4th Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 3538
– Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council give the Senate any information as to the intention of the Government in connexion with the report of the Royal Commission on Tasmanian Customs Leakages?
– The only information I can give is the statement of the Treasurer in another place - that next session the report will be duly considered, and no doubt Tasmania will be fairly dealt with.
page 3538
– I wish to ask the
Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs whether a date has yet been fixed for the introduction of a Bill to amend the Bounties Act; if not, how many resolutions of the Senate will need to be carried before the Government will start to take notice of them, and, further, how many more resolutions will need to be carried before the Government will do anything ?
– This matter has been receiving consideration/, both from the Minister of Trade and Customs and from the Government. The probability is that early next session it will be necessary to deal with bounties generally, and I am sure that resolutions of the Senate will always receive consideration.
page 3538
In, Committee: (Consideration resumed from 30th November, vide page 3437) :
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 - (1.) Upon an Act of the Parliament of the State of Western Australia being passed consenting to legislation by the Parliament of the Commonwealth with respect to the construction of the portion of the railway included in the State of Western Australia or consenting to the construction of that portion of the railway by the Commonwealth, the Minister may, subject to this Act, construct a railway from Kalgoorlie in the State of Western Australia to Fort Augusta in the State of South Australia.
.- I desire to draw the attention of the Committee, and particularly of the Minister of Defence, to two facts. We understand from a communication made to the Chamber that the Western Australian Government have intimated their willingness to revive in its entirety the Act of 1903, which sanctioned the construction of this railway. That will not meet our requirements, because this is a Bill authorizing the construction of one railway, whereas the Act of 1903 was drafted and passed on the assumption that the Commonwealth was going to construct two railways, namely, the one under review, and one from Port Eucla to intercept the main line. I do not remember the exact verbiage of the State Act, but it affirmed that upon the Commonwealth commencing to construct the said railways, Western Australia would do soandso. It is a technical point which I have no doubt the Western Australian Government will put right. What we want in their authorizing Bill is the substitution of “ this railway” for “railways.” Otherwise it will leave a technical loophole which would render nugatory the whole effect of the Act. I hope that the Minister has grasped my point. This clause provides that the construction of the railway shall not be commenced until the two States have agreed “ to grant such por- tions of the Crown lands of the State as are in the opinion of the Minister necessary for the purposes of the railway.” The engineer on whose advice in engineering matters the Government are content to rely has recommended that there should be along each side of the route a reserve half-a-mile wide with special reserves for platforms, yards, and station buildings, and in the sandhill country a reserve 10 miles wide. He affirms that a larger area is necessary owing to the character of the country. He points out that it is fairly settled and firm in its natural condition, but once it is subject to the action of stock it will become broken up and will be subject to every passing wind with the result that it will cause a great deal of trouble which will mean expense in the maintenance of the railway. We have an idea as to what the most favorable State Government regard as a sufficient area to concede to the Commonwealth for these purposes. The Act passed provided for the cession of an area only 3 chains wide along the line of route. I should like to know whether the Government regard as sufficient the area offered so far by the Western Australian Government, or whether they are prepared to strive for an area more nearly approximating to that recommended by their consulting engineer. It is, I think, of very considerable importance that the Committee should have some knowledge as to what is in the Ministerial mind. We have the report of the engineer recommending much more than the State has granted. Under the Bill the whole matter is left to the Minister, but I feel sure that it would be a satisfaction to the Committee, irrespective of the views which honorable senators take as to the main proposal, to know that the permanent interest of the line - and by that I mean the permanent interest of the country - will not be sacrificed to an undue desire to rush the line through, and that some effort will be made to obtain such area of land as in the opinion of the Government expert adviser is absolutely necessary.
– I am endeavouring to obtain the Western Australian Act of 1903, but it is out of the Library at present. If the case is, as Senator Millen has stated, undoubtedly we shall make representations to get an alteration of the provision. The telegram from the Premier of Western Australia stating that it was proposed to revive the
Act of 1903 was only received on Wednesday last, and immediately I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that that Act only provided for the cession of 3 chains of land along the route. The Commonwealth Government had decided to ask for what the consulting engineer recommended, namely, an area halfamile wide on either side of the line, and so much additional land as may be required for legitimate railway purposes or water supply. As regards the sandhill country, we propose to adopt the suggestion of the consulting engineer, and to ask for the area of land referred to by the honorable senator. Undoubtedly the Government will make representations to the Government of Western Australia, and as regards the sandhill country to the Government of South Australia. I have not the slightest doubt that both Governments will be quite willing to meet us in that regard. I think that the provision for the cession of 3 chains to the Commonwealth was put in the measure simply because it was thought that that would be sufficient for the line, and not because the State would stand in the way of granting additional land.
– I think it was put in for this reason : that it is quite enough for the purpose of a railway within the State when more land could be obtained if necessary.
– No doubt when representations are made by the Commonwealth Government the Sill will be shaped accordingly. I can give the Committee the assurance that if there is any inconsistency with this measure we shall try to get it harmonized, and also make representations to the two State Governments in accordance with the recommendation of our consulting engineer, which has already been approved of.
– It must be very satisfactory to the Committee to have heard what the Minister of Defence has said. I am glad to know that the Government intend to ask that at least half-a-mile of land shall be reserved on each side of the railway.
– We can see clearly now the difficulty into which the Commonwealth is being landed by the action of the Government. It has been a cardinal part of the policy of the Labour party that in connexion with railway construction a certain area of land on either side of the line should be reserved for railway purposes. This is a policy which the Federal Parliament, having now a Labour majority in both Houses, may put into practice. But what do the Government propose to do? The Western Australian Government propose to give .the Commonwealth 3 chains on either side of this line. I never heard of a more ridiculous proposition in my life. At most, the Government propose to insist upon an area of halfamile wide on each side of the line, as suggested by the engineers. I have often said that I do not think that this country is worth much. But I remind honorable senators that my opinion has been overruled by an overwhelming majority. Other honorable senators appear to believe that the country is valuable, and, if it is, I put the position before them. The people of Australia are going to build this railway, and if the country through which it will pass is any good, it will be largely enhanced in value by the building of the railway. Who would be entitled to that increase of value? The Labour party have always contended that any increase of value brought about in that way belongs to the people who build the railway. If the land along the line is increased in value by its construction, that increase of value will not belong of right either to the people of Western Australia or of South Australia, but to the people of the Commonwealth. No man can gainsay that. The Government, however, propose to hand over the communitycreated value in this case, should it ever arise, to the Governments of Western Australia and South Australia. A weaker abandonment of Labour policy I never heard of in my life. I hope I shall never hear the like of it again. Senator De Largie may sneer, and laugh, and scoff , but that will not alter the fact one iota. Every Labour man who knows his business has been contending for the last twenty years for this principle, and now when a Labour Government have an opportunity to put it into practice, they shamefully abandon it. I am raising my protest. My hands are clean so far as this matter is concerned. I shall not be satisfied if anything less than 25 miles on each side of this railway is granted. I consider that a fair proposition.
– We will not get it.
– My Scotch friend says “ We will not get it . “ Perhaps he will say what we are going to get, and what he thinks we are entitled to. Here is an honorable senator who was returned to this Parliament on Labour principles. He signed the Labour platform, and, I believe, that when he did so it was something more to him than the taking of his pen in hand and the writing of his signature. I believe that the Labour platform is engraven on the heart of Senator W. Russell. But it may be in his heart, and yet not in his head., I am afraid the honorable senator’s head is, in this matter, rather at fault. All that the Western Australian Government proposes to give us is 3 chains of land on either side of the line. What remarkable liberality. We have a Labour Government in power in Western Australia also. They are bound by the same principles as we are, and have been advocating the same policy. But apparently they are very careful not to put that policy into practice. They consider that it would be altogether too fine a thing to hand over this communitycreated value, which, if some honorable senators are to be believed, will be very large, to the people of Australia. The Government of Western Australia say, in effect, “We will allow the people of Australia to spend ^5,000,000 in building a railway through our territory, but we will not allow them to receive the increased value which will be added to the land along the line by the construction of that railway.” The South Australian Government, which is also a Labour Government, say the same thing. Presumably they are both in agreement with the Labour axiom that whatever value is created by the expenditure of public money belongs to the people who find! the money, and not the people of the particular locality in which it is spent. The people of Western Australia and South Australia are, in this case, as much the people of a locality as if they were under a divisional board, a shire council, or a municipality. I do not suppose that anything I can say will stem this current.
– The Senate decided this matter last night.
– The Senate did not decide it; we are now in Committee, and the Bill can be altered.
– This matter will never be decided until the right thing is done.
– I have not addressed a single word of my remarks tothe Leader of the Opposition, because I know that on this question the party which he leads in this Chamber are not in agreement with the policy of the Labour party.
– The honorable senator will pardon me. There is no stronger advocate than I of the principle that communitycreated value should go to the community.
– Will the honorable senator assist in carrying a clause to give effect to that principle in this Bill ?
– I have given notice of an amendment to give effect to it.
– It does not go far enough, and the Opposition cannot carry it without the assistance of the Government. That is why I am appealing to the Government to stick to their principles and the principles of the party they represent. It is not for me to frame a clause, but for the Government to do their duty, and I ask them to do it.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) £10.55]. - I am sure that honorable senators have been pleased to hear the statements made by the Minister of Defence on the two matters 1 brought under his notice. With regard to the first, the Minister has since had an opportunity of referring to the Western Australian Act, and we have his assurance that the attention of the Government will be directed to the necessity of preventing any difficulty arising later on. With regard to the other point, 1 am very glad to hear that it is intended to’ make application to the Governments of the two States immediately concerned for the area of land recommended by the engineers.
– Does the honorable senator think that a reservation of halfamile on each side of the line will be sufficient ?
– For the purposes of the railway, yes. Senator Stewart must recognise the difference between what he is striving for and what I sought to attain by my amendment, and the reservation of a sufficient area of land for railway purposes only. The two things are quite distinct. It is very gratifying to know that the Government will ask for an area for railway purposes approximating that recommended by the engineers.
-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - What if it be refused.
– I invited the Senate yesterday to delay matters until these negotiations were completed, but honorable senators would decline to accept that suggestion, and we are now necessarily compelled to leave matters to the Government. In the circumstances, it is a great relief to me to know that the Government will in no case accept the original offer of the Western Australian Government, but will make an effort to obtain a reservation approximating the recommendation of the engineers. I assume that that means that they will ask for the area recommended, but will not refuse an offer approximating it, whilst, on the other hand, they will not accept the very meagre proposal contained in the original Western Australian Act. Three chains in that country is absolutely insufficient for ordinary railway purposes, and especially in the sandhills country. I have had opportunities of observing the effect of stocking on this class of country in the north-west corner of New South Wales. Undoubtedly, as Mr. Dean’s surmises, without any stock, and that means without even rabbits, such country retains some appearance of soundness.
– That country is in South Australia, and as it is not very valuable, it may still be acquired, as we have the power of compulsory purchase.
– I am very sorry to hear that statement. Is it intended to mean that if the South Australian Government do hot give us the land we require, the power of the Commonwealth to purchase it will be exercised ?
– No.
– I think it means that or nothing. The Minister says that this land is of such little value that the expense of purchasing what we require would not amount to much.
– If it came to the worst.
– I say that not a single penny should be paid for the purchase of land along this line from the two States immediately concerned.
– I thoroughly agree with the honorable senator. Senator MILLEN. - In that case, the Minister’s suggestion may be set aside. If any objection is raised to the proposal to secure a sufficient area along the route of this line for railway purposes, and to reduce the cost of maintenance, it can only be with the express purpose of defeating the proposal now before us. I take it, from the statement we have heard, that we can rely upon it that the Government will not be content with an area so insufficient as that provided for in the Western Australian Act, and will insist upon our being treated in a more generous spirit than is disclosed in that Act.
– 1 move -
That the following new sub-clause be added to the clause : - “ (3.) In order to, in time, partially recoup the Commonwealth for the capital expenditure involved in the construction of the railway, it shall be a further condition, precedent to the work being entered upon, that the States of South Australia and Western Australia respectively shall reserve from sale and vest in the Commonwealth all the Crown lands in alternate sections of ten miles square on both sides of the line as ultimately adopted (exclusive of the reservations required under the previous subsection) along its whole length throughout the territories of the respective States. Provided that land shall not be so granted within fifteen miles of the terminal points of the line.”
My reason for exempting the land within 15 miles of the terminal points is that I do not want to deprive either Western Australia or South Australia of the value of that land.
– That will be the most valuable portion.
