induce farmers to leave this great continent for a spot 1,500 miles away ?

Mr Batchelor:

– As a matter of fact not a drop of that liquor was trade stuff, and it was all consigned to whites.

Mr HIGGS:

– I hope the Minister will not try to prevent my drawing attention to these facts.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– The honorable member is blaming previous Governments for these contracts-, but has it escaped his notice that a new contract has been made, which in the aggregate is £5,000 more than the old?

Mr HIGGS:

– There is such a thing as a legacy of wrong-doing, called in Latin, I believe, damnosa hereditas. Consider the absurdity of the Commonwealth spending thousands of pounds in endeavouring to attract immigrants to Australia, and at the same time spending money to induce its farmers to migrate to the New Hebrides !

Mr Frazer:

– Is it not desirable to retain our status in the Pacific?

Mr HIGGS:

– Let us cultivate our 3,000,000 square miles, and let the French people have the New Hebrides if they want them. After eight years only twenty of those families remain in the New Hebrides.

Mr Frazer:

– Because we have had some trouble, the honorable member argues that we ought to let some other nation get into the Pacific adjacent to our shores.

Mr HIGGS:

– Our best wall of protection is the ocean that surrounds us. We ought not to attempt to extend our borderline nearer to other nations. We have spent money foolishly in regard to the New Hebrides. A settler who left the islands explained to me that a man who cultivates a farm there may get a good income from it while there, but has a great difficulty, if he wants to sell it, in getting a buyer. Failure has therefore been written across our efforts. We put on the Estimates each year a sum of £750 to refund money to people in the New Hebrides, most of whom are growing maize with black labour, and are allowing their products to come into competition in Australia with those of our white farmers, whom we will not allow to employ black labour. At the same time, we tax our farmers to find a subsidy for the farmers in the New Hebrides. What is being done in the New Hebrides by the white people is to kill off the natives. Twelve years ago the native population was 70,000; now it appears to be only 13,400, so that 57,000 natives have been killed off.

Mr West:

– The honorable member must be mistaken in the figures.

Mr HIGGS:

– I asked the other day what the population of the New Hebrides was, and was told officially by the External Affairs Department that the native popula tion about twelve years ago was about 70,000, and that now it appeared to be much less. According to an Admiralty return it is now 13,400, made up of Santo 6,000, Tanna 6,000, Erromanga 1,000, and Aneityum 400. It may be that the natives have been recruited for other places. I know that a great many of them go to New California. I want to do justice to Messrs. Kerr Brothers, of Carringtonstreet, Wynyard Square, Sydney, who wrote to me under date 16th November, j 910, as follows : - ‘-

Dear Sir, - Our attention has been drawn to an article from you, appearing in Le Courier Australlien, Sydney, of 28th ult., concerning us. As you seem to insinuate or impute something, not quite clear, against us (we think you hardly know what yourself), we would ask you to confine yourself to facts, and at the same time make your meaning clear. It is true that a Britishowned vessel named the Countess’ of Ranfurly belonged to us, and that she was wrecked near Noumea, and that she carried certain lines of spirits on board to be imported into New Hebrides. There never was any secret about these facts. All spirits on board belonged to our firm, and were being imported into New Hebrides under permit for the British Resident Commissioner in the New Hebrides, and if you mean to insinuate that we were importing these few lines for supply to natives of New Hebrides, you are a prevaricator, or what is commonly known by a shorter term. For one thing we do not trade with natives, and another is that certain white people in New Hebrides consume beer, rum, gin, and whisky, as they do in Queensland and elsewhere, and in the ordinary way of trade we supply their wants, and in doing so we break no law. The question of certain spirits being allowed into New Hebrides is purely .1 question of policy, and not for you or for us to decide.

The beer, rum, gin, and whisky salved from the wreck were not sold by auction in New Hebrides, as you say, but were sold by the representative of the underwriters in Noumea, New Caledonia.

You are quite entitled to y.our opinion, “ as a Labour member,” that Australia has enough territory to develop without going outside - that is purely a question of policy again ; but when you go out of your way to make an attack on private people who have no control in the matter, it is not clear what reason you have or what good, you seek to do. Now, didn’t you find a “ mare’s nest? “

If you attacked the policy of your Government subsidizing monopolistic companies trading to the islands, you might be doing some good. We contend that Australia should not subsidize any trading company. They do so ostensibly to assist Australian interests in the island, but does it have that effect? It stands to reason that the subsidized trading company does not wish to see any independent trading company outside themselves. So that really the subsidy given by Australia helps to bolster up one company and destroy others, and does not advance any interests but the companies who are subsidized. We have had to contend against .this for the last fifteen years.

We hope you will acknowledge the injustice you have done to us, and contradict any imputation against us.

We are, yours faithfully (for Kerr Bros. Ltd.), G. N. S. Kerr.

I very willingly read that letter, although it is not couched in the most courteous language. I had not Messrs. Kerr Brothers in mind, because I thought that the offenders were Messrs. Burns, Philp and Company. I should like to know how much beer, gin, rum, and whisky they take to the New Hebrides. Messrs. Kerr Brothers say that they convey liquor there for the white residents, but when they have disposed of it they cannot say what becomes of it, and, in all probability, some of it reaches the natives. It is not likely that the French residents in the New Hebrides are more prone than the British to give alcoholic liquor and arms to the natives. What we call a mail service is nothing of the kind. If a return were called for, it would be found that most of the mail matter is carried by the French steamers which trade to the group. Messrs. Kerr Brothers complain of the Government subsidy, which enables a trading company which receives it to unfairly compete with them.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of External Affairs · Boothby · ALP

.- Therehas been no increase in the amount of this vote. As to the matters to which the honorable member for Capricornia has referred, they are under the control of the British Government, and have nothing to do with us.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I differ from the Minister of External Affairs, who says that the control of the New Hebrides has nothing to do with us. We may have no official standing, but we cannot allow wrong-doing to take place there without drawing the attention of the Imperial authorities to it, and using our influence toget it remedied.

Mr Batchelor:

– That has been done. I meant that we have no direct control.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– Messrs. Burns, Philp and Company are a bugbear to many North Queenslanders. They have a very big hold on the Government subsidy, and the honorable member for Capricornia is within his rights in asking that special favour shall not be shown to one company.

Mr Batchelor:

– No favour has been shown. Twelve months were allowed for the tendering for this contract, and we received only one tender.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I am glad to receive the assurance of the Minister that no favour is shown.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No company deserves better of Australia than does Messrs.; Burns, Philp and Company.

Mr Batchelor:

– Nevertheless, I desire to give every opportunity for competition.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– No company is more severely criticised by those with whom it does business. I wish to direct attention to a telegram from Sydney published in this morning’s newspapers, in which it is stated that Dr. Campbell Nicholson, who, for a number of years, has lived among the natives of Tanna as a medical missionary, says that there is a great difference between the control exercised over British subjects and that exercised over French subjects. He says that British traders have not dared to sell intoxicating liquors to the natives, or to introduce firearms, but that recently French traders who have visited the island for recruiting purposes have openly traded with the natives in both alcoholic liquors and ammunition and firearms. That is the real source of trouble.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member for Capricornia says that there is no difference between the actions of the French . and British.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– The gentleman whom I quote has local knowledge, which is more to be relied upon than the secondhand information of the honorable member for Capricornia, whose sincerity I do not question. But I do question the authenticity of that information, in view of the testimony of a gentleman of the standing of Dr. Campbell Nicholson. He declares that leprosy is prevalent in New Caledonia, and that the recruiting which has taken place in the New Hebrides under the French authorities has had the effect of introducing that dread disease into those islands. It seems to me that the differential treatment to which French and British subjects are subjected in the matter of the control of the sale of intoxicants and firearms to natives, and the introduction of leprosy and other contagious diseases into the islands, are two subjects which should arouse the humanitarian instincts of both the British and French Governments. I do hope that the Commonwealth Ministry will use its influence with the Home authorities to bring about a better state of affairs in the New Hebrides than that which obtains at the present time.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 16 (Miscellaneous), £31,874

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I wish to again draw attention to the small amount which has been placed upon these Estimates for the purpose of advertising the resources of the Commonwealth. I do not think we should allow the session to close without obtaining a definite statement from the Minister as to whether the Government intend in the immediate future to largely increase this vote. I need scarcely remind honorable members that the, following paragraph appears in the Governor- General’s speech at the opening of the present Parliament -

In view of the urgent necessity of encouraging an influx of suitable immigrants to the Commonwealth in order to more effectively develop Us great resources and defend it against possible invasion, my advisers intend to adopt a policy which it is confidently believed, by making fertile lands available, will speedily induce very large numbers of people pf the right kind to settle on the lands of the Commonweatlh.

That paragraph comprehends very largely the necessities and advantages of a system of immigration. During the session we have passed a Land Tax Bill of a very drastic character, the aim of which is to make lands available for settlement, to attract the right class of people to our shores, and thus to build up an efficient Defence Force. But what attempt has been made by the Government to provide the money with which to bring people to the Commonwealth to settle those lands? If the land tax will accomplish what is claimed for it, it is time that they adequately advertised our resources, so that immigrants may be attracted here to occupy our lands.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member believes that the land tax will have the effect of making land available for settlement ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am not formulating a policy for the Government. But if this country is to be held by Europeans, it will have to be populated by persons of that stock at a very early date. I say that taxation has been placed upon the lands of. the Commonwealth in order to make them available for settlement, and yet no attempt has been made by the Government to attract immigrants to our shores.

Mr Riley:

– The policy df the Government has not yet had time to mature.

Mr SAMPSON:

– But the land tax has been imposed. If that tax will have the effect of making lands available for settlement, I say that, by the time immigrants are attracted here, it will have accomplished its object. It seems to me, in view of the statement which is contained in the

Governor-General’s speech, that the Ministry have been guilty of a breach of faith in failing to give effect to that portion of their policy. The position of the Commonwealth in respect of immigration is one of very great humiliation, considering our tremendous production per head - a production which exceeds that of any other country. Yet the fact remains that no country in the world requires an increase of population so urgently as does Australia.

Mr Riley:

– Why did not the late Government give effect to an immigration policy ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– The late Government did something in that matter. There is onlyone way of efficiently advertising the resources of the Commonwealth, namely, through the medium of the High Commissioner. He was only appointed to his. office last year, and the machinery to enable us to adequately advertise our resources throughout Great Britain has only just been brought into operation.

Mr McWilliams:

– We could not get a better publication to advertise Australia than that which has been issued by the Minister of External Affairs.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I admit that. One of the first duties which the High Commissioner was called upon to discharge was that of f ormulating a comprehensive scheme for advertising the resources of the Commonwealth. That scheme was recently submitted to this Ministry. The High Commissioner, knowing the nature of the work which is carried on by the Argentine, by Canada, and by other countries, formulated a scheme, . the adoption of which would involve the expenditure of £50,000. That scheme has been turned down by the Ministry without any reason being advanced for their action. No Government of the Commonwealth have had. such a magnificent opportunity as have the present Government for advertising its resources. We have had a series of good seasons. We shall have, possibly, .a season which in point of production’ will exceed any previous season. We have in London all the machinery for widely advertising our resources. We have imposed a confiscatory tax which the Government claim will make land available, and which will provide the Commonwealth with a considerable . sum, a portion of which could have been devoted to that important purpose. We have it on the authority of the late Chief Engineer of Water Supply in Victoria that, judging oy the resources and productions of other countries, this continent is capable of carrying, if we were to reasonably engage in the development of its resources, no less a population than 180,000,000.

Mr Riley:

– In what year?

Mr SAMPSON:

– According to the calculation of Mr. Stewart Murray - a very capable gentleman who has had an opportunity of studying the conditions obtaining in some of the leading countries of the world - the Commonwealth could easily carry no less than 180,000,000 persons. He classifies its carrying capacity in this way - Queensland, 50,000,000 ; New South Wales, 47,000,000 ; South Australia and Western? Australia, 65,000,000 ; Victoria, 14,000,000 ; and Tasmania, 5,000,000. We pride ourselves upon being a go-ahead people. Without all the legislation we have, without the strength, the influence, and the wealth of Great Britain, such as we have to assist us, the people of the Argentine have gone ahead in population, and in many respects as regards the construction of public works, by leaps and bounds.

Mr McWilliams:

– They have a different Tariff.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Yes; but I am speaking now of agricultural production. Australia has an area of 3,000,000 square miles, as against 2,000,000 square miles in the Argentine. The population of Australia in 1895was 3,500,000,and in 1908, 4,250,000. In 1895 the Argentine had a population of 4,000,000, being 500,000 more than our population, and in 1908, 6,500,000.

Mr Roberts:

– I think that in the meantime they had a couple of revolutions.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Generally, revolutions have the effect of decimating the population, but in this case’ the population has increased mostly by immigration of people from southern Europe, who have been offered every inducement to go and settle in the Argentine.

Mr Batchelor:

– How much did the Government spend on immigration? Not one cent, during the whole time.

Mr SAMPSON:

– There are various ways of increasing the population of a country. It happens that in the Argentine, as in parts of Canada, there is a disposition on the part of the people to enter into forms of private enterprise to assist their fellows to come to the country, whereas in Australia there is a disposition on the part of people to look to the Government to do everything. That is the difference between Australia and countries which are progressing more rapidly. The Argentine Republic has under wheat cultivation 14,000,000 acres, as against our 5,000,000 acres. In cattle it has30,000,000 against our 10,000,000, and 67,000,000 sheep as against our 87,000,000. I regret that, owing to the Budget debate being brought on at this period of the session, questions of vital importance to the best interests of the Commonwealth have to be discussed at this late hour, when millions have to be hurriedly voted. Canada is a country which has offered every inducement to persons in Great Britain to go there and settle. Last year its Government increased the population by oversea immigration to the extent of 500,000. The population has now been brought up to no less than 8,000,000. According to newspaper reports which have been published during the last few weeks, notably in the Age and Argus, almost every branch of industry in the Commonwealth is crying out. for more people. Factories in Melbourne, according to authentic reports in the press, cannot be supplied with hands.

Mr Riley:

– Why does not private enterprise bring out people?

Mr SAMPSON:

– Because the permission of the Minister of External Affairs has to be obtained to bring out tradesmen under contract.

Mr Batchelor:

– This permission has not to be given unless the employers want to sweat.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is not possible for employers to bring out the proper class of tradesmen unless they can give them some guarantee.

Mr Batchelor:

– All that theyhave to do is to pay the same rates of wages as are being paid here. That is the only block.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is not very long since the proprietor of one of the large factories in Sydney waited on the Trades Hall authorities, and asked that they would not object to the Ministerial consent being given to the introduction of tradesmen into Australia.

Mr Batchelor:

– That must have been done under the previous Government.

Mr SAMPSON:

– As regards density of population, Australia stands in a very unenviable position. Europe has no less than 113 persons to the square mile, Asia 55 persons, Africa 13 persons, America 10 persons, while Australia has less than1½ persons. We have it on the authority of the Commonwealth Statistician that if the present rate of increase should continue up to 1915 we shall then have less than 8,000,000 persons. In myopinion the position is very serious, and one which the Commonwealth should not tolerate any longer. I regret that the lateness of the hour precludes me from dealing with this question more fully. A few days ago the Argus sent a representative to interview several leading manufacturers in Melbourne, and from his report of the interview, I take the following extract -

A leading manufacturer, when interviewed yesterday, made no secret of the troubles which are besetting industry in Victoria. “ Every morning when I come in I ring up the factory managers,” he said, “ and my first question is always, ‘ Well, what sort of a muster did you have? Any new hands?’ and every morning I get the same disappointing reply, ‘ No, none.’ We absolutely cannot obtain enough workpeople to carry on the business we have contracted to do. Every branch of the manufacturing industry is in the same plight. Itis appalling.”

I know, from my own experience, that shire councils which have public works to carry out have been constantly advertising for contractors, but cannot obtain the labour they require. It has been reported that in the Mallee country wheat-growers are offering as much as 60s. per -week for men to engage in harvesting operations, and cannot get them. I commend to the notice of the Government an extract from a leading article published in the Age a few days ago. I am sorry that there is not a favorable opportunity for reading the whole of it. Dealing with the question of immigration, the writer says -

Federal Ministers have so far merely paltered with this their most paramount national trust. Their defence expedients of military service and the building of a navy resemble nothing so much as opiates taken to soothe minds made raw with the consciousness of a greater duty left undone. If we had a navy three times as powerful as the Australian fleet now building, and if in addition to such a navy we forced under arms not only every man, but made an Amazon of every woman in the Commonwealth, we should still lack a force more than doubtfully capable of defending one of our States from the most powerful of our possible aggressors.

Every word of that statement is true. I feel that, in our own interests, as well as in those of future generations, it is necessary that we should deal seriously with this problem. Geographically our country is situated within a few days’ steam of countries which comprise two-thirds of the world’s population. Those Eastern peoples are awakening to a sense of their inherent strength. They are insisting upon their position in the world as first-class nations. If we do not set about the task of inducing more people to come to Australia to develop its great resources, and to give to it added strength and wealth, we shall become the more readily a prey to possible enemies, who may have been offended by our White Australia policy. I believe stronglyin that policy, and am prepared to make sacrifices for it; but if we do not support it by an ample population, we may find that our country will some day become a prize for some power which is already casting envious eyes upon Australia as a desirable addition to its own territory.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I notice in connexion with the item relating to advertising the resources of Australia, to which the honorable member who has just resumed his seat has referred, that the sum appropriated last year was £20,000, whilst the amount spent was nearly £8,110. So that £12,000 of the money appropriated was not spent. It struck me as being very peculiar that the honorable member should try to throw blame upon those who were not occupying the Treasury benches when the opportunity of spending the money was available.

Mr Sampson:

– This Government had the machinery for spending it.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Government now occupying the Treasury benches was only in office during two months of the last financial year, whereas the previous Administration had ten months in which to devote to practical uses the money apportioned for advertising the resources of Australia. I do, however, agree with the honorable member that a great deal more should be done in the direction of advertising our resources. We have a great deal of evidence to show the almost total ignorance which prevails in many other countries with regard to the Commonwealth. I read recently a report by Mr. Elwood Mead, the Victorian immigration expert, who has been travelling round the world. He stated that while he was in Italy he was talking with an Italian about immigration to Australia. The Italian said that he was inclined to come to this country, but, unfortunately, he was acquainted with only two languages, Italian and English - he knew no Australian ! That is one example which goes to show the great ignorance concerning Australia prevailing in other parts of the world. I shall not discuss at length the sugges- tions which might be made regarding this subject, but there are many honorable members, including myself, who believe that this Parliament ought not to be satisfied with the present position of affairs. When the land tax begins to operate, there will be a considerable quantity of land available for settlement.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– There are very many land seekers now in the country who cannot get an opening.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I know that ; but it is generally recognised that large areas will soon become available for settlement. There are excellent lands within a couple of hours of the sea-board which are at present absolutely locked up, in the hands of a few individuals, and, consequently, not available to those who would be glad to use them. It is when the tax on large estates begins to operate that lands will be available; and I shall not be satisfied unless strenuous steps are taken in the . way of inducing desirable immigrants to come to this country.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In the meantime, in the places where we want immigrants most, there is land available.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable member may know of such places, but I do not. I should like some information as to the arrangement which was made by the previous Government with Pathe Freres to take photographs of some of our industries and exhibit them as a desirable advertisement for the country.

Mr Batchelor:

– That business was completed over twelve months ago.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– There are in Australia many industries which, I venture to say, are totally unknown in other parts of the world. For instance, at Wangaratta, there is a foundry which employs a goodly number of men, and turns out dredges, one of which is now in course of construction in order to be sent to Siam. I do not think that there are very many people in Victoria who know of the capabilities of this establishment; and it strikes me as an excellent idea that Path6 Freres might photograph this dredge as it was being shipped. There is no doubt that such pictures would not only advertise this particular firm, but show to the people in other countries the nature of the enterprises in Victoria, and Australia generally. There are many other industries in my electorate, and elsewhere ; and these should not only be protected through the Customs’ House, but encouraged in every other way that may present itself. I hope that something more will at once be done to advertise the resources of the country.

Mr SCULLIN:
Corangamite

– The honorable member for Wimmera complains .that the item for advertising Australia is insufficient, but, in my Opinion, it is teo high at the present juncture. I have no objection to the Government advertising the truth about the country, because I am as anxious as anybody that it should be properly understood abroad ; but if the advertising is to be on the lines of the honorable member’s speech, the item is £20,000 too much. The honorable member’s plea is that we require more immigrants to take up the land that is going to be made available by the operation of the land tax. But the first reason for the land tax is afforded in the existing land hunger in Australia, and in the fact that farmers’ sons have been seeking in vain for land all over the continent. When certain lands were thrown open a couple of years ago in Victoria, there were 1,200 applicants for eighty blocks; and at present, for every block available, there are twenty applicants. The land hunger is as keen as ever it was ; and the land tax is not yet operating to any extent, although, in anticipation, some large estates have been broken up. Our farmers’ sons are clearing off from Victoria into other States ; and this only shows that what we want is not immigration, but something to stem the tide of emigration.

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

– Many of the applications are for one special block.

Mr SCULLIN:

– But in the aggregate, in Victoria there are over 2,000 applicants for a few blocks now offering. Representatives opposite, who claim to represent the farmers, and to have much sympathy with them, advocate a policy that would deny to farmers’ sons the first chance of obtaining land, and permit the immigrants to forestall them.

I agree that this country is capable of containing a very much larger population; and I have every confidence in our great resources ; but the first duty of the Government is to provide land for our own landless people before we introduce immigrants to take precedence of them. The State Governments in the past, in their anxiety for immigration, have reserved special blocks, and in other ways shown preference for strangers over the people of our own country. Even in the case of the Defence Bill, honorable members opposite were specially considerate of immigrants, in the desire that they should be exempt from service. But the policy of the Labour Government, while encouraging people to come to this country . after we have provided for our own, will, I hope, give preference to our own flesh and blood over those from other lands.

We hear much about the scarcity of labour in our factories and in the harvest-field; but every big Harvest creates a difficulty of the kind. Indeed, it would be a serious thing for the working men of the country if labour were plentiful for the harvest, which only lasts a few weeks, and if men had to hang over the fence for nine or ten months until some one beckoned them with a finger. The supply of labour at harvest is a problem that has not yet been solved; but we should not advertise for immigrants merely to provide for a scarcity over a few weeks.

There is a dearth of particulars as to the alleged scarcity of labour in the factories ; and I have as yet seen no specific case of any great demand for either men or women. It is very easy for a man to write to the newspapers to say that he cannot get labour, but we are not given particulars as to the nature of the work for which labour is required. The matter was tested only the other day, when the authorities of the Railway Department, in order to screen their lack of enterprise and foresight, said that they could not get labourers at 7s. a day. Some one suggested that- they should advertise for them, and what was the_ result? There were five or six men applying for every billet that was open. The honorable member for Wimmera has told us that reports have been received from all the shire councils that their contractors cannot complete contracts because of a scarcity of labour. If the honorable member were present, I should bring under his notice a case that occurred last year, or the year before, at Swan Hill, in his own electorate. A contractor there endeavoured to excuse himself for not having completed his contract by saying that he could not get men. That statement appeared in the press, and as a result of the publication of the paragraph, the Swan Hill district was inundated with unfortunate men out of work, who had travelled many miles with their swags to get a job navvying for this contractor at 6s. or 7s. a day. All these statements about the scarcity of labour are disproved as soon as we can nail them down. There may be some little difficulty in securing skilled tradesmen, and we know that at the present time the building trade is brisk; but the honorable member for Wimmera would not make these statements if he had to deal with some of the sad cases which come before me. Men come begging to me to get them a job, and they are willing to take 7s. or 8s. a day undergrounding the telephone lines. Men are coming into Melbourne from all parts of the country looking for labouring work at 6s. or 7s. a day. They are not loafers, but men who are seriously looking for work. In all the circumstances, it is utterly unfair to say that there is a scarcity of labour in Australia to-day. As our resources are developed, there will no doubt be avenues of employment opened for millions more people, but until we have land for the landless, and work for the workless, it is not the duty of any Labour Government to advertise in such a way as to attract immigrants to this country under false pretences. I have been all over the State of Victoria within the last three years, and have seen immigrants in almost every portion of the State. I have seen men settled near Geelong who were assured by the Victorian Government that they would get farms on which they could make a comfortable living for themselves and their families. They gave up fair billets in the Old Country, sold up their effects, and brought their families here with’ them. They are now settled on 7-acre farms, and are eking out a miserable existence on areas insufficient to keep one individual, let alone a family. That is the result of some of our immigration schemes. Within twenty-four hours I could bring to this House 100 strapping young men who have been looking vainly for land within the last twelve months. They have some plant, a little capital, energy and experience, but are unable to get land on which to settle. I am anxious to see the country to which I belong go ahead, and carrying a population of tens of millions ; but I am anxious, also, that our own people shall be given an opportunity to settle on our lands before we advertise to induce immigrants to come to Australia from abroad.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

– I much regret that the honorable member for Wimmera should have made the attack he did a few moments ago, and should subsequently have urged the necessity for advertising with the object of attracting labourers to our shores. He practically urged the Government to advertise Australia as a place where millions of people might find employment and land. There seems to be a desire on the part of some honorable members opposite to flood this land with human beings of every description, with, so far as I can see, the sole object of reducing the home comforts and standard of living of the average wage-earner in Australia. We know that a surplus of labour means a general reduction in wages in practically every calling, and a serious reduction in the standard of living. That is one of the most regrettable features of our existing social conditions. Whenever there is the slightest indication of a dearth of labour all the efforts of the commercial element are devoted to attracting more people to our shores. There is a howl for more labour, all kinds of statements are made, and articles are published in the various newspapers to the effect that Mr. Unknown requires labour, and is quite unable to obtain it. Very seldom do we find any names mentioned, . but such statements are continually repeated: Though wages in Australia are now nominally a little higher than they were some time ago, it has to be remembered that prices, rates, and rents have been increased.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– A statement appeared in the Argus the other day to the effect that the Riverina district is overrun with surplus labour at the present time.

Mr ROBERTS:

– That disproves the statements which have continually appeared about the existence of a dearth of labour. Some people cover up their real intentions in making these statements by saying that we require immigrants for purposes of defence. Immigrants will be of very little use for the defence of the country if they areleft stranded in Australia,as theyare in many other countries.

Mr Sampson:

– Is that the opinion the honorable member has of Australia ? He is a strange kind of patriot.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I am pleased to be able to say that my opinion of Australia is higher than that of the honorable member. It is higher than that of a man who would flood the country with labour, cut wages to a starvation level, and so drag this country down to the disgraceful criminal level of other parts of the world.

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member think that Australia is sufficiently populated at the present time?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The honorable member covers up his real meaning by asking that question. If we consider only acreage, there is more room in Australia than in any other country. Of what use is it to propose to increase our population by settling immigrants down in a district 100 miles from anywhere, and expecting them to make a. living there ? The honorable member, with his immigration proposals, would scour London and other big cities, and would introduce immigrants from southern Europe. He would bring out Spaniards and Portuguese, and we should have a revolution here shortly, if we were not careful. The real idea, however, is not to populate Australia, but to dump surplus labour on our shores, with the single object of dragging down the general standard and, in the opinions of some, “ keeping the poor in their places.” For every block of land advertised privately, or by the Government, as open for selection, there is, in every State, over a score of applicants.

Mr Sampson:

– About three-fourths of them are speculators.

Mr ROBERTS:

– There are a few speculators - political supporters of the honorable member and his side - keeping the bona fide fanner off the land. I wish there were fewer of them, and when the Labour party have had a little more time, I am hopeful that they will have less chance of securing land for speculative purposes. In South Australia the majority of the applicants are bona fide settlers, with a knowledge of the country, many of them born in Australia, with money, ability, stock, and implements. All are eagerly applying for the land and unable to obtain it. Yet the honorable member asserts that we ought to bring out immigrants to occupy the lands thatare not at present available for them. When the lands are available the immigrants will come here. A little while ago a gentleman named Morgan, representing the manufacturers of England, came to Australia. After inquiring into our conditions, he spoke very well of the country, and,I think, went so far as to pass a eulogium on the Labour party, but when addressing the Chamber of Commerce, in Adelaide, he made a statement to the effect that “ the manufacturer, in order to be successful, must have, not only a sufficiency, but a surplus, of labour.” My honorable friends on the other side, when they speak about immigrants, want a surplus of labour, with its consequent degradation and misery. It seems to me that they desire, even at this late stage, to put into operation the policy of their erstwhile leader. On page 65 of the Freetrade Essays of the gentleman who is now High Commissioner in England, appears the following passage -

To exploit the pauper labour of other countries until we are so great a nation that we shall have a crop of misery, giving us pauper labour of our own.

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

– He has contradicted that time after time.

Mr ROBERTS:

– It appears in the Freetrade Essays.

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

– I desire to call attention to the state of the Committee. We ought to have a quorum to listen to this sort of attack on a man thousands of miles away. [Quorum formed.]

Mr ROBERTS:

– What has happened is another illustration of the attempts which are made to prevent the truth being spoken. I quoted from an essay, which can be found in the Melbourne Public Library. I have a perfect right to make the quotation, and shall do so whenever the necessity arises, the tricks of the honorable member for Lang notwithstanding.

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

Sir George Reid was never mean enough to do a thing such as the honorable member has now done.

Mr ROBERTS:

– What I have quoted . is on written record. In the circumstances, when honorable members on the other side are calling for more immigrants, asserting that there is a dearth of labour, and asking the Government to spend money, not particularly to advertise the resources of Australia, but merely to attract immigrants here, when there are, in the majority of cases, scores of applicants for every block of land put up for selection-

Mr Sampson:

– Does the honorable member expect every man to go on the land?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The honorable member gives his case away. Of course, he and his party expect nothing of the kind. They expect a majority of the immigrants to flood the cities, and form that surplus of labour about which Mr. Morgan spoke, and give rise to that crop of misery referred to in the Freetrade Essays, giving “ a supply of pauper labour of our own.” Then the commercial element, which seems to be the particular fancy of certain gentlemen, will be able to exploit it, use it, and abuse it, as they have used and abused it in other parts of the world. I am anxious to see Australia populated, and in such a position that it can defend itself against all-comers, but the well-fed, well-clothed, and happy man is better able to defend his country than is the starving man or the man who merely sneers about defence, and who would be found up in the hills when trouble arose, farthest from any place where there was the possibility of a bullet falling. I have an abhorrence to seeing Australia peopled, like some other parts of the world, with a pauper population, giving rise to such a crop of misery that its labour could be exploited by a particular class.

Mr Sampson:

– I do not think that the honorable member really believes that any class of the community wish that to happen.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I have quoted what the erstwhile Leader of the Opposition said, and I know what assertions are being made by honorable members on the other side of the House. The honorable member’s desire for the expenditure of money for the attraction of immigrants is due to his wish to have a surplus of labour, though he dares not say so in plain words, lest it might injure him in some direction. I wish the country to be populated with a prosperous and happy people, who will be able to defend themselves. Pauper labour will not be able to defend us, nor should we try to attract population from other countries under the circumstances in which we now are unfortunately situated. I do not think that any member of the Labour party has objected to the appropriation of £20,000 for the advertising of Australia, a sum which has been on the Estimates annually for a number of years, though very little of it has been spent. No doubt past Administrations have spent what they were warranted in spending.

Mr.Sampson.- There has been no one to handle the money in London until the present time.

Mr ROBERTS:

– That is the honorable member’s excuse for the inaction of his own party. Now there is a man to handle the money in London, the gentleman who is responsible for writing a certain Free Trade essay will be able to expend it to secure a crop of misery, and to assist in creating a pauper population.

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

– Shame !

Mr Sampson:

– That is an unfair attack on a public official.

Mr ROBERTS:

– It is never fair to quote statements such as I refer to. Such statements may be made and published, but they must not be referred to with disapproval. If they are, cries of pretended indignation are heard. No one is to expose their views, for fear of being subjected to insult and cries such as have emanated from the honorable member for Lang. No doubt the item will pass, and the Government will spend the greater part of, if not all, the money in such a manner as Ministers think will advertise the resources of Australia. But if they spend it merely to attract labour, because of statements made by unknown manufacturers, or articles in particular newspapers, they will not be doing what the majority think should be done.

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

– The Opposition desires to assist the Government in getting through the Estimates as fast as possible, and I should not have risen but for the reflections made on Sir George Reid, the present High Commissioner .in London, by the honorable member for Adelaide, who has run out of the Chamber knowing that a reply was to be made to him. It was not to be expected that we should allow an absent man, whose mouth was closed by his position as well as by distance, to be maligned. The honorable member for Adelaide quoted a statement, leaving out the context, which gives it an entirely different meaning. The High Commissioner on one occasion, standing where the honorable member stood, quoted the whole of what the honorable member has now read, together with the context which he had written many years ago, and which put a very different interpretation on the passage from that given to it by the honorable member for Adelaide. Furthermore, it is a well-known and recognised parliamentary rule that reflections should not be cast upon public servants during a debate. If there is any ground of complaint there is a proper way of bringing it forward. And such a course as the honorable member has just indulged in is most unfair and unsportsmanlike. The High Commissioner is 16,006 miles away, but could not reply to the honorable member for Adelaide even if he were here. His official position closes his mouth in self-defence. Under those circumstances, the attack is a cowardly one, and such as to arouse the strongest resentment, not only among past supporters of the right honorable gentleman who has been attacked, but in all who have the British sense of fair play. The sentiments which the honorable member sought to fasten upon the. right honorable gentleman are utterly foreign to his nature. My regret is that £50,000 has not been put down for advertising Australia; £20,000 is inadequate. Notwithstanding the declaration of members of the Labour party about the need for population, and their desire for immigration, there is a great contrast between their platform utterances and their actions here when anything practical is proposed.

Mr Frazer:

– If the honorable member thinks a vote of £20,000 in this connexion insufficient, how is it that the late Government, which was in office for the greater part of last year, managed to spend only £8,000 ?

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

– The reason is obvious. At that time the High Commissioner had not been appointed. That is the reason why more money was not expended. It is true that a gentleman was temporarily representing Australia, but he performed duties more akin to those discharged by an AgentGeneral than by a High Commissioner. In spite of all their platform declarations regarding the necessity, from a defence stand-point, of attracting immigrants to this country, honorable members opposite attempt to block every effort which is made in that direction. The cry that there is no land available for settlement in Australia is the sheerest humbug. There are millions of acres available in New South Wales and the other States. I will undertake to say that, notwithstanding the large areas which have been alienated already and not fully occupied, within 30 miles of our coastline, sufficient land is available to settle, several million persons. When the first Labour Government were in office they were at great pains to subsidize some person to write a very vivid picture of Australian resources, for the purpose of attracting immigrants to our shores. Honorable members will doubtless remember that publication. It emanated from the office of the Minister of External Affairs. He is responsible for the statements contained in it, which are now being contradicted by honorable members opposite. What sort of ideas must people outside Australia form of this country when they find the Minister of External Affairs issuing an official publication of a most alluring and attractive kind, in which he invites immigrants to settle on its lands, whilst his supporters are denying almost every statement contained in it?

Mr Fenton:

– They deny its inaccurate statements, and always will do so.

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

– Then the supporters of the Government charge that Government with publishing inaccurate official information. This is pretty severe on the Labour Government. We have been told to-night by Labour members that we must not attempt to attract any more working people to Australia, and yet we find another Labour leader giving utterance to a very different opinion. The Sydney Morning Herald of1st November of this year reports Mr. Holman, the Attorney-General of New South Wales, at a banquet which was given to the Scottish Commissioners, to have said -

As far as our knowledge and reading goes, there is no country in the world where the poor man is better off than in Australia to-day. Neither in Canada nor anywhere else can a man struggling for a livelihood enjoy the same free open life; the same easy access to all classes of society; the same educational and intellectual advantages; the same consideration from the law that he enjoys in this Democratic country. We have our millionaires, but they are inoffensive; we have our monopolies, but they disturb not appreciably the even tenor of our way.

Who would ever dream that only a few short weeks ago the gentleman who uttered those sentiments took up the same attitude as honorable members opposite are taking up, preached the same doctrine as they are preaching, and circulated the same slanders upon Australia that are so familiar to our ears in this House. But I rose chiefly to defend an officer of the Commonwealth from an unwarrantable attack which has been made upon him - an attack which was an abuse of the accepted canons of propriety in parliamentary life - and one which I hope will not.be repeated on the floor of this chamber. I did intend to speak on the question of the press cable service, but I prefer to do so when the Minister who has control of that matter is present. I hope that I shall always be found defending those who are absent when they are the victims of unjustifiable attack.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I should like to say a few words in regard to the press cable service subsidy. A little while ago, with a great flourish of trumpets, the Minister of External Affairs set out to inaugurate a new cable service. His intention was to improve the existing cable service, which was declared to be in the hands of a monopoly, which it was alleged was supplying us with news which in no way reflected the events passing in other parts of the world. All this was to be changed by the granting of a subsidy for news cabled by the Pacific Cable. For the first time in our history we were to get information which would faithfully represent the industrial movements of the world, and a better guarantee that what we did receive would be made available to the public, and would be susceptible of easy and ready dissemination throughout Australia. So far as cable news is concerned, a new era was supposed to be ushered in by the’ authorization of the subsidy. We are now asked to vote the first instalment to the amount of £2,500. What has been the result? We are told, and I believe it is a fact, that only about three newspapers are taking advantage of the service. One of them, I understand, is the Sun of Sydney; another is, I believe, the Labour paper in Adelaide, the Herald; and a third is a newspaper in Victoria, the name of which I forget.

Mr Batchelor:

– The report I have is that there are four newspapers taking the cables.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

-No; only three, I am told.

Mr Batchelor:

– Of course, the honorable member knows better than I do.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In my judgment, the honorable member is not doing his duty in this matter.

Mr Batchelor:

– It is a question of principle, and not of papers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– According to the dictum of the Minister, the Commonwealth may subsidize with information any journal, no matter of what kind. We are to subsidize that newspaper and keep it afloat.

Mr Batchelor:

– What does the honorable member mean?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member says that he has no right to exercise the slightest inquiry into the journals who take advantage of this subsidy.

Mr Batchelor:

– Certainly not. The subsidy is intended to obtain information for the public. It is not our business to use it as a lever for censorship of the press ; there is a proper method for doing that.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister knows that it is a subsidy to certain newspapers. It is of no use for him to quibble, because that is all it is, and all it is intended to be.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is not true. It has broken up the close combine.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It has enabled newspapers to get news which they could not ger by other means.

Mr Batchelor:

– It has broken up the combine.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not here to defend any combine.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member is attacking the. only means of breaking it up.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am showing the utter futility of all that has been done so far in that direction.

Mr Batchelor:

– It has had the effect of breaking up the most tyrannous combine in Australia.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– In what way ?

Mr Batchelor:

– That is very easily shown.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I hope that the Minister will substantiate that statement when he rises to reply. If he has broken up an injurious combine, good luck to him. But how does he know what he has done? Yesterday, he told us that he had no information on the subject; but now he is able to speak with the utmost confidence and dogmatism as to this policy.

Mr Batchelor:

– They have altered their articles of agreement as to exclusive dealing.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The fact remains that the honorable member and his colleagues have put through a subsidy of ?6,000, with no other object in view than to give a boost along to his own party organs.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is an infamous misstatement.-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - Order !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I require that remark to be withdrawn, sir.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member must withdraw the’ remark.

Mr Batchelor:

– I withdraw it, sir.

Mr Riley:

– I ask that the honorable member for Parramatta be requested to withdraw his statement that this was purely a subsidy for one organ.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is an accusation of. corruption’ which I desire to be withdrawn. It is a cowardly statement, like a great many more from that quarter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Batchelor:

– I must ask you, sir, to call upon the honorable member for Parramatta to withdraw a statement which is offensive, and which implies corruption on the part of myself. If he withdraws the statement, of course, I shall be prepared to withdraw the remark I made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.If the honorable member for Parramatta made a statement that the Minister was corrupt, no doubt he will withdraw it, but t did not hear any statement of that kind.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member stated that we voted ?6,000 of public money for the express purpose of boosting up certain party organs. That is an offensive statement, and one which ought to be withdrawn. It is a charge which ought not to have been made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I do not think that the honorable member is called upon to withdraw a statement of that kind unless it imputed to the Minister some motive of an unworthy character.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is just what he did, sir.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I did not understand the statement of the honorable member for Parramatta to impute corruption to the Minister. The statement itself was not unparliamentary.

Mr Batchelor:

– Do I understand, sir, that you decline to call upon the honorable member to withdraw the statement?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Yes, until I get something more definite than that. The statement itself may be a statement of fact or of opinion, but it does not necessarily imply anything of a corrupt nature, or convey an implication of improper motive on the part of the Minister.

Mr Webster:

– On a point of order, sir, have you ruled that the honorable member for Parramatta cannot be compelled to withdraw a statement which imputed corruption to the- Minister?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.So far as I am aware, the honorable member has not made a statement which has imputed corrupt motives to the Minister. I feel sure that he does not wish to give offence, and that he will voluntarily withdraw any statement which the Minister considers as a reflection on his integrity.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– When the matter is put in that way, sir, I withdraw my remark with the greatest pleasure. It is a very old trick to try to trump up a grievance out of nothing. I believe that the only idea which the Government had in view was to try to inaugurate a service which would be specially valuable to certain organs which champion their cause. An honorable member must have a disordered mind who says that that statement imputed corruption to the Minister-

Mr Batchelor:

– I have no objection to that as an expression of your opinion.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That is all I ever said, or thought. But one or two newspapers who support the Government are taking advantage of the subsidy.

Mr Riley:

– Of course, the other crowd has its own service.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– When the proposal was submitted to the House, it was argued that an independent cable service was needed, for the purpose of liberating the country press from the thraldom of a ring in the metropolitan centres. I understand that not one country newspaper in the whole of Australia takes advantage of this new cable system that the Commonwealth has done so much to set going. Not one single newspaper in the whole of Australia takes the slightest pecuniary interest in the new service that has been inaugurated at the cost of £6,000 to the people of this country.

Mr Batchelor:

– The Country Press Association are the principal shareholders in the concern.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member should not say so, because that is one of those statements which are peculiarly misleading. It is true that the Secretary of the Country Press Association is also the head and front of the new cable company, but that is the only justification which the Minister has for his statement.

Mr Batchelor:

– More than that.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If the country press is behind the new movement, why do not the country newspapers support it?

Mr Riley:

– They have not yet had time.

Mr Batchelor:

– There is a very good answer to that question.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I should like to hear it. At present, I repeat, not a single country newspaper is a subscriber to the new cable system.

Mr Cann:

– Because the present contracts have not vet run out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member has again missed the point. It was in order to secure for the country newspapers a service, because they could not afford to enter the cable ring, that the new system was inaugurated ; and now these poor struggling newspapers that were to be helped are not taking the slightest notice of it. We are paying £6,000 in the way of a cable subsidy, and the only newspapers that use the cables are the Sun, in Sydney, the Labour Herald, in Adelaide, and another journal in Melbourne. “This will go down to history as an example of the lavish way in which the Government spend money for naught. From all I can gather, and all I can hear, it appears that although the Government set out to break down the old cable ring, they have actually played into its hands. I understand that the moment the new cable company was inaugurated, the old cable association, on the look-out for anything novel in the way of news, took steps to obtain a supply of the new venture’s cables. Consequently, the moment the old association detects anything new coming over the Pacific Cable, it publishes the item, just as the three subscribers to the new system are doing. In that way the so-called cable ring circumvents the very object which the Government had in view.

Mr Batchelor:

– No; it does not.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The three newspapers cannot derive the slightest possible benefit from the new cable service for the reason that they are not able to publish asingle bit of news that the other daily newspapers do not obtain.

Mr Webster:

– Where do the other newspapers get it from ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– From the new company, .of course - the company that we are subsidizing. They buy it as any other newspaper must buy it. We have given every one the right to buy the cables obtained bv the new company. Of course, we cannot permit any differentiation between citizens of the Commonwealth. Consequently, those at the head of the old cable organization come in as buyers of the news obtained by the new association, and they take good care that no newspaper in Australia publishes cable news which they also do not issue.

Mr Thomas:

– They cannot prevent news coming to Australia as they did previously.

Mr Batchelor:

– They cannot prevent any new journal starting in Australia as they did before.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then the ob- ject was to start new newspapers, was it? In that case, I hope that I shall not be accused of charging honorable members opposite with corruption when I say that they admit that the purpose of the new sable service was to enable these new journals to start.

Mr Batchelor:

– I did not say anything of the kind. That is an example of the honorable member’s usual way of twisting an argument.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It was the honorable gentleman’s own statement.

Mr Batchelor:

– What I said was that formerly no fresh newspaper could start, but they are able to start now. That is quite a different thing from what the honorable member alleged that I said.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– My own conviction is that I am putting in plain language what the Minister is trying to cover up.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member is twisting my words out of their clear meaning.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am not. The Minister knows that the object was to “get a leg in” for Labour journals. He does not admit that, of course, because he is in his present position.

Mr Batchelor:

– Because the statement is not true.

Mr Thomas:

– If it were so, it would not be a crime.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I did not say that it was a crime, but why all this finesse about the matter? It would be far more creditable if Ministers said plainly to Australia: “We are going to give our Labour journals a ‘ leg in’ and are going to make use of the public funds to do it.” That would be a straightforward way of putting the matter. Every one knows - it is useless to try to blink the fact - what is being done. I am pointing out how futile this scheme has proved to be..– ..We . .are.-.:.spending:…..a:. large. sum:…pf … money for the benefit, so far, of only three newspapers.

Mr Thomas:

– The honorable member said yesterday that the subsidy would benefit the big newspapers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not think I quite said that.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member said that the big newspapers had the advantage of the additional news.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– What I said was that all the newspapers were able to take advantage of everything which the three journals in which the Labour party are interested were able to publish, and that, therefore, those three journals derived no advantage over the newspapers in what is called the cable ring. As we are paying this large subsidy we’ ought to get something for it. My complaint is that at present we are getting nothing worth the money. The main argument used in favour of the subsidy was that the poor struggling country newspapers would be able to get a “leg in “ with regard to cable news.

Mr Batchelor:

– That was not the argument.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The argument is on record in the debate.

Mr Batchelor:

– Find it. I will ‘ guarantee that the honorable member cannot find anything of the kind in the debate.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If the Minister will keep this discussion going until I have time to look up Hansard, I will read from it to confirm what I have said., This subsidy- was intended to help country papers; and, so far as we can see at present, not a single paper of that description in Australia is taking advantage of it.

Mr Higgs:

– How can the honorable member say that ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There are only three papers subscribing to it - the Sun, in Sydney ; the Herald, at Adelaide ; and the Truth, at Broken Hill.

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

– And the Daily Post, in Tasmania.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Since we are paying this subsidy I desire to see the cable news increased proportionately, because that is the only justification for the payment of the money. There ought to be J no special pecuniary benefit to any newspaper in any part of Australia; and unless the supply, as well as the variety, of the news is improved there ought to be no payment.

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

.- Even at this… late..:ho.ur. .1.. feel.-, that’… … . :.(

I must give honorable members a little information that is in my possession. I have here a letter from the manager of the Daily Post, Hobart, in which he speaks of that paper when it was not published in the ‘ Labour interests, but in the interests of the Liberal party, and supported the present Leader of the Opposition and honorable members opposite. The letter is as follows -

In 1904 an effort was made to establish a paper in Hobart. A lot of money was spent, and good support obtained. When the Tasmanian Cable Association was applied to for the cables, they refused. When the Past started we had to pay ,£300 a year for them, although I have it on good authority that the Tasmanian Press

Association only pays .£1,100 a year, and this is split up amongst eight papers - £137 10s. each; so you see how cruel is our proportion. Then, when the Independent Cable Company came along, we promised to take their service, and the Ta’smanian Press Association then agreed to lower their price to ^200 a year. In the meantime it became evident to me that the new Independent service was poor in comparison, and when I again asked the Tasmanian Press Association for a renewal of their service, they, also recognising, the Independent had not come up to expectations, have raised their price again to ^300, and even then have not yet promised to renew the agreement, and if they do I must not publish the Independent cables as well, and thus the public suffer in consequence, and in any case they allow me no voice in management. Of course, now that the Independent are getting this subsidy it will not matter so much to me.

Now, will the honorable member for Parramatta say that Ministers were not warranted in breaking up one of the greatest press monopolies that ever existed? That state of things described in the letter prevailed before any Labour newspapers were started in Australia, and it continued until this subsidy was commenced j and I am surprised that the honorable member for Parramatta does not make himself better acquainted with the facts before he criticises the Government. I think I have produced sufficient evidence to show that the subsidy is quite justified.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– It surprises me, as a new member, that die honorable member for Parramatta sometimes makes statements in so emphatic a manner as to be likely to impress strangers with the idea that he is saying something absolutely in accordance with fact.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– So I am, and the Minister knows I am.

Mr FENTON:

– I have heard- the honorable member on several occasions make statements that I can only describe as out- landish; and I am surprised that :he;:– asan old parliamentarian,- should use the extravagant language in which he so often indulges. As to advertising Australia, I trust that it will be conducted on a better plan than by past Governments, and that the statements which are made in newspapers, periodicals, and so forth, and which practically bear the imprint of officialdom, will be strictly accurate. I happened to mention my experiences in the electorate of the honorable member for Wimmera; and; as I am to pay a second visit there in a weekor two, I think I shall be able to obtain ample verification for what I am about to state. That honorable member complains about the small amount of this item. My own belief is that the legislation we have passed this session will prove a splendid advertisement for Australia on the other side of the world. I should like to quote a concrete instance of a man -who went on the land’ in the Cohuna district-a few years ago and raised a family, including three sons. He told me that he desired that his sons should be settled on the land, like himself,but that they had only one block, which was not sufficient for them all, and that, although he had three sons eligible to select land’, he could not get land for them. The State Government of Victoria have sent an embassy to England, Canada, and America to induce people to come out here to occupy these irrigation areas, though we have the splendidly trained sons of farmers, settled within a stone’s throw of the same blocks, looking vainly for .land. That is a standing disgrace to us as a people, and if we are not very careful we shall have the old settlers of this country who have been paying taxes for years pulling the house down about our ears because their sons have not been considered, while others are brought in from abroad. With respect to labour in city constituencies, I can tell the honorable member for Wimmera that if he represented a city constituency, arid knew the number of men who are seeking for work in the cities, he would not be so anxious to advertise Australia . in order to induce other people to come here and enter into competition with our workers. Some of our State Governments are dabbling- a little in immigration, and with what result? Some of the immigrants have been stranded, and in order to save their face the State Governments have given newcomers positions in Government establishments, though men who have been paying taxes in this country for years are denied - employment: in those establishments. -: … -I- …. consider that distinctly unfair. To give one instance of many. A little while ago a Scotchman came here from Glasgow, attracted by alluring advertisements published in the Old Country, though I do not say that those advertisements had the approval or sanction of officials here. When I met him, I said, “ You are from Scotland.” He said he was, and that he had been out here three months. When I asked him what he thought of our country, his reply was that he did not think very highly of it. He explained that he had been walking the streets of Melbourne for several weeks looking for a job, and had at last secured one at a mere pittance. He was then employed behind, a counter in a hosier’s shop, and though he said that he had slightly improved his position, he was very sorry that he ever left Glasgow, where he had a better position than he was able to obtain here. He told me further that he came out as an advance agent for others. He spoke of a friend with capital and relatives who intended, if he gave them a satisfactory report, to come out and establish themselves in business here. He said that the report he had sent home was a very unsatisfactory one, and that as soon as he could get enough together he would go back to Scotland again. It must be remembered that if men are induced to come here under false pretences expecting to find land or employment, which they are unable to obtain on arrival, the report they send to the Qld Country is a very bad advertisement for Australia. Each family has its own circle of friends, information of that description is spread far and wide, and people instead of being encouraged to come here are in this way prevented from doing so. I hope that in advertising Australian conditions and resources care will be taken to adhere closely to facts. As soon as our conditions are favorable for the occupation of our fertile lands, and for the employment of people, honorable members of this party will be only too ready to welcome men of our own race and’ colour to these shores. But until those conditions obtain it is, in my opinion, more than criminal to bring people here from abroad that they may enter into competition with our own people in congested labour markets, or may wander throughout the Commonwealth looking for land and unable to obtain it.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Minister of External Affairs · Boothby · ALP

– I wish to reply to certain questions which were asked by the honorable member for Lang yesterday. The honorable member suggested that I did not desire to supply answers to them, but, as a matter of fact, the necessary information was not in the Department at the time. Reference has since been made to the secretary of the association referred to, and the information die honorable member asked for has been obtained. The questions asked by the honorable member were as follows -

  1. What additional newspapers have subscribed to the company’s service since subsidy was granted ?
  2. What number of additional words per day are being supplied by the company’s cable ser- vice to its clients since granting of subsidy as compared with number of words previously supplied ?

This is the answer to the questions -

In reply Ministerial inquiry, two large papers. Vic, two N.S.W., contracted telegraph service since subsidy granted. Several others agreed do likewise soon as old agreement which forbids them publish other until old service expires. Number words supplied before subsidy 4,800 week, now 6,000 week.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– The statement read by the Minister confirms all that I have said; and I wish to direct the attention of the honorable member for Maribyrnong to the fact.

Mr Fenton:

– I do not think that it confirms the honorable gentleman’s statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I made the statement that three newspapers only are taking advantage of this subsidy. Is that statement correct or not? The statement just read by the Minister proves that the assertion of the honorable member for Denison was not correct. He led the Committee to believe that a certain newspaper is a subscriber to the new arrangement ; but it is now made clear that that newspaper has nothing to do with it.

Mr Batchelor:

– It is not. What rubbish the honorable gentleman is talking.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It says two large papers in Victoria, and two in New South Wales, have contracted to take the service since the subsidy was granted.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable gentleman has net read the statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It says that several others have agreed to do likewise as soon as their agreements, which forbid them to publish other cable news, expire.

