Senate
9 June 1904

2nd Parliament · 1st Session



The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2172

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I should like to_ ask the Minister of Defence a question without notice. I wish to know whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement, which appears in the Melbourne Herald of yesterday’s date, and if so, what is his opinion in regard to it. I may add that I learn that this statement is said to have been made by an Australian senator, and been sent to an English paper, by which it has been published. The passage to which I refer is as follows: -

The people of Australia have now an ingrained belief that an Australian astride anything with four legs, is, i? possessed of a rifle and a pillowcase full of cartridges, a match for an indefinite number of the best trained soldiers of any nation under heaven. This unhappy mania is shared and propagated by members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown. The late Minister for Defence, Sir John Forrest, G.C.M.G., recently declared in Parliament that if he had not rifles enough for the forces, he would “arm them with pick-axes or something ;” and the present Minister states that should England become involved in the Eastern war he intends to raise the number of rifle club members from 36,000 to 50,000, though well knowing there are not rifles available for even the existing regiments if extended to their war establishments. The Minister apparently prefers undisciplined, unorganized mobs, with rifles of every possible pattern, but minus ammunition, and destitute of officers, .to drilled, disciplined, armed, and officered soldiers ! With such ideas permeating the community, what prospect is there of Australia developing a soundsystem of military, let alone naval, defence?

Senator Playford:

– Who was the senator?

Senator HENDERSON:

Senator Neild’s name is given in the newspaper. -

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am much obliged to the honorable senator for having given me notice that he intended to ask this question. I desire to say in reply that the matter referred to has come under my observation, and I was astonished and somewhat grieved to find an officer somewhat high in the military service, and a citizen high in the councils of the Commonwealth, attaching his name to statements which are manifestly incorrect both as regards the state of our equipment and the policy of my predecessors, and the administration generally. The absurdity of the whole statement is best refuted by a perusal of it.

page 2172

QUESTION

PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS

Senator MACFARLANE:
TASMANIA

– I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, a further question with reference to the printing of parliamentary documents. I understand that the answer which has been previously made to me might be slightly altered after further investigation. I have been informed that urgency was notified-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator should not argue the question.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– I ask whether further inquiry will be made ?

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

– I will make further inquiry into the matter.

page 2173

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council upon notice -

Will the Government take steps to lay upon the Table of the Senate copies of all correspondence (not of a confidential nature) that has taken place between the Commonwealth and the Imperial authorities in relation to the recent Anglo-French Convention, more especially regarding the New Hebrides, and Commonwealth interests in the Pacific?

Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

All the correspondence is confidential, but copies of the agreement will be laid upon the table.

page 2173

PAPER

Senator McGREGOR laid upon the table the following paper: -

Despatch to His Majesty’s Ambassador at Paris, forwarding agreement between Great Britain and France of Sth April, 1904.

page 2173

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 2173

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I have been asked by an honorable senator to obtain leave of absence for him. As I understand that it is intended to adjourn for three weeks, I have no time to give notice. I therefore ask leave to move a motion without notice.

Leave granted.

Motion (by Senator Dobson) agreed to -

That one week’s leave of absence be granted tq Senator Clemons on account of urgent private business.

page 2173

QUESTION

PRIVILEGE: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Senator BEST:
Victoria

– I desire to ask the leave of the Senate to move a motion without notice. ‘ It has reference to the Committee on Privilege in connexion with the case of Senator Lt. -Col. Neild. I understand that the Senate contemplates adjourning for a period of two or three weeks. The Select Committee have been devoting attention to their duties for some time past, and are desirous, if possible, during the interval, to proceed with their work so far as concerns the taking of evidence. It has been ascertained that a number of honorable senators will be distributed over the Commonwealth, and we desire to obtain the leave of the Senate to make three the quorum of the Committee instead of four. I therefore ask leave to move a motion to that effect without notice.

Leave granted.

Senator BEST:

– The position is this. Standing order 283 provides that -

In all Select Committees consisting of seven or more senators, unless otherwise ordered, four shall form a quorum ; and if at any time the necessary quorum be not present, it .-hall be incumbent on the Chairman to suspend the proceedings of the Committee, and so on. In order that the Committee may proceed with the taking of the evidence, I move -

That the quorum of the Select Committee on Privilege - Case of Senator Lt. -Col. Neild, be three instead of four.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2173

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1903-4 and the Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill passing through all their stages without delay.

page 2173

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1903-4

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and read a first time.

