Senate
28 November 1913

5th Parliament · 1st Session



The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3587

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5)

Assent reported.

page 3587

FRUIT COMMISSION

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– I desire to give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move that the evidence of the Royal Commission on the Fruit Industry be printed.

Senator CLEMONS:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · LP

– I was on the point of laying the evidence on the table of the Senate, and I do so now, so that it will not be necessary for the honorable senator to submit a motion.

page 3587

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Contract Work: Progress of Construction

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The ready manner in which the Honorary Minister has met the wish of Senator Ready impels me to ask if he is in a position to give us the information asked for last night regarding the progress of the work on the transcontinental railway. I may explain that this matter is not suddenly brought before the Minister.

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– I am glad to be able to inform Senator de Largie that I am, fortunately, almost equally prompt in answering his question as I was in meeting Senator Ready. I am now in possession of some information with regard to the matter which was brought up first by Senator Needham and afterwards referred to, at yesterday’s sitting, by Senator de Largie.

Senator Guthrie:

– Emphasized, not referred to.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Well, emphasized.

Senator de Largie:

– Amplified rather than emphasized.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Well, amplified. If any further corrections are required I will make them.

Senator de Largie:

– You are equal to all occasions?

Senator CLEMONS:

– No, I am glad to meet the convenience of honorable senators opposite so far as to acknowledge the use of an inappropriate word. The question, I understand, arose in this way: On the 15th instant the following telegram appeared in the Argus -

Perth, Friday. - The Labour Federation last night decided to bring under Federal notice the fact that a contract had been let for clearing on the trans-Australian railway route ; that the contractor was sub-letting at an inadequate rate ; and that men were working on Sundays.

That, I believe, is the position to which Senator Needham referred.

Senator Needham:

– That is not my information.

Senator CLEMONS:

-That is the same matter. I have here a report from the Engineer-in-Chief for Railways, which I propose to read -

As the Minister was desirous of getting information about the matter, I wired to the Supervising Engineer for a report, and he now telegraphs as follows : - “ Your wire yesterday. Clearing contractor states he is doing clearing on day labour, same wages and hours as ourselves. He is paying for firewood by the cord, similar arrangement as followed by cutting contractors on all wood tramways, and is paying one shilling more. Understand State Government obtains our sleepers on same system. Our contractor tried day labour, and one man took ten days to cut five and a quarter cords.

Senator de Largie:

– That is the contractor’s statement, of course.

Senator Long:

– It is rot !

Senator CLEMONS:

– The report continues - “ If we abandon present system firewood will cost fifty per cent. more.”

It will be seen, therefore, that there is no foundation for the statement contained in the telegram from Perth, that a contractor was subletting at on inadequate rate, and that men were working on Sundays.

If Senator Needham desires to read this document I shall be glad to hand it to him.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is not exactly what I referred to. It is quite true that Senator Needham asked for this information, which, after all, is only an answer from the contractor, and may be taken for what it is worth. What I inquired more particularly about was the progress of the construction work of the railway since the present Government took office. Information on that point would be more valuable to us than that which the Honorary Minister has supplied.

Senator LONG:

– Does the Honorary Minister feel justified in making the bald statement, without giving any particulars, that it took a man ten days to cut 5¼ cords of wood ? Will he inform the Senate whether the locality in (which the wood was gathered was heavily timbered, or whetherit took the man more than half his time to collect the wood at different places ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Before the Minister replies, and arising out of the answer he gave to the question I asked on the Supply Bill yesterday afternoon, will he find out whether or not the officers engaged in the railway office at Kalgoorlie agree with theTrades and Labour Council of that place that this contract is going on, that the contractor has sublet the contract for clearing, and that the men are working on Sundays at inadequate rates?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I desire to answer the questions which have been put to me. First, Senator de Largie has asked what information I can give him in regard to the progress of construction work on the railway. I regret to say that I have not that information this morning. If he did put the matter to me last night, I misunderstood the position; I did not gather from his remarks that he wanted a definite inquiry made on that point. However, I shall make inquiry, and at the next sitting supply him with such information as I can obtain. With regard to Senator Long’s question, I do not think that he can seriously expect me to give an answer to it this morning. I did all that I could yesterday in pursuance of my promise to Senator Needham that I would investigate first of all the facts referred to in his question. I have supplied the Senate this morning with the official answer - and that is all I can do - to the question. Obviously, such an official answer could not contemplate the details mentioned by Senator Long - that is as to the quality of the timber and the labour involved in clearing and cutting the firewood.

Senator Long:

– In the absence of that it is hardly a fair comparison.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Whether it is fair or not, I begin to wonder if it is quite fair for the honorable senator to blame me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister is not entitled to argue the subject, nor are honorable senators entitled to use argument in asking questions.

Senator CLEMONS:

– For breaking the standing order, sir, I apologize, though, in the circumstances, perhaps, I was justified in going a little further than is usual. In regard to Senator Needham’s later question, arising out of my previous answer, I promise him that I shall have a further check made as to the accuracy of the official statement, which, I understand, he doubts.

Senator Needham:

– I beg to give notice of some further questions to elucidate the same matter.

Later :

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

Senator de Largie asked a question relative to the progress being made in the construction of the railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. I have been supplied with the information that the average rate of construction at each end is three-quarters of a mile per day, but the track-layer is capable of more.

page 3588

QUESTION

POSTAL ACCOMMODATION

Senator RUSSELL:
VICTORIA

– It is reported in the newspapers of this morning that it is the intention of the Postmaster- General to visit Sydney to inquire into the lack of accommodation in the General Post Office there. I wish to ask his representative here whether it will be possible for the honorable gentleman to inspect the lack of accommodation at the central telegraph office here, with the view of removing the last galvanized iron building in Melbourne ?

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– I will suggest to the Postmaster-General the great desirability of looking at the galvanized iron building, if possible, before he departs for Sydney.

page 3588

QUESTION

S.S. “ TINGIRA

Outbreak of Diphtheria : Transport Arrangements

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Is it a fact that the Minister of Defence brought 276 boys and officers from Sydney by a steamer of the Orient Company - a cheap European company - in preference to a steamer belonging to a local company, at a higher rate than could have been obtained from a local company?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Defence · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– If Senator Guthrie is referring to the boys on the training ship in Sydney, all that I can tell him is that, acting under medical advice, and as the result of an outbreak of diphtheria, the boys were brought round to a quarantine ground here made available by the State authorities.

Senator Guthrie:

– At a higher expense than could have been arranged for with a local company ?

Senator MILLEN:

– As to the means of transport employed I know nothing.

Senator Guthrie:

– You ought to know.

Senator MILLEN:

– If I ought to know, then I am confronted with the necessity of looking into every detail, which, I assume, it is the business of theNaval Board to look after.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Dealing with that question, I ask the Minister if he can put the Senate in possession of some information ? Senator Russell has asked a question on the matter three or four times, and there has been a shuffle every time.

Senator MILLEN:

– I take exception to the remark of the honorable senator. If Senator Russell has asked me that question before, all I can say is that I am entirely ignorant of the fact. I have not heard the point raised here before.

Senator Guthrie:

– It has been on the notice-paper.

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - It cannot be debated in a question.

Senator MILLEN:

– Has there been a question on the notice-paper as to the boats by which the boys travelled from Sydney ?

Senator Russell:

– No; as to the cost.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am unaware today as to whether an answer has been supplied.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Will the Minister make an inquiry and acquaint the Senate with the prices that were quoted by Australian companies and by foreign companies ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall have the greatest pleasure in getting the information and making it available here.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Arising out of that matter, and following up my previous question, I wish to make an inquiry of the Minister. The reply, if I may bring it to his mind, was that no statement of accounts had been received from the State Government. Is it the practice to engage boats for that purpose without knowing what the price is to be, or is it the practice for a State Government to volunteer services in regard to a matter of that sort?

Senator MILLEN:

– There is no practice for the transhipping of boys under medical orders from one city to another. It was entirely an emergency. The honorable senator must recognise that, in these circumstances, it is possible that ordinary business procedure was not followed.

Senator Guthrie:

– It ought to have been.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am in entire ignorance, and tell the Senate so, as to how the instructions to remove the boys were carried out. That, I submit, is a detail which ought properly to be left to the members of the Naval Board, and not to the Minister.

Senator Guthrie:

– With the approval of the Minister.

page 3589

QUESTION

WELCOME TO THE FLEET

Presence of Naval Cadets

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I desire to ask the Minister if it is a fact that certain cadet midshipmen at the Naval College were present at the welcome to the Australian Fleet in Sydney? Is it also a fact that only six cadet midshipmen whose parents were able to pay for their railway fares to Sydney, and such midshipmen as happened to be on leave in Sydney, were permitted to be present at the welcome to the Fleet?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The questions of the honorable senator suggest an entirely wrong state of affairs. No official action was taken to have any of the boys present. If parents, of their own volition, took the opportunity of sending their boys, that is a matter entirely outside my knowledge and outside my authority.

Senator PEARCE:

– I will put the question in another way. Is it a fact that action was taken which allowed of no cadet midshipmen being present at the welcome, except those whose presence could be arranged for by their parents at their own expense ?

Senator Millen:

– I took no action at all.

Senator PEARCE:

– How did those who were there get there ?

Senator Millen:

– Ask the Commandant of the Naval College.

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot ask the Commandant of the Naval College, but I ask the Minister how did cadet midshipmen, who were present at the welcome, come to be there ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have no knowledge that any were there. If there were any present it was without any authority from myself. I shall endeavour to ascertain from the Commandant of the Naval College what procedure was followed, which resulted in the cadets being absent from the College.

Later:

Senator MILLEN:
LP

Senator Pearce asked me a question relative to the Naval Cadets, which I was not in a position to reply to at the time. I have since obtained the information he sought. I am informed that the only cadets of the Naval College who were present on the occasion referred to were those who were absent from the College on leave, and who happened to be in Sydney at the time.

page 3590

QUESTION

SMALL-POX OUTBREAK

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that a Conference of State Health Officers was recently held to inquire into the outbreak of small-pox? If so, is it the intention of the Government to lay on the table of the Senate a copy of the proceedings of the Conference?