Mr Batchelor:

– That statement must be read in connexion with the questions asked, which refer to the additional newspapers taking the advantage of the subsidy. The newspaper referred to by the honorable member for Denison was a subscriber to the association before.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am speaking of the additional newspapers that have taken advantage of the subsidy ; and the information supplied by the Minister shows that two large papers in Victoria, and two in New South Wales, have contracted to take this service since the subsidy has been granted. My information is that only three papers have come into the arrangement since the subsidy was granted.

Mr Batchelor:

– They were in it long before.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I know nothing about what went on before. According to the statement of Mr. Temperley, who is interested in putting the best side that can possibly be put-

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member just now objected to an absent man being attacked, yet he is now doing the same thing.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I was making no attack on the man in saying that he was interested in putting forward the best side of his own venture. Mr. Temperley is the author of this scheme, and, naturally, is not likely to understate the case. I alleged that three new papers had subscribed to the arrangement since the subsidy was granted, and the Minister quoted a report to show that there were four.

Mr Batchelor:

– The honorable member named three, none of which have come in since the subsidy was granted.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then the form of my information was incorrect, but the substantial facts, that only four newspapers have come in, and that none of the country papers had taken the slightest advantage of the new arrangement, are still correct. That is the point I rose to make, and it is borne out by the statement of Mr. Temperley. It is a poor result so far for the subsidy which Parliament is paying. Now that we are paying the money, I want to see the fullest use made of it. Honorable members opposite evidently do not know my, views on this matter. I have been one of the greatest supporters of the Pacific Cable route for years, and have insisted that we might with advantage get a column of news from the Old Country and other parts of the world over that cable every day, and have it published in Australia. My complaint is that the Government are paying their money in this case, and getting nothing for it. If they were getting anything that would compensate them for paying away £6,000, I should say, “ Good luck to you,” because I am not interested in, and should be sorry to attempt to defend, any injurious cable ring.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– It seems strange that the honorable member for Parramatta should to-night take up an attitude which seems to be in favour of, perhaps, the greatest newspaper monopoly existing in the world to-day. To prove that it is a monopoly, I need only refer the honorable member to the report of the Committee that sat last session. That body not only exposed the monopoly, but indicated this method of dealing with it. A new cable company has been established, and is using the Pacific route very extensively. A large volume of important news is coming into Australia by that means, and a considerable amount of it represents an earlier delivery than is the case with that which comes through the other source. The honorable member contends that this expenditure on the part of the Government is not justified, in view of the small number of papers using it; but the Committee should know that the octopus monopoly is of such a character that a large number of newspapers in the Commonwealth dare not use the new service. If they did, they would render themselves liable to forfeit £1,000 for each breach of their agreement. The monopoly draw a very hard-and-fast line as to what papers they will admit to a share of their service. It is practically written oyer their door that no Labour or Democratic newspaper need apply for the facilities that it possesses. If any such paper does succeed in getting in, it is at almost prohibitive rates. That, however, is not true of the subsidized, independent company, because their news is available to every paper in Australia without distinction.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is it as good a service ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

-It is a very good service, and, in some respects, superior to the other. Its results are not to be judged wholly by the news which it transmits, but by the fact that its competition has caused the rival service to materially increase its news.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is it good business to subsidize an inferior service?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I do not hold that it is inferior. It was established for the purpose of breaking up a monopoly, and has had the effect of increasing the volume of news transmitted by the monopolistic association, and inducing the association to use the “all-red” route to a larger extent than ever before. When a great pugilistic encounter took place in America a few months ago, the monopolistic association sent across the Pacific line about half-a-dozen words, giving the name of the winner of the fight ; but the descriptive matter, amounting to about 2,000 words, was sent first to Europe, and then by way of India across the Eastern

Extension Company’s lines, notwithstanding that the matter could have been sent more quickly by the Pacific line. Since the subsidy, the monopolistic association has established an agent in America, and now sends a larger volume of news over the Pacific lines than it ever did before. In not more than a month, the subsidy has had the effect of practically revolutionizing the cable service. That more newspapers do not use the independent service is due to the fact, not that it is an inferior service, but that certain newspapers are legally bound to the monopolistic association. I trust that the Government will stand by the subsidy, because it has had the effect of compelling the monopolistic association to increase its volume of news, and to use the Pacific Cable, in which the Commonwealth is interested, to a greater extent than it would were there no competition.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– The Minister has challenged me to prove the statement that the subsidy was intended to benefit the country newspapers.

Mr Batchelor:

– To prove that I said that.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I -did not say that the honorable member said it ; but that that was an argument used during the debate. It was certainly suggested in what the honorable member said. The honorable member for Macquarie stated -

I understand that it is the aim of the Minister that such news shall be supplied, and I have bo doubt that in New South Wales at least 300 newspapers will proceed at once to avail themselves of this new service.

So far as I know, not one has done so, at which I express my disappointment. The object of the subsidy has not been accomplished. It was argued throughout the debate that the country newspapers could not take advantage of the then existing cable service, because of the high fee demanded by the ring. The Minister offered to resign if I succeeded in proving my contention. I have proved it, with the assistance of the Hansard report of the debate to which he referred me.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.I think that the honorable member for Parramatta is to be commended for having drawn prominent attention to this subject. It seems to me that when Parliament is subsidizing any institution honorable members have a right to all the information which is available regarding the payment of that subsidy. They ought to be informed of the way in which every penny of the public money is expended. The honorable member for Parramatta was justified, therefore, in calling attention to this question, and I feel confident that the Minister of External Affairs will gladly furnish the Committee with all the ^information which he can obtain.

Mr Batchelor:

– I have wired for, and obtained it.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I understand that that is so. I think that this Parliament did the right thing in granting a press cable subsidy, and, iri my opinion, its payment should be continued. I believe that the terms which we demanded were too harsh, and that they might reasonably be modified. Prior to the granting of the subsidy, undoubtedly a monopoly in the matter of the supply of cable news existed in Australia. Not only did certain persons enjoy a monopoly, but they point-blank refused permission to other newspapers to obtain, a particle of the information which they derived from their exclusive service. In the case of country journals, they exacted such conditions as constituted an injustice to the readers of those journals. As a matter of fact - as was stated by the New South Wales Press Association - the news which they supplied was pirated from a country where copyright of news had been refused by the House of Lords on two or three occasions. This pirated news was copyrighted in the Commonwealth for twenty-four hours. The monopoly prevented other newspapers from obtaining the information which they desired except on terms which constituted an injustice to their readers..

Mr McWilliams:

– Why do those newspapers not avail themselves of the new service ?

Mr ROBERTS:

– Having been associated with other residents of Adelaide in the establishment of a daily newspaper in that city, I may tell honorable members that we wrote to Messrs. Wilson and Mackinnon, asking upon what terms we could secure the cable news obtained by the Press Cable Company. The reply was that, so far as South Australia was concerned, we would require to go cap in hand to the Register and the Advertiser, and ask their permission to publish that news. If they consented to our doing so, the company would grant us the permission which we sought. Subsequently we wrote to the proprietors of the Register and Advertiser, and, after considerable delay, they replied, in direct opposition to the terms of the letter from Messrs. Wilson and Mackinnon, stating that no newspaper could secure the cable news which they published unless with the unanimous approval of all their shareholders. As that was not obtainable, we could not get the cable news in South Australia. Lateron we made inquiries, with a view to obtaining it from New Zealand. There we found that the monopoly held sway, and exercised authority and control. Statements were actually made in the Senate by a Minister who is not now a member of it, to the effect that the information which we desired could be secured through Reuter’s agency. We made application to that firm, and. were again met with a flat refusal. The monopoly exercised power and authority there. Thus no news was obtainable in any of these directions. In effect, the daily newspaper proprietors said, “ We have a monopoly, and we intend to keep it. We care for no man, and for nothing.” In such circumstances, it appears to me that the Legislature had a perfect right to step in and assist in breaking down this monopoly, which published only such news as it thought fit to publish. News which might be of advantage to Australia was either not cabled here, or was not published, or was published in a garbled form. I have frequently noticed that, although only one cable message is received by the different newspapers, the cables differ when they are published.

Mr McWilliams:

– It is simply a difference of interpretation.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I think it is due to local censorship.

Mr McWilliams:

– Has the honorable member ever amplified cables?

Mr ROBERTS:

– I know something about that work. It is a singular circumstance that the difference in interpretation was always in the direction in which any particular newspaper leaned.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member knows that in interpreting a cable it is very easy to differ.

Mr ROBERTS:

– Yes. In some cases however, it was not a difference of interpretation, but of actual suppression. Since the subsidy was granted, additional newspapers have been able to publish the cables, and a larger number of words are also being published.

Mr McWilliams:

– Only a few more.

Mr ROBERTS:

– It seems to me that the small number of newspapers which have taken advantage of the new service may be explained by the fact that very many journals are still under contract to the monopoly, and cannot possibly escape it at the present time. It may be that, in addition, the newspapers do not feel certain that the other service will be permanent, and, consequently, they put up with an evil from which otherwise they would gladly escape. My belief is that the independent service will be permanent. Rather than that we should go back to the old order, and that, so far as the news of the world is concerned, Australia should again be placed in the hands of a small monopoly of newspaper proprietors, I am prepared to vote even a higher subsidy, and I believe that I shall be able to publicly justify my action.

Mr McWilliams:

– If the old service were wiped out we should have a monopoly in the new one.

Mr ROBERTS:

– I am not desirous that either service should be wiped out.

Mr McWilliams:

– Will the honorable member agree to subsidize both services? Is it fair to give a subsidy to Labour newspapers only?

Mr ROBERTS:

– The independent service has been beneficial to the people of Australia.I have had some conversations with the proprietorsof country newspapers in South Australia, and know that a number of them would gladly escape from the position in which they are: I am told that a number of them intend to relieve themselves as soon as their contract with the monopoly expires. Consequently, more newspapers will take advantage of the subsidy. When it was found that we were about to obtain cable news from another source the demands of the monopoly were considerably modified. It is possible that they may be further modified, but any suggestion of modification will only be made by the “ ring “ in the hope of retrieving its position, and again securing a monopoly in some shape or other. That is a thing which this Parliament ought not to permit. Whilst we grant a subsidy we are entitled to know how every penny has been expended. I trust that, in the interests of the people of Australia, we shall be able to retain the two services. My experience is that, with the aid of the subsidy, we have news of a better kind, and of greater variety, and that the public are better served than they used to be. Moreover, the leading newspapers have given better information to their readers than was their wont.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– They are using the “All-Red” route to a larger extent than they did before.

Mr ROBERTS:

– The subsidy has done good in two different ways. I appeal to honorable members not to withdraw the subsidy, which has been the means of obtaining the best possible news from every source. If the necessity should arise, we ought to be prepared to increase the amount, modify the terms, and so retain that competition which is healthy, and which helps to disseminate news such as I believe people are glad to have.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– It is rather refreshing to hear this strenuous advocacy of that horrible bugbear, competition. If there has been one thing which honorable members on the other side have complained about for many years, it has been the horror of competition. The one strong argument advanced in favour of this subsidy was that it would secure a very much better cable service to country newspapers. Member after member rose and pointed out that, with a subsidy, we should get a much better service - a service from all parts of the world, which would be rushed by the great majority of the newspapers in Australia. The honorable member for Macquarie, who is a newspaper man, gave us his assurance that 300 newspapers in New South Wales were waiting to take advantage of the new service. What has been the result? The subsidy has been granted solely in the interests of two or three Labour newspapers. The House was absolutely prostituted under a system of Tammany by the Government in power.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is absolutely fal se

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must withdraw that expression.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– At this hour of the morning, sir, I withdraw anything you ask me to withdraw. It was well known that the subsidy was being granted to enable one or two Labour journals to obtain a cheaper service at the expense of the public. There has been nothing to prevent any newspaper, or half-a-dozen newspapers, in the State Capitals, or in the country districts, from doing precisely as the leading newspapers were doing, and that was to maintain a man in London to send out cable news. There is no honorable member who will assert that the subsidized service is nearly so good as the unsubsidized one. When the question was first raised here it was suggested that the High Commissioner should send out daily a certain portion of matter for the benefit of Australia. It was repeatedly declared that the new service would be infinitely better than the old one. Honorable members complained that far too much space was devoted to sporting and other news and not enough to matters of national importance. What has been the chief argument adduced by the honorable member for Calare in favour of the new service? It has been that it was possible to succeed in getting details of the great prize fight halfanhour or an hour earlier than the news was received by what he termed the monopolistic service. The only statement which the honorable member made in justification for his charge as to the failure of what he termed the monopolistic cable service was that the service subsidized by the Government had succeeded in getting through the details of a. prize fight quicker by obtaining them from America than the unsubsidized service obtained them from England. I have dealt with the subject on account of the unfair statements made by honorable members like the honorable member for Calare, who knows very little about the subject. He stated that the country newspapers of Australia were receiving full and complete benefit from the subsidized service. The Minister, however has given the facts. There are four country newspapers, two in New South Wales and two in Victoria, which are using the new service.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is not correct. Those are the additional newspapers which have commenced publishingcable news since the subsidy was granted.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That is the whole point. There is no other point. It was stated distinctly that if this subsidy were granted three hundred newspapers in New South Wales were prepared to take the new service. The statement was made in this House over and over again that the number of newspapers publishing the subsidized cable news would be largely increased. But the only result has been that four newspapers have been benefited. I challenge any honorable member to show that there is the slightest comparison between the two services in point of merit. If a subsidy is to be. granted at all, in common fairness let the Government treat both services alike. Let the subsidy be paid to each of them. Personally I believe that neither service requires a subsidy. I believe that it was simply a little bit of “ graft “ which they succeeded in obtaining-

Mr Batchelor:

– What is that? The honorable member has no right to say such a thing. It is a disgraceful statement to make.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw that remark.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Allow me to completemy sentence. I say that we have here simply a little bit of “ graft “ on the part of those who desired to get a cheaper service than they were prepared to pay for.

Mr Frazer:

– That is a nasty, indecent remark to make.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– It is a fact.

Mr Frazer:

– It is a statement that could only have been made with the object of imputing improper motives to the members of the Ministry.

The CHAIRMAN:

– An honorable member has already had to withdraw the word “ Tammany.” “ Graft “ is generally associated with the word “Tammany,” and he must withdraw that word also.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Did you hear the completion of my sentence, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member to withdraw the word “ graft.”

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– In what connexion ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– In the way in which the honorable member used the word.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I will withdraw the word if that is the ruling of the Chair ; but I will say that the whole discussion on this matter has gone to show that the new service has simply added four newspapers to the list of those publishing the subsidized cable news, and that the best result achieved so far has been to enable the details of a prize-fight to be sent direct from America an hour and a half earlier than they were obtained by means of the old service.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– The honorable member for Franklin referred specifically to me, and in doing so did me an injustice. He said that my contention in favour of the independent cable service was based on the fact that the company had supplied me and others with the news of a prize fight an hour and a half earlier than the information was obtained by the unsubsidized service. I never based my contention in favour of the subsidy on such a ground. I used that illustration to show to what extent the in dependent cable service was prepared to use the Pacific Cable in which the Commonwealth is interested, whilst the monopolistic service had ignored the Pacific Cable, and obtained its messages from a cable company with which the Commonwealth had no direct concern.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Attorney-General’s Department.

Division 17 (Secretary’s Office), £3,861; division 18 (Crown Solicitor’s Office), £3,833; division 19 (the High Court), £7,058and division 20 (Court of Conciliation and. Arbitration), £2,825; agreed to.

Department of Home Affairs.

Division 21 (Administrative Staff),

£14,433.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– There is a matter in connexion with the publication of electoral rolls to which I should like to refer. At the time of the general election three years ago, the rolls for the various polling places in Tasmania were printed separately. At the last general election, the rolls were so issued as to include all the polling places in one electoral division. Under the previous system a candidate was able to supply his committees with a complete and separate roll for each polling place. But under the new system it was necessary to purchase for the use of committees, in connexion with each polling place, rolls relating to a whole electoral division, which might include nine or ten, or sometimes twelve, polling places.

Mr Riley:

– That was not the case in New South Wales.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I know that, because in New South Wales the Federal and State electoral divisions are not coterminous.

Mr King O’Malley:

– That is the trouble.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– There ought to be no such trouble in Tasmania. My State is the only one which has taken the trouble to make its electoral divisions coterminous; with the Federal electoral divisions, so that one roll can be used for both electoral purposes. Why go back to the old, antiquated system of publishing rolls simply because other States have not altered the boundaries of their electoral divisions to make them correspond to the Federal divisions ? I make bold to say that if the system now in vogue in Tasmania were applied to New

South Wales, it would be found that the roll for each polling place could be made complete in itself. The reform made in Tasmania was so beneficial that I have never been able to understand why it was not continued. Even if it were not possible in the States where the electorates are not coterminous, it ought to be reverted to in States where the electorates are so situated, in order that the fullest advantages may be continued. I hope to see the electorates, both State and Federal, throughout Australia brought into line, so that one roll can be used for both; but that cannot be brought about if States which have adopted the reform are penalized.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 22 (Electoral Office), £5,591, and division 23 (Public Service Commissioner) £11,650, agreed to.

Division 24 (Public Works Staff), £26,257-

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– There is an item ‘ of £15,000 to recoup the various States for salaries and other expenses incurred on behalf of the Commonwealth ; and I notice that last year the amount voted was £16,000, and the amount spent £11,648. The services rendered, I take it, are those in connexion with the carrying out of public works by the States Public Works Departments for the Commonwealth ; and I do not regard this as altogether “a satisfactory method. In New South Wales, as in other States, the Public Works Department has its own work to attend to, and naturally the business of the Commonwealth takes second place; and I think the time has arrived when the Commonwealth should possess a staff of its own. In each of the States, the Commonwealth has an inspector and a small staff, which is largely occupied preparing and supervising the work to be done by the States; and all that is required, in order to meet the growing work of the Commonwealth, is to enlarge that s.taff. I hope that in the current year the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and that, in the next Estimates, this item will have largely disappeared.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I hope the time is not far distant when this Department of Home Affairs will be “ passed out,” or a better use and name found for it. It is evident to me that, so far as Postal works are concerned, it is essential, in the interests of expedition, that they should be carried out by a Works Branch of the Postal Department itself.

The whole history of the Department of Home Affairs has been one of red-tape -and delay, which is irritating,’ not only to those in the service, but to honorable members who are in a measure responsible for the works.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is the delay the fault of the Department of Home Affairs?

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member has been long enough here to know where the block is in regard to Postal works.

Mr McWilliams:

– The fault lies with the Postal Department; and I wish the latter were as prompt as the Department of Home Affairs.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The Department of Home Affairs has been nothing but a stumbling-block in the way of all the other Departments with which it has any connexion.

Mr Fenton:

– Are not the other Departments a stumbling-block in the way of the Department of Home Affairs?

Mr WEBSTER:

– If the Department of Home Affairs did not, in justification for its existence, prolong its deliberations on all matters, it would be “ out of work “ three parts of the year.

Mr Sampson:

– It is one of the promptest Departments in the service.

Mr WEBSTER:

– It is one of those Departments which no man, who knows anything of great public institutions, can justify. The necessity for the dispensing with the services of the Public Works Departments of the States is self-evident, and requires no discussion. This represents another system of circumlocution which is not a credit to the House or to the Government.Delay in the carrying out of works is not the only cause of complaint as regards this Department. There is good reason for complaining of the works carried out by it, and the degree of interest taken in Commonwealth works by officers of State Public Works Departments to whom they are instrusted. If honorable members require any illustration of what the Home Affairs Department cai” do in the way of spending the money of the Commonwealth, they have only to go and see what has been done in the Mails Branch of the Sydney General Post Office. Until the Postal Commission made known the conditions in that office, neither the Home Affairs Department nor the Post and Telegraph Department had any conception of what they were like. When it was made clear that they were a disgrace to our civilization, an effort was made to bring about a change, but instead of improving the conditions in the mail office, the Home Affairs and Public Works Department have succeeded in making them worse than they were before. The place was overcrowded, and the ventilation worse than in any other office that I have ever been in. Those intrusted with the work of increasing the accommodation of the office and improving the conditions thought to do so by erecting a gallery extending for some distance over the lower floor. Some of the men have been transferred to this upper gallery, where they are obliged to breathe ‘ the polluted atmosphere due to the great number of men who have to work below them.

Mr Thomas Brown:

-v- Is the honorable member speaking of Tasmania ?

Mr WEBSTER:

– No, of the Mails Branch Office in the Sydney General Post Office. I should like to say that, for the requirements of the State, the Hobart General Post Office is the finest in Australia, and I think the log-rolling of the honorable member for Wilmot is responsible for that. Efforts were made to hurry on the work of erecting the gallery to which I have referred. Men were working on the job night and day, and overtime rates were paid. The Department never gave any thought to the question as to how the mails were to be got to the upper floor, and, as a consequence, after it was constructed, the gallery was left lying idle for weeks. This will give honorable members some idea of the supervision of public works by the Home Affairs Department. I know of no case in which the administration of this Department has not resulted in unnecessary expense to the Commonwealth. Since public opinion has been aroused, and the Postal Commission has recommended the removal of corridors, which take up space and keep out the light, and the removal of partitions to enable proper supervision to be carried out, thousands of pounds are being spent in making other alterations in the General Post Office at Sydney. Huge stone walls are being removed, and suspended platforms substituted for corridors, at a very great cost. The Postal Commission have recommended that more modern and up-to-date buildings should be erected for post-offices throughout Australia, and more attention given to sanitation, light, and convenience for supervision. But, though some effort may -be made by the Department to meet the requirements of the day, it seems that our officers are unable to anticipate the demands of the future. Every one knows that Australia is advancing by leaps and bounds. The great State of New South Wales is prospering in every way, and its metropolis is growing beyond all the anticipations of a few years ago. It will be only a few years hence when all that can be done with the money now being spent will be quite insufficient to meet the growing demands of the people. I complain of the lack of foresight in these Departments. I may mention, also, that largely because of the red-tape in the Home Affairs Department, most of our telegraph offices are, owing to the inadequate accommodation provided, nothing but death-traps for the men and women who are obliged to work in them. Money has been voted time and again, but the work of improvement has been going forward at a snail’s pace. The Home Affairs Department cannot escape its responsibility for the delay in carrying out these very necessary works, but their answer always is that there is no money, or that there are no men available. They always find a way out. We seem to have too many brakes on the wheel. On one wheel, there is the brake of the Home Affairs office, on another there is the brake of the Minister of the Department, on another the brake applied by the Treasurer; in fact, there are four brakes on the four wheels, and, therefore, very little progress is made. I am sorry these Estimates have come up for discussion at a time when we have no opportunity, and members have no inclination, to dissect them properly. One of the most important functions of this House is to review and control the expenditure of the Departments, but when we are expected to get through them, and also the Budget debate, in twelve or fourteen hours, it is irksome to any man to rise and discuss them. Unfortunately, honorable members seem to consider that a prorogation within a given time is of greater importance than the discharge of this important duty. There is still a month before us if we like to stay here and do the work properly. If I had time, I could break this Department, so to speak, into atoms, so far as its administration is concerned.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Why does not the honorable member do it?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Because the honorable member would never be able to get it together again.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I can hold my own with the honorable member any day.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The Minister’s irritation is an example of the bad effects of all-night sittings.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Why does not the honorable member tear the Department to pieces if he can do so?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Perhaps the time will come when I shall do more tearing than the honorable member will care about. I have said sufficient to indicate the root of the trouble in the Department. The matter of getting a brick-yard in the Federal Territory, testing the clay, building brick mansions as homes for the officers of the Commonwealth, and erecting a Parliament House of beautifully arranged bricks of various colours, is considered worthy of the aspirations of the Department. Recently they recommended the use of Victorian bluestone in the foundations of a large building attached to the Customs Department in Sydney, when superior and cheaper trachyte can be obtained locally. When the question was discussed in the House, the Department said, “ It shall not occur again.” Instead ; of begging pardon for doing wrong, their duty is to see that they do right in the first place. When the Minister himself tells the House that his short experience in administering the Department has made him realize that he is nothing more than an animated rubber stamp, no further criticism is necessary to prove my argument. If the Department is beyond the control of its responsible political head, it must be in a hopeless condition. , The Minister depicts it as surrounded by masses of decayed red tape, which one can smell directly he enters the office. I hope there will be a further inquiry into the relative position of this Department to the other services of the Commonwealth. Now that we have a Labour Ministry, and are likely to take charge of industrial affairs when given by the people, next year, additional powers with their additional responsibilities, the Home Affairs Department would be better known and occupied as a Labour portfolio, under a Minister for Labour, as in New Zealand and other places. I have in my mind’s eye a more useful purpose for this misfit Department, which seems to have been put into the list in the first place only to find a billet for another Minister. I want to find something for the Department to do without having to get rid of the Minister. I do not refer to the present Minister; but in future I shall keenly scrutinize the work of the Department, and shall be more at liberty than I have been for some time in the past to keep an eye on it. If a material improvement has not been made by next year, I shall be prepared with dates and cases to substantiate my charges.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Minister has said that he is a mere rubber stamp.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I understand that he intends to make an explanation of that statement, and I shall postpone my further remarks until he has done so.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

– I agree with much that has been said by the honorable member for- Gwydir. In my opinion, the time has arrived when, in this Department, we should have an architect in control of works, and under him a professional staff, and a staff of workmen for the carrying out of repairs and alterations. At present the Department has not the machinery necessary for the satisfactory fulfilment of its functions. Furthermore, as we are likely, in the near future, to have such gigantic undertakings as the construction of the transcontinental railways, and the development of the Northern Territory will involve, we might well follow the example of New South Wales, and create a Works Committee. In that State the country has been saved hundreds of thousands of pounds by the work of the Committee, whose members visit the localities in which it is proposed to spend Government money, take evidence from the officials and local residents, and report on the proposals generally.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– All proposals involving an estimated expenditure of more than £20,000 are referred to the Committee.

Mr RILEY:

– As to the accommodation of the Sydney Post Office, I know a good deal about the building, and was in and out of it a great deal when the gallery was being put up. It is not the rat-trap that it has been described to be, and things were worse before it was built. It has a window and a door by which ventilation can be provided if desired. At the same time, I admit that the building is not large enough. Every available space is now occupied, but the business is too large for the premises, and to give relief an extension should be made in George or Pitt streets.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It would be better to remove the work of some of the branches elsewhere.

Mr RILEY:

– That would give relief. But it must be remembered that the telephone tunnels and telegraph wires are all connected with the General Post Office, and that to alter the arrangement would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, so that it would be cheaper to extend the building.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The sorting of mails could be done elsewhere.

Mr RILEY:

– That would give relief, but the sorting of mails is a trifling matter compared with the other business of the office. I think that the Commonwealth should have one centrally situated block. The location of the Mail Branch near the railway station has been suggested, but the railway may be extended into the city, and in the future we may have more than one station. I hope that the Minister will push on vigorously with the work of the Federal Capital. Nearly £50,000 has been voted, but very little of the money has been spent.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I have not yet had an opportunity to investigate matters. The office is run by the Minister now.

Mr RILEY:

– I hope that in the recess a good start will be made.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– The suggestion of the honorable member for South Sydney that a Works Committee shall be appointed is a good one. I do not think that such a Committee should be called upon to report regarding sites for Post Offices and small public works, but it might have functions similar to those of the Victorian Railways Standing Committee, which has saved this State hundreds of thousands of pounds, and is one of the most useful bodies created by the local Parliament. Large projects, such as projected railways, and the works likely to be constructed in the Northern Territory, might well be investigated by a Committee. Replying to what was said by the honorable member for Gwydir regarding the Home Affairs Department, my experience is that the Department is one of the most prompt and efficient in the Government service, and has a thorough grasp of its business.

Mr Cann:

– What has happened in connexion with the Liverpool manoeuvre area does not bear out that statement.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am not prepared to say that any delay that may have taken place is the fault of the Department.

Mr King O’Malley:

– It is the fault of the Wade Government.

Mr SAMPSON:

– The Department is often blamed for delays for which other

Departments are responsible. Delays occur in the Postal Department, though, considering the magnitude of its business, that is not surprising, but in the Defence Department there is sometimes a delay of twelve months or two years in connexion with matters like the choosing of rifle ranges. The time has arrived when we should have a public works staff of our own, instead of being dependent on State officials. The States have done good work for the Commonwealth, but naturally they attend to their own affairs first, and the Commonwealth public works have to stand aside until the State officials have time to deal with them.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

Inasmuch as the members from some of the States are complaining of the dilatoriness of the Home Affairs Department, and those from other States are praising its energy, it seems to me that the causes of delay in the carrying out of works must be the inaction of the State officers. I am aware that it is customary for officials to endeavour to put the blame on the shoulders of others. That is a failing to which we are all liable. None of us believes that he has faults ; it is the other man who is bad. My experience leads me to think that the opinion held in regard to the Home Affairs Department depends on the manner in which its work is carried out by State officials. In South Australia I believe that there has been some difficulty in getting work done, for which the blame does not lie with the Minister or the central staff. I must say on behalf of the South Australian official that he has no incentive for hurrying on the work of the Home Affairs Department. In the early days of Federation the State officials received additional remuneration for supervizing Commonwealth work, but nowadays, although we vote money to recoup the States for salaries and other expenses incurred on behalf of the Commonwealth, the money goes, not to the individuals who do the work, but into the State Treasuries. Some years ago the Commonwealth authorities gave the officer in South Australia who superintends the construction of public buildings, £100 or£150ayearto lookafter its works. The money is still being paid, but it now goes to the general revenue of the State, and therefore the officer in question has no inducement to get the Commonwealth work done as quickly as possible. He knows that he will receive the State salary in any case. He may shirk the work for a month or a vear, in the knowledge that he will receive his salary from the State Government just the same as if he did not shirk it. On the other hand, he may be an assertive individual, who will resent the instructions of the central authorities, and we know that such an individual can put all sorts of difficulties in the way of a particular work being carried out; instead of putting oil upon the wheels, he may put sand. I welcome the suggestion of the honorable member for Calare that the time has arrived when we should have in each State a Home Affairs Department, whose officers will be under the direct control of the Minister of that Department. Work would then proceed smoothly. In the matter of the erection ot a post office at Prospect, a suburb of Adelaide, I may mention that, although the money has been voted for a considerable period, and, notwithstanding that tenders have been accepted, there appears to be nobody to supervise the undertaking, so that, in all probability, it will not be completed by the end of the current financial year. This is solely due to the absence of a. direct form of administration. I may also point to another case in which an individual in South Australia has so administered certain instructions issued by the Minister as to create the utmost possible discontent between the individuals charged with that work and the Department in Melbourne. In such circumstances, it is time that we endeavoured to effect an alteration. I support the suggestion of the honorable member for Calare, in the hope that in the early future we _ shall have in each of the States a Public Works Department directly under the control of the Minister. I believe that the creation of such a Department would prove, not only useful, but economical.

Mr CANN:
Nepean

– In my own electorate a large work is now in course of construction - I refer to the erection of a small arms factory. In connexion with that undertaking, a lot of bungling has occurred by reason of State officers having to supervise it. As a result money has been wasted. The building is not ready for the reception of the machinery, certain material has not been supplied, and the contractors for the brickwork have been blamed, although the fault does not belong to them. I believe that the supervision of this work by State officials is solely responsible for the existing condition of affairs. My idea is that we should have a Federal Public Works Depart ment with a branch in each State, which” would be under the control of the Minister. Until we dispense with the services of State officers, we shall never get a better system. At present a divided responsibility exists. The State officers are in the service of the State Governments, and, therefore, we cannot effectively control them. We cannot expect that they will act up to our requirements whilst they are in the employ of the State. The position will not be improved until we have a Public Works Department under the control of the Commonwealth. I have found that the Home Affairs Department is the worst managed of all our Federal Departments. In connexion with the delay which has occurred, in the resumption of a manceuvre area at Liverpool, for example, the Minister shelters himself behind the State Government. I believe that his statement is all bluff. I was never deceived by it, because only the other day I saw a notification in the Commonwealth Gazette to the effect that 400 or 500 acres of land in Queensland had been resumed for defence purposes. Yet the Minister of Home Affairs has repeatedly told us that the Government cannot resume the land required for a manceuvre area at Liverpool.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member is crushing the Minister.

Mr CANN:

– I believe his statement that he is an animated rubber stamp, who is dominated by his departmental officers. He would be all right if he would only shake himself free of them. When we recollect the number of large works to whichthe Commonwealth is committed in the near future, we are justified in creating a Public Works Department of our own. If we are going to tackle the question of the establish, ment of a small arms factory, and of a clothing mill, the construction of the transcontinental railways, and of the Federal Capital, such a Department will have ample to occupy its attention. I hope that before another Budget is presented to the House a Federal Public Works Department will have been created, and that the Minister of Home Affairs will have shakenhimself free of the shackles of which he; has complained so bitterly.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– As some honorable members have spoken so eulogisticallly of this Department, it is necessary that I should place upon record one or two facts which bear out my contention. After the new telephone exchange in Adelaide had been completed, if was suddenly discovered that its ventilation was defective, and as a result certain alterations had to be made. It was also found that no provision had been made for the reception of the cables which come into the ground floor of that building. Consequently, a great deal of the lower portion of it had to be torn up to permit of those wires being installed. Then, it is well known that the operating room in the Melbourne Telephone Exchange is far too low to permit of adequate air space being supplied to the attendants. Yet the Minister would have us believe that everything in his Department is perfect. These are matters which have come under my personal observation. The honorable member for South Sydney has referred to the gallery which has been erected in the mail-room of the Sydney office, and which is a very expensive and good piece of work, as a rat trap. The men who are placed in that gallery are obliged to breathe a contaminated atmosphere by reason of the number of employes who work below. They have also to inhale the dust which rises from the mail-room. The mail-room is the one room of all others in which the supervision of the staff ought to be complete. But the construction of the gallery has darkened the lower part of the hall, so that the sorters have now to work under an artificial light.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– It is a good room spoilt.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Absolutely. The conclusion arrived at by the Postal Commission was that there is only one way in which the difficul tv can be remedied, namely,- by removing : the entire Mail Branch to some’ spot - as close to the Redfern railway station as possible. It is recognised’ throughout the civilized world today that in big cities the mail-rooms should be located as near as possible to the central railway station.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the hon.orable member not to discuss that question.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I- have mentioned these two or three examples of departmental ineptitude only for the purpose of showing that such mistakes would not be made by officers who had a wise conception of their duties.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I have heard a beautiful picture drawn of the benefits of Socialistic control. If this is to be the Socialism of the future, it seems to .me that we might well pray to be delivered from it. It is a picture of a water-logged Department, in capable and inefficient, whose Minister confesses that he is nothing but an animated rubber stamp, held fast in shackles of red tape. Altogether it is a very pretty picture of the Socialistic machine in actual operation. If this is to be the kind of supervision and control to be exercised over the more complicated businesses which it is proposed to take under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, we had better pause and inquire more minutely into what in reality constitutes Socialism. I can conceive of nothing more damaging than the criticisms which have been made here. I admit, however, that some of them have been rather overdrawn. Take, for instance, the question of the manoeuvre area at Liverpool in New South Wales. The honorable member for Nepean did not appear to be aware of what was proceeding when he spoke of the Commonwealth resuming the area. It has to be resumed by the State and not by the Commonwealth. The latter has merely to pay the interest on the cost of resumption. The honorable member will have to address his remonstrances to his confreres in the State Government. It is not easy to put through land resumptions, because a great many technicalities are involved. Such transactions take time, even when carried out by private enterprise rather than by the Socialistic action of the Departments. The Minister should see that the resumption of this manoeuvre area is concluded at the earliest possible moment. Troops cannot train properly over the area until certain improvements have been made, and that work cannot Be undertaken until the resumption has been completed. I believe that the undertaking will involve an expenditure of £40,000.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I understand that a large area of freehold land has to be purchased by the State Government.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I desire to call attention to the rule which has been adopted in the Post and Telegraph Department in regard to the erection of postmasters’ residences. When the Works and Buildings Estimates were under consideration, I pointed out that although the residence of the postmaster at Wyong is being eaten away with white ants, the Department intends to erect another wooden building. It is wrong to put up a wooden building in a district which is infested with white ants, when, at an additional cost of a few hunderd pounds, it is possible to put up a building which would be practically ever- lasting. The blame rests with the Post and Telegraph Department, because the Home Affairs Department desired to erect a brick building. The proper constructing authority is of opinion that brick buildings ought to be provided.

Mr Thomas:

– Is that so?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister of Home Affairs told me in the House that, in his opinion, this particular building should be of brick, and I believe the officers of his Department hold that it is a waste of public money to erect a wooden building in an area which is infested with white ants. It seems that the Post and Telegraph Department deduct a certain amount as rent from a postmaster’s salary, and therefore want a building to correspond with the amount which he is supposed to pay. It is well known that white ants cost the States as well as the Commonwealth thousands of pounds every year. The Minister of Home Affairs promised me that the new residence for the postmaster at Wyong should be built of brick, but a spoke was put in his wheel by the Post and Telegraph Department, and there the matter rests. I hope that the policy will he altered.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 25 (Census and Statistics), £13,013.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

. -Am I to understand that no matter what representations are placed before the Minister of Home Affairs when the Estimates for his Department are submitted, he will turn a deaf ear, and give honorable members no satisfaction? .

Mr King O’Malley:

– I cannot get a chance. Every time I have risen an honorable member has wished to speak.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable gentleman did not rise when the Chairman was about to put the last division to the Committee. Unless he is prepared to throw some light on the administration of his Department, I shall have to renew my representations.

Mr King O’Malley:

– I shall be quite willing to do so when we get to another item.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 26 (Meteorological Branch), £18,457.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– It should be the purpose of the Department of Home Affairs to make the Meteorological Branch as efficient and effective as possible. In New South Wales and, no doubt, in other States, this Branch falls very far short of meeting the requirements of the agricultural and grazing industries. One of the methods of the branch is to have country record stations collecting every day information as to weather conditions, and wiring it to Sydney. It is exhibited at the General Post Office, in addition to being made available to the press. The Meteorological Branch has limited the number of centres from which the information should come, with the result that there is a large number of growing and important towns which are altogether neglected. Any complaint is usually met with the reply that the information now supplied is ample for scientific purposes. If may be sufficient for scientific purposes ; but certainly it is not sufficient to meet the commercial needs of the community. The general public attach a certain amount of importance to the information. They judge the importance of centres by the information supplied, and naturally conclude that the Meteorological Branch takes the information from all important centres. The list should be enlarged, and all centres placed on an equal footing. The way in which a complaint is dealt with furnishes another instance of red tapeism. I have had occasion to bring the needs of some centres under the notice of the Meteorological Branch. One objection was that the notice-board at the General Post Office in Sydney, was not large enough to supply other information. When one centre offered to bear the expense of enlarging the board, another objection was raised, and so practically nothing has been done. The last objection is that the Meteorological Branch had all the information required for scientific purposes, and, apparently, that is all it is concerned about. I ask the Minister to recognise that this branch of his Department has a commercial value which could be increased by giving that wider range of information which a number of country centres have been requesting for a long time. Although on the last Estimates £11,514 was voted for the Meteorological Branch only £9,120 was expended. The unexpended balance of £2,394 could have been profitably expended in supplying additional information. Apparently, the absence of funds does not apply in this case. The Meteorological Branch ought to be in a position to give the weather conditions of every important centre throughout the States, to supply the river conditions, to inform the public of flood conditions, and to furnish the quotations for wheat. Timely information as to flood conditions would often assist in saving to persons thousands of pounds, while information as to the wheat market would be of incalculable value to producers, because it would insure to them money which now passes into the pockets of a few speculators.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member mean that that information should be supplied free?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– It is public information, and I do not see why it should not be supplied free. At any rate the present piecemeal fashion of dealing with the matter is unsatisfactory, and tends to bring the Department into disrepute.

Mr Thomas:

– Would the honorable member limit the information to wheat prices ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I would convey information for the benefit of all the producing interests. I have simply instanced information as to wheat prices as being such as would be of very great value to a very deserving section of our producers.

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

– Information of that kind saves millions of dollars annually in America.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I understand that the really up-to-date countries have recognised the necessity of supplying information of the .kind. I hope that this Labour Government will not permit Australia to lag behind in this respect. I emphasize the fact that the Meteorological Branch can be made extremely valuable for commercial purposes, and Ministers generally will render a good service to thiscountry by enabling the Minister of Home Affairs to make the branch commercially of service to the community.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 27 (Works and Buildings), £134,669.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– This division affords an opportunity for the Committee to elicit some information with regard to public works. On a previous occasion the honorable member for Parramatta drew attention to the unwisdom of erecting wooden buildings for postal purposes in various country districts. But the Department is still pursuing the same policy. I know of three country centres in New South Wales at the present moment where wooden buildings are being erected. It is true that the post-offices proper are being built of brick, but the residences provided for the postmasters are wooden. This cheese-paring policy is not creditable to the Department. Whatever gain may be immediately made is . more than lost ultimately. As the honorable member for Parramatta pointed out, white ants in some parts of the country eat out these structures. Then, again, in the warmer districts wooden buildings deteriorate very rapidly unless they are frequently coated with paint, and they also become exceedingly hot and uncomfortable. It would be much more economical in the long run to erect these . official residences either of brick or of “ peasy,” which is something in the nature of brick. Certainly, no hard and fast rule should be laid down as to the erection of wooden residences for postmasters.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

– The position- with regard to the erection of postoffices and official residences is this : My Department is requisitioned by another Department for a building. We make our recommendations in accordance with what we think is required. As a business man, I make my own proposals. But with the other Departments concerned it is largely a matter of money. Finally, the Department interested says to the Home Affairs Department exactly what kind of a building it requires, and it is simply my business to carry out the recommendation.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– It is, of course, very nice for an honorable member to have a palatial public building erected in his electorate. It adds to the dignity of a town. I have tried to get a building for my own constituency, but the objection has always been put to me in this way - “ Will the Department sell a penny stamp the more for- the building being a handsome instead of a plain one?” It is not fair to ask the Government of the Commonwealth to erect a handsome brick building when a wooden one will answer the purpose. Of course, it is purely a question of the amount of money that can be obtained from the Treasurer. On one occasion, there was a vote of £4,500 on the Estimates for a post-office in my electorate. The people wanted a certain kind of building, and could not get it because it would cost £6,000. The Treasurer of the day cut down the vote, and the consequence was that no post-office was built. Now I have to put up with a vote of £1,000. It is scarcely reasonable for some honorable members to clamour for palatial brick and stone buildings to be erected in their constituencies, whilst other parts of the country have to go without post-offices altogether. I cannot get a post-office, and should be prepared to take a smaller one in default of something better.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– I do not agree with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports as to the erection of wooden buildings throughout the Commonwealth. My opinion is that a Commonwealth Department ought to show at least as much enterprise as an ordinary citizen conducting a business in a country town. In any progressive town in Australia you will find the largest number of the principal businesses carried on in brick structures. They are more permanent than wooden buildings, and, of course, provide a greater immunity from fire. It is discreditable that a Commonwealth Department should show less enterprise than do private individuals. It is, in my opinion, the duty of the Government to do its part towards adding to the beauty of our towns.

Mr Thomas:

– And adding to the value of surrounding land.

Mr SAMPSON:

– It is merely a matter of a great public Department keeping pace with .the enterprise shown by private individuals in the conduct of their business. One or two wooden post-offices have been erected in my electorate, and I consider that the class of building was a reflection upon the Department of Home Affairs. I am surprised that the Minister should submit to the dictation of the Treasurer in such a matter.

Mr King O’Malley:

– If a building will cost £1,200, and the Treasurer will only place £900 on the Estimates, does the honorable member expect me to make up the deficiency out of my own pocket?

Mr SAMPSON:

– If the Home Affairs Department were to make a recommendation that a particular public building should be of brick, I venture to say that the Treasurer would not object for the sake of an extra hundred or two.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Judging from the expressions on the faces of some Ministers, they are inclined to ridicule the rather valuable suggestion made with regard to the erection of public buildings of a permanent character. But it seems to me to be a simple waste of money to put up wooden buildings in some localities. If the Commonwealth is to maintain any sort of a reputation, it should pay heed to the opinions of those who know. I have had something to do wim public works in connexion with the State Government, and over and over again I have seen the erection of wooden buildings prove to be a distinct loss to the community. Whatever authority may be responsible for the buildings that are erected by the Commonwealth at present, they do not reflect much credit on the architects. Our buildings should be constructed of the best materials available, and regard should be had to architectural beauty. I feel inclined to express myself very plainly on this subject, when I see Ministers sit smiling whilst valuable suggestions are made to them.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 28 (Governor-General’ s Establishment), £9,520.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I wish to protest against the manner in which these Estimates are being forced through. The procedure is simply wicked. I am also very much surprised to find that so large an expenditure is proposed on account of the Government Houses in Sydney and Melbourne. I remember that in the year 1902 - as honorable members will find from Hansard of the 26th August, of that year - a motion was carried in this House to the effect that “ the expenditure on Government Houses of £5,500 a year is approved during the term of office of the next Governor-General.” The expenditure on the Governor-General’s Establishment in 1901-2 was £28,885, but a considerable proportion of that belonged to the year 1901. In 1902-3 the expenditure was £14,631; and it continued to mount up until in 1909-10 it had grown to £22,657, and will mean something like £23,500 for 1910-11. In 1903-4 the expenditure was £16,793; m I9°4_5 ll was £17,170; in 1905-6 it was £23,759; in 1906-7 it was £18,611; in 1907-8 it was £18,927 ; and in 1908-9 is was £22,553. I remember that it was proposed to pay the Governor-General a salary of £10,000, with £8,000 in addition, but that idea was rejected, and a resolution was carried that, the expenditure on the Government Houses: in Sydney and Melbourne should not exceed £5,500. The present Speaker, as a> private member, moved that that motion be amended by substituting £2,101 for £5,500, but the amendment was lost. Somebody who was anxious to spend more money on the Government Houses had not the courage to face Parliament and submit the expenditure in the regular way, but covered it up under the heading of “ nonrecurring works.” Even in 1905-6 there was a special provision of £390 for painting, and in 1906-7, the first time the term ‘’ non-recurring works “ was used, there was voted £320 for Sydney, and £i,435 for Melbourne. I was very much surprised to find in 1905-6, on behalf of the GovernorGeneral’s Establishment, the enormous expenditure of £7,107 for railway fares in one year. My only desire in quoting these figures is to show the extravagance that has grown up; and the undesirable method adopted of not placing the items before Parliament. Let us consider more in detail the expenditure on these “ non-recurring works “ at the two Government Houses. In the case of Sydney in 1906-7 we have repairs and painting, £30 15s. ; repairing roads, £117 ros. 8d. ; and kitchen utensils, £42 is. 3d., or a total of £190 6s. nd. for the year 1906-7. In the case of Melbourne for the same year we have - draining flower beds, £12 15s. 4d. ; repairs to footpaths, £40 ; shed for dray, £8 3s. 2d. ; renewing household linen, £66 us. lod. ; erection of motor car stables, £216 10s. ; gravelling drive, £138 8s. ; painting, £1.97 19s. ; tar paving drives, £50; glassware for stock, £70 3s. 9d. ; cutlery, £50 5s. 9d. ; floor coverings, £40 19s. 4d. ; and bedroom screens, £8 8s., ; or a total of £919 4s. 2d. Why were these items not boldly stated in the Estimates, and not secretly covered up as “non-recurring works”? The accountants,’ possibly under direction from a superior officer, have evidently not done their duty; and if these officials are prepared to do this sort of thing in regard to one matter, they may be prepared to do it in regard to others. It might be thought, on looking at the regular statement in the Estimates, that the expenditure at Government House, Sydney, was very small. For example, it might be gathered that nothing had been spent on fittings and furniture in 1907-8, but if we refer to the statement furnished as to “ non-recurring works,” we see £75 for re-upholstering ballroom furniture, and £80 for renovating pictures. Why were these items not published for the information of honorable members? In the case of Melbourne, we find, among the items in the open account, £14 for china and glass, while in the secret account glassware for stock figures at £99 os. 2d. In the secret account, the renewing of household linen is responsible for £49 is. 6d. for the year 1907-8, and for £66 us. 10d. in 1906-7. In 1908-9 only £1 is set down in the open account for china and glass, but amongst the “ nonrecurring works “ there is an expenditure °f £i2I4 10S. 4d. under this head. In that same year, fittings and furniture exceeded the appropriation by £20. “ Chair covers, curtains, &c,” were responsible for £13 13s. 7d., while an extra dining-room window cost £377 2s. 3d. I should like the Minister of Home Affairs to find out whether tenders were called for the window, and whether the lowest tenderer was given the contract. What I complain of is that, apparently, each individual connected with the Government House party can have any caprice immediately gratified. Although the New South Wales Government spent no less than £20,000 in putting the Government House at Sydney in readiness for the GovernorGeneral, a new dining-room window is, at the desire of some one, at once provided, at the cost I have mentioned. In 1909-10 we find, amongst the non-recurring works “ Frames for propagating purposes,” £82 19s. 9d. ; and also “ Enclosing and framing for propagating ground,” £99 9s. In the same year, £57 11s. was voted for a “ horse-mower, horse, and cart,” and in the following year £135 for a precisely similar purchase. Then £77 10S. was spent in converting the billiard-room at Sydney into a sitting-room and office for A.D.C. Again I ask why these items did not appear in the open account? How is it that in connexion with Melbourne Government House there is an expenditure of £132 for telephones, when the premises are not occupied by the Governor-General for three months in the year? Then, in 1909-10, £231 14s. was spent in “ renewing carpets, felt, linoleum, and curtains “ in the Melbourne Government House, while £200 is to be spent on “ carpets, fittings, &c,” in 1910-11. I now desire to direct the attention of honorable members to the area covered by these two Government Houses and grounds. In the case of Melbourne, the grounds total fifty acres, and in Sydney thirty-five acres ; and while there are 170 rooms in the Sydney house, there are 115 rooms in the Melbourne house. These two large establishments are maintained for two people - at least, we presume there are only two, although we may be told in the Argus that Miss Dash, from Bombay, or elsewhere, is at present staying with the Governor-General and Lady

Dudley. The point I desire to emphasize is that the Australian public are paying too much for what appears to be a purely ornamental position. There are, no doubt, some duties which the Governor-General can perform, and we shall always require somebody to perform them; but if Miss Dash is to be the guest of the GovernorGeneral and the Countess of Dudley, the peoplewhom I represent, and who may earn 22s. 6d. a week with rations, should be relieved of the portion of the expenditure the guest entails. In my opinion, £3,000 for the upkeep of one Government House is quite sufficient. The continuance of two Government Houses is so grossly and wilfully extravagant that it should be put a stop to as soon as possible by the present Ministry.

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

– Was the honorable member not present at a function at Government House a little while ago?

Mr HIGGS:

– I know what the honorable member is driving at ; he desires to know if I was a guest at a garden party at Government House. I was; but does the honorable member suggest that that garden party was a bribe to honorable members ? I went to the garden party, and had 6d. worth of refreshment, but I gave 1s. to the girl who waited on me.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member ought to be ashamed to make the statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Roberts:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I must ask the honorable member for Capricornia to confine himself to the question before the Chair.

Mr HIGGS:

– I resent the remark of the Honorary Minister, who, if he were in Opposition, would be baiting the Government on a matter of this kind. But now that the honorable gentleman is a Minister, he is prepared to go down on his knees like the others, to those in high authority.

Mr Frazer:

– No; if I adopted an attitude of opposition I should do so on definite grounds of public policy ; I should not go into domestic affairs.

Mr HIGGS:

– The remark was drawn from me by an interjection, containing an insinuation, from the honorable member for Denison. If it means that a member of this House is to be asked to attend these public functions as a bribe to induce him to keep his mouth shut, I shall not attend another until an Australian citizen is elected to the position of Governor-General.

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

– I have no such intention. I merely wished to test the honorable member’s consistency.

Mr HIGGS:

– Then we are to assume that honorable members are asked to these functions as a bribe.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I direct the attention of the honorable member to the fact that he appears to be deliberately discussing subjects which are not before the Committee. In so doing he is provoking interjections, his replies to which unnecessarily delay the business. I ask him again to confine himself to the items under discussion.

Mr HIGGS:

– I assure honorable members that garden parties are a perfect bore to me.

Mr Frazer:

– Apparently invitations to them are accepted by the honorable member.

Mr HIGGS:

– I shall deal with the honorable gentleman later on. He seems to be very angry because I am asking that this gross extravagance shall be put a stop to What will the miners whom he represents think when he goes back to them and explains that we are expending £23,000 on the Governor-General’s establishment and the upkeep of two Government Houses ?

Mr Frazer:

– That is a question of public policy, and not a detail of another person’s private affairs.

Mr HIGGS:

– We are spending thousands of pounds on the Governor-General’s establishment, and I want to know what for. I have referred to an expenditure of £7,000 for railway fares which would have been sufficient to have paid for carrying the whole of the members of this Parliament over all the railways of Australia. Am I to be deterred in carrying out my public duty by the taunts of a new Royalist and sycophant?

Mr Frazer:

– I did not happen to be present at the garden party which the honorable member attended.