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

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I wish to point out the necessity for introducing a Supply Bill at this stage. The amount proposed to be voted is £137,216. The. sum of £110,463 is due to the transferred services, and ,£26,753 is due to “other” expenditure; that is to say, expenditure which may be attributed to Federation. The measure is introduced because the Treasurer desires to meet certain accounts that may fall due before the end of the year, and also in order that the officers of the Treasury may have an opportunity of finishing their work in an efficient manner before the 30th June. If the Senate adjourns for a week or two, it will be rather late when we resume to pass a Bill of this character, if the officers are to have time to do their work in a satisfactory manner. We may be asked, “ Why is so much money required at this stage?” On inquiry, I find that in the Defence Department very large savings indeed have been made. They are equivalent to about £100,000. In other Departments, notably the Department of Home Affairs - which is one of the large spending Departments of the Commonwealth - a saving of about £106,000 has been effected. Honorable senators will see that we are not actually spending more than has been appropriated for the services of the year. Of the money proposed to be spent, nearly £130,000 was agreed to by the late Treasurer, Sir George Turner, and about ^10,000 has been sanctioned by the present Treasurer. Honorable senators will find in the schedule annexed to the Bill full particulars concerning the expenditure. It is not necessary for me to enter into details at present, but when we are considering the schedule, if any honorable senator wishes to obtain information with respect to the particular items, I shall do all I can to furnish it. I hope that the Bill will be passed as speedily as possible.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I would point out to the Senate that this is not an ordinary Supply Bill such as we usually pass at the commencement of a new financial year. It is virtually a Supplementary Supply Bill, which authorizes the expenditure of amounts in excess of the current year’s Estimates. Although the Vice-President of the Executive Council has informed us that considerable savings have been made in two Departments, still it has to be remembered that the money voted by this measure is in addition to the Estimates which we passed last year.

Senator Best:

– Not necessarily; there may be ‘savings in other directions.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I admit that there may be savings in other directions which more than balance this further expenditure. But we understand when we pass the Estimates for the year that we have made provision for the whole of the expenditure for the year. I have not had time to go through the Bill and to see what large items are contained^ in it. I have observed, however, that there are numerous small sums.

Senator McGregor:

– There is the sumof ,£18,000 caused by the action of a previous Victorian Parliament in connexion with what is known as section 19.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– But we were aware of the action of the Victorian Parliament when we passed .our Estimates last year. 0

Senator McGregor:

– We did not make provision for it, though.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– There are a number of excess, votes. Whether those excesses are justifiable it is not for me to say. I am not in a position to analyze the items. In these matters we must trust the Government. After what the Vice-President has said we must expect, however, that the Treasury will come out on the right side on the year’s transactions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second -time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the’ Executive Council how it is that the “additional sum of £82,315 is required by the Postmaster-General’s Department for the year. It is an exceedingly large sum to ask for?

Senator McGREGOR:
South AustraliaVice President of the Executive Council · ALP

– I have already explained, by interjection,, that a sum of £18,000 is required to fulfil the obligation imposed on the Commonwealth by the Victorian Parliament in respect to transferred officers.

Senator Best:

– Does the honorable senator say that the obligation was imposed on the Commonwealth?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The payments have to be made by the Commonwealth, but they are charged to Victoria.

Senator Givens:

– Until the end of the book-keeping period, when they will be charged to the Commonwealth.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Yes. Another sum of £9,500 is required to provide for increased payments for the carriage of mails in Western Australia. The Railway Department of that State thought that the amount paid for this purpose was not in proportion to that which was paid in other States, and a demand was made for an increased payment, which, of course, has been agreed to. There are several smaller amounts asked for in connexion with this Department, which honorable senators will see were absolutely necessary to fulfil the obligations to its servants, and to those doing work for it. We must recollect that this is one of the Departments in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, in which probably the largest expenditure is incurred. The items I have mentioned, and others which can be gathered from a perusal of the schedule, show the necessity for the Department to have alarge sum of money in its control.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– In part 3 there is an item on which I desire to elicit a little information, and that is the very large item of £1,700 for travelling expenses for the High Court.

Senator Drake:

– That expenditure was necessary to enable the Judges to go to all the States.

Senator GIVENS:

– I know that; but what I desire to learn is if it represents the total expenditure, or if it is merely supplementary to the vote for the year. In other words, I desire to know what the total expenditure for this purpose for the vear is likely to amount to?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The vote of £2,169 for the Attorney-General’s Department includes an item of £1,700. for the travelling expenses of the Judges, their Associates, and other officers.

Senator Drake:

– No; not other officers.

