Senate
21 October 1919
7th Parliament · 2nd Session
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- DEATH OP THE HON. ALFRED DEAKIN
- PAPERS
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL
- INCOME TAX BILL (No. 3)
- LAND TAX BILL (No. 2)
- ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL
The President (Senator the Hon. T.
Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 13563
QUESTION
NORTHERN TERRITORY
Disturbance at Port Darwin.
Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if he has any information to give the Senate with regard to the situation and condition of affairs at Port Darwin?
Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT
– I understand that the subject will be referred to later upon a motion for the adjournment of the Senate.
page 13563
QUESTION
DEPORTATIONS
Deportation of Australian-born Women and Children.
Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence how many Australianborn women and children were deported to Germany by the S.S. Bugia, that left Sydney last week ? How many Australian children were deported by the same ship? How many Australian women and children in all have been deported?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– None. Where women have desired to accompany their husbands we have allowed them to go, and have paid -all their expenses. No woman has been deported from Australia.
Senator BARNES:
– Arising out of the reply to my question, I ask the Minister whether it is not a. fact that the Australian wives and children of deportees have only the option of going with their husbands and fathers out of the country, or of remaining in. Australia whilst their husbands and fathers are sent out of the country?
Senator RUSSELL__ When the Committee dealing with these mattersreports that internees should be deported, their wives and children are asked whether they desire to accompany them. If they do, suitable arrangements, on humanitarian lines, are made for them. In no case where a woman has not expressed a desire to go with her husband has any force been used to deport her.
page 13564
QUESTION
WHEAT POOL
Guarantee as to Price of Wheat. - Commissions Paid.
Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether the Government are taking into consideration the justice, if I may use that term, of giving a fixed guarantee as to the price of wheat for the present season?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– The matter is now under the consideration of the Government, and I am hopeful that a favorable result may be announced a little later.
Senator GARDINER:
– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if, before the close of the session, he will supply the Senate with the names of all individuals and firms who have received commissions out of the Wheat Pool, and particulars of the amounts they have received
Senator RUSSELL:
– In answer to a question by Senator Ferricks on somewhat similar lines, I have promised to give, before the session closes, a complete return of all commissions paid.
page 13564
DEATH OP THE HON. ALFRED DEAKIN
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND
– I have to announce that I have received a letter from Miss Deakin, on behalf of her mother, expressing the thanks and appreciation of Mrs. Deakin and family for the resolution passed by the Senate, consequent on the death of the late Mr. Alfred Deakin.
page 13564
PAPERS
The following papers’ were pre sented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911.- Award, dated 23rd September, 1919, of Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and other documents, in connexion with plaint submitted by the Commonwealth Engine-drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australia.
Auditor-General- Special Report on amendment of the Audit Act and position and status of the Auditor-General.
Naval Defence - Report of Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Jellicoe of Scapa, G.C.B., O.M., G.C.V.O., on Naval Mission to the Commonwealth of Australia, May-August, 1919.
Economies Royal Commission. - PostmasterGeneral’s review of first progress report, so far as the Postal Department is concerned.
ADJOURNMENT (Formal).
Situation in Northern Territory.
The PRESIDENT:
– I have received from Senator Ferricks an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The administration of the Northern Territory.”
Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland
.- I move-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 9 o’clock to-morrow morning.
Four honorable senators having risen in their places in support of the motion,
Senator FERRICKS:
– I take advantage of the opportunity to submit this motion for the purpose of drawing attention to the position of affairs which exists in the Northern Territory, accounts of which have reached honorable senators and the general public through the press. It is some considerable time since I drew attention to the unsatisfactory administration being carried on for some time past in that part of Australia. Prior to that, Senator Newland also brought the matter before the Senate, and by questions and otherwise other honorable senators, as well as members of the House of Representatives, have repeatedly voiced complaints. But we have not been able to get any satisfaction. Those of us who supported the motion submitted by Senator Newland for the disallowance of the last Ordinance, constituting an Advisory Council under such unsatisfactory conditions, did our best to prevent the situation which has now been brought about. We told the Senate that to the best of our belief the Ordinance would lead to trouble, and it has led to trouble. The many exaggerated reports which have appeared in the newspapers regarding what .has taken place in the Northern Territory would lead unprejudiced persons to believe that a state of regular anarchy and revolt exists in Darwin. I do not believe that. I believe that while the citizens there have taken very drastic action- and I admit that their action was drastic - they are the same as they were at the time of their last demonstration, that is, a cool, calm, and collected, yet very determined populace. They have made a very drastic protest, and I want to assure Senator de Largie, who may scoff at the ase of that term, that it was not made without good grounds. We received word last week of what was going on in Darwin. The first wire I received was on Thursday, of last week, from Mr. Nelson, the secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union at Port Darwin. He wired me to this effect -
Things have come to head. I exposed Administration by reading private letter written by Carey to Gilruth. Mass meeting deputed deputation to insist on Carey, Judge, and Evans leaving first boat. Result deputation Carey on behalf self and other two informed us that lie would1 wire Minister that they would leave the Territory by next boat. This will avoid people going extremes. Advise Newland. - Neeson.
Prior to the receipt of that communication, I had asked the Minister if there was any censorship over news from the Northern Territory, and Senator1 Russell afterwards sent me a note to the effect that no censorship restrictions were operating. The receipt of Mr. Nelson’s wire confirmed the correctness of the Minister’s reply. Later I received a wire from Mr. Pearse, a reputable storekeeper in Port Darwin,, to the following effect : -
Details wired you Wednesday. Further details to-day. Hope censor dead.- Pearse.
It would appear from newspaper reports that the whole population of Darwin is still in turmoil, but I intend to furnish the Senate with some unsolicited information which I have received from two or three independent sources,, showing that this is not so. The first wire which I desire to quote is dated 19th. October, from Mr.. Pearse, and is as follows :. -
Large public meeting to-day demanding that Judge Bevan, Evans, Carey, leave Territory by steamer leaving, to-morrow morning. All are now on board with luggage. Mrs. Evans on board also. All quiet here now again. -
Pearse,
The next telegram was received on 20th October, to the following effect: -
Carey, Bevan, Evans, Mistress Evans sailed Sunday morning, Bambra, Fremantle. At request further deputation they agreed interests law and order quietly went aboard. No demonstration. Nelson despatched extra long urgent telegram you Thursday morning supplying full details. They received no acknowledgment tranquillity exists Darwin regards. -
Hardie Gibson.
I thought that would bring a smile from Senator de Largie,- so I almost dwelt on the word “tranquillity.”
Senator Russell:
– Have you any information as to whether Mrs. Evans volunteered to accompany her husband, or was deported?
Senator FERRICKS:
– I suppose she was a volunteer, like those ladies’ to whom the Minister referred in his reply to Senator Barnes’ question about the deportation of the wives of aliens. I suppose she accompanied her husband. I have also a communication from a professional gentleman, Mr. Barrett, a local barrister and solicitor, who is not associated with the industrial element in any way, and has not been connected with the reform movement which has been in progress for some considerable time in Darwin. In a wire to his father, who lives in St. Kilda, he stated : -
Understand sensational matter printed southern press. Everything peaceful, business usual, sensation engineered Carey Bevan hide their misdeeds. Take this wire Beckett Age. Acknowledge. - Norman.
That telegram was taken ‘to Mr. Beckett, of the Age office, a gentleman who previously was the- Protector of Aborigines in. the Northern Territory, but because he did not fall in with Dr. Gilruth’s little jokes, like many others, he had to leave the Territory. On receipt of that wire, Mr. Beckett consulted with Mr. Dan. Green, and a wire was despatched to Mr. Barrett, in Darwin, asking for further particulars, and the following reply was received: -
Referring to your wire the position is thus: - Nelson made disclosures at a sitting of the Advisory Council reading from a letter written by Carey to Gilruth, which was admitted subsequently by Carey.
Senator Lynch:
– How did he get hold of that letter ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– That is for those who lost it to ascertain. The responsibility is theirs, not mine. The telegram continues: -
The letter implicated Gilruth, Carey, Bevan, and Vesteys in various matters (see wire from Nelson to Ferricks for actual facts). Following these disclosures, a public meeting was convened representing every shade of opinion in the Territory, when it was unanimously decided that a deputation should wait on Evans, Bevan, and Carey and ask them to resign, otherwise there would likely be trouble. The meeting was orderly and peaceful. The deputation then waited upon Carey, Evans, and Bevan, when, on it being pointed out that it was the wish of the people of the Northern Territory that they all three should resign and leave the Territory, otherwise there would likely be trouble, they promised to do so. The matter was then treated as settled. From the beginning there was perfect peace, and order has prevailed just the same,, and will continue to do so if the three persons fulfil the promises given to the people of the Territory to resign and leave. This represents everything that has been said and done. Lurid reports, which we understand, are being published in the southern papers are being engineered. This question does not affect industrialists alone, but the Territory to a man think one way. Nothing has been done to inflame public opinion or disturb the peace, but the public is determined that the peace of the Territory depends on the departure of these three persons, who must leave in the face of the undeniable facts contained in the disclosed letter. The letter shows that Palmer, the manager of Mataranka, was dummying land for Gilruth, also that Bevan and Gilruth are the owners of the Daly River copper mine: also, that Gilruth has gone Home to meet Sir William Vestey, who has been advised of the situation, which clearly proves collusion between Carey, Gilruth, and Vestey; also that Carey is battling to increase the Judge’s salary in return for support; also that statements made by Carey re German gunboats were admitted by him. Evans passes fictitious documents against aboriginals for goods never received by them. The original documents are in Nelson’s possession. An official of the Aborigines Department, being desirous of purchasing a motor bicycle, debited the account to nine aboriginals at 30s. each, the account being passed by Evans. The statement was made in Evans’ presence, and he was asked to explain, but could not. The whole business on the Territory has been, and is, peaceful, and will continue to bc so if the three people observe their promises. The departure of the three will cause no inconvenience, as all three have been away previously when business proceeded as usual.
That 13 a very serious statement.
Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!
Senator FERRICKS:
– The statement is not mine, but that of a professional gentleman in Darwin. It is interesting to review some of the phases of the trouble referred to in his telegram. He points out that the industrialists or the workers in Vestey Brothers Limited are not the only people who are concerned in the protest, but that the Territory “to a man “ is up in arms .against officialdom in that portion of Australia. When ‘ I spoke of this matter previously, I remarked that when a community, almost without exception, took such drastic action,- there must be something radically wrong, but I made my protest without effect. I may say that when I was in Darwin some time ago these grave irregularities in the administration were common gossip, but I was careful not to make any direct charge on the two occasions on which I spoke in the Senate, with the exception that I accused Judge Bevan of being a partner in the Daly River Copper Mine, and said that Dr. Gilruth sent a boat to take away the ore from that mine, but allowed the settlers on the Daly River to “go hang,” with the result that’ their produce was washed down in a flood. I also made the statement that the late Administrator, all the time that he was iri the Territory, was working in the interests of Vestey Brothers, a firm which, in my opinion, is in the American Meat Trust. Apart from that statement, I did not make any particular charge, because I realized what a, difficult matter it would be to prove any statement. These people, working in collusion, and having charge of every official and other means of smothering their tracks, left no traces behind them. It is the disclosures which have been made in this letter that have confirmed all I heard there. Other grave and serious charges were made, and were eso astounding, indeed, that I hesitated about voicing them, realizing that proof would be so difficult to secure. Holding a responsible position, as I do, I felt that I should not be one to come into this chamber and make serious charges which I knew I would be unable to prove. However, I am now going to take a risk, in view of the fact that so much has been confirmed by the disclosures. I ask Senator Russell to ascertain from the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) some particulars in connexion with Mr. Carey. But before coming to that point, I desire to quote a telegram in detail from Mr. Nelson, secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which may be a little more definite than the references made by Mr. Barrett. The telegram is marked “ Urgent “ and states -
Climax came through Director ignoring industrial representatives on all matters affecting industrialists. We were considered joke on Council, and treated as such by Government nominees. Example: Evans stated he favoured motion, but as Government nominee would have to vote against. I brought matters to a head by exposing Carey, Judge, and Gilruth, and others by reading a letter by Carey to Gilruth.
That is what Mr. Carey wrote to Dr. Gilruth. who was then in Melbourne, while Carey was at Darwin, in the employ of Vestey Brothers. The wire proceeds -
Following are some extracts I read: - “I got a wire practically a duplicate of yours asking me to accept job. I said ‘ Yes ‘.” Sets out conditions will be engaged on. “ I wired Atlee Hunt and said I would be down on firm’s business. Hunt replied that a formal offer would be made when I was down south. The Judge was my severest critic. I deserved better of him. He was of the opinion that this job should of gone to man in Service.” 1 desire to draw the attention of the Senate to the word “of”. I am reading the wire exactly as it came to hand I cannot conceive that Mr. Carey would write in these terms, and I have coneluded that there must be errors in the transcription - perhaps a typist’s error, or the like. Mr. Carey would not have written that he was “ of the opinion that this job should ‘of ‘ gone” to a man in the Service. Since the word “ of “ appears in other places in the telegram, instead of “have”, I have especially emphasized it. The telegram proceeds -
I told Judge of your wishes re Daly mine. I am to ram for more money for him when I see Glynn.
I was under the impression that I possessed a fair acquaintance with the’ interpretation of Australian terms - sometimes referred to as slang, but I regard them more as Australianisms than as slang phrases. I confess, however, that the word “ ram “ - meaning “ support” - is quite new to me. Mr. Carey was to “ram” for more money for Judge Bevan when Carey saw Mr. Glynn. The telegram continues: -
Evans wants to go south with me as a protest against his duties being interfered with - that is Public Trustee and Chief Protector. Have seen Evans’ wires. Am acting upon them, throwing my full confidence on him. Expect him reciprocate. Trower mouths his claim.
Mr. Trower was recently appointed Director of Lands in the Territory, and, presumably, had been laying claim to appointment as Director. The telegram continues, “ Playford hostile.” Mr. Playford is mining warden in the Territory.
Playford hostile - the only harm I done him was to suppress a report that otherwise would of reached you. Have not attempted say how much I thank you. It was you who convinced me to take on agency. I have sold the Daly land to agency for £370 net. It would of been £400 on Palmer’s terms - £100 down and the balance at £5 per centum for five years. Palmer came in last week, and we fixed it £370 cash. Am sorry this means loss to you £30 on deal, but Trower has thrown up the Daly farms, and if Agency gets them they do not want Palmer’s land, so I had to move quickly. There is no need rush things. Cleaning up Copper mine. Hope you have good trip Home and you meet Sir William there or in Paris. Do not forget to use acquaintance with “ Willie “ for all it is worth.
Senator Guthrie:
– Who is “ Willie “?
Senator FERRICKS:
– That was rather an enigmato me. Sir William Vestey might be spoken of as “ Willie “. But when I saw the word I thought that the reference might possibly be to Mr. Hughes.
Senator Colonel Rowell:
– Or to the Kaiser.
Senator FERRICKS:
– Anyhow, Mr. Carey advised Dr. Gilruth to use his influence with “ Willie “ for all it was worth.
Senator Earle:
– The letter which the telegram quotes does not appear to have come from the pen of an educated man.
Senator FERRICKS:
– It was that consideration which caused me to have some hesitation about it myself. I will continue with the telegram - “ Sir William has been put wise. He might want you to be in Melbourne and get Works taken over by Government.”
Then describes cost of various meat works. “If the Germans had bombarded Sydney and smashed Homebush, there might nave been something to thank the enemy for.” Eight pages of the letter is full of stuff which exposes administration. Impossible for present system to go on. People will have some say in the government of the Territory. They won’t submit another day to this undemocratic and corrupt methods. Future peace of Territory will be conditioned by Parliament’s reply. Can prove corruption in other Departments, particularly Abo. Department.
The reference to the German warships bombarding Homebush has its significance in that the Homebush Meat Works are a rival of Vestey Brothers’ interests and the American Meat Trust. Some reference to that particular point has been made, I understand, by Mr. Carey to the Minister (Mr. Glynn). Mr. Glynn wired for a copy of the letter, and Mr. Carey replied that it was not possible to telegraph its contents without sending the context, but that he would forward the letter by mail. That mail, I may say, will not reach Melbourne] until next week, when Parliament will have concluded its sittings. In regard to several aborigines being debited to the extent of 30s. on the sale of a bicycle, that was referred to by Mr. Carey, who states that it was a reference to the sale of a bicycle to the aborigines. What I want to know now is, what are the Government going to do about it?
Senator Earle:
– Does Mr. Carey acknowledge having written the letter of which those are extracts?
Senator FERRICKS:
– I think I read from one of the wires that he had not denied it. Mr. Carey practically admits to the Minister (Mr. Glynn) that he wrote the letter, and that the letter was stolen; I am not able to say when.
Senator Earle:
– The letter does not sound like what might have been expected from an educated man.
Senator FERRICKS:
-There are really no grammatical errors except the use of the word “of” for “have” and “done” for “did”; and, as I have pointed out, those may be due to mistranscription or the like.
Senator Earle:
– There is the employment of slang words, too.
Senator FERRICKS:
– At any rate, that is the letter, and it contains some serious statements. Both these wires have been sent by responsible ,people. Dr. Gilruth has gone from Australia upon an official visit to England; and the curious fact is that while he is away his salary as Administrator of the Territory, at £1,750 per annum, continues to be paid to him.
Senator de Largie:
– He has leave of absence.
Senator Guthrie:
– Just as Senator O ‘Loghlin did when he went away on a transport.
Senator FERRICKS:
– When Senator O’Loghlin left Australia he did not go abroad in the interests of the American Meat Trust, as Dr. Gilruth did.
Senator Guthrie:
– No; Senator O’Loghlin went to see Killarney.
Senator FERRICKS:
– In addition, the Commonwealth Government are pay ing Dr. Gilruth’s expenses while he is absent. The extracts from a letter which I have read, set out” that Dr. Gilruth has gone home to interview Sir William Vestey. I believe that Dr. Gilruth is now, and was during the whole period of his occupancy of the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory, an agent of the American Meat Trust.
Senator Guthrie:
– That statement the honorable senator cannot prove.
Senator FERRICKS:
- Dr. Gilruth’s actions prove it. Every official action of his in; the Northern Territory proves that he was there working in the interests of the American Meat Trust. I hope that when he returns to Australia, whatever Government may be in power will ignore any recommendation that he may make regarding the advisableness of purchasing Vestey Brothers’ Meat Works at Darwin. In regard to Mr. Carey, we endeavoured to prevent his; appointment as Director of the Territory. On the very day that his appointment was announced in an afternoon newspaper, I told Senator Newland that before the appointment was made public, I intended; upon a Supply Bill, to say a few words by way of protest against the action of the Government in making that appointment. But only a little later I had. to cross the chamber and inform the honorable senator that I was too late, as the announcement ofl Mr. Carey’s appointment appeared in that afternoon’s Herald Whilst I was in Darwin I was told, not upon mere gossip, that when Mr. Carey was acting as Government Secretary there he prepared the taxation returns of Vestey Brothers Limited, that those returns went before him as Deputy Tax Commissioner for the Territory, that they were passed by him and submitted to Melbourne, and that the payments were made under them. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to obtain for me a denial of that charge.
Senator Reid:
– How long had he been absent from Vestey Brothers then?
Senator FERRICKS:
– He had not been with Vestey Brothers then. That is the common charge which was being made in Darwin at the time of my visit. I was also informed that the accounts of the Aborigines Department were in such a complicated state, and in such a bookkeeping mess that when the Government Auditor went up from the Melbourne office to audit the accounts of the Territory, he declined to touch them. He said he would not go into them because he could not hope to arrive at any tangible result in regard to them.. I sincerely trust that Judge Bevan will be taken away from the Territory for good by the Government now that the residents there, not without just cause, have so emphatically protested against his continuance in his judicial office. What induces’ me to believe that there is . good foundation for the charges which have been made in the wires which have been sent to me is the difference between the demeanour of Judge Bevan now and his behaviour upon the occasion of the public demonstration against Dr. Gilruth. when that demonstration was in progress, the Judge made himself quite prominent by walking up and down before the crowd, brandishing a revolver. He was as defiant as possible. But now that a charge of complicity has been made against him, he has become very docile, and his docility is to me suspicious. It is* contended that there are other officers implicated up there. In this connexion I am reminded very forcibly of a fantastic idea to which expression was given by Mr. King O’ Malley during his tenure of office as a Minister of tha Crown. He suggested that a. river in New Guinea should be taken under .the bed of the ocean into the Northern Territory, for irrigation purposes. Having become acquainted with the official rottenness which has prevailed in the Northern Territory during the past four or five years, I am tempted to wonder whether his idea was such a mad one after all. Indeed, if effect could be given to it, and the Augean stable could thus be cleansed, the expendituture involved would be profitable.
