Senate
27 September 1912

4th Parliament · 3rd Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

CLOSING HOUR OF POST OFFICES.

Senator RAE. - Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General in a position yet to’ answer the following questions which I asked last month : -

  1. Under what regulations are country postoffices permitted to close on Saturday afternoons ?

  2. How many post-offices in New South Wales have been closed in accordance with such regulations ?

  3. What opportunities were given to those residents who might have raised objections in the public interests to do so?

  4. If petitions are presented in favour of such closing, are any steps taken to. prove the bona fidesof those signing same?

  5. Will the Minister consider the advisability of substituting, in lieu of petitions for such closing, the necessity of holding properly advertised public meetings of the residents affected in each case before a decision is arrived at?

Senator FINDLEY. - The answers to the questions are as follow : -

  1. The matter is not governed by regulation, but by Ministerial instructions.

  2. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, reports that 128 offices (10 official, 28 semiofficial, and go allowance) close on Saturday afternoon, and 148 offices . (16 official, 41 semiofficial, and 91 allowance) close on other days of the week usually observed locally as halfholidays.

  3. I am unable to say. The Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Sydney, reports that those offices are not closed until the Postmasters have obtained the concurrence of the local governing body, and that, doubtless, full consideration is given to any objections likely to arise before the local governing body agrees to the closing. The Deputy Postmaster-General adds that in a few exceptional cases where the concurrence of the local governing bodywas withheld, a halfholiday has been granted on the petition of a majority of the interested residents.

  4. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, reports that petitions as a general rule are not presented in favour of closing, but in the few cases where such petitions have been received, inquiry has been made as to the advisableness of granting the request. Thebona fides of such petitioners would only be inquired into in case of a conflict of opinion between the local governing body and the petitioners.

  5. It is considered that the present practice meets requirements. Any representations made by local residents receive due consideration.

page 3556

WIRELESS TELEGRAPH STATIONS

t Senator SAYERS. - Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General now state when the wireless stations at Brisbane and Rockhampton will be completed and in working order? ‘

Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

– The Brisbane station has been completed and working commercially for some little time. ‘ It is anticipated that the Rockhampton station will be completed within four months, and in working order immediately after it is completed.

page 3556

PAYMENT TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council been directed to a telegram appearing recently in the newspapers and voicing a bitter complaint from the authority at Perth, that the Federal .Government is not paying the sums due by it to that authority.

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

– My attention has not been called to any telegram of that description, and with respect to the question, I should like the honorable senator to give notice of it.

page 3556

QUESTION

NAVAL BASE, LAUNCESTON

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister of Defence give the Senate some indication as to when steps will be taken to establish a naval base or sub-base on the River Tamar, Launceston, Tasmania?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is not proposed to take any such action this year, and the intention of the Government with regard to the subsequent year will be disclosed when they announce their policy in that regard.

page 3556

PINE CREEK TO KATHERINE RIVER RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26th September (vide page 3503), on motion by Senator McGregor -

That this Bill be now read a second time. Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) [10.41]. - I do not anticipate that I need detain honorable senators very long, for the simple reason that the Bill does not indicate anything more than a groping in the dark on the part of the Government, a hesitancy on their part to say what ought to be done in regard to the Northern Territory. I shall only remind honorable senators of the purpose for which we took it over, and that was to carry on developmental work which it was recognised was beyond the financial strength of a single State. This Territory has been transferred to the control of the Commonwealth for some eighteen months, perhaps a little longer, and it is safe to say that beyond passing in a perfect army of highly-paid officials the Government have practically not made a commencement with anything in the direction of developmental work.

Senator MILLEN:

– I call an army the appointment of ninety-nine officers, according to the .answer given yesterday by the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator McGregor:

– Oh, that was a mistake.

Senator MILLEN:

– According to that answer, ninety-nine officers have been appointed to the Northern Territory from outside the Public Service, and four have been appointed from within the Public Service.

Senator McGregor:

– That number was for the whole of the Commonwealth.

Senator MILLEN:

– I must accept the Minister’s statement, but the answer he gave yesterday, as “clearly set out in the proof which I obtained from Senator Chataway, who asked the question, was that ninety-nine officers have been sent up to the Northern Territory. But whether ninetynine or only one-half of that . number, there the fact remains that within the short space of twelve months the Government have run up the administrative cost of the Territory from .£84,000 to £240,000, exclusive of’ the charges in connexion with the debt, which would be tha same in any circumstances. I am entitled to ask the Government to tell us what we are getting for this enormous increase in the expenditure, to put their hand on any serious developmental work which they have undertaken. .

Senator Rae:

– You do not expect to reap a crop the day, after you have sown the seed.

Senator MILLEN:

– I expect to. see some preparation, of the land for the purpose of sowing the seed, and not to merely see a huge sum devoted to the erection of buildings for an army of public officers.

Senator de Largie:

– Do you not think that they should have some places to live in?

Senator MILLEN:

– That . interjection clearly indicates the fatal mistake which the Government are making in dealing with this

Territory. Their one idea seems to be that they must send Government officials there to look after their wants. Here is to be found the marked difference between the methods which have been adopted by Great Britain and those which have been adopted by all other European countries in their attempts at colonization. The Germans have never succeeded as colonists, for the simple reason that they have set out with the idea with which the present Government are obsessed, namely, that of putting everything under the control of officials. Beyond having made these appointments, and having increased the cost of administering the Territory threefold, they have done nothing. Nobody would object to that increase of expenditure if the money were being expended in a way that would solve the problem which confronts us there. But the total amount which is set down for works there is £58,000, and, out of that sum, £22,000 or £23,000 is to be expended in building houses and erecting a steam laundry, clearly for the accommodation of more Government officials. The houses which it is proposed to build cannot be intended to accommodate the officials who are already there, because they must have a roof over their heads now. Clearly, it must be the intention of. the Government, when these houses have been built, to appoint more officials to occupy them. We are entitled to ask from the Ministry a skeleton plan of their policy, to show that they appreciate the problems with which we are faced there. Senator Symon was absolutely correct when he stated that we have no right to ask the Government to immediately carry out all necessary works in the Northern Territory, but that we have a right to demand from them a recognition of the problems which confront us there, and some evidence that they are prepared to face them. Nobody can pretend that the speech of the Vice-President of the Executive Council indicated any collective policy. All he stated was that under this Bill it is proposed to extend the railway from Port Darwin to Pine Creek to the Katherine River, a distance of 56 miles further south. But the most extraordinary feature about the whole thing is that, whilst the Government are asking Parliament to approve of the survey of this railway, they are still looking round for the services of three gentlemen who will be able to advise them what to do. What is the good of all the officials who have been sent to the Territory if we have now to look for others?

In the meantime, and without waiting for these gentlemen to report, the Vice-President of the Executive Council has submitted to us a proposition for the survey of a railway from Pine Creek to the Katherine River. Does not that suggest putting the cart before the horse ? If this investigation is to be made at all, surely we ought to have the report of the Commission in our hands, not merely in regard to this first step, but in regard to the ultimate and complete scheme of railway construction, which we could then proceed to attack piece by piece. What has been the history of railway construction in every State? That immediate necessity has determined what lines should be undertaken, without the slightest regard to the future.Numerous examples of this are to be found in my own State, and in other States. Looking at the map, I am not prepared to say whether the proposed transcontinental line ought to follow a route by way of the Katherine River or not. But I do say that if the Government attach the slightest importance to the proposed Commission of Inquiry, that body ought to have been set to work before we were invited to approve of any railway extension whatever. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. The VicePresident of the Executive Council intimated that it had practically been decided to establish freezing works at Port Darwin. I was rather surprised to hear Senator Symon question the wisdom of adopting that course, on the ground that there were no cattle there to freeze. I can recall the time when Senator Symon and his colleagues used to tell us what magnificent cattle country the Northern Territory was. They were wont to affirm that it was the finest stock-raising country in the world, and, consequently, it was with some surprise that I heard him deal in a spirit of banter with the Government proposal. The VicePresident of the Executive Council, I repeat, said that the Government had practically decided to establish freezing works at Port Darwin, on the recommendation of the Administrator. I wish to suggest, with all due deference, that full consideration has not been given to this question. The statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council clearly indicated that all the Administrator had in his mind when he submitted that recommendation was a comparison between one seaport and another. In this connexion, we are faced with the question of country killing versus killing on the sea-board. In New South Wales, the trouble is that in the past all industry has been centered in Sydney, with the result that trade has established itself there, so that, while everybody admits that the proper thing is to kill in the country, and to carry down the carcass by rail rather than on foot, the people are handicapped by the fact that trade has settled itself in the channels I have indicated

Senator Clemons:

– That is what Senator Symon meant.

Senator MILLEN:

– Perhaps he meant that freezing works should be established in the MacDonnell Ranges, with the view to sending the meat south. But, even if there were no cattle in the Territory, if anything is to be done with that country, it will not be long before there will be stock there. I venture to say that it will not be very long before the southern and eastern portions of Australia will not only supply sufficient stock for their own requirements, but will have an abundance for export. To talk of dragging that stock half way across the continent, with a view to exporting it to the East from our southern ports, seems to be an absurdity. Looking ahead, we have to conceive of the whole of the machinery for handling the cattle grown in the Northern Territory being established at some northern port. Consequently, the question arises, “Where should the cattle be slaughtered?” No practical man will dispute the statement that we ought, as far as possible, to provide for country killing. That consideration opens up the question of whether Port Darwin is the proper place at which to establish freezing works. I venture to say that the Administrator has never considered this aspect of the question, and I make that statement on the authority of the utterance of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. There are two reasons why it would be wrong to establish freezing works at Port Darwin. In the first place, it is too remote from the pasture from which the cattle will be carried, and, from that point of view, would involve an economic loss. Secondly, cattle would deteriorate very materially whilst undergoing a journey of that kind. Further, Port Darwin - whatever may be said to the contrary - does not possess an ideal climate for men to live and work in. We know, however, that the climate experienced on the highlands of the interior is superior to that experienced on the coast. If we are to establish meatfreezing works in the Territory, it necessarily follows that we shall have a big population around them. Where, then, is the right place at which to establish such works? On the low-lying coast of Port Darwin, or on the highlands to the south ? There can be no argument about the matter. There has been an utter absence of knowledge displayed by those who are responsible for this unfortunate suggestion. Although the Vice-President of the Executive Council has stated that a decision has practically been arrived at to establish meat-freezing works at Port Darwin, I hope that the Government will reconsider that decision. Not being egotistical enough to suppose that they will be guided by my opinion, I ask them, before committing us to any expenditure in that direction, to pass over their own officials, and to seek the advice of persons who have a practical knowledge of this question - persons who are to be found in Queensland and South Australia.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I would have thought that, in proposing to expend ^500,000 in building a line from Pine Creek to the Katherine River, the Government would at least have outlined their policy in regard to settling people there. But the fact is that we have no more knowledge of their intentions, now than we had at the time the Territory was taken over. Instead, they ask this Parliament to sanction the survey of an extra 56 miles of railway. This line will stop at the Katherine River, the bridging of which will cost a further sum of ^250,000.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator is always thinking about “ the man on the job.”

Senator SAYERS:

– Whatever question comes before the Senate, the VicePresident of the Executive Council knows that he has a solid majority behind him, and he treats all criticism with levity. There has hardly been a question as to which he has not met opposition with sneers and jeers. It ill becomes the Minister to behave in such’ a manner. If he continues to conduct himself as he does, we shall cry shame upon him. Instead of endeavouring to conduct the business of the Senate with some sort of decorum, he sets an example of levity. It is only right that the people of this country should know what the policy of the Government regarding the Northern Territory really is. Here we have a railway that will cost, in the long Tun, halfamillion of money. The bridge crossing the Katherine River will cost ^£250, 000.