Senator McGREGOR:

– Yes. It has been the practice to lump together the travelling allowances of the Judges, their Associates, and other officers. The authorities object to the sum being lumped in that way, and in future the travelling allowances of the Judges, their Associates, and other officers will be shown separately.

Senator Givens:

– What is the total amount of the travelling expenses of the Judges and their Associates for the year ? “ Senator McGREGOR. - This item represents the travelling expenses for the year.

Senator Playford:

– No;’ this is supplementary to the vote of the last EstimatesinChief.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The travelling allowances of the Judges are regulated by a scale which is prescribed under an Act of Parliament, but of course the money has to be voted on the Estimates. This expenditure of £1,700 has been caused by adding the travelling allowances of the Associates and other officers to those of the Judges.

Senator Best:

– There is no reference to “ other officers “ in the item.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I am informed that this item does cover the travelling expenses for the year, with the exception of a sum of £200.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- In that case the travelling expenses of the Judges and their Associates will amount to £1,900 for the year, and probably we shall be told, by-and-by, that there has been some other expenditure which was not foreseen. In round figures, the travelling expenses for the three Judges and their Associates will amount to £2,000 for the year. It is very necessary and desirable that the Judges should be paid a salary in proportion to the distinguished services which they render, and in accordance with the dignity of their position. A liberal travelling allowance should be provided so that they may be able to travel in accordance with the dignity of their position, but £2,000 is an inordinately large expenditure for the amount of travelling, which the three Judges have to do. I venture to say that all the members of the Senate do not spend more than £2,000 a year on travelling expenses. I believe that if the Judges had to pay their travelling expenses out of their own pockets, they would not spend anything like the amount which we are asked to vote, and, therefore, they have no right to incur unnecessary expenditure at the cost of the taxpayers. I do not speak in a carping spirit, but I have noticed that in all the States men in high positions who have been entitled to charge the taxpayers with their travelling expenses have generally been very extravagant in that regard. I hope that the Estimates for next year will be framed more in consonance with the ideas of economy expressed by the Government, and desired by the taxpayers. I enter my protest against such a very large sum being spent for travelling expenses, and I hope that a more moderate scale will be adopted.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– The reason why these travelling expenses have been more than was anticipated, is that the Judges of the High Court have had to travel from State to State. A very small sum was asked for in the first place for travelling expenses, but it was ‘found that if the Court was to sit in each State, and move about from State to State, the Judges must incur in the aggregate somewhat heavy travelling expenses.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– This is only for railway and steam-boat fares.

Senator DRAKE:

– It includes the actual expenses of the Judges and their Associates while travelling. Of course, if the Judges are not to be allowed to incur travelling expenses it will mean that the Court will have to sit in one State, and all the cases will have to be brought to that State, which I submit is not advisable. I think that the present plan of the Court moving from State to State has given very great satisfaction to the Commonwealth.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- I consider it very desirable and necessary that the Judges should travel from State to State. But I contend that this large sum need not be spent for travelling expenses. If the Judges had to defray their own travelling expenses they would adopt a much more moderate scale. I trust that they will moderate their demand on the funds of the taxpayers in this direction.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– In part 4, I observe the following item -

I understand that the State Government took advantage of the Federal elections to consult the electors of the State as to what extent, if any, the Legislative Assembly should be reduced - as to whether it should be left at 125 members or reduced to 90. I gather from this item that towards the sum of £48,500 which it cost to hold the two elections, the State Government is contributing £1,000. I desire to know how that estimate was arrived at, and if the Government consider that it is a fair proportion to ask the State to contribute towards that dual election, if I may use that term.

Senator Playford:

– That was the total cost of the elections for the whole Commonwealth. The election for New South Wales did not cost £48.500.

Senator KEATING:

– Well, I wish to know if Senator McGregor considers that £1,000 is a fair proportion for New South Wales to contribute towards the cost, and how the estimate was arrived at.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

– I desire Senator McGregor to furnish an explanation with regard to the item of £129, on page 7, for expenses for engineering experts in connexion with the Transcontinental Railway. I wish to know what the engineering experts have been engaged in doing, and what, if any, other sums have been set apart for this purpose, under what authority this expenditure has been incurred, and what instructions, if any, have been given.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I desire to ask Senator McGregor for an explanation of the item of £2,590 for expenses in connexion with choosing the site of the Capital of the Commonwealth. This is, I think, . the third or fourth tune that we have seen an item on the Estimates for this purpose. I wish to know if this last payment is for the further reports which were laid upon the table a few weeks ago.