– I recognise that, but we cannot get all that we want, and I am more moderate than the honorable senator, with whose remarks I quite agree. The unearned increment attached to land in consequence of public works should go to the Government which pays for those works. Some people do not understand the .difference between 10 square miles and 10 miles square. Allow me to mention that 10 miles square means 100 square miles. Therefore if my suggestion is adopted, it will mean that the Commonwealth will acquire 103,300 square miles, or 66,112,000 acres. My impression is that in course of time the land as a whole will be honestly worth at least is. 3d. an acre.
– More like £1 3s. per acre, does not the honorable senator think, judging from what the supporters of the Bill have said?
– Many people think that the land is valueless. The late Sir Richard Baker held that opinion. I have a more hopeful belief in the future of Australia. If the land which I propose to acquire be worth is. 3d. per acre, we shall obtain over £4,000,000 towards the cost of the railway. I understand that some pressure has been brought to bear upon certain honorable senators to induce them to refrain from supporting this proposal, for fear that the two States which will be principally benefited will not give us any land beyond that which is provided for in other portions of the Bill. But I shall certainly divide the Committee on the proposal. The total length of the line is 1,063 miles. Subtracting 15 miles from each end - 30 miles altogether - and we are left with 1,033 miles. Converting that area into acreage, it amounts to 103,000 square miles. I am not sure whether it would not be larger than the whole State of Victoria:
-Colonel Sir Albert Gould’. - Victoria has 87,000 square miles.
– We must also remember that the two States concerned will hold the contiguous blocks which will become more valuable. Consequently the States will secure a large amount of unearned increment from the adjoining land.My proposal is not extreme, and I trust that the Committee will receive it with favour.
– Obviously the Government cannot accept this amendment. If it were carried it would practically mean that the Commonwealth would say to the States of South Australia and Western Australia, “ We are in favour of the construction of the railway; but build it yourselves.” Senator Walker estimates that the land which his amendment would require the States to give the Commonwealth would be worth £4,000,000.
– The prospective value might be that.
– That would simply mean that the Commonwealth would say to the States, “ We will advance you £4,000,000 on the security of the land over which the railway will be constructed.” If that be the proposal, why take up the time of Parliament with such a Bill as this? Why not say to the States, “We will lend you ,£4,000,000, and take that land as security.” That may be Senator Walker’s idea of how the Commonwealth should build a line, but it is a peculiar one. It is more like the States building a railway, the Commonwealth merely acting the part of “ uncle.”
– The prospective value is a long way off.
– I cannot accept such an amendment. It is altogether opposed to the idea of the Commonwealth constructing the line. Either the Commonwealth is prepared to build this railway or it is not. If it is prepared to do so, it should pay for the work. If it is not prepared to pay for the railway it ought not to construct it. If the principle which Senator Stewart enunciated ought to be followed in this instance, it ought also to be followed in connexion with every Commonwealth work. Does Senator Walker want the railway from the Federal Capital to the port at Jervis Bay to be constructed on tie same principle?
– If you like.
– What is to be the position of the Commonwealth with regard to the land acquired? Are we to have sovereign rights over it?
– The Commonwealth will be like a private land-owner.
– We shall simply be land-holders within a State. Is that advisable? If the Commonwealth is going in for wholesale absorption of State lands, it is quite a new policy. In that event it ought to hold the lands in the same way as it holds the Northern Territory and the Federal Capital. Commonwealth law should be supreme there.
– We merely want to recoup ourselves in time.
– This is a Bill for building a Commonwealth railway over State areas. It is not a proposal for acquiring State lands. I think that when honorable senators consider these facts, they will see that what we are doing is different from the action of a Government which constructs a railway which adds value to private land. The Commonwealth is in a different position towards the States from that of States towards private individuals. The Committee would be very illadvised if it acted towards any State as a State may be justified in acting towards private persons.
– I shall not enter minutely into the merits of Senator Walker’s amendment, which asserts the principle that the Commonwealth should acquire any value that may be created by the construction of this railway with Commonwealth money. I entirely agree with him. As this railway must benefit two States, and as the people of Australia are going to advance the money to build the line, those two States should give some security or guarantee for the repayment of some portion of the money.. Surely that principle is sound. I agree with much of what Senator Stewart has said. My opposition to this line was not so much directed against the project itself, as against the unsatisfactory condition under which the railway is proposed to be built. There is not sufficient genuineness in the demands of South Australia and Western Australia unless those two States readily concede something of the principle that when we advance them between ,£4,000,000 and £6,000,000 to build a railway, the people of Australia who find the money shall have some sort of guarantee that in future years the Commonwealth will be recouped a portion of the expenditure incurred. I am not going to say that there are not some difficulties in the way of applying the principle of Senator Walker’s amendment in connexion with future legislation, but at present I am inclined to support it.
– Senator Pearce has asked whether we are going to build a railway costing between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000, and then ask the people of South Australia and Western Australia to give us back that money in the form of the enhanced value of the land traversed. I say, “ Yes.” Why should we make those States a present of that enhanced value?
– We were given to understand that the land had no value.
– At present I do not believe that it would bring in much, but Senator Walker estimates that at some future time it will be worth is. 3d. per acre. I have always understood that the Labour platform contained the principle that the community should reap the benefit of community-created interest. I have advocated that State Governments should construct railways ahead of population into unsettled lands suitable for settlement, whereby additional value would be given to unalienated lands, which would in the end mean that the lines would be built practically for nothing. In maintaining that principle, I have been a little in advance of the Labour platform. Something of the same kind is advocated now. There is no settlement in the country to be traversed by the line. No doubt some of the land will have a value in the future. By building this railway we shall create land values. If the land will only carry one sheep to 20 acres, the value will be considerable in time. It may be fifty years before the people of the Commonwealth get back the money they spend, and in the meantime they will have to bear a loss of ,£70,000 or ,£80,000 a year. We merely ask for fair dealing between the Commonwealth and the States. Surely it is fair that the Commonwealth should receive some portion of the value that it will create to recoup it for the money to be spent. If that had been provided for in the Bill I should have been far more satisfied than I am now. Senator Pearce says that that would not be a fair thing. But is it a fair tiling that the Commonwealth should provide the money with which to construct this railway, and that the States of South Australia and Western Australia should reap, not only the benefit accruing from that expenditure, but also the benefit of the enhanced values given to the land along the route of the line? If the States themselves were constructing the railway, they would, of course, be entitled to pocket the unearned increment. But they are not building the line. If the Minister urges that the area for which Senator Walker’s amendment stipulates would be more than sufficient to recoup the Commonwealth for its capital outlay, I am prepared to support a smaller area. But I desire to see the principle affirmed that the Commonwealth shall reap the benefit of the unearned increment. I do not think that the Minister of Defence should hurriedly turn down this proposal. I know that there are a great many honorable senators who share my views, notwithstanding the way in which they may vote upon this amendment.
– I listened carefully to Senator Stewart’s declaration of what is contained in the Labour platform, and I also paid great attention to the amendment which has been submitted by Senator Walker. Now, if the latter has been careful to do one thing more than another, it is to frame his proposal in such a way that if Senator Stewart remains true to his professed principles he cannot vote for it. Senator Stewart has declared that the land values created by the Commonwealth ought to belong to the Commonwealth. But, under Senator Walker’s amendment, the land at the terminal points of .the proposed line, which will naturally possess the greatest value, will be retained by the States.
– That difficulty may be overcome by another amendment.
– But what is the use of endeavouring to embody in every proposal which is submitted to Parliament some well-known principle of the Labour party ? I believe that the values created by the community should belong to the community. But I would point out that the Commonwealth has already the power of securing , to itself that unearned, increment, not from alternate patches of land 10 miles square, but from one end of Australia to the other.
– Now !
– Not only has it that power, but it has already exercised it.
– Not in respect of Crown lands.
– Whether the Commonwealth or the State gathers in this unearned increment does not affect the principle. The Commonwealth, the States, and the municipalities are merely different forms of government in this country. If we are to affirm the absurd idea put forward by Senator Walker in regard to alternate blocks along the route of the proposed railway, when the Commonwealth constructs a wharf or a jetty, in the future, we shall be told that it must secure to itself the unearned increment. To carry the honorable senator’s argument further, why should not the Commonwealth ascertain the exact amount of benefit which is being conferred upon Melbourne by reason of the Parliament meeting in this city? I repeat that we already have the power to secure for the Commonwealth the land values which it creates by the expenditure of its own money, if we choose to exercise it. We do not exercise it because there is no occasion for us to do so. The Government are embarrassed with riches.
– Is not that a very good reason why we should adopt a proposal of this kind?
– If Senator Walker would join with others in endeavouring to reduce the amount derived from CUE toms taxation, instead of increasing it, we might achieve something tangible. I cannot understand the blowing hot and cold in which Senator Sayers has indulged. Only a little while ago he argued that the land which the proposed railway will traverse has no value whatever. Yet we now find him supporting an amendment under which that land at the very low estimate of is. 3d. per acre would realize more than £4,000,000.
– The States are merely being asked to give the Commonwealth a certain area of land on either side of the railway in return for the construction of that railway.
– I hope that the honorable senator will be in the same frame of mind when the Government propose to build a line of railway from Yass-Canberra to Jervis Bay.
– New South Wales has not asked the Commonwealth to construct that line.
– The same remark will apply to South Australia. That State has not asked the Commonwealth to build the proposed transcontinental line. The whole of the people of Australia have demanded its construction in the interests of Australia, and they can well afford to build it.
– How have they demanded it in the interests of Australia?
– I think that the defence of Australia is of interest to every portion of it. I merely rose to point out the absurd position in which Senator Stewart will be placed, if, while subscribing to the sound principle that increased land values created by Commonwealth expenditure should belong to the Commonwealth, he supports an amendment under which that increased value will be conceded to the Commonwealth on alternate blocks along the route of the proposed railway, and will be denied to it at the termini of the line, where the community-created values will naturally be greatest.
Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) fu. 25]. - There was one expression used oy Senator Gardiner which, I think, was singularly unfortunate. He made some reference to Senator Sayers. “ blowing hot and cold “ in regard to a principle. Then, in order to demonstrate that it is possible to blow hot and cold in regard to a principle, he proceeded to outline the position which he himself occupies. He said, in effect, “I am an unflinching advocate of the principle that the community-created values of land should belong to the community. Upon that rock I take my stand.” But,, having taken is stand upon that rock, he immediately exclaimed, “ But for Heaven’s sake do not support the principle.”
– Do not support it in such a way as to make it ridiculous.
– A great many hot advocates of principle are prone to regard as ridiculous any attempt to enforce principle. Senator Gardiner went on to say that if we adopt this principle in respect of the proposed transcontinental railway we shall have to adopt if in respect to every minor public work. Simply because it is impossible for the Commonwealth to collect the trivial amounts of added value which may be given by Commonwealth expenditure to small works costing, perhaps, £100, he argued that we should refuse to collect that added value when we have a clean sheet upon which to start and everything in our favour. Nobody can dispute the proposition that the community which creates added values in land is entitled to those added values. But Senator Gardiner has affirmed that even if the Commonwealth does not collect this increment, the States or the municipalities will do so. Surely he must recognise that “the whole is not the same thing as a part, and that a part is not the same thing as the whole. It is the whole community and not” a portion of it which is entitled to these communitycreated values. I regret that I am not able to support the amendment. I regard it as an extremely objectionable and absolutely impracticable proposition. In the first place, Senator Walker is confusing land with land values. I object altogether to the Commonwealth loading itself up with peacocked areas all over Australia.
– What about the land upon which public offices are built ?
– There, again, we have small areas which do not count. If the system advocated by the honorable senator be adopted in regard to this railway, I presume that it will be adopted in regard to other railways which will be built. Let my honorable friend consider the difficulty which surrounds his proposal that alternate blocks of 10 miles square shall be reserved to the Commonwealth. Each of them would contain 64,000 acres, and on Mr. Deane’ s estimate of the carrying capacity of the land, each would be capable of grazing 3,000 sheep. I say that it is absolutely impossible to get that country occupied in areas which will carry only 3,000 sheep. The cost of improving a block 10 miles square which will carry only 3,000 sheep would simply render the proposition an absolutely prohibitive one. Thus Senator Walker would not only secure to the Commonwealth alternate blocks which would be perfectly useless, but his proposition would also render useless the adjacent blocks which will be held by the States. I think it is highly undesirable that the Commonwealth should take over land which will require settling later on, at any rate until it has dealt with the big proposition of land settlement which is contained in the Northern Territory. All that Senator Walker wanted to do was to suggest means by which the Commonwealth could be recouped for Commonwealth expenditure.