Senator Clemons:

– Is that the Government estimate?

Senator SAYERS:

– £10,000 per mile is supposed to be the estimated cost for 50 miles, and the bridge over the Katherine River would cost another quarterofamillion.

Senator McDougall:

– A man can cross the river at this point without taking his boots off.

Senator SAYERS:

– One can cross the Burdekin, in Queensland, dry-shod sometimes, but, nevertheless, the bridge over that river cost pretty nearly a quarterofamillion, though it is only a quarter of a mile wide. There is sometimes heavy rainfall in the Territory, and when the river is running a banker, the bridge will have to be high enough to let the water flow under it and keep the railway going.

Senator McDougall:

– I have walked across the river bed myself at this point.

Senator SAYERS:

– That is not the question. The excuse made is that a railway is required for carrying stock that cannot cross a bad belt of country.

Senator Chataway:

– There is no stock to travel.

Senator SAYERS:

– That may be; but what I object to is that the Government bring forward this proposal without an outline of their policy. Are we going to keep on spending money and sending officials to the Territory without having any policy formulated? The population of the Port Darwin district has dwindled from 8,000 or 10,000 whites, which was the number at the time of the Port Darwin rush, to about 1,000. But the Government bring before us no scheme for settling people. All they do is to send up a lot of officials. Surely, during the forty years that the Territory was administered by South Australia sufficient information was acquired. I am satisfied that there are officers in Adelaide who have been in the Territory, and who could give most valuable information. But it is not really the object of this Government to settle the country. Their object simply is to make positions for favorites. Their whole aim is to send up a number of their friends whom they think it advisable to put out of the way, giving them good screws, and building a laundry, so that they can get their washing done.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator ought to go there.

Senator SAYERS:

– I am well acquainted with territory similar to this. I know the country in north Queensland, which closely resembles the Northern Terri tory. I have visited the Norman and Flinders country, and that round our Gulf, which is very similar. I have also talked with men who have made their living out of cattle in the Northern Territory for the last thirty years, and I would take their opinion before that of any honorable senator who has paid a flying visit to the Territory. They remind me of “ globetrotters “ who come to Australia, spend a few weeks here, and write books about their experiences. These honorable senators are too cautious to give us their views on the floor of the Senate, but whenever any one else gets up to speak, they make silly and irrelevant interjections. Some of those who pose as experts never went outside a city in their lives, until they became members of Parliament, and were able to take a few cheap trips.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! We are dealing with the second reading of this Bill. I have no objection to the honorable senator discussing the development of the Northern Territory, but at present he is simply casting ridicule upon other honorable senators who, in his opinion, have made “ silly interjections.” I have asked honorable senators not to interject while Senator Sayers is speaking.

Senator SAYERS:

– I do not mind interjections, and I do not know why you should pull me up, sir. I am entitled to express the opinion that -some of those who have made remarks know nothing about this country. It is impossible for them to know anything, because they have not had the experience. I am quite justified in saying that the policy of the Government ought to be explained to the Senate before they ask us to spend halfamillion on a railway. They also propose to build freezing works in the Northern Territory. I believe that a wrong policy has been pursued in all the States in putting freezing works on the coast. The loss in bringing cattle down from remote inland places is often enormous. It will be bad policy to build freezing works at Port Darwin. I can remember cattle being brought from western Queensland, when they had to be taken from the train at the Reed River and travelled overland to Bowen. That was before the railway connexion “ was made with Townsville and Bowen. I have seen four men travelling with a mob of cattle, doing nothing but skin the beasts that dropped out by the way. The cattle were attacked by redwater and other complaints. They had been railed some hundreds of miles, and as soon as they got to water and started to travel, hundreds died upon the road. It would be better, in the interests of the Northern Territory, to build the freezing works in the locality where the cattle are reared and fattened. You will always find that beef killed near where it is reared is better to eat, and more juicy, than that which has travelled 200 or more miles. The first quality that leaves the meat as a result of travelling is its juiciness; and that happens as soon as the cattle begin to fret. They may, apparently, be fat and in good condition, but the meat is nearly uneatable. That is one reason why we do not get better prices for our beef in Europe. If the cattle were killed close to where they are reared, and then railed to the seaboard, there would not be so much fibre in the meat, which would be juicier and better flavoured.

Senator Chataway:

– That is one reason why beef in Melbourne is not so good as beef in places like Tullamulla

Senator SAYERS:

– In some inland towns a “ poddy “ that has been recently killed will make better eating than a bullock that has travelled 150 miles, though the bullock may be heavier, and look fatter.

Senator McGregor:

– I thought that the further meat travelled the more tender it became.

Senator SAYERS:

– I am glad that the Minister has made that interjection, because it will show people who are interested in cattle what his knowledge on this subject is.

Senator McGregor:

– I am only saying what “ the man on the job “ thinks.

Senator SAYERS:

– The Minister is on a very good job for himself at present, and if he takes my advice he will try to stay there. But I do not think that either he or the Honorary Minister will keep their jobs very much longer, though, of course, they will keep them as long as they can. The Government have no need to appoint three men to advise them about the Northern Territory, because there are officers under the South Australian Government who have had forty years’ experience of it. They are not numskulls, and ignorant men, but able officers. Surely it would be better for the Government to ascertain what these men know than to ap .point a Commission. Quite lately I talked with five or six men who have been conducting a station business in the North ern Territory for the last thirty years. One of these men, whom I know, is now residing in Brisbane. He was for thirty years in the Northern Territory, and, with others, was growing sugar cane there. They also grew a great deal of coffee, and’ he told me that they had to put the firestick through their crop because they could not market it. They produced tons of coffee, but by the time they had marketed it and got the returns they found that they were in debt over the transaction. The Government should find out from the people already settled in the Territory what can be done there. That would be better than sending men up to inspect the country. These men can only form their opinions upon the information they will derive from those who are already settled in the Territory. I would much prefer to take the opinion of a man who had been twenty-five years settled in the Territory than the opinion of two or three Government officers sent up on a visit of inspection.

Senator Guthrie:

– How was it the settlers the honorable senator has referred to could find no market for their coffee?

Senator SAYERS:

– They found a market, but it was not a profitable market. They found when they got their account of sales that the cost of production and of sending the coffee to the market amounted to more than they received for it. One can grow almost anything in any part of the world, but the question is whether it can be grown at a profit. No man will go into an industry if it can only be carried on at a loss. The people to whom I have referred produced 40 acres of coffee. What were they to do with it? They could not dispose of it in the Northern Territory, where there are only about 1,000 white people. They had to send it to Sydney or Melbourne where they had to accept for it the market price of the world. It came into competition with coffee produced in Java, Ceylon, and Brazil, and they found that they could only produce it at a loss. It must be remembered that coffee cannot be grown on the lowlands of the coast. It can only be grown on the higher lands some distance from the coast, and freight upon it from the place where it is grown to the port of shipment must be added to the other charges before it can be marketed. We could grow hundreds of tons of coffee on the highlands at the back of Cairns, but it would not return as much as it would cost to produce and market it. That is the reason why the settlers in the Northern Territory to whom I have referred had to put the firestick through their crops. When this railway is taken as proposed to the Katherine River, we shall have to decide what route is to be followed from that place. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, in introducing the Bill, said that it could not give rise to much controversy, because it must be a part of any transcontinental line. But the honorable senator did not tell us what settlement has taken place on the 150 miles of railway already constructed from Port Darwin to Pine Creek. He did not say that people are settled along that line engaged in cultivating the land, or that the traffic upon it was a paying traffic. We have not heard that any of the experts who have been quoted have asserted that there is any settlement along that line. We know that the country between Pine Creek and the Katherine River is a dry belt which is not suitable for close settlement, and the fact is that .we are being asked to add 56 miles to an existing railway of 150 miles on which there is no settlement. Honorable senators are well aware that in the case of all the railways in the different States carried from the coast inland the country through which they were taken was settled and occupied by thousands of people before the lines were constructed. The southern and western line in Queensland was constructed first from Ipswich to Toowoomba. The section from Ipswich to Brisbane was constructed much later, but when the line was built from Ipswich to Toowoomba there were thousands of farmers settled above and below the main range. Here we are asked to add a section to an existing railway of 150 miles along which there is not a single settler, despite the advantage of railway communication.

Senator Chataway:

– The Government have an experimental station at Rum Jungle.

Senator SAYERS:

– What good is it? Has it done any good at all?

Senator McDougall:

– It has not yet -had any chance to do good.

Senator SAYERS:

– Who are to be taught by the experiments carried on there? Surely before the country is put to the expense of conducting experimental stations there should be some people in the -district who will be able to take advan tage of the experiments if they are successful ?

Senator de Largie:

– How many people were there in Papua when the party opposite established a similar station there?

Senator SAYERS:

– In Papua there were, at all events, natives who had been accustomed to cultivate the land. The Papuans are not like the natives of Australia, who do no cultivation. Senator McDougall tells me that the experimental station at Rum Jungle has not been established long enough to do any good, but I should like to know how the Government propose to induce people to go to the district to take advantage of the operations carried out at the experimental station. Throughout the history of this, I was going to say political, job, there has been no attempt made to settle people in the Northern Territory. The Government have no policy of development, or if they have they decline to take the Parliament into their confidence. We have a right to demand from them that they shall state their policy, and say how they propose to settle the Territory. The South Australian Government carried on experiments in the Northern Territory for oyer forty years, a period longer than the life of some of the States, and surely the knowledge they acquired should be at the disposal of the Federal Government. We have taken over the Territory, and intend to pay South Australia for it some time, and surely we took over then all the official papers and documents relating to its management by the South Australian Government. A man buying a business from another as a going concern is given all information connected with it, and I take it that the Commonwealth Government are now in possession of all the information concerning the experiments carried on by the South Australian Government in _ the Northern Territory for the last forty years. Apparently that is not enough for them. They must have experiments of their own, and we must let the people judge for themselves whether they are taking the proper course. We have taken over the debt on the Territory, and the Government propose further expenditure at the cost of the taxpayers, and the people must decide whether their action is judicious or not. I suppose it will not matter what honorable senators on this side have to say on this question, but it is our duty as members of the Opposition to demand that the Government shall say what they intend to do. They should come forward with a comprehensive policy of development. The Territory should not be allowed to remain in stays for the next forty years as it did under the South Australian Government. Surely the Government have some scheme of development in their minds.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is the Opposition policy?

Senator SAYERS:

– It will be announced when the Opposition are in a position to carry it into effect. I am not like Senator Guthrie, who sits dumb when his party is in power. If the Opposition were in power to-morrow, and introduced such a Bill as this, I should vote against it unless they were able to give the Senate and the country the information required in connexion with it. It is all very well for Senator Guthrie to ask what is the Opposition policy. Let us know what is his policy, if he ever had any. I did not come into the Senate tied hand and foot, and pledged to support any one man or any one party.

Senator McGregor:

– Was the honorable senator not at the caucus yesterday?

