Senate
10 November 1915

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE STATES
EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
- Pay of Public Servants Enlisting - Postal Service
QUESTION
- TRANSPORT AND SALE OF WHEAT
PAPERS
MEDICAL OFFICERS, CLAREMONT CAMP
QUESTION
- DR. RAMSAY SMITH
QUESTION
- TARIFF
NEW BUSINESS
RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL
- Second Reading
WAR LOAN BILL (No. 3)
INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2)
SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1915-16
ADJOURNMENT
- Orderof Business

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 7308

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE STATES

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether a financial agreement has been arrived at between the Commonwealth Government and the States, and, if so, whether he is in a position to inform the Senate as to its nature?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– An agreement has been arrived at, but I have not yet been supplied by the Treasurer with a copy of it. I shall endeavour to obtain a copy to present to the Senate.

page 7308

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Pay of Public Servants Enlisting - Postal Service

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the

Minister of Defence yet obtained a reply to the question I asked on the 28th October in reference to the pay of soldiers who have enlisted from the Public Service of South Australia?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The original question was -

Is the Minister of Defence aware that in some of the States soldiers have been paid the difference between their regimental pay and their official pay in their different offices? Is such done by the Commonwealth, or is there any intention to do so?

In reply to that inquiry, I outlined an agreement which had been arrived at, and which in certain circumstances, was departed from by New South Wales. The honorable senator then asked this further question -

Is it not a fact that the South Australian Government have done, not exactly the same, but have increased the military pay of any of their employees who have enlisted?

I promised to get the information. I have ascertained that the Government of South Australia have decided to pay the deficiency between the State salary and the Military pay in cases where the latter is less than the former.

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– Several months ago a good deal of dissatisfaction was expressed with the postal arrangements for the troops in Egypt, and the PostmasterGeneral, I understand, appointed Mr. Keith Murdoch to inquire and report as to the postal facilities. Is the Minister yet in receipt of a report from that gentleman as to whether the postal facilities have been improved or not ?

Senator PEARCE:

– We have received a report from Mr. Keith Murdoch, but, at the request of the British Government, we are not making it public. We are in communication with them as to when we shall be able to give publicity to the report, and we have intimated our desire to do so. So far, we have not received permission ; but one of the recommendations made by Mr. Murdoch has been put into effect during the last day or two by the Postmaster-General on representations by myself, and that is to have an alphabetical sorting of the mails here. . Mr. Murdoch, however, made a number of recommendations for action to be taken in Egypt. The officer in charge of the Postal Corps which has been established has left Australia with them, but before leaving he was supplied with a copy of Mr. Murdoch’s report, to enable him to adopt some of the proposals put forward.

page 7309

QUESTION

TRANSPORT AND SALE OF WHEAT

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– May I have permission, sir, to make a statement about the agreement arrived at in regard to the wheat question?

Agents’ Duties. The Government agents to receive the wheat at various centres, to issue certificates, to store and safeguard it, to consign it to various shipping ports, to ship it, and throughout from reception of shipment to be responsible for weight, quality, and conditionof the wheat. On receipt- of the wheat the Government agent to issue a storagecertificate showing quality and quantity of wheat delivered. Certificates only to be issued by firm’s chief office in State,. Quality to be stated in certificate. If inferior, value to be marked.

Advances to Farmers. Arrangementsto be made for part payment to holders of certificates on the basis . of 3s. per bushel f.o.b. at principal ports of shipment. The difference between the amount thus received and the average price received for all the wheat exported from the States, less expenses, including interest, to be paid to the holders of certificates at the close of the season.

London Board. The selling to be intrusted to a London Board. Selling commission and charges to be paid at the rate fixed.

The return from sales of each cargo to be credited to the exporting State. Deliveries of wheat under this scheme to cease on 30th September, 1916, and accounts to be paid up, and final payments to farmers to be made subsequent to the sale of the last shipment, probably not later than 30th November. As soon as possible after the sale of the last cargoes the Minister to ascertain the net average price realized for the whole of the wheat shipped by his State, and each farmer to be credited with this rate on the whole of the amount delivered to the Government agent. Provision is to be made for supplying millers with wheat sufficient for their requirements at a price to be approximately the London parity.

The control of the whole scheme is to be vested in a Committee representing the Commonwealth and States, with an advisory board of experts.”

-I have no information on that point.

page 7311

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911. - Award dated 1st November, 1915, made by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on plaints submitted by Australian Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Officers Association and Commonwealth Postmasters Association respectively ; Statement of the Laws and Regulations of the Commonwealth, with which, in the opinion of the Deputy President of the Court, the Award is not, or may not be, in accord; Copy of the “Reasons for Judgment” of Deputy President; Opinion of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth; and Memorandum by the Public Service Commissioner.

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1911 and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906-1912 . - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 219.

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911- 1915. - Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 207.

European War. - Austrian and German papers found in possession of Mr. James F. J. Archibald, Falmouth, 30th August, 1915. - Paper presented to British Parliament.

Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Act 1911 - Particulars of approved Goods Rates for eastern and western divisions.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906 - Land acquired under, at West End, Townsville, Queens- land - For Defence purposes. - Heidelberg, Victoria - For Postal purposes. - Majura, partly in Federal Territory and partly in New South Wales - For Federal Capital purposes.

Naval Defence Act 1910-1912.- Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1915, Nos. 217 and 218.

Papua. - Ordinance No. 6 of 1915. - Customs Tariff.

Public Service Act 1902-1915.- Promotions of A. P. Westhoven as Inspector of Accounts, 1st Class, Central Staff, PostmasterGeneral’s Department; H. Howqua as Clerk, 4th Class, Accounts Branch (Telephone Accounts ) , Postmaster-General’s Department, Victoria.

Return to Order of the Senate of 25th August, 1915- Works, Buildings, Additions, &c. ; Expenditure in each State for years 1909-10 to 1913-14 inclusive.

page 7312

MEDICAL OFFICERS, CLAREMONT CAMP

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister of Defence received the information I was seeking; as to the number of medical officers at the Claremont Camp, Tasmania 1

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The honorable senator asked the following questions -

The number of medical men whose services arc available at the Claremont Camp, Tasmania?
Is the numerical strength of the medical staff at Claremont proportionately equal to that at the Camps in other States.

The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

One.
No; there should be two medical officers, and the Commandant has been instructed to send another medical man into Camp immediately.

page 7312

QUESTION

DR. RAMSAY SMITH

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister of Defence yet received from Egypt any report relating to the recall of LieutenantColonel Ramsay Smith?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– No report has yet been received. We have again cabled to remind the Army Council that we have not yet received a report.

page 7312

QUESTION

TARIFF

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Having regard to the fact that the proposed referendum is to be postponed, will the Government afford Parliament the earliest and best opportunity of effectively and thoroughly dealing with Customs Tariff Amendment?
Will the Government indicate when such opportunity will be afforded and its nature?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– It will not be possible to deal with the Tariff during the present year.

page 7312

NEW BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That standing order No. 68 be suspended up to and including 19th November, 1915, for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after half-past 10 o’clock at night.

page 7312

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5th November (vide page 7278), on motion by Senator Russell -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– What particular works would you stop?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Russell:

– I did not say anything of the sort. I said that there ought not to be a sectional application of a general principle.

Senator STEWART:

– I point out that the control of this £1,000,000 is in the hands of the Commonwealth Government. What do they propose to do with it? They propose to assist South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales to conserve the waters of the Murray. That is a most laudable project. The thing ought to be done. The scheme is, also, one in which the Commonwealth ought to play its part. I have no objection whatever to that aspect of the matter. But when it is proposed, as it is under this

Bill, that we should present the landowners along the Murray and its tributaries with the land value that will be created by the expenditure of this money, so far as I am personally concerned I must call a halt. I am not prepared to donate millions of money to the fortunate people who at present own land along the banks of the Murray. If any honorable senator came forward here, and proposed that we should present any class in the community with a few millions sterling without value returned, he would be scorned, and, at the next general elections, he would be very properly turned out of his position in this Parliament. But we have a Government calmly coming forward and actually making a proposition, the inevitable result of which will be to enrich the fortunate owners of land alone the banks of the Murray. I cannot be a party to any such proposal. I say that the Labour party ought not to be a party to any such proposal, and no member of the Labour party has any right to support a proposition of that character. If he does so, he will be directly violating the platform of the party. I should like to give honorable senators some idea of the magnitude and importance of this proposal, and the far-reaching nature of its effects if it is carried out, as I hope it will be. I propose to quote from a report of a Royal Commission on the Murray River, which appears in the Proceedings of tha Parliament of South Australia for 1903, volume 2, paper No. 22. I quote from pages 21 and 22. This is what the members of the Commission said -

The extent of irrigable land in the Murray basin - that is, land commandable by water and of quality and character suitable for wet culture - within the States of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia is shown in the following tabular statement. It is not to be understood that the whole of this can be irrigated in any one year. It cannot be so. The available volume of water is wholly insufficient, even in years of high river discharge. It is the land that might be profitably irrigated if water were available.