Mr HIGGS:

– No, and probably the Acting Treasurer did not send that photograph of the funeral ceremony to Sir George Reid. He had not the pluck to send it direct to the King.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr HIGGS:

– Perhaps the honorable gentleman will permit me to proceed, and will not attempt to deter me from performing my public duty by his infamous suggestions. I find that Lord Tennyson, who was Governor-General of the Commonwealth in 1903, speaking at a Lord Mayor’s luncheon in Sydney, informed those present that, in his opinion, the salary of the

Governor-General fixed by the Constitution, and the provision voted by Parliament for the maintenance of the Government Houses in Melbourne and Sydney, were sufficient to enable the Governor-General to maintain the dignity of the position and to fulfil, without ostentation, his public and social obligations. Let us see what was paid at that time. The Sydney Government House then cost £1.233, and the Melbourne Government House £1,203, or a total °* £2,436. The total sum - including the Governor- General’s salary of £10,000 - amounted to £14,631. To-day the upkeep of the two Houses costs nearly £8,000 per annum, and the total cost of the establishment, including the Governor-General’s salary, amounts to £23,520. If the expenditure on the Governor-General’s establishment during Lord Tennyson’s occupancy of the position was sufficient for that gentleman, surely a similar expenditure should be sufficient for the present GovernorGeneral? There are certain people in the community, and the Acting Minister of Defence appears to be one of them, who agree with the opinion expressed by the late Mr. Samuel Hordern, who died worth about £3,000,000, made mostly out of dress goods. On his return from the Old Country to Sydney, on one occasion, he said that the opinion was held in England that we ought to abolish all the State Governors, and pay their salaries to the Governor-General. He said -

It would make it worth while for a good man to come out to Australia, and the spending of £30,000 or £40,000 in the carrying out of his duties would cause the people, as a whole, to spend money to keep pace with the position This would raise the tone of the position in British circles.

How many people are there in Melbourne at the present time who are foolishly endeavouring to keep up with the pace created by the expenditure of this large sum of money on the Governor-General’s establishment? I venture to say that very many people attempt to keep up a position which they cannot maintain. They are denying themselves and their families the ordinary necessaries of life in order to keep up with the false position created by this extravagant expenditure in the maintenance of two Government Houses. I do not care what the Acting Minister of Defence thinks about the matter, or how greatly disturbed he may be as to the effect which my remarks may have on the minds of certain people, because I am carrying out what I believe to be my duty in this House. I am not alone in the views which I hold on this subject. There are certain very distinguished persons in this community who have expressed the opinion that the “maintenance of two Government Houses is a wilful extravagance. I find that the honorable member for Angas, who was At- ‘torneyGeneral of the Commonwealth in the Deakin- Cook Ministry, speaking on 26th August, 1902, on a proposal to give Lord Hopetoun £8,000, in addition to the £10,000 he was getting as salary, said -

I object to the duplication of Vice-Regal establishments, not because of the expenditure involved, but because it is unnecessary and inexpedient, and it is not an obligation cast upon us by any compact which we ought to respect.

Mr. Justice Isaacs, who was at one time member for Indi in this Parliament, and Attorney-General of the Patterson. Government in Victoria, and who is now a Justice of the High Court, in speaking on this matter, said -

Everything, however, will centre round this question : What justification is there for expending Commonwealth money in the establishment and maintenance of a needless GovernorGeneral’s establishment.

What has the Acting Minister of Defence to say to that?

Mr Frazer:

– I agree with that, but I have something to say against the honor- , able member introducing extraneous matter by innuendo.

Mr HIGGS:

– Another very distin’guished man in this community is Mr. Justice Higgins, who was Attorney-General in the Watson Ministry, and is now a Justice of the High Court. He said -

I am opposed to the maintenance of two Government Houses out of Commonwealth funds.

I quote now from another very distinguished man, Sir Josiah Symon, who was AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth in the Reid Ministry. He said -

At the risk of seeming to part company for once with some of my very good friends from New South Wales, I utterly disagree with the necessity for two Government Houses - one in Melbourne and one in Sydney. I think the proposal too ridiculous to commend itself to men who have arrived at years of maturity.

Senator Dawson interjected that it was not even suggested by the Colonial Office, and Senator Symon went on to say -

As my honorable friend says, it was not even suggested by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. To my mind the suggestion is perfectly childish.

Yet an honorable member of this House who has apparently become extremely loyal all at once, casts aspersions upon an honorable member of his own party because he stands up in this House to do his duty. The Melbourne Herald has published some statements in connexion with this matter. It differs to some extent from the Argus. I have no doubt that the editor of the Argus, who appears to be a very loyal gentleman, will be very angry with me when he learns what I have to say on this matter. The Melbourne Herald, on 10th August, 1902, published this statement -

It is little short of a scandal that, in addition to finding?10,000 a year for the GovernorGeneral, we pay over ?6,000 a year (more than twice as much as it ought to be), to maintain two Government Houses. Should not this indefensible thing be rectified before Lord Northcote reaches Australia ?

A scandal is something opprobrious and disgraceful, and the Melbourne Herald says it is a scandal that we should be asked to maintain two Government Houses. I now propose to say something which I am afraid will give grave offence to the Acting Minister of Defence. I am about to furnish other reasons why we should not spend so much money on these two Government Houses. I consider that the GovernorGeneral does not carry out his duties as he ought to do. The Governor-General appears to me to be neglecting his duties.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order.

Mr HIGGS:

– I say this, of course, with bated breath.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The Governor General’s salary is not before the Committee, and the honorable member is out of order in the remarks he has made.

Mr HIGGS:

– I wish, with great respect, to say that there have been submitted to this House messages signed by the GovernorGeneral, who could not possibly have signed them, because they were presented on the day they were signed. I want to point out that the Governor-Gene- ral is neglecting his duty, because, apparently -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order. I remind the honorable member that he must know, as an ex-Chairman of Committees, a position which he filled with great ability, that the conduct of the GovernorGeneral cannot be discussed on this item, and that any reference to the subject must be made upon a direct motion.

Mr HIGGS:

– I am pointing out reasons why we should not spend this money.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member will be in order if he confines his remarks to the items under discussion and the vote proposed for the maintenance of the Government Houses.

Mr HIGGS:

– I think that I ought to be allowed to show further reasons why this expenditure is unnecessary. If I could show, as I was about to do, that there are other reasons, I think I might strengthen my case somewhat, even at the risk of offending the Acting Minister of Defence. He is the only member of the Government who objects to my bringing up these matters. I find that the Melbourne Age takes a very correct view of the extraordinary expenditure upon these Government Houses. I find that in 1901 the total expenditure in connexion with the Governor-General, including annual salary, Royal visit grant, special payments in aid of staff expenses, maintenance of the Government House at Sydney, and of a country cottage in New South Wales, together with structural alterations, additions, fittings, furniture, &c, for Sydney Government House, and also for the Melbourne Government House and Executive Council expenses, amounted to no less than ?82,000. That was an extraordinary expenditure for a small community such as ours. I say that it is wrong, and I enter my protest against it.

Mr McWilliams:

– Did the honorable member object to these items when they were submitted to Parliament?

Mr HIGGS:

– When in the Senate I did my level best to prevent the establishment of two Government Houses. Surely one Government House containing eightyseven rooms should be sufficient for two people. We are not expected to provide Government Houses in every one of the States. When we pay thehandsome salary of ?10,000 a year to the Governor-General it should not be necessary for us to provide him with more than one Government House. Members of this Parliament receive ?600 a year for their services in this Chamber and throughout the country, but they are not provided with free houses. We have to find our own houses. I am not asking that there should not be a Government House provided, but I am asking that there should not be two kept up. I think that is gross extravagance.

Mr Webster:

– What has the Melbourne Age to say on the subject?

Mr HIGGS:

– The Melbourne Age wound up a leading article on the subject published on 9th July, 1902, with the statement-

The perusal of the foregoing figures will, however, convey this interesting fact, that, as a whole, Australia spends annually on Viceroyalty a sum equal to one-tenth of her Federal revenue.

The lesson to be deduced from this discovery will, no doubt, be in the mind of the Federal Government when presenting to Parliament its new proposals with regard to the GovernorGeneral’s establishment.

Since I have been subjected to such a gross attack by one of the Ministers, I move, as a protest against the expenditure -

That the vote be reduced by the sum of £i.

Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister and Acting Treasurer · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– I admit that in approaching the discussion of the question of the establishments of the Governor-General, I am not in the position of being able to speak with the authority and knowledge of one who has recently accepted hospitality at one of them. Under those conditions, I am at a disadvantage, but I would point out to the Committee that, in approaching the discussion of a question of this description, there are limitations that should be recognised by honorable members in exercising the privilege which attaches to their speeches in this Chamber. I hope that that privilege, which is necessary in order that there may be a free expression of opinion upon public affairs by the representatives of the people, has never been abused by me during my term in this Parliament. I am prepared to admit that the question of whether we are going to incur a continuous expenditure of something over £20,000 for the maintenance, salary, and privileges of the Governor-General, is a question of public policy which this Parliament is perfectly entitled to discuss, but it should, in my opinion, be discussed in language and under conditions which are not calculated or designed to introduce reflections by innuendo on the occupant of the position. Direct charges or statements must always be answered; but I put it to_ the honorable member for Capricornia: Does he think that a man is entitled to ask, in this Committee, whether a Miss Dash stayed on the Governor-General’s premises on a certain occasion? Does he think that is a fair thing? Does he consider that that is the spirit in which one ought to approach a great question of public policy? If he thinks so, I make him a present of it. It is not the view that I should take, or the attitude that I should adopt in approaching the question. It is bordering on the verge of the contemptible to do such a thing under the privilege that attaches to members in this Chamber. I pre fer to say nothing further about the matter, except to point out that these buildings have been made available to the Federal Parliament - in order to house the Governor-General, who is approved of by the people of this country, and whose presence is desired in certainly the two most populous States - by the State Governments, free of charge. Can we allow the buildings to fall into a state of disrepair, which would be a sorry reflection on us, in view of the generosity that has been shown to us? I think we cannot. We have to maintain the buildings in good condition while we use them. If we are going to consider the question of interfering with the conditions that have existed for years, or of deciding whether we should have only one residence instead of two for the GovernorGeneral, the issue is a perfectly legitimate one for any member of this Parliament to raise, but do not let us reach such a stage that we are reduced to arguments reflecting, by innuendo, or by the tone of our address, on the character of the occupant of the position.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– The honorable member for Capricornia has done a service in discussing this question. I think the expenditure on the Government Houses is far too great, and the time has arrived when one should be sufficient for the Governor-General. We are not justified in voting money away in this manner without an explanation of some of the items. I notice an item of £600 for sanitation and water supply for Government House, Melbourne. That seems an enormous amount of money for the purpose, and some explanation ought to be given to the Committee. Seeing that this expenditure is growing all the time, we, as representatives of the people, should see if we can by any means reduce it. We are not justified in expending money unnecessarily, when so many works could be carried out with the savings made in the maintenance of the Government Houses. The honorable member has shown that in 1903 the expenditure in Sydney was £2,800, and in Melbourne £1,233. We find that it is now .£2,800 in Sydney, and £3,363 in Melbourne. That is only for keeping the Government Houses in order, and for providing the necessary utensils, &c. I agree that while these establishments are lent to us by the States, it is necessary to maintain them, but even for that purpose these seem very big items.

I do not know what justification there is for paying over £1,000 for the maintenance of the house in Sydney, and over £1,100 for the maintenance of the house in Melbourne. If this is to go on year after year the sooner the Federal Government builds a Government House for itself the better. The expenditure seems to be extravagant.

Mr McWilliams:

– That would cost a great deal more.

Mr CHARLTON:

– It may do so, but the building would be our own. It is like a man paying rent every year, and having nothing to show for it. We ought to consider economy in regard to the GovernorGeneral’s houses just as we do in regard to any other item. I« find no fault with the honorable member for Capricornia for bringing the question before the Committee, because it ought to be discussed here. I do not see why the GovernorGeneral’s expenditure should not be open to the consideration of the representatives of the people. If we think it is excessive we ought to take steps to have it reduced. I think it is excessive. We spend altogether too much in having two houses for the Governor-General. One ought to be quite sufficient. If the GovernorGeneral finds it necessary to go to the capitals of other States, there are no Federal Government Houses there for him, and the same arrangement could apply in either Sydney or Melbourne.

Mr McWilliams:

– He is always the guest of” the State Governor in other States.

Mr CHARLTON:

– He could be the guest of the State Governor in this case also. There seems to be a good deal of provincialism, and probably a little jealousy, about the whole matter.

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

– Jealousy between New South Wales and Victoria is the trouble.

Mr CHARLTON:

– Then the time has arrived when we should do away with that sort of thing. We ought to take the question into consideration from the point of view that one Government House is quite sufficient. I believe the Governor-General should be amply provided for in every respect. I do not want to curtail, in any way, fair expenditure in connexion with Government House, but it is not fair to the taxpayers to maintain at a very heavy cost two Government Houses. I hope the Government will take the matter into consideration, and see if unnecessary expenditure in keeping up two Government Houses, and subjecting the people to the extra amount of taxation required thereby, cannot be avoided.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I admit that the item is open to criticism, and if there are any grounds for criticism this Committee is quite within its rights in offering it. Every man must have his own standard as to how he should approach questions of this kind, but I disagree with the manner in which the honorable member for Capricornia opened up the subject. We should regard it as a matter of policy, and remember that there is no call to introduce the private and domestic affairs of the gentleman who discharges the functions of Governor-General of the Commonwealth.

Mr Higgs:

– What was the private matter to which the honorable member objects ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I think the, honorable member in his calmer moments, when he reviews his speech, will regret some of the matter that he was led, perhaps unwittingly, and in the heat of the moment, to introduce. In considering the question before the Committee, it is just as well to look at the history of it. The Government Houses in Sydney and Melbourne are placed at the disposal of this Parliament by the States of New South Wales and Victoria, and a certain agreement exists in connexion with them, remaining in force until this Parliament has made up its mind with respect to its own territory, and provided for the residence of its GovernorGeneral there. Those two large buildings are placed at our disposal free of rent, but on the understanding that they should be kept in proper repair and made suitable as Governor’s residences. Whilst there have been some large additions made and considerable expenditure incurred on both establishments, there has been considerable expenditure also incurred in making very radical changes in the building in which we are now meeting, and I do not think any honorable member will say that that expenditure has been unjustifiable or unnecessary. Possibly the same thingmay hold good with respect to the buildings used by the Governor-General. It is reasonable to assume that the expenditure on’ them is under the control of responsible officers of the Government, and’ not made at the dictates or the whim of the Governors-General or any persons connected with them. The necessity for the expenditure in each case must have been examined by, and received the approval of, independent and competent officers of the Home Affairs Department. To that extent the Committee have, or should have, some guarantee against extravagance. If those officers have been extravagant, or have authorized or recommended to this House unnecessary expenditure, it is the duty of Parliament to ascertain the fact, and visit the blame where it is due. If there is any blame in the matter, it is not to be laid at the door of the GovernorGeneral, but at the door of the officers primarily responsible for the particular expenditure in question.

Mr Charlton:

– Nobody lays it at the door of the Governor-General.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– The blame has been pretty well centred around that gentleman in this debate. I ask honorable members not to assume that the officers have sanctioned extravagant expenditure, but, if they consider that the matter calls for inquiry, to have an inquiry made. If it is shown that the officers are untrustworthy, it will then be time to lay the blame on them. Under the conditions of the existing agreement, it would be a breach of faith with the States to limit the residence of the Governor-General to one State, and one Government House. When this Parliament has entered into possession of its own territory, and has provided a residence there for the GovernorGeneral it will be released from these obligations, but until then it is only fair and reasonable to honour our obligations to the States concerned as they have been honoured for the past ten years.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I wish to say a few words in reply to the Acting Treasurer, who sneered at me by suggesting that, having accepted hospitality, I had no right to criticize the Governor-General’s Department.

Mr Frazer:

– I said nothing of the kind.

Mr HIGGS:

– The honorable member also suggested that I brought in a private matter when I mentioned a Miss Dash. “There might be a hundred Misses Dash. I did not mention any name, and how could I deal with a question of this kind if I did not point out where the money probably goes?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would ask the honorable member not to follow that line of argument.

Mr Frazer:

– Would the honorable member like his constituents to ask him whether Miss Dash stayed with him at a certain place or not?

Mr HIGGS:

– The honorable member’s wicked mind can see something wrong about that, but I never had any suggestion of that, kind in my mind.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that the GovernorGeneral should have no guests ?

Mr HIGGS:

– I do not say that at all. I am pointing out that in all probability in the 150 rooms in the Sydney Government House there are very many Misses Dash, and very many gentlemen, too. I want to point out to the Minister, who seemed so concerned about it, that it1 is the taxpayers of the Commonwealth who are paying the expenses of these guests, when the money ought to come out of the pockets of the Governor-General, who is paid ,£10,000 a year. This £23,520 is used extravagantly in keeping up a position which Australia never intended should be maintained. What is the meaning, of the £2,000 set down for railway fares? An all-lines pass costs only £100 a year. For whom are these railway fares paid? Do they cover the travelling of distinguished people who are entertained by the Commonwealth, or are they paid for the friends of, and persons connected with, the GovernorGeneral ? The Minister suggests that if I accept the hospitality of the Prime Minister, I must not criticise him. Apparently because I accepted the invitation of the Government to a garden party, though I regard such functions as a bore, I am not to criticise the Government. In the view of .the honorable member for Denison, I have eaten their salt. Is that what is meant by the giving of garden parties?

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

– Not at all; but I like persons to be consistent.

Mr HIGGS:

– I shall stay away from these functions in future. My opinion is that they are possibly for the purpose of hypnotising or chloroforming members.

Mr Charlton:

– All the more power to the honorable member if he goes, and criticises when he thinks it right to do so.

Mr HIGGS:

– I appreciate the remark. During twenty years I have met with continual taunts like that of the Labour member for Kalgoorlie, who has now become so great a royalist.

Mr Carr:

– Are not Labour members generally Loyalists?

Mr HIGGS:

– I am a Republican.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member is not fair, even to his own colleagues.

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

– How will the waitress feel when she reads in the newspaper that the honorable member for Capricornia gave her a shilling?

Mr HIGGS:

– It is a common practice of mine. When one considers the wages that some of these waitresses get, there is no harm in what I did. Before to-day I have found it necessary to stand alone. I am glad that I am not alone this morning, though the taunts made by some of those superior persons surrounding me are very irritating. In order that the facts may be made perfectly clear, let me read the following table, which shows how the expenditure upon Government Houses has grown since the beginning of Federation: -

In nine years the expenditure has increased from £2,000 to £7,000. What is the reason for the increase ? Part of the money has been spent on china and glass ; I suppose in making good breakages. It is a considerable expenditure for the maintenance of a benevolent establishment. I think it extravagant and wrong, and we are not called upon by the Constitution or by our common-sense to agree to it. Some honorable members seem to think that I have not put my statements in the most delicate way, but I have discovered that it is useless to make observations in such a veiled fashion that they cannot be understood. In matters of this kind, one has to use plain terms. I have no doubt that I shall receive a great deal of abuse. Owing to the taunt of the Honorary Minister I shall be described by the Argus as a very ungentlemanly fellow, very uncouth, a great boor, a man who has no gentlemanly in stinct, because he attended a garden party, and then ventured to criticise the GovernorGeneral. That great journal will very gladly seize on the interjection of the Honorary Minister. I am willing that the Argus and similar journals shall so characterize me. The Argus has treated me similarly before. In its 1902 issues you will find abuse of me in its columns. I was then pictured as some despicable thing, and statements were made which gave strangers a totally erroneous impression of me. Any man who does his duty in public life has to put up with this.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister of Home Affairs · Darwin · ALP

– I am not going to traverse the statements of the honorable member for Capricornia, but I shall read the details of the non-recurring expenditure, so that it may be understood. They are these -

The honorable member for Hunter asked about the £600 put down for sanitation. The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works compels us to pay £600 a year for sanitation and water supply in connexion with Government House, while in New South Wales nothing is charged.

Mr Charlton:

– Last year only £458 was paid.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Perhaps more water has been used.

Mr Riley:

– The Governor-General was out of the State for many months.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Hoses have to be used to keep the grass green. If the Government Houses of Sydney and Melbourne were kept up as a man keeps up his private property, we should have to spend £10,000 a year more. Every three years I paint my properties, but Government House, in Melbourne, has not been painted externally for sevenyears.

Mr Charlton:

– Would it cost £10,000 more to keep up the garden properly?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– It would cost £10,000 more annually to keep up these houses as private property would be kept up. The buildings were put up years ago, and were built on the antiquated barracks plan. It seems to me that such big places are useless in this age of enlightenment and Democracy, but having them we must keep them up.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– I shall vote for the reduction of the item, although I disapprove of much that the honorable member for Capricornia has said. He did not put his case in the best terms. It is possible to condemn extravagant expenditure, and to protest against it without making such statements as he made. I consider that the expenditure is too great, and that it is not fair to the public that we should have to pay for so many representatives of the Crown. I disapprove of the expense which it entails.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am in sympathy with the remarks of the honorable member for Macquarie, and intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

. -The Minister’s statement that to keep up these grounds as a private person would keep them up would cost£10,000 more a year is surprising, and shows the lack of comprehension of those to whom we look for guidance and control.

Mr Roberts:

– He referred to the standard of my little garden.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I was not aware that the honorable member’s garden was a model, but may it long remain an example for Governor- Generals to follow. I am glad that one of our members can live in such luxurious surroundings that they compare favorably with those of Government House. My complaint about these nonrecurring items is that they recur year by year. The antiquated character of the buildings cannot be responsible for the cost of painting, becausethe Minister tells us that they have not been painted externally for ten years. My impression is that the place was renovated for the reception of the present occupant. The honorable member for Capricornia has done a service in bringing forward this matter. Whilst he took his own course, I should like to know the man, however careful he may be, who does not at times say what is not appropriate. In his earnestness the honorable member went into details to show the nature of the extravagance to which he objected, and if each of us was to be hauled over the coals for every little slip, we should all be constantly at loggerheads. The honorable member said what he thought, but others do not care to do so, although they knew what he was driving at. There may come a time when we shall have a Governor-General whose conduct may render it imperative for members to go beyond the discussion of the expenditure on Government House. Matters touching more closely the domestic life of the GovernorGeneral may call for criticism.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member had better be careful or he will be told that he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I do not hesitate to say what I think should be said. I do not care what any Minister may say, be he even the Acting Prime Minister.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Labour members are flogging their joss to-night.

Mr WEBSTER:

– It is unfair that any honorable member who endeavours to throw light upon these Estimates should be attacked in the way that the honorable member for Capricornia has been attacked. I agree with him that large sums of money are being expended upon the maintenance of the grounds attached to the Vice-Regal establishments in Sydney and Melbourne. Surely £1,050 is a fair sum to expend upon the grounds attached to Government House, Sydney. There are various other charges which seem to be excessive. In this connexion I might instance the matter of lighting. When balls are held at Government House, it is customary to suspend Chinese lanterns in the trees for the purpose of enabling the guests who are unfamiliar with the grounds to readily find each other. I do not think that the Commonwealth should be called upon to defray expenditure in that connexion. Then I note that there is an annual recurring expenditure of £30 or £50 in respect of china and glass.

Mr Higgs:

– The expenditure upon a number of non-recurring items amounts to hundreds of pounds.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Exactly. Believing that one Government House is sufficient for the Governor- General, and that the people of the country ought not to be asked to maintain more, I shall vote for a reduction of the item.

Mr SCULLIN:
Corangamite

– Whatever opinions we may entertain of the methods which have been adopted by the honorable member for Capricornia, I think that he has rendered a distinct service to Australia. It is all very well to criticise the words which a man may use in expressing himself, and to attach, perhaps,, a wrong meaning to those words. I chanced to be absent from the Chamber when the honorable member spoke, but 1 have no hesitation in saying that in directing attention to the growing scandal in the increasing expenditure upon the Government Houses he has rendered a distinct service to the community, for which he will receive the thanks of a majority of the electors. The Acting Treasurer has pointed out that this is a question of policy, which ought not to be discussed upon this division of the Estimates. But, unless the Government regard it as a matter of policy, very little opportunity will be afforded honorable members to take effective action. I take it that, if the proposal of the honorable member for Capricornia be carried, the Government will regard it as an instruction that the present policy in regard to the maintenance of the two Government Houses should be altered. If the taxpayers of Australia are to continue paying £23,000 a year to get a Governor-General to represent the Crown, in addition to maintaining the Governors of the States, the position has become a great scandal. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the Minister of Home Affairs in regard to this matter. He told us that if the grounds attached to the Vice-Regal establishments were kept in the same order as an ordinary citizen would keep his own private grounds, an expenditure of .£10,000 more annually would be required. To what sort of ordinary citizen does the honorable gentleman refer? I regard myself as an ordinary man, but I would npt spend £10,000 in the upkeep of a garden in as many years. The maintenance of the grounds attached to the Vice-Regal establishment in Sydney costs £1,050 per annum, whilst the cost of the upkeep of the grounds attached to Government House, Melbourne, is £1,100. Yet we are assured that these grounds are not kept up to the standard which would be observed by an ordinary man. Personally, I think that the ordinary man would like to have as much money as is expended upon the maintenance of the gardens attached to the Vice-Regal establishments during one year to put into a home and garden for his, life-time. Whilst the people of the country are struggling to get a little bit of a cottage over their heads, they are called upon to provide ,£23,000 annually for the maintenance of two Vice-Regal residences. I take it that the Government will seriously look into this matter, with . a view to altering the policy which is being pursued. I shall support the amendment.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I regret that I have not been able to follow a great deal that has been said during the course of this discussion. But as a result, I enter upon it with an absolutely impartial mind.’ In reference to the suggestion of the honorable member for Capricornia that there should be but one Government House in Australia, I submit that my honorable friend has not given due consideration to the circumstances of the case. Irrespective of whether it is a good or a bad thing, the monarchical system of Government under which we live, and to which the honorable member has never given his complete support, is a fact. The Governor-General is the representative in the Commonwealth of that system, and he deserves, and must receive., proper attention.

Again, we live under a Federal form of Government, and each State at times clamours for a recognition of its rights. It was a distinct understanding of the agreement arrived at by the Premiers’ Conference, as a result of which New South Wales entered the Federation, that until the Seat of Government is established at. Yass-Canberra, the Parliament should meet in “Melbourne, and the Governor-General reside in Sydney. The honorable member proposes to abolish one of the two Government Houses. I do not know whether it is suggested by my honorable friend that Government House, Melbourne, should be disestablished, or that the Vice-Regal residence in Sydney should be discontinued. In either case, a great outcry would be raised, and I do not think such a proposal ought to be entertained.

I wish to say, however, that every consideration will be given to his suggestion that proper economy should be exercised, with a view to curtailing unnecessary expenditure in this connexion. But the idea of closing one Government House is not within the bounds of possibility, taking into consideration the circumstances as they exist to-day. Therefore, I hope that my honorable friend will not press his amendment, but will rest satisfied with the assurance which I have given him.

Mr Higgs:

– Will the Acting Prime Minister teach his Ministers to treat me with respect?

Mr HUGHES:

– Every effort will be made to curtail expenditure in the GovernorGeneral’s establishment, and to this end very careful supervision will be exercised. But I submit that my honorable friend, under cover of this motion, ought not to seek to throw upon the Government the onus of discontinuing either Government House, Sydney, or Government House, Melbourne. That would create a condition of things which, upon its face, would be extremely difficult, and practically impossible.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

. - I submitted the proposal which is before the Committee on account of the conduct of the Acting Treasurer, who insulted me. Upon all occasions I have treated every member of the Ministry with great respect, although I have found it necessary-

Mr Thomas:

– Have not I been anxious about the honorable member’s health?

Mr HIGGS:

– The Postmaster-General had better not interrupt me, or I may ask him why he does not pay Alexander Black the £30 due to him for postal notes, which were cashed by somebody else. I insist upon Ministers treating me with respect us I treat them ; if not, amendments like this will be submitted. I never look for fight, but when attacked must defend myself. I appreciate the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister, who has promised to consider this matter. Personally, I think that Government House ought to be located at the Seat of Government. Consequently, it should be in Melbourne at the present time, and the occupant of the office of Governor-General ought also to remain at the Seat of Government during the Parliamentary sessions. I do not wish to place any of my colleagues in a false position, and in view of the promise which has been made by the Acting Prime Minister, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Mr THOMAS:
PostmasterGeneral · Barrier · ALP

– When the honorable member for Capricornia referred to the £30 .worth of postal notes which had been cashed by some person, I think that he ought to have said whether the matter to which he refers is a personal or a Departmental one.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I had no intention whatever of making the matter in question a personal one. I may explain that some time ago a man. named Alexander Black, who came from America, had letters containing £30 worth of postal notes addressed to him in Queensland. That money was intended to carry him back to America. While he was in Bundaberg he communicated with the postal authorities, asking them to hold his letters until he wrote for them. But, despite that communication, the Department delivered his letters over the counter to somebody else, who cashed the notes, and, subsequently, it refused to make him any reparation.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– The honorable member for Capricornia has stated that he submitted his amendment as the result of an altercation between himself and the Acting Treasurer. I have already intimated that I support it, because I believe that the expenditure in connexion with the Governor-General’s establishment is becoming unduly inflated year by year, and that the time has arrived when it should be carefully scrutinized, with a view to making a reduction. Now that the Acting Prime Minister has assured the Committee that he will look into the matter, and apply the pruning knife wherever it is possible to do so, I am perfectly satisfied. Had the Minister of Home Affairs made a similar statement I would have been satisfied. In the circumstances, I am quite willing that the amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I am very glad that the honorable member for Capricornia has asked leave to withdraw his amendment. I was very pleased to hear the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister. In this discussion very considerable feeling has been dis.played. I hold, in common with practically all the Labour candidates who were returned at the last election, that our governmental expenses are too heavy a burden on the taxpayers. I am glad that a happy solution of the difficulty has been arrived at.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 29 (Miscellaneous), £i57>315-

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.To my mind, the item of £200 for gratuities to officers for making economic suggestions is an absolute farce. I cannot imagine for a moment that there is not a public servant who can make a valuable suggestion for the better working of the Department in which he is engaged. It appears to me that there is a barrier in the way of such suggestions reaching the proper quarter. I know of one or two suggestions which have been turned down by an officer of higher grade. I do not know if the Department is, as the Minister has stated, submerged in a sea of red tape.

Mr King O’Malley:

– It will soon be reformed. Things are coming all right.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am very pleased to hear from the honorable member that the Department is to be reformed. Year after year £,200 has been voted for gratuities to officers who have suggested useful alterations, but the vote has not been taken ad- vantage of to any appreciable extent. I believe that last year, or the year previously, £2 was paid to an officer’ for a suggestion which he had made. A suggestion which evokes a gratuity of that amount is not worth making. It is a pity that the vote cannot be increased. In my opinion, the inventive genius of officers should be encouraged, and the Department should take up suggestions, which might save the country thousands of pounds.

Mr Ozanne:

– If any suggestions have been turned down, they could not have been of any value.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– Such suggestions can be made use of later. As the result of an investigation, I came to the conclusion that one suggestion would have been of immense value to the Department if it had been carried out, . but it was “ turned down because the author went to the wrong officer in the first place. However, the Minister has assured the Committee that this matter will be remedied.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Everything is coming all right.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.This item reflects no credit on the Government. I am in a position to state that, instead of finding their inventive genius encouraged by the Department, officers have been discouraged by the manner in which their seniors have treated very valuable suggestions. In a number of cases, very valuable suggestions have been pirated by superior officers. As a member of the Postal Commission, I investigated different cases which were brought under my notice, and found that officers had ‘ not received even an acknowledgment of their sugges- tions. During last year valuable suggestions were made in the Department, not in one State alone, but in several States, yet no gratuities have been paid to the authors. For instance, an officer in Brisbane made a suggestion in regard to the sorting of letters there which has saved the Department scores of pounds per month. That sum was lost monthly to the revenue through letters being practically understamped. This vigilant officer suggested that a certain method of sorting should be adopted which would enable such delinquencies on the part of the public to be detected, and as the result a very large sum was saved to the Department. Inventive officers are discouraged by the harassing conditions with which they have to comply before they can reach the proper quarter with their suggestions. In some cases the paltriness of the rewards which have been granted has been an insult to the men who had spent their time in working out devices for the purpose of saving labour and more effectively performing the work of the Department. The reward has, in some instances, been declined because the amount was a degradation to the officer from whom the offer emanated and a humiliation to the person to whom it was made. A suggestion box is supposed to be kept in the Post and Telegraph Department for the reception of useful suggestions. I know well that the brains of the Department are not to be found at its head. If we do not take steps to encourage the inventive genius of public officers we shall get an inferior service. With a man at the head of a Department who can appreciate - the services of subordinate officers we shall get quite different results from those which are obtained when its head fails to recognise the value of any suggestions made. With a just, able, and efficient officer in charge we shall find all the members of the staff working up to his standard, but the lower the standard at the top the lower will be the standard throughout the Department. Many’ officers have been denied promotion because the initiative rested with an envious superior officer. The Government are not getting the benefit of the services which it would be possible to obtain if merit were rewarded when it was discovered. I am glad to again see an item on the Estimates for this purpose, and I hope that next year we shall not be told that the money has not been expended. .

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DarwinMinister of Home Affairs · ALP

– I have made a note of the suggestions of the honorable member for Gwydir, and will see that the matter is thoroughly investigated. If there are any officers in the Department of Home Affairs who have the ability to suggest improved methods they will not be denied a reward. I know that in America big firms and banks in which I was employed offered a reward. If a messenger or the man who cleaned the mat could suggest a valuable improvement he was made a partner in .the business or bank later.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I am pleased to hear that the Minister intends to look into this matter. I am aware that when a lad enters the service of a big firm in America he is told at once that if he can suggest anything which will save time and money he will have a chance of going ahead. I should like to see a similar incentive offered to our public servants. Let genius come to the front. I notice an item in connexion with the establishment of an Agricultural Bureau. Somehow or other the word “ Bureau “ is like an awkward fishbone, it sticks in my throat. I prefer the designation “ Agricultural Department.” The Commonwealth has control of all oversea exports.

Mr Charlton:

– These Estimates do not contain an item for the purpose, but show that last year £250 was appropriated.

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member is right. I hope that the Minister will take this matter into his serious consideration. In view of the work which will have to be carried on in the Northern Territory and elsewhere it is desirable that the Commonwealth should lose no time in instituting a well-equipped Department. We are asked to vote £4,000 to cover the expenses in connexion with the site of the Federal Capital. I wish to enter a further protest against the selection of YassCanberra. When larger items are submitted in years to come I believe that the opposition to that site will be stronger. I think, with the honorable member for New England, that we should proceed by very easy stages in spending public money on the site. I trust that the day will arrive when the people of the Commonwealth will awake to their interests and select a more national and more suitable site for its capital.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I intend to take every available opportunity to express my disapproval of the expenditure of public money on what I consider to be a most unsuitable place in the Commonwealth for the Federal Capital.

Mr King O’Malley:

– This money has been voted and spent.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– We are asked now to approve of the item. I shall not consent to the expenditure of any money at Yass-Canberra. I pointed out recently, in discussing this subject, that according to highly qualified officers in the New South Wales Lands Office, the land in the catchment area of the Federal Territory is worth only from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per acre. Mr. Scrivener has estimated the value of the land at no more than 2s. 6d. per acre. The Minister of Home Affairs is, I am sure, convinced in his own mind that Yass-Canberra is a most unsuitable site. In fact, it is about the last place in Australia where public money . should be spent. The site was selected by a disreputable form of trick.

Mr Webster:

– Would the honorable . member call it a confidence trick?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I should. T know of no words which could adequately express my opinion of the way in which Yass-Canberra was selected. I should like to know whether honorable members would be prepared to submit this question to a referendum of the New South Wales people. I should be quite satisfled to abide by the result if that were done. But I do npt believe that those who now “barrack” for Yass-Canberra reflect the opinion of the people of New South Wales. I often have opportunities of meeting persons from that State, and have found them generally oppos’ed to Yass-Canberra as a site for the Federal Capital. It has been estimated that the water supply will not be sufficient for a population of more than 50,000 people. Surely a city of such dimensions will not satisfy the aspirations of the Nationalists of Australia. Even Washington, with its population of 300,000, does not satisfy the people of the United States. But Nationalism is, after all, about the last word that ought to be connected with the selection of Yass-Canberra. Those who support the site do so from the most parochial stand-point. The ex-Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Wade, was chiefly instrumental in the selection of the site, and he is an ex-Premier to-day largely because of the parochial view which he took of matters of this kind.

Mr Hall:

– It was Mr. Watson, not Mr. Wade, who was chiefly instrumental in the selection of Yass-Canberra.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– At any rate, the most enthusiastic supporter of the site in New South Wales was Mr. Wade. There was no strong feeling in favour of it amongst the public generally. I have previously expressed my strong disapproval of the site, and shall do so on every conceivable opportunity. I earnestly protest against the expenditure of public money on the most unsuitable place in the whole Commonwealth.

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- I support the view which has been put by the honorable member who has just sat down. I have had many conversations with men who have done business in the part of New South Wales where YassCanberra is situated, and I found them unanimously of the opinion that it is nothing better than a God-forsaken hole. One can imagine the sort of candidate who will submit himself for election to the Federal Parliament knowing that he will have to spend a large portion of his life in that place.

Mr McWilliams:

– We have put up with Melbourne for ten years.

Mr OZANNE:

– Melbourne is the “Queen City of the South.”

Mr Hall:

– Geelong would be a better place.

Mr OZANNE:

– Geelong would be eminently suitable - in fact, it ought to have been the capital of Victoria. After looking at the facts, one can only arrive at the conclusion that the best available site has not been selected. Yass-Canberra was chosen merely on account of the parochialism of the New South Wales representatives. If the Victorian members had been loyal to their State the site would not have been chosen. Another reason why I object to the expenditure of public money in Yass-Canberra is that I have not had an opportunity of visiting the site. I should have liked to visit it not only in the springtime, when perhaps it looks its best, but also in the winter and the summer, so as to form an opinion of it in all aspects. We require a site surrounded by a good area of agricultural land. Yass-Canberra does not fulfil those qualifications. I, therefore, enter my emphatic protest against the selection and waste of money upon it.

Proposed vote agreed to.

The Treasury.

Division 30 (The Treasury), £19,228.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.-.I wish to direct the Acting Treasurer’s attention to the administration of old-age pensions in the Maitland district. At Newcastle there is an office for old-age pension purposes, which is run in conjunction with the State invalid pension. The officer in charge is a very good man. No better man could be found for the position. He receives applications, and forwards them to Sydney. But when they have been dealt with there no information is forwarded to him as to what has been done. The applicant, after a little while perhaps, receives a notification that the pension has not been granted, or that the maximum amount has been decreased, but the officer in charge is furnished with no information which he can supply to applicants. He is absolutely ignored. Surely, however, facilities ought to be afforded for applicants to obtain information on the spot as to why a pension has been refused or reduced, or as to whether it has been granted. At present, applicants, being troubled in mind as to what has occurred, make an appeal to their Parliamentary representatives. I have had cases of persons who travelled 50 or 60 miles to consult me about old-age pensions, and then found to their mortification that I was absent in Melbourne ; but if the required information had been sent to the officer on the spot he would have been able to supply it to applicants in the Newcastle and Maitland districts. In one case that is under investigation by me there has been a delay of four months in dealing with an application. I hope that the Acting Treasurer will communicate with the officers responsible in Sydney, and have this matter attended to.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– I call attention to the salary of the Secretary to the Treasury, £900, and that of the Accountant, £590. I make no reflection upon either gentleman. They are probably estimable and highly capable officers. Neither have I any complaint to make with regard to their salaries. But I find that the Secretary to the Treasury receives, in addition to his salary of £900, an allowance of £150 as Commissioner of Pensions, whilst the Accountant receives an allowance of £100 as Assistant Commissioner of Pensions. I object strongly to the principle of multiplying offices in connexion with the higher paid positions of the Service. Either these gentlemen had not their time fully occupied previously or they have not sufficient time to devote to their dual offices now. Possibly it would be inconvenient to appoint separate officers to the positions, but I object strongly to the combination of offices in one man, and the multiplication of salaries. If there is any gain in control, that gain can be obtained with more economical advantage by a distribution of offices and responsibilities. I make no reflection on the men themselves, because, so far as I have seen, they are eminently fitted for their positions. I hope, however, this is not the beginning of the concentration of offices and emoluments, because it is a system that may easily extend ; and I enter my protest at the first opportunity.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– At certain seasons of the year the clerks in the Old-age Pensions Department have to work considerable overtime, which, in some cases, has accumulated to about 1,100 hours. I hope the Minister will see that justice is done.

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer and Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– In reply to the honorable member for Hunter, I have to say that, as far as possible, the fullest information is given to all persons who make inquiries, though it may not be convenient always to give that information direct. If the information is sought through a member of Parliament it is given ; but if persons call at the office they can always obtain detailed statements of the reasons why a pension has been reduced, and so forth. The point raised by the honorable member for Brisbane has been considered by the Prime Minister, and it was thought advisable to place the administration of the Old-age Pensions Act under the control of the Secretary to the Treasurer, as Commissioner. From my experience of a few months, I can say that both the Secretary to the Treasurer and his assistant can find time for this particular work; and I believe do it very satisfactorily. The matter mentioned by the honorable member for Maribyrnong has been under my notice, and I hope shortly to be able to give him the information he desires.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I hope the Government will give earnest attention to the question raised by the honorable member for Brisbane. There is no more fatal error in administration than to make the head of one Department the controller of another ; and wherever the system has been tried, either in the State or Federal service, it has resulted in disaster. The more we confine ourselves to “ one man one job “ the better it will be for the Public Service. If the duties of the Commissioner of Old-age Pensions possess any importance, they are certainly worth more than £100 or £150 a year. It would be infinitely better to employ a really capable man at a good salary to take entire charge. This would enable pensions to be more easily obtained by deserving persons, and fraud to be prevented, and would remove many difficulties of administration. The expenditure under the Oldage Pensions Act is now over £2,500,000, and will, doubtless, shortly be £3.000,000 ; and it would be exceedingly good business to appoint a Commissioner apart altogether from the existing Departments.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 31 (Old-age Pensions Office), £48,776; division 31A (Land Tax Office), £35,000 ; division 32 (Audit Office), £19,663 ; division 33 (Government Printer), £17,672 ; division 34 (Governor-General’s Office), £4,000 ; and division 35 (Coinage), £12,500 agreed to.

Division 36 (Miscellaneous), £6,250.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I see that £5,000 is provided for the maintenance of persons admitted to charitable institutions in accordance with the provisions of the Invalid and OldAge Pensions Acts. . What institutions are here referred to?

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer and Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– This item is rendered necessary for two reasons. There are cases where it is desirable that a warrantee shall be paid on behalf of the pensioner, and there are other cases where the pensioner is not capable of taking care of himself, and has to be placed in a recognised institution. One institution, for instance, is associated with the Salvation Army, but, generally speaking, they are all undenominational. A payment is made for maintaining the pen- sioners during the period they remain in the institution; and it has been found that the system works satisfactorily.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– A discussion arose on this question some time ago, and I understood that a promise was given in regard to prisoners who became unfit for a general hospital.

Mr FRAZER:

– That scarcely comes under this item, but I may explain that where hospitals are maintained by public subscription, or governmental subscription, and they accept the responsibility of providing for pensioner inmates, we do not make a second payment out of the public fund. When recipients of old-age pensions are discharged from such institutions they are entitled to pension money for twentyeight days immediately. I agree that the public should not be called upon to pay twice for any persons.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I do not think the Government ought to make a profit out of the illness of any old-age pensioner. If one has to remain in the hospital, say, for six months, the Government pay him the pension for one month, and retain the pension for the five months. In my opinion, the very least the Government should do is to hand over half the pension to the hospital and the other half to the pensioner, no matter how long the period of detention may have been. It is not a creditable position for the Commonwealth Government to decide that, under such circumstances, a hospital shall receive no payment. This question was discussed thoroughly some months ago ; and I understood that the ‘ almost unanimous opinion of honorable members was that the Government should not retain the pension, but should take such action as I have indicated. I hope the Government and honorable members will see that these general hospitals, which have to stand a heavy strain, and, in some cases, receive very little Government aid, shall have fair play.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– The point raised ought to receive some consideration. In New South Wales the hospitals are supported by public subscription, plus a subsidy from the State Government on a fixed scale, and the practice, when the pensions were paid by the State, was that on a pensioner becoming an inmate, the hospital authorities could claim a certain portion of the pension. I have spoken to several hospital managers, and they tell me that old-age pensioners would gladly pay 5s. per week for their maintenance, but that, under the present arrangement, that course is impossible if the detention in the hospital is of any considerable length. The State system works excellently, and ought to prove just as satisfactory if adopted by the Commonwealth. If the cases referred to by the honorable member for Franklin do not come within this item, as suggested by the Minister, what institutions are covered by the £5,000 ? In New South Wales there are benevolent asylums conducted by religious communities, and others that are purely public charities supported by the Government. There are such institutions_at Rookwood, Newington, Parramatta, and Liverpool ; and there are thousands of inmates, who are without friends, and unable to look after themselves. Speaking from memory, I should say that these institutions cost the Government of New South Wales something like £500,000 per annum. Do the Federal Government propose to subsidize State institutions by making payments on” behalf of pensioners? It sometimes happens that inmates think they would like to live outside and get a pension, but they afterwards come to the conclusion that the inside life is best, and abandon the pension. There are some who, if they get a few shillings, give way to drink, and lose their pensions, and are compelled to go into such institutions. The hospitals I have mentioned should, I think, be included in the vote for the private institutions referred to. I presume that the Government do not limit .the payment to twenty-eight days for residents in these institutions, but that it is continued as long as they remain in them. It seems to me that the same principle should apply to the hospitals, which are similar institutions, but which, in addition, provide medical treatment for their inmates.

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– The question of the payment of public funds to institutions of this kind involves a serious problem, which will yet have to be faced by this Parliament. The time will come when the Federal Parliament will have to take control of the care of the sick throughout Australia. That is my individual opinion of what will follow as a consequence of the legislation we are adopting. Considerable difficulty has been experienced by the Department in connexion with payments to these institutions. The policy adopted so far has been that where old-age pensioners have been unable, physically, to support themselves outside, the Department has been prepared to accept the assurance of warrantees or guardians to take care of them, or to give assistance to certain institutions that are not receiving Government aid, to look after them. There is an objection, however, to giving assistance for the maintenance of old-age pensioners in hospitals or benevolent institutions towards the upkeep of which the State Governments contribute. The position of inmates of institutions established for the care of consumptives has already been brought under my notice. Consumptives are segregated in these institutions in their own interests, and also in the interests of the public, and I am of opinion that inmates of those institutions should not be withdrawn from them, and allowed to mingle again with the public in order that they may receive their pensions. Similar considerations are often associated with persons who become inmates of the institutions that participate in this vote of £5,000. We are willing to accept the obligation of assisting them in their closing days, and think that it is better that they should be looked after in one of these institutions than that they should be thrown upon the world outside. I have been in the office for only a few months, but I have tried to grasp the difficulties of the position. I may inform the Committee that we are now giving relief in this way to no less than 68,000 people, and expect, in the near future, to undertake a similar obligation in respect of an additional 20,000. Every case is given full consideration, and though we accept the responsibility of including the institutions covered by the vote as part of the system, we cannot, at this stage, agree to the inclusion of hospitals under this grant.

Mr CANN:
Nepean

.- There are three large asylums in my electorate, in which there are some 3,000 inmates, and I should like to say that those inmates should be allowed to come out of the institutions if they desire to do so.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– Those institutions are wholly supported by the Government.

Mr CANN:

– The honorable member should remember that all the hospitals in New South Wales receive a Government subsidy of £1 for £1. If this money is to be granted to these institutions I think that the Feedral Government should take over the control of them. There are 1,200 inmates at the Rookwood Asylum, and there is a farm there. All the inmates who can work are obliged to do so, and they produce certain commodities, and thus assist in the maintenance of the institution. One of the asylums in my electorate is almost self-supporting. The question involved is a very large one, and we cannot complain if the Government are not prepared to fully consider it at the present juncture. I think we should do what we can to improve the condition of the old people in these institutions as much as possible. They should not be regarded as prisoners, but it is found that if a man gets into one of these asylums it is very difficult for him to get out of it again. We should make it as easy as possible for people to withdraw from these asylums and go into one of the institutions mentioned by the Minister. Several former inmates have left the Liverpool Asylum and gone to the Industrial Home at Manly and to the Salvation Army Home there. Under the system adopted they pay 8s. of their pension to the institution in which they are looked after and keep the other 2s. for themselves. It is well that they do, because perhaps the most miserable being on the earth is the man who has not a penny in his pocket.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– We are all disposed to do what we can to assist the aged and infirm, but this is a. very big question, and the Commonwealth has at present enough on its shoulders without adding to the burden. We have done remarkably well during this session. The Minister has stated that already 68,000 people are receiving old-age pensions, and there will shortly be another 20,000 in receipt of pensions. Honorable members should consider the drain that must be on the revenue of the Commonwealth. In the circumstances, it is going a little too far to suggest that we should also undertake the maintenance of the inmates of charitable institutions.

Mr Frazer:

– That responsibility would involve an expenditure of at least £1,500,000.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I think it would involve considerably more expenditure. I feel sure that the State Governments would be only too glad to hand over the institutions for that amount. In maintaining the charitable institutions the State Governments are in a better position than is the Federal Government, because they have not to incur the heavy expenditure on oldage pensions. The question is whether it is fair that when an old-age pensioner goes into an institution the institution should receive the pension.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Government stop the pension in such cases, except for one month.

Mr CHARLTON:

– The State Government of New South Wales used to do the same thing. I think that at present we are doing as much as we can be expected to do, and we should wait to see how things will go before we undertake to consider the maintenance of the inmates of charitable institutions.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 37 (Unforeseen Expenditure), £1,000, agreed to.

Division 38 (Stamp Printing), £2,178.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I wish to ask whether the Government have considered the advisableness of having their own printing office. I think we should begin to organize our own Department as soon as possible. I hope, also, that before long the Treasury Department will give some attention to the payment of increments in connexion with this Department.

Mr Frazer:

– The Government have not had time to seriously consider the proposal which the honorable member has made.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 39 (Refunds of Revenue), £100,000, agreed to.

Division 40 (Advance to the Treasurer), £600,000.

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– I move -

That the proposed vote be reduced by £350,000.

It was anticipated at the time when the vote of £600,000 was set down that it would be necessary to make provision for certain payments on account of the construction of a cruiser. These payments have now been incurred by special vote, and consequently an advance of £250,000 will be sufficient.

Motion agreed to.

Proposed vote, as amended, agreed to.

Department of Trade and Customs.

Division 41 (Central Staff), £28,205.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– When the Leader of the Opposition left the House, and the Acting Leader also left the House, they both distinctly informed me that an arrangement had been made to take up to the Treasury Estimates. I accepted the assurance of the Acting Treasurer that the arrangement included the Treasury Estimates.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– Perhaps the honorable member will permit me to explain the position. The Leader of the Opposition stated that he would be prepared to help me to get through the Treasury Estimates. The idea then was that we should be able to finish the Treasury Estimates at a reasonable hour last night. Suppose the debate went on till this day week or this day fortnight, would it still be postponed, and for what reason ? The objection which the honorable member for Ballarat, and some of his followers, had was to the harvester item. I am willing to postpone that item until later, but we must go on with the rest of the Estimates.

Mr McWilliams:

– I call attention to the state of the Committee. [Quorum formed].

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– I desire an explanation of the item. “ To reimburse the States cost of carrying out the provisions of the Commerce Act 1905, £13,000”?

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– In the Estimates of 1909-10 provision was made for the same amount to carry out the work in regard to inspection, grading, and other matters under the Commerce Act. Of that vote, £12,301 was expended.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– Before the item is agreed to, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister what arrangement was made between himself and the Leader of the Opposition before the latter went Home?

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I have already explained that the Leader of the Opposition offered to help me to get through the Treasury Estimates, and I was very glad to get his help. We contemplated finishing at a reasonable hour - certainly before midnight - and also contemplated finishing all the business, and going on with the Supplementary Estimates at the latest after tea to-night. Consequently that arrangement has to be gone on with.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I would call the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to the fact that, whilst he was resting, a good part of the time of the Committee was taken up by a debate initiated and carried on by honorable members on the Government side. The Opposition are not responsible for what the honorable member seems to indicate as his reason for not standing by the agreement.

Mr Hughes:

– Will not the honorable member take my word? Apparently he takes the word of the honorable member for Franklin, who says the agreement was not as I say it was.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– -I do not know what the arrangements were, but if the understanding with the Opposition was as the Acting Prime Minister says, then the Opposition who went away are not responsible for keeping honorable members here all this time, the debate having been initiated and carried on for a long time, by honorable members who sit behind the Government.

Mr Hughes:

– Not wholly. The honorable member for Wimmera spoke till nearly midnight, and I do not know how long the honorable member for Franklin spoke.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– The debate was carried on almost wholly by honorable members on the Government side. I am not in the confidence of the Opposition, nor of the Government in this matter, and this is the first I have heard about an arrangement, but if an honorable arrangement has been made I want to see it fairly and honestly carried out.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

.- I indorse the views of the honorable member for Calare. The Acting Prime Minister’s explanation simply bears out the understanding that we have gained from the honorable member for Franklin, the sole representative of the Opposition present. Obviously there was an understanding that we should’ go through the Treasury Estimates, and then adjourn until half-past 10 this morning. We are now told that that understanding is- to be- departed from, because we did not get away by 12 o’clock las* night. I do not know that many honorable members on this side expected to- get away bv then. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing to prevent the understanding being carried out. If it has not been carried out, it is not the fault of the Opposition. If they were satisfied to let the Estimates as far as the Treasury go through, they were under no obligation to stop here.

Mr Frazer:

– The man who kept us here all night has gone home to bed.

Mr HALL:

– He was one of our own members. I suggest that when an agreement is made it should be honorably carried out. I say that we are not carrying out the- agreement as it has been explained by the Acting Prime Minister himself. It is not right to try to put the blame on the Opposition.

Mr Ozanne:

– Nobody is blaming the Opposition ; we want to do the work.