Senator SAYERS:

– I do not belong to a caucus, as Senator McGregor does. On the platform I said that if I went into the Senate I should have a free hand. I have a free hand, and if this Bill were, in my opinion, in the interests of the country, I should support it. It is not fair to the people that public money should be expended when they are not taken into the confidence of the Government with respect to their policy. If the Government put forward a broad, comprehensive policy for the settlement and development of the Northern Territory, and proposed to expend money judiciously for the purpose, I should be prepared to support them, although I was opposed to the taking over of the Northern Territory. Now that it has been taken over by the Commonwealth we must make the best of it It is for the Government to show that they propose to spend the public money in its development to the best advantage. When the Minister was introducing the Bill he did not seem to think that there was any great advantage to come from its enactment. The only thing we can see is that we are being asked to spend some money, and that, instead of decreasing the annual loss on the Territory, this line will for a number of years increase the cost of its administration, because there is no traffic to be carried on it when it is constructed, and we shall have to provide the salaries for the officials and the interest on the outlay. No hope is held out to the country that the line will be self-supporting. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council could show that this extension of 56 miles would increase the earnings on the present length of 150 miles, and that there are people to travel along the line, the position, would be different. But what traffic car* 1,000 persons in the Territory provide?” If they were all to travel, how could they pay for the working of 200 miles of railway? We have not been shown where the people are to come from who will use the line, but we have been told that, in the dim and distant future, there may becattle carried. I do not blame the men; who are living there, and have a station or two, for trying to get the Government to extend the railway if it will save them only £10 a year. When the Government decided to undertake this work, they should! have come here with a comprehensivepolicy, which we each could put before thecountry with this statement, “ I supported the measure, believing that the Government were doing good,” but to ask us to passa Bill like this without voicing a protest against it is, I think, asking too much. I intend to oppose the proposal, and any other scheme of this nature, until the Government bring down a comprehensive policy, showing us what they intend to do with themoney, and how the expenditure will, benefit the whole of the community.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania) [11.33j. - If the statements that have been made m< support of the Bill are to be taken by theSenate as an indication of the expenditure on railway construction in the NorthernTerritory, I am afraid that I shall be forced’ to the conclusion that the Commonwealth, has taken over a luxury in the Territory which, with all its wealth, it cannot afford’ to keep. We all know that constructionmust inevitably follow the survey of a line. The figures which have been given, during this debate in connexion with construction have amazed me. I know a little, possibly not more than any other honorable senator knows, about the cost of building railways. But when I am told, leaving out for the moment some expenditure on a large bridge, that this line of 56 miles isestimated to cost ^500,000, I venture tosay that it will be one of the most expensive railways in this Commonwealth.

Senator Findley:

– Because of the white ants, we must use steel sleepers.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I regret, of course, in common with every one else who has the interests of the Commonwealth at heart, that there should be white ants, or any other abnormal cause of expenditure ; but we must face the facts. While the debate was proceeding, I worked out a few figures, to see what railway construction alone in the Territory is going to cost. Taking the Minister’s estimate of £500,000 for the construction of the line, and adding to that £100,000 for’ the construction of the bridge - if he thinks that that is not too much - we shall arrive at an idea of the cost.

Senator McGregor:

– The estimate for the bridge is £170,000.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Then, according to the estimate, this line of 56 miles will cost altogether £670,000. The distance for which we have to construct the railway in the Territory is, approximately, 1,000 miles. Let us assume that we have to construct a railway twenty times the length of this particular extension. Twenty times £670,000 is £13,400,000.

Senator O’Keefe:

– There is a vast difference in the quality and quantity of country.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am multiplying

Dy a little too much when I multiply by twenty. I will assume, if you like, that the construction of the line down south will not be so expensive as the. construction of this piece, but we are clearly faced with this proposition : that railway construction alone in the Territory - I am not including the cost of necessary equipment - will cost considerably more than £10,000,000.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Do you not think it would be fairer to compare the cost of the line from Katherine Creek to Oodnadatta with the cost of the fine from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie?

Senator CLEMONS:

– No; because, from my reading about the Territory, I have come to the conclusion that some part of the line which is to be constructed down south will be at least as expensive as will be this particular line. At any rate, we are faced with this position : that we shall have to spend £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 on railway construction alone. But let me get back to the Bill. The cost of this extension is estimated at £670,000. I have had some unfortunate experience of the cost of railway management and the profits that accrue from running railways, and I think I may fairly say that any railway will be run extremely well if one-half of the total receipts is profit. In other words, if you can pay the working expenses with one-half of the receipts, and keep the balance as profit on the running of the line, you do uncommonly well.

Senator Millen:

– Do you know of any line which is doing that?

Senator CLEMONS:

– No. I am extremely careful, when I offer this sort of statement, to err on the safe side. If we want to get j per cent, on our outlay of £670,000 - and even the Commonwealth finds it very difficult to get money at that rate - the total receipts from the running of this line will have to be at least £42,000. I am taking one-half of the total receipts to be available for meeting the cost of working the line, and all my argument is conservative and cautious. I venture to say that there is no honorable senator who will assume for a moment that the receipts will in any degree approximate to £42,000 per annum. Where is the traffic to come from? The line is to be constructed through country in which, of course, there is no settlement at present. I have no particular objection to that, because, differing from Senator Sayers, I think that, as far as possible, railway development should precede, and endeavour to* bring about, settlement. I do not think that you ought to ask people to settle before you give them a railway. Where railway construction is part of a country’s policy, I do think that, if you can be fairly satisfied in your mind that the construction of a railway would bring settlement, it is good business in Australia to construct the line ; in other words, to anticipate and bring about settlement by railway construction, rather than to wait for settlement to justify railway construction. Does any one here imagine for a moment that the construction of these 56 miles of railway is likely to bring about settlement which, for a hundred years, will create a traffic returning £42,000 a year? That is not credible. To get that amount of traffic on the line, it would have to pass through a fairly denselypopulated country. Even if there was land in the vicinity of the line carrying as many cattle as you could expect good cattle land in Australia to carry, we should get no traffic which would at all approximate in value to the amount required to pay the barest of interest on the outlay. In other words, no traffic arising from cattle country could provide a revenue of £42,000 on any line. I assume, of course, that if this line is going to play any part in the development of the Territory, the rates and freights will be such as to induce settlement and promote the particular industry for which the land is suitable.

Senator Millen:

– Something, I think, might be allowed for the fact that the terminal station will draw traffic from a big back-country.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I concede all that. But I feel perfectly certain that this will be a most disastrous financial experiment, whatever else it may be. I am forced reluctantly to the conclusion that the Ministry have found themselves practically compelled to make some effort to justify the taking over of the Northern Territory by further expenditure. It seems as if, having spent a tremendous amount of money in acquiring the Territory, the only thing we can do now is to go on spending more money because we made a bad bargain. I cannot see it in any other light.

Senator Guthrie:

– To develop it to the best advantage.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is very well for the honorable senator to make that remark, but we are not developing the Territory to the best advantage of the taxpayers. We are piling up an enormous expenditure in the future, that will necessitate some scheme of taxation which will be even more onerous, and, in my opinion, more injurious to the welfare of the Commonwealth, than is the present scheme. I am forced to oppose this Bill. I recognise, of course, that I am in the position in which we all have been forced by the taking over of the Territory. I recognise that there is some sort of obligation upon the Parliament, in its wisdom, to do something with the Territory now that it is under its control. But I shall not support the Bill on the figures which have been given by the Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil. We are told that it will cost £5,000to survey the line. If it is going to cost £670,000 to construct the line, I do not believe for a moment that it can be surveyed for £5,000. I think that the comparison of £5,000 for survey and £670,000 for construction is absolutely ludicrous. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that one statement or the other is hopelessly wrong - that, if it will only cost £5,000 for survey, it will not cost £670,000 for construction, or if construction will cost £670,000, it is absurd to provide £5,000 for survey.

Senator Chataway:

– Half of the route has already been surveyed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I was not aware of that. If that be so, of course, my argument, whilst perfectly sound, is quite unnecessary.

Senator McDOUGALL:
Queensland

– I should not have occupied any time in discussing this Bill but for the rather rude remarks of Senator Sayers, who spoke disparagingly of the members of this Parliament who had the temerity to visit the Northern Territory with a view to seeing a little of it for themselves. He told us of the man whom he met in the train, and who told him so much about the country. The worst of it is that we meet so many men in the train, and that they tell us so many things.

Senator Sayers:

– I can produce my man, anyhow, and he knows more about the country than does the honorable senator.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I know a little more about the proposed line than does Senator Sayers, because I travelled over the country between Pine Creek and the Katherine River, and returned by the same route. About the remainder of the Territory I think I know as much as does the man whom Senator Sayers met in the train. I commend the Government for proposing to obtain a survey of this line, because, when the Parliamentary party were inspecting the Northern Territory, we found the settlers there advocating the adoption of different routes. Some wanted the railway to follow a route 40 miles distant from the telegraph line, whilst others wanted it to follow the telegraph line itself.

Senator Blakey:

– But they nearly all’ agreed that this was the first link in the chain.

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator Sayery referred to the enormous outlay which will be involved in bridging the Katherine River. As a matter of fact, I and some other honorable senators walked across that river in order to obtain a drink at an hotel on the other side. There must be some settlers in the neighbourhood, seeing that an hotel has been established in that remote part of the Territory. At the same time, I do not think the country between PineCreek and the Katherine River is suitable for closer settlement. It is more suitable for mining operations. I brought back a number of mineral specimens from it, and I know that if the line from Pine Creek to the Katherine River be constructed, it will afford the miners in that area an opportunity of getting their ores carried to the sea-board at a great deal less cost than they can get them carried to-day. At the present time, those ores have to be taken by pack horse. They have to be carried across the Ferguson River, which is larger than is the Katherine, where we crossed it.

Senator Chataway:

– A bigger river than the Katherine?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Yes ; at the proposed crossing it will be more difficult to bridge. I saw it for myself. I did not get my information from a man in the train.

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator’s information is correct, the map which is exhibited in the chamber must be hopelessly out of scale.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– That may be so. In regard to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition as to the wisdom of killing cattle in the country, and in opposition to the establishment of freezing works at Port Darwin, everybody knows that in a new country like the Northern Territory it is absolutely impossible to do what he suggests. If the cattle were killed in the country, freezing works would still require to be established at Port Darwin. They are an absolute necessity there if any trade in meat is to be done with the East. Senator Sayers spoke of settlement along the line from Port Darwin to Pine Creek. There are a few settlers along that line, but only a few. The reason is that most of the good land there has been let on long leases. But the best portion of the Territory which I saw was that in the vicinity of the Daly River, where the Government propose to establish an experimental farm. As Senator Sayers appears to be very vexed over that farm, I may tell him that some private persons have recently commenced farming operations on the Daly River. A young man from Sydney, who is a working jeweller, has a farm there, and is producing maize equal to anything I have seen on our northern rivers. He had from 50 to 100 tons of maize lying on the banks of the Daly River for five months absolutely rotting. It is the duty of the Government to provide men who settle in that country with facilities to get their produce to market. This railway will give them those facilities. I intend to support the Bill, and to vote for every bridge and road and railway which the Government may propose in the Northern Territory. I had the pleasure recently of showing some pictures of the Territory to an audience of business men in Sydney, and, in returning thanks to me for my trouble, one of them said he was always opposed to the Labour party, although perhaps it was due to his narrow education. But, he added,” The Labour members during a Parliamentary recess do not spend their time in playing golf. They go and see for themselves the country which the people of the eastern States are to be taxed to populate.” In conclusion, he expressed the hope that the members of his own party would follow our example, and inform the people of the character of the country through which they had travelled.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

. -This is a very important Bill, and I feel it incumbent upon me to explain why I intend to support it. We have taken over the Northern Territory at very great cost to the taxpayers of Australia. Having taken it over, the obligation is cast upon us to make it a payable Territory as soon as possible. It can be made payable only by opening it up. We know that great diversity of opinion exists as to which is the best method of developing it. Yesterday afternoon we heard a speech from Senator Symon in opposition to this Bill, because he contends that the proper way to develop the Northern Territory is by extending the line from Oodnadatta northwards.

Senator Vardon:

– Hear, hear !

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Vardon, by his interjection, approves of that policy. Last night, too, we had a very interesting speech on the same lines from Senator Story., I agree very largely with the views which have been expressed by these representatives of South Australia. In developing any remote country, experience teaches us that we should attack it from the base which is nearest to us. To begin to develop the Northern Territory from the north will be a very expensive method of procedure. But I do not see why the short extension of the line which is proposed in this Bill should be regarded as being opposed to the development of the Northern Territory from the south. It is a question of money.