Yesterday, I offered him a means of doing that.
– I could not support your amendment.
– Yesterday, I offered my honorable friend a means of getting, not the land, but the land value, but so anxious was he to recoup the Commonwealth that he could not see his way to adopt it. There is a broad difference to be kept in mind - the difference between land which ought to be left to the State and the claim which was put in yesterday and turned down by the Senate that the value added to the land, is a fair fund on which the Commonwealth might have levied. For the reasons I have stated, I am bound to vote against the amendment.
– I rather sympathize with Senator Walker for having so unwittingly drifted into the strange and uncongenial company in which he finds himself to-day. He is placed amongst some very curious bedfellows. If he will only look round he must recognise the old lion of insuperable opposition to this project in any shape or form. He must realize that honorable senators are pretending to support his proposal. Senator Sayers does not want the railway at all, but calls anathema every time it is mentioned, and only takes advantage of the proposal to get land for the purpose of thwarting, if not defeating, the object of the Bill. Senator Walker does not want that I am sure. He has stood out in favour of the railway as the one refreshing, redeeming compensating gleam among the gloomy surroundings on the other side, but he comes forward now with a proposal to recoup the Commonwealth. Senator Walker indulged in a cheer when Senator Millen set forth clearly and succinctly the object which he had in view. If that object be, to use the words of Senator Millen, “ to recoup the Commonwealth for the Commonwealth expenditure “-
– To some extent only.
– It simply means that although, if the railway has any object to serve at all, it is to assist the defence of the country, and to carry out an obligation that rests upon the Commonwealth, the States through which it is to be built are alone to bear the expense. There have been varying opinions expressed on the other side as to its usefulness for defence purposes. Is it right to expect that the two States in which the road will be laid should be called upon to pay the bill for securing a portion of the defence of this country in which every State must ultimately share? Even Senator Sayers, despite the most benighted state of his mind, agrees that the railway will be of use for defence purposes. I have heard Senator Cameron also admit that the railway will have some use as an adjunct to the defence of the country, only he had some doubts as to what the route should be. This measure provides for a certain route, and if the honorable senator will admit that the railway will be of some assistance in the defence of the country, is it rational to expect that the two States in which that adjunct is to be laid should pay for the upkeep of the line and recoup the Commonwealth its expenditure. He might as well expect Tasmania to pay for the forts erected in that State, or New South Wales to pay for the fortresses at Sydney Heads.
– They are paying for them.
– They are paying their share of the cost. If it is admitted from the other side - and it is partially admitted - that this railway will assist to perfect the defence of the country, it is most irrational to expect the two States in which it is built to bear the entire cost of construction.
– Nobody asks that.
– The honorable senator does when he supports this amendment. Senator Walker has stood out from his party, not only now, but previously, as an advocate of this railway. Evidently he must have had it in his mind all the time that there was some obligation, ill-defined though it might be, resting upon the Commonwealth to build the railway.
– (Hear, hear.!
– Then is it consistent for the Commonwealth to carry out the obligation and, at the same time, to send to the two States the bill for the construction of the railway?
– Perhaps you are not aware that ever since I entered the Senate I have advocated the construction of a landgrant railway.
– That is a question of general policy. We know the honorable senator’s views very clearly. We are specially indebted to .him for being frank on all occasions, and leaving no misunderstanding in the public mind as to what he is aiming at or drifting to. If we had more men of his calibre and stamp on the other side, many of .the misunderstandings would be cleared away, and the people of this country would be benefited very considerably indeed. They would find men of his style and stamp, aye, and steadfastness, to call a spade at all times a spade. He has recognised that the construction of this line is an obligation upon the Commonwealth. I advise him to kick his present bed-fellows out of the bed at once, and to come forward in his true light as an advocate of the discharge of this obligation, and to particularly refrain from asking the two States concerned to foot the bill. His amendment opens up big possibilities. If it is carried, what is to prevent a similar claim being raised in connexion with the railway to connect the Federal Capital with Jervis Bay ? Nothing, because the two proposals are on all-fours. When the latter proposal is made, then Senator Walker must, if he is consistent, insist upon New South Wales giving up a further portion of her territory in order to compensate herself for building the connecting railway.
– New South Wales is not asking for it.
– If we once set down our foundations, we must continue to build upon them, and a portion of that structure must necessarily be the adoption of this principle if the Senate in its unwisdom should agree to it in the case of the transcontinental railway. It is altogether unfair, I submit, for the honorable senator to ask Western Australia and South Australia to contribute towards the construction of that line. We might as well ask Queensland to pay more than its proportionate share of the defence of Thursday Island. Would Senator Stewart agree to a proposal of that kind? No. He would be like a howling Dervish if it were ever made here.
– Do not be ridiculous.
– I can assure the honorable senator that I am not at all ridiculous in making that suggestion. I can understand the position of the senator who is such a miniature Australian that he is not prepared to lift his little finger to help forward a national project unless the gain is to be centred in Queensland.
– I have never seen you do it.
– The honorable senator has seen me vote repeatedly for duties which went to his State, and for bounties which brought timber from the jungles of his State. I have noticed that he has never done anything except to be here at all times when the interests of Queensland are concerned; and for him ,to turn round and tell me that I have never voted on these questions is a misrepresentation of the grossest type. If it is conceded that this railway is an integral portion of the defence scheme, it is wrong to ask that the two States ir. which it is built shall pay the cost. If, on the other hand, as Senator Walker has admitted, there is an obligation upon the Commonwealth to build the line, it has no right to send in the bill to those States.
– The attempt to represent this proposal as part and policy of the Labour party is undoubtedly very clever. But there is a very simple test which can be applied to ascertain whether those who support the amendment really believe what they are trying to represent. If this is a proposal which is in the forefront of the Labour platform, and about which Labour men are very much in earnest, why are those who so repeatedly oppose any proposition in favour of the unearned increment going to the State or the Commonwealth so enthusiastic on this occasion? That is, I think, about as good a test as we can apply to these honorable senators. The question of the unearned increment does not arise in this case, because the land over which the railway is to be built is still in the possession of the States. I would remind Senator Stewart that the States have the power to impose land taxation for the purpose of taking back some, of the unearned increment which they consider has been created by the expenditure of State money.
– You are only sliding out.
– I know that the honorable senator agrees with me. He is in favour of the direct taxation of land by municipalities, and he is also, to a very large extent, in favour of the State taxing land. Let us inquire whether this proposal does affect the Labour platform. Suppose that the Commonwealth takes possesssion of these blocks. Of what use will the land be? I do not wish to see the Commonwealth or the State taking any profit out of the land for a considerable number of years. The policy of the Victorian Labour party is that, in the early years, the land occupied by the grazier, or the pastoralist, or the agriculturist should be as free as possible from taxation. If I had my way,
I would give all this land absolutely . free for, at least, twenty years to any man who was willing ,to take it up and make use of it. We have had a practical test of land settlement in Victoria. For the last fourteen or fifteen years we have tried the loading principle, but it has absolutely broken down, because it was partial in its application. For the men who took up the good lands throughout Australia, railways were built, increasing the value of their properties. Then when we came to deal with inferior lands, we made a partial application of the principle which, undoubtedly, should have been applied earlier to the good country. It has been found after fourteen or fifteen years of the application of this principle that it has actually retarded settlement in Victoria. The people who are now seeking land have not much money, and they are asked to compete on land that is loaded because of the construction of a railway with people who already possess land and wealth, and who are under a similar disadvantage. For this reason it has been found that the loading principle partially applied has had the effect of retarding settlement. Within the last three months an Act was passed in the Victorian Parliament with the unanimous support of all parties abandoning the principle of the loading of land because of railway construction in the early days of settlement. That was supported by the Labour party, who believe in the loading principle.
– When would the honorable senator load the land?
– I believe that the people whom- we should desire to settle on the land are those with families who are determined to make a home for themselves on the land. To secure the settlement of such people, I believe that it would be the best policy for both State and Commonwealth to give them land free for a time from all rates and taxes. There are two factors in producing the unearned increment. The building of a railway without the attraction of additional population will not add much to the value of land. The building of this railway may enable people settled along it to get produce and stock to market. This will attract population, and may possibly create a local market by which considerable value will be added to the land. If it is found possible to graze sheep on this country, it can easily be seen that Kalgoorlie, requiring a better food supply, will provide a good market for those who take up this land. It is in this way that an increased value will be added to the land. If it be contended that the Commonwealth is going to create all the unearned increment by the building of the railway, Senator Walker should propose, not that the Commonwealth should be given alternative blocks along the line, but that it should be given every acre of land the value of which will be improved by the construction of the line. We know that if the honorable senator made such a proposal as that, honorable senators on his own side would be against it.
– Rut what would honorable senators on Senator E. J. Russell’s side do? He would vote against it.
– I should vote against it because I do not think that the Commonwealth should take up the position of an ordinary capitalist investing in land. Still I have always been in favour of heavy land taxation upon unimproved values.
– This would not give it.
– Will not the ordinary laws of the State of Western Australia apply to this land?
– Crown lands in Western Australia are in future to be leased and not sold.
– Even supposing this land were sold, it should be remembered that we have Labour Governments in power in the two States immediately concerned, and they will not be neglectful of the public interests. The Commonwealth should either take over the whole of the land or none. Either the Commonwealth should build the railway, or the States of Western Australia and South Australia should build it. We decided yesterday that the Commonwealth should build the railway for defence and other reasons, apart from land settlement. I say that we should leave the land to the States unless we have absolute control over it. Honorable senators will remember that there was considerable objection to the Commonwealth taking land at Jervis Bay, in respect of which it would be in the position of an ordinary private land-holder in New South Wales.. I do not desire that the Commonwealth should take up land in that way, but I do desire that the Commonwealth, the State, or a municipality should apply the principles of taxation on unimproved values. If Senator Walker believed in that principle he would not be so enthusiastic about the partial application of it which he proposes in his amendment.
Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [11.50]. - I can understand the objection of many honorable senators to Senator Walker’s amendment. Senator Millen has just said that he does not believe that the Federal Government should take possession of lands in any of the States under the conditions applicable to private persons. On the other hand, honorable senators recognise that it is reasonable that the two States immediately interested in this proposal should contribute something to the cost of the construction of this railway. Senator Millen, in his amendment, indicated that as one of the propositions on which he desired further information. He asked that correspondence should take place between the States concerned and the Commonwealth Government, in order to ascertain to what extent and in what way they would be prepared to assist in the construction of the railway. It is beyond contention that the people of South Australia, and particularly of Western Australia, are anxious that the line should be constructed. It was contended that its construction was one of the conditions which induced the people of Western Australia to enter the Federation. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that this is a matter of great moment to the people of that State.
– It is of equal moment to every State in Australia.
– I am at issue with the honorable senator on that point. I admit that the railway will be a national undertaking, and of value to the whole of the Commonwealth ; but it will be of special value to South Australia and Western Australia, because it will be constructed within their territories, and will promote settlement. If two men combine to carry out a certain undertaking which will be of greater benefit to one than to the other, is it not fair that the one who is to derive the most benefit should contribute more than the other to the cost? Senator Lynch argues that if this principle be applied to the proposed railway, it should also be applied to a railway from the Federal Capital to Jervis Bay. But there is this distinction between the two : Western Australia is anxious to have this railway built for the opening up of its territory, and to secure communication with the eastern States. But the line to connect the Federal Capital with Jervis Bay is not urged by New South Wales. Its construction will be solely for the benefit of the Commonwealth. New South Wales was in no way bound under the terms of the Constitution to grant any land for the purpose of connecting the Federal Capital with the coast. It was pointed out that it would be an advantage to the Commonwealth, and would assist in the settlement of the Federal Capital question, if the Commonwealth were given rights over a certain area of New South Wales land for the purpose of the construction of a line from the Federal Capital To Jervis Bay. The New South Wales Parliament did not care whether we built that railway or not, so that no parallel can be instituted between the two cases. Many years ago the people of British Columbia were very dissatisfied with their condition of absolute isolation from the eastern portion of Canada, and there was talk at one lime of their seeking admission to the American Union. The Canadian Government, in the circumstances, decided to take steps to provide communication between the east and the west of Canada. How was it done? The Government did noi undertake the construction of a railway, but they got the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to undertake the work upon certain conditions. The company received grants of land in alternate blocks along the route of the proposed line. Many of the blocks were and. are but of little value, but many others are very valuable. In addition to the grants of land, the Canadian Government assisted the company, in the construction of the railway, with large sums of money. The railway was constructed, and the country opened up very much to the advantage of Canada, and of the Canadian Pacific Company ..