Senator McGREGOR:

– In reply to Senator Keating, I have to say that the cost of the elections in New South Wales would be about £18,000, not £47,500, and that a sum of £1,000 was paid by the State to the Commonwealth for taking the referendum. Whether that is a fair proportion or not I cannot say, but if we had had to carry out the Federal elections apart from this referendum we should have had to pay exactly the same amount. I think that the Commonwealth were rather fortunate in afterwards getting a rebate of £1.000. iSenator Staniforth Smith. - The amount really represents the extra expense the Commonwealth was put to in carrying out the elections.

Senator McGREGOR:

– It is an allowance for extra expense, but the same expense would have been incurred in any case.

Senator Playford:

– Not quite.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I do not understand that this amount includes the cost of any printing and so forth.

Senator Guthrie:

– It refers only, I understand, to the supply of additional ballotboxes, and the cost of their carriage.

Senator McGREGOR:

– And probably the boxes were provided by New South Wales. As to the item of £129 referred to by Senator Best, it must be remembered that engineers from the different States gave expert advice, and performed a certain amount of work ; and the item is in order to discharge the Commonwealth’s obligation in this respect.

Senator Best:

– Have the experts done all they bargained to do?

Senator McGREGOR:

– They have done all they are really required to do. I understand that an arrangement was made by a previous Government with these gentlemen to give a certain report. That arrangement, of course, is now a matter of the past, and I do not know whether the present Government propose to do anything in connexion with the report.

Senator Stewart:

– Where is the report?

Senator McGREGOR:

– This happened so long ago that I cannot tell where the report is.

Senator Best:

– What is the total amount ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I am informed that £129 is the total amount. The expenditure of £2,000 in connexion with the Federal Capital sites includes not only the cost of reports, but also £300, a portion of the cost of the Royal Commission which was appointed. Senators Dobson, Smith, and others were extremely anxious to obtain cart-loads of reports, and, apparently, at that time never thought about the cost ; and I do’ not think that Senator Macfarlane should now raise objection when all are agreed that the most complete information must entail a certain expenditure.

Senator Dobson:

– We have not half’ enough information yet.

Senator Macfarlane:

– I hope that the Vice-President of the Executive Council does not think I am objecting to the expenditure ; I am merely asking for information.

Senator McGREGOR:

– I know that Senator Macfarlane is merely asking for information. A number of honorable senators and members of another place have visited some of the sites since the previous amount under this head was voted ; and, seeing the Government acted very liberally in this connexion, it is also likely that liberality will be shown to others who desire to complete their education by personal inspection. This is the way in which the £2,000 have been spent, and, having regard to previous amounts under this head, I think the present one is not unreasonable.

Senator GIVENS (Queensland).- While I agree that the conduct of the Common wealth elections, considering the time the officers had to prepare for it, and the amount of work to be done, was very good indeed, and gave almost universal satisfaction, there were particular instances in which the services rendered were not all that could be desired, and which call for some action on the part of the Government. The Electoral Act provides, in the first place, every possible precaution to insure the secrecy of the ballot; and it was the duty of the officers concerned to carry out the law, not only in the letter, but the spirit. We find, however, that in many instances everything was done which the Act said should .not be done, and, sp far as I know, the Government have taken no action in the way of inquiry or punishment.

Senator Guthrie:

– There is a Select Committee of the House of Representatives at present inquiring into the conduct, of ‘ the elections generally.

Senator GIVENS:

– Be that as it may, honorable senators ‘have the right to criticise at this stage, and that right I intend to exercise. In a number of places in the Herbert electorate in North Queensland, where from six to ten votes were registered, the ballot papers, instead of being bulked with the votes from other polling places, were, notwithstanding the express provision of the Act, counted separately by the presiding officers at each particular booth. The result was that the electors, knowing that such an arrangement would be carried out, were absolutely driven to vote in consonance with the wishes of those who possessed any control over them. In the case of the schooner Alice, the whole of the available nine votes were cast in one particular way, simply because of the arrangement to which I am directing attention. At Lucinda, on the Herbert River, where the whole of the electors are in the employ, or .under the influence, of the Colonial Sugar’ Refining Company, only nine or ten votes were cast, and were counted in the same way.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– That was distinctly against instructions.

Senator GIVENS:

– Exactly ; and the Government ought to see that nothing of the kind occurs in the future. If the electoral officials failed to perform their duty, it is for the Commonwealth to see that they are adequately punished for ‘their gross breaches of the law. What is the good of a law unless it be enforced? At Stannery Hill the polling practically amounted to open voting, owing either to the ignorance or to the wilful misconduct of the presiding officer, who, in some cases, actually went the length of writing the voter’s name across the ballotpaper before handing it to the voter. These matters have been brought under the notice of the authorities, but no action has been taken.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that some of those specific cases were brought under the notice of the late Minister of Home Affairs, or whoever was in charge of the Electoral branch, and that no action was taken?

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes. The cases I have quoted are only a few amongst a number, particularly in the Queensland electorates of Herbert and Cook, where the grossest irregularities were permitted. Unless the Government take care to see that the law is properly enforced, we can never have a fair and honest election. I respectfully suggest that something should be done to prevent these grave irregularities, so that the electors may exercise a free and untrammelled choice of representatives.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania).- Is it correct that at the present time a number of officers in several of the States have not yet been paid for services which they rendered during the elections. I know personally, that up to a fortnight or three weeks ago, some officers who gave their services a.t the December elections in Tasmania had not received their allowances, although they’ had written repeatedly to the Department. I notice in the press to-day a reference to similar cases in Victoria. If it be correct that there are unpaid claims of this character, when may the officers expect to receive the allowances to which they are entitled ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I understand that all claims which have been made and not disputed have been settled. I have no knowledge of disputed claims, but I believe that, speaking generally, all the claims have been paid., The only claims not paid are those which have not been presented or which are disputed.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

– I should like a little information regarding items of expenditure in connexion with the Government Houses in Sydney and Melbourne. Does the item in the Estimates represent the whole or a portion of the expenditure? If the items represent the whole, there seems to be a great disproportion between the £952 spent in Sydney and the £69 spent in Melbourne. What is the cost of maintenance of each of the two Government Houses?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The explanation is very simple. During last year the grounds of both Government Houses were neglected, there being an idea on the part of the Federal Government that the work would be attended to by the States Governments. The result was that the amount allowed to the Governor-General under this head was not nearly expended in that year; but, during the present year, it is absolutely necessary for the Commonwealth to undertake the work which was neglected by the State. We must remember, however, that the amount in excess this year is counterbalanced by the amount saved the previous year; and I have no doubt that the expenditure in this connexion will be kept within statutory limits.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL (Vic-:’ toria). - It would appear that a State has only to neglect its duty in a matter of this, kind in order to compel the Commonwealth to make good the omission.

Senator McGregor:

– There was a misunderstanding.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:

– A misunderstanding which costs £900 is very expensive.

Senator Keating:

– It is treated as new expenditure.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:

– I am quite aware that these are Estimates of expenditure additional to those already voted, but the neglect of one State is causing an increase which we should not haveto face. I think that this is a matter in which the Commonwealth Government ought to make some representation to the New South Wales Government.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

- Senator Givens has made serious chargesagainst the administration of the electoral law, and I want to know whether the Government are prepared, if the charges areproved to be correct, to punish the offenders ?

Senator McGregor:

– The House of Representatives have appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of. theelections.

Senator Givens:

– I am tired of bringing information to the Government and having it pigeonholed.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable senator has never had any information of his pigeonholed by the present Government.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania). - I notice that, under the heading of the Department of Home Affairs, no provision is made for the cost of nautical surveys, and I desire to bring under the notice of the Government, as a matter for consideration, one case to which my attention was called some time ago. As far back as October last the steamer Wakatipu, trading between Launceston and Sydney, encountered, when in Bass Strait, a sunken shoal which was not marked on the Admiralty chart. The mercantile community and others interested in sea communication between Sydney and Northern Tasmania desired to have the locality re-charted, in order to discover what danger there was, and I approached the late Prime Minister on the matter. The Admiral on this station was written to, and he agreed that an early survey .was desirable, but pointed out that he had no ship available at the time. Weeks went by, during which the Government were endeavouring to have some action taken; and the Admiral suggested that the people of Tasmania might do something, as, indeed, they were prepared to do if they were properly compensated.

Senator Guthrie:

– By whom?

Senator KEATING:

– That question suggests the reason of my present remarks. ‘ I mention the subject because this is a matter which concerns the whole of Australia. The uncharted rock is right in the fairway of Bass Strait, and may be encountered by’ ships of other lines. The matter remained in abeyance until the visit of the Fleet to Hobart, in the latter part of January. The Admiral then told off two of the ships to attend some function at Launceston, and he decided that on their return they should take steps to have the locality surveyed. On the way from Launceston to Hobart, two vessels went to the vicinity and waited there for a few hours. They said, however, that it was too rough for them to do anything in the way of surveying, and went on to Hobart. It was suggested, I do not know with what truth, that the reason why the two vessels hastened away, was in order that the officers might attend some function, or fulfil certain social engagements that some of them had made in Hobart. They did not even wait until the sea had moderated sufficiently to enable them to put down their boats. Nothing has been done since then. I again approached the Prime Minister in connexion with the matter, and the Admiral has since stated that he cannot de tail a ship to do the work, though he quite agrees that the spot should be charted so that people who trade in those seas may know the dangers to be avoided. He suggested that the Marine Board of Launceston might do something. I approached them, and they said that they were prepared fully to equip a tug and crew to carry out the work. But the question was who was to bear the expense of doing it ?

Senator Guthrie:

– Exactly. We have no power to deal with navigation.

Senator KEATING:

– It is a matter of surveying, that has been attended to in the past by the Imperial authorities.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– We cannot expect the Imperial authorities to do local work.

Senator KEATING:

– These charts have been made by the Admiralty in the past at the expense, I take it, of the Imperial authorities, because it was recognised that proper charting concerns not only Australian shipping, but all shipping that comes into our waters.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– Then we have got the information for nothing.

Senator KEATING:

– If the Admiralty supply, information which is incorrect, as we have every reason to believe is the case in connexion with this locality, some remedy should be available. In other words, the Admiralty charts are inaccurate in this respect; and masters trading in these waters, and following the Admiralty charts, are likely to encounter unexpected shoals and bring their ships to disaster. The Admiralty have always in commission one or two ships for surveying purposes, and are constantly carrying out surveying work in these seas. Surely this locality, which is right in the fairway between Sydney and the northern ports of Tasmania, should receive some attention from surveying vessels. Therefore, I trust that the Government will approach the Admiral, and ask him to devote attention to this locality as soon as he can. As I have shown, he sent two ships to the spot, but they stayed only a few hours, and did nothing. By that act the Admiral admitted responsibility to correct the. Admiralty’s charts.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– On page 9 of the schedule there is the item “ Insurance of plant, machinery, and stock, £150.” Does that pertain to the insurance of the property of the Federal Government? If so, what is the approximate value of the plant, machinery, and stock insured ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The Commonwealth has purchased a number of linotypes and monolines at an expenditure of about £t 8,000. The insurance covers that property.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I wish to call attention to the expenses in connexion with the sugar bounties in New South Wales.. There is an item, “ Travelling expenses, £736;” a further item, “Temporary assistance, £977 ;” further on, a sum of £3,270 is voted in connexion with the Sugar Bounties Act; and a further item of £490 for travelling expenses. We are paying about £90,000 a year to carry out this portion of our White Australia policy. I should have expected that the Estimates would be framed with some reasonable accuracy, but we are now asked to pass £1,226 for travelling expenses, and £4,248 for temporary assistance, beyond what was voted in the annual Appropriation Bill. I should like to have some explanation.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The explanation is that a sum of nearly £90,000, which was voted, has been found to be £6,000 too little. There is nothing very extraordinary in that, when we remember that the conditions, both in New South Wales and Queensland, in respect to the sugar crop, were very different last year from what they were in the previous year. There was much more to be done, and consequently more as- .sistance was required.

Senator Dobson:

– Are these payments made to inspectors and clerks ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Some temporary assistance was required in connexion with the administration, in order to carry out the will of the Parliament in granting the sugar bounties.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I think the true explanation of this item is that previously the sums of money referred to by Senator Dobson were debited to transferred expenditure. Now the money is being debited to “ Other expenditure.”

Senator Dobson:

– That is a good explanation.

Senator MACFARLANE (Tasmania). - On page 34 there is a sum of £1,200 for paid parades in connexion with the Tasmanian Volunteers. What is the meaning of that item?

Senator DAWSON:
Minister of Defence · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The money is paid on account of parades which have already taken place, in Tasmania. There is an increase of £600, to which the men are entitled, and should have received before.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I understand that time and a half is allowed for Sunday pay, not only in the Post and Telegraph Department, but throughout the service. That Sunday pay is calculated by the Auditor-General on the basis of i-365th part of an officer’s yearly salary. 1 always understood that a daily wage should be reckoned as 313th part of a yearly salary. It will be seen that it makes a very important difference whether the daily wage is reckoned as a 1-3 13th or a 1 -365th part of a man’s salary. Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council give us any information on this point?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The legal interpretation furnished to the Government necessitates our basing Sunday pay on the 365th part of an officer’s salary. We cannot divide an annual salary by 313. because there are many holidays to be reckoned as well, as Sundays. The proper method we are advised is “to divide by 365.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Overtime is reckoned on that basis ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Yes. We are informed by our legal advisers that that is the proper method.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania).- Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council give the Committee any information as to when the classification scheme for the Public Service will be completed ?

Senator McGREGOR:

– The Public Service Commissioner finds that the classification scheme is a very difficult task, and involves much more labour than he expected when he made the statement that it would be ready some time ago. He now finds that he cannot complete the work till July.

Senator GUTHRIE (South Australia).Can the Vice-President of the Executive Council give the Committee an explanation as to why the PostmasterGeneral should have to refund to the Eastern Extension, Australia, and China Telegraph Company Customs duties ? I find that a sum of £2,050 has been paid by the Post and Telegraph Department on account of duties for this company. The public ought to know what arrangement has been made that involves these payments.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The explanation is that, prior to’ Federation, there was an agreement between the Eastern Extension Company and the South Australian, Tas- manian, and New South Wales Governments, under; which the company was exempt from Customs duties with respect to material and plant. The Commonwealth, of course, had to take over the obligations of the States. That is the reason why we are compelled to refund Customs duties on behalf of the three States mentioned.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH (Western Australia). - These refunds are in accordance with an agreement entered into by three States prior, to Federation. But if we are compelled to recognise such an agreement, a very important question is opened up as to the right of the States to enact certain legislation which will be for all time binding on us.

Senator McGregor:

– Agreements of that kind cannot be made by the States in the future.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– If it were possible for a State to make such an arrangement with the Eastern Extension Company which would be binding for all time the principle would appear to be admitted that it_ is possible for a State to enter into such an agreement with any person in Australia. If it was competent for a State, prior to Federation, to make an agreement for all time with a company that the goods of that company should be exempt from duty on import, it was equally competent for a State to make such an arrangement with a private individual.

Senator Keating:

– No.

Senator Guthrie:

– Not now, but it was.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Therefore, it seems to me to open up a very large question. It is most unfair that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company should be the one company in Australia which is allowed to import all its machinery duty free.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– Which was, not is, allowed.

Senator McGregor:

– Only in three States.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Prior to* Federation these States entered into an agreement that the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company could import their machinery and stores for all time without paying duty.

Senator Playford:

– Thev did not do it.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I have seen the agreements, which are interminable.

Senator Keating:

– They are terminable by mutual consent.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– Exactly, and the company can decline, to agree to terminate an agreement. It opens up the question as to whether a State, prior to Federation, had the right to contract with any individual, inside or outside the State, that he could for all time import certain articles without paying duty. The AttorneyGeneral ought to be asked for an opinion as to whether this agreement, so far as these clauses are concerned, is binding on the Commonwealth for all time.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania).- With regard to the question raised by Senator Guthrie, I venture to suggest that the explanation is simple enough. Like New South Wales and Tasmania, South Australia had an agreement with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company. The State, in effect, said to the company - “ If you carry out this part of your agreement in connexion with giving us cable facilities with the old world, any goods which you mav import into South Australia” - not into Australia, as Senator Smith said - “ may come in dutv free.”

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– No one has. hinted that the States, prior to Federation. could say to the company - “ You can import goods free into Australia.”

Senator KEATING:

– That is what the honorable senator said, and that is what has led to his confusion.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– I beg pardon, I did not.

Senator KEATING:

– Each State said to the company - “ You can import goods into our State free of duty, and your ships will be exempt from wharfage and harbor dues and such charges,” while, in addition, Tasmania said - “ Your buildings and land shall be exempt from land tax.” After the establishment of the Commonwealth, and the transfer of the Customs Departments, Australia became one fiscal area, instead of six fiscal areas. The agreement with South Australia is still binding on South Australia, but in the State there is a new fiscal authority, whose jurisdiction ranges throughout all Australia, and which says to the company - “ When you import goods to South Australia you must pay the Commonwealth duties.’1 The company replies - “ Well, we must pay the duties,” and turning to South Australia, they say - “ The agreement we had with you is still in .operation. You agreed that when we imported goods here they should come in duty free, but the Commonwealth now prevents us from importing our goods free.” “Very well,” says South Australia - “You must pay the duties, and we shall have to refund you the amount.” Accordingly South Australia has to refund to the company, in accordance with the obligation which it incurred prior to Federation, and it is nobody else’s trouble but that State’s. As to the allocation of this sum, I suppose that it is debited to the Postmaster- General’s Department, simply because these goods are imported in connexion with the postal and telegraphic relations of the Commonwealth. That is the one Department of the Commonwealth, as it was of a State, which can be associated with such a company, and the proper Department in South Australia to be debited with an expenditure of this character. It is simply because we have changed the fiscal area that the Commonwealth can now say to the company what South Australia could not say, prior to Federation. But, as regards the question of what powers the States had, prior to Federation, of binding the Commonwealth interminably, I cannot see how it can engage our consideration now. We can. only deal with each case on its merits. The obligations that the States contracted with the company are not binding on the Commonwealth as a whole. The particular State which incurred the obligations alone has to bear the burden of them now.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– That is all right during the term of the bookkeeping period, but it will not be afterwards.

Senator KEATING:

– When that period terminates, it will be for the Commonwealth, in the light of a knowledge of the extent to which the States did exercise that power prior to Federation, to adjust the financial relations of the States and Commonwealth in connexion with each particular transaction. In proceeding to adopt a different system, the Federal Government will have before them the facts and the circumstances, and will adjust the financial relations between the States and the Commonwealth accordingly.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL (Victoria). - Whatever may be the result of the allocation of these moneys to the different States, I think it should be known that this position was caused partly by a breach of agreement. Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria, and probably Western Australia, agreed to respect obliga tions they had entered into with the Pacific Cable Board, and it was a receding from that agreement which brought about “this trouble. That being the case, it is manifestly unfair that the Commonwealth should have to bear this expenditure, however, it may be allocated. If South Australia chooses to make a bargain which is not just, she should pay, and so in the same way should New South Wales. If the latter State had adhered to her bargain with the Pacific Cable Board, none of these charges would have been brought before us now. Therefore, I think that the Government should see that the Commonwealth is not unduly charged with obligations which it had no interest in creating.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.-

page 2182

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1903-4

Bill received from the House of Re:presentatives and (on motion by Senator McGregor), read a first and second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence a question regarding the last item in the schedule -

Towards re-arming H.M.S. Cerberus (estimated cost £20,000), ^5,000.

I wish to know if it is intended to proceed with the re-arming of the Cerberus, and, if so, whether this item of £5,000 is in addition to the estimate of £20,000, or is merely the first instalment of that estimate ?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We are not going on with the original proposal. This sum is really in lieu of another vote.

Senator KEATING:

– Will this sum of £5,000 be the limit of the expenditure so far as present indications suggest ?

Senator Playford:

– Are the* Government going to re-arm the Cerberus ?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– That is not decided at all. Senator Keating will notice that this item of £5,000 is in lieu of another vote.

Senator KEATING:

– I notice that ; but do the Government intend to spend that sum °f ;£5>000 in the immediate future in the direction of re-arming the Cerberus, or has it been spent?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– This is only a reallocation of money.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– Are the Government going to spend it in this way ?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– No. Senator KEATING. - What is this sum °f £5,000 intended for? If the original intention of re-arming the Cerberus at a cost of ,£20,000 has been abandoned, has it been done in. favour of an intention to spend .£5,000 in that direction? I desire to know if there is any use in spending such a small amount on re-arming the ship. Is it not a work that should be done completely if done at all ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

Senator Keating has raised an important question which deserves an answer. We ought to know if the Government have abandoned the intention to re-arm this ship at a cost of ,£20,000, and are now asking for a vote of ,£5,000.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We are not asking for ,£5,000 at all. This is merely in lieu of something else; it is only a reallocation.

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– But is that the case?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– It is. There ?s no naval expenditure to take place at all, so far as this question is concerned.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania).- As the Bill has only just been circulated, having been read a first and second time, and taken into Committee straight away, it is almost impossible to take in at a glance everything which it contains. What I desire to elicit from the Minister of Defence, is whether the intention to re-arm the Cerberus, at a cost of £20,000, or to spend £5,000 in that direction, has been absolutely abandoned, or is anything going’ to be done ?

Senator McGregor:

– That vote has been entirely withdrawn.

Senator KEATING:

– There is to be no expenditure in that direction?

Senator McGregor:

– No expenditure has been decided on.

Senator Sir WILLIAM ZEAL:
Victoria

– I did not notice at first that, while the total expenditure under the head of “ Military “ is set down at £97,000, the deductions under the heads of “Military” and “ Naval “ amount to £[75,000, leaving a balance of £22,000. .

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– I desire to ask a question relative to the item of. £3,800 for -

Removal anr] recreation of buildings in connexion with the construction of batteries and armouries at North Fremantle and Fremantle.

Can the honorable gentleman say what the batteries and fortifications are likely to cost the Commonwealth?

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That amount has also been withdrawn for the present.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2183

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 29th June.

Senate adjourned at 4.8 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 June 1904, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1904/19040609_senate_2_19/>.