Mr HALL:

– We have done the work, as the Opposition agreed before they went home, that it should be done. If it was a mistake to agree to adjourn after the Treasury Estimates were passed, it is not our mistake, but the mistake of those who made the agreement. I hold that it was not a mistake, but any man who takes up last night’s Hansard, from the time the agreement was made, and measures up the time taken by members of the Opposition and that taken by the supporters of the Government, will find that we have outtalked them by over three to one.

Mr Scullin:

– Only three of them were here all night.

Mr HALL:

– They had a perfect right to go away if they were satisfied to- let the business go through up to a certain stage. We lose nothing by carrying out our understandings honorably, and1, from the Acting Prime Minister’s own statements, it is obvious that an agreement was made that when we got through the Treasury Estimates the House should’ adjourn until halfpast 10 o’clock.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– Some expression of opinion seems to be called for after the absolutely unprovoked criticism of the honorable member for Werriwa, who speaks about our duty to honorably carry out agreements, as if no other man than himself had the faculty of doing so. The honorable member appears to have taken upon himself at this hour of the morning the post of censor, of morals for the Government and Parliament generally. He defends the position of the honorable member for Franklin, who is quite able to defend himself, and just as likely to get every consideration from us by reason of his own statements as in any other way. I most strongly resent any statement that I am not honorably carrying out an agreement.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member is not.

Mr HUGHES:

– I have not prolonged the discussion for much more than a moment. I have not done anything to mitigate criticism, or to fan anybody’s opposition. Every honorable member has had an opportunity, so far as I am concerned, to say what he pleased. I made a distinct statement to the House that we were to wind up the business of the session this week. I am charged with carrying out that undertaking if it is humanly possible. The Leader of the Opposition is at one with me in that desire, and the beginning and the end of the agreement that was made was that he would assist me in the way I have stated. He said there was a desire on the part of his party to discuss matters in connexion with Trade and Customs, and I say now that if there be any item to which the honorable member for Franklin can point, in addition to the harvester item, that he wants postponed, I shall postpone it. Beyond that, I ought not to be asked to go, and I venture to say that if the Leader of the Opposition were here he would thoroughly agree with me. Since the honorable member for Franklin is the sole representative of the Opposition present, I ask him to suggest any item that he thinks ought to be postponed, and it shall be postponed.

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

– The Acting Prime Minister’s proposal is very reasonable.I am prepared to accept his assurance that he entered into an arrangement with the Leader of the Opposition, to apply up to 11 o’clock, to get through the business as far as the Treasury Estimates. That time having expired, and every member being anxious to close the session this week, the Prime Minister is doing nothing against the best interests of the House in asking the Committee to continue the considerationof the Estimates now. It comes with a bad grace from honorable members to find fault with the Leader of the House on this matter, because he has given us his assurance that he only agreed ‘with the Leader of the Opposition to try to get the Treasury Estimates through by 11 o’clock. We have been much longer, but it is not correct to say that the debate has been carried on by one side only. The honorable member for Parramatta took up as much time as any other honorable member on the Estimates. It is unfair to say that any honorable member was responsible for keeping us here, because every honorable member is entitled to the fullest latitude. The honorable member for Lang spoke on one occasion at some length, and the honorable member for Franklin spoke on different occasions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have allowed some latitude on this question, but I think it is time that I directed the attention of honorable members to the fact that the de- bate is distinctly out of order, and that they must confine their remarks to the item before the Chair.

Mr CHARLTON:

– I quite agree, and wish only to say that we must take the Acting Prime Minister’s word for it that the Leader of the Opposition wanted only the harvester item in the Trade and Customs Estimates postponed. I think any specified item can be postponed, and we can then go on with the business.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I am at a loss to know why the Government are so anxious to push members in this way. We have been sitting here since yesterday morning-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Chair is subdivision No. 3 of division 41.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Do you rule that I cannot debate the question, “ That the Committee do now adjourn,” which is now before the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No such question is before the Chair.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Then I shall move-

That the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That motion must be taken without discussion.

Mr Frazer:

– That is the straight tip that the honorable member is looking for another Government.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I can get in what I have to say in another way, and, with the permission of the Committee, desire to withdraw the motion.

Mr McWilliams:

– I object.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being one objection, leave cannot be granted.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– The agreement was not made with me. but the Leader of the Opposition assured me when he left the House-

The CHAIRMAN:

– There must be no discussion on the question to which the honorable member is now referring.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– Then I desire to make a personal explanation. This is rather a serious matter, as I understand that the Acting Prime Minister is deliberately breaking the agreement that he made.

Mr Frazer:

– A remark of that description ought to be objected to.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I am stating my understanding of the position. The agreement made with the Leader of the Opposition, who left the House shortly after 10 o’clock, was, according to the Acting Prime Minister himself, that the items up to the Treasury Estimates should be taken. The Acting Prime Minister says that because the discussion was continued after 11 o’clock lastnight the agreement was broken.

Mr Hughes:

– I did not say that.I have not broken the agreement.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– I repeat the statement made by the honorable member for Werriwa.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not making a personal explanation.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

-Then there is only one thing for me to do, and that is to leave the Chamber.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– As at 8 o’clock there will be a suspension of the sitting for an hour and ahalf, I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that it would remove all difficulties if the sitting were suspended now until halfpast 10. That would give us time to wash, change, and brush up, and would afford an opportunity to members of the Opposition to say what they have to say on the remaining Estimates. As there is not a member of the Opposition present, it seems hardly fair to proceed further with business now.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– As the honorable member for Franklin feels himself tobe in such an unfortunate position that he is charged with the full responsibilities of the Opposition without assistance, I am willing to report progress now and to propose the suspension of the sitting until 10.30 a.m.

Progress reported.

page 6696

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) (1911-12)

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, recommending an appropriation for the purposes of this Bill.

Referred to Committee of Supply.

page 6696

ACCESSION DECLARATION

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the Governor-General transmitting the following communication from His Excellency forwarding despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies : -

Commonwealth of Australia.

Governor-General’s Office,

Melbourne, 23rd November, 1910.

Memorandum.

The Governor-General transmits herewith to the Honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives, a copy of a despatch which has been received from the Right Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the subject of an Address from the House of Representatives to His Majesty the King, relative to the Accession Declaration.

The Governor-General would be glad if the Speaker would be good enough to convey the contents of the despatch to the Members of the House of Representatives in the terms of the request contained in the second paragraph of the despatch.

DUDLEY,

Governor-General.

The Honorable the Speaker, the House of Representatives.

Commonwealth of Australia.

No. 355.

Downing-street, 20th September, 1910.

My Lord,

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency’s despatch No. 172 of the 28th July, transmitting an Address from the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia to His Majesty the King, on the subject of the Accession Declaration.

  1. In reply, I have to request that you will inform the House of Representatives that their Address was duly laid before His Majesty, who was pleased to receive it very graciously, and to command that His thanks should be returned to them for their messageof unswerving loyalty and devotion to His Majesty’s Person and Government, and that they should be informed that, as you will have learnt from my despatch No. 325 of the 1st of September, their wishes have already been met by the passing of an Act by the Imperial Parliament, by which the expressions in the Royal Declaration to which exception is taken, have been removed.

I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most obedient, humble servant,

Crewe

Governor-General, His Excelency the Right Honorable the Earl of Dudley, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., &c, &c, &c.

page 6697

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (1910-11)

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of messages from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, transmitting Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1 91 1, and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, and Buildings for the year ending 30th June, 1911, and recommending appropriation accordingly.

Referred to Committee of Supply

page 6697

DEFENCE BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with the message that it had agreed to the House of Representatives’ amendments, with the exception of that in clause 19, to which it had agreed with an amendment, and those inserting new clauses 21 and 22, to which it had disagreed.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration forthwith.

Amendment of amendment in clause 19 agreed to.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– The Senate has disagreed to two clauses inserted at the instance of the honorable member for Wentworth to put the Military Forces on all fours with the Naval Forces regarding pensions and pension rights, but the provisions which he inserted are to be found in sections 57 and 123 of the original Act. I therefore move -

That the amendment be not insisted on.

Motion agreed to.

page 6697

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should now leave the chair until 10.30 a.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If it will meet the convenience of the House, I shall do so.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

– I approve of the suggestion that you, sir, should leave the chair for a time, to enable us to get some refreshment; but as Government supporters have been here all night, assisting to deal with the Estimates, it is not fair that they should be called on later to sit until 10.30 p.m., or even midnight, to meet the convenience of others who have spent the night in bed, and will come here fresh at 10.30 this morning. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he should take into consideration the advisability ot adjourning this evening at 6 or 6.30. We have already been sitting continuously for twenty-two hours, and it is not fair that we should have to contend later with honorable members who have shown an utter disregard for the necessities of public business, but by going home have kept themselves physically fit for further exertion.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

– I do not think that anything is to be gained by pushing on as we are doing. Generally speaking, both in Federal and State politics, it is recognised, when a House has sat for twenty-two hours, that members cannot stand a much longer strain. This is a brutal way of transacting the business of the country. Measures are being bludgeoned through at the sacrifice of health and mental capacity. Some honorable members seem to be very anxious for the close of the session, but it has not been a very long one, having lasted only about five months, and Christmas is some way off yet. I do not think that we should be desirous of closing the session regardless of whether the business in hand has been properly discussed.

Mr Cann:

– It must be remembered that we have been sitting four hours longer every day than other Parliaments” sit. I should be willing to remain in Melbourne for two months more, if necessary.

Mr WEBSTER:

– In any case, the session has not been a long one, and there is a long recess ahead of us. The desire to go into recess should not be made an excuse for shortening discussion which is necessary in the public interest. The discussion of the Estimates is the recognised opportunity to deal with matters pertaining to the welfare of the country, and to rush them through in twenty-four or twenty-six hours would be unprecedented and needless. The Acting Prime Minister tells us that he has made a promise to close the session this week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The discussion is quite irregular, as there is no motion before the Chair. If it is to continue, a motion must be moved.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I have finished what I wish to say, and would have said it in Committee had I not been rather curtly interrupted by the Chairman, who, wrongly I hold, ruled me out of order. I regret that the Government is prepared to overwork its supporters, who remained here all night to keep .a quorum while the members of the Opposition retired to their couches, and sought the rest which nature demands.

Sitting suspended from 7.56 to 10.30 a.m.. (Thursday).

page 6698

QUESTION

ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed (vide page 6696).

Department of Trade and Customs

Division 41 (Central Staff), £28,205

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

. I desire to call attention to the item in subdivision 3, “ Expenses in connexion with Harvester ‘ case, £500.” Perhaps the Minister will state the reason for its inclusion ?

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– The item represents costs incurred by unions of persons engaged in the manufacture of harvesters in defending an .action brought against the Commonwealth by one Barger-

Mr Deakin:

– There were two cases, and Barger’s was one of them.

Mr HUGHES:

– The men were very much interested in the case, because it involved a possible deduction of wages, and they were put to considerable expense and loss of time. The amount of £500 has been placed on the Estimates to cover expenses incurred by them in defending the action. In my opinion it is not fair that private citizens should have’ to incur expenditure in testing the constitutionality of a Commonwealth Statute. They might, of course, be properly called upon to do so when the question of the validity of a Statute is determined incidentally to a decision in regard to any wrong that may have been done, or any damage that may have been incurred. These people, however, did not institute the action, and were in no way responsible for the unconstitutionality of the Act. They were seeking simply to protect themselves in receiving what the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court had declared to be a fair and reasonable wage. I do not think that the expenses are excessive. The matter has been looked into, and it is considered only fair that the unions should be reimbursed to this extent.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

. -The Acting Prime Minister will find it impossible to justify this proposed vote on any ground short of that which he has partially outlined to the Committee. Unless it is to be laid down as a principle that the constitutionality of Commonwealth Statutes is always to be determined at the public expense there can be no warrant for a precedent of this kind. Nothing short, of an intention on the part of the Government that this shall become a practice in the Commonwealth - and I shall not deal with the enormous cost that such a policy would involve - could justify a donation of this character. I doubt if anything could justify it in this particular instance.

The case in question was not of the nature described by the Attorney-General. I had a keen interest in . it, and sympathize entirely with the ill-advised union that voluntarily and without necessity entered into these proceedings. The members of the union endeavoured to justify their action by a petition to this House that bristled with misstatements of facts as well as with mistaken inferences drawn from those misstatements. I do not desire to enter into the details unless it should become necessary, and shall confine myself to the narrowest possible view of . the question, dealing with it solely from the stand-point of its importance as a precedent.

If such a precedent were established the first duty of this Parliament would be to consider the host of cases involving constitutional interpretations that have already been decided at the expenseof private citizens. If this union is entitled to be recouped, the employers are also entitled to be reimbursed their expenses, and so will be the host of others who may in the future be involved in such proceedings. On the spur of the moment, I recollect no country where this practice- is in force ; yet, unless we take ‘ up this extreme and extravagant course, there care be no defence of this transaction.

The circumstances of the law in general are of necessity such that private citizens in the course of their private disputes put in question many public enactments. Often, as the Acting Prime Minister himself has admitted, the constitutional aspect may be only one phase of a case crowded with other considerations.

Mr Hall:

– Generally a Government enforces its own laws, and does not ask unions to enforce them for it.

Mr DEAKIN:

– That is true, but utterly irrelevant. No one asked this union to enforce the law. There was no need for it to enter into the litigation. The

Act was framed to cast upon the employers the burden of justifying themselves at their own expense. I have not touched upon that point, but if the principle on which the Government have decided to vote this sum of £500 is that which the Attorney-General has mentioned it is certainly extraordinary that no item appears on the Estimates to reimburse the employers. They had no choice in this matter,, but were obliged to go before the Court in order to defend themselves. On them was cast the responsibility of proving that they were paying fair wages and observing fair hours of employment. They could not escape from that obligation since the law provided that unless they satisfied the Court they should be subject to the payment of an Excise duty. In this instance, the only party to the suit who was compelled to go before the Court, and compelled, to incur expense, receives no consideration, although the principle enunciated by the Acting Prime Minister must embrace both sides.-

Mr Wise:

– Did not the employers secure a judgment with costs ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– In one case, but even if they did, the costs allowed would not cover all the expenses incurred.

Mr Wise:

– But they would be costs as between party and party.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It is quite possible that the costs that have been paid by the employers represent several, times the amount paid to them under, the order of the CourtBut whatever that was, a similar proportion of the costs of the. employers ought first of all to have been provided for in these Estimates, if this principle is to be adopted, because the employers were put upon their defence..

Mr Hughes:

– Who settled the validity of the Commonwealth Statute in question?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The employer at first did not question it. The honorable member is evidently mistaken. The employer came before the Court, in the first instance, not to question the validity of the Statute,but because he was required to do so by the Act. He was required by the Act to prove that he was paying what the President of the Court considered were fair wages and observing fair conditions. There was a subsequent proceeding to test the validity of the Act, but in the first instance the. employer was obliged to’ go to the Court, and, therefore, his- costs ought to have been considered’.

In neither case was there any demand upon the union to go before the Court, or to take any part in these proceedings. I have been informed - although this is an arguable point - that the appearance of the union was not of the slightest assistance in the determination of the constitutional question. It was a voluntary act of the union, which came forward, without the pressure of legal necessity. Its members were badly advised.

I do not propose to deal in detail with the petition, although statement after statement in it can be authoritatively disposed of. It was one of my obligations last year to inform myself of all the details of this case, and I did so by a reference to those engaged in it, and also by a careful examination of every particular relating to it. The general effect of .the petition is that which I have stated. It contains statements as to the incidence of taxation that are quite incorrect. There is the further statement that as the result of their efforts the Commonwealth was entitled to receive £20,000. It was never so entitled, and did not receive a penny. One of the arguments used in the petition is that since the Commonwealth obtained £20,000 as the result of the action of the employes, it ought surely to pay the agents responsible for its recovery. As a matter of fact, we did not receive a farthing, and had no reason to thank the union which, for its own purposes, thought fit to intervene in the first case. The evidence that it Drought forward was not material to the constitutional point. The further statement contained in the petition that, but for the action taken by the employes, this success could not have been achieved, is- also erroneous. Then there was a plea for back wages, and other matters too irrelevant to deal’ with..

Mr Webster:

– What ! Back wages unimportant ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– There were no back wages. When, unfortunately for the policy with which I was then concerned, it was declared that the Commonwealth had no power to impose these conditions or in default the payment of Excise, an application was made by the men- for the wages that would have been paid them had the law been valid, as from the date that it came into1 force. That represented what they called “ back wages’.”

Mr Scullin:

– Did they not prove the question of power?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No. I am informed that their contribution to the deciding case was of no value whatever as to constitutional powers.

Mr Scullin:

– Who gave the honorable member that information ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Those who were engaged in it. The Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Union intervened in regard to the wages actually paid, and the hours actually worked, and had that case been decided upon those grounds it could have said with truthfulness that the- evidence which it contributed was of some value. .But the constitutional case was decided upon entirely different grounds.

Mr Scullin:

– Was not the claim of the union a fair one ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– No. It had no relevance to the legal point upon which the Act was declared to be invalid.

Mr Webster:

– Has not the payment of back wages a bearing on the case?

Mr DEAKIN:

– There were no back wages due to the men. As a matter of fact, they had lost no wages. The position was that they were unable to obtain something which Parliament had endeavoured to give them because the construction of the Constitution did not permit it.

The decision of the High Court upon this matter came with a great deal of surprise to the Government of the day, which had acted on the advice of one of our most eminent lawyers, and after the fullest and most careful consideration. The question which had o be determined was whether the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act was not *ultra vires of the Constitution. Any question as to the wages which ought to have been paid or the hours which ought to have been worked under that Statute, if it had been declared constitutional, was immaterial to the question of the constitutionality of the Act itself.

The Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Union came into the first case of its own accord, and without solicitation of any kind. It came forward in its own interests to substantiate its case, and its interference might have been of value if the supposed law could have been declared to be constitutional in that case. But, upon a later appeal to the High Court, the supposed law was declared to be beyond the competence of this Parliament to enact.

If every person who seeks to take advantage of a supposed law is to be entitled to his costs we shall be committed to the principle which the Acting Prime

Minister has laid down to-day. We should have to discharge, at the public expense, all costs which may be incurred in similar cases in the future as well as all costs which have already been incurred in such cases. We can have no special objection to this union receiving £500 of the public money if the principle is to be applied all round. Of course, I should resist any such proposal on the ground of principle, and because its adoption would plunge the Commonwealth into a. financial responsibility which it cannot afford to bear.

We must recollect that occasionally Acts which are perfectly constitutional in their aim prove to be imperfectly drawn, although the imperfection may escape the scrutiny of the law officers of the Crown, and lawyers in general, for some considerable time. But eventually, when the law comes before the Court, and a decision is given which discloses, its imperfection, that renders illegal what has for some time been supposed to be legal. These are hard and cruel experiences, but they have never yet received financial consideration at our hands, for the reason that if we once established such a precedent we should embark upon a bottomless gulf. It would be impossible to determine the liability of the Commonwealth. If the principle be once affirmed, similar demands for payment from the exchequer must appear in every Appropriation Bill.

Under a Federal system, opportunities continually arise for challenging the validity of new laws. We all recognise that there is a fixed radius within which the Commonwealth may act. When it goes beyond that radius its legislation must be set aside. That is the very condition upon which a Federation rests, and it cannot be abolished without abolishing the Federal principle. Any Government with unlimited powers of legislation must be a Unitary Government, that is the antithesis of a Federal Government. The precise point at which the Federal and State spheres cross each other is often hard to fix. If that is to determine the Commonwealth’s responsibilities at any time to persons who of their own accord force themselves into the legal arena and are mulcted in costs, we shall be face to face with a very serious condition of things. If only the sum of £500 were involved in this matter, it would scarcely be worth my while to occupy the time of honorable members in discussing it. But the pay- ment of that sum will establish a precedent, opening up vistas of costly possibilities to the Commonwealth.

Sir WILLLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I should like to say a few words upon this question, seeing that I was responsible for the passing of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act. It is nonsense for the honorable member for Ballarat to talk glibly of this particular case as an ordinary one. We know perfectly well that it was an extraordinary case, and that the decision which was given upon it by the High Court was not expected by the Ministry of the day. At the time, I asked the then Prime Minister whether he could not submit a case for the opinion of the High Court before it was actually taken into Court. I thought that we ought to be able to get an expression of opinion as to whether the Commonwealth had power to enact that legislation. But the honorable member for Ballarat refused to do so. Then the employers objected to pay the wages directed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and naturally the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes Union desired to be represented at the hearing, so that it might insure that the case was fought properly. When the honorable member for Ballarat declares that there were no back wages due to the men because the Act was declared to be unconstitutional I would remind him that it was anticipated that back wages were due to them; it was only because of the decision of the High Court that a technical position was created. Subsequently I wished to place a sum on the Estimates - and so did other Ministers - for the purpose of defraying the legal costs of the union. But the honorable member for Ballarat would not allow that to be done. I congratulate the Government upon having taken action in this matter, and upon having secured the passage through this House of a Judiciary Bill which will enable them to ascertain the opinion of the High Court upon any similar measure in the future without recourse to legal proceedings.

Mr Hughes:

– It is the first Statute which attempts to give effect to the new Protection.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Exactly. Regarding the statement of the honorable member for Ballarat that the payment of these costs would constitute a precedent which would govern the future, my reply is that it would do nothing of the kind. I hold that the case was one in which all the expenses incurred should be borne by the

Commonwealth, inasmuch as the question at issue was one involving an interpretation of the Constitution. Whenever there is a doubt as to what the Constitution really means it is the duty of the Commonwealth to defray all the expenses incidental to securing an authoritative decision. For every reason which it is possible to enumerate, it is proper to pay these costs, but I do not think it would be proper to pay costs in all, or, indeed, in any trivial cases. If any person chooses to go into Court and raise issues of a trivial character, let him abide by the position which he has created. This is the most important decision we have ever had on the interpretation of the Constitution.

Mr Hughes:

– At the instance of a number of grossly underpaid employes.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The employes in the industry were not paid as they should have been. The intention of the law was that they should be properly paid. Although, technically, they had no claim to be recouped their costs, still, morally, they had. When the employers got the protection, they should have shared that advantage with their employes in the form of higher wages. That is not so much the case when a mistake is made in the interpretation of the Electoral Act by an officer of the Commonwealth Government, and the result is a second election. There have been several cases of that kind. There was great objection to the payment of the expenses of the honorable member for Riverina, and one or two honorable members on the other side of the House. I took the responsibility of putting an item on the Estimates for the purpose, but that is not so strong a case as one involving the interpretation of the Constitution, which is, of course, the groundwork of everything that we do. I hope that, in the future, we shall be able to obtain a decision of the High Court before any large issue of this kind has to be fought out. There was a case heard recently in Sydney with regard to the boot trade. Nearly all the lawyers in the State were, I think, engaged for about a fortnight or three weeks, perhaps longer. I could not understand what they were driving at, nor do I think that very many persons can even now.

Mr Archibald:

– Do they know themselves ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– They got a decision in connexion with the apprentices, but I do not know if they got a decision in favour of all the employes.

Mr Hall:

– All the parties won a moral victory.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes, and it cost .a great deal of money. The Judiciary Bill, which was passed the other night, will prevent anything of .that kind taking place in the future if the Government do their duty. Again I congratulate the Government on the step which they have taken. It is the only righteous step which could be taken towards any person who has had to suffer the loss of a great deal of money through the laches of the Government, because, in my opinion, it is the duty of the latter to have all questions of constitutionality settled, and to take the responsibility. I can see that a flame has been started over this question by the lawyers, which is likely to increase much. Not being a lawyer, I can speak common sense, and with some force, because I was the originator of the Act, and know what its object was. It was to protect the manufacturers, and, at the same time, to secure good wages to the employes. That being the foundation of everything in connexion with this matter, and having obtained such an important decision, I cannot understand why the technicalities of the law should influence this Parliament not to be just. I hope that it will do very fair and reasonable justice, by paying the expenses incurred in consequence of its legislation.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- Unlike the honorable member for Hume, I am a lawyer, and so I suppose I shall have to indulge in a little uncommon sense. There was a deputation to me on this question when I happened to be Attorney-General. I confess I had a good deal of sympathy with the claim when the application was made by Mr. Sutch. I think that Mr. Wilson was with him, and other representatives of the Labour party. Three Governments have been in power since the date of the first application. Evidently the first of these Governments had some hesitation as to whether they could establish a precedent under which other applications might be made. I looked through the papers which were in the Trade and Customs Department. I am not sure, but I think that the honorable member for Hume was in charge of the Department at the time.

Sir William Lyne:

– I was in office, and I wanted a case stated for the High Court.

Mr GLYNN:

– The costs had been incurred, and nothing had been done. Evidently the Ministers, with that very great care for a principle in these matterswhich ought to actuate them, hesitatedHowever keen their sympathies may have been in favour of the employes, they hesitated to make a grant of the amounts which had. been applied for. I saw Mr. Sutch and. others; they stated that heavy costs had been incurred in connexion with bringing about the administration of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act.

Mr Hall:

– I suppose that the. honorable member will admit that a bill for £500 would not be at all excessive.

Mr GLYNN:

– In the circumstances, I do not think that it would. So far as I can remember, the costs were alleged to be much more than that. I could not get particulars, but only a general statement that a considerable amount of expense had been incurred in connexion with the alleged administration of the Act.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Would not the honorable member pay the costs of the other side, too?

Mr GLYNN:

– I have not finished my remarks. The Act came into force on the 26th October, 1906. The employers must have an opportunity to make an application to the Court to declare that the wages were fair and reasonable within the meaning of the Act. They could not have had that opportunity unless time were afforded’ to them in consequence of the Government, through Mr. Justice O’Connor, declaring in May, 1907, that proceedings to recover the full amount of the duty of £12 per machine would be suspended, until an opportunity was given to the employers to show to the Court that the wages paid were fair and reasonable within the meaning of the Act. Applications were begun, and extended over a considerable time. Some of them were pending for many months. The chief application, I think, was made by McKay and Company for a certificate, and on that a principle was: laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins, which generally has been adopted, and very properly adopted, as the measure of what ought to be the standard from which restart in giving wages to employes. Inthat application the employers necessarily were represented, because each of them had to apply for a certificate, and be represented, by permission of the Court, bycounsel in many cases. I was in some cases myself, and we recommended that the parties should meet, and luckily a fair adjustment took place in Adelaide without any litigation. The employes thought that it would be rather unfair to them if, while the hearing of the application was pending., and the points of view of the employers were being put, there was no one to represent their view. The Commonwealth did not intervene. It was said that they had no right to intervene, nor had the employes any such right, but the Court would allow them to intervene if asked to do so. There is no doubt that if the Commonwealth wished to intervene against the issue of a certificate, in order to put the opposite point of view, or to criticise the application made, the Court would permit a general appearance on the, part of the Commonwealth-, which would, probably, have acted in the interests of the employes.

Mr Hall:

– Does the honorable member think that a fair decision could have been obtained without both parties being, represented ?

Mr GLYNN:

– On the whole, I think that it was expedient that there should be some representation, so that the statements made might be criticised or the opposite point of view put. My impression is that the Commonwealth might very well have intervened in some cases in which a standard would be laid down for guidance. The costs were incurred, I must assume, in connexion with the application for a certificate, because the employes were not represented on the question of the validity of the Act. The case which was tested was The King v. Barger, and the Commonwealth appeared as litigant because it had sued McKay for duties to the amount of £20,000, and another firm for penalties under the Act, in order that the test might be applied. The Commonwealth: had its counsel, and the matter was thoroughly threshed out. I must assume, I repeat, that the costs were incurred in connexion with the application. That is the point. As it has been very well done by the Leader of the Opposition, I do not want to examine the statements in the petition. Many of them are incorrect, as general statements usually are. But that ought not to prejudice the merits of the application. I speak now as. the result of an examination which was made by the Law Department Either in the. AttorneyGeneral’s Department, or in that of the Minister of Trade and Customs, there is a general statement against the application as the result of an examintion of the conditions by the law officers. I do not know who is to get the costs. I do not know whether they have already been paid, or whether part of them has been paid by the employes ; but the costs which are asked for - and they are certainly not over the mark - are part of the costs which were incurred in connexion with putting the employe’s’ point of view on the application, and not, as assumed by the honorable member for Hume, in testing the validity of the Act - a matter with which they have had nothing to do. The danger of the whole matter - and it was that which led successive Governments to refuse the application, or to hesitate about acceding to it until the present Government put an item on the Estimates - was in establishing a precedent.

Mr.Carr. - A very good one.

Mr GLYNN:

– I do not know. I did not believe in the precedent of paying electoral expenses, which were not great. A new law may be framed to apply to future cases, but I think it is wrong to establish a precedent to apply to the past, especially to members of Parliament who are interested in the matter. For that reason I did not exhibit sympathy with the principle. The danger of the whole matter is that we may have applications hereafter from the employers who were concerned in this litigation. If youbase the application, as the honorable member for Hume has done, on the allegation that the costs were incurred in testing the validity of the Act, which they were not, then by consequence all costs incurred by the employers in the matter, because they were vitally interested, will have to be paid. I do not know, therefore, how many thousand pounds will not be legitimately asked for by them. But that does not seem to me to be the whole case. The application relates, not to costs incurred in testing the validity of the Act, but to costs incurred by the employes in appearing to criticise the facts as put by the applicants. There seems to me to be a nearer approach to justice in their demands than there would be if they were based on an application simply to test the validity of the Act. I had a great deal of sympathy with the applicants, but what made me hesitate in declining to recommend that they should be paid was that it would establish a precedent under which we should not know where we were going to stop. I think it was the duty of the Government to tell us what costs, if this item be passed, may have to be paid in connexion with the application of the employers. I use the word “may” deliberately. I shall not say that we “shall” have to pay the costs, because there may be a difference in principle even still. That is a matter on which the Government should inform us. I do not think that in all the circumstances they have given us that information which they ought to furnish to guide honorable members in considering the item.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

– I think we are indebted to the honorable member for Angas for his very clear statement of the history of this case. If I thought that we were asked to lay down a precedent that it should be the duty of Parliament to recoup the costs of litigants who probably had tested the constitutionality of Statutes, I should certainly vote against it.

Mr Deakin:

– That was the statement deliberately made by the acting head of the Government.

Mr HALL:

– Personally I do not feel bound by that statement, and unless there were features distinguishing this case from any other in which the constitutionality of Statutes has been tested, I should not feel disposed to give my support to this claim. The facts of the case are these: The Commonwealth Parliament passed a law, two portions of which I shall venture to quote. One section provided that -

Duties of Excise shall on and from the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and seven be imposed on the dutiable goods specified in the schedule at the rates specified in the said schedule.

The Act stated that the manufacturers of harvesters had to pay a certain duty on them, but this proviso was inserted -

Provided that this Act shall not apply to goods manufactured by any person in any part of the Commonwealth under conditions as to the remuneration of labour which - amongst other things - are, on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair and reasonable by him, 01 by a Judge of the Supreme Court of a State, or any person or persons who compose a State industrial authority to whom he may refer the matter.

We were trying what. I suppose every honorable member will be disposed to admit was an exceptional experiment in legislation - an experiment that had never been attempted before. The employers in the in dustry had to secure a certificate which, under the Act, would have freed them from paying the Excise duty prescribed. When they made application for the certificate they came before a Court and were well represented by able counsel, instructed to show that the employers had been paying reasonable wages. Is there any one who is prepared to say that a question of that, kind could be decided unless both parties were represented and heard? The honor-‘ able member for Angas himself, I believe, would be prepared to admit that it would be impossible to determine what were fair and reasonable wages if one side only were represented - that is to say, if the payers of the wages were represented and the recipients were not.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Then both sides who were represented should be treated alike.

Mr HALL:

– There is this difference : This Parliament made it essential for the employer to go to the Court if he wanted to get the’ certificate. Of course, if he “ did not choose to apply for it he had to pay the duty.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Both sides had to be represented in order that what was the law of the land might be determined.

Mr HALL:

– This was not merely a question of deciding what was the law of the land. It was a matter of determining whether certain Excise duties ought to be paid or not. The ex-Attorney-General has indicated what I submit was the crux of the whole position. He has said that the Commonwealth might well have intervened in the case. It ought to have intervened, but it did not. Because the Commonwealth did not intervene it is evident that if some one else had not done so the case would not have been fairly tried.

Mr Deakin:

– No, that is not so. Has the honorable member no confidence in the President of the Arbitration Court?

Mr HALL:

– I have confidence in the principle of law that -

One man’s word is no man’s word,

Justice demands that both should be heard.

Until both sides were heard, the President of the Court was not in a position to determine.

Mr Deakin:

– The President of the Court could call every one whom he thought it necessary to call.

Mr HALL:

– He could, of course, have called any one whom he thought it necessary to hear. I suppose that the Presi- dent of any Court trying an issue can call any one to give evidence if he wishes to do so.

Mr Deakin:

– Particularly on the issue in this case.

Mr HALL:

– But is that a reason why the case should have been tried with only one side represented? If the Commonwealth had done what it was necessary to do by intervening, I should not have been prepared to support any demand to pay the costs of any other party.

Mr Fairbairn:

– It would not have been necessary.

Mr HALL:

– That is just the difference between this and any other constitutional case. We have not, as a rule, left it to private individuals to undertake the expensive duty of testing whether duties should, or should not, be collected. But here was a case in which the Government of the day, according to the admission of the honorable member for Angas himself, did not do its duty in providing that the two sides should be heard on the question in dispute.

Mr Anstey:

– The Government would neither intervene in the case, nor enforce the law against the manufacturers.

Mr Deakin:

– We did enforce the law. We were not represented in the case because we were advised by our legal adviser that it was not necessary. It was not a matter on which two sides were to be heard. It was a case for the enforcement of the law by the President of the Arbitration Court.

Mr HALL:

– When the question at issue was whether fair wages were being paid, were not two sides to be heard?

Mr Deakin:

– The President of the Court could call the two sides so as to enable him to determine what wages should be paid.

Mr HALL:

– Surely that is an attempt to evade the issue. The Leader of the Opposition has said that this may be regarded as a precedent. But who else will come along and ask for their expenses to be paid?

Mr Deakin:

– The employers.

Mr HALL:

– If any other persons can show that the work that they paid for ought to have been done by the Government of the Commonwealth, but was neglected by them, I shall vote in favour of their costs being paid. As long as we have a case in which the Government of the Commonwealth could have intervened with the object of enforcing Commonwealth law, but failed to do so, I shall hold that the costs of the parties who did the work which the Commonwealth ought to have done would be paid. The whole issue at stake in this case was whether fair and reasonable wages were being paid.

Mr Deakin:

– That was settled in favour of the applicants, who maintained that the wages were not fair and reasonable.

Mr HALL:

– The case was settled in favour of the Government.

Mr Deakin:

– And of the employes.

Mr HALL:

– It was settled in favour of the Government, and on that determination they based their claim for Excise duties to the amount of £20,000. Had the law passed by the Commonwealth been held to be constitutional the Government would have got the £20,000, whilst the employes would have had the privilege of paying to enable them to get it.

Mr Deakin:

– The employes would have - had the wages and hours they wanted.

Mr HALL:

– When we went into this business we were trying a new experiment in law. Had the law been held to be constitutional the Government of the Commonwealth would have collected the Excise.

Mr Deakin:

– That was their only means ; but the employers would have had to recompense the employes. The Government did not want to make any profit out of the case. The object of the collection of the £20,000 would have been to enforce reasonable conditions on behalf of the employes.

Mr HALL:

– In the course of our legislation and of our attempts to deal with the very difficult economic problems that will arise, no doubt we shall from time to time try various experiments. But I do not suppose that this Parliament will ever embark on an experiment of this kind again. Consequently what has occurred will be a precedent for nothing, because nothing of the kind will ever occur again.

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

– Such things will be constantly occurring. As long as we have a Labour Government in power demands will come in from all the unions.

Mr HALL:

– I shall resist such demands.

Mr Kelly:

– Why pay this union and not another?

Mr HALL:

– Because this union did work which the Commonwealth ought to have done and neglected, as admitted by the honorable member’s colleague, the honorable member for Angas.

Mr McWilliams:

– The honorable member was sitting behind the Government at that time. Why did he not press them to intervene?

Mr HALL:

– It is for the AttorneyGeneral to look after the business of his Department. I should not like to take the responsibility of saying that the actions of an Attorney-General in the ordinary course of his official business are such as I must be responsible for if I am a supporter of the Government. The apprehension about setting up a precedent is a mere bogy. No precedent will be established. This is an exceptional case. It was an exceptional experiment.

Mr Deakin:

– That plea, might do very well for any one but a member of the profession. We know all about “ exceptional cases.”

Mr HALL:

– If I may use a phrase of the honorable member for Hume, what I have said is the language of common sense. This case differs from every other, inasmuch as the men interested were called upon to do work which in other circumstances the Commonwealth Government would have done by intervening in a case in which the law of the Commonwealth required to be vindicated. Had the Commonwealth Government intervened it might have cost them a much larger amount than £500. As the Government did not do its duty it. is a fair thing to recompense these people for a portion - and it is but a relatively small portion - of the costs which they had to pay.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

.. - This seems a. small item on which to raise a big discussion, but there is a great principle involved. I am afraid that if we open the door we shall have a stream of this class of expenditure. Of course, I know that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the Government paying for the legal interpretation of its own laws. Some years ago, in Geelong, a man sued me for £100, and, on a legal point raised by my solicitor, the justices decided in my favour, and dismissed the- case. My opponent, however, appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided against me. Before we started on the appeal, I had, in order to decide what the law was, to pay over one hundred guineas in costs ; so that it would have been far better for me to have paid the £100 at the beginning. It seemed to me that I had been unfairly treated ; but when I discussed the matter with my legal friends, they pointed out that, if the Government paid the expenses of litigation where people took points which were afterwards held to be bad, there would be no end to such cases. The financial responsibility of taking a legal point must lie on the individual, otherwise we shall open the door to cases of all kinds. In regard to the case specially under discussion, the Prime Minister was reported in the Age of the 16th July, last as saying that he did not propose to pay costs, but only intended to offer the unions a solatium for the services they had rendered the Commonwealth by having the constitutionality of the law tested. So that this is a solatium to the unions for having appeared, and, I suppose, taken the part of the Commonwealth. The question before the Court was whether or not this law was valid.

Mr Hall:

– The question was whether fair and reasonable wages were paid ; the unions did not appear in the constitutional case.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I think the question was whether the Excise duty was a legal charge.

Mr Scullin:

– Whether it should be collected.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– That was the point ; and, in my opinion, both sides were necessary to properly elucidate the case. Mr. Barger took the one side, and the labour unions the other j and I cannot see why, if the labour unions are paid a solatium of £500; Mr. Barger, who is a poor man, should not also have his expenses paid. If the law were bad, it was Mr. Barger’s duty to prove the fact; just as, if the law were good, it was the labour unions’ duty to prove the fact. I hold very strongly that if we once start this- class of expenditure we shall be flooded with cases almost on all-fours with this.

Mr West:

– The Judiciary Act will stop that!

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I am very sorry to say that in Canada the Judiciary Act has completely broken down. At first blush it would appear as if, under that Aci, the Government had power to submit the laws to the High Court, and have their validity settled once and for all; but, in actual practice, when cases arise, a very different aspect is often thrown, on the law. It will be found, I think, as in Canada, and, as in. England, where there- is a similar law - although it is now a dead letter - that, in actual cases, the High Court will have often to reverse its original decision. Although the Bill is well intentioned, it will, in my opinion, be an absolute dead letter. The point raised is a very important one; and I feel sure that my honorable friends opposite only desire to do justice. I repeat, that if we pay an honorarium or solatium to the labour unions, I do not see how we can, in justice, refuse to similarly compensate Mr. Barger. Iknow that it nearly ruined that gentleman in order to settle whether the law of the land was constitutional. As to the question of wages, honorable members may recollect that I moved the adjournment of the House, in order to place before it a petition I had received from Mr. Barger, and every one of his men, some of whom had been with him twenty-four years, asking that the Act should not be enforced so far as they were concerned. The employer and the workers joined in that petition on the ground that, if the Act were enforced, it would mean shutting up all small businesses and ‘throwing the harvester work entirely into the hands of the big firms, who, as I pointed out at the time, by reason of the constant employment they can offer, are able to pay higher wages. The two classes of factories are worked on entirely different systems.

Mr Fenton:

– Were not about 200 employe’s associated in that matter ?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not recollect, and I do not know whether Mr. McKay was associated in the movement; but I rather think he stood out. Mr. McKay’s men start, I think, at half-past 7 in the morning, and, as the work rolls in, his blacksmith wields the hammer all day long. In the small shops, on the other hand, a full week may be followed by a slack week, and the employers cannot afford to pay the same high rates of wages as their more important competitors.

Mr Hall:

Mr. Barger employed Mr. Mitchell, K.C., and Mr. Glynn; did he, a poor man, employ those counsel, or did the Employers’ Federation meet the expense ?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I am not aware who paid the money, but I think it very likely that Mr. Barger had to get outside support.

Mr Hall:

– The employers were all interested and united.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not recollect. Honorable members will, I think, see the justice of the position I have presented, and agree that if the labour unions are compensated Mr. Barger should be compensated also. I know that honorable members desire to be fair, and I place my view before them, because, otherwise, decided injustice may be done.

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

.As already pointed out, this question arises out of the case that was brought to test the validity of the Act which was passed to introduce the system of new Protection. The majority of the House were then in favour of the system, and, indeed, so far as we understand, all sections are now in favour of it. The party then in power considered that, by means of the Excise duties, they would be able to carry out their desires in this connexion; and certain duties were made payable by manufacturers, unless they were able to produce a certificate in regard to the rates of wages paid. There were 112 employers in Victoria alone who made application for certificates, and the President of the Court selected Mr. McKay’s case, which was the largest, as a test case. His Honour stated that he would allow all the parties to bring before him any new matter, but not to go over the same evidence as was tendered in the McKay case. That certainly was a case, as the honorable member for Angas has admitted, in which the Government ought to have intervened. It is all nonsense to say that it rested with the President of the Arbitration Court to find out for himself, in any way he thought fit, what the wages should be. The manufacturers desired certificates, and it was necessary, in order to test the matter, that some persons should be prepared to put the facts before the Judge so as to assist him in arriving at a fair and reasonable rate of wages. The Act was a blunder so far as we were concerned. It was not merely proved to be unconstitutional, but we know that the President of the Court complained very strongly about the duties it threw on him. His Honour said -

I do not protest against the difficulty of the problem, but against the confusion of functions - against the failure to define, the shunting of legislative responsibility.

It was absolutely necessary that some person should intervene in order that the question of what was fair and reasonable wages should be presented. The President of the Arbitration Court received a great deal of assistance, in coming to his decision, from the efforts and arguments of Mr. Duffy. K.C., and Mr. McArthur, who appeared on behalf of the men. Unless His Honour had held that the wages were not fair and reasonable, the Government could not have subsequently brought the action to recover the Excise duties. It is perfectly true that it was in the second case that the question of constitutionality was tested, but that case could never have been launched unless it had been preceded by the other case.

Sir John Quick:

– Why?

Mr WISE:

– Because it would not have been possible to show that fair and reasonable wages were not being paid. The President said -

As I understand the Act, a manufacturer to whom the standard applies, if he has time workers only, will be able to get exemption from the duties by merely producing to the Customs authorities the standard (it will be a schedule to the order made on his application), and then satisfying the Customs that the goods in question have been manufactured under the conditions set forth in the standard.

Their first case had to be brought in order to fix the standard. When the Government knew that those manufacturers had not been paying up to the standard, and could not produce the certificate, they straightway commenced an action to recover the Excise duties - a course that could not have been taken without the preliminary steps. If the Government had intervened and called all the witnesses which the unions called, there would have been no necessity for the unions to appear ; and we must remember that fact. So far as making a precedent is concerned, there is little ground for anxiety. I hope the Judiciary Act will not itself be held to be unconstitutional; and, if it is not so held, the probabilities are that no such case as this will ever again arise. The Harvester case could have been tested under the Judiciary Act without any outsider being put to expense. I must say that my sympathies are entirely with people who have been put to expense owing to the blunder of Government officials ; or, what is still worse, the blunder of this Parliament in passing a law it had no right to pass. Every penny of expense that has been cast on any persons owing to the fact that the Act we passed was held to be invalid, ought, in justice, to be paid by the Government, whether those persons be employers or employed. If we do an injustice, it is our duty to rectify it. In the future, the constitutionality of any Act will be efficiently tested by means of the Judiciary Act. If the question arose in any other way, then before any party could expect to be recompensed by the Government for the expenditure they incurred they should certainly submit the matter to the AttorneyGeneral of the day, and have an understanding with him before they set out. So far as the present case is concerned I do not think we should hesitate in passing this amount. The honorable member for Angas, who has some idea of the costs incurred, says that it is by no means an unreasonable charge. I am prepared to go to the same extent to assist other parties who were put to quite unnecessary expense by reason of our passing an Act which the Court afterwards held that we had no power to pass.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– The honorable member for Gippsland would be taking a very logical view of the matter if members of this Parliament were themselves making some sacrifice iaa passing the proposed vote. It is most unfortunate that Parliament should pass a law which involves those who have to live under if in legal expense through no fault of their own. But it is not our own money that we are being asked to vote, but the money of the taxpayers, who themselves were not responsible for what occurred.

Mr Wise:

– No, but their agents were.

Mr KELLY:

– I have been very much impressed by the chivalrous way in which the honorable member for Hume accepted the whole responsibility for the measure which caused so much trouble to employers and employes throughout Australia !

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member opposed it.

Mr KELLY:

– Of course. I realized exactly what would happen under it. I do not suggest that my honorable friends who supported the measure, and protested its constitutionality in the face of objections, should pay the law costs of the unfortunate litigants who were deceived by it ; but I do say that if we are going to pay the costs of this or that section, we should, in common fairness, pay the costs of all who suffered under the measure.

Sir William Lyne:

– If the case is a very important one.

Mr Scullin:

– In similar circumstances.

Mr KELLY:

– No one will contend that during the progress of the Tariff I was a particular friend of those who were seeking to get what I should regard as prohibitive protection, but some of the employers subsequently tested the constitutionality of the measure, and if that service entitles the employes to their costs, surely the arch-producer of all this turmoil and difficulty will admit that the employers are equally entitled to their costs.

Mr Anstey:

– That is a different thing altogether.

Mr KELLY:

– The difficulty is that my honorable friends opposite seem to be prepared to pay this amount, not so much because these particular men contested the case as because it happens to be a union that contested it.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is not fair.

Mr KELLY:

– I appeal to the honorable member for Bourke, who interjected just now that to pay the employers their costs would be a different thing altogether.

Mr Anstey:

– I say so because these particular employers were perjurers in the first place.

Mr KELLY:

– I did not follow the evidence, and, therefore, I do not know how far the honorable member’s contention can be justified, but I do suggest that such a charge is one which ought to have been made outside, and not inside, this chamber.

Mr Anstey:

– No, it would be dangerous outside.

Mr KELLY:

– I should like to know how this .£500 is going to be distributed. If I remember rightly, I think the claim of Mr. Sutch, who appeared for this particular union, was for 5s. a day. The body of men to whom it is proposed to pay this amount petitioned Parliament for a number of things besides the payment of these costs. The first prayer of their petition was -

That Parliament should take immediate steps to carry out the principles and policy of the new Protection.

That is being done. The next was -

That Parliament should take immediate steps to provide that manufacturers of agricultural implements pay to the Commonwealth the back Excise due.

That prayer has not been given effect, because as a matter of fact the Court ruled that there was no back Excise due, and consequently none claimable. The third prayer of the petition was -

That Parliament should take immediate steps for the manufacturers to compensate the employed for the back wages due to them since 1st January, 1907.

I think the Act came into operation on the date named, and all the manufacturers applied to the Court for certificates of exemption from Excise cn the ground that the wages and conditions in their factories were fair and reasonable. Through no fault of theirs, their applications could not be dealt with, because the ‘‘Court was so congested with these applications that it took a very considerable time to hear them. What the men asked for in their petition was that the employers should pay out of their own pockets for the faulty administration of the Act which led to this congestion of the business of the Court. I think that the contention that the employers should be made to suffer for the action of this Parliament to some extent answers the claim of the men that they should be compensated for having suffered through the action of this Parliament.

I have considerable difficulty in dealing with this matter. I am entirely in accord with my honorable friends in desiring that something should be done to recoup those concerned in having the constitutionality of the Act tested, their actual legal expenses involved. But it should, not be forgotten that in agreeing to this vote we shall be establishing a precedent which may lead to countless claims being submitted on the part of litigants who may claim to have suffered as the result of faulty legislation passed by this Parliament.

I may be permitted to point out that our methods of doing business practically precludes our passing Acts free from pitfalls for the unwary. For instance, we have now been for twentysix hours on end forcing through the Estimates of the country. It is proposed that all the accounts of the Commonwealth shall be passed under review in a continuous sitting when the endurance of honorable members is hardly equal to the strain. With such a method of conducting business what guarantees can we have that more pitfalls will not be found iri our legislation, and that more people will not have to pay legal expenses to test its constitutionality? We may have hosts of litigants besieging this Parliament for legal expenses incurred in proving that it did not know its business.

This may react very strongly upon Federal legislators. . For instance, we may find our constituents demanding, when we are careless in our duty, that we ourselves shall suffer for the loss imposed upon the community we represent. If the honorable member for Hume were a lawyer, and happened to be grossly careless with his client’s interests, an action would lie against him, and, if carelessness were proved, he would be mulcted in heavy damages. If that state of affairs applies to the agent whom one briefs, why not to the agents briefed by the people - the members of the Commonwealth Parliament? We are now asked to be very generous with the people’s money in making up for the misdeeds of the honorable member for Hume and those associated with him at the time.

Mr Scullin:

– And the honorable member for Ballarat.

Mr KELLY:

– No ; the honorable member for Hume very generously took the full responsibility this morning for devising and tabling the measure. If my honorable friends are going to be very generous with the people’s funds to recoup those who have suffered from their want of skill in drafting measures, they are obviously being guilty of a very shabby piece of pretence at liberality, for they are being liberal with other people’s money to make up for an obligation incurred by their own clumsiness. Except for the very generous admission of the honorable member for Hume, I have heard none of my honorable friends express regret for having caused all this loss and difficulty in the industrial ranks of the Commonwealth, by passing, in the teeth of opposition, a measure which they must have known, had they taken the trouble to reason it out, would be declared unconstitutional.

Mr Frazer:

– Is not this a case of the money being spent because the unions were compelled to take an action which the Government really ought to have taken in order to enforce the law?

Mr KELLY:

– I do not think so. The obligation does not rest upon the Government of being represented before the Courts in these cases. If the responsibility is put on the Courts of hearing these cases, the more we keep the Government out of them the better, in the interests of even-handed justice and the honest, open administration of our Courts of law. Imagine the High Court, a year or two hence, when its character and personnel may have been completely changed. That is possible, although I hope it will not happen. We shall then find in the High Court of Australia a body of men without pension rights, and absolutely subject, unless they are men of high character and integrity, to the domination of these two Houses of Parliament, if the two Houses cared to abuse their powers. Send a member of the Government into that Court to tell them what the Government want, or, in other words, what these two

Houses want. In those circumstances, should we not be exercising an improper pressure on that Court?

Mr West:

– The honorable member must have a very bad mind to make such a statement.

Mr KELLY:

– I thought my honorable friend had had a dream just about the time he came again to life, and that in his dream he had brought back some memory of what was said “ upstairs.”

Mr West:

– I did dream that the honorable member was a fool.

Mr KELLY:

– Without wasting the honorable member’s few reasonable ‘ hours, may I point out to him that even he has been shown to be subject to pressure? If so distinctly honorable a man can be influenced by political pressure, is it not reasonable to suppose that, when the character and personnel of the High Court was changed, the Court might find itself subjected to political pressure of the very character which I am trying to avoid ? The honorable member made his electors vigorous promises, but, in an important essential, at the pressure, not of his employers, but of his colleagues in the party, he imposed taxation in certain directions where his platform utterances had led his electors to believe that it would not be imposed.

This is not a question of being; supremely suspicious of human nature, or of under-estimating the character and capacity of our Courts of justice. It is simply a question of trying to separate the Legislature from the judicial bodies interpreting our laws. The moment the Legislature interferes in the Courts, at that moment the Judiciary ceases to be a free interpreter of the laws as written, and becomes a mere tool of the Parliament which writes them, and which may interpret them differently according to the changing political views of changing majorities. It is this consideration which makes me reply to the Honorary Minister’s interjection by saying that had the Commonwealth, through the Government, cared to be represented in the Courts, a very regrettable precedent would have been set up. The President of the Court was, under the Act, given power to decide whether the wages and conditions of labour were fair, and could call whatever evidence or take whatever steps he liked to find out if fair wages and labour conditions were obtaining in any factory. These employes, in order to have their wages raised - a very laudable object-

Mr Scullin:

– Or to assure to the Government the collection of the Excise duty.

Mr KELLY:

– What absolute nonsense for the honorable member to pretend that a union discharging its legitimate work of raising the wages of its members is out purely to secure the proper payment of Excise to the Commonwealth ! Would these men sooner have the Excise paid and the wages not raised, or the wages raised and the Excise not paid ?

Mr Scullin:

– We were after the wages, but if we had succeeded the result would have been the payment of revenue to the Commonwealth.

Mr KELLY:

– That is all I said. The union were after the wages, a proper thing for them to do, but they were just as selfinterested in being after the wages as the employers could be. in looking after their own side of the question. If the employes are to be repaid the expenses incurred by them in the Courts for simply looking after their own interests, why should not everybody else be recompensed for the expense incurred in testing various Acts?

Mr Scullin:

– They were also enforcing a law passed by this Parliament.

Mr KELLY:

– So was everybody else concerned in these and similar proposals.

Mr Scullin:

– It is the duty of a Parliament to enforce its own laws.

Mr KELLY:

– The Parliament did its duty by appointing the President of the Arbitration Court, who is a Judge of the Supreme Court, to decide the question. That Judge is quite competent to call evidence for himself without the assistance of the high legal acumen of Comrade Sutch and others. My. honorable friends are indulging in special pleading, which does their own cause no good, when they direct attention to side issues about the disinterested idealism of Comrade Sutch and his friends. Their union appeared before the Court, according to my honorable friend, not for the real purpose of raising wages in the industry, but for the patriotic purpose of seeing, without their wages being raised, that Excise collectable under the Act was paid into the coffers of the Commonwealth !

If we are going into this class of thing, we shall have to go into it all round. The Minister of Home Affairs must realize that all parties in the State should be treated with even-handed justice. He has often said that no privilege should be given to any particular section of the community. If he were to test the validity of an Act of Parliament, and fail to prove that it was sound, would he not expect the Government to follow this precedent and pay him his costs ? The men in this case did not prove the incapacity of the Act. They proved to the satisfaction of the Court that their wages and conditions, of labour should be improved.

I should like to know how this £500 is going to be paid.

Mr West:

– In Australian notes.

Mr KELLY:

– That would be a piece of gross humbug ! What would be the use of paying Comrade Sutch in such notes? We are entitled to know how. much of this money will go into the chest of the union, and how much into the breeches pockets of Comrade Sutch, and one or two other altruists- who conducted the campaign in their interests. When he made his claim of £5 5s.. per day because of .the vast store of legal knowledge which he had brought to the assistance of his union, I began to see that there must be something very profitable in this business. I refuse to vote a stiver to those who have appeared in the Courts and have made such claims. What about the blood-suckers, vampires, and legal cancer now?

Mr Frazer:

– Surely that language is “ over the fence.”

Mr KELLY:

– It used to be “off the stump.” Those were common household terms of honorable members opposite for application to the legal profession.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member never heard me apply such language to any person.

Mr KELLY:

– I can remember it being used1 by members of the party possessing as great a vocabulary as does my honorable friend.

Mr Frazer:

– Comrade Sutch has probably done as much for the cause as most of the trade unionists in Victoria.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr.

Roberts). - Comrade Sutch is not under discussion. For the past twenty minutes the honorable member has had remarkable latitude, and has scarcely touched the subject before the Committee. I suggest that he might continue his remarks by doing so.

Mr KELLY:

– We know that in the original claim Comrade Sutch asked to be paid £5 5s. a day, and I have a right to ask, on behalf of the 30,000 persons whom I represent, how much is to be given to him.

Mr Watkins:

– He was not connected with this case.

Mr KELLY:

– I remember a letter written by Comrade Sutch to Comrade Fisher.

Mr King O’Malley:

– Not in this case.

Mr KELLY:

– I have seen so much of the depletion of union funds, and especially by Labour lawyers representing unions in the Arbitration Courts, the Labour unions growing poor while the Labour lawyers grew rich, that I have the utmost sympathy with the unionists concerned. But I wish to know how the money is to be distributed.

We seem to have nothing this session but the voting of money to the supporters of my honorable friends. How many newspapers are taking advantage of the press cable subsidy ? Only two or three supporting the Labour party ! If the accounts of the country are in order, why sit twenty-seven hours on end to rush them through by a process of physical exhaustion ?

Mr Frazer:

– We have delayed the consideration of thisitem, to give honorable members opposite a chance to speak on it, and now they are using extravagant language in regard to it.

Mr KELLY:

– I have merely used the stock language of the Labour party. A large number of persons have been concerned in testing the constitutional powers of the Parliament. The manufacturers have done . There was the McKay case. Was the H. V. McKay concerned in it the Hugh Victorious McKay against whom I used to inveigh because of his action in connexion with the harvester duties? But I believe in justice in the abstract, and he should not be deprived of a right which he possesses equally with those to whom this money is being voted. If we are going to reimburse those who have proved the incapacity of the Parliament, we should be impartial, though I confess that I do not care about paying money to Hugh Victorious McKay, who was proceeded against for £20,000 for Excise, due on 1st January, 1907. Then came the cases of McKay and Barger, the latter of whom, according to the honorable member for Fawkner, is not in veryflourishing circumstances, and entitled to the sympathy of honorable members.

Mr Frazer:

– We can give him that.

Mr KELLY:

– -Is that all that the Minister will give him? McKay and Barger questioned the validity of the Act, and the case was argued in March, 1908, by counsel for the defendants, as well as by counsel for the Commonwealth, and for Victoria, which intervened ; the employes, who were not directly interested, not being represented. After exhaustive argument, lasting for nine days, the Court reserved judgment, and ultimately decided that the Act was unconstitutional, because, although it purported to be an exercise of the Commonwealth power of taxation, it was in reality not a taxing Act, but an attempt to enforce by penalties the payment of standard rates of wages - a matter within the jurisdiction of the States, and not of the Commonwealth. The Act was also upset by reason of its discrimination between States and parts of States.

If public: service is rendered by showing the incapacity of Parliament, these men are entitled to have their expenses refunded. I ask the Honorary Acting Treasurer whether he cannot give Barger more than his sympathy?

Mr Frazer:

– Should Barger, or any other citizen, have a claim against the Commonwealth, it will be recognised, and dealt with on its merits.

Mr KELLY:

– I am inclined to think that my honorable friend intends to add to the pigeon holes of his outer office, and that their claims will be quietly put aside, and be heard of no more. The fact that the honorable member can propose to give to one side only money which belongs, not to him, but to the people of this country, discloses a very serious condition of affairs. This means the introduction of new methods in the administration of the country, which, I sincerely trust, will not be repeated. Even at this, the eleventh hour, it would be well for the Ministry to consider how far it is wise to go in initiating proceedings of this character.

However unpleasant it may be to have to recompense persons with whom one is not in sympathy - and I am not in sympathy with Mr. H. V. McKay - once a precedent of this character is established, all men must be treated equally, otherwise the Government will lie under the suspicion of American systems of administration, which I trust will never be introduced into the Commonwealth.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– There seems to be an impression that the proposed vote is to be granted to these unions for taking part in the work of testing the constitutionality of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act. That view has been expressed this morning by several honorable members as a justification for the proposed payment, and it was also expressed by the Prime Minister in a speech reported in the newspapers. A quotation from that speech was made this morning by the honorable member for Fawkner, showing that he said it was proposed to grant the unions a solatium for the work they did in testing the Act. That is a wrong impression. The unions that have made this claim for expenses took no part whatever in the litigation to test the constitutionality of the Act. That can be proved by a reference to the official reports. In the Commonwealth Law Reports, Vol.’vi., page 41, there appears a report of the case of The King v. Barger and the Commonwealth v. ** McKay.* The opening words of the report show that this was an action brought by His Majesty the King and the Minister of State for the Commonwealth administering the Customs against Wm. G. Barger, the statement of claim being that His Majesty was entitled to Excise duties in respect of certain manufactured agricultural implements which were not manufactured on any of the conditions as to remuneration of labour specified in section 2 of the Act. The Act, therefore, was tested in that action ; and, as shown at page 135 of the official report, judgment was given for the defendant, in both cases, with costs. That was the action which resulted in the pronouncement of the unconstitutionality of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act. The costs secured by the defendants probably did not cover all the expenses to which they were put as between solicitor and client, but I wish to place beyond all doubt the difference between these proceedings and those before the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The arbitration proceedings were founded upon paragraph d of section 2 of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act, which provided that the Excise should not apply to goods manufactured by any person in any part of the Commonwealth under conditions as to the remuneration of labour which - are on an application made for the purpose to the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, declared to be fair and reasonable by him……

That paragraph, therefore, imposed upon the manufacturers the responsibility of going before the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and obtaining from him certificates to the effect that they were paying fair and reasonable wages as a ground for their exemption from Excise duty. They went before the President, and the onus was cast upon them of proving to his satisfaction that they were paying fair and reasonable rates of wages. The Excise Procedure Act contains machinery provisions defining the powers of the President; but, strange to say, it does not mention who ought to be the parties to an application for a certificate of exemption. Section 5 provides that -

On the hearing of any application no party shall (except by consent ‘of all the parties and by leave of the President) be represented by counsel or solicitor.

Section 7 gives the President power - to summon any person as a witness, and to compel the production before him of books, documents, and things for the purpose of reference to such entries or matters only as relate to the application.

Under the Act, no power is given to the Commonwealth, or to a union, to appear before the Court to oppose an application for a certificate. It seems, therefore, that the President, in the exercise of his discretion, granted to the unions the privilege of appearing before him, and under the Excise Procedure Act he had power, if he was not satisfied with the evidence of the manufacturers, to call any witness. He could, under that power, have called Mr. Sutch and other persons, and I think that, where he required a witness to attend, he should have had power to grant the expenses of that witness. Not only ought the expenses of the witnesses called by the President, or those who assisted the President, to be paid since they were forced to go before the Court, but, inasmuch as this was a statutory proceeding, and the manufacturers were forced to go before the President, they, too, ought to be paid if the witnesses on behalf of the unions are to be paid their expenses. There is a great deal of force in the argument that, inasmuch as the unions were permitted, or instructed, to appear before the President to take part in the proceedings, they ought to be paid reasonable expenses. But there is an equally strong argument in favour of the view that, as the manufacturers were forced to go before the Court under statutory proceedings, their expenses should be paid.

Mr Hall:

– Would the honorable member apply that to all Excise cases ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– This is the only case that has occurred under a special Statute, and which did not in any way determine the constitutionality of the Excise law. It was merely a preliminary proceeding. The difficulty that confronted the late Government was that, if we placed on the Estimates a vote to recoup the unions, we should be met by a. similar claim on behalf of the manufacturers. There is a great deal of force in the view that where citizens have been called upon to take proceedings to test the constitutionality of the law, and have incurred great expense in respect of litigation, with the ultimate result that the law has been declared to be null and void, they should be recouped their expenses, so long as they are not unreasonable or extravagant. I agree with the honorable member for Angas that there is a great deal to be said in support of the unions, but I would go further, and extend that view to the position of the manufacturers. If we are to do justice to the unions, we should take care to deal out allround even-handed justice. We should not pay a portion of the costs of one party to the arbitration proceedings and. altogether disregard the claims of the other party, who were equally forced, under what turned out to be an inoperative law, to go into Court. In the circular which was issued by the unions the statement is made that they were forced most reluctantly to do the work of the Government. I cannot see that under the law it was the work of the Government to go into Court. Probably they held that they ought not to take sides in the controversy. A very invidious onus might have been cast upon them if they had gone into Court and said, “ We do not believe that these employers are paying their employes a fair wage.” Probably they did not feel justified in doing that. But it is quite possible that it was doubtful whether Messrs. McKay and Barger were sweating their employes, and in a doubtful case I am not sure that it was the duty of the Government to take sides against the implement manufacturers.

Mr Hall:

– But they did so in subsequent proceedings.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– In subsequent proceedings they sued the manufacturers torecover Excise duties. They did so for the purpose of protecting the revenue. But that is a very different matter. Notwithstanding the extent to which the Government of the day have been criticised, I hold that they were perfectly justified in adopting a neutral attitude. But the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, in the exercise of his discretion, had a perfect right to allow the workers to intervene, to criticise the case presented on behalf of the employers, and if necessary to submit supplementary evidence. It does not matter what were their motives when they entered the Court- it is immaterial whether they desired to protect their own interests or to present the case from a revenue standpoint. It: would have been most unsatisfactory if the President of the Court had decided the issue on the ex parte statement of the employers. But my point is that, inasmuch as the. employes were permitted to intervene, and were thereby put to expense in procuring evidence, and inasmuch as they have a reasonable claim to be indemnified the principal portion of their loss, the employers also have a substantial claim to consideration. This Parliament ought not to discriminate between the parties in the administration of financial justice. Although the opportunity to recoup the employers as well as the employes has not been availed of, I venture to express the hope that, should an application hereafter be made on the same lines, the immense sacrifices made by the employers in connexion with these Court proceedings will be taken into consideration. Upon these grounds, while I shall not oppose the proposed vote, I say that it ought to have been coupled with a similar indemnity to the manufacturers.

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

– While some honorable members opposite are prepared to justify the proposed vote to the Agricultural Implement Makers’ Employes’ Union upon any ground, others recognise that the adoption of the proposal to disburse the taxpayers’ money amongst private individuals who have rendered no service to the Commonwealth would establish a very dangerous precedent. I notice that the honorable member for Werriwa expressed the view - which is shared by other honorable members - that the payment is not a proper one, that there is something about it which requires a lot of explanation and an elaborate defence. Whilst I do not pose as a constitutional or legal authority, I am very jealous of the honour of this Parliament, and I strongly object to any payment being made for partisan political purposes. I venture to believe that if such a claim as has been made by the secretary of this particular union had been preferred by the secretary of an employers’ union, those honorable members opposite who are so ready to defend the proposed vote would have been loudest in their condemnation of it. Many would not for one moment listen to any suggestion of justice in connexion with such a claim. The worst feature of the business, so far as the Labour Government, now in office, is concerned, is that it savours of the pernicious American system “ spoils to the victors,” which is being insidiously introduced into this Parliament and of which we recently had an illustration in connexion with the press cable subsidy. I say that the introduction of such a system into our parliamentary institutions will establish a very bad precedent, and will lower the standard of our public life. It is establishing a precedent for the prefermentof claims which hereafter will have to be strongly resisted. Suppose, for example, that the secretary of the Employers’ Federation had been engaged in similar work to that in which the secretary of the Agricultural Implement Makers Employes’ Union was engaged on account of legislation enacted by this Parliament. Suppose that he thought it incumbent upon him to place his services at the disposal of his organization, and that he represented that organization in Court. If he were subsequently to address a communication to “ Dear Comrade Deakin,” or to whoever might be acting as Prime Minister, requesting the payment of the expenses which his organization had incurred in litigation, what would honorable members opposite say in respect to his claim? The principle is exactly the same in both cases ; but because the applicant for this money happens to be upon one side of the political fence, his application appears to have received more favorable consideration than it would otherwise have done. That is the impression which must be left in the mind of any unbiased person who looks into this matter. If we are going to entertain a demand on behalf of litigants on one side, we cannot in all fairness refuse to recognise a similar demand when it is made on behalf of the other side. Consequently if the principle is to be recognised by the Commonwealth, it will be seen that we are actually offering a premium to men to engage in litigation. If the idea once gets abroad that those who engage in litigation will be reimbursed all their expenses - that, as a matter of fact, they may even make a profit for themselves out of that litigation - a vista of possibilities will be opened up, the contemplation of which is rather inclined to stagger one. If once this principle be recognised we virtually invite persons to embark upon litigation merely for purposes of their own gain, and not from any patriotic motive. I repeat that when once this principle is recognised, cases will crop up time after time in which men will claim to be indemnified by receiving not merely their own costs in respect of litigation, but solatiums for themselves by way of pecuniary profit and reward.

Sitting suspended from1 to 2.30 p.m. (Thursday).

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

– This claim appears to have first been made in the form of a letter, which was sent by a Mr. Sutch to the present Prime Minister, as follows : -

Federated Saw Mill Timber Yard and General Woodworkers Employes Association of Australia

Carlton, 24th. September, 1909

  1. Fisher, M.H.R., Leader Labour Party,

Dear Comrade,

Russell informs me that he is sending you on the account of his Society, re the Excise Case; I will enclose mine. It will be a little more moderate than his. I had no legal advice, but conducted the case on behalf of the following myself: - Woodworkers, Carpenters, Engine-drivers, Painters, Pattern Makers, Coachbuilders, and others, for 27 days, and done, I consider, for the men every bit as good as the legal gentlemen, only a greater strain on me, and I consider I should be paid for it whilst I had to arrange my own work when engaged on it. If you are successful in getting the Government to pay, which I consider they should, it was no fault of ours the Act was declared unconstitutional, therefore, the Government should pay. Thanking you in anticipation.

I am, yours fraternally,

  1. A. Sutch.

The writer does not state what official position he occupies, but simply signs himself as a private individual. If Mr. Sutch, and those on that side in the litigation, are entitled to demand payment because they were not responsible for the law being declared unconstitutional, then, on the same basis of reasoning, those on the other side have an equally legitimate claim to be remunerated by the Commonwealth.

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

– I have not forgotten that fact, but it does not touch the point.

Mr Mathews:

– I think it settles the point !

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

– No; that is where confusion of thought blinds the honorable member to the principle of the proposal. At any rate, I am not dealing with that matter now, but with the principle involved in a demand of the kind. There is no attempt to justify this claim on the plea suggested by the honorable member. The blame for the invalidity of the law lay, not with the parties on either side, but with the legislators who passed the law.

Mr Mathews:

– The employers got out of their obligation to pay fair and reasonable wages.

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

– That is another point, and it is the fault of the honorable member’s party, who refused to safeguard the interests of the employes when I asked them to do so. I do not hold a brief for either side, but only in the interests of equal justice. As I say, there is a principle involved, and, if it be recognised, it must apply equally all round, and not only to one class, or to one side in a dispute.

Mr Webster:

– Does the honorable member agree with the principle?

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

– I say that the principle is absolutely wrong; but if Parliament declares that it is right, and a claim is made by one side, a similar claim on the other side cannot be ignored. What are honorable members going to do if a similar claim is put forward on behalf of the employers?

Mr Anstey:

– Refuse to pay it, on the ground of justice !

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

– Is justice lopsided, then? That answer shows inability to recognise the principle at stake, and an admission that honorable members opposite would refuse to recognise the equal claims of others. I hope that Parliament will not be reduced to that plane, but that, as legislators, we shall take a higher view of our responsibilities to the country in regard to the public expenditure. When claims are made by private individuals on the public exchequer, we ought to put aside our party predilections, and consider those claims on their merits and on the broad, general grounds of equal justice. If honorable members who support the claim were willing to meet it out of their own pockets, I should not say a word ; but I am convinced that, if a claim on their own pockets were made on the grounds cited in the letter, they would take a very different view of the situation. The claim is made by a gentleman who describes himself as the representative of certain societies; and the first question that honorable members would ask would be whether he was appointed, or whether he simply voluntarily undertook the duties, on the chance of getting some return. In either case, I feel sure that honorable members opposite would refer the claimant to the various unions on whose behalf he intervened ; and surely those unions, amongst them, should be able to reimburse him for the services he claims to have rendered. The unions ought to meet the claim, if anybody should; and that, undoubtedly, is the view that honorable members opposite would take if the money had to come out of their own pockets. As it has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer, they take a different view, and, I suppose, they would describe it as a broad view. I am afraid, however, that that broad view would assume very circumscribed proportions if they were asked to extend it to the other side. It may be interesting just to quote the bill of expenses sent in by Mr. Sutch -

To A/C.

Expenses of the following societies represented before the New Protection Court by Mr. J. Sutch, Saw Mill Employes, Carpenters, Enginedrivers, Painters, Pattern Makers, Wheelwrights and others : -

Statement of expenses incurred in the presentment of the Agricultural Implements Makers Union case against the manufacturers in the Excise Tariff Court : -

Comrade Woolf claims a pretty good slice of the expenses - it is a case of the “ wolf at the door “ of Parliament, with a vengeance ! -

What I marvel at is that, if this claim be a proper one, provision has not been made on the Estimates for the payment of the whole amount. On what ground has the reduction to £500 been made? If these are claims legitimately chargeable to the

Commonwealth, there is no justification for withholding one farthing; and the fact that the amount provided on the Estimates is, in one case, less than half the amount mentioned in the bill, shows that there must be very grave apprehension on the part of the Government as to the justice of the claim, and were rather afraid to make the vote any larger, because they preferred to put forward the plea that the amount provided was comparatively small. That plea will not hold good if the claim itself is proper and legitimate, nor will it hold good if the claim is improper and illegitimate, whether the amount provided is £500 or a Jd. Either the whole amount or none should be paid. May I recall to your memory, Mr. Poynton, the very strenuous time, during which you and I fought night and day against the imposition of a number of duties in the Tariff, particularly the harvester duty ? At that time the honorable member for Hume, as a member of the Government, brought in a motion to provide specially for the harvester duties, to give the McKay harvester people a practical monopoly of the trade. I pointed out, as you did, that the plea urged for the imposition of the duties, that better wages and conditions of labour were to be provided for the workers in the industry, would not be carried out if the duty were imposed and it were left to the employers’ generosity to share the advantages with their employes. As recorded in Hansard for 5th September, 1906, at page 3999, I moved to add the following words to the honorable member for Hume’s motion -

Provided that every manufacturing firm engaged in industries within the Commonwealth, the products of which are protected by duties, shall distribute in increased remuneration to their employes the full amount of the duties imposed.

That was a fair proposition, and would have prevented the necessity of litigation of this kind. The harvester firm were asking for an increase of duty, and I wished to insure that the whole of the increase should be distributed amongst their employes, because the claim put forward for the imposition of the duty was that it was required in order to preserve Australian conditions of labour and wages against the unfair competition of lower-paid workers engaged in similar industries elsewhere. I felt that if that plea was legitimate, and put forward in good faith by the company, and by those advocating a duty on their behalf, it was only fair and reasonable for us to see that the advantage went to the employes and not to the employers. To my astonishment, however, I could not get a single supporter for the amendment from the Labour party. They are now face to face with a proposition of this kind, the constitutionality, legality, and justice of which are matters of considerable doubt, even among some of the members of the Labour party, who are at present supporting it. The honorable member for Werriwa says that no other case of the kind is likely to crop up, but no one can say with certainty that it will not. The very fact that a claim of this kind has been successfully made on the Treasury for money to be paid into the pockets of an individual, who happened to take upon himself the position of advocate on behalf of one side in a dispute, will be a direct invitation for similar actions to be brought forward. In this way a crop of litigation may grow up out of the precedent which we are establishing, and none of us can foresee the end of it. The honorable member for Werriwa says that it is not to be taken as a precedent, and the money is to be paid only on certain grounds, but I would point out the wide discrepancy between his statements and those of the AttorneyGeneral. When conflicting statements are made by two lawyers opposite, one of them being the Attorney-General, the Committee are left in a position of doubt as to what the outcome of such proceedings is likely to be. We recognise that the amount involved is comparatively small. I am not talking against the amount, nor against Mr. Sutch, or any union with which he may be identified; but am simply declaring against the recognition in’ this House of a practice which may lead to grave scandals, and assume formidable proportions in the future. I thought it was fair in commenting on the item to remind certain honorable members who were in the last Parliament that, if they had taken a proper attitude when the harvester duties were before us, and made provision against injustice being done to the workers engaged in this, or any other- industry which is the recipient of special Tariff protection, such litigation as has followed would not have cropped up. If honorable members had supported my amendment, all the trouble could have been avoided. When the people of the Commonwealth agreed to be taxed in the special interests of the workers in the industry, we should have been able to insure that those workers got the benefit intended for them. Members of the Opposition cannot be blamed for having unduly taken up time in calling attention to this matter. They have a duty to perform to their constituents and to the Commonwealth, and I trust that, in discharging my share of that duty, I have not unduly taken up the time of the Committee.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- The contentions of the honorable member for Lang may be disposed of in few words. It is by no means uncommon for the Crown, when it finds that a party to, say, a criminal proceeding has been wrongfully punished, to make all the reparation in its power by granting the individual a certain sum of money. I apprehend that in this case the unions went before the Court - and have been unjustly punished in being fined a large sum of money - in order to test the constitutionality of an Act passed by this Parliament. I do not think that we have a right to expect a body of men in such circumstances to submit quietly to such a heavy fine. In reimbursing them a portion of the money which they have paid away, we are not establishing any precedent which is likely to lead to injurious results. It seems very doubtful whether the remedy proposed some time ago by the honorable member for Lang, which he has just now recalled to memory, would have met the difficulty that arose in the harvester case. He tells us of his anxious desire that the workers should obtain the whole of the increased amount represented by the duties imposed by this Parliament, but he did not tell us how the employes were to receive it, which is the crux of the whole matter. Since the High Court has declared that this Act is unconstitutional, it would certainly declare unconstitutional, also, any and all restrictions and ordinances that the honorable member for Lang might set forth in his amendment. I need not, therefore, dwell further on the case made out by the honorable member. I wish to refer to some remarks made yesterday by the right honorable member for Swan in reference to the sugar industry. I regret that the Minister of Trade and Customs is not here, and regret, also, the cause of his absence ; for the question with which I propose to deal is one within the purview of his Department. Before dealing with it, however, I wish to refer to the speech yesterday of the right honorable member for Swan. He posed as a great friend of the poor man in regretting that the present Government is taking a large sum of money out of the pockets of the people by means of Excise duties on sugar. If the Excise duty were repealed tomorrow, the price of sugar in Australia would not be in any way altered by such repeal. The high cost of sugar as compared with the price ruling outside Australia, is due to the import duty for which he is responsible, as he was a member of the Government which imposed it. As the right honorable gentleman is perfectly well aware of this fact, his sympathy for the poor people, who groan under, the burden of Excise duties, will be taken at its real value. Had he possessed any real interest in the men who are producing sugar, he would, have drawn attention, as I am about to do, to the low wages and hard conditions of the life of the labourer in the cane-fields. My authority is one which ought to be received with respect and credence by at least the supporters of this Government. I refer to the Brisbane Worker, by far the ablest newspaper of its kind in Australia. For many years its columns have been filled with letters and articles denouncing most trenchantly the treatment of the Queensland sugar workers by their employers. I shall only read a few specimens of these. A writer whose letter was published in the Worker of the 19th of the present month, says -

It’s hard, to pick up a paper without reading of an industrial trouble at a sugar mill or a strike among the cane-cutters for better terms. These things happen, not in one mill or in one district, but in every mill and in every district in Queensland. The industry is reeking with discontent

The people of Australia pay an enormous sum annually in order that the sugar industry may be carried on with white labour, and we are entitled to insist, on their behalf, that fair wages shall be paid to those employed in it. It is especially the duty of representatives of constituencies where decent wages are enforced on employers to call attention to the fact that in an industry which is subsidized to the extent of 43 per cent, of the value of its product - perhaps, the most heavily-subsidized industry in Australia - reasonable and ade>quate wages are not paid.. Again, the secretary of the Bundaberg Sugar Workers Union, Mr. Harry Hall, at a meeting held at Woongarra, made the following remark - I quote from the Worker of the 25th June last -

The secretary, speaking to his report, commented on the fact that a good season for the planters meant a bad season for the workers. With plenty of moisture very little cultivation was needed, and the result was there was a large amount of surplus labour, which the employers took full advantage of.

We hear continually of the scarcity of labour in the northern fields ; but, according to Mr. Hall, who is always moving about the plantations, the employers take advantage of the surplus labour there to reduce wages -

Apart from the large number of men who were absolutely unemployed, he knew of members, who though working for months, had not averaged more than 12s. and 13s. a week, which meant a very bad time for the workers, especially those who had wives and families.

Several members indorsed the secretary’s statements, and quoted incidents in support.

It is rather startling to hear that, though we pay some £1,000,000 a year to assist the industry, many of the workers in it earn only 12s. or 13s. a week. Mr. Hall’s statement is not unsupported, because Mr. Fred Cortice adds -

During the half-year things unionistic have been very quiet, owing principally to the wet season that we had, and so much lost time amongst the toilers, many of the men during the wet period not making more than from 7s. 6d. to 10S. per week.

These statements have not been contradicted, so far as I know. If correct, they call for action by this Government. The law empowers the Minister, if he thinks that the wages paid for cane-cutting, &c, are not equivalent to the rates paid for other labour in the same locality, to withhold the payment of bounty to the grower responsible. On the 2nd July last the Worker contained a page of complaints from the sugar districts. In a letter from Mossman, dated 18th June, the secretary to the local branch of the Sugar Workers’ Union wrote -

Dear Sir,

You probably are aware that there is trouble here. This branch _ of the Sugar Workers’ Union’s numerical strength is 270 financial members at time of writing. L’ast year a resolution was passed to the effect that .no member was to sign this year’s .agreement, which binds us down to the Masters and Servants Act of Queensland. We tendered the mill directorate a schedule of prices for mill and field work, which they completely ignored. We have asked for a conference with them. Still they decline.

That is, these subsidized planters actually refuse to meet their employes to discuss wages. This would be bad enough in ordinary employers, but the cane-growers are receiving an enormous bounty from the people -

They are shipping Southern labour here, signed on at the terms we have rejected. They are boycotting us right and left, and distress is beginning to appear amongst us.

Commenting on these facts the newspaper says -

The political battle over the coloured slave trade was fought bitterly, but eventually victory ranged itself on the side of the White Australians, and the kanakas were sent back to their island homes, much against the grain of the sugar bosses.

Ever since those who control the milling and refining machinery necessary to place sugar on the market have been making catspaws of small sugar-cane growers, whilst at the same time unceasingly clamouring for State and Federal Parliaments to “ Give, Give, Give “ - meaning to themselves.

And they have clamoured so effectively that Australia lies under tribute to them by way of bonuses and tariffs, and the industry is now more profitable than when the terrified kanaka worked in the canebrakes.

That is a welcome admission of the fact already mentioned -

As evidence of this, at the last half-yearly meeting of the C.S.R. Co. the directors’ reports and balance-sheet, as presented, slated that the profits, after providing for interest and all other charges, amounted to £”175,589, to which sum had been added the credit balance at profit and loss acount of £82,882, or a total profit for the half-year of £258,471.

In other words, a profit at the rate of over £500,000 a year. As to that particular company I shall have a little more to say later. To continue my quotation -

The bosses of the sugar industry have never given up hope of being .able to bring white workers down to the abject and servile condition of the deported kanaka. Their present despotic action in the Northern cane-fields, coupled with the continued great stream of imported Stateaided immigrants from Europe, which throws thousands of native-born Australians out of work, is a glaring indication of their desire in this direction.

Some fifteen or eighteen months ago, planters’ agents were permitted by the then Government to scour Europe for cheap labour, but having been unable to supply their wants, they attempted to lure men from Tasmania and the other States to “ blackleg “ on their fellows, though, I am glad to say, not with much success. The article proceeds -

Last sugar season, in the absence of penniless unemployed, the Northern workers in various districts were by the power of unity enabled to force better terms for their labour than the sugar bosses were prepared to give them voluntarily. The sugar bosses are now using their economic power to punish the resident Northern workers for daring to act the part of free men in the exercise of their franchise as well as for their refusal to sign a most atrocious agreement. That’s what is at the bottom of the present lockout of sugar workers in the Mulgrave, Mossman, and Nelson districts.

For some time past the sugar bosses have been making preparations, in regular American style, to crush out of existence, if they can, the Sugar Workers’ Union. While claiming for themselves the right of forming trusts and combines, they are autocratically intolerant of the idea of the workers combining.

This is the typical attitude of the capitalistic class when they have the whip hand of the workers. The article continues -

The proposal of a conference by the workers they scornfully rejected, and at a time when the State Government is trying to settle resident workers for them on small plots of land they send to Tasmania and New South Wales for unemployed non-unionists in order to deny to Queenslanders the right of earning a living in the place where they have made homes for themselves and families.

This sugar industry, out of which millions of pounds of profits are made each year, is assisted out of the pockets of heavily-taxed consumers, most of whom are wage-earners. The industrial and political organizations of Labour, which have rendered so much splendid service as to command the admiration of the whole world, must not be crushed by a gang of greedy exploiters who batten on the labour of our working class.

Australia should always be free to everyone of the white race to come to it of their own accord, and at their own expense. But sugar bosses, while now aiming at the destruction of the workers’ organizations, realize also that without a standing army of disorganized unemployed labour they cannot maintain their economic power over the people, or their hold over the various State Governments of the country.

Another newspaper published in one of the sugar-growing districts - the Mackay Pioneer - publishes an article concerning the cane-farmers, in which the following language is used -

Some of these low-down gentry have discovered that until a sugar crop is registered it is permissible to employ any labour, and under any conditions. So kanakas are employed in the clearing of the ground and the planting of the cane up to, say, about June. Then the plot or plots are registered, and are eligible for bounty as if they belonged to a farmer with a white man’s instincts.

This is a matter which should engage the attention of the officers of the Department. It would appear from this that these men are deliberately endeavouring to evade the terms of the Act. which requires the employment only of white labour. Honorable members may be under the impression that I am quoting from newspapers issued six months since, but I have more recent extracts showing the condition of labour in the northern cane-fields. A spe cial writer to the Worker has published, evidently with editorial sanction, a series of articles on the sugar industry ; and in one of these, referring to the cane-farmers, he says -

To hear Cocky talk, you’d imagine if the bounty was stopped that the whole of the growers of Queensland would have to get out of the business. He says, “ If I’ve got to grow sugar with white labour I must be assisted by a bonus, you know, white labour is so dear.” Any one hearing this would naturally think that he meant it, and that it was a straight story. But hold on a bit and see how it works out.

He then makes a revelation, which is worthy of the attention of the Committee, of the devices by which these planters are able to evade the Act and to employ black labour in the production of their crops -

Sugar-cane is not planted afresh every year, like wheat or potatoes. The ground is ploughed up and cane planted, say, last year. When ready for harvesting it was cut and sent to the mill, and white men had to be employed to prepare the ground, plant the cane, cut and harvest it. Of course, having to employ whites, the labour cost was greater than when he used his kanakas, and perhaps he was justified in asking a little assistance.

But he doesn’t plough and plant the same ground this year, nor, if he has good scrub land, will he do it for several years hence. He gets “ retournes,” or “ ratoons,” from the original “ plant cane” without very much, if any, additional labour. These retournes or ratoons (spell it which way you like) are second, third, fourth growths from the same “ plant,” and in some districts they get an incredible number of crops before the “ plant “ is worked out.

Here is where the “ confidence game “ comes in.

The writer is very frank. He describes the practice as “ the confidence game,” and I do not know that that description is altogether inaccurate.

He doesn’t tell the Australian people who pay him his bounty about the “ ratoons.” Nor does he mention that the growing of them cost him practically nothing, because he employs no labour in cultivation. He still howls for bounty because of the high price of white labour - and gets it, although he employs none of this highpriced white or any other labour - he just lets his crop go, confident of the’ result.

The position is this. We pay 7s. per ton or cane grown by the farmer because we wanted white-grown sugar. In the year of ploughing and planting he may be justified in taking it. But in all the other years that he is getting “ratoons” he is certainly not justified, because he has not employed the white labour he charges us for - he is fleecing the people and making a profit out of the bonus.

We, the people of Australia, are paying for the growing and harvesting of every “ ratoon “ crop, paying directly, that is, because the 7s. per ton bounty pays for the very small amount of labour used in their cultivation, the cutting of the crop, its delivery to the mill, and leaves a profit to the farmer. If he was an honorable man he would refuse to take one farthing bounty on “ratoon”’ cane, and if he cannot make a living on the price he gets from the mills, he has no right to work a “ confidence gag” on the Australian people - he has a right to compel the mill directors, C.S.R., or Central, to pay him a proper price.

These Central mills are bad tucker shops. Remember that the workman gets 25s. per week and kept. Keep ! ye gods, it’s not fit for kanakas, let alone white men, yet the worker has to take it as part of his wages. No butter, no jam, English potatoes at most “twice a week, the rest of the time “ sweet bucks “ are provided, no vegetables, no cake, coarse brown or raw sugar, rice pudding only, and as for pickles - - well they are conspicuous by their absence. 4s. 2d. per man per week was the cost of the “keep” of the men at one mill last season.

The writer proceeds to describe the luxurious style in which the planters live. It certainly requires a stretch of the imagination to believe that these people, within a few years of the time when their industry was supposed to be threatened, should give so many indications of having great wealth at their command.

Mr Sampson:

– Is the writer referring to the big farmer or the small grower?

Mr MAHON:

– I presume that he is referring to the cane-growers as a class. He continues -

I have no objection to the sugar Cocky being out of debt, living in a good house, nor driving good horses. Not the least. I’m pleased to see him prosperous - but I do object strongly : 1 st, to him taking a bounty from the struggling Australian workmen, when he doesn’t need it; 2nd, to the damnable way he sweats the cutter, the field, and the mill hands he employs.

This and other evidence, which is available to the Government, would justify them in holding an inquiry of some kind into the conditions under which the men are working in the northern cane-fields.

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

– Why do they not hold an inquiry?

Mr MAHON:

– The honorable member evidently desires an inquiry different from that for which I have been asking.

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

– I have been advocating an inquiry for the last nine years.

Mr MAHON:

– I think that those whom the honorable member has in mind are already well cared for, since the import duty of £,6 per ton enables them to extract a very heavy toll from the people. The honorable member must know that if there were no duty the price in Australia to-day would be £6 per ton less than it is. I suggest that an inquiry should be held into the position, not of the canegrower, the miller, or the refiner, but of the worker - the man who produces the cane.

Mr Sampson:

– The consumers are also concerned. Why not an all-round inquiry?

Mr MAHON:

– Because the other class concerned in the industry have no bond fide grievance. If they are well off, as they undoubtedly are, then the best thing for them is to leave well enough alone. It is evident, however, that an inquiry is necessary on behalf of the worker. I propose now to make a quotation from a report by the organizer and secretary of the Mackay Branch of the Australian Sugar-Growers Union, in which he deals with the situation in the Mackay district. The following shows how hollow is the cry in regard to the scarcity of labour -

Already there are over 200 names on the unemployed roll at the Labour Bureau, besides a considerable number of men tramping the district in search of toil.

The men employed in the mill are seething with discontent, and are disgusted at the supercilious indifference with which their employers treated the just claims of this union.

He concludes -

Workers, keep away from Mackay. The conditions under which you will be asked to work are degrading. Wages are from 22s. 6d. ; hours from ten to twelve per day.

The wages recognised by the Minister are 22s. 6d. per week for men employed by the week, and at the rate of 30s. per week in the case of those employed by the day.

Mr Poynton:

– Including rations?

Mr MAHON:

– Yes. I do not know how that scheme has worked out, but a* strong protest was entered against it by a deputation of sugar-growers which waited on the Minister of Trade and Customs on 20th May, 1908. Let me compare the wages paid in the sugar industry with the schedule of rates agreed to by the Australian Workers Union for workers employed in districts corresponding to those in which sugar workers toil for ten or twelve hours per day for a wage of 22s. 6d. per week. Remember that the work done by several classes of men in the Australian Workers Union schedule is certainly not so strenuous or severe as is that connected with sugar growing. In the case of a gardener, for instance, the Australian Workers U nion insists that he should be paid in every State - 35s. per week. Will any one say that the work done by a gardener, in a cool and healthy climate, is to be compared with the strenuous work done by a man in a cane-field in a moist climate like that of the northern coast of Queensland? In fact, many people contend that cane cutting is only fit for black labour, and certainly coloured men have a monopoly of the work in many countries. Here is the schedule list of wages fixed by the Australian Workers Union at a conference held last May or June -

If a representative body like the Australian Workers Union decides that these are fair and reasonable rates in Queensland, and in other States corresponding to Queensland, why should the Minister of Trade and Customs allow these unfortunate cane-cutters to be pressed below them? The Minister has power to withhold the bounty at any time, unless the wages paid for cane cutting correspond to the wages paid in other industries in the surrounding districts.

Mr McWilliams:

– Was this not the rate of wages fixed by the Government?

Mr MAHON:

– I believe that the rate was fixed by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, when he was a member of the Government; but it does not now coincide with the terms of our law. I may add that the planters were very indignant even at the moderate rate fixed by the honorable member for EdenMonaro. If the Australian Workers Union regard these rates as fair for work which is not anything like so strenuous as cane cutting, I cannot see why the Minister should not call upon the planter to observe them, seeing that he has, in my opinion, good and sufficient reason for taking that course. The list goes on -

All the above rates are subject to employees being found.

All classes of labour employed on weekly wages in sheds to be paid the same rate irrespective of age.

Men employed on well bores receive 35s. per week and found other than drill men, who are to receive per week and found for a week not exceeding 48 hours.

Cooks working all the year round, £2 per week and found.

The industries in which the Australian Workers Union members are engaged receive no Tariff or other assistance. The industry which is subsidized out of the national Treasury should, therefore, be compelled to pay adequate wages. I should like to dwell for a moment on the effect that the tax on sugar has on other industries, as well as on the workers.

Perhaps the Government of the right honorable member for Swan should not be blamed for imposing this import duty. He and others who acted with him are, however, entitled to plead that in attempting to transform sugar-growing into a white man’s industry, they could borrow no lesson from the experience of other nations. They were like mariners in a new and uncharted ocean. It seems to me, therefore, that we may criticise, or even condemn,, our sugar legislation, without holding either the present Government or the Opposition entirely responsible for placing what threatens to be an irremovable millstone around the necks of the people. I feel all the more free to speak frankly, because ever since I realized the real drift of our policy I have spoken and voted consistently against its continuance. My reasons are, briefly, that sugar is an indispensable article of diet, and should not be heavily taxed, if taxed at all. It is used in every household in Australia ; and, consequently, the great burden is borne by the masses - by the wage-earners, who are endeavouring to r.ear families. Sugar is one of the chief ingredients in jams, preserved fruits, confectionery, biscuits, condensed milk, and other Australian products ; and the tax has the double disadvantage of raising, the cost to the consumer, while impeding exportation to foreign markets. Again, such, a tax lacks the essential element of justice. A protective duty, to be fair, should operate equally over every part of the protected area. It should give the .same advantage to an industry in Tasmania as in Victoria ; and it should place no handicap on a South Australian which is not borne by a Queenslander. Now, this protective duty on sugar does not fulfil this canon, of any just scheme of taxation:. It confers no advantage whatever on four States of the Commonwealth which do not grow and are not likely to grow cane-sugar. On the contrary, it is a distinct handicap on them. This sugar tax is levied principally for the benefit of Queensland, although New South Wales gains to some slight extent. It seems to even run counter to clause 99- of the Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth from giving preference to one State or part thereof over any other State or part thereof. . Before dealing with that phase, however, I should like to quote the opinions of some jam manufacturers as to the effect which the increased price has on their industry.

We have as much right, I take it, to have regard to the people who are growing fruit as to the people who are growing cane. Last June, when the price of sugar was raised, a Melbourne newspaper interviewed some of the jam manufacturers, and Mr. Peacock said -

Last year Australian sugar was being sold in South Africa at £12 10s. a ton at the same time that we were paying £18 15s. a. ton. There is a duty of £6 a ton, and the gainers from that are not the Queensland growers but the Sugar Company, and . the chief losers are the fruitgrowers of Victoria- and Tasmania.

Then he was asked the question -

Do you mean that raising the price of sugar is tantamount to taxing the fruit-grower ? - Tax ! I should think it was. With sugar at the present price, every orchardist is paying a tax to the Sugar Company of £6 to £8 an acre a year. No wonder the company can make a profit nf a million sterling in a year. - “ Tax “ is not the word. They raise the price in the face of such colossal profits, and with the biggest crop ever known right ahead of them. Tn an ‘ attempt to help the growers against the company, the Prime Minister is apparently going to raise the duty again. It is the wrong way to go to work. Why should our fruitgrowers be ruined in an attempt to benefit the Queensland sugar-grower.

Another large manufacturer, Mr. Robertson, was equally emphatic. Referring to the duty, he said -

It is injurious to our industry. The extra price cannot,, in the great bulk of our output, be passed on. Confectionery is a luxury, and to raise the price is to diminish the output. That goes without saying.

Then he proceeds to show the autocratic way in which the Colonial Sugar Refining Company deals with its customers; and he generally bears out the statement of Mr. Peacock that the impost very seriously hampers the jam industry.

Mr Sampson:

– That manufacturer participated in a pretty fair slice of Protection.

Mr MAHON:

– I admit that jam is protected; but if the honorable member will look into the figures, he will find that there is very little real Protection when the price of sugar is considered.

Mr Sampson:

– I was thinking of the confectionery manufacturer.

Mr MAHON:

– There is very little confectionery imported.

Mr Sampson:

– But the manufacturers enjoy a large measure of Protection.

Mr MAHON:

– I shall admit that ; but the honorable member surely has some sympathy for the housewife?

Mr Sampson:

– I am not discussing that phase at all.

Mr MAHON:

– When sugar was at a high price, the housewife paid, retail, 3d. per lb., or 15s. or 16s. per 70-lb. bag. But, putting the protected industries out of the question, there is a hardship inflicted on consumers generally throughout Australia. I have here an extract referring to the strong position which the Colonial Sugar Refining Company occupies -

This is the Mrs. Gummidge among Australian companies. Its corner of the fireside is the warmest and surest in the Commonwealth, and its chair the easiest, but still it’s a lone lorn cretur and everything goes contrary with it. Its chairman’s speech is always damp. Nothing is ever quite right. Now they’ve had a strike. Otherwise “ the season’s work is not unsatisfactory,” and when the C.S.R. Co. admits that much things must have been remarkably profitable indeed. As a matter of fact the accounts for the half-year show a profit of ^168,881.

As I have shown, the company pay dividends, and put away profits at the rate of £250,000 per annum. I should like to show the Committee the amount which we have paid in subsidizing not merely whitegrown, but actually black-grown sugar. The increased cost of the sugar to the consumer, owing to the import duty, since its imposition has been £8,886,360. The administration of the bounty has cost £53,087, and repatriating the kanakas cost £13,30°, or a total of £8,952,747. It is only fair to give credit for the difference between the Excise duty and the bounty as received by the Treasury. The difference, according to the official returns, represents for the years up to 1910, £2,005,995. Deducting that from the total cost of the industry to Australia, we get £6,946,732 as the net cost to the people of Australia of our sugar policy todare. The payment of nearly £7.000,000 in eight years makes the industry an expensive one to the Commonwealth, and one can only rejoice that this country is so rich and virile as to stand it, and further to calmly consider the continuance of the subsidy on the same colossal scale.

It will not be denied that the Queensland grower, after paying the Excise and receiving the bounty, has a net benefit of £5 per ton on every ton of sugar he grows. The total production of sugar since 1902 in Queensland is 836,106 tons, and in New South Wales, 166,456 tons, or a total of 1,004,562 tons. The white grower has thus been subsidized in those years to the extent of £5,022,810. The wholesale price of iA household sugar during the five years 1 905-9 inclusive has been as follows : 1905, £21 16s. 8d. ; 1906, £20 is. 8d. ;

I 907, £19 i5s- ; I9°8, £20 14s. 2d. ; 1909, £21 6s. 8d. ; and 1910, £22 16s. 8d. That information is obtained from the Civil Service Co-operative Stores, and will, I think, be found absolutely reliable. The retail price to the small consumer is, of course, considerably more. The average wholesale price, free of duty, during those years would be about £14 10s. per ton. On that basis, the total production of whitegrown sugar since 1902 is worth something over £14,500,000, so that the white grower has received a direct subsidy of over 35 per cent, of the value of his crop, and a protection equivalent to 43 per cent, of the same. His share of the Excise revenue, to which he contributes only £1 a ton, while the black grower contributes £4 a tcn, amounts to nearly 60 per cent, of the whole. Yet, despite all these direct and indirect subsidies, the white grower is either unwilling or unable to give decent wages and labour conditions to the workers in the industry.

When we consider the grower of sugar by black labour, we are confronted with an. extraordinary position. We were told that by the deportation of some 4..000 kanakas, the industry would be handed over entirely to white workers. I have heard the kanaka described as, of all coloured aliens, the least menacing to the racial purity of Australia. At any rate, he was confined chiefly to field work, and did not threaten the existence of white men in other industries, as do the Chinese and Japanese. We have, however, not got rid of coloured labour in the industry. At the end of last year, the fields and mills were harboring no less than 2,325 coloured workers, and the actual production by coloured labour in Queensland this year shows an increase. The greatest satire on our policy is that, although designed to extinguish the black grower, it has actually made him a present of £i,35S>I32 since 1902. That is a startling statement, of which honorable members have failed to realize the significance. A national policy, designed to benefit the white growers, ‘ and promote the employment of white labour, has actually succeeded in making a present of that amount to the growers of sugar by black labour ! I notice that the statement excites comment; but, if some of the other States were represented by gentlemen as active in looking after State interests as are some of the members for Queensland, we should, I venture to say, hear a great deal more about it. At any rate, there are the facts, vouched for by official records and documents. I do not think that even the honorable member for Capricornia will deny the accuracy of the calculation. A point worthy of being stressed is that every increase in the price of sugar means that the consumer pays an additional subsidy to the black grower. That is another aspect of the matter which we have utterly failed to realize. In 1907, the average price of household sugar, import duty added, was £19 15s. per ton. If it paid the black grower then to produce sugar at £19 15s. a ton, he must now be making a fortune when the price has gone up to £22 1 6s. 8d. I have prepared a table showing the amount of subsidy obtained by growers of sugar by black labour from 1902 to 19.10. It will be remembered that the rate of subsidy was £3 a ton from 1902 until the 1st January, 1907, and that it has been £2 per ton since then.

Mr Higgs:

– Does the honorable member say that we pay a subsidy to the black grower ?

Mr MAHON:

– Undoubtedly. All sugar grown in Australia is protected to the extent of £6 per ton; the black grower pays £4 per ton Excise; consequently, he receives £2 per ton subsidy from the taxpayers of Australia.

Mr Higgs:

– Does the honorable member regard all Protective duties as bounties?

Mr MAHON:

– I do not. But, in this case, the Protectionist duty regulates the price of sugar precisely. If we took off the £6 import duty, sugar would be £6 a ton cheaper. If we put on another £3 a ton import duty, the price would be exactly £3 per ton higher. I have prepared the following table: -

I do not propose to detract from the significance of those figures by any further comment. They should, at least, arouse doubts as to our methods of responding to the aspirations of the people for a White Australia. I should like to dwell for a moment on the high price of sugar to-day. Sugar is an article of diet for which there is no effective substitute. It is used in every household in the land, and we must not forget that it is the poor who are bearing the heaviest end of the burden of a tax on sugar. The price of a 70-lb. bag has risen since last year from 13s. 4d. to 15s., and the retail price of the 12-lb. bag is 2s. rod., or over £26 per ton.

Mr Scullin:

– There has been a drop since.

Mr MAHON:

– I am giving the prices ruling when I got the information from the Civil Service Co-operative Society. There has been a trifling drop during the last few weeks. As I was absent in New South Wales, assisting at the elections there, when the Sugar Bills were before honorable members, I may be allowed to read the figures which I prepared at that time. In quantities of 12 lbs., sugar was then being retailed at 2s. 10d., or over £26 a ton, the wholesale price being £22 16s. 8d. There can be no doubt as to the injurious effects of the high price of sugar on confectionery, condensed milk, and other manufactures in which it is a large ingredient. I do not think that it can be truthfully affirmed that the existence of high prices here is due to a shortage, in the Australian production, or to an increase in the cost of production. The price of sugar goes up in Australia, not because there is a decrease in the production of our cane-fields, or because the cost’ of production has increased, but at the will of a monopoly. Prices here do not depend on the two factors which should regulate them’, and which regulate the prices of other products. The prices of sugar in Australia depend on the outside market. When there is a shortage in the world’s productions, and Australia has to import sugar, the local monopoly is able to increase the price. It is worth the consideration of this Parliament to see whether that cannot be prevented. Whenever there is a shortage in the world’s crop advantage is taken of it by the monopoly here to raise the price of Australian sugar, although the cost of production may have remained stationary. Because this year we shall require to import 42,000 tons of sugar, we shall have to pay on the 200,000 tons of locally-grown sugar an artificially increased price, equal to the cost at which the foreign sugar can be landed here duty paid. The position would not be so bad if, when there was a plethora of sugar iri the world’s markets, the prices dropped; but when that happens we cannot take advantage of it because of the import duty. However values outside may fall, the prices of sugar in Australia exceed the prices outside by the amount of the import duty. We must find a remedy for this state of things. When there is a plentiful supply in foreign markets, prices should drop. There should also be an inquiry into the condition of the workers in the industry. The schedule of rates fixed by, perhaps, the most representative body of workers in Australia, the Australian Workers’ Union, for labour corresponding to that employed in the canefields, shows that the latter, though most, arduous, is most poorly paid. Hence the time has .come for the Minister of Trade and Customs to take steps to lift the wages of the cane worker up to the Australian Workers’ Union standard. The Australian people are making an enormous sacrifice, to which there appears to be no prospect of an end. Is this sacrifice to be made for the capitalist alone? Why should not the worker, the real producer, the man without whose aid the industry would decay, receive at least as high a reward as his fellow in other less trying occupations? If the Australian Government is to go on pampering this industry at heavy expense to the whole nation, then it will be guilty of folly and negligence almost criminal if, having the power, it fails to secure for the operatives wages and conditions of labour equal to the best obtainable in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- The proposal to pay ?500 as a reimbursement of costs incurred in the Harvester case possesses special features which must receive consideration. With you, Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the Commission which inquired into the condition of the harvester industry. Parliament made a new departure in legislation, in imposing, in 1906, certain duties on certain classes of agricultural machinery, and attaching the condition that Excise should be imposed and collected if manufacturers failed to pay fair and reasonable wages. The Act came into force on the 1st January, 1907. Mr. Justice O’Connor was then President of the Arbitration Court, and determined certain rates of wages for New South Wales and South Australia. Application was made to him by the Victorian manufacturers as to when he thought the Court would consider what would be fair and reasonable wages for the Victorian industry, and he gave an exemption up to a certain date, and on the 13th May, 1907, sent the following letter to the Attorney-General -

There are over fifty applications by Victorian agricultural implement manufacturers for declarations under the Excise Tariff Act of 1906 set down for hearing next week in Melbourne. I understand from the Registrar of the Industrial Arbitration Court that a Board under the Victorian Factories and Shops Act is now settling the rates of wages in the agricultural implement makers’ trade, and that they will have the scale of wages completed in about two months. It would be very much to the advantage of masters and men that the declarations asked for, if made, should be made on the basis of the scale of wages settled by the Board. I am, therefore, disposed to postpone all the applications until after the Wages Board scale has been issued. Before doing so, however, I would Be glad if you could give the assurance that the Government will take no action to enforce the provisions of the Act against any manufacturer who has applied to the President of the Arbitration Court under the Act until his application has been finally disposed of.