Senator Reid:
– Can the honorable senator tell us why the administration of the Territory is so rotten as it appears to be ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– It is because the officials have been so corrupt. There was a gang of corrupt officials there. Of course, only a Royal Commission can prove the truth or otherwise of such a’ grave accusation, and we have repeatedly pressed for the appointment of such a body to inquire into the administration of the Northern Territory. It will be recollected that Senator Newland submitted a motion with that object in view, and at the time it was mooted that Mr. Justice Higgins would be appointed as Commissioner. Had that course been followed, I believe that all the trouble which has since arisen would have been, avoided.
Senator Guthrie:
– Yet. the honorable senator has himself admitted that he made a visit to Darwin, but could not get at the bottom of things. How then could Mr. Justice Higgins do so?
Senator FERRICKS:
– I do not place myself on a plane with Mr. . Justice Higgins ‘ acting in the capacity of a Royal Commissioner. When I visited the Territory I was merely a member of Parliament, who possessed no authority to compel people to answer questions. I confess I feared that I would be unable to get to the bottom of things, because the truth was so camouflaged that hardly a trace of misdoing was visible.
Senator Bakhap:
– What does the honorable senator mean by corruption ? Financial corruption?
Senator FERRICKS:
– I mean corruption in the interests of the American Meat Trust.
Senator Bakhap:
– Financial corruption ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– Honorable senators may draw their own conclusions. What I mean is that the interests of the Territory were subordinated to the interests of Vestey Bros. Ltd. There are other officers who have acted much in the same way. ‘ This has. cost the Commonwealth quite a lot of money. The Government had to keep two gun boats there to protect Dr. Gilruth for about three months. The first gunboat, the Una, had to be taken away after she had been there for about five weeks, lest there should be a. mutiny amongst the crew, who were not allowed on shore at Darwin for fear they might learn the truth from the residents.
The PRESIDENT:
– Order ! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT
– I regret that within the brief period which has elapsed since I learned of the intention of Senator Ferricks to move the adjournment of the Senate, I have been unable to make complete inquiries in regard to his statements. Those statements are undoubtedly, of a very serious character. The Government clearly recognise that the situation in the Territory to-day is a very grave one. But I must appeal to honorable senators to withhold their final judgment in regard to thi? matter, because even Senator Ferricks must admit that the statements contained in the telegram from which he has quoted are quite ex parte. I believe that” some of them are of such a definite character as to warrant the fullest investigation into their truth or otherwise. I recognise that all honorable senators, whatever may be our individual differences of opinion, desire to see Australia develop under peaceful and harmonious conditions. I had previously heard of. the letter from which Senator Ferricks has quoted, but I had never had any indication of the nature of its contents. Whilst I do not question its accuracy, because I am not in a position to do so, there is, nevertheless, a certain amount of mystery connected with it, inasmuch as it has been both lost and found. Consequently, I ask honorable senators to suspend judgment until its authenticity has been established. As a member of the Government, I am prepared to take my share of the responsibility in connexion with recent appointments. I had no idea that such substantial charges were under consideration, or Had even been mooted in regard to the individuals concerned. Senator Ferricks referred, in the correspondence he read, to certain charges, but whether they are serious or not depends on the interpretation. In regard to the preparation of the income tax returns for Vestey Brothers, we can well understand that, in all probability, the accountant of Vestey Brothers came from the Old Country, and was not conversant with our taxation methods, which are very complicated. It is quite possible that had a representative of Vestey Brothers walked into the Central Office of our Taxation Department, the Commissioner of Taxation would have supplied an officer to assist him. I “have calle’d. at the Taxation Office myself and asked for information, in order to have certain matters straightened out. Whatever was done might merely have been a friendly action on the part of Mr. Carey.. We can quite understand that persons cannot live in a small community like the Northern Territory without being brought into closer relations with each other than those in Melbourne. .There are other details, such as those in regard to the purchase of a bicycle/ which ought to be ascertainable from our books, and I feel sure the Government will do everything in their power to clear the matters up. I shall take an early opportunity of conferring with the Minister in charge of the
Department, and should any additional information be available, I shall be pleased to place it before the Senate. I feel sure that there is a common desire to see that part of our country developed in the best interests of Australia. In the meantime, however, I must ask every one to be fair until the facts have been ascertained. Senator Ferricks has practically admitted that his was an ex parte statement, and, therefore, I ask the Senate not to come to any final judgment now. The Government will do all they can to bring about harmony in the Territory.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I do not wish this motion to pass without saying a few words. I think the Government have made themselves open to censure by not supplying information as to what has been happening. This unsatisfactory state of affairs has been going on for some time, and I think- it is admitted that the position in Port Darwin is a serious one. I am hoping that in the next Parliament - if I am fortunate enough to be here and you are also here, Mr. President - there will be a new method of enforcing the Standing Orders, whereby if an honorable senator does not perform his duty he will be deported. The Government were first responsible for deporting people who have not committed a crime. I am sure it will be admitted that every citizen is entitled to a trial before he is compelled to leave this country. If the Government deport by brute force, and without trial, how can they expect other people, suffering under real grievances, not to act in a similar way? The method that has been adopted is an easy one. The people of the ‘ Northern Territory have ignored the Government and deported the people who were objectionable. All this can be traced to the ineptitude of the present Government and their disregard for law and order. It is to Senator . Newland’s credit that he and others in this Chamber endeavoured to block the Ordinance, which was only a farce. How it secured the approval of both Houses I am at a loss to understand. Approval was obtained, and the result is that the people will not put up with any such rubbish. When we realize that the people of the Northern Territory are practically unanimous there is no reason to be shocked at their opposition to authority. Let us imagine the people at Port Darwin attempting to govern the people of Victoria, and to deal with the grievances of Melbourne citizens. Let us imagine corruption rife here - I am not saying that it is rife there - and the people of the Territory endeavouring to deal with real grievances here. Let us picture Port Darwin appointing a corrupt Minister to administer affairs in Melbourne. Let us picture the appointment of an Advisory Council-
Senator Bakhap:
– And yet the honorable senator is in favour of Unification.
Senator GARDINER:
– I am at a loss to see any connexion between this question and that of Unification. Under a system of Unification-.the Commonwealth would be divided into a number of small, self-governing provinces for the collective good of the community. The people of the Northern Territory have asked, for an opportunity of regulating the evils that exist there, and they are strongly resenting the Ordinance passed by this Parliament. I hold no brief for persons who disregard law and order and take control into, their own hands. That cannot be defended. If it is allowed in one place, it will soon spread to other centres. If it is effective in one part of the Commonwealth, its effectiveness will soon be tried in others. The Government must take the responsibility for the appointment of the officers concerned. If we are to form an opinion of what is happening at Port Darwin from what appears in the press - I do not like to think that that information is correct - the Government are shirking their responsibilities in allowing the officers to get out of the way. “What right have officers holding responsible positions to do that?
Senator Ferricks:
– It is like an admission of guilt.
Senator Guthrie:
– They ought to have held on to their positions.
Senator GARDINER:
– I do not know how to interpret their attitude, and I do not feel justified in finding them guilty on press reports. That is why I condemn the Government. Here is a province without representation in this Parliament, in which serious happenings are taking place, and the facts are not placed before the country through Parliament. Everything that has transpired in the Northern Territory should have been submitted to honorable senators, and we would then have known what was going on. The system of accepting information from newspapers is likely to lead, to a serious position in this country, if we have not already reached such a position. When honorable senators read in the press of officials and Ministers conducting business in secret, and deliberately refusing to give information to Parliament, we are safe in assuming that the conditions are very unsatisfactory. It is all leading in one way, and what is happening in Port Darwin will happen in other parts.
Senator Guthrie:
– No doubt the Minister advised those men to get out.
Senator Bakhap:
– That is not a fair inference.
Senator GARDINER:
– I think the Minister’s instructions were in the other direction.
Senator Guthrie:
– They acted on the advice of the Minister. .
Senator GARDINER:
– Knowing Mr. Glynn as I do, I cannot imagine him expressing himself in a telegram at all. It is more than probable that his instructions were that these men were in’ charge, and were responsible for the maintenance of order in that part of Australia.
Senator Russell:
– That is correct. That is what took place.
Senator GARDINER:
– I think it is reasonable to assume that, but I quite understand that Mr. Glynn might not be able to make himself very clear in a telegram.
Senator Bakhap:
– What force did they have to maintain order with?
Senator Guthrie:
– They should- have stopped and been shot. That is what I would have done if I had been there.
Senator GARDINER:
– The cause that rests upon force cannot exist for long im a Democracy. The only appeal which can be made in a case of this kind is an appeal to reason. That is the way out. We can trust the wildest elements in our community - if there are any wild elements in it. My fault with Australians is that they are too submissive to power, and they submit too long to corrupt influences and practices. In Australia the most difficult problem can be solved by a reasonable man if he will -meet others with reason.
Senator Guthrie:
– Where was the reason when men broke Angliss’ windows? »
Senator GARDINER:
– There/ may be momentary outbursts of passion .which cannot well be explained, but with our wide knowledge of Australiana we can agree that they axe a law-loving and law-abiding people. I say that the Darwin business and difficulties of that kind are to be met by common sense and reason. I could wish that the Government had given ug full official information of what was occurring at Port Darwin. Having no other information, I have been compelled “to fall back upon the reports appearing in the daily press, and I say that if they are to be believed, what has happened in Port Darwin is the most contemptible occurrence that, to my knowledge, has ever been recorded in Australia of Australian officialdom. It is, in my view, a most contemptible thing that men charged with the serious responsibility of maintaining order, should lay their authority aside merely because a public meeting asked them to do so. That is something which is not to be tolerated for a moment. I can only account for it by assuming that probably Senator Ferricks is right, and that these men had a guilty conscience, and. knowing the facts, knew that their action could not be defended by the Government. They probably knew that if the matter came into the Court there would be an exposure of officialdom, and it would be seen that the Beef Trust and the big companies were working their own will to the injury of the community. That assumption might be some justification for these men abandoning their posts as quietly as they could.
Senator Guthrie:
– Does the honorable senator mean to make. a charge against these civil servants as being corrupt?
Senator GARDINER:
– I am not making any charge. I am referring to statements that have been made here, and if Senator Guthrie can read into them anything but a. charge of the grossest corruption, I cannot do so. The charge, in my view, is so grave and so serious that there must be a full inquiry into it. Because T comment upon what has been said, it is of no use for Senator Guthrie to try and make out that I am making charges. I am asking for information upon which I can’ base an opinion. All the information I have so far comes to me from what I regard as a tainted source, namely, newspapers, that very rarely tell the truth.
Senator Guthrie:
– The honorable senator refers to the Worker.
Senator GARDINER:
– All I ask is that the Worker may not publish the truth in its’ columns concerning Senator Guthrie, or his character as a unionist will be gone for all time. We know from personal experience of the newspapers that, no matter which side they may happen’ to take, they are always most biased and one-sided to suit the case they try to make out for themselves. Judging by the newspaper reports, all three of the officials at Port’ Darwin appear in a most contemptible light. Not one appears to have conducted himself in this grave emergency - and I realize that it is a grave emergency - as he should have done.
I have not been to Port Darwin, but I know one man there by repute. He is a member of the Australian Workers Union, and that in itself is almost a certificate of character. He is a high official of that organization, and that gives him a standing and responsibility in’ the community. With’ the facts before me, I quite fail to understand the conduct of the men in whoso hands authority was placed by the Government. All that I can say is that their morale must have been affected by the conduct of the Government themselves. The Government have, in silence and in secrecy, without a trial, or by a secret trial - which to me is the same thing - deported the husbands and fathers of Australian women and children, leaving the wives and children without support, or with the dread alternative of removing themselves from their own country. With such a Government, we can expect the things that have happened at Port Darwin.
Senator Russell:
– The honorable senator is not correct in saying that the wives and children of deportees are left without support. ‘ /
Senator GARDINER:
– If honorable senators will look at the business papers of the Senate they will find that for months I have been asking questions on this subject, to know what support is given to them.
Senator Russell:
– We keep the women and children until their husbands have been settled for some time in their own countries.
Senator GARDINER:
– The honorable senator may make any excuse he likes for deporting people without trial. Their officials are getting a taste of that kind of thing to-day. However unpleasant it may be, we hope that the Government will insist that law and order shall be maintained, not only in the Northern Territory, but throughout Australia. We hope that the Government will themselves set an example in the matter, by obeying the law in respect of the humblest citizens in the community, and not breaking it as they have often done. They have broken the law during the last six months with impunity, and have been supported in so doing by the servile majority behind them.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
.- I sincerely hope that the, honorable members of this Parliament and the people will not in any way whatever associate the deportation from Australia of undesirable aliens or undesirable persons who are not aliens with the deportation of these three officials from the Northern Territory.
Senator Gardiner:
– How can we call men undesirable unless we give them ‘ a trial?
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– The machinery has been provided in this country for the deportation of undesirables. We deal with, them as does the Government of every other country, whether they are the fathers of Australian children or not. Great Britain, America, and every other country has deported undesirable persons because they have been a menace to the communities in which they lived. I hope, therefore, that we shall not associate in any way the deportation of officials from the Northern Territory with the deportation of undesirable citizens from Australia in the interests of the community.
Dealing with the deportation of the three officials from Port Darwin, I want in the first place, to say that having some knowledge of Mr. Carey and Mr. Evans - I am not acquainted with Judge Bevan to any extent- it seems to me that there must have been something radically wrong when those gentlemen relinquished their positions at the dictation of a few men at Port Darwin. They should have had no fear of the community and should grant no favours, and it is unthinkable to me that men carrying out the duties of these officials in an honest and straightforward manner should have relinquished them at the dictation of any one in Fort Darwin.
Senator Guthrie:
– They were warned that if they did not go freely force would be used.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– It would have been far better if these men had waited until force was used. That was clearly their duty. I make the statement frankly that, had I been in their position, no power on earth would have sent me out of Port Darwin except by the use of force. These men were intrusted by the Government of their country with a very responsible duty, and they have grossly betrayed the Government and the country and showed themselves to be arrant cowards, when strong men were wanted and were necessary.
I can go back several years to the time when I visited Port Darwin. I was met there by men occupying all kinds of positions in the community. The present Mayor of Darwin, Mr. Toupein, was at that time conducting a large business there. From my knowledge of him I would say that he is as inoffensive a man as ‘any member of this Chamber.
Senator Ferricks:
– And much more inoffensive than some of us.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– That is quite likely. He seemed to me to be an inoffensive, respectable, decent fellow. I know Mr. Nelson, who has the name of being a militant, though he may not be any the worse for that. I should think that ordinarily he is quite a law-abiding citizen. ‘
Senator Ferricks:
– And Pearse?
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– Yes; Mr. Pearse, and all the rest of them with whom I came into contact in Port Darwin, left me with a very satisfactory impression of them. I saw nothing to indicate that they were inclined to break the law in any shape or form. I saw men in every position of life, from the humblest workman to the leading business men in Port Darwin, but one and all came to me with complaints against the Administration. Everybody there appeared to be dissatisfied with Dr. Gilruth and his administration. Many things were told me which I noted at the time in the book in which I kept a record of the events of my visit to the Northern Territory, but I have never mentioned them because I could not prove whether they were correct or not. Later Dr. Gilruth was compelled by the same men who have now compelled three other officials to do the same, to leave the Northern Territory.
Senator Fairbairn:
– He was not compelled to leave. He left at the request of the Government.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– Dr. Gilruth was actually assaulted and was threatened with further personal violence, and on that account he was recalled. The same influences that were at work when Dr. Gilruth was in charge have been at work during the time the three officials who have been referred to have taken part in the administration of the Northern Territory. Had the Government done what they ought to have done, they would have immediately instituted an inquiry. I am one who believes in the much-despised Parliamentary Commission to deal with questions of this kind. The administration of the Northern’ Territory is a matter which pro)perly comes before the Parliament of this country, and members of this Parliament who are expected to legislate upon it should be appointed to conduct an inquiry into the administration of the Northern Territory rather than Mr. Justice Higgins or any other Judge, who could not elicit the information which a Parliamentary Commission would obtain from the people there. As the result of such an inquiry recommendations could have been made for the future administration of the Territory which would have prevented the spectacle we are witnessing to-day.
We have not had the information we should have had. I have read in the Port Darwin newspaper the reports of what has transpired, and have seen the reports which have appeared in other newspapers, some of which have been grossly exaggerated.
Senator Guthrie:
– They are all from the same source.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– Journalists have a knack of getting a good deal of “copy” out of a very small amount of information. The Government should have taken the precaution to issue a report so that the people might know exactly what was taking place at Port Darwin. Had they done so there would not have been the outbursts which have taken place from time to time.
Senator Russell:
– - The trouble is that only junior officials are left in the Territory, so that our source of information is cut off.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– There is a police inspector there, also Customs and railway officers - all responsible officials - and the telegraph office is open to the Government. Even if a message long enough to fill a column of the Age and the Argus were required, the people of Australia should be supplied with the whole of the details of this unfortunate happening in Darwin. Knowing something of the circumstances, and having been in communication with some of the residents since my visit to the Territory, I had a fairly good idea of what was going on, and of -the opinions of the people concerning the proposed appointments. For that reason, when the Ordinance for the constitution of the Advisory Council, was before the Senate, I moved that it be disallowed, because I believed that no matter how perfect Mr. Carey might be, his association with Dr. Gilruth was a barrier to his appointment. The fact that under Dr. Gilruth’s administration Mr. Carey had to carry out instructions issued by the Administrator, or perform duties which were afterwards indorsed by Dr. Gilruth, is immaterial. The stigma of his association with Dr. Gilruth rested upon him, because he was the late Administrator’s chief lieutenant. Honorable senators must remember also that the people of Darwin are an isolated community, concerned more directly with their own affairs and difficulties than with the affairs of the outside world. Being a small and isolated community, their thoughts naturally turn inwards. They have not that broad outlook which, comes from a larger association with fellow men. They meet and talk over their affairs daily and nightly, and. perhaps, they magnify their grievances. Moreover, we must bear in mind that the climate is very trying. The people there live in a continuous swelter of perspiration, and so, perhaps, their tempers are not so equable as might be expected under other circumstances. I say this in extenuation or as an excuse, if excuse can be made, for the happenings of the past few days. But behind all this turmoil is the responsibility of the Government for the maladministration of the Territory. Every Ministry since the Commonwealth took over the Territory must accept some of the blame, as one Government has followed in the footsteps of another, with the result that the Administration has been signalized by a lavish expenditure of money in certain directions and extraordinary parsimony in other directions. The people of Darwin- have not even a water supply, although within a short distance of the town there is, at times, enough water running to waste to supply almost the whole of the people of Australia. There are practically no sanitary arrangements for the town, and none of the ordinary conveniences of civilization, so that the Government cannot altogether escape responsibility.
Senator Lynch:
– Are they any worse off than people in other towns double their size?