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– I said yesterday that I saw no reason why the report of the proceedings of the Conference should not be laid on the table. I shall endeavour to have it placed before honorable senators as soon as it is available.

page 3590

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT

Senator READY:

– I ask the Honorary Minister, without notice, if the Government have taken into consideration representations made by the municipal council of Devonport and other North-West Coast councils with reference to the Tasmanian mail contract, and, if so, whether that is the reason for the delay in signing the contract?

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– A similar question was asked by Senator Ready some time ago. My answer is that the honorable senator must guess again, because he is still wrong.

page 3590

QUESTION

FRUIT COMMISSION’S REPORT

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– I shall make inquiries into the matter before next Wednesday.

page 3590

QUESTION

MILITARY LAND, UNLEY

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The honorable senator will recognise that, as his question was submitted only yesterday, and the Senate has met early this morning, it has not been possible to secure the information. Last evening I forwarded the honorable senator’s question to my colleague in the Home Affairs Department, with a request to furnish the information asked for.

page 3590

QUESTION

PERTH GENERAL POST OFFICE

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs whether he has any further information to supply with respect to the actual site of the proposed new General Post Office in Perth?

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– So far as I am aware the matter is still in the same position as it was when the last reply on the question was given to Senator Needham.

page 3590

QUESTION

POSTAL MECHANICS

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– There have re cently been a number of questions asked upon various matters to which I desire now to give the official replies. Senator Findley made an inquiry on the subject of the departmental training of officers in the mechanical branches of the Post and Telegraph Department. I hope that, in the interval which has elapsed from the date when he put his question, the honorable senator has not forgotten the subject. The answer supplied to the question is as follows -

With reference to your memorandum of 6th instant, with which you forwarded extract from Hansard relative to the departmental training of officers for mechanical branches, I am to inform you, in connexion with Senator Findley’s inquiry on the subject, that the decision in respect of the various matters referred to in the answer furnished on the 30th ultimo to Senator

Mullan’s question, were arrrived at on the dates given hereunder : -

Institution of departmental classes of instruction in telegraph operating - prior to Federation, but revised to date on 4th July, 1911.

Institution of departmental classes of instruction in telephone operating - 2nd July, 1907.

Arrangements for special courses of instruction in technical subjects at technical colleges and training institutions - 10th March, 1913; negotiations commenced, February, 1910.

By agreeing to pay the fees of officers who successfully passed an approved course of technical instruction - 8th April,1911:

By arranging for the training of junior fitters and cadet mechanics by the Department - 19th July, 1907.

By the formation of departmental classes of technical instruction - 17th March,1913.

By arranging for departmental officers to act as instructors at various technical schools - Various dates since August, 1908.

With regard to the question asked by Senator de Largie, I have to state that the Department’s action, as indicated in the reply of the 30th ultimo, referred to above, agrees generally with the recommendations of the Postal Commission, and further steps will be taken if it is found that the provision now made fails to secure adequate recruitment of trained officers for the mechanical or other staffs.

page 3591

QUESTION

MAP OF AUSTRALIA

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

- Senator Blakey some time ago asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs whether he could give the Senate any idea of when the detailed map of Australia, which has been under consideration for several years, would be made available to the public. The following is the answer to the honorable senator’s question : -

The finally revised map of Australia is under reference to England for a report by the Royal Geographical Society and the Admiralty.

On receipt of the report, which it is anticipated will be to hand within the next six months, copies of the map will be immediately available for issue.

page 3591

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL DELIVERIES

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

- Senator Long recently asked some questions concerning the delivery of mails from Tasmania addressed to the Federal Parliament. This is the reply supplied to the honorable senator’s question -

With reference to your communication of the 30th ultimo, relative to the representations made in Parliament by Senator Long, that while portion of the mails from Tasmania arrive at Par liament House at 11 o’clock another portion arrives at a later hour, I am to inform you that inquiry has been made, and the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, reports under date the 7th instant as follows in regard to the mutter : -

A special mail bag for the Federal Parliament is received at this office from Tasmania, the same arrangements being in existence as in the case of mails from New South Wales and South Australia. The bag is forwarded to the House immediately after the mails have been opened. It is, however, reported by the Superintendent, Mail Branch, that all correspondence for Parliament House from Tasmania is not enclosed in the special bag, consequently letters, &c, enclosed in the ordinary bag’s are not accorded special treatment, and therefore suffer delay.

The Deputy Postmaster-General, Hobart, has been communicated with to-day in the matter, and has been asked whether arrangements cannot be made for all correspondence from Tasmania for the Federal Parliament House to be placed in the special bag.

page 3591

QUESTION

MILITARY COMMANDANT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I am not in a position to answer the question.

page 3591

QUESTION

PEARLING INDUSTRY

Senator BUZACOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, without notice, if the Government will take into consideration the advisability of regulating the employment of indentured labour in the pearling industry so that not more than 50 per cent. of any one nationality shall be employed in that industry?

Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– I shall bring under the notice of the Minister of External Affairs the suggestion made by Senator Buzacott.

page 3591

QUESTION

FITZROY DOCK

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Has the Minister of Defence taken into consideration the report of the Select Committee on the closing-down of the Cockatoo Island Dock, which was laid on the table of the Senate last week; and, if so, what action he intends to take?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I have not read the report. I hope to find time to do so in the early future.

page 3592

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Water for Travelling Stock

  1. Has the attention of the Government been called to the difficulty experienced in travelling stock in Central Australia owing to the insufficient water supply and the inadequate equipment of existing wells?
  2. What has been done since the Federal Government has taken over the Northern Territory to extend and improve the watering facilities for travelling stock?
  3. Is it the intention of the Government to vigorously proceed with the policy initiated by the South Australian Government of providing adequate facilities for watering stock travelling through the Northern Territory?
Senator CLEMONS:
LP

– The questions asked by Senator O’Loghlin should have been addressed to the Minister of External Affairs. They have been submitted to him. It will take some time before a reply can.be furnished, but as soon as it is obtained I will let the honorable senator have the information.

page 3592

GENERAL ELECTIONS SELECT COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Needham) agreed to-

That the Committee have leave to extend the time for bringing up the report to Friday, 12th December.

page 3592

SELECT COMMITTEE: MR. H. CHINN

Motion (by Senator de Largie) agreed to -

That the Committee have leave to extend the time for bringing up the report to Friday, 12th December.

page 3592

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

.- I move -

That, during the remainder of the present session, Government business, unless otherwise ordered, take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions.

I do not know that I need say anything in support of the motion, nor is it necessary to give the reasons which have induced the Government to submit it. It is quite a common and well understood practice towards the close of a session for such a motion to be proposed.

Senator McGregor:

– I thought the motion was declared formal ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No. One of the honorable senator’s supporters interposed to prevent its being taken as formal. I shall be quite willing if the Senate will take the motion as formal to let it go without further remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion was declared “ Not formal “ yesterday.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is quite a common practice, as the session proceeds, to make an increased demand on the time of honorable senators, and also to ask them to give up to Government business the time usually devoted to private business.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is when the “ gag “ is not being used.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not aware that it has been necessary to resort to that expedient in the Senate. Even if the motion be approved of, the control of business will still be in the hands of the Senate, inasmuch as the motion uses the terms, “ unless otherwise ordered.”

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator does not want to see the StandingOrders suspended.

Senator MILLEN:

– I think that honorable senators opposite have had enough exercise of that description.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– If the Senate noticepaper were unduly crowded with business, and it were beyond the capacity of the Senate to dispose of that business in a day or two, there might be some reason for resorting to the practice which has been adopted on previous occasions. But at the present stage, and in view of the long adjournments we have had to indulge in, I do not think it wise to suspend our sessional orders yet.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 20

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 3593

LOAN BILL

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from5th November (vide page 2852), on motion by Senator Clemons -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– Only on very rare occasions in the past have Loan Bills come before either branch of the Commonwealth Legislature. That has been very fortunate from the point of view of the people of Australia, because those who are continually crying out for economy would otherwise have increased the loan indebtedness of Australia up to about £50,000,000 by this time, if we are to have regard to what their present action really means. It has been continually stated by the opponents of the Labour party, and by various newspapers, that our policy has been against borrowing. Where they got that information from I really do not understand, unless the idea has arisen in the fertile minds of such people as Senator Gould and Senator Bakhap. No declaration has been made by any member of the Labour party that we are averse from borrowing in all circumstances.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I am glad to hear that now.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The honorable senator has been hearing it for the last twenty years. But he would go on to the platform to-morrow and make again the same statements as he has been making during every election that has taken place within that period.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– We can see the reckless borrowing that has been indulged in by the Labour party in some of the States.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The honorable senator cries with as many voices as the parrots in an Australian forest. The Labour party stands by its platform, and the platform of that party has never contained such a declaration as that we are entirely against borrowing. Our declaration is that we are in favour of a restriction of public borrowing ; and I hope that the party will always exercise that caution which ought to characterize any one who has the best interests of this country at heart. Representatives of the present Government, before they attained that eminent position, and their prominent supporters, have gone through the country declaring that the late Government was the most extravagant Administration in the world. They have characterized our financing as an orgy, and have applied other Bacchanalian epithets to it. They have said that we resorted to schemes of the most disastrous character. The present Prime Minister has repeatedly declared that the late Government spent every penny they could lay their hands on, and was looking in every direction for money to spend on other ‘ ‘ wild-cat ‘ ‘ schemes.

Senator Mullan:

– He has not had the decency to apologize when bowled out for the statements he has made.