The honorable member for Darling Downs was then Attorney-General, and he replied -

Refer to the Minister for Trade and Customs. I am of the opinion that the assurance suggested may be given, and would suggest that an intimation be made to Mr. Justice O’Connor that in respect of all applications for exemption, . from whatever State made, the Minister for Trade and Customs will suspend the collection of the Excise until the application is determined.

Mr. Lockyer wrote on the 18th May

Mr. Justice O’Connor recommends in regard to all applications already made for exemptions that we should not enforce Excise pending decision of Victorian Wages Board and determination of Arbitration Court as to scale of wages. Mr. Groom concurs, and suggests it should apply to all applications for exemption from whatever State made. Approval recommended.

The honorable member for Eden- Monaro, who was at the time Minister of Trade and Customs, replied from Sydney on the 25th May -

Approve your recommendation that Excise be not enforced pending decision of Victorian Wages Board and determination of Arbitration Court as to scale of wages.

A month or two later Mr. Justice Higgins became President of the Arbitration Court, but he was not able to deal with these cases until November. At the outset, Mr. Justice Higgins complained that Parliament had neglected to state its opinion as to what must be regarded as fair and reasonable wages. He said -

The Commonwealth Parliament has by this Act imposed certain Excise duties on agricultural implements, but it has provided that the

Act shall not apply to goods manufactured in Australia “ under conditions as to remuneration of labour which are declared by the President of the Court to be fair and reasonable.” My sole duty is to ascertain whether the conditions of remuneration submitted to me are “ fair and reasonable.” I have not the function of finding out whether the rates of wages have, or have not, been in fact paid since 1st January, 1907, when this Act came into force.

He complained further that the Act should have been more explicit as to the basis upon which the meaning of the words “fair and reasonable wages” should be determined. In other words, this Parliament threw upon the Court the responsibility of fixing a standard of fair and reasonable wages, and Mr. Justice Higgins said that he had to fix upon a wage that would be sufficient to enable civilized people in a civilized community to live in reasonable comfort. After the making of his award some of the manufacturers closed down their works. They urged that the rates imposed by Mr. Justice Higgins did not take into consideration the traditions or any fixed principles of the trade, such as could be ascertained from unions and by inquiries in other quarters. The Sunshine harvester works temporarily closed down, but subsequently accepted the rates fixed by the President of the Court. I am not going to say that the scale of wages which Mr. McKay presented to the Court were such as we could indorse, but as the result of the litigation that followed the Government were urged by the Labour unions to demand the payment of Excise by the various manufacturers in respect of a period anterior to the making of the award. They urged that since the rates of wages paid between the passing of the Act and the making of the award were below the rates fixed by Mr. Justice Higgins, the manufacturers should be called upon to pay the Excise duty in respect of that period. So far as we know, the manufacturers were prepared, on the 1st January, 1907, or as soon thereafter as possible, to pay the rates that might be fixed by the Court. The delay of eleven months that took place was due entirely either to pressure of business on the Court itself or to the failure of the Government to appoint the President of the Court to make an award in regard to the industry in Victoria.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– It was because the manufacturers did not wish to pay decent wages.

Mr SAMPSON:

– They had nothing to do with it. Surely the honorable member will admit that between the 1st January, 1907, and November of that year, when the Court fixed a scale of wages, the manufacturers could not possibly have known what was in the mind of the learned President of the Court, or the rates of wages that he was likely to fix.

Mr Anstey:

– When was the President appointed to deal with the industry in Victoria ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– About June or July, 1907, and the decision was given in November of that year. According to the evidence presented to us, the unions actually waited on members of the Labour party and the Government, and urged that, although the Court or the Government was responsible for the delay of eleven months that took place before a standard rate of wages was fixed, the manufacturers should be compelled to pay Excise in respect of that period, because they had not paid the rates of wages subsequently determined upon by Mr. Justice Higgins. That demand was made, notwithstanding that in some cases there was a disposition on the part of the manufacturers to accept the award of the Court, although at first it rather startled them, and that one firm actually did decide to observe it. No special evidence was brought before the Harvester Commission to show that the manufacturers had not an equal claim with the men to be reimbursed their costs, owing to the Act being declared unconstitutional. If it be right that the workers be paid this amount, then the other side have an equal claim to consideration. The Harvester Commission, in a majority report, recommended that the unions should be reimbursed their legal expenses, but in a minority report I disagreed with that recommendation, and pointed out that it was not founded on any evidence presented to the Commission.

Mr Fenton:

– How many were against the honorable member?

Mr SAMPSON:

– The majority report was signed by three members of the Commission. My objection was that the recommendation was not justified by the evidence tendered to the Commission.

Mr Fenton:

– Was not that a rather technical objection ?

Mr SAMPSON:

– I think not. The recommendation that the amount should be paid was based on a leading article which appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, and upon Mr. Justice Higgins’ judgment in the Harvester case, although neither was presented as evidence to the Commission. They were quite extraneous matters.

Mr Fenton:

– Yet they were evidence on the point.

Mr SAMPSON:

– The representatives of the agricultural implement makers’ unions in Victoria and South Australia both presented a claim, and contended that it should be met, in view of the fact that the manufacturers had not paid, during the eleven months preceding the actual making of the award, wages in accordance with those fixed by Mr. Justice Higgins. The agricultural implement-making industry is in a fairly flourishing condition. We had evidence before the Harvester Commission that a few of the smaller branches of the industry had been almost wiped out in South Australia; that in Western Australia it Was impossible to compete with the large manufacturers in Victoria; and that, in New South Wales, it was not an exclusive industry; but, on the whole, we found that, as the result of the imposition of an import duty, the industry had largely extended its operations, and was one of which we might well be proud. I think it right that an increase of wages should have been made, and, as a matter of fact, the effect of the imposition of the duty was such that a general all-round increase took place. Unfortunately, there was an unpardonable delay of from twelve to eighteen months on the part of the Wages Board here in arriving at a decision; but, during the two years that the Act had been in force prior to our inquiry, there was a substantial increase in the wages paid to those engaged in the industry. I am not going to express any opinion as to the justice of this proposed vote. I simply contend that if the one side is entitled to be reimbursed their legal expenses, the manufacturers are even more entitled to consideration, because the delay in the appointment of the Court to deal with the question, and the making of an award under an Act subsequently held to be unconstitutional, led to their being badly treated. Although they were prepared to pay the wages fixed by the Court, they were called upon to pay Excise in respect of a period prior to the making of the award, and that, in my opinion, was something in the nature of persecution. Mr. Justice Higgins fixed an independent standard, and said that the rates of wages submitted by the manufacturers did not conform to that which he had drawn up. The unions contended that a certain standard of wages was necessary.

Mr Anstey:

– And the employers would not pay that standard.

Mr SAMPSON:

– They said they would pay it as soon as they could adjust themselves to the altered circumstances. We also have the fact that there was a conflict between two Judges. Mr. Justice O’Connor, when President of the Court, gave exemption, which would relieve the manufacturers from the obligation to pay the Excise. His Honour evidently thought that he had constitutional power to do so, and he gave exemption to the 30th June, 1907. When Mr. Justice Higgins laid down a new scale, the manufacturers applied for exemption up to the date of the award, because it was impossible to know what scale would be fixed; and His Honour, in reply, said, in referring to the case which had been made the test before the Court -

I hope I do not exceed my duty in adding that if it were in my power to give a certificate of exemption to this applicant, on his undertaking to pay wages according to the Excise standard in the future, I should gladly do so.

Here we have the conflict. It seems to me that the whole trouble is due to the long delays in appointing a President of the Court, during which time the manufacturers were kept in suspense. When they applied in the ordinary way, and the two Judges disagreed, the whole case was taken to the High Court, and the Act proved to be unconstitutional. If the Government have any sense of fairness, they will deal with the manufacturers as they propose to deal with the men, especially in view of the fact that the former were treated in a very cavalier way by the Government, and were unfortunate in being penalized and harassed, much to the detriment of their business.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words, because of my association with the Royal Commission referred to by the honorable member for Wimmera. At the outset, I may say that I arrive at quite a different conclusion from that of the honorable member. Under the Act the employers had to prove that they were paying fair wages and observing fair conditions ; and they lodged sworn declarations to that effect. Those declarations were afterwards withdrawn; and it was proved that the rates sworn to by some of the employers were not correct. Had this been an ordinary case of arbitration, the employes would have been a party to the ^plaint. But under the Act that was not their position. They had, however, to be -at the Court to protect their interests. The Crown was not represented, and there was no one there to advise the Judge, or to criticise the evidence given in support of the manufacturers. As a matter of fact, the employes spent £255 out of their own pockets, and some of them were away from their employment for a considerable time collecting evidence. They proved that a proper standard was not being observed; and it was on the evidence they produced that Mr. Justice Higgins based his famous dictum as to a. living wage. Organizations in an adjoining State took similar action, and proved their case to the hilt in the Adelaide Court before Mr. Justice O’Connor.

Mr Sampson:

– But Mr. Justice O’Connor fixed lower rates than those fixed in Victoria, and also gave exemptions.

Mr POYNTON:

– I am not raising that point, but merely endeavouring to show the difference between the position of the employers and the position of the employes in regard to any claim on the Government for reimbursement. The award was given in favour of the men; and had it been an ordinary case of arbitration costs would have been awarded. That is not all, however, because the employers immediately raised the constitutional point in the High Court, with the result that there was taken away from the men all the advantage they had gained,. at their own cost, by the award of Mr. Justice Higgins. I am surprised to hear the honorable member for ~Wimmera contend that the two parties stand on the same footing in regard to any claim upon the Government. The decision of -the High Court resulted in wages representing thousands of pounds finding thenway into the pockets of the employers. The men had proved their case in both instances, and, through no fault, of their own, the Act was held by a majority of one Justice to be unconstitutional. It is conceivable that the Act might have been held to be constitutional by a majority of one Justice; but as it was, the manufacturers reaped all that pecuniary benefit, while, in some cases, the employes were penalized by the closing down of factories.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member does not mention that Mr. Justice O’Connor gave exemption and awarded a rate of (wage much less than that in Victoria.

Mr POYNTON:

– In South Australia, I think, the rate was 10 per cent., or, at any rate, considerably lower than in Victoria.

Mr Mathews:

– Such a decision would not be given now with the present cost of living.

Mr POYNTON:

– I do not know that it would. I do not say that the manufacturers have no ground for complaint against Parliament and the Administration, because they were clearly led to believe that no action would be taken against them until there was a Wages Board in Victoria

Mr Sampson:

– To collect the back Excise.

Mr POYNTON:

– To collect the back Excise. That represents another reason for doing the men the justice now asked for. Did the Government act on what Mr. Justice O’Connor had recommended? Was any action taken on the letter the honorable member for Wimmera has read here to-day? Was not the ,£20,000 sued for dating back to the ist February? I may be wrong, but I feel confident that had the Excise been asked for from the day of the summons the employers would have complied.

Mr Sampson:

– If the honorable member is speaking in reference to my attitude, I may say that I am’ not disputing the justice of the £500 ; but if such a payment is just in one case it is equally just in the other.

Mr POYNTON:

– That is’ where I differ from the honorable member. Some of the men had to work at reduced wages for a considerable time afterwards.

Mr Sampson:

– One of the witnesses stated that the biggest manufacturer was practically paying the rates of Mr. Justice Higgins’ award.

Mr POYNTON:

– I think that Mr.. McKay shut down his factory.

Mr Sampson:

– Only for a day; he was the one who did not shut down altogether.

Mr POYNTON:

– However, I do not wish to argue the matter any further. Twice as much as the amount in the Estimates would not cover the expenditure of the men. I am confident that every honorable member in the House can justify the action of the Government. These men had to be there to protect their own interests, and, as a matter of fact, sworn declarations regarding wages which were put in, before the men appeared to look after their own case, were afterwards shown to be incorrect.

Mr Sampson:

– The manufacturers did not fight the constitutionality of the Act because of Mr. Justice Higgins’ award, but because of the pressure of the Government in demanding the back Excise from them.

Mr POYNTON:

– I have already referred to the fact that, in my opinion, the Government made a grave mistake in pressing for the back Excise, in face of the Judge’s letter, and the letter of the Minister of Trade and Customs agreeing that they should not be prosecuted. That mistake on the part of the Government, or those in charge of the Department, forced the men into the Court to test the case. If it had not been for that we should not have been considering the question of the expenses of the unions to-day, and the men would have had much more than is set down in these Estimates in the shape of additional wages.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

– The sum of£500 is insufficient for the purpose for which it is proposed to be voted. Opposition has been offered to it for a variety of reasons, and, among others, it has been opposed on the ground of logic, but while there may be a large amount of logic in the opposition offered to the vote, there does not seem to be much fairness or morality about it. It has been contended that the employer in this case ought to stand in the same position as the workmen, and that if certain compensation is given to one party, it ought to be given also to the other. Compensation ought to be awarded, in my opinion, in proportion to the validity of the claims made, and, testing by that standard the arguments of the honorable member for Lang, and others, it would appear that, in their opinion, if a defendant in a case is given six months’ imprisonment, the complainant ought, in fairness, to be awardedthe same treatment. In connexion with the Tariff, we had promises made on behalf of McKay and Company, and other agricultural implement manufacturers, that if they received a large increase of duty they would be able to extend their businesses, and pay vastly increased wages. They made that promise to the country. Parliament met their wishes, and raised the duties. The manufacturers then, having got the increased protection for which they asked, ignored their obligations to their workmen, and violated their word to Parliament and the country. The moment they did that, they put themselves out of Court. The Excise duty was to have come into force on the1st January, 1907, and it was the duty of the Government at that time to enforce the Act, and collect the Excise as they would any other duty or tax. Had the Government discharged that duty, and put the law into operation, there would have been no need to put the men to the trouble of testing the question in the Court, and the manufacturers would have been faced with the alternatives of paying Excise, or testing the constitutionality of the Act at that point. If they had gone into the Court, and obtained a judgment to the effect that the Act itself was unconstitutional, the men would have been saved all the worry and expense to which they were put. The men then stepped in, and we have it in evidence that statements of wages paid to the workmen, as already put before the Court, were shown to be absolutely untrue. In fact, no sooner did the employers know that the men would defend the case than they withdrew their claim in that regard, because they knew that they could not possibly furnish the evidence necessary to substantiate it. They have, and had, no claim in equity, or in any other way, to consideration on the part of this Parliament. The men have been put to immense trouble and expense, and the Government seem to have erred, not upon the side of excess, but on the side of over caution, in voting a sum to recoup them. The employers, on the other hand, have no claim whatever. They first of all promised the country that if given increased protection, they would pay increased wages. When the increased protection was given, they repudiated their promise, and the Government of the day failed to put into operation the law which would have compelled the employers to test its constitutionality. The present Government are doing a very tardy act of justice in putting on the Estimates a sum of£500; which is by no means too much, to meet the expenses to which the men have been put.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The concluding statements of the honorable member for Bourke call for some comment. He referred to the other litigants in this matter generally, without singling out any of them. I think what he said about the promise to pay better wages is true so far as Mr. H. V. McKay is concerned. I think he was the biggest manufacturer, and it was he who advocated the increase of duties, saying that he wanted the money to pay good wages, and give good labour conditions. I have absolutely no sympathy with Mr. McKay, who was, at that time, working heart and soul with my honorable friends opposite.

Mr Anstey:

– And he was up to his neck with the honorable member for Ballarat.

Mr KELLY:

– In that connexion, I cannot forget the heroic statement made this morning by the honorable member for Hume, when he took upon his shoulders the whole blame for the Harvester muddle !

Mr Batchelor:

– He was more generous than just.

Mr KELLY:

– It is not often that one meets with simple candour on the part of a public man, and when one does meet it, one hastens to do it honour ! I was delighted when the honorable member for Hume made that statement, to think that at last I had met a man whose simple worth is not besmirched by a breath of suspicion, but is enhanced, if possible, by the most perfect modesty and absolute justice to his opponents, as well as to himself.

The honorable member for Bourke was quite right in attacking Mr. Hugh “ Victorious “ McKay ; but there are a number of other men in the industry. Mr. McKay produces, perhaps, the major part of the implements turned out in Australia, and has the bulk of the trade. I do not personally know whether a lot of small men in the business were not also litigants.

Mr Watkins:

– They were not.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member for Fawkner instanced one litigant who, he said, was not in a very flourishing position. If a man produces one or two machines a year, I presume he is a manufacturer ; but he is not the sort of man who wants to face a High Court action. If these small men did face a High Court action, I am sure my honorable friend would be delighted to see that justice was ladled out alike to them as well as to the supporters of the Government. It would be rather hard to judge which way the manufacturers of harvesters would vote in a general election. I do not suppose Mr. Hugh “ Victorious ‘ ‘ McKay would be a very energetic supporter of mine. I think his most active friend in this Chamber would certainly be the honorable member who, when Minister, on Mr. McKay’s ipse dixit, put up the price of harvesters to our local producers by about 50 per cent, by shutting out imports.

Mr Frazer:

– Does the honorable member think it is a fair thing to make that statement?

Mr KELLY:

– It is the actual fact.

Mr Frazer:

– It is not. It was done as the result of reports obtained at the time by the Department.

Mr KELLY:

– I did not want to go into the matter, but I shall now haveto prove the accuracy of what I have said The first thing this Parliament knew about the whole business was that the honorable member for Hume, when Minister, put up the import duty on harvesters by an indirect process. He declared that the invoice value of those imported into Australia was fraudulently incorrect, and assessed their import value at, I think, 50 per cent, more than the invoice value.

Mr McWilliams:

– On the strength of a letter obtained from Italy.

Mr KELLY:

– Exactly.

Mr Frazer:

– There is a contradiction. The honorable member for Wentworth says it was done on Mr. McKay’s ipse dixit, and the honorable member for Franklin says that it was done on the strength of a letter from Italy.

Mr KELLY:

– There is no real contradiction. When the then Minister was asked what evidence he had to guide him in this arbitrary course, he said he had from Mr. McKay ‘ ‘ the copy of a copy of a confidential letter” from an American harvester manufacturing concern, quoting to some man in Turin, an inland town in Italy, the price of one harvester, without stating whether it was to be at wholesale rates, or inclusive or exclusive of inland freights in Italy, or any other particulars. That was the only information the honorable member for Hume could give the House. He promised the House, on that occasion, to give the importing firms an opportunity of proving the bona fides of their invoices at the place of production in Canada; and I think he undertook to secure evidence on the subject from the Canadian Government. The evidence from the Canadian Government was very unsatisfactory to the honorable member ; and, in spite of his promise to this Chamber, instead of giving every facility to the importers to test their bona fides by taking evidence on commission in Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia was found resisting an action on the part of the importers to have evidence taken for them there in that way ! The very thing which the honorable member for Hume promised this House he would do the legal officers of the (Commonwealth were preventing the importers from doing, with the object of letting this House have reliable and accurate information on the .subject. That is what I mean when I say that my statement about the honorable member for Hume acting on the ipse dixit of Mr. Hugh “Victorious” McKay, is absolutely true. The map. who produces a letter which he regards as confidential must he the .subject of .suspicion, while be who produces the copy of a copy of a confidential letter must bf: still more the subject of suspicion, and the evidence which he gives must be regarded as amounting to nothing better than His .own evidence.

Mr Frazer:

– It is not fair to assail a member’s character in his absence.

Mr KELLY:

– It is absurd to suggest that I am assailing the character of the honorable member for Hume because I am criticising certain departmental action that be took. He placed such reliance on Mr. Hugh “Victorious” McKay that he was willing to take his statement without real evidence, and to increase the price of harvesters to the Australian producer by 50 per cent.

I ask Ministers- not to be swayed by the sort of argument addressed to the Committee by the honorable member for Bourke, who took the view that only the members of a certain union are entitled to assistance, because, at great expense, they tried to keep the Wolf from the door, or, more properly speaking, took it into their employment. They deserve considerable sympathy.

Mr McWilliams:

– More than McKay deserves.

Mr KELLY:

– He deserves none. I should like an inquiry conducted on nonparty lines. Ministers should take a more serious view of their responsibilities, and not Use the taxpayers’ money to bring to a friendly arid peaceful frame of mind a powerful labour organization. Office should not be looked upon as affording merely the opportunity for gaining support by paying away the public funds. I suggest that Ministers should go into this matter from A to Z, and having discovered, those who should be recompensed, because, through the muddling of Parliament they were put to great expense, reimburse them. But let all be treated alike.

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

– As a vote may be taken on this item, I wish to explain my attitude towards it. The facts show the impossibility of benefiting the employe by fiscal legislation, and reveal the enormous *reed of some of those who .clamour for Protection. The Government of the day .blundered in not enforcing, at the earliest possible moment, the rights which it thought Parliament had conferred on it. We passed an Act giving special protection to the manufacturers of harvesters, on the condition that they should pay fair standard rates of wages to their employes. One of the largest of those who benefited paid, not fair standard wages, but low wages, amounting in some instances almost to sweating rates. Had the Government enforced the collection of the Excise duty intended to punish such” action, the invalidity of the Act would have been d/s.covered much sooner, and the employes concerned would not have been put to the expense of testing it by fighting claims in the Court. Not only was the union put to enormous expense, but legal gentlemen and others assisted them at considerable personal sacrifice. If it were proposed to repay the whole of the expenditure incurred in prosecuting the claims of the employes, I should vote for it. As our legislation was declared to be unconstitutional, we should make some return to those who suffered’ from it. I shall vote for “the item as I would vote for the payment of a still larger sum. because I do not think that £500 is enough to recompense the union for theexpense to which its members were put through no fault of their own, but because of the inaction of the Government of theday.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– We are indebted to ‘ the honorable members, for Wimmera and Grey, who thoroughly understand this case, ‘for the information which they have given to us. I share the view expressed by the honorable member for North Sydney”. The sum of £500 is a paltry one to vote to reimbursethe Agricultural Implement Makers Employes Union its expenses in connexion with’ this big case, in the hearing of which’ seventy-eight witnesses were examined, twenty-eight days were occupied, and in which two of the leading members of the Victorian Bar, Messrs. Duffy and’ McArthur, were engaged. I’ agree with the honorable member for North Sydney that the amount is not nearly sufficient. I understand that £2,000 would not discharge the debt in which the Union became involved .1 I am also informed that the expenses of theother side amounted to about £3,00°- If the other side can present as strong » claim to our consideration as has the Union to which I have referred, I am prepared to consider any request that it may make; But the members of the Agricultural Implement Makers Employes Union are poor men.

Mr West:

– That is the reason why so much opposition has been exhibited to the proposed vote.

Mr FENTON:

– All the evidence which has been tendered this afternoon goes to show that a vote of£500 will be insufficient to reimburse the. Union for having tested the validity of the Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act. Seeing that the Unioncame to the rescue of the Government, and established the invalidity of that Statute, it is only just that we should vote it this paltry sum, and I am sorry it is not larger.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 42 (Fisheries),£6,650.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I wish to call attention to the report of the Director of Fisheries, Mr. Dannevig, which was presented to Parliament a day or two ago, but which has not yet been printed. However, a very good summary of that report has been published by the metropolitan newspapers, and I wish to draw the atten- tion of the Minister of Trade and Customs to that portion of it which states that Mr. Dannevig has shown that there is a promising outlook for the development of our deep-sea fisheries, which,if supplemented by prompt methods of distribution, will enable cheap fish food to be available in Australia. As a resident of a country district, I have frequently received complaints - especially of late - from retailers regarding the. difficulties which they experience in securing an adequate supply of fish. Apparently the. sources of supply are limited, either at Queenscliff or Melbourne, by some trade combination. I wish to know whether the Government will take Mr. Dannevig’s report into consideration, especially that part which declares that there is abundant supply of fish, which can be sold cheaply if supplemented by prompt methods of distribution. What is the use of having a trawler to go out upon the high seas and collect fish, if some arrangement be not made for its supply to retail sellers in the country dis- tricts? Is the trawler to be utilized for practical business purposes, or are its catches to be thrown back into the sea? If the vessel captures large supplies of fish, I should like to know what is done with them, and what arrangement it is intended to make for their distribution ?

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

.- In addition to the proposed vote of £6,650 which we are now discussing, I find that under the heading of “Fisheries” there is an amount of£1,125 on the Supplementary Estimates, thus making the total estimated expenditure for the year of £7,775 - increase of more than£2,000 on theexpenditure of last year. During the past twelve months I have taken some interest in the work of the Endeavour, and I do not think that the Commonwealth is getting value for its expenditure upon that vessel. The trawler has already justified its construction, in that it has proved the existence of very prolific fishing ground’s, especially along the eastern coast of Australia. From personal information, I know that there are at least two spots - one at Twofold Bay and the other outside of Bowen - where the trawler can, with two shoots of the trawl, fill its available bunkers with fish without any appreciably diminution of the supply which is there available. I repeat that the trawler has proved the existence of very extensive fishing grounds along our coast. That was primarily the object of the Government in acquiring the vessel. The idea was that, as the result of her work, a cheap food supply might be added to that which is obtainable in the cities, and that possibly commercial ventures in the way of canned fish might be opened up. But, although the vessel has proved the existence of an abundant supply of fish along our coasts, not the slightest effort has been made to turn that supply to commercial advantage. I confess that it would be a pity if the work of the trawler were interrupted before she has tested the waters of the west coast of Australia. But it is because I think the management of this Department is a complete failure that I draw attention to the matter. I have already drawn the attention of the Minister to certain rather startling matters connected with the directorship, and I am hoping that as the result of that information and other particulars which he may have obtained, definite steps will be taken by him either to improve the usefulness of this vessel, or to give up the work altogether. It has been shown that there is a possibility of the trawler doing something to build up the fishing industry, but valuable time is being wasted and heavy expenditure has been incurred without any result. Only to-day I received a letter, which I have forwarded to the Minister of Trade and Customs, as to the failure to utilize the trawler in the best possible way. This expenditure of £7,77.5 in. respect of the current financial year is either absolutely unwarranted, or no use is being made of the information that has been supplied. The reports of the cruises of the trawler show that considerable work has been done, but nothing like what we might reasonably have expected. The honorable member for Bendigo asked what was done with the fish caught by the trawler. I may tell him that even the intentions and instructions of the Government in regard to their disposal .have not been observed.

Sir John Quick:

– What is done with the fish?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– They are supposed to be given to charitable institutions in the port to which the trawler goes at the close of a cruise, but that is not done. There are explanations as to why this is not done, but I am not prepared to make them public, even in this chamber.

Mr McWilliams:

– Having said, so much, the honorable member ought to say more.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I am not going to say more. I have given the Minister the information, and if he does not take action, as I think hp ought, to protect the interests of the Commonwealth, I shall call attention later on to the matter.

Mr Ozanne:

– But what becomes of the fish?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– They are supposed to be distributed amongst charitable institutions in the port to which the trawler goes.

Mr Ozanne:

– But where do they go?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Some go to those institutions, and some do not. I hope that the Minister will take care this year that there shall be something like an adequate return for the expenditure of this money, and that some use will be made of the information obtained from the investigations of the trawler.

Mr FRAZER:
Acting Treasurer and Honorary Minister · Kalgoorlie · ALP

– Unfortunately, as honorable members are aware, the Minister of Trade and Customs is indisposed ; but I promise the honorable member for Bendigo and the honorable member for Brisbane that the representations they have made will be duly communicated to him. I know, from per sonal knowledge, that it has been the general custom to distribute the hauls made by the trawler amongst the charitable institutions of the State to which she goes at the close of a cruise.

Sir John Quick:

– That was the decision of this House.

Mr FRAZER:

– Yes. Whilst the honorable member /or Brisbane may have certain information to the contrary, I believe that that has been the general policy of the Department. Our object in securing the trawler was ‘that- -Australian waters should be investigated, with a view of building up our fishing industry, and, as far as possible, that intention will be carried out by the Government.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– This subject is not new to the Committee. I have drawn attention to it year after year since the building of the trawler, and may say, in passing, that I am a rather enthusiastic coastal fisherman. If the investigations made by the trawler on other parts of our coast have not been more successful than have its investigations of the coastal waters of Tasmania, then this expenditure is a deliberate waste of money. There are some very fine varieties of fish in Tasmanian waters, and a large English and Scottish company is now in process of formation to establish works on our eastern coast with a view to the development of the fishing industry. I believe that the industry promises to be an exceedingly valuable one. All information relating to fishing in Tasmanian waters has long been known to local residents, and it is upon that local information that this company is being formed. The operations of the trawler have not been productive of any practical results so far as a knowledge of our eastern waters is concerned. Reports have been presented by its officers that certain fish are to be found in certain waters, when, as a matter of fact, their existence there has been known for half-a-century to our own people, and the varieties referred to have been caught there by many persons outside the industry. We are spending something like £6,000 a year on the Endeavour, and so far have not had anything like an adequate return for our money. Instead of the vessel doing a little investigation work here, and a little there, it should be sent into new waters rather than into waters where edible fish have long been known to abound. I am told that the coastal waters of Queensland for some hundreds of miles have practically never been tested for trawling purposes. Instead of the trawler wasting time, as she has been doing, on the southern coast, she might well investigate those waters. We have a right to demand the adoption of business-like principles in this connexion. The fishing industry of Australia, I believe, is destined to be a good one.

Mr Sampson:

– Does not the honorable member think that the trawler has been a long time in proving that fact?

Mr.McWILLIAMS.- The trawler has proved nothing so far as the Tasmanian coastal waters are concerned. I think that the whole of the operations of the trawler from the very commencement have been a series of mistakes.There has not been a definite plan of operations, and the vessel has spent a considerable portion of her time in waters which have been known for years, to the neglect of hundreds of miles of waters on the west coast of Australia and the coast of Queensland which are practically untried from a fisheries point of view. I trust that the Minister will give special attention to this matter. If we are going to maintain the Endeavour at a cost of £6,000 a year, the Government should at least see to it that Australia receives some return for the money.

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

. -I should like to have some information as to who authorized the trawler to be diverted from the purpose for which she was designed and put in commission for purposes other than those for which money was voted by Parliament last year. Who authorized the Endeavour to be used as a passenger steamer to convey a certain number of estimable persons who desired to be transported to some coral island on the north-east coast of Queensland ? I understand that these persons applied for the use of the Endeavour for the purposes of their own private expedition to one of the islands.

Mr Mathews:

– It was not a private expedition.

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

– I am not aware that it was a public expedition. I believe that it had something to do with bird and insect hunting. But the trawler was not built for such purposes, nor was money voted by Parliament last year with the intention that the vessel would be employed for any other work than that for which she was built.

Mr McWilliAms:

– What has become of the Merrie England ?

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

– I understand that the Merrie England is in the Papuan service.

Mr McWilliams:

– The Endeavour certainly should not have been used for the purpose that the honorable member has mentioned.

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

– I will not say that. There may have been special circumstances in the case. Of course, in an emergency the trawler might properly be employed for some other purpose than that for which she was built, particularly if the special service did not greatly interfere with her principal occupation. I should have no objection to her being utilized in connexion with researches for ascertaining the depth of water around our coasts and for marking down the presence of rocks or shoals which she might locate in the course of her fisheries investigation. Work of that kind would be valuable to navigators. Her discoveries might well be reported at the Admiralty and to the State authorities for the information of mariners. I have nothing to say against the objects of the expedition in question. Its members were within their rights in asking the Commonwealth Government for the use of the trawler. But permission should only be given in exceptional circumstances for the use of the trawler for purposes other than those for which she was intended. I do not blame them for what they did.

Mr Mathews:

– If the trawler had been converted temporarily into a motor car for the use of an expedition of research into the flora and fauna of Australia, it would have been justified.

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

– Yes, if the sanction of Parliament had been obtained. But when a vessel is commissioned for a particular purpose and money is voted by Parliament for that purpose, there ought to be no diversion without Ministerial sanction. Of course, “there may have been exceptional circumstances in this case.

Mr Mathews:

– The object was scientific research. This was the only way in which the expedition could get to the island where its members wanted to go.

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

– What would they have done if they had not been able to obtain the services of the trawler?

Mr Mathews:

– They could not have gone.

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

– Does the honorable member mean to tell me that there are not any number of schooners and other small vessels in Queensland waters that might have been used for conveying them? Those waters are full of such vessels ; and L feel sure that if the members of the expedition had been very anxious to get to the island, ways and means would very speedily have been found in the absence of the trawler. The expedition may have been in the interests of science, and of some benefit to the whole of Australia ; but, whatever the circumstances, I hope the granting of the use of the trawler on this occasion will not be taken as a precedent for similar departures from its legitimate work. Perhaps the Minister is able to tell us onwhose authority the vessel was used.

Mr Frazer:

– That is information the honorable gentleman can obtain on making an inquiry at the Department.

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

– At the same time, it is information that ought to be in the possession of the Minister, though I recognise that the honorable gentleman in charge of the Estimates for this Department is merely acting for the responsible Minister.

Mr Frazer:

– The honorable member will be at perfect liberty to make public use of the reply that I guarantee to give him.

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

– I am not suggesting that anything wrong or improper has been done, but merely that there hasbeen a diversion from the trawler’s purpose that ought not to be encouraged without special reasons.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division . 43 (Quarantine), . £25,574; division 44 (Analyst), £2,421 ; division 45 (Patents, Trade Marks, Copyrights, and Designs), £20,537; division 46 (New South Wales), £79,309; division 47 (Victoria), £62,402 ; division 48 (Queensland), £55,531 ; and division 49 (South Australia), £30,434, agreed to.

Division 50 (Western Australia), £31,709.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- I have already drawn the attention of the Minister of External Affairs to the cyclone disaster at Broome, by which, in consequence of damage to the pearling fleet and to the town buildings, including the Customs premises, very heavy loss in life and property has been inflicted on the community there. I understand from the Minister that the Government will take such action as may be in their power to assist the people to rebuild, and to join in any other practical measures of relief that may be instituted. I regret that the Minister of Trade and Customs is not present, but, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall at a later stage ask him a question on the subject.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 51 (Tasmania), £9,282.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- I believe that in Victoria, and quite likely in the other States, the Department depends largely on State officers for the performance of the work of examination of” produce in the cool stores prior to export under the Commerce Act and regulations. It is about time we had a set of officers of our own, because I believe the Commonwealth is paying the greater part of the expense. However, I shall bring this matter under the notice of the Minister of Trade and Customs later. I notice, further, that, in connexion with this work, a number of assistant analysts have been appointed ; and, considering the importance and highly technical character of the work, the salary offered of £126 is, in my opinion, too small. I hope this matter will be brought under the notice of the Minister of Trade and Customs.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Defence.

Division 52 (Central Administration),

£41,592.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I wish to introduce a matter of some importance, but I shall not take up much time in dealing with it. It is under Ministerial consideration, and I am sure that honorable members will also give it attention. Some time ago I asked some questions with regard to the value of aviation in military operations. I suggested that the Government should take somesteps to see that Australia was not left as far behind in this new science as it has been in the science of wireless telegraphy.

The matter has now passed in other countries out of the experimental stage from a military point of view, and has reached the stage of practical usefulness The officers of every army regard aviation as a necessary adjunct to military operations, the aviator having unrivalled opportunity of gauging country, and troops in possession of country, and so enabling a commander in the field to secure an enormous advantage over another who is not assisted in this way.

I shall put in a few words the state of the matter in other countries so far as I can gather the facts. In France I think they have a vote of some ,£800,000 for aviation in connexion with military work. There are some sixty military machines, and 800 private machines at the call of the military authorities. Bonuses are given to soldiers making flights, and aeroplane stations are established on the French coast. One can see how valuable that must be to a country that does not command the sea. It is able to get greater intelligence than it would be possible for it to secure with hordes of small torpedo boats such as the French have. In the Japanese service, four captains and twenty-four lieutenants, or twenty-eight officers in all, are now undergoing aviation instruction in Germany. The Japanese Government have ordered two big air-ships, I suppose on the Zeppelin model, and have arranged for stations for erecting and repairing air-ships. This Japanese aerial activity is one which we in Australia view with special interest. In this country, so far, we have done absolutely nothing in this connexion. I do not think that we have an officer inquiring into the matter, or that we have any Department that regards it as its special responsibility.

I suggest to the Committee that it is about time the Government of Australia got a move on in this matter. Perhaps the best way in which to deal with the subject would be to import a few aviators. My own idea is that it is necessary to learn the ABC of flight before we start manufacturing machines. In France men learn to glide : that is to go through the air on gliders, before they learn to direct an aeroplane in the air. We have at present in Sydney started among a small school of enthusiasts a number of gliders, but I think we might import an aviator or two for the service of the Australian Government, whose services might be used for the instruction of a few selected officers in aviation, and, if they had any spare time on their hands, it might be arranged to allow them to teach private aviators for a sufficiently heavy fee to enable us to get some return out of the venture. I cannot speak with absolute authority on the point, but I think that in France Government instructors in aviation schools are permitted to instruct outsiders on payment of a pretty heavy fee. If we imported a couple of aviators, it might be advisable to start with a single machine or, perhaps, two. I do not know whether it would be advisable for the Government to get advice as to the best machine to start with, but, whatever might be the cost or method adopted to deal with the matter, the time has gone by for saying that the Government need not do anything this year. It is about time we woke up on this question.

I received an urgent telegram to-day from Lieutenant Taylor, a gentleman who is very much interested in this matter. He wired to me to say that the report in the Daily Telegraph with reference to the Government purchase of Bleriot aeroplanes is incorrect. I have looked up the statement to which I assume Lieutenant Taylor’s telegram to me refers, and I find the following in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 22nd November -

No one can blame the Federal Defence Department for contemplating the purchase of a couple of Bleriot machines, which are under offer to them. It is understood that recently they sought advice from Lieutenant Taylor, of Sydney, and that his report was favorable.

That, I believe, to be the statement which Lieutenant Taylor informs me is incorrect. But if the Government is contemplating the purchase of a couple of machines - and my own opinion as to the various types is valueless - I hope they will not spend a year worrying about the type which they will select, and thus put us a year further in arrears in dealing with this matter than we are. Aeroplanes are something like motor cars, and, so far as I can gather from reading scientific papers, there are a number of machines manufactured now which may be said to be safe and serviceable in good hands. If the Government import a couple, and a couple of aviators so as to start a school of aviation here, I have no doubt that the Australian people will soon acquire a taste for this new science, and we shall, perhaps, be able to manufacture locally all the machines we require, whilst we should encourage the inventiveness of the Australian people. It is of no use to offer a prize for the best invention, because very often the man who competes invests the few hundred pounds he has in making a machine, and then, from want of knowledge of flight, the first time he uses it it is destroyed. We should teach men to fly before we ask inventors to build machines, otherwise . all their labour may be wasted. I direct the serious attention of the Ministry to this matter. I point out what foreign countries are doing, and contend that it is now time that Australia got a move on, and did her share in advancing this new science.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I wish, in the first place, to say how deeply I resent what was done this morning. It amounted to a gross breach of faith with the House.

Mr Frazer:

– We might have finished the whole of the business with none of the members of the Opposition present.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Exactly, because we went home relying on the good faith of the Government.

Mr Frazer:

– And honorable members got it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable gentleman says that we got it, but we got a contemptible trick played upon us in our absence.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in discussing this matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Does the Acting Minister of Defence suggest that we should not have gone home?

Mr Frazer:

– This is a nice reward for our generosity.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member is very generous. What generosity was shown us? The honorable member sat here all night, as we did.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in discussing this matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am entitled to make a protest concerning a breach of faith in connexion with a certain matter on these Defence Estimates. I do not know on what other Estimates I could do it. I am now making a protest against a certain matter being put through after an undertaking had been given to the House, on the faith of which we went home.

Mr Frazer:

– When was there any undertaking given to the House?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I shall take that back, and will say - after an undertaking given to the Opposition.

Mr Frazer:

– Given to whom, and by whom?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– To the Leader of the Opposition by the Acting Leader of the Government.

Mr Frazer:

– Did the Acting Prime Minister tell the Leader of the Opposition that the Government would not proceed with the Defence Bill last night?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not put it in that way at all.

Mr Frazer:

– But I put it in that way in order to get the facts before the people.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I will put the facts before the people in a minute if the honorable member will hold his tongue. If he will not keep order, I shall have to ask the Chairman to make him do so. If he wishes to get his Estimates through he had better conduct himself properly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable member make his statement?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Acting Leader of the Government made an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition that these Estimates were to form the business of last evening up to and including the Treasurer’s Estimates. On the faith of that understanding we went home at 5 o’clock this morning. While we were away the honorable member got to that point, and he immediately proceeded with the Defence Bill, containing an amendment with which I certainly did not agree, because I think that it will open the door to political interference with the Military College, a thing which we ought to be very chary about doing. I am an ardent advocate of any proposal which will give to the ranker an opportunity to raise himself to the Permanent Staff. At the same time, I am in favour of requiring that whoever may aspire to be an officer in the Permanent Forces shall subscribe to proper standards in equipment and qualification. I am not in favour of opening the door to political influence. I should like the determination of these matters to be left, as was originally intended, in the hands of the Commandant of the College. That was why he was appointed, and made perfectly independent in point of control, and responsible only to the Minister for all that he did. But now it seems that anybody can go to the College whom the Governor-. General, -which means the Government, may care to send.

Mr Hughes:

– That is not so. The honorable gentleman has not correctly read the amendment.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have read it.

Mr Hughes:

– Every man must pass the examination. Therefore, no man can go to the College unless he has passed the prescribed examination.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Who is to prescribe the examination?

Mr Hughes:

– The usual authority. Who would prescribe the examination which the honorable member declared to be the proper standard?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I think that all matters connected with the College should be left to the determination of its Commandant.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member does not object to the examination for students between sixteen and nineteen years of age?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Certainly not. All I wanted was the elimination of the latter part of the clause.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable gentleman objected first to the character of the examination and now to the examination itself.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I told the honorable member that I have no objection to the examination. I do not care how stiff it is made, but I want the Commandant to guard the standards sternly, and, if necessary, stand up to the Government, and, should it make any attempt to interfere with the College standards as laid down, to fight even the Parliament.

Honorable Members. - Oh !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I mean exactly what I said. I want the Commandant to be left in a position of absolute independence so far as the maintenance of the educational standards are concerned. The Government have overstepped that point in the latter part of the amendment which has been added to the clause. I protest against the amendment being dealt with when, on the faith of an arrangement made by the Acting Prime Minister, we were led to understand that no further business would be taken. It was not fair to the House.

Mr Hughes:

– When the honorable member sits down I shall explain my position in the matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member has acted all through, I think, with the greatest discourtesy over Defence matters so far as I am concerned. Perhaps I know why he has so acted.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable gentleman ought to have been here.

Mr.JOSEPH COOK.- Of course I ought to have been here, and so ought the honorable member.

Mr Hughes:

– I was here.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I was here longer than was the honorable member last night.

Mr Hughes:

– No; because I never left the chamber from11 p.m. until 8 a.m.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then the honorable member was hidden away asleep?

Mr Hughes:

– I was not hidden away, nor was I asleep.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I never saw the honorable member in the chamber.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member said first that I was not here, but now he states that I was here.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Where was the honorable member - under the table? We went home last night on the faith of this understanding. I left the House at halfpast 5 o’clock, and returned at half -past 10 o’clock, and two hours of that period, I understand, was devoted to breakfast. During my absence, the Defence Bill, with its amendments, was rushed through the House. I have no right to courtesy at the hands of the Acting Prime Minister, I know.

Mr Hughes:

– Had the honorable member been here, he could have discussed the amendments ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order.

Mr.JOSEPH COOK.- I should have been here, but I trusted the honorable member, and that is where I made a mistake.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable member has no right to make that statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I did not suppose that the honorable member would go back on his word.

Mr Hughes:

– The honorable gentleman, if he says that I went back on my word, is saying what is not true.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– As my word is impugned, I should like to appeal to the Leader of the Opposition as to whether we understood that any business other than the Estimates was to be taken.

Mr Deakin:

– No; no other business.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The conduct of the Minister has not been fair to the House or to anybody who takes an interest in the Defence Department. I take an interest in the Department, since I had to do with the inauguration of the Military College and the appointment of the Commandant. What has been done is not fair to the Commandant. However, that’ must go for the present. I do not intend to discuss these Estimates except to inquire what is being done with regard to the small-arms factory and its management. I understand that Mr. Clarkson is not coming out to be its manager. When he was sent Home, a year or two ago, to supervise the details of the small-arms machinery - he was afterwards appointed to act in conjunction with Professor Byles in the overseeing of the building of the destroyers - it was distinctly understood that he would return to take charge of the small-arms factory. I understand that it is his own wish that he should keep to the naval side rather than be transferred to the military side. There is no difficulty in that respect. But what step are the Government taking to provide for the management of the small-arms factory? I sent word to Mr. Clarkson to come back months ago, but he pleaded all sorts of excuses - that he had better stay there, and oversee the machinery, and I at length agreed. But it occurs to me that whoever is going to manage the factory should, at any rate, be on the spot when the machinery is being installed. It is of the utmost importance that the manager of the factory should be there when the installation of the machinery takes place. From all I hear, I do not think there is so much trouble in connexion with the building of the houses for the machinery as was suggested last night by the honorable member for Nepean. I understand that all will be ready in Lithgow for the reception of the machinery when it arrives from America, but it is quite time we knew who was to be the manager of the factory now that the former arrangements have fallen through. Has the- Minister made inquiries into the statements which appeared in the newspapers concerning the faulty ‘ construction of the torpedo destroyers? I have always felt that a great mistake was made in appointing Professor Byles to supervise the construction of the vessels. The matter should have been left with the Admiralty. Instead of that, the previous Labour Government, when ordering the vessels, as they did, so suddenly, appointed Professor Byles, a private naval architect, who received, I understand, a commission of ,£5,000 for looking over the boats, when the work could have been much better done by the Admiralty, with, perhaps, no cost whatever to the Commonwealth. It is strange that this Socialistic Government, whenever they get a. chance, always make a bee-line for private enterprise. The Admiralty was open to them, and ready to do anything that we wanted, but they passed the Admiralty by, and did not even pay it the compliment of consulting it in any way.

Mr Mathews:

– The British Admiralty always moves very slowly.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not think it moves slowly in a matter of this kind, and the Admiralty authorities have at their command resources, so far as naval building is concerned, that no private naval architect can possibly possess. It would have been time to pass the Admiralty by if they declined to do what we asked them to do ; but we did not go near them, nor even submit the designs of the boats to them. A great mistake was made in what was done, and I shall be very much interested to hear that the construction has been all right. We have heard allegations from Mr. Cutler, of Sydney, a thoroughly competent engineer.

Mr Frazer:

– Did not the honorable member see Captain Cres well’s reply ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I shall be glad to hear what it is. A searching investigation should have been at once undertaken when such statements are made by a man of the eminence of Mr. Cutler. I hope the Ministry will do their very best to have as much of this work done in Australia as they possibly can. There are well-equipped works in Sydney. I do not know that there are any over here that can yet undertake that kind of construction. I think not, at any rate, at present; but in Sydney there are several up-to-date docks, both private and Government, with the very best men available, and able, in my judgment, to turn out any work within the compass of their experience. Of course they have not had the experience of men in older countries of the world in the building of certain vessels; but I do not think their work can be bettered anywhere,” so far as their experience goes. I believe it is the intention of the Government to have all the work done locally that it is possible to do in connexion with the new unit. I do not see why, at the same time, a private dock should not get a look in for some of the work. I take it that the Government want to expedite it to the greatest possible extent, and it would be good policy to give some of it to the private docks. In Great Britain, it is a matter of high public policy for the Admiralty, not only to do certain work as they can in their own dockyards, but also to encourage private dockyards to keep themselves thoroughly abreast of the times in naval construction. I hope that in Australia some of the work will be given to other docks as well as to the Government dock, which is so thoroughly equipped, and in the front of all matters relating to shipbuilding in Australia.

Mr HUGHES:
Acting Prime Minister and Attorney-General · West Sydney · ALP

– With regard to the arrangement arrived at between myself and the Leader of the Opposition last night, the facts are these : I spoke to the honorableand learned gentleman about the conduct of public business, and asked him to assist me to carry it through. I said I desired to get through the Estimates of the Customs Department, and he said that members of his party wished to raise in connexion with it matters that would cause a good deal of discussion, and that he would be unable to help me further than the Treasury Estimates. I said, “ Very well,” and so it went. This would be, roughly speaking, about half-past 9 last night. There was in the minds of both of us, or, at any rate, there was in my mind, the idea that we should finish the consideration of that part of the Estimates about 1 1. o’clock last night. I never dreamt that we should go on all night, and I said to the honorable member for Newcastle, “ We shall carry on to the Treasury Estimates.” He asked, “ All night?” and I said, “ Oh, no; to a reasonable hour and no- more.” It never dawned on me that we should have to sit all night. In the circumstances, therefore, when I found at 8 o’clock in the morning that we were still where we ought to have been at 11 or 12 o’clock the night before, I felt that the honorable and learned member would have viewed the circumstances exactly as I have viewed them if he had been present, recognising that the situation was entirely changed, and that we had to get through the business. The honorable member and myself had been discussing the possibility of closing the session to-night, or, at the worst, before train time tomorrow, and matters had been so arranged. It was suggested that certain matters should come on after tea to-night, and so to a conclusion. I have thought it fair to the honorable member and myself to say what I have said on that point. So far as the Defence Bill is concerned, it was only about 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning when my attention was called to the fact that it had come down from the Seriate. For the last three or four weeks it has been the practice to deal with amendments made by the Senate before the close of the sitting during which they are received. To that there has never been any opposition. I was asked to say what the effect of the amendments was, and they have been dealt with. I consider that I was only bound in regard to the Estimates until11 or 12 o’clock, and if a message from the Senate had come at that time, I should have felt at liberty to ask the House to deal with it. I had no idea of taking advantage of any honorable member. In asking the House to agree to what the Senate had done in connexion with the Defence Bill, I pointed out that the amendments which had been made on the motion of the honorable member for Wentworth were superfluous, inasmuch as the clauses which he inserted are in the original Act. Under these cicumstances the honorable gentleman has not done me justice in saying that I broke an understanding. I do not say that he was not under the impression that the understanding went to the length he spoke of. But I was fairly entitled to take the view which I have just explained, and to act accordingly.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- It is always unfortunate that a question of this kind should arise. The statement of the Acting Prime Minister is correct so far as it goes, and it goes all but the whole distance. He will remember that the first thing I asked him was what was to be the business for the night, and he replied, “ the Estimates,” then agreeing not to go beyond the consideration of the. Depart ment of the Treasury. Therefore, I took it that the obligation upon him was not to deal with anything but the Estimates, and only as far as that Department. I admit that he has put quite a reasonable view in stating that the consideration of amendments made by the Senate is not to be regarded as an entirely new subject. Had he suggested to my honorable colleague, the member for Parramatta, who was here all night, that he proposed to deal with the Senate’s amendments in the Defence Bill, I think that probably no objection would have been raised. But without the consent of the honorable member he ought not to have asked the House to deal with them. I am satisfied that he did not realize his obligation. It seems to me that my construction of the arrangement was a natural one; that when told that the business of the evening was to be the consideration of the Estimates, that meant it would be the only business dealt with. What was needed was the consent of the honorable member for Parramatta to a departure from the agreement.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

– I should be lacking in my duty did I not call attention to the astonishing statement of the honorable member for Parramatta a few moments ago, to the effect that the Commandant of the Military College, when he thought fit, should fight, not only the Minister of Defence, but even the Parliament. A more astounding statement it would be impossible for an honorable member to make. To suggest that a military officer, because he happens to be the Commandant of the Military College, would fight his Minister is bad enough, though the honorable member showed that Commandant Clarkson, whose position is inferior to that of Commandant of the Military College, to all intents and purposes fought him when Minister, because, when it was suggested that he should’ return from England, he made all manner of excuses. I wonder what the people will say of the suggestion that an officer should go further, and fight the Parliament. Are we to expect that, encouraged by such remarks from one occupying such a responsible position as that of Deputy Leader of the Opposition and ex-Minister of Defence, the Commandant of the Military College will march a squad of cadets, with its little bayonets and guns, to the door of Parliament House, and, Cromwell-like, clear the chamber, establishing himself as Dictator, and exercising despotic sway over the people? Remarks such as that from the honorable member are calculated to encourage rebellion and mutiny, and to undermine the discipline which should be so strictly enforced in regard to the military. I refuse to believe that the Commandant of the Military College, whoever he may be and whatever his opinions, will presume to fight his Minister, though some Ministers appear to like to be disobeyed by their officers. I certainly douBt that any officer, whatever his rank, would presume to fight the Parliament. No doubt, when called upon to express their views, our officers will do so for the benefit of the public, and may even feel it incumbent to express opinions which they think likely to be of service; but no military officer is likely to do what the honorable member suggests. I regret that such a statement was made in this Parliament, which we claim to be Democratic - the Parliament of the people. The making of such a statement should be rebuked in the clearest and most emphatic terms.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– Shortly before we adjourned for dinner, I was subjected to a violent, brutal, and vicious attack in which the military general of the House accused me of all sorts of things owing to my innocent remark that I hoped the Commandant of the Military College would zealously guard the ‘ standards of education to the’ extent, if necessary, of fighting both the Minister and the House. There are some ‘disordered individuals whose only notion of fighting is the use of a gun, or something of that kind, but I do not belong to that class of warriors. I am always a man of peace. What I sought to emphasize was that which is most emphatically emphasized throughout Lord Kitchener’s report. If we are to have an Army in Australia, politics must be kept out of it. I am glad, indeed, that the honorable member’s brutal attack upon my poor self enables me to emphasize the point. After laying down very tersely and clearly the principles regarding enrolment, Lord Kitchener went on to say -

These considerations show how completely a Citizen Force should be kept outside party politics. Political feeling in an army is always a serious drawback to efficiency, and may become a danger to the State.