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– That may be true, but it is possible for a person to get away quite easily from other towns, whereas if any one goes to Darwin it takes a long time and a lot of money to get out again. A’ water supply, I think is essential, and it would also be revenue-producing, as in other parts of Australia. This lack of conveniences is one reason for the public dissatisfaction with the Administration. If the Government were to construct a railway and give the people of Darwin an opportunity of free intercourse with the people of other parts of Australia, I have no doubt that in a short time all these annoyances would disappear. Senator Ferricks, I think, has acted quite properly in bringing this matter under our notice, because the situation is so serious that it should be ventilated, and in a few days’ time there will be no further opportunity of discussing it until the new Parliament is constituted. We cannot escape our responsibilities for the position in the Northern Territory to-day, because a large number of people living in a vast area have no representation in this or any other Parliament. I feel sure that if honorable senators were transported to Darwin, and, while being expected to bear their share of taxation and the responsibilities of citizenship, were denied representation in Parliament, they would feel just as dissatisfied as are the people of Darwin to-day.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– I am not sorry this matter has been brought up, if only for the purpose of fixing the blame and responsibility for the present state of, affairs in the Territory. It is time we got off the old beaten track of thinking that, no matter what the crowd or the multitude may say, they are always right.
Senator Gardiner:
– Hear, hear!
Senator LYNCH:
– The demagogues say that the people are always right, and those whom they select to rule are always wrong. I heard Senator Gardiner say, “Hear, hear!” just now. I do not know if he has in mind the action of the people in the Territory when the LabourGovernment were in power, for, no doubt, he will remember that they rose in revolt then, as they have to-day.
SenatorGuthrie. - And the Labour Government appointed Dr. Gilruth, too.
Senator LYNCH:
– Dr. Gilruth and all the officials were appointed by the Labour Government. I stood by the Government that appointed them. The time has gone by for us to accept without question the “ say-so “ of certain people that officials are always wrong and are always corrupt. It is about time we asked ourselves, Who are the judges in this matter? and How have they behaved in the past? I again remind honorable senators that, when the Labour Government were in power, these people went on strike, and walked up and down the front of the Government Offices in Darwin, and defied therule of that Government; and so I say the time has come for some plain speaking on this matter, as well as on many other subjects.
We hear some talk of the opinions expressed by the mayor of Darwin. I may add that we need not stretch our imagination to any elastic limits to know that a man in his position - land, indeed, a man in some southern situations as well - lives in the atmosphere of a reign of terror unless he spontaneously expresses opinions which he thinks will best serve him at his business. We have had a sample of that in Western Australia. In the port of Fremantle, last year, a man had no intention of taking certain action, but he knew that he had to, otherwise he would have lost his business. So much then for the spontaneous opinion of the mayor of Darwin. The people there have been wanting too much, and have been coddled too much. More money by a hundredfold has been spent by the Federal Government upon the Territory than upon people east or west of them. Whatever these people in Darwin say, the business and professional men of that town must say ditto to, or out they go, sent away, perhaps, hy the next boat. This same small attenuated multitude of Darwin want firm handling, just as do some other people who do not know the A, B, C, or the essence of Democracy.
They talk of taxation without representation. I suppose that not more than 1,500, or, at the outside, 2,000, people in the whole of the Territory would be entitled to the vote; and I remind them that the country which rose in revolt and adopted the maxim “No taxation without representation” is not giving equal representation to all its people to-day. There are four classes of territories in the United States of America, and I believe only one class gets representation in the Congress, and that by means of delegation. The Phillipine Islands, with their thousands of people, get no such representation’ to-day. Yet these people in the Territory say they must have representation in the Federal Parliament. Tt naturally follows that, if we give representation to 1,500 or 2,000 people, and give only the same amount of representation to 30,000 people elsewhere, we shall be disfranchising the 30,000 people to the extent that they exceed the handful in the Territory. The people of Darwin are no worse off than many other people in the Commonwealth. Indeed, they are very much better off than they were at any previous time in their history, because, ever since the Territory was taken over by the Commonwealth, money has been spent there to the extent of about £140 per head, as compared with n bout £3 per head in places east or w est of Darwin.
Senator Ferricks:
– The trouble is that that money is being wasted.
Senator LYNCH:
– Then the blame must rest upon the Government, and the responsible officials ought to be sacked.
Senator Ferricks:
– They should have been sacked long ago.
Senator LYNCH:
– These disturbers of the peace in the Territory think that they are the people of this country. They want to be taught that they are not, ‘and that this Government and this Parliament are treating them as sympathetically as can be expected, consistent with their numbers and their position in the Commonwealth. They are not suffering greater hardship than many people else where in Australia. I could take honorable senators to any part of Western Australia, to inland towns of from 5,000 to 7,000 inhabitants, which have no water supply, no sea coast, and none of the many advantages to be had in Darwin. The residents of these inland towns have to brush the dust off themselves. There are the same type of people in Western Australia and Queensland, and all of them have to pay their share of the upkeep of the Territory in which this handful of citizens have been having very fine treatment. The time has now come to tell these people that they must be submissive to the authority of this country, which has its foundation upon majority rule. We have sent officials there, and if they are corrupt they should be sacked. If the people can present evidence that the officials have abused their positions there is a remedy. They should ask for a commission of inquiry, but have no right to say, “ We will take these men by the scruff of the neck and fling them out. It does not matter what you 5,000,000 people of the rest, of Australia think, what we 5,000 say shall be done will be done.” The time has come for all those who respect constituted authority and uphold Democracy to draw the line sharp and deep and clear. When a Labour Government ruled Australia these same people of the Territory were equally in revolt. It is time they were told that if the same spirit were displayed throughout the Commonwealth generally there would be chaos instead of government, and an end of all things. We can never have freedom without force; and if these people think they are going to constitute themselves as the tail that wags the dog, then, at least I, am up against them every time, let it cost what it will. These people need to be saved from their own faults. Sometimes it takes stern action to save the individual as well as the community from its’ faults. I am prepared to support the people of Darwin if they ask for a Royal Commission, but I will not support their present actions on the strength of statements contained in a stolen letter. They have their duties and responsibilities, and are not to be permitted to ride over that constituted authority, which is the product of the freedom that we enjoy, and has come to us by the ceaseless efforts of the generations that preceded us.
We know that in the Territory there are at times conditions which may be described as exacting and enervating, and which ‘are calculated rather to unhinge men for the time being. But I have lived in the Gulf territory of Northern Queensland, and I know that the very best type of Australian citizen is to be found there. The same applies also to the settlers of Northwestern Australia. It is time these folk at Darwin were told they must make common cause with their fellow Australians to the right and the left of them and throughout the Commonwealth, and prove to the world that the country can be worked profitably. They must foot the bill with the rest of us in payment for that which has been lavished upon them in the past. They are certainly at fault to date, and I will not support them, except in regard to any request which may be made for a commission of inquiry.
Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia
– I have every sympathy with the residents of the Territory, and I want to give Port Darwin the credit for our White Australia policy. Twenty-five years ago, when we were building the railway from Darwin to Pine Creek, the storekeepers of Darwin found that Chinamen were- coming in and taking away their business. They sent a delegate to the capital cities of the south, and this gentleman afterwards occupied an early place in the House of Representatives. The outcome of his mission was the imposition of the £100 poll tax. We are indebted to Port Darwin for that! Has Darwin changed during the past twentyfive years? I think it has. I do not know Mr. Carey, and I have but a very slight acquaintance with Judge Bevan; but I have had some business transactions with Mr. Evans. Had those men been backed up by the Government they never would have left their posts. The blame, therefore, rests upon the shoulders of the Government. What have we to investigate if we appoint a- Royal Commission ? I have not heard a word said in the Senate against the Batchelor policy for the Territory. It was amended, but by whom ? By the very men who were returned under the banner of the old Labour party. They threw out the Batchelor policy, but I stand behind it; and I say that we should have a man with a strong hand to govern the Territory. We should have a strong man in the Home and Territories Department, and there would be no more trouble of this nature. I admit that there has been a big influx into the Territory, not of Britishers, but of foreigners, and they, up to date, are ruling the roost.
Senator Ferricks:
– That is not true.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Half of them are Turks, and Greeks, and Italians.
Senator Ferricks:
– It is not true.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– It is true, and it is for you to prove that it is not. Half of them are of the Latin race.
Senator Ferricks:
– That is not true.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– It is a fact.
Senator Ferricks:
– Well, your Government let them in here during the course of the war, while you were advocating conscription.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The Government did not, but you kicked up a row about twenty Maltese.
Senator Lynch:
– Who had as much right to come here as any one else.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The whole trouble is that the Territory has not had a firm hand in control. I do not blame the officials for their actions, but I do blame them for clearing out. Had I been an official at Darwin, I would have been shot before leaving my post. I blame Judge Bevan, and Mr. Carey, and Mr. Evans for permitting themselves to be forced out when they were there to represent the Government; and I blame the Government for not having strengthened them by doing everything in their power to keep those representatives there.
Senator Lynch has mentioned that there are 1,500 to 2,000 adults in the Territory entitled to vote. What about the seamen? There are 10,000 of them who, unless they happen to be within the boundaries of Australia at election time, have no vote.
Senator Russell:
– They may vote by post.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– How can they vote when they are at Demerara, or New York, or some such place on the other side of the world ?
Senator Barnes:
– That is nothing! You deprived 80,000 Australians of a vote in the last conscription fight.
Senator Ferricks:
– And you advertised for votes in German.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– I did nothing of the sort, and I have contradicted that more than once. The advertisement to which the honorable senator refers was inserted by the man who caused the trouble in the Territory. He inserted it without me being consulted. That is your friend.
Senator Ferricks:
– My friend? Who is that?
Senator GUTHRIE:
– The Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn).
Senator Ferricks:
– That is the first time I have heard he is my friend.
Senator Russell:
– The honorable senator means that he talks the same language.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Yes, you have the same brogue.
Senator Ferricks:
– You are always looking through those narrow sectarian eyes of yours.
Senator O’Keefe:
– Mr. Glynn is your Minister. You are supporting him and his Government.
Senator GUTHRIE:
– Yes, and he nearly killed me at the last election. 1 have to look on him in that light. It has been thrown up ‘often enough in my face that an advertisement on my behalf was put in the papers in German. I was not consulted; I did not authorize it. I did. nob know anything about it until you people hunted it up and brought it to light in this Parliament.
There should be’ a thorough investigation into the affairs of the Northern Territory. I will vote in the direction of appointing a Commission. I have expressed the opinion that the Minister controlling the Territory has not held a firm grip; that is the whole trouble. As an instance of departmental treatment of Territory affairs, I have had a man writing to me who was the master of the Stuart, a ship which we bought and sent up there. There is overtime due to him now for which he worked four years ago. He has not got the money yet. I placed the whole matter before the Home and Territories Department, and was told, “ We must send thison to the Territory for investigation.” That was five months ago, and I got no reply. I worried them again, and they said, “Oh, Mr. Evans is investigating this up at Darwin.” There is an item of £127 overtime, due to a working man, and I cannot get a reply or any manner of satisfaction from the Department. There is ample room for investigation. There has been too much in the direction of appointing outsiders to Commissions.
If the matter to be investigated is one in which political interests are involved, the men appointed to the Commission should be members of the Legislature, and not stipendiary magistrates or junior Judges. I am content to leave the matter at that.
Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales
– I have always taken a very keen interest in the development, and the affairs, of our most vulnerable points, and, after all, the northern coast of Australia embraces the most vulnerable point from the stand-point of our national safety. From time to time in this chamber I have joined in the discussions which have taken place, and, by my voice and vote, have shown that I have never been satisfied with the narrow vision exhibited by various Administrations in regard to matters pertaining to the Northern Territory. I am glad that I was one who endeavoured to prevent the passing a few months ago of that colourless Ordinance which has ‘been the immediate cause of the present trouble. However, the root of that trouble stretches much farther back, and is to be found in the desire of the residents to have complete home rule granted to them, if notdirect representationin this Parliament. I agree with Senator Lynch that a population of only a few thousands cannot expect to obtain equal representation in this Parliament with a population of many scores of thousands. At the same time, I would like a broader view to be taken in respect of the comparatively few people in the Territory, and I do hope that, as the result of their extreme action, something in the nature of a reasonable measure of home rule will be accorded them. The statements which have been made this afternoon by Senator Ferricks are certainly of a most grave character. I had never imagined that the administration of the Territory under Dr. Gilruth was anything worse than unsympathetic, arbitrary, and in some degree autocratic. That was bad enough, seeing that it applied to 3,000 or 4,000 persons, most of whom entertain extremely democratic ideas. But this afternoon Dr. Gilruth, the present Director of the Territory, Judge Bevan, and other officials associated with him, have been charged with nothing more nor less than corruption. These charges are new to most members of this Chamber. It hasbeen affirmed that Dr. Gilruth. and
Judge Bevan have been, associated in the Daly River copper mine, and that, by virtue of their association, they used their official positions for their own advantage and to the disadvantage of residents of the Territory. It has also been declared that Dr. Gilruth has been nothing more nor less than a creature of Vestey Bros. Ltd., and that Sir “Wm. Vestey is a member of the American Meat Trust. Some minor charge has also been made in reference to the sale of a bicycle. It seems to me that the Government cannot shirk their clear responsibilities in regard to these charges. I am not here either to condemn or to support them. As has already been pointed out, the statements upon which they rest are purely ex parte. When I was in Darwin, public opinion there was divided as to the rights or wrongs of the then existing position. There was a strong body of opinion which held that some extremists went much too far, and that some of their statements could not be proved. However, with the deportation of the three officers to whom reference has been made, the situation cannot be further shelved. I do hope that the Government will deal with these charges in the only way in which they can be properly dealt with, namely, by ordering an immediate inquiry, first into the probity of the officials concerned, and afterwards into what ought to be done with the Territory. Personally, I think that a very broad scheme of home rule should be granted to its residents. I do not think that they should be represented in this Parliament, because they are not numerically strong enough. But now that the war is over-
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– They had two representatives in the South Australian Parliament.
Senator PRATTEN:
– But representation in another place is determined upon a population basis, with the result that every constituency embraces from 66,000 to 70,000 people. Obviously, a population of 4,000 in the Northern Territory cannot expect to secure the same measure of representation as a population of 66,000 or 70,000.
Senator Ferricks:
– The average numerical strength of constituencies for the other branch of the Legislature is from 30,000 to 34,000.
Senator PRATTEN:
– The honorable senator is alluding to the number of electors in a constituency, whereas I am alluding to the number of its population. I am not sorry that this matter has been brought forward. It was the duty of Senator Ferricks to direct our attention to it, in view of the evidence which has come’ into his possession since the trouble at Port Darwin started. But I would remind honorable senators that there is another side to the question which ha3 not yet been presented - that there is a strong body of public opinion in Darwin which is not led by Mr. Nelson, and which is quite outside the Australian Workers Union. We have yet to learn what this section of the residents think of the position which has arisen. I believe that the Government will do their obvious duty by boldly facing the position in the Territory, especially in view of all that it means to Australia and to our future.
Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland
– The question of political representation is not an issue in the present trouble at Port Darwin, as the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn) attempted to make it appear in a recent interview with him which was published in the press. As a matter of fact, the principle of taxation without representation was hardly mentioned in connexion with the recent demonstration, although it undoubtedly has been a factor in the popular discontent there. In regard to the numerical strength of electorates for the Legislative Assembly of Victoria. I merely desire to point out that, whereas the metropolitan constituencies, which are chiefly represented by labour men, contain up to 30,000 electors, country constituencies which are chiefly represented by Liberals, contain in most cases not more than 5,000 electors. That is a very great discrepancy. I think that some political representation should be granted to the residents of the Northern Territory in view of the peculiar conditions which operate there. When, earlier in the afternoon, I was interrupted under our Standing- Orders, I was pointing out that immediately after the. demonstration by the people of Darwin against Dr. Gilruth the Government despatched two warships to that port. I am. sorry to learn from this morning’s newspapers that the Ministry have again despatched a war vessel to the Territory. I do not think that that course was necessary, because all has been quiet in Darwin since the recent demonstration. But when on a former occasion war vessels were sent to that port it became necessary, after the Una had been anchored there for five weeks, to withdraw her for fear of a mutiny amongst her crew. She was replaced by a larger vessel, namely, H.M.A.S. Encounter. The members of her crew, unlike those of the Una, were allowed ashore. Whilst I was in Darwin a few of them accosted me and told me that they did not realize until their arrival there that they were being brought to take action against their fellow Australians, and that they did not enlist in the Navy for that purpose. During my stay there, arrangements were made for a concert to be given on board the Encounter by the crew of that vessel, and for this purpose the warship was brought into the jetty. It was a bright moonlight night upon which the concert was to take place, and I saw the people flocking down to the jetty in evening dress. They naturally anticipated being provided with a fine entertainment, because the Encounter possesses a very excellent brass band. I learned that the captain had given each of his officers the right to invite two or three friends to the performance, and that he had reserved to himself the same right. The officers sent out their invitations, and the captain also invited two or three guests, amongst whom was Dr. Gilruth. As soon as the ship’s company learned of this, they gave the captain to understand that if Dr. Gilruth* came on board there would be no concert. Thereupon the captain adopted the attitude that if he was not at liberty to invite his friends to a concert on board his own vessel there would be no concert. As a matter of fact, no concert took place, and the Encounter swung out from the jetty because the ship’s crew would not perform before Dr. Gilruth.
Senator Mulcahy:
– That was reducing government to the level of a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera.
Senator FERRICKS:
– It was in the sending of gunboats. I have placed upon the business-paper for tomorrow a question in which I am asking the Vice-President of the Executive Council to tell us the amount which it cost the Government to send up to Darwin, retain there, and bring back, the two warships which were stationed there during the latter end of December last, the whole of January, and part of February of the present year, all for the sake of keeping Dr. Gilruth in the Territory against the wishes of the residents. Dr. Gilruth left Darwin on the Encounter.
Senator Russell:
– Perhaps she went up there to bring him away.
Senator FERRICKS:
– No. She was there several weeks altogether. She was kept there merely to assert the determination of the Government to retain Dr. Gilruth in office as long as it suited them to do so. I trust that the press has misinformed us in regard to the despatch, by Ministers, of a warship to the Territory. I hope that no such action has been taken, and that the three officials who have been deported will not be sent back to Darwin. As a matter of fact, Judge Bevan had intended to come to Melbourne; Mr. Evans had expressed his desire to get away from the Territory, and Mr. Carey should never have been sent ‘there. In the best interests of the Government, and of the Northern Territory, the officials should be permitted to come to Melbourne.
Senator Reid:
– Did not Mr. Careywork for Vestey Limited ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– Yes ; he wa.; Government Secretary for a time, then went to Vestey Brothers, and later took up the position of Director of the Northern Territory. I suppose that after a few years he will go back to Vestey Brothers at a higher salary in return for services rendered. In the interests of the whole -of Australia, the Northern Territory question should be seriously grappled with. I take no exception to Senator Guthrie’s statement regarding the action of previous Governments, as both Labour and Liberal Administrations have failed to handle the position satisfactorily. The work of developing the Northern Territory is important, and presents opportunities to the person appointed to succeed Mr. Carey when he retires, as I hope he will do at an early date. It is difficult to understand why the Government should send to New Zealand to obtain an officer to handle the question of the development of the Territory when a practical man from the Western Australian or Queensland bush could, if not unduly interfere J -with, have gone straight ahead and performed successful work. 1 have never looked lightly on the possibilities- of the Northern Territory, and I am still optimistic regarding its future. Senator Lynch has referred to the money spent there; but I should like to say that that money has been expended with unsatisfactory results owing to maladministration. The failure in connexion with the development of the Territory has been very popular in some directions, because it has been an argument against the employment .of white labour. The Conservative press of Australia never miss an opportunity of ramming home that fact. “Until eighteen months ago there regularly appeared in every Conservative paper in each capital of the Commonwealth a leading article pointing out that the time had arrived when it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the Commonwealth to review the position in regard to the Commonwealth’s control of the Territory, and to ascertain if its successful development could be continued with white labour.
Senator Lynch:
– Does the honorable senator not think that the attitude of the workers at present engaged there is in opposition to the White Australia policy ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– The people I met in the Territory were not of the character Senator Lynch imagines. On one occasion, when Mr. Mahon was Minister for Home Affairs, I approached him in connexion with a communication I hai received from the Territory. He produced a statement and asked me if I could justify the cost incurred in connexion with the unloading of coal. I had to admit that I could not, as the rate seemed altogether excessive. Does Senator Lynch or any other honorable senator know why the rate was high ? I did not know until I had visited the Territory and ascertained that the coal had to be unloaded from hulks into tugs before it was. taken alongside the wharf, where it wa; put into trucks, hand -shunted along the jetty, and turned on a swing-bridge before it eventually reached the train which hauled it. The whole of that cost was debited to labour, and it was an unfair position to put before Parliament and the people.
Senator Reid:
– Has the honorable senator any idea exactly what the people of the Northern Territory require?
Senator FERRICKS:
– There is one thing they are unanimous about, and that is that they do not want Dr. Gilruth. When we told the Government that the people there did not wish to have Dr. Gilruth as Administrator, they said that the people of Darwin would have to have him, although it was apparent to many that he was not making a success of the Territory. The people there have been seriously libelled. The situation there may not be pleasing, but it is irksome for the people to realize that they are being taxed without representation.
Senator Reid:
– If they had a representative, he could not alter the administration.
Senator FERRICKS:
– That was pointed out when the Ordinance which the honorable senator supported was under discussion.
Senator Reid:
– I supported it as an experiment.
Senator FERRICKS:
– Some form of self-government is essential, and as direct representation is unobtainable, we should get as near to that as possible.
Senator de Largie:
– What would you suggest as a near approach to direct representation ?
Senator FERRICKS:
– They should have a.n opportunity of electing representatives to the Council-
Senator de Largie:
– The Constitution is in the way.
Senator FERRICKS:
– With the power of recommendation only, but not through an Advisory Council, as at present constituted.
Senator Reid:
– They would not object to an Administrator who acted fairly.
Senator FERRICKS:
– They require seme voice in the government of the Territory.
Senator Reid:
– They have that under the Ordinance.
Senator FERRICKS:
– No. In addition to being shorn of the right to elect representatives, they have the burden of maladministration heaped upon their shoulders. It is not my intention to outline a scheme under which control of the Territory could be satisfactorily carried out; that is the duty of the Government. We can only express our opinions in an endeavour to assist the Government. I have a serious complaint against the permament head of the Department, Mr. Atlee Hunt. I cannot conceive that he did not know what was going on, and if he did, he must have been in the joke. Notwithstanding this, he has been appointed a member of the Pacific Islands Commission, and honorable senators must view the recommendations of that Commission very carefully when they are available.
Senator de Largie:
– He is not sole Commissioner.
Senator FERRICKS:
– He is working in conjunction with Judge Murray and the managing director of Burns, Philp, and Company.
Senator de Largie:
– A good man.
Senator FERRICKS:
– He may be, but honorable senators must realize that there is a prospect of this Commission making a recommendation embodying concessions to Burns, Philp, and Company in connexion with the future development of the Pacific Islands.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) . - Order ! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
page 13582
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
War Gratuity
Senator GARDINER:
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
- Will lie give the Senate the result of the Prime Minister’s .negotiations with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers’ League with regard, to the gratuity to be paid to returned soldiers?
- Docs the Government consider this a matter purely between the Prime Minister and the returned soldiers, or one of general public interest?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– The answers are -
- I am not in a position at present to make a statement as to the Government’s decision on this subject.
- The matter was discussed with the returned soldiers direct, in order that their case might be fully examined in all its aspects. A. similar course has previously been followed in connexion with other organizations. The question is, of course, one of general public interest.
page 13582
QUESTION
ADMIRAL VISCOUNT JELLICOE’S REPORT
Senator GARDINER:
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
- Will the Government lay upon the table of the Senate, before Parliament rises in connexion with the forthcoming elections, the report of Admiral Jellicoe?
- Does that report contain a suggestion of a return to the system of a subsidy to Great Britain and the discontinuance of the Australian Navy as a distinct unit?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– The answers are -
- I now lay on the table volume 1 of the report referred to.
- No.
page 13582
NAURU ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 17th October, vide page 13534) :
Postponed clause 3 -
The agreement made between His Majesty’s Government in London, His Majesty’s Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, and His Majesty’s Government of the Dominion of New Zealand,” in relation to the island of Nauru (a copy of which agreement is set forth in the Schedule to this Act) is approved.
Upon which Senator Gardiner had moved by way of amendment -
That the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (a) In any agreement entered into, the interests of the natives shall be considered, and full justice done to them.”
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I wish to refer to the native aspect of the question, and to endeavour to provide that in any agreement entered into the interests of the natives shall be conserved. The Minister may say that such a request has nothing to do with the Bill, and that we can trust the Government. The Senate, however, has nothing to do with trusting the Government, because the present Government may not be in office when the next Parliament meets. For the information of the Senate, I wish to read certain documents setting out the appointment of Mr. John McDonnell, of Sydney, New South Wales, as attorney for the king and head chief of Nauru. The first is dated the 2nd September, 1919, and reads -
Know you all men by these presents, that I, Oweida, Head Chief of Nauru, do hereby make, constitute, and appoint John McDonnell of
Sydney, New South Wales, in the Commonwealth of Australia, my true and lawful attorney for me, and in my name and stead to act in the claim that I and my subordinate chiefs and all the people of Nauru are making for the restoration of our ancient rights, and compensation from the Pacific Phosphate Company, who are in illegal possession of our lands to do and perform all the necessary acts in the execution and prosecution of the aforesaid business, and in as full and ample a manner as I might do if I were personally present.
King and Head Chief of Nauru.
My reason for submitting these documents is to enable the Senate to realize that there is a native aspect, as well as a mandatory and agreement aspect. There is not much in these particular documents, except that the natives are alive to their own interests. Another one is dated 7th August, 1919, and reads -
To whom it may concern:
We, the people of Nauru, in Council assembled, do hereby appoint Mr. John McDonnell our sole agent and representative, and give him entire authority to brief counsel and conduct all negotiations with the British, Australian, and New Zealand Governments regarding the adjustment of our claims, and the illegal and wholly unjustifiable holding of any part of our island by the Pacific Phosphate Company and the authorities who control the wireless station (erected by the Ger mans), whoever they may be.
I have another document here which I shall put in. It may appear to have no particular bearing upon the question; but I desire that the native inhabitants of Nauru shall have full consideration given to theirclaims. When Mr. Hughes, Mr. Massey, of New Zealand, and Mr. Lloyd George sign an agreement, it is possible that the original owners of Nauru Island may have their ancient rights overlooked. I understand that we have been given mandates over these islands in order that we may protect the interests of the natives, and I hope that this Parliament will be willing, in any legislation it passes, to include provisions instructing the Commonwealth Government to see that the natives are given justice. Here is a letter dated “ The Mission, Nauru, 5th August, 1919,” and addressed to “ The O.C. Wireless “ -
Dear Sir, - I am the possessor of some land upon which the wireless station is erected, this land being handed down to me by my ancestors, who held it time immemorial according to tribal right, which can be attested by all the chiefs on this island.
This said land was entered upon, and taken forcible possession of, by the Germans, without my authority or consent, very much against my wish, and totally opposed to my lifelong aspirations, and without any compensation whatsoever. Will feel obliged if. you let me know a day that will suit your convenience until 1 bring the principal chiefs of this island and point out to you the ancient landmarks and meaning-stones of my property.
And I hereby demand this land, my inalienable property be restored to me without delay, as I require it for the purpose of establishing a college for the higher education of our boys on this island.
Surely a professing community of Christian nations like Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand will not continue to keep forcibly in their possession my patrimonial inheritance, of which I was so outrageously robbed by the vile, greedy, unscrupulousGermans.
All these matters should be considered in the agreement which we enter into regarding this island. Here is another document on the subject which will be of interest -
Nauru Island, 10th August, 1919.
To the Pacific Phosphate Company Limited, Nauru.
Sirs, - We, chiefs of Nauru, sworn liege and most loyal subjects of His Britannic Majesty King George V., do hereby give notice to Pacific Phosphate Company, illegally and without our consent or authority established on our island and in our hereditaments and dominions, to immediately, and without delay and without reserve or equivocation, to shift, convey, and remove to a safe distance from our dominions all high explosives, gunpowder, or any explosive substance causing, when ignited, a report, explosion, or concussion, and not to hide, conceal, or secrete any of the dangerous articles or substances aforesaid in any hole, cave, or cavity in or upon any place, part, or portion of our dominions. And we also, by reason of our hereditary authority, call upon, invoke, and demand the Pacific Phosphate Company aforesaid to renovate, repair, make good, and compensate all our subjects for the damage, destruction, and devastation caused by an explosion of many tons of high explosive on the 14th November, 1918, which caused, and is still causing, utter fear, terror, and consternation in the mind of all and every one of our loyal subjects; and we further prohibit blasting, detonating, and fulminating in or upon any part of our said dominions.
Given under our hand this 10th day of August, 1918. (Signed) King and Chief of Nauru Island.
It is not sufficient merely to say that the interests of the native inhabitants should be considered, and I put these documents in to show that the natives are alive to the necessity for considering their interests. I understand that proceedings may be taken in our Courts to protect them. I hope that, in view of the volume of business before us, the Minister will agree to accept my’ amendment. I will have no objection if he proposes an amendment himself to secure that full consideration shall be given to claims made by the natives of Nauru Island, and that justice shall be done to them. If the Minister will do that, I shall be satisfied to let the matter go.
I have no wish to reiterate what has already been said with regard to the island. I have endeavoured from tha beginning of the consideration of the Bill to show that no huge profit is likely to be made out of this” proposal. Senator Senior has very skilfully built up the profits of the Pacific Phosphate Company, but he has included those derived, not only from phosphates, but also from trading by the company in copra and other things, and money made out of freights. Most of the profits for one year were due to the fact that cheaper freights than were contracted for were available. This is the last time upon which I wish to speak on the Bill, because, of the business in front of us, and the point I want to make is that, so far as Nauru Island is concerned, it will not pay a dividend upon an investment by us of more than £200.’000. If we are to pay anything like the £3,000,000 asked lor by the company-, we cannot expect this to be a dividend-paying proposition.
Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT
– I am sure that every member of the Committee is in full sympathy with the spirit of the amendment proposed by Senator Gardiner. If any injustice has been done to the natives of Nauru Island, they should be compensated, or restitution made to them. I point out that the position is complicated by the fact that the people who were in possession, whether legally or illegally, morally or immorally, were German people. We do not know the nature of the title of the Pacific Phosphate Company. I have read, at times, that, prior to that company carrying on business in the island, the Germans^ purchased the land at such a nominal rate as practically to amount to robbery. I take it that the Pacific Phosphate Company will have to fairly establish their right and title to the property they sell- They may have only a sub-lease, and if the Germans have sold to the company something which has no real value, the position will be greatly complicated. All these questions must be gone into. The amendment cannot be accepted, because it is possible that we may not be dealing with the original possessors of the country. I do not know the state of development of the natives of Nauru Island ; but there will be nothing to prevent them having recourse to law to establish their claims to ownership. I shall undertake to direct the special attention of the Government to the proposal that the natives shall be given a fair hearing in regard to their claims. One of the reasons why a mandate for the control of these islands has been given to Great Britain and Australia is that the treatment of the natives generally by the Germans was inhumane, and it is recognised that within our limitations we have always been prepared to give the native races a fair deal. That is borne out by our treatment of the natives of Papua, and it may be said that no Government could live in Australia that did not give the natives of these islands a fair deal. In addition, we have, for what it is worth, the guarantee of the League of Nations that the rights of these people shall be preserved. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Senator SENIOR:
South Australia.
– Senator Gardiner* would lead honorable senators to believe that the natives of Nauru Island very much desire his eloquence to plead their cause; that they have been seriously ill-treated ; and that there is danger that their illtreatment will continue. If he will turn to page 115 of the issue of Life for the 19th July he will find this statement appearing in an article: -
Every native man and boy, : and a good many young women, possess a bicycle, and picturesque bicyclists may be seen in fibre dress. Every house has a sewing machine, which is put to many uses, particularly now when the native dress, alas ! is going out of fashion, and shirt and dress making have become part of the household duties of the women.
The King of Nauru, Owieda, is a most charming and affable old gentleman, with the heartiest laugh imaginable. He is to be seen very often .riding about on his bicycle attended by his Master of the Bike, a sturdy young native, who looks after the royal bicycle and sees that the tires are. in good order and the machine is in repair.
I quote this from an article by Thomas J. MacMahon, who has contributed several articles on the South Sea Islands to different magazines, from some of which I have already quoted. It is, I think, clear that Senator Gardiner’ is wasting his eloquence on the desert air. There are two missionary societies in Nauru Island, schools are’ conducted by them, and nearly every native child is taught to read and write.
Senator Gardiner:
– The honorable senator might read about the King’s yellow boots, or about the yellow laces with which he laces his boots.
Senator SENIOR:
– I do not think it is necessary to go into those details. It is sufficient to show that a person who has written largely about the Pacific makes it ,plain that Senator Gardiner is absolutely on the wrong track, and there is no need for his amendment. The honorable senator would be wise to withdraw it.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– Senator Senior’s speech rather supports the need for my amendment. If the honorable senator thinks that a bicycle and boots laced with yellow laces represent a fair return for land filched by swindling companies from the natives, I do not. If he thinks my words are wasted because his brains are so barren that he cannot appreciate them, I do not. It is sufficient for me that the Minister appreciates the claim I have made for consideration for the natives. My association, some years ago, with island natives and the inferior races, as we are pleased to call them, created in my mind a great deal of sympathy for them. I have seen, in Fiji, a coolie from India belted across the head with a dog chain for not working, and knocked senseless with a whip because he reported the incident. I have seen that where the British flag waves. Though we are told that freedom follows the flag, I have seen natives subjected to that kind of treatment under the British flag, and the Indian Government have refused to allow their people to go to places where they knew that kind of thing might occur. Senator Senior thinks that, having quoted from one article published in Life, he has settled the whole question. But I have before me the report of the Inter-State Commission on Pacific Islands trade, containing evidence on this question which was given on oath. If the honorable senator will turn to the evidence given by Valentine Arthur Buchanan Willis on page 94, and Alfred James King on page 124, he will find some interesting reading, and will learn that if we could get the whole of the exports, not only from Nauru but from the Gilbert group, it would not pay us to take the island over at the price asked by the company. I know the Minister is anxious to get on with the business, but I hope Senator . Senior will realize that if my words are wasted on the desert of his intellect they are not necessarily wasted on the rest of the Senate.
Amendment negatived.
Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales
.- May I ask, Mr Chairman, whether, if the clause as amended be passed, any further discussion will be allowed on the schedule?
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– The schedule may be discussed on clause 3.
Senator PRATTEN:
– I have no desire unduly to delay the Bill, though I wish to bring a few further facts under the notice of the Committee; but before doing so, I draw the attention of honorable senators to a sample of the material which I have obtained. Honorable senators will observe that material like this must necessarily be obtained by a process of quarrying rather than mining, and that its intrinsic value can be very little, if anything, more than the amount hitherto paid in the way of royalty, namely, ls. per ton, to the German Government. Pacts that have been brought before the Committee during the debate show that enormous deposits of similar material can be obtained all .over the world, and that, even if the Government acquire the Nauru Island deposit, we shall not have exclusive control of the raw material, because on many other islands in the Pacific there are similar deposits with which the Government will be brought into competition. It is very clear to me that cheap, phosphatic rock will not be secured by taking over Nauru Island, Ocean Island, Christmas Island, Makatea, or other islands, but that the cost is governed by the amount to be charged for freight to Australian ports for the secondary process, which consists of crushing the rock and treating it with sulphuric acid to turn it into the superphosphate of commerce.
Senator Russell:
– We can turn out bluestone at about 7s. per yard, so if that phosphatic rock costs more than 6s. a yard to quarry, I would be much surprised.
Senator PRATTEN:
– All the evidence goes to show that it costs about £1 per ton f.o.b. at the various points of its origin, and that the price at the islands is, on the average, 30s. per ton. I was informed only to-day that the war price I mentioned, namely, 40s. per ton, is not correct, but that during the war the price varied from 26s. to 33s. f.o.b. the islands, and the rock was actually sold at a lower price than previously. The profits of the company can be seen by their balancesheet. We know that about one-third of their output comes from Nauru; and however we consider the figures, we cannot make the net profit much more than 7s. or 8s. per ton. If the phosphatic rock is sold at 30s. f.o.b. the islands, and the net profit is not more than 7s. or 8s. per ton, obviously the cost to the company f.o.b. steamer at island points is about 22s. or 23s. per ton.
Senator Senior:
– Can you explain, then, how they have paid such immense dividends ?
Senator PRATTEN:
– I will come to that point in a moment. I want to get at the actual cost and the profit earned. I should say, too, that I believe the organization of the Pacific Phosphate Company is extremely efficient and economical, and I feel sure that, if the Commonwealth Government take over the administration, with all the added costs which this proposal will entail, they will not be able to produce phosphatic rock as cheaply as the Pacific Phosphate Company is producing it at present. I should like to say also, that, although it may be only a coincidence, it is a coincidence that should be noted, during the last few months magazines throughout the world have been publishing what are evidently inspired articles with regard to the value of the phosphatic rock deposits in the Pacific, and alluding particularly to the value of the concession obtained by the Pacific Phosphate Company in Nauru. This afternoon my honorable friend, Senator Senior, read an extract from Australian Life. Lastweek heread extracts from the American Fertilizer. I have in my hand the June issue of The World’s Work, containing a magnificent and laudatory article on the British phosphate enterprise in the Pacific. It may be more than a coincidence that all these articles are appearing just now in order, shall I say, to boost the value of this company’s concessions. Two arguments have been adduced for completing the agreement. The first is that it will give us control of this particularly valuable raw material for use in our primary industries. It will do nothing of the sort. It will only secure to us the same source of supply that we have now. If that source failed to-morrow, or sank beneath the waters of the Pacific, there are many more islands that could supply Australia with phosphatic rock, roughly, at the same price, and of the same quality. Another most important argument is that the taking over of this deposit will cheapen the cost of fertilizers to the farmers of Australia. Now, I make the statement with a full appreciation of my position in the Senate, and my obligation to the farmer, when I say deliberately that in no set of circumstances can I conceive that the cost of superphosphates will be cheapened by the adoption of the Government’s proposal. The whole key to the position is, how much compensation will the Pacific Phosphate Company get, and by how much will this industry be loaded with interest on compensation to be paid to the company ? So far as I can see, the phosphatic rock will, under the Government scheme, cost nearly 20s. per ton more than has been paid for it hitherto, and as a result superphosphates will cost the farmers of Australia 10s. per ton more than at present. I make this statement, with the greatest deliberation, on all the figures I can find, and on statements made to the Inter-State Commission, and in the Senate, with regard to the amount of compensation likely to be paid. If this arrangement is carried out to its logical conclusion, I cannot see how, under any circumstances, the cost of superphosphates is going to be as low as at present.
I wish now to have recorded in Hansard, and for the guidance of those who will have the responsibility of paying away
Commonwealth money for this venture, the balance-sheet of the Pacific Phosphate Company, as at 31st December, 1915 -
(Signed) BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH (Chairman). (Signed) JOHN EWART (Deputy-Chairman).