Senator McGREGOR:

– There is no decency where there is nothing but mendacity. Those who made these reckless statements knew them to be untrue. If they did not, the slightest attempt at inquiry would have satisfied them of their untruth. But they go on making them; and probably the missing Ministers at the present time are in some portion of Australia repeating them as fast as they can. The Prime Minister was at Albury the other night, misleading the people in the most disgraceful manner. It has been the continual cry of the direct antagonists of the Labour movement in Australia that the late Government spent all the money upon which they could lay their hands. They assured the electors that if they were only afforded an opportunity to control the financial destiny of the Commonwealth they would institute such rigid economy that the people would be saved taxation, that the cost of living would be reduced, and that many other happy conditions would follow. By just the odd trick they succeeded in getting upon the Treasury bench, and now, instead of inaugurating the system of rigid economy of which they spoke, they have embarked upon a more extraordinary expenditure than was ever dreamed of by their predecessors. . They are prepared to spend about £5,000,000 more than the late Government were prepared to spend, and yet they continue to charge that Administration with gross extravagance. The jocular feature of the business is that they dare not go to the people and say, “ If in certain directions you require development, those who will get the benefit of it immediately must contribute to the revenue to enable that development to take place.” But instead, they say that the children of the present generation, and their children’s children, snail contribute towards works of development which will benefit only the people of to-day. I hope that Labour influence is sufficiently strong in this Parliament to prevent the Government going outside of their own resources for any monetary advances for future development. In addition to the £2,653,000 which the late Government left their successors, Ministers now ask Parliament for authority to spend £3,080,000 during the current financial year. Now the Labour party have no desire to curtail the development of any portion of Australia if that development is in the interests, not only of the present generation, but of future generations. We have no objection to going to the money market to obtain support for the purpose of constructing works of a reproductive character, or of a character .that will enable the people of Australia to produce more than they are able to produce at the present time, even though there may be no direct return from that expenditure. But we must look at the way in which that money is to be spent, and how its repayment is to be provided for. We know that the Commonwealth is already committed to very considerable works of development. We know that we are at present engaged in the construction of a transcontinental railway, and we recognise that in the near future we shall probably be engaged upon another similar work. It would be unreasonable to expect the small population of Australia, out of the revenue of any one year, to make sufficient provision to cover works of this description. The amount which we are asked to spend under this Bill upon the Port Augusta-Kalgoorlie railway is £1,400,000. The Labour party have never had the remotest intention of ^opposing such an item, because its members have always recognised that, to large undertakings of this character, posterity has as much right to contribute as have the people of the present day. As this is a work of a permanent and reproductive order, we are prepared to sanction the borrowing of money for its construction. If the Labour Government had remained in power they would have had to do precisely the same thing as the present Government are doing. In respect of the development of the Northern Territory, it will be recollected that at the instance of the Fisher Administration a Bill was passed by Parliament authorizing the survey of a line from Pine Creek to the Katherine River. If they had had no intention of ultimately carrying out the work they would never have agreed to that survey. Consequently, the Labour party have no intention of opposing the expenditure of the £400,000 which is required for the purpose of constructing that line, which was practically sanctioned long ago. There is also in this Bill an item for the construction of a railway in Papua. Now, if any Territory belonging to a country is to be developed, it must be developed by modern methods, and in the absence of railways it is impossible to effect that development. Therefore, £60,000 is only areasonable amount to provide in this Bill for developmental works in Papua. I come now to another item, which is of a very questionable character - I refer tothe proposed expenditure of £170,000 for the purchase of land for post and telegraph purposes. I understand that this money is to be spent upon the purchase of post-office sites throughout Australia. I say that the Government ought to be able to undertake such pubchases out of revenue, and without resort to borrowing. I admit that on one occasion the late Government borrowed money for the purpose of purchasing a post-office, site. But it must be remembered that that site contained actual improvements which were returning an interest of more than 5 per cent, per annum, and consequently our action was. amply justified. But here we are asked to sanction the expenditure of £170,000 of borrowed money upon land for postal sites, from which no revenue will be derived other than that derived from postal business. This is an item, therefore,, of a very doubtful character. But, seeing that the Government confess their inability to economise in any other direction so as to permit of them purchasing these lands out of revenue, we shall be compelled to give our consent to it. The next item to which I wish to direct attention is one of £300,000 for the purchase of land for defence purposes. I hope that no member of the Opposition will ever depart from the practice that we have hitherto followed. We have always contended that the cost of the defence of Australia, and of anything appertaining to it, should in times of peace be paid for out of revenue. We hope that every Government will be compelled to follow that course of procedure. I come now to an item of £425,000 for the construction of conduits, and for laying wires underground. Heretofore, that class of work has also been paid for out of revenue. When we realize how quickly changes take place in telegraphic and other means of communication, we ought to be very cautious about running ourselves into debt in that direction without first giving the matter very full consideration. Yet the Government are in the position that these works must be carried out. They cannot help themselves. They say so. Consequently we cannot raise any serious objection to this item. Although we may complain of it, we have to accede to their request because of theninability to do the work in any other way .

Senator Guthrie:

– There are other ways of doing it.

Senator McGREGOR:

– The proper way of doing it is to pay for it out of revenue, and to economise in other directions with that end in view. The next item in the schedule of the Bill is one of £175,000 for the installation of uptodate machinery upon Cockatoo Island. I believe that a certain amount of machinery there for ship-building purposes may be necessary. I also believe that a great portion of the machinery which is already installed there is of a very efficient and up-to-date character. When the island was taken over by the late Government they were well aware of all the conditions which existed upon it. But if the present Ministry affirm that they are not able to get the requisite machinery in any other way than is provided for in this Bill we shall be bound to support them. The last item in the measure is one for the expenditure of £150.000 on the Commonwealth offices in London. I do not think that a single member of the Opposition will say that we ought not to make a fair show in our Commonwealth offices there. If, therefore, the Government honestly declare that they require an additional £150,000 for this purpose their request will be granted. But I still maintain that the expenditure of £300,000 out of loan moneys for the purchase of land for defence purposes should, in Committee, be excised from the Bill.

I am sure that every honorable senator here realizes that it is getting late in the year, and that, in the ordinary course of events, Parliament must soon be prorogued. Therefore, I have no intention of prolonging the debate, but hope, when we get into Committee, to take such action as will improve the Bill in the direction I have indicated.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I do not intend to delay the Senate very long, but I do not care to allow the measure to go through without making a few remarks. Unfortunately, I think, the people of Australia are committed to a transcontinental railway policy in Western Australia, and also to a railway policy, in the Northern Territory, neither of which can, in the nature of things, be profitable for a long period, and both of which will most undoubtedly be, until then, a burden on the Commonwealth. I do not know if it is possible to depart from that policy now. So far as I have been able to discover, there is no likelihood of sane ideas in regard to these matters influencing the Federal Parliament; and, if the railways are to be built, I suppose it must be done with borrowed money. I think it is well within the knowledge of every one of us that the Australian public debt is a very large one, that it is continually increasing, and that the interest which is being paid at Home and abroad is also increasing very much every year, until now it has become a most serious burden on the people of Australia. Many persons will tell us that there is no alternative policy; that, if we are to develop our country, the only means by which it can be done is with borrowed money. I can remember very well that when the Labour party first began to take an active interest in politics it was opposed to borrowing; it had an idea that national works could be constructed without having recourse to loans. I know that since that time a very large number of Labour people have modified their opinion. I believe that every railway that is built ought to be the parent of another railway. If the land values which have been created in Australia by the expenditure of borrowed money in building railways, making roads and bridges, erecting telegraph lines, and doing all that sort of thing; if those values, which undoubtedly belong to the people of Australia, who are responsible for the moneys which have created them, passed into the public Treasury, instead of into the pockets of private individuals, our loan indebtedness would be a very simple matter indeed..

But, of course, we are not now dealing with the general loan policy of Australia. We are dealing particularly with the loan policy of the Commonwealth, and, unfortunately, there are no land values in Western Australia on which we could levy to build a railway of the kind which is contemplated through that State; nor are there land values in the Northern Territory, and, so far as I can see, we must continue, for a time, at any rate, this unfortunate and wasteful policy of borrowing. Senator McGregor referred to some money which is being borrowed to buy land, and to construct works in connexion with the Post and Telegraph Department. So far as I can see, there is not the slightest reason why a single farthing should be borrowed for any works in connexion with the Post and Telegraph Department. Our postal system ought not only to pay current expenses, but also to provide sufficient revenue for the purchase of land and the construction of all kinds of works. The other day the Department issued a balance-sheet, from which we find that neither the telephone nor the telegraph system is paying. I do not know whether I will be in order in referring in detail to that matter, but it seems to me to be one which is very closely allied with what we are now dis-. cussing. If we do not get revenue enough from the Department to do certain things, then inevitably we must borrow. But I submit that we ought to get revenue. Take the telephone system, for instance. We are losing heavily upon that. Is there any reason why we should do so? The telephone is one of the finest labour-saving appliances that I think has ever been discovered. It saves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pounds per annum to many business firms in Melbourne. I believe that the landlords of this city are now capitalizing the telephone system, and increasing the rents on that account. The people of Australia are providing this fine system to our business men throughout the Commonwealth at a loss. I am not one of those who maintain that every public convenience should be called upon to pay its own way. I would not say so for a single moment. But if there is any convenience of that character which ought to be placed on a sound financial basis, 1 think it is our telephone system. Let us contrast the charges for the telephone service in Australia with those in other parts of the world. In Australia, I believe, the average rate is about £5 a year. In London, it is £13 6s. 8d.; in the northern provinces of England, £9 12s. ; in Germany, £9 10s. ; in New York, £21 16s. ; in Chicago, £16 16s. ; in St. Louis, £19 5s.; in Philadelphia, £24 15s.; in Boston, £21 15s. ; and in Baltimore, £20 10s. When we compare the population of Australia with that of those other countries, the obvious inference is that the telephone system ought to be maintained in them at a very much lower rate than in Australia, whereas, we find that here the users get the service for a comparatively small amount. The difference between the charges here and those elsewhere is so marked that, so far as I can see, and so far as the balance-sheet shows, we are providing a convenience for business people and others at much below its actual cost. That is a state of things which ought to be changed. The people who use the telephone ought to be called upon to pay fees sufficient, not only to cover current expenses, but also to provide for the extension of the services. I have not the slightest doubt that the invention of the telephone has added very materially to land values in our large cities. Those values are now going to the private owner. They ought to go into the public Treasury, and, if they did so, we would not then be under an obligation to borrow when we wanted to construct new works. We would have the community-created values with which to do that sort of thing; we would place our finances on a sound and solid business footing, on which they do not stand at the present moment. With regard to borrowing for defence, that seems to me to be one of the maddest ideas possible. It is a course which is not pursued, so far as I know, by any other community which makes the slightest pretence of maintaining its solvency. But, unfortunately, in Australia we are in this position, that we must either borrow or put an end to the construction of new works. If we continue to allow this immense leakage of community-created land values from year to year, then I say we must put ourselves in pawn. We are simply giving away with one hand, while we are incurring fresh liabilities with the other, and the fruits of those fresh liabilities are in turn handed over to the same old people. We are going on continuously borrowing and borrowing, paying interest and piling charge upon charge, while the private owners of land are reaping the benefit all the while. It seems to me it is time that we took stock of things in Australia, more especially in connexion with the affairs of the Commonwealth. We know now that our expenditure is very much greater than our income. We know also that, if that kind of thing continues, the borrowing craze will have to be resorted to more and more, or, as I have said, all works must be put an end to. I do not think that any honorable senator would like to see that brought about. We are all desirous of seeing Australia grow in population and prosperity. We are anxious to see the railway systems extended, and every modern appliance set up in our midst. But it is quite possible that, unless we have recourse to a sound system of finance, we shall land ourselves in a bog of debt, difficulty, and danger. I do not think that we ought to agree to borrow for purposes of defence. Every farthing we spend on defence should be found out of revenue. That brings me to this point: If we are to get the money out of revenue, we must have recourse to fresh areas of taxation.

Senator Clemons:

– New sources of taxation ?

Senator STEWART:

– I did not say new sources of taxation. What I mean to say is that we shall have to impose additional taxation. There is one plank in the Labour platform with which every honorable senator is acquainted, and it is that the cost of defence must be paid for out of direct taxation. That is a principle which the Labour party have laid down.

Senator Mullan:

– And a very sound one.

Senator STEWART:

– It is a very sound one. I say that the wealth of the country should provide the money for the defence of the country. If the working people are to find the soldiers, the brain and sinew, for defence, it is only fair that the wealth of the community should be called upon to pay the piper. The wealth of the community is not doing that now. Our system of defence at present is costing something like £5,000,000 per annum. If it is developed along the lines laid down by our defence experts, in a few years the cost will run up to £10,000,000 per annum. How much is the Commonwealth getting from direct taxation ? We are receiving about £1,300,000 per annum, or barely onefourth of what we are now expending on defence. If the policy of the Labour party is the right one to adopt, instead of getting £1,300,000 from direct taxation, we ought to be getting £5,000y000. If future Governments continue to develop the defence system on the lines now laid down, within ten years our revenue from direct sources of taxation should be, not £1,300,000 per year, but £10,000,000 a year. It is a sound, sensible, legitimate principle to lay down.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator will not be in order, on the second reading of the Loan Bill, in going into a general disquisition upon that principle. I have already given him considerable latitude, and he should confine himself more closely to the matter before the Senate of borrowing money for the building of railways and other public works, and the purchase of land for defence purposes.

Senator STEWART:

-The Standing Orders seem to me to be stiflers of discussion. I have no wish to come into conflict with the Chair; but we are discussing the borrowing of money, and I am attempting, I think, in a legitimate fashion, to show that if we adopt some other system of finance it will not be necessary to borrow. If I cannot show that on a Loan Bill, when can I show it?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must not argue with the Chair. I have ruled that he will not be in order in going into a general disquisition as to the Labour party’s policy with regard to defence on the second reading of the Bill now before the Senate. What he is entitled to do, and what I have allowed him to do at considerable length, is to lay down the lines of an alternative policy. I do not propose to prevent him pursuing that line of argument at all ; but he will not be in order in going into details with regard to various other policies which may appear ‘to him to have a remote connexion with this particular Bill.

Senator STEWART:

– Of .course, I am under the authority of the Chair; but it seems to me to be almost impossible to discuss any question intelligently if one is to be restricted in this fashion. We are here discussing ways and means to provide for our defence. The Government say that we must borrow money. I say that it is of no earthly use to borrow money. I am attempting to show the Senate, which has some responsibilities to the people of Australia, how and why it is unnecessary to borrow money for this purpose, and you, sir, say that I cannot proceed to do that. If that is the case, what is the good of my being here; what is the good of our meeting here ; what is the good of it all ? I say that the whole thing is a solemn farce.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to the honorable senator that I did not say what he has credited me with saying.I did not say that he could not argue for the adoption of an alternative policy of borrowing. I listened to him patiently whilst he was talking in a very interesting fasti ion on that subject. He was then quite in order; but the honorable senator will not be in order in discussing details of every other policy* on this particular Bill. If the honorable senator did so, and every member of the Senate exercised the same right in the discussion of this or any other Bill, our debates would be interminable.

Senator STEWART:

– You, sir, have made it exceedingly difficult for me to go on. I have been trying to point out how money could be raised for the purposes of this Bill in other ways than that proposed. If I cannot do that, what is the good of my being here, and what is the good of us discussing anything. “Unless I can show, as I think I am in duty bound to show, if I am to be faithful to the trust which the people have placed in me, that we should not borrow for purposes of defence, I cannot properly discuss this Bill. Let me repeat that we are allowing millions of community-created values to pass into the pockets of private individuals every year which ought to go into the public Treasury. If that money went into the public Treasury, we should have it for our own when we required to do certain things instead of having to borrow money to do them. Surely I should be permitted to point that out in discussing this Bill. To the policy of the present Government of borrowing for defence purposes I am utterly opposed. Surely I am within my rights in the circumstances in stating what I conceive to be the proper alternative to adopt.I have stated the position as I see it.I trust that the Labour party will not agree to borrow for the construction of conduits for the Post and Telegraph Department, because the expenditure upon such work should be met by securing an increased revenue from our telephones and telegraphs. The Government are proposing to borrow money in connexion with the extension of our telegraphic system. I say, in reply to that proposal, that we send telegrams at a cheaper rate in Australia than is charged in any other country in the world. A telegram can be sent from any portion of Australia to another for1s. That cannot be done for the money anywhere else on the face of the earth. Why should we distribute largesse in this fashion to people who are well able to pay very much higher charges both for telegrams and telephone messages than they are asked to pay. I know of numbers of people in Australia who are so rich that they hardly ever trouble to write letters at all. They send all their communications by wire. If they find that an ordinary telegram will not convey their communication as quickly as they desire, they will send it by urgent message. The fact is that ordinary individuals like myself, when they go to a telegraph office to send a telegram, find that they have to wait hours simply because the wires have been cornered by people who are rich enough, or whose business is important enough, to warrant them in paying urgent rates. If that be the case, I say, let them pay more for their telegrams and telephone messages. If our telegraph and telephone systems are made self-supporting, we shall be under no necessity to borrow money for works in connexion with these enterprises.

Senator Blakey:

– A man sent me an urgent wire the day before yesterday which cost him 12s. 4d.

Senator STEWART:

– I quite believe it. I thought for the moment that the honorable senator was going to say that the urgent wire was sent “ collect.” It shows how willing many people are to pay double rates. I have said that our rates in Australia are lower than the rates in any other part of the world. That would be something to be proud of if our systems were paying their own way, but when the taxpayers of the Commonwealth are called upon to contribute in this fashion, I think it is time we called a halt. I do not intend to say very much mma on this subject. If I had my way the whole system of borrowing would be put an end to. I trust that we shall be able to stop borrowing, at all events for defence purposes and for the Post and Telegraph Department. Our telegraph and telephone revenue should be sufficient to defray all expenditure in connexion with those systems. That is all I intend to say on the matter at the present time. I trust that the items included in this Bill for defence and for post and telegraph works will not be allowed to pass.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I desire at the commencement of my opposition to certain matters included in this Bill to express my astonishment that a Government with such professions as those of the present Government should propose to adopt the principle of borrowing. As electors of the Commonwealth, we listened to their loud declamations against the extravagance of the previous Government. We were informed that if they were returned to power there would be the strictest surveillance of the financial position in connexion with the administration of every Department of the Public Service. Even the present Treasurer stated that he had become a confirmed economist. That was news to all who had any intimate knowledge of the political antecedents of the right honorable gentleman. Now we find that, in spite of all these loud professions of economy, and the condemnation of the “ extraordinary extravagance “ of a previous Government, the present Government have decided that the only hope of saving the Commonwealth is by following the old practice adopted in the different States of Australia. They propose to saddle the Commonwealth with as much indebtedness as can be brought about by the passing of all the Loan Bills that it is possible to put through this Parliament. There are some items in this Bill to which I raise very little objection. I raise none to those from which, at some future date, we may expect a tendency to productivity. But there are others that appear to have no possible hope of conducing to anything but permanent indebtedness. To those I stand in direct opposition. I entirely agree with Senator Stewart that the telegraphic and telephonic operations of Australia should be placed on such a footing as to make them as nearly as possible remunerative. It is proposed under this Bill to construct conduits out of loan money. In all fairness, those who profit by such instrumentalities should pay for them. We are aware that the business life of Australia is in a sufficiently sound position to pay for all the conveniences it gets. The item to which I call attention simply means saddling indebtedness upon the whole people for conveniences which are mainly used by the business people, and which others do not use probably more than half-a-dozen times in a lifetime. Why should that be so? Why should not those who use the facilities provide for their establishment? i

Senator Clemons:

– Does the honorable senator approve of penny postage?