– The community does not own it.

Senator STEWART:

– On that point I prefer to believe Senator Millen. If any, the community owns a very small proportion. If the community creates values by the expenditure of public money, the community ought to benefit, and I cannot see how any honorable member of the Senate can support a policy of which the result is to plunder the community. In the case of Renmark, the concession was 250,000 acres, and the area under the new Trust, in 1902, was 12,000 acres. Quoting again from the report-

Three thousand acres of irrigated land maintained 1,000 persons, whereas a neighbouring station, “ Chowilla,” having an area of 250,000 acres, carried only 5,000 sheep, although the soil is mostly similar to that of Renmark.

Senator Millen:

– That is good journalism, but not good fact. The 5,000 sheep do not look after themselves.

Senator STEWART:

– There might be one or two men looking after them.

Senator Russell:

– Is the station freehold?

Senator STEWART:

– The report is, unfortunately, silent on that point. I am merely pointing out the extraordinary advantages of irrigation, and that is all the more reason why we should be exceedingly careful of what we do to-day. The report says further -

On the banks of the Nile there are five persons to every acre cultivated. Professor Hilgard says, “Arid countries are always rich countries when irrigated.”

– Who is the pessimist now? Only a little while ago Senator Millen painted a very fine picture, and one which’, I think, will materialize. Whether we do the right thing or the wrong thing the people will be settled along the Murray, but if we do not do the right thing they will be living in industrial slavery. It is a scandal if such a thing is permitted. In the old days, when the Conservatives were in power, we accepted this position as a matter of course. It represented their policy, and they pursued it. But what about the Labour party, who are in power now ? This is one of the things that that party came into existence to kill. Yet what are we doing? We are endeavouring to perpetuate it. I will not be a party to anything of the kind.

Senator Russell:

– What would the honorable senator have us do ?

Senator STEWART:

Senator STEWART:

That the ultimate requirements of irrigation and navigation will necessitate a complete system of locks over the whole of the system.
That, as diversion by New South Wales and Victoria increases, the system of locks be gradually installed so as to maintain the full requirements of navigation.
That the cost be contributed by the three States in equal parts.
That the services of the best engineer in the world be obtained to report on the works necessary, and to prepare full estimates, the expense to be borne equally by the States concerned.
That a governing body be constituted of three engineers, one from each State, with fixed duties to apportion flow and diversions, preserve navigability, and construct conservation works.
That the first work to be commenced be Lake Victoria.

I quote this to show that what is proposed in the Bill is less than what was considered necessary at that time, that it was proposed to appoint engineers as commissioners, and that the Lake Victoria conservation works were even then contemplated. Lake Victoria is filled by the flood waters coming in at Frenchman’s Creek. As the river falls, the outflow comes out through Rufus River, and it has been proved that the outflow from Lake Victoria will keep the river navigable for between two and three months longer than would be the case without it. The lake is not a catchment in the ordinary sense, and lies back about 4 or 5 miles from the Murray. When filled, it will hold about two-thirds of the contents of Sydney Harbor, and about half the quantity of Lake Alexandrina. The present proposition is to build three weirs there with a view to raising the normal bed of the river, so that directly the flow reaches the high summer level the water will begin to flow into Lake Victoria. Then, by controlling the outflow through Rufus River by means of flood-gates, the waters of the Murray can be kept at a fair level so as to allow of both irrigation and navigation. The deeper the volume of water the less the evaporation. The evaporation on a shallow surface will amount to about 3 or 4 feet a year in a district like this; and that it is dry I know, for a trip I once had up the

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [6.22].- The utilization of the waters of the Murray River is a question which has been before the public for very many years. But the difficulty always has been to get the States to agree to the apportionment of, not only the waters, but the cost of a scheme. Agreement after agreement has been partially arrived at, and turned down, and at last a stage has been reached where an agreement has been come to. I feel quite certain that every member of the Senate, in fact, every man in this country, must realize that it would immensely benefit the whole of Australia to make use of all the waters which the Almighty sends,or order to promote irrigation and settlement throughout the arid districts. Although this is a most unfortunate time at which to call upon us to deal with a great project, nevertheless, we have to consider whether the agreement is based on reasonable terms and conditions. I recognise, of course, that at present it would be almost impossible for us to obtain the money which the work will cost. The agreement limits the time within which the work has to be commenced, and fixes the time within which portions shall be performed, and also the time when the whole of the work shall be completed. We are told that the estimates embodied in the agreement cannot be relied upon. The scheme is estimated to cost between £4,000,000 and £5,000.000, and, under the agreement, the Commonwealth is only to be called on to contribute £1,000,000. And, from the way in which’ the proposal was put before the Senate, it would appear that that expenditure will be irrespective of the cost of carrying the works into effect. We are told that their cost will be at least £10,000,000. I ask. honorable senators where, under the agreement, the other £5,000,000 is to be obtained in order to carry out the scheme? Is the Commonwealth to assist the contracting parties, or is it to stand still after it contributes its £1,000,000, and decline to give a penny more?

Senator Grant:

– Certainly not.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.-The Bill says so, but the agreement does not. It appears to me that the provision in the Bill which says that £1,000,000 shall be the limit of the Commonwealth’s expenditure cannot, under the terms of the agreement, really be the limit which was contemplated by the States when they came to a settlement. The Minister says that it can ; but my view is that the Common wealth must be prepared to face a larger expenditure than the £1,000,000. It is a party to the agreement. I wish honorable senators to clearly realize the position of the Commonwealth in regard to the financial aspect of the proposal.

Senator Russell:

– Look at clause 1 of the agreement.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I have already said that I am prepared to accept an agreement, even containing conditions like that, so long as I am satisfied that it is a national work which is to be carried out, and the apportionment of the cost is regarded as fair.

Senator Russell:

– I think that clause 1 of the agreement will remove the honorable senator’s objection.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD.- The clause reads-

This Agreement is substituted for the said recited agreements bearing date the eleventh day of November, One thousand nine hundred and eight, and the fifth day of January, One thousand nine hundred and twelve, respectively; and is subject to ratification by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia; and shall come into effect when so ratified.

Senator Russell:

– There is no agreement until ratification of the Commonwealth Parliament is given.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Of course there is not, but the agreement which we are now asked to ratify imposes these conditions

Senator Russell:

– With modifications.

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

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I admit that there can be no agreement until the ratification of this Parliament is given. It is provided that when the terms of the agreement have been ratified by the four Governments concerned, the agreement shall come into force. But we are now askedto ratify the agreement, subject to certain conditions which were never contemplated so far as the insissima verba of this document are concerned. Under the head of “ Finance,” we find this clause -

The cost of carrying out the works mentioned in clause twenty of this Agreement is estimated at Four million six hundred and sixty-three thousand pounds, and shall be borne by the Contracting Governments in the following proportions, namely : -

Then clause 36 reads -

If in the opinion of the Commission for the effective construction of any of the works provided for in this Agreement it is necessary to exceed the amount set out in clause thirtythree of this Agreement the Commission may pay to the Government constructing such work an amount in excess of that so set out, and the amount of such excess expenditure shall be borne by the Contracting Governments in the proportion set out in clause thirty-two of this Agreement.

If, when one half of the scheme hasbeen carried out, it is found that the cost will be £10,000,000, honorable senators will not be able in honour to repudiate a request to vote a little more money. If the work is started, it will have to be finished.If it is found, after the expenditure of £4,000,000, that the work is only half completed-, honorable senators would be madmen if they were to say, “ We will stop the work now and will not spend another cent.”

Senator Turley:

– We did not stop the construction of the Western Australian railway when we had exceeded the estimated cost of £4,500,000 ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– No. Clause 43 of the agreement contains a provision for taking proceedings in case of a contracting party making default in a payment of any moneys it is called upon to pay in excess of the amount originally contemplated. The clause reads -

If any Contracting Government whose duty it is under this Agreement or under any direction issued in accordance with this Agreement to construct or continue the construction of, or to maintain, operate, or control any works, orto carry on any operation, or to provide its share of the cost of the construction, maintenance, operation, or control of such works, or of carrying on such operation refuses or neglects to do so after being thereunto required by the Commission, the other Contracting Governments (or any one or more of them) withthe sanction of the Commission -

may, without prejudice to their or its other rights, under this Agreement, construct or continue and complete the construction of or maintain, operate, or control the whole of such works (or any portion thereof specified by the Commission), or carry on such operation (or any part thereof specified as aforesaid), and pro vide the cost thereof; and (b)may in any court of competent jurisdiction recover as a debt fromthe Contracting Government so refusing or neglecting the share of such cost to be provided by such Contracting Government in pursuance of this Agreement, together with interest on any sums expended, at a rate to be determined by the Commission.