Senator Vardon:

– It is a question of policy.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It is a question of policy, which means that very largely it is a question of money. The Northern Territory must be developed, if only for defence purposes, which constituted the primary reason why the Commonwealth took it over. The obligation rests upon us to develop it as soon as possible, and in the best way possible. We are thus face to face with this question, “ Can we delay its development until we are prepared to authorize the construction of the transcontinental line the entire distance from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek?” I do not agree with Senator Clemons that that undertaking will cost anything like the amount which he estimates.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator says that it will not cost £[10,000,000.

Senator O’KEEFE:

- Senator Clemons, like myself, can obtain his information only from the records which are available, from the reports of experts, and from the opinions which have been expressed by those who have crossed this country. Seeing that the distance between Oodnadatta and Pine Creek is just about the same as that between Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta, and that, according to the latest estimate, the construction of the latter line will cost only £4,000,000 or .£5,000,000, I fail to see how the former is going to cost £10,000,000. Those who are familiar with the country between Pine Creek and the Katherine River agree that that will be the most expensive portion of the transcontinental line which we have to construct. I am informed that the building of that particular portion of the line will cost an’ abnormal sum per mile. From the Katherine River to Oodnadatta, however, the country traversed is of such an easy character that the construction of a line through it will cost about the same amount per mile as will the construction of the line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. Are honorable senators opposite prepared to support an expenditure of £4,500,000 for this main trunk line right away? I do not think they are. I am sorry that the Government have not seen their way clear, for financial reasons, to bring down a scheme for the construction of the through line, which must be built in the comparatively near future. I hope to vote for such a proposal next session, no matter what party may be in power. But we cannot get away from the fact that the Northern Territory is going to cost us £274,385 in the ensuing year. The expenditure last year was £248,316.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– What is the estimated revenue?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The revenue is a negligible quantity. We have made a very fair start. The Territory has to be developed, but we cannot do everything at once.

We have heard a good deal of abuse of the Government from Senator Sayers. He said that all they want to do is to create a number of fat billets for their friends. An honorable senator who gets up and talks that kind of stuff is wasting our time. We should give each other credit for being sincere in our desire to develop the country, no matter what party we support. No Government, I am satisfied, would be mad enough to create billets for their friends in the Northern Territory. The Government have only made appointments where they were necessary. They may be expensive appointments, but if officers have to be sent up at all, I do not believe in a pennywiseandpoundfoolish policy. The Government were justified in appointing those whom they considered to be the best men for the positions they were to fill. They cannot afford to do more in the way of expenditure on the Territory at pre-, sent. Otherwise, I am satisfied that they would have proposed a railway from the south forthwith. But the line now proposed to be built is, at all events, one link in the through railway which must be constructed if this Parliament is to keep faith with South Australia. We must keep to the agreement, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. I earnestly hope that next year we shall be able to consider the question of a survey for a line right through. In the meantime, I feel compelled to support this proposal. This piece of railway will have to be made in any case. We have been told by the Government that there is a good deal of squatting country which will be opened up if this link is built. I hope that will prove to be the fact. I am not capable of expressing an opinion as to whether the freezing works should be at Port Darwin or on the Katherine. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the little knowledge I have, it appears that Port Darwin ought to be the most suitable place, at all events for some years to come, because it would cost a great deal more to establish the works on the Katherine. Those who are inclined to oppose the Bill ought to look at the matter from the point of view that the railway is a necessary link in a line which will ultimately come right through from Port Darwin to Port Augusta. The building of it does not remove from this Parliament the responsibility for authorizing the through line at the earliest possible moment, and beginning the work from the south end. For these reasons, I shall support the Bill.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I should like to say at once that I am strongly in favour of this Bill. It proposes to do what, four or five years ago, I urged ought to be done, namely, construct a railway from Pine Creek to the Katherine. Those who have lived in the tropics know pretty well what the position is. I am not referring to those who have been in the country only a few days, and have mistaken gullies for rivers, and rivers for gulf streams. But one doubt that arises in my mind is this: When we were discussing the Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie railway survey, I made the statement that if I should vote for it, I might be told that by so doing I pledged myself, logically, to vote for the construction of the railway later on. Senator Findley, it is true, told me that that was not the case, but I discovered that I had practically committed myself. I wish to make it plain now that if I vote for a survey of a railway from Pine Creek to the Katherine, I by no means commit myself to vote for a railway from the Katherine to Oodnadatta. If I thought that I should be charged with being illogical on that account, I should vote against this survey. I am not going to commit myself to vote for a single foot of railway beyond the Katherine at the present time.

Senator McGregor:

– Voting for this Bill does not involve that.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am afraid that the honorable senator is resorting to the old spider and fly business. He would induce me to vote for this survey, and, later on, when the first section of the line to Oodnadatta is proposed, he would say that I had pledged myself.- Therefore, I wish to make my position quite clear.

Senator Blakey:

– I suppose the honorable senator wants to drag the railway into Queensland.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– If the interests of the Northern Territory drag it into Queensland, I shall not be to blame. The reason why I am supporting this survey is, first of. all, that those who know the Northern Territory fairly well - and I am speaking particularly of Port Darwin and Essendon country - realize that there is what is known as a “ jump-up “ 250 miles from the sea coast. The present railway from Port Darwin runs 145 miles. We are proposing to construct another 50 miles, and shall then reach the stage of the “ jump-up.” Those who have read Windsor Earl’s book on tropical Australia will know that probably not more than 150 years ago a large quantity of the northern country along the Daly, the Adelaide, and the Alligator Rivers was under water. J mention that to show that a good part of th’e country has been dragged out of the sea, as it were. It is absolutely new country. At present, there is hardly an inch of good soil anywhere within 250 miles of the coast. A remark has been made about the Rum Jungle Experimental Station. Figuratively speaking, it would be possible to cover the whole of the Rum Jungle land that is being experimented upon with a pocket handkerchief. We have heard a great deal from time to time of the wonderful botanic gardens outside Palmerston. They are situated below what is called the escarpment, on a little patch of good country which is not greater in area probably than our own parliamentary gardens. I have no doubt that the time will come when, owing to the decay of vegetable matter, and the erosion of the rocks, the extreme northern part of the Territory may be settled, and agriculture carried on there on a large scale. But at the present time, with the exception of some land on the Daly River, and patches of land along some of the other rivers, there is no land in the extreme north on which a cabbage could be grown.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that cabbages could not be grown near the Katherine River?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– If the honorable senator had been present when I began ‘my speech he would know that I was distinguishing between the Katherine River country and the coast country. If it be any consolation to him I can inform him that I have already said that I am in favour of the survey and construction of the proposed line from Pine Creek to the Katherine River. I have tried to adhere, far more than has been done by other speakers, to the merits of the proposed survey, and have refrained from discussing the general administration of the whole Territory. In my opinion, we must carry the existing railway right up to what I call the “ jump-up,” to enable the hinterland of the Territory to be connected with the coast. I urge that more particularly because Mr. Justice Herbert, who was Government Resident of the Territory, year after year urged upon the South Australian Government that one of the best ways in which to settle the Northern Territory was to introduce a system of what he called mixed farming. Those who have any knowledge of the country are aware that, during certain months of the year, itis absolutely impossible to carry horses or cattle on the coast lands. It should not be forgotten that these coast lands are some 250 miles deep. The practice followed by settlers in the Territory is to bring horses down to the coast lands for a certain portion of the year, and then send them back to what I have been calling the hinterland for the balance of the year, during which they would not do well on the coast. It is true that a large number of goats are kept on the coast land all the year round, but I take it that we do not intend to develop the Northern Territory by specializing in the rearing of goats. In his report to the South Australian Government, in 1909, Mr. Justice Herbert referred to the fact that his tentative advice for the granting of mixed farming permits of two square miles of the hinterland country to any holder of agricultural leases of not less than 320 acres in area had not proved as popular as could be wished. This was a reference to a recommendation which he made in his report for 1905, which Senator Findley will remember, because I discussed it with the honorable senator when we were on a visit to the Northern Territory in 1907. In his report to the South Australian Government, in 1905, Mr. Justice Herbert wrote -

The establishment of a closer pastoral settlement combined with agriculture, i.e., mixed farming. That far the greater portion of this territory is admirably suited for cattle raising, and a great portion of it for sheep and pig raising, will not be denied by any person now within it, and, perhaps, by few who have never seen it and know it only by repute. This leaves me nothing to urge on the stock-raising side of this proposition.

I can by no means admit, after a fairly lengthy experience of the country and observations, that tropical agriculture of all kinds can be brought to a pitch of commercial success by European labour. At the same time, I am thoroughly convinced that in relation to many agriculture products this objection does not apply. Among the latter are some which, on the one hand, would tend to make mixed farming a success by aiding that portion of the industry consisting of stock raising, such as maize, peanuts, sweet potatoes, yams, pumpkins, and fodder plants; and, on the other hand, of some which could in themselves be produced at a fair margin of profit, and be a useful auxiliary in that respect to the undertaking as a whole, such as tobacco, cotton, arrow-root, and others.

Of land we have plenty and to spare -

I give that answer to those who have told us that all the valuable lands of the Northern Territory have been locked up. land, too, which is pre-eminently suited to this class of work - and I can conceive of no more admirable and patriotic use to which it can be put than to exchange some of it for population. The greatest stickler for private enterprise and individualism will admit so much. If men with families having sufficient small capital to settle on the country for this purpose could be obtained, the land, in return for this occupation and the expenditure of that small capital, would be well given if given gratuitously. If sufficient of these are not forthcoming the Government might well advance to desirable settlers having no capital the sufficient small capital referred to.

Both these classes of settlers could be encouraged, and the latter class should be assisted by free passages to the Territory and to their holdings (which latter should be carefully chosen by the Government beforehand in the most suitable districts for the industry) and by advances to enable them to establish themselves on the country selected for them.

An expenditure of , £25,000 in assisting families with passage from any part of Australia, and capital to establish themselves as suggested, would increase the present population of the country by 50 per cent. It is possible that the rest of Australia may be disinclined to become the recruiting ground for the Northern Territory for this purpose. Should this be the case (though I think it is hardly likely, considering the existing demand for land in some of the States) some arrangement could doubtless be made with the Federal authorities to allow of settlers being obtained from outside the Commonwealth.

I am now prepared to ask the representatives of South Australia, who are getting the various States, including Queensland, to pay the interest on the debts of the Northern Territory, what they ever did to carry out the recommendations of their own Government Resident. They did nothing. They threw the whole thing on . one side, year after year. In 1905, in 1908, and in 1909, the Government Resident of the Territory made the same recommendations to the South Australian Government, and referred to them time after time, and the people of South Australia, whom we have relieved of this great white elephant, did nothing. Now they come along in a virtuous sort of way and say, “ What a splendid thing it will be when we have built a railway bisecting the continent,” as if there were any virtue in bisecting anything.

Senator Blakey:

– South Australia did magnificent work in carrying on the administration of the Territory for so many years at a loss.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– When the Duke of Newcastle wrote to the Government of New South Wales, to say that they might have the Northern Territory because he could not manage it from London, the New South Wales Government refused to take on the job. But the South Australian people, being a young, virile, and ambitious community, said, “ Give us the Northern Territory, we will take it on,” and they have been howling about it ever since.

Senator Vardon:

– They have never howled about it.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– They did ; and South Australia, at last, came, cap in hand, to the Commonwealth and asked that we should take it over.