Senator HENDERSON:

– No j I have never done so. I felt that in establishing penny postage we were taking a risk that was not justified. I stand in precisely the same position in regard to telegraphy. We have no reasonable ground for levying taxation upon those who do not use the telegraph wire in order that those who do may send their telegrams for ls. I remember when we used to pay 3s. or 4s. for a telegram. I am not an advocate of a particularly high tariff. But Senator Stewart hit the nail on the head when he said that business people had, to a large extent, discontinued the practice of conducting their transactions by letter because it is considerably cheaper for them to do them by wire. It saves them a considerable amount of employment. Because of that saving they use the cheap wire of Australia. Then the present Government come down and ask the whole people of Australia, regardless of the extent to which they use this method, to (ax themselves in order to ease the burden of the people who are well able to pay for increased facilities. The so-called Liberal party, during the elections, pronounced themselves to be, above all things, strict economists - men who were prepared to use every endeavour to place the finances of this country on a sound basis. Now we have them bringing down a Bill to raise £3,000,000 by loan, in order that they may lay the foundation of a system of pawning the Commonwealth to the money lenders of the world. Of course, the whole political life of the Treasurer, Sir John Forrest, has been lived on loan money. I remember on one occasion hearing him tell a number of people that he had actually borrowed £7,000,000 in one year, and that the country boomed on that money. Probably his intention is to continue that policy in regard to the Commonwealth. In this Bill, therefore, we have the beginning of a desire that will be further expressed by the Government as time goes on. We are asked to borrow an amount of money in order that we may develop our defence system. I take up the same position in regard to that as to all other projects of an unproductive character. No one would attempt to argue that defence is productive. It is absolutely nothing more than insurance. No stronger reason can be asserted for the proposition here made than that the man who insures ought to pay the insurance money.

Senator Bakhap:

– I have had to borrow to pay insurance.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Probably I may have done the same. But I did not borrow from choice; I did so from force of circumstances.

Senator Senior:

– The conclusion is that Australia is bankrupt and must borrow.

Senator HENDERSON:

– That is so, according to Senator Bakhap. Of this £3,000,000, £300,000 is for the further insurance of Australia. I hold that up to the present moment Australia has carried out a very fine defence policy. We have been able, out of our revenues, to meet every legitimate expenditure for the purpose. I see no reason why we should depart from that system. If we want more money to perfect our defences, we should take from the wealth of our country what we need. If we are to go on borrowing for defence, the £300,000 will be added to, and in time the people of Australia will be saddled with a continuous borrowing policy. I remember that in the early stages of Federation the same cult in politics, and the same persons who now occupy the Treasury bench, proposed to inaugurate a borrowing policy. They were curbed in their desire to launch Australia into endless borrowing. But now they are under the impression that they have reached the position when they will be able to assert opinions that have possessed them for years. I sincerely hope that the Senate will not allow them to accomplish their desire. I trust that we shall closely scrutinize the whole of the items set out in the schedule of this Bill. A few of these certainly give promise that the expenditure upon them will be remunerative. Consequently they are legitimate subjects upon which to expend loan money. But the proposals to spend loan money for purposes of defence, for the construction of conduits and for laying wires underground are absolutely indefensible. Our proper course isto reject those items, and to countenance borrowing only for works which are likely to prove of a reproductive character. If we insist upon that principle being observed we shall force the Government to discover new fields of taxation.

Senator Ready:

– Why not increase the land tax?

Senator HENDERSON:

– It is for the Government to devise methods by which the revenue of the Commonwealth may be increased. It is sufficient for me to say that the borrowing of money for defence purposes in time of peace is quite unjustifiable. Our defence system is an insurance on the wealth of this country, and consequently that wealth has a right to pay the insurance premium.

Senator Needham:

– That proposal was turned down by the people of Australia three years ago.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Exactly, and the present Government asked the people at the last election to turn down a similar proposal, because they urged the Fisher Government had been extravagant. They affirmed that that Administration had brought the finances of the Commonwealth into a condition of chaos. They exclaimed, “ Give us your approval, and we will find a means of remedying all the evils for which the Fisher Ministry were responsible. We will show you how the Commonwealth can be run upon a less expenditure, how the cost of living can be reduced ; in short, how every evil of which our predecessors were guilty can be remedied.” We now find that their sovereign remedy is a proposal to float a loan of £3,080,000. That is how” they are going to redeem their promises to the people. I will oppose the items to which I have already objected.

Senator SENIOR (South Australia)

Bill into this Chamber necessitates honorable senators dealing with the method of financing which the Government propose to adopt.

Senator McGregor:

– It had not much review in another place.

Senator SENIOR:

– 1 believe that it had little or no review there. We now find that those who professed to teach us a better method of financing, and who so loudly denounced the extravagance of the late Government, are themselves the first to plunge into the most reckless extravagance. We may, therefore, very legitimately turn round, and say to them, “Physician, heal thyself.” We all know that they travelled throughout the length and breadth of this country proclaiming that the Labour Government had squandered every penny that it could lay its hands upon. But when they came into office they found a denial of their statement the very moment that they opened the Treasury books, and we have since had an acknowledgment that that statement was absolutely opposed to fact. I claim that it should be the duty of any Government to proceed on sound financial lines, in exactly the same way as a private individual would proceed in the conduct of his own business. In other words, they should never get into debt unless they have a reasonable prospect of extricating themselves from it, and they should never contract indebtedness unless it can be demonstrated that the expenditure is likely to be of a reproductive character. No sane man would borrow to pay an insurance policy unless lie felt that its payment would be of benefit to him. Yet we now find the Government proposing to borrow for the defence of Australia, which is really a provision for national insurance. Those who asserted that the Labour party were wrong in taking up that position must have already been humiliated a great deal more than any language of mine can humiliate them.

Senator Findley:

– They are not “ all there “ mentally.

Senator SENIOR:

– I am not going to say that. At present I see only two honorable senators upon the Ministerial benches, so that the other five are with us only in an invisible form, if they are with us at all. I repeat that the policy which should guide any Government is that which a sound financier in commercial circles would adopt. Looking through the items contained in the schedule to this Bill, I find two or three which would not be commended by sound financiers. There is, for example, an item relating to the acquisition of land for defence purposes. I challenge honorable senators opposite to point to any civilized country in the world in which the Government float loans for defence purposes in time of peace. Fortunately for Australia, this country has led the way in many estimable things. But surely the Government are not leading the way, in the estimation of sensible people, when they stoop to do something which no other civilized nation will do, namely, to go to “ “Uncle “ to enable them to pay for an insurance policy.

Senator Clemons:

– Did the honorable member ever borrow for the purchase of land ?

Senator SENIOR:

– Is the Honorary Minister going to lay down the principle that the Government will borrow for all the land that they require? Are they going to borrow to enable them to purchase land for defence purposes, whilst continuing to be the strongest advocates of the sale of land? The Honorary Minister has asked me if I have ever borrowed money to enable me to purchase land. I may tell him that I have had to pay interest, which was equivalent to the same thing. But I did not do so from choice. The difference between my position and that of the Government is that the latter are in a position to choose. Senator Clemons would not, of his own choice, borrow money with which to buy land.

Senator Clemons:

– Oh yes, I might.

Senator SENIOR:

– If he had other means, of acquiring the land without paying interest he would not borrow. His silence proves that on the principle he is advocating he stands condemned. I gather that the Treasurer, in introducing this Bill, was particularly careful to say that our financing should be based, not upon our most prosperous years, but upon our average years.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2. SO p.m.

Senator SENIOR:

– When we adjourned for luncheon, I was dealing with the inconsistencies of the Liberal party in their condemnation of the methods by which the Labour party conducted the financial business of the Commonwealth, paying for all they did as they went, and even then leaving behind them a surplus of £2,653,000, which, by our opponents, was called a “ financial debauch.” There is a story of a man who, in olden times, said, “ Oh, that mine enemy had written a book!” My political enemy, I believe, did write a book. I believe that it is inscribed by him as A Financial Carnival. I would like to put a position which arises out of the difference between the two policies that are really within the compass of this Loan Bill - the absence of a Loan Bill with the Labour party, and the result, a surplus of £2,653,000, being described by our political opponents as a “ financial debauch.” What language is denunciatory enough to characterize the utter absence of anything like a shadow of a policy, or even the lack of a dream that such a thing as a policy had ever crossed their brain? What language, I ask, is strong enough to denounce that which is only built up by having a Loan Bill here immediately after having consumed, in their first year, the surplus that was left to them ? I want honorable senators to think what the appeal really means. Here is a Senate, in which twenty-nine senators are standing behind the policy of no-indebtedness, and a solitary senator on the other side is representing a Bill to raise a loan of £3,080,000. What language, what action, could be expected from us in denouncing such a proposal ? That we take it calmly is great evidence, I think, of the carefulness with which we look into these matters. We are not easily moved, otherwise I believe that something like political rage would be manifested on this side in denouncing this Bill. It is a question, not simply of why we should borrow, but of why we should commit persons who have not acquiesced in our action to take up the burden “ willy nilly.” So far, in Australia, it has not been the policy to meet a debt when it fell due other than by renewing the loan. Persons with an intimate knowledge of commercial circles would at once characterize persons guilty of such an action as lacking in business capacity. If a man could only meet his bills by renewing them, and renewing them continually, very soon the lender would come to the conclusion that he was not fit to be trusted. So far as Australia is concerned, it is very rarely indeed that a liability has been met at the due date. In this Loan Bill we are asked to enter upon a borrowing policy without taking any precaution, without in any way shaping any ends, to meet the debt when it matures. We are simply resting on the hope that possibly by the date of maturity we shall be out of the world, and let those who follow us meet our indebtedness.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is not a happy thought to be out of the world.

Senator SENIOR:

– I put it to the honorable senator, as a man of the world, if it is just to commit our children and our grandchildren to an indebtedness in which we cannot invite them to acquiesce.

Senator Bakhap:

– They will inherit all our estates.

Senator McGregor:

– The bridges, in many instances, are gone, and the roads are washed away.

Senator SENIOR:

– I happen to know that, in some States, school buildings had fallen to pieces, and that the debt contracted to build them still remained. I happen to know, too, that even for repairing broken windows and putting on a fresh coat of paint a new loan was issued. Will my honorable friends opposite say that that is a right principle ?

Senator Bakhap:

– The children have grown up to manhood to repay the money.

Senator SENIOR:

– Here, again, the honorable senator is prepared to commit the children without asking them whether they will share the indebtedness or not. If he was able to say that all the indebtedness he presents to them is more than covered by a realizable or valuable asset, there might be more justification for this proposal. With regard to one item in the Loan Bill - that of defence and machinery for defence purposes - I think he will not go so far as to say that those things will endure until the maturity of the loan. It will be seen at once that a rotten principle underlies this proposal. There is shown a carelessness that is worthy of old Micawber himself, who simply waited for something to turn up, who signed the notes of hand and said, “Thank God, that is settled!” That, it seems, is just the principle which the Government are adopting. If it can be characterized as wastefulness when Labour had a surplus of £2,653,000, and had no loan hanging over them, except for transferred properties, I do not think it can be characterized as the clearest of honesty to go forth to the country, and represent that the Labour people had been guilty of borrowing, when the authors of the statement were fully aware that the only loans in existence were on transferred properties, and that the loans were transferred with the properties. It did not place before the public the whole truth. There may be a scintilla of truth in the statement that there was a loan over the Labour party, but it does not represent the whole truth when it is not made known generally that the loan in question was contracted before it was taken over by the Labour party. If our doings will not stand the clear light of day, it is time that we shaped them differently. The point I was leading up to has a bearing on our other loans. To a large extent in this Loan Bill we are issuing a second mortgage in this sense - that the States have already mortgaged their respective credits, and we come in as a seventh borrower, practically with the same securities to present. We are now asking the money lender, nob only through the States to lend money, but to grant on the same securities, and to the same people practically a second mortgage, with this result, if it has any effect at all, as I think it will, that it will weaken the value of the loans that the States may seek, and will also, by reflection, weaken our own opportunity of securing loans if we should really need accommodation. Let honorable senators bear in mind the very wise admonition I alluded to just before lunch, and I am sure that they will admit that it is wise, seeing that it comes from the mouth of the Treasurer himself. We should finance along the lines, not of our most prosperous times, but of our average years. We should not borrow up to the full limit of our possibilities, but act .well within that limit, so as to keep our securities good, and then should a time of stress occur we would be able to borrow to better advantage than we could have done if we had exhausted our credit during the time of peace. There can be no justification for Australia borrowing for defence purposes in time of peace. Such a policy stands condemned by all rational financiers, by . all men who have the welfare of their country at heart, and by all who seek to leave a true and honoured name to their children. We as Australians should never commit that which is, per haps, the culminating crime in finance, in national finance at any rate, of borrowing for defence purposes in time of peace. Let me allude now to another point. Our opponents came into office with a flourish of trumpets. They proclaimed themselves as the saviours of this great nation. They were the prophets whose eye was undimmed, and could see beyond the clouds. They were to show us a more excellent way of governing. They proclaimed our administration of public ‘ affairs to have been a “ financial debauch.” Yet they were the inheritors of a surplus of over £2,000,000, and also of a possibility quite as great as that which presented itself to the Labour party three years before. They had all the opportunities, nay they had more, because they had the prestige that had been created by such sound financing as the Labour party had practised. They had that asset to go forward with. Almost their first political act has been to repeal what was done by their predecessors in office holding the same political opinions as themselves. They have practically reintroduced an Act which the Labour party repealed. It is almost politically unthinkable that a party who were turned down for their financial policy of borrowing to the extent of £3,500,000 for defence purposes should now have the audacity and the shamefacedness to submit, as almost their first political measure, a repetition of the loan proposal which, to the honour of the Labour party, was repealed three years ago. What treatment can these people expect from the electors when they again appear before them ? If they have a political conscience left, they will seek the oblivion into which the electors sent their party three years ago. As Australians, we have a duty cast upon us which we should never fail to remember whenever legislation is put before us. I wish to impress on every senator the fact that we stand here, not merely as members of a political party, but as the defenders of the interests of the States. The Senate was called into existence to defend the interests of the States; in it each State has been given equal representation, so that the smaller’ States may not suffer from the aggression of the larger States. The object was to preserve some balance in the Senate to compensate the smaller States for the preponderating influence of the larger States in the more numerous

Chamber of this Parliament. That is a principle of our parliamentary institution which we should especially bear in mind when dealing with Loan Bills. We must not forget that a borrowing policy will bear most heavily upon the smaller States, whose assets are naturally of less value than those of the larger States. I wish the Honorary Minister, as a representative of the little State of Tasmania, to allow that view of this question to sink into his mind. By sanctioning the passage of such a Bill as that now before the Senate the honorable senator may jeopardize the interests of his State. He may, unwittingly, no doubt, by his support of such a measure do the State of Tasmania serious injury. Honorable senators on this side should resist any proposal’ of this kind in the interests of the States, as well as in defence of the nonborrowing policy of the party to which they belong. We should resist any proposal to borrow money concerning which we have not clear evidence that it can be justified by the development to which it will lead, and the results which will follow from that development. During the last election campaign the greatest stress was laid by our opponents upon the aggregate indebtedness of the States. It was not uncommon for them to trot out a stream of figures, which would remind one of the calculations that enter into astronomical measurements, in order to give the electors to understand the hundreds of millions represented by the aggregate indebtedness of the States. Senator Gould i9 smiling, and I have not the slightest doubt that he, in his endeavours to illuminate the electors, told them how many hundreds of millions the States have borrowed in the aggregate, and then, passing on to his usual statement as to the wasteful extravagance of the Labour party, left them under the impression that the aggregate indebtedness of ‘ the States was in some way to be attributed to the work of the Latour party. The honorable senator and his friends forgot to tell the electors that the indebtedness of the States was due, not to the Labour party, but to the policy adopted in the past throughout Australia by the Conservative party, to which they belong. We have to consider, in dealing with this Bill, that the Government are proposing that we should add to, and not take from, the aggregate indebtedness of the States. Our friends were pleased, during the elections, to refer to the loans borrowed by the Labour party, although they knew that not a penny of extra financial burden was laid upon the taxpayers of the Commonwealth because of those loans.’ They freely represented as loans the cost of the transferred property, although they knew that the properties were transferred with their loan indebtedness upon them. They did not tell the people that one of the first proposals they would make would be one to add £3,080,000 to the aggregate indebtedness of the States.

Senator Mullan:

– Or that it would involve increased taxation.

Senator SENIOR:

– No. Some persons are rebelling against the taxation they are called upon to pay to-day, but our friends opposite do not tell them that they are adopting the very means which will make additional taxation necessary. They do not tell them that, in this Bill, the Commonwealth is being committed to a policy which, if pursued, must compel the taxpayers to undertake obligations representing many millions more in time to come. Getting into debt is very much like permitting water to leak from a reservoir. Once water through seepage, finds its way through the bank of a reservoir, it is not long before the bulk of the water in the reservoir breaks through the bank. Th* Government are here asking us to tread a very dangerous path. They are initiating a policy which, in times past, has forced other nations into the necessity of repudiating their indebtedness. I am sure that, as Australians, none of us desires that the Commonwealth should do anything of the kind; but we must be most careful in any action that we take at this juncture. We should be especially careful in this Commonwealth, in which we are building up what undoubtedly, in years to come, will be one of the first nations on the earth’s surface. We should desire to escape the evils, difficulties, and handicaps that have hindered other nations. We know that the pawnbroker’s claim must be paid, and paid in kind. It is when the hardest pinch falls upon a nation that it must be so paid, and the taxation then necessary falls upon those least able to bear it. Yet our honorable friends opposite jog merrily along.

Senator Bakhap:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SENIOR:

– Yes, they jog along merrily, and enter into indebtedness without thinking for a moment of what must follow. I say that the lack of care on the part of our opponents in this matter is worthy of the strongest condemnation. They propose to borrow for the security and defence of the property of Australia. Is it not just and equitable that the property to be defended should bear the burden of its defence? To whom shall we look for defenders? We shall not search amongst the property -owners only; we will go to the children of the poor, to the man who has little of this world’s gear, to the miner, the farm labourer, the man in the back-blocks. We shall ask them to rally, to drill, and to be ready to lay down their lives, if need be, to defend this country. Is it not just, therefore, that, through increased taxation, the property of Australia should bear the brunt of the cost of our defence scheme ? Honorable senators must admit that the division of responsibility which we propose is even less than fair. Even though the man of property may lose much, he will still have his life. It cannot be denied that the man who lays down his life for his country, who leaves his wife a widow and his children fatherless, is called upon to sacrifice infinitely more than the property owners. For the latter to attempt to escape their just responsibility is for them to be something less than men. They turn to the son of toil, and ask him to pay an equal share with themselves of the cost of defence, and expect him also, in the hour of need, to stand in the leaden hail of battle. Our friends on the other side might very well withdraw such a Bill as this. We were aware of their lack of a policy during the last election, and we can only regard this proposal as an indication of the same - I was going to say political imbecility, but perhaps I had better say of the absolute political bankruptcy of our honorable friends opposite. No land on earth is more prosperous than is Australia to-day, but because we like borrowing, we will go in for further borrowing.

Senator Findley:

– The Government are like Oliver Twist. If we give them this they will want more and more.

Senator SENIOR:

– Oliver Twist was to be forgiven for wanting more, because, under the conditions portrayed by Charles Dickens, he did not have enough gruel. But I am quite sure that my honorable friends opposite cannot claim

Oliver Twist as their model so far as borrowing is concerned, if they look at the portion of the gruel which they have had, and to which they themselves have called attention for political purposes.

Senator Bakhap:

– If the honorable senator looked at what we have had he would not be able to find it.

Senator SENIOR:

– I did not quite catch the point of the honorable senator’s interjection. I say that it is the workers who have made Australia what it is today, the men who have been courageous, who have practically taken their lives in their hands, and have gone out either to subdue the wilderness or to delve in a mine or to cross the ocean.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator has included in his description the whole population.