For the purpose of any act orthing to be done under this clause the Contracting Governments, or any one or more of them as aforesaid., shall have the rights and powers of aConstructing Authority;but the Contacting Government so refusing or neglecting shall’, on completion of such act or thing andthe payment of its share of the cost thereof, be deemed to be the Constructing Authority.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I admit that under this Bill the agreement is being ratified subject to a provision that the Commonwealth shall not be liable for more than £1,000,000, butI think that, in giving effect to the scheme, it will be found quite impossible to limit the expenditure of the Commonwealth to that amount. If, after the work is started, it is found necessary to expend a further £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to cover the cost of completing the scheme, it will be incumbent upon the Commonwealth, in accordance, at all events, with the spirit of the agreement, to bear its share of the further expenditure involved. If the agreement had been drawn in such a way as to impose the burden of the whole cost of the scheme upon the three States specially concerned, with a provision for a contribution of £1,000,000 by the Commonwealth towards the cost, the Commonwealth would not then have been legally or morally bound to pay any more, even though it should bp discovered that it would cost double as much as was originally estimated to complete the scheme. As the agreement is drawn, however, while the limitation provided for in this Bill may be of some value, I think it will be found that the Commonwealth will be looked to to bear its share of any additional expenditure involved. It is contemplated by the Bill that the works will be completed within a period of twelve years, and it may be. said that the expenditure will be distributed over that time, but, so far as I can judge from the terms of the agreement, whilst we may know what work is to be performed ina certain year, we shall be unable to estimate what it will cost. I have great sympathy with the views expressed by honorable senators who have directed attention to the financial aspect of the matter. There can be no question that, until the end of the war and for some time after, the States and the Commonwealth must be prepared to materially reduce public expenditure. Though we may say that we should like this or that work carried out, we shall be brought by the firm logic of facts to a realization of the necessity for reducing public expenditure if we are to meet our obligations. This Bill does not make any appropriationof money, and before we are called upon to expend any partof the £1,000,000, there will have to be a specific appropriation, when Parliament will have all the facts before it. The agreement contemplates the appointment of a Commissioner by each of the contracting parties; but the preparation of the plans does not devolve either upon that Commission or upon the Commonwealth Government. Under clause 23 of the agreement it is provided that -

The Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia shall each, as soon as practicable, cause to be prepared and submitted to the Commission, for its approval, a general scheme of the work to be constructed by them respectively under this Agreement; and before commencing the construction of any of such works shall cause to be prepared and submitted to the Commission, for its approval, designs and estimates of such works.

The Commonwealth Government will not, therefore, be called upon to give their approval of plans and specifications. That is to be done by the Commission. If the Commission approves of a contemplated work it will be proceeded with forthwith, and then the Commonwealth Government must contribute their share of the expenditure. We must be very careful of the action taken by the Commonwealth Government under this Bill when it becomes law. The passing of the measure will, at all events, constitute the approval of the Commonwealth as one of the contracting parties to an agreement which, at last, after years of trouble, has been evolved to the satisfaction of the States specially concerned. There is an estimate given of the quantity of water that may be retained by each State, but no estimate of the number of acres that may be irrigated by this scheme.

Senator Russell:

– Yes, the number is 1,400,000 acres.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I had overlooked that. Senators Grant and Stewart are concerned about the enhancement of the value of private property as the result of the carrying out of this scheme. I realize as fully as they do that, whilst the holders of the irrigated lands will have to pay for the water used, the value of those lands will be materially increased. If we do not desire that this increase of value shall go to the owner of theland the only way to avoid that is to resume the private lands which will be benefited by the scheme. It may be said that we can impose taxation upon these lands, but, if we do that, the owners will pass the tax on to the tenants who rent the land from them. The difficulty can only be met by the resumption of the lands at their fair market value, whatever it may be at the present time; but I remind honorable senators that this Parliament has no power over the lands of the States. The State Parliaments are supreme in the control of the lands of their States, except that, of course, we can resume land for public purposes very different from those which it is sought to promote by this scheme. Honorable senators may say that they will not assent to this Bill until they are satisfied that the States concerned will resume the lands to be benefited by the scheme; but they should remember that the State Parliaments and Governments may resent dictation from us as to the policy they should adopt in dealing with their lands. It should not be forgotten that, in the main, the members of theState Parliaments and Governments are actuated by the principles which we profess, and we must be prepared to trust them to do the right thing in the matter. We have no right to hold a pistol to the heads of the State Parliaments, and say that unless they legislate in the way we think right we shall not assist in the development of a great national scheme in the interests of Australia as a whole.

Senator Stewart:

– I think that is what we should do.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- I do not think that this Parliament has any right to attempt to overawe the State Parliaments. It was not created for any such purpose.

Senator Stewart:

– The honorable senator would rather condemn thousands of people to industrial slavery.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Guthrie:

– Only as to the boundary between New South Wales and Victoria.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know how New South Wales would have fared if she had attempted to enforce that agreement. In 1853 the river was first opened to navigation by South Australia, and I learn, from reading, that the Government of the day were not too keen upon supplying facilities for rendering it navigable. From that time onward South Australia has been persistently pressing . her claims, so far as navigation is concerned. But she is not, even now, making navigation the basis upon which she will subscribe to this agreement. No sensible State would desire to use the waters of the Murray for navigation purposes if they were required for irrigation purposes. The Murray was rather difficult to navigate in those days, because of the obstructions in it, and consequently an effort was made by South Australia to induce the other States to co-operate with her in clearing it. Invariably she met’ with a refusal, at least in the earlier stages of the negotiations. In 1863 a National Conference was held in Melbourne, at which a resolution was carried to the following effect : -

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the commerce, population, and wealth of Australia can be largely increased by rendering navigable and otherwise utilizing the great rivers of the interior, such as the Murray, Edward, Murrumbidgee, and the Darling, and that the obligation of carrying into effect the necessary works to accomplish these objects devolve primarily upon the respective Governments having jurisdiction over these rivers.

That was a very excellent resolution, but unfortunately nothing was ever done to give effect to it. In 1885 a Commission consisting of representatives of New South. Wales and Victoria met, and carried a resolution affirming -

That the waters of the Upper Murray and its tributaries, and the whole of the waters of the Lower Murray are the common property of New South Wales and Victoria.

These two States met in solemn conclave and adopted that resolution. There was no third party present to disturb the harmony of the gathering. Needless to say, the resolution evoked from the South Australian Government a very emphatic protest. Whether for that reason, or some other, the line of argument then developed was not further pursued. Between 1885 and 1902 conferences Were held by the various States practically every year, but nothing resulted from these gatherings. In 1902 the Corowa Conference was held, and, I think, it may justly be described as the first gathering at which anything practicable was done in regard to a settlement of the vexed question of the utilization of the Murray waters. It adopted certain resolutions, one of which would have had the effect of reducing the navigation period of the year from ten months to five and a half months. But although that resolution was affirmed, others were carried of a more favorable nature, which formed the basis of all subsequent agreements. Whilst these conferences were being held, Victoria was proceeding cheerily on her way, and was using the waters of the Murray as freely as she chose. Senator Senior has referred to the fact that, in 1904, a motion was submitted to the South Australian Parliament affirming the desirableness of securing an injunction against the Victorian Government restraining it from an excessive use of the waters of the Murray. So far as I am aware, however, nothing was ever done to give effect to that motion.

Senator Senior:

– Except that legal opinions were obtained from Sir Josiah Symon.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– But nothing practical was done in the matter.

Senator Guy:

-I understand that very pronounced opinions were expressed by counsel.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes. But we are not now dealing with those matters. In 1912, the question was handed over to a conference of Inter-State engineers, upon whose report the present agreement has been based.

Senator Guy:

– Were there not agree ments madebetween that time and the present?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There were agreements made practically every year, but, as I have already remarked, the present’ agreement is based on the report of the Inter-State engineers, who met in 1912. From their intimate knowledge of the River Murray and of the requirements of the different States, they were able to frame a scheme better than could a conference of Premiers or of politicians. They had no special interests to serve, and were actuated only by the desire to achieve the best results for all the States concerned. The agreement, if not the best in our scheme of nation building, is certainly the best that has so far been arrived at. In our attempts to settle the interior of Australia, nothing better has been conceived, and no Australian ought to vote against the scheme because it does not accord with his views in every detail. If every man who has taken part in the framing of previous agreements had insisted upon his own views being adopted in every particular, the problem would never have been solved. Those who take up the attitude which I have outlined are retarding the progress of Australia. Something has been said to-day about the area of land that is under irrigation along the banks of the Murray, and the Government have been blamed for not having brought forward the names of every land-holder there and the area held by each individual ; but, in my opinion, the names of those who happen to hold the land for the time being are of little consequence. I propose to give some information that will be a little more interesting. The Murray River from Echuca to the mouth is 1,066 miles long. The distance by rail from Adelaide to Sydney is 1,066½ miles.