He returns to this thought on two other occasions. Speaking of the area officers to be appointed to instruct the Citizen Force, he says -

The essential importance of these duties to the nation will make the area officer the keystone of the Citizen Force -

The area officer is, of course, to be a College man - whose organization and fitness for war will chiefly depend upon the education and training received in the “ area.”

Under this system, it is evident that the responsibilities of the area officer will make it a national necessity that he should be a carefullyselected man, thoroughly grounded and trained in his profession, and scientifically educated. No social considerations, no influence, nothing but efficiency should- be allowed to affect the selection and promotion of these officers. Their work should be judged by results alone.

Yet, again, he returns in another part of his report to the same subject -

Any political interference with the management of such institution - that is the College - in which disciplinary training forms an important part, and the efficiency of which is so essential to the defence of Australia should be strictly avoided.

I repeat, therefore, the statement that I made, and which gave rise to so much’ perturbation of mind on the part of my belligerent friend, the Adelaide general. I hope that the Commandant of the Military College will sternly guard the standards of education which shall be set up there, and guard them, if need be, to the extent of fighting to the last ditch against any political influence that may be sought to be imposed. It is because I feel that the amendment of the Defence Bill made by the Senate - an amendment which gives the Governor-General, through his Ministers, the right to nominate appointees to the College - is a breach already of the fundamental principles of Lord Kitchener’s report that I have spoken as I have. I hope that we shall try our very best to keep politics away from the Army, and for the first time in Australia give it a chance.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I dp not know to what the item in subdivision 4, “ Pay and expenses of exchange officers “ relates, but a few days ago, when I was in Adelaide, a gentleman, who takes a very keen interest in military matters, asked me was it possible, in determining length of service in the Australian Defence Force as a qualification for some of the incidental honours, to obtain recognition of service done at Home. I replied that I knew nothing about the matter, but I think that if the Minister would promise to look into it something might be done. I under-, stand that a good many men come out here at a comparatively early age, after they have served seven or eight years in the British Forces, and that on joining the Commonwealth Defence Force they desire that the two services should be reckoned in connexion with whatever honours may be incidental to length of service. It is a comparatively small matter, but I draw attention to it in the hope that it will be looked into.

Mr King O’Malley:

– We shall look into the matter.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 53 (Chemical Adviser), £2,087 > division 54 (Cordite Factory), £9,230; division 54A ( Small Arms Factory), £5,675; division 55 (Australian Intelligence Corps), £632 ; division 56 (Royal Australian Engineers), £2,810; division 57 (Grants to Cadets), £250 ; division 58 (Universal Training), £23,000, agreed to.

Division 59 (Military College), £17,000.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I call attention to the fact that these salaries, and the succeeding item, make up a total of £17,000, which is the amount estimated by Lord Kitchener as the cost per year of this Military College in full working order. This vote can be required for only the half-year at the very outside. These individuals have not been selected yet. nor has the College been established.

Mr King O’Malley:

– We are at it now !

Mr Thomas:

– In the Estimates, provision is always made for twelve months, and there are estimated savings.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– No doubt this is an oversight ; and it is pretty certain that at the end of the year not more than a third of this amount, will have been spent. This is inflating the Estimates in a way not quite fair to the Department; but I suppose that what is not spent will be saved.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 60 (Naval College), £4,675 ; division 61 (Schools), £3,774; division 62 (Boys’ Training School, Naval), £9,746, agreed to.

Divisions 63 to 65 (New South Wales Naval Forces), £6,753.

Mr MCWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– Has any decision been arrived at regarding uniforms for the boy scouts or for the junior cadets ? In my opinion, the Department is making a huge mistake in not providing uniforms for the cadets, because nothing could be more cruel than to ask a sensitive child of poor parents to appear on parade in, perhaps, ragged clothing side by side with the well-dressed children of people in better circumstances. The cost of the uniforms could be saved in other directions. It might be that the uniform would be the only decent suit a poor little unfortunate might possess; and we know that in such matters as dress none are so cruel to children as children themselves.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Divisions 66 to 69 (Victorian Naval’ Forces). £52,626; divisions 70 to 72 (Queensland A7 aval Forces), £21,069; divisions 73 to 75 (South Australian Naval Forces), £15,345-; divisions 76 to 78 (Western Australian Naval Forces), £2,998 ; divisions 79 to 81 (Tasmanian Naval Forces), £2,342; divisions 82 to 90 (Thursday Island), £17,456; divisions 91 to 96 (King George’s Sound), £3,561 ; divisions 97 to 118 (New South Wales Military Forces), £351,545; divisions 119 to 138 (Victorian Military Forces), £298,778 ; divisions 139 to 156 (Queensland Military Forces), £137,617 ; divisions 157 to 174 (South Australian Military Forces), £82,089; divisions 175 to 192 (Western Australian Military Forces), £73,026, agreed to.

Divisions 193 to 210 (Tasmanian Military Forces), £65,686.

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- Before we leave the Estimates for the Defence Department, I wish to refer to the rates of pay received by the members of the Permanent Artillery. I was pleased to hear the remarks of the honorable member for Franklin when he protested against cadets appearing in the ranks in rags and tatters. I appeal to the honorable member now to help me to render a measure of welldeserved assistance to members of the Permanent Forces. At present, the men of the Permanent Artillery receive the magnificent rate of pay of 2s. 6d. per day. One or two extras are allowed in the shape of a suit of clothes, a couple of pairs of boots, and so forth. In regard to food, the Department is able to supply the Forces at as low a figure as 8d. per day per man. So that we may say that the total amount received by them amounts to something like 3s. 6d. per man per day. Honorable members are well aware that wages all over Australia have risen within recent years. The only fair method of arriving at a comparison in order to determine whether the members of the Permanent Artillery are being sufficiently remunerated, is to set the payments made to these men side by side with rates of pay in England. An investigation of the percentage of increase of wages paid to trades and callings in the Commonwealth over the rates paid in Great Britain, shows that such increases vary from 80 to about 120 per cent. Let us take one of the principal trade unions in Great Britain, the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. That society consists of about 100,000 members. The minimum rate of pay in Great Britain is 23s. per week, whilst in the Commonwealth the minimum rate is 54s. per week, a difference of 31s., equivalent to 135 per cent. The maximum rate paid in Great Britain is 41s. per week, and the maximum rate in the Commonwealth is 90s. per week, a difference of 49s., or 120 per cent. If we apply a similar comparison to rates of pay received by the police, corporation labourers, and so forth, we find that those employed in Australia receive on an average about 80 per cent. in excess of rates paid in England. In considering whether the members of our

Permanent Forces are efficiently paid we have to recollect that men in the British Army enjoy pension rights, whilst the men in our Permanent Forces are not entitled to any pensions. Let us take the rates of pay to men in the British Army - having regard to the commuted value of their pensions - and compare them with rates paid to permanent members of the Commonwealth Military Forces. I find that sergeantmajors of engineers, sergeant-major armament artificers, and sergeant-major master gunners in Australia receive respectively 25 per cent., 13 per cent., and 25 per cent. more than the rates received by men filling relative positions in the British Army. Those whom I have just mentioned are warrant officers. Dealing next with non-commissioned officers and men, I find that a regimental staff sergeant-major in the Australian Forces receives 14 per cent. more than a similar non-commissioned officer in the British Army; a regimental quartermaster-sergeant, 28 per cent. more; a regimental quartermaster- sergeant armament artificer, 9 per cent. ; a regimental quartermaster-sergeant armourer, 14 percent. ; a company sergeant-major, 6 percent. ; a sergeant, 14 per cent. ; a corporal, 14 per cent. ; a bombardier, 11 per cent. ; and a gunner, 37 per cent. An analysis of these figures shows that the Commonwealth soldier receives from 46 per cent. to 77 per cent. less than the minimum increase obtaining in trades and callings throughout the Commonwealth. To arrive at a fair adjustment I would suggest to the Minister representing the Minister of Defence that if a percentage increase of 83 per cent. were the amount available for establishing a pension fund, at present rates of pay, it would work out as follows : - Sergeantmajor engineers, 6s. per day, or£109per annum; sergeant-major armament artificer, 8s. per day, or £146 per annum; master gunner, 6s. per day, or , £109 per annum; staff sergeantmajor, 6s. per day, or £109 per annum; regimental quartermaster-sergeant, 4s. 8d. per day, or £85 5s. per annum ; regimental quartermaster armament artificer, 7s. 2d. per day, or £130 15s.10d. per annum ;. regimental quartermaster armourer, 6s.7d. per day, or £120 2s.11d. per annum; company sergeant-major, 4s.1d. per day, or £7410s.5d. per annum; sergeant, 3s. per day, or £54 15s. per annum; corporal, 2s. 3d. per day, or £40 16s. 4d. per annum; bombardier, 2s. 2d. per day, or £39 5s. rod. per annum; gunner, 8d. per day, or £12 3s. 4d. per annum. These figures illustrate the fact that twelve men of the various ranks in the Commonwealth Military Forces would contribute to a pension fund the sum of £1,030 13s. 8d. per annum, if the 83 per cent. increase on the pay and commuted pension of similar men in the British Army were conceded. If we compare the consolidated pay rates in Great Britain with those in the Commonwealth, the following are the results -

A company sergeant-major receives 4s. per day in Great Britain, and the magnificent sum of 5s. 9d. per day in the Commonwealth; a sergeant 3s. 2d. in Great Britain, and 5s. in the Commonwealth; a corporal 2s. 6d. in Great Britain, and 4s. in the Commonwealth; a bombardier 2s. 3d. in Great Britain, and 3s. 6d. in the Commonwealth. Having had some experience of gunnery work, I am in a position to say that a man who is qualified to fill the position of sergeant must be fairly well educated. He must know something of arithmetic, as many of the. calculations necessary in gunnery work are very intricate, and he must have a fairly good technical knowledge of gunnery. Yet in the Commonwealth he receives only 5s. per day. In addition he gets his food and a few odds and ends, which at most, do not amount to more than another1s. per day. I appeal to the Minister representing the Minister of Defence to take into consideration the fact that these men are giving up their lives to the country, because after they have been a few years in the service they become absolutely useless for any work outside. In the circumstances, 5s. per day is a totally inadequate payment for a sergeant. The honorable member for Ballarat, in his opening remarks, stated that in view of the finances of the Commonwealth it is necessary to cheesepare, but I do not think it is right that these men should be sweated in the way they have been in the past. I am aware that the Minister of Defence has recognised that these men have been sweated, and that he proposes to give them a slight increase. As I understand the Minister’s proposal, it is to give the men deferred pay at the rate of 3d. per day for gunners, and 6d. per day for noncommissioned officers, and a rise of1s. per day for all ranks. I am totally opposed to the principle of deferred pay. What right has any Government to withhold pay from any man? If such a thing were proposed in connexion with a private business, it would be resented at once. If it were proposed, for instance, to withhold a certain proportion of the amount paid to honorable members of this House, what would they be likely to say about it ? If, applying the principle to ourselves we object to it, why should we, because we have the power, force it upon men to whom it is odious? We have agreed to a provision in the Defence Bill, which practically denies promotion to a number of men who have worked themselves up in the service.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member not to discuss the Defence Bill. We are now dealing with the Estimates.

Mr OZANNE:

– We have agreed to a provision which practically blocks the promotion of many men. These men were eligible for certain positions in connexion with the Central Administrative Staff, but that also has been blocked, and, in all the circumstances, the fairest thing we can do in the interests of these men and the children, whom many of them are rearing, is to give them adequate remuneration for the services they render to the country. Gunners and non-commissioned officers are not permitted to engage in any private - enterprise by which they might add a little to the miserable wage they receive. I ask the Minister, representing the Minister of Defence, to promise to take the matter I have brought before the Committee into consideration, and see that these men who are- protecting the wealth of the country are reasonably paid. If the wealth of the country is worth protecting its protection is worth paying for. I am quite willing, in common, I believe, with every other member of the Committee, to pay my share towards providing a fair remuneration for these men. Perhaps the Minister will give me a promise that the matter will be considered.

Mr ROBERTS:
Adelaide

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Committee a matter affecting warrant and non-commissioned officers on the Instructional Staff. I shall compare the pay which they receive with the pay received by officers of similar rank in their corps, in order to show that the pay given to instructional non-commissioned officers is in every rank below that given to officers of equal rank in other corps of the Defence Forces. I remind the Committee that we shall have to depend for an efficient force on the warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff. Notwithstanding the fact that, in a few years, we shall have some officers who will have gone through the Military College, the real backbone in the provision of an efficient force will be the non-commissioned Instructional Staff.

Much dissatisfaction exists at present on account of anomalies of pay in the different branches of the Permanent Forces, e.g., a regimental sergeant-major of the

Royal Australian Artillery receives 13s. per diem, whilst a man in the same rank in the Instructional Staff cannot get more than 12s. per diem, although he may be an instructor of artillery, and doing similar work. Furthermore, cases have occurred very recently of junior non-commissioned officers from the Army Medical Corps and Royal Australian Artillery being appointed to the Instructional Staff, and at once, by reason of their higher pay. superseding a very large number of good and able men who have been in the corps for some years. The military staff clerk, whose military work is confined entirely to clerical duties, has the highest rate of pay of any warrant officer, and may, without any competitive examination, attain commissioned rank. Whilst this warrant officer clerk may attain a salary of £285 per annum, the senior warrant officers of the Military Forces, viz., the garrison sergeant-major and first class master gunner, are only able to obtain £255 10s. and £237 5s. respectively. Many other cases could be quoted, but it is sufficient to state that, whilst in the Instructional Staff Corps commissioned officers receive salaries equal to those in any other branch of the service, the following table shows that the warrant and noncommissioned officers are, for some unknown reason, paid at lower rates than the corresponding ranks of other corps of the. Permanent Forces

It is pointed out that, in addition to working the ordinary hours of the clerical staff, and doing similar work, the warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff are called upon to perform a large amount of evening instructional work, without being paid, like the military clerk, an allowance as tea-money, and also to work on almost every holiday and half- holiday throughout the year. I hope that the foregoing will suffice to show that good grounds exist for revising entirely the pay of warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff, with a view to equal rates prevailing in all corps for those of corresponding ranks. Failing such a revision, it is urged that the present scale of pay of the Instructional Staff - which will be found in paragraph 77 of the Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces - should be amended as from 1st July, 1910, to read as follows : -

These rates are, approximately, the same as those prevailing in other branches of the Permanent Military Forces. Let me now refer to the increments of pay to warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff. The warrant and noncommissioned officers of the’ Instructional Staff are, with one small exception, the only persons in the Military Forces whose increments are bi-annual. In the other corps annual increments are given. The bi-annual increment is£9 2s.6d., and this, it is urged, is paltry, more especially when other corps may receive a similar amount annually and the smallest increment of the Public Service official is £20. A warrant officer clerk receives an annual increment of £25, thus increasing his salary nearly as much in one year as his brother warrant officer of the Instructional Staff receives in six years, yet both are of equal rank. With such cases occurring it is no wonder that a state of good feeling is lacking amongst the members of various branches, and it is hoped that some revision may be made whereby increments of equal value may be made to corresponding ranks of all branches. During the next five years the Minister will have an opportunity to do good work in the direction of promotion to commissioned rank in the Instructional Staff Corps. Whilst the Regulations permit the younger members to compete for commissions, the senior warrant and non-commissioned officers are debarred on account of being, generally, forty years and upwards of age. Thus, length of service, even when coupled with exceptional merit and ability, is an absolute bar to promotion, a condition which would not be tolerated in any other Department, or in any business establishment. In South

Australia a warrant officer has twenty-seven years’ permanent military service, an excellent record, the medal for distinguished conduct in the field, and the educational qualification for a commission, yet he is unable to obtain promotion on account of being forty-three years of age. A number of the senior warrant officers of the Corps of Royal Australian Engineers and military staff clerks are given commissions as vacancies occur in their corps, and it is urged that the same advantages should be available to members of other corps. With the augmentation of the Defence Forces a large number of commissions will be granted to young and probably inexperienced men, which will necessitate the experience being provided by the warrant and non-commissioned officers of the Instructional Staff attached to their area, while the pay for the experience will be given to the young officer of two or three years’ service, and consequently it appears fitting that those warrant and noncommissioned officers who have spent the best part of their lives in the Permanent Forces should be selected for at least a proportion of the commissions. I make these suggestions for the consideration of honorable members in the hope that they will go carefully into them, and particularly that the Minister of Defence will give to them the attention which I claim they deserve. There is one other point to which I desire to invite the attention of the Committee. I find that the warrant officers and noncommissioned officers have now to salute officers of either the Permanent or the Citizen Forces, irrespective of whether those officers are in uniform or in mufti, if they know them.

Mr West:

– What nonsense !

Mr ROBERTS:

– It is nonsense. In many cases, unfortunately, young gentlemen receive a commission on one day and appear in uniform on the next day. On the following day they are doing their ordinary work, and if a non-commissioned officer of the Instructional Staff who has had an experience of twenty or thirty years comes along and does not salute him, there is a military inquiry held, and in many cases the officer is suspended. I submit for the consideration of the Minister that there should be no necessity for non-commissioned and warrant officers of the Permanent Forces to salute any officer unless the latter happens to be in uniform.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- I shall be very pleased if the Minister will state what is intended to be done with regard to the Ipswich rifle range. In that district we have two very fine corps, and the longest range they can use is 700 yards, which, I understand, is not considered to be very safe. I should also like to know the Department’s intention in regard to the Redbank range. Some time ago a proposal was made that a range should be purchased at Redbank, a locality which would suit the whole district. As the new defence scheme will be put into force forthwith, I feel sure the range will be needed for military purposes, and that the Department will not get an opportunity of getting another range at the same price. I do not intend to press the Minister for a reply at this moment unless, of course, he has it at hand. But I shall be very pleased to know at the earliest opportunity what is intended to be done in regard to those two matters.

Mr Frazer:

– I have made a note of them.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– My experience of the Defence Department during the past year has led me to form the opinion that it is one of the worst Departments in the Commonwealth. It is one of those Departments in which it is impossible to get anything done in a business-like way. According to the reports which we receive, the business is conducted on the plan of one officer going up and undoing the work of another officer in country districts, or reporting against his recommendations. The business is carried on in a piecemeal manner. An officer is, for instance, sent into the country to attend to some work. He does not deal with the whole of the work, but with only a small section of it. After a long delay, another officer comes or goes to report on another section, and very often he makes a report detrimental to his predecessor. I am credibly informed that it is within the experience of the Department to find an officer visiting a district in connexion with certain works, and making a certain recommendation, and on a later occasion condemning his own work and. his own recommendation. I hope that an attempt will be made to bring the Department into something like a workable condition, and so do away with all the complaints and little frictions in country districts in connexion with rifle clubs and rifle ranges, and the working and management of the Australian Light Horse. The Department seems to an outsider to be so completely torn and rent by internal jealousies and hatreds that it has no time for anything else. If that be the position, the more quickly it is reformed and brought into workable lines the better for the Commonwealth.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I desire to again draw attention to the small increase in the vote for rifle ranges. I agree with the last speaker that there is any amount of room for improvement in the Defence Forces. Cases of confusion, overlapping, and bungling such as he alluded to have come under my notice. I think that the Minister of Defence has any amount of work to do, and an opportunity of showing what he is made of in bringing the Department into a state of business efficiency and also authority. I am sorry to see that the vote for rifle clubs is increased by only about £2,000. The honorable member for Parramatta, when Minister of Defence last year, had a design of making greater use of the rifle clubs as a second line of defence, and I am sorry that he was not permitted to put it into effect, but I hope the present Minister will take particular notice of the circumstances, especially in regard to the country districts, where the facilities for mobilization are not, and never will be, as great as in the large centres of population. A few thousand pounds more could have been expended to great advantage in this direction. We have in the country districts certain rifle club associations which hold periodical competitions, but owing to the lack of proper facilities in the shape of rifle ranges their efforts in that direction are very much hampered, with a consequent loss of efficiency. I have every reason to believe that the present Minister sees in the rifle clubs a means of increasing the shooting efficiency of our troops, and I believe he is in sympathy with the extension of rifle range facilities in country districts, in order to induce the formation of a greater number of associations, and more rifle shooting competitions. I hope the Honorary Minister will bring these matters under the notice of the Minister of Defence, and use his influence in order to secure next year a very substantial increase in the vote for the encouragement of rifle clubs and the creation of rifle ranges.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- I indorse the remarks of the honorable member for Wimmera as to the necessity for dealing more liberally with the rifle clubs. I have been endeavouring for some time to have rifle ranges established at Bulli and Corrimal, two large and important centres of population in my electorate. Time after time inspectors have been sent down to report on the various sites suggested, and I have written frequently to the Department, but nothing definite has been done. I hope the Honorary Minister will impress on the Minister of Defence the necessity of providing ranges in both these coastal towns, where a large number of expert riflemen are available. We are always talking in this Parliament about the necessity for encouraging rifle shooting, yet facilities that ought to be provided by the Commonwealth in such big centres as these are not forthcoming. A dispute has taken place between the South Coast Rifle Association, one of the most important in the Commonwealth, and the heads of the Military Department in Sydney. For reasons which have been set out in a voluminous statement of claim that I forwarded to the Minister of Defence, the officers connected with the association were suspended. I understand that the suspension has now been removed, and I believe a suggestion has been made by the Minister to send an officer down to the place to hold a meeting in order to try to bring both parties together. I want to impress on the Minister that no meeting of that sort will be satisfactory. The matter is an important one, and involves the expenditure of public money. The. fullest inquiry should be made into it, and nothing but the fullest inquiry will be satisfactory.. The officers of the association still feel very keenly the action of the military authorities in suspending them. I think Colonel Wallace was State Commandant of New South Wales at the time. The officers of the association say that public money has been wrongfully expended, and I want the Minister to have the matter properly dealt with in the way I have suggested. Let those who have acted in an arbitrary manner at head-quarters be brought face to face with the officers of the association, and let the fullest investigation be made by an impartial and responsible officer of the Department. I trust the Minister will not allow those who have acted in this way towards the members of the association to evade the consequences of their action by attempting to hold any such meeting as has been suggested.

Mr FRAZER:
Honorary Minister and Acting Treasurer · Kalgoorlie · ALP

.- It is impossible for me to give to the Committee the direct information which’ would be at the command of the Minister who controls the Department, but I can assure the honorable member for Corio that the Minister has in front of him a proposal in which consideration is given to the whole of the wages paid to those associated with the Royal Australian Artillery. I believe that the announcement to be made by the Minister on that matter will’ be in the direction of securing better conditions for those employed in that branch! of our service than those that exist at present. I shall have the remarks of the honorable member for Adelaide, regarding discrepancies in different Departments, submitted to the authorities, and assure him that the Department will present a report’ in reply to the statements he has made to-: night. I am not acquainted with the position of affairs in relation to the rifle ranges mentioned by the honorable member for Moreton, but when a rifle range reaches a certain stage it is transferred to the Home Affairs Department, and the Defence Department temporarily loses sight of it. I have, however, made a. note of the two rifle ranges in which the honorable member is interested, and I will ask the Minister of Defence to give his early attention to the requirements of those particular districts. In reply to the honorable member for Wimmera I wish to say that the Government are desirous of affording the greatest possible facilities to persons in the country who are prepared to devote a portion of their time to rifle shooting with a view to becoming efficient marksmen. From my own knowledge of the Minister’s desire to encourage rifle shooting I can assure the honorable member that any definite proposals submitted to him will receive the most careful consideration. I am not acquainted with the merits of the dispute to which the honorable member for Illawarra referred, but a copy of his remarks will be forwarded to the Minister with a request that the views which he has expressed shall be seriously considered before any definite decision is arrived at.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Postmaster-General’s Department.

Division 211 (Central Staff), £14,323.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

.- I rise with some diffidence to bring under the notice of the Committee a matter which has occupied the attention of certain members of this Parliament for a considerable time. As thirty-six hours have elapsed since I had an opportunity of securing any rest it will be readily understood that I do not approach my self-imposed task with a light heart.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– A man like the honorable member ought not to require sleep.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I quite realize that a member of this Parliament ought not to need sleep if he is to faithfully discharge his duties. But knowing, as I do, that the close of the session is at hand, I am impelled to embrace this opportunity to make some observations upon one of the greatest departments under the control of this Parliament. The Postal Department is the most important Department under the charge of the Commonwealth, in that it comes more closely into contact with the daily lives of the people than does any other Department. Some time ago, whilst I was rendering a service to the Acting Prime Minister, who was attending the Imperial Navigation Conference, I became aware of .difficulties connected with that Department, of which I had no previous knowledge. My inquiries led me to conclude that, under the conditions which then existed, there was no chance of remedying obvious defects. The knowledge necessary to enable that to be done was not in the possession of any honorable member or of any Minister. Consequently, I took the earliest opportunity to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into all the ramifications of this great service. I do not need to recapitulate events which are now a matter of history. I need only mention that, after some time, during which the fate of the then Government trembled in the balance, I secured the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the administration of the Postal Department. That body was appointed on the 24th June, ]008. From that date onward I can truthfully assert that I threw the whole of my energies, and whatever ability I may possess, into the inquiry which it conducted. That inquiry extended over a very brief period considering the many large matters vhich had to be investigated. Indeed, from the stand-point of the magnitude of its task, the inquiry was perhaps the most expeditious that has been conducted in the history of the Commonwealth. The members of the Commission dealt with each matter coming within their purview as thoroughly as if they were dealing with a business in which they were pecuniarily interested. The taking of evidence was concluded towards the end of 1909, and from that time till quite recently the members of the Commission were engaged in formulating its report. Here I desire to say that to the Chairman of the Commission is largely due the credit. for trie compilation of the report which is now in. the hands of honorable members. I am proud to reflect that ‘ I had the benefit of ‘ the ability and sincerity which he exhibited while engaged in the preparation of the report. In saying that I am doing bare justice to one with whom I worked so long and amicably. Honorable members will doubtless recollect that prior to the appointment of the Postal Commission the Government of the day sought to induce the House to believe that the appointment of a Cabinet Committee was all that was required to inquire into the working of the Department. But to-day we learn that that Committee was scarcely equal to the task which it was called upon to undertake. Evidence could not be taken by it in the same way as by a Royal Commission. Nevertheless, some little good was done, because the evils were so patent that it was realized that changes of vital importance had to be made. But this was merely an effort by the Government of the day to allay uneasiness regarding the conditions prevailing in the Department. It is no extravagant statement to say that,, in 1910, the Postal Department was in a condition bordering on chaos and rebellion. Fortunately, public attention was drawn to the matter, and an intimation was given to those responsible that something must be done. I have been pleased to observe that the heads of the Postal Administration have followed the taking of evidence by the Commission, and have, from time to time, based on it the reforms shown by the inquiry to be necessary. Very important changes have thus been made at the instance of the Public Service Commissioner and some of the higher officials in the Postal Department. When I showed that the Department was overworked, undermanned, and woefully underpaid, basing my statements on the reports of officers, men who should have known better had the temerity to deny the accuracy of my infor: marion. But it is a compliment to my accuracy that the appointment of 1,500 additional hands to relieve overwork and congestion has since been agreed to. Notwithstanding, the Department is still in a condition that does not reflect credit on those who are responsible for its management, and some of the branches are yet overworked; so that when the busy season of the year comes on, mails remain undespatched in both Sydney and Melbourne long after they should have arrived at their destination, and the difficulties which torture the employes and trammel the management have not been removed. Ever since Federation, the vote for telegraph and telephone construction has been scandalously starved. The PostmasterGeneral was forced to make an alteration in the method of charging for telephone service, because the old system was inequitable and unsatisfactory on financial grounds. The want of better business method in the Department is something to be marvelled at. Although it was spending .£4,000,000 a year, there was not at the head of its Accounts Branch a man competent to provide for a uniform and effective system of accountancy. When the Commission asked the chief officer of the Accountancy Branch whether the postal, telegraph, and telephone services were paying, he could not say, because accounts had not been kept to show the financial results of the Department. No business man would conduct his affairs in that way with any success. For the proper guidance of those responsible for administration, there should be an officer in a position to give a true account of the finances, and to provide for, and to keep in order, a proper system of accounts. The success or failure of a Department of this kind must depend upon the knowledge which those at the head of it have of its financial working, and it is strange that for nearly ten years there should have been no proper ‘ keeping of accounts. The Ministry, having at last gained a knowledge of the fact, so plainly placed on record by the Commission, that the Department was without expert guidance in this regard, decided only recently to appoint a Chief Accountant. In the early days of Federation, an attempt was made to bring about a uniform system of accounts and bookkeeping. The New South Wales Accountant, Mr. Gregory - the only registered accountant in the Commonwealth service - was asked to report on the subject, and, in 1904, presented a report which, owing to jealousy and other influences that permeate a service of this character, was never acted upon, although it was both valuable and practicable. Three officers - the Accountant of the Treasury, the Ac countant of the Department, and the Chief Clerk of the Audit Office - were then appointed a Committee of Uniform Accounts, to do that which the Accountant in New South Wales had already done. Those gentlemen for nearly three years were engaged intermittently upon the work of evolving a uniform system of accounts, and finally abandoned the task. The Department has, therefore, nothing to guide it as to the financial position of its several branches, and it will have no such guidance until the recently-appointed Chief Accountant is able to grasp this momentous question, and place the position beyond doubt. That, briefly, is the history of the financial management of the Department. At the inception of Federation, the Postal Departments of the six States were transferred to the Commonwealth, and the task of bringing the six differing systems into uniformity was one that might well have taxed the skill of the best-trained man that we could employ. No such provision, as a business man would make before taking over a great enterprise, was made, and in such circumstances it was impracticable to secure ari effective solution of the difficulty that inevitably arose in trying to amalgamate the six differing systems. The Postal Commission, in the course of its inquiry, found that, under the Post and Telegraph Act, Parliament laid down a system which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, has proved in operation both inadequate and dangerous. We found that, under that Act. the controlling responsibility for the financial side of the Department was vested in the Treasurer of the Commonwealth for the time being. The Treasurer has no responsibility for the efficiency of this great service, and can know little of its intricacies. Yet he holds the purse-strings, and can, as the political necessities of the Government may demand, hamper or hinder the development of the Department. He has power without responsibility in this connexion, and that is one of the weak points of the system.Parliament did not think it sufficient to separate control and financial response bility, but went further, and provided in the principal Act .that the Public Service Commissioner should control the employes in the Postal Service. The Public Service Commissioner has the right to govern and control the interests of every unit in the Department, and the advancement or otherwise of every man in the service rests with him. That, again, is an anomaly in a big service such as this undoubtedly is. The Public Service Commissioner has power to deal with the officers of the service, but is not responsible for their work. That, in. the opinion of the Commission, is the second weak point in the system. The Secretary to the Department in the Central Office, and the Deputy Postmasters- General of the” several States, have the responsibility of managing the Department, but they are hampered on the one hand by the Treasurer, and on the other by the Public Service Commissioner. The Act provides for a still further duplication of responsibility and power. Public works connected with the Department, such as the erection of new offices and the provision of exchanges, are practically taken out of the hands of the Department, and placed under the control of the Ministerial head of another Department. That Minister has no responsibility for the efficiency of the Post and Tele- graph Service, yet he has the power toinder its successful administration. These are the three weak points of the system. To a business man, it seems incomprehensible that Parliament, or any body of men charged with the control of a great service, could believe that that service would be successfully managed where responsibility and power were thus alienated. I come now to another surprising feature of the service. The Post and Telegraph Act provided for the appointment of a Secretary to the Minister, who should be responsible to him for the administration of the Department and the carrying out of the Ministerial policy. One of the difficulties of administering such a Department as this is that it extends all over the Commonwealth, and it seemed to the Commission to be an anomaly that a man, having no experience of any part of Australia save the State from which he came, and practically unable to move, should be taken from one of the smaller States, dumped down in the Central Office, and asked to assimilate these differing systems, and to bring them into one harmonious whole. Even a miracle of an organizer could not have, fulfilled the demands of the position, and here we had a gentleman whose only experience had been in one of the smaller States of the Union. If there is any truth in the old adage that environment makes 4he man, it will readily be conceived that the knowledge of this official was extremely limited. I do not say that he did not do his best; but the question is whether he or any other man in the Commonwealth could have complied with all the requirements ? The result has proved that a great Department of this kind cannot be successfully worked from a centre by one person. Further, he could not forget the conditions of his service in the State, where he could have every man under his control and supervision. He had an idea that he must adopt the same lines in the case of the great Commonwealth ; and he treated the heads of the Department in the various States as though they were acting under him in a much more limited sphere. Naturally, this gave rise to a great deal of circumlocution, every order and recommendation having to filter through the Central Office. Even the Chief Electrical Engineer, who is charged with the great responsibility of administering our telegraphic and telephonic services, had to pass through the Secretary’s office every recommendation necessary for the control of the branch. That was the state of affairs when the Postal Commission commenced its work; but I may say that it has been altered in the light of the evidence we were able to call. At the Central Office, attempts had been made to carry on the business with a number of men much too limited, even with a good system; and the system, as we know, was faulty. The Secretary’s time was occupied in pen- work when he ought to have been observing, controlling, and directing ; and similar conditions prevailed in the case of the Deputy Postmasters-General, who were kept busy day by day appending their signatures to piles of papers. They rarely left their offices in order to see how the great human machine was working; and the results can be readily conceived. Each of the Deputy Postmasters-General admitted in their evidence that they had too much routine work, and were, therefore, unable to exercise that supervision without which any great business, much less a public Department of such dimensions, cannot be successfully conducted. It will be seen that a great weakness was the system of central control, without personal knowledge on the part of the head of the Department of the differentiating conditions and demands in the various States, which render necessary skilful and continuous attention by experts in postal and telegraphic work. It was soon realized that the two systems of control, as represented by the Public Service Commisisoner and the Secretary to the Department, did not dovetail into one another; and it is no secret - the evidence rendered the fact unmistakable - that these two officials were at loggerheads with regard to their respective functions and powers. The Postal Commission were, therefore, compelled to report that this friction, which, as I say, meant so much weakness in the administration, should be removed as speedily as possible. The officers next in rank to the Deputy Postmasters-General in the various States are the Accountants; and their branch was found to be even weaker than any other of the service. The Accountancy Branch ought to be the most reliable ; but those who occupied’ these responsible positions were found” to be absolutely unfitted for the grave and important duties cast upon them ais1 the financial guides of the Department. It was not even required that these gentlemen should be certified accountants, although we may be sure that no business firm would engage a man for such work unless he held unquestionable testimonials and qualifications as an expert. Under our present system, however, the Public Service Commissioner may draft men from one branch or Department to another, irrespective of their adaptability, and the removals are frequently made simply because the men happen to have seniority. If there is no promotion open in his own branch, an officer must find it in another, the duties of which he has to begin to learn. As a result of this system we found a number of round pegs in square holes. I shall not mention names, but I may say that in one State an accountant, like all other departmental witnesses, submitted a written statement as to the financial conditions within his own sphere of action’. When we commenced to examine him, however, we found that he could not explain the statement that he had placed before us, and the further the investigation proceeded the more bogged or bamboozled” he became. Ultimately, it was discovered that the statement this officer placed before us had not been prepared by himself, but by another officer, who’ was third in rank in his office. That is but one example of the kind of thing that has grown up in the postal service. A further example has been furnished in- connexion with another Federal Department. Of course, I do not blame the men; I blame the system. An honorable member has recently referred to the fact that an accountant has been placed in charge of the Department of Trade and Customs in the

State of Victoria. He was an excellent accountant - one of the best we had - and he rendered most valuable service to the Commonwealth. But, because he was an excellent accountant, he was taken away from that work and placed in charge of the Customs House. of which he had had no previous experience. That is how we lose the services of men who have shown their aptitude for particular kinds of work. Very largely because of the excellence of their services they are removed to quite another class of work, where they are concerned with an entirely different system of procedure. While that system prevails, what is the use of training up capable officers? What sense is there in making men competent to perform valuable work in one Department, and then removing them to another? I remind honorable members that efficiency at the head of a Department generally means efficiency throughout. The whole staff works either up or down to the level of its chief. If the man at the top is a low-grade man, we may guarantee that eventually the whole Department will be low-grade, because the officer who attempts to get above his chief will be blocked every time. He will never be allowed to excel his superior officer, although he may be twice as brilliant and able. If we start off with a mediocre man at. the head of a particular service, we simply sow the seeds of discontent and inefficiency. The standard of the man at the head will be the standard of the service throughout. We cannot expect efficiency in matters of detail, unless the great fundamentals are sound to begin with, and unless the standards are raised to the point of efficiency by the man directing the whole service. Therein, lies one of the weaknesses of this great Department. Another stumbling-block in the way has been the limitation of the power of the Deputy Postmasters-General. The jealousy of the Central Office led it to endeavour to retain practically all the power in its own hands. Practically everything was kept within the control of one man. It is only since the Royal Commission has been conducting its inquiries that greater possibilities have been given to the Deputies’. Their power has been increased to such an extent as to make them more like real governors of the Department within their, own States.

Sir John Quick:

– In what way has the power of the Deputy Postmasters- General been increased?

Mr WEBSTER:

– It has been increased by a delegation of authority to them.

Sir John Quick:

– They have the same delegation of control now as they had before.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Nothing of the kind. The power of the Deputies has been extended very much since the Commission has been sitting. I can tell the honorable member, from my own knowledge, that that is so, and can prove it to ‘him from evidence in black and white. One of the insuperable difficulties that has beset the Department has been the lack of continuity in policy. We have had ten Postmasters-General in ten years in the Commonwealth. If they had been Heaven-born administrators, not one of them was in office long enough to grasp the fundamentals of his Department. I intend no disrespect to these gentlemen; the system has been at fault. Furthermore, the natural ambition of every man who takes office to make a name for himself has been no imaginary cause of mistaken policy in reference to the Department, out a very real one. So that what with a lack of responsibility and power on the part of the controlling officers, centralization at the head office, the lack of delegated authority to the Deputies in the States, and the shortage of efficient officers in control, together with a . continuous stream of Postmasters-General, who have been in charge of the Department, I do not wonder that it has got into the condition in which we find it to-day. Indeed, I rather wonder that it is not worse than it is. I may say, at once, that my experience, both in the Federal Legislature and in a State Parliament, has shown me - and I regret to say this - that the Postal portfolio has been looked upon hs the dummy portfolio of the Cabinet. It has generally been given to the least important man in the Government. Undeniably, however, the Postal portfolio is the most important one of all, not even excepting that of the Prime Minister. . In other countries, the Postmaster-General is regarded not as the Minister occupying the lowest rung in the ladder, not merely as the make-weight in the Cabinet -

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The PostmasterGeneral in Great Britain is not generally a member of the Cabinet.

Mr WEBSTER:

– I am speaking of other countries. In New Zealand, the Prime Minister took upon himself the duties of Postmaster-General. New Zealand recognises the importance of this great

Department. In Australia, the portfolio has been given to the man who was looked upon as the baby of the Government. That is another difficulty of which Cabinet makers in the future would do well to take cognisance. No man having the control of this Department for a short time only could expect to do his duty by it, and for this reason our Postmasters-General cannot fairly be charged with the responsibility for its condition. Another matter which we discovered by our inquiry was that there was internal jealousy amongst the controlling officers. There was a condition of practical rebellion in one State in 1907, when I directed attention to the condition of affairs in this Department. It was due to rivalry between men who were seeking a number of vacant positions, each one be?lieving that he should be chosen for the more important position. That is a state of affairs which should not exist in a Department of this kind, and it could not exist under a proper system of management. We discovered that the condition of affairs in the Telegraph and Telephone Branches was so bad that it is impossible for me, in the time at my disposal, to give the Committee an adequate idea of it. We found that in one of our large cities the telegraph poles were actually held up by the wires. This was due to the fact that the Department was financially starved, and it was impossible to maintain these important services as they should have been maintained. There is an old proverb that “A stitch in time saves nine,”’ and as, in this case, no stitches were made in time, the position went from bad to worse. When we began our inquiry, the Treasurer had so starved this Department in order to meet the financial necessities of the Government, or the clamouring of the States, that these branches were almost breaking down, .and supplied a very .unsatisfactory service for the public who were paying for them. In the Electrical Engineers’ Branch we found that in each State the Electrical Engineer had the same story to tell. “ There is too much routine and office work. I am always at the desk. I cannot get away from it. If you ask me how my branch is getting on, and whether this or the other officer is the man he ought to be, I am obliged candidly to admit that, under the existing system, it is impossible for me to test the work of my men and to exercise the supervision essential to the proper working of the branch.”

We found that the tables of the officers, from the top to the bottom of the service, were piled with papers, many of which should have been attended to by minor officers, in order that the men, who under the system adopted had to attend to them, might be enabled to properly fulfil the duties of their more responsible positions. Our Chief Electrical Engineer controlled the whole of his branch of the service alone. Since our inquiry was commenced his staff has been increased, and he has been given the assistance of assistant engineers. He has been relieved of routine work, and of the necessity of proceeding through the Secretary of the Department for everything he required for the proper management of his branch. To-day he is practically a free man, with some scope for independent thought and action, f ask the Committee to imagine an expert electrical engineer, responsible for an important branch of this Department, being called upon to do his work through an officer who had no practical knowledge whatever of telegraphy or electrical engineering. To the Ordinary business mind such a position is preposterous. We found practically the same conditions prevailing in every State. There was the same lack of assistant engineers, and in some of the States officers who should have been engaged in field work and the practical business of their profession, were at the desks in their offices, tied to the pen, instead of being in charge of a theodolite directing the work of construction. Inspectors were doing engineers’ work, line foremen doing inspectors’ work, and linemen doing line foremen’s work. The responsible duties of each’ grade- were intrusted to an officer of a lower grade. Many officers were performing duties above their grade at a rate of pay that was not commensurate with the services they rendered. That is the system which, up till not very long ago. was in vogue in the principal portions of the Construction Branch in Nev/ South Wales and some of the other States. Men were expected to continue to perform duties above their grade at the pay of a lower grade, for indefinite periods, and without any special compensation. Even overtime was not paid for in those days, and the statement that overtime was being worked in the Department was denied in this House. What did we find when we went into our inquiry ? We found -that, during the years 1905, 1906, 1907, and a portion of 1908, in the Sydney

General Post Office alone, according to the return furnished by the Department, there was, in the Clerical and Professional Branches, overtime worked in excess of the regulation hours to the extent of 192,018 hours, equal to 24,002 days. These men toiled to keep the Department going over and above the hours demanded of them by their contract. Between the hours of 4.30 and 5.30 p.m., the overtime worked represented, during the same period, 71,825 hours, equal to 8,978 days. This was in only one great office in the State of New South Wales. The men were expected to do this extra work without grumbling, and without complaining through the press in letters over a nom de flume. If they were men, how could they be expected to stand the strain, which I know was placed upon them, without complaining? We got a return of overtime worked in the country districts of New South Wales. I am not responsible for its accuracy. It was furnished by the Department; but from it I find that in fiftyeight country offices, overtime to the extent of over 1,000 hours a year had been worked, or equal to from 125 to 175 days. There were three offices where over 2,000 hours, equalling 250 days of overtime, had been worked during these years. These were offices in which there were only two to five employes at most. Yet we were told in this House that the officers of this Department were not overworked. These men, under trying conditions, gallantly bore the heat and burden of the day for the Department; and, as a rule, did not grumble at the lot they were called upon to endure. The evidence showed that another important branch of the service is very much undermanned, and that is the inspectorial branch. Inspectors are appointed to review the work of the different officers in various districts, and some of them to review the work in the central offices of the States. We found that the inspectorial system is very much disorganized and unsatisfactory. The districts which are allotted to the inspectors are far too wide for them to cover. Not for one year, but for several years, and in one case for nine years, no inspector had crossed the threshold of an office to inquire how it was being worked by the responsible officer. No inspection could have been made, because there were not enough inspectors available, and the districts were too large.

Not only in New South Wales, but .in several other ‘States, the task was too great $or the men who ‘had been cha>rged witch *he duty, -and ‘consequently it was either ill-performed, -or in many cases not performed at aM. The weakness in file controlling branches of the service ‘calls for serious consideration fey :the Mi-mister ‘at -the bead of the Department to-day. If T were intrusted ‘with the responsibility of its administration, I should foe pleased to know that there was a Commission’s report -ready to my hand to guide me in performing my work, and removing disabilities which have been proven to exist, not by the statements of individual Commissioners, but by sworn .evidence. The report represents three years of labour on my part. .Every hour of recreation I put into the work. Saturday afternoons, ‘and in the majority of cases Sundays, have not been spared in my effort to discharge my duty to the ‘Commonwealth. If it took the Commission two years to conduct the inquiry, and six months to arrive at conclusions, their report ought to be welcomed by the Postmaster-General. It will enable him to focus the conditions in the service more rapidly than any previous Minister was in a position to do. We found that the methods of sorting throughout Australia were below the best .standards which prevail in other countries. Modem methods were lacking, and the men were worked under improper conditions. In States other than ‘Queensland -modern methods of bag sorting in circular form were introduced after the Commission had entered on their work of inquiry, which expedited the sorting work of the Department to a very large extent. But when we were in the State it was simply a case of go as you please. The old .system was good enough. Practically no one was responsible for what was being done, and very frequently the responsible officer was too tied down to his desk to be able to look into matters of serious importance to his administration. The sorters were working under conditions on which we report under the head of “ Organization.” The beats of the letter-carriers in the different States had not been rearranged although the population had grown, and the weight of the bags had increased, in proportion to the population. The bags were quite heavy enough to carry when the beats were allotted years before. No recognition had been made of the growth of not only the population and the correspondence, but the heavier material which has become part and parcel of ‘a postman’s load in modern limes. Catalogues, -newspapers, magazines, and -other publications tend to mate ihe load a very, ;great burden indeed. These facts have not -been “recognised as they -deserve. One would have thought ‘that it would have been the first duty of the .person responsible for the good ‘management ©f the Department to see ‘that officers were treated as men, and ‘that their duties were at least allotted according -to their ability to do the work. We found boys with loads which they had to practically pull along. Cases of that kind have ‘-been sworn to by more than one witness.

Mr Roberts:

– In my State some of the letter-carriers .are loaded down like pack-camels.

Mr WEBSTER:

– -OE -course, I could :not .see all the letter-carriers, but those whom I did see were .seriously overtaxed.

Mr Carr:

– What is the maximum toad?

Mr WEBSTER:

– There was no maximum load ait that time, but the ‘load has been reduced sinGe, and the beats restricted.! When there -were only two-story houses in a place it was comparatively <easy for a carrier to do his work. He had only to knock at the door -of a house and deliver the letters. But in modern times, when there is no lift in a building, a carrier has to ascend five or six flights of stairs and call at the various offices on each flat. That makes a great difference to his day’s work. All these matters should undoubtedly have been dealt with by the gentleman responsible for the management of this great service. Alterations have been made in these cases, as in many others, .since our report was presented. We also found that there was a lack of medical inspection and care for the health of the staff. Reasonable precautions were not taken to test the health of the employes on entering .the service, and in guarding their health afterwards. We recommended the system adopted in Great Britain, that is, the appointment of a medical staff to see to the health and well-being of the employes. Only recently the Government has appointed a medical staff, not in accordance with our recommendation. They have appointed medicai officers to different parts of the Commonwealth to discharge duties which had not’ been attended to previously. We pointed out that, not only from a departmental, but also from a humanitarian, stand-point, it was essential that these matters should receive the immediate attention of the gentleman responsible for the service. I regret that I have not time to indicate all the changes which the Public Service Commissioner has made. He improved the position of letter-carriers by granting long- service increments. All that he did in raising the grade of clerks by long service increments, in raising the maximum of other officers, and in other ways anticipating what it was selfevident would be recommended by us, was only another trubute paid to the work of the Commission before its report appeared. This, too, was done by an officer who, when giving evidence before us, denied, in some cases, that the very reforms which he afterwards granted were necessary for the better conduct of the service. So it has been borne in upon these men that changes must be brought about in theirmanagement and control of the Department if they are to uphold whatever reputation they have already gained. We found the telegraph system of the Department everywhere congested, loaded up with condensers, telephone and telegraph messages, running on the one wire - all quite right where it could be done, but the responsible authorities had no sense of proportion in the duplication which they practised. They piled the condenser on to every line that could carry it, and thereby diminished the efficiency of the telegraphic service to such an extent that the ordinary work of the public could not be carried: Instances were brought before us where men found it cheaper and quicker to write a letter than send a telegram ; and so the revenue of the Department was gradually becoming lessened by what I may call the inferiority of the superior service - telegraphy. Throughout the Commonwealth, owing to the congestion, the Department brought into use the system of urgent rates which was primarily intended only for emergencies, but they converted it into a custom. Men in country districts who desired a telegram to go with anything like reasonable expedition were accustomed to pay1s. 6d. instead of9d., in the hope of getting it to its destination, but so great had become the number of urgent telegrams that they did not attain their object, because the wires could not carry the service. The needs of the Department had outgrownits facilities. The Department had not looked ahead, or if it had looked ahead, had not been allowed to make pro vision on account of the parsimony of Treasurers who were seeking to return to the States money that ought to have been spent in bringing the services of the Commonwealth up to a standard of efficiency. The congestion of the telegraphic system could have been relieved to some extent by the adoption of the Wheatstone instrument, which would enable a multiplicity of messages to be sent, where only one could be sent by the ordinary Morse instrument. When investigating the Department we found in Sydney an old Wheatstone instrument, on which the telegraphists practised sometimes when they had a mind to, but no one was responsible for teaching them the intricacies of the system, and there this Wheatstone apparatus was allowed to lie, kept as one would keep an old watch for a child to play with, so as to interest him in mechanical studies. More modern instruments were in vogue elsewhere, but apparently it was no part of the business of the Department to bring the service up-to-date. We discovered in Western Australia one man who could work the Wheatstone instrument. He was an expert who had come out from England, and the Department, by some mistake, took him into the service. His evidence disclosed the real advantage of the Wheatstone system. He made it so clear that it would relieve the congestion in the telegraphic service that the officers of the Department, who were again on the alert for suggestions which they could put into practice before the Commission reported, sent for him from Western Australia, and despatched him to the different States to teach the telegraphists how to use the Wheatstone. The result now is that when a line is congested the block can be got rid of. That is another instance of how we discovered the Department to be, as it were, moss-grown. We discovered weaknesses from top to bottom of the service.

Mr John Thomson:

– Have they introduced the Wheatstone yet?

Mr WEBSTER:

– Yes, on many longdistance lines, although not on all. The Wheatstone expert is now being utilized instead of being buried in Western Australia.

Mr McWilliams:

– That was a very proper thing to do.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Exactly, but it was not done until the Commission discovered him. I give the Department every credit for taking advantage of the Commission’s work. We never objected to the Department taking action in that way, because our only object was to improve the service given to the public, on whose behalf we were acting. When we came to the Stores Branch we did not find in charge men who had had experience of stores. Under the usual routine of the Public Service Commissioner’s system, as soon as a man became used to the stores business his turn for promotion came, he was transferred to some other branch, and another man, who knew nothing about stores, was brought in. The system, from top to bottom, puts the unexpert man to learn expert business, and as soon as he has learnt it he is removed by seniority or some other method, and another non-expert takes his place. I say nothing against the Public Service Commissioner as a man. He has had to perform a Herculean task beyond the abilities of any one man sitting in an office in Melbourne. He was appointed to put the service upon a uniform footing, but what happened? The service was taken over from the different States, where in the old days many appointments were made by political influence. Ability did not count. Many men had obtained admission to the State services, not because they possessed any special qualifications, but because of the action of political wire-pullers. When the Public Service Commissioner assumed office it was his duty, within a reasonable period, to classify the officers of the Postal Department. But what did we find? That the classification which he adopted was the veriest make-believe. He followed the line of least resistance, with the result that in the main the salaries received by officers whilst they were in the service of the States were continued. The few exceptions only go to establish the general rule. The evidence tendered to the Commission incontestably proved that there are transferred officers in the service who are in receipt of £300 or .£400 a year, but who are performing work which is worth only about £210 a year. When we inquired why this condition of things was permitted to continue we were told that there was no alternative. That is one of the great weaknesses of the Department. No matter how incapable an officer may be, unless the head of his branch is prepared to prove his incompetency, he must be retained in the service. There is no way of getting rid of men who have ceased to be useful to the Department, and who are only a stumbling-block in the path of advance- ment of more able individuals. We found men in charge of stores branches who had no knowledge of storekeeping or stocktaking. During the brief period that I was in Western Australia, I saw the weakness of the system; subsequently it was discovered that a lineman was actually using copper wire belonging to the Department with which to fence his selection. That wire had been vanishing from the departmental stores, but nobody had been able to trace it. I mention that circumstance to illustrate the loose system which characterizes the administration of this great and important service. When goods are placed in the Stores Branch they are checked, and when they- pass out of it they are again checked. But the second check is an ineffective one. In the Railway Department a different system is in vogue. There, the goods are bonded, and when they pass out of bond they are carefully checked, so that the Department is in a position to ascertain at any moment the quantity /of goods in stock, and also the value of them. The Commission arrived at the conclusion that for the efficient administration of the Department an expert requires to be placed in charge of the Postal Branch, and another expert in charge of the Telegraph and Telephone Branches. These branches are all of a highly scientific character.- We know the marvellous growth which has taken place in the telephone service during the past two years. We also recognise that in the near future wireless telegraphy must become an important factor. Consequently it is ridiculous to place these branches in charge of a non-scientific administrator. They must be under the control of experts who will be responsible to the Minister for their efficient administration, the Minister in turn being responsible for the policy pursued by the Department. Then the appointment of a Board of Management is recommended by the Commission. I regret that the PostmasterGeneral is absent from the chamber, because this is the most important part of our recommendations. We may remedy, the grievances of employes, and patch up the service in this direction and in that, but our labour will be in vain unless we have a perfect system of management. Reform must be initiated, not at the bottom, but at the top, of the service, and consequently we recommend the appointment of a Board of Management. We advise that that Board should not be anchored in Melbourne, but that as opportunity offers, from time to time, it should pay periodical visits to the different States, with a view to seeing how the affairs of the Department are administered. The Board of Management should personally visit the various States - they should not try to govern from their blottingpads. The responsibility of its members should be a personal one. With control like that there is hope for the service; without it there is none. My fellow Commissioners and myself felt so strongly on this matter that I urge those in power to start at the right end in making reforms. To take from the report this and that suggestion, whose adoption may prove popular, or relieve pressure, or palliate grievances, will do but little good. We had great difficulty in ascertaining whether the service as a whole has been paying, but we put together, as far as was practicable, the information given to us by witnesses or what we obtained from the records. Thus we discovered that, whereas on 1 st March, 1901, the capitalized value of the assets of. the Department was .£6,253,888, on 1st July, 1908, it was .£7,595,691, according to the accepted valuation of transferred properties. The total revenue of the Department from 1st March, 1901, to 30th March, 1909, was ^23,323,453, and the ordinary expenditure £22,068,268, in addition to which there was spent on ‘ works and buildings £1,882,987, making the total expenditure £23,951,255, or an excess of expenditure over revenue of £627,802. That was the loss on the working of the Department for the first eight years of Federal control. I may be asked how we arrived at these figures. We did what any financial expert would have done - ascertained the capitalized value of the assets of the Department, and provided for interest and sinking fund. Hitherto the Commonwealth has been living in a fool’s paradise, returning surplus revenue to the States to appease their demands for interest on the transferred properties, but next year we shall have to pay interest. The amount which should have been paid as interest on capital was £1, 995,57°, and £1, 982,853 should have been set apart as a sinking fund. Adding the ordinary expenditure which I have mentioned, we get a total of £26,046,691, and deducting the revenue, the deficit for eight and a-half years is seen to be ,£2,723,238. The life of equipment and buildings has only a certain term, and a sinking fund must be provided to pay off our indebtedness to the States. For the eight and a-half years of Federal control the deficit was £2,723,238. We should have had to pay that amount to the States in. interest and in providing for the sinking fund. It is true that we gave the States a great deal out of the surplus revenue, but that was Customs, and not Postal, revenue, and no arrangement was made for a sinking fund. These financial problems were not dealt with by the Treasurers of the past, because no balancesheets were prepared for their guidance. In the future, we must meet the demands legitimately made upon us. It is useless to grant concessions with one hand and offer inefficient services with the other. It means robbing Peter to pay Paul, and neither Peter nor Paul is the better for the exchange. That is the financial position of the Department, as set forth in the report of the Commission. I dare say I should be right in saying that it has not yet been fully realized, either by this or any other Government. The position, however, must be faced”, and faced, too, before long. We obtained some evidence with regard to the cost of earning the revenue of the postal, telegraph, and telephone services from the Accountant in New South Wales, and also from the Accountant of the Audit Branch in South Australia. At page 30 of our report we point out that -

The accountant in New South Wales estimated the cost of earning £1 of revenue to be as follows : - Postal service 14s. lod. ; telegraph service, £1 gs. 6d. ; telephone service, £1 5s.