Senator SENIOR:

– But there is a considerable difference in degree. The wealthy man is able to take comfort while he is amassing his wealth, as well as afterwards, whereas the poor man, while assisting to produce that wealth, has little, if any, comfort. How rarely do we find the worker able to take a trip to Europe? That consideration bears upon another point in my argument. It seems a most cowardly action for a man who is trying to escape paying his share to thrust it on the shoulders of another, who is already bearing heavy burdens. We cannot but wonder that honorable senators opposite do not cudgel their brains a little to find some other way than the one they have propounded here. To this borrowing principle there is no finality. We do not know where it will lead, except in the direction of the Insolvency Court. Take the State which I have the honour to represent. It is paying more than £1,000,000 each year for interest alone. The greatest apologists for borrowing cannot but admit that if that £1,000,000 per annum had been saved, and put into revenue, it would have been much better for the State.

Senator Bakhap:

– If the capital had not been borrowed and expended, would the honorable senator’s State be in as prosperous a condition as we find her now?

Senator SENIOR:

– The honorable senator has been a student of political economy, and he knows full well that it is a subterfuge to say that a person cannot get on unless be borrows.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is economically true.

Senator SENIOR:

– We can escape the borrowing system altogether. The honorable senator knows of historical incidents in connexion with which great achievements have been accomplished without borrowing a single penny. When he advances such an argument as that, I must think that he is driven into a corner, and, like the rat, would run anywhere to escape the trap before him.

Senator Bakhap:

– I have a clear outlook.

Senator SENIOR:

– If it is a clear outlook it lies in the direction of oblivion. By establishing the Commonwealth Bank the Labour party entered upon a sounder policy than that advanced by our opponents. The bank gives to the people of Australia the benefit of the credit of Australia, whilst, when we borrow abroad, we give to the people at Home the benefit of our credit. In other words, we are putting Australia in pawn. We are allowing the pawnbroker to dip into our plate of porridge before we taste it ourselves. We are taking from our own sustenance to give to him. If the party opposite had the political intelligence to do so, they would see the advantage of using the credit of Australia to benefit Australia entirely. This financial principle lies at the root of all true success, and until we grip that principle we shall never get out of the habit of going to the pawnbroker for relief. If the party opposite would follow in the direction in which Labour has already blazed the track, they would not introduce such a Bill as this. In two directions already Labour has pointed out a safer track than Conservatism ever found. In one direction it has shown us that there was a source of revenue which had not been utilized, but could be utilized for the benefit of the people of Australia as a whole. I refer to the progressive land tax. In another direction it showed how the credit of Australia could be used for the benefit of Australia. Through the agency of the present banking establishment the sum total of the credit of Australia can be made available for Australia’s use. If our friends would not be so obdurate, and if it were not so difficult to get a new thought into their minds instead of the crazy ones that have occupied them so long, they would see that in these two directions there is light and liberty for the people of the Commonwealth. Railway construction is foreshadowed in this Bill. I admit that there should be construction, either for developing our unused lands or for increasing the facilities for those who occupy lands already in use. The railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta is to absorb £1,400,000 of this loan money. I am not going to pass in review or call into question whether this is a wise policy or not. The railway is in course of construction. I shall not even leave the imputation that it is not a wise policy. The point that I wish to bring before honorable senators is this: A short-sighted policy has been adopted by Parliament in the past in regard to the facilities that will be given for development by means of Commonwealth railways. It is intended to hand over all those facilities to the people who purchase adjacent lands. They do not, in any sense whatever, pay for the facilities when they purchase. It is well known that land at a distance from a railway has a very small commercial value. It may have a good productive value, but that is another matter. This railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie is going to benefit somebody; and I think the just inference is that that somebody who receives the benefit should return a substantial something towards the indebtedness that will fall upon the whole people. The great cities of Australia, from Perth to Brisbane, that will be linked up by this line must benefit considerably. The persons who are to gain should be liable to pay something towards meeting the expense. There are others along the route where development must take place who will benefit. The line will not benefit merely those contiguous to it. Other lands will be developed as a result of it. We can reasonably expect that branch lines will be connected with it. There will be development in the back country. I have not much to charge against this Government in respect to the £1,400,000 they propose to spend upon the railway. But I do say that they should take into their cognisance, and bring under their purview, the benefits to be conferred upon individuals who will not directly contribute anything towards the cost. If something were done in that direction, I feel sure that not only would the action be justified, but that the burden would be met. Here is a strange point. Our party during the last election campaign was condemned wholesale for its policy. “We commenced to build that railway without a Loan Bill. We have carried it through up to the present without borrowing money for it.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator had better make sure before he makes that statement.

Senator SENIOR:

– I do not state it as an absolute fact, but I can appeal to those who are familiar with the facts.

Senator McGregor:

– There was £1,000,000.

Senator Clemons:

– A mere million for the same purpose.

Senator SENIOR:

– Here we have £1,400,000 for the same railway. If my honorable friends had followed the lines that we followed, there would have been less borrowing than they are desirous of effecting to-day. The Honorary Minister may smile-

Senator Clemons:

– As a matter of fact, I am just looking at the list of works for which the late Government did borrow.

Senator SENIOR:

– That suggestion on the part of the Honorary Minister gives away the whole case. In this Bill we see the result of the failure of the Government to recognise the wisdom of their predecessors. I come now to a question of policy in regard to the construction of the railway from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek. In this Bill, provision is made for the construction of a small piece of that line. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to consider the method that we should adopt in carrying out that undertaking. Are we to pursue a policy of borrowing all the time? Is it not better that we should think out these problems when we are not subject to the pressure of hard times ? How many of the States would be glad to retrieve some of their financial blunders. So far we have not had before us anything to show in what way this great railway is to be constructed. But if I may regard the evidence which is contained in this Bill as an indication of the Government policy, they intend to build it from the north end first. If so, I venture to say that they will be acting wrongly. At the present time, we have constructed a railway through the greater stretch of the desert portion of Australia - from Port Augusta to Oodnadatta. If that line were continued a few miles further, it would reach the great fertile tablelands of this continent. It must be patent to any man that if that fertile land were linked up with the ports which are already settled, and where facilities exist for the development of trade, two things would be accomplished. Speedier access to market would be given, and it would be easier to protect the Port AugustaOodnadatta railway from the Port Augusta end of it than it would be to protect it from the Northern Territory end. Lest calamity should overtake us in a few years - and it is a wise man who prepares for emergencies - it seems to me that we ought to go on developing along the lines which are most practicable. I have no hesitation in saying that, from the stand-point of development, the north-south transcontinental railway should be commenced from the southern end, and not from the northern. I do not desire my remarks to bear the slightest trace of opposition to the development of the Territory. I am merely stating what has been borne in on me by a close study of the position, and I should be glad if I could extort some remark from the Honorary Minister which would indicate whether the Government intend to develop the Territory in a sane way, or by the backstairs method which is suggested in this Bill. Probably he will feel inclined to say that the late Government authorized a survey of the line from Pine Creek to the Katherine River, and that the present Ministry are merely following in their footsteps. But it must be recollected that no intimation was given by the Fisher Government that they intended to build that line from the northern end. There are two or three big questions linked up with this one. We cannot expect to settle the interior of Australia in any better way than we can settle it by pushing forward with work from the southern end. It is well known that there is a very large artesianbasin in that interior, and that water can be got over a large tract of country. Tens of thousands of miles there can bewatered entirely by bores which may be> sunk in the earth in that artesian basin. Just as it is anticipated that the Port Augusta-Kalgoorlie railway will tend to develop the Tarcoola mining district, so will the extension of the line fom . Oodnadatta northwards tend to develop the Macdonnell Range mineral district. I am well within the mark in saying that there is no spot in .Australia which gives promise of having larger mineral wealth within it than does the Macdonnell Range. Let us look for a moment at what has been the effect of the increased knowledge which we have gained during recent years in the matter of agricultural development. The introduction of superphosphates has practically shown us the possibility of profitably utilizing land which a few years ago was regarded as worthless. It is quite reasonable to expect that a few years more will .bring about even greater revelations, and still broaden this continent of ours so that there rises before one a vision of how the centre of Australia - at present an unpeopled land - may, by the extension of railway facilities, and by the application of knowledge coming to us from the chemical laboratory-

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– And by dry farming.

Senator SENIOR:

– The great exponent of dry farming is, unfortunately, absent this afternoon.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that dry farming is mentioned in this Bill.

Senior SENIOR. - I am endeavouring to point out how the measure involves a consideration of railway development. I say that our loan policy should have closely connected with it that developmental policy which is necessary for Australia. I would like to know whether the Government are really seized with the importance of having a base from which to start in this matter, or whether they intend to construct a few miles of railway here, and a few miles there, in a haphazard way, but always by means of borrowed money. Then I find that provision is made in this Bill for the construction of a railway from Port Moresby to Astrolabe, in Papua. Not only is money to be borrowed for this purpose, but it is also proposed to construct wharfs at Port Moresby and Samarai out of loan money. Glorious heritage! We shall presently borrow money for the purpose of paying for gas or electricity.

Senator de Largie:

Sir John Forrest borrowed money to build a ball-room in Western Australia.

Senator SENIOR:

– I would not like to take that interjection as implying that, because he is Treasurer of the Commonwealth to-day, we are to borrow money with which to build wharfs. However, I give the Government credit for their frankness in telling us that they intend to borrow money for that purpose. But I certainly cannot commend them for their policy, nor can I give them a meed of praise for the fact that they are going to use borrowed money to construct such a perishable thing as a wharf, even at Port Moresby.

Senator Bakhap:

– Can the residents of Port Moresby pay for the wharf ?