Senator Bakhap:

– The distance of the Murray includes all the windings.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes ; and it is those windings which are responsible for the splendid irrigation areas that are possible, and for the slow rate at which the river flows. I ask honorable senators to imagine what a tremendous improvement it would be to Australia if it were possible to irrigate the whole stretch of land alongside the railway from Adelaide to Sydney and divide it into small holdings on which men were making a good living and producing large quantities of produce. I have no record of the land which has been resumed in. New South Wales, with the exception of that resumed in connexion with the Burrinjuck scheme, on the Murrumbidgee, but the following figures in regard to irrigation settlement on the Murray River should be of interest.

– Well, as a relief work for returned soldiers or unemployed. I am satisfied that thousands of the men who have gone from offices and shops in Australia to the front will desire, on their return, to get on to the land. I have spoken to many men on the subject, and the result ofthe training they have had in the field has been such, they tell me, that they have no wish to get back to the office or the shop. Their desire is, if possible, to get a block of land on the Murray. I can assure Senator Millen that many of the men are looking forward very eagerly to getting a block there owing to the fact that only a small amount of capital is required.

Senator Millen:

– My remarks had no reference to the possibility of these men settling on this land, but to the remark of the Minister that this money would be spent on works, and that the employment on the works would furnish opportunities to these men. The settlement on the land is a later and quite a different project.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not want to do an injustice to the honorable senator, but he knows perfectly well that, in order to give effect to the provisions of the Bill, it will be necessary that work shall be provided for a large number of men. I am not pleading for the proposal on that ground, but on the ground that, in a comparatively dry country men will be able to secure, at any rate, a comfortable living for themselves and their families. For that reason and for the reason that it will do much to settle the problem of production, I support the proposal. If we had had these Murray lands settled during the last year of drought, we should not have been obliged to import a ton of fodder for our stock. If these lands were irrigated, we could produce on the banks of the Murray crops sufficient to supply the whole of the requirements of Australia during such a time of drought as we had last year. For these reasons it appears to me to be the duty of this Parliament to vote this sum of £1,000,000, not merely to assist the States concerned in this scheme, but in order that the development of this great country may be carried on in a way that will return handsome profits indirectly to the Commonwealth as a whole, and directly to the States specially concerned. I have every confidence that the Bill will be carried.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– If the position of affairs so far as irrigation in South Australia is concerned, as detailed by Senator Newland, had any particular application to this Bill, and if it were possible for the Commonwealth to carry oat such a scheme, there would not be one voice raised in this chamber against this measure. If the Commonwealthowned all the land to be benefited by the scheme, and might look forward eventually to a return of anything from £1 to £2 per acre, and to the settlement of alarge number of people on the lands on perpetual leasehold terms, there would be no objection to putting £1,000,000 into the scheme. I visited Mildura on one occasion, and I admit that the quantity of water used, and of fruit grown, and the apparent prosperity of the residents afforded an object lesson in the value of irrigation. Senator Newland has said that the residents of Mildura have prospered exceedingly since 1887, when the lands were taken over from the Chaffey Brothers and vested in a Trust. But the Government of Victoria had to come to the relief of the people of Mildura, and their present prosperous condition would lead one to assume that they have probably done something to get themselves out of debt. Instead of that, I find that in the latest Y ear-Booh the statement is made - ,

No precise figures are available as to the capital cost of the works at Mildura, but probably the sum is not less than £180,000.

That, I take it, is the amount put into the venture by those who have practically lost what they had, besides what the Government have had to put into it. The statement continues -

The amount due to the Government now is £72.451, exclusive of £12,G59 for accumulations of interest.

– It is estimated that the expenditure by New South Wales on the Cumberoona dam will be £1,221,000. My informant, speaking of this matter, says -

The only benefit New South Wales receives under this Agreement, and for which it pays £1,221,000. is its share, namely, 500,000 acrefeet of the water to be stored in the proposed Cumberoona dam, above Albury. This dam is the pivot upon which the Agreement may be said to turn; if it is too costly, the whole scheme must be recast. The retaining wall of Burrinjuck dam is 940 feet long, and goes down below the surface about 34 feet, and the cost of the dam is about £1,000,000. The retaining wall of the Cumberoona dam is 8.000 feet (1½ miles) long, and goes down in places 200 feet below the surface - this wall would fill up the space between Sydney Heads from level with the top of the cliffs to the bottom of the water - and all that is allowed to build it (after allowing for land resumptions) is about £1,000,000. Would any contractor undertake to fill up between Sydney Heads with a heavy dam wall for £1 000,000? He would not attempt it for £10,000,000. The financial recklessness exhibited in the Agreement is amazing, considering the fact that the States’ liability to find the money to finish the works is unlimited.

Senator Story:

– Who is the authority whom the honorable senator has quoted ?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– An engineer - Mr. J. C. F. Harkness.

Senator Senior:

– Can the honorable senator pit him against an authority like Mr. Johnson from America?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The engineers do not guarantee the estimates of the cost of the work at all. Those costs are merely approximate. As a matter of experience, we know that the cost of all big public undertakings is considerably in excess of the official estimate. The writer proceeds* - £3,105,000 out of £4,663,000 is to be expended on locks and weirs for navigation only. These locks and weirs are of no use whatever for irrigation. This enormous expenditure is to preserve extremely small, chiefly South Australian, navigation interests, the whole of the plant, steamers, barges, &c. of which are valued at not more than £80,000, one year’s interest on the money expended on, and the upkeep of these locks and weirs, namely, £186,000. would buy up the whole affair twice over. This large expenditure is not justified, as in years of high flow there is plenty 61 water, and always will be, for both navigation and irrigation, and these locks and weirs would only come into full use during years of low-water flow, and’ in drought time they would again become useless (no water). The Inter-State engineers did not recommend, and were uncertain as to the estimates. They might well be, as take, for instance, the Manchester ship canal, that was estimated to cost £5,000.000, but actually cost £15,000,000.

Every big public work that is carried out costs 50 per cent, more than the official estimate. If the Commonwealth contributes £1,000,000 towards the expenditure upon this scheme, and the States find that the funds available are insufficient to complete it, they will certainly approach this Parliament with a request for further financial assistance. We cannot, therefore, foresee the end of our commitments in this connexion. The engineer whom I. have quoted has gone exhaustively into the matter, and, in his opinion, the scheme will inflict an injustice upon certain of the States, and will confer a great benefit upon only one State. I protest against embarking on this huge expenditure with our eyes closed, especially at a time when we should be carefully conserving all the money that we can secure in Australia. For this reason, I intend’ to vote against the Bill. I do not say that the undertaking is not a national one, or that it will not benefit the country. But I do say that it will confer a greater benefit upon the private land-owners along the banks of the Murray. It is all very well to urge that in South Australia all the lands fringing the river are practically Crown lands. In other States they are not, and under this Bill the people who own them will certainly benefit at the expense of the Commonwealth. If we knew precisely the cost of the enterprise, the position would be entirely different. But we do not, and it is impossible for us to forecast our ultimate expenditure under the scheme. I am not prepared to cast my vote in the direction of committing the Commonwealth to an unknown expenditure, especially at a time like the present.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– This is such an interesting discussion, that I cannot resist the temptation to contribute a few words to it. Many honorable senators appear to have lost sight of the real position. Neither South Australia nor Victoria is asking this Parliament for any favour. Senator Turley has complained that he has not sufficient information to guide him in this* matter, and I propose therefore to read for his benefit a summary of the negotiations which have taken place between the States from the very inception of the trouble. The position is that, as the result of protracted negotiations, the States directly interested in the utilization of the Murray waters have arrived at a fair compromise. The agreement which has been framed is based upon the report of a conference of Inter-State engineers, whose opinions should certainly carry more weight than that of the engineer, Mr. Harkness, whom Senator McDougall has quoted. These engineers went exhaustively into this matter, and prepared estimates of the cost of the scheme - estimates upon the accuracy of which their professional reputation depends. That has all been done. The States have all agreed among themselves, and the Cook Government, on behalf of the Commonwealth, undertook, to clinch the matter by subscribing £1,000,000 towards the cost, realizing, as a National Government should, that this was the greatest national work ever proposed in Australia, and that it was their duty to endeavour to bring matters to a settlement, and so start the work at the earliest possible moment. The States are quite prepared to go on with the undertaking. As a matter of fact, South Australia, which has always been in the lead since responsible government came into force in Australia, has already spent money upon it, and the other States are prepared to do the necessary work for the conservation of water in the carrying out of this great scheme as soon as this agreement is ratified ‘ by the Commonwealth Parliament. I heard Senator Stewart, or Senator Turley, say, “It is our money.” It is the money of the people of Australia, but do not South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales contribute the greatest part of the Commonwealth revenue? Why” should these senators from the northern part of Australia who always oppose everything -that does not benefit their State say, “ For what reason should we contribute our money towards this scheme?” What Queensland will contribute towards the scheme will be infinitesimal. The chief objection, of Senator Stewart is that this expenditure will benefit private property, and put money into the pockets of private landowners, but the honorable senator voted for the money required for the huge military barracks now being erected close to Brisbane, which will have the effect of improving the value of property all round. Assuredly the expenditure entailed by this scheme will improve the value of certain land, as with even smaller works the value of land is improved, but let me point out to Senator Stewart that both the State Governments and the Federal Government have the power to take back the added value that is given to the land by the expenditure of public money. In that direction the States are making great advances. I am satisfied that the Government of South Australia, if they felt they had the majority behind them, would take the whole of the unearned increment, not only on the land along the River Murray, but also on all the land of the State. Senator Stewart’s opposition to the Bill seems to me paltry in the extreme.

Senator Stewart:

– Never mind. You have a good majority with you.

Senator STORY:

– It is not a question of having a majority. After agreeing as to its importance, and admitting that it will settle a large number, of people on the land, and employ a large population in productive works, I think the honorable senator has given a very paltry reason for opposing a great national work, on the ground that some private people are going to get a little advantage from it. I have already said that South Australia has taken the lead in many things. It was the first to point out the advantage of navigation and irrigation in connexion with the Murray River. A pamphlet written by Mr. David J. Gordon, M.L.C., who formerly represented Boothby in the House of Representatives, gives a concise history of the movement for the utilization of the waters of the River Murray. The stream was first opened to navigation in 1853 by the efforts ;of the South Australian Government.

In 1857 the Government of South Australia endeavoured to obtain the cooperation of New South Wales and Victoria in the improvement of the navigation of the river. They claimed that it should be made a great navigable stream into the centre of Australia, giving cheap carriage to the coast. Undoubtedly cheap water carriage, as against very expensive railway carriage, must benefit the settlers on the banks of a river, unless, as has been done in many cases, rival railway authorities in different States run goods at a loss in order to divert trade from its natural outlet to the capital cities, anu thus increase the congestion in those centres. As far back as 1863, at an Intercolonial Conference, in Melbourne, the following resolution was passed -

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the commerce, population, and wealth of Australia can be largely increased by rendering navigable and otherwise utilizing the great rivers of the interior, such as the Murray, Edward, Murrumbidgee, and Darling, and that the obligations of carrying into effect the necessary works to accomplish these objects devolve primarily upon the respective Governments having jurisdiction over such rivers.

Nothing was done to carry this into effect. It was simply a pious expression of opinion at a Conference. But even then they saw the necessity for combined action. In 1885 the Government of Victoria proposed a joint Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. The South Australian Government expressed itself willing to join the Commission ; but without any further notice to South Australia, Royal Commissions of New South Wales and Victoria then sitting held a Conference and adopted a resolution declaring -

That the whole of the waters of the Upper Murray and its tributaries, and the whole of the waters of the Lower Murray, were the common property of New South Wales and Victoria.

Senator Turley is practically advancing the same argument- that the whole of the waters of the Murray should be utilized in the upper reaches of the stream, and the lower part that runs through South Australia should be allowed to go dry. He seems to lose sight of the fact that there are such matters as riparian rights, and it was when this fact was pointed out by Sir John Downer, then Premier of South Australia, that the joint Commission was induced to reconsider the matter. Mr. Duncan Gillies, then Premier of Victoria, admitted that his Government had no desire to place the rights - navigation, or others - of South Australia either in jeopardy or at the mercy of any Commission in which South Australia was not represented, and that nothing was further from the intention of his Government than to do anything destructive of the rights of South Australia. In 1886 a further Commission was appointed. In 1887 a Royal Commission was appointed by South Australia to inquire into and report upon -

The question of- utilizing the waters of the River Murray for irrigation purposes and the preservation of the navigation and water rights of this province in the river, and for that purpose to confer and consult with any Commission appointed, or to be appointed, by the Governments of New South Wales and Victoria on the same subject.

In 1890 no conferences were held, owing to the fact that New South Wales declined to participate. In the correspondence which took place at this period the claim was made by Sir Henry Parkes, then Premier of New South Wales, on behalf of that colony, to the whole watercourse of the Murray fromits source to the South Australian boundary, and the waters of that portion of the river. From 1894 to 1902 correspondence took place between the Colonies without result. Meantime Victoria was extending her irrigation work and diversions. In 1902, as the result of action in the three States, culminating in the assembling of a Conference of political and other public men at Corowa, an Inter-State Royal Commission was appointed jointly by New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia -

To make a diligent and full inquiry concerning the conservation and distribution of the waters of the River Murray and its tributaries for the purpose of irrigation, navigation, and water supply, &c.

This Commission presented its report, but it was not unanimous, the South Australian Commissioner dissenting from the finding of the other members in matters of substance. The majority of Commissioners decided on an allotment of the waters of the river and its tributaries between the three States, the effect of which on the navigation of the Murray is shown by the following figures: -

In the years 1886 to 1901 inclusive, under natural conditions, the average annual duration of navigation had been ten months; under the conditions of the Commission’s allotment it would have been five and a half months.

During the actual existence of this Commission, Victoria, in the face of the strongest protest from New South Wales and South Australia, initiated further large diversion works. I am merely quoting these facts from Mr. Gordon’s pamphlet in order to point out that all these Commissions presented reports which are available to any honorable senator who claims that he has asked for information upon this subject, and is un-. able to get it. In 1903, subsequent to the presentation of the report of the Commission, correspondence passed between the Premiers of South Australia and Victoria, bearing principally on the legal aspect of the question, and in the same year the matter was fully discussed at a Conference of Premiers in Sydney, with the result that a tentative agreement was made modifying the apportionment proposed by the Inter-State Royal Commission slightly in favour of South Australia; but this agreement was again altered at the expense of South Australia. It was unanimously received in all the States, and was not ratified. To show that litigation of a very expensive and farreaching character was only avoided by a further Conference, which came to an agreement, the South Australian House of Assembly, in 1904, on the motion of Mr. Ritchie, passed the following resolution: -

That, in the opinion of this House, it is advisable that the Attorney-General should, in the name of the State, move for an injunction against the State of Victoria, and against all officers of that State, and persons acting under its authority restraining them from the appropriation of water from the River Murray under the Tooleybuc and other schemes.

The question was again brought forward at the Conference of State Ministers held at Hobart in February, 1905, when, the principle of the apportionment of the waters being laid aside, a great advance towards an amicable settlement was made and a decision was come to for the preparation of a statement by the Government of South Australia -

On the basis of the resolutions attached, which, in general terms, affirm that the ultimate requirements of navigation and irrigation will necessitate the construction of a system of locks over all that portion of the river now customarily used for navigation, to be gradually installed as the diversions of New South Wales and Victoria render such locks necessary; the cost of all such works to be paid for in equal shares by the three States, Lake Victoria storage to be the first work constructed.

Although South Australia would have had a third of the area of irrigable land which Victoria and New South Wales Would have, still under that agreement she was to pay an equal proportion towards the cost of the whole scheme, and under “the present agreement, she will, as Senator Senior reminds me, have to pay in addition the cost of the Lake Victoria storage scheme. In 1905, the South Australian Parliament passed a Bill authorizing surveys to be made with the view to select sites for locks, and begin work in that State. In 1906, the South Australian Government forwarded a report to New South Wales and Victoria, in compliance with a request of the Hobart Conference. The Government obtained legal opinions from Sir Josiah Symon, K.C., of South Australia; Mr. Isaacs, K.C., of Victoria; and Mr. Glynn, of South Australia; and the unanimous view waa expressed that South Australia had riparian rights which could not be infringed. An agreement, subject to the ratification of the Parliaments of the three States, was signed by the Premiers at the Sydney Conference in April. In July, 1907, an agreement was signed. The Bill was shortly afterwards introduced into the South Australian and Victorian Houses of Assembly. The second reading was carried in South Australia on 9th October, 1907, and in Victoria on 17th December, 1907. The Bill was left in the Committee stage on the ground that it would be useless for South Australia and Victoria to pass the Bill until it had been brought before’ the Parliament of New South Wales. During October and November, members of both Houses of the Legislatures of Victoria and South Australia paid a visit of inspection. The Victorian legislators travelled by steamer from Echuca to Mildura, whilst South Australian members made the voyage from Echuca to Goolwa. After the opening of the New South Wales Parliament in that year, the Premier said -

The time of the session being short, State business must give precedence to legislation of domestic importance. If it was practicable to consider matters which were in the interests of the ad jacent States, he would give consideration to the Murray question.

In December, 1907, the following telegram from Melbourne appeared in the press -

Further communications have passed between the Victorian and South Australian Governments with regard to the Murray Waters Bill, and it has been agreed, that, as New South Wales cannot proceed with the Bill this session, it will be useless for the other two States to do so. It will, therefore, stand over till next year.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

This Act shall commence on a day to he fixed by proclamation.

Senator MILLEN:
New SouthWales

.- I move-

That the following words be added: - “but such proclamation shall not issue before the termination of the present war.”

Senator MILLEN:

– I should have a great deal more faith in his statement if he told us that he can not only finance the amount that is required for the current year, but can also find £70,000,000 to cover next year’s expenditure. In this connexion we must not forget that, in addition to the amountswe have already borrowed, we have utilized our note-issue to the extent of £40,000,000. We have had the benefit of that inflated issue, which will shortly be expanded to £45,000,000. But that benefit cannot be obtained again. It has largely been restricted to the past year. It has proved a tremendous aid to the finances of this year. But there cannot be another issue of £45,000,000. In the meantime the Imperial authorities have told us, in the plainest possible terms, that they are not prepared to finance us further. Consequently, we are thrown upon our own resources. And although we obtained £13,000,000 when we first invited applications for the £20,000,000 loan, we must not suppose that when we require £70,000,000 we shall get it in the same easy f ashion. With all the earnestness of which I am capable I urge honorable senators to allow considerations of prudence to prevail and to defer embarking upon this scheme until we know how the war will leave us financially. Should it terminate within a year, and should the financial sky then be bright, we can, with confidence, enter upon the undertaking. But if, owing to the continuance of the European struggle, our finances become still further straitened, we certainly ought not to embark upon this new enterprise, I do hope that, discarding all party considerations, the Committee will adopt a prudent and business-like view of the situation.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [11.16].- I intend to support Senator Millen’s amendment. I spoke in favour of this undertaking, but expressed the view that we ought to carefully husband our resources in view of the special circumstances which exist to-day. We all know that there are times in a man’s lifewhen he has not the means to do exactly what he would like to do, and when it would be the height of folly for him to incur expenditure upon new enterprises. To adopt any other policy would be to invite bankruptcy. I do not desire the Commonwealth to take any steps which will land it in financial difficulties.

Senator Pearce:

– There are sound business men on the Treasury bench.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– And we want them to realize the wisdom of adopting a prudent policy. I ask the Assistant Minister whether he really believes that, before the termination of the war there will be a change of Ministry? If he does, he entertains a view which very few of us share. He stated that this great work will not be undertaken unless the Bill becomes law. I would like to know when it is proposed that the proclamation shall issue, if the measure be passed. I find, by reference to Mr. Knibbs, that the States have not held their hands in this matter as has been suggested. Speaking of the utilization of the Murray waters that authority says -

In accordance with resolution xiv., this agreement is now. under consideration of the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliaments of three interested States. In New South Wales, pending the results of the investigation ofthe dam foundations of the proposed storage dam at Cumberoona, surveys are being made by officers of the Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission of the lands on the New South Wales side of the Murray River which are capable of irrigation from that stream. The lands suitable for irrigation are much in excess of the area which can be served by the volumes of water which will be available, and it istherefore necessary that the most suitable and high class land shall be selected for that purpose. So far as South Australia is concerned, the construction of the first lock at

Blanchetown is practically now in progress, as the machinery required in the construction of it is now being erected, and the necessary data for determining the sites of the other works included in that State’s portion of the general scheme has been obtained.

If the States have such confidence in this undertaking, is there any reason why they should not have prepared their plans in anticipation of the proclamation? I admit that the Commonwealth will not be able to appoint the Commission until this Bill becomes law, but the Commission will not be able to do anything until the plans prepared by the States have been submitted, so that the States can go on preparing their plans if they see fit without there being any interference with the scheme up to that point. I urge honorable senators to look at the situation, however, from an ordinary business stand-point. The ordinary business man would look about to see how he could under existing circumstances, invest his money to the best advantage. It might be that he desired to carry out some special work, but if his financial position did not justify it, or if he saw financial stringency in the markets from which he hoped to obtain his money, he would hold his hand until he could seehis wav more clearly; and honorable senators would be consulting the best interests of the Commonwealth - which are the interests they are called upon to serve- if they took a similar course and supported the amendment indicated by Senator Millen. It would, at any rate, show that we desired to see more of what the future had in store before committing ourselves to an expenditure which has been estimated in the aggregate at something like £10,000,000.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The amendment, if carried, will have the effect of definitely postponing the commencement of the work.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Until the termination of the war. We hope the war is not going to last many years.

Senator GRANT:

– Not only would this work be postponed, but, if certain honorable senators had their way, many other public works would also be stopped. I am entirely opposed to the idea of shutting down public works. This proposal has been ratified by the States concerned, it has been accepted in another place, and also by this Chamber and the amendment seems to be only another way of defeating the measure. I hope that the Senate will refuse to entertain it.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 15

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreedto.

Clause 5(Ratification of Agreement).

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

.- I move-

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Provided that the Commonwealth shall not contribute any sum towards the cost of the works provided for under the Agreement unless and until the Parliaments of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia enact laws securing to the respective Governments of those States the increase in value caused by the works provided for under the Agreement of the lands which benefit by those works.”

The effect of the amendment will be to secure to the community the values it has created, and unless it be accepted, the expenditure upon these works, which will probably amount to £10,000,000, will merely enhance the value of private land on the Murray River. We have had too much of this kind of thing in Australia, and it is time that we called a halt. This is the opportunity for members of the Labour party to subscribe in a concrete way to a doctrine that has been preached ever since the Labour movement commenced, namely, to secure to the people that which belongs to the people, and to prevent the people from being exploited as they have been exploited in the past. Any one doubting the necessity for this amendment has only to examine the conditions that prevail in the various States. The best of our accessible agricultural lands, which are held by men who will not use them, or allow any one else to use them, have been enhanced in value enormously by the construction of. railways. We do not want a repetition of this on the banks of the Murray River. The community should secure the values that will be created by the construction of these works. If the people of Australia had only obtained the community-created values of the’ past they would have been able to wipe out the national debt of Australia. It is estimated that, in 1902, the unimproved value of land in the Commonwealth, was £350,000,000, the price originally paid to the Crown for this land being £96,912,532. The increment in value, to 1902, was £253,000,000, which was equal to the accumulated debt of Australia at that date. The total price paid in the State of Queensland for land purchased from the Crown to the year 1898 was £8,687,814, but at that date the unimproved value of the land had increased to £38,745,000, so that publiclycreated land values amounting to £30,000,000 had been presented by the Tory Government of Queensland to land sharks, speculators, and exploiters. These figures show the manner in which the people of Australia have been consistently robbed by Conservative Governments, and now that we have a Labour Government in power in the Commonwealth, we have a splendid opportunity of putting into effect the pet plank of the Labour platform. There is not one member of the Labour party who has not, at some time or. other, on the public platform, cursed the fact that communitycreated values were passing into the hands of private individuals. We can give effect to our platform by including in this Bill the proviso which I have moved. It is unnecessary to argue the justice of the amendment at length. It is self-evident.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I trust that the Senate will not accept the amendment. We can sympathize with much of what the honorable senator has said, but I may point out that South Australia, in the establishment of irrigation works, has not given away the unearned increment to private individuals, the land having been resumed in that State, while in New South Wales the Labour Government in office has not given away the unearned increment, and I am not aware that even in Victoria, with a Liberal Government ia office, the unearned increment is given, away in connexion with irrigation areas.

Senator Stewart:

– Not only have they done it in Victoria; they have also wiped off £1,000,000 of debts.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Surely the honorable senator is not at this moment proposing to discuss the inception of irrigation in Victoria, and the land laws existing thirty-five years ago. Practically thewhole of the irrigated land in Victoria of recent years has been resumed.

Senator Turley:

– In Victoria, mora money has been lost over the resumptions than on anything else.

Senator RUSSELL:

Sitting suspended from midnight to IS. 45 a.m. (Thursday).