– It cost the Canadian people £4 per head-, as against £1 perhead in this case.
– It cost the Canadian Government a great deal. In this case, Senator Walker virtually says, “ The Commonwealth are going to build this railway, and the two States immediately interested should contribute a portion of the necessary fund, just as the Canadian Government contributed to the cost of the railway built by the Canadian Pacific Company.”
– But the Canadian Pacific Company got their lands exempt from all taxation for a certain period.
– Senator Walker does not ask that the land which he proposes should be reserved for the Commonwealth should be exempt from taxation. He says that this land, which is to-day comparatively worthless, will, by the promotion of settlement along the line, be given some value. We know that depôts must be established, even for the maintenance of the line, and settlement will be attracted, if only to provide for the wants of railway servants. The probability is that towns will grow up along the route of the railway, and is it not reasonable that the Commonwealth, whose expenditure will lead to the establishment of these towns, should participate in the increased value given to the land ? The Minister of Defence has himself admitted that a reasonable area should be granted to the Commonwealth, and has objected to the proposition of Western Aus.ralia to grant only 3 chains on either side of the line. Such a reservation, even though it might be sufficient for railway purposes, would not lead to the establishment of towns along the line.
– I thought the honorable senator believed in State rights?
– I do believe in State rights, and in justice and fair play between the States and the Commonwealth. The rights of the States, and also of the Commonwealth, under the Constitution, should be observed. It should be remembered1 that the Commonwealth is under no statutory obligation to build this railway. It is entirely within its own option. But if the Commonwealth, determines to do this work, surely it is a matter of common justice that the railway should be constructed on fair and reasonable conditions. I know that a proposition has been made to the Government by a great firm of engineers, who are quite capable of carrying on any work of the kind to which they put their hands, to construct this railway on certain terms and conditions. One of the features of the proposal is that they shall take land and debentures as part payment for the work.
– With 7^ per cent, commission.
– Yes; but, of course, we could not expect a firm to undertake a public work unless they were going to make some profit out of it. I say nothing about the terms, but the fact that such an offer has been made shows the value of the Commonwealth having land for the purpose, possibly, of negotiating with such a firm. If, on the other hand, it be determined by the Government themselves to construct the line, they should have some land in their possession with which to recoup themselves. It is said that we have the power of taxation. But we cannot tax Crown lands. Our land tax simply affects alienated lands. It is not until land has been alienated by a State that it becomes liable to Commonwealth taxation. If the Commonwealth had a considerable portion of the lands traversed by the railway, it would be a means of obtaining additional revenue. I shall support Senator Walker’s amendment. Personally, I should have preferred to see something like the proposal of Senator Millen adopted, under which a proportion of the added value given to the land should go to the Commonwealth to recoup it for some of the expenditure incurred in constructing the railway.
– It is difficult to determine what the unearned increment is.
– I know ‘ that it is a difficult matter, but we are not now discussing methods. If I cannot get the proposition which I should prefer, I am prepared to accept the other. It is for Parliament to say whether it is a workable proposition. I know that it has worked in other parts of the world. It has been practicable in connexion with the Canadian-Pacific railway, where it has recouped the railway company for the expenditure incurred in building the railway through Canada. A great deal of the land traversed by that line is comparatively worthless even to-day, but a portion of it has been proved to be much more valuable than was imagined some years ago. Senator Millen observes that statistics show that these big blocks of land will only carry flocks of about 3,000 sheep. But we are told that the railway will develop not only pastoral, but also agricultural and mineral country. We certainly have to recognise that much of the country that is to-day worthless will, by means of the railway, have some value given to it. By the application of the dry farming system of cultivation the value of the land is likely to be still further augmented, and much that is now regarded as valueless will undoubtedly turn out to be useful. I do not claim that because some honorable senators belong to the Labour party it is their duty to support the amendment. It is for them to decide whether the amendment is in the best interests of the country. If they think it is, their duty as honest men is to vote in favour of it.
– It is not a party question.
– I am glad to hear that.
– It ought to be.
– We have had our light over the question whether the railway should be built or not. Both Houses of the Parliament have virtually decided that it shall be built within a reasonable period. I do not desire to go back upon that decision. My endeavour will be rather in the direction of improving the measure, and making a success of it, in the interests of the States and of the Commonwealth.
– I support the amendment because though I hold with Senator Millen that it would be to some extent unworkable, I nevertheless believe that the Commonwealth ought in some way to obtain a return for the enormous expenditure that is to be incurred. It is not only the cost of the construction of the railway that we have to consider. There will also be the cost of maintenance, between£80and£90 per mile in the first two or three years. That cost will increase largely, until in the course of time, owing to renewals, it will become nearly double that amount. Then there will be the interest on the cost of construction, some £140,000 a year; and, in addition, the loss on the actual running. Altogether the expenditure will be so great that I consider that we should not be doing our duty if we did not endeavour to secure from the two States which are going to be benefited some return to recoup the people of the Commonwealth. No consideration has been given to the other States. The interest of South Australia and Western Australia only have been regarded. Some States will have to incur the cost of the conversion of their own lines later on to bring their gauges into conformity with the gauge generally prevailing throughout the continent. That expense has to be considered. I support the amendment also because it is but fair that the Commonwealth should obtain a return for the money to be spent. Senator Lynch and Senator E. J. Russell fell into an error as to the Victorian practice. It was said that Victoria had abandoned the system of loading country lands in order to obtain the developmental value.
– I said that Victoria had abandoned the principle because it retarded settlement.
– Victoria has never had any legislation under which the incremental value of land was returned to the State. The principle adopted some years ago was that where a district was obtaining a railway, and where, after reference to the Railways Standing Committee it was found that the traffic would not be sufficient to recoup interest, cost of maintenance and working, a guarantee should be obtained from the land-owners to pay so much per annum to make up the loss. ‘ That was all that was done. As soon as the traffic on the line increased, and it became payable, the embargo was taken away.
– Sometimes Victoria demanded guarantees from municipalities.
– That was only to cover the cost of working. It was felt last session, however, that the system was not fair, because it did not treat new districts in the same way as older districts had been treated. Therefore the system was abandoned.
– Senator Lynch has again brought forward the argument that this railway is required for defence purposes. It may be that the line will be of some value from a defence point of view. We have been assured that Lord Kitchener at a banquet in Perth said that he hoped that Sir John Forrest’s aspiration to have a railway running from Western Australia to the eastern States would soon eventuate.
– Who is Sir John Forrest ?
– Sir John Forrest is the man who has been fighting very hard indeed for this railway. I give him all credit for what he has done, although I cannot quite agree with his view.
– What has he done for the railway ?
– He has done more than any man in the Commonwealth Parliament to get this railway built.
– He has done nothing. He has been an absolute failure in regard to this railway.
– Very unfair.
– Order !
– Why does not Senator Sayers speak the truth?
– I do not take any notice of Senator Needham, and if I am let alone shall not reply to him. I was referring to what Senator Lynch had said. I draw attention to the fact that Queensland, for defence purposes, has built a line quite as long as this will be, without asking the Commonwealth for one penny. Queensland has functioned at two points with New South Wales.
– I rise to order. I submit that the debate must be confined to the clause and the amendment. The matters with which Senator Sayers is dealing have absolutely nothing to do with the question before the chair.
– If Senator Lynch was in order in making a personal attack on me, surely I am in order in replying to him. The Minister of Defence seems to be very anxious to burke discussion. If one State is to be treated differently from another, I would like to know the reason for such differentiation.
– While the question of defence may be referred to incidentally, I would ask the honorable senator to adhere as closely as possible to Senator Walker’s amendment.
– I was attacked by Senator Lynch, and in all fairness I ought to have the right of reply. Senator Lynch said he could not understand my reason for objecting to the construction of the proposed line. I say that Queensland has built for defence purposes more miles of railway than this line will cover, and that she has done so at her own expense. I wish now to point out that in paragraph n of his report to the Commonwealth Government upon the defence of Australia, Lord Kitchener says -
I would also mention that railway construction has, while developing the country, resulted in lines that would appear to be more favorable to an enemy invading Australia than to the defence of the country.
– Order. I would’ point out that the honorable senator is not in order in discussing the whole question of defence, which was fully debated upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The question before the Chair is clause 3, and Senator Walker’s amendment thereon.
– Then why is the Commonwealth about to build this railway ?
– That question was fully debated upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I must ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the amendment.
– I was under the impression that the proposed line was to be built for defence purposes, and I thought I was at liberty to show that Lord Kitchener’s remarks had no reference to this line, the’ route of which had not then been surveyed at the time that report was written. However, I will take another opportunity of expressing my opinion upon that aspect of the matter.
– I wish to take your ruling, sir, upon a point of order. I agree with Senator Sayers that this line will prove of great value for defence purposes. I also indorse his utterances in regard to the position occupied by Queensland as contrasted with that which is now being taken up by Western Australia and South Australia.
– I submit that the honorable senator is deliberately defying your ruling.
– Not defying it.
– I would point out to Senator S.t. Ledger that he has no right to canvass a ruling which has been given, unless he is prepared to adopt the proper course. The honorable senator is not in order in debating the defence aspect of this question, which was fully discussed upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill, although he is at liberty to make an incidental reference to it.
Senator ST. LEDGER (Queensland) (12.22]. - When I raised my point of order I was not aware, sir, that you had given a ruling. Considering the late stage of the session, I shall not proceed to the extreme of dissenting from your decision. On the contrary, I shall obey it. I do not entirely agree with the amendment of Senator Walker, but I shall vote with him as a protest against the way in which Commonwealth interests are being sacrificed. I hold that some security should be given to the Commonwealth by the States of Western Australia and South Australia in return for the assistance which it is rendering to them. If the speech- of the Minister of Defence last evening meant anything, we can only conclude that within a few years the socalled desert country through which the proposed railway will pass will blossom like a rose. The Minister had evidently felt the criticism to which the Bill had been subjected, and had prepared himself most carefully to reply to it. I venture to say that any intelligent stranger sitting in the gallery of this chamber last evening would, after having heard the Minister’s speech, have been inclined to exclaim, “ Why that country will become a second paradise ! ‘ ‘
– I rise to a point of order. I submit that Senator St. Ledger is now traversing the discussion which took place on the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
– After the speech delivered by the Minister of Defence last evening, we are asked-
– If this is an organized “ stone- wall,” we shall know how to meet it.
– This is the first criticism to which the clause has been subjected, and yet Ministers are as irritable as a child under punishment. I repeat that the strongest justification for the contention that Western Australia and South Australia should give the Commonwealth some security for the construction of the proposed line is afforded by the speech of the Minister himself. Judged in the light of his utterance, the country through which the railway will pass will prove to be valuable, and consequently we ought to insist upon the States which are most vitally interested in the matter giving some guarantee that the Commonwealth will be remunerated for this huge undertaking. Talk about blowing hot and cold, we have had a most outrageous example of it to-day. I do not think that Senator Walker’s amendment goes quite far enough. It is somewhat remarkable that when we discuss land values the members of the Labour party differ among themselves upon the very first and most elementary proposition in their platform. If it were not for the congested state of public business we would be justified in contesting every inch of the passage of this Bill.
– A few minutes ago you, sir, ruled my remarks out of order, and said that the question before the Chair was Senator Walker’s amendment. My reading of this clause leads me to believe that it is one upon which I am at liberty to discuss any portion of the Bill. The clause reads -
I wish to know, sir, whether you rule that in discussing this clause I am debarred from mentioning the matter of defence, and whether I am not in order in dealing with the proposed railway either from a defence or from any other point of view that I may think fit. I would not perhaps have pressed the matter only that the Minister seemed to be getting up continually and submitting that the speaker was wandering from the’ subject before the Chair. I maintain, sir, that I am strictly within my rights in debating if I wish the whole of the clauses. This is the vital clause of the Bill. You ruled me out of order previously, but I think that you were under the impression that I was speaking to the amendment.
– The general discussion on a Bill takes place on the motion for its second reading, and it is provided in standing order 198 that discussions in Committee shall be confined to the clause or the amendment before the Chair. Neither the clause nor the amendment now before the Chair contains any reference to the question of defence. It was when Senator Sayers was proceeding to elaborate his arguments on that question that I asked him to confine himself as closely as possible to the clause before the Committee. I pointed out that while it might have been quite within the Standing Orders for the honorable senator to make a passing reference te defence, he ought not to elaborate that aspect of the question, as it had already been fully dealt with in the debate on the second reading. I do not intend to give a ruling now on a. question which may arise later. I only confirm the ruling which I have already given, and that is that the question of defence is not mentioned in the clause under discussion, and therefore no general discussion on that question can be allowed.