Senator SENIOR:

– If the honorable senator will kindly give notice of the question, I shall make inquiries, and I think I am -as much entitled to ask for notice as he is. What have we before the Senate? This Bill has been practically thrown on the table without any information to illuminate the minds of honorable senators. What have we had more than a bare statement that it is proposed to borrow money to build a wharf? There has been no enlightenment afforded concerning the item. We are expected to take the Bill or leave it. When we are inclined to leave the Bill the Government get angry and pettish like a spoilt child is very often, instead of taking us into their confidence, and telling us why the wharf is required, and what the justification is for spending public money there. Had they come down and told us that it was a part of their policy to reserve the oil deposits, and that they wanted a railway to connect with the port, we might have felt very much more inclined to yield to their request than we do at the present time. An honorable senator interjects that, apparently, the railway is required to open up a private copper mine. That is a point on which I hope we shall get some information at question time. I see by the clock that I must hasten to conclude my speech. We have another question to consider that is just as important as the one I have dealt with. In the schedule to this Bill, I observe an item of £170,000 for land for post-office and telephone purposes, and an item of £425,000 for the construction of conduits and laying wires underground. Practically we are asked to approve of the borrowing of nearly half-a-million pounds to put wires underground. Does the Minister of Defence, who is smiling at me, think that there is any sound finance about such a scheme ? It is well known that the undergrounding of the wires has become necessary on account of the influence of the electric cables. We know that very many of these electric cables are owned by private companies, and for their accommodation the Government have to bear the cost of removing the wires from the influence of the cables, so that they can converse by telephone. We are leaving the air free to private enterprise at present. Private enterprise does not come forward and say, as it should do, “ We will bear part of the cost of this work which we have made necessary.” I believe that in similar circumstances private individuals would quickly go to law. I hold that private enterprise should bear, at any rate, part of this burden, and there should be no need to borrow nearly halfamillion pounds in order to bury our telephone wires. The policy laid down in almost every line of this Bill has little justification. In some instances it has no justification at all, while in others it is worthy of the strongest condemnation. One cannot receive the Bill as it should be received, and I may be pardoned for criticising it as I have done this afternoon, for the reason that it was given little criticism in another place. I do not wish to weary honorable senators, but ask them to go through the Bill and look at its contents carefully.

Senator O’Keefe:

– It was “ gagged “ in the other place almost from beginning to end.

Senator SENIOR:

– There are only two or three honorable senators on the other side, and we are many here. I do not wish to take up a position that would make our honorable friends opposite feel that they are unfair. I am sure that when they recall the attitude that was assumed towards the Bill in another place, the way in which it reached the Senate, and the little consideration it has received, they will recognise that it calls for earnest consideration here for the reason I have stated, namely, that the Senate stands for the protection of the

States as against the overwhelming influence that may be exercised by the larger States in another place. We should consider every line of the measure, and, as men who have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart, we should be prepared to look at it, having regard to the sanest, the soundest, and the best way for the development of the resources of Australia, and for the benefit of its people.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bakhap) adjourned.

page 3609

POSTALVOTING RESTORATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I have no doubt that the Senate has already anticipated the reasons why I am bringing forward the measure at this juncture. It is a common, and, I think, a desirable, practice that, between the submission of a motion for the second reading and the time when honorable senators are to discuss a measure, there should be a reasonable interval. I submit this motion now in order that its purpose, though I anticipate that that is already known, may be explained before we meet again next week, when, I hope, honorable senators will be prepared to deal with the measure with that increasing tendency to work that has marked our proceedings to-day. The Bill itself is a very short one; it is an old friend. At any rate, the older members of the Senate will recollect the animated debate which took place when the whole question of postal voting was under review in connexion with the Electoral Bill of 1911.

Senator Senior:

– Has the postal vote been converted since it left? Last time it was a naughty boy.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator said that it was very naughty, but we see nothing in it but a very useful adjunct to the electoral facilities of the people. I want to remind the Senate that, not only was postal voting very fully discussed then, but it did form a rather important subject for discussion during those proceedings which terminated on the 31st May. It was made, at any rate, by the members of the Government party, one of the grounds of appeal to the electors, and, having received a verdict from the people in support of the policy then enunciated, the Government submit this measure as an effort on their part to redeem a pledge they then gave. The Government did hope, until a certain period of the session, that they would be able to present a larger measure of electoral reform. However, circumstances, which I do not want to particularize to a greater extent, presented themselves which seemed to suggest to the Government that, as so much time had then elapsed, it would be better to leave on one side, for the time being, the other electoral amendments, and to proceed with this one. It is in pursuance of that decision that this Bill, having passed the other House, is presented for the concurrence of the Senate.

Senator Senior:

– Is not the Electoral Bill a more important and more comprehensive measure ?

Senator MILLEN:

– It is; and I may state, with regret, that the Government felt that the possibilities of dealing with that more comprehensive measure this session were becoming so remote that it was desirable to take out of it one of its main provisions, and present that provision for immediate consideration.

Senator Senior:

– Could the Electoral Bill not have been passed ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes; but there is no time like the present, and the Government desire to get through this session this portion of their electoral proposals.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Government were not game to stick to their proposals in the other Bill.

Senator MILLEN:

– I promise to conclude my short address, in order to enable the standing order which, against our wishes, acts to terminate our labours at 4 o’clock, to come into operation. I hope that I may be allowed to offer the few words I have to say on this point. I need not remind honorable senators of what the postal-voting system really is. It provides the opportunity of voting by post to three classes of electors. The first class includes every elector who, for certain reasons, happens to be more than a certain distance from a polling place on polling day. The second class includes every elector who, being a woman, will, on account of ill-health, be unable to attend at a polling booth on polling day. And the third class includes those electors who are prevented by serious illness or infirmity from attending a polling place in order to vote. A great deal has been said about the merits or the demerits of the postal vote, but I do not think that any one will be bold enough to say that it should not be the object of every political party to make provision for the three classes of electors to whom I have referred. The whole question about which the controversy raged was as to whether the postal voting facilities could be extended without opening the door to such irregularities as would in themselves represent an injustice to bona fide electors. The Government believe that there is no reason to anticipate in the future that those facilities will be abused. In the past, as has been proved, they were not abused.

Senator Senior:

– But they have been abused.

Senator MILLEN:

– No proof was brought forward.

Senator Findley:

– That is incorrect.

Senator MILLEN:

– Not once, but a score of times, honorable senators were invited, instead of dealing with general statements, to bring forward definite evidence of corrupt practices.

Senator Blakey:

– What about the case of Mr. Lesser, J. P., at Coleraine?

Senator MILLEN:

– What about this, and what about the other ? I am just telling my honorable friends that, when an opportunity presented itself to the members of the late Government and their supporters, who were invited to bring forward specific cases in support of their allegation of corrupt practices in connexion with Victoria, no such cases were presented.

Senator Blakey:

– They were. Senator Russell instanced the case of Mr. Lesser, J. P., at Coleraine.

Senator MILLEN:

– A statement of that kind counts for very little.

Senator Blakey:

– It is true, because the man was fined.

Senator MILLEN:

– The complete answer to the honorable senator is that, at the time those statements were made, his friends were in possession of the legal machinery of the country. They had an Attorney-General, a member of their own party, who had simply to press a button on his table to call in officers, and set the law in motion against the evil-doers; and the fact that he did not may be taken, I think, as proof that, in his mind, at any rate, there waB no evidence to justify the setting of the law in motion.

Senator Blakey:

– I have given you a concrete illustration:

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not propose to-day, because I do not think it necessary, to say anything in defence of this proposition. I abstain for the reason that the matter is not new. This is not a new proposal, or an electoral innovation. If it were, the responsibility would rest upon me to explain the provisions of the Bill, and say a few words in its favour.

Senator Senior:

– Postal voting has been discarded because it did not act properly.

Senator MILLEN:

– That shows that my honorable friend opposite knows all about it.

Senator Senior:

– I know all about its workings in South Australia.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator knows all about it, as does every other member of the Senate. It is a matter which we all discussed on several platforms during the last election; and I should pay the Senate no compliment if I proceeded now to discuss a proposition with which we are all so thoroughly familiar.

Senator Senior:

– By parity of reasoning, is not the submission of this proposal an insult to the Senate 1

Senator MILLEN:

– I certainly do not so intend it. I am bringing it forward as a Government proposal, as to the nature of which, I venture to say, every member of the Senate is fully informed. AH 1 have to do, in the circumstances, is to put.it forward, and ask the Senate to deal with it, as no doubt it will in due course. There is one other word which I should like to add. It in said that this proposal has been objected to very much when under discussion before. So far as I could gather the effect of that objection, it was that postal voting was liable to be abused. Honorable senators are not opposed to postal voting, provided it can be shown to be free from possibilities of corruption. If that be so, I ask honorable senators to put this question to themselves: We may lay on one side the possibility of a case here and there of abuse of the system, but if it were as freely abused as has been stated, does not common sense suggest that there should be ample proof of that free abuse in the many prosecutions instituted in connexion with itf

Senator Senior:

– No; because the people would not come forward to aid such prosecutions.

Senator MILLEN:

– The system of . postal voting was in operation while our friends opposite had control of the electoral machinery of the country, and if they were unable to discover irregularities arising under it which entitled them to take action, I submit that the somewhat remote possibility of an occasional irregularity arising under the system is no justification for denying an opportunity to vote to the many thousands who, in the past, have taken advantage of the postalvoting provisions of our electoral law.

Debate (on motion by Senator McGregor) adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT.

Leonora Mail Service.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BUZACOTT:
Western Australia

– On this motion, I desire to ask the Honorary Minister whether he has any information to give the Senate on the matter which I mentioned yesterday concerning the proposed alteration in the Leonora mail service 1 As the matter is one which affects thousands of persons engaged in the mining industry in Western Australia, its urgency will be admitted.

Senator CLEMONS:
TasmaniarHonorary Minister · LP

– In answer to Senator Buzacott’s request, I wish to give this information : The honorable senator’s question had reference to the possibility of the discontinuance of the daily mail service to Leonora. The following report on the subject was received by wire to-day from the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Perth -

The train service between Kalgoorlie and Leonora is being reduced to three times a week beyond Menzies from ist proximo. The district inspector has been advised of alteration and instructed to furnish report and recommendation re continuance existing frequency, and to treat matter as very urgent. Railway Department also approached on subject. Further report will follow as early as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 November 1913, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1913/19131128_senate_5_72/>.