Senator SENIOR:

– I have only to say, in conclusion, that Senator Mullan, by his amendment, seeks to evade the second reading of the Bill, and the immediately preceding decision of the Senate. In other words, he seeks to hold up the work for which the Bill provides by introducing a principle which could not be carried out, since no machinery is. provided for it. It is really beyond! the scope of this measure, and belongs properly to a land Bill. The Committee will do well to reject the amendment as being out of place in a measure of this kind.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

.- The principle of the Bill was affirmed by the Senate in agreeing that it be read a second time, and it is within the jurisdiction of the Committee to amend the Bill in any way thought to be desirable. From that point of view, therefore, the amendment is quite in order. It cannot be described as an attempt to get behind the decision of the Senate in agreeing to the motion for the second reading. It often happens that such a motion is carried on the votes of a considerable number of senators who express their intention of submitting in Committee amendments which will impose certain conditions. That is Senator Mullan’s object in this case. He asks the Committee to agree to impose a condition which he and others think will conserve the interests of the many people who may avail themselves of the opportunities that will be afforded as the result of the proposed expenditure. We are told that in supporting this amendment we are endeavouring, by indirect means, to destroy the Bill. There is no reason why the amendment should have that effect. A man giving money for any purpose whatever has the right to declare the conditions under which it shall be expended. In this case it is proposed to lay down certain conditions regarding the contemplated expenditure of £1,000,000 by the Commonwealth. Senator Senior says that the amendment, if carried, would, hit the small man, and allow the hig man to go free. As a matter of fact, all that we ask is that the increased values given to land by the expenditure of this money shall go to the State. This principle has been put into execution in South Australia, and I cannot understand why representatives of that State should object to the amendment. Why should the principle not extend to other States, provided they approve of this grant of £1,000,000?

Senator Senior:

– The States directly concerned will get no advantage from the Commonwealth grant.

Senator TURLEY:

Senator TURLEY:

– Undoubtedly, they would get the full rental value from the tenants. When leasing lands in Commonwealth Territory, we shall expect to get the full increased value of those lands due to Commonwealth expenditure on railways and public works generally. It is quite reasonable to ask the States con cerned to consider the condition that would be imposed by the amendment, and they can then decide whether they will be prepared to accept the £1,000,000 from the Commonwealth under that condition.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I want to point out to Senator Turley that the lands resumed in South Australia for irrigation purposes are let upon perpetual leases, and by section 38 of the Consolidated Land Act of 1915 of that State it isprovided that -

The rent for each period of fourteen years, excepting the first said period, of a perpetual lease, subject to revaluation, shall be fixed by the Board at least twelve months before the expiration of the next succeeding period of fourteen years.

Under that provision the re-appraisement for which honorable senators supporting the amendment are fighting would be accomplished.

Senator Turley:

– Then South Australia will have nothing to complain about.

Senator SENIOR:

– I complain that the amendment is so general that a State that is doing what is desired by honorable senators supporting the amendment will receive nothing towards the expense of this scheme, if another State refuses to give effect to the principle for which they are contending.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 15

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 22 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

.- Paragraph 32 of the agree- merit sets out the estimated expenditure as £4,663,000, and it is so cunningly worded that I take it the intention of the framers was not to limit the liability of the Commonwealth to £1,000,000, although clause 5 of the Bill imposes that limitation. I should like to know whether it is perfectly clear that the liability of the Commonwealth is absolutely limited to £1,000,000, notwithstanding paragraph 32.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I have consulted the law advisers of the Commonwealth on this point, and they assure me that there is no doubt that the Agreement is ratified subject to the provisions of the Bill. It is possible for Parliament to impose any limitation upon the agreement, and such portions of the agreement as are in conflict with the provisions of the Bill are not binding on the Commonwealth.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– In regard to the point raised by Senator Mullan, I can assure the Senate that under the terms of the Bill the Com- . monwealth is not liable to any expenditure beyond the sum of £1,000,000. Paragraph 32 of the schedule expresses the estimated cost of the works, and indicates the proportion of such estimated cost to which each party shall be liable. But the provision in paragraph 32 is subject to clause 5 of the Bill, and that clause indubitably provides that the Commonwealth shall not be liable for more than £1,000,000. If the cost exceeds the estimate set out in paragraph 32 of the schedule, and the Commonwealth is to be asked to accept a further liability, another Bill will be necessary. Honorable senators can, therefore, rest assured that the responsibility to which they are committing the Commonwealth by this measure will not exceed £1,000,000.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 7367

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 3)

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

page 7367

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2)

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

page 7367

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1915-16

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th November, vide page 7284) :

Schedule :

Department of External Affairs.

Divisions 38 to 45 (£50,241).

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– An outspoken Labour supporter, who has lately spent five months travelling through the Northern Territory representing a party with a few hundred pounds each, and anxious to get land for sheep-farming, writes me thus: -

While I was there, money would not have put me on the stump to talk Labour, seeing things as they were.

That is a most remarkable statement, for I never knew the writer hesitate before to talk Labour politics anywhere. He raises another interesting question -

I hope you will use your endeavours to get the Government to put down bores en some of the dry tracks which the mailmen have to travel from Camooweal to Bonroloola. There is one stage of 80 miles without water from Anthony’s Lagoon to Top Spring. I know that the Administrator is up against looking for water, and favours the stations putting down bores and selling the water to the public.

Such conditions will effectually prevent settlement. They prevailed many years ago in the pastoral districts of western Queensland, and settlement was greatly promoted by putting down tanks and sinking bores to provide water for travelling stock. The writer has lived for the last thirty years in western Queensland, and if he says that the conditions in the Territory are worse than they were in the old days in western Queensland, they must be very bad. If there is anything in our professions that we desire settlement in the Northern Territory, we must do something to improve matters, because travellers are evidently at the mercy of the men holding large areas who have the water-holes on their leases. We must try to make things easier for the pioneers.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister of External Affairs. I quite agree with him that it is almost as important to give facilities for travelling stock as it is to provide railways. The honorable senator’s remarks about the difficulty experienced by Labour supporters in expressing their views about the Northern Territory are also worthy of the utmost consideration.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I should like to draw attention to something in the Northern Territory accounts which appears to me to be wrong. I find that £23,161 is to be spent, and yet not a single penny, so far as we can judge, is for developmental works. Are we to understand that all such works are to be stopped ? Then I see there is a subsidy for a steam-ship service from Port Adelaide to Darwin. Only a few days ago a contract was laid on the table providing for a subsidy of £3,000 a year for two years to the E. and A. Co. to provide communication between Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane and Port Darwin, and no mention of Adelaide was made; and I should like some explanation of the position.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– When the Minister is consulting with his responsible colleagues in regard to the ‘matters raised by Senator Turley, I should like him to see whether something cannot be done in the Northern Territory, on a comprehensive scale, in the way of water conservation. The rainfall is higher at Port Darwin than further inland, but even at a considerable distance from the coast the rainfall is very considerable. The fall ranges from about 50 inches per annum at Port Darwin to something like 30 or 35 inches at a distance of 200 or 300 miles inland. If the Territory is to be developed and become a satisfactory possession, it is clear that systematic steps should be taken in the direction I have indicated. I am aware that evaporation is an important consideration, but, in my opinion, it is possible to devise means by which the loss in this way can be minimized. With a proper system of water conservation, I have no doubt it would be possible to introduce irrigation, though, perhaps, not on the same extensive scale as that we discussed earlier in the evening on another Bill. Of course, productivity varies in the Territory, and I think that the less productive regions could be improved by means of irrigation. These may bc questions for hydraulic engineers and other experts, And I do not think that we have had reports from qualified men of this kind. Our information, I think, has been supplied mainly by surveyors, who, while they may have a general knowledge, have not that expert knowledge which is so desirable. However, .. it is clear that something could, and should, be done to conserve a portion of the heavy rainfall. The Government, in regard to the Territory, have absolute and uncontrolled power without any constitutional limitation, the Territory belonging absolutely to the Commonwealth. This means that the Parliament is supreme ; and I hope that, in view of this fact, the Government will apply themselves to the proper development of the Territory, in order that it may not become, as some people have been gloomy enough to predict, a “ white elephant.” Its strategical importance, in view of possible invasion, demands every consideration ; and I hope that the Government will do everything within their power to hasten the development of this portion of Australia.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– The position in regard to the steam-ship subsidy appears as unreasonable to me as it does to Senator Guthrie. I cannot at this moment assign reasons for the present circumstances, but I shall obtain the information by to-morrow. As to the development of the Northern Territory, I remind honorable senators that the present Estimates are based on last year’s Estimates, and that a large portion of the money is really for developmental works, such as surveys, mining subsidies, and assaying. I may further say that in last year’s Estimates there appears £6,000 for bores. I can assure honorable senators that the Government are quite alive to the importance of water conservation, and other developmental works in this part of Australia. I believe that, with the return of normal times, this great province will be developed in such a way that, instead of proving a source of danger from invasion, it will be a source of strength to the Commonwealth.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Defence Department.