– May I direct your attention, sir, to the similarity between this clause and the title of the Bill which is “An Act to provide for the construction of a railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta.” This is the clause which authorizes the carrying out of the work, and I submit that it is permissible for those who are supporting the clause to state reasons why this power is sought. One of the reasons why it is proposed to construct this railway is that it is necessary for the purposes of defence. Those who are in favour of the clause are justified in saying that they intend to vote for it because, amongst other things, the construction of the line is necessary for defence purposes. Surely it must be equally legitimate for an honorable senator to show that for such purposes the line is not wanted.
– Only a passing reference was made to defence by Senator Lynch.
– I submit, sir, that Senator Sayers is entitled to do more than make a passing reference to that matter, and that when we are asked to construct a railway through this country we are entitled to show why it is wanted. I hope, that in this “discussion you will not shut out all reference to those facts which make for or against the proposal contained in the clause.
– I submit, sir, that this is a clause which, in giving power to construct a railway, sets out that certain things are to be done. The object of the amendment ‘is to provide that another thing shall be done. The principle of construction and all subsidiary questions having been affirmed at the second-reading stage, what the Committee should discuss is the conditions which should be attached to the construction of the line. Before I resume my seat I wish to make an appeal to honorable senators. A certain amount of business has to be done, and we want to get it done.
– And I desire to help you to get it done.
– I do not suggest that my remark applies to only one side. I think that, as far as this sitting is concerned, it applies to both sides.
– You pulled me up without any justification.
– I appeal to honorable senators generally whether the speeches made here to-day have not been more in the nature of second-reading speeches than such speeches as should have been delivered on this clause. The Government must get the business put through, and if such speeches are made, what is the alternative? We shall have to abandon the ordinary time for closing the sittings. I appeal to honorable senators to endeavour to shorten their speeches, and to deal more directly with the clause, so that we may be able to make more rapid progress.
– It is one thing to ask honorable senators to forego their rights, as the Minister of Defence has done, in the interests of public business, but it is another thing to affirm that those rights do not exist. I cordially join with the Minister in asking honorable senators to assist in putting the Bill through, the main questions having Deen decided last night. But I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that our rights are to be curtailed by any precedent which may be established by the decision which you have given.
– I dare say, sir, that I would have finished my remarks on the matter long ago if the Minister of Defence had not raised his point of order. As you are aware, I rose to reply to a personal attack by Senator Lynch on the senators for Queensland - an attack in which he said that we object to the building of a railway which is to be used for defence purposes. The Minister of Defence did not object to that attack being made upon me, and, naturally, at the first opportunity I had I proceeded to reply to it.
– You said that I never cast a vote to benefit other States.
– I proceeded to reply to the attack, and to show what had been done by Queensland incidentally. But immediately I began Senator Pearce wanted to know if I was in order. I submit, sir, that if there is to be any discussion in Committee at all, this is the only clause on which T can raise the question of defence. Both last night and previously the Minister urged that this railway is to be built by the other States for the purpose of defending Western Australia. All that I proposed to do was to read from Lord Kitchener’s speech a paragraph dealing with railways, but you immediately stopped me. The paragraph contains only six lines, and if you had allowed me to proceed the whole thing would have been done with. Last night the Minister had a chance to close the debate on the second reading, and he was as severe as he possibly could be on the opponents of this measure. Surely, sir, there is a time when we can reply to the references which he men made to the subject of defence. My objection to this measure is not confined to the defence point of view. We are asked to pay for the construction of the line, and we are told that its construction was recommended by Lord Kitchener for defence purposes. I propose to read a short paragraph, so that the Committee may know what he did say -
I would also mention that railway construction has, while developing the country, resulted in lines that would appear to be more favorable to an enemy invading Australia than to the defence of the country.
We think that that remark applies to this railway.
Different gauges in most of the States . isolate each system, and the want of systematic interior connexion makes the present lines running inland of little use for defence, though possibly of considerable value to an enemy who would have temporary command of the sea.
– You are treating the Chairman’s ruling with contempt. Go ahead.
– I am not doing any such tiling.
– Order ! I am following the discussion. I will pull up the honorable senator when I think that he is transgressing the rules of debate. I resent the interjection of the Minister of Defence.
– I want to show that our reason for opposing the building of this railway is that it has never been recommended by any military authority. The Minister of Defence has military authorites at his service here, but he has never quoted one of them to prove that the railway is essential for that purpose. On the contrary, he has tried to put the blame upon a man who was not in the country, and has not prepared a report since the trial survey was made. I am opposed to the clause because it is contingent upon an Act of Parliament being passed by Western Australia. I shall keep closely to the clause, sir, and I hope that I shall not infringe the rules any more. In Western Australia, no Act has been passed consenting to legislation by the Common wealth Parliament with respect to the construction of the portion of the railway included in that State. Yet this clause takes power to the Commonwealth Government to build a railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie before the Governments of the two States concerned have attempted to pass Acts of the kind therein referred to. It is proposed to give the Minister power to build the railway, and to be the sole judge as to the terms laid down by the State Parliaments. I object to that. I protest against any Minister or Ministry being invested with such great power. It was intended under the Constitution that whenever it was proposed to spend £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 on a public work, the Parliament should know definitely the grounds on which the proposal was based. It was never the intention that the power to spend should rest solely in a Minister. Never before has such a large .power been asked for by a Minister in a British country. No Minister in these States, or, indeed, in any British Possession, has ever applied to Parliament for the power which the Minister of Defence now seeks. Of course, it suits the senators for Western Australia to pass the clause. I. suppose that if I represented that State I might hold similar views.
– You have been flogging these two States, and now you start to defend them
– I have not been flogging those States or their representatives. I am flogging only the Ministry, and those who support a Bill of this description. In my second-reading speech, I gave those honorable senators all the credit which I could possibly give them. In this clause there is not a word indicating what the Minister expects to get from the States concerned in the matter of a land grant. Is the Committee, in its sober senses, to give the Minister power to take either 3 chains or 6 chains of land along the route? Surely it is the duty of Parliament itself to say what area is required for the purposes of the line. Surely it is not the function of Parliament to leave the determination of that question solely to the Ministry ! When I see a provision of this kind in the Bill, I want to know why Parliament exists at ali This skeleton clause does not reserve to the Parliament an opportunity of saying whether or not it is satisfied with1 the terms arranged for by the Minister. We are asked to leave practically, everything in the hands of the Minister. We have no guarantee that the States interested will pass Bills dealing with the matter; and, if we are to judge by what we see in the press, the South Australian Government have no intention to pass such a measure this year. There is, therefore, no occasion to rush this proposal through the Senate. I 3o not agree with Senator Walker’s amendment, because it proposes a reservation in alternate blocks, and I think that the land right along the line should be reserved. But if we can get no better proposal from the Government, I must vote for the amendment, in order that there may be some guarantee that the money expended on this railway will be returned to ‘the Commonwealth, and that the other States will get a share of the unearned increment created by the construction of the line.
– I cannot support the amendment, because I do not believe in the land-grant principle as applied to railway construction, and because, if it is agreed to, it will absolutely wreck the Bill.
– Why? Are the States of South Australia and Western Australia not prepared to do a fair thing?
– It is a question as to what is a fair thing.
– Did not Senator Vardon try to wreck the Bill last night by voting for Senator Millen’s amendment?
– No, I should not be such a fool. I do not believe that Western Australia and South Australia would pass legislation allowing as much as 66, 000, 000 acres of land to pass from their control into the hands of the Commonwealth.
– The object of the amendment is to wreck the Bill.
– I do not think so. The honorable senator has no right to assume that Senator Walker desires to wreck the Bill.
– It is a very poor return to a man who has supported this railway throughout.
– I do not question Senator Walker’s sincerity, and I do not accuse him of any sinister purpose in submitting his amendment. I believe, however, that, if the amendment were carried, it would mean the wrecking of the Bill, and I have no desire to wreck it. In dealing with my vote on Senator Millen’s amendment, the Minister of Defence sug gested that I was pursuing a kind of YesNo policy ; but I remind honorable senators that I said in my second- reading speech on the measure that I was prepared to honour the promise made to Western Australia.
– By whom?
– By politicians of South Australia especially. Mr. Kingston and Sir Frederick Holder, and others, did give an assurance to Western Australia, thai, if she entered the Federation, she would get this railway.
– They spoke for themselves.
– No; they were speaking in a representative capacity ; and that is why I said I was prepared to honour their promise by voting for the construction of .this railway. But that should not debar me from seeking information, and suggesting the adoption of safeguards. Senator Millen’s amendment was moved, not for the purpose of wrecking the Bill, but for the very legitimate purpose of seeking further information with regard to matters affecting the proposal. It also laid down a principle which might very well be adopted .in connexion with railway construction by the Commonwealth. If that amendment had been carried, the passing of this Bill might have been delayed for seven or eight months.
– Seven or eight years.
– No. The information might have been secured, and, as we shall probably meet very early next year, the measure could then have been brought forward as the first measure to be considered in the new session; and I believe that there would have been no opposition shown to it by anybody.
– The information gathered might not suit the honorable senator.
– It should enable honorable senators to make up their minds as to the best route for the railway. The amendment was not moved with any intention to deny to Western Australia this means of communication with the eastern States. I am sorry that it was not agreed to, as, in my opinion, it would have been better for Western Australia, and for the proposed railway, if that amendment had been carried. «
– That amendment has been disposed of. There is another amendment before the Committee.
– There is some similarity between Senator Walker’s amendment and that moved by Senator Millen. We appear now to be in a very uncertain position. The Minister of Defence says, “I am going to ask the two States specially interested to give us more land. At present we have an offer of 3 chains on either side of the line. I am going to ask for half-a-mile on each side of the line.” But the honorable senator does not say that if Western Australia and South Australia will not grant half a mile on each side of the line, the Government will not go on with the work. They will be in the position of being able to come back and say, “ All the States would give us was a strip 3 chains wide on each side of the line, and we have had to accept that.” I think they should be prepared to take up a stronger position.
– The Bill provides for the ceding to the Commonwealth of all the land that is necessary.
– Will Senator Story say what land is necessary?
– The Government officers will know.
– The matter is not in the hands of the officers of the Government. The honorable senator should read the Bill which he has supported.
– It is in the hands of the Department. Until the States concede a sufficient area of land, the Government will not go on with the line.
– What is sufficient? The clause speaks of the grant of as much land as the Minister may consider necessary, and, apparently, the Senate is not to have any say in the matter at all.
– What would be sufficient in the opinion of the honorable senator?
– I am willing to accept a strip of land half-a-mile wide on each side of the line.
– The Minister says that that is a fair thing.
– Yes; but he does not say that he will stand out for it, and that is the very point I am making.He says that he believes we should have halfamile on each side of the line; but he does not say that he will not accept 3 chains.
– He will not be satisfied until he gets half-a-mile on each side of the line.
– Very well, let us put that in the Bill. Let us, instead of saying, “ Such portions of the Crown lands of the State as are, in the opinion of the Minister, necessary for the purposes of the construction, maintenance, and working of the railway,” say, “ A strip of land halfamile wide on either side of the line.” If the Minister will propose such an amendment as that, I shall vote for it.
– Put anything into the Bill that will make it more difficult to offer terms.
– Here we have an admission straight-away, that the Minister is not going to stand by the very condition which he himself thinks should be laid down.
– Why not sit alongside Senator Stewart, and oppose the Bill tooth and nail ?
– We have had these gibes from honorable senators from Western Australia all through. They attribute to every criticism a desire to wreck the Bill. I cannot help what these honorable senators think. I am here to do what I believe to be best in the interests of the Commonwealth, and I am not here to be dictated to by honorable senators from Western Australia. I think that we ought to state in this Bill the area of land we require, and the minimum reservation that will satisfy us. The South Australian Parliament will not, I believe, pass any Bill dealing with this matter this session; and so it would not hurt if this Bill were postponed for a time.
– Then the honorable senator knows better than the Premier of South Australia, who says that they will pass a Bill this session.
– I have heard that the Premier of Western Australia has said so; but I have not heard that the Premier of South Australia said so.
– The honorable senator heard the paragraph I read from the Adelaide Advertiser and the Argus.
– I understand that a wire was received from Mr. Scaddan, the Premier of Western Australia; but the Minister of Defence would not himself accept a newspaper paragraph as a sufficient authority.
