Senate
17 August 1923

9th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2940

QUESTION

POSITION OF GOVERNMENT

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-In view of what happened in another place last night, I should like to know if the Government intend to proceed with business?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The honorable senator takes the happenings in another place last night far moreseriously than the Government do. Notwithstanding the vote there, the Government are Satisfied that they retain the confidence of both Houses, and intend to proceed with business.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then may I ask, is there any provision in our Constitution for the removal of a Government that refuse to resign when the business is taken out of their hands?

Senator PEARCE:

– I would not presume to teach an old parliamentarian like my honorable friend the tricks of the trade.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Ministry are teaching us tricks now, at all events.

page 2940

QUESTION

FORESTS PRODUCTS LABORATORY

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– For the fifth time, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs if he has obtained from the Institute of Science and Industry, or from any other source, the information which I desire with regard to the proposed Forests Products Laboratory?

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I think that if I read a letter which I have received from Sir George Knibbs, the Director of. the Institute of Science and Industry, it will explain the position. Sir George Knibbs states -

Perhaps it will make matters clear if I state, in reference to the inquiry made by Senator Kingsmill and the Minister, that no part of the £3,342 is allocated for a Forests Products Laboratory, but for the currentneeds of the Institute’s work.

SenatorKingsmill. - Then the earlier information supplied by the Minister was incorrect ?

Senator WILSON:

– I shall he pleased to allow the honorable senator to peruse the Correspondence if he desires to do so.

page 2941

QUESTION

ESTIMATES, 1923-24

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Can the Leader of the Senate state if honorable senators will have an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates in detail, and, if so, when?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Appropriation Bill must come before the Senate, and when it does honorable senators will have a full opportunity to ventilate all matters affecting the various Departments.

Senator Kingsmill:

– When will the Bill be presented?

Senator PEARCE:

– I hope it will be received to-day. At all events, it will be here next week.

page 2941

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL RATES

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– For the “ nth “ time, I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General if he has an answer to my very simple question, first asked on 1st August, relating to Australian cable rates ?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I regret very much that I am still unable to answer the honorable senator’s question, but I am assured that the informationwill be available on our next day of sitting.

page 2941

QUESTION

NAURU AND OCEAN ISLAND

Price of Phosphate Rock : Purchase of “Nauru Chief.”

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What was the price paid by other countries for phosphate rock f.o.b. Nauru and Ocean Island each year from 1st July 1920?
  2. What was the price paid by the British Phosphate Commission for theNauru Chief?
  3. Was the Commonwealth Government consulted before the vessel was purchased?
  4. Did not the Government have a suitable vessel that could have been acquired instead of purchasing the Nauru Chief ?
  5. From whom was the vessel purchased?
  6. Where was the vessel built, and when?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– This information is being obtained, and will be furnished to the honorable member at the earliest possible date.

page 2941

QUESTION

APPLE EXPORT BOUNTY

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Has the request made by a deputation from Tasmania, in July last, that a bounty be provided for evaporated apples for export, been fully considered?
  2. If so, will provisionbe made in this direction so that it will be available for next season’s output?
Senator WILSON:
NAT

– The Minister for Trade and Customs supplies the following answer.- - .

  1. Consideration is being given to the matter, but a decision has not yet been arrived at.
  2. See answer to question No. 1.

page 2941

QUESTION

SOLDIER SETTLEMENT

Land Purchased

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What amount of land (excluding land purchased for War Service Homes’ purposes) was purchased for soldier settlement in the various States?
  2. What was the average cost per acre of such purchases?
  3. By what Governments (Labour or otherwise) were such purchases respectively made?
  4. Has it been determined if any, and what amount, must be written off in regard to such purchases by reason of excessive values?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister supplies the following answer: -

It will be necessary to communicate with the various State Governments to obtain this information, and action is being taken accordingly. As soon as the desired particulars are available, they will be transmitted to the honorable senator.

page 2941

REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (TERRITORIES) BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 2941

SHALE OIL BOUNTY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Wilson) read a first time.

page 2941

TASMANIA GRANT BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) pro posed -

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South “Wales

– Lest, by usage, the rights of the Senatebe overlooked, especially in the concluding days of the session, when so many Bills and motions are presented, I should like to make it quite clear, especially to members new to the Senate, that there is reserved to us the right of debating a motion for the third reading of a Bill. But, quite apart from this right, I am very much interested in this proposed grant to Tasmania, and I must express something more than pleasure at the ability displayed by Senator Ogden last evening. He not only put his case so well as to secure a majority of the Senate for the Bill, but also very nearly induced a majority of my party to vote for it. Some honorable senators affected to see in this clash of views some friction in our party. They were wrong. The vote last night showed that, where State rights are concerned, we are bound by nothing on our party platform. It also showed that honorable senators opposite are controlled by the party Whip.

Senator Elliott:

– Oh!

Senator GARDINER:

– Facts are indisputable. The debate on the second reading and through the Committee stages of the Bill was most interesting, the outstanding feature being the ability displayed by Senator Ogden as one of the “ watch-dogs “ from Tasmania. And I must say, referring to the other Tasmanian representatives in this Chamber, that, generally speaking, they bark as much as the “watch-dogs” from any other State, but they were strangely silent in the debate last night.

Senator Pearce:

– They were quite satisfied with the justice of their case.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. They were content to let the justice of their case rest upon their silence. And their silence insured the passage of the Bill.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator who spoke nearly jeopardized the measure.

Senator GARDINER:

– The results proved the reverse. I venture to say that when the division list is examined, and when the speeches are read, particularly by people in far-away Tasmania, there will be general agreement that Tasmania owes much to the arguments so ably advanced by Senator Ogden last evening. The people there will . also be alive to the fact that, for once, when the interests pf Tasmania were ‘at stake, the other representatives of that State were stricken dumb. I am now giving them the opportunity to say something for their fair island State. I submit that this is not the time for wasteful expenditure. This is not the. time for the Commonwealth to pay out to Tasmania money which the other States can ill-afford to spare.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-brockman. - Economy is wise expenditure.

Senator GARDINER:

– On that point I can only say that this appeal to the Commonwealth is the result of incapacity on the part of the Tasmanian Government to manage their own affairs. Of course, nothing appeals to our sympathies so much as distress and incapacity, and accordingly we have decided that we shall lend further financial assistance to Tasmania. I take the same position with regard to Kew South Wales as Senator Ogden does with regard to Tasmania. As I earnestly and truly believe that the load which the taxpayers of New South Wales are bearing is quite sufficient, even at this stage, I intend to oppose this grant. Other honorable senators disagree with me. South Australia can quite justly say that, in addition to carrying its own burden, it is prepared to assist Tasmania. They are a generous, big-hearted people in South Australia, and I am glad to see them adopting that attitude. Tasmania, which is asking for assistance, has a State taxation of £3 6s. 7d. per head. Queensland, which is asked to assist Tasmania, carries a State taxation of £4 17s. lid. per head. I am really glad to see the generous attitude which the Queensland representatives are adopting. In effect”, they say to their people, “ Taxed as heavily as you are, we consider that yo.u should not only pay the Queensland State tax, but should also help to pay the cost of Tasmania’s government.” That is the generosity that makes Federation possible; it is the true Federal spirit. The highest taxed State in the Commonwealth is prepared to vote money to assist a State that carries one of the lowest burdens of taxation. I do not mind the Western Australian representatives voting with those from Tasmania : they have a lively sense of favours to come. The attitude I take up is that the time has arrived when each State must finance itself ; that each State which claims the right to responsible government must also accept the responsibility of paying for its system of government. When one Government raises money for another Government to spend, that will be the end of responsible government. The control of the purse - the raising and the spending of money - is the essence of government. Believing that, I shall call for a division on this motion. I desire to show clearly and emphatically what is being done by the Senate, which is supposed to protect State interests and State rights. In this Chamber, each State is equally represented. New South Wales, with its large population, has equal representation with Tasmania, that has a small population. Witnessing the spectacle of the representatives of two or three small States combining for the purpose of voting money, first to one and then to another, the big States must realize that they will have to secure such representation as will conserve their interests. There will have to be that kind of representation if we are to return to responsible government. This is not a very large grant. For a Government that is wasting so much money, a mere £85,000 here or there does not amount to a very great deal. Possibly by paying Tasmania £85,000 the Government will be putting the money to the best use to which any of its expenditure has been put since it has been in power. But the principle is wrong. It appears to me to be absurd that this island State should, after more than twenty years of Federation, look to the rest of the Commonwealth to assist in financing its Government. The principle is absolutely wrong, and it must end. I quite appreciate the fact that the Western Australians very readily assisted to make this grant to Tasmania. The State taxation in Western Australia is about £211s. per head. They approve of the principle, I presume, because their State is receiving an annual subsidy from the Commonwealth.

Senator Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator is a thought-reader.