Senator Vardon:

– South Australia did nothing of the sort.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Referring to Mr. Justice Herbert’s proposal in connexion with mixed farming, 1 had the privilege, when I was at Palmerston, of a conversation with him, in which he explained his views more fully than he was able to do in ;i report. His idea is that horses especially, and possibly other stock, might he bred and reared for a certain time on the hinterland country, and might afterwards be brought to the coast land during certain months of the year This railway, if built, would give the Government, if they have the courage to initiate any real policy beyond the appointment of public servants for the development of the Northern Territory, an opportunity to carry out Mr. Justice Herbert’s recommendation. There is another reason why the existing line should be carried on to the Katherine River, and it is that, when we reach that place, we shall have touched country that is worth doing something with. The pretence that we can have agricultural settlement along the edges of the rivers in the coast district of the Northern Territory ls merely throwing dust in the eyes of the people. There is at present no land there suitable for the purpose. What are a few little patches of 10, 15, or 20 acres on the Edith River, and in the locality known as Rum Jungle. Then we are told that there is good land at Point Charles. But one could run all round the good land there in five minutes, and a politician does not run very fast unless he is trying to get away from his electors. There is a portion of the Territory which could be approached from the Katherine. I refer to the country along the Roper and McArthur Rivers on the Gulf of Carpentaria. The Go vernment, in reply to a question by me, assured me that they have not even a Customs official stationed along the Roper or McArthur Rivers. It should be remembered that the Gulf of Carpentaria is a huge expanse of water, and people, possessing cutters and small vessels, would have no difficulty in going into the Gulf and landing opium at places along the coast. I have reason to believe that that is where the opium, which finds its way into Australia, is landed. It is a matter of importance to the welfare of Australia that that country should be settled. I may inform honorable senators that there was settlement on the Roper and McArthur Rivers as long as one hundred years ago. That may be learned from the literature on the subject. The Roper River rises just below the “ jump-up,” as the Katherine River does also. They both practically rise at the same place, and one flows to the east while the other flows to the west. The rainfall along the western coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria is fairly steady all the year, and is very similar to the rainfall on the eastern coast of west Queensland. I may be anticipating matters somewhat, but I believe that, by carrying the railway through to the Katherine, and then eastwards towards Camooweal, we might connect with a system of railways in Queensland and New South Wales which would be of the greatest advantage. I am assuming that the Queensland authorities complete the railways they are now building, and that the New South Wales Government will carry out its undertaking with the Queensland Government to extend its railways in a certain direction. Upon the completion of the proposed system, in the event of an invasion of the Northern Territory, troops could be sent there by rail from Townsville, Rockhampton, and Brisbane, from Sydney, through Bourke, and from Victoria and South Australia, by the existing line to Sydney. Later on, when the country is comparatively settled, there is no reason why we should not consider the construction of a railway right through the Northern Territory as now proposed. Why should we build a railway when we have a professor reporting to the Government of South Australia that, in his opinion, it would be a good thing to plant palm trees in the middle of Australia so as to create oases in the desert. We are talking of the immediate time.

Senator McGregor:

– And he was talking of country which is not in the Northern Territory at all.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am talking about a general railway policy, and uttering a word of warning so that there shall be no mistake if there is an attempt made within any short time to build a railway right through the middle of Australia. We are not building a railway as I think we ought to do, and as we are doing in connexion with the line from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie. What we ought to have is practically a line running round the continent, and omitting the desert. Whatever the country in the middle of Australia may be, it is too far away to be of any use at present. Who are going, unless they do so with aeroplanes, to invade the desert?

Senator Vardon:

– Where is the desert?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Let my honorable friend ask Professor Wallace, who knows where it is.

Senator Vardon:

– I do not think he does.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– Professor Wallace compiled a report for the Government of South Australia, and they gave me a copy of it.

Senator Vardon:

– There are heaps of reports about.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– When the State Government print a report and distribute it to members of Parliament, I have to assume that they have some sort of belief in the report, unless, of course, they spend the people’s money in publishing freak reports and passing them on to members of Par.liament

Senator Vardon:

– The State Government do not hold themselves responsible for every sentence in the professor’s report.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– They hold themselves responsible for the general statements of a man who explored the country.

Senator Vardon:

– What exploration did he do?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– There are about forty-five books bv Professor Wallace. T do not know whether he explored anything ; but he managed to get people to publish his books. I am in favour of this Bill. I think it is proper that this railway should be constructed. By means of this extension, we shall carry the railway, so to speak, over the ranges, and get on to good country where it will be of value.

Senator O’Keefe:

– It has a better chance of being profitable there than where it stops now-

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I do not tak* that mean commercial view of the matter. I am thinking of what is good for the country, and not for anybody’s pocket.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I intended my remark in that sense.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am contending that the present railway should be extended for the sake of the country, and 1 do not care whether the extension pays for some years to come or hot.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Do not get angry with me when I agree with you.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am much obliged to the honorable senator, this being the first time that he has agreed with me. I support this proposal because- 1 believe that it will bridge over the gap between the bad country and the good country. I anticipate that it will be, at any rate, one small link in developing the Territory which has been so grossly neglected by the present Government, so far.

Senator BLAKEY:
Victoria

.- When two honorable senators at the extreme poles of political thought, like Senators Chataway and O’Keefe, agree that it is absolutely essential for the development of the Northern Territory, and in the interests of the Commonwealth, that this Railway Survey Bril should be passed, I think that there is no need for further argument. I am pleased to think that the Bill will be passed, and that it will be one of the means of linking up the present terminus of the railway at Pine Creek with a fringe of good country on the Katherine River. As one who has recently had the experience, perhaps not exactly a pleasurable one, of traversing on horseback that stretch of country in the lonely north, I think that the Government are doing right, no matter what may eventually occur in connexion with the deviation of the line, in linking up Pine Creek with Katherine River, because, in my opinion, this is one of the first links in the chain which is to be forged, so to speak, to join the northern coast with the more populated portions in the south. At the Katherine River, I had a conversation with a man who had a station some miles to the southward, and who happened to be there with a mob of cattle. If I remember aright, he had the Elsey station, which is described so splendidly by Mrs. Gunn, in her book The Never Never. He said that he could get fat cattle as far as the Katherine River without them losing appreciably in condition, but that the intervening stretch of country between the river and Pine Creek was of so severe a character, and so lacking in grass and nourishment, that fat cattle deteriorated from that stage, and in a little time became stores. I think that if a line is constructed from Pine Creek to the Katherine River, and eventually taken right through the centre of the Commonwealth - down through the MacDonnell Ranges, and not pulled over to the east or to the west - it will be of great assistance to cattle-rearers, horse-breeders, and the settlers and the miners whom we hope to see sooner or later placed in the heart of the Territory.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The heart of Australia will be no good without them.

Senator BLAKEY:

– Not the slightest. Whether a man be in favour of extending the railway as Senator Chataway has advocated, not through South Australia, but over towards Camooweal and Cloncurry, or dragging the line over towards Wyndham in the north-west of Western Australia, I think that the construction of this length of 56 miles is one of the essentials. It is so to speak, the vertebra of the whole scheme. I think that Senator McDougall was wrong in the statement he made as regards the cost of bridging some of the rivers along the route of the proposed line. In my opinion, there is no comparison between a stream like the Ferguson, or the Cullen, or the Driffield, or the Philip, or the Edith, and the Katherine River, because the latter is a broad and magnificent stream, standing out almost as the Murray of the Northern Territory. We never had an opportunity of seeing the country for more than 200 miles from the coast. I anticipate that, when we get to the Katherine River, one of our chief items of expenditure will begin. « The overland telegraph line crosses the river with a span nearly a quarter of a [[11 1 e long. I have not had any experience in the building of bridges or railways, but T venture to predict that the cost of bridging the Katherine River will, owing to its great width and eccentricities in times of flood, be very heavy. Senator Chataway has said that all that the Government have done in connexion with opening up the Territory has been to appoint about ninety-five of their friends to various positions there. No matter what this Government may do, in the eyes of their critics and opponents they seem to do wrong. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition in another place expatiate with great eloquence upon the absolute necessity of spending, not pounds, but millions of pounds, in opening up what he vividly described as the Achilles heel of Australia, the vulnerable spot, the great empty north. Yet there are some members of the Opposition here who will say that, because we took the first step to place in the Territory the officials who are necessary for the carrying out of public works and the administration of various laws and regulations, we did wrong. We are told, in connexion with’ the proposed railway, that appointments are being made by gross favoritism. I ask Senator Chataway, or any other member of the Opposition, if the gentleman who is in charge of the railway survey now, Mr. Francis, is by any means a supporter of the present Government? He has absolutely declared - and I give him credit for his opinion - that he is opposed to Labour in every shape and form. Yet we are told that all our appointments in the Territory are made with the view to having persons who are in favour of our policy. Mr. Francis - a gentleman for whom I have a personal regard - will be in charge of this survey, and will, 1 .think, do his work honestly and well. I have made these remarks in refutation of the statement made by Senator Chataway, that all the appointments of this Government are those of men who are supporters of its principles, and are pledged to legislation which it is in favour of.

Senator Chataway:

– As a matter of personal explanation, sir, I wish to say that I never made any such statement.

Senator BLAKEY:

– I have here a note of the honorable senator’s remark that the Government had appointed ninety-five of its friends to official positions in the Northern Territory.

Senator Chataway:

– I never used the word “ friends.”

Senator BLAKEY:

– And Senator McGregor distinctly ‘ contradicted the statement.

Senator Chataway:

– He said that the appointments applied to the whole of the Commonwealth, or something to that effect. In short, that the Hansard proof is wrong.

Senator BLAKEY:

– I do not want to digress, but merely to point out that the appointments in the Northern Territory have not been made in a spirit of favoritism, nor are all the appointees supporters of the Labour party. I sincerely hope that, when the. survey of this extension is finished, and the necessary preliminary arrangements are made, the gauge of the existing railway from Darwin to Pine Creek will be altered to conform with the gauge proposed in connexion with the other railways which the Commonwealth has undertaken to construct. Personally, I would prefer a broader gauge, but Parliament has accepted the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge; and I think that when we are. laying the foundation-stone, as it were, of a great national line which will bisect the Commonwealth from north to south, we should go to the expense of relaying the existing lineof 146 miles from Darwin to Pine Creek on that gauge. I trust that the gauge will be at least 4 ft. 8½ in., and that we shall lay the foundation of a great national iron road which will traverse this country from north to south. This is one of the schemes which, in my opinion, is essential to the development of the Territory. I know that the expense involved in the enterprise will be considerable. But when we recollect that since the Commonwealth has taken over the Northern Territory it has been expending nearly £1,000per day upon it, it is necessary that we should chase our money, so to speak. It is of no use adopting a pennywiseandpoundfoolish policy in regard to this matter. We must be firm and bold in grasping the nettle of the Northern Territory, and bringing the interior of it into railway communication with our northern ports. I shall support the Bill.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I do not think that any honorable senator wishes to oppose any measure which is likely to develop the Northern Territory, since the Commonwealth has taken it over. Senator O’Keefe stated just now that it was the aim of the representatives of South Australia to attract the trade of the Territory to Adelaide.

Senator O’Keefe:

– That is their natural aim. If I were a South Australian, I would like to do that.

Senator VARDON:

– Then the honorable senator must learn that South Australians have risen a little above that position. I quite admit that that is the kind of game which the Queensland representatives are endeavouring to play. South Australia has never adopted a selfish policy, so far as this railway is concerned. Even when the transcontinental line is completed, I do not know that it will attract a great amount of trade to Adelaide, although Port Augusta may be the natural outlet of some of that trade. South Australia has made very great sacrifices for the sake of the Territory itself. In the first place she constructed the overland tele graph line from north to south as the initial step in the development of that Territory.

Senator Chataway:

– The honorable senator is referring to the time when South Australia broke faith with Queensland.