Divisions 46 to 89, £5,713,816.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

-36 a.m.]. - The Minister of Defence will recollect that when he visited Queensland recently, a number of deputations waited upon him. One of these represented the Clothing Union, an organization which controls the persons employed in the manufacture of clothing. I confess that I could scarcely gather the aim which the secretary of that union had in view from the way in which he stated his case. The Minister, therefore, can scarcely be blamed for failing to grasp it. I have, however, learned since that the object of the deputation was to ascertain from the Minister whether it was not possible - seeing that there is a fair amount of cloth in the possession of the Department - to get move work done in Brisbane in connexion with the manufacture of uniforms for our troops. The secretary of the union assured me that there was a large number of its members out of employment, and that his desire was to learn whether the Department could not employ more labour in the making up of the cloth which was then in hand. I should like some information on that point.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– In reply to the remarks of Senator Turley, I wish to say that I quite understood the desire of the deputation. The honorable senator is misinformed when he says that there is any considerable quantity of cloth in the possession of the Department. That is not so. Whilst we have plenty of clothing manufacturers who are prepared to make up uniforms, we have experienced a serious difficulty in getting the quantity, of cloth that is required.

Senator Mullan:

– Is an equitable distribution of the cloth being made amongst the States?

Senator PEARCE:

– I believe so. Representations have been made that Queensland has not been getting her fair share of the orders. I have looked into that matter, and it seems to me that the allegation is not borne out by the facts. Moreover, during the past three or four months, Queensland has received a larger number of orders than she received previously. But we are scarcely able to procure sufficient cloth to keep those who have already entered into contracts with the Department, fully supplied. As soon as we can get more cloth, we shall undoubtedly increase the number of contractors for uniforms, because we desire to issue those uniforms as early as possible.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I should like to know whether the training of our Citizen Forces is still being carried out? It has been represented to me that, to some extent, that training has been suspended.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- The training of our Citizen Forces, and of the Senior Cadets, has been suspended till the end of December. The reason is that the supply of officers and instructors is so limited, and the number of reinforcements required for our Expeditionary Forces so large, that we have had temporarily to suspend the training of our Citizen Forces in order to make available the services of instructors to train our Expeditionary Forces. That, however, does not prevent voluntary parades being held by our Citizen Forces. A considerable number of those Forces are still holding parades. We hope that by January, when a large number of troops in our Expeditionary Forces will have left for the front, sufficient instructors will be available to enable the training of our Citizen Forces and Senior Cadets to be resumed.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I ask the Minister whether his attention has been called to a report which recently appeared in the Age of a Naval court martial which was held in Sydney. I cannot recall the name of the medical officer who was the subject of that court martial. But, according to the press report of the proceedings, he was charged with having deserted from the Navy. The evidence showed that he was a medical man who had joined the Navy, I think, about the 14th August, 1914 - some ten days after the declaration of war. He was in the Navy on probation for twelve months thereafter. Before that period had expired, he found that he could not continue his services, and accordingly wrote, either to the Minister of Defence or the Minister for the Navy, intimating his wish to resign. In reply, he received a communication to the effect that he would not be permitted to resign. The twelve months of his probationary period elapsed and he continued in the Navy, but was not confirmed in bis appointment. Quite recently, the vessel to which he was attached was about to leave Sydney1. On the day upon which she was to sail, he visited Garden Island, or some other Naval establishment, with a letter addressed to the Commander, or other superior officer, informing him that he would be unable to proceed with her. His wife at this time was seriously ill, and he knew that if he did leave Sydney he would probably lose her. He then went and procured the services of a doctor and a nurse. The vessel sailed without him, and he was subsequently court martialled. At the inquiry, the circumstances I have outlined were disclosed, and he was dismissed from the Navy with disgrace. The authorities would not permit him to resign but, nevertheless, they dismissed him with disgrace. What does that mean ? When the circumstances associated with his leaving the Navy are forgotten, he will be branded as a man who was dismissed because he tried to desert in time of war. His counsel contended that he was not in the Navy, his period of probation having expired.

Senator Guthrie:

– Had he been discharged ?

Senator KEATING:

– He had not been discharged nor confirmed in his appointment. Apart from technical considerations, however, it would appear that the man had in every way manifested his bona fides. When he signified his wish to retire, he was given no indication as to what he should do, and on the day when he is alleged to have deserted he actually attended for some hours before the departure of his vessel, and left a letter explaining why he could not go. It is not as if the man was a shuffler. It is not as if he had developed “ cold feet.” Why was he dismissed in disgrace? It was as if the Court realized that it could not punish him. Had he been a deserter, had he been a shirker, had he been a man with “ cold feet,” he perhaps deserved to be shot or yard-armed.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does the honorable senator complain because he was not shot?

Senator KEATING:

– No; but if there had been any justification for dealing with him as an actual deserter, as a coward, that might have been the appropriate punishment as a warning to others. What I complain of is that it seemed as if the court martial realized that the merits of the case were not against this man. aVid yet the natural inference to be drawn from the punishment that was meted out to him is that he shirked his responsibility. I do not know this officer from the veriest stranger. I have seen no letters in the paper about him. I know nobody who knows him. I have not discussed the matter with anybody, but when I read what was in the paper I felt that, if correctly reported, it was a case wherein a gross injustice had been committed. I asked the Minister if his attention had been directed to this case. If it has not, I will turn up the paper and find the account for him, and I hope he will give every consideration to the matter, and. if justice has not been done, T trust he will see it is done.

Senator PEARCE (Weston Australia - Minister of Defence) [1.46 a.m.1. - I do not know whether the honorable senator is aware that an alteration of portfolios took place a few months ago, and that a Minister for the Navy was appointed. I have no knowledge of the facts of the case, but I will bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of the Minister for the Navy. I would, however, like to make this comment: Does the honorable senator contend that an officer himself must be the judge as to when he shall leave his ship ?

Senator Keating:

– Not at all.

Senator PEARCE:

– As an officer, he would have a copy of the regulations, and he would know that, unless he had received his discharge, he had no right to leave, especially in time of war. The circumstances, stripped of all sympathetic reference, practically amount to desertion. There may be extenuating circumstances, but the bare fact remains that this officer did not receive his discharge. The fact that his appointment’ was not confirmed does not affect the matter one iota. He could have got leave of absence by applying for it in the proper way; but an officer cannot be the judge as to when he shall leave his ship. What would be the position supposing on, say, Melbourne Cup Day the whole crew decided that they would not go to sea. If a man has the right to leave his ship because his wife is ill, why has he not the right to leave it for some other reason ? Looking at the facts as presented by the honorable senator, they suggest that this officer took a course that would be disastrous if it were taken by other officers, or by the crew.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Trade and Customs Department.

Divisions 90 to 103, £85,438.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

– There is an item here for the investigation of bitter-pit. Will the Minister tell us the nature of that investigation, and if the results will be made known to the States interested?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Upon this question, the Commonwealth and the States came to a joint arrangement some years ago to retain Mr. McAlpin, an expert on the subject, to investigate the causes of bitter-pit and to suggest a remedy. I think that all honorable senators have been supplied with volumes descriptive of the work done. Experts Bays that Mr. McAlpin, by a process of weeding-out, has narrowed down the cause of this particular trouble to one thine, and investigation is now proceeding with the object of arriving at a remedy.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Home Affairs Department.

Divisions 104 to 113, £146,588.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Can the Minister inform me as to what steps are being taken towards the early construction of the proposed railway line from Yass to Canberra ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– No Bill has yet been presented to Parliament authorizing the construction of a railway from Yass to Canberra, and, without such authority, no work can be undertaken in connexion with it.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Divisions 114 to 123 (Department of the Postmaster-General), £825,850; division 30 (Refunds of Revenue), £50,000; and division 31 (Advance to Treasurer), £250,000, agreed to.

Postponed clause 2, abstract, preamble, and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 7371

ADJOURNMENT

Orderof Business

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

At the next sitting the War Loan Bill (No. 3) will be the first business, and then the Income Tax Bill will be considered. There will also be a Bill to recall the writ for the referenda and a Bill in regard to a grant of money to Lady Bridges. We Lope to adjourn for the Christmas vacation at the conclusion of the sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 2.2 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 November 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19151110_senate_6_79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 November 1915

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE STATES

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Pay of Public Servants Enlisting - Postal Service

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator LONG:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

TRANSPORT AND SALE OF WHEAT

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Findley:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Findley:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Findley:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

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

Senator PEARCE:

PAPERS

MEDICAL OFFICERS, CLAREMONT CAMP

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

DR. RAMSAY SMITH

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

TARIFF

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

NEW BUSINESS

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Senior:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Russell:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McDougall:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Russell:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Guy:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Turley:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Stewart:

Senate
10 November 1915

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

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

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator STEWART:
Queensland