Senator GARDINER:

– It will be most unfortunate if, among the many parts I am called upon to play, I am required to read the thoughts of honorable senators. They are sufficiently disturbing when they are uttered. If I were called upon to read their thoughts, particularly with regard to myself, I can well imagine that my equanimity would be disturbed. I have a lively appreciation of what is passing through Senator Payne’s mind at this moment. I cannot understand Senator Payne’s silence when a Tasmanian matter is being debated. I can’ quite believe that he is annihilating me in thought, if not in action. I wonder what the people of Tasmania will say when they realize that the only speech made in this Chamber on this matter by a Tasmanian representative was made by its sole Labour representative. They will ask, “ Where was Senator Payne ? “

Senator Payne:

– In his place.

Senator GARDINER:

– If they read my speech, they will find that the honorable senator made quite a number of interjections, and they will therefore know that he was present when the debate was proceeding. They will say, however, “ When Senator Ogden had made his argumentatively eloquent speech in defence of his State’s rights, where was Senator Payne ? Where was Senator John D. Millen?” Theirs was the most “ conspicuous “ silence I have ever known. I was absolutely shocked at the silence of Senator Payne.

Senator Payne:

– I think that the honorable senator was shocked at his failure to “ draw the badger.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I can assure the honorable senator that it was delightful to sit under that silence. I realize that, if it had been broken, it would have been a question, not of drawing, but of withdrawing. When the honorable senator meets the electors, armed with Hansard, in one of his mining districts, he will be asked, “Where were you when the Tasmanian grant was going through? Here was a representative of that huge State of New South Wales attempting to prevent the grant being made. Did you raise your voice in protest?”

Senator Needham:

– “What did father do in the great debate?”

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator will be told, “ This representative of New South Wales did his utmost to prevent Tasmania fromtaking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of New South Wales.”

Senator Hays:

– The honorable senator was not very well supported.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that I was not. That vote of lack of confidence on the floor of the Senate affected me so greatly that if I thought the honorable senators of my party who voted with Senator Ogden were prepared to elect him the Leader of that party in this Chamber, I should resign my leadership in his favour. “I feel the position most acutely. If they will announce that intention to me, I not only will resign, but will join with them in electing Senator Ogden as Leader of our party in the Senate. It is rather a blow to find that the eloquence of a new honorable senator can Carry a question in which all the logic was on my side. However, I shall get over it. Strange to say, in this matter each of us is doing what he thinks is right, and is fighting for his own State. If it proves anything, it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Labour party, despite all the limitations to which its members are said to be subjected, is freer than any other party that ever has been represented in Parliament. The document which we sign states how far we shall go; and beyond that limit there is absolute freedom.

Senator Hays:

– I assure the honorable senator that my interjection did not refer to a party division.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know whether the newspapers refer to these matters. I venture to say that if they do, that is the interpretation which they will place upon it - that there is party friction between Senator Ogden and myself. I want to make it quite clear that, just as Senator Ogden and I claim our individual rights in dealing with matters outside our party platform, so we are equally bound on all matters, that are included in our platform. Honorable senators cannot tell me that every member of Senator Pearce’s party believes that this grant should be made. Can any honorable senator contend, after having heard Senator Duncan’s speech, that he believed in it? Why did he speak in one way and vote in another? 1 Senator Findley. - He got the cold shivers because of a vote he cast the other day against the Government.

Senator GARDINER:

– I think he got more; he got a crack from the “whip.” No one can tell me that Senator Reid, sitting snugly in his corner opposite, wanted to add another shilling or sixpence per head to the Queensland taxation. Were honorable senators opposite compelled to vote as they were told because they have no platform, no principles, nothing to bind them? Honorable senators cannot convince me that a distinguished general, like Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow would compel the electors of Queensland to take up some of the links of Tasmania’s chain when the chain which they are carrying in Queensland is already too heavy, unless some strong reason impelled him. Senators Needham and Graham, who also voted with the Government in supporting the Bill, of course, have already shown that they are looking for favours for Western Australia.

Senator Needham:

– We shall look in vain, I am afraid.

Senator GARDINER:

– The present special payment to Western Australia is £120,000 per annum, and that amount diminishes annually. I am inclined to think that when the payment runs out Western Australia will realize that it has to accept the inevitable, and must take its place in the Federation as a fully-grown State that is prepared to meet the cost of its government. Here is another opportunity for the Tasmanians to advance the interests of their State. I never look for votes. I believe that truth and right principles prevail. The time will come, however, when the Labour party will have nearly all the representation in the Senate, and when Nationalist senators will be very few in number. I may not be here to participate in the triumph. A long parliamentary experience has convinced me that what is said to-day is forgotten tomorrow. Even Senator Hays will find when he has had more experience of political life that my arguments are sound. I have been taunted by some because I have not visited Tasmania, but if my party will arrange a few meetings for me in that State, I shall be quite prepared to debate in the most amiable way this most important question. The Tasmanian representatives who remained silent during the second reading of the debate should even at this late hour endeavor to justify the grant. I rose more particularly to again protest against the very unwise policy of asking taxpayers who are already heavily burdened to contribute towards the finances of a State in which the people are less heavily taxed. I cannot understand Senator Duncan, who is a representative of an important State in which the taxpayers, on his own showing, contribute 45 per cent, of the total taxation contributed, submitting strong arguments why the Bill should not be passed and then voting for the second reading. I do not intend to misrepresent the position by supplying newspapers with misleading information. I am doing my duty on the floor of this Chamber. As a defender of the State rights of New South Wales, I am delighted to find that two honorable senators from New South Wales who have recently been elected to the Senate - Senator McDougall and Senator Grants - have so loyally defended the taxpayers of New South Wales, and am sorry to find that they have been deserted by Nationalist senators from that State. I do not, of course, include Senator E. D. Millen, who unfortunately is unable to be present. When the Tariff was under discussion Senator Duncan delivered a Free Trade speech on one item, and a little later supported the Protectionists. The honorable senator voted for the second reading of this Bill, and will I presume oppose the third reading.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- I do not intend to delay the Senate.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator wish to block the passing of the Bill?

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– No. I merely wish to say a few words in defence of my colleagues from Tasmania. Honorable senators representing Tasmania did not speak on the motion for the second reading, because they thought that they could best assist the passing of the Bill by remaining silent. I thank honorable senators for the favorable consideration given to the Bill, and I earnestly trust that Tasmania will never again have to approach Parliament for financial assistance in this form. In the heat of debate I may have said that Tasmania did not enjoy the advantages possessed by some of the other States, but I do not wish it to be thought that I would endeavor to deprive them of the privileges which they possess. I trust that Senator Gardiner will not call for a division on the third reading.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Commonwealth should, if necessary, subsidize at least for a limited period a large territory such as the Northern portion of Australia, but in this instance assistance is being given to a State which has equal representation in this Senate with other States - representation altogether out of proportion to its population. By a combination of forces a definite, attempt is being made to take from the Commonwealth Treasury sums subscribed by the larger States in. order to assist a State which should be able to raise sufficient taxation to meet its own obligations. Hitherto Victoria and New South Wales have not to any extent regarded questions of this kind in the light in whichthey will be considered in the future. I do not think for a moment that the taxpayers of New South Wales, in which State there is a large number of unemployed, will favourably consider the proposal to contribute revenue to enable Tasmania to adjust its finances. There has not been an earthquake in Tasmania such as recently devastated the southern portions of. Italy. The Tasmanian people are going about their business in the usual way, and despite the number of years during which that State has enjoyed responsible government, the people are apparently unable to introduce a system under which they can find sufficient revenue to carry on without assistance from the Commonwealth. I have viewed this question from every aspect, and since the taxation per head of Tasmania is less than that of several of the other States, the proper course for the Tasmanian Government to adopt is to increase its taxation to at least their level. If that cannot be done, the States should be wiped out, and a system of unification introduced. I oppose the motion, and intend to call for a division to see exactly where honorable senators stand in this matter.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2946

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move - .