– I would as soon accept it as a statement from the honorable senator, unsupported by any proof.
– Yesterday the Minister read a newspaper paragraph to showhow unreliable newspaper comments are. .
– The Minister of Defence tol’d us that in his reply to the second-reading debate he would give us all sorts of information as to how the line would be constructed, whether by contract or day labour, and, if by day labour, whether the engineer would be given a free hand in carrying out the work. But he never said a word about these things in his speech in reply, and the questions asked on these subjects have not been answered yet. I shall not support Senator Walker’s amendment for the reasons I have given; but I do think that we ought to state in this clause the minimum area of land we are prepared to accept. I believe that if we included in this Bill a condition that the States should grant a strip half-a-mile wide on either side of the line, they would do it. If the matter is left to them, they may pass legislation to give us only 3 chains if they like. If the Minister of Defence is sincere in his statement that he thinks we should have a strip half-a-mile wide on each side of the line, he will put that into the Bill, and South Australia and Western Australia would then know that if that were not considered the line would not be constructed.
– A strip half-a-mile wide on each side of the line might, not be sufficient on some parts of the line.
– That objection could be easily overcome by using the phrase, “not less than half-a-mile.”
– At present it is left to the discretion of the Minister to insist upon more than half-a-mile where he thinks that would be insufficient.
– But it is also left to the discretion of the Minister to take 3 chains if he cannot get any more ; and I believe he would take 3 chains sooner than lose the railway.
– I think that South Australia can be trusted.
– I am not questioning the good faith of South Australia; but if this matter is not definitely provided for in the Bill, the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia will be in a position to do what they like in the matter. I believe it would be better, for all purposes, to state in this clause, instead of the words “ such portion of Crown lands,” the words “ not less than half-a-mile on either side of the line.” I believe, if that provision were included in the Bill, the Minister would get what he desires from both States, and there would be no dilly-dallying about the matter.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.
– Ordinarily I should be found in hearty accord with Senator Walker’s amendment, because I believe that a very good principle lies at the back of it. That is, that when the general taxpayers provide money for a great enterprise such, as this, they should reap some of the added value given to the land, and some of the advantage accruing from the laying out of that money. It is a principle with which the party to which I belong has been associated ever since we have had a separate existence as a party. But the present circumstances are not ordinary. They are extraordinary. Would the acquisition of this land be of advantage to the Commonwealth? On the contrary, would not the acquisition of it add to the responsibilities of those who are spending the money ? Examining the question in the light of such information as is at our disposal, I am driven to the conclusion that, instead of it being an advantage to the Commonwealth to get this land, it would be a serious disadvantage and an added responsibility. I must oppose Senator Walker’s amendment for that reason. If it were carried, what would the effect be? We should become possessed of an enormous quantity of land. The representatives of South Australia and Western Australia would then continually clamour for this Parliament to undertake huge expenditure to develop that land. Consequently the Commonwealth, instead of being saddled with the responsibility of an expenditure of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, with an annual deficit of from £80,000 to £100,000, would possibly be required to spend another million or two every year.
– We should want another Department to look after the land if we got it.
– That difficulty does not concern me seriously, because the Commonwealth is already in possession of a large quantity of land, and we must necessarily provide machinery foi managing and developing it. If we acquired additional land along the route of this railway, it would not be a very serious added disadvantage to manage it also. But my great objection is that the land, instead of being a sort of recoupment, would be an additional burden. 1 wish to dissociate myself from the idea that we must spend millions in settling people upon the poor lands of
Australia. As long as we have thousands and thousands of acres of good land in Australia - perhaps the best and most productive soil in the world - it seems to me to be a suicidal policy to howl about developing the poorer lands. Let us develop those enterprises which will give us a return of 50 per cent., rather than those which will involve us in a loss of 50 per cent. every year. Until we find that there is a shortage of good land upon which to settle people we ought not to bother about settling them on poorer areas. Heaven knows, the unfortunate pioneer settler has difficulties enough to contend with, without our manufacturing more for him; and, while we allow, with the one hand, the bowelless corporation and the soulless land-grabber to monopolize thousands of acres of the best land in. this country, it is foolish to talk about forcing settlers on to the poorer land. That is a policy of which I can never approve.
– Iask Senator Walker to withdraw his amendment temporarily, in order that I may move a prior one.
– I have no objection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
– I move-
That the following words be added : - “ Such grant not being less along the line of route than forty chains on each side thereof, except within 15 miles of the terminal points.”
I hope that the Government will accept this amendment, the object of which is to insure that the States of Western Australia and South Australia shall grant a sufficient area to the Commonwealth””. I have stated my reasons previously. If some such amendment is not made, the States will probably drive as hard a bargain with the Government as they can. They may close the Minister up so closely that he will be content to accept the 3 chains mentioned in regard to the Western Australian proposal.
– The Federal Government may drive as hard a bargain.
– Then the whole proposition may be hung up. I do not want that.
– I hope that the Committee will not accept this amendment. The Government are now in negotiation with both the State Governments concerned, and we are desirous of obtaining such conditions that the Commonwealth will not be hampered in any way in constructing the railway and running it afterwards. I ask the Committee to trust the
Government in this regard. I think we can be relied upon, with the advice of our engineers, to take such steps as will fully safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth.
– There will be a repetition of the Jervis Bay business.
– I do not know that this Government has done anything in regard to Jervis Bay that it has reason to be ashamed of.
– The only thing is that the honorable senator, when he was in Opposition, insisted on the same principle in regard to Jervis Bay as Senator Vardon wishes to insist on in regard to the railway.
– That was quite a different matter; and the Government has since taken action to get the area of land at Jervis Bay that I then said was necessary. If the Committee reject this amendment, it does not mean that the Government will not try to get the land that Senator Vardon has in view, or will not get it.
– Why should not the Government fortify themselves with the opinion of the Senate?
– The Government is sufficiently fortified inits position. Moreover, we have the knowledge that Western Australia is very anxious that this line shall be constructed. No Government in that State dare impose such conditions on the Commonwealth as will lead to delay. As to South Australia, I have no reason to believe that she will be less generous in her treatment of the Commonwealth than Western Australia. Why should we put this hard-and-fast amendment in the Bill, when the Government can be trusted to do the right thing ?
– I interjected this morning that Senator Walker’s amendment was moved with the object of wrecking the Bill. I desire to state that I am perfectly certain that Senator Walker would not move an amendment for any other reason than that of carrying out the object which his proposal expressed. Every member of the Senate recognises the transparent honesty of the honorable senator. But I do say that some members of the Opposition who are supporting the amendment are not actuated by the motives which have influenced the mover.
– All comparisons are odious.
– Members of the Opposition are supporting this amendment with the object, if not of wrecking, at any rate of delaying the Bill as long as they can. When I see Senator Millen supporting a proposal for securing the unearned increment, as it is sometimes called, I am reminded that not very long ago, when we were dealing with another question, and some of us desired to secure to the Commonwealth Government a part of the unearned increment that would accrue from the establishment of the Federal Capital in New South Wales, Senator Millen resisted the attempt. He did not then desire that the Commonwealth should obtain a share of the added value that would be given to New South Wales lands by the establishment of the Federal Capital in that State. When the territory running down to Jervis Bay was granted to the Commonwealth, the “grant was designed with the object of securing that as much as possible of the increased value should be retained outside the Federal Territory. Two narrow strips were marked in such a shape that the area was likened to a pair of breeches. The object evidently was to increase enormously the value of State lands.
– The late Government brought clown an alternative proposition to that.
– Senator Millen was the principal representative of the Government in the Senate when that measure was forced through. Not only did he endeavour to secure the increased land value to the State of New South Wales, but he insisted on retaining the increased water-values for that State, because New South Wales refused to allow the Commonwealth to get to low - water mark at Jervis Bay, insisting that our territory should stop at high-water mark. The honorable senators who supported him then are to-day crying out that the Commonwealth should get the increased value which they took no steps to secure to the Commonwealth then. I merely rose to point out the hollowness of the professions of Senator Millen and Senator Sayers, who are to-day practically advocating the singletax, simply because it suits them to delay the passing of this Bill. Senator Vardon’s amendment is intended to accomplish the same object. In the interests of his State he desires the measure to become law, but as a member of the Opposition he feels impelled to throw every possible obstacle in its way. That is the reason why the discussion of a single clause has occupied the whole morning. Senator Vardon has now submitted an amendment, and avows that he has done so with the object of assisting the Government. I claim that I have assisted the Ministry to get the Bill through by abstaining from repeating arguments which have been advanced time and again.
– The honorable senator is endeavouring to provoke discussion.
– No. I merely rose because I felt impelled to qualify the statement which I made in reference to Senator Walker. But I feel sure that most honorable senators opposite are not actuated by the same motives as is that honorable senator.
– Honorable senators upon this side of the chamber, with a desire to expedite public business, had resolved to curtail their remarks this afternoon as much as possible. Our object was to assist the Government to carry this Bill to a conclusion, a division having taken place upon a vital amendment. But if we are to be treated to exhibitions of bombast and hypocrisy by those who have been chiefly conspicuous by their absence from the chamber while the Bill has been under consideration, this debate is not likely to terminate as speedily as we wish it to terminate. To ask us to remain silent while we are made the subject of electioneering attacks and of open misrepresentation, is to ask too much of human nature. We are prepared to help the Government to carry this Bill through.
– We can carry it through without the honorable senator.
– I have made a very fair intimation to honorable senators who support the measure.
– And a very reasonable one.
– If we are prepared to curtail our remarks in order to assist the Government to pass the Bill, we should at least -be relieved from exhibitions such as that in which Senator Story has indulged.
– It is because my remarks were true that the honorable senator did not like them.
– If Senator Story persists in his attitude it will be incumbent upon us to show the absolute falsity of his statements. But I do not wish to do that. If the honorable senator is as anxious to secure the passing of the Bill as he professes to be, he will cease from criticism- of that character. I wish now to suggest one reason why the Minister ought to recognise the necessity for standing firm, in his demand for a strip of country on either side of the proposed railway. It is obvious that if the country through which it will pass is to be occupied at all, it will be occupied by pastoralists. Now, it is impossible to have trucking stations every mile or so along this railway, and, therefore, it is necessary to reserve to the Commonwealth half-a-mile on either side of it, to enable stock to travel to the nearest trucking station. For that reason, I trust that, if the Minister will not accept the amendment, he will be adamant when dealing with the States in insisting that the condition which the amendment seeks to impose shall be complied with.
– I wish to make an appeal to honorable senators upon both sides of the chamber. The time of the session is so short that I think we ought to deal only with the merits of the amendment before the Chair, and to take a division upon it. I have no desire to add fuel to the fire, and I do hope that honorable senators will make their remarks as brief as possible.
– I do not intend to submit silently to the insulting insinuations of Senator Story. I venture to say that I am present in the chamber attending to the business of the country quite as long as he is. As a matter of fact, I am present ten times longer.
– That is not true.
– I will guarantee that if a record were kept of the time I spend in the Senate, while the honorable senator is in other parts of the parliamentary buildings, my statement would be found to be correct.
– Senator Story coupled my name with that of Senator Millen, and declared that I was not sincere.
– The honorable senator does not like the truth.
– I am not going to allow the honorable senator’s statement to pass without contradiction. I have been present throughout the discussion of this Bill, and at the request of the Leader of the Opposition I had intended to curtail my remarks this afternoon as much as possible. But Senator Story has chosen to drag into this debate a subject which is not now under consideration - I refer to the projected railway from the Federal Capital site to Jervis Bay. I give the statement which he made in that connexion, so far as he applied it to myself, an unqualified denial.
– One would have thought that the Go vernment would have been glad of an expression of opinion by the Committee upon a matter of such importance as that which is now under consideration. But it appears to me that they treat honorable senators with contempt. On several occasions the Minister df Defence has spoken contemptuously of politicians. Probably he knows as much about politicians as does any man in the Senate, and perhaps he speaks with authority. But we are responsible to the country for the Government and for the proposed railway. I think, if those who are supporting the Government realize their duty to the community, they will place upon record their opinion in regard to the area of land which ought to be secured by the Commonwealth. They will say to the Ministry, “ This is what we want you to get from the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia.”
– It would strengthen their hands in negotiating with the State Governments.
– That is my contention. But the Government do not seem to be like Moses. They do not want anybody to hold up their hands. They wish to enter into negotiations with the Governments of South Australia and Western Australia absolutely unfettered. They wishto be free to knuckle down to the extortionate demands of those Governments. The Western Australian Government has already shown its hand. It has offered us 3 chains of land along the route of» the proposed line. Does anybody imagine that the Commonwealth, when it enters into negotiations with that Government, will get any more than that? The Government of Western Australia knows perfectly well that the Commonwealth Government are anxious and eager to build this railway. I do not know why. They seem to be tumbling over themselves in their anxiety to embark upon an expenditure of £5,000,000, without any regard to what the consequences may be.Not only that, but they refuse to be assisted by the members of the Senate. Of course*, that is the fault of honorable senators themselves. If the Government choose to insult them by declining their advice, and if they are willing to take their gruel lying down, that is their affair. But it appears to me that we have a responsibility in regard to this railway greater than that of any Government, and I say that we are abandoning our responsibility by refusing to tie the hands of the Government in any shape or form. We ought to say what we think should be done.
– The honorable senator wishes to kill the Bill.
– But I cannot kill the Bill ; and, that being so, I desire to make it as good a measure as possible. I think that every honorable senator is agreed that half-a-mile of country on either side of the railway ought to be reserved to the Commonwealth. The Leader of the Opposition, in putting forward that claim, has used an argument which is incontrovertible. If we believe his statement to be true, why should we not put it on record?
– Because we do not believe it to be true. The idea of reserving half-a-mile for a roadway.
– The honorable senator knows nothing whatever about Australia. He comes here and talks in the wildest and most ridiculous fashion. The engineers have recommended the reservation of half-a-mile on either side of the proposed line, and yet the Government of Western Australia has offered us 3 chains. I believe that, unless something is inserted in the Bill to tie the hands of the Government in this matter, the latter will agree to the reservation of the 3 chains.
– Why does the honorable senator worry about a stock route?
– I am worrying about the expenditure of the country’s money, and about securing the construction of this line upon good conditions. But the honorable senator only worries about getting £5,000,000 expended in South Australia and Western Australia, and Senator Long is worrying about nothing but that Tasmania shall get her whack of what is to be cut up. I ask honorable senators to take a serious view of the position. Are they going to shirk their responsibility to the country? Here we are entering upon a new and untried policy. We are asked to spend £5,000,000 in a country about which nobody knows very much. It may turn out to be extremely fertile, or worth nothing, or something between the two. Nobody knows what it is. Being in that state of ignorance, honorable senators ought as representatives of the Commonwealth, to take their full share of the responsibility, and not to leave it to any Government, however worthy of confidence it may be. I do not suggest that the present Government is not worthy of confidence. But I would not trust any Government in a matter of this kind. I do not think that a Government ought to ask to be trusted. What the Government ought to do is to come down and say, “What do you want done? What do youthink is fair? We are here as your representatives to act.” Instead of doing that they say, “ Give us a blank cheque. You have nothing to do with the matter except to see us through, whether we make a mistake or not.” I refuse to accept the position into which the Government tries to thrust the members of the Committee. Every honorable senator has a responsibility to the country, and he ought to stand up to it. He should not try to shirk his duty. He should accept his responsibility in a manly fashion, and do his duty to the country in the way in which it ought to be done.
Question - That the words proposed to be added, be added (Senator Vardon’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 15
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
– I move -
That the following new sub-clause be added : - (3.) In order to, in time, partially recoup the Commonwealth for the capital expenditure involved in the construction of the railway, it shall be a further condition, precedent to the work being entered upon, that the States of South Australia and Western Australia respectively shall reserve from sale and vest in the Commonwealth all the Crown lands in alternate sections of ten miles square on both sides of the line as ultimately adopted (exclusive of the reservations required under the previous subsection) along its whole length throughout the territories of the respective States. Provided that land shall not be so granted within fifteen miles of the terminal points of the line.
In re-submitting this amendment I have only a few words to say. Right through, I have looked upon this Bill as being above party. It is not a party measure at all. I have always been an advocate of this project, and equally have I always been an advocate that, if possible, the railway should be built on the land-grant principle. I think that my honorable friends opposite will credit me with sincerity in that respect. Last night, the Minister of Defence gave a glowing account of the future prospects of the land to be traversed by the railway.- It seems to me that in the circumstances, I was quite justified in hoping that some of the land would be available for part payment of the cost of construction, as we have received an offer to build the line, and take land in part payment. There was no intention to keep the land for an indefinite time. Senator Lynch has made some remarks with regard to the principle of my amendment being applicable to the Jervis Bay railway. That point has been taken up by Senator Millen and others, and I think that Senator Lynch will see that the cases are not parallel. Senator Millen, of course, had his own views, and said that he was not going to vote with me. That is a proof that we on this side have a certain amount of independence. We are not working necessarily as one party in this matter. Senator Stewart and I have frequently been in a minority of two or three. Sometimes persons wonder how it is that we are found voting together. I have a distinct recollection that in the first session of this Parliament, Senator Stewart and I were once in a minority of two, and that when Senator O’Connor asked what new party it was, we replied that it was the party of fair play. I was very much obliged to Senator Gould for laying emphasis on the advantages of the land grant railways in Canada and the United States of America. With all due deference to honorable senators, it is not an unwise proposal that part of the cost of this railway should come out of the land to be benefited by its construction. I do not intend to delay the Committee, because I wish to assist the Government to get the Bill put through. I hope that, whatever the result of the division may be, there will be no delay in the railway becoming an accomplished fact. I give Senator Givens credit for being actuated by high motives in the position which he is taking up ; although I must admit that I had hopes that when I got his friend Senator Stewart on my side, I might get himself too.
. - I regret very much that the Minister is not only opposing this amendment, but is opposing an attempt on the part of the Senate to get for the Commonwealth Government, or for the people of Australia, any portion of the community-created increment, which will arise in consequence of die construction of this railway. The people of Australia are asked to spend £5,000,000 to build a railway through a portion of it. The Labour party has always maintained that, wherever values were increased by the expenditure of public money, the increases in such values were the property of the people as a whole, and not the property of any section of the people. In this Bill, we are dealing with Australian money to be spent in two portions of Australia. Undoubtedly, I think, if the statements of the advocates of the Bill are true, very large increases in values will take place by reason of the construction of the railway.
– You said that it is a sandy desert.
– The Committee has accepted the statements of the Minister who introduced the Bill, and honorable senators who have spoken in support of it, and, that being the case, I am bound to proceed on the assumption that they are correct.
– If there is a value to be created by the construction of the railway, the Commonwealth is entitled to a share of that value, and if there is no value to be created the States concerned cannot offer any objection.
– That is quite true. We have heard a number of curious arguments. No doubt, honorable senators felt that they were up against rather a difficult position, and they tried to jump the fence in the best way they could, some of them in more or less ungainly fashion. The Minister of Defence said that it would be exceedingly improper for the Commonwealth to compel Western Australia and South Australia to pay for the building of this line through their own territories. Nobody has asked them to do so. I do not admit for a moment that Senator Walker’s amendment is a perfect proposal, but it does not ask any more than that the Commonwealth shall get one-half of ‘the communitycreated value caused by the construction of this line. The honorable senator proposes that the States specially interested shall get the other half, and that in respect of the country within 15 miles of the terminal stations they should get the whole of it. Senator Gardiner was especially severe in dealing with me. He asked how, believing as I do that the Commonwealth should get the whole of the communitycreated value, I could bring myself to vote for Senator Walker’s proposal. I did not tell the honorable senator that I would vote for Senator Walker’s proposal, but even if I do so I shall occupy a more consistent position than that which Senator Gardiner will occupy if he votes against it. The honorable senator upbraids me for taking 10s when I cannot get 20s. in the £1. We have had the objection that if the Commonwealth takes over these lands it will be only adding to its difficulties. Let us suppose that the Commonwealth does not take them over, and what will be the position? I am assuming now for the sake of this argument that what honorable senators supporting the proposal have said about the country through, which this line will pass is true. We have been told that it will be settled, and one honorable senator - I believe it was Senator Lynch - talked of a population of 15,000,000. He pointed out that arid districts of America, with a rainfall no better than that of this country, now carry a. population of 15,000,000. We can only tell what will happen upon the construction of this line by considering the results of similar enterprises in the past. We have found invariably that when a railway is built through new country the leasing and selling values of land are increased. Upon the construction of this line, if this country is any good at all, Western Australia and South Australia, instead of getting a few shillings per square mile for it, may be able to get £2 or £3 per square mile. If they decide to sell the land, they may, instead of getting 2s. 6d. per acre for it, get as much as 5s. or ros. per acre. I repeat that if the land values of this country are increased to such a degree by the building of this railway, the Commonwealth is entitled to a share of that increase. Senator Gardiner told us that the Commonwealth should get its share by means of the Commonwealth land tax. But he forgets that it can get that anywhere throughout Australia, and from districts in which not a single penny of Commonwealth money has been spent. Though 1 do not approve of Senator Walker’s amendment, I feel constrained to vote for it as being the best thing in sight. The Government will do nothing, and I know that no honorable senator on this side would support me in my idea as to what should be done.. In the circumstances, I feel that I must take the best terms I can get. I do not foresee any of the difficulties which some honorable senators have indicated may arise if the Commonwealth should own alternate blocks along this line of railway. Every one who has studied the subject knows that the system of railway building adopted in Canada has had most excellent results. The Canadian-Pacific Railway Company obtained alternate blocks of land from the Canadian Government for the construction of their railway. The company was exceedingly anxious for traffic, and got rid of its lands as quickly as possible by settling people upon them. I think that all that has been done in Canada might have been done without the disadvantages attaching to private railways; but we are told that there is always a soul of good even in things evil, and the system adopted in Canada has Vorked well. The Canadian-Pacific Railway Company sold their lands for large sums, and similarly the Commonwealth could sell or lease lands acquired under Senator Walker’s amendment, and the money so obtained could be paid into the Commonwealth Treasury. The Commonwealth could afterwards come along with its land value tax, as it has already done in the case of lands alienated by the States. Senator Walker is, in my opinion, exceedingly moderate in his demands. I would have preferred to go a great deal further, but I could not get any support. I am therefore compelled to take what he offers. I have no hope that the honorable senator’s amendment will be carried, but I think it is a calamity that after all the discussion we have had up and down the continent of Australia on this question of community-created values, the betterment principle, and all the rest of it, now that the Commonwealth Government have an opportunity to give an object lesson in that kind of legislation, they deliberately abandon the principle. People will say, “ These men are good at preaching, but they do not practice when they have the opportunity.” Others will say, “ The Labour party is a house divided against itself. They do not know what their policy is; they are nothing but a lot of children crying for the moon.” I think that the Commonwealth will be injured by this failure on the part, not of the Government, but of the Federal Parliament - because it is the Parliament that will be primarily responsible - to take advantage of this opportunity to secure for the Commonwealth community-created values, brought about by Commonwealth expenditure. There will be a feeling of disgust in the minds of many people in Australia that this opportunity to place a great principle on the statute-book of the Commonwealth is not taken advantage of. Honorable senators supporting the Bill have twitted members of the Opposition with the fact that they objected to the proposal to secure for the Commonwealth community-created values in the Federal Territory. All I have to say on that point is that the position before us is a remarkably strange one. On the Opposition side we have honorable senators who a few months ago were opposed to the idea of the Commonwealth securing communitycreated values in the Federal Territory.
-There is no justification for that statement.
– Perhaps it is not true, but assuming that it is, the members of the Opposition in the Senate are now converts to that principle, while on the Government side we have honorable senators, who a few months ago were loud in their protestations that the Commonwealth should keep these community-created values, now opposed to that idea. On the one hand we have converts, and on the other, I do not know what we have.
– Renegades.
– I would not put it that way. Honorable senators are free for my part to find the word which should be applied to them. I never object to converts. I am glad to see members of the Opposition in the Senate coming round to the adoption of a common-sense policy at last. But I am exceedingly sorry to see honorable senators supporting the Government going in the other direction. Here we have the ordinary idea of parliamentary opposition run mad. If the Government proposes one thing the Opposition are against it, and if the Opposition propose something the supporters of the Government are against that. It would appear that everybody in the Senate is for the party, and nobody is for the country.
– Excepting Senator Stewart.
– I try to keep the balance as even as I can. It will be admitted that I am often, I will not say in opposition to, but out of harmony with, the members of my own party.
– How does the honorable senator feel himself?
– I feel quite happy, and that I have done my duty according to my lights.
– There is a good deal of that kind of feeling in this chamber.
– Very well, I have it, and I think I have got the right sow by the lug this time, too. I do not like to see such an opportunity as is now presented to us to get money for the Commonwealth slip by. Senator Gardiner has said that he does not wish to see any more money coming into the coffers of the Commonwealth. Neither do I, if it is to come through the Customs. That is another reason why we should take advantage of this opportunity to secure more of the value created by Commonwealth expenditure - that we may be in a position to reduce Customs duties. That is a reason which should appeal to every member of the Senate, especially on the Government side, where every individual is pledged to direct, as opposed to indirect, taxation. Here is a chance offered to get more revenue in a perfectly legitimate fashion, and supporters of the Government refuse to take advantage of it. In the absence of anything better I shall vote for Senator Walker’s amendment.
Question - That the new sub-clause proposed to be added be added (Senator Walker’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 6
NOES: 18
Majority … … 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
– I move -
That the following new sub-clause be added : - (3.) A minimum wage of 12s. per day of eight hours shall be paid to the workers engaged in the construction of the railway.
I think that this sub-clause ought to be inserted in the Bill. It is a proposal with which every honorable senator should be in sympathy.
– Twelve shillings per day is not up to the Western Australian wage standard.
– The honorable senator can move a higher figure. I do not object.
– The honorable senator wants to cut the Western Australian wages down.
– In any case, 1 submit the amendment.
.- I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment. Many tradesmen will be employed in connexion with the construction of the line, and the sum mentioned in the amendment is 3s. per day below a tradesman’s wages in the town of Kalgoorlie. That shows how impossible it is to fix a wage that is fair to all classes of workmen who may be employed on the line. A similar attempt was made in another place, and was practically laughed out of court. There cannot be the slightest doubt that, whatever Government may carry out this line, the workmen will be protected. There is an Arbitration Court in Western Australia, and, moreover, as this will be a Federal undertaking, the men will be able to appeal to the Federal Arbitration Court if necessary.
– I rise to order. I submit that Senator Stewart’s amendment is not within the scope of the Bill.
– The Minister ought to have raised that point, not a private senator.
– I am not aware that it is the particular duty of any one to see that proposals are within the Standing Orders. The Bill says nothing with regard to such details as wages. It does not even provide whether the railway shall be constructed by day labour.
– Nor does the amendment say that.
– The Bill provides no details regarding railway construction. I do not see how the amendment can be in order.
– The clause with which’ Senator Stewart’s amendment deals has relation to the construction of the line. As this Parliament ‘ is going to give the Government authority to undertake the construction, it has a perfect right to dictate the terms on which it shall be constructed. Parliament has a right to say whether the line shall be built by day labour or on the contract system. If the Chairman were to give a ruling adverse to Senator Stewart’s amendment, it would tie our hands, and place us entirely at the mercy of the Government of the day.
– I rule that the amendment is in order. The point may seem to some honorable senators to be somewhat doubtful ; but I may remind the Committee that, when a somewhat similar Bill to this was under discussion a few years ago, an exactly analogous provision was proposed regarding a minimum wage. It will also be observed that, further on in this Bill, powers of a wide character are given to the Minister. I take it that the fixing of a minimum wage will be one of the conditions regarding the construction of the line as to which powers are given to the Minister.
– The Minister of Defence says that the effect of my amendment would be to reduce wages, and he pointed out that, in Kalgoorlie, tradesmen are getting 3s. per day more than I provide for. But the amendment speaks of a “minimum.” It is not a maximum.
– The honorable senator is cutting down the minimum by 2s. per day.
– If the minimum in Western Australia is 14s. per day, the honorable senator can move a further amendment.
– Why should Senator Stewart, above all others, want to cut down wages?
– I do not.
– That is what the honorable senator is doing here.
– How is that?
– Because the rate mentioned is below the general rate of wages in Western Australia.
– Senator Stewart can get over that difficulty by amending his amendment.
– The honorable senator is trying to fix upon me a charge of cutting down wages, whereas what is really in his mind is that the Government should not have its hands tied.
– The effect of the amendment will be to reduce wages in Western Australia.
– How can that be? My amendment provides that nothing less than 12s. per day shall be paid.
– But more is being paid.
– How much more ?
– At least 2s. a day.
– Fourteen shillings a day for navvies?
– Other workmen than navvies will be wanted on this line.
– I am proposing a minimum for unskilled labour. If I have made a mistake as to the amount, I ask leave to amend my amendment by making the minimum 14s. per day.
Amendment amended accordingly.
– I did not propose to say anything on this amendment until I heard the remarks of some honorable senators on my own side of the Chamber. They reminded me of the time when the party to which I belong was sitting in Opposition, and used to move similar amendments on similar Bills. . We had to face exactly the same sort of remarks that we now hear from Labour men on this side. . We used to be met with howls of disapproval” from hide-bound Tories regarding any proposition fixing a minimum wage. While we have a Labour Government in power, we can trust them to pay proper wages. But we have no guarantee that we shall have a Labour Government in power in the Commonwealth, or in the two States in which this line will be built, during the whole of the time when it is in course of construction. We have no guarantee that the Arbitration Act now in operation in . Western Australia will not be wiped out of existence years before this line is completed. It may be years, before the construction of this line is completed. Before its completion, we may have an ultra-Tory Government in power in the Commonwealth, and a similar Government may be in office in South Australia. Consequently, we have a right to see that the interests of the workers are safeguarded.
– Will the proposed minimum wage apply to boys as well as to men ?
– The honorable senator may please himself about that.
– We want to know.
– The honorable senator wants to get the railway at all costs - that is all he wants. Before I ever heard of the proposed transcontinental railway - before I was, a member of this Parliament - I moved for the insertion of a similar provision in railway Bills which were brought before the Queensland Parliament.
– There was no Arbitration Act in operation there.
– And we have no guarantee that the Arbitration Act will remain in force until the construction of this line has been completed. At any rate, why should we shirk our duty? We have the power to say that the workers upon the proposed transcontinental line shall receive a minimum wage. Senator Stewart’s amendment merely prescribed what that minimum should be, and there was nothing in it to prevent the Government from paying £2 per day to their employes, if they wished to do so. However, he has altered his amendment to meet the hyper -sensitive senators upon this side of the Chamber, and it will be interesting to know how they will now vote upon it.
– Senator Givens has suggested that before the proposed railway has been constructed, Australia may be governed by a hide-bound Tory Government. Now, I do not wish to see the workers of this country at the mercy of a Government which may only represent a majority of the people upon one day of the year. For that reason, I want these men to be under the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. It is altogether too thin for Senator Givens and Senator Stewart to move an amendment here when they know that they will be supported by the opponents of the Bill.
– Who is the friend of the worker now?
– I am quite satisfied to allow the workers of Australia to judge between the honorable senator and myself. They are intelligent enough to recognise that gilded baits come from their real enemies.
– Are Senator Givens and Senator Stewart the real enemies of the workers?
– When they attempt to gull the workers, it makes one think that they have gone over to the enemy.
– It makes the honorable senator toe the mark.
– I am not afraid to toe the mark. If Senator Stewart and Senator Givens are prepared to do the dirty work of the Opposition-
– Does the honorable senator say I am doing the dirty work of anybody ?
– If Senator Givens will supply me with a better word I will use it. But, in the absence of such a word, I do say straight out that Senators Stewart and Givens are doing the dirty work of the Opposition. I say that to Senator Givens’ teeth, and I will say it outside.
– Cowardly cur !
– I ask Senator Stewart to withdraw that remark.
– I withdraw it, but will you, sir, ask Senator Gardiner to withdraw his statement that I am gulling the workers and doing the dirty work of the Opposition.
– I ask Senator Gardiner to withdraw those remarks.
– Unquestionably, I withdraw them, and regret having made them. But when we get such a splendid combination as Senator Millen, Senator St. Ledger, Senator Sayers, Senator Stewart, and Senator Givens, all of whom concur in the amendment, one is led to believe that the interests of the workers are in danger. If, in the heat of the moment, I have gone beyond the limits of ordinary debate, I may, perhaps, be excused because of the gilded baits held out-
– We had gilded baits held out to us years ago in the Queensland Parliament before the honorable senator was in public life at all. The honorable senator is too free with his old gab.
– The condition of the workers of this country is not going to be improved .by an amendment of this kind. The wages which they should be paid must be established in a more practical and common-sense way. I shall oppose the amendment, because it comes from the organized opposition to this Bill.
– Why should there not be an organized opposition as well as an organized Government?
– There has been an organized opposition to obstruct the passage of this measure. Recognising that the amendment is one of those thin makebelieve amendments which are calculated to catch the public eye, I am quite prepared to vote against the proposed minimum wage, and to leave it to the workers of this country to decide whether it was moved in their interests, or whether it was not moved from a desire on the part of Senator Givens and Senator Stewart to wreck the Bill.
– - 1’his Chamber has long been used to the peculiar methods of Senator Gardiner. Ignoring the real question under review, he has chosen to launch an appeal to class and party prejudice. Finding himself confronted with the simple question of whether he is in favour of a minimum wage being paid to the workers on the proposed transcontinental line, he ceased to discuss that question, and suggested that, because Senator Stewart was acting, as he said, in conjunction with opponents of the measure, therefore .the amendment was entitled to condemnation. Now, how does Senator Gardiner know that the Opposition are supporting Senator Stewart? The honorable senator suggested that the amendment had been drafted by the Opposition, and that Senator Stewart was gullible enough to vote with them. Now, as a matter of fact. I am going to vote against Senator Stewart’s amendment. Senator Gardiner’s whole object seems to be to create an impression that anything which emanates from his opponents is absolutely bad.
– Then why did the honorable senator suggest an amendment of the amendment.
– Because I thought the honorable senator’s objections were honest, but I see now that they were not. The honorable senator finds fault with Senator Stewart’s amendment on the ground that the wage fixed by it was not high enough, and, as I always dislike to see illfeeling between political brethren, I suggested a way in which Senator Lynch and Senator Stewart might compose their differences, and find common ground upon which to rest.
– The honorable senator will not support a minimum wage of 14s. a day notwithstanding that he suggested it.
– I object to stipulating any wage in a Bill of this kind. I rose to make this statement, and to disprove all that Senator Gardiner has said in reference to the amendment. In future, before he ventures to attack any section of the Senate, or to raise his old party war-cry, he should at least take the trouble to ascertain on which side honorable senators are voting.
– The honorable senator himself suggested a minimum wage of ms. per day.
– In order to meet the spurious and hypocritical suggestion which emanated from the other side of tha Chamber.
– In the course of his heated remarks, Senator Gardiner accused Senator Stewart and myself of acting in conjunction with the Opposition itv regard to this, particular amendment. Indeed, he went so far as to say that we were the dirty tools-
– I withdrew that statement.
– I accept the honorable senator’s withdrawal. But I wish to say frankly that no member of the Opposition ever suggested ‘the amendment to me, and I am perfectly certain that I would be equally safe in saying the same thing about Senator Stewart. As a matter of fact, if the secret history of the proposal must be known, I suggested to Senator Stewart during the last division that he should move the amendment.
– Who suggested it to the honorable senator?
– Nobody. I “suggested it, because I considered that as the Labour party, when in Opposition, endeavoured to impose these conditions on thu Government which was then in power, it was only fair that we should impose them upon ourselves. When Senator Gardiner affirms that the amendment will merely prove an instrument to delay the passing of the Bill, my reply is that it will prove nothing of the kind. It need not delay the passing of the Bill by one second. It merely stipulates that the Government shall pay a minimum wage, and as an intelligent man, Senator Gardiner must know that. His wild heroics, therefore, were absolutely beside the mark.
– Senator Stewart’s remarks evoked applause from the Opposition, and that fact justified Senator Gardiner’s remark.
– I have nothing more to say. I hope that we shall come to a decision upon the merits of the question without delay.
– I wish to say that no member of the Opposition suggested to me the amendment which I have submitted, or, indeed, spoke to me of it. The only honorable senator with whom I discussed it was Senator
Givens. In reply to the sneer of Senator Gardiner that I am’ attempting to gull the workers, I wish to say that if this amendment will gull the workers-
– Under a sessional order, it is my duty at 4 o’clock to put the question, that I report progress, and ask leave to sit .again.
– I think, sir, that I ought to be allowed to explain.
– No. Under the sessional order, there can be no discussion.
Progress reported.
page 3559
– The question is-
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– Mr. President-
– Order 1 As Senator Stewart was not here at the commencement of the session, I wish to explain to him that a resolution was carried under . which the question, “That the Senate do now adjourn,” has to be put at 4 o’clock on Friday without debate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 4.3 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19111201_senate_4_62/>.