South Australia -- It is just as well that the other side should be set. forth with the case as stated by **Senator Pratten.** I desire to refer to what the company has paid. It began in 1903 by paying a dividend of 25 per cent. **Senator Pratten** has admitted that the paid-up capital is something like £975,000; that is approaching £1,000,000. I quote now from the *Mining Annual and MiningYear-Book 1919.* {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- What is the capital paid up for? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- For the Ocean and Nauru Islands. I am drawing from the statements of the Phosphate Company. The capital of the company, according to this account - which was published in England, where the company was registered, and where it could thus dispute these statements if they were untrue - is £1,200,000. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- That is the nominal capital. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -That is what will bear the dividends. In 1903 the company paid 25 per cent. ; in 1904, 15 per cent. : in 1905, 15 per cent.; 1906, 30 per cent. ; 1907, 50 per cent.; and in 1908, 50 per cent., also a bonus of £2 per share, payable in two new ordinary shares or cash : in 1909 the dividend was 35 per cent., after the share list had been increased; in 1910 it was 45 per cent.; in 1911, 30 per cent.; 1912, 25 per cent; and in 1913, 25 per cent. In 1914, when the war broke out, the percentage dropped,obviously because the company could not get sufficient shipping; the figures were 7½ per cent. But that is not all. The directors' fees were also increased. The accounts for the year ended 31st December,. 1917, submitted on 26th July, 1918, showed that there wag a profit of £66,430; making, with balance brought forward and less £2,500 bonus, a sum of £79,508. Dividends absorbed £56,938, and directors' additional remuneration, £2,109; leaving £20,461 carried forward, and a war contingency reserve of £50,000. This is the company which, **Senator Pratten** tells us, will not pay a dividend at all. The honorable senator's next argument is that the phosphate cannot be secured by the Commonwealth as cheaply as by the company. And then **Senator Gardiner** says that the natives have been abused. When every man and nearly every girl on the island can ride a bicycle, and when the King cannot only ride but can have an attendant to take care of his machine for him, and when the children can go to school, I want to know what is behind all these objections and arguments. There is undoubtedly something at the back of them. **Senator Pratten** says there are tons of this kind of phosphatic stuff to be found anywhere. It simply shows how much he knows about the subject. I can find phosphate in the bed of the Port Adelaide river; one has only to dredge the stream. But the product is of so low a grade that it would notpay to work it. I have a picture in the magazine which I now hold in my hand - *The American Fertilizer* - showing the scrub on Nauru just cleared, and depicting excavations made. Beneath the photograph there are these words - >A " cleared " phosphate field ( vegetation and about 1 foot overburden removed ) . All gravel and sand is the highest grade of phosphate - on this place over88 per cent. Nauru is known to be the richest spotin phosphates yet discovered in the world. There is abundance of phosphate in different parts of the globe; but it requires so much sulphuric acid to work many of the deposits in order to make the product marketable that it does not become a commercial proposition. On Nauru, however there is 88 per cent. pure phosphate of lime, and therefrom one can produce a fertilizer more cheaply than anywhere else. Japan used to get good supplies from Nauru and Ocean Islands, but after Great Britain took possession, Japan had to search elsewhere, and she is now using very low-grade phosphates as compared with the product of those islands. Taking that fact into consideration, and remembering also that the stratum of phosphate, mostly in the form of sand and gravel, and workable with a shovel, has a thickness of from 10 to 50 feet, what becomes of the arguments of **Senator Pratten?** These particulars are not from the pen of a globe-trotter, but are compiled by a recognised expert named Elschner, who has contributed articles to the *American Fertilizer,* the most authoritative publication on phosphates in the world. I invite honorable senators to quote something that can discredit the facts which I have placed before the Committee, but until some authoritative statements are furnished, I want to know what is behind this opposition; there is some hidden motive power. The Government will do well to work its share of Nauru Island deposits for the benefit of Australia. I am confident not only that the price of our fertilizers will decrease, but that the quality will increase. We shall not be called upon to disburse money as did the company in the payment of those big dividends. And it must not be forgotten that the company paid those dividends while building up its costly works. Surely we shall not be called upon to pay more than the company has spent upon those works, seeing that its lease will have to be carefully inquired into for the reason that it does not rest upon any sure foundation. {: #debate-7-s7 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales -- When I was quoting the balance-sheet a few minutes ago, I drew my particulars from an official publication issued by the Pacific Phosphate Company Limited on 26th July, 1917, when the company advertised some hundreds of thousands of ordinary and preference shares ' as being for sale under the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act 1916. The company also gave official details of its holdings. This document states that the company was registered in April, 1902, to carry into effect an agreement with the Pacific Islands Company Limited, who were the owners of certain concessions in respect of phosphate deposits on Ocean Island, one of the Gilbert and Ellice group of Polynesian Islands, and on islands in the Marshall Islands Protectorate. The company has concessions over Ocean Island for a period of ninety-eight years, and over Nauru Island and other islands in the German Protectorate of the Marshall Group. The document gives particulars also of the royalty payable, and the position of the German shareholders. It brings the matter up to the date of the capture of Nauru " by the British Forces." It states, also, that in addition to these concessions, the company has a large share-holding in a French company working the Island of Makatea under agreements with the native land owners. It goes on to 6how the number of tons produced on the various islands in which the company is interested, and it also makes a statement regarding profits. I will read the statement of the company concerning its profits and the amount of capital on which those profits have been paid: -
New South Wales **. -Senator Senior** is evidently labouring under a misapprehension. He has discussed the question of the phosphatic deposits at Nauru Island, and of the Pacific Phosphate Company, as if the latter company had obtained a consider able proportion of their , profits from Nauru. That is not the case. He has quoted the percentage value of phosphatic rock. I intendto quote the evidence, given upon oath, of **Mr. Alfred** James King, who was examined by the InterState Commission on 30th October, 1916. The witness said - >I am representative for Australasia of the Pacific Phosphates Company Limited. . . . I desire to correct statements made before the Commission in Sydney by **Mr. V.** A. B. Willis with regard to the island of Nauru and the company. He states that 250,000,000 tons of phosphate are visible on the island. In 1001 **Mr. P.** Danvers Power, a leading mining and metallurgical engineer, at the request of the company, surveyed the island. As the result of his tests and survey, he estimated that there were 41.400,000 tons of phosphate on the island. He then went on to deal with the value of this deposit. He said - >Prior to the war the Government estimated the f.o.b. value of Ocean Island phosphates at 30s., and in 1915 at 20s., per ton. A deposit containing " 90 per cent. of pure phosphate," to which **Mr. Willis** refers, has yet to be discovered. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- I did not quote "90." I quoted "88." {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I quite agree with the honorable senator. He was anxious to know what is behind the opposition to this Bill, and he quoted figures for the purpose of showing that the company could pay a dividend of 15 per cent. on less than £1,000,000 invested. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- I quoted the dividends paid on a capital of £975,000. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The manager has stated on oath that the paid-up capital of the company is £787,500. I take it that he is just as good an authority upon this matteras is **Senator Senior,** who has quoted from magazines. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- I quoted from the *Mining Journal.* {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- If the honorable senator will take the trouble to peruse the report for 1917-18 of the Inter-State Commission upon British and Australian trade in the South Pacific, he will see that upon page 126 that witness says - >The authorized capital of the Pacific Phosphate Company is £1.200,000, of which £787,500 has (been issued. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Of course, there is a difference between shares which have been issued and the capital which has been put' into a company. I trust that wo are not going to pay for shares which have been issued. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: **- Senator Senior** has asked what is behind the opposition to this Bill. It is the fact that Nauru comprises a very small portion of the company's operations. The Pacific Phosphate Company are a huge trading concern, which grew up after many years, and their chief profits are made, not upon this particular island, which has never had an output that would afford a reasonable profit upon any large amount of capital- {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Are they ship-owners as well? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Yes, and they are charterers of ships. If honorable senators will turn to page 126 of the Inter-State Commission's report, they will see that the company have been dealing in many lines of goods. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- In what do they deal? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Their profits come from other operations as well as from the production of phosphates. They not only export from the islands, but they carry imports to them for the purpose of supplying the needs of the natives. **Mr. King** states, in his evidence - >The company keeps general stores at Ocean Island and Nauru to supply the needs of the staff- and other inhabitants. The native labourers, however, do not spend all their money at these stores, hut take large amounts in cash back to their own islands in the Gilbert and Ellice and Caroline groups, where the local traders benefit accordingly. The Pacific Company, I repeat, are general traders. They charter ships. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- They have not been chartering ships for the last few years. As a matter of fact, they owned ships, and those vessels were requisitioned by the British Government. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I quite realize that when ships were very difficult to charter, the company could not charter them. But the company trade, not merely in phosphates; but in a variety of other goods. They carry on the island trade. I am perfectly satisfied that the evidence which has been brought forward during the course of this debate will prove exceedingly useful to the Government in their negotiations with the company. The Minister has stated that the phosphates on the island are valued at £375,000,000. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- That is the statement of **Mr. King,** the manager of the company. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I have already read **Mr. King's** sworn statement that the deposits are estimated at 42,000,000 tons; and we all know that after they have been placed on board ship these phosphates are worth only 30s. per ton. I am sincerely anxious to avoid delaying any further the passage of this Bill. I do hope that the Government will recognise that the deposits on Nauru Island will not permit of a profit being made on more than £200, 00J invested in them. So far as phosphatic rock is concerned, its elements are to be found everywhere. The manufacturers of superphosphate5! can obtain them from sources all over the world. Upon the motion for the third reading of the Bill, I intend to make a few additional remarks upon this subject, for the purpose of placing upon record certain statements by a friend of mine. {: #debate-7-s9 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- From the *Nev) Pacific,* a book recently published by **Mr. Brunsdon** Fletcher in 1917, a book which is largely Australian in character, I intend quoting an extract to refute the statement made by **Senator Pratten** in regard to trading, and to show that profits could not have been made largely from trading, because Burns, Philp, and Company has been the chief shipping firm concerned in the Marshall Island trade. The extract reads - >As soon as the Germans discovered that they wore not blocking the business through Australian ports, and that, indeed, Australian enterprise was making headway, the trouble began. A tax of £50 per voyage was already payable by vessels trading to the Marshall Islands, and the Jaluit Company raised this to £225 per month, where the owners were not established there. This did not at once force the hands of Messrs. Burns, Philp, and' Company, though they were not established in the group, and the tax was raised to £450 per month. With contracts upon its hands, and determined to obtain justice through Great Britain, the firm still kept going; and then, with an export tax placed upon copra, tlie levies reached £000 per month. It will be in the minds of honorable senators that this occurred, and was largely * responsible for the British Government taking over a portion of New Guinea. From the information I have given it will be seen that the principal shipping firm was Burns, Philp, and Company, and not the Pacific Phosphate Company. The latter company was simply carrying its own phosphates, and the other firm was subsidized by the British Government. In view of these facts, honorable senators who are opposing the measure are not justified in seeking refuge behind the statement that the Pacific Phosphate Company made much of its profit out of trading. {: #debate-7-s10 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I cannot allow such a statement to pass without contradiction. Honorable senators who are opposing the measure are not sheltering behind anything of the kind, and, as **Senator Senior** is imputing motives, I am compelled to read the whole of the manager's evidence to show the true position. **Mr. King** has placed the whole facts before the country, and on the 30th October, 1916, before the Inter-State Commission, when it was inquiring into British and Australian trade in the South Pacific, stated in sworn evidence - >I am a representative for Australasia of the Pacific Phosphate Company Limited. The interest of the company in the Pacific trade is the shipment of phosphate guano from Ocean Island and Nauru to Australia and other parts of the world. The former is part of the Gilbert and Ellice colony; the latter belonged to Germany, and was administered with the Marshall group. Judging from statements in the press, and before the Commission in Sydney, a great deal of misapprehension exists as to the history, constitution, and operations of the Pacific Phosphate Company. I, therefore, wish to state that the company is a British company, incorporated in England in 1002, and formed for the purpose of taking over from the Pacific Island Company Limited the right of working the phosphate deposits on Ocean and Pleasant (Nauru) Islands, and any that might be found in the Marshall group. The Pacific Island Company was likewise a British company, registered in England in May. 1897, and formed to take over as a going concern the business, in the Pacific, of planting, trading, and raising and shipping of guano, then carried on by John Thomas Arundel, Edwin Savory Houlder, and Ebenezur Cayford. trading as John T. Arundel and Company. The latter firm had traded in the Pacific for many years previously. He has stated that it is a general trading company, so what is the use of **Senator Senior** persisting in saying that it is not? Instead of imputing motives, **Senator, Senior** should realize that we are endeavouring to prevent farmers from being saddled with an unduly high pricefor superphosphates by the investment of a huge amount of capital in the concern. {: #debate-7-s11 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales .- I also wish to repudiate the suggestion made by **Senator Senior** in regard to my attitude. The honorable senator has said, " What is behind all this?" He has also asked why we are daring to criticise any scheme brought before the Senate. We are endeavouring to look after the primary producers of the Commonwealth and to dissect this proposal, as we have a right to do. We are not only desirous of obtaining the fullest possible information in the interests of the producers, but of seeing how far we can help the Government. It has already been admitted by **Mr. Massey** that careful consideration was not given to the agreement when it was signed in England. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I do not think the Senate considers that any one is prompted by improper motives. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN: -- Of course not. No one here has any direct or indirect interest in the Pacific Phosphate Company, but I have a very keen interest in the farmers of the Commonwealth, and particularly the farmers of New South Wales. I partly owe my position in the Senate to the Farmers and Settlers Association of that State, and I am under an obligation to them when such matters as this come before the Senate for discussion. Whatever compensation may be eventually paid to the company, we have probably saved the country a good many hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling. The Government will not dare to pay compensation amounting to £2,000.000 or £3,000,000 for Nauru only when the company in its own balance-sheet has shown that it has only £750,000 invested in all its possessions throughout the Pacific Islands. These are reasons which have animated honorable senators in their critical review of the Bill, and however exasperating such lengthy criticisims may have been to the Minister, he will surely realize that the end justifies the means. We wish to make the best deal possible in the interests of the producers of this country. I shall haveto vote against the Bill, because, in my honest opinion, the present control should be continued. I would like Australia to withdraw from the agreement and allow New Zealand and Great Britain to carry the burden, because I believe such action would be in the producers' interests. If the passage of the measure would enable farmers to obtain supplies at a cheaper rate I would strongly support it; but, having considered the question in all its aspects, I am compelled to oppose the Bill. Clause agreed to. Postponed schedule and title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Motion (by **Senator Russell)** proposed - >That this Bill be now read a third time. {: #debate-7-s12 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales .- I wish to quote from an article written by a man who thinks as clearly as any one with whom. I have come in contact. It is headed " More Frenzied Finance," and reads - >It has been said, with a good deal of truth, that Imperialism is merely another name for loot, and the details of the Nauru Island mandate scheme fully bear out that view. Behind the Nauru scheme stands a corporation called the Pacific Phosphate Company. This company came into existence in 1002. Its assets consisted of a British Imperial charter, which gave the promoters the exclusive right to exploit Ocean Island for phosphate rock for a period of ninety-eight years. In 1905 this company obtained another concession from the German Chancellor, giving them the exclusive right to exploit Nauru Island for a period of ninety-four years. It is this latter concession which is to be the subject of the Nauru mandate. The Pacific Phosphate Company was registered on the London Stock Exchange with a nominal capital of £1,200,000 in £1 shares, but only 785,000 shares were issued. The output of phosphate rock produced by the Pacific Phosphate Company before the war era was about 300,000 tons per year, and of this amount less than 100,000 tons came from Nauru. This looks like fairly big business, until it is compared with the annual output from the African phosphate deposits, which runs into about 3,000,000 tons per year under normal conditions. There are extensive deposits of phosphate rock' in most of the European countries, and also in the United States and in other parts of the Pacific, besides Nauru and Ocean Islands. With the rise in ocean freights, which is likely to be a permanent factor in world affairs, there is evidently little chance of the Pacific phosphate deposits playing any serious part in the world supply of phosphate rock, beyond supplying raw material for the manufacture of commercial superphosphate in Australia for local consumption. Therefore the wires were pulled to make the purchase of the Pacific Phosphate Company rights in Nauru a condition of the appointment of a " mandatory " authority governing that island. Of course, being eminent Imperialists, the directors of the Pacific Phosphate > >Company can only "think in millions," and various sums, ranging from three to ten millions sterling, have been talked of as the probable amount of " compensation " for the loss of phosphate mining rights in Nauru. Meanwhile, Hughes makes the crazy statement that "the Nauru phosphate deposits are worth over £300,000,000." This preposterous valuation would work out, on the company's own estimate of the amount of phosphate rock on Nauru Island, atover £7 per ton for unmined rock lying in its native bed. Under normal trade conditions high-grade Algerian phosphate rock used to be sold in England to superphosphate manufacturers at 30s. per ton. This market quotation clearly shows that the value of phosphate ruck is only a question of the cost of mining and transport, and. that its value in an undeveloped deposit is merely nominal. In view of the enormous extent of undeveloped phosphate rock in almost every quarter of the globe, Nauru Island would be dear at as many pence as **Mr. Hughes** talks pounds. But the nonsense talked by Hughes on this subject may prove a very costly joke for Australian wheatgrowers. Compensation at the lowest rates spoken of, £3,000,000, would mean at 5 per cent. interest, a royalty of 30s. per ton on Nauru rock on the basis of an output of 100,000 tons per year. Such an impost would put all our Australian superphosphates manufacturers out of business if either American or Japanese competition were permitted. This would be a very bad thing for the Australian coppersmelting industry, because the manufacture of superphosphate uses up vast quantities of sulphuric acid, which is a waste product from pyritic smelting. If all importation of superphosphate was prohibited, then the Australian wheat farmers would have to " carry the Nauru baby " for the benefit of the Imperial schemers. It is to be hoped that this impudent scheme will be blocked at some point or other, in spite of Hughes, who apparently is prepared to commit Australia to any scheme of frenzied finance which has an Imperial origin. Frank Cotton. I came upon that letter yesterday, and I have read it because it follows so closely the line I have adopted myself in dealing with the Bill. **Mr. Cotton** puts his view very clearly,and from my experience of him in the New South Wales Parliament many years ago I can speak of him as one of the clearest thinkers I have met. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Is he an authority on Nauru Island? {: #debate-7-s13 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- He is an authority upon anything about which he writes, because he does not write on a subject that he does not understand. I have made my protest against this Bill, and have endeavouredto induce other honorable senators to oppose it. I shall content myself now by calling for a division on the third reading. {: #debate-7-s14 .speaker-K5V} ##### Senator SHANNON:
South Australia -- I refrained from saying anything on the second reading of the Bill, believing that the Minister in his reply to the debate would give honorable senators information which would warrant them in supporting the measure. Having listened to all the speeches I was forced to the conclusion that, as a representative of the people. I was not justified in voting for a measure which would involve the Commonwealth in an undertaking of this magnitude upon so little information as that supplied by the Minister, and as a protest against the lack of information on the subject I voted against the second reading. I listened to the whole of the arguments in Committee on the measure, and we have not had a scintilla of evidence to show how much we shall have to pay under this Bill, or what it will- cost the farming community of Australia under this agreement to obtain phosphates from Nauru Island. **Senator Senior** submitted some evidence, and, with a cocksure air, put down his book as though he had said the last word concerning Nauru Island, and he dared honorable senators to refute it. But the honorable senator has been arguing from false premises. In the first place, he has told us that the whole of the authorized capital of the company pays a dividend. Surely he knows more about company promotion than that. Other honorable senators know perfectly well that it is only paid-up capital on which dividends 'are paid. In referring to the huge dividends which the honorable senator suggests have been paid by this company, he lost sight of the fact, so often emphasized by **Senator Gardiner,** that the company is a trading concern, and that all its profits are not made out of Nauru Island, or even out of phosphates mined in any of the islands in which it is interested. One point which was overlooked even by Senators Gardiner and Pratten, who have taken such a lively interest in this matter in their endeavour to protect the interests of the farming community of Australia., is that a very large percentage of the profits of the company arose from a fortunate deal which it was able to make in connexion with freight. In bringing phosphates from Nauru Island tnd Ocean Island to- Australia, the com pany did its own chartering, and during the war, when high rates of freightprevailed, it made no less than 6s. per ton profit in freight alone on phosphates brought to this country. "With an import of 150,000 tons of phosphates to Australia, a profit of 6s. per ton on the freight alone would represent nearly £50,000. No honorable senator will contend that if we enter into this business we are likely to make a profit of that kind for a very long time to come. It is suggested that there is something behind the opposition to the Bill, but if I thought there was anything unfair behind it I would not join in it. If time permitted I could give the people of Australia the history of the use of phosphates in this country. I understand the question from A to Z. There is an idea prevalent in Australia that some professors are responsible for the present use of phosphates in this country. That is an absolutely erroneous idea, because it was brought about by one man, and one man only. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate by going into that now, but I realize to the full, as every member of the Senate who understands agriculture in Australia must do, that we cannot carry on agriculture here, and particularly tlie growth of wheat, without the use of phosphates. I realize also that if we are to continue to use phosphates to stimulate the growth of cereals *h* Australia, we must be able to obtain them cheaply. If I thought for a moment that the carrying of this measure would lead to a reduction in the price of phosphates to Australian farmers of even 2s. 6d. per ton, I should give it my ardent support. No matter what decision the Senate may come to upon this agreement, Nauru Island will remain until it is dug up and carried away as phosphates. Some persons may be under the impression that if we do not ratify this agreement we shall lose the benefit of the phosphatic deposits in Nauru Island. This island will remain under a mandate of Great Britain or of Australia, and" the phosphates there will be dug out, and in due time find their way to this country. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but wish to put- on record that, so far as the information placed before the Senate is concerned, there is not an honorable senator present who, regarding that information as a mining prospectus, would put a brass farthing into such a speculation. I believe that if this agreement is carried out, the effect will be, not to decrease the price of phosphates to the farming community in Australia, but to increase the price by from8s. to 10s. per ton. For that reason I enter my emphatic protest against the third reading of the Bill.
NAT -- No, that was imposed last year. The Bill repeats in every detail last year's measure, which proved effective from a revenue standpoint, and it is hoped that with added prosperity, at least the same amount of revenue will be received this year. {: #debate-8-s1 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I do not regard the Minister's statement as altogether satisfactory. I admit that the Bill is the same as last year's Act, but we ought to consider whether last year's measure constituted a fair deal. In this connexion I refer particularly to the 13 per cent. tax which winners in a lottery have to pay. The average man might say, of course, that a person who wins a lottery prize can very well afford to pay, but it occurs to me that, if a lottery winner can afford to pay, a company investor who suddenly becomes rich through no exertion of his own should likewise be called upon to pay an equally heavy tax. There shouldbe equality in taxation. This tax on lottery prizes has caused an immense amount of inconvenience, and, I venture to say, its cost to the Government is out of all proportion to the amount collected. Taxation officials have most persistently harassed unfortunate individuals who collected winnings. In many cases these investments have been made by mates in a workshop, and the man who put the. transaction through has been called upon, two or three years after the event, and after the prize money had been distributed to his shop mates, to pay a tax on the winnings. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- That was because the Act was made retrospective. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- This harassing of the individual is still going on. A case came under my notice within the last fortnight, a very deserving man, who had a win in 1915 being called upon to pay 25s. It might be said, of course, that 25s. is not a very great amount, but it is far too much if the imposition is unjust. Where it is quite evident that there has been no attempt to defraud the revenue, and where it can be ascertained that the money has been distributed among a large number of contributors, the person who put the transaction through should not now be harassed for the payment of these small amounts of taxation. Let me now get to the principle of the Bill. I know it was agreed to last year, but, owing to the increasing cost in living, I intend in Committee to move an amendment to give relief by providing that there shall he no taxation on incomes under £200 a year. The Arbitration Court of New South Wales has decided that £3 17s. 6d. per week constitutes a living wage. This represents about £180 a year, and, I think, has been based on the requirements of a family of two children. If the worker has to skimp his living costs in order to keep within the amount fixed as a living wage, and has to pay a certain amount of taxation in addition, then . let the very wealthy man, if the times demand it, give .all of his surplus wealth beyond the amount required for the upkeep of himself and his family to meet the nation's requirements in the serious times we aTe passing through. This, no doubt, would mean enormous taxation upon the very wealthy sections of our community, but it would educate them upon this question of the minimum living wage, and in the matter of living under the same conditions as the people who produce the wealth have to live. I am not, however, suggesting that business men do not do their share of production. I realize that captains of industry, just as much as skilled artisans, are entitled to a commensurate reward. But this country is confronted with enormous difficulties of finance, and, moreover, it is faced with additional commitments, the extent of which nobody knows at present, in regard to our returned soldiers. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- How do . you know? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- By rumour, and the replies to questions which I have put to the Minister, who has promised to give me the information before the Senate rises. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- They say, you know, that rumour is a lying jade. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Nearly always. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- Do not you approve of the gratuity? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- No ; I do not approve of any commitments being made unless Parliament is taken into the confidence of the Government. I asked the Minister the other day if the' Government intended to give a gratuity to the returned soldiers. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- And I asked you do you not approve of that policy. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- If elections are to be won by bidding for the votes of any sections of the community, then I am not a bidder. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I think you do me an injustice when you say that I promised to give you information. I said I would make inquiries, and give you the result of them before the Senate rose. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I have my question and the Minister's answer in my hand now; so I shall place the position before the Senate. I asked the Minister to-day - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he give the Senate the result of the Prime Minister's negotiations with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League with regard to the gratuity to be paid to returned soldiers? In his answer the Minister said - >I am not in a position at present to make a statement as to the Government's decision on this subject. The other portion of my question was - >Does the Government consider this a matter purely between the Prime Minister and the returned soldiers, or one of general public interest? The reply given by the Minister was - >The matter was discussed with the returned soldiers direct, in order that their case might be fully examined in all its aspects. A similar course has previously been followed in connexion with other organizations. The question is, of course, one of general public interest. I think I am right in assuming, from those replies, that this question has been under discussion with the returned soldiers, and that rumour - which **Senator Fairbairn** said just now is always a lying jade - on this occasion, at all events, is not far from the truth. Let us come to the merits of the case. Let us admit that the returned soldiers are entitled to consideration. I say, then, let this Parliament, before it rises, approve of whatever amount it is proposed to give the soldiers. I realize that the Government cannot be indicted for bribery, because a promise made in the policy speech of a Government is not bribery within the meaning of the Act. But, nevertheless, offences not stipulated in the Act, and contrary to the ordinary decencies of public life, should not go unpunished. I want to know where the Government are going to lead us. If the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, bids £20,000,000 in the way of a gratuity for the soldiers' votes, why cannot I, as a public man and on behalf of the Australian Labour party, bid £40,000,000, and why cannot the Farmers Union be even more generous and bid £60,000,000? This kind of thing ought not to be permitted. It would be much better - I am not dealing with this from a party stand-point - if the Government really intend to give something in the way of a gratuity to the returned soldiers, to come down with a definite proposal before Parliament rises and have it approved of. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'Keefe: -- That will be the only decent course. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- It will, at all events, put the soldiers themselves in a much better position. What can be the estimate of the character of our soldiers if it is thought that their votes can be obtained by the promise of a gift? I have a much better opinion of them than that. I hold the view that they will see through a trick of this kind. This bidding for the returned soldiers' vote, this secret negotiation on the part of the Government, puts them in the most unfortunate position they have yet occupied. I have endeavoured to get information in the only way available to rae, but the Prime Minister, in whose hands the matter rests, has left Parliament, and, if the Government have their way, he will not be here again before the adjournment. With an election looming six weeks ahead, this course of action is, to my mind, one of the worst features of Government policy I have met with in the course of twenty-five years' experience in the public life of this country. It will not end here. Let us suppose that it is successful. Governments do not end with this Parliament or the next. The conditions established by one Government to-day are like pernicious weeds of rapid growth, and those who are supporting the Government in this pernicious system - because it is pernicious to promise huge sums of money on the eve of an election - will perhaps find that there is an inducement to keep the system going, and that the weeds which they are now planting will only be uprooted with much difficulty. Under this proposal, men who have served four years will be entitled to £100 if they are to get ls. 6d. per day gratuity, and it is reasonable to assume that if a soldier's wife or his mother or father get hold of the idea that he will get £100 if one party wins, there will be an inducement for the other party to promise £150 or £200. If the Government are honest, and do not wish to place themselves and the returned soldiers in a false position, let them bring in a Bill for the payment of the gratuity. There are eighteen measures on the notice-paper now, and I can speak on the authority of my party when I say that if the Government introduce a proposal such as I suggest, we will finalize it. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I can tell the honorable senator that the matter has notbeen finalized yet, so we cannot make an announcement about a matter that has not been dealt with. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Exactly. I know you cannot. I know it never will be finalized. I know you have no intention of paying it. You only mean to promise- the gratuity in just the same way that the Prime Minister promised that if he were beaten on a certain issue he would resign, but did not. In just the same manner **Mr. Holman** promised the soldiers an increase of 10s. a week if he were returned. He did get back, but his promise went by the board. No monetary value, of course, can be placed upon the services of the soldier. It is obvious that there are outside sources of information regarding this gratuity. People on the tram and train, and in the streets, are possessed of information - call it rumour if you like - which has not been made available to' Parliament. I have discussed this matter of gratuity with returned soldiers. They have even been able to tell me how .the money is to be paid. They claim to be aware that the gratuity is to be paid in war bonds. Particulars such as these are being debated by the man in the street. I had held the idea that Parliament was the place from which Government business was usually announced, when Parliament was sitting. The Senate is asked to pass a Bill for the re-imposition of last year's income taxation, although during this current financial year there will be hundreds of thousands of men removed from the pay-roll to whom money had to be disbursed last year. I refer, not only to our fighting men, but also to persons who have been employed in various Government Departments. Income tax imposition does not bear at all fairly. Two youths attend school; one studies bard, day and night, and by his ability and application raises himself in ten years to the earning of a decent income. The other lad does nothing; he depends upon the resources of "the old man." The one, as the outcome of his will and energy, renders himself liable to excessive taxation, and must bear the burden of all governmental calls. He is punished for his industry and application, while the indolent and neglectful individual is not penalized. Our tremendous Avar expenditure is now past ; but we are to be called on, to furnish the same amount of income taxation as last year, when we had 300,000 fighting men to pay. Nobody, of course, will complain. They know the extent and nature of Australia's commitments. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Our fighting men were paid out of money raised by way of war loans. Our income taxation for this year will go to meet interest upon those loans. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- War-time taxation, naturally, should be considerably heavier than peace-time taxation. The least the Government might have done on this occasion was to inform Parliament what economies they proposed to practise during the next twelve months. I understand from newspaper sources that a report has been furnished by the Economies Commission, and that methods have been indicated by which the Government .could economize to the extent of about £5,000,000. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- .With regard to the Defence Department, I have been able to economize even below the recommendations of the Board. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am glad to bear that. The Minister, in view of that fact, might well suggest that our taxes for the forthcoming twelve months shall be lighter than last year. The introduction of this Bill afforded the Government an opportunity, of which they did not avail themselves, to place before Parliament some indication of how and where savings were to be made during the period just ahead. If the Government truly desired to launch a system of economy, there are nine months ahead in which they could continue to command an absolute majority in both Houses of Parliament. The Government cannot expect to establish themselves any more firmly than to-day as a result of the forthcoming elections ; they have the opportunity now, therefore, and for months ahead, if they so desire, to effect drastic economies. If the Government intend to pay the soldiers a war gratuity, what is preventing them from announcing the fact? If the Ministry propose to finally consider the matter, why should they not come to that decision this week, before Parliament rises? The whole business of Parliament is in the hands of the Government. My duty merely goes to the extent of complaining and protesting when I see a practice introduced which is calculated to degrade not only Parliament, but also our soldiers and the community generally. The Government are virtually promising monetary benefit to those who will vote for them next December. Such conduct is the beginning of the end. It is a concession to the mob, just as we see in Darwin to-day. In the Territory men have taken law and authority into their own hands and are governing themselves. When the Government cease to recognise the decencies of public life they invite disaster. I have too high an opinion of our returned soldiers to imagine that I could win their esteem by voting for a war gratuity, or that I could lose their favour by daring to oppose the suggestion. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- The soldiers can look after themselves. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- You got back very early to get in very quickly. You can look after yourself. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- **Senator Foll** was sent back seriously wounded. You should not throw dirt like that. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I was throwing no dirt. I merely said that the honorable senator got back quickly. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- You inferred that he sneaked back early. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am glad to have **Senator Reid's** correction that **Senator Foll** came back seriously wounded. I repeat that he got back early and got in here quickly. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- I object to your insinuation. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable senator certainly went to the war early. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- And I say again that he came back early. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- My remark was that the soldiers could look after their own affairs. They do not want anybody to look after them. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I suppose that is so, but I presume also that the soldiers do not object to the country's business being looked after. I claim that the country's business, which is that of the soldiers, should not be conducted upon a lower level than heretofore. This barefaced method of conducting affairs points the way to madness. This promise of the Government is nothing but a magnificent piece of duplicity, an exhibition of trickery, a throwing of dust in the eyes of the soldiers, an effort to blind them to the best interests of the country. It is neither statesmanship nor sound policy, and most of our soldiers know it; they are aware of its true value. They see that it is a trick of the Prime Minister - a deliberately prepared trick to divert them from their honest judgment at the forthcoming elections. {: #debate-8-s2 .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria -- I was much surprised to hear **Senator Gardiner** comparing money derived from sweeps with the extra profit made by companies in the course of legitimate business. To my mind, there is a vast gulf between these two sources of revenue. Whenever a man wins a prize of £10 or £20 in a sweep, he knows perfectly well that either ten or twenty persons have each lost £1. He also knows that the public are no richer as the result of his good fortune. But a company, as the result of skilful management or of good fortune, may make vastly increased profits, and be able to pay higher dividends. The community may thus be enriched in every way. The analogy which has been instituted is, therefore, quite unworthy of serious consideration. In my judgment, the Government require to devote most careful attention to our finances. The report of the Economies Commission has been an eye-opener to the public. Of course, we all expected something of the sort, because of the orgy of extravagance which has seized upon every nation during the war. But that orgy has to come to an end, otherwise we shall be faced with a financial catastrophe the like of which has never been witnessed in Australia. We are living largely in a fool's paradise, which is being bolstered up chiefly by borrowed money and the deferred pay of our soldiers. That deferred pay will exhaust itself in the, course of a very few months. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- A couple of months will see nearly all of it exhausted. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- Then we shall have to face hard facts. The Government are already making attempts to reduce expenditure. It is always said that one is hard-hearted when he suggests a reduction in the number of our Government employees. But it is far better to reduce, our staff now to the number that we can legitimately employ than to defer action until the crisis comes. After the bank smash in Victoria, we had to turn men from the Government service into our streets at a time when they could not possibly hope to get a job. If ' our staffs were reduced to their proper limits now, those whose services were dispensed with could find profitable employment in other avenues of industry. But if we do nothing until the crash comes, we shall be obliged to turn them out under the most distressful circumstances. For this reason I think - that 011 r public staffs should be reduced to dimensions under which those employed can be paid proper wages and maintained under reasonable conditions. I have no desire to suggest how economies can be effected, but I do say that Parliament has completely lost control of the important subject of finance, and I do not think it will regain that control in a hurry. To my mind, the system of a one-man Treasurer does not work satisfactorily. The Department which lie has to administer is too large to permit of efficient control by any single individual. If one man were able to devote his undivided attention to it, he might possibly be able to handle it satisfactorily, although I very much question it. But so long as the Treasurer is obliged to attend in Parliament, and is able to devote only a portion of his time to the administration of his Department, we cannot expect good results. Last year the Commonwealth spent over £100,000,000. Under the conditions which obtain at present, how can any human being properly control so vast an expenditure? Consequently I. suggest that there should be a Board appointed, consisting of two Commissioners, for the purpose of assisting the Treasurer in his arduous task. We know that in **Mr. Watt,** who has been filling the position of Treasurer for some time, we have a man than whom it would be difficult to find 6ne more able. But, in addition to controlling the Treasury, he has been charged with all sorts of duties, the performance of which has occupied the greater portion of his time, lu such circumstances, how can ho attend to the expenditure of this vast sum of money, the proper expenditure of which is vital to Australia? The Government, therefore, would be doing good work if they turned their attention to this matter. In the old days, it used to be customary for the Treasurer to come down to Parliament, make a flowery speech in delivering his Budget, and then think, that he had done magnificent work. But those days have passed. The position is far too serious to permit- of such a practice being followed now. If we do not tackle this problem vigorously, we shall soon be confronted with a financial panic. Our civil servants will be dismissed in hundreds, and the population will be in a state of ferment. Nothing would be more calculated to drive Australia into Bolshevism. But, of course, I do not think it is possible in a country like this, where people are used to parliamentary government, to drive our citizens into anarchy. Nevertheless, enormous hardships might be inflicted upon them. We must, therefore, devote our serious attention to the question of finance. This subject should be handled by a permanent committee, of which the Treasurer ought to be the chairman. He should, to some extent, dictate the policy of that body. He should he assisted by two permanent commissioners, in order that the administration might be continuous, even though the Ministry underwent a change. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- The honorable senator is not advocating the creation of more Boards ? {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- I do not mind advocating the c-.-cation of an additional Board of this kind. I would like to see such men as we now have on the Economies Commission associated with the Treasurer in his work. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- I was thinking of the Institute of Science, and Industries Bill. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- I think that that would be the proper way to manage such a huge undertaking. We must make some change in our system of parliamentary government. I know that my Labour friends suggest that there should be three members of a committee attached to each Ministerial office. I do not agree with them, b-cause, when the Government changed, we should still have the same disconnected management that we have at present. What ve want is continuous management. What has happened in the past? We know that **Mr. Watt** was very anxious to amalgamate the Federal and St.uc Taxation Departments. A Conference of Premiers was called to consider the matter; certain entertainments were provided for them, and they devoted a few hours to the discussion of the subject. But the State authorities took one view of it, the Federal authorities another view, and neither would surrender any powers. The result was that they separated without anything being done. In connexion with the Murray waters scheme, a Commission has been appointed, consisting of Federal and State representatives. Why should not that example be followed in connexion with our Taxation Departments? Why cannot the Federal and State Governments assign their powers to a Commission consisting of both Federal and State representatives? The thing could be worked in that way; but apparently there is no desire to work it. Similarly, we ave constantly promised economy and efficient management of our finances, but we never get it. The old expenditure goes on year after year. Our civil service seems to become larger as the years pass by. During the war one would have expected that economies would have been enforced on the Government. But that has not been tlie case. The time must como when the policy at present being pursued will have to be discontinued. I have raised my voice in protest against the existing system again and again. Instead of Departments being amalgamated, new Departments are constantly being created. Take, for example, the Bill for the establishment of an Institute of Science and Industries. I note with astonishment that this measure has re-appeared on the businesspaper of another place, although I understood tlie Prime Minister to say that it had been shelved for the present session. That measure aims at creating a Department to do work which is already being well done by the States. {: .speaker-K18} ##### Senator Bakhap: -- Over centralization. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- The work is already being well done by the States. One might imagine, from the way in which Governments manage the affairs of the nation, that the State taxpayer and the Federal taxpayer were two entirely different individuals. One would think that the State and Federal taxpayers were of a. different nationality, but they are the same people, and there is no valid reason why the one Department should not do the whole of the work. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated, we have a good deal to do before we get through this week. There are numerous Bills to be dealt with by this Chamber, as well as a number to come from another place. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- You can discuss this one fully, and go easy on the rest of them. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- I urge' the Government to take into serious consideration the suggestions I have brought forward. We are on the edge of a precipice, and I do not think we can continue much longer under present conditions. The Minister has informed us that there is to be no increase in taxation. But I do not think we can continue long without additional taxation, considering the increase in our loan expenditure, and in pensions. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I was limiting my remarks to the Bill under consideration. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator FAIRBAIRN: -- I quite understand that. I am certain that every honorable senator, when he takes the platform, will say that he is an economist,' and every elector will be anxious to learn whether the taxpayer's money is to be economically expended in the future. We will then hear every candidate saying that he advocates economy, and I am sure that will be one of the main planks of both parties at the forthcoming election. {: #debate-8-s3 .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL:
Queensland .- I would not have spoken on the measure but for the fact that the war gratuity was mentioned by **Senator Gardiner.** It is not my intention to attempt to reply to the dirty insinuations that he made during the course of his remarks. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I rise to order. I take exception to my remarks being termed " dirty insinuations." {: #debate-8-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- As **Senator Gardiner** objects to the words used by the honorable senator, I must ask that they be withdrawn. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL: -- Under the circumstances, I withdraw them. I realize, however, that the extremist section of his party in New South Wales have not been too satisfied with **Senator Gardiner** of late, and have been pushing him to say such things. The elections are near at hand, and **Senator Gardiner** is doubtless having a full-dress rehearsal at my expense. By the remarks made by **Senator Gardiner,** one might be led to believe that the question of the war gratuity to- returned soldiers was brought forward by the Prime Minister, or the Government of which he is leader. But such is not the case. The question was brought before the Prime Minister by the returned soldiers' organization. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Deputations waited upon me six or seven months ago {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL: -- That is so. The matter has been under the consideration of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers' Imperial League of Australia for twelve months, and no one would have been more pleased than the members of the Cabinet, if the matter had never been introduced. I do not think the Prime Minister is exactly pleased at the question being raised. But now that it has been brought forward, it has to be dealt with. The returned soldiers are not asking for anything to which they are not entitled. War gratuities have been granted in other countries, and are a reward for services rendered. There is a misconception among a large section of the community in regard to the remuneration received by Australian soldiers as compared with that of soldiers in other countries, where the allowances in many cases are of a different nature and amount to more than is generally supposed. The result is that the remuneration of soldiers of other countries does not compare unfavorably with that of Australian soldiers. Taking everything into consideration, the Australian men who enlisted for service abroad are justified in asking for a gratuity, and I trust that means will be found whereby a reward will be given for services so ably rendered. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Do you favour giving them a reward, or promising them one ? {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL: -- I am in favour of giving it. During the course of **Senator Gardiner's** remarks he led us to believe that this was to be a dole given by the Prime Minister to the soldiers. One might imagine that the Prime Minister could be heard saying, " Here is something, and we want your votes in return." But this agitation for this gratuity has been going on for over twelve months and the Prime Minister has been brought into the matter simply because he has recently returned from abroad, and the soldiers have only now had an opportunity of placing the matter before him. Regarding **Senator Gardiner's** allegation that log-rolling was being done, I would like to give what I consider a glaring example of log-rolling by his party. In the office of the Queensland Tourist Bureau, at the corner of Queen and George streets, Brisbane, a man is seated behind a table, asking soldiers to sign a petition in favour of the war gratuity, and, at the same time, to join the Queensland Soldiers Labour League, which, I understand, is subsidized by the Government of that State. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- It is done at the Government expense. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL: -- Yes, and on Government property. The official who urges the soldiers to join the league and support the proposal for the payment of a gratuity is endeavouring to get the men to believe that the Labour party is endeavouring to secure the war gratuity for th em. Notwithstanding that, **Senator Gardiner** has the temerity to charge the party to which I have the honour to belong of fishing for the soldiers' votes. The soldiers of this country realize in time of peace, as they did in time of war, that honorable senators on this side of the chamber and the members of the present Government are their friends. In spite of his insinuations and the full-dress rehearsals, I have not the slightest fear as to what the soldiers are likely to do. With the assistance of their political and non-political organizations they are quite able to look after their own interests. I hope the Government will make an early announcement as to what the gratuity is to be. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- An announcement is no good. The soldiers want the money before the elections. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL: -- The soldiers realize that if a promise comes from the Government it will be honoured. **Senator RUSSELL** (Victoria - VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence [8.55]. - I am sorry if I did not supply **Senator Gardiner** with sufficient information when moving the second reading of the Bill; but on previous occasions the proposals contained in the Bill have been discussed. This measure is merely to fix the rates. **Senator Gardiner** has suggested that rigid economy should be practised, and every honorable senator does likewise until he gets down to details. As one who has been associated with Boards during the war period, it is my desire to defend their work in every possible way. Reference has been made to the manner in which work is performed by Boards of Directors controlling private businesses. I would like honorable senators to realize that the work of the Australian Wheat Board falls practically upon three men - the manager, the accountant, and myself - as the other members attend on an average of only once a month. The manager of the Australian Wheat Board receives about £900 per annum; the accountant, £450; whilst I do not receive anything, not even a tram ticket. The responsibilities of the Board have been very great; and altogether nearly £130,000,000 worth of wheat has come under our control. Can any honorable senator direct attention to any private business of such magnitude that has been controlled in such an economical manner. Mistakes have been made, and we have been submitted to a cross and running fire of criticism. Any one who knows anything at all of the wool business could not refrain from complimenting the management on the way the work has . been carried out. The members of the Wool Board do not receive any remuneration at all. The Treasurer, **"Mr. Watt,** has had the assistance of an honorary Advisory Board. The jute industry was also under the control of a Board, and £1,250,000 worth of jute was handled at a cost of 3s. per £100. Can any Board handle goods at a lower cost? The members of the Board should at least be able to claim some credit for the services rendered. Before operations in connexion with the jute industry were commenced, the Indian rupee had increased in value from1s. 4½d. to1s. 61½d. The Board did not remit through London, but by a combination and the running of a contra account between the Indian and Commonwealth Treasuries, saved £75,000 in exchange. That is a large amount when one considers that jute was handled at 3s. per £100. In connexion with the Shipping Board, we have found that nine-tenths of the dissatisfaction has been based on misunderstanding. Admiral Clarkson, who has had this important work under his control, and who is one of the most capable men who ever handled a ship in this country, has been receiving £1,200 a year. If the work had. been under private control, the responsible officer would have received four times that salary, and would have received fewer kicks. The Government do not object to genuine criticism, but they resent sneering references to Boards when men have been giving their best services to the country in an honorary capacity. Reference has been made to the increase in the number of civil servants; but when one considers the real position it will be found that the increases are not very extensive. There may have been an addition to the staff of the PostmasterGeneral's Department ; but we have to realize that that is a growing branch of Commonwealth activity, and the revenue has increased out of proportion to the increase in the staff. For carrying on the work of the Wool Pool, an army of clerks has had to be employed; but those controlling the Pool have conducted a business totalling in value about £152,000,000. A number of clerks have been employed in the different States in connexion with the Wheat Pool, but the Board controlling that Pool have had to undertake the responsibility of a business running up to £120,000,000. Honorable senators could not expect that Ministers would be able to attend to all these things alone. It was quite impossible for them to do so. I do not object to fair criticism, but I do object to sneers launched at the conduct of institutions, composed of men serving in an honorary capacity. **Senator Fairbairn** has referred to the advantage of having business men in the different Departments, and I know that when I went to the Defence Department I regarded the Business Board of that Department as one of the finest institutions in. it to bring about the smooth working of the Department, and give the Minister some time to attend to questions of policy. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- There should be a Business Board in the Treasury Department also. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- If **Senator Fairbairn** can put me on to one or two good business men I shall be glad to avail myself of their services. During the war, a number of men were prepared to make sacrifices and to give a portion of their time to assist in carrying on the work of the Departments; but they are now asking to be relieved of their departmental duties. I have know business men get three times the salary outside that they have been getting in the public Departments. Business men required for a Department must possess not only business ability, but should have a good standing in the community, so that the public may have confidence in the Departments. We cannot get that class of men to-day. If we are to have first-class business men in the public Departments, we must pay them the salaries which first-class business men can earn outside. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- They are not being paid those salaries now. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- That is so, and we cannot hold them. {: .speaker-KSU} ##### Senator Maughan: -- What is wrong with the permanent heads of the Depart-' ments ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The permanent heads of the Departments are all right, but, like ourselves, there is a tendency on their .part to get into a rut; and if we could have an infusion of 5 per cent, of new blood each year into each Department, it would be all the better for it, and would lead to the adoption of more modern methods. I have had a good deal of experience of government now, and I say that the civil servant is a much better man than he is ordinarily given credit for being, and some of them are very badly paid indeed. I have had occasion to put a good deal of faith and trust in public servants, and I have never been slipped up by one of them yet. With respect to the war gratuity, I wish to be quite candid in the matter, and I say definitely that it has not yet been finalized by the Government. There should be no mistake about that, and I am not, therefore, in a position to make any announcement on the subject. Some objection has been raised against the Prime Minister receiving deputations of returned soldiers, but it would be a case of God help him if he did not receive them. I have had to receive them two or three times, but I was not able to commit the Government to anything. After their conferences, the returned soldiers came to me with their programmes ; but I could not give them a definite answer. I should not mind meeting deputations if I could do what they desired. Only recently, at the request of **Senator Gardiner,** I met thirty-six trades union secretaries in connexion with a particular matter. It is only proper courtesy on the part of. a Minister to receive deputations from public bodies, whether he agrees with what they propose or not. I endeavour never to refuse to see a deputation, because I believe the public are entitled to be heard upon all matters of public interest. Reforms are going on, and in this connexion I ask **Senator Fairbairn** to be a little more generous. He has referred to the report of the Economies Commission, but I believe that if he will look at the Budget he will find that before their report was published most of the reforms they suggest were anticipated by myself. I defy the honorable senator to point to any reform suggested in the report of the Economies Commission which I had not already arranged for in the Defence Department. {: .speaker-JYR} ##### Senator Fairbairn: -- Why was the report so long delayed? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Because Ministers, who may be condemned by the report of a Commission, are entitled to an opportunity to consider it before it is published. The delay in the presentation of the report of the Economies Commission has not been due to any loafing on the part of Ministers, most of whom are absolute wrecks, as the result of the strenuous work they have been called upon to perform. The difficulty might be got over by increasing the number of Ministers, and, personally, I am quite prepared to shed some of my Ministerial responsibility, so that if any honorable senator wants a job, he should send in his application at once. I repeat that I have no objection to hard knocks when criticism of Government action is reasonable and fair; but I do object to the repetition of newspaper sneers at Government institutions . and Ministers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Clause 4 (Rates of income tax). {: #debate-8-s5 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales . - This clause covers the exemptions from taxable income. This Bill is an exact renewal of the Income Tax Assessment Act of last year, but I point out to the Government that circumstances are changing. Roughly speaking the' amount exempted from taxable income in the case of a single man is, under this Bill, £120 or £130, and in the case of a married man with dependents is £150 or £160. There is a Court in New South Wales which has adopted a basic wage of nearly £200 a year, in view of the increased cost of living. It has been recognised in England that the amount exempted from taxable incomes should be increased in the case of married men with dependants, and under the latest legislation there a married man with a wife and two children to support is given an exemption up to £260 per year. I have held for a long time that our exemptions here are too low. The exemption provided for does not bear the same relation to income that it did five" or seven years ago, owing to the increased cost of living. The fixing of the exemption at a low rate undoubtedly harasses and burdens the Income Tax Department because of the cost and labour of collecting income tax on small amounts. If the amount of exemption is left as it is year after year, and the minimum wage rises to between £3 and £4 per week, every male wage-earner over twenty-one years of age will be subject to income tax. I do not think that was the intention of the Legislature in imposing the tax. Our Income Tax Department is the most important Department of the Commonwealth, because upon it is imposed the collection of the money necessary to pay the interest on our war debt, and the money required for pensions and repatriation. We shall have to obtain that money very largely from direct taxation, and I cannot, year after year, stand for the continuance of the complexities and handicaps the Income Tax Department is at present labouring under, owing to the complicated nature of our legislation. I hope that whatever Government may be in power next year, some really businesslike attempt will be made to simplify our land and income taxation. If that is done, we shall get more revenue as a result of the labours of the Department. I do not wish to press the matter further now, but I bring it under the notice of the Committee feeling strongly, as a result of actual experience amongst the business community, that the present taxation Acts do no credit to the perspicuity of the Treasury, and impose an unfair handicap upon the Department charged with their administration. Their simplification will be one of the responsibilities of the next Parliament in dealing with the aftermath of the war. I stress again and again the fact that it is to direct taxation we must look for the payment of the interest on our war loans and expenses connected with the war. It is our duty to equip the taxation Department with the best possible machinery that will run smoothly and enable us to collect thoroughly the tax that we impose, as I believe we shall want all the money we can collect in this way. I shall not submit an amendment, but in the next Parliament of which I shall be a member, by virtue of my return at the last election for the Senate, I shall move to raise the amount exempted from taxable income, and possibly to raise further the curve of taxation which stops now at incomes of £7,000 a year. It will be the duty of members of thenext Parliament, when they are again renewing the Income Tax legislation for the year 1920-21 to take these points into consideration. Clause agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Tax on cash prizes in lotteries). {: #debate-8-s6 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I direct the attention of the Minister to this clause imposing a tax on lottery prizes. It is beneath the dignity of the Government to have anything to do with lotteries or the prizes paid in connexion with them. The Government will not deliver a letter which I direct to "Tattersalls, Hobart." If it is beneath the dignity of the Government to carry the letters of the people of this country to the persons who conduct this lottery, it is a disgrace to them to collect taxation upon prizes paid in connexion with it. A great many people rightly believe that the Government should have nothing whatever to do with this business. If the Government are hot justified in delivering these letters they certainly are not justified in collecting a tax from that source of revenue. This is a proposition which I think the Government should face. It is hypocritical to pretend that they disapprove of the people participating in these sweeps, and then to levy taxation upon the winnings. I think the Government are wrong in refusing to deliver letters to Tattersalls. Any letter properly stamped and addressed should be delivered. If the Government have any suspicions as to the motive behind the business they have power to punish all wrongdoers effectively. I object to a Government collecting taxation from a source which they say is so unsavoury that letters addressed to that institution shall not be delivered by the Postal Department. The two positions cannot be right. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- There is a moral censor in the Post Office, but the taxgatherer puts his blind eye to the telescope. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Exactly. The moral sense appears to be so highly developed in the Postal Department that letters will not be delivered to Tattersalls in Tasmania, but, of course, no one expects the tax-gatherer to have any moral sense, and so he looks to this source of revenue for income tax. I felt so strongly on this matter that I was inclined to move that the clause be struck out altogether. {: #debate-8-s7 .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator FOLL:
Queensland .- I indorse what **Senator Gardiner** has said with regard to winnings in lotteries, and I may point out that the Government are more inconsistent than the Leader of the Opposition has shown, because, while they will not deliver letters addressed to Tattersalls in Tasmania, lottery tickets for church bazaars and golden caskets such as we have in Queensland are freely transmitted through thepost. I am frequently in receipt of books containing a dozen bazaar tickets with the request to dispose of them and send a cheque for the amount. I generally send the tickets back without the cheque. This form of lottery is just as much a gamble as an investment in Tattersalls, and I agree that the attitude of the Government is utterly inconsistent. **Senator RUSSELL** (Victoria - VicePresident of the Executive Council and suggest to **Senator Gardiner** that he would be wise not to force an issue on this matter. The action taken by the Postal Department is an indirect way of doing something which we have no power to do directly. Quite a number of honorable senators are in sympathy with **Senator Gardiner's** view, but we are now dealing with the question of taxation. Some exception has been taken to the levy of 13 per cent. on lottery prizes. Prior to the war the amount was 10 per cent., so that the increase to 13 per cent. is in keeping with other increases made for thepurpose of bringing in more revenue to meet obligations accruing during the war period. I understand that some difficulty has been caused owing to the Act being made retrospective, but I think that we should all be agreed that net income, whether from betting, Tattersalls, or any other source, should be subject to taxation, particularly when the object is to meet obligations arising out of the war. I hope **Senator Gardiner** will not press his request. {: #debate-8-s8 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- This clause opens up a question that has been discussed many times during my sixteen years' membership in this Chamber, and I think it is about time that we became honest in our legislation, and abolished that absurd postal regulation which prevents any person in Australia from sending a letter to Tattersalls in Tasmania. Many people who declare it to be illegal and immoral are in the habit of investing regularly in the different sweeps, especially if they have a friend who can buy the tickets over the counter and bring them back to Melbourne. It seems most inconsistent that, while the institution itself is declared to be immoral, " Tatts " is made a debt collector for the Commonwealth. If it is immoral, the Government should not draw one penny of revenue from this source. 1 suppose I have spoken more than a dozen times on this subject since I have been in the Senate. I suppose also that fully 90 per cent. of the members of Parliament have at one time or another invested in one or other of the sweeps. I have to confess that I have broken the law many times, and I know that very many members of this Parliament have requested me to buy tickets for them. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It might be awkward for some of them if they drew the first prize. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- It would not be awkward for me . It is nothing but political hypocrisy to declare this institution illegal and yet obtain revenue from it. Let the business be legalized, so that the people who wish' to subscribe may do so openly. Clause agreed to. Clause 8 (Levy of Income Tax). {: #debate-8-s9 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales -- Is there any difference between this measure and the Act passed last year ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- It is precisely the same. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN: -- I desire to take the opportunity of keeping before the Government the wish of the people for uniformity in the collection of Federal and State income taxes. The public are becoming more and more convinced that there should be one authority, and the growing opinion is in the direction of the Commonwealth being that authority. New South Wales has lately come into line, to some extent, by altering the year of assessment from January to December, as it had been hitherto, to the period between July and June. One step further would be in securing uniformity of law, and with respect to schedules. Not only does the present duplication impose endless work, expense, and complications on the taxpayer, but it also forces upon the general expenditure greater costs than need be. If our new Parliament is to set out seriously with the popular cries of efficiency and economy, and more work and better value, we should set our own house in order. Uniformity can soon be brought about if both authorities concerned determine that it shall be achieved. Clause agreed to. First schedule - Rateof Tax upon Income Derived from Personal Exertion. For so much of the whole taxable income as does not exceed £7,600 the average rate of tax per pound sterling shall be threepence and threeeight-hundredths of one penny where the taxable income is One pound sterling, and shall increase uniformly with each increase of One pound sterling of the taxable income by three eight-hundredths of one penny. . . . **Senator Lt.-Colonel** O'LOGHLLN (South Australia)[9.34]. - Are we to understand from the details of this schedule that a person having an income of £7,600 will be called upon to pay at the same rate as the man possessing an income in excess of that sum ? {: #debate-8-s10 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT -- The scale is very much lighter upon lower incomes. The great bulk of the income of the Australian taxpayer is neither that of the lower-paid man nor of the particularly wealthy individual. The idea of the Government has been to embrace the incomes of the great middle class. First schedule agreed to. Second, third, and fourth schedules, and title, agreed to. Bill reported without request; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 13607 {:#debate-9} ### LAND TAX BILL (No. 2) {:#subdebate-9-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT -- 1 move - That this Bill be now read a second time. The measure is very simple, and is virtually a repetition of the Statute in operation last year. The incidence of the tax runs from1d. in the £1 upon estates of more than £5,000 unimproved value up to 8d. upon local residents, and 10d. upon absentees. This measure in no way alters last year's Act beyond making a verbal amendment which has the effect of continuing the measure over future years. {: #subdebate-9-0-s1 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales .- This Bill has to do with a form of taxation which meets with my approval. We hear a great deal about the land tax bearing heavily upon the primary producer; but the farmer has more to gain by a sound system of land taxation than by any other principle of taxation. The whole of the values of land are created by the people themselves. Land has no value unless there is a community. If there were some great attraction to another part of the world, whereby the whole of the population of Australia was suddenly withdrawn, with no one to take its place, the land of Australia would not be worth 15s. With the increase of population, there is increase of land values. It is only equitable that land taxation should continually increase as the population increases. Land recently sold in Sydney for £1,050 per foot frontage, and that is not the highest mark which has been reached. That is the value of the land without improvements - a value given to it by the presence and by the needs of the community. It is a value which belongs solely to the people who furnished the value. In all our great centres of population there is a continual increase of land values. The same does not apply, however, to rural districts. We do not hear of land selling in the country at £1,000 per foot, or per acre. There are certain soils and special districts, of course, which are peculiarly favoured in relation to the growing of particular commodities: and these valuable districts also are generally favorably placed in relation to markets. Nearly all the values of farm lands emanate from the improvements upon them, improvements brought about by the toil of man.' Improvements, however, are not taxed. It is only the unearned value given 'to the land by the presence of the people which is taxed. Therefore, a tax of this nature does not press heavily upon the rural community. Its weight is felt by the trading section of the people, who must establish their businesses in populated centres; and it is only right that they should bear the burden. A farmer produces his crop by months of toil; yet he rarely makes as much as the exchange purchaser does by merely transferring the commodity in question from one person to another. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- That is an exaggeration. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- My experience has proved it to be a fact. What is happening at this moment with respect to fodder crops? Agents of traders are careering all over the country in motor cars, and are offering most attractive prices for growing crops. Only last year I saw hay purchased by a speculator at £5 per ton, which he afterwards sold at £12 per ton, although he did not add a pennyworth of value to it. Let me point to the potato-growing districts of the Commonwealth in this connexion. We all know that potatoes will keep well for six months. We know, too, that it is now becoming quite a frequent practice for the middlemen of the community to keep a watchful eye upon our various agricultural crops. Sometimes they will buy a crop while it is growing ; but not before they are pretty well assured of what that crop is likely to be. Sometimes they will offer a small advance upon the market price for a particular crop as the result of having in their possession a knowledge of the area that is under that form of cultivation, and of what will be the average crop in each district. They are thus enabled to place before the farmer what may to-day appear to be a particularly good price, but what, a few months later, may prove to be anything but a good price. Only then does the producer find that the speculator has made more in turnover of his crop than he himself has made, although he toiled so unremittingly to secure it. These are not imaginary instances. In regard, to the lands which are used for productive purposes, there is very little unearned value attached to them. Their values result from the improvements which have been effected upon them. **Senator Pratten** knows that his chief success in life has been due to his buying fruit upon a falling market - to making his purchases when prices were likely to fall lower and lower - and by converting that fruit, as the result of his industry and intelligence, into a saleable product for the community. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- How does the honorable senator know that I did not make money out of the fruit which I grew? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I believe that the honorable senator made a considerable amount in that way. But I know hundreds of fruit-growers, none of whom could afford to contest a seat in this Senate, let alone win- it. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- A Senate campaign costs only a maximum of £250. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- That is all that the Electoral Act allows us to expend, but some of us have a very grave suspicion that before a candidate can contest a Senate election unsuccessfully and then contest one successfully, he must spend considerably more than that amount. There . is abroad in the community a shallow view/ that a tax upon land values is a tax upon the interests of the producer. In this connexion let me instance the recent sale in Sydney of land at £1,050 per foot. Fifty feet of that land would represent the purchase price of almost the best farm in New South Wales. It would practically suffice to buy a large station, stock in cluded. If this tax were sufficiently heavy to make the primary producer feel it, it would be absolutely crushing in its incidence upon such cities as Sydney or Melbourne. I have in my mind just now what happened in Melbourne during, the year 1837. A land sale was held in this city, at which a man named Gardiner gave a very small price for an allotment. Within fifteen years, owing to the discovery of gold near Melbourne, he was enabled to let his land on building leases. Ever 3ince the year 1S80, when those leases fell in, the people who inherited that land from him have been drawing huge incomes from it, and living in affluence on the other side of the world. They have been enabled to do this merely because of a speculation in an allotment of land involving an outlay of £50. This particular purchaser merely paid a small deposit at the land sale, and, later, seriously considered whether he would, pay the balance required to complete his purchase. When he had completed it, he arrived at the conclusion that the land was useless to him. But thereafter a great development took place, and with the influx of population into Melbourne there sprang into existence a great trading community which has from that time onwards paid the amount invested in this particular land many thousands of times over. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- Then the honorable senator believes in the abolition of freehold ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I do not believe that the right to freehold exists. The right of any individual to do exactly what he pleases with land is even objected to by Holy Writ, which declares that the land belongs to the people, and shall not be taken from them for ever. Let us see precisely how the freehold system works out. There is quite a number of persons who believe that land should be held on freehold. How does that system work out in a country like Great Britain, with a population of 46,000,000? There is not one man in 1,000 there who is a freeholder. In other words, 999 men out of 1,000 are not freeholders. Yet I am asked whether I believe in the freehold system. Freehold exists only for the few individuals, whilst leasehold exists for the many. The only difference between **Senator Pratten** and myself is that I think the ' increased value which is given to land by the people ought to belong to the people. The whole question of freehold is a myth. In the most highly civilized communities we find that the few become freeholders whilst the many become leaseholders, and pay tribute to them for the right to live. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator Pratten: -- Does the honorable senator believe in the abolition of freehold ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I believe in taking from the few and giving to the many. I believe that the few who have taken from the rest of the community those lands which could be used with advantage by the community should be heavily taxed. No man should be permitted to hold land which he is not putting to its best use. What right has any individual to hold in the city of Melbourne a great vacant allotment ? Yet in Collins-street one can see big gaps between our buildings - allotments which are earning nothing. It is profitable to their owners to pay the taxes accruing upon those allotments, because they are rapidly increasing in value, so that the owners must eventually be more than recompensed. Consequently, -I believe in the full taxation of land values. If we could only get at the unearned increment, for the purposes of government, it would not pay individuals to hold land which was- not being put to its best use. No man can look to the future without realizing the grave danger that is involved in a few men having the right to purchase the whole of our lands. I have never desired to be a rich man, but if ever I have been obsessed with avarice it has been because I would like to purchase all the freeholds of Australia, in order that I might expose how pernicious is the freehold system. Under the law as it stands to-day a man or a company possessing sufficient capital could ruin Australia because of that system. The freehold system in every country in which it has been tried has meant freehold for the few and leasehold for the many. It has enabled the few to extract whatever values they chose to put upon their lands from the users of those lands. I have in my mind some of the most pathetic descriptions of the conditions under which certain freeholders in Scotland turned their tenants adrift. I recollect one man saying that he stood on a, hill-top and watched the burning of a village from which a freeholder had evicted all his tenants. One individual with an ailing wife had taken shelter in a church, the very roof of which was torn off, thus exposing them .to the elements. We all know the exodus to Canada which followed the incidents to which I refer. In Australia, with its sparse population and huge areas, we have not yet approached that condition of things. But We are planting the same seed here. In the Bill which we are now considering we have a means of preventing the perpetuation of the freehold system. I have seen more money expended in a country town by a mining company, which held its land under a .miner's right, than I have ever seen expended upon a freehold. Valuable machinery was erected by that company, notwithstanding that its only title to the land was a leasehold from the Government. Yet it was a perfectly sound title. I would certainly give to every producer in the Commonwealth, not only the right to hold his land on lease, but also the right to transfer it. But I would not allow any individual to exact, for his own purposes, tribute from other people for the right to live. I have discussed this question to-night chiefly because of the absence of **Senator Grant,** who is the great apostle of land taxation in this Chamber. The Minister refused to postpone the discussion on the measure until the honorable senator was present. I would not support this measure if I thought it would press unduly on the farming industry, and I am voting for it because I can see that wherever population is gathered together, wealth is created, and should be taxed. Again, I am curtailing my remarks because I realize that it is the desire of the Government to get on with the business of the country. I hope the Minister, in dealing with the taxation proposals of the Government, will not have to introduce a Bill into the Senate that will not be so easily justified as this one. A land tax upon values created by the community is a legitimate way of raising revenue to defray the cost of the government of this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without request; report adopted. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 13610 {:#debate-10} ### ENTERTAINMENTS TAX BILL (No. 2). {:#subdebate-10-0} #### Second Reading **Senator RUSSELL** (Victoria - VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence [10.5]. - I move - That this Bill be now read a second time. Apart from two slight amendments, the Bill is of a machinery character, and is to amend rates of entertainments taxwhere the charge for admission is less than Is. At present a charge of1d. is imposed in respect of all charges for admission not exceeding1s., hut an exception is made in regard to 3d. tickets issued to children attending performances on Saturday afternoons. Under the Bill, where the charge for admission is 6d., a tax of½d. will be imposed. Where it exceeds 6d., but not1s., the tax will be1d. as at present. Where the charge is less than 6d. no tax will be charged, except in the case of continuous places of entertainment, and then only in cases where the person admitted is apparently over sixteen years of age. In other cases the tax will be½d. The amendments I have indicated are to reduce the tax on the lower-priced tickets. There has already been a good deal of discussion on this matter, and it has been generally felt that the tax on the lowerpriced tickets was an undue imposition, particularly on poor people who were anxious to give their children some little amusement at a reasonable cost. I hope the amending provision will be an improvement. {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
NAT -- If some adults obtain some slight advantage in that regard, that is better than imposing a hardship on children. The Bill, as I have stated, exempts the lower-priced tickets, and I think the proposal will appeal to the good sense of the Senate. {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I wish the Government had gone the full distance and abolished all taxation on amusement tickets. Imagine a tax of½d. on tickets not exceeding 5d. in value being imposed by a National Parliament! At the door of every place of amusement, whether the charge of admission refers to children or to adults, varying rates are posted show ing the taxation to be paid on each ticket. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Under the Income Tax Bill we have just passed we were dealing with three eight-hundredths of a penny. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -There are certain forms of taxation with which I do not agree, but if the community has decided on what taxes should be levied, I am quite prepared to bow to the will of the majority. Under a well-organized Government such expedients as this should not be necessary in matters of taxation. Let us get down to broad principles, and ascertain where revenue will be obtained. I do not agree with the raising of revenue from Customs and Excise duties, but it is evidently favoured by the community. I do not agree with the income tax, because it is a tax on energy, intelligence, and enterprise; but I agree with the land tax, because it is taxing at the source, and is a system which I think the whole of the community will eventually support. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Does the honorable senator own land ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I have a little, and am taxed in the form of a municipal rate to the extent of 6d. in the £1. The systems to which I have referred are extensive, and can be advocated because the money is easily collected and the return commensurate with the cost of collection. The picture shows, however, are among the educational institutions of the present day. Although they sometimes educate in the wrong direction, that can be regulated by the censorship, and 'by proper State or Federal control. The picture show is a great educational factor, and provides a child of to-day with the opportunity of learning much which could not otherwise be learned without perusing numerous classical publications. Through the medium of the picture show, children and adults can become acquainted with interesting historical events. It is astounding to realize that a Government with sovereign taxing power, and in whose control the framers of our Constitution placed unlimited powers of taxation, should tax a child to the sum of½d. for attending a picture show. This is dragging the Government into contempt. It is one of those small systems of taxation, and one of those meaner methods which should be considered insignificant and beneath the dignity of a Federal Parliament. I am going to vote against the second reading of this' Bill, and I shall vote against the clauses that impose such taxation on amusement tickets. It will be said that, if people can afford to attend amusements, surely they can contribute such small amounts as those imposed by the Bill, tout I disagree altogether from statements of that kind. It is beneath the dignity of this Parliament to impose such taxation, and the system cannot be defended. The Minister has not, given the total collected from taxation on amusement tickets, but I do not think the amount for the whole of Australia would be over £100,000. Every amusement proprietor, every manager, and every person directly connected with the control of an entertainment has to prepare a return, and I am convinced that the value of the labour employed in connexion with the tax is not at all in keeping with the revenue derived from it. It will be said that the Government are not put to that expense, but the people who are doing the work are taxpayers and should not be expected to do it without payment. Considerable time is taken up in preparing returns for a very small amount, and the Government would be well advised if they dispensed with this form of taxation. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Nobody under sixteen years of age will be compelled to pay an amusement tax. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- What is the total amount of revenue from it? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- £400,000 under this Bill. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I did not think the amount was so large. Let us see how it is collected. Within a radius of 5 miles from the Melbourne General Post Office, I suppose, there are at least thirty picture shows. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- There are a good many other places of amusement that are not picture shows. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am dealing more particularly with the entertainment proprietors who charge 3d., 5d., and 6d. for admission. Every night after the show at these picture theatres is over the employees have to make out a return for the Government. People find grave difficulty in making out income tax schedules once a year, but in order toget this money in cheaply the Government compel those who run picture shows to incur an amount of trouble and expense out of all proportion to the amount collected under this form of taxation. In all the capital cities and country towns of the Commonwealth there must be an army of clerks writing up returns night after night to enable the Government to collect this tax. By the simple reduction of the exemption of taxable value under the land tax from £5,000 to £4,000 the amount of revenue lost by the abolition of this taxation could be more than made up. An increase of1d. in the £1, to begin with, of the income tax would make up this amount more than ten times over. If we increased the rate of taxation upon incomes above £7,000 a year from 5s. to 10s. in the £1 we might easily make up more than would be lost by abolishing this entertainment tax. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Do not the picture show proprietors pay the tax ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- No, they do not. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Then why have they mustered in big deputations to Ministers time after time to object to it? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- If **Senator Lynch** will go with me to a picture show he will see plainly posted up the notice that the price of admission is so-and-so, and the tax so much in addition. The idea of this tax is to make people who are amused pay the Government something for their amusement. My objection to it is because of its littleness and meanness. I shall oppose the Bill, and in Committee will oppose the clauses dealing with the particular taxation to which I have objected. {: #subdebate-10-0-s2 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- It will no doubt be remembered that when the proposal of 1918 altering the entertainments tax of 1916 was before the Senate last year every honorable senator on this side vigorously opposed the imposition of a tax upon tickets so low in value as 3d. The Government by the introduction of this Bill admit that we were right in opposing that proposal last year. Eleventh-hour repentance is better than none, and we may therefore regard this measure with more satisfaction thanwe did the Bill introduced last year, but this is still a miserable proposal. The children of men in receipt of low wages are as much entitled to a few hours' recreation and amusement at a picture show as are the children of those more fortunately circumstanced, and those who can afford only to take their children to one of these entertainments, perhaps, once in a month should not be compelled to pay a tax in addition to the cost of the ticket. Tickets of admission of ls. and under should not have to bear taxation. In these days, in view of the high C03t of living, when fathers of families find it almost impossible to give their children sufficient food, or to provide them with proper clothing « {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Then they ought not to go to picture shows. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- Doe3 **Senator Mulcahy** believe that these entertainments . which help to make life bearable for the children of poor people should be reserved only for those who are in receipt of large incomes? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Would **Senator O'Keefe** take his children to picture shows if he had not enough to buy them food? {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- Those who can only afford to take their children to these picture shows should not be compelled to pay a tax in addition to the price of admission. In these times tlie difference between 6d. and 7d. in the price of admission to a picture show is a consideration to men in receipt of low wages, who may wish to take three or four children to a picture show once a month. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Is the honorable senator objecting to the removal of the tax on low-priced tickets? {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- I object that the Bill does not go far enough in removing the taxation upon tickets of admission to entertainments. It will do away with the absurd tax imposed last year on 3d. tickets, and supported by every honorable senator behind the Government. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- I thought the honorable senator was against profiteering? {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- This taxation does not affect the proprietors of picture shows. **Senator Guthrie** should know that, since the imposition of this taxation, the amount of the tax has been added to the cost of the ticket. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The picture-show proprietors could have afforded to reduce the price of admission to 5d. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- That may be so: but they did not do so. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Then the honorable senator is supporting the profiteer. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: **- Senator Guthrie,** and those who with him supported the present profiteering Government, were responsible for the imposition of the tax which made the father of a number of kiddies pay Id. extra on every 3d. ticket he purchased. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- No; I did not. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- I apologize if I have misrepresented the honorable senator, but I do not remember that any honorable senator on the other side voted against the tax of Id. on 3d. tickets. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- The dividends paid by picture shows point to the fact that the proprietors could have afforded to reduce the prices of admission. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- I am addressing myself, not to the dividends from picture shows, but to the absurdity of imposing a tax upon a 3d. ticket. This Bill will, to some extent, remedy that, but it will still leave taxation imposed upon 6d. tickets. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- It, will still continue taxation upon 3d. tickets in the case of persons over sixteen years of age attending continuous shows. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- Clause 3 of the Bill provides that - >Section four of the Entertainments Tax Act 1916-1918 is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - "4. (1.) The rates of the Entertainment Tax shall be as follows, namely : - (2.) .For the purposes of this Act ' continuous place ' of entertainment ' means a place of entertainment which is open for more than four hours on more than two days in the week, for the admission of persons to the entertainment upon payment." It seems to me that under that clause there will be no taxation imposed upon any ticket under the value of51.. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- At suburban shows; but at continuous shows in the cities there will still be a tax of½d. on 3d. tickets purchased by persons apparently over the age of sixteen years. {: .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE: -- I think that children over sixteen years of age will scarcely expect their parents to pay for their admission to picture shows. I shall vote against the Bill; but I would have no objection on principle to a tax upon tickets of admission costing more than 1s. It is unreasonable to impose taxation upon tickets of admission to classes of entertainment which are practically the only places open to persons in receipt of low wages. **Senator** Lt.-Colonel O'LOGHLIN (South Australia) [10.30]. - I have always been opposed to this measure, which is the most irritating and unpopular form of taxation that could be devised. Certainly, the Bill gives some relief, and I suppose we ought to be thankful for small mercies; but I am sorry the Government have not recognised that it is iniquitous to tax the recreations of the people, and have wiped it out altogether. I should have thought that in these times, when the people want cheering up, it would be a better idea to subsidize entertainments than to impose taxation on them.What with the high cost of living and the terribly heavy taxation that we have to bear, as well as the incubus of the present Government, which, fortunately, therewill be a chance of getting rid of shortly, we should give every encouragement to entertainments, and tickets up to Is. should be free of taxation. Beyond that amount taxation would not be so bad, but I feel inclined to vote against the whole measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In Committee:* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 - >Section four of the Entertainments Tax Act 1916-1918 is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - "4. (.1.) The rates of the Entertainments Tax shall be as follows, namely : -
New South Wales .- I move- >That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out the following words: - "Not exceeding fivepence for the admission to a continuous place of entertainment of persons apparently over the age of sixteen years - One halfpenny. Sixpence - One halfpenny. Exceeding sixpence but not exceeding one shilling - One penny." Some honorable senators seem to think that under the Bill the taxation on 3d. tickets is abolished altogether. As a matter of fact it is not. It is wiped out so far as children under the age of sixteen years are concerned, but not in the case of adults. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- That applies only to continuous shows. Suburban picture shows are free. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Let the picture show proprietors reduce their prices. They can afford to do it. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- They cannot. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- You are assisting profiteering. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -I will allow the honorable senator to hold his own views as to what I am assisting. This making up of daily return's is a source of great annoyance and trouble to the pictureshow proprietors, especially in regard to this roundabout way of collecting the½d. on 3d. tickets. It is unthinkable that this rich Commonwealth should attempt to collect such an amount. I simply want a clear-cut issue on the proposition that no tickets under1s. shall be taxed. {: #subdebate-10-0-s4 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT -- It seems to me that the honorable senator is not quite clear as to the position. The Bill exempts 3d. tickets for all evening and suburban picture shows. The only shows in respect of which the taxation stands are the continuous shows. In a letter which I have received from the Queensland branch of the Federated Picture Showmen's Association, a distinction is made between suburban evening shows and the continuous day shows in our cities. They state - >Night-time shows, particularly suburban, have become established as a recognised form of economical family outing and foregathering, and are healthy and beneficial to the community by maintaining that spirit of family fraternity that no other form of entertainment has achieved. These shows are exempt. Referring to the city continuous day shows, which are in progress in the principal streets of the capital cities, they say - >Day-time and night-time shows are not on a par, as the former cater mostly for other than workers. Their principal visitors are holiday makers and idlers, being situated in the busiest parts of the larger cities only, where the residential community is thinnest. A concession has been made to the suburban picture-shows and their patrons. I do not suppose anybody is enthusiastic about this form of taxation. I am not, but Parliament deliberately decided to extend the area of taxation as much as possible for the period of the war, and the Government must obtain money to discharge this country's obligations. It has been said that, mow the war is over, there should be no need for this form of taxation. Never was a greater blunder made, because at the present time about thirty boats are on the water with returning soldiers, and we are reaching a most critical time in our finances, for each returned soldier receives about £60 deferred pay. This represents about £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and we also have heavy obligations in respect of repatriation matters. Next year I hope to be able to join in urging favorable consideration of a request to show greater liberality in regard to this matter. {: #subdebate-10-0-s5 .speaker-JZ9} ##### Senator O'KEEFE:
Tasmania -- **Senator Gardiner's** amendment simply means that no ticket for admission under 1s. shall be taxable. That is the clear proposition which should commend itself to the Government and their supporters. I feel satisfied that it would meet the views of the vast majority of the people, and I hope it will be carried. Question - That the request (Senator Gardiner's) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 4 NOES: 18 Majority . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without request; report adopted. Standing and SessionalOrders suspended, and Bill read a third time. Senate adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1919/19191021_senate_7_90/>.