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In order to meet public requirements the Government has decided to reduce the rate on all classes of mail matter except in those cases where the present rates are considered to be sufficiently low not to warrant reduction. The present rates were adopted for the purpose of bringing in additional revenue urgently needed to meet, heavy commitments of the Commonwealth in connexion with the war, and circumstances arising out of the war. It is estimated that the reduction in revenue for the first full year as a result of the operation of the reduced rates will be £930,000. During the last twelve or eighteen months conditions in other countries have altered to such an extent that a review of the postal rates is justified, and in most countries considerable reductions have been effected. Although pre-war rates have not been reverted to, existing conditions fully justify the Government in reducing the existing rates. While large sums are required to meet our commitments, the Post and Telegraph Department is not regarded by the Government as a means of imposing taxation, and so long as the Postal Department is self-supporting, it is felt that it is doing all that is required. In framing the schedule of rates in the Bill, the Government, in making reductions, has gone to the utmost limit. It is desired that the Post and Telegraph Department shall be effectively and economically managed, and that the rates charged for services shall be sufficient to make the Department self-supporting. It is not proposed to reduce the present rates of postage on newspapers posted for delivery in the Commonwealth. The present rate of postage for letters is 2d. for each1/2 oz. ; the proposed rate is 11/2d. for each ounce. This represents a very material reduction, as it not only reduces the rate by 25 per cent., but increases the weight carried for that rate by 100 per cent. In adopting the ounce unit of weight for letters, the Commonwealth is following the practice in operation in a great majority of the countries of the Postal Union. The ounce unit of weight applies to letters from the Commonwealth to foreign countries, such unit having been adopted in compliance with the provisions of the Universal Postage Convention. The present postage on letters to places beyond the Commonwealth is, for the first ounce 4d., and on each succeeding ounce l1/2d. The proposed rates for letters to places beyond the Commonwealth are: Within the British Empire, l1/2d. per oz.; foreign, 3d. for the first ounce, and l1/2d. for each succeeding ounce. Honorable senators, I have no doubt, will be interested in the following comparison of the proposed local postage rates with the rates charged in other countries : -

An honorable senator asked why a reduction was not being made in the postage rate for newspapers. He will see from the comparative statement I have, read that newspapers are carried at a lower rate in Australia than in any other country that I have mentioned. The present rate for letter-cards is 2d. ; the proposed rate is 1½d. each. The postage on letter-cards is necessarily the same as the initial rate for letters. The present rate for postcards is 1½d; the proposed rate is Id. This preserves the customary relation between postcard and letter rates. The proposed rates for postcards to places beyond the Commonwealth are: Within the British Empire, Id. each; to foreign countries, ltd. each. On commercial papers the present rate is 1½d. per 2 oz. ; the proposed rate is Id. per 2 oz. The proposed rate is the same as that which was. in operation prior to the introduction of war postage. It will maintain the usual relationship between the rates for commercial papers, patterns, samples, merchandise, and letters. The present rate for printed papers is Id. “for 2 oz. ; the proposed rate is Id. per 4 oz. Under the new scale the weight carried will be doubled, which will be equivalent, in the case of printed papers weighing over 2 oz., to a reduction of 50 per cent. It is not proposed to make any alteration on the rate of postage on books, as it is so low that no reduction could be justified. There is a separate rate of postage of Id. per 4 oz. for books printed outside Australia, but, as the rate for printed papers is being reduced to Id. per 4 oz., this class of book is being included in the category of printed papers, to which it properly belongs. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the rate of postage for magazines, as the present rate is exceptionally low. The present rate for catalogues is 1½d. for 4 oz. for each catalogue, and, consequently, in one cover; the postage rate is according to the number of catalogues, and not by weight. The proposed rate is Id. per 4 oz., irrespective of the number of catalogues contained in a packet. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the view of the Government that postal rates should not be any higher than is necessary to provide an efficient postal service throughout the Commonwealth. Whatever justification there was during recent years for raising revenue through the Postal Department no longer exists, and postal rates should now be reduced to a point which will provide no more than sufficient revenue for an efficient postal service.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is an important and debatable Bill. It is possibly one of the most debatable Bills brought before the Senate this session. I shall not take the usual course of asking for the adjournment, but I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister (Senator Crawford) with a view to getting the Bill passed quickly. If the session is to close next Friday, there must be “ giveandtake “ on both sides of the Chamber. I’ suggest some slight alterations in the Bill to make it more acceptable to the people of Australia. It does not matter to the people who sent us here whether the rate of postage on letters is Id. or 1½d. The difference is neither here nor there to them, for they write, perhaps, not more than one letter a month. I agree with the Minister that the Post Office should not be used as a means of- levying taxation, but the question arises whether the charges made by the Post Office are taxation, or merely payment for services rendered ? There is a big difference between the two. If the Post Office receives more for the services it renders than -the cost of those services, the charges should be reduced. I do not think the Minister or the Postmaster-General (Mr. Gibson) have been deceived, but we know that a little while ago the Government adopted the unique method of making the Post Office pay by calling a new pencil “a “works” item, and paying for it out of loan money. “ New works “ came to mean almost anything that hitherto was paid for out of revenue. By that means the Post Office is made to show a surplus, and immediately the Government announces that it will reduce “ taxation “ by that Department. I say it is not taxation. When the Post Office carries a letter for 2d. or 2Jd., it is not taxing the person who posts that letter, but is rendering a service at a very moderate charge. Australia is, at the present time - or at least I imagine it is - in a very serious financial position. Our national debt is almost overwhelming. Any other Government but the one in power would have realized that the circumstances are such that we cannot make concessions to big trading firms. The remarkable feature of the Bill is that while it makes concessions to commercial and business bouses, it grants nothing to those who are not associated with big interests. To illustrate my point, I mention one item in the schedule - Hansard. “Why should nob the official reports of parliamentary debates be spread broadcast throughout the Commonwealth?’ Even if postage is charged on them, it amounts to a book entry only. All the people of Australia cannot come to the Senate and hear the words of wisdom uttered by members of * the* other side.

Senator Crawford:

– The rate of postage on Hansard publications is Id. for 12 oz.

Senator GARDINER:

– But look at the weighty - I do not mean heavy - remarks of honorable senators on the other side. The Minister would be well advised to agree to frank Hansard through the post. That would give to the people an opportunity of knowing what is happening here. One representative of the country press asked me for a condensed report of what I had said. I recommended him to consult the A ge and Argus, and told him that the reports in those journals were so condensed that he would not be able to find” them. If I send out a copy of Hansard, I do so in my ‘public capacity as a member of Parliament, and put an “ O.S.” stamp on it. Why should we go to that trouble? It would be better to say that the reports of Parliament shall be transmitted free to the electors in whatever part of Australia they may reside. To read the debates would lighten the load of many a struggling settler; and another advantage would be that when the people read what was happening in Parliament, and compared it with what the newspapers said was happening, they would revise their opinions of the newspapers. The advantage in that connexion would be de-: rived by both sides in politics. I feel considerable ill-will towards the press because of its constant and uncalled-for attacks upon me. It never mentions my name except to say something untrue about me. Its attacks are evidently written by men who either have to write as they are told, or have not the capacity to report parliamentary proceedings accurately.

Senator Lynch:

– One needs to be a witness in a Police Court in order to be reported in the pre*ss.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have been returned to Parliament after many elections, owing, perhaps, to the fact that some of my speeches have not been reported, so that there is much for which to be thankful. The Bill perhaps has something to recommend it. At one time, I was quite enthusiastic on the subject of penny postage, and to a large extent I still believe that the cheaper we make facilities for communication the better for all concerned. I have before me a telegram from the Weekly Newspapers Association, of 84 Goulburn-street, Sydney, and, as it is the first nice request I have ever received in connexion with newspapers, I wish to have it embalmed in Hansard. It reads -

New postal charges, including retention war extra bulk postage, seriously penalize newspapers serving country interests. Strongly urge action secure reduction Senate.

I am desirous of complying with that request, not resenting the attacks which have been made upon me by sections of the press, but endeavouring to heap coals of fire upon their heads. News-1 papers undoubtedly have an educational value to the community, and I might reasonably ask the Minister (Senator Crawford) to agree to a reduction of the extra bulk postage which was imposed during the war period. I am as anxious as Ministers are to dispose of the business before the Senate, and I believe that there are occasions when the Government might meet honorable members in a spirit of compromise instead of demanding the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. The measure provides for a reduction in the postage, so far as letters and parcels from ordinary commercial houses are .concerned, but makes no reduction in the bulk postage on newspapers.

Senator Crawford:

– The pre-war rate was Id. for 20 oz., and the proposed rate is l£d. Australia is the only country in the world where newspapers are carried at bulk rates.

Senator GARDINER:

– Australia is ahead of many other countries, because most of its people can read.

Senator O’loghlin:

– There has been an increase of 50 per cent, on the pre-war rate.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am prepared to meet the Government in a spirit of reasonableness with regard to all its Bills, and I am only asking it to make a reduction of £d. in 20 oz.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– These papers may be separately addressed.

Senator GARDINER:

– I . thank the Minister for his interjection; but the difference between the present and the pre-war rate is so slight, and such quantities of newspapers are carried in bulk, that the extra -Jd. represents a big tax on the distribution of newspapers throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Reid:

– The cost of freight has gone up more than 50 per cent, since the war.

Senator GARDINER:

– I. realize that, but it is a very serious matter to the newspaper owners. Why should they be given different treatment from the commercial houses handling pamphlets and magazines ? I ask the Minister, for once, to meet the Senate in a reasonable spirit upon a non-party subject. If he will treat the newspapers in the same way as the commercial houses are to be dealt with, I shall be prepared to meet him in many other matters connected with the Bill. Never was a Government more anxious than the present Ministry is for a hurried closing of Parliament, and never has a Government been more desirous, in its own interests, of a smooth ending to the session. There is no evidence that’ the Government is short of money, judging by its attitude concerning the meat export bounty and the grant to Tasmania. Nobody can overestimate the educational value of the newspapers. I believe that the Worker in Queensland and New South Wales has done very much for the uplifting of the people, and in Western Australia, too, it has spread the good tidings, trying to make Australians live up to the principle that all men are equal. I never belittle the political weapons of our opponents. Every morning their heavy artillery is directed towards the ranks of the working people. They fire big shells, and very frequently they do damage.

