Senate
10 October 1924

9th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 9th Parliament
  3. 1924

The Deputy President (Senator Newland) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers. .

page 5539

QUESTION

WRECK OF DOUGLAS MAWSON

Condition of Territorial Steamers

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Home and Territories seen a report that the Huddersfield, belonging to the Boucaut Bay Company, is aground, and that the John Alce, the other steamer in the Northern Territory service, is laid up for repairs?

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

– I have heard of the wonders of beam wireless, but they are as’ nothing in comparison with- the wonders of “ mulga “ wireless. ‘ The alleged message carries with it its own contradiction, because no wireless message could reach . Darwin from the locality where . the Hud- dersfield and the John Alce were last reported to be except from theKyogle, and that vessel could not possibly have reached the locality by the time this “mulga” message reached Darwin. There is no truth in the report, otherwise it would have been received by the department.

page 5539

ASSISTANCE TO PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Advertising Overseas - Suggested Standing Parliamentary Committee - Testing Daisy Herds.

SenatorFINDLEY. - Is it a fact that, in addition to providing £500,000 and guarantees for any number of millions of pounds, as may from time to time be deemednecessary,forassistingtomarket the primary produce of Australia, the Government, as stated by Senator Wilson yesterday, intends to provide further sums of money for advertising overseas?

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Government has always spent considerable sums of money in advertising overseas, and I take it that it is intended tocontinue, wisely and judiciously, the work that has already been done in this direction in London.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– According to a newspaper report, Senator Wilson made a definite statement, at a meeting he attended yesterday, that the Government intended to set aside a sum of money to advertisecommodities on behalf of the primary producers of Australia. Will the money so spent be in addition to the amount already provided for assisting the marketing of primary produce?

Senator WILSON:

– Certainly not. It will not be additional expenditure.

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

– I desire to ask the Leader of’ the Government in the Senate whether the Government, during the recess, will give consideration to the necessity for the appointment of a committee of both Houses of Parliament to examine and report on any matter affecting primary production in which the Government is asked to render financial assistance?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The suggestion of the honorable senator will receive consideration.

Senator J B HAYES:

– Will Senator Wilson, now or at an early convenient date, make a statement regarding the Government’s scheme for assisting herd testing and the improvement of dairy cattle ?

Senator WILSON:

– The question of herd testing was discussed very fully the other day at a meeting of the Australian Dairy Council, which made certain recommendations to the department. As soon as Ministers have an opportunity to do so, those recommendations will be carefully considered, and the various states will be notified and called together, with a view to taking some definite action in the direction of assisting the dairying industry.

Senator J B Hayes:

– Will the scheme be made public ?

Senator WILSON:

– Certainly.

page 5540

QUESTION

IDLE COMMONWEALTH STEAMERS

Senator FINDLEY:

– While sixteen freighters of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers are lying idle in Hobson’s Bay and Sydney Harbour, is it a fact that foreign vessels are being chartered to carry wheat, coal; wool, and general cargo to the United Kingdom and the continent, and that a Japanese boat, laden to the Plimsoll mark, left yesterday, while another, similarly loaded, anticipates leaving in a week or two?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The fact that vessels of the Commonwealth Line pay Australian rates of wages, and the others do not, may explain why steamers belonging to the Commonwealth Line are lying idle, while other vessels are departing with . full cargoes. I shall bring the honorable senator’s question under thenotice of the Shipping Board, and ask them to furnish him with an answer through the Prime Minister’s Department.

page 5540

QUESTION

SOCIALIZATION OF INDUSTRIES

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the very pliable position in which the Ministry appears, tofind itself in reference to primary producers, will the Minister for Home and Territories state whether the Government is prepared to consider, during the recess, the advisability of adopting’ the whole scheme laid down by the Australian- Labour party for the socialization of industry?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Government will undoubtedly ‘ consider it, with the view to informing the electors of the dangers and iniquities of the Labour party’s scheme.

page 5540

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BOARDS

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– During the recess, will the Government endeavour to find any one in Australia who has not been appointed to a board, and if any person is found who has not yet been appointed to a board, will the Government take steps to create a board to which that person may be appointed?

Question not answered.

page 5540

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

NorthernTerritory: Mortality in Stock after travelling between Wycliffe and Taylor - Report by Alfred J. Ewart, D.Sc, Ph.D., F.L.S., F.R.S.

Ordered to be printed.

Superannuation Act. - Second Report of the Superannuation Fund Management Board, for year ended 30th June, 1924.

Sugar - Delivery in Perth under same conditions as in other State capitals: Statement by Sugar Board.

page 5541

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OFFICERS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will the Minister for Home and Territories inform the Senate how many employees are engaged in the immigration offices in the various capital cities, what rent is paid for the premises occupied, and what work the staff is actually engaged in performing?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question under the notice of the Prime Minister, and ask him to forward an answer to the honorable senator.

page 5541

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT-

Reports of ROYAL Commission.

Senator H HAYS:
TASMANIA

– Has the Government yet given consideration to the reports of the royal commission on the Navigation Act, and, if so, what decision has been arrived at?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Owing to . the pressure of public business in Parliament, Ministers have not as a body had time to give consideration to the reports of the royal commission, but they will do so at the earliest possible moment.

page 5541

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That Senator Elliott be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, and that Senator Kingsmill be appointed a member of the committee in’ his stead.

page 5541

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended, and bill read a first time.

page 5541

MEAT INDUSTRY ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill bo now read a. second, time.

The bill is intended to give legal standing to the Australian Meat Council, which was formed by the last Government in 1922, -to improve the production and marketing of meat, and to advise the Commonwealth in regard to the acts and regulations governing the export of meat. The council consists of representatives of cattle-growers and meat works elected by the Advisory Meat Board in each state. The Australian Meat Council is controlled by cattle-growers who are in a majority on it. It is the only national organization in connexion with the meat industry, and has already done much to advance the interests of the stock-raisers by investigating conditions in Great Britain, the East, the United States of America, and South America; securing reductions in freights on meat shipped oversea; co-operating with the Customs officials in improving the- grade and standard of Australian meat exported ; and urging improvements in methods of trucking cattle. The council is now urging on all concerned the necessity for improvement in the breeding of stock with a view to the production of young cattle for slaughter. The bill will not come into operation until the states or a majority of them pass legislation creating the State Boards, and giving them power to tax stock-owners at rates not exceeding Id. per head of cattle and one-sixth of a penny per head of sheep. The amounts raised by this levy will be used to pay the expenses of the boards and the Australian Meat Council, and to do everything necessary to improve the marketing of Australian meat. The Commonwealth is committed to no expenditure under the bill. The moneys required must be raised by virtue of legislation passed by the states. Queensland has already passed an act for the purpose, the New South Wales Government is about to introduce a bill, and the Victorian and Tasmanian Governments have promised favorable consideration to the matter. South Australia and Western Australia are expected to co-operate in the scheme very shortly. The bill accords with the Government policy of organizing primary industries on efficient lines. In committee I propose to move an amendment to clause 9 to provide that action taken under paragraphs d and e shall not apply to any state in which there is no law in force as specified in sub-clause 4 of clause 4. We desire all the states to come into this scheme, but if one remains outside the scheme will not be defeated.

Senator GARDINER:
South Wales · New

.- There are 30 members on the Australian Meat Council which this measure proposes to perpetuate. They are elected by all the stock-raising interests of the Commonwealth, and their appointment reduces to some extent the number of persons available for appointment to boards, by the Government. I disagree entirely with the proposal to delegate to this board, power to impose the proposed taxation on stock-owners. I realize that the Government cannot, itself, go much further in the direction of imposing taxation, but that is no excuse for proposing pernicious, legislation of this description. These methods are absolutely wrong. I cannot blame the Government for adopting them, for it does not understand even the elementary principles of taxation and is absolutely incompetent in every respect. It is. for that reason that we are asked to consider day after day miserable make-shift legislation like this. I understand that the Government has already advanced £17,000 to this board for which it has no security. I suppose that we can hope for nothing, but that the Government will continue to pursue this policy until it has exhausted the patience of even its most patient followers. Its only excuse for appointing so many boards is, apparently, that it recognizes its own incompetence lo manage the affairs of the country and so it must delegate its powers to outside bodies.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales) [11.211 - - I am surprised at even this Government proposing to permit the imposition of such taxation as is provided for in the bill, for the. .suggestion is that the most enterprising stock-raisers shall pay for their enterprise. The more stock they raise the .greater will be their tax. Taxation methods of this’ description are distinctly injurious to the country. I have frequently, recommended to the Government a much more equitable taxation policy, and I shall do so again this morning. I refer the Minister to page 290 of Poverty and’ Progress, by Henry George.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - Will the honorable senator tell me on which page of this bill there is- any reference to Henry George 1

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I must confess, sir, that there is no reference to him in the -measure.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Then I must ask the honorable senator to, confine his remarks to the subject matter of the bill.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My point is that the method by which taxation is to be imposed under this measure is inequitable. If the bill reaches the committee stage I shall probably move an amendment, to substitute another and fairer system for the one proposed. Even in a measure like this, the Government should make some provision for ensuring that the agricultural and pastoral lands of this country are put to their best use. If that were done, both the quality and quantity of. our stock would be improved, and the people of Australia would be able to enjoy cheaper mutton and beef. It is surprising to me that although the Government is concerned, in season and out of season, with organizing the export market for our primary products, it . has no time whatever to devote to improving the local market. Stock-raisers receive, I suppose, only a few pence per lb. for the meat they sell, but by the time the best beef reaches the Australian consumer it costs as much as ls. 6d. a lb. The Government should direct some attention to the improvement of the local marketing conditions, with a view to reducing overhead charges, and so making meat available to the general community at a lower price. Not only does the Australian consumer have to pay a higher price for home-grown commodities, but he has to submit to the injustice of receiving an article of poorer quality than that which is exported and sold at a lower price. The> best of our products are exported, whereas I submit that they should be obtainable at reasonable prices by our own people. We should be far more concerned than we are about giving the local consumer a fair deal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 -

  1. Subject to this act, the Council shall have power -

    1. to make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the administration of any Act relating to the export and inter-state trade in meat and the products of meat, including the grading, standard of quality and conditions generally ;
    2. to determine and declare the rates at which assessments on owners of cattle and owners of sheep may be made and levied under the authority of laws of the states, or of the Northern Territory, and to demand in the prescribed manner, and receive, from the boards or other authorities making or levying assessments, the whole, or such part as the Council specifies, of the sums received from the making or levying of those assessments;

Amendment (by Senator Wilson) agreed to -

That at the end of sub-section (,1.) the following proviso be added -

Provided that action taken under paragraph (b) or (d) of this sub-section shall not apply to any state in which there is not a law in force of the nature specified in sub-section (7.) of section 4 of this act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report . adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5543

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move. -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is introduced in pursuance, of a promise made to the Senate when the Superannuation Bill was under discussion in 1922, that special legislation would be introduced as soon as possible to give to members of the permanent military, naval, and air forces the benefits of superannuation.

Senator Elliott:

– I thought that this bill was to include non-commissioned officers, warrant officers, and other members of the military f orces ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It does. It includes members of the permanent military, naval, and air forces. Advantage is also taken to correct some anomalies that have been discovered in the administration of the act. These corrections are embodied in clauses 4 to 12 and clause 14, which I shall briefly explain. The defence provisions areembodied in a number of sub-clauses under clause 13. Clause 4 widens the definition of the word “Service “ by including service in the permanent naval, military, and air forces, also the permanent state service of an employee transferred from the service of the state. The effect of this extension is to include as “ service “ . the military service of military staff clerks who have been transferred to the control of the Public Service Board, and also the state service of lighthouse-keepers who were transferred to the Commonwealth service in 1915, thereby bringing these employees and their widows and children within the benefits of the act. Clause 4a amends the second proviso of section 12, subsection 2 of the act, to provide that an employee whose age for retirement is fixed between 60 and 65 years may, on retirement, pay his contributions to- 65 years and thereby qualify for a higher pension than that which can be granted under the existing conditions. Clause 5 refers to the naval forces, and will be dealt with later. Clause 6 amends section 13 of the principal act, by giving certain employees over 30 years of age, who had not the opportunity to elect to contribute for units at the rate for age 30, the right to contribute up to four units at that age. Clause 7 is one of the most important in the bill. It introduces a new section, 16a, in the act, under which an employee may elect to contribute at increased rates with the right to retire at 60 on full pension, in lieu of contributing at the existing rates, which are based on retirement at the age of 65. Clauses 7a and 9 should be taken together. The effect of these amendments of sections 24 and 30 of the act, is to abolish the condition of 7 years’ service before an employee can become entitled to an invalid pension. Clause 8 makes one or two verbal alterations in section 29, but does not otherwise affect its provisions. Clause 10 and the proviso to clause 11 may be taken together. They amend section 38 of the act by extending the benefit of free pensions to the widows of employees with state rights, who died after the 31st December, 1920, and before the 5th January, 1923, when contributions to the Superannuation Fund commenced. These widows are not included in the principal act, and it is but f air that they should be given the benefits of the act in common with the widows of employees without state rights. Clause 10a amends section 47 of the act by making pensions payable fortnightly and fixing the fortnightly pension at £1 in respect of each unit. Clause 11, with its proviso, modifies the ‘provisions of section 51 by excluding from its operation the members of the military and air forces; also the widows of employees with state rights, who, but for the section, would have rights to free pension under section 38. -Clause 12 gives employees with state rights, who contribute for a limited pension, the privilege of increasing their contributions as their salaries increase, provided that the number of units for which they may contribute, plus the value of their state- rights, shall not exceed .the number of units for which they could otherwise contribute, according to their salary group. Clause 13 contains the machinery for bringing the military and air forces under the act. A new part, IVa, is created, and the sub-clauses give effect to the proposals adopted by the Government after consideration of a report and recommendation furnished by a committee - comprised of responsible officers of the Defence Department, and appointed by the Minister for Defence. These proposals have been reported upon by two of the three actuaries, who reported on the Superannuation Bill in 1922, and a copy of their report has been circulated with the bill. The proposals, briefly, are - All officers and men of the Naval Forces are to be excluded from the operation of the Superannuation Act, and to be granted deferred pay in lieu of superannuation. Members of the military forces are to become contributors under. the provisions of Part IVa for pensions on retirement at 55 or 60, according to rank. The airmen, other than officers, are to become contributors as in the case of members of the military forces. Air officers are to be entitled to deferred pay, and, in view of the hazardous nature of flying operations, will be permitted to contribute for invalid pensions for themselves and pensions for their widows and children in the event of fatal accident. The machinery clauses are comprised in three divisions. The first division contains the clauses which are general in character. The second division deals with contributions, and the third refers to pensions and benefits. Under a new clause, 13a, the act is made to apply to certain employees at Cockatoo Island Dockyard, who were contributors to the fund, but lost their status as employees of the Commonwealth when the dockyard establishment was taken over by the Shipping Board. The rights of these employees of the Commonwealth, as contri- butors to the Superannuation Fund, were not preserved under the Shipping Act. Clause 14 amends section 77 of the act to provide for reports by Defence medical officers where questions arise respecting the invalidity of members of the Defence Forces. The purpose of the bill is to extend in certain . directions the benefits of superannuation to permanent officers of the Commonwealth, and I trust that the measure will be acceptable to honorable senators.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Owing to pressure of business I have not been able to grasp the full purport of the bill, and I do not yet know whether it will meet the case of two warrant officers, whose claims were recently brought under my notice. Warrant Officer Ingall, after 36 years of service, was retired under the 1922 act without being given any allowance or pension. He certainly received his holiday pay. The other case was that of Warrant Officer Gale, who had 23 years’ service. Honorable senators will remember that when I previously dealt with this matter I decided to ask for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into such cases as these. Senator Pearce informed me that a bill would be introduced in which these anomalies would be dealt with, but the difficulty was to obtain the bill from the Superannuation Board. It has now been introduced in this chamber. Warrant Officer Gale had commenced to pay for a pension of five units, which would have given him a retiring allowance of £135 per annum if he had continued his payments until 65 years of age. But under the Defence Act he was compulsorily retired at 60 years. When he asked for his pension allowance he was told that by paying a sum of over £30 ho would receive it. He paid that sum and received an allowance of lis. 9d. per fortnight, or 5s. 10½d. per week. When the Government, under the 1922 act, retired many commisisoned and non-commissioned officers they were given a lump sum, in some cases exceeding £1,000, and it passes my comprehension that the Government should pay a non-commissioned officer with 23 years’ service a pension of 5s. 10½d. a week. From my reading of the bill, I understand that Warrant Officer Gale, who was retired at 60 years of age, may, under this bill, receive a pension of £52 a year . if for the two previous years he pays £10 19s. Id. a fortnight, amounting in all to over £500. I hope that I am wrong in my reading ot the bill, and that the Minister will be able to place a better construction upon its provisions. The sum of £500 seems exorbitant to obtain a pension of £52 per annum. The Commonwealth can well afford to treat its employees generously. It is a rank injustice to ask a man to retire from the Service at 60 years of age without a pension, when during his 23 years’ ‘ service he had been paid only a bare living wage. Warrant Officer Ingall was one of the old instructors ill Nev/ South Wales before federation. He has to his credit 36 years of excellent service, but he was precluded from the benefits of superannuation because all his appointments were for three years only, and, therefore, his service was not considered permanent.

Senator Crawford:

– When was he retired?

Senator GARDINER:

– In 1922, I think. The Commonwealth should pay these officers a retiring allowance, or permit them to contribute to the superannuation fund, but not under impossible conditions. I ask the Minister to explain exactly what relief will be given to these men.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This bill proposes to extend the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1922 to the military and air forces of the Commonwealth. I think it is time that the Government took a wider view of the matter. I do not object to the Public Service being brought under an act of this description, nor to the proposed addition to the number of those who will benefit. But I do think that the time is opportune to extend the provisions of the act to every member of the community. The men working in the iron and building trades, the men doing the pastoral and pioneering work, outside the Public Service, should be treated in precisely .the way in which we treat public servants.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western ‘ Australia

– Rushing, as we are, through these bills, I am somewhat at a loss to comprehend the nature of their provisions. Notwithstanding that, I am glad that this bill has been brought down in fulfilment of a promise of the Government. The portion of the measure in which I am interested is that which deals with payments to widows of deceased officers. I should like to know whether widows of deceased officers will get the same benefits as would have, been given to them if their husbands had at the time of their death been contributors to the superannuation fund. That is a vital point. If the bill confers upon widows and orphaned children that particular benefit, will it have retrospective operation; and, if so, to what extent? I should also like to know whether the dependants of unmarried contributors will receive the benefits of the measure, or whether the contributions will be returnable.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee: Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Commencement and cessation of contribution).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– After I had moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into certain hardships that had been put upon people who were retired from the Defence Department, the Minister (Senator Pearce) informed me that a bill would be brought down to relieve those hardships. Will this bill do that? If it will not, what is the reason for the omission ? Have we reached the stage when a Minister’s word cannot be accepted ? The promise given was so definite and distinct that I withdrew my motion for the appointment of a select committee. I am quite aware that- compensation was paid on an actuarial basis, but that was so unfair that the Minister informed me that legislation would be introduced to bring about an improvement. I was looking forward to-the bill, and I cannot now find in it the relief which was promised. I am reluctant to believe that we cannot accept the word of a Minister when he makes a distinct promise. I shall not permit the bill to be hurried through committee. Men who did not pay anything into the fund were given an allowance of £104 a year. When I mentioned the case of a man who, after 23~ years’ service, received 5s. 10½d. a week, the Minister for Defence told me that he could produce the case of a man who was receiving only 2s. lid. a week. We should remedy those anomalies. The Commonwealth should not turn into the street these aged and unfit men. The Superannuation Board should not be allowed to withhold the measure until the closing hours of the session, and omit from it the provisions that are desired. If the hardships are not now remedied I shall take the earliest opportunity available next session to see that justice is done.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12-

  1. Section 38 of the principal act is amended by inserting therein, after sub-section 4, the following sub-seetion: - 4a. Notwithstanding anything contained in- this section, where an employee had any right referred to in section 51 of this act, and any payment has been made as an act of grace, in respect of the death of the employee, to the widow of that employee, there shall be deducted from the pension payable to the widow under this section such amount of pension . as is the actuarial equivalent of the payment so made, but so that the pension shall not be reduced below one unit.”
  2. This section shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date on which the principal act received the Royal Assent.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– This clause deals with, the matter that I raised at the . secondreading stage. I am anxious to learn how the clause will operate. Section ‘51 of the principal act, to which the clause refers, reads : -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this, act, an employee, who has a vested or contingent right to a pension, superannuation allowance, or gratuity under any other act (not including the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act 1920-21) or state act, shall not be required or permitted to contribute for units of pension under this act, except in pursuance of the provisions of this division, nor . shall pension under this act be payable to or in . respect of any such employee except in pursuance of those provisions.

Reading clause 12 with that section, I am at a loss to understand to what it applies.

Senator Crawford:

– It has reference to employees with state rights.

SenatorNEEDHAM. - The marginal note to the clause is, “ Pensions to widows and children in certain cases.” Section 38 of the principal act, which the clause amends, provides: -

  1. Where any employee who has been in the Service for at least ten years has died, or dies on or after . the 31st day of December, 1920, and before . the date notified in pursuance . of sub-section (1) of section 12 of this act, pensions shall be paid to his widow as follows : -

Does the clause deal with widows whose husbands died prior to the Superannuation Act. becoming operative?

Senator Crawford:

– -This brings in the widows of officers with state rights who were not included in the principal act.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am wondering if it includes widows of deceased officers in Western Australia, and, I understand, in the other states also, numbering, I believe, between 60 and 70.

Senator Crawford:

– Yes, in the same way as if they were widows whose husbands had not state rights.. It deals -with those who became widowed after 31st December, 1920.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Payment of pension instalments).

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

. -Senator Gardiner a few minutes ago mentioned the case of Warrant Officer Gale, who had contributed to the superannuation fund for twelve months, and retired at the ago of 60 years. That officer, I am informed, is ‘being paid the actuarial equivalent of his contributions. Certain other officers who retired without paying any contributions to the fund, are receiving a pension based on four units, or £104 a year..

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I am . glad that the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) is in his place, because I wish to refresh his memory of the circumstances connected with the case of Warrant Officer Gale, When I submitted a motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into this man’s case, Senator Pearce informed me that an amending superannuation bill would be brought before the Senate to right the wrong of certain officers whose names had been mentioned. Senator Crawford has just informed the committee that Warrant Officer Gale, who paid over £30 in a lump sum into the superannuation fund, is getting an allowance of11s. 9d. a fortnight, representing the actuarial equivalent of his contributions, and other officers, who paid nothing at all into the fund, are receiving £104 a year. Senator Pearce distinctly promised that the Superannuation Bill to be introduced would meet such cases, and upon his definite undertaking I informed the Senate that I would withdraw my motion for the appointment of a select committee. I did so. I should like to know if this bill really remedies the position. The Minister in charge of the bill is taking the same stand as the Superannuation Board, because he states that Warrant Officer Gale is drawing an allowance in accordance with the provisions of the act. I am aware that, with legislation being crowded on the Senate, Ministers have not sufficient time to consider measures properly, but I can assure Senator Pearce that if this bill does not remedy Warrant Officer Gale’s wrongs, and if the present Government is in office when Parliament re-assembles, 1 shall not be satisfied’ with any promise that legislation will be introduced, but shall persist in my demand for the appointment of a select committee.

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

– I remember Senator Gardiner bringing certain cases before the Senate, and my recollection is that I informed him that the Government intended to introduce a bill to deal with naval and military officers who were not provided for in the Superannuation Act. Certainly I cannot remember promising that the case of Warrant Officer Gale would be provided for in a way different from officers of the Public Service. I am informed that if what Senator Gardiner is asking to be done were done, certain persons in the naval and military forces would be treated differently from persons in the Public Service in the matter of superannuation benefits. That was never intended. What we intended was that persons in the naval and military forces should be treated in the same way as persons in the Public Service, with such variations as might be rendered necessary by the difference in time of service. No promise was made that persons in the naval’ and military forces would be treated differently from persons in the Public Service. Obviously that could not be done, because it would mean making an invidious distinction between the two classes of employees. I am advised that WarrantOfficer Gale will be dealt with in the same way as if he were a member of the Public Service who retired before the age of retirement.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, and I intend to take advantage of this opportunity to place the whole of the facts again before the right honorable gentleman, because it would appear that he has forgotten all about Warrant Officer Gale’s case. Fortunately we have Mansard. I brought this matter before the Senate on the 26th June last, and on a subsequent date, not being satisfied,. I moved for the appointment of a select committee which, as I have stated, I withdrew on the promise of the Minister that all such cases would be dealt with in the amending legislation. My remarks may be f ound on page 1581 of Hansard. I stated -

I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister the case of a warrant officer who was retired from the Defence Department subsequent to the passing of the Defence Retirement Act. This officer had had 23 years’ service, and he was. retired at the age of 60 years. Just prior to his retirement, he was contributing to the superannuation fund at the- rate prescribed for a pension of five units. Had he remained in the service- until he reached the age of 65-years; the sum that he was contributing would have entitled him to a pension of £130 a year. His name is W arrant-Officer. Gale. He received notice from the department that unless he paid something like £30 forthwith, he would not be entitled to a pension. It is a rather heavy call upon a man who is out of employment to find £30 in a lump sum, but believing that when he had paid it he would’ become entitled to the pension, he forwarded the amount. Time went on, as it generally does when departments are dealing, with the claims of poor men, and eventually he was granted a pension of lis. Sd. per fortnight ! Whenever an apparent injustice is brought to my notice, I endeavour to have it remedied. I therefore represented the bare facts of this case to the Minister for Defence (Mr. Bowden). He and his Under-Secretary went into the matter, and stated that there waa quite a number of similar cases, to deal with which legislation would be introduced during the present session. The session is proceeding, but I cannot see any indication of the introduction of that legislation. I trust that I shall not be regarded as uttering a threat when I say that if the definite information is not supplied me that that legislation will be introduced to remedy what the Minister for Defence admitted ib a hardship, I shall move for the appointment of a select committee of this Senate to inquire into the matter. I do not like asking for the appointment of a select committee because of the worry and trouble it entails, and the expense in which it involves the country, but/ if I am compelled to take that action, I feel sure that the fair-mindedness of honorable senators will induce them to grant my request. The expense which will thereby be incurred will be at least as great as the payment that has been withheld. I have no doubt what the verdict of a select committee would be, because there is not an honorable senator who would deny the justice of this man’s claim. This officer belongs to New South Wales. Had federation not been consummated he would, according to the New South Wales “custom, have received one month’s salary for every year of service. I have not read to the Senate the correspondence that has taken place, as I wish to reserve it for the consideration of a select committee, if such be found necessary. It looks as though the department obtained from this man the sum of £30 by deceit. I do not contend that the letter he received was such as to lead him to anticipate that he would get all that he expected, but I feel quite satisfied that, had he known he was to receive a pension of only 11s. 5d. per fortnight, he would not have made that payment of £30. I do not think any honorable senator would do so. During the war he frequently volunteered for active service at the front, but he was not permitted to. leave Australia, because he was one of those sterling, reliable, efficient officers whose services were required for the training of recruits here. He did his duty well. When the Superannuation Act was passed he accepted the conditions it imposed, and commenced to make the payments required. His services were dispensed with when he reached the military retiring age of 60 years. There are men who were put off two years prior to him and were paid handsome pensions, although they made no contributions to the fund. The explanation of the Minister for Defence is - “ We could pay those pensions then because we were not working under this act, but we cannot do so now, because the act clearly defines the manner in which pensions shall be paid.” It is hard to induce people to believe that justice is being meted out when only £14 per annum can be paid under the act,although £130 per annum is being received by men who were discharged prior to the passing of the act. It will be about two and a half years before this man will get back what he has paid into the fund. If his death occurs before that time, the department will have made a profit cut of him. I have brought the matter up because I am so impressed with the justice of the claim.

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Home and Territories) [12.15]. - Senator Gardiner is wrong in saying that I made the statement that the cases he mentioned would be dealt with in the way in which he asked that they should be dealt with. On that occasion I said, as reported in Hansard -

I am. going to ask Senator Gardiner to withdraw this motion. If he will not consent to that course, and it is pressed to a division, I shall ask the Senate to vote against it. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), in the most unequivocal terms, said in introducing the budget -

When the Superannuation Bill was under discussion in Parliament, a promise was made by the Government that arrangements would be made to amend the act to provide for the special conditions of the defence service. Subsequently, a committee of officers of the Defence Department submitted a scheme, which some time ago was referred for actuarial investigation. On receipt of the actuarial report the matter will be immediately dealt with, by the

Government with a view to legislation. Any new provisions will date from the 1st July, 1924.

Again referring to the question he stated -

The utmost expedition is being ensured in regard to this matter, which is very technical and difficult. As many actuaries as . possible are already engaged in the work.

Honorable senators conversant with the work of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers know that it is a very difficult and technical procedure to formulate a superannuation scheme on an actuarial basis in relation to them, because although many of these men served for upwards of 30 years, their service was in five-year periods. At the end of each period of five years they were re-engaged. The work of investigation is being pressed forward, and we trust that we shall soon be in a position to introduce the necessary amending bill. In any case, irrespective of the date at which the measure is passed, those concerned will not suffer because the scheme will come into operation as from the 1st July, 1924. If a select committee were appointed, it could not do more than is being done by the officers who are inquiring into the matter. Although Senator Gardiner’s motion relates to retiring allowances I understand that he really has in mind a superannuation scheme, because in the strict sense of the term retiring allowances are of a different character. As inquiries are being conducted with the utmost expedition it seems unnecessary to appoint a select committee before which the actuarial experts would have to appear to give evidence when their time might be better employed in completing the investigations on which they are engaged. As it does not appear that any good purpose would be served by adopting the motion, I trust that Senator Gardiner will consent to its withdrawal.

Senator Gardiner:

– On the definite assurance of the Minister that an amending bill, providing for these men, will be introduced, I am prepared to accede to his request.

Senator PEARCE:

– As soon as the report is available, the necessary legislation will be introduced, and, in view of that assurance, I trust the motion will be withdrawn.

There is not in my remarks anything referring to special cases. I simply dealt with the claim made by Senator Gardiner that inquiry should be made into the “ allowances being paid to warrant-officers, non-commissioned officers, and other officers retiring from the Defence Department.” No specific case was mentioned in the motion or in my reply, and the promise that I made on that’ occasion has been absolutely redeemed in the bill brought forward to-day.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- All I have to say is that while I stand on this side of the chamber I shall never accept the Minister’s word again.

Senator Pearce:

– That is unfair.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is not unfair; it is candid. When. I withdrew my claim for a select committee I did so on the clear understanding that a bill would be introduced to meet the cases into which I desired the select committee to inquire. But this bill does not do so. The Minister has brought it down at the end of the session when he can get it through Parliament easily. But there is still another session ahead, and I promise the Minister and the department that deals with these cases that there is a power in this land which will deal with them. If they throw warrant-officers aside without adequate compensation after rendering 20 or 30 years’ service to the country, they in their turn will be thrown aside when the opportunity arises. The Defence Department is most callous in its treatment of the men who have served it well. While commissioned officers have been retired on good allowances, not because of their ability but because’ of their social influence, the warrant-officers, who do the real work of the department, have been treated as workers are always treated - by being tossed on one side without adequate compensation. Senator Pearce avoided the appointment of a select committee by saying that it could do no more than the department was already doing, and he distinctly promised that the cases I mentioned would be dealt with. He says now that his promise has been fulfilled by the introduction of this bill. The bill does not deal with the cases I brought forward. lt was only circulated this morning, but nevertheless I was prepared to go on with it because I was anxious to ascertain if these men’s cases had been dealt with. I learn that it does not provide for them. I ask the Minister to show me how the bill treats the men to whom I refer any better than they would have been treated without it? I mentioned certain cases only, because I had proof of them, but there are many others of a similar nature which are also not covered by this bill. The Minister is always ready to gain a point by making a statement in such a way that, no matter what happens, he will be able to justify it. How long he will continue to ‘ do that I do not know, but he will not “ put it over me “ again. The bill is a gross repudiation of a definite promise made by him. To pay one man a pension of a little over £14 a year and another, who was doing the same work, a pension of £104 a year may suit the Government, because possibly one man may be a friend of their party and the other may not. The whole thing is a fraud and a swindle so far as these warrant officers are concerned. I read the letter forwarded to one officer informing him that his claim for a pension would be considered if he paid an additional £30. He paid this money, and was then told that he could have a pension of a little over £14 a year. It would take him three years, if he lived that long, to work” out what he paid into the fund. If a person in private life got money from other’ under the same conditions he would be brought before a court and charged with obtaining money under false pretences.. But the Government can do this sort of thing with impunity. It gave some commissioned officers over £1,000 each as a retiring allowance, without calling upon them to pay into any fund, but no such provision was made for non-commissioned officers. It is more than nine months since I spoke to Mr. Bowden, the Minister for Defence, on the matter. He saw at once the injustice of the case I put before him, and he said that when Parliament met again a bill would be introduced to remove it. We had a definite promise from the Government that the non-commissioned officers would be treated fairly, and were told that the Superannuation Board was engaged in preparing the necessary legislation. Honorable senators will not forget the manner in which Senator Pearce gave that promise. He may try to hide behind the fact that he did not actually use words which could be interpreted into a promise to deal with certain definite cases, but as a matter of fact, I did not ask that certain definite cases should be dealt with. I merely used the cases of which I had proof as an illustration of what was happening. Noncommissioned officers were being retired on a starvation allowance. I could, if necessary, produce letters from Mr. Trumble, the Secretary c-f the Defence Department, pointing out that when Parliament met the matter would be remedied. The bill for which we have been waiting has now arrived, and we find that it leaves these officers in the position they occupied before all these promises were made. It is a. scandal and a disgrace to the people of Australia that a Government should, without proper compensation, turn men adrift at 60 years of age to earn a living as best they can. They will derive no advantage from this bill. I withdrew my motion for a select committee on the ground that the bill foreshadowed by the Minister would remedy the cases I had in mind, and now I find that the bill does not provide any remedy for them at a stage when it is no longer possible to secure the appointment of a select committee. If I had known last night what was in this bill, or rather what was not in it, I would have seen that the Senate met next week, so that a select committee could be appointed to inquire into the matter. I believe that there is sufficient honour among honorable senators on the benches opposite to prevent ‘ the Senate from being fooled. When I withdrew my claim for a select committee, the words I used were that it was on the understanding that a bill would be introduced to deal with the cases I have mentioned. Senator Pearce allowed my words to go unchallenged. If he had then said as a straightforward man would have said, “ I have made no such promise,” I should have gone on with my motion for the appointment of a select committee. I believe that honorable senators would have supported that motion, because they were anxious that justice should be done to these non-commissioned officers. I shall move to add a proviso to the bill, “ That nothing in. the schedule shall prevent the Government from doing justice where cases of grave injustice come under their notice.” That will give the Government sufficient scope to deal with cases of deserving non-commissioned officers. Why should there be a difference between the treatment of a commissioned officer and a warrant officer? In nine cases out of -ten the warrant officer is the more efficient of the two and does more work, but he is not paid a sufficientlyhigh wage to enable him to make provision for his old age. I was definitely promised that the cases of warrant officers would be met by this bill. I did not doubt the assurance that was given me, and immediately withdrew my motion for a select committee. I believe that all honorable senators were of the same mind as myself concerning the promise made by Senator Pearce. Is the Minister desirous of remedying cases of hardship?

Senator Crawford:

– The Government desires to deal justly with everybody.

Senator GARDINER:

– We have been told that, under the schedule, no more can be given than has been given. Is it asking too much of the Government to request it to draft an amendment to remedy cases of hardship? If the Government does not do so I certainly shall. The men I have in mind are not even old enough to be given an old-age pension.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Benny:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The honorablesenator’s time has expired.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Rights under State Acts not prejudiced.)

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I ask the Minister to give me an explanation of this clause.

Senator Crawford:

– It is inserted for the purpose of preserving to former State Government employees all the rights that they would have enjoyed had they remained in the service of the state.

Senator GARDINER:

– In New South Wales, in the old days, every employee who was not covered by the superannuation scheme was granted, on his retirement, an allowance equal to one month’s salary for every year of service. Had Warrant Officer Ingall been treated with that degree of consideration he would have had a substantial amount paid to him.

Senator Crawford:

– If. the statement made . by the honorable senator is correct Ingall will be entitled to a pension of £104 per annum under this bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I pledge my word that Warrant Officer Ingall had at least 25 years’ military service under the New South Wales Government, and that he was not covered by the superannuation scheme. Had he remained in the State Service he would have been retired on an allowance of one month’s pay for every year of service. He was retired in 1922.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– He would come under the provisions of this bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall tell the honorable senator why he does not come under the measure. His service was on the basis of three-year appointments. Because he was not a permanent officer, the Government has denied his just right. If he had been honestly dealt with he would have come under the provisions of the act.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-brockman. - But he comes under this bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I almost wish that my faith in the promise made on that side of the Senate had not been broken, but until I have had an opportunity to read the provision which the honorable senator declares will coyer this man I shall not be satisfied to accept any assurance.

Senator Pearce:

– That is ‘childish.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator may call, it childish if he wishes to, but to be deceived once is enough for me. It is his fault if he deceives me once, but ii is my fault if he deceives me twice.

Senator Crawford:

– I assure the honorable senator that this bill alters the provisions of the original act in respect to such men as Warrant Officer Ingall. ‘

Senator GARDINER:

-I regret that a bitter experience prevents me from accepting the word of the Minister on the matter. Other men,, as well as Ingall, are being treated unfairly. I have in mind a mau who,, in the early days of military service in New South Wales, was one of the partially paid officers, and a most efficient instructor. He had exceptional ability, and though he was over the military age when the war began, he offered his services to the Government and rendered excellent service for several years. Only two years ago he won the prize in a New South Wales competition for veteran marksmanship. He is the kind of man who’ built up the genuine military spirit in Australia. In 1922 this man was discharged. The Government paid him for holidays due to him. He was told that, because he had been re-appointed every three years his 36J years’ service was not continuous, and, therefore, he was not entitled to a pension.

Senator Graham:

– The same old quibble.

Senator GARDINER:

– And it always will be the same old quibble. Retired commissioned officers were generously treated. There should have been no discrimination between the two classes of men, yet one commissioned officer received a retirement allowance of £1,000, and this warrant officer received only 5s. 10½d. a week. I ask the Government during the luncheon adjournment to re-draft the clause to permit: of these grievances being remedied. The Minister stated to-day that men who had contributed nothing to the superannuation fund had been retired on a pension of £104 per annum, and that other men, who had been retired after contributing to the superannuation fund, received £14 a year. In other cases, about half of that amount was paid, the allowance, working out at 2s. lid., per week. Does the Government want to continue these hardships, and do they want the. force of representation in this Parliament, to be continually used to ventilate injustices to persons who have served their country well 1 I cannot really understand the mental attitude of the members of the Government in seeking to pass this legislation. It is the old military spirit, which cannot tolerate civil control.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Brockman. - That spirit has been dead since the time of Julius’ Caesar.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then a worse spirit is alive in Australia to-day .

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The honorable’ senator has a perverted imagination.

Senator GARDINER:

– I can quite understand the- honorable senator imagining that I am speaking with an inflamed mind’,, and that I am wasting the time of this Parliament in trying to get justice for men who have served their country well.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The honorable senator has done no more in this regard than. I have. I have fought for these men for some time,, and, although I have not made so much noise about it, I have accomplished more than the honorable senator has.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to hear the honorable senator’s acknowledgment that this is a case of injustice. He has. now an opportunity to remedy it.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– A good many of these cases have been remedied.

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask the Government to re-draft the clause to provide power for the remedying, of these hardships.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Benny:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired-.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 7

Majority…… 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

. -I propose to move a new clause, 14a. Clause 14 deals with state rights, and I want to make it clear that these rights shall not be statutory, but rights accruing by reason of the custom and procedure of the states. If the bill is passed as it stands the only rights recognized will be statutory rights. In New South Wales, in pre-superannuation days, the custom upon retirement was to pay to officers one month’s salary for each year of service. That applied to the whole of the Public Service of that state. It is only fair that this right should be conserved to officers who cannot take advantage of the benefits of the Superannuation Act. The bill was introduced to rectify, not only hardships imposed under the Superannuation Act, but also anomalies existing in the Defence Department. If the bill is passed as it stands the Minister, when considering cases of hardship, although acknowledging the justice of the claims, will take refuge in the fact that the law does not provide for them.

Sitting suspended from 1 to2p.m.

Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Crawford) proposed -

That the report be now adopted.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I move-

That the bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 16.

We propose to make an amendment which, we understand, will provide for the class of case referred to by Senator Gardiner.

Motion agreed to.

In committee (recommittal) :

Clause 16-

After Part IV. of the principal act the following Part and sections are inserted: - 60q. - (1.) Section 36 of this act shall not apply so as to entitle an employee who was a contributor under this act, or an air officer, to receive a pension.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That in proposed new section 60 (q) the following words be left out: - “ (1) Section 36 of this act shall not apply so as to entitle an employee who was a contributor under this act, or an air officer, to receive a pension.”

That will meet the case of those officers who have contributed, and have retired upon a pension of less than four units.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

. - I take it that the omission of those words will not disqualify those who have made certain contributions from being as well treated as those who have not contributed.

Senator Crawford:

– That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; reports adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5552

IMMIGRATION BILL

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments) :

Clause 5 -

Section 8a of the principal act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section 4 the words “ and he shall be deported accordingly”; and

by omitting sub-section 5 and inserting in its stead the following subsection : - “(5) Any person for whose deportation the Minister has made an order - in pursuance of this section shall be deported accordingly, and pending deportation shall be kept in such custody as -the Minister directs.”

Section of the principal act proposed to be amended - “ 8a. - (4) (a)If the person fails, within the prescribed time, to show cause why he should not be deported, or

the board recommends that he be deported from the Commonwealth, the Minister may make an order for his deportation, and he shall be deported accordingly.

Pending deportation the person may be kept in such custody as the Minister directs.”

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit paragraphs “ (c) and (d) “ and insert the following paragraph in place thereof : - “ and “ (c) by omitting sub-section 5.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

.- I move-

That the amendment be disagreed to.

This amendment was carried in another place under a misapprehension. The amendment was contingent on the insertion of a new clause 8c, which was withdrawn in the House of Representatives. The proposed new clause 8c provided for the safe custody of all persons required or ordered to be deported under the act. If the new clause had been passed, it would have been unnecessary to retain the special provision in paragraph d, of clause 5, for the safe custody of persons referred to in section 8a of the act. Further, the section, as affected by the amendment of the House of Representatives would not contain anyexpress provision to give effect to an order of deportation made by the Minister in cases covered by paragraphs a, b, and c, sub-clause 1, of section 8a. This is necesary for the enforcement of the provisions of the section. By disagreeing with the amendment the Senate will restore the provisions of the bill relating to deportations under section 8a to the position existing when the bill left the Senate.

Motion agreed to.

Mouse . of Representatives’ Amendment. -

After clause 5, insert the following new clause : - “5a. Section 12a of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘ Penalty : £100 or 6 months’ imprisonment or both,’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ and be liable on summary conviction to a penalty of £200 or 6 months’ imprisonment or both’.”

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

.- I move-

That the amendment be agreed to.

The section of the principal act referred to provides the punishment that shall be inflicted on those who conspire to bring pro hibited immigrants into this country. Quite recently there has been revealed a well-laid conspiracy for bringing Chinese into Australia. Europeans have been concerned in it, and it is thought that we should have a special penalty to deter those gentlemen from engaging in that occupation.

Motion agreed to.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

Ordered -

That a committee consisting of Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator McHugh be appointed to prepare and bring up reasons for disagreeing to amendment No. 1 of the House of Representatives.

Later :

The following report, brought up by the committee, was read and adopted : -

Reason. - The amendment was intended to be complementary to a proposed new clause; such new clause in fact was not inserted, and consequently the amendment is not required.

page 5553

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1921-22

Bill received from House of Representatives.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

As honorable members are aware, it is customary to provide a vote in the Estimates for Advance to the Treasurer to enable him to make advances to Commonwealth officers, and to meet expenditure which will afterwards be included in a parliamentary appropriation. These Estimates cover the expenditure which was so made during the last three financial years, and Parliament’ will now be asked to grant the necessary covering appropriation. With regard to the apparent delay which has taken place in submitting the supplementary Estimates for 1921-2, I may explain that, before this action can be taken, it is customary for the Auditor-General’s report, together with the Treasurer’s financial statement of the accounts of the year, to be presented to Parliament. The statement of accounts for the year 1921-2. and the Auditor-General’s report thereon, were presented to Parliament in October, 1922.

The House dissolved a few days later, and there was; no opportunity to ask Parliament to deal with the supplementary Estimates. After the elections, a short session of about a fortnight was held. It was devoted wholly to dealing’ with the Address-in-Reply, and, during the second session, which was adjourned prior to the departure of the Prime Minister to the Imperial Conference, it was possible to deal only with matters of pressing urgency. I have now taken the earliest opportunity during the present session of submitting the supplementary Estimates; The amount voted for Treasurer’s Advance in1921-2 was £1,500,000, and the expenditure made therefrom, which requires a covering parliamentary appropriation, is £1,412,072, made up as follows : -

The Auditor-General’s report for 1922-3, was not available until the 10th December, 1923, and, as Parliament was not then sitting, it was not possible to bring down supplementary Estimates until the present session. In this year the vote for Advance to the Treasurer was £1,500,000, the same amount as was voted in. the previous year, and the expenditure made from this vote, for which an appropriation of Parliament is required, totals £1,377,736, viz:-

The accounts for the year 1923-4 have now been audited by the Auditor-General, and his report in connexion therewith was presented to Parliament on Friday last. Included in the accounts and statements submitted to the Auditor-General’ is a statement of amounts to be included in supplementary estimates, and in his re port the Auditor-General states that supplementary appropriation is necessary to cover this expenditure. I am therefore now in a position to bring down the Supplementary Estimates for 1923-4.. The amount voted for advance to Treasurer for 1923-4, was again £1,500,000. Out of this vote the expenditure was as follows : -

Parliament has already been fully informed in regard to the. expenditure now submitted for covering appropriation. The expenditure was furnished in the fullest detail with the Estimates and budget papers of the several years’. In addition, the Treasurer’s finance statement for each year, accompanied by the AuditorGeneral’s report on the accounts, was laid on the table of the Senate and thus made available to members, amongst the Parliamentary papers. So far as the accounts for 1923-4 are concerned, I presented an approximate statement of accounts to the Senate at the earliest possible moment after the close of the financial year, and-, at the same time, I gave full explanations of the principal- increases in the actual expenditure over the estimate. This was- done on the 4th July last. Similar action was taken on the 5th July, 1922, in regard to the accounts for 1921-2, and again on the 4th July, 1923, in respect of the accounts for 1922-3. It will thus be seen that many opportunities have been afforded to honorable senators to make themselves familiar with the expenditure which is now submitted for their approval in the supplementary estimates.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I notice that on page 6, under Prime Minister’s Department, there is an item - Relief of distress, maritime strike, £4,446. I should like an explanation of that expenditure.,

Senator Pearce:

– The expenditure was incurred in 1922 for the relief of unemployed during the maritime strike. . It has been before the Senate on several occasions.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Senator Grant’s inquiry has reminded me of statements that have appeared in the press recently that the Government proposes to pay £5,000 to certain so-called loyalists - I shall not refer to them in the terms usually employed by members of the party to which I belong, but it is well known - for services during a dispute on the Sydney waterfront some years ago. Has any of the money that will be voted under this bill been used f or that purpose ?

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without request or debate.

page 5555

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1921-1922

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That so much of the Sessional and Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passedthrough all stages without delay.

Senator Pearce. - No.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first and second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Under the vote for Parliament House I wish to invite the attention of the committee to the fact that in the offices set apart for the use of Federal members in Sydney the necessity for an up-to-date typewriter has been felt for a considerable time. Twelve months ago an application was made for an additional machine. Although the officers employed in the Works and Railways Branch use the most up-to-date machines themselves, and although the application made by the sub-committee of federal members was for an Underwood typewriter, the department furnished a second-hand, ramshackle, tumbledown, Monarch typewriter, which was, of course, promptly returned. Why could not the request of the sub-committee of members in Sydney be complied with?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Because it did not come under the notice of the House committee which deals with that matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I should like to know if the honorable senator is referring to expenditure incurred in the year ended the 30th June, 1922 ?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My trouble is that it did not occur at all.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then I am afraid the honorable senator cannot discuss the matter on this bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5555

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1922-1923

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the hill be now read a first time.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have noticed that whenever permanent officials are attached to any department they take very good care that every convenience is provided for them. Their offices are furnished in a most up-to-date manner, and have table telephones installed. But “when we come to deal with the accommodation provided for members of Parliament, it is a different matter. I do notknow who is at fault, but I take it that members themselves are mainly responsible for the manner in which they are sometimes treated. Whoever was responsible for laying out the offices in Sydney used by members of Parliament from all parts of the Commonwealth, and sometimes by members of the New Zealand Parliament, merely fixed one telephone on a wall, so that, if a member wished to communicate with any part of the state he was obliged to stand up against the wall to do so. Permanent officials would not tolerate that kind of thing for five minutes if it affected themselves. On representations being made in the proper quarter, it was finally decided, at considerable cost. I believe, to provide a telephone for each of the large tables in the room. The provision was not more than was required. I do not know who has been responsible for providing the chairs one is obliged to use in the members’ offices in Sydney. They are most unsuitable. One would imagine that members used the offices to sleep in instead of for the transaction of public business.

Senator McHugh:

– South Australian members have very poor accommodation.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If that is so it is absolutely the fault of South Australian members themselves.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– If Senator Grant will be content with what he has already said, I shall make it my personal business to see that the matter to which he has referred is brought to the notice of the House Committee at its next meeting. That is the proper body to deal with the matter. I agree with the honorable senator that proper accommodation should be provided for members in every state.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make a few more remarks, but my doing so will not debar Senator Drake-Brockman from carrying out his promise. In regard to the application for a typewriter made by the Sydney sub-committee of members consisting of Senator McDougall, Mr. Cunningham, and myself, instead of an Underwood machine being sent along as requested, the Works and Railways Department sent along an old contraption quite out of date, and utterly unsuitable for the purpose for which it was required. No public officer would use such a machine. When requests for facilities of that description are made, they should be complied with. I am pleased that Senator Drake-Brockman has promised to bring before the House Committee, at its first meeting, the matter’s I have mentioned. I think his representations will be sufficient to ensure that an up-to-date No. 5 Underwood typewriter is installed in the offices used by members in Sydney.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first and second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Appropriation of £1 , 027,917).

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is it intended to use any portion of the sum of money mentioned in this clause to pay the £5,000 which has just been referred to by Senator Gardiner ?

Senator Pearce:

– There is no provision for it in this or any other Appropriation Bill that is to come before us today.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5556

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1922-1923

Bill received from House of Representatives.

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

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Can the Leader of the Senate tell me how much more money it is intended to spend on the wireless station at Willis Island?

Senator Pearce:

– The station is complete and in operation, and it is not proposed to spend any more money on it.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Can the Minister tell me what has been the total cost?

Senator Pearce:

– I regret that I cannot tell the honorable senator the exact amount, but it has been between £3,000 and £4,000.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

. I trust that in the future, when the Government is introducing a number of similar bills under the circumstances in which we are considering these measures, it will have them numbered for the purposes of easy reference.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator has made a good suggestion. If that were done, it would be convenient for Ministers as well as for honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 5557

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1923-1924

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standingand Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed

That the bill be. now read a first . time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I do not desire to delay honorable senators, but I should not like to miss the opportunity that will be given in the submission of these measures to discuss the grant of £5.000 made by the Government in aid of certain persons whom it terms “loyalists,” but whom we term “scabs.”

Senator Pearce:

-I assure the honorable senator that no provisionis made for that amount in any of these measures. It will be one of the items included in the next return showing expenditure from Treasurer’s Advance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill- read -a -first time, and passed -through its remaining stages without request or- debate.

page 5557

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1923-1924

Bill received from House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest to the Government that, in fairness to, the Opposition, measures of this description should be presented to the Senate at least a week before they are to be discussed. We have passed bills in the last half -hour “which have validated expenditure already incurred by the Government to the amount of £4,169,159.. As this money has already been spent,, it is futile to discuss the various items, but it . appears to me that such measures could be submitted to the Senate earlier so that we should have an opportunity to ascertain exactly what items were included, in the expenditure.

Question -resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 5557

MEAT INDUSTRY ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Message received from House of . Representatives intimating that it had . agreed to the amendment , made by the Senate in this Bill.

page 5557

ZOOLOGICAL MUSEUM AGREEMENT BILL

Bill returned from House of Representatives without amendment.

page 5557

STATISTICAL BUREAU (TASMANIA) BILL

Bill returned from House of Representatives without amendment.

page 5557

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Bill returned from House of Representatives with the following message: -

The House of Representatives . insists onnot agreeing to amendment No. -6 insisted on by “the -Senate, and also insists on the amendment made by the ‘House of Representatives in clause 8 disagreed to by -the -Senate, as indicated by the annexed Schedule.

The House of Representatives desires the “ reconsideration of the bill in respect of Senate - amendment No. 6,’ and of “the amendment made by the House -in clause 8.

Ordered-

That -the - message- be considered < in . Committee of theWhole forthwith.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message”) :

Senator PEARCE:
Ministerfor Home and- Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That theCommittee no. longer insists on its amendment, No, ft, and now agrees, to ‘the amendment made bythe. House of Representatives . inclause ‘8. of the’bill in place thereof.

I appeal to the Committee not to press its amendment in vievof the late stage of the session, and of the fact that the desire of. those who thought, that there’ should be no limit to the exemption will be met to the extent that the limitation will be increased from£600 to £900. In addition to’ that, there is an exemption of £300, which diminishes until a taxable income of £1,200 is reached.

Senator Findley:

-in what way is there exemption of £300 on salaries of £1,200?

Senator PEARCE:

– The exemption disappears at £1,200, and, therefore, a person receiving a salary of less . than £1,200 would not have to include -medical or funeral expenses in his taxable income. ‘ It cannot be said that the inclusion of medical and funeral expenses in the taxable income of a person receiving a salary in excess of £900 would inflict any great hardship, and I ask the Senate not to press its amendment.

Senator Gardiner:

– Why should not thu House of Representatives withdraw its amendment ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The other chamber compromised by increasing the limitation from £600 to £900.

Senator Elliott:

– Will the Minister promise to drop the limitation altogether next session?

Senator PEARCE:

– One or two amendments will have to be made to the Income Tax Assessment Act, and I promise that this matter -will be considered when the amending bill is introduced next session.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I did hope that after two divisions had been taken in committee in respect of this amendment, and especially when the numbers in favour of it were three to one, the Government would have pressed it. The Minister stated that in view of the £300 exemption under the act, the amendment would affect only those .persons receiving an annual salary of £1,200 and over.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A person receiving £900 per annum would not have the advantage of the exemption of £300.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I think that the Minister is mistaken in ‘ saying that an exemption of £300 will apply to a salary of £1,200.

Senator Pearce:

– There is an exemption of £300, which gradually diminishes until it dies out at £1,200.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The question to be considered is not whether this amend- ment will impose a hardship on ‘a rich or a poor man, but whether the principle is fair and just. I contend that it is neither fair nor just. There are many other avenues by which the Government, if it so desired, could obtain substantial revenue. If a man buys property in one of our capital cities at £50,000, and sells it at £100,000, the unearned increment of £50,000 is free from taxation. The cost of medical services, hospital attention, and medicine very often amounts to from £200 to £300. Despite the fact that that money is expended on account of sickness, income taxation is levied on it. The principle is not right. I am not concerned for the moment with whether a man is rich or poor. The principle should be general in its application. Expenses incurred because of sickness in any home, whether the man be well or poorly circumstanced, should be allowed as a deduction from income taxation. I hope that those honorable senators who previously supported me will now stand by me in insisting upon the amendment made by the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I do not want to discuss the merits of the question, but I do want to call attention to the rights of this chamber. Senator Pearce would have done more credit to the Senate had he moved that we insist on our amendment.

Senator Pearce:

– If each House adopted that view, finality would never be reached.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not see why the Senate should always give way.

Senator Pearce:

– We are not giving way in this instance.

Senator GARDINER:

– The amount involved does not enter into a consideration of the matter. It is a much better principle not to draw these irritating lines between rich and poor. Honorable senators twice considered this matter, and deliberately arrived at the same decision on each occasion. Honorable senators are, of course, entitled to back down if that is their desire. But it would be more in keeping with the dignity of the Senate to compel a recognition by the other place of the overwhelming majority that has twice been recorded in this matter. Of. course, there is the alternative of a double dissolution. The magnitude of the question warrants even that.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.-I think that we should appoint managers to interview managers from the other place, and to intimate that this distinction is not drawn in the Maternity Allowance Act and like measures. The reasons which induced honorable senators to accept the amendment should be put plainly before honorable members of another place, who would, no doubt, then see the error of their ways, and agree to this reasonable concession. Unfortunately, at ‘ the present time throughout Australia there is a very great deal of sickness, and practically every public and private hospital is filled. The attitude adopted by the other place is not the correct one.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I hope that those honorable senators who supported Senator Findley on the two previous occasions will support him again, and will not be led by the insistency of another place to reject this common-sense amendment.

Senator Duncan:

– It was the Labour members of another place who were responsible for that House’s disagreement with the amendment of the Senate.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Sometimes even Labour members, like my honorable friend, are led astray. We must endeavour to bring them back to the path of rectitude from which they have evidently strayed in this instance. If the Senate is at all times to bow to the will of another place it may as well be abolished. Twice this committee has decisively voted to eliminate a distinction that has been drawn between classes in this community. That distinction does not find a place in other measures, and it should not be allowed in this. I hope that honorable senators will not be stampeded because the other place has again disagreed to our amendment. Let us show to that House, and to those who have sent us here, that we have some backbone, and that we know what we are doing. I hope that the committee will stand by the amendment.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I supported Senator Findley twice previously, but I think that nothing can be gained by prolonging this struggle between the two Houses. It is not worth while, particularly as the Government has said that it will consider the advisability of withdrawing this provision next session. I think that the other chamber showed a desire to compromise when it raised the amount by £300. That was a very substantial concession. It is recognized that the House of Representatives is paramount in financial mat-, ters. This chamber has asserted its right by rejecting the unfair measure that came before it last night. I think that we can very well rest on our laurels, and that we should not precipitate a contest that may not end favorably to us.

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

– I was one of those who supported the amendment and insisted upon its” remaining in the bill. We have twice had it sent back to us, each time with a compromise. I* prefer to legislate for human beings in preference to legislating for agricultural implements and beasts of burden, but I am not prepared to see the bill thrown out. I agree with Senator Elliott that, although we have put up a good fight, nothing can be gained by further insisting upon the amendment.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 5559

ADJOURNMENT

Sessional Order

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - The time fixed under the Sessional Order for the adjournment of the Senate having arrived, I must now put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Motion negatived.

page 5559

QUESTION

SUGAR

Supplies for Western Australia

Senator WILSON:
NAT

– On the 12th September, Senator Lynch asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Is there any reasonable prospect of having sugar delivered at the capital city . of Perth under the same conditions as those obtaining in the case of the other capitals?
  2. Is the Minister aware whether it costs 13s. per ton to convey sugar from Fremantle to Perth, and whether, as a result the citizens of Western Australia have paid about £30,000 more than do the citizens of any other state under the .agreement?.
  3. Will the Minister again make representations to the Sugar Board, and point out the manifest unfairness of not putting the capital city of Perth, and the consumers of sugar in Western Australia, on the same footing as those of the other states!

I replied on that occasion that the matter was wholly under the control of the Sugar Board, and that the questions had been referred to the chairman of that board. I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

The Sugar Board now states that the practice of regarding Fremantle as the capital city for Western Australia for the purpose of uniform sugar prices cannot be departed from during the currency of the existing agreement. It may be stated that the present practice of establishing uniform- sugar prices (which places Fremantle in the same position as Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Hobart) reduces the cost of sugar consumed by residents of Perth by fi 4s. 4d. per ton as compared with the usual trade -practice where all the freight from factory to consumers is added to the price of the goods. In the case . of sugar, the Sugar Board pays £1 4s. 4d. per ton of the freight from the refineries to Fremantle (which automatically involves sugar consumed in Perth and in almost all other parts of Western Australia).

page 5560

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the -Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. President, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. President to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 5560

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator PEARCE) agreed to-

That leave of absence ‘be granted to every member of the Senate from the determination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 5560

QUESTION

NORTH-SOUTH RAILWAY

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

– (By leave.) - -In amplification of the statement which the right honorable the Prime Minister made on Wednesday last, in answer to a question with regard to the intention of the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the commencement of a section of the north-south line to the Macdonnell ranges, I am now in a position to inform honorable senators that the Government has been in consultation with Mr. Gunn, the Premier of South Australia, during the last two days, and, as a result of such consultation, a basis for an agreement has been arrived at between the Commonwealth and the State of South Australia. The proposed agreement has yet to be i submitted to the Commonwealth and State Governments for their approval, and, if agreement can be reached, the proposals will be submitted for the ratification of the Commonwealth and State Parliaments. It is obvious that, at this stage of the negotiations, I cannot give to the Senate the details of the proposed agreement. I can intimate, however, for the information of honorable senators that the proposals provide for definite dates for the starting and completing of a line to the Macdonnell ranges, subject to the South Australian Government agreeing to certain conditions which are embodied in the tentative proposals which are now under consideration.

Sitting suspended from S.S5 to Jf.5. p.m.

page 5560

SUPERANNUATION BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 5560

IMMIGRATION BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives, intimating that it did not insist on its amendment No. 1 to which the Senate had disagreed.

page 5560

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory Remarks

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– In moving -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I wish to express, on behalf of the Government, its appreciation of the assistance that honorable senators have rendered to bring .to a close a very strenuous session. I desire also to record our appreciation of the courtesy that Mr. Deputy President and the Temporary Chairmen of Committees have always extended to Ministers and honorable senators generally, and ‘of the .orderly manner in which the debates have been carried on. As I am aware that honorable senators are anxious to catch their trains, I shall not detain them, but I should like to express the appreciation of honorable senators generally of the work of the Hansard staff, and of the courtesy that they have always received from the officers of the Senate. We do not always recognize our debt . of obligation to Mr. Monahan and Mr. U’Ren. It is not to be understood that because I am brief in my remarks I do not thoroughly recognize the services these gentlemen have rendered. I trust that all honorable senators will enjoy a good holiday, meet their constituents and come back renewed in health and spirit.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I join with the Minister (Senator Pearce) in extending good wishes to the officers of the Senate and all concerned with the transaction of the business of the Senate, particularly those who cater for our personal comfort. The session has been to me a very strenuous one, and although it is not usual to voice any complaints on an occasion like this, I hope that we shall all live to see legislation dealt with in that deliberate way in which it should be dealt with, when no new bill will be brought down within one month of the close of a session. No man can live and thoroughly study two important bills a week. I join with Senator Pearce in his expression of hope for the happiness and health of all honorable senators.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - I am grateful to Ministers, to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), and also to all honorable senators, for their uniform kind ness and courtesy to me during my temporary occupancy of the chair. All honorable senators have been most generous to me, and have shown me many manifestations of goodwill. The Clerks at the table have been most ready to render assistance to me, and the Temporary Chairmen of Committees have performed their tasks readily and willingly, relieving me of all anxiety on that score. I wish to thank the members of the Hansard staff - no praise could induce them to do their work better- than they do it at the present time - members of the Library staff, and also the messengers in attendance in this chamber, and the household and refreshment room staffs, for their attention to the personal, needs of honorable senators. We have had a fairly strenuous session, and although political party feeling may have occasionally run somewhat high, I am confident that every honorable senator leaving this chamber to-day will have no , bitterness in his heart towards any other honorable senator on either side. One of the outstanding features of political life is that, while men may differ strenuously at times on political questions, such differences do not in any way interfere with their personal regard for one another. I join with the Leader of the Government in expressing the wish that all honorable senators will have a pleasant holiday, and when we come back we may, as the Leader of the Opposition hopes, have some reform in the method of bringing in legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 October 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19241010_senate_9_109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant