Senate
22 May 1916

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CASUALTY LISTS
QUESTION
- ENGAGEMENT OF MR. OLIVER
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF COAL
QUESTION
- DELAY IN DELIVERY OF MAILS FOR SOLDIERS
QUESTION
- APPEALS FROM COURTS MARTIAL
PAPERS
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL
APPROPRIATION BILL 1915-16
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1915-16
WAR LOAN BILL (UNITED KINGDOM) (No. 3)
STATES LOAN BILL
WAR LOAN BILL (No. 3)
- Second Reading
WAR LOAN (UNITED KINGDOM) BILL (No. 4)
COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE (ACTING COMMISSIONER) BILL
LANDS ACQUISITION BILL
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Sentences of Courts Martial - Payment for Wheat

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

page 8189

QUESTION

CASUALTY LISTS

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the long delay which has taken place in the sending of news of casualties which occurred at Gallipoli - in some cases over twelve months ago - will the Government, in order to allay the anxiety of those who have relatives, at the front, ask the Imperial Government to expedite news of casualties ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator is probably not aware that the lists of casualties now coming forward refer to soldiers about whose fate no definite evidence could be obtained, that is to say, they took part in various engagements outside our trenches and did not return. It was impossible to say whether they were killed or were made prisoners of war. Every endeavour has been made to obtain information concerning them, but none has been secured, and, following the usual practice, after a certain lapse of time, no information having been obtained to rebut the presumption of death, or stating that they are prisoners of war, they are officially declared to be dead. No action which the Commonwealth or Imperial Government could take would overcome that state of affairs, because there is always between the two contending armies an area of ground over which neither can advance to ascertain what has become of men who are missing. So long as a condition of war exists that difficulty must continue.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– A - Although the lists of casualties now appearing may cover events at Gallipoli, I take it that the cases of illness reported in these lists refer to cases information concerning which has recently been sent from England or Egypt to the Defence Department, and are not in the same category as the casualties to which the Minister has referred.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so, except that mistakes occur from time to time in making up the lists of those who are ill, and as corrections are received they are published. There may be delay in reporting illness through the illness not having been reported at the front, or having been reported incorrectly, and when a corrected list is forwarded it is published. I was, in replying to Senator Needham, referring to those who have now in the lists been posted as dead and were previously posted as missing.

Senator O’Keefe:

– W - We may assumethat most of the cases of illness now listed are cases that have recently occurred?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.

page 8189

QUESTION

ENGAGEMENT OF MR. OLIVER

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairsexplain what is meant by the reply given to a question I asked on Friday in reference to any fees or expenses paid to Mr. Oliver as Consulting Sanitary Engineer for the Canberra sewerage system? Thereply given me was -

The information will be laid on the table of the Senate when- the matter is finalized.

Does that mean that the amounts are sonumerous that it will take several days toadd them up ? Will the Minister say what is really meant by the reply?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– I understand that. Mr. Oliver has not yet been definitely engaged by .the Home Affairs Department. It is true that a negotiation for his services is going on, and when an agreement is completed the Minister promises to immediately lay it on the table.

Senator Story:

– Does that mean that no fees or expenses of any kind have yet been paid to Mr. Oliver?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes; no fees of any description have yet been paid ta him.

page 8189

QUESTION

EXPORT OF COAL

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Institute of Tropical Medicine, Townsville, Queensland. - Half-yearly Report from 1st July to 31st December, 1915.

Public Service Act 1002-1915.- Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1916, No. 83.

Public Works Committee Act 1913-1914.- First General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

War Precautions Act 1914-1915. - Regulations amended. &c. -

Statutory Rules 1916. Nos. 11, 13, 27, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 46, 49, 53, 62, 82, 96.

page 8190

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a thirdtime.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreedto -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 3, the insertion of a new clause 7a, and the omission of paragraph b from clause 8.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 3 - .

Section 2 of the principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section 1 the following definitions : -

Amendment (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That after the word “ amended “ the following words be inserted: - “ (a) by omitting from sub-section 1 the definition of ‘ Enemy subject ‘ and inserting in its stead the following definition: -

Enemy subject ‘ means -

any person or firm with whom trading is prohibited by or under any proclamation referred to in sub-section 2 of this section; or

any company whether incorporated in any enemy country or not, which the Attorney - General, by notice published in the Gazette, declares to be in his opinion managed or controlled, directly or indirectly, by or under the influence of, or carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or on behalf of, persons of enemy nationality, or resident or carrying on business in an enemy country;” and (b)”

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– It is very hard for honorable senators to follow the amendment just proposed. The Government do not bring down an amendment to their own Bill without some reason for it, and we should certainly have some explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill as to what the amendment means and why it is proposed.

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

– I apologize to the Committee for not explaining the amendment, but I thought that its text was sufficiently clear to make an explanation unnecessary. The object is to repeal the definition of enemy subject in the principal Act and to substitute a new definition. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the operation of the law so far as enemy subjects are concerned to persons or firms with whom trading is prohibited by proclamation, and any company which the Attorney-General by notice published in the Gazette declares to be, in his opinion, carried on for the benefit of persons of enemy nationality. It is believed that this will facilitate the administration of the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move -

That after clause 7, the following new clause be inserted : - “ 7a. Section nine of the principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5) and inserting in its stead the following subsection: -

Any money paid to a Trust Account in pursuance of this section may, at the discretion of the Treasurer -
1. be paid to the Public Trustee as money vested in him under this Act; or
2. be paid to any special ac count opened by the creditor in accordance with any licence granted by the AttorneyGeneral under any proclamation by the GovernorGeneral relating to trading with the enemy; or
3. be paid to the creditor, his executors or administrators, on demand made after the termination of the present state of war, or before that time if he is satisfied that the creditor is not an enemy subject.”

This amendment affects section 9 of the Act, which provides that persons owing money to others whom they believe to be enemy subjects may pay the debt to the Comptroller-General of Customs, who shall pay the money into the Trust Account. The amendment will empower the Treasurer to permit the money to be paid to the Trust Account in accordance with section 9 of the Act, to the Public Trustee, to a special account in accordance with a licence granted by the Attorney-General, or to the person to whom the money was originally owing, or his executors or his administrators after the termination of the war, or to the creditor forthwith if he proves not to be an enemy subject.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 - Proposed new section 9s (Transfer to Commonwealth of returns, &c, made under State Acts).

Amendment (by Senator Gardiner) agreed to -

That the following words be omitted from sub-section 2: - “ (b) Any obligation imposed upon any per son firm or company under this Act to pay any money or transfer any other property whatsoever to the Public Trustee, or tomake to him returns, particulars, or notifications, shall be substituted for the like obligation (if any) under a State Act to pay money, transfer property, or make returns, particulars, or notifications to the custodian.”

Bill reported with further amendments.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 8191

APPROPRIATION BILL 1915-16

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

The Estimates to which this Bill refers are those for the financial year ending 3th June next. I have nothing to add to the statement I made on the financial position when I moved that the Budgetpapers be printed, because the position then set out still stands. It is regrettable that these Estimates come forward at this late hour for our concurrence, but in the circumstances that is unavoidable. The Treasurer is endeavouring to get the new Estimates forward, so that they may be presented early in the next financial year, thus giving both Houses an opportunity of dealing with them when they are really alive, and not practically dead, as these Estimates undoubtedly are.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– The special circumstances of the war cannot be held accountable for the late period at which this Bill is brought in. Ever since the establishment of Federation we have had the same old farce year after year, whether the Conservatives or the Labour party were in power, and I trust there is something in the Acting Prime Minister’s intimation that a better method will be adopted in the future. It is high time Parliament took action with regard to the development of our resources. We hear a great deal about the provision that must be made for our returning soldiers, but another army of boys and girls is growing up in Australia every year, for whom provision must also be made. One of the means by which it is hoped to develop this continent is the passage of a Protectionist Tariff, the object of which will be to establish and encourage Australian industries manned by Australian citizens. We have been promised this Tariff for some time, and the people have, at election after election, declared their will on the subject, but nothing has been done, and nothing is proposed to be done even now. One argument raised against the passing of the Tariff now is the absence of the Prime Minister, but I am not aware that his presence is essential in this matter. We all know the declared policy of Australia. It is the Protectionist policy to establish industries within the Commonwealth, and in that connexion it is a matter of little or no moment whether the Prime Minister is present or absent. If we are to carry out our pledges to the electors, and give effect to their orders, we must put a Protectionist Tariff on the statute-book. Another reason given is that we are at war. Everybody knows that, and it is quite within tha range of probabilities that when the war is over there will be no Commonwealth of Australia. But we are proceeding with our every-day concerns on the assumption that the Allies will be victorious, and that, maimed and crippled as the British Empire and every other combatant will be when the struggle is over, things will resume their old course. If that is the case, I see no reason in the present situation for postponing the consideration of the Tariff. It may be said that special trading advantages must be given to our Allies as some reward for their assistance and co-operation. But if we are to carry out our declared policy of developing our resources in harmony with Australian standards of living - and I believe we are not prepared to depart from that policy except under the most severe compulsion - we need not delay by a single hour the framing of this Tariff. That being our policy, there can be no preference to any one, even to Great Britain. I have said on the floor of this chamber thousands of times that there are millions of people in Great Britain in a condition of semi-starvation, while another section lives more luxuriously than any people have lived since tha last days- of the Roman Empire. Wherever you have a large section of the people in such a condition of poverty as the first-named class, industries must be sweated. Those people must be earning less than a living wage, and if we are to give the products of those engaged in such’ industries preference in Australia, this will inevitably tend to degrade our people to the level of the British industrialist. I do not think any honorable senator is prepared to indorse a policy which would undoubtedly have that result. If we give preference to any one outside Australia, the whole fabric of Australian industrialism, as we have hitherto attempted to rear it, will crumble to pieces. It may be said that circumstances after the war will compel us to adopt some system of preference.

Senator Blakey:

– Would not the honorable senator put some super-tax on enemy goods?

Senator STEWART:

Senator STEWART:

– I am quite aware that sanitary science is making the cities more desirable as places of residence than country districts, and that some diseases which used to be prevalent both in country and town have practically disappeared from the cities, because of improved sanitary arrangements. As against that, we have to remember that the welfare of the race depends, to a very large extent, upon the female section of the population - upon the circumstances under which each woman lives up to the age of reproduction. Will any one tell me that a young woman who has spent her life from fourteen years of age up to the time of her marriage in, say, a draper’s shop, where the atmosphere is vitiated, is likely, to be as good a mother, and produce children as healthy, as a young woman brought up on a farm? This argument may also be applied to the men. Can any one imagine that a city man, working under an artificial light from day to day, can have as good a physique as the timber-getter, the ploughman, the miner, the shearer, or the labourer, or any of those men who earn their living in the bush districts of Australia? The thing is impossible. Therefore I say that, from this point of view, something ought to be done to stem this drift towards the cities. It is undoubtedly taking place in Australia, as in almost every other country in the world; and it had its origin, in other countries, just as in Australia, in the system of landlordism. I was brought up in a part of the British Empire which at one time carried double the population that it has to-day. It has since practically been depopulated and given over to American millionaires as a game preserve. During the Peninsular Wars, thousands and thousands of the finest men in Europe were sent from the place to which I allude. Where ten men were sent then, I doubt if one could be sent to-day. Will any one say that this kind of policy is going to result in good for Great Britain and the Empire? This condition is due to the iniquitous system of landlordism, which is producing the same results in Australia. What depopulated Ireland? Was it not landlordism? About fifty years ago there were nearly ten millions of people in Ireland, and to-day there is hardly half that number. They were driven out of their own country by the iniquitous landlord system which prevailed, but which, I am glad to say, does not obtain to such an extent now. Exactly the same state of affairs in Australia is producing the same results. We have a condition of landlordism here which OUtherods Herod. I do not care where you go you will not find such a huge proportion of the land surface in the hands of so few people as you will find in Australia. Canada is a country very similar to Australia, but we do not find such a condition of landlordism there. There are comparatively few very large estates in Canada, and even the railway companies - those monuments of Conservatism - adopt a system which every Australian Government would do well to adopt. The railways in Canada belong to private companies that have been subsidized by the Government with grants of money and with grants of land. So many miles along each side of the railway lines have been handed over to the companies by the Government. What do the companies do with this land ? They first of all classify it. Close to the railway line the usual area given is 160 acres, or what is called a quarter section. Going back from the railway the area is increased to half a section, and still further back to a full section of 640 acres, but I do not think there are many holdings even of that area in Canada. The railway companies will not allow any man to hold more than 160 acres of land along the railway line. If a man wishes to sell out he must do so to another who will occupy and work the holding or he must sell to the company. On no account will the company allow one man to hold more than a single quarter section along the railway line. That is the policy which the railway companies of Canada have adopted in their own interests. They want to have families settled on the land. They want production and population. Every additional family settled on the land and every cultivated quarter section means more traffic for the railway. What is the case here in Australia? Let us consider what obtains in Victoria - the most thickly-populated portion of the