The only other information on this subject was supplied by the South Australian representative of the Commonwealth Auditor-General, who had for many years been associated with the Accounts Branch in New South Wales. This witness’ estimate of the cost of obtaining £1 of revenue in South Australia was as follows :- Postal service, 15s. rod. ; telegraph service, £1 is. y. : telephone service, £1 3s.. 2d.

From the evidence available we arrived at the conclusion that the position in Victoria is worse than it is in either New South Wales or South Australia. Since ‘the service here is in a more deplorable condition, the cost of maintenance in Victoria must be greater proportionately than it is in the other two States. The seriousness of the position has not been realized. Imagine the cost of earning £1 in the telegraph service being £ 1 9s. 6d., and in the case of the telephone service £i 5s. ! The PostmasterGeneral has made an attempt to remedy that state of affairs so far as the telephone service is concerned, and I think that it will be successful, although it may not be scientifically accurate. It is necessary that the telegraph rates should also be reviewed. In no other country is it pos- sible to have a message transmitted over 4,000 miles for a charge of is. In theUnited States of America, and in other countries, the zone system is in operation, the charges increasing with the distances to be covered. There the business is carried on upon commercial, and not on sentimental, lines. We shall have to pay for our sentiment in this regard. Whilst we have plenty of surplus revenue we shall not feel it ; but when we have no surplus - when we are called upon to make an adjustment of accounts under the bookkeeping system, and have to pay up in hard cash - we shall realize where we are so far as the management of this service is concerned. Again and again witnesses, in dealing with the Department, have said that the system adopted was that of “ living from hand to mouth.” They told us that they could not reconstruct a line, but had to patch it, and that the patching meant continuous maintenance and constant interruption, delay, and annoyance to the general public. We have to duplicate all our main telegraph lines in most of the States to-day, because the business has exceeded the anticipations of the Department. It has grown beyond the provision made for it, and money will have to be found to bring the telegraph service up to date. The undergrounding of telephone lines, although involving a large expenditure at the present time, will prove advantageous, for it will mean economy in maintenance. Time will not permit me to go into various other matters that rightly deserve attention, but I wish briefly to refer to the code rates. The coding system has been largely adopted in commercial life, and by means of it a merchant can send a cable message for at least one-fourth, and in some cases one-tenth, what it would otherwise cost. The coding system is becoming a serious drain upon the revenue.

Mr Fenton:

– The honorable member does not blame those who use it.

Mr WEBSTER:

– Did I say that I blamed them ; I blame the Department that does not equitably control the conditions of which I speak. The telephone and telegraph services are both made cheaper to the commercial man than to the ordinary public. The question of organization is a matter with which we have dealt very thoroughly, and I would refer honorable members to our report. The recommendations dealing with that subject cover two or three pages; they are carefully annotated, and accompanying the report is an index as complete as any ever furnished by a Royal Commission. It should tend to simplify the work of those who we hope will assist us to carry out the reforms we propose. I am afraid that I shall have to leave to a future occasion the discussion of several other important questions, such, for instance, as the nationalization of cable services. The Postal Commission has recommended increases in wages ; and I may be pardoned if I draw attention to a comparative table in this connexion. The Public Service Commissioner, in dealing with such matters, generally works on averages, which we know do not always give a fair idea of the true conditions. The Commissioner averages the wages in the service before 1901 and the wages in 1908, but between those years the minimum wage was instituted, ‘and this, of course, had its effect. Many of the men were formerly paid half, two-thirds, or four-fifths of what they now receive ; and a simultaneous increase in one section of employes makes it appear, or a system of averages, that the salaries of the whole of the service have been raised. One portion of the report shows the percentage increase in revenue as compared with the percentage increase in expenditure, and the former is far in excess of the latter. This indicates that the claim made on behalf of the Department* that the wages of employes have been raised in a way commensurate with the work done is not borne out by facts. In some years the revenue has increased 6 per cent., while the expenditure has increased from 1 to 1.7 per’ cent. ; and if the increase in revenue represents increased work, the wages do not show a proportionate expansion. It would seem, therefore, that in spite of the declaration of the Public Service Commissioner, the revenue has expanded by leaps and bounds, while the expenditure in comparison shows only an increase of as one is to four. The Postal Commission felt that there was some need for reform in the matter of wages, and recommendations have been made on the basis of the work done by the different sections of the service in the various States. This recommendation was made only after careful personal observation and investigation of the conditions as they affected all the employes in every branch, from messenger boys up to clerks and telegraphists. The increased cost of living is proved by the proceedings before the Wages Boards and so forth ; and we have tried to hold the balance fairly, our only object being to deal out justice, and thus bring about contentment in the service. I recommend the Postmaster-General to take to heart the system of management laid down in that report, and to compare it with the system in vogue to-day. The work of the Commission is that of men who endeavoured to give the best that was in them for the guidance of the Government and this Parliament; and I should feel happy if I thought the Postmaster-General would do, as I should myself were I in his position, namely, use all the common sense and adminstrative ability I possessed, and, by adopting the recommendations of the report, cause my name to live as that of an adminstrator who made justice the keystone of his edifice. The Ministry have the recess before them ; and it can be utilized for a consideration of the report of the Commission, and I hope that next session they will be prepared to “ grasp the nettle,” and begin by abolishing the Public Service Commissioner so far as the Post and Telegraph Department is concerned. The Commissioner is only an echo of what has been done, and better done, by officers who are in contact with the employe’s, and who are better qualified than the inspectors to judge of their merits or demerits.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Government will not abolish the Public Service Commissioner. He is too good a scapegoat !

Mr WEBSTER:

– We do not need “ scapegoats “ in this case, but rather to remove such things from our path. The Public Service Commissioner, as I have said, is a mere echo of the heads of Departments in the several States, and does not make himself acquainted with the conditions throughout the service. Like the Secretary of the’ Department, he has too much office work to do - too much administration from trie blotting pad - and I do not blame him, for it is impossible for one man to do what is expected. The Public Service inspectors are guided in the matter of increments and promotions by the Deputy Postmasters-General ; and in cases of any difference of opinion the inspectors have invariably been proved to be wrong. In Queensland the advance of men recommended for promotion by the Deputy Postmaster- General has been blocked by the Public Service inspectors. It always appeared that an officer em ployed in the office of an inspector secured promotion more readily than did any other officer. Before we left Brisbane on the second occasion, the Public Service Commissioner had put the men where his inspector refused to put them. I cannot lay before the Committee all the causes for the failure of this great system, but I do wish to .impress upon the PostmasterGeneral that the position of Public Service Commissioner is a real stumbling-block in the way. Now I shall conclude. If honorable members who have done me the honour to listen to me had devoted two or three years to this work they would have realized how difficult it is to condense so many matters of consequence within the limits of a speech. I shall not enter into details at greater length on this occasion. I have dealt with the main features of the service, pointing out the difficulties and the weaknesses discovered by the Commission. I have indicated some of the remedies. I have shown the need for change from top to bottom in order that justice may be done to the employes. The overtime due to them should certainly be promptly paid, as it would be paid by any honest private employer. The Government should see to it without delay that those officers who are rendering in the main good service to the public receive such rewards as will place the Commonwealth service in a position that will enable us to look to it with respect, and say, “ Here is a service that is managed by the State, in. which contentment reigns, in which efficiency prevails, and in which success and prosperity must ensue.” Such must be the result if we only grapple with the question and manage this great service as common-sense business men ought to do.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- The honorable member for Gwydir has favoured the Committee’ with a very lengthy, exhaustive, and informative speech. Under the special circumstances of the case he was no doubt entitled to a fair innings, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and the approaching termination of the session. I consider that the honorable member and the Commission with which he has been connected have completed a very important and valuable work in investigating the numerous problems connected with the Post and Telegraph Department. I have looked through their report, and think that it contains much information of an interesting and useful character which will enable honorable members to study the administration of this important Department to advantage. Many of the principal features of the report demand the early attention of Parliament. We are justified in expressing the hope and belief that, as the Commission has done its work fairly well, although its proceedings have been somewhat protracted, the result of its labours will receive serious attention. The honorable member was justified in occupying a considerable amount of time in drawing attention to some of the leading features of his report. No doubt honorable members will, in their spare time during the recess, study that document and the annotations with which the honorable member has favoured us in the speech that he has just delivered. Whilst the whole field of the postal and telegraph service presents abundant material for speech-making and discussion, I do not think that honorable members will tolerate another member of the ‘Committee making such a long speech as we have heard from the honorable member for Gwydir. I do not, therefore, propose to occupy very much time in debating problems of administration, but I am entitled to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the fact that Sir Robert Scott, the first Secretary of the Department, has practically retired from office, being now oh leave. As a consequence of his relinquishment of the secretaryship an important statutory office is virtually vacant. Under the Post and Telegraph Act of the Commonwealth the administration of the Department is vested in a secretary under the Minister. When the term of Sir Robert Scott’s leave expires, therefore, ‘ the Minister will be faced with the necessity of either proceeding to appoint another secretary to fulfil the statutory duties or to submit to Parliament a new scheme for the administration of the Department.

Mr Webster:

– I hope that the PostmasterGeneral will find some way of avoiding the appointment of a secretary.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I shall not give the Minister any advice upon that subject. Upon him rests the responsibility. But he will have to make a choice, either appointing a secretary soon or preparing a new scheme for the administration of the Department. During my short period of official connexion with the Department I was impressed with the necessity of devising some amendment in the scheme of postal management and administration. , With the concurrence of my colleagues I went to my constituency, pledged to a scheme of postal reform in the way of, firstly, improving and strengthening the Central Administration, and, secondly, improving and strengthening the State Administration. I am still of opinion that both those branches of the government of the Department demand attention. On the one hand, we must avoid any tendency to extreme centralization, and, on the other hand, we must avoid any undue increase of power in the local administrations. Whilst there can be no doubt that local administration in this Department is necessary with reference to matters which are fairly of a local or provincial character, it would, nevertheless, be undesirable to vest the Deputy Postmaster-General, and those concerned with local administration, withtoo much power, which might tend tointerfere with uniformity of government. The two matters to which I have referred have been, in my opinion, responsible for the difficulties in the management of the Post Office. I was inclined to the view that, with a vacancy arising through the retirement of Sir Robert Scott, the Government mightavail themselves of the opportunity to improve the Central Administration by, in the first place, vesting the powers of management, which by Statute are vested in the Secretary, in a Board of three able administrators representing different branches, and having special expert knowledge. I therefore suggested a Board of Administration to take the place of the Secretary,, and to be vested with statutory duties of” a business and administrative character, reserving at the same time to the Minister undiminished power in political matters, for which he should be responsible to Parliament. I do not think that Parliament should be advised to give up what might be called the political administration of the Postal, Telegraph, and Telephone Branches. I specially stated, in my political manifesto .to the country, that -in matters of public policy, Parliament, through the Minister, should maintain supreme control , and by public policy I meant policy as expressed in legislation and regulations. But in all matters of detail and routineinvolving expert, scientific, and business, knowledge, the power of administration, should be vested in the Central Office, at thesame time reserving to the State Administrations peculiar, local, and provincial duties. I suggested, also, that it would be well to strengthen the position of the Deputy Postmasters-General by providing them with a committee or local board of advice. I am of the opinion that our Deputy Postmasters-General, being so far removed from the Central Office and the Seat of Parliamentary Government, must often have felt overwhelmed with responsibility. They had not associated with them any committee or board of advice, or colleagues of co-equal responsibility. In many cases, they were called upon to exercise important functions and assume serious responsibilities without any assistance whatever. And for many mistakes in administration in the past, perhaps their isolation and lack of assistance may, to some extent, be held responsible. Here, let me say that I cannot concur in the view expressed by the honorable member for Gwydir, or the report of the Postal Commission, that Sir Robert Scott could be considered in any way an inferior officer, or lacking in any of the great powers of administration, knowledge, and ability requisite in the first Secretary of this great Department. I know of no man in Australia better fitted to perform the duties of the first Secretary than was Sir Robert Scott. I speak calmly, and without any partiality for him. He was a perfect stranger to me, until I came into intimate association with ‘him in the administration of the Department. I wish to say, in justice to him, that he did his duty well, impartially, and courageously. He displayed courage even in dealing with Ministers and with members of Parliament, as well as with every officer in the Department. He was always a man of courage, as well as a man of ability and great experience; and, with every respect for the’ honorable member for Gwydir, and the Postal Commission, I say that there is no ground or reason whatever for criticising Sir Robert Scott’s administration in an adverse way. He did well. We should not forget that he had a very difficult problem to solve in amalgamating or assimilating the varying systems of six States. It cannot be denied that he exercised a guiding and dominant influence in the legislation and administration which resulted. I do not say that he did everything perfectly ; but he certainly did well. After all, the problem to be solved was a great one, and could only be solved with time, and also with the command of financial resources, which he was denied by Parliament, and which denial, to a large extent, accounted for the breakdown of the postal administration in many respects. ‘ I believe that if in years gone by the Postal Department had commanded the financial resources necessary for the efficient administration of the various services, there would not have been those failures and those public clamours and complaints with which Parliament was inundated, which the press was so full of a few years ago, and which led to the appointment of the Postal Commission. The, honorable member for Gwydir must know, and should admit, that the lack of funds was one of the chief causes of the breakdown of the postal service.

Mr Webster:

– We have said that it was ; but we did not consider, it the main cause.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I say that it was one of the principal causes. Unfortunately, owing to a want of strength and independence, our earlier PostmastersGeneral did not insist that the Postal Department should not be starved, but should be properly equipped with all the funds necessary to maintain efficient services, and also to extend them. Fortunately, within the last two or three years the Department has had at its command greater financial resources than it had at any previous period.When I assumed the office I made it a condition with my colleagues, and especially with the Treasurer, that the Estimates of the Department should not be nut down, and they were not cut down to any serious extent. The Government of which I was a member was the first to ask Parliament to sanction a system of three years’ expenditure for the Department, and the Estimates I had the honour to submit last year contained provision for the expenditure of nearly ^800,000 in the extension and improvement of the services and the rectification of anomalies in postal administration.

Mr Webster:

– I suppose the honorable gentleman is aware that there are two ways in which Estimates may be cut down? They may be cut down at the beginning, or money may be left unexpended at the close of the financial year.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The Department has been enjoying during the last two or three years an increased command of financial resources, and as a result the Postmaster-General has been in a position to be more liberal in dealing, not only with the public, but with postal employes. It is impossible for any Postmaster-Genera* to give satisfaction to the public and the employes of the Department unless he is liberally supplied with funds. I must check the natural tendency to extend my remarks, because in the circumstances I feel that I should not be justified in speaking at great length. I express the hope that the present Postmaster- General during the recess now approaching will avail himself of the opportunity to deal with the exhaustive and valuable report of the Postal Commission. . I join with the honorable member for Gwydir in recommending the honorable gentleman and other honorable members to .study the recommendations of the’ Commission and the evidence which they collected. Though we may not approve of many of the recommendations or matters of detail submitted to us by the Commission, the material and information they have supplied should enable the responsible advisers of Parliament . to concentrate their attention upon some of ‘the more important features of postal administration and the necessity for postal reform. What is wanted, to some extent, is concentration and consolidation, instead of distribution, of control and management. Whether that will demand or require the withdrawal of the Department from the control of the Public. Service Commissioner is another question. That will be a very serious problem, which the Minister will have to deal with. Already we have- had the outlines of a preliminary installation of some postal reform. The other night it was announced b>7 the Acting Prime Minister that it was intended to give jurisdiction to the Federal Arbitration Court to entertain appeals by employes in the Post and Telegraph Department in regard to wages and. conditions of labour. If that be done, there will be a further increase in the divisibility of the control of the Department. We shall then have its control first within the Department; second, to some extent by the Home Affairs Department; third, to some extent by the Public Service Commissioner ; fourth, to some extent by the Treasurer ; and, fifth, to some extent by the Arbitration Court. I should like to know how a Department with a vast business, revenue, and responsibility can possibly be carried on efficiently with a control spread over no less than five agencies? If the jurisdiction to deal with wages and conditions of labour be transferred to the Arbitration Court, of what good will the Public Service Commissioner be?

Mr Webster:

– He will no longer be required.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– We shall have two conflicting authorities. On the one hand, we shall have the Commissioner, who occupies an honorable and esteemed position, who is trusted by Parliament to frame the preliminary conditions of labour, its distribution, and its assessment. On the other hand, we shall have Parliament granting money, and afterwards the right of appeal to another Federal authority in the shape of the Arbitration Court. We shall be called upon to decide whether it is possible to carry on the Departments with two inconsistent and antagonistic authorities dealing with the same problems. The question may arise whether Ave ought not to have more of .consolidation and unification in the administration of the Department rather than division and differentiation. However, these are matters which the PostmasterGeneral will have to consider, and on him rests the responsibility, I apprehend, of submitting next session a scheme of postal reform which, whatever it does, will, I hope, result in strengthening and improving, not only the Central Administration, but also the State Administrations, harmonizing the two separate branches of work, so to speak, without leaving any unnecessary encroachment by one on the other. Above all, we must remember that the Post and Telegraph Department, with all its branches and ramifications, is a great public department, whose services are supposed to be of utility and advantage to the whole of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. It ought to be run for the benefit of the public, and not for the benefit of any one else. The public interest should be the primary, and the. almost exclusive, consideration. The administration of the Department should be carried on mainly with a view to the benefit of the public. The problem is how we are to reconcile public interests and carry on the operations of the Department for the public interest. At the same time, we must not forget the rights, the privileges, and the interests of the workers, whose services are necessary. I think that Parliament has always shown a disposition to see a fair day’s pay given for a fair day’s work. No doubt, from time to time, anomalies have been mentioned, and numerous complaints made. Under the existing system, such complaints are referred to the Public Service Commissioner, in whom I have every confidence. I believe that he represents the choice of Parliament. He was reappointed by the last Labour Government at an increase of salary. He is animated by a sense of justice to the employes, the Department, and the public. He stands in an independent position ; he has no reason to be niggardly in his recommendations or advice; he has no cause to be mean, or parsimonious, or shabby in his administration. He has a free hand, and an independent judgment. I shall be very sorry, indeed, if anything be done or said in Parliament, or elsewhere, to sap the confidence of the public and the Parliament in him. No doubt he is open to listen to representations. He is bound to receive any material or information which may in- . duce him to consider what is right, or fair, or reasonable. That should be the utmost extent to which, under the existing law, we should go.

Mr Anstey:

– Open to representations from where?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Parliament is the place where the representation of grievances is made. No doubt any discussion here is brought under the Commissioner’s attention, and receives consideration. Beyond that, I shall not say more. Under the existing law, we must respect his position. What it would be if an appeal were allowed on wages, or on industrial questions, is a problem which we shall have to consider later. In these circumstances, I invite the Minister to state whether it is intended forthwith, or at what date, to appoint a Secretary in place of Sir Robert Scott, and whether we- may expect, next session, the presentation of a scheme of postal reform, dealing with the recommendations of the Postal Commission.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have to crave the indulgence of the Committee for rising to speak at this hour; but it is a question of getting justice, and exposing a little of the maladministration, which people suffer from in the Post and Telegraph Department. In the first place, I desire to thank the honorable member for Gwydir for the magnificent speech which he has delivered on this great question. It has saved many of us the necessity of throwing a little light on the muddle in the Department, and urging necessary reforms. I think that the Ministry, as well as the Postmaster-General, owe a debt of gratitude to him for the splendid work which he did on the Postal Commission and its report. Those who have read it consider it to be one of the best reports presented by any Commission. I was one of a Committee that went through it clause by clause, and should like to speak for a number of hours on it, but I shall reserve that for another time. The honorable member for Bendigo has made a very gallant defence of Sir Robert Scott, but the work of any administrator of the Department must be judged by the report of the Postal Commission, and that report is such a colossal indictment of the bad management of the Department, and the need for reform in it, that no past administrator, including the Postmasters-General, can escape their share of the blame. The present PostmasterGeneral is fortunate in having the report available for his guidance at the beginning of his term of office. I trust he will have the vigour and determination to use, if not all, at any rate so much of it as will help him to put the Department on a splendid business footing. I wish to put before the Postmaster-General a case relating to the infliction of fines, and the practice of the Department in making a scapegoat of a first offender. We have- had trouble for some time on the main northern trunk line from interruptions to the service, for which certain- conditions and persons have been to blame. The case, briefly, is this : A line foreman was constructing a certain line with a contractor under him. When Christmas Eve arrived, he left the contractor, who had given him a promise to insulate the lines before he went home. . The line foreman himself had not the time to supervize that work, but went home to his family, and next morning it was found that the lines were interrupted. The cause was ascertained to be the failure to carry out the work of insulation. The conditions were allowed to remain for practically three days afterwards, but the line foreman’s offence was only a small affair in itself, and, on the advice of the engineer who came to examine the line, he pleaded guilty, expecting to be fined about £2. Instead, he was fined £10. I took the case up, and the Deputy Postmaster-General in Sydney assured me that that fine was the whole of the punishment to which the man would be subjected. Before twelve months had passed, however, he was refused the promotion to which he was entitled. He had had sixteen years of service without a fault, but thirteen juniors were promoted over his head. He has also been denied his proper leave for 19 10. The Department single out a’ first offender in this way, and make a scapegoat of him in order to show that they are doing something to prevent line interruptions. This case is made worse by a letter sent from the Department, in which both the Postmaster- General and myself are bluffed. The departmental statement is to the effect that, but for this man’s previous long and meritorious service, he would probably have suffered more severe punishment than the fine inflicted, that he was not punished twice for the same fault, and that the Public Service Commissioner pointed out that the law provides that consideration must be given to good conduct and diligence. In face of that, the man was punished three times for- the one offence. I have failed to get justice from the Department, and I now ask the Postmaster-General to see that the persecution of this man is stopped, and to give him immediate justice, or else grant him a board of inquiry into the whole case, so that he may be judged upon the evidence. I would direct the Postmaster-General’s attention to the fact that, in cases of this sort, a man’s accuser is his judge, and if he appeals, he appeals to the same judge again. In fact, it is a case of appealing from Cæsar to Cæsar.

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

– The Post and Telegraph Department is one of the most important with which we have to deal. It has hitherto always taken up a great deal more time than any other Department, because of the enormous number of complaints made both by the general public and by those engaged in the service itself. There can be no doubt that the Department, especially the General Post Office in Sydney, is a seething mass of discontent from top to bottom, and the most profound dissatisfaction exists among all grades of the service with the prevailing conditions. I am informed that the system of sweating that has been so often complained of still exists. It is also evident from the answers given to questions put by honorable members to the Minister, and from the large amount of temporary assistance constantly employed, that the conditions of that office call for very drastic reform. I do not blame the heads of Departments or the Public Service Commissioner, so much as the system which has grown up ever since the beginning of Federation of systematically starving the Estimates of the Department. I have always protested against that practice. The Estimates, after being revised and re-revised by the responsible officers of the Department, and submitted to the Minister, have been cut ruthlessly down by successive Treasurers, not because there was no money available, but from an insane desire to hand over to the States a sum of money over and above the amount returnable to them under the Constitution from the Customs and Excise revenue. The result was that money that was badly needed to efficiently carry on the various services in this and other Departments, was not provided, although Parliament knew it was needed to enable the Department to keep pace with its growing business.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is due to the past bad Governments.

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

– Including two Labour Governments, and, for most of the time, Governments kept in office by the Labour party. It is of no use to try to find scapegoats in the heads of Departments and the Public Service Commissioner. No matter how good an organizeror administrator a man may be, unless he has the wherewithal to carry out his ideas, it is impossible for him to perform satisfactory service. All the time that we have been returning that money to the States the evils have been growing in the Department, until they have assumed colossal proportions. We have returned to the States £8,500,000, or thereabouts, which ought to have been expended in putting this Department particularly, and also others, on a proper footing. I wish to deal now with some of the grievances which call for immediate attention, and . can be dealt with without waiting for an amendment of the Public Service or any other Act, but which it is in the power of the PostmasterGeneral himself to remedy. I have already called attention to some of these, but without avail. I have been repeatedly told that I had better allow them to stand over until the Estimates are under consideration. That opportunity has now arrived. It comes, I regret to say, at an hour of the evening when all of us ought to be in bed. Nevertheless, I have a duty to discharge to the country, and to those who are engaged in our Public Service.I wish to emphasize the necessity which exists for the Postmaster-General asserting his authority so as to insure that certain things shall be done in the Postal Department, and particularly in the General Post Office. Sydney, which more than any other office seems to suffer from internal troubles. But I desire first to refer to the position that is occupied by the temporary hands of the service. From a reply to a question which was asked by me some days ago, I gather that there are at present 548 temporary hands employed in the Department. A number of these have entered the service under the impression that if they prove their fitness for the duties which they are called upon to discharge they will have a better chance of securing appointment to the permanent staff. Upon entering the service they have to be trained by their superior officers, and their period of employment is limited to six months in the year

Mr Thomas:

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Act.

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

– But that Act invests the Public Service Commissioner with a discretionary power which is not exercised to the extent that it might be. There are many temporary hands in the Department who, notwithstanding the limit imposed upon their service during any one year, have been connected with the Public Service for years, but have not been placed upon the permanent staff. In other words, they have not the rights and privileges of permanent hands, although their services are regarded as indispensable. Our Public Service Act endows the Commissioner with discretionary power to employ permanent hands for three months longer than the’ maximum period of six months in any one year. That provision makes for increased inefficiency, because it compels the discharge of temporary hands just at the period when they are becoming efficient. That is a very serious imperfection which ought to be remedied without delay.

Mr Thomas:

– There are two sides even to that question. That provision was inserted in the Public Service Act deliberately, so as to enable the work of the Department to be distributed all round.

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

– Nevertheless, it is a bad system. Even from an industrial stand-point it is to be condemned, because it takes young fellows away from their ordinary occupations, and because the period during which they are employed in the Postal Department is absolutely wasted. In other words, this system creates a class of semi-professionals, who, by reason of their temporary service year after year, are unfitted for any other occupation, and have no chance of securing permanent appointment to the service with which they are familiar. I have received from these temporary hands a number of complaints which it is within the power of the Postmaster-General to remedy. One of these complaints is that in the event of a temporary hand being incapacitated by illness his pay is stopped. It is discontinued at a period when he most requires the money.

Mr Bamford:

– Does not the same remark apply to every man outside the Public Service?

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

– It does not apply to the permanent officers of the service.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member advocate the payment of sick pay to temporary hands?

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

– Yes.

Mr Thomas:

– Then, should they not be provided with a medical certificate before they are appointed to the service temporarily ?

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

– That may be so. But a man may1- have the best medical certificate in the world as to his general health, and yet be subject to the temporary ailments with which we are all familiar.

Mr Thomas:

– Does the honorable member think that a temporary hand should be granted sick pay before he produces a medical certificate?

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

-A” medical certificate is no guarantee that a man will not contract pneumonia or influenza while working under the conditions which obtain in the General Post Office, Sydney. A man would require to possess an iron constitution to be immune from sickness there. To me the marvel is that the percentage of invalids who are engaged in that office is not greater than it is. It is a shame to refuse sick pay to a man with a wife and family who becomes ill as a result of working under the insanitary conditions which prevail in that institution. Then there is the question of tea-money, which is a burning grievance with a number of sorters employed in the General Post Office, Sydney. From the answers given to some questions which were put to the Postmaster-General, I gather that the sorters who are required to work after the ordinary office hours are not allowed tea-money. In addition, they are only permitted twenty minutes within which to snatch their evening meal. . It is very clear, therefore, that when they are required to work overtime, they must either bring their tea with them, or purchase it at the nearest restaurant. When, they are obliged to work beyond the ordinary office hours, I hold that the Department ought to grant them tea-money. To refuse to do so, is an ineffably mean act on the part of this great Commonwealth. It is too mean for words. These may seem small things to honorable members, but they are big matters to those who receive small salaries, and to whom the expenditure of every 6d. is a matter of very serious moment. I do’ not think that it is a dignified act on the part of the Commonwealth to take these small advantages of their servants. I wish now to refer to some ‘questions which were asked by the honorable member for Richmond some time ago. They were -

  1. What has been the usual practice of his Department in regard to payment of overtime in the senior branches of the Clerical Division in New South Wales?
  2. Has there been any recent departure from former practice in this regard?
  3. Have any complaints been received by the Department from senior officers in regard to non-payment for overtime?
  4. Have any exceptions been made, and, if so, why?

The replies furnished were -

  1. It is not the practice to recognise claims for overtime by heads of branches and by corresponding responsible officers. Such payments were allowed in connexion with overtime claims for 1906-8, the first submitted since Federation, but the principle was subsequently defined that controlling officers should not be pecuniarily interested in the working of overtime.
  2. No claims from such officers have been recognised since approval for 1906-8.
  3. Yes, from three officers.
  4. No, not since the adoption of the principle referred to in reply to r.

In reference to this matter, I propose to quote from a letter sent to the honorable member for Parramatta from the Inspection Branch of the General Post Office, Sydney. . It is as follows -

Mr. Greene, who has been very kindly interesting himself in this matter, remarks that he has to go away, and cannot stay to attend to it when the Estimates are under discussion, but he is placing it in your hands, and asks me to write to you. “ .

I am now taking the liberty of doing so, and would esteem it a very great favour if you would kindly use your influence in rectifying the injustice now in question.

When Mr. Thomas, the Postmaster-General, was in Sydney some months ago, Messrs. Rinaldi and Richardson and myself personally interviewed that gentleman, who, after listening to our remarks, and accepting our written statements in regard to the non-payment of overtime, expressed himself as being in favour of its being paid, and promised to interview the Public Service Commissioner on the subject upon his return to Melbourne.

We have, however, not heard anything from the Postmaster-General about the matter, although the _ Public Service Commissioner subsequently declined to pay our claims. Overtime was paid to senior officers in the General Post Office, Sydney, up to 30th April, 1908. The Accountant, Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Fitzmaurice, Assistant Electrical Engineer, each received over £I00, while several other senior officers received substantial sums. I received a small amount, but did not claim half I was actually entitled to, although I had been travelling a good deal, and working on many Sundays and late at night.

As stated in my letter to Mr. Greene, Messrs. Rinaldi and Richardson and myself were nottold that we would not receive payment for overtime work, but were allowed to do it, believing that the existing regulation provided, which it does, for payment to all officers irrespective of grade. The rate of 2s. 6d. per hour for officers over £3°° a year was quoted in the regulation.

It has been recently approved to pay overtime to Inspectors Tomkinson and Ramsay and Mr. Acting Assistant-Inspector Francis, yet my claim is refused, although I have done far more important work, viz., that of an officer who is in receipt of a salary of £100 per annum in excess of what I am paid. I would like to draw your attention to the recommendation of the Royal Commission in its recent report to pay alf overtime due, and to also pay officers the salaries for the positions they temporarily occupy, if for over three months. I was Acting Senior Inspector for over two years, and received no extra pay.

I cannot be considered an officer in charge of a branch. My position is that of an ordinary Postal Inspector, but I was obliged to perform temporarily the duties of Senior Inspector while that officer was absent for the purpose mentioned in my letter to Mr. Greene.

I worked under particularly strenuous conditions, and successfully managed the InspectionBranch, including the’ Inland Mail Section arid annual mail ‘ tenders. ‘ The whole of my life, Monday to Friday, up to 9 and 10 p.m., Saturdays to 6 p.m., and every Sunday at home was devoted to official duty. My private affairs and wife and family were neglected, and I had nopleasure or recreation whatever; yet I have beenrefused payment for the overtime I actuallyworked in the office, with the Deputy PostmasterGeneral’s knowledge and authority.

Mr Thomas:

– I saw the Public Service Commissioner, and he refused to grant the request.

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

– I think the Ministry has the right to insist -.on the payment of overtime; to say that it has not is to confess a lack of Ministerial authority. Nothing in the Act compels public servants to work overtime continuously, year in and year out, to the injury of their health, and the loss of social and domestic pleasure. If the exigencies of the service require overtime to be worked occasionally, it should be paid for, as it has to be paid for by private employers. We set ourselves up as authorities as to what is right, fair, decent, and proper as to wages and conditions of employment, and should observe the rules which we seek to impose on others. It. is said that the conditions in the Melbourne General Post Office, or in the other States, are not so bad as at Sydney, claims for promotion, regrading, and so on, being more generally observed here, and the suggestion has been made that an exchange of officers would secure greater uniformity of conditions and more harmonious working. The matter is well worth the consideration of the Minister. The Public Service Commissioner would not be above taking a practical suggestion from him in a case of this kind. I know him to be a fair-minded and conscientious man. While resisting improper political pressure in the interests of individuals, he would always lend a willing ear to suggestions for the more efficient conduct of the service. The recommendation I now make might reasonably be put before him. Its adoption’ would prevent men from suffering from the peculiar temper of sub-heads of Departments, and other superior officers, whose prejudice or personal grudges might prevent legitimate promotion, or whose favoritism might bring it about for those not entitled to it. We know that at certain seasons of the year, such as Easter, but particularly Christmas, the volume of postal matter to be handled is very, much increased, because of the interchange of greetings usually made then by friends and relatives. The space available at the Post Office does not permit of that increased work being carried out by the ordinary working staff. The permanent staff is really inadequate to cope with it, and it is at this time that temporary assistance is really needed. I have here a statement showing that in some cases the men were called upon to work from 6 a.m. until 11.30 p.m. That is longer than men should be called upon to work, especially when the occupations are laborious and the work is carried on under unhealthy conditions. I am informed that some of these menwere compelled to return to. work on Christmas Day, and I hold that there should be no compulsion on the part of any postal officer to forego his Christmas holiday. A few hours’ delay in the delivery of greeting cards is not of. serious importance. However pleasant it may be to receive them at the psychological moment, a slight delay involves no great hardship. I hope that the practice of requiring these officers’ to return to work on Christmas Day will be discontinued. I have been asked once more to draw attention to another practice prevailing in the Department which takes advantage of a section of the Post and Telegraph Act, which might in some cases, at all events, be disregarded, and which certainly does not apply, in my opinion, to the case to which I am about to refer. On more than one occasion I have brought under the notice of the Postmaster-General, both publicly and privately, the practice followed by the Department of charging municipalities for the cost of removing telegraph or telephone poles which, owing to a mistake on the part of its officers, have been improperly erected upon the roadway.

Mr Thomas:

– We are submitting that matter to the Law Courts to see whether or not what we” have done is improper.

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

– It is a question, not of law, but of fact. If the Department erected a pole in the middle of the honorable member’s garden, he would say at once, “ This is a matter for me, and not for the Law Courts, to decide,” and he would, probably,. question the right of the Department to bill him for the cost of removing it.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– But these poles must be placed in position somewhere.

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

– The honorable member knows that the practice, in country districts, is to set out a roadway with a width of one or two chains, and to macadamize only so much of it as is necessary for immediate requirements. When the volume of traffic increases, the actual roadway is increased. From the beginning, however, there is an alignment of the roadway, a certain portion being set out for footpaths, and a certain part for vehicular traffic. It is the business of the Department, before erecting poles along such roadways, to ascertain the alignment of the footpaths. In some cases, however, poles are erected without the true alignment of the footpath being ascertained, with the result that when the municipal council subsequently widens the actual roadway, the poles are found to be encroaching upon it. That is exactly what has taken place at Sutherland, which is within my electorate. Before the existence of the local shire council, poles were erected by thi Department, not upon the edge of the strip of roadway set apart for a footpath, but upon the water-tables of the road. Unfortunately, this led to a serious accident.. a motor car crashing into one of these poles, and two of its occupants being badly injured. One of them has not yet recovered the use of an arm, but he has not preferred a claim against the Department, either for his personal injuries or for the damage to his motor car, which was wrecked.The Department was asked to remove the pole, as well as others that encroached upon the roadway. It complied with the request, and, promptly, sent in an account for £2 17s.9d., representing the cost, with an intimation that, unless the amount were paid within fourteen days, proceedings would be taken for its recovery. One would hardly think it possible that the Department, knowing that it bad made a blunder in the first instance, would bill the council for the Cost of rectifying it. I strongly urged the municipality not to pay the account, feeling satisfied that if the Department took the case to Court it would be unable to recover. Had the council adopted that attitude, we should have secured a much desired reform far more rapidly than is possible as the result of any representations that may be made on the floor of this House. “Unfortunately, however, the shire council determined to recognise the claim, and a cheque for £2 17s. - the odd pence being omitted - was sent to the Department. I have just received the following letter from the shire clerkof Sutherland dealing with the matter -

Sir, - I beg to enclose for your information a copy of our communication received from the Postmaster-General’s Department relative to my payment of the cost of removing telephone poles. Considering the whole circumstances of the case, of which you are already familiar, I felt quite justified in sending a cheque for the even money. This letter has not yet been laid before my council, but I have no doubt they will decline to pay the other9d.

The letter from the Postmaster-General’s Department, Sydney,is dated 14th November, and reads as follows-

Sir, - With reference to your letter of the 31st ultimo, enclosing a cheque for £2 17s. in connexion with the cost of the removal of certain telephone poles on the Railway-parade, Sutherland, I have the honourto inform you that the amount due in this case was £2 17s.9d., and to request that you will kindly remit the balance (9d.) to this office at your earliest convenience.

Mr Thomas:

– Quite right.

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

– I am ashamed to hear the honorable member, as the Minister at the head of this Department, make such a remark. Shy lock demanding his pound of flesh is as nothing compared with the meanness and sordidness of a request of this kind. It is almost incredible that the Postmaster-General should justify such a demand. If the council had adopted my advice, and had allowed the Government to sue for. the amount, the Department would have received one of the greatest exposures to which it has yet been subjected. Public attention would have been focussed in that way upon the methods of the Department in matters of this kind. The officers of the Department made a blunder.

Mr Thomas:

– They did not, and the honorable member knows that.

Mr.W. ELLIOT JOHNSON.- Who was responsible for the blunder, if the Department was not?

Mr Thomas:

– If the municipal council was in the right, why did it pay the money ?

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

– Because the amount was so small that it was thought to be not worth fighting over. Its smallness has, unfortunately, blinded the council to the importance of the principle involved. It is a reasonable business proposition that the Department should rectify its mistakes at the earliest possible moment, and not add insult to injury by making a grave blunder, and then charging the sufferers with the cost of rectifying that blunder. There was no municipal governing body in existence in the Sutherland district when these poles were erected. They were carried through the Sutherland Estate Company’s land ; and that company had caused the roads to be aligned before they were erected. That being so, the council was not in the slighest degree to blame. It was only after the shire council had been created, and the work of improving the roads was undertaken, that the poles were discovered to be in the wrong position. This has been developed from an obscure locality into a fashionable seaside resort, and the increased traffic on the roads has intensified the danger to life and property; and there was no justification whatever for sending the account to a local body in no way responsible. I wish now to refer briefly to the neglect of the Department in the matter of wireless telegraph stations. The mail steamers are compelled to carry installations, and other vessels find it a convenience to be able to communicate by this means; and yet in Australia we have not provided those facilities that are rapidly being extended in all the other countries of the world. The small sum provided on the Estimates is laughable, when we think of the work that is being done elsewhere. A friend of mine has obtained from the United States some information of considerable interest in this connexion. A bulletin was issued by the United States Census Bureau, in August, 1909, and from this it appears that in that country there are now no fewer than 1:22 wireless towers, at not one of which, by the way, is the Telefunken system in operation. The value of the stock represented by these installations is $39,450,000, or about j£8, 000,000. This makes the ,£50,000 on the Estimates look remarkably small. As far back as 1907 there were sent between these wireless stations 163,677 messages. The Federal Government of the United States have seventy-three naval stations, and forty-three shore stations, making a ‘ total of 116 Government installations. As to the business done during the year, the shore stations transmitted 26,933 messages, containing 541,519 words. That shows the extent to which the wireless is superseding the old method of telegraphy. The messages received number 34,073, containing 617,607 words. The Cape Cod coastal station is credited with 2,673 messages, which were probably all oversea, and the Cavite station, Philippine Islands, was in the second place with 2,025. I admit that population has considerable bearing on a question of this kind, and that we cannot undertake anything like the amount of expenditure incurred in America ; but are we doing what we should in this direction, considering the population that we have? The less we say on that point, however, the better it will be for the credit of the Commonwealth. In the United States, Newport is credited with 2,701 messages received, Dry Tortugas, Florida, with 2,073; Mare, Jersey City, with 2,334; Cape Cod, Massachusetts, with 2,304; and Norfolk, Virginia, with 2,171. Here is a remarkable instance of the development of the wireless telegraph system. As showing what may be accomplished by means of it I may mention that there is in America a firm called the Sessenden Wireless Company, which is about to instal a station at Washington with reinforced concrete 600 feet high, the wireless apparatus to have a radius of 3,000 miles. This instance shows the area over which messages can be transmitted by this means, even under present conditions, and the possibilities are by no means exhausted by anything that has yet been done. The Lake

Shore ‘and Michigan Southern Railway Company has proved the possibility cf doing a most remarkable thing by means of wireless telegraphy. It may be remembered that a few days ago an experiment was tried on the express from Sydney to Albury, messages being sent from one end of the train to the other. But that feat pales into insignificance when compared with what has been done on the railway that I have mentioned. The company maintained uninterrupted connexion with a train running full speed from Cleveland to Chicago, a distance of about 300 miles. That experiment shows that the utility of wireless telegraphy is not confined to ships at sea. Congress in the United States has been so much impressed with its importance that a law has been passed compelling passenger-carrying ocean-going steamers to be equipped with wireless apparatus. I am informed that the majority of the larger lake and river steamers in the United States are also installed with wireless telegraphy. An army transport ship in the United States service recently succeeded in maintaining connexion with the Pacific coast when nearing Honolulu, a distance of 3,500 miles. With these great developments taking place in the world we cannot afford to ignore the progress of science and invention. If we are to maintain our position as an important part of the British Empire we must keep ourselves up-to-date and secure the best that is possible in the various departments of science. It is well understood that a vessel equipped with wireless telegraphy would be able to convey information of her location if she were in severe distress.’ It is quite possible that the use of this invention might have averted such a disaster as occurred in connexion with the Waratah. If there had been a means of reaching that vessel possibly many valuable lives might have been saved.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

. –I confess to a certain feeling of impotence in addressing myself to matters affecting the public finances at a stage when not only is the Parliamentary staff’ harassed almost to a condition of inertia,, but when I see the Ministry and their supporters facing me in a .condition of semisomnolence. The honorable member for Lang has drawn attention to various disappointing features in connexion with thePost and Telegraph Department, especially with respect to wireless telegraphy. The Department has failed to keep faith in this respect, and to cope with a great public question. Over a 5rear ago this House passed a resolution affirming the desirability of establishing wireless telegraph stations at various points on our coast-line, and equipping our mercantile marine with wireless telegraph installations. A year has elapsed, and what has been done? Owing to departmental bungling not one installation has been completed anywhere in the Commonwealth. Australia is now the only civilized country in the world where a wireless telegraph system has failed to find an abiding place. Ships managed by private enterprise have been fitted up with wireless telegraphy in order that they might communicate with the shore, but the Australian Government has failed in its duty to its own people, and has afforded these vessels no means of sending or receiving messages to or from any part of Australia. This deplorable state of affairs requires absolutely no comment, and simply shows that Government action is procrastinating, slow and inefficient, in comparison with the efforts of private individuals to take advantage of the progress of science. I wish now to protest against the action of the Post and Telegraph Department in a portion of my electorate. In emphasizing its failure, I need refer to no more than what has occurred in the district of Watson’s Bay. For the last twenty odd years a post-office has been established there. The district for a considerable time past has been developing considerably, though for some years it was hindered by reason of land being held by a few owners, and not subdivided for settlement. Houses have been going up in every direction. The New South Wales State Government, recognising what has been going on, has given increased tramway facilities to the inhabitants of Watson’s Bay. Only the Post and Telegraph Department has lagged behind. Indeed, not only has it failed to realize the progress of the district, but it has acted as if that district were retrogressing instead of progressing. The Department has actually reduced the status of the office at Watson’s Bay. Surely this shows the absolute incapacity of the administrative officers of the Department in New South Wales. In any private enterprise managers are ready to extend their facilities to meet expanding business, and do not, like the officials of the Post and Telegraph Department restrain their energies when they should be increased. For some reason best known to the Department, this section of Sydney is charged more for telephonic communication than any other section within the metropolitan area and within an equal distance of the General Post Office. For instance, Baulkham Mills, 15 miles from the General Post Office, is connected with the telephone system of Sydney, and the residents there enjoy a much cheaper rate than do the residents of Watson’s Bay. When I brought this matter under the notice of the Department, the answer I received was that the regulations did not permit the granting of communication with the Edgecliff e Post-office, 4 or 5 miles away, at a cheaper rate. I then asked for a separate telephone exchange for this locality, and was told that the departmental practice was not to allow the establishment of a new exchange within 3 miles of an existing exchange, and I was assured that Watson’s Bay was within 3 miles of the Edgecliffe Post-office ! I had then to prove that it was more than 3 miles from the Edgecliffe Post-office, and was consequently entitled to an exchange, arid, with the existing subscribers, more than the requisite number might be obtained to justify giving the place cheap telephone communication. If this centre had been in the heart of New South Wales, instead of 5. or 6 miles from the General Post Office, Sydney, it might have had its own exchange. The Postmaster-General cannot trust the departmental officers, once they have given a decision, to recede from it, and in all the circumstances I now ask him not to be guided entirely by them, but to look into this matter himself, and see that the residents of Watson’s Bay are given reasonable telephone facilities.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– No doubt, every member of the Committee will sympathize with the honorable member for Wentworth in his endeavour to secure better telephone communication for constituents who receive three mails a day, but I should like to speak for three minutes on behalf of residents of the Commonwealth who receive only a mail a fortnight. I wish to suggest to the PostmasterGeneral the advisability of applying the policy he has initiated in regard to mail services to telegraph and telephone services. Some time ago, the honorable gentleman said that, owing to the reduction of the postage rate, wherever a mail service became unpayable, he would make a present of the whole of the revenue to the locality concerned, and that the Department would bear one-half of the cost in addition, leaving only one-fourth of the total cost to be borne by the locality. My only object in rising at all at this hour is to express the hope that the honorable gentleman will see his way to extend this privilege, and apply the principle to telegraph and telephone communication in the country districts. The honorable gentleman is himself a representative of one of the outlying districts of Australia, and must appreciate the position of our pioneers. 1 feel sure that he will do all he can to remedy, not merely the grievances of the residents of densely crowded cities, who receive three mails daily, and have telephone exchanges within five minutes’ walk of their homes, but will also meet the just requirements of people who have’ to submit to the difficulties and privations of residence in remote districts, such as I and a number of other honorable members represent. The desire of the- Government should be to do all that is possible to promote settlement, extend the limits of civilization, and make room for additional people, and I hope that, in the circumstances, every consideration will be given to the needs of residents of remote districts. Much may be done in this direction by the adoption of the suggestion I have made. I intended to open my remarks with an apology for speaking at all at so late an hour, and it is to be hoped that we shall never have a repetition of what we have seen this session. If we believe in the eight-hours day, we should set a good example, and extend the benefits of the principle to the officers and attendants of the House. I think the present extended sitting a deplorable affair altogether, and hope that there will be no repetition of it in this Parliament, and certainly not under the auspices of a Labour Government. Some arrangement could and ought to be made whereby the length of sittings might be determined. The House of Commons solved this problem long ago, and if it could suppress long-winded speeches, I do not know why we should not be able to do so. I hope that, during the recess, the Government will give some consideration to the inflictions sometimes suffered, not by honorable members, who can. go outside if they choose, but by the officers of the House.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– In the present circumstances, I do not feel disposed to discuss the Postal Es timates as I should like to do, though, for years past, I have felt myself compelled to be a rather severe critic of this Depart-‘ ment. Other honorable members have, at times, considered that my criticism was scarcely warranted, but it has been amply justified by events. I am glad now. to know that a move has been made in the direction of bringing about a radical reform in the Department, and I shall watch what is done with interest. The members of the Postal Commission have at last completed their work, ‘ and the results of their inquiry are available. There has not yet been time to fully consider their recommendations, but 1 Was pleased to learn from the statement of the Acting Prime Minister that the Government have decided to make some radical changes in the near future; that the underpaid branches ‘of the service will receive consideration, and the sweating and friction in the Department will be remedied. The Acting Prime Minister has made a move in the right direction in bringing the employes of this .important service under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court. It must be apparent that it is necessary to have some independent judicial tribunal to settle differences arising in connexion with rates of pay, hours of work, and conditions of service. I think the Government would be well advised if they considered the establishment of another tribunal to deal with complaints as to work done, cases in which it may be necessary to inflict punishment, and to determine the qualifications of officers, matters which could not well be brought under the jurisdiction df an Arbitration Court. I know that, when a private member, the Acting Prime Minister had in view legislation intended to invest the judicial authorities of the State with some powers to deal- with matters of. this kind. I hope the Postmaster-General will distinguish his term of office by initiating a policy of progress, which will have the effect of increasing the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic facilities afforded to the country districts. I direct attention to the need for the better lighting of country post-offices. In country towns of some importance, and in which private enterprise has installed electric lighting, the Postal Department is satisfied to rest content with the old kerosene lamps. ‘ I hope that we shall find substantial improvements made in this Department, and that it will be fitted to be a worthy servant of the great people in whose interests it is run.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– I wish to refer to the proposed vote for the Vancouver Mail Service. It comprises votes which are included in the Estimates of the Department for the different States, and the first reference to it is to be found in sub- division 6 of division 212 - Conveyance of mails via Vancouver, £10,000. This is the amount on the Estimates for New South Wales. The amount for Victoria is £7,950) Queensland, £3,500; South Australia, £2,536; Western Australia, £1,710; Tasmania, £1,200; or a total vote of £26,896. There is a further vote of £4>729 on the Supplementary Estimates, which makes a grand total of £31.625- In view of th.e circumstances under which the matter is being considered, I shall not inflict upon the Committee anything like the amount of detail which I had hoped to submit for their consideration, but I cannot allow so important a matter to pass without some reference. At present, negotiations are proceeding with Canada in reference to the new Vancouver mail contract, which will commence on the ist August next year. The matter which most concerns me, and which, I hope, will receive the careful consideration of honorable members, is the proposal to include a port in New Zealand as one of the regular ports of call, with probably the exclusion of some of the Australian ports. That would not be so bad, if it were not proposed also, that, should an Australian port be included, it should be a port not at present served, and that Brisbane, which is at present a port of call, should be excluded. ‘ The whole matter has been under consideration for some years, and I shall put the position as briefly as possible, in order that honorable members may be seized of the danger which I think threatens, not one, but every port in the Commonwealth. For some years prior to Federation, the then Colonies of New South Wales and Queensland, at considerable annual expense, subsidized the Vancouver mail service. They kept it going for several years, and opened up a regular and increasing trade with the western provinces of Canada. That trade, from the inception of the service, never suffered any diminution in volume. On the contrary, it h