Senator O’loghlin:

– They use poison gas, too.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.- The reduction ‘for which I am asking would benefit our opponents more than ourselves, but I recognise that it would be invidious to grant relief under this measure to some business houses and not to the newspapers. The Government might lose a small amount of revenue. If the amount be large, the more reason why the rate should be reduced, for the charges fall chiefly on the primary producers, whom we are all anxious to protect. In all deliberative assemblies there is a professed desire to make the life of the primary producer easier, and to prevent the drift of population to the cities. Would the Government be making rural life more attractive by increasing, as compared with the pre-war rates, the bulk postage rates on parcels of newspapers destined for country centres? I admit that the reduction in the ordinary postal rate on letters is a concession to the business man. I speak, probably more than any other honorable senator, as the “representative of the business people of New South Wales. In fact, I voice their interests to such an extent that sometimes my own friends find fault with me. On this question of cheap postage, the Government should not give relief in one direction, where perhaps it may not be needed, and allow the war burdens to be continued upon another section of the community. But I shall leave this question of cheaper postage rates for another and perhaps a more convenient occasion, when time may not be so important to the Government as it is now. Ministers may think that, on this point, my remarks . lack earnestness, but I can assure them that I am as anxious as they are to conduct the business of this Senate in such a way as to conserve the interests of the whole of the people.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I appeal to honorable senators not to allow their objections to certain rates in the schedule to influence them in voting against the second reading of the Bill. It would be almost too much to expect that a schedule dealing with a large number of rates should meet with universal approval. Therefore, I urge that the second reading be agreed to, and that the schedule be dealt with in Committee. My colleague (Senator Crawford), in introducing the Bill, stressed the fact that it is not desirable that the Post Office should be a taxing machine. That statement, I think, meets with general approval, but one honorable senator, by way of interjection, urged that relief should first be given to the residents of certain country districts, who, in addition to paying the ordinary taxation demands of the Government, are called upon to contribute by way of subsidy for services in sparsely populated areas. On this point it would be as well, I think, if I placed certain facts before honorable senators. The Postal Department has a perfect system of costing, which has been the subject of commendation by Royal Commissions that have inquired into postal matters, and so it is possible to state exactly the cost of all postal services. Last year the revenue from the postal branch - excluding receipts from telegraph and telephone branches - was £4,672,607, and the expenditure £3,791,571, so that for the year mentioned, the Post Office was a taxgatherer to the extent of £881,036 on postal services alone. If the new rates are agreed to it is estimated that the loss of revenue in the postal branch will be £930,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the adoption of the new rates will remove any objection that might be urged as to the Postal Department being used as a taxing machine. . The people will be called upon to pay just what the service costs and no more.

Senator Kingsmill:

– That is all they should be expected to pay.

Senator PEARCE:

– I come now to the point taken that before reducing the postal rates we should give relief to people who have to contribute by way of subsidies for the maintenance of limited mail services in remote country districts. Action in this direction has already been taken. The former PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Poynton) made a number of reductions in subsidy charges twelve months ago, and the present Postmaster-General (Mr. Gibson) has extended the principle with the result that the charges under this heading to make up the loss on these services have been substantially reduced. Since the Government have done something in the direction indicated, honorable senators, because they may feel that people in the remote country districts are entitled to greater consideration, should not vote against the second reading of this measure. The Bill, if agreed to, will promote the interests of the community from the point of view of improving its social life. The introduction of penny postage in Great Britain was regarded as a great step forward because it improved the means of communication. Anything that does that must benefit the community. An improvement in our postal facilities must materially affect beneficially the amenities of our social life. I, therefore, ask honorable senators to support the second reading of the Bill. If there are inconsistencies in the schedule they can be threshed out in Committee.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– It is inexplicable to me that any honorable senator who has the interest of Australia at heart should oppose a Bill designed to improve the communications between communities and individuals. I look upon an adequate and effective postal system as one of the absolute necessities of modern life. Then is an old French proverb to the effect that “ to know everything is to forgive everything.” It is only by constant communication, as I have already said, between individuals and between States, that we may be in a position to understand all our neighbours’ difficulties. I also strongly support the view stated by both the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), that the element of commercialism in this matter should be disregarded. The Postal Department is one of our greatest public utilities, and, therefore, the question of profit should, if possible, be entirely eliminated from its operations. In Western Australia, prior to Federation, one of the main planks in the late Lord Forrest’s programme was that country centres, and even the remote country districts, should have adequate postal and telegraphic facilities. He pushed forward thi3 policy to such an extent - in those days he had plenty of money to spend - that, metaphorically speaking, the State Postmaster-General used to shriek with agony at the tasks set him; but the conveniences provided had a very great influence in the settlement of many parts of Western Australia. Similarly, the improvement of the facilities provided by the Commonwealth must have the same effect in our time. Surely, in these days, when, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the rush to the cities is becoming more and more acute, one of our first considerations should be to improve the postal facilities in country districts. Even if we lost money in this way, I should consider it money well spent. I do not know what to say with regard to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition concerning Mansard; but I suggest it is possible that, if a settler in the midst of a long day’s toil thought that when he returned to his home in the evening he would be_ faced with a volume of Mansard, he might decide to work a little longer. Perhaps in that way the honorable senator’s suggestion might be fruitful.

Senator Crawford:

– The subscription to Mansard, including postage, is only 2s. 6d. per annum.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I absolutely refuse to be drawn into an expression of opinion as to whether it is worth tha money.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Of course it is.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The outside settler thinks a great deal of it.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– No doubt Senator Newland is quite right. One probably realizes its influence when one finds how political sins committed in this Chamber are revealed by Mansard to those who -live ins the more remote parts of the Commonwealth. In the circumstances, I hardly know whether or not this publication is a public utility; but if certain people want to read Mansard, then all I can say is that a study of the publication is not likely to have a deleterious effect upon them, and, therefore, their request should be granted. I understand that certain honorable gentlemen are inclined to oppose the Bill, not because it will not do good, but because it will probably benefit the business section of the community more than any other. I maintain that anything that makes for the smooth working of business is bound to react upon the general community. If we can make business life run more smoothly I am confident that, notwithstanding an opinion which appears to be held by certain honorable senators that business people are without conscience, in their gratitude they will make some return to the community for this concession. I would be loath to oppose ,any proposal designed to do my friends good, simply because I thought it might benefit also other persons who might not be my friends. But there is another reason why we should accept this Bill. .In Australia, as in America, the system of education by correspondence is growing very rapidly. It is indeed the only means of education available to many people in the remote parts of Australia. I have previously stated that one of my principal objects in public life is to do what I can. to make the distant parts of Australia habitable and pleasant, as well as profitable, for those whom, unfortunately, it is difficult to induce to go there. We should do all we possibly can to induce men to work for themselves in the country instead of continuing to work for wages in the city. We should teach the Australians to be self-reliant - to depend more upon their own efforts instead of upon the efforts of their employers. I believe that these improved postal facilities will be a big step in this direction. I therefore give the Bill my wholehearted support. Although I have not received a nice telegram from the press, I shall give the Leader of the Opposition my support if he moves an amendment in the direction he has indicated with regard to the postage upon newspapers.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– As my objection is to the whole Bill, I am obliged to make a few remarks on the motion for its second reading. Reduction of postage is a very popular cry. I may be reminded that Id. postage was inaugurated under a measure introduced by a Labour Ministry. Circumstances at that time, however, were different from what they are to-day. The Government of the day had a big surplus; it had, so to speak, money to burn. What might have been justified several years ago under those circumstances, is not justifiable now, seeing that Australia is carrying a war debt of over £400,000,000, and that our taxation has increased so rapidly during recent years. I take the objection that this Bill will relieve only a limited class. The amount of relief which the bulk of the population will receive will be very small indeed. The revenue which we are asked to forgo might be applied to advantage in giving extra facilities to the settlers in country districts, and so relieving the hardships which cause the population to drift into the cities. The Minister said that the Post Office should not be used as a medium for taxation. I agree with that contention; but at the same time, a sufficient service must be provided to meet the wants of the community. Is the community, especially in country districts, being given sufficient facilities at present? I do not think it is. This £900,000 is something in the nature of a present mainly to the big business interests. It could be used to better advantage in giving improved postal and telephonic facilities to country districts. In the United States of America, that goahead country, from which we can learn many lessons, nearly every farm-house has a telephone, and the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic facilities in the outlying districts are so great that the distances which separates those districts from the centres of civilization are not a very serious handicap. Without making the Post Office a taxing medium, greater facilities could be given to country districts in Australia, thus alleviating the conditions of those who have so much with which to contend in the present circumstances.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.-The proposals embodied in this measure were discussed during the Budget debate, and my remarks will, therefore, be largely in the nature of repetition. That repetition, however, I think is justified. The Bill in its broad outlines is one which sets out to ease postal charges, and to satisfy the desire of some persons that this institution should not be made a taxing machine. If that is to be the stand-point from which Ave are to view the matter, let the Post Office repay to the Treasury the debt which it owes to-day. Then, it will not be a taxing machine. An amount of £5,900,000 has been taken from the pockets of the taxpayers for the purpose of benefiting those who use the Post Office. It has been stated that the business and commercial interests are the largest users of the Post Office.

Senator Pearce:

– The Post Office is now being charged interest on that debt to the Treasury.

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not see in the Bill any mention of the repayment of the loan.

Senator Pearce:

– Beginning with this year, the Post Office is being charged interest on the debt it owes to the Treasury.

Senator LYNCH:

– There is a vast difference between interest and principal. If the taxpayer has to put his hand in his pocket in order to give greater advantages to the big financial interests of the country, let it be done on a proper basis. The Post Office has levied tribute upon the taxpayers to make good .deficiencies that have occurred during the last twenty years. If the institution is to be run on those lines, let it be given an annual sum, and we shall know where we stand. In the past, when the Department has shown a. deficit, we have dipped into the Treasury and made that deficit good. Now, when it is making a Surplus, it is proposed to rush to the other extreme in order to reduce taxation. As custodians of the interests of the taxpayers, we must insist on the repayment of this £5,900,000. It is necessary to guard jealously the interests of those persons in the country who cannot waylay Ministers or browbeat them, as some newspapers attempt to do. During the course of another debate, I quoted figures- showing that in the United States of America the telephonic facilities are three times greater than they are in Australia. The same condition exists in Canada. Let us get down to brass tacks - as the Americans say - and ask ourselves whither are we drifting. It is proposed to reduce the rates on commercial papers and letters. It is manifest to everybody that those who can well afford to bear the burden of this institution are being assisted. In Canada there is a wisely and evenly distributed burden* and the people in the back-blocks are given facilities twice as great as are given to the country people in Australia.

Senator Crawford:

– The postal rates in Canada are: Hd. per oz. for letters, and Id. for each postcard.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is proposed by this Bill to make the rate Hd. for 2 oz.

Senator Crawford:

– No. Hd. for 1 oz., as in Canada.

Senator LYNCH:

– According to my reading of the Canadian rates, they are lower than the Australian rates. There is no doubt that Canada’s telephonic facilities are greater, and that is a very important branch of the service in opening up the interior. There is no warrant for this Bill at present. It has been said by previous speakers that the financial position in Australia is most acute. Senator Gardiner reminded us of a fact that we are in danger of forgetting - that the burden of interest in Australia is becoming a crushing one. It is now in the neighbourhood of £20,000,000 annually. A device has been adopted with a view to easing the burden slightly, but that burden still remains, and has to be shouldered. The money market is very stringent at present. Appeals are being issued by the Treasurer to holders of stock to convert a loan that he has now on the market. I consider that he will have his work cut out to get that loan converted. This is not the time to forgo revenue, particularly as such action will be in the interests of those who can well bear the burden. If these rates are reduced ‘it will mean that the facilities given to people in the back country will not be brought up to the level of those given in Canada and the United States of America.

Senator Pearce:

– We are aiming to do that. We are spending £9,000,000 to provide improved telephonic and telegraphic facilities in the country.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Government is dipping into the loan fund in order to do that, and it is easing the burden on the commercial and business interests, which are the greatest users of the Post Office. The Post Office undoubtedly confers benefits of an educational character; at the same time, however, it brings to a person’s door matter that he does not need, and would be better without.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

. - I support the Bill for reasons distinct and dissimilar from those already expressed. I do not wish to see the Post and Telegraph Department, or any public enterprise, utilized as a taxing machine or revenue-producing institution. I do not share the view expressed by some honorable senators that a reduction in postal rates will be the means of conferring a benefit upon a section of the community which can well afford to pay the rate at present imposed. I believe that, irrespective of what postal, telegraphic, or telephonic charges are adopted, the workers eventually pay, as such charges are always passed on. If a reduction is made in this direction, the commercial firms which will benefit will, make the burden lighter for those in the workaday world.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They ‘do not pass on reductions.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, -they do.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am surprised to hear such an admission from the honor.orable senator.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Commercial undertakings are conducted on business lines, and their overhead and other charges are taken into consideration in adjusting prices. The postage paid by large business firms amounts to many thousands of pounds, and if the postal rates are reduced it is only reasonable to assume that there will be a corresponding reduction in the price of the commodities which they sell to the public.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Never.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Assuming that they do not pass on the reduction, and the time arrives when additional money is needed, there are other sources from which revenue can be obtained. Senator Lynch instituted a comparison between the Australian, American, and Canadian rates. Australia is a place of considerable distances, and it is unreasonable to expect that we can provide similar conveniences and facilities to those in America when we have a population of only 5,500,000. That is expecting too much. Notwithstanding that Australia is a vast continent, the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic charges in Australia are cheaper than in any other country, because the service is publicly owned and controlled. Senator Lynch said that for every person in Australia who enjoys the convenience of telephonic facilities, there are three in America. That may or may not be true. The telephonic systems of America are privately owned arid controlled, and a comparison on any basis is in favour of Australia.

Senator Foll:

– Under the American system it is necessary for a firm to have three or four telephones.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The facilities provided are not such as we enjoy. Those who have travelled in America say that our telephonic system is much ahead of the American system. It has been shown that our charges are lower. I am in favour of our postal rates being reduced even further, because if our telegraphic, telephonic, and postal rates are low it will be better for every one.

Senator Lynch:

– Who will pay the. bill ? The other fellow, as usual.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is extraordinary that almost on every occasion when one has - an opportunity of speaking in favour of a financial proposal, some one asks the same old question. If we need these services, the community has to pay. Who will pay the bounty recently agreed to? Who will foot the bill for an amount totalling £250,000, which will be made available to a certain section of the community, which, according to a statement made, is in needy circumstances.

Senator Lynch:

– That money is to be. repaid.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not look upon public utilities from a sordid pounds, shillings, a-nd pence point of view; and I repeat and emphasize the fact that if we do, very little progress will be made in any part of Australia. When considering the proposal to construct the Trans-Australian Railway, did we ask if it would be a payable undertaking ?

Senator Lynch:

– It will be eventually.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Meanwhile who is paying for that line ? The people of Australia. There will be no “ footing the bill “ in connexion with the reduced postal charges, as it is anticipated that the receipts will be equal to the expenditure incurred in conducting this Department. I am certain that the volume of business will increase sufficiently to enable the rates to be still further lowered. It seems only . yesterday that the first telephones were installed in this city. It was a novel experience for myself and others to have a telephonic conversation. When a person had a telephone installed in his. house, he was considered to be a superior person. It was thought to be % luxury, but to-day people regard telephones as a public convenience. Although there are numerous public telephones in this city, it is difficult at certain times of the day to be able to use one. They are a public convenience, and at times the demand on them is so great that the number installed is found to be insufficient. The telephone has become very popular, and is looked upon as being almost a necessity. The charges are reasonable. Our telegraphic rates are so cheap that a greater number of messages are transmitted in Australia than perhaps in any other country. I am satisfied that the reduced postal rates will be the means of increasing business, which means additional revenue.

Senator Lynch:

– There was a pronounced deficit when the rate on letters not exceeding in weight half-an-ounce was reduced to Id.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It depends on how one looks upon deficits. If every Government undertaking had to be conducted as a private enterprise would be, and made to pay, there would be very little development or progress in Australia. If full effect were given to Senator Lynch’s policy a road would never be constructed because it would not pay. Senator Lynch would not be in favour of the construction of post-offices in some parts of Australia, because the revenue derived would be inadequate to cover the expenditure of conducting them. Contracts are let for the conveyance of mails in certain parts of Australia on which there is a decided loss, and on Senator Lynch’s basis of reasoning, those services should not be continued because they do not cover the cost.

Senator Lynch:

– The money which will be lost under this proposal should be expended in improving and extending those services.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The members of the Labour party are as much concerned as is Senator Lynch in the matter of country services. The Labour party also favours the extension of pur telegraphic and telephonic services in order to benefit people in the outback districts. I do not support the views of some honorable senators, who hold that the reduction will be of benefit only to those engaged in business. I am glad to have an opportunity of supporting the Bill, as I believe that when it becomes law it will be the means of increasing the business of the Department, and that at the end of the year the receipts will more than balance the expenditure. Even if they do not, I do not believe in the Post Office being made a revenue-producing institution.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales) (12.58]. - This proposal affects every member of the community. It is quite a mistaken idea that reduced postal rates will favour a certain wealthy section of the community. If the volume of letters despatched by the commercial section were compared with the number sent by what one might term the non-commercial section, it would be found that the latter predominate. I subscribe to the sentiments already expressed, that the working community pay all taxation. I take strong exception to a statement made by Senator Kingsmill concerning Hansard. The -speeches which it contains are, in my opinion, the best that public men are capable of delivering. So far as I know, public men do their utmost to place their opinions before the people in the best possible manner, and to see that the information they impart is accurate. It is true that their speeches are improved by our efficient reporters. Statements suggesting that Hansard is an unworthy publication may suit the Argus, and they may be repeated by men who form their policy on the opinions expressed in the press, but such sentiments are Unworthy of any member of this Chamber. We endeavour to form public opinion, and I am not going to hand over that right to certain obscure individuals’ in newspaper offices in Collins-street.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The fear has been expressed that, if the provisions of this Bill were given effect to, losses would result. The figures placed at our disposal show that from 1912 to 1917 the losses on the working of the Post Office amounted to £2,031,417, and that from 1917 to 1923, which was a normal period, the profits were £4,084,830, or an annual average of £800,000. The prospective loss of revenue on account of the reductions is said to be £930,000, so that the average annual profit will be wiped out. It appears to me, therefore, that if the Bill is passed, the Post Office will just about pay its way. That will be as it should be. I am entirely opposed to making the Post Office a revenuecollecting machine. I do not mind if it shows a small deficit one year, or a small profit the next, but, generally speaking, it should do no more than pay its way. I dissent entirely from the view that if the Bill is passed it will result in less facilities being provided for those of our fellowcitizens who occupy the hinterland of Australia. ‘ While I appreciate very highly the services of those who are pioneering this Commonwealth, I nevertheless resent very strongly the insinuations which have been made that the workers in the cities are not doing their fair share. The present is not the time, and this is not the place, to go into that question at length ; but it does not require a very long consideration by any one who approaches the question with an unbiased mind to realize that, valuable as are the services of the man in the back-blocks and those who control primary industries in the country, the help they get from the men in the cities, who supply them with manufactured implements and other necessary articles, is of the utmost possible value to them. The interests of the men in the cities should be considered as well as the interests of those in, the backblocks. In my experience, the postal services have been well conducted. People who complain of the non-delivery of letters are very often to blame. Sometimes they do not write the- letters they are supposed to have posted, and at other times they keep them in their pockets. The telephone service in the Commonwealth is excellent. It is quite true that on Saturday mornings, when people attempt to crowd the work of a day into two hours, small delays occur. That is to be expected; but, apart from that, and notwithstanding that many telephonists work in cramped conditions, which should be improved, the telegraphic and telephonic services of the Commonwealth are very efficient, and very much better than they would be if they were conducted by private enterprise. At the Committee stage of the Bill I intend to move some amendments. The Government is making a mistake in proposing to increase the weight of letters. The allowance of half-an-ounce is ample. A rate of Id. per half-ounce would, I am sure, meet the requirements of the people better than the proposal submitted by the Government. It would lighten the weight of the mails, and would substantially increase the revenue. The remarks of Senator Gardiner regarding the rate for newspapers ought to have the support of honorable senators. Like other honorable senators, I have been requested by the country newspaper association to give my support to this proposal. Apart from that, newspaper men have frequently brought under my notice the desirability of reverting to prewar rates of postage on bulk newspapers!

An amendment on those lines will have my support At the present moment I content myself with the statement that cheap penny postage has for many years been warmly supported by the Labour party. Members of this party are free to exercise their own views upon that question. My views are that penny postageis the most effective link possible between the people of Australia. . It is cheap, quick, and effective, and the more it is used the better for everybody. I disagree entirelywith the statement that the Bill is intended to benefit only the commercial section of the community. It does not carry that conviction to my mind, but, even if it did, I would still say that the less the worker had to pay the better. The reductions foreshadowed are a step in the right direction, and I shall assist honorable senators, when the Bill is in Committee, to make some further reductions and alterations.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– My contribution to the debate will be very short, but I think I ought not to give a silent vote, because I am opposing the Government’s proposals. It may be within the recollection of honorable senators that, when speaking on the Budget debate, I indicated that I would oppose the proposal to reduce the postal rates. I cansee no virtue whatever in it. The Minister said that the revenue would suffer to the extent of £930,000.

SenatorCr awford . - It is expected that the income of the Post Office will be reduced to that extent, but income and expenditure are expected to balance each other.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I have no doubt that the reduction in the rates will cause an increase in business. The rates, however, are being cheapened in a direction that does not meet with my approval. I have said that if a general reduction in taxation was intended it should have been made in a different way. Honorable senators have said that the Post Office ought not to be made a taxing machine. One gets tired, both inside and outside of this chamber, of hearing that expression. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) that postal rates are not a tax. They are merely a legitimate charge for an effective service rendered to the people.

While the Post Office is indebted to the people to the extent of £5,900,000,I fail to see why the Government should reduce the rates. As soon as a Government utility commences to pay its way, a cut is made into its earnings so as to reduce it to a profitless condition. As soon as a profit is earned a section of the people raises a cry, and Parliament opens its ears and proceeds to make that branch of Government activity profitless. Who has been asking for this reduction ? The demand has come from the Melbourne press more than from any other section of the community. I do not say that the Melbourne newspapers stand alone in this regard, but they have been more insistent than the press of any other part of Australia. I wonder whether the Melbourne press will pass on the reduction to its customers. Will it reduce the price of business advertisements, of birth, marriage, and death notices, and of the In Memoriam notices inserted in memory of our soldiers who fell overseas? The press, since the outbreak of war, has made more money than any other section of the community, and I have very little sympathy for it in the reductions it is claiming. I am certain that, worded as the clause is, the press, even if it is willing to do so, will not be able to pass on to the community the full benefit of the reduction. A man who receives a newspaper in the country pays for the newspaper, plus postage. The newspaper proprietors bundle the newspapers together in large quantities, and send them out. Thus the reduction will benefit newspaper proprietors to a very large extent. The benefit derived by the community will be in no way comparable to the tremendous gain to the newspaper proprietors. There is another feature of the proposal to which I am opposed. We talk much in this Parliament of our belief in decentralization. We want the country towns to develop and prosper, but what are we doing to assist them? We are making it impossible for country storekeepers to live. We are cheapening the cost of postage on commercial papers and samples, and we shall have the Flinders-lane houses in Victoria, and the big warehouses in Sydney, Adelaide, and elsewhere, sending their circulars, samples, and packages all. over Australia, to the detriment of country storekeepers. Country storekeepers have told me that cheap postage is She greatest handicap they have to bear. People send from all parts of the country to city centres for goods. I do not blame them for that, but why should this Parliament, which professes to believe in decentralization, assist the big concerns of the cities? There are many, big firms in Australia which will benefit enormously as the result of the reduction in postal rates. Many of them are engaged in businesses where it will be im- . possible for them to pass on the reduction to their clients, even if they were inclined to do so. I heard a few days ago of a large commercial concern in Australia which was paying something like £15,000 a year to the Post Office in postal, telephonic, and telegraphic charges. Does any honorable senator contend that that firm would not benefit tremendously by the passing of this Bill? That firm, and many like it, are engaged in businesses where it is impossible to pass the reduction on to their clients because the amount that is spent on each client is ,too small for that to be done. The Bill proposes a greater reduction than is apparent on the surface, because by reducing the rate on letters by a ½d., and increasing the maximum weight by half-an-ounce, a double benefit will be conferred on business houses. If the general community were in the habit of writing two or three dozen letters a week, the reduction might be of considerable importance, but the average citizen does not write more than one letter a week, or perhaps not more than one a month, and it is a rare thing for a letter to weigh over halfanounce. If we increase the weight allowed for letters, the Railway Departments and the steam-ship companies will soon be putting up their rates for the carriage of mails. I understand that there is a system by which postal matter conveyed by railways is weighed for one month in each year, and the charges are fixed according to the estimated weight of the mails carried. A parcel that costs, perhaps, a few shillings, if carried as a railway parcel, can be sent for a few pence through the Post Office. Wealthy firms use the Post Office to send goods to country districts, to the detriment of country storekeepers. The proposal will not benefit the average taxpayer in any shape or form, and I have no hesitation in advising the Senate to reject it. It is unwise to introduce this measure at a time when the Postal Department, as a result of better administration, is showing a larger surplus than in former years It should be possible within a few years for the debt due by this Department to the Treasury- about £5,900,000- to be wiped off, and when that obligation has been met it will be time to consider the advisability of reducing the rates. I claim to be as anxious as any one to bring about a reduction in postal charges, ‘where St) can advantageously be done, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of Id. postage. I cannot agree, however, to the present proposal of the Government, since I know that there are many thousands of people in Australia who have to be satisfied with a mail once a week. Numbers of people in outlying1 i localities have to wait six weeks for’ their mails. In view of this fact, it would be unfair to reduce the rates in a manner that would mainly benefit the big commercial concerns at the expense of settlers in the1 Out-back country. I was glad to hear the Minister (Senator Pearce) say that steps were being taken to meet the needs of the country folk whom I have in mind. I am well satisfied with the progress the Government is making in increasing postal facilities in remote places; but it should be remembered that, if Australia again experienced a few bad seasons, as is quite possible, the postal revenue would inevitably dwindle, and it would then be necessary to raise the rates once more. It is a popular policy to reduce rates, and I know that I am taking an unpopular attitude in opposing the present proposed reduction. But we should take precautions for the future, knowing full well that the prosperous times now enjoyed in Australia will not continue indefinitely.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I have listened with great interest to the debate, and am surprised at the opposition raised to the passage of the Bill. I thought it was patent to every one that the Post Office should be made as popular and useful as possible. When it was found necessary some years ago to increase the postal rates, a protest emanated from every corner of Australia, and from every section of the community. The indignation was allayed because it was realized that the extra impost ‘ was necessary in the public interest. Australia, fortunately, is now in a far more favorable position than it was at that time: I have been surprised to hear the assertion that the proposed reductions would relieve the burden on big business firms. Living in a small provincial town, and knowing the opinion of the small traders there, I can say that the high rates that have been ruling have resulted in a great loss of postal revenue. Circulars which were formerly distributed through the medium of the Post Office, have for a number of years been delivered by boys. The policy advocated by Senator Newland would result in residents of outside districts being cut off from the large centres of population. In no better way can rural life be made attractive than by granting cheap postal facilities, and I feel sure that the present proposal will meet with the approval of the public generally.’ Last year a most liberal policy was announced with respect to the extension of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic facilities in the out-back districts, and that policy is being carried on and extended by the present Administration.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator will have difficulty in reconciling his attitude on this measure with the view he took of the grant to Tasmania.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am looking at this subject from a Commonwealth and not from a Tasmanian point of view. The proposal will result in a large increase in postal business.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– More business circulars will be sent through the post.

Senator PAYNE:

– The distribution of letters by hand will disappear if the proposed reduced rates are adopted, and the Post Office will be correspondingly benefited. It has been suggested that it will be difficult for business people to give a concession to their customers equivalent to the concession represented by the reduced rates. Honorable senators who advance that view should not ignore the fact that, where there is business competition at all, full account must be taken of the overhead charges as a whole, and that any reductions made in those overhead charges must eventually benefit the patrons of business ventures. When the Bill reaches the Committee stage, I shall be able to deal with the rates in detail. It would be a retrograde step not to follow the lead of other British Dominions and reduce our postal and telephone charges. We do not want to be behind other countries in our efforts to insure the development of Australia. The Postal Department exercises an important influence on the community, and we should do all that we possibly can to popularize an institution that means so much in our scheme of development. If, in our present satisfactory financial state we attempted to retain the heavy charges imposed during the war period by the Postal Department for its services, our action would, undoubtedly, react upon the community as a whole. One honorable senator, in his enthusiasm for the retention of the present postal rates, made a comparison between the railway and postal charges for packages, and, I think, exaggerated the position. He suggested that the railways authorities charged several shillings for the carriage of a packet which was carried by the Postal Department for a few pence. In Tasmania the postal rate for a package up to about 3 lbs. in weight is Is. to any part of Tasmania, and the railway rate, which used to be 3d., is now Is. 3d., the latter amount being the. minimum charge on the Tasmanian Government railways for the carriage of any parcel. The honorable senator also said that the proposed reduction in postal rates would benefit chiefly the city merchants. I hold no brief for the city merchants. My sympathies are rather with the small country storekeeper. I know that he will welcome this reduction, because the reduced postal rates will enable him to communicate by circular with his customers. In this way, perhaps, he will be able to keep his business together, and should reap an advantage equal in proportion to the advantage secured by the big city merchants. But it is questionable whether the merchants will reap, as suggested, a very substantial advantage, because the remissions made must eventually find their way into the pockets of the general community.

Senator Foll:

– Would the honorable senator support a reduction in the postage on Tattersall’s tickets?

Senator PAYNE:

– I see no reference in the Bill to Tattersalls, and, therefore, I would be out of order if I answered the interjection. Another privilege, which is greatly appreciated by residents in country districts, is the improved means of telephonic communication available to them. Any small group in the country, upon application to the Department, may now be linked up .with trunk telephone lines, and at no cost to themselves get into communication, with the larger centres of population. I hope that the day is far distant when we shall have to revert to the heavier postal rates that have been in force in Australia during the last few years. It is not anticipated that the proposed reductions will mean a deficit in the operations of the Department. The estimates which, I take it, have been carefully prepared, show that, notwithstanding the proposed reductions, there will be a surplus of £318,500. I hope the estimate will be realized; but I may point out that the aim of the Department should be, not so much to show a profit on its working, as to give an adequate service to the people of Australia.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– The reduced postal rates will be all in the interest of big city firms.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not think for a moment that the large city firms have brought influence to bear on the Government.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– Flinders-lane runs this Government!

Senator PAYNE:

– That may be the honorable senator’s opinion. I do not indorse it. I believe that the one desire of the Government is to improve the facilities in country districts.

Senator Hoare:

– I admire the honorable senator’s simple faith.

Senator PAYNE:

– T thank the honorable senator for his admiration. I hope he will continue to admire simple faith in any one. I honestly believe that the Ministry are actuated by the best of motives. Unlike the honorable senator, I am not always looking for an ulterior motive. If I felt that, in this proposal to reduce postal rates, the Government were playing into the hands of the big city merchants, I should oppose the Bill with my voice and vote. But it should be infra ddg. to make such a suggestion. The Government are entitled to every credit for extending the policy inaugu rated last year of improving the facilities available to out-back “settlers. I support the Bill.

Senator HAYS:
Tasmania

.- I have no desire to continue the debate longer than may be necessary, and so I shall be brief, realizing that this Bill can be best dealt with in Committee. I intend to support the second reading, and in Committee I shall endeavour to secure the reduction in the rate on newspapers posted in bulk. Since the cost of newspapers in recent years has gone up 100 per cent., I shall support any measure the effect of which will be to reduce their cost, especially to people in our outback country. A reduction in the postal rates on newspapers will help in this way. I regard the telephone as one of the greatest boons, not only to commercial men, but also to the people in country districts. If an extension of these facilities in country centres results in a slight reduction in postal revenue, I feel sure that the additional receipts from the telephone services will more than make up for it.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– It is unnecessary that I should speak at length in replying to the debate, because I think that, in my second-reading speech, I anticipated and answered criticism of the measure. Senator Lynch stated that he was opposed to the Bill because the Department was in debt to the Treasury for a considerable sum, and, in his opinion, that amount ought to be liquidated before any reductions were made in postal rates. It was not until the year 1912-13 that ‘ a complete accounting system was adopted by the Postal Department. From that year onwards a balance-sheet has been prepared and published on the same lines as those of ordinary trading concerns. From 1912-13 to 1916-17 there was an aggregate loss of £2,031 ,417. From 1917- 1.8 to 1921-22 there was a profit of over £4,250,000; so that, during those ten years, the profits exceeded the losses by approximately two and a quarter millions. There is, therefore, no loss which requires to be liquidated, as Senator Lynch appears to think there is. The figures I have quoted refer to the net profit, after the Department had provided for interest’ at the rate of 3J per cent, on transferred properties, interest at the rate of 5 per cent, on new lines, and the payment of per cent, to a sinking fund, in addition to setting aside an amount to cover depreciation. There is not a great deal of depreciation in connexion with the properties of the Postal Department. A very large sum is spent annually on maintenance, and all works are therefore kept in proper order. Some honorable senators have spoken in favour of a reduction in the rates charged on newspapers posted in bulk. I am assured by a responsible officer of the Department that the bulk rates on newspapers do not nearly cover the cost of freight, quite apart from the other expenses which have to be met in connexion with this class of mail matter. Honorable senators are probably aware that newspapers, although charged bulk rates, may be enclosed in separate wrappers, and in that form delivered to the addressees. 1 am assured that, if the suggested reduction be made, it will represent a gift to the morning newspapers of this city of at least £4,000 a year. Nobody will seriously argue that the metropolitan newspapers of the Commonwealth are not in a position to pay the rates proposed, and at the same time show a handsome profit.

Senator Graham:

– If this reduction were made, would the morning newspapers reduce their prices?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The reduction which has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, would affect each newspaper to such an infinitesimal extent that there Would be no likelihood of the reduction being passed on to the subscribers. Country newspapers are not very bulky, and many of them are delivered at bulk rates, which work out at less than one farthing per copy.

Senator Needham:

– What is the loss at the present time on bulk postage?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not think it will be possible to obtain that information. I am informed that the freight on newspapers from Melbourne to Sydney, by rail, is four times as great as the postal rates, and from Melbourne to Perth it is eight times as great. This is essentially a Committee Bill, and I think further discussion might well be postponed to that stage.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 14

Majority 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– On two occasions in the last few days I have asked the Minister whether he can give’ us any definite information as to the date on which the Act will come into operation. It is an important matter to those who are interested. The mere statement that the Act will be brought into operation by proclamation does not convey much information. Surely by this time the Government has decided when the Act is to become operative !

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I cannot give any definite information as to the date on which the Act will be brought into operation. I am informed by the PostmasterGeneral that the date will probably be about 1st October next.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Part I. of the First Schedule to the principal Act is amended by omitting therefrom the words -

and inserting in their stead the words -

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I desire to test the Committee on the question of including newspapers in the cheaper schedule which operates with respect to commercial pamphlets. I should, however, prefer the Minister to move an amendment to meet the case. The Post and Telegraph Rates Act of 1918 made the following provision : -

  1. After Part II. of the First Schedule to the principal Act the following part is inserted -
Senator Pearce:

– That Act has been repealed.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know it has. The Post and Telegraph Rates Act of 1920 provided for a charge of l1/2d. per 20 oz. on the aggregate weight of newspapers printed and published’ in Australia, posted by any one person at any one time for delivery within the Commonwealth, without condition as to Che number contained in each addressed wrapper. That rate was an increase of1d. per 20 oz. This Bill does not make provision for any reduction. I suggest in a friendly way to the Minister that we re-enact the pre-war rates. The Minister was unable to give the information desired, or indicate that he would accept an amendment in Committee, and I therefore had to vote against the second reading of the Bill. So faras I have been able to gather, the rate on bulk newspapers under the 1918 Act was1/2d. for 20 oz. ; under the 1920 Act, l1/2d. for 20 oz. ; and the rate now proposed is1d. for 10 oz. I should like to know whether the Minister would be prepared to compromise by agreeing to a rate of1d. for 20 oz. I do not wish to submit an amendment; but if my suggestion is not accepted I shall call for a division.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I regret that I am unable to accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) for a reduction in the bulk postage rates on newspapers.

After allowance has been made for the other proposed reductions, the margin of profit to the Department will be very small, and if the suggested reduction were made the rates on other mail matter would have to be increased to make the accounts balance. I have already pointed out that those who will benefit will be the proprietors of the large metropolitan newspapers. This class of mail matter is already carried at a loss, and to make the rate1d. for every 20 oz. would be to make a gift to the leading metropolitan newspaper proprietors of this city of £4,000 per annum.

Senator Lynch:

– Why not increase the rate if a loss is being incurred ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– If the amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition were adopted, the loss at present incurred on this particular class of mail matter would be increased. The Government do not think there is any justification for the proposal.

Senator Guthrie:

– How does the rate compare with that imposed in , other countries ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– In other countries newspapers in bulk are not sent through the Post Office.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not think the proprietors of the big metropolitan newspapers are requesting this reduction, but the representatives of the country press have approached honorable senators with a view to bringing back the rates to a prewar basis. An increase of 50 per cent, upon the postage of newspapers was a very, heavy impost, and I am sorry that, while making concessions to the big business firms, the Government has not seen its way to make some small allowance to the proprietors of country newspapers. During the debate we have heard a good deal concerning the additional facilities required in country districts, and there is no doubt that country newspapers - at least those I have in mind - are of great value in disseminating information amongst country people. The proposal is to reduce the rate to a pre-war basis.

Senator Pearce:

– But we cannot get back to the pre-war costs.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– That argument could be applied with equal force to the other rates.

Senator Pearce:

– No, because we are not getting back to pre-war postal rates.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– The Government should be prepared to compromise.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [3.37].- Under the 1918 Act the rate was &. for 20 oz. ; under the 1920 Act, 1½d. for 20 oz.; and it is now proposed to charge Id. for 10 oz. I am quite prepared to compromise, and move. -

That the word “ten” line 12 he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ twenty “.

The paragraph will then read -

For each newspaper - One penny per twenty ounces or part of twenty ounces provided that the postage on a packet containing more than one newspaper shall not be higher than that chargeable on a package of printed papers of the same weight.

The amendment will meet the request which has been made by the representatives of the country press, and will be in accord with the views of some honorable senators opposite. I may be asked why I am moving this amendment when I voted against the second reading of the Bill. I voted against the second reading because the Government would not promise to meet me in this matter.

Senator Guthrie:

– If the proposed amendment were adopted, would the country newspapers benefit?

Senator GARDINER:

– Certainly.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I appeal to the Honorary Minister (Senator Crawford) not to accept the amendment.” Does the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) think that he is going to obtain an independent expression of opinion after acting in the way he has done? If he thinks he can get honorable senators of this party to vote independently - and incidentally - with him, and that he can at the same time ‘use some occult influence over honorable senators to the extent that two of his party who openly declared for the Bill voted against their convictions, he is much mistaken. If I had known of the trick that was being played, I should have voted for the second reading of the Bill. The honorable senator is not going to play “ two-up “ tricks with me. The Minister has repeated what we already know, that this particular class of mail matter is at present carried at a loss, and the Leader of the Opposition now wishes to give these big commercial interests - which he always so strenuously opposes - a further concession in the form of cheaper rates. He is using” the country press as a medium to assist these interests. Where the city newspaper proprietors despatch a truck-load of stuff, the countrynewspaper offices despatch a barrowload. I am strongly opposed to allowing newspaper proprietors to further exploit the people of Australia. I do not think that their publications have the educational value which is claimed for them. I have before me a Melbourne daily, in the leading article of which the people are advised, free of charge, how to properly comport themselves as good citizens in every walk of life. On the same page a full column is devoted to an explanation and commendation of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, which, by the way, the same newspaper roundly condemned when it was brought forward by the Government. The Senate was sitting on the day previous to this issue, but not one word as to its proceedings appears on this page. Another column is devoted to other matter supposed to be of an enlightening character and of public interest. There is, on another page, an article on the Northern Territory, and there appear in large type the words “ Administration Condemned.” So long as the Government can be condemned, .it is all right. Prominence is also given to a paragraph headed “ Tropical Excursion. - Politicians’ Stern Sense of Duty. - A Tribute to Political Martyrs.” All this is done for the purpose of bringing a public institution into contempt. In perusing this page again, one cannot find any reference to the proceedings in the Senate. Mention is made. however, of a deal by a mining company from which these people extract dividends. A report relating to sexual relations in connexion with a matrimonial case occupies half-a-column on yet another page. Not one word about the Senate. Let us turn to still another page. At last a’ reference to our proceedings appears. The space occupied is about one-third of a column. I believe the Leader of the Opposition spoke on that day, but his utterances are not reported.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator has never heard me complain on that account.

Senator LYNCH:

– No. But some publicity should be given to his utterances for the purpose of educating the people. Alongside the brief report of the proceedings in this Chamber is a reference to the sale of adulterated sausages, and to two sisters: who were quarrelling about some property. There is also a lengthy reference to ‘a man found on a Chinaman’s premises, and prominence is given to the fact that the Chinaman had a white paramour. This sort of rubbish covers a whole page. One article relates to the practice of witchcraft by the natives of Rhodesia, and it informs readers of Victoria that one man bought a wife from another man at such and such a price. But the speeches made by the thirty-six representatives of the people in this Senate are compressed into the space of a few inches - less than the length of a writing pen. Some newspapers of to-day aim at providing sensations. It pays better to “ sensate “ than to educate. They are sensating the people, and by doing that are making larger profits than they would earn by retailing legitimate news, and by printing fairly full and accurate reports of the proceedings of this Senate.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

, - I do not intend to be led into an angry debate, notwithstanding the remarks of Senator Lynch. In 1918 Parliament passed an Act which dealt with the postal rates on newspapers. It provided, that -

Newspapers posted (without condition as to the number contained in each addressed wrapper) by registered newspaper proprietors, or by news vendors, or returned by an agent or news Vendor to the publishing office - shall be charged at the rate of1/2d. per 20 oz. In 1920 that Act was repealed, and the amending Act provided that the rate should be -

On all newspapers, printed and published in Australia, posted for delivery within the Commonwealth( without condition as to the number contained in each addressed wrapper) one penny and a halfpenny per twenty ounces on the aggregate weight of newspapers posted toy any one personat any one time.

Senator Pearce:

– That was war postage, and was additional to the ordinary rate.

Senator GARDINER:

– But it is not being removed. The war postage was one halfpenny, which, in 1920, was increased to l1/2d. The Bill proposes to make reductions to commercial houses generally, but not to newspaper proprietors. I regret that the time at ray disposal does not enable me to argue the matter further,

I leave the subject now, because I do not want to prevent the Government getting the Bill through Committee to-day.

Senator HAYS:
Tasmania

.- I intend to support the amendment, and I do not want it to be said, after the division has been taken, that I did not indicate the way 1 intended to vote.

Question - That the word proposed to bo left out (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Part II. - Postal articles).

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND · NAT

.- During the second-reading debate I left the chamber to obtain some information, and returned too late to take part in the debate. I am opposed to the Bill because the people in the back country of Queensland suffer very greatly from lack of postal deliveries, and I think that the revenue which, by this Bill, it is proposed to forgo, might well be used in improving the facilities outback. There is a mail from Olio to Richmond, and another from Army Downs to Richmond, and the residents have to subsidize the mail contractor as well as pay postage.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator will have a full opportunity to discuss that matter when the Appropriation Bill is under consideration.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Ordersbe suspended aswould prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- The merits of this Bill should be threshed out thoroughly on the motion for the third reading. There will not be time to do that if the third reading is taken to-day. My amendment was rejected by only one vote, and I feel sure that honorable senators, when they have had time to consider the position carefully, will be prepared to review their decision.

SenatorPearce. - I agree to allow the motion for the third reading of the Bill to stand over until Tuesday next.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Report adopted.

page 2964

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Bank Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 110.

Inscribed Stock Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1923, No. 109.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes at Banks town, New South Wales.

Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 August 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1923/19230817_senate_9_105/>.