Commonwealth. You can go for miles upon miles along the railway lines in some districts in Victoria without seeing a single house or any evidence of a single settler. Yet all that land is held by somebody in large estates. I very often read in the newspapers about the 5,000 miles of railway lines they have in Queensland. I say that they have 2,500 miles too many. In that State you can travel along the railway line for a day in some districts and you will hardly see a single human being or a habitation. This i3 the kind of thing which is driving the country people of Australia into the cities, and which is against the interests of those who live in the cities, who, if proper conditions were offered them, would be glad to leave the pavements and get out into the bush. I ask the State Governments of Australia to take a leaf out of the book of the Canadian railway companies. If they do, we shall see that settlement will be very much increased in the near future. This is a matter over which the Federal Parliament has no control. But we can do some’thing very much more effective in the way of breaking up large estates than we have yet done. We have the power to break up every large estate in Australia if we only exercise it. Unfortunately there is a limit below which at present we cannot go. There is an exemption of £5,000. Although I am pledged to vote for that exemption, I am satisfied that no substantial good to the people of Australia in connexion with land settlement will ever be done until this exemption of £5,000 is swept away. I have been giving this question the closest consideration for years, and that is the conclusion to which I have come. I am aware that many members of the Labour party think it undesirable to reduce the exemption, but our present land tax is not breaking up big estates to any extent. It is not helping the small holder and is not making land cheaper for us. If it fails in that, it fails in one of the purposes which the Labour party had in placing land value taxation upon its platform. We might go much further with this taxation than we have done. We want revenue, and have attempted to get it in various directions. We have imposed a very stiff income fax, and we have a Federal income tax as well as a State income tax. Whilst I do not object in the slightest to either of these taxes, and am of opinion that in the present circumstances they might both be very much higher than they are, I want to point out that income taxation, if it does not hinder, does not stimulate industry. What might be the effect of land-value taxation? If every big estate were broken up and the land made available to the people, the result would Be, if conditions of settlement were made as favorable as they ought to be, that in the next few years hundreds of thousands of people would be settled upon the lands of Australia. Would not that be an immense stimulus to industry? Let honorable senators consider what that would do for production. The State and Federal Governments are making experiments in fixing prices, but they have not attempted to fix the price of anything except foodstuffs. It seems to me. to be a paradox of the strangest character that in a country like Australia it should be necessary to fix the price of foodstuffs at all. Surely if the people had access to the land, food here would be abundant, and, being abundant, would be cheap. One need not wonder at the prices of foodstuffs rising when the non-food-=producing portion of our population in the cities is equal to, if not greater, than the number of the people on the soil of Australia who are producing food. The disproportion is becoming every year greater. We have more people in the cities consuming food, and fewer people on the land producing it. This does not apply to Australia alone. It is world-wide phenomenon. How can we wonder that the cost of food goes up unduly? There is ^another aspect of the question to be considered. A few years ago, the United States of America was a very large exporter of meat. She is now importing meat, and has none to export. Canada some time ago sent considerable numbers of cattle to Great Britain. I believe she now finds her market for them across her border in the United States of America. The result is that very few, if any, Canadian cattle now find their way to the United Kingdom. But while we find that the United States of America has become an importer instead of an exporter of meat, almost every country in Europe requires to import meat and other foodstuffs, although but a short time ago most of them produced, at least, enough for their own consumption. Again, the people of the East, who hitherto have not been meat consumers, are beginning to eat meat in comparatively large quantities. We are sending considerable quantities of meat to the East from Australia. The probability is that this trade will continue to expand. If all these circumstances are taken intoaccount, need we wonder that the cost of living is going up in Australia, that meat is becoming dearer? What I have said regarding meat applies to a certain extent also to wheat. Probably in the next twenty years the condition I have indicated will be very much more acute than it is at the present moment. I say that the only way to bring down the cost of living to a proper level is to encourage by every possible means the settlement of people on the land to grow food for themselves and others. You may fix prices if you please. You may say to the meat grower, “You shall not get more than a certain amount for your bullock “ ; to the butter producers, “ We will not give more than1s. 2d. per lb. for your butter.” We may say the same to the milk producer, and to every one of our producers. We can fix prices for them, but we cannot compel them to produce if the prices we fix do not pay them. There is very strong evidence to-day of a kind of strike on the part of a considerable section of our food producers. Therefore, I say this question of land settlement is one which the Government of the Commonwealth ought to seriously consider. The existence of Australia as a nation is at stake. We are not out of the wood yet, and we do not know that we will ever get out of it. But we do know that if we were out of it to-morrow there will inevitably come another occasion when Australia will be in just as much danger as she is now, and when the circumstances affecting her existence as a community will be more serious than they are to-day. Every man here ought to set himself deliberately to try to place Australia in such a position that when that time comes she will be better prepared to defend herself than she is now. There are not 5,000,000 people in this country, and I have said time and again that there ought to be 25,000,000. There is room and to spare for 100,000,000 people here. I say that Australia will never be safe from foreign invasion until she is not dependent on Britain, France, Russia, or any other country for her independence, but upon her own strong right arm. It is the duty of every man in this Commonwealth to strain every nerve to bring Australia into the position I have indicated. Who knows what the immediate future may produce? We have a combination of countries acting together to-day which, within my own memory, were most bitter foes. In the early fifties France and Britain fought Russia. A little earlier Germany, Britain, and a combination of other countries fought France, and the near future may produce a combination altogether different from that which we have at the present time. There is no course of safety open to Australia unless she adopts a national policy which will guarantee her a very much larger population within a comparatively short period of time. The Labour party has such a policy upon its platform, and it only wants the courage to put it into force. We are pledged to a Protectionist Tariff and to land-value taxation, but instead of grasping the nettle firmly, we approach both subjects timidly and hesitatingly. We touch them to see whether or not they are hot. That is not the way in which nations are built up. If there ever was a time when the Parliament and Government of this country should reach out boldly, and do something effective to open the resources of Australia to the people and add to her population, this is such a time. When the war is over, I have not the slightest doubt that a great many people in Europe will be disposed to leave that continent if they can only find a city of refuge to go to. I say that Australia is that city. We could offer a home to the people of France, Belgium,Britain, and. Russia - because we have a considerable number of Russians in Australia now, and they are excellent colonists - andI will say, in passing, of the enemy, although, perhaps, it is not right that anything good should be said of him now, that in the past we have found our German settlers to be men of the very best calibre, and but for the war we should still be glad to welcome them as colonists. Unfortunately, this dreadful outbreak has given us for the time a different conception of the German character ; hut, in any case, when the war is over and things begin to settle down, there will be a large number of people desirous of improving their material conditions, and on no portion of the earth’s surface is the opportunity greater for them to do so than it is. here. If Parliament rises to the occasion, and places on the statute-hook such a Tariff as will create industries rather than produce revenue; if Parliament will break up every large estate and reduce the exemption under the land tax so as to enable small holdings to be obtained at a comparatively cheap rate by a certain section of the people, we shall be within measurable distance of the solution of the problems that now puzzle us. There is another branch of politics which has not had the attention it deserves. We are at war, and spending huge sums of money. If any one had ventured a few years ago to name these amounts as likely expenditure, he would have been laughed at; yet we are borrowing money,1 I suppose, by the hundred million, and are paying interest for it. We must have money as well as men if we are to carry on the war. Parks of artillery and mountains of shells would be of no use if we had not the men to handle them. We are getting money for these purposes in the good old way. I do not blame any one, for it is very easy, and perhaps safer, to move along the beaten track; but if “Every one kept to the beaten track there would be no progress. Australia has lind an opportunity of giving a lead to the world in war finance, but she has allowed it to slip. We are allowing people who lend us the money we require interest at 4£ per cent., with special privileges, and the loan is to be repaid in ten years. The arrangement means that when we borrow, nominally, £50,000,000, we borrow £75,000,000 in reality. When we borrow, nominally, £100,000,000, we borrow £150,000,000 in reality, because that is what we shall have to pay in principal and interest. That is a most serious burden on the people, and its effect will be felt for generations to come. If there were no other way, I should make no complaint. Every man ought to be prepared to do what he can to save the country in the present crisis. The man with money ought to be prepared, if necessary, at the call of the Commonwealth to contribute the last farthing of his substance, just as every man ought to be ready to go to the front and fight if he is able to do so. Young and old, rich and poor, ought to be prepared to do something. If no other course than the present were possible, I should, as I say, not complain; but, with all deference to men who probably have more right to be con- sidered experts in finance than myself, I assert that another course was possible, and ought to have been taken. It has been claimed, on behalf of the exTreasurer, that he consulted the highest authorities available before floating the first war loan. I have no doubt he did; but in doing so he consulted men interested in maintaining the present system - men whose occupation would be practically gone if that system were abolished. He consulted men from whom no other advice was possible, and therefore the advice came from a source which cannot be taken without reserve. A large sum has been borrowed already, and more is to be borrowed; but no one imagines that the Government has got a sovereign for every £1 borrowed. I do not think it has received even a £l-note. What it has got is credit, and the issuers of that credit are the private banking companies. What is the foundation of their credit system? There is in existence a certain gold reserve, and we are told that on this the whole institution of credit rests. If that was all our credit system rested upon, it would not be worth a snap of the fingers, because when wanted it is invariably not there. There is not enough gold in the world to do one-hundredth part of the business of the world. Gold, as a matter of fact, is the mere nominal foundation of credit. It reminds me of the fire-escape in a theatre, which is placarded in big letters, but when a fire takes place is almost invariably useless.

Senator Russell:

– It is the tailor’s measure-stick.

Senator STEWART:

The only answer we were able to give vas that the matter had been debated and considered, and that without a declaration of martial law the Government had not the power to fix prices. The explanation was generally received in the spirit in which it was given, and was believed by i ite people to whom it was made. After a time, however, we woke up in Brisbane to “find that a proclamation had been issued fixing the prices of flour and bread for Brisbane and the district within a radius of about 13 miles. The people said, “ We thought you told us that the Government had not the power to do this sort of thing?” We had no excuse to offer. All we could say was that Ministers and the Crown Law officers had apparently altered their opinion, and had come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary, they had the power to fix prices. We looked around .to find the reason. The only reason that I could dis.cover from, the press was contained in a telegram purporting to give the information supplied by the Acting Prime Minister to the representative of a. Melbournejournal to the effect that in the various States, with the exception of Western Australia and Tasmania, Necessary Commodities Boards had been appointed, to whom the Government had given the power to fix prices. In Western Australia it was said that the Government tried to do something in the same direction, but the Legislative Council blocked their attempt, and it was therefore necessary for the Com-‘ monwealth Government to step in and relieve that State from the position into which it was forced by the Legislative Council.

Senator Pearce:

– My statement must have been severely mangled before it reached Brisbane.

Senator TURLEY:

– I have given the information sent by wire to Brisbane, as coming from the Acting Prime Minister.

Senator Pearce:

– I think I have a case for libel against J;he newspaper publishing that wire.

Senator TURLEY:

– If the honorable senator will turn up the files of Brisbane newspapers, he will find that I have stated the matter correctly. I have said that a proclamation was issued, and a week or ten days later we found the Necessary Commodities Board in Queensland issuing another proclamation. The proclama tion issued by the Commonwealth Government under the War Precautions Act was that £11 5s. per ton should be the price paid for flour delivered within proclaimed areas of the Commonwealth other than Western Australia. The price of flour in Brisbane at the time was considerably more than that, and the people naturally thought that this proclamation would afford them considerable relief. But within a week the Queensland Government issued a proclamation to the effect that the price of flour in the southern part of the State was to be £12 5s. per ton. The people then naturally wanted to know whether it was the State Governments or the Commonwealth Government that were’ in power in Australia. The Government of Queensland had been fixing prices in the southern and northern parts of that State for nearly twelve months. Having acquired a considerable amount of information on the subject, they came to the conclusion that they had the power to do this. The only conclusion at which the Queensland people could arrive in the circumstances was that the Commonwealth Government had, without inquiry or information, decided,, in some rule-of-thumb sort of way, that £11 5s. per ton would be a fair price for flour within the areas covered by their proclamation. Honorable senators are, of course, aware that it is almost impossible for the same rate to be applied in Queensland as in Victoria and New South Wales, for the simple reason that Queensland grows comparatively little wheat. Only once in its history has that State grown enough for its own consumption. It is, therefore, usually dependent upon wheat grown in the neighbouring States. The price of flour was supposed to be reduced, by something like £1 per ton, but when the people read down the schedule of prices fixed, they found that the price of bread was fixed at exactly the same rate as that’ which had been fixed by the Necessary Commodities Board for a considerable time previously, except in the case of bread purchased over the counter. Bread delivered at the consumers’ houses was to be 4d. for the 2-lb. loaf, and that is the price that had been charged for a considerable time. The 4-lb. loaf is practically unknown in the Brisbane district. The action of the Commonwealth Government in stepping in, apparently without information or inquiry, and fixing prices, made the whole thing appear ridiculous. When the Federal Government issues a proclamation fixing the price of flour at £11 5s. a ton, and the State issues a proclamation fixing it at £12 5s., both Government and Parliament must look ridiculous in the eye3 of the people, who simply do not know where they are. They want to know which Government is to prevail. They know the State Government has been exercising its authority for twelve months, but they are not sure yet whether the Commonwealth has the power to do what it is trying to do. The State they know has the power permanently. The Commonwealth, apparently, claims it for the period of the War Precautions Act. Price fixing does not often redound to the credit of Governments that undertake it, more especially when entered upon without inquiry or information. Considerable research is required before even the general conditions upon which action is to be taken can be ascertained. The Queensland Government fixed the price of” meat. It took large quantities from the meat works, and in some cases distributed it. In many instances it fixed the price at which butchers could sell. Nobody imagines that the people were not paying more’ than the price fixed for some portions of the beast which they required’,’ and even now the Government is entering into a contract with the meat works in Queensland to supply them with about 12,000 tons, which they propose to distribute through their agencies. They have begun to realize that, in addition to price fixing, they must take up the business of producing, and are now resuming large areas, which are falling in from large holdings, with the object of producing the beef required to feed their own people, because, the mere fixing of prices has satisfied nobody. I have here a number of proclamations on the matter which the average man will never see or know anything about, fixing the prices of wheat, flour, bran, and pollard. The price oi flour in New South Wales, as fixed by law by the Necessary Commodities Board in the county of Cumberland, is £11 per ton ; in Melbourne the Millers Association fixed it at £11 2s. 6d., delivered on trucks at the railway station, with a discount of 2s. 6d. for spot cash ; in Brisbane the price fixed bv the Necessary Commodities Board of Queensland is £12 5s.. yet I understand that the price nf bread in all three centres is exactly the same. Bread delivered for cash in Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane costs 4d. In Victoria bran is £5 5s. .per ton, pollard £6 5s. In New South Wales both are £5 a ton. In Brisbane bran is £7 and pollard £7 10s. There is, therefore, a difference between Sydney and Brisbane - although the whole matter is supposed to be regulated by Government - of £2 10s. a ton in the price of pollard, which cannot be accounted for even by the difference in the cost of wheat sent from New South Wales or Victoria to Brisbane and milled there. The Minister in charge of affairs in Brisbane advertised in his own State the proclamations issued in Melbourne on the subject, instead of allowing them to find their way all over the country - a process that might take from six to twelve months. His action, which was quite right, brought the matter under the notice of the people, and made them inquire the reason. The fixing of the price of bread is a very good thing if it can be successfully carried out, but the people of Australia require quite a number of other things just as urgently as bread, and in many cases their price has gone up considerably more than that of bread. I believe the price of meat in Victoria is enormous compared even with Queensland prices, and the same thing applies to a number of other commodities. Bread is as cheap as it has been for some time, but other commodities’ have gone up. A friend of mine wrote to me the other day asking the position of the Federal Parliament and the State authorities in regard to price fixing, and pointed out how foolish we were being made to look. He said the bread question was a very small one in view of the price at which bread was being sold, and sent me a cutting from a newspaper showing what had been done in France - a country which has gone very extensively into the question of price fixing. According to this authority, a telegram sent from Paris on about 11th or 12th April last stated that the French Senate had adopted the principle of fixing by degrees the ‘maximum selling prices of the necessaries of life. The discussion asio what articles should be in the regulations was not ended. The Government proposed to fix the price of bread, meat, milk, butter, imitation butter, eggs, lard, potatoes, sugar, cheese, green vegetables, w:ne. cider, table beer, fertilizers, petroleum, and alcohol for burning purposes.