Senator VARDON:

– I do not think that South Australia has ever broken faith with any State. South Australians are not the sort of people to break faith with anybody. My honorable friend has an excited imagination. South Australia did make sacrifices for the benefit of the Territory.

Senator O’Keefe:

– She made a bargain, too.

Senator VARDON:

– She had every right to do so.

Senator Ready:

– Does the honorable senator think that South Australia did all that she could to develop the Territory prior to the Commonwealth taking it over?

Senator VARDON:

– I will deal with that aspect of the question. I will speak of what she did, and what she neglected to do. From first to last, all she had in view was the development of the Territory itself. That was her main object. The Territory admittedly possessed vast resources, and it was only right that an attempt should be made to develop them. Reference has been made to the agreement into which she entered with the Commonwealth, and to the bargain which she drove with it. But South Australia had carried a heavy burden in connexion with the Northern Territory for many years. She did not approach the Commonwealth with a view to the latter taking it over. The overtures proceeded, in the first instance, from Mr. Deakin, who recognised that South Australia was carrying a heavy burden, and one which the Commonwealth ought to shoulder. Consequently, he made advances to Mr. Thomas Price, who was the Labour Premier of South Australia at the time, and negotiations were carried on with a view to securing the transfer of the Territory. Naturally, when South Australia thought of handing over the Territory to the Commonwealth one of her first considerations was, “ What about railway communication? “ She had already constructed a line for a distance of 680 miles north of Adelaide, which was intended to be the beginning of a through line to Port Darwin. Having done so much, she naturally wished to be assured that, if the Territory were taken over by the Commonwealth, that line would be continued. She did not ask that a line should be started from Port Darwin and run out into Queensland. That would be of no use in developing the Territory. She asked for the construction of a line which would follow fairly closely the overland telegraph line, and which would really be a line of development. We opposed any deviation of that line, because such a deviation would not assist in the development of the Territory, which was the primary consideration.

Senator Ready:

– It would develop another State at the expense of the Territory.

Senator VARDON:

– I do not wish to put the matter in that way. That was a very fair position for South Australia to take up. I do not think it is fair to say that she drove a hard bargain when she made it part and parcel of the agreement with the Commonwealth that a line should be constructed through the Territory itself to connect Oodnadatta with Pine Creek. I take it that the Vice-President of the Executive Council has assured us that the line from Pine Creek to the Katherine is merely the beginning of a railway which will eventually link up those two places. Therefore, I ask, “Are the Government beginning to develop the Territory from the right end?” Is it better to begin railway construction at the northern end, and to proceed south, than it is to begin that construction at the south end, and proceed north? The Vice-President of the Executive Council has stated that the Government are acting on the advice of the Administrator. If the Administrator be a wise and practical man, they have a right to look to him for advice as to what they should do in regard to the development of this Territory. But I do not think that we have all the information that we ought to have in regard to this proposed line. We have no expert advice to show that Port Darwin is the best place at which to establish freezing works. In fact, a big diversity of opinion exists in regard to that matter. Many of those who are engaged in the cattle trade say that freezing works should be established in the country where the cattle are raised - that it would be better to slaughter the beasts on the spot, and simply to cart their carcasses to Port Darwin. I think we might have had some expert advice upon this question before we were invited practically to authorize the construction of this railway.

Senator McGregor:

– A question like that does not require much in the way of expert advice.

Senator VARDON:

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council say that he has made inquiries which satisfy him that Port Darwin is the right place at which to establish freezing works ?

Senator McGregor:

– I have said so already, and I will explain the position again.

Senator VARDON:

– There is a very great difference of opinion in regard to this matter. I should have liked some advice from those who have had experience of the meat trade as to whether the view taken by the Government is correct. Again, we have no information as to the number of cattle which is likely to be carried over this line.

Senator McGregor:

– I said it was estimated that it would be necessary to carry 10,000 cattle a month to keep the freezing works going. I can tell the honorable senator the number of cattle there is in the Territory, too.

Senator VARDON:

– But the VicePresident of the Executive Council did not say that these 10,000 cattle were likely to be carried over this line.

Senator McGregor:

– Yes.

Senator VARDON:

– That is a point upon which we ought to have information. It is idle to construct this line, and to establish freezing works at Port Darwin, if there is not going to be sufficient trade to keep those works continuously employed. Inregard to these matters, we ought to beplaced in possession of all possible information. I am .not at all sure that it would not be a good thing to appoint a permanent committee to inquire into all our big projected public works, and to submit reports upon them to Parliament for its guidance; So far, we have been given no estimate of either the receipts or the expenditure connected with the working of this line. I have never before known a railway proposition to be submitted to Parliament which did not set out the probable receipts and expenditure under it. I do not regard the proposed line in the light of a reproductive work. I look upon it merely as a line of development. It may not pay its way; but we ought to have some idea of what the traffic over it will be, and how far its probable receipts will go towards meeting the expenditure upon it. I notice, too, that the cost of the proposed survey is set down at £5>000-

Senator McGregor:

– It is estimated that it will cost £4,100.

Senator VARDON:

– That is a little information which honorable senators might have been given at the beginning of this debate. However, I am glad to know that £5,000 really represents a sum of ,£900 in excess of the estimated cost of the survey.

Senator McGregor:

– It may cost either a little more or a little less than the estimated amount.

Sitting suspended from z to 2.30 p.m.

Senator VARDON:

– Yesterday Senator Rae raised the question of whether, by starting this railway from the north and running into the interior of Australia, we were not playing into the hands of a possible enemy. Port Darwin being a weak spot, an enemy landing there would, he said, secure railway communication into the heart of the country. There may be something in that point ; but, on the other hand, the construction of the railway may bring a greater number of people into the Territory, and that may be a great advantage from a defence point of view. At all events, I do not look upon the construction of the line as a menace in that aspect. The question has been asked why we should start from the northern end, rather than from Oodnadatta. The Commonwealth, having taken over the Territory, has assumed responsibility for the railway already constructed from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta. I am sorry that it has to be admitted that there is a loss of ,£80,000 a year on that line. It is very possible that, by carrying the railway northwards from Oodnadatta, we might do something to minimize the loss, or wipe it out altogether. Senator Story, speaking on a motion of his own last night, read some interesting reports as to this country and its resources from men who had been over it. It is admitted that the country to the north of Oodnadatta becomes richer. At present the line ends in a cul de sac. The country is of little or no use, except, perhaps, for horse breeding. But if the railway were carried as far as the MacDonnell Ranges, where there are known to be rich mineral deposits, it might lead to considerable development. Nothing is more calculated to attract population than a rich gold- field, and when people get to a place, they look around for other means of development. These points constitute a good argument for commencing the railway from Oodnadatta. Senator Chataway this morning read us a lecture because of our want of patriotism. It is absolutely certain that what the Queensland representatives have been hungering for is to get the trade of the Territory carried into their State.

The honorable senator quoted a report from Mr. Justice Herbert, who lived in the Territory for a considerable time, and waB for some time Administrator. I am prepared to give every consideration to what Mr. Herbert says. Even though I may not agree with all his conclusions, 1 give him credit for his sincerity. He has no axe of his own to grind. But when Senator Chataway quotes from a report from some Professor Wallace, I challenge him to say whether that gentleman was ever in the Territory in his life, or ever saw an acre of land there. If he was not, what is the value of his criticisms ?

Senator McGregor:

– I think they applied only to the country from Hergott.

Senator VARDON:

– If that is what Senator Chataway meant, it was not a bad thing for Professor Wallace to recommend the planting of date palms, because undoubtedly they will grow there. Whatwe in South Australia desire is the development of the Territory in the best possible way. There was a reason for the State giving up the management of, and responsibility for it, because this Parliament had decided upon a White Australia policy, and an immigration restriction policy, and it was, therefore, “ up to” the Commonwealth Parliament to take over the development of the Northern Territory, so as to preserve the White Australia policy there. South Australia had good reason for not undertaking the construction of the railway beyond Oodnadatta. Very bad times occurred ; we were afflicted by a series of drought years, and the resources of the State were strained. Railway construction had to be postponed until better times arrived. We were simply waiting for better seasons.

Senator Guthrie:

– South Australia offered the Territory to the London moneybrokers.

Senator VARDON:

– That is about as accurate as the statements my honorable friend often makes.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator knows that a Land Grant Bill was passed in South Australia.

Senator VARDON:

– Even if such a Bill were passed, it did not give away the whole Territory.

Senator Guthrie:

– It gave away a large portion of it.

Senator VARDON:

– We had to hold our hands with regard to the continuation of the railway, in the Territory. I am sorry that when seasons turned, and revenue became more abundant, South Australia did not immediately have the courage to construct the railway from Oodnadatta into the MacDonnell Ranges. That would have opened up the good country and would have absolutely assured railway construction from south to north. I do not feel justified in opposing this Bill. It represents part of the Government’s developmental policy. Whether it be right or wrong, the responsibility must be theirs. I think we ought to have had more information on certain points, but the Government must take the responsibility for that also. If the policy be a success, so much the better for them; if it be a failure, they will be to blame. But, whatever is done in the way of developing the Northern Territory, I hope that we shall be successful in our aims, and that the best interests of the country will be conserved.

Debate (on motion by Senator de Largie) adjourned.

page 3575

SUGAR BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26th September (vide page 3472), on motion by Senator Findley -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I did not expect to have to speak on this subject this afternoon, and am, therefore, at rather a disadvantage. It is almost impossible to approach the subject without some reference to the legislation by which the sugar industry has been - I say advisedly - always tormented by the Federal Parliament since we . assumed jurisdiction in the matter. There is but one conclusion to which any impartial student of our politics for the past few years must come, and that is that the Commonwealth Government ought, as far as possible, and as soon as possible, to remove this great industry out of the arena of political conflict. The sooner Parliament resolves to do that, the better it will be, from the point of view of effective legislation. Acts have been passed time and again dealing with the subject in the light of previous experience. The regulations which have been framed under our Acts would fill a large library. It is not an undeserved or unfair comment to say that the more Acts have been passed and regulations issued on the lines originally adopted the greater has been the dissatisfaction, wrangling, and strife which have been developed in connexion with this industry. The Commonwealth and State Parliaments have adopted in regard to industrial matters one important economic principle, and that is that the relations between employers and employes shall be, as far as possible, relegated, if not forced, for settlement to some local industrial tribunal consisting of representatives of both parties interested, with an. impartial chairman, if such a being can be born upon this earth. I have just risen from the perusal of an article in which a good deal is expressed against that principle. Still the State and Federal Parliaments, notwithstanding adverse signs, and almost open rebellion in certain quarters, have determined that the settlement of industrial disputes shall be left to such tribunals.

Senator Blakey:

– Do not the employers nearly always rebel when they are compelled to pay good wages?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It may be so ; but I would ask the honorable senator whether the employes do not always complain when they do not get what they desire as sufficient wages. It is only human nature that they should, and it is to be expected that these differences of opinion will be very strongly expressed. Another economic principle which we have adopted, and in the application of which no distinction is made between primary and secondary industries, is the Protectionist principle. If it can be shown that, by Protection, which is the settled policy of Australia, any industries can be developed, we are prepared to encourage their development in that way. I am not surveying mankind from China to Peru, but it will be admitted that these are two very general principles, and have an important bearing upon the industry with which this Bill deals. The first principle is that the settlement of conditions of labour and rates of wages in this, as in other industries, should be left to local tribunals, and the less any Government have to do with them the better.

Senator Findley:

– Is not that the object of this Bill?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No; I think not. I hope I am not doing the Government an injustice when I say that I do not believe they have introduced this Bill for the express purpose of releasing, so far as it is possible to do so, the hand of the Minister of Trade and Customs from the industry. If the honorable senator will consult the terms of the Bill,. he will find that my statement is substantially correct. What other protected industry in “Australia is subjected simultaneously to the operation of an Excise duty and a bounty. I believe it can be shown that the disputes connected with the industry have arisen from the simultaneous operation upon it of these contradictory fiscal principles. If the Government desired by their legislation to make the industry more easy to carry on they would never have introduced this measure. They have been told more than once by disinterested authorities who are competent to advise that the root of the difficulty in connexion with the sugar industry is not to be found in the industrial conditions and rates of wages paid to the workers in it, but to the operation simultaneously upon the industry of two diverse economic principles. The Government might have persevered with their policy of obtaining some direct control of the conditions of employment and rates of wages in the industry, and at the same time have met the clamour throughout Queensland for relief from the two conflicting fiscal conditions under which it is being carried on. The Government still profess faith and hope that this continuous tinkering, with the relations between employer and employe” in the industry will make the position of the workers better. How many more Acts are to be passed, and how much more mischief is to be perpetrated in connexion with this industry before the Government will learn the obvious lesson? It should be remembered that before this Bill was introduced, another method of dealing with the question was suggested by the responsible State authorities of Queensland. That is borne out by correspondence which, I believe, has been laid on the table. Mr. Denham, the Premier of Queensland, offered, if we abolished the Excise and bounty, to introduce a special measure in the Queensland Parliament to prevent the employment of any alien labour in the sugar industry, and he proposed, in order that the workers in the industry might have their interests guarded, to modify a measure which was going through the State Parliament in such a way as to secure to them good conditions and fair rates of wages. As a means for the improvement of the condition of affairs in the sugar industry, I regard this Bill as I should regard the application of a mustard plaster to a wooden leg. It is a mere howling pretence to induce the people of Queens- land, and all engaged in the industry* to believe that one more heroic effort is being made to put it upon a satisfactory basis. The overwhelming testimony of those interested in the industry is against this perpetual tinkering legislation. The Prime Minister is himself an exponent of a principle which does not find a place in this Bill. It will be admitted that the grower is an essential factor in the industry. Without the growers, there would be no need for the workers. It is not unreasonable to regard the grower as the basis of the industry. I am prepared, if honorable senators please, to admit that the workers in the cane-fields represent another essential factor. Both go into the industry from practically the same motive. The grower desires to get all he can for the sugar that he grows, and the worker desires to get all the wages he can for the work he does in the field.

Senator Blakey:

– They are both after the “ sugar.”

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Of course. Why do we not bravely strip our souls of cant, and, if we are employers, admit that we are looking after the dollars; and, if we are employes, that we are looking for the best conditions and wages for our labour. The workers in the field, and the growers of the cane have more than once indorsed an expression of opinion by the Prime Minister that the imposition of an Excise duty upon an article which is one of the necessaries of life is economically unsound. It represents a burden upon the industry which does not benefit the grower, and prevents a benefit being extended to the worker in the field. It is part of the history of this section that the Excise duty on sugar is paid by the grower.

Senator Chataway:

– I direct attention to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.]

Senator ST LEDGER:

– What .is contended is that the present fiscal and economical arrangements are wrong in every way. If the Government are honestly desirous of effectively benefiting the workers in the cane fields, they should seek to remove one of the burdens upon the industry, and one which, to the extent that it is a burden, prevents the workers from improving their economic condition. This is a. Bill to amend the Sugar Bounty Acts of 1905 and 19 10. Those Acts, together with the Act of 1903, were intended to advance the interests of the growers.

Senator Chataway:

– To make the growers grow cane with white labour.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Yes, to be more precise. I thought that I understood to some extent the Act of 1905, and I thought that I did understand the amending Act of 1910, but I confess straightaway that if anybody understands clearly this Bill, and what is intended to be done then, without any desire to be either insulting or unduly complimentary, he has a higher or quicker intelligence than I have. I cannot understand the Bill, and I doubt whether the Government do. The difficulty is to find out where the Minister’s hand begins and where it ends, if it ends at all. Further than that, the Minister, to a very large extent, was the sole tribunal, subject to certain limitations in ‘ the previous Act, for determining the rates of wages. That had some advantages. There was one final court of appeal, anyhow. That was the Minister, and, although he was far away, he was easily got at sometimes through the representatives of the State of Queensland.

Senator Chataway:

– Through the Speaker of the House of Representatives, you might mention.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Perhaps it would be more accurate and more courteous to say that through their representatives the Minister could be, so to speak, approached. I should not like to use the phrase “ got at “ with its sinister significance. Now what does the Bill do ? It provides for the settlement of a matter in the Arbitration Court. The Minister may, at any time he thinks fit, call upon the Arbitration Court to settle a matter.

Senator Chataway:

– Or a State Industrial Court.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The Minister may, at his own caprice, refer a matter to any Judge of a Federal or a State Court, or to any person or persons who compose a State industrial authority.

Senator Chataway:

– What power has he to get a Wages Board to make a decision ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I should like the Government to make the position clearer than they have done. I do not think that I was present during the whole of the speech with which the Minister moved the second reading of the Bill. Why should we complicate the industry with these alternative Industrial Courts in this way? Neither the grower nor the workers in a dispute can be sure as to which Court they will be thrown into. If that be so, as I think it is, then the last stage is infi nitely worse than the first, both to the grower and to the workers, because it is of immediate interest and benefit to both parties to know that whenever a matter crops up in the industry there will be some local tribunal which may be immediately approached. Why is it that in a matter of this kind, which for its successful working depends upon the proper adaptation of local conditions, the last body in which the Minister seems to put confidence is the Wages Board or industrial tribunal in the locality ?

Senator Chataway:

– The Premier of Queensland promised to establish Wages Boards.

Senator Findley:

– They have been promising that since the crack of doom.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– If that is the spirit in which the Government are going to approach the industry, they will cripple it.

Senator Stewart:

– You told us that long ago.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I have said that in some respects this legislation has been successful. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that the difficulties are mainly of legislative creation.

Senator Findley:

– Legislation did rot create sweating conditions.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– That is only a springe to catch woodcocks. What have sweating conditions to do with this matter? There is an economic principle involved. I am sure that the Minister in charge of the Bill, however much he may sneer or throw out taunts about sweating, will not deny that it is highly advisable to let the parties to a dispute in the industry settle it among themselves, and to encourage that principle wherever the Commonwealth has jurisdiction. In this Bill, however, the Government seem to deliberately put the cart in front of the horse, instead of trying by the experience of past legislation to find out exactly which part is the front of the cart, and to put the horse there as soon as possible.

Senator Stewart:

– What do you object to in the Bill?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– It will complicate and render difficult, if not impossible, any satisfactory solution of a trouble as to wages between an employer and his employes. Our previous experience goes to show that. We have had trouble enough with this industry. Every political party is troubled with it. At every election in Queensland, whether Federal or State, this is one of the stock questions which are thrown into the melting-pot, so to speak, for the candidates of every party to make political capital out of. It is a most extraordinary thing that the amending legislation which has been brought in from time to time has, as a rule, preceded or immediately followed an election.

Senator Findley:

– Is not that the strongest reason why this matter should be taken out of the hands of parties and placed in the control of a Court?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I should have thought that to one gifted with a grain of intelligence and reasoning power, that would be the very reason why it should not trouble the Legislature any longer, that certain economic principles being determined, the parties vitally interested should be encouraged to settle their differences amongst themselves. In giving alternative jurisdiction to four or five Courts you offer a temptation both to employers and to employes to gamble in those Courts on the industry. That is, to my mind, a radical defect in the Bill. There is another thing of which the Legislature and the representatives from other States may very well complain. What particular need or hurry is there now to anticipate the report of the Royal Commission on this industry? One of the most pressing reasons for the appointment of a Royal Commission was the charge made over and over again, inside Parliament and in the States, that the worker was not getting, and could not get, a square deal. He pressed bis claims so hard that the previous Government’ determined that they would try to settle this vexed question once and for all by appointing a competent and impartial Commission to investigate it. But, unfortunately, that Commission in its form and scope was wiped out of existence. The present Government knew that they had to take similar action ; hence they appointed a Royal Commission. Every member of this Parliament, every citizen who can follow matters intelligently, knows that the more the subject was probed into by that Commission in the light of the experiences of the past, in the light of objections and suggestions put forward by all parties in the industry, the more it was found to be one of the toughest questions that a Commission or a Parliament could tackle. Yet we are asked to pass a piece of tinkering legislation. The more and more this question has been dealt with in this tinker ing way, the more difficulties have presented themselves to the Minister. Indeed, the Federal Parliament has got so tired of the subject that one can hear murmurs that it should wipe its hands of the whole industry and let it take its fate in common with other industries.

Senator Stewart:

– Tell us what you want.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– If we want to benefit the conditions of the workers, we must first begin by abolishing the Excise and the bounty, and in saying that I am only repeating what the Prime Minister has said more than once in Parliament. When we have taken that step, we may find a solution of the difficulty. If the grower cannot extend to the worker such conditions in regard to wages as he would like, my contention is that this Bill will not better his position. But there is strong reason to believe that if the Excise and bounty were abolished those conditions might be improved.

Senator Stewart:

– There would then be £i per ton more to divide amongst those who are engaged in the industry.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Exactly. The honorable senator has made a very sensible interjection. In reading the Queensland Hansard the other day I saw that in some localities the millers had made a distinct offer to increase the price which they paid for their cane if the Excise and bounty were abolished.

Senator Chataway:

– The Premier of Queensland has authoritatively stated that he will introduce legislation which will guarantee to the growers an increased price for their cane.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– That fact is not disputed. It was an insult to the Premier of Queensland to suggest that that offer was not made perfectly bona fide by one who has the power to make good his offer. This Bill consists of only a few clauses, and perhaps it will be more appropriate if I deal with its extraordinary wording in Committee. I may have become very dense since the present session of Parliament opened, because I confess that I cannot understand its provisions. But if I do understand them aright the sugar industry will be landed by this legislation in a maze of complication and trouble. If a State Court, upon the reference to it of a matter in respect of wages, gives its decision, and that decision is not acceptable to one of the parties concerned, what will happen? Will the dissatisfied party say, “I am dissatisfied with the decision, and therefore I will go down to the Minister, and ask him to throw the whole matter into the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court?” Where is the thing going to end? Are the decisions of these Courts to be final ? What penalties are to be imposed in case of any breach of their awards? I have long abandoned all hope of achieving any good by dealing with the constitutional aspect of questions in this Chamber.

Senator Blakey:

– The honorable senator objects to the wording of the Bill.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I object both to its intention and to the way in which that intention is expressed. I can see in the Bill neither beginning nor end, scheme nor plan. I hope that the Honorary Minister will be able to show me that I am labouring under a strong delusion in regard to this matter. Sub-clause 4 of clause 2 of the Bill provides - “ If the Minister finds that the rates of wages and conditions of employment, or any of them -

  1. are below the standard rates and conditions of employment prescribed by any Commonwealth or State industrial authority, or
  2. are below the standard rates and conditions applicable to the locality and agreed upon between representatives of associations of employers and employees registered under any Commonwealth or State Act, or
  3. are below the rates and conditions declared, asin the first sub-section of this section mentioned, to be fair and reasonable, the Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the bounty payable.

It seems to me that under that provision, after any one of these tribunals has pronounced its judgment upon the question of the wages to be paid in the industry-, the Minister may ignore that judgment, and say, “ I do not believe that the Court has fixed a reasonable rate of wages.”

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator think that, after a properly constituted Court had made its award, any sane Minister would refuse to pay the bounty to growers who had complied with the conditions of that award?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– This is not a question of whether the Minister will be sane or insane, reasonable or unreasonable. The question is, “ Who is to be the final authority in the matter?” It is a most imperfect answer to say, “ Cannot you presume that the Minister will be sane and reasonable?” Surely the Minister ought to have sufficient common sense to know that at some stage there should be finality. Parliament should see that when a decision has been given by a properly constituted tribunal the Minister and everybody else shall abide by it until good cause has been shown why it should be reconsidered. I have always advocated that economic difficulties in the sugar industry, should, as far as possible, be settled by arbitration. But I have always refused to set myself up as the arbiter of what is a fair wage in any industry. I know that I am incompetent to decide that question. I think, too, that Parliament is the most incompetent authority to decide it.

Senator Stewart:

– This Bill does not propose to leave that matter in the hands of Parliament.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Nor does it propose to take it out of the hands of Parliament. The measure will tend to increase the irritation which breaks out sporadically and periodically in the sugar industry. I regret this circumstance extremely. We would all like to discover some satisfactory solution of this great problem. It is a very important one.

Senator Chataway:

– To stop interfering with the industry is the solution of the problem.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Possibly. Certainly the less we tinker with it the better. There is another reason why the Government should immediately seek a satisfactory solution of this difficulty, namely, that the sugar industry is inseparably connected with the maintenance of a white race upon the tropical and subtropical lowlands of Queensland. Of all the means which have yet been devised to secure the settlement of a white population upon those lands, none has proved so attractive, or, on the whole, so remunerative to the worker, as has the cultivation of sugar.

Senator de Largie:

– The poorest paid work in Australia.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– One is quite accustomed to interjections of that kind ; but I am absolutely impervious and pachydermatous to the sneers of the Government and their supporters. I am not arguing whether the economic condition of the workers is remarkably bright and attractive or otherwise, though certainly many of those engaged in the cane-fields are much better off than are numbers of men and women who are employed in Melbourne factories. The real point is that the growth of sugar has been a powerful instrument in encouraging white settlement in Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– It never encouraged white settlement until the Commonwealth brought in its legislation.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– If we wish to promote and develop white settlement, we shall have to give a fostering hand to the sugar industry. Given a tropical country, with a remunerative industry, and such a hinterland as Queensland happily possesses, and you induce population by reason of the very attractiveness of occupation. That population is able to reproduce itself, and to recuperate its strength, by easy access either to the hinterland or to the southern portions of the continent for terms of residence. There is no problem of greater interestto Australia, and, indirectly, of wider moment to the Empire, than that of the rapid settlement of the empty spaces of which ournorthern coastal districts are splendid examples. Even the tropical coast- line, warm and moist as it is in summer, will sustain a white population if the staple industry be wisely and properly managed. But this Bill affords a magnificent instance of how not to do it, and of how to cure one bungle by making a greater one. There is every reason to believe that the measure will be entirely unacceptable to every interest concerned with sugargrowing in Queensland. I have not heard that the workers are hungering for it. I know that they have complaints, and that, about eighteen months ago, they went on strike.

Senator Blakey:

– For 30s. a week and forty-eight hours’ work.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– The question now is not the sufficiency or otherwise of the wage, But whether this legislation is demanded by anybody.

Senator Findley:

– There has been seething discontent amongst the workers for a long time.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Can the Minister give us clear and overwhelming official proof that the workers want this legislation ?

Senator Findley:

– Did they not strike?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– They did.

Senator Findley:

– What did they strike for?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– A few ignorant fanatics misled the men, as the same tribe have misled others throughout Queensland.

Senator Blakey:

– They only wanted two guineas a week, finding themselves.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– That is not the question.

Senator de Largie:

– I would like to see the honorable senator working in the sugar industry.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Although I am a fairly good specimen of physical development, I am quite satisfied that, after three hours’ trial in any Queensland sugar field, I should be instantly despatched to the nearest hospital. Therefore, my point of view is strictly impersonal. The question, I say again, is whether this Bill is wanted.

Senator Findley:

– The growers themselves have been asking for finality.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– That is the one cheering ray of light which the Minister has contributed to this debate. If the growers have made representations to the Government, i shall be glad’ to hear that they have received careful consideration. But have either the growers or the workers asked for this Bill? The great bulk of them joined with the growers in asking for an entirely different solution of their difficulties. Many have requested that matters in dispute should be referred to local tribunals. The original Act enabled the Minister to be guided by local information.. It was sound in that respect. But under this measure matters in dispute may be referred to Court after Court, and at the end of it all the Minister may put his hand upon the fabric of decisions that has been built up and tear down the whole edifice. I regret that I cannot command language sufficiently strong in which to condemn this Bill, and to convey my warning of future disaster. This much I do know - that legislation on the sugar question, after the report of the Royal Commission is presented, is going to throw the industry again into the arena of politics, where such questions in dispute can never be satisfactorily settled, and where each successive step taken makes things worse than they were before.

Senator Vardon:

– I think we ought to have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– It is a matter of regret that the Honorary Minister, in introducing this Bill, did not furnish us with more definite information. By interjection, I suggested to him that he might explain why it is that there are two distinct methods of determining wages. One is that the Government insist on a standard rate of wage in a locality being paid; and the other is that they call upon a Court to decide what a fair and reasonable wage is. I am not prepared to say whether a standard wage is fair and reasonable, or whether a fair and reasonable wage is a standard one. But we are being driven into this position, that, in the ordinary sugar districts, we shall have three different rates of wages prevailing. One rate will be fixed by a Wages Board; the second rate will be what is considered to be the standard rate.

Senator Rae:

– Who fixes that?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– It can be fixed by the Minister. Under a provision which it is not proposed to repeal by this Bill the Minister has to ascertain, by inquiry, what is the standard rate.

Senator Findley:

– The rate is decided upon between representatives of the employers and employes and that is the ruling rate.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– That is the second rate, however it is ascertained. There is then a third method of arriving at the rate. A Judge of the Supreme Court is to be allowed to say what he thinks is a fair and reasonable rate of wages. This must, give rise to a considerable amount of difficulty and confusion. In Queensland, at the present time, we have Wages Boards which determine the rates of wages in factories. Suppose the Minister authorizes an industrial authority, a Judge of a Supreme Court, or Mr. Justice Higgins, to declare what shall be a fair and reasonable rate of wages for persons employed outside factories, it must be clear that if he decides upon a higher rate of wages than that fixed by the Wages Boards for employes in factories these employes will leave the factories for work in the fields at the higher rate of wages fixed by a Judge who may know no more about the sugar industry than he does about the higher mathematics, and probably a good deal less. The Government, under this Bill, propose the creation of a number of tribunals which, independently of each other, will fix rates of wages. I do not say whether the wages in the sugar industry should be high or low, but I do say that if we propose, in connexion with any other industry, that there should be a number of different tribunals, with authority to fix the wages in that industry, our honorable friends opposite will be the first to complain. .1 wish to draw attention to some figures which appear to me to be of importance. I have no desire to cry “ stinking fish “ about the sugar industry, but I wish to show that it !” is not all that it has been painted by a number of people, some of them publicists, and others politicians. It fs alleged that the sugar industry is now at the height of its greatest prosperity. Let us see, first of all, how successful Australia has been in gradually getting rid of the coloured labour employed in the industry, and substituting white labour for it. In 1904, 62.1 per cent, of the acreage under sugar in Queensland, and 11. 2 per cent, of the acreage under sugar in New South Wales, was cultivated by coloured labour. In 1912 the percentage of 62.1 in Queensland had dropped to 4.7, and the percentage of n. 2 in New South Wales had dropped to .8 per cent. The percentage of farmers employing coloured labour in Queensland, in 1904, was 29, and that percentage had dropped, in 191 2, to 4.8. In New South Wales the percentage of f farmers employing coloured labour, in 1904, was 1.4.5* an(l that percentage has now dropped to 1. These figures show that the coloured labour aspect of the question may now be entirely set aside. The Government have the power, and all our Governments have exercised that power for some time past, to prevent any coloured man coming into the country. I am not asking them to do it, but I know that the Government are not game to deport the coloured men who are at present in the country. If they are fairly in the country without any contravention of the law, we have no. right to say to them, “ You shall not be employed in this or that industry.” If the Government are prepared to say that no coloured men shall be employed in boot making, why do they not come down honestly and say that no Chinaman shall be employed in the manufacture of furniture.

Senator Findley:

– The Chinaman gets the same wages as does the white man.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– What has that to do with it? Is the Minister prepared to admit that I may import kanakas so long as I pay them a white man’s wages? He will not admit it, and I do not expect him to admit it for a moment. The honorable senator has given us quite a new reading of the White Australia policy. His view of it is that coloured men may be employed if they are paid white men’s wages. He will see that his interjection was a serious mistake, which he will probably regret ever after. Let me now refer to another set of figures for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria - the latter State having come into the field, with a factory at Maffra, within the last two or three years. In considering these figures honorable senators should bear in mind that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company hand back to the manufacturers of raw sugar 18s. in the £i of all they receive for their sugar in excess of £19 1 os. per ton. This money is then handed on by the millers to the growers. Bearing that in mind, honorable senators will admit, when they consider these figures, that the sugar industry, from an industrial point of view, will not stand very much more interference. I give the following table of persons employed during different years on farms and in factories, with the totals for each year: -

These figures show that, during that period of five years, the total number employed on farms has dropped by 12,061, and the total number employed in factories has decreased by 2,253, or a total decrease in the number employed on farms and in factories of 14,314.

Senator Guthrie:

– Do the figures include refineries?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– No ; they do not include refineries. I have already given in percentages figures showing the decrease in the acreage of sugar lands cultivated by coloured labour. Let me now, to complete my statement, give figures showing the number of coloured people employed on farms and in factories during the five years just referred to -

These figures show that, during the five years mentioned, the decrease in the number of coloured people employed on farms was 1,927, and in the number employed in factories it was 363, or a total decrease of 2,390 coloured people employed in the industry. This decrease has occurred since the Commonwealth Parliament, by legislation, has prevented the importation of any more coloured labour. In the face of these figures I put it forward, as a reasonable suggestion, that any more gibes about the wonderful way in which the sugar industry is prospering might very well be held over, at least, until we have the report of the Royal Commission on the sugar industry before us, when, doubtless, similar figures will be brought under our notice. I should like to draw attention to the fact that a statement has been made, though I cannot at the moment lay my hand on the reference, to the effect that the new regulations, issued in connexion with the sugar industry, were suggested to the Minister of Trade and Customs by Mr. Bamford, the honorable member for Herbert.

Senator Givens:

– Who made that state; ment?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I have said that I cannot lay my hand on the reference, but I saw the statement in print. I am prepared to accept Senator Givens’ denial of it. I find that, in the Brisbane Worker, of 22nd June, 1912, the following statement appeared -

The executive of the A.W.A. reported to the last district meeting at Chillagoe that the Hon. Chas. McDonald, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was at present in negotiation on their behalf with the Minister for Customs rr field rates in the sugar industry, and that an effort is also being made to have introduced a more -equitable form of agreement between the employers and the sugar-workers.

No one has the slightest objection to the Speaker of the House of Representatives making representations to the Minister of Trade and Customs, but I notice that, when in another place, Mr. Groom called for the departmental papers, and the question was asked whether any representations had been made in connexion with the matter, outside the departmental reports, the Minister, at the time, answered that there were none. I am not saying that Mr. McDonald ever went to the Minister in connexion with this matter. The statement I have quoted from the Brisbane Worker is probably misleading and untrue, as is also the published statement that Mr. Bamford approached the Minister of Trade and Customs. I have seen the departmental papers, and it will be very interesting when

I tell honorable senators what is contained in them, and point out the way in which they have been engineered, all the reports of officials, as to standard rates, and so forth, being turned down, and a set of regulations issued which do not represent anything like the recommendations of the various sub-collectors of Customs.

Question - That the Senate do now adjourn - put under sessional order, and xesolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 September 1912, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1912/19120927_senate_4_66/>.