It was proposed that the period of application should be during the war and three months after its cessation. The price of a number of commodities which the people of Australia require in their every-day life is hitting them a great deal harder than the price of bread, and, although the Government are supposed to have taken a hand, with Boards here and there inquiring, nothing practical has been done - at any rate in Queensland. The people there are at a .considerable disadvantage so far as prices are concerned, although I understand that in Sydney and Melbourne the prices are not as yet fixed by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, they are.

Senator TURLEY:

– If so, there is another anomaly. According to this document, the Commonwealth Government fixes the price of flour at £11 5s., while the New South Wales Government fixes it at £11.

Senator Russell:

– Our price includes delivery.

Senator TURLEY:

– I have not seen any conditions attached to the Federal proclamation ; and it is also a fact that the Millers Association in Melbourne quote £11 2s. 6d. delivered, with a discount of 2s. 6d’. for spot cash. The Sydney Baily Telegraph of 9th May shows that the New South Wales Government fixed the price, delivered in the “county of Cumberland, at £11 per ton. That is the sort of thing that makes us look ridiculous. If prices are to be fixed, every one should pay the same throughout Australia; but flour is fixed at £12 5s. in Brisbane, £11 2s. 6d. in Melbourne, and £11 in Sydney. Before the Government deals with a matter of this kind, all necessary information should be available, and the proclamation, when issued, should be obeyed by every one in the community. I shall be glad if the Minister will make a statement for circulation throughout the country, to let people know where they stand. We ought to know whether the Commonwealth or the States have the final say. If both have the power, it is not of much use for the Commonwealth to fix the price at 5s. above, or “10s. below, what the State fixes. The result is that none of the people are prepared to take action, and the consumer is not benefited. Senator Gardiner will remember that last year I brought under Iris notice a letter from a friend of mine -who had travelled through the Northern

Territory looking for land, and that the writer stated that the conditions of travel were very bad, long distances up to 80 miles having to be negotiated without water. This was the condition twentyfive or thirty years ago in western Queensland, but travelling there has become comparatively easy since by means of tanks and bores. My friend is a South Australian native, and has always worked on the land. He was in west Queensland shearing and droving for many years, and during the great trouble of 1890 he had to use a “ purser’s name “ before he could get- a job. He and some friends afterwards made a success of hauling timber. A number of them who had been used to sheep came to the conclusion that there must be something in the Northern Territory, and decided to see what the country there was like. These are the very men we want to open up that sort of country. Ten of them were prepared to put in a certain amount of money and select land there, and my friend was delegated to see if land could be secured. He went overland from Winton or Cloncurry, and about three months ago when I met him in Brisbane he told me he had just come from Melbourne, where he had been to see the Minister. He told me also that he could get no satisfaction regarding the matter he went down about, and I advised him to put it on paper and send it to me. He did so, and the letter I have with me is the result. Honorable senators will understand that the matter was before the Minister some time ago, and that he declined to take action; but I am sure the Minister’s attitude cannot be upheld by any member of the Senate, or even of the Government. The letter, which is date*’ Olive Branch, Murgon, 20th April, 1916, is as follows : -

With reference to our conversation in Brisbane about the Northern Territory, and my promise to write to you about the M case, I now take the opportunity of putting the. case before you in writing. M is, or was, at the time I saw him last August, a pack-horse mail contractor, carrying the mails from Bitter Springs to Borroloola, and his contract time had about a year to run, and was on the look out for a block of country to settle on as soon as his contract was up with the mail, and knowing the Territory well, wanted country on or about the Frew River, about southeast of Powell’s Creek. Some time previously B saw a block of country about the Frew River with a good waterhole on it, and took it up, then hawked it round for sale, asking £100 for it, and M gave him £80 for it. M talked the matter over with me. He said he wanted a block of country with water on it, but did not think it was right that he should have to pay a Government servant the amount asked for. I told him it was a scandal, and the Federal Labour Government would not tolerate such things, and I was quite sure they did not know such things were going on. I told him I would bring the matter directly under Mr. Fisher’s notice.

Senator Pearce:

– Was B a Government employee I

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes; the letter continues -

I said, further, I would speak to the Administrator when I was in Darwin. However, I did not see the Administrator in Darwin, but spoke to an upstart in the Lands Office there about it. Now, what I say is this: M should get his money back from B, otherwise B should get the sack immediately out of the Government Service. From my point of view, that is the only clean course. The above case was the main thing that took me to Melbourne. I saw Minister Mahon, and he said he could not do anything only issue an order prohibiting Government servants from doing such things. I say if the Government does not give M redress in the way I have suggested, or on similar lines, then they are only holding out a premium for wrong-doing. These are the plain facts of the case. I do not wish you to use M’s name, but you can use mine as much as you wish.

Senator Blakey:

– This is an ex parte statement.

Senator TURLEY:

– The letter continues -

I am enclosing you a letter of M’s. I got from him on my return from Melbourne, which you can return to me later on. Although they are both Government servants, in a sense, there is a great difference between the two. B gets a good salary and travelling allowances, and found in horses; whereas the other man is a contractor. Under decent Labour administration, jobbing in land should not be permitted; but officialism up there has run riot.

P.S. - Just now, by way of taking up land, or any of those that are associated with me, the Government actions there are too “ crook ‘’ for me. They are too kind to the monopolists and jobbers for my sort. I have sent word to the chap I left my horses and plant with to sell them.

With kind regards, yours sincerely,

Steve Hack.

He enclosed to me a letter he had received from the man who had secured this piece of land in the Territory. That letter is as follows: - - Bitter Springs, 15th November, 1915.

Mr. S. Hack,

Olive Branch.

-Yes ; and the other night, when I referred to this matter, I mentioned that Mr. Watt had publicly given as his reason for not enlisting the fact that if he had gone to the front and the worst came to the worst, his children would not be sufficiently provided for. I made that statement, but Senator Millen - who, I am sorry to say, is not in attendance to-day, though, I might add, it is almost unique in my experience to find no representative of the “plucky five,” who constitute the Opposition, present - challenged the accuracy of my statement. I gave Senator Millen an assurance that Mr. Watt had made this statement, and, from an experience of five or six years of parliamentary life, I have always understood that an assurance given by one honorable senator would be accepted by another. At all events, while Senator Millen doubted my assurance, I accepted his assurance that the Fusion party had been responsible for the establishment of the

Cordite Factory, the Clothing Factory, the Harness Factory, the Woollen Mills, and the Small Arms Factory, but the Acting Prime Minister came to my assistance, and cleared up that matter. Senator Millen, as I have said, refused to accept my assurance, but since then I have taken the trouble to look up the files, and find that my view of the matter is correct, because, after Mr. Watt had failed to turn up at the recruiting station in answer to Mr. Brennan ‘s challenge, the honorable member for Balaclava gave an explanation at a public meeting in the Armadale Theatre. I have here the report in the Argus of Saturday, 10th July, 1915. It stated that, long before the time for opening the doors, the street was crowded, and the hall was filled to overflowing. Mr. Watt is reported as follows : -

I want to make a frank statement of my own position. It is three months since I began to talk to my wife with growing concern about the gravity of the situation. Right through these weeks, when we have seen the Germans capture vast harvest fields as big as Victoria, and the city of Lemberg, I have said to my wife, “ I think the call will come soon.”

It had not come then, or it had not in Mr. Watt’s opinion. Mr. Watt went on to say -

And she has said, as every woman in similar circumstances has said, “ When your turn comes, go; but what about the young fellows who are not volunteering? Is it not their turn first?”

Now I come to the point of Senator Henderson’s interjection. Mr. Watt continued -

I am sixteen months within the age limit of forty-five. I am a married man. I have four children, the eldest seven years and three months. I have a sister dependent on me. The circumstances of my business and finances are these - that if I went to the war to-morrow, those children would bo indifferently provided for; but there are ways of financing that.

That is the statement I made, and I gave an assurance to Senator Millen that Mr. Watt had declared publicly that, in the event of his having to go to the front, his children would not be sufficiently provided for.

Senator Needham:

– Yet this man advocates conscription.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Yes ; this is the man who is playing understudy to Sir William Irvine, the apostle of conscription in Victoria.

Senator O’Keefe:

– H - How many children of other married men who have enlisted have been provided for?

Senator FERRICKS:

- Mr. Watt, Sir William Irvine, and other men of that kidney have, for the past sixteen months, been describing as “ loafers,” “ shirkers,” and “ rotters “ men who failed to enlist whether they had families or not dependent on them. But, of course, what is good enough for John Smith’s seven children is not good enough for Mr. Watt’s four children, the eldest of whom is seven years and three months. Mr. Watt is further reported to have said -

For Ave and a half years I held the office of Treasurer of this State, during which time the business I then held went down to nearly nothing, because I devoted nearly the whole of my time to my office. (Cheers.)

The audience cheered Mr. Watt because he stated that, during his long occupancy of the office of Treasurer of Victoria, he devoted, not the whole of his time, but nearly the whole of his time, to his duties -

My circumstances, therefore, are not prosperous, and no man can go to war impulsively without casting up all the facts that relate, not merely to himself, but to those who are near and dear to hi-m. No man who volunteers regardless of consideration of those he has brought into the world is worth a dUmp as a British fighting mun. I am not convinced yet that my call has come. Until the young mcn volunteer, the middle-aged men should hold back until the second call comes.

Now I am wondering whether, in the opinion of Mr. Watt, the second call has come yet, or how many calls will be required to get him to go to the front. This grandiloquent speaker, this man who is in favour of conscription, continued to show that he was brave at heart, for, at the meeting I refer to he said, as reported in the Argus -

But I have been challenged by Mr. Brennan, and my honour and reputation for courage are at stake, and although in ordinary times I would not permit any man to decide for me, the circumstances are such that I must give a response to that challenge.

Mr. Watt evidently had thought it right that he should reply publicly to Mr. Brennan’s challenge, and so he said -

I will give it to-night. I will go to-morrow morning - (loud cheers) - at any time - (renewed cheers).

Naturally, the people cheered when Mr. Watt declared that he was going, thinking that he was going to the front, and they renewed the cheers when he said he was going in the morning. But let me tell the Senate in Mr. Watt’s own words what he said -

I will go to-morrow morning - (loud cheers)1 - at any time - (renewed cheers) - I can arrange with the Prime Minister, cither with or without Mr. Brennan. .

So it was not to the front that Mr. Watt was going in the morning with his fellow Australian soldiers, but to the office of the Prime Minister, to let him decide -

I will tell him the facts of my life as I have-, roughly told you, and if he says it is up tome to go, I will volunteer within half-an-hour.

Senator Needham:

– Would Mr. Watt consult Mr. Fisher on any political question?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I think this subject of enlistment is about the only one upon which Mr. Watt would approach anybody else on, judging by his assurance. Mr. Watt added -

– I believe he was the only one to do so. I think Mr. Hughes was afraid that the questions might not be carried if they went to the people, but Mr. Holman’s part in the public discussions on the matter was delegated to Mr. David Hall, who was commonly referred to as his man Friday.

Sitting suspended from 6.3O to 8.35 p.m.

Senator FERRICKS:

– After things had been set fairly in motion, it seemed to me that the Queensland Government had been made a catspaw. I noticed a great change in its members twenty-four hours after they came into power. Prior to that, most of them were whole-hearted Federalists, but no sooner had they invited Mr. Holman to Brisbane for the

Senator FERRICKS:

– I do not trouble about that in this connexion. I considered that, having granted the double dissolution, the Governor-General was inconsistent in refusing to submit the referenda proposals to the country. I have consulted other authorities since that time. I have looked to Dicey, who is supposed to be an authority on constitutional law. In his Law of the Constitution, seventh edition, page 534, he has an appendix dealing with this very question of the alteration of the Commonwealth Constitution. Putting aside the first part of section 128, with which we are all conversant, he goes on to the alternative, and says -

It will, however, be noted that, in certain circumstances, a law for the change of the Constitution which has been brought about by a. majority of one House of Parliament, or which has been rejected, or which has not been passed by the other House by an absolute’ majority, must be submitted to the electors for their approval, and, if approved in the manner already stated, it shall become an Act of Parliament.

Dicey uses the word “ must.” With him there is no “ may” about it at all. “ May “ is the command of the King, and must be interpreted as “ must.” I think the blame for the non-carrying of the referenda proposals in Australia rests primarily upon the Governor-General.

Senator Lynch:

– Is there no qualification in the use of the words “ in certain circumstances “ ?

Senator FERRICKS:

– Those words refer to the passing of the Bill for a change of the Constitution twice in. one House. I think that the Labour Government made a mistake in not asserting their view, and this Senate was doubly negligent in the matter. I think that Sir Ronald Munro Ferguson made a very great mistake in not submitting the referenda proposals to the people after having granted the double dissolution. That is the only fault 1 have to find with his decision. I do not know that I have very much more to say on the question of voluntary recruiting. Only I notice that various newspapers throughout the Commonwealth have, at different times, been strongly advocating the employment of coloured labour in various parts of Australia. Repeatedly during the past six months, and especially while Parliament was in recess, we have been reading in the leading daily newspapers in every capital of the Commonwealth advocacy of the employment of coloured labour in the Northern Territory. It is my opinion that a deeply-laid scheme is being quietly worked throughout Australia at the present time for the importation of coloured labour. We have seen leading articles in the two Melbourne morning newspapers, and also in the Sydney dailies, advocating this, and members of the Senate had sent to them an extract taken from the Pastoralists’ Review. I do not intend to inflict it upon Honorable senators, because the contentions advanced in it are so outrageous as to be unbeliev able. But I should like to put into Hansard the concluding half-dozen lines of the extract, which read -

It is a problem that can be solved, and must be solved; for, even if the question of climate did not make a White Australia impossible, the war has put an end to it.

That is to say that the war has put an end to our White Australia policy. I have seen no action by Senator Pearce, the Defence Department, or the censors, taking exception to this statement. Does Senator Pearce agree that the war has put an end to our White Australia policy ? That has been put into print and circulation by the Pastoralists’ Review. It has been supplied to members of Parliament, and I have seen no action taken by the censors, under the War Precautions Act, against the proprietors of the Pastoralists’ Review. I have, however, seen that various Labour speakers and proprietors of Labour newspapers have been impeached, fined and imprisoned for giving utterance to sentiments calculated to have a detrimental effect on recruiting. Will Senator Pearce contend for a moment tha’t the statement I have read from the Pastoralists’ Revieu) is calculated to improve recruiting? I will give some more of the extract. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to give his attention to this -

After peace is declared, the colour line will become more and more ^indefinable, and we shall be compelled to recognise the fact, for Britain will say to us. “ Renounce your White Australia policy or suffer the consequences. Your blood will be upon your own head.”

Senator Grant:

– Why not sit all the week ?

Senator STORY:

– When honorable senators from South Australia left their homes at the beginning of last week, there was no proposal to meet on Monday; and every one knows that members returning to Adelaide on Friday cannot leave” again for Melbourne on Sunday. If they wanted to get here for to-day’s sitting, they would have had to leave Adelaide on Saturday evening. I left Melbourne on Friday, reached Adelaide on Saturday morning, and returned by the afternoon train to Melbourne, in order to be present at to-day’s sitting. Other members were unable to do as I did, and probably they will not have any opportunity of discussing any measure brought forward later on to-night. I protest against this treatment, and if I cannot do anything more I shall leave the chamber. I would like to see other honorable senators tell the Leader of the Senate that they refuse to be forced into this position. Even if the Acting Prime Minister desires to go to the Premiers’ Conference in Adelaide - and it is desirable that he should be present at that gathering - surely we can come back next week and do the business sent to the Senate in a way that it ought to be done ? I ask the Leader of the Senate to tell honorable senators that he agrees with me that the Senate should stand up for its rights and have ample opportunity thoroughly to consider legislation before passing it. It is not fair that we should he asked to pass in a few hours legislation which has been discussed at length in another place.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales [9.56]. - I disagree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Senator Story. For my part, I am of the opinion that after the recent recess we ought to be prepared f.o sit any length of time and to discuss matters to the minutest detail. I find we are asked to pass an item of £781,710 under the Defence Department, and I am satisfied that neither this Chamber, nor this Parliament, nor the people of Great Britain or Australia have really given proper consideration to the momentous events which are taking place. I am no pessimist, and I have no doubt as to the ultimate result of the war; but I cannot disguise from myself what appears to me to be the reluctance on the part of the people of the British Empire to get their coats off, to get into this war and to bring it to a termination. What is the position to-day ? After nearly two years of war, is it not a fact that Germany is in possession of the whole ofBelgium, of one of the fairest provinces of France, and of the whole of Servia, and has the run of Turkey in Europe and of the major portion of Turkey in Asia. She is also in possession of Russian. Poland, as well as of a large proportion of Russian soil.

Senator Gardiner:

– These countries are about the size of a Queensland cattle run.

Senator GRANT:

– There is a very wide difference between a Queensland cattle run and places like Galicia, or Poland, or even Asia Minor. Australia is doing very well in this conflict, and I have no doubt she will do better as time goes on, for we have sent to the front something like 200,000 men, and we have a. large number in training. There are other matters to which I would like to refer, perhaps in some detail. I think I have heard Senator Stewart speak before on the subject of land-value taxation, and I think I have heard him subjected to the same criticism. Senator Stewart is under a complete delusion. So, also, is Senator de Largie with regard to this fetish which they term a Protectionist policy. The honorable senators have taken great interest in this matter for a number of years, but they have been careful never to place before the Senate the whole of the facts. They know that the fundamental objective, not of theoretical Protectionists like themselves, but of practical Protectionists, is, not to exclude foreign goods, but to secure the admission of goods made in foreign countries with high Protective Tariff and low wage rates in order that we may be taxed heavily through the Customs to keep the national exchequer full. It is a disgrace that honorable senators should stand up here time after time and attempt to deceive the Senate as to the real objective of Protectionists.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not entitled to say that certain honorable senators deliberately tried to deceive other honorable senators.

Senator GRANT:

– The statement I make is that the objective of practical Protectionists is to impose taxation upon goods imported from low-waged, sweated Protectionist countries in order to secure revenue. It has never been the intention tokeep such goods out of Australia. I am surprised that Senator Stewart should believe for a moment that it is their intention to keep these goods out of the Commonwealth when he considers what has taken place since Federation was accomplished. I think a reference to what has occurred will demonstrate the real aim of practical Protectionists. If they believed in keeping these goods out with a view to similar manufacture in the Commonwealth, one could understand them. But that is not the case. They take very great care, not only in the Commonwealth, but also in the United States of America, in Germany, and in every other Protectionist country not to approach that point. Since the establishment of Federation, the position is shown by the following figures of revenue from Customs duties : -

– Those taxes are only for services rendered. The land values in New South Wales are worth at least ?250,000,000, yet all the land-owners of the State paid by means of the State land value tax was less than ?6,000 per annum. It is somewhat risky to refer to the exemption under the Commonwealth land tax, but I believe a land value tax, to be effective, should have no exemption. Our present system of State and Federal land taxation has not been effective in breaking up large estates. So long as the exemption of ?5,000 remains part of our platform, I should not care to vote in favour of taxing land values at a less amount than ?5,000, but the whole question of exemption is an important one, and will have to be dealt with later on. It has engaged the attention of the party ever since it took a hand in the formation of the Commonwealth Labour platform. We are indebted to Mr. Lamond and Mr. King O ‘Malley for the fact that, instead of a straight-out land tax, with no exemption, we have a progressive land value tax, with an exemption, in our platform. Ever since the Melbourne conference of 1905, a considerable number of delegates have, at each succeeding conference, objected to that proposal, and, at the last conference, held in Adelaide, Mr. Jackson, of South

Australia, moved the following resolution from the Bobinda (Queensland) local committee of the Australian Workers Union : - .

That the exemption under the Federal land tax be abolished. saying -

The values given to land by community enterprise either belonged to the people or it did not. If it did, Governments should get the benefit of such revenue. The Federal land tax had not broken up large estates into small areas to the extent which had been hoped for when it was put forward. Estates of ?100,000 might have been brought down to ? 70,000 and ?50,000, but this did not mean that the land had been put to its best productive uses. With a proper land tax in operation, many men now unemployed would be enabled to get land and bring it into use. If the motion were carried no evil results need be feared.

Mr. Rae, one of the representatives of New South Wales, said -

There never was a time more opportune, or likely to occur again, than the present one in which to abolish the Federal land tax exemption. It had been thought at the time that this ?5,000 exemption was made in the Federal platform that it would give an opportunity to the States to exercise their taxation powers up to that amount, but the States had not fully done so. Whilst the Federal land tax had done something towards reducing very large estates, the number of large estates was now far too great. All sorts of inducements were held out for the bogus partition of estates so as to evade the tax, and that should not be allowed. The present war necessitated large additions to the revenue, and a tax without exemption would fall equally on all, and he believed in all land-owners contributing in proportion to the benefits they enjoyed.

And the opinion expressed by Mr.

Lamond, also of that State, was:

Land values of Sydney to-day were colossal. They still had land monopoly rampant in their midst, and the failure of the land tax to realize the hopes of its advocates had been foreseen. The enormous increases in land values had made the valuation fixed for land taxation purposes a mere fleabite, owners being very easily able to pay the taxation by reason of the great rise in prices brought about by the public works and enterprises initiated and expanded by the Governments.

Mr. Lutey, of Western Australia, said

Whilst the Governments of Australia, representing the people, were spending millions of money, land speculators were stepping in and reaping a golden harvest. A large sum of money was being spent by the Federal Government at Cockburn Sound, in Western Australia, railways were being built in various parts, and everywhere the land shark was on the look-out to make enormous profits out of the increased values given to land by these great undertakings paid for by the money of the people. He not only believed in there being no exemption, but felt that land nationalization was the remedy in the interests of the people.

Remarks were then made by Senator Ready, of Tasmania, which were wide of the mark. Then the late Mr. Cohen, of Victoria, said -

He did not think any logical argument could be put up in favour of exemptions. If it was decided to retain the exemption, there ought to be some increase in the taxable amounts over £5,000. There was no exemption for the workers, who were taxed on everything they ate, drank, and wore.

That fact cannot be too strongly stressed. The working man receives no exemption on anything he eats, drinks, or wears, under the policy of high revenue tariffism, misnamed protection, now in force in the Commonwealth, with the sanction of the present Government. Mr. Stewart, secretary of the militant Political Labour Council of Victoria, is reported thus at the same conference :

He favoured abolition of the exemption inasmuch as there was no sound argument in favour of exemption. If the thing was right as a principle, then it should operate all along the line, each payingh is proportion according to his possession.Roads, bridges, railroad and public works were erected in development of the country. Should not those who benefited by such State enterprise pay according to the share of benefits received? Was not the State - which was the people - entitled to some unearned increment in return for the services rendered?

Later Senator Givens said -

The Federal Parliament, charged with the defence of the Commonwealth, had an obvious duty to perform, and that was to remove every bar to the settlement of the country. Labour’s object in that Parliament had been to free the hand from the grasp of the monopolist; to get, so to speak, within his fortifications, and shell him out. Something was attempted in this direction, but it was not done effectively. He did not think that the exemption touched the real question at all. They should not be interfering with the small man. It was no use putting the big load on the weakest horse - the one fit to carry it ought to be called upon to do so. Land taxation had two great objects, revenue raising and promotion of settlement, and it was obvious which was the greater of the two.

I have tried time after time, but in vain, to get from the Commonwealth Statistician a return showing the number of men in the Commonwealth who own no land. If that return were furnished to me, and it ought to be, even if it costs £1,000, no public man could stand up at a Labour Conference and say, “ They should not be interfering with the small man.”

Senator Story:

– This speech is worthy of a quorum of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a quorum present.

Senator GRANT:

Senator NEEDHAM:

– At any rate, there was a threat to bring a test case before the High Court as to the constitutionality of the action taken by the Federal Government. If we have power under the War Precautions Act to fix the price of the loaf, we can fix the price of butter, tea, sugar, milk, and every other commodity necessary to the people. I am not a lawyer, constitutional or otherwise, but am speaking from a common-sense point of view. It would be a wise thing on the part of the Federal Government even to strain the Constitution and risk the validity of their action by a test case in the High Court, if at the same time they relieved the pressure of the daily increasing cost of living upon the people. I applaud them for fixing the price of the loaf, but I wish they would fix the prices of other commodities as well. I quote the opinion of a very eminent constitutional lawyer, who is a member of this Parliament; I refer to Sir William Irvine, who has said that, in a time of war, the Government of a country can do practically anything. This is a time of war. We are sending our best and bravest to the scenes of slaughter on the battle-fields of Europe. Their wives and children are in a manner assisted by the Federal Government, but without anticipating a measure yet to come before us I say that they have not given, and do not contemplate giving, assistance to the extent I should like. Instead of adjourning the session until Mr. Hughes comes back, valuable as he is to Australia, and great as is the work he has done, and is doing, in Great Britain, the wisest thing the Government could do would be to propose an adjournment until next week, ‘ and let us reassemble to discuss the problems presented, not only by the war on the battle-fields of Europe, but also by the war in the homes of Australia, where men and women are to-day wondering how they are going to make ends meet with the exorbitant prices that are charged for food. If the householder appeals to a member of a State Parliament he will be told that the State Government does not feel inclined to move in the matter. If he appeals to a member of the Federal Parliament he will be told that the Constitution does not allow us to move. Then, I say, put the Constitution on one side for the moment, and as we are dealing with abnormal conditions, due to the existence of war, let this Parliament assume full powers. The other fellow damns the Constitution, but we are too timid to do so, and we allow things to go on as they are. I say, advisedly, that it is a crying shame that, in the Commonwealth to-day, despite the fact that we have seven Parliaments, there is apparently not one that can come to the rescue of the worker, who is struggling with a small wage to meet the high cost of living. Surely to God that is a war that we can meet, and some action can be taken in fighting this war against the food exploiter. The war on the battle-fields of Europe is certainly a very serious one. It is a cataclysm in which the world is involved, but those of us who are in authority here should remember that there is in the Commonwealth a war, in some cases, a hunger war, because we have men who are deliberately increasing the prices of foodstuffs, knowing that there is no Parliament in Australia that is willing, or, if willing, has the power to deal with them. There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer, and it concerns the relation of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act to the War Pensions Act. I have here a letter from the Department of Defence in connexion with the separation allowance. It refers to the case of a Mrs. Cradden, of Quarry-street, Fremantle, Western Australia. She is in receipt of an old-age pension, and cannot get the separation allowance usually made to the relatives of soldiers under certain conditions. The letter reads -

Defence Department,

Melbourne, 25th October, 1915.

Dear Sir,

With further reference to your memo of the 18th inst., written on behalf of Mrs. M. Cradden, c/o Mrs. J. Beverage, Quarry-street, Fremantle, Western Australia, I now beg to inform you that separation allowance, which is quite separate from, and additional to, an allotment of the soldier’s pay cannot, it is regretted, be paid to the recipient of an old-age pension.

The soldier can, of course, make an allotment in his mother’s favour, which it is presumed, has been done in this case.
Regarding war pension, this question has been referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, War Pensions Board, Railway Buildings, Flinders-street, Melbourne, who has been asked to communicate direct with you on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

T.trumble,

Acting Secretary.

I have here a letter addressed to myself in connexion with a similar matter -

Maylands, 14th January, 1916.

Dear Sir,

Just a line to thank you for all the trouble you have taken re the pension.

I still hope the Act will be amended, as there are sure to be numbers of aunts who have brought up children, as I have done, and who are entitled to the pension quite as much as any other relation.

Thanking you for your exceeding kindness,

Yours sincerely,

H. Hervey.

I do not want to claim just now that the separation allowance should be included, but I think it is only right that the War Pensions Act and the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act should be administered separately and independently of each other. If a dependant of a soldier is in receipt of an invalid or old-age pension that should not prevent the dependant receiving a separation allowance. In order to buttress my contention, a,part from the separation allowance, I shall quote a statement of the Minister of Defence, to be found at page 5620 of Hansard for 1915. I asked the honorable senator -

Will an invalid or old-age pension, received! by a dependant, be set off against the pensions, to which that person is entitled under this. Bill?

Senator Pearce replied

The pension, payable under this Bill, will not be determined by the amount any person is receiving under the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act, but will depend on the amount of his dependence upon the deceased or incapacitated soldier.

Later, in concluding the debate on the subject, the Minister summed up the contention I wish to make in these words -

So far as this Bill is concerned, the amounts paid under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act will not be a set-off against any claim for a war pension. As to whether any amounts paid under the War Pensions Act can be set off against any old-age pension claim, I am not prepared to say; but no amendment of the Bill before us can amend the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act. However, as it would be inconsistent for the Committee to say that a pension payable under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act is not to be a set-off against the claim under the War Pensions Act, and then to declare that a war pension should be taken as a set-off against an old-age pension, I shall submit the point to the Attorney-General, and if the Government find that a war pension can be set ofl” against a claim under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, they will amend that Act, in order to make the same provision as we find in the Bill before us.

– That is another reason for exempting it. A man whoputs his money into a commercial enterprise can be satisfied that with reasonable management he at least will get his money returned, but in the majority of cases the man who puts his money into mining loses it, as many honorable senators know from experience. On account of the unstable character of the industry and the large element of risk associated with its development, the Government would be well advised to exempt it along with agriculture.

– There is plenty of money . If we are to accept the bankers as a guide to the way in which the note issue could be worked, there is £47,000,000 worth of money not touched yet.

I notice from the Budget-papers that a sum of £3,379,000- which is much less than we expected - has been allocated from revenue towards defraying the cost of the war. The war itself has cost us something in the neighbourhood of £44,000,000, so that we are not putting up a record so far as meeting the expenditure out of revenue is concerned. Our efforts are far below those of other countries in bearing the cost on our own shoulders and not passing the burden on to posterity. What we have provided from revenue as compared with what we have raised by borrowing is as £1 to £11, whereas, in the case of other nations, the ratio is much higher. We might, with advantage, follow the example of the British Government during the Peninsular War, which cost £1,073,000,000, of which huge sum the taxpayers contributed no less than £330,000,000 odd, and passed on about £660,000,000.

Senator Stewart:

– The revenue would about pay the interest on £100,000,000.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.80 a.m. (Tuesday).

Senator LYNCH:

– When the sitting was suspended, I was pointing out the discrepancy which exists between the intentions of the Government in connexion with certain Acts which were passed for the purpose of raising revenue for war purposes, and the application of that revenue after it had been collected. The Treasurer stated, when he was dealing with the Budget-papers, that* for the current financial year the ‘amount of revenue devoted to the prosecution of the war was £3,379,000. Yet he estimates that the income tax will produce £3,200,000, the death duties £500,000, and that the increase in the amount collected from land tax during the present year was £357,000. In other words, a total of £4,057,000 was collected from these sources, and was to be exclusively devoted towards defraying the cost -of ihe war. Bui we now find that out of that sum only £3,379,000 has been applied to that purpose, leaving the huge sum of £678,000 to be accounted for. I think that this discrepancy calls for some explanation on the part of the Leader of the Senate. In regard to the increased amount collected under the land tax, it may possibly be held that the Act authorizing that increase was intended to have a different effect from that assigned’ to it by Ministers. But Mr. Fisher distinctly gave this country to understand that a larger revenue from land taxation was justified in war time.

Senator Russell:

– The honorable senator will find that there was an estimated deficiency for which a portion of the revenue from land tax was required.

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not think it is; and I see that one of the subjects to be discussed at the Premiers’ Conference in Adelaide at the end of this month is the promise made to Mr. Hughes at that time. I would remind Senator Turley that any one who thinks the prices of flour, offal, and bread can be fixed in a few weeks for the whole Commonwealth has not considered the question. First of all, with the information we had, the Commonwealth Government endeavoured to arrive at a fair price for the capital cities. At that time the Wheat Board had fixed the price of wheat for local consumption. If we had not taken action, but had waited until the Board had time to perambulate round Australia, it would have meant that the price of the farmers’ wheat, the raw material of the flour miller and the baker, was fixed, but that the flour miller and the baker could charge any price they liked. They would have got all the profit, and we’ should have been benefiting them and not the consumer. We therefore took action to promulgate immediately a proclamation fixing prices so far as we could, and appointed a Board to investigate the prices we had fixed, and make such recommendations for alterations as they could. There was some delay in the case of Queensland, but for this the Commonwealth were not altogether responsible. We desired, for the sake of expedition, to take advantage of tbe State Boards where they existed. This is a summary of the negotiations - loth March. - Acting Prime Minister wrote State Premier stating that the Commonwealth. Government proposed to take action to regulate the price of flour and bread, and asked if State Government approved of State Board acting under Federal regulations. 24th March. - Provisional regulations issued by Federal Government, to come into operation as from 3rd April. 28th March. - Premier of Queensland wrote approving generally of suggestions made by the Commonwealth, but desiring an opportunity of examining regulations before finally committing State Government. 3rd April. - Copy of regulations forwarded by Acting Prime Minister, with covering letter. Senator Russell wired Acting State Premier, Brisbane, asking if State Government approved of State Board acting at once. 5th April. - Senator Russell wired Acting State Premier, Brisbane, notifying suspension in Queensland of regulations until 17th April, to enable existing stocks of flour to be worked off, and further inquiries to be made with respect to freight charges. 6th April. - Acting Chief Secretary, Brisbane, wired stating willingness to discuss question with Commonwealth Board on their arrival Brisbane. 6th April. - Acting Chief Secretary, Brisbane, wired that Queensland Board could not see way to enforce Federal determination unless Federal Government guaranteed to compensate millers and bakers for loss on wheat and flour stocks purchased prior to proclamation. 26th April. - Commonwealth Order-in-Council issued fixing price of bread in certain Queensland areas. 3rd May. - Acting Chief Secretary, Brisbane, wired that no official intimation of Order issued by Commonwealth had been received,, and asked what action Commonwealth desired. State to take. 4th May. - Senator Russell wired that no action required at present, as enforcement of proclamation is under War Precautions Act.

The blame, therefore, if there is any, does not lie at the door of the Commonwealth.

Senator Turley:

– But nobody takes any notice of what has been done.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Brisbane people must be very simple if they are cheerfully paying prices higher than those fixed. They have the right to inform the Department, and prosecutions willbe launched at once.

Senator Russell:

– Cases have been reported which we have under review at the present time.

Senator PEARCE:

– Experience shows that it is no easy matter to fix prices for a vast area such as Australia. There are different conditions in different areas, and the matter has to be proceeded with methodically and carefully. Nothing would do more damage to the system of fixing prices than to attempt to fix them without due precaution or in such a way that they are capable of injustice, and of being readily attacked, and their injustice made manifest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first and second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 postponed.

First schedule agreed to.

Abstract postponed.

Second schedule.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– Will the Acting Prime Minister, at this stage, make a statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to increments ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– The Government are providing the usual increments. Unless we decide to stop all increments., or even if we decide to stop them in any one year, injustice will be done. If we decide not to pay increments to officers whose salaries are above a certain fixed sum, the officers just above that margin are placed at a disadvantage as compared with those just below it, because they lose not only the increments, but also seniority, for the reason that the officers just below the margin receive their increments, and the difference which previously existed between the two is lost, and the loss continues for all the time they are in the Department. Again, the stoppage of increments because of the shortage in the revenue initiates a class tax; in other words, it means taxing the public servants. In the opinion of the Government, a shortage in the revenue should be met by a general tax, and not by our singling out one class of the community. There is also the question of the amount that would be saved by stopping increments. The whole of the increments on the Estimates amount to between £20,000 and £30,000. The higher the margin of salary above which increments might he stopped is fixed, the smaller will be the amount saved. In order to save a reasonable sum, the margin would have to be fixed very low, because the great bulk of the increments, owing to the numbers who receive them, are among the lower-paid officers. In view of these facts, the Government did not consider that they would be justified in interfering with the ordinary increments. Some are granted on the recommendationof the Public Service Commissioner; others are given to officers who do not come under the control of the Public Service Commissioner, and are granted by Ministers. The Government have adopted exactly the same rule in regard to officers under their control as applies to those controlled by the Public Service Commissioner, as to both the amount and the period. Where an officer under the Public Service Act would get an increment of £25, the corresponding officer under the control of the Minister is given a similar increment.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I understand that the Commonwealth Government are entering into the matter of silver coinage. Last week a question was asked of Mr. McKenna, in the House of Commons, as to whether the silver coinage of Australia was legal tender in Great Britain, and he replied, “No.” There is a good deal of misconception in regard to this answer, which was cabled, and appeared in the press last week, and it is only fair that the Acting Prime Minister should make a statement, which might remove a great deal of misapprehension.

Senator Pearce:

– I am sorry to say that I did not see the report in the press. The matter has not been brought under the notice of the Commonwealth Government.

Senator TURLEY:

– I was not surprised at Mr. McKenna’s answer. I understand that for a time the coining of silver was done for us in Great Britain, and that, after expenses had been paid, the whole of the profits were handed to the Commonwealth Government, but that now we are buying our own bullion, and setting up machinery for the purpose of minting our own silver. Silver, being of a value of less than 2s. per ounce, so that the Commonwealth derives a profit from the coinage of it, it is hardly reasonable to suppose that Great Britain will allow silver coins from Australia to circulate freely there, and be recognised as legal tender just the same as silver minted there. The paragraph was seen by all who read the newspapers, and many people, through a misconception of the true position, fancy that the action of the British Government is unfair.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The Old-age Pensions Act provides that any support given to the pensioner by a son, a stepson or any other relative, should not be taken into consideration, and that the pension of 10s. per week can be supplemented from other sources to the extent of a further 10s. Will it be competent for an old-age pensioner to draw his full pension even though it and his income under the War Pensions Act amount to more than £52, ‘ provided that he does not by any other means supplement his income?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- The maximum amount which an old-age pensioner may receive by the Act is fixed at £52, with the exception of assistance received from the other sources referred to by the honorable sena’tor. Any income which the old-age pensioner receives by way of war pension will be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of the old-age pension. That is in accordance with the provision of the Old-age Pensions Act.

Senator Needham:

– Suppose that the pensions under both Acts would exceed £52, would the old-age pension be reduced ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have already said that the amount which the old-age pensioner receives by way of war pension is taken into consideration when fixing the amount of the old-age pension. Therefore, if he receives more than £26 per annum under the War Pensions Act his oldage pension will be reduced by the amount of the excess.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The Acting Prime Minister stated to-day that I had harped on this question for some time, and I intend to harp on it again, and to take another opportunity of testing whether the condition of affairs he has mentioned cannot be altered. It is an injustice to the old-age pensioner that the income he receives under the War Pensions Act should be a set-off against the old-age pension. The two Acts have been made by this Parliament for special reasons and upon distinct conditions. We granted an old-age pension because we recognised that a person who had reached a certain age and had done something to develop the resources of the nation was entitled to some comfort in his or her old age. Since the ‘ passing of that Act war has broken out, and Parliament has decided to pay another pension to dependants of citizens whose relatives have died at the front or have returned maimed. We are now told that because the nation is paying a certain amount by way of war pensions it will take away in part the other recognition, which Parliament gave for an entirely different reason. In pursuing this policy the Commonwealth is not recognising the effort of those of its citizens who have been killed or maimed in defending this portion of the Empire. I regret exceedingly that the Government have adopted that position.

Senator Pearce:

– That is the position set out in the Old-age Pensions Act itself.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is contrary to my interpretation of a statement made by the Minister when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion. It is the duty of those who support the present Government to see that these two Acts stand independent of each other.

Senator Stewart:

– The old-age pensioner cannot receive more than £1 per week from any source.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Senator Pearce said on a former occasion that if such was. the case he would consider the introduction of an amendment of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act so that the two pensions would not clash. That is what I desire to be done. I admit that the law to-day is. as stated by Senator Pearce, but it is within the power of this Parliament to amend the Old-age Pensions Act so that any money received by the old-age pensioner shall not be reduced by the setoff of the war pension. I will seek another opportunity of bringing this matter to a head, and perhaps the simpler course to adopt will be to bring pressure to bear on the Government to introduce an amendment of the Old-age Pensions Act.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– On page 43 of the Bill there is an item, “ Maintenance of persons admitted to charitable institutions in accordance with the provisions of the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act. “ I am not clear as to the working of that Act as it relates to persons admitted into charitable institutions. Another item on the same page is “ Grant to State War Councils for recruiting purposes.” Will the Minister be good enough to give an explanation of those two items ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– The item regarding the maintenance of oldage pensioners in charitable institutions is almost self explanatory. There are in charitable institutions certain persons who are eligible for old-age pensions. Some of those persons used to leave the institutions and draw their pensions, but, being unable to look after themselves, they found their way back again in a more debilitated state than before.

Senator Turley:

– Does that item cover hospitals ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The allowance is not paid to the hospitals. If an old-age pensioner enters a hospital the pension is not paid to him while he is an inmate, but on his release he receives a fortnight’s pay. In my own State there is an institution called the Old Men’s Home. A sum of 8s. is paid for each inmate eligible for an old-age pension, with the condition that he shall be supplied with tobacco if desired. The grant to the War Councils is made to assist in the work of recruiting in the various States, and is used to pay for advertising, postage, stationery, and other incidental office expenses. In practically every case the office accommodation is provided by the State Government, and the employees are usually State officers lent for the purpose’. The grant is distributed on a population basis, and recently application has been made for a further sum of £5,000.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– In the course of the financial year we authorized the raising of two loans of £10,000,000 and £20,000,000. The former resulted in .over £13,000,000, and the latter in £21,000,000 being subscribed, making a total of about £34,000,000. How do we stand in regard to the excess ?

Senator Turley:

– It is held for another loan.

Senator MULLAN:

– Under what authority? If this can be’ done with £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, it could be done with £50,000^000. What is our authority for retaining the money?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– The authority is waiting on the table for the honorable senator to pass into law.

Senator Mullan:

– And in the meantime the Government are illegally holding the money.

Senator PEARCE:

– Well, we are holding it.

Senator BLAKEY:
Victoria

– In the Department of the Treasury there is an item ‘ ‘ Less savings caused through the absence of officers with the Expeditionary Forces, £689.” This is only one of many similar items throughout the schedule on which I should like a little information. Is the money held in trust to be repaid to the officers if they should come back to their positions, or are they penalized for going with the Expeditionary Forces?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Shortly after the war broke out a Federal and State Conference was held, at which the question was raised, what should be done in regard to the salaries of Federal and State officers who enlisted? It was agreed that they should receive their military pay while on active service, and not their Civil Service pay in addition. This agreement h’as been observed by the Commonwealth and four of the States, but two of the States have broken away from it. The sum on the Estimates represents the pay that would have accrued to officers employed in the Treasury, and which has not been expended in consequence of those officers serving with the Expeditionary Forces. It does not represent a saving to the taxpayer, because the taxpayer is paying those officers, not as public servants, but as military officers, and, moreover the Treasury has had to employ temporary clerks to do the work previously done by the officers. As a matter of fact, this is really a book entry, showing a saving to the Treasury, but expenditure elsewhere.

Senator Blakey:

– Are the officers not worse off by joining the Forces?

Senator PEARCE:

– Some are worse off and some are better off. I know of some who get nearly half as much again, and others who get double what they were paid in the civil Departments, though there are still others who have lost by enlisting.

Senator Blakey:

– The “ bottom dog “ suffers.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I desire to refer to the delay in the Arbitration Court owing to the insufficient number of Judges. This is a pressing question. I have heard of cases which could not come before the Court for a period of two years, during which time, I suppose, those interested were impatiently waiting for a decision. This ought not to be. If arbitration and conciliation is the policy of the Commonwealth, every opportunity ought to be given to those who desire to have their business settled. It seems to me to be a mere question of money. Why not appoint as many Judges as are necessary’? If similar delays took place in the ordinary Courts there would be such a howl of indignation all over Australia that the Commonwealth and State Governments would be compelled to take steps to overtake the work. I understand that in Queensland a strike has been precipitated with the expressed object of compelling the Court to deal with a case which has been pending for some time; and at Broken Hill strikers have forced the hand of the Government, and had their case taken out of its order. There ought to be some immediate action in this connexion, and the only way to meet the situation, so far as I can see, is by the appointment of additional Judges. In my opinion, it is not absolutely necessary that the Judge of the Arbitration Court should be a professional lawyer; the Government might well appoint laymen of reputation and standing to positions of the kind. Justice, I am sure, would be quite as safe in the hands of such gentlemen as in the hands of lawyers. I ask the Government to take this matter into serious consideration.

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

– I am glad to be in a position to inform Senator Stewart that the Government have already taken the matter into consideration, and have determined on an amendment of the Act to bring about such a reform as that he has suggested so forcibly, and the necessity for which is apparent to every one. Some time ago the matter came before the Government, and a decision was arrived at. There will be no delay in placing legislation before both Houses with a view to expediting cases, and thus preventing in the future such strides and industrialdisturbances as have arisen from the congested state of the business of the Court.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– I wish to direct attention to an item which reads : “ Patent, Trade Marks, and Designs.” When the small amending Bill relating to patents was recently under review, I had not an opportunity of referring to what I regard as the exorbitant charges which are being levied upon persons who wish to take out patent rights.

Senator Turley:

– We were told that the charges are very low.

Senator Pearce:

– They are the cheapest in the world.

Senator FERRICKS:

– They run into about £18.

Senator Pearce:

– By paying the fees of a patent attorney the expenditure may run into that sum. But that does not represent the amount which is paid to the Patents Office.

Senator FERRICKS:

– There is £1 payable to the Department for making the provisional application, and a further £2 when the complete application is forwarded, and another £5 when the application has been granted and the patent is issued. This makes a total of £8. Of course, the rights can be renewed after a lapse of seven years by the payment of a further sum of £5, which will cover an additional period of five years. But before any of these steps are possible, an applicant is obliged to proceed through a patent attorney - a professional man, who has made himself conversant with the Patents Act. In addition to the £8 in fees which I have outlined, an applicant for a patent right is required to pay £3 to an agent for drawing up the provisional application, which usually consists of about two foolscap pages of typewriting.

Senator Turley:

– But that is not a departmental matter.

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– An interesting question has been raised in regard to. members of our Expeditionary Forces. The question is whether, when they have reached Great Britain or France, they are subject to the Imperial Army Act, or to the Australian Defence Act, or whether if a man is charged with a serious offence he will be amenable to the Commonwealth laws or those of Great Britain?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Members of our Expeditionary Forces are sworn in under the Commonwealth Defence Act, but they are also brought under the Imperial Army Act. By arrangement with the Imperial Government our offenders are dealt with under our Defence Act and by Australian officers. Certain provisions apply to the whole army, but not those to which the honorable senator has referred.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I would like to know the policy of the Government in regard to the future construction of submarines? Is it proposed to replace those which have been lost, and to add to the number? Of course, I recognise that this is a delicate question to put to the Minister at the present time, and if he does not care to answer I shall not press it.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– The honorable senator is right in be- lieving that some information should not be given, but in regard to submarines the Minister for the Navy has taken action with a view to building them in. future in Australia. He has arranged for artisans, chosen in Australia, to proceed toEngland, and receive a course of instruction in the building of submarines, and they will leave the Commonwealth for that purpose at an early date. We hope that in the near future we shall be undertaking the building of submarines in our own dockyards.

Senator STEWART (Queensland) (2.29 a.m.]. - I am informed that a great deal of expense is incurred in repairing motor-cars which are hired by the Department for the purpose of collecting letters from pillar boxes’. I am told that the cost is very much more than it ought to be. If the Vice-President of the Executive Council has no information upon the matter, he would-be acting wisely if he brought it under the attention of the Postmaster-General. I am informed that the money spent in this way is considerable.

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

– I have no information with which to answer the honorable senator at this moment, but I shall bring the matter under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral. Nearly all the cars in use are the property of “the Department, but it is probable that in some cases it has been found necessary to hire cars. Motor cars are at all times expensive, and the cost of upkeep is very great.

Senator Stewart:

– Has the Department any repairing shops in Melbourne or Sydney ?

Senator GARDINER:

– An effort is being made with a view to establishing repairing shops for the whole of the Government motor cars, but nothing has definitely been done yet.

Schedule agreed to.

Postponed clauses 2 and 3 and Abstract agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 8247

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1915-16

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first, time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

As honorable senators are aware, this Bill is merely to complete the provision for the financial year ending 30th June next. It is really only the appropriation for the remaining six weeks of the current financial year to carry on the works that have been authorized from time to time in the various Supply Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

page 8247

WAR LOAN BILL (UNITED KINGDOM) (No. 3)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Sessional and Standing Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

This this BiU be now read a second time.

This Bill is to authorize the borrowing of £25,000,000 from the British Government. There have been two previous loans from the British Government - one of £18,000,000, and the other, of £6,500,000, a total of £24,500,000. The money is to be used for war purposes, none of it going to the States. Already £9,000,000 of the sum covered by the Bill has been received; and a later Bill will be introduced for the borrowing- of £50,000,000 locally. If the latter borrowing be successful, as we hope and believe it will be, it is not likely that it will be necessary to exercise the authority conferred by the Bill before us. However, we desire to be absolutely sure that we shall have the money necessary for war purposes. Honorable senators may rest assured that if the Government . are successful in raising the £50,000,000 locally, we shall not take advantage of the present Bill. The money will be lent at the rate of interest at which it is borrowed in Great Britain. That rate has not yet been determined, but probably it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent. The British loans were arranged before it had been demonstrated that local borrowing would be a success; and honorable senators will join with me in the hope that it will not he necessary to take advantage of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Purpose for which money may be borrowed).

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I notice that the Bill provides that, in accordance with the States Loan Act 1915, temporary advances may be made to the States out of the amount raised under this Bill. I thought the Acting Prime Minister told us that none of this money was for the States.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- That clause is merely to cover a temporary arrangement, and is really a validating clause. We undertook to borrow for the States, but the British Government advised us that the market was not favorable; and, in order to meet the immediate necessities of the States, we advanced them £2,000,000 out of the £9,000,000 we have received from the Home authorities. That sum will, of course, have to be recouped when we get the proceeds of the later loan from Great Britain.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 8248

STATES LOAN BILL

Bill received from the House of Repre- tatives.

Standing and. Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I wish to say that, in November last, five of the States agreed to the Commonwealth borrowing for them £8,940,000 to be expended upon public works. New South Wales was not a party to that agreement. As I have previously explained, the States have already received £2,000,000 in anticipation of the passing of this Bill. That advance was made to them because the British Government advised us that the time was not favorable for the floating of this loan. However, we anticipate that we shall shortly be able to place a portion of the loan at a favorable rate of interest. Of course, the States have to pay to the Commonwealth the rate of interest at which the loan is raised, and subsequently to repay the loan itself. In other words, the liability is a State liability, the credit of the Commonwealth being merely used to raise the money.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment; report adopted.

page 8248

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 3)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

. -In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

– It is not necessary to free investors in the forthcoming war loan from income tax or any other taxation under the measure to tax war profits, and other legislation which this Government have the power to pass. The situation is now very serious indeed, and the people who are calling out for conscription of men will, no doubt, be most anxious to invest their money in these war loans, which will return them about 5J per cent., approximately. We are treating these investors very liberally, and the very men who are calling out from the housetops and from every platform for men to go and offer their lives, want to get their cent, per cent, and a little more. I admit that it is very awkward to differentiate between the treatment of those who will be asked to contribute to this loan and that extended to the contributors to the first and second loans.

Senator Lynch:

– It would be in the case of the small contributors.

Senator BLAKEY:

Senator Mullan:

– Then, by the same reasoning, conscription of life must be murder.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am sure that nobody would propose to conscript life without paying wages. It is something more than conscription that honorable senators propose, because they object to pay the wages of capital, and would rob the people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2(Power to borrow £50,000,000).

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words bo added to the clause: - “But, notwithstanding anything contained in the abovementioned Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15, no interest shall be paid or payable on the sum or sums borrowed under the provisions of this Act.’’

We have just listened to one of the most sophistical speeches from the Minister of Defence that I believe I have ever heard in a legislative assembly. The honorable gentleman placed a money loan to the Government on the same plane as an ordinary investment. It is surprising that a man of his character and attainments should be capable of such a defect in examining any question. I desire honorable members to look this question fairly and squarely in the face. Can money raised for the purposes of war be placed in the same category with money raised for any other purpose?

Senator Pearce:

– Picture shows, for instance.

Senator STEWART:

– Picture shows! The Minister is almost approaching a “picture show “ himself to argue in such a stupid way. Why are we raising this money ? Because the country is in danger. I wish honorable senators to give their minds to the subject. Apparently, the Minister of Defence has not done so, because he has explained it in a most desultory fashion. We are raising the money because the life and liberty and the possessions of every man in the country are in danger. If I invest money in a tramway company - the Minister mentioned a tramway company, though why I do not know - I am investing money when the country is at peace, and no man’s possessions, life, or liberty is threatened. It will be seen that the cases are altogether different. When the country is in danger, we require men to do the fighting, and in fighting they risk life and limb, together with their health and their reputation - they abandon their careers, leave their families behind, and must, in fact, abjure everything which they hold most dear. That is the case in regard to men ; and we must have men to defeat the enemy, not on the soil of Australia, but wherever he is to be found. These are the sacrifices which the men who go to the front are asked to make. But, in addition to men, we require money, for fighting men are of no earthly use without it. Money is required toprovide equipment and ammunition, to feed and clothe them, and to transport them to the scene of action. Are we to say that while these men. are asked to sacrifice everything, the men who find the money are to be asked to sacrifice nothing? That is one of the most remarkable pieces of reasoning I have ever listened to in my life. It is a pure example of the special pleading of the capitalist - one which any member of a party like the Labour party ought to be ashamed to utter. Not only are the men who lend the money to be asked to sacrifice nothing, but they are actually given a higher rate of interest than is to be found at the present time in what are termed “ giltedged “ investments. The interest on the war loans is practically 5 per cent. If honorable senators will examine the share-list to-day, they will find that the return upon gilt-edged investments is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent. Any sound investment which is returning 5 per cent. interest at the present time is regarded as a gilt-edged one. Now, this loan is gilt-edged. Unless Australia is conquered and taken possession of by the enemy, this money will be repaid some day. It may not be repaid in ten years, but it is as sure to be repaid as the sun is sure to rise to-morrow morning. While Australia lasts, and while her resources are available, the amount subscribed to this loan will still remain a good asset to those who lend it. So that, from every point of view, it will be a remarkably good investment for those who put their money into it. They will get 4½ per cent. interest, as well as exemption from income tax, both State and Federal, and exemption from stamp duties.On the whole, therefore, it is one of the best investments of which I have any knowledge in Australia. Now, I desire to impress upon honorable senators the boundless gulf which exists between money which is invested in any other concern and money which is invested for the purposes of defence. Our country is in danger, our lives and liberties are threatened, and yet the patriotic capitalists will not find the money todefend their own possessions unless they are paid 4½ per cent. interest upon it, in addition to being exempted from income tax; while the men who go to the front risk, not only their lives, but their careers, and everything that they hold dear. They risk everything ; the capitalist risks nothing. Indeed, instead of risking anything,he will actuallymake a profit out of the war. Where is the soldier at the front who will make a profit out of it ? Even if hecomes unscathed from the war,he will suffer in some way. No man willemerge from this great conflict as well as he was when he entered it. He will be maimed or weakened in some wayor other. But the capitalist will not be maimed in any way. He will get 4½ per cent. interest upon his money, and some day he will be repaidhis capital. The arguments in favour of paying no interest upon this loan are unassailable. They appeal to every man of common sense. When the country is indanger,everything should bedone to save it. “ What will a man give for his life?” I have often heard asked. If I have £1,000,000, and somebody threatens to take my life, will I not give himthe £1,000,000 in order that I may preserve it? In the same way, everybody with possessions, at a time like this, ought to give them up without fee or reward. I think it is manifest that this kind of investment cannot be compared with any other form of investment. Everything in Australia is in danger - life, liberty, and possessions. To say that any class of the community ought to be allowed to make a profit out of this war is altogetherabsurd. It is a statement which ought not to be indorsed by this Committee.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– In supporting the amendment, I wish to say that I was astonished at some of the utterances of the Minister of Defence this morning. In defending the capitalist who subscribes to this war loan, he pointed out that, under Senator Stewart’s amendment, we should be depriving this poor unfortunate man who possesses, possibly, half-a-million sterling-

Senator Pearce:

– I neither described him as poor nor unfortunate.

Senator MULLAN:

Senator STEWART:

– Those may feel the pinch by subscribing to the loan, but probably they do not. An overwhelming proportion of the money subscribed has been advanced by corporations, companies, and individuals in good circumstances. The labourer who makes a boot must be clothed, fed, and housed in order to be effective, and in most cases he must provide for the wants of a family.

Senator Pearce:

– What about the boot capitalist? Of course, he must have his interest.

Senator STEWART:

– He is just as necessary under existing conditions as the boot-worker, and just as much entitled to his wages. The time may come when our soldiers will have to fight without fee or reward, as the Italian, German, and French, and even the English soldiers, are doing. The Australians are the only men. paid a fair amount, but if the war continues long we may not be able to pay them at all, and every service, in connexion with the war may have to be given. for the lowest possible wage, as has been the case in many countries before, and is probably the case in Germany to-day. Men engaged in hundreds of ways in the countries at war are paid very little indeed. Of course, if we can pay our soldiers, it is right to do so; but if the time should arrive when the country is unable to do it, they will have to fight without fee or reward. Fortunately, that position has not yet arrived in Australia. I need not go over the whole argument as to the difference between money raised for the purposes of defence and that which is put into industries in time of peace. The matter must be patent to every one who gives it the slightest consideration.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– Senator Lynch has referred to certain workers in Brisbane, and has asked what their attitude would be if their wages were cut down owing to the fact that their employers were compelled to give money to the war loan, or if they were expected to contribute to the war loan without interest, in the shape of a reduction in their pay. Let me tell the honorable senator that some Brisbane unions have submitted to a reduction in wages, in that they have given money to the war loan and declined to accept interest.No doubt if that system were widespread throughout Australia with the capitalist and the worker and the man in between each taking his due share, no complaint would be heard from the workers. I cannot conceive how a man, who is an enthusiastic advocate in the cause of voluntary enlistment, can oppose Senator Stewart’s amendment; much less can I conceive a man who advocates compulsory service, as Senator Lynch has done, opposing it. The amendment does not ask for the conscription of wealth, or for the confiscation of the surplus wealth of Australia, it simply asks for the loan of that wealth. Will Senator Lynch go on the platform and say, “ I advocate the conscription of human beings, the manhood of Australia. I will see them slaughtered and their blood flowing in the trenches; but as for the sacred treasure, the surplus wealth of Australia, no, ladies and gentlemen, I will not take that money. I will not even take a loan of it. If the people will give their money just the same as those whom I am going to send into the trenches are forced to give their lives, by my vote I shall give them 5 per cent. for it, and call them patriots”? Patriotism at 5 per cent.! I can understand a man who believes in voluntary enlistment being consistent, and advocating voluntary effort in regard to money, but Senator Lynch goes to the other extreme. He does not believe in voluntaryism of men or money; he believesin compulsion of men, and in compulsorily shovelling money out to the wealthy at a rate of 5 per cent. I hope that his attitude will not continue to be the policy of the Labour party in Australia, or of the Federal Government, otherwise my humble support of the party must cease.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Stewart’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 10

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I propose now to submit an amendment which will prove whether honorable senators are desirous of placing the loan on a fair footing. The amendment has for its object, the removal of all exemptions. The Bill exempts the bond-holders’ interest from State and Federal income tax, and stamp duties, and allows the holders the privilege of paying in his bonds at par, even if they have become depreciated, to meet probate duty. I move -

That the following word’s be added to clause 2 - “ Provided that the provisions of sections 52a, 52b, and 52c, of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15 shall not apply to the loan raised under the authority of this Act.”

If that amendment is carried, subscribers to the loan will receive 4½ per cent., no more and no less, and the Commonwealth may impose on the interest from this loan income tax or any other kind of tax.

Senator Turley:

– Cannot their bonds be accepted by the Government in payment of a debt to the State or the Commonwealth ?

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes ; if their bonds can be bought in the open market.

Senator Turley:

– Will you accept a bond at the market value?

Senator MULLAN:

– Certainly. Suppose a man has to pay probate duty, and that the bonds have depreciated to £70, as might be possible owing to the enormous amount of the loans, for £700, he could pay a probate duty debt of £1,000.

Senator Turley:

– But if the bonds have depreciated, would you still accept them at the market value?

Senator MULLAN:

– Certainly; but the holder would not submit them if they were above par in the open market. It is ridiculous to propose that we should allow a man to pay to the Commonwealth depreciated stock, to met his legitimate obligations in probate duty. The Government will, of course, object to removing these exemptions, because they have already been included in two previous loans. My answer is that, we must commence somewhere to do the right thing. If the argument of the Government were sound, we should never make any improvement. My desire is to abolish exemptions which are the special privileges of an already privileged class.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator FERRICKS:

– We have the proposal made to take men’s lives, and they are of more value than bricks and mortar. It must appeal to honorable senators that the principle of throwing in these extras is bad. Let the Government say that they are prepared to pay 5 per cent, for this money. I have said that with the privileges granted the rate is slightly over 5 per cent. I am prepared to take the assertion of Senator Blakey, an experienced accountant, that with the concessions the rate amounts to per cent. If that be so it would be far better for the Government to offer the loan at 5J per cent. Why should we not be honest in the matter? Why should there be this juggling and covering up? Why should we add the concessions which the 5 per cent, patriots who contributed to the previous war loans are enjoying to-day, and will no doubt enjoy» from the contributions they will make to the loan now under consideration? I cannot understand by what the Government were actuated in departing from the recognised practice of asking for the money they required at a certain definite rate of interest. I trust that the amendment will be carried.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator Lynch:

– The Beef Trust, which is supplying the Commonwealth with meat for the troops, is probably getting more nearly 8 per cent. than 4½ per cent.

Senator MULLAN:

– The Minister stated that if this amendment were carried it would probably lead to the failure of the loan, and he hinted that some of us desired to bring about that result. That remark showed how little the honorable gentleman knows of finance, because, while pointing out how much more attractive the exemptions make the loan, he overlooked the fact that those exemptions are only equal to so much more interest. In other words, if the loan can be floated at4½ per cent. with exemptions it might be floated at 5¼ per cent. without exemptions. If the Government think that the loan, without exemptions, is likely to be a failure, what is to prevent them from increasing the rate of interest to an extent equal to the value of the exemptions, and then we could reach the bond-holders by means of an income tax. If there be one debt of honour to the community it is that which a man owes for the preservation of himself and his property. Yet, strangely enough, while Senator Lynch advocates conscription of manhood, while he argues that it is the incontestable duty of every man to shed his blood in fighting for his country, he will not take up the same attitude in regard to the wealth that will be protected. By the payment of interest we are piling up a debt which the descendants of our dead soldiers will have to pay. That is a damnable policy, and its advocates have not a leg to stand on.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Mullan’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 7

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 - (Purpose for which money may be borrowed).

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ Providing that such expenses of borrowing shall not include any amount of moneys to be paid as brokerage or commission to members of Stock Exchanges for contributions to the war loan made through their offices.”

I regard the system of allowing brokerage to members of Stock Exchanges as entirely wrong. The Commonwealth Bank and the post-offices throughout Australia are prepared to do this work, and the Commonwealth Bank, at the same charge of 5s. per £100 is prepared to control the loan over a- period of ten years. When the last loan was being subscribed, the Commonwealth Bank opened offices for the convenience of. members of the Stock Exchange, and Senator Russell has told me that the amount of brokerage paid to them totalled £34,000. In my opinion, that money was not earned, for all the money necessary would, I think, have found its way into the loan irrespective of the members of the Exchange.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- I appeal to the honorable senator not to press the amendment. Why make the Bill the vehicle for the abolition of brokers, and for social reform generally ? Brokers are an established fact in connexion with all these transactions, and if Senator Ferricks likes to play Sir Galahad, by all means let him do so; but why use this Bill for the first tilt? I understand that the brokers have made one alteration, inasmuch as they do the work connected with these loans at half rates. Another point is that a large number of people accept the advice of brokers as to investments of this kind. We may think such people foolish; but, nevertheless, many prefer to employ brokers; who, of course, would not exist if they did not fill some place in the financial economy. This Bill is not a measure to insure the continuance of brokers, and it is hard to see why it should be made one for their abolition.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– I do not feel disposed to withdraw the amendment, because I think these brokers have not rendered adequate service to the defence of the country for the £34,000 already received. I rather regret that the Minister has not- shown us what services have been rendered by these gentlemen. This is not the first occasion on which I have raised this question, for Senator Russell will remember that, when the first Loan Bill was introduced, I took exception to the payment of brokerage charges. I do not profess to be cognisant of all the details of loan floating and so forth; and, though I have repeatedly asked for the Government reasons for their present policy in this re gard, I have not received any reply to my satisfaction. When the loan now’ under consideration has been subscribed, these brokers will probably draw commission amounting to £82,000. I am not prepared to allow this, unless I am assured by Senator Russell or the Acting Prime Minister that adequate service to the Commonwealth is given in return. It has been advanced that these brokers advise their clients to invest in the loans,, and that, but for this, the whole of the money might not be subscribed. I take an opposite view, and think that it is just a case of friends acting through brokers because they know that the latter will get commission, and that the State is a good old milch cow. Members of Stock Exchanges are usually keen business men, and I take no exception to their utilizing their intellect and abilities to the best possible advantage. But when we consider that the money borrowed is for war purposes, and that the members of the Stock Exchange, when war news arrives, are given to singing “God save the King” and “Rule Britannia,” it would seem that they are acting a double part, seeing that they accept such substantial suras in brokerage. I cannot consent to the present state of affairs continuing unless the Acting Prime Minister can convince me of the advantage accruing to the Commonwealth from this magnificent gift to the brokers. It is safe to assume that 95 per cent, of the members of the stock exchanges throughout the Commonwealth are to-day advocating the conscription of the manhood of this country. In such circumstances am I justified in allowing these persons to draw this huge sum for brokerage in connexion with the flotation of our war loans? If the Minister has good reasons for his action, he has, so far, withheld them from the Committee.

Senator MULLAN (Queensland [6.21 a.m.]. - The Minister assigned as a reason why the amendment should not be proceeded with that this loan is for war purposes. Now, if there is one measure moi-e than another which should appeal to everybody in the community, it is a War Loan Bill.

Senator Gardiner:

– The labourer is worthy of his hire.

Senator MULLAN:

– If there be one form, of investment more than another which should appeal to capitalists, it is investment in a war loan. They know that it is a gilt-edged security. The brokers come into contact with the moneyed classes, and the latter rather than go to the Commonwealth Bank agree to make their applications through their brokers, and thus assist in “ taking down “ the Government. We ought not to allow that sort of thing in connexion with a war loan.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Ferricks’ amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 8267

WAR LOAN (UNITED KINGDOM) BILL (No. 4)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill covers all the war loans, but involves nothing beyond a bookkeeping arrangement in relation to them. The Acts authorizing the two previous loans enacted that the money borrowed should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue. We desire that the whole of future loans shall be paid into a distinct fund to be used for war purposes only. The Bill is intended to simplify the keeping of accounts, so as to show clearly the expenditure made from war loan funds.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment.

page 8267

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE (ACTING COMMISSIONER) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I may inform honorable senators that the term of the Public Service Commissioner had expired, and under the Public Service Act we had no power to appoint an Acting Commissioner. It is the desire of the Government to review the Public Service Act, and to bring down definite proposals with regard to the position of the Public Service Commissioner. But in order to give us time to deal with these matters, it is necessary to carry on with an Acting Public Service Commissioner, and this Bill merely gives us power to appoint Mr. Edwards to that position until the appointment of a Public Service Commissioner, or until the Governor-General otherwise directs. It makes no change in the Public Service Act, and it gives to Mr. Edwards the salary at which Mr. McLachlan began in the Public Service as Commissioner.

Senator Lynch:

– How long will this temporary appointment be maintained?

Senator PEARCE:

– Until the Government come forward with an amendment of the Public Service Act, or until they see fit to make a further appointment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I can understand the need for such a Bill as this, but I would point out that it is not the best practice to have men “ acting “ for any great length of time. In fact, I know of no other condition more confusing to the Public Service than to have men kept indefinitely in an acting capacity. That is the reason why I asked the Leader of the Senate how long it was intended to keep Mr.

Edwards temporarily in this position. For my part, I would like to see a Public Service Commissioner appointed now, and I do not know why one could not be appointed. An amendment of the Public Service Act is not required to enable an appointment to be made. One of the most fruitful sources of friction in the Western State has been the practice of appointing leaders of Departments and sub-Departments in an acting capacity. They never take any interest in their work, and the experience in Western Australia should guard us from introducing the trouble into the Commonwealth Service. I hope that the fact that Mr. Edwards will be appointed temporarily does not mean that the Government will continue indefinitely with an Acting Public Service Commissioner. I would like to have an assurance from the Leader of the Senate as to the extent of his term.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I am not so much concerned about the appointment of a Public Service Comisisoner in a temporary capacity, or about the officers who will act under him as I am about the policy of the Government with respect to the service as a whole. It is time they introduced a comprehensive amendment of the existing Act with a view to take from the Public Service Commissioner, whoever he may be, some of the mighty powers with which he is invested, and give the Ministers in charge of Departments some powers which they do not now possess.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator would give the powers back to the politicians ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No; but I would apportion powers between the Public Service Commissioner and Ministers, and would safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth Public Service. We had a demonstration in another place by a responsible Minister, who said that he could not sack an officer of his Department. I do not say here that our public servants are good, bad. or indifferent, but I do say that the Federal Parliament is not the place in which to attack them, and they certainly ought not to be attacked by the Minister controlling the Department in which they are employed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honorable senator think that that matter is under review now?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That particular matter is not under review, but I was referring to the necessity for a comprehensive amendment of the Public Service Act with a view, not to place all power in the hands of the politicians, but to take away from the Public Service Commissioner the privilege of absolutism which he enjoys to-day, and to give to Ministers of the Crown some power to deal with questions and with men in their Departments as occasion arises. Where there is responsibility there should be authority. Under the principal Act, the Commissioner has too much power, and Ministers have too little. I hope that the Acting Prime Minister will, in reply, indicate whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a comprehensive amending Act.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I can only say in reply to Senator Lynch that the word “temporarily,” as used in this Bill, is intended to convey its accepted meaning. But it is impossible to give the exact time when a permanent appointment will be made. I hope that, in a few months, such an appointment will be made. In answer to Senator Needham, I may say that it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Service Act at a later date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Appointment of Acting Public Service Commissioner).

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I should like the Minister of Defence to say whether the Acting Public Service Commissioner will be subject to the same discipline, and his officers subordinate to him, in the same way as he would be if the appointment had been possible under the existing Act. I ask for the information because it appears to me from the way in which this clause is drawn, that the Bill is not co-related in any way with the existing Act. It provides that the Acting Public Service Commissioner shall hold office only until the appointment of a Public Service Commissioner, or until the Governor-General otherwise directs. This implies a right to discontinue his services, but my point is that this Bill is not co-related with the existing Act, and contains no provisions con- trolling the Acting Public Service Commissioner.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

. -It is quite clear that the Acting Public Service Commissioner will be under the Public Service Act, which is the only Act making provision for a Public Service Commissioner. This Bill is therefore linked up with the existing Act.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 8269

LANDS ACQUISITION BILL

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Commonwealth, under its power to acquire land for semi-public institutions compulsorily acquired the site being now built on for the Commonwealth Bank, Sydney, but under the existing Act the title to that land must be transferred to the Commonwealth. It is desired to obtain power to transfer the title to the Commonwealth Bank authorities on payment of the amount expended in purchasing the site, which was £102,000.

Senator Turley:

– At what interest?

Senator RUSSELL:

– The bank has been paying the Government 3 per cent., which is the rate fixed by Parliament under the Lands Acquisition Act, when the land was acquired by the Commonwealth about four years ago. There is no reason why the bank should be charged more because of the war, which broke out three years later.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 - (Vesting of lands in Commonwealth authorities) .

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- Will the land on which the bank premises are being built be subject to municipal taxation, which on the present valuation would come to £2,000 per annum ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I cannot answer that question definitely. If the municipality has no power to tax Commonwealth properties in general, it should not have power to tax the bank, which undoubtedly belongs to the Commonwealth, but the High Court decided against the Commonwealth in the stamp duties case, and, as the bank has been made an independent body, the position may be uncertain.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Do the Government intend to pay the municipal rates ? The bank certainly ought to pay them, being run for profit like any other business.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 8269

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 2.30 p.m. to-day.

page 8269

ADJOURNMENT

Sentences of Courts Martial - Payment for Wheat

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I wish to thank honorable senators for the way in which they have sat through the long sitting in order to get through the business. The following reply has been furnished to Senator Needham’s questions regarding appeals from the sentences of courts martial : -

There is no appeal in the ordinary sense from the sentence of a court martial. A sentence has no effect till confirmed by the confirming authority, who has power to order revision, or to mitigate the punishment. And if a court martial exceeds its jurisdiction, it can be restrained by prohibition.
There is no similar section in the Army Act. Certiorari, however, Is not an appeal, but a removal of the proceedings from one Court to another. 3, 4, 5. The clause was in the Defence Bill as originally introduced in 1901. It was taken from the New South Wales, Victorian, and South Australian Acts. It is a very usual clause in Acts providing for Courts of special jurisdiction.
No.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– During the course of the debate on the’ Budget, I took occasion to refer to a notification in the press of a further sale of wheat in the Old Country.

I desire to know from the Honorary Minister, who represents the Government on the Wheat Board, the latest developments in that respect, and what chance the wheat-growers have of getting the extra 6d. per bushel that means so much to them. Apparently, we are living in an age when the fashion seems to be to pay no interest on money advanced. Unfortunately, the people who .have turned over the soil, and delved and dug for the last two or three years have received no interest on their produce, nor have they got full value for the goods they have supplied. Instead of getting the London parity, they get 2s. 6d. a bushel, less than 50 per cent, of the face value of their goods. I wish to speak also of the impropriety of a State Minister jumping the position of mouthpiece of the Wheat Board. I still hold that the representative of the Commonwealth on the Wheat Board should have the exclusive right to make its announcements. No State Minister should usurp the position. Nevertheless, I hope that, as a result of the sale effected in the Old Country, according to the report given to the press by a State Minister, tlie Board will be enabled to take some action in the direction I have indicated as desirable more than once in this chamber during the last few days. The £2,000,000 which will be received will reduce the overdraft to about £9,000,000. If the Board would make the additional advance of 6d., the overdraft would then be increased to £13,000,000, but as the Honorary Minister has told us that the maximum margin is £15,000,000, the amount will be well within the limit if it remains at £13,000,000. In the Western State, on one occasion, a politician said, “ What is a million?” We have been getting on since then. We have been passing Bills for the borrowing of £50,000,000. That politician we now find was but a pessimist. He ought to have been saying, “What is fifty millions?” I am asking for but a fraction of £50,000,000 to be advanced to these farmers at this particular juncture, so that they may be able to turn over the ground, and get their seed under cover; that, in their turn, they may be able to employ labour, and when the land becomes productive, there will be more wheat for loading on our railways, and for cargo in our ships, all this giving con- siderable employment at the proper time to our people. If we are to move we should move now - I know the position of the men who are interested - and even at this eleventh hour, I ask the Minister to announce the latest developments in regard to the wheat transactions, and say whether the extra 6d. is to be forthcoming so that the people can do some good with it,

Senator RUSSELL:
VictoriaHonorary Minister · ALP

– I regret that the honorable senator has been deceived. I have already told him all I know about the matter. It is true that a report appeared in a newspaper, but I accept no responsibility for it ; in fact, I was as much astonished to see it as the honorable senator was. It. said that something like 250,000 tons of wheat had been sold within the last few days. Everything depends on the interpretation of the words “ last few days.” There was a good sale of wheat on the 8th May, and again on the 18th May we sold another 90,000 tons to the international commission. Those are the only sales which I know of. Whoever said that 250,000 tons had been sold within the few days must have meant last few months.

Senator Lynch:

– It must be misleading.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I am not here to say hard things, but I regret the publication of the report. I was at a meeting of the Board on Saturday morning from 10 o’clock until midday, and I heard nothing about sales. It is possible that, going back over two months, the sales may have extended to 200,000 tons. The position is a difficult one, much more difficult than most people realize. Freight has shown no signs of improving; on the contrary, the position is worse than it was in the early days. No one knowing, the facts would feel justified in recommending an increase of 6d. a bushel while there is an overdraft of £11,000,000, and uncertainty in regard to freight. I hope that the High Commissioner will be able to do something. If he can, we shall not hold back the announcement longer than is reasonable. If the outlook is bright we shall make an announcement in regard to the advance, but that announcement will come from the president of the Board, the Acting Prime Minister. I ask the honorable senator not to be pessimistic in regard to the forthcoming season. It is not too late. I have had reports from the different States, and I believe that the farmers are going to exceed the area they put in last year. I understand that in New South. Wales, where there was an enormous harvest, a good deal of new land is being put under crop. I had an opportunity of going through the Riverina district, and I saw the land being cropped there. In Victoria the position is the same. However, the fact that the farmers are making an effort to get the land under crop is no reason why we should not give them every assistance. I assure the honorable senator that the Board is sympathetic, and will make the advances at the earliest possible moment, consistent with sound business.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senateadjourned at 7.11 a.m. (Tuesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 May 1916, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1916/19160522_SENATE_6_79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 May 1916

QUESTION

CASUALTY LISTS

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

ENGAGEMENT OF MR. OLIVER

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator Story:

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

EXPORT OF COAL

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Ferricks:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

DELAY IN DELIVERY OF MAILS FOR SOLDIERS

Senator McKISSOCK:VICTORIA

Senator GARDINER:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

APPEALS FROM COURTS MARTIAL

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

PAPERS

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL

Senator TURLEY:Queensland

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

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

APPROPRIATION BILL 1915-16

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Blakey:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Ready:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Turley:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Turley:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Russell:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Ready:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Grant:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Ready:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Grant:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Ready:

Senator STEWART:

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA · ALP

Senator STEWART:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator STEWART:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator STEWART:

Senator TURLEY:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Pearce:

Senate
22 May 1916

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McKISSOCK:
VICTORIA

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

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

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

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland