Senate
4 September 1925
9th Parliament · 3rd Session
The President (Senator the Eon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 2225
QUESTION
BOUNTIES PAID BY THE COMMONWEALTH
Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
- What is the amount of bounties or bonuses granted by the Government to each industry in the Commonwealth for the purpose of its encouragement since the establishment of federation?
- What was the total amount granted by the Government to all industries for the same purpose and for the same period?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
– The information is being obtained.
page 2225
PAPERS
The following papers were presented : -
League of Nations - Agenda of the Sixth Session of the Assembly.
New Guinea - Ordinances of 1925-
No. 36 - Lands Registration (No. 3).
No. 37- Mining (No. 2).
No. 38- Native Labour (No. 2).
No.39. - Interpretation and Amendments Incorporation (No. 2).
No. 40- District Courts.
No. 41 - Judiciary.
No. 42 - Central Court Assessors.
Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Trade and Customs -P.F. Quigley.
page 2225
LIMITATION OF DEBATE
Proposed New Standing Orders
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– I move -
That the Standing Orders Committee be requested to submit for the consideration of the Senate additional standing orders for the limitation of debate on any bill declared’ by the
Senate ‘to be an urgent bill, in respect of initial stages, second reading, committee stage, any particular clause or clauses, any .part or parts of the bill, and remaining stages, and such consequential standing orders or amendments of the present Standing Orders as the committee may think necessary to give effect to those proposals.
I thought that honorable senators opposite would regard a motion to submit a matter to the Standing Orders Committee as formal, seeing that both sides of the Senate are represented on that committee, and that any debate on the subject ought really to take place when the recommendation conies forward for adoption. I am not in a position to say that the committee will bring forward a recommendation that will prove satisfactory to either side of the Senate. However, as honorable senators opposite have not chosen to regard this motion as formal, I may explain that -what I have in mind is the desirability of the Senate adopting a standing order similar to Standing Order 262a of the House of Representatives.
Senator Needham:
– The Minister wants the “ guillotine “ to be put in operation ?
Senator PEARCE:
– It is true that that standing order is generally and colloquially known as the “guillotine.” Our Standing Orders 281. 431, and 433, under which, in the Senate or in committee, the motion “ That the Senate - or the committee - do now divide” may be moved, arc most unsatisfactory. The application of the closure in this way is a most unfair method of limiting debates. We had an example quite recently of the way in which it limits debate on one side of the Senate only. “When one side is anxious to put a bill through and another side is anxious to oppose it, the latter proceeds to put up what is generally known as a “ stone wall.” It talks practically all the time, while the other side, which is in favour of the bill, is practically gagged and prevented from expressing any opinion on the measure. Therefore the operation of these standing orders is unfair, because in practice it means that the minority is able to gag the majority. On the other hand, if the “ guillotine “ were in operation, both sides of the Senate would have an opportunity to state their opinions, and the side which wasted time by putting up what is called a “stone wall” would lose the opportunity to state its views on the proposal under consideration. Therefore, its waste of time would recoil on itself.
Senator Foll:
– But it could still prevent the other side from speaking.
Senator PEARCE:
– No. As a time would be fixed for a particular stage of the bill, both sides would have the opportunity to speak. The President calls- on speakers from either side alternatively. If an honorable senator had an hour in which to speak, and deliberately wasted his time, it would recoil on his own head, whereas an honorable senator on the other side supporting the proposal would devote his hour to giving reasons why the measure should pass. The side that wasted its time would penalize itself, and’ not the side supporting the bill. This provides an eminently fair method of debating a measure. I take it that the Standing Orders Committee will recognize that, as there are only 36 honorable senators, a greater time could be allowed for the various stages of a bill than might be allowed in a House containing 72 members. But all these matters will, no doubt, be fully considered by the Standing Orders Committee, and if the committee brings up a report in favour of the adoption of the proposed new standing orders, the Senate can debate the merits or demerits of its recommendation.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
-10].- Were I blest with that chess players’ intellect which enables one to look ahead to the next move, I should support Senator Pearce in this matter. For some years we have enjoyed a certain amount of freedom in Opposition, but. now Senator Pearce comes along with a proposal to prevent himself from enjoying the same amount of freedom when he in turn is in Opposition. -If I were so minded that I would seek to prevent the honorable senator from having, when in Opposition, the freedom that I have enjoyed, I would say, “Thanks. You are proposing to put a weapon into the hands of the next Go’vernment that will enable it to stifle debate on your, part.” Is the Senate suffering from too much debate or discussion, or is there too much opposition to measures? Has the reputation of the Senate suffered in the estimation of the public outside? I am afraid that, instead of being a place where men meet to parley, the Senate is generally unemployed waiting for business to be done in another place. It is merely putting up an appearance of being par.t of the Parliament of the country. On Monday last, Senator Pearce was in the unenviable position of having to rise time after time to move on every clause of the Peace Officers Bill “ That the committee do now divide.” He did it even before there was time for any discussion on a clause. In regard to that bill, Senator Pearce was evidently following instructions received from the British Government, because, according to this morning’s newspapers, questions are being asked as to the need for the action of the British Government in creating a new police force. The explanation given is that the London Police Force is not sufficient to do certain work, and that another force has been called into existence for that purpose. Taking the discussion on the Peace Officers Bill as an example of the obstruction that Senator Pearce has in mind, I point out that, as a matter of fact, on Saturday I did not exhaust the time allotted to me under the Standing Orders, and, as I did not feel my usual self, I did not remain in the chamber to listen to the very eloquent addresses of honorable senators supporting the Government. The debate on Saturday was reasonably fair, and did not take up more than the usual time. Senator Pearce questions that statement, but Hansard will show the time occupied by honorable- senators on both sides. The debate was conducted by both sides in a way that was a credit to a chamber which was brought into existence ito. discuss legislation. Hitherto the parliamentary practice has been to permit adequate debate on every clause of a bill in committee, but when we reached that stage in the discussion of the Peace Officers Bill, Senator Pearce took steps te prevent debate. As soon as clause 1 was submitted he moved - “ That the committee do now divide.” Similarly on clause 2, a very important provision of the bill, there was no debate.
Senator Pearce:
– The honorable senator and his followers would not debate the provisions of the bill. They were “ stone-walling “ the measure.
Senator GARDINER:
– I am merely stating what took place in committee. If, in the light of what happened, Senator Pearce gained the impression that we were “stone-walling” the bill, then all that
I can say is that I do not envy him his state of mind. After what occurred on Saturday night, I resolved, without consultation with my colleagues, that when we met on Monday I would show the Minister that even if, according to parliamentary practice, the Minister took precedence over other honorable senators - I am not questioning the right of the Chairman to hear a Minister first, but I do question the wisdom of the Government in taking advantage of this privilege in such a way as to discredit both the Ministry and the Chairman of Committees - my rights and the rights of other honorable senators in Opposition would not be filched from us without challenge. To achieve my purpose, while the bells were ringing I ‘hurriedly dictated to my typist a number of new clauses which I proposed to move as amendments in committee.
Senator Kingsmill:
– I must say that the amendments submitted by the honorable senator bore the appearance of having been hurriedly prepared.
Senator GARDINER:
– Unquestionably they were prepared without due consideration, but they were for a purpose.
Senator Duncan:
– Of “.stone- walling “ the bill.
Senator GARDINER:
– They were intended to demonstrate to the Government that, as long as I am in- the position which I occupy in this chamber, my rights are not to be filched from me. The Minister and his supporters may think that the guillotine will achieve their ends, but they will find that established parliamentary procedure will still permit minorities to be heard in this chamber.
Senator Pearce:
– Hear, hear!
Senator GARDINER:
– But let us see what could happen. If we had been in office, and had wished to “guillotine” the Peace Officers Bill through, we could easily have arranged for the guillotine to fall at, 3ay, 11.30 on Saturday morning last, and by hinting to the Chairman of Committees that for once in his life he must be blind in one eye, and not give members of the Opposition the call, we could have prevented the expression of the Opposition’s view.
Senator Crawford:
– A Labour chairman might do that.
Senator GARDINER:
– Since a one-time Labour member presides over the Senate and a former Labour member is Chairman of Committees, I can quite understand Senator Crawford taking the view that a present-day Labour chairman might fall in with such a suggestion. As a matter of fact, however, he would not do anything of the kind. I am merely pointing to the possibilities even under the suggested new standing order, in order to show how unwise is the course proposed. For the last three years we, on this side, have had all the freedom which Parliament, in its wisdom, has preserved to us. Speaking generally, there has been fairly full discussion of the various measures that have come before the Senate. Senator Pearce now tells us that we must fall into line with another place.
Senator PEARCE:
– I did not say that.
Senator GARDINER:
– The Minister has indicated that we should have a new standing order to limit debate; and I am endeavouring to show that the Minister is proposing to forge chains that will cut most deeply into his own flesh when he and his friends are in Opposition after the next election. I remind the Minister that he may become responsible for the making of new standing orders, but he cannot ensure for himself and his colleagues permanent occupancy of the Ministerial benches. The people will have something to say about that. I challenge any honorable senator to point to an occasion when there was undue discussion on the Peace Officers Bill. It passed the report and third-reading stages in eight hours. Will any honorable senator declare that that was unusual?
Senator Pearce:
– All the debate was on one side.
Senator GARDINER:
– For that Senator Pearce and his supporters must accept the-responsibility. Had the Minister not started to “ gag “ the measure through committee, I should not have taken part in the debate at the committee stage.
Senator PEARCE:
– It was a waste of time.
Senator GARDINER:
– I have no doubt that the Minister will think I am wasting time now in speaking to this motion. I know that he is very anxious that we should discuss other measures that are to come before the Senate today, and I also wish to deal with them. I do not agree with the Minister that the debate on the Peace Officers Bill was all an one side;
Senator PEARCE:
– Is the honorable senator referring to the debate on Saturday or on Monday?
Senator GARDINER:
– To the whole of the debate. I find from the records that, on Saturday, with reasonable regularity, speakers were called from both sides of the chamber, and that, with, perhaps, the exception of Senator Barnes, no honorable senator on this side occupied the full time allowed to him under the Standing Orders.
Senator PEARCE:
– Did not the honorable senator also occupy his full time!
Senator GARDINER:
– I do not think so. At all events, I was not called to order.
Senator PEARCE:
– The honorable senator had only a minute or two to go. I was watching the clock.
Senator GARDINER:
– I am aware that the Minister is always anxiously looking at the clock when I am addressing the Senate. Now he wishes to employ a new standing order to prevent me from being heard. On Saturday, without being aware of it, I spoke for 58 minutes. I admit I was running pretty close to the schedule, but I had said all I wished to say, and when we reached the committee stage I did not occupy my full quarter of an hour upon clause 1. I spoke for only about three minutes. Therefore, when the Minister, late on Saturday night, started to “ gag” the measure through committee, I determined to employ obstructive tactics, because it is just as offensive to me to find a Minister stifling debate as it may be for the Minister to find a measure being delayed in its passage.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The trouble is that the honorable gentleman was not discussing the matter before the Chair.
Senator GARDINER:
– If ever I reach the position which you, Mr. President, occupy, I shall endeavour, in the conduct of the business of this chamber, to ensure to honorable senators privileges enjoyed in the House of Lords, and allow them to discuss what they like, when they like, and as long as they like, without interference from the Chair. Had I desired to waste time, either on Saturday or Monday, I could have occupied at least three hours on a formal motion for the adjournment of the Senate. I did not wish to do that. Senator Pearce now has in mind some new-fangled method to stifle debate. The reputation which he acquired during the committee stages of the Peace Officers Bill by moving “ That the committee do now divide “ or “ That the question be now put” is too much for such a modest statesman. He does not wish to be placed in the same position again. A Tariff Bill will be before us in the course of a few weeks. Possibly the Minister fears that Senator Grant and I, being of the same fiscal faith, may prove troublesome, and so he wishes to be prepared to stifle discussion by those of us who are still sufficiently loyal to Britain to wish to trade with her.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917
– I was not aware that the honorable senator and Senator Grant were agreed on that issue.
Senator GARDINER:
– I do not think there is much difference between us, except, perhaps, that Senator Grant was expounding the wisdom of his political faith when I was a boy, and I must give him credit for not having changed his views. This may be one reason why, time after time, he has received the endorsement of the people in New South Wales, and why I, reflecting his intelligence, also have their commendation. I can assure those four or five honorable senators opposite who may not be called upon shortly to face the angry electors that when we are returned to power after the next elections we shall be tolerant, and allow full discussion of measures in this Senate, which is designed by the Constitution to safeguard the interests of the States. Some men come into this Parliament, remain hero for many years, and pass out of it without realizing that the function of Parliament is to discuss legislative measures, and that the business of government is to govern. Honorable senators opposite have entrusted the management of affairs in this chamber to Senator Pearce, Senator Crawford, and Senator “Wilson because, presumably, they are the most competent men in their ranks for that special purpose. If those who are selected for this business of governing fail in the proper discharge of their duties, legislative measures passed by this Parliament go for nought. Let us consider what happened in connexion with the deportation law. Its machinery was defective, so it became necessary to pass the Peace Officers Bill, but before the latter measure had received parliamentary approval the work which it was intended to do had been carried out by officials other than peace officers. Summonses had been served upon certain people. Was there any occasion to hurry ? I see in the press this morning that the New South Wales Government will resist by law any attempt to deport citizens of that State. It requires no prophet to forecast that if it takes up that attitude in earnest there will be a legal tussle for many months before the Commonwealth Government accomplishes its purpose. And yet, forsooth, the Minister practically threatens to deprive, not one member, but the whole Senate, of the right of free discussion. This is a matter that I may take the opportunity of referring to when the Standing Orders Committee meets. My point is that if the majority on one side determines that a debate shall end at a certain time, there should be a time limit placed on honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. If we had the guillotine in operation, and Senator Lynch and I had an opportunity of speaking on a particular measure, a serious inroad would be made upon the time permitted for its debate. What would happen then to the rights of other honorable senators? I realize that the Minister desires that the Senate shall appear to be at work, since the Supply Bill, which we all expected, has not come along.
Senator Pearce:
– There is plenty of business in readiness. We have the Loan Bill and the Commonwealth Bank (Rural Credits) Bill.
Senator GARDINER:
– The Minister has given us some work to do to-day, and we are now discussing the question of the further curtailment of the freedom of members of this House. But it cannot be claimed that that freedom has been abused in this chamber. If it ia felt that the existing standing orders place the right of debate into the hands of one side mare than another, let us alter them. But the Minister’s proposal might result in the silencing of an honorable senator whose opinion would be of the utmost value. . Some types of representatives, like myself, perhaps, manage to force themselves to the front, but the Government’s proposal might prevent an honorable senator of the reserved type from speaking, or it might convert him into a forceful man, always determined to be heard, whether he had anything useful to say or not. After the next election, I may be in a position to apply the guillotine.
Senator Foll:
– I thought that the honorable senator was going to wear the wig.
Senator GARDINER:
– I have other ambitions. I am merely putting this argument forward by way of suggestion.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Is the honorable senator certain that the Labour caucus will select him?
Senator GARDINER:
– I am not certain of anything, but I think one may be guided by a wide experience. Senator Greene, no doubt, realizes how important it is when one wants a thing to let the public know it. It would be a great mistake to imagine that both Senator Greene and myself will be successful at the coming elections. Some honorable senators seem to think that political life is food and drink to me, but if proposals such as that now before the Senate are expected to be supported by reasonable men, I am afraid that I shall lose much of my enthusiasm for the privilege of holding the high office of a senator. I know that the pearls of wisdom that I am offering honorable senators opposite are being wasted, but I point out that the effect of their action will be to gag themselves in the next Parliament.
Senator Pearce:
– If the honorable senator really thought that, he would push the measure through with all expedition.
Senator GARDINER:
– Perhaps I would; but the proposal is so new that it shocks one’s sense of decency. The Standing Orders Committee is like all other committees appointed under the system of party government; the majority predominates, and no regard is had for the fitness of the members for the positrons to which they are appointed. I am no believer in numbers alone constituting the guiding principle in the appointment of these committees. One would imagine that with a following such as I have in this chamber, I would have one supporter on the panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees, but party government robs me of that right. When my beloved colleague, the late Senator McDougall, was with me, I had one, but since his death I have had none. On the Standing Orders Committee the Opposition is represented by Senators Findley and O’Loghlin and myself.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The honorable senator is a host in himself.
Senator GARDINER:
– Not on a committee of this kind. It seldom has any business to transact. Had I permitted this motion to pass as formal, I could have registered an attendance at a meeting of the committee. The Standing Orders, generally speaking, meet the heeds of the Senate; but the curtailment of debate, as now proposed, would be the greatest mistake a deliberative assembly could make. A majority with unlimited power should be most anxious to check a Ministry that hurries to filch the right of full debate from representatives of the people. When any problem is under discussion in the Senate, full debate is bound to lead to a better solution than limited discussion would. Just as when the evil spirit entered the herd of swine, they went headlong down to the sea, so this Government will be swept out of existence if it robs the representatives of the people of the right of free discussion. The Australian people are noted for their love of liberty and free institutions.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– How does the honorable senator square with the opinion he is expressing the action of his own party in the New South Wales Parliament, in exactly the same direction as the motion proposes?
Senator GARDINER:
– I say candidly that nothing could give me more pain than to see a party bearing the name of Labour curtailing debate in Parliament. If the party opposite passes vicious rules, I promise honorable senators that they will have to smart under them when my turn comes to lead a majority in this chamber. I have no hesitation in saying that the action taken in the New South Wales Parliament has my disapproval. If the curtailment of debate is wrong here, it is equally wrong there. In the Parliament of New South Wales I have witnessed scenes so exciting that perhaps for hours members were almost beside themselves in their anger on account of attempts to stifle debate. From October last until June of this year Parliament was in recess, but if we had been sitting during that period I could have expressed every thought my brain could conceive. In discussing this motion I do not wish to exhaust the time allowed me under the Standing Orders, but having seriously and calmly explained my views I may conclude by saying that at least three of the six honorable senators now opposite are making a rod for their own backs. If I occupy the position of President of this Chamber, or that of Leader of the Government, it will be my duty to see that effect is given to whatever standing orders are in force. I must, however, repeat that honorable senators opposite should remember that they have a solemn duty to perform, and should not assist in depriving “the representatives of the people of the rights which they have always enjoyed.
Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia
– In supporting the motion submitted by the Minister (Senator Pearce) it is not my intention to discuss the merits or demerits of any conclusions at which the Standing Orders Committee may arrive. It is a matter of regret to me that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) should have prejudged the case, and endeavoured to prevent the committee from inquiring into its merits. The honorable senator has wasted a good deal of time because the opinions he has expressed to-day will be repeated by him before the Standing Orders Committee, and also when the motion for the adoption of the report of the Standing Orders Committee is before the Senate, if the report is as he presumes it will be. The honorable senator has, however, taken the course which will ensure the report of the Standing Orders Committee being of the nature he fears. If the honorable senator had decided to treat the motion as formal he could then have gone to the committee and left the members of that body with a more or less open mind. The honorable senator introduced the party element at the outset. Personally, I suppose I am not what may be regarded as a good party man.
Senator Gardiner:
– I think the honorable senator is.
Senator KINGSMILL:
– I differ from the honorable senator.
Senator Gardiner:
– I do not think the Minister (Senator Pearce) has a more obedient follower.
Senator KINGSMILL:
– .1 hope the Minister thinks so.
Senator Pearce:
– There have been times when I have been in doubt.
Senator KINGSMILL:
– I believe there are times when I have been responsible for keeping the right honorable gentleman guessing. I do not think anything can be gained by discussing the merits or demerits of this motion. The committee is to meet, and I trust that Senator Gardiner will not pursue the course he said he often does, and be absent, because I feel sure that when not speaking in public his advice is of great assistance; but when speaking in public he furnishes a very interesting example of the difference between sane reasoning and rhodomontade. His public utterances are absolutely devoid of the sense of proportion. He has expressed opinions on this simple motion which might well have been uttered on ,an occasion when we were deciding whether we should or should not go to war. The honorable senator reminds me of a person using a 16-in. gun to shoot sparrows. For these reasons I regret this discussion should have arisen, and that the question should have been prejudged before it goes to the committee. Nevertheless I welcome the motion, and I think it will be the duty of the Standing Orders Committee to recommend some means of ensuring that debate will be more effective, reasonable, and to the point - that is the point - than it is at present.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
-55]. - It is the duty of honorable senators to seriously discuss matters of moment to the Commonwealth and the people of the Commonwealth. The motion now before the Senate should be seriously debated by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. Conditions change very rapidly nowadays, and if there be any truth in the rumour I heard this morning, this Government is undecided as to whether the next general election shall be held at the end of November or during the first week of December. If there is any truth in the rumour, we should, be acting against our own interests and the people whom, we represent if we did not advance reasons why this question should not be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The Federal Parliament was established in 1901, and for nearly a quarter of a century this chamber, as one branch of the Federal Legislature, has conducted its business under certain standing orders. Up to the present there has been no serious protest from any member of the chamber concerning the Standing Orders under which we conduct our business. Passing reference has been made to what occurred a day or two ago. “What happened? A few hours were devoted to a discussion in which members of the Opposition, as well as the supporters of the Government, took an active part. There was nothing from a governmental point of view to prevent the speedy passage of the bill; the Standing Orders under which we are already working gave the Minister in charge of the measure the fullest opportunity to curb discussion. The Minister availed himself of the opportunity, and, as a matter of fact, was so anxious to push the bill through that he did not give honorable senators on this side an opportunity of seconding the motion submitted. It is true that when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) rose at the report stage and submitted a motion that the bill be recommitted for a certain purpose, the Minister missed an opportunity in not moving, “That the Senate do now divide.” Apparently he was asleep, as Senator J. Grant was allowed to second Senator Gardiner’s motion. If the Minister had been alert, or anxious to save time, he could have prevented it. Later on he did what he had previously neglected to do, as, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), in addressing himself to the third reading of the bill, moved a specific motion, the Minister immediately moved, “ That the Senate do now divide.” There should, therefore, be no reason to provide additional standing orders to facilitate the transaction of business. The proposed power is too drastic. The Government, of course, cannot get the power it now requires until the Senate agrees .to the motion submitted by the Minister this morning, and later adopts the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Does any one really believe that a committee, consisting of six supporters of the Government and three members of the Opposition, will consider the question from other than a party point of view? When this
Government appoints committees, it invariably arranges that the majority in each case shall consist of members of its own party. The members of the Standing Orders Committee are: The President, the Chairman of Committees, Senator Duncan, the Government Whip; Senator Findley, Senator Foll, a Government supporter; Senator Gardiner, the Leader of the Opposition; Senator H. Hays, a Government supporter; Senator Kingsmill, an ardent Government supporter; and Senator O’Loghlin. Three of those are members of the Opposition and six are supporters of the Government. If the motion is agreed to that committee will undoubtedly make a recommendation in accordance with the wishes of the Government. There is no justification for the adoption of such a standing order. Parliament has been sitting this year since the 10th of June, but the Senate has not had its time wholly occupied by any means. We had a lengthy discussion on the Immigration Bill, and an alltooshort discussion on the Peace Officers Bill ; but, apart from those measures, there has been very little debate on the proposals of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Gardiner) has pointed out that if a limit is fixed for the discussion of a bill the Government supporters may monopolize practically all the time available, and the members of the Opposition may be debarred from speaking. I do not think any sensible Government would be anxious to create that situation; but I should not be at all surprised if this Government attempted to do so. It succeeded to some extent in silencing us the other day, for it prevented us from submitting quite a number of amendments that we desired to move to the Peace Officers Bill. We were told then that the Government wanted the bill to be passed as quickly as possible in order that the officers who were to be appointed pursuant to its provisions might servo summonses on certain leaders of an industrial organization in New South Wales who were supposed to be disobeying the law. But what happened ? Before the bill was passed the summonses were served by Customs officers. The statement of the Government that it was urgently necessary to place the measure on the statute-book was so much camouflage.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.
- Givens). - The honorable senator is not in order in discussing at length the Peace Officers Bill. It has been dealt with and is not now before us. I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the motion.
Senator FINDLEY:
– I realize, Mr. President, that I am not in order in discussing the Peace Officers Bill at any great length. My object was merely to make a passing reference to it to show that even cases which the Government considers to be urgent are at times not so. The Standing Orders already provide for passing legislation in an expeditious manner, and I consider that the Government should not have any greater power than it now has. For that reason,’ I ask honorable senators to reject the motion.
Senator Reid:
– Let us vote on it, and show the honorable senator what we think of it.
Senator FINDLEY:
– Such a motion should not be permitted to go to- the vote without a protest. I object to it as a member of the Opposition, although J. believe that within a short time my party will occupy the Ministerial bench.
Senator Reid:
– The honorable senator’s leader was quite sure of it.
Senator FINDLEY:
– We have ample reason for optimism. Any one who knows anything about party warfare, and is able to sense a political atmosphere, must recognize that the stocks of the National party are low, and are falling every day, whereas the stocks of the Labour party are high, and are rising.
Senator Crawford:
– The honorable senator’s wishes . are father to that thought.
Senator Gardiner:
– The last State elections in Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and New South Wales indicate the mind of the public.
Senator FINDLEY:
– Undoubtedly, the Government of to-day is likely to be the Opposition of to-morrow.
The PRESIDENT:
– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing that matter.
Senator FINDLEY:
– At any rate, I believe, Mr. President, the Government will realize the truth of my statements when it faces the music. I protest against this motion, and trust that it will be defeated.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It would be a great mistake for me to permit this motion to be agreed to without entering my emphatic protest against it. If there was one thing that I appreciated more than another when I was first elected to this Senate, it was that the Standing Orders provided almost unlimited opportunities for me to address myself to questions of public importance.
Senator Pearce:
– If the honorable senator appreciated it, I assure him that we did not, after hearing his long dissertations on land taxation.
Senator Findley:
– The honorable senator was on firm ground in discussing the land question.
The PRESIDENT:
– He will not be on firm ground if he discusses it on this occasion.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Our Standing Orders have been amended in only one important respect for a considerable number of years. Some honorable senators may recollect that on one occasion, years ago, I addressed the Senate for three and a half hours on the subject of land values taxation. It was in consequence of that effort of mine that the Standing Orders were amended and a time limit of ene hour placed upon honorable senators, with provision for an extension of time for an extra 30 minutes with the approval of the Senate. It has frequently been found necessary to grant honorable senators an extension of time. It is impossible adequately to discuss any important subject that comes before us in one hour, or even in one hour and a half. It cannot be done. The Senate suffers considerably in consequence of the manner in which opportunities for debate are limited. It is to my mind an unwritten law, and one which honorable senators ought to respect that they ought at all times to be ready to resent to the utmost of their ability any infringement of the rights handed down to them , particularly the right to discuss to almost any length any question submitted to them. The Senate ought not to have this right filched from it. There are only 36 senators, and we ought to have ample time at our disposal to discuss questions at almost any ordinary length. We have 450 standing orders at present, and in my opinion they are all needed. It is a most difficult matter for a number of men to get together to devise rules that will keep them in order, and sometimes it requires a very firm presiding officer to enforce them. Our Standing Orders are not the. haphazard work of a scratch subcommittee. They have been carefully compiled and built up year after year, and while I do not regard them as one might regard the laws of the M’edes and Persians, before I would agree to any alteration of them, I would need to be satisfied that there was ample justification for it. The Minister, in proposing to refer this matter to a committee where the Ministerial party has a two to one majority, has not advanced sufficient reasons for the adoption of a standing order which may have the. effect of seriously curtailing the right of the Opposition to discuss matters. On how many occasions in the past has the Government had any excuse to curtail the right of free speech? My memory does not carry me back to any occasion on which that right has been abused. No doubt when a government develops an idea and desires to transfer it at once to the statute-book, it is somewhat inconvenient to find that the Standing Orders permit the Opposition to discuss the proposal at some length. It was very appropriately said by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) that Parliament is the place not only for work but for talk. Parliament is a place where business should be delayed and carefully considered before any expression of opinion is transferred to the statute-book. In 99 cases out of 100 hasty legislation is valueless. It is generally swept away when the hysteria responsible for its enactment has passed. Otherwise it becomes a dead letter. We have now a reasonable opportunity to discuss any measure brought before the Senate. We can speak at length on the first reading of certain bills and on ‘ the second reading of all bills. We have ample opportunity to discuss almost every detail in committee. Even on the third reading opposition can- be offered. A measure can be debated almost at length on the adoption of the report and at other stages. In future, however, with this proposal in operation, whenever the Government desires that legislation shall find its way promptly on to the statute-book, it will fix a time limit for the discussion of it. I doubt if that will be a good thing. There are numbers of ways, through the press and otherwise, in which strong objection can be taken to any proposed legislation. But it is better to have those objections stated in Parliament. We often find that even Ministerial supporters are opposed to legislation. A proposal of this kind, but in a more aggravated form has been adopted by the Italian Government. Our local Mussolini has not gone as far as his Italian prototype, who has closed Parliament altogether. That very effective way of saving debate allows him to bring his ideas into operation without any delay. We are working towards that objective in Australia, but we have, I hope, a very long way to go before we reach it. The Commonwealth Parliament is founded upon the model of the British Parliament. In . the House of Lords, unlimited time is given to discuss any matter that comes forward. To a very large extent, the same opportunity is afforded in the House of Commons.
Senator Pearce:
– Why is the honorable senator “ stone-walling “ the motion ? Why does he not let the matter go to the Standing Orders Committee?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am not “stonewalling” the motion. I am giving reasons in a calm and peaceful manner for my opposition to it. I do not forget that, on a previous occasion, when I was endeavouring to re-convert the honorable senator to those principles of land taxation he previously supported, he had the Standing Orders amended; and I do not propose to permit him to have them further amended with a view to curtailing addresses from myself on that or any other subject on which- 1 choose to speak. The Standing Orders, as they stand today, fully meet our requirements. Some honorable senators may speak too long, but only on very rare occasions, and then solely to their own detriment. The Government would be well advised to let well alone. I am opposed to the proposed innovation, and I shall take another opportunity of emphasizing my objection to it if the Standing Orders Committee recommends its adoption.
Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. /Wes . . . . . . 17
AYES: 0
NOES: 8
Majority . . . . 9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 2235
LOAN BILL (No. 2)
Second Reading
Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT
– I move -
That the bill be now read a. second time.
The bill is for the purpose of obtaining parliamentary approval to the programme of loan expenditure which was recently submitted with the budget. The total loan expenditure included in the Estimates is as follows: -
Loan appropriation already exists for portion of the contemplated expenditure, and to ascertain the amount now submitted in the present bill it will be necessary to make the following deductions : -
In June last a loan bill was passed, in which £2,000,000 was provided for telegraph and telephone construction. The object of that bill was to provide for additional expenditure required last financial year, as well as to make funds available in the early part of the present financial year, so that there might be no break in the continuity of the work pending the passing of additional appropriation. The amount thus available under that act at the 30th June last was £1,850,404. A special act was passed last session ratifying the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States of New SouthWales and Queensland, to convert to a standard gauge the railway between Kyogle and South Brisbane and to re-grade and re-lay the existing railway between Grafton and Kyogle. This act also gave the Treasurer authority to raise and spend, for the purposes of the agreement, the sum of £3,500,000. Of this amount, it is estimated that £1,300,000 will be required during the current financial year.
The following are the chief items of expenditure provided in the bill: -
Authority is sought to borrow £8,300,000 to meet the expenditure detailed in the schedule. It is impossible to state under what terms and conditions the money will be raised, and it is thought wise to provide for a margin of approximately 3 per cent. to cover discounts and flotation charges, so that the amount remaining will be sufficient to provide for the total contemplated expenditure.
Steps are being taken in the bill to lapse loan appropriations for works remaining unexpended at 30th June, 1925. Unlike the annual appropriations from revenue, loan appropriations do not expire at the close of the financial year. The result is that there is a large accumulation of live appropriations, many of which cannot now be used. For instance, there is more than £800,000 of the appropriations for post-office buildings remaining unexpended. Owing to the altered method of now providing for these works in a composite vote, it is not convenient or, perhaps, legal, to use these appropriations. Moreover, it is considered that each year’s loan programme should be dealt with as a whole by Parliament in the annual loan bill, and to enable this to be done provision will be made in each year’s loan bill to lapse the unexpended appropriations at the begining of that year. This course is being followed for the first time in the present bill. As previously explained, the balance of the appropriation for telegraph and telephone construction granted by Parliament in June last is, being applied to the expenditure of the current year. The Loan Act (No. 1) of 192.5 is therefore omitted from the schedule of appropriations to be lapsed.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the Minister. He practically told the Senate that he was not in a position to indicate the conditions under which the money to be raised under this bill will be borrowed. Before we embark on further loans we should know whether the money is to be borrowed within Australia or overseas, whether in London or in the United States of America. A. few weeks ago we were called- upon to deal with a very urgent measure, to authorize the raising of a loan of £15,000,000 to assist the States. In reply to my question the Minister representing the Treasurer in this chamber indicated that negotiations were in progress, not with financiers in London, but in New York. As we know, portion of that money was raised in New York. This is a proposal to authorize the Government to borrow £8,300,000.
Surely the Minister should be able to state where and under what conditions the money will be borrowed. If I were raising a loan I should certainly require to know what it was likely to cost me. The Government has got into the very bad habit of drawing too heavily upon loan funds. We are simply perpetuating the old practice, “borrow and burst.” I realize that if the natural resources of this country are to he adequately developed we must borrow money, but we should be quite sure that the works upon which it is proposed to expend it will show an adequate return. The National Debt Sinking Fund Commissioners in a return laid on the table of the Senate yesterday state that the national debt existing at the end of the financial year 1923-4 has been reduced by £5,000,000, and that if this rate of reduction is .maintained, the Commonwealth debt will be extinguished in 50 years. Are we .going the right way about this business? By borrowing further money we are adding to our national debt. Ex-Senator Pratten, now Minister for Trade and Customs, made the following statement not very long ago: -
Various sinking funds have been established, some with good intentions, others with pious aspirations, and some, I say it with bated breath, in a spirit of hypocrisy. The mention of sinking funds tickles the ears of the electors, and provides a much-needed soporific in connexion with our financial outlook.
I wonder what the honorable gentleman’s views are to-day in regard to this indiscriminate borrowing.
Senator CRAWFORD:
– He knows that there is no hypocrisy about the sinking fund, since the national debt has been reduced by £14,000,000 in two years.
Senator NEEDHAM:
– I have no doubt that, as he is now a member of the Ministry he would hardly subscribe to views which he expressed as a private member. I know of nothing that has transpired since his .accession to office to justify a change of opinion. He is now approving a policy which, a few months ago, he denounced so vigorously. I contend that as the trustees of the nation we should, endeavour as far as possible to meet our liabilities and provide for our requirements out of revenue. I notice that under this bill it is proposed to borrow money for the purpose of defence, but surely that cannot be described as a reproductive undertaking. Many years ago Parliament passed a Naval Loan Bill to borrow money for the purpose of establishing and maintaining an Australian Navy. This was done when the Deakin Government was in power. Labour members in the Senate and in another place opposed the passage of that measure on the ground that expenditure on defence was not reproductive, and they claimed that the defence of Australia should be provided for out of the revenue of the country. An election was held at which Labour was returned with a majority, and its first act was to repeal that bill and provide for the establishment of the Navy out of revenue. “While there may be some items in the schedule of the present bill on which the expenditure of loan money is justified, it cannot be proved that the money spent on defence in the past has been reproductive. Unless a halt is called, where will our persistent policy of borrowing lead us? It is certainly not assisting in the reduction of the national debt, and I cannot see any marked benefit up to the present time as far as development is concerned. Our burden of debt is heavy already, and instead of increasing it we should try to lighten it. The measure provides for certain urgent works, and members on this side of the chamber do not intend to delay them by opposing the second reading of the bill. I point out, however, that the policy of the Government perpetuates the evil system of borrowing for works that are not reproductive. I desire to emphasize my first point that if the Government regard it as necessary to borrow money for specific works, Parliament should be informed as to the nature of those works, the source from which the money is to be raised and the interest rate that will be charged for it. It is vitally important that all honorable senators should be informed whether the money is to be borrowed within or outside Australia.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Instead of pursuing the old effete and disastrous method of raising money, I wish to suggest to the Minister, and through him to the officials of the Treasury, that another method of securing the necessary funds to carry on the works referred to in this bill might well be considered. The sum asked for is not very large. It is only about £8,300,000. I do not know what the terms of the loan will be, but I presume that we shall have to pay interest at the rate of at least 5 per cent., which, at the end of twelve months, will amount to £415,000. That interest will be gone for ever. I know that some of our alleged financial geniuses do not care about departing from what is regarded as the well-beaten and safe track, but I point out that the following of that path has led Australia into borrowing enormous sums of money, on which the public and private interest to-day runs into probably £50,000,000, or, in round figures, £1,000,000 a week. This is a serious drain upon the people of the Commonwealth, and we should do well to consider whether some scheme can be devised to obviate it. Although the Minister may not agree with the suggestion I am about to make, I believe it to be in the best interests of the” Commonwealth. Instead of the Government going to the London or New York money markets, or using the columns of the Australian daily press to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in advertising for money, as was done in connexion with the conversion loan of £68,000,000, an effort should be made to find out whether it is possible to adopt a better method than that in operation.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– I think thai the honorable senator is going to advocate the use of the printing press.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– That method was strenuously resented when the Labour Government, led by Mr. Fisher, put into operation the idea of printing Australian notes; but, despite that, one can now buy as much for a £1 note as he can for a -sovereign. The notes are easier to carry than gold, and in many respects they are more convenient. The public is satisfied to take them, and does not know to a few million pounds how many of them are in circulation. Approximately, £56,000,000 of notes have been printed, and about half that sum is held by the Commonwealth Bank. I suggest to the Minister that he have a consultation with, some of the financial experts at present controlling the Commonwealth Bank as to whether it is not possible to print an additional £8,300,000 of notes, instead of borrowing this money abroad. I have a recollection that not very long ago a very substantial number of notes were issued by the bank. If the Minister obtained possession of them he could repay to the bank £415,000 of notes annually, and at the end of 20 years the loan would be extinguished. But under the played-out system now in vogue the interest will be paid for 20 years, and at the end of that time we shall still owe £8,300,000..
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– When some persons once commence to follow a certain course, they have the greatest possible reluctance to explore new avenues. Those conducting the affairs of this country, especially our financial advisers, have refused, perhaps more than any other section of the community, to seek fresh sources from which to obtain their financial requirements. Occasionally a ray of light seems to penetrate their intelligence, and they make a slight departure from the established custom, with- very good results. On one occasion, when the States were somewhat pressed financially, the Commonwealth was appealed to, and a sum of, I think, £15,000,000 in notes was made available. The States are today paying interest to the Commonwealth, and so far as I can gather, nothing of a very unusual character has happened. If the Commonwealth had borrowed that £15,000,000 in New York or in London, it would have been faced with an annual bill based on interest at 5 per cent., which would represent a very substantial sum, and the principal would still be owing. Nothing of. the kind has happened. On a more recent occasion, in response to very urgent representations made by those engaged in the pastoral industry, an additional £5,000,000 was made available; when a financial measure was before Parliament. We were then told by certain of our exceptionally wise financiers that an inflation of the currency would mean an increase in prices, and that a number of other disastrous results would follow. Nothing of the kind has happened. During the construction of the TransAustralian railway, approximately £3,000,000 was made available by the Note Issue Department, on which, no interest has ever been or will ever be paid. I have mentioned several fairly substantial sums which in the opinion of our financial experts have been raised in a somewhat irregular manner, but the arrangements have been of distinct advantage to the Commonwealth. I do not pay any attention to the repeated statements that the issue of additional notes means that higher prices are charged, because I do not think those who make such statements know what they are talking about.
Senator Elliott:
– Does the honorable senator desire a repetition here of what occurred in Russia?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I do not intend to deal with the position in Russia, and, as a fact, I am not keenly interested in what is taking place in that country. My time is fully occupied in keeping in touch with what is happening in the Commonwealth, although I endeavour to take, an occasional glance at the situation in other countries. In Germany printing presses worked at such a rate that the value of the mark depreciated to an almost negligible point. What I propose is an inflation of the note issue which would be so small that it would be almost imperceptible.
Senator Crawford:
– The principle is the same. It would be a question of forcing on to the public more notes than it required.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– A similar statement was made by Sir Joseph Cook when the Fisher Government issued papermoney against the gold reserve. We have not witnessed any of the disastrous effects predicted by that Government, and I do not think we ever shall. It was held for a long time that it was ‘injudicious finance to issue paper money beyond the actual value of the gold held in reserve, but later that opinion was set aside, and the issue was increased by 50 per cent. At different periods additional paper money has been issued against the gold reserve, and, speaking from memory, about £56,000,000 worth of notes have now been issued on that basis. It is true that prices have advanced, but I am not prepared to admit that the issue of paper money is responsible. Paper money merely takes the place of gold, and is more convenient to handle. If we were to borrow the amount now proposed from London or New York, we should merely be advised by wireless that the loan had been a huge success - it would be a success to those financial manipulators who usually make tens of thousands out of the transaction. A message would be received that the loan had been sucessfully floated, and next morning the Government would proceed to issue, not- English or American notes, but notes issued by the Commonwealth Bank. Why cannot we use Australian notes in the first place instead of going through the unnecessary performance of negotiating with London or New York? We are at present converting £68,000,000 of the 4½ per cent. loan falling due on 15th December next, and large sums are being expended in endeavouring to induce the people to lock up their money in this loan for a further period. I believe that more than onehalf of the loan has already been converted. Instead of using borrowed money to convert the whole of the bonds, the Commonwealth Bank should print an additional £20,000,000 worth of notes, and invite the bondholders to collect their money.
Senator Elliott:
– Why not convert the whole amount of the loan on that basis?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I believe in proceeding cautiously. What would happen if we commenced by issuing notes to the value of £34,000,000, and invited bondholders to obtain their money? Instead of having a negotiable bond, they would have the actual cash at their disposal, and the Commonwealth could immediately cease paying interest.
Senator Crawford:
– Perhaps bondholders would not accept the notes.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– The bonds have to be met on the 15th December next, and the Minister suggests that if the Government offered the bondholders notes, they would not accept them. Such a statement is absurd. If payment were made on that basis, bondholders would probably place the notes to their credit at the bank.
Senator Crawford:
– And the Treasury would then be asked for their equivalent in gold.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– There is very little likelihood of obtaining gold from the Treasury. How could they obtain £68,000,000 in gold when there is only about one-half of that amount available ?
Senator Crawford:
– The honorable senator mentioned £20,000,000.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I increased it to £34,000,000. The bondholders, on receiving notes, would place them to their credit, and there would be more cash available.
Senator Crawford:
– So much that they would get very little for it.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– That is not so.
Senator Crawford:
– Prices would be higher.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– There was no marked increase in prices when £5,000,000 was made available some time ago. In the circumstances I have mentioned, the bank would have more money than it needed, and the rate of interest would be reduced. That would not be an unmixed evil, because money would be available at a cheaper rate. As I have stated, the interest we are now paying on war loan, to the extent to which the bonds were cashed, would cease for ever. We are now paying approximately £20,000,000 a year in interest on war loans. Interest payments very seriously drain the financial resources of Australia. The interest bill of Great Britain amounts to £1,000,000 a day, and that money has to be obtained from the people who do the work of the country, just as the money to pay our interest bill of £1,000,000 a week - taking all our public debts into consideration - has to be obtained from the people who do the work of this country. If that tremendous sum can be reduced, it ought to be reduced. The scheme I have submitted is, in my opinion, practicable. If I had to handle the conversion of the £68,000,000 that will fall due on the 15th December next, I should not feed, feast, and fatten the press of this country like the Commonwealth Bank is doing, in order to induce the people to subscribe to a new loan at, of course, a higher rate of interest. If the interest rate is to increase year by year, the burden of the people will become heavier all the time.
Senator Lynch:
– Would the honorable senator accept depreciated money in payment of rent for his terrace of houses ?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I have neither villas, terraces, nor anything else in the way of house property for rental purposes, and I cannot answer a hypothetical question like that.
Senator Elliott:
– Would the honorable senator give every individual the right to issue notes?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– In the bad old days, a number of people were given that right, just as they were given the right to manufacture and sell spirits without let or hindrance ; but those days are gone, and I would not favour reverting to that practice. My scheme would be highly beneficial to the community. I am surprised that none of the Napoleons of finance on the other side of the chamber have offered any suggestion as to how our tremendous interest bill may be lightened. The war has been over for a number of years, but its cost appears to me to be mounting up all the time. I do not know whether the Treasury officials have been requested to give special consideration to this problem, with a view to indicating some methods by which it may be overcome; but I am certain that any proposal that will result in reducing the interest bill will be heartily welcomed by our people. I could indicate a source from which money could be obtained to pay the interest bill, but it would probably be out of order for me to introduce that subject.
Senator Gardiner:
– The honorable senator might move to amend the bill in the direction he has in mind.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I am satisfied that this subject is far too important to be treated in the usual stereotyped fashion. The members of this chamber are reckoned to be equal in intelligence to any other similar number of men in the Commonwealth, but not one of them has been able to suggest how to reduce our interest bill. I understand that in Germany the internal debt has been wiped out; but I would not advocate the adoption of similar methods here. I do not advocate the Russian methods either. But it seems to me that if the Government can issue £56,000,000 worth of notes against 40,000,000 sovereigns, it could also issue another £8.000,000 worth.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND
– The honorable senator has already made a statement to that effect several times. I ask him not to repeat it.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Possibly I may move later on in the direction suggested by Senator Gardiner.
I should like the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Pearce) to tell us when and under what terms the Government proposes to dispose of the plantations in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea that are at present controlled by the Expropriation Board. This information is being anxiously sought by many returned soldiers who are at present acting as overseers on the properties. They wish to know the upset price as well as the terms under which the plantations will be offered. Most of them, I understand, are in favur of a freehold title.
The PRESIDENT:
– The honorable senator will have an opportunity to discuss that matter later on. It is not dealt with in this bill.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Then perhaps I shall be in order in discussing the proposed vote for the Health Department. I invite the attention of the Senate to the alarming increase in the number of cancer cases throughout the Commonwealth. The ravages of this fell disease are so great that the Government would be justified in setting aside a very large sum of money for the purpose of combating it. Public money, in my opinion, could not be devoted to a better purpose. The officers in either the Institute of Science and Industry or the Health Department should be empowered to take some part in the world-wide campaign that is being waged against cancer. Apart altogether from the intense suffering and the heavy mortality that this disease causes, we ought to be doing something to resist its inroads. The small amount that is being provided for the Health Department is totally inadequate. Our people would welcome a substantial increase in it.
The time has arrived when we should cease subsidizing the Amalgamated Wireless Limited. I consider also that we should repeal the regulations under which licence fees are charged to those who listen in. No such fee is charged in America, and I do not know of any reason why it should be imposed here. If it were abolished there would be a very much more extensive use of wireless.
Senator Duncan:
– The broadcasting stations benefit by the licence fees, but not Amalgamated Wireless Limited.
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– An amendment of the regulations in the direction that I have indicated would be welcomed by the people generally. The necessity for paying this fee prevents many people from listening in, and also restricts the sale of wireless equipment.
Senator Foll:
– What about the high Customs duties?
Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Of course, the Customs duties are another hindrance. Honorable senators will recollect that when legal proceedings were instituted some time ago against a number of people for not having licences, thousands of persons had to pull down their masts and discontinue listening in. The payment of a fee ought to be abandoned. The people of Australia ought to be placed on the footing of the people of America, and allowed to listen in without the payment of a fee.
In committee we shall have an opportunity to deal with the items at length, but in the meantime I protest against the proposal to vote any sum of money to meet the costs incurred in assisting immigration. In all the States the Labour party is uniformly in opposition to expenditure in this direction, so long as we have unemployed here, and so long as the States refuse to make land available to those who would work it if they could get it. The proposal now before us to spend money in this direction needs very careful consideration. I have on previous occasions voiced my views upon this question. I am strongly opposed to the proposed expenditure. So far as the balance of the items is concerned I have no objection to expenditure on new buildings. My main objection is not to the manner in which the money is to be expended, but to the obsolete, effete, and out of date methods proposed to be adopted for raising this new loan.
Senator J. B. HAYES (Tasmania) T2.32]. - Clause 5 of the bill proposes to lapse all unexpended balances of loan moneys up to the 30th June last, with the exception of those provided for in Loan Act (No. 1) of 1925. I realize the desirability both from a political and from a departmental point of view of reappropriating such balances. Schedule 2 of the bill practically repeals fourteen Loan Acts, and the unexpended balances of the amounts authorized by those acts will be re-appropriated for expenditure. Any one who has had any experience of a works department knows that it entails a considerable amount of work to keep an account of each of these small balances. Their re- appropriation will no doubt make the task of the departmental officers a great deal lighter. I hardly think, however, that it will get them where they expect to get, so long as they continue to make the public works year coincide with the financial year. It is only possible to do so on this occasion, because a loan bill was passed in June last. I understood the Minister to say that the Government, intended to make it a practice to lapse every year all unexpended balances. The objection to such a course is that after the 30th June of each year no loan money will be available until a new loan bill is passed, and if Parliament is not meeting in June, the department will be landed in difficulties. It will be unable to carry on works. I never could see why the 1st July to the 30th June should constitute a public works year. I have had a good deal of experience in this direction, and I have always held the view that the public works year should be the calendar year. Under such a system money is voted by Parliament in spring, and the department then has the whole of the following calendar year in which to spend it. It does not matter then whether Parliament is sitting in the middle of the calendar year or not. The department always has sufficient money in hand to carry on. When Parliament meets in the later portion of the year the amount unexpended in one calendar year can always be reappropriated for expenditure in the following calendar year. As a matter of fact, I could never quite see why the financial year should end on the 30th June. We are now compelled to vote money a large proportion of which has already been spent, if the department has not suspended operations and has carried on after the end of June. This does not matter so much in respect of expenditure out of revenue, which is, to a large extent, the same month after month, and is mostly for salaries and office expenses. In the case of public works, where the amounts vary considerably, the difficulty cannot be overcome by asking Parliament to pass supply bills. Consequently, if Parliament does not happen to be sitting in June, as was the case this year, the Works Department is likely to be placed in a difficult position through not being able to get the unexpended balances reappropriated. There should be a standard provision in every loan bill to which every one will become accustomed, providing that the unexpended balances of previously authorized expenditure are reappropriated on the 1st January, or any other convenient time in each year. I am quite sure the present system will not work satisfactorily.
This bill contains something which I have never seen in a previous loan bill. It asks Parliament to vote £4,149,596 for postal works, but it gives no details beyond stating, for instance, that 67 buildings are to be altered and 50 buildings erected in New South “Wales. We have not a scratch of the pen to show what any particular item will cost. This Parliament is supposed to exercise some restraint and control over the expenditure of public money. People can always be found who will declare that money is being wasted on a work that may be under the control of the best architects in the world. Consequently, honorable senators are often called upon to defend Commonwealth works expenditure against criticism which is mostly wrong. But if honorable senators are asked what any work is costing, they cannot supply the information. They ought to be in a position to tell their constituents what money Parliament has been asked to vote for certain works. Yet here we are asked to hand over to the Postmaster-General £4,000,000, to do the best he can with it, and we do not even know how much is to be spent in each State. I have no doubt that the fullest information can be obtained from the Ministers who will be in control of this expenditure, but, in my opinion, it should be given in the bill itself. I notice that the sum of £808 is mentioned as the amount Parliament is authorized to spend on Commonwealth offices, Brisbane, yet there is absolutely nothing to show where or how this amount of over £4,000,000 is to be spent. I have no desire to criticize the measure unduly, and I would not think of holding it up, because I have confidence in the Ministers, but I think that, in future, Parliament ought to know what it is asked to vote on, and, above all, what proportion of the money will be spent in each State. If I think that the proposed expenditure on a certain building is too much, I should have the right to say so. With the detailed figures before’ me, J might be able to contend that the amount provided in the bill for a particular work” is not sufficient. I should have the opportunity to find out how much each work is likely to cost. Therefore, ‘ I hope that future loan bills will afford the information, that will enable honorable senators to know what the Government are doing.
Senator HOARE (South Australia) [2.48 . - The idea put forward by Senator J. Grant in regard to the Commonwealth note issue was by no means a new one. It is the opinion of thousands of people in Australia that it is the best means of getting over the difficulty of continually borrowing abroad or at home.
Senator Duncan:
– Noah employed the same scheme to buy fodder for the animals on the ark. As all his creditors were drowned, he did not have to- pay any one.
Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– But the Government, thinking it a good scheme, has already put it into practice in order to raise a sum of £5,000,000. Immediately one tries to put into practice a scheme behind which, admittedly, there is some good, the claim is made that the effect of it will be to increase the price of commodities.
Senator Duncan:
– But at the time of that issue of notes to the amount of £5,000,000, there was a definite credit in existence.
Senator HOARE:
– Never mind the definite credit. The position is just the same now. If this bill is carried, it will have the effect of compelling us to borrow to the extent of £8,000,000. I fail to see why the scheme suggested should not be put into practice. I did not notice any increase in the price of commodities when it was put into practice by the Government a little while ago.’ No one was the poorer because it was tried. In all probability the Minister will deal with this phase of the. question when he replies. We recognize that, while there may be difficulties in the way, they should not be insuperable. The scheme was tried in the island of Guernsey very many years ago. An important public work was paid for by means of local debentures, which, as they fell due, were redeemed and destroyed. In other words, they were withdrawn from circulation. Why cannot we finance our undertakings on similar lines? The honorable the Minister intimated that he was- not in a position to say whether the money to be raised under this measure would be borrowed in Australia or abroad. It is important that we should know, because at an early date we shall have before us a measure to amend the tariff. Increased duties are being levied on the importation of certain commodities, and it appears that the
Government proposes to encourage further importations by borrowing another £8,000.000 abroad. If we raise the tariff for the protection of Australian industry, we should put an end to this policy of borrowing abroad. If we borrow another £8,000.000 overseas, we shall have to import’ another £8,000,000 worth of goods, which, added to . the £15,000,000 worth that will come to us as the result of a recent overseas loan of £15.000,000, will make a total of £23,000,000 worth of imports coming to Australia upon which higher Customs duties will be levied. If the £8,000,000 to be raised under the authority of this bill is borrowed in Australia, so much the better.
Senator Wilson:
– The money will be raised in the most favorable market.
Senator HOARE:
– In all probability, then, the loan will be floated in New York, so we may expect to see another £8,000,000 worth of goods imported from the United States of America to the detriment of Australian secondary industries.
Senator Foll:
– Who first went to the United States of America for loan money ?
Senator HOARE:
– The Premier of Queensland, and the honorable senator and his friends denounced him. Now that the National Government proposes to borrow from the United States, Ministerial supporters applaud the policy.
Senator Gibbs:
– If the policy is to borrow abroad, what difference does it make where the loan is floated?
Senator HOARE:
– No difference in the world, I suppose, but we say that loans should, whenever possible, be floated in Australia. The Government contends that it has paid £5,000,000 off the national debt, but now we have a proposal to borrow £8,000,000, so our finances have actually gone to the bad to the extent of £3,000,000.
Senator J B Hayes:
– Does the honorable senator forget the assets that will be created by the expenditure of this loan money ?
Senator HOARE:
– No; but I contend that much of the expenditure should be met out of revenue, and not paid out of loan. There is no justification for the expenditure, from loan money, of £430,000 for defence. My memory carries me back to the time when the Federal Government of the day wished to pre sent the British Government with a dreadnought as its contribution to the defence of the Empire, and proposed to pay for it out of loan money. Fortunately, a change of Government took place. Labour decided that the best contribution to Empire defence was for Australia to build her own battleships and to pay for them out of revenue.
Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– The honorable senator is not correct as to his facts. It was Mr. Deakin who ordered the Australia.
Senator HOARE:
– But the Labour party forced his hand. If there is one thing more than another that should be paid for out of revenue it is expenditure on migration, because migrants immediately contribute to the revenue through Customs duties. Senator Newland pointed out that at the present rate of redemption the national debt should be extinguished in 50 years. If we do not put a stop to thisborrowing policy, we shall never be able to pay off the national debt. If the Government is not prepared to cease borrowing abroad it should be honest enough to renounce its claim to be a protectionist government, and confess that it favours the importation of foreign goods to the detriment of Australian industries.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
– I shall be brief in my opposition to this measure, under which loan money will be expended, inter alia, for the purpose of defence. Money required for the defence of Australia should be raised within Australia. If sufficient revenue is not at the disposal of the Government for this purpose, the Government should impose additional taxation. We should be patriotic enough to say that the defence of Australia is essentially an Australian financial responsibility. I rose chiefly to object to borrowing overseas, especially in view of the statement made some time ago by the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten), that it was sound finance to raise money in Australia, even if we had to pay a higher rate of interest, because the interest payments would be made to Australians. I endorse that statement. I notice an item of £330,000 for immigration - advances of passage money, landing money and medical fees of assisted immigrants. We know that a considerable sum of money has been advanced to assist people to come to Australia. In some cases the whole of the passage money has been paid by the Government, and in other cases the migrants have been assisted to the extent of portion of the passage money required. It would be interesting and informative to know what amount has actually been advanced, how much is at present outstanding, and whether the Government has had any difficulty in getting refunds. I noticed a statement in an evening newspaper the other day by a gentleman who apparently had overheard a conversation between two immigrants. The tenor of the conversation led him to believe that, although these migrants were expected to refund the amount of the passage money that had been advanced to them, they did not intend to do so. Have the Government had any point- blank refusals in regard to claims for the refund of passage money ? W> are told that most of those who have been assisted have already returned the money advanced to them. Some of them are said to be engaged on the land, and others, we are told, are in various occupations. If they are in employment they are bound by the conditions under which they came to Australia, and should refund the money within a reasonable period. I hope that the Minister will give the Senate any information^ he may have at hia disposal regarding this point. It is not business-like to go on indefinitely advancing passage money, if it is not to be refunded. I wish to know whether the Government or the officials have had any point-blank refusals on the part of new arrivals to pay back the money so advanced to them.
Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT
– I am unable to inform Senator Needham where it is proposed to raise the loan that the bill authorizes. It will depend altogether on the condition of the money market in Australia and abroad. I point out, however, that the Commonwealth is now floating a conversion loan of £68,000,000 for the redemption of existing war loans. It would probably be difficult, therefore, to borrow in Australia at the present time any sum in addition to that required for the conversion loan. During the past two years the Commonwealth debt has been reduced by payments of over £14,000,000 in the shape of contributions in various ways to the ginkin? fund. Of course, the whole of our debt reduction has not been effected through what is known as the sinking fund, for we are paying a considerable sum every year direct to Great Britain in connexion with our war liability. It is necessary to raise money from year to year for the purpose of carrying out permanent, and in many instances, reproductive works. This year it is proposed to expend no less than £6,000,000 on postal works, chiefly in the erection of telephone exchanges, and in the provision of telephonic facilities generally. This money is not to be expended as a mere speculation, but is required in response to the applications for telephones by citizens throughout the Commonwealth.- I am sure that policy is approved by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber. The applications now average over 5,000 a month, and if they are not granted there will be great complaint from every member of the Parliament.
Senator Elliott:
– Will not these telephones require replacement long before the loan is repaid?
Senator CRAWFORD:
– No, because the contributions to the sinking fund are not all on the 50 years’ basis. In many instances they are determined according to the life of the asset for which the money has been borrowed. While money is being raised from year to year, there* ca.n.not be a very large annual reduction in the aggregate indebtedness. Nevertheless, if payments to the sinking fund are continued on the present basis, all debts will be extinguished within 50 years from the time when the money was borrowed. It is not my intention to dwell at any length on Senator J. Grant’s suggestion for obtaining this money without appealing to the public. We know that there is a limit to the amount of notes that can be issued. It depends upon the requirements of the public, and we cannot force on the people notes which they are not prepared to accept, and which the business of the country does not warrant. It may be contended also with regard to the raising of loans locally, that consideration has to be given to the amount of money required to carry on private business upon, which employment and the prosperity of the Commonwealth chiefly depend. Even if we should have to borrow in America, it does not necessarily follow that we shall hare to take goods to the value of the money borrowed. The money could easily be transferred to some other country from which we might be purchasing goods. When one of the States borrowed money in New York some years ago, it was immediately transferred to London ; and I understand that Borne profit was wade on the transaction. On the question of preference to Australian lenders, I point out that this Government has adopted that attitude. The money recently borrowed in England and the United States of America was obtained at 5 per cent., while that for which we are now asking in the Commonwealth carries interest at per cent. The information sought by Senator Findley as to the sums refunded by immigrants with respect to advances of passage money is not available for the moment; but I understand that, in committee, the Minister for Markets and Migration (Senator Wilson) will be in a position to supply it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
First schedule.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
.- I should like some information in regard to- the item “ Soldiers’ Mental Hospital, West Subiaco, Western Australia - buildings and equipment-7-£40,000.” Some time ago, when the Returned Sailors and Soldiers’ Imperial League in this Sta te was anxious to have a separate mental hospital for soldier cases, a definite stand was taken by the Ministry against it, and it was said that these cases would have to come under the care of the State Department. Does the item to which I have referred indicate a departure from that policy?
Senator Crawford:
– This hospital will be conducted by the State authorities, in the same way as Mont Park, which was built by the Commonwealth Government, is carried on.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
.- Is the £500 set down for “ London Offices “ intended for the Office of the High Commissioner?
Senator CRAWFORD:
– It is required for some alterations, such as new partitions, in Australia House for the ‘convenience of incoming tenants.
Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria
.- What is the purpose of the item of £12,000 for the acquisition of land at “Fairy Meadow, New South Wales?
Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT
– This property was compulsorily acquired a number of years ago foi’ the purpose of obtaining a supply of limestone for the building of the Federal Capital. A number of legal actions resulted. The mineral rights had to be considered; and there was litigation in the supreme and High Courts. This is the final payment to wind up the whole transaction.
Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia
– I should like to know how far the work of providing oil storage facilities, for which £24,000 is provided, has proceeded. I do not expect the Minister (Senator Crawford) to state the situation of such depots, but desire some information as to the progress of the work. There is another item, “Naval bases, works, and establishments, £137,410;” and perhaps the Minister can state if any provision has been made for the re-establishment of the Naval Base at Cockburn Sound, seeing that experts have favorably reported on the site. There is also an item “Towards cost of construction of buildings, hangars, workshops, barracks and earthworks, and preparation of aerial routes and landing grounds, £126,000.” As the aerial arm of defence is most important, we should have information as to what is being done before authorizing the expenditure of the amount proposed. Provision is also made for the expenditure of £40,000 towards the high explosives factory at Maribyrnong. When the Public Accounts Committee inquired into the question of munitions supply it appeared that the Government was making an earnest effort to make Australia self-contained in the matter of defence, and it would be interesting to know how far the work at Maribyrnong Iws proceeded. Expenditure of £10,000 is also proposed in connexion with the Lithgow Machine-gui Factory. Will the Minister state how that work is proceeding?
Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland- Honorary Minister) 13.20]. - In regard to the first item, “Oil storage facilities, £24,000,” mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), I may explain that provision for the erection of one 8,000-ton oil fuel storage tank at Darwin was made in the additions and new works estimates payable from revenue in 1924-25, and an order placed through the Admiralty for supplies. In accordance with the approved programme of naval activities provision has beon made for the supply and erection of an additional 8,000-tou tank in 1925. .lt is essential that adequate supplies of fuel oil should be available in the north of Australia for the use of the Heel. lu regard to the honorable senator’s inquiry concerning the expenditure of £137.410 on naval bases., works, and establishments, I may explain that it is proposed to expend £15,960 in New South Wales, £11,563 in Victoria, £446 in South Australia, and £87 in Tasmania, as well as other amounts, which have been set out in detail, on other necessary works in tha various States.
Senator Needham:
– Is it intended to proceed with the Naval Base at Cockburn Sound ‘?
Senator CRAWFORD:
– No. The high explosives factory at Maribyrnong is being erected for the manufacture of T.N.T. shell-filling, fuse-filling, small explosive components, and cordite. The total estimated cost of this work is £187,900, towards which it is proposed to spend £40,000 during this year, Last year £82,000 was spent on this work.
Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland
– I wish to direct the attention of the Minister (Senator Crawford) to a request made some time ago for the erection of an aerodrome at Rockhampton. I hope the matter has- not been overlooked by the Government, and that effect will be given to the request of the Rockhampton authorities.
Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT
– It is proposed to spend £40,000 this year on civil aviation, and I can assure Senator Thompson that the claims of the Rockhampton people will not be overlooked in this connexion.
Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria
.- In this schedule provision has been made for the expenditure of £500,000 for advances to the States and to the settlors in the Northern Territory for the purchase of wire netting. The question of wire netting supplies was before Parliament some tune ago, and a bill under which financial assistance was given to the States requiring supplies of wire, netting was passed by both Houses of Parliament. I should like the Minister (Senator Crawford) to say what States have applied for assistance, and also the amounts it is proposed to allocate to each State find the Northern Territory. I should also like to know how much has been advanced to the States up to date, apart from the amount proposed to be voted under this bill. Progress reported.
Senate adjourned at 3.29 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 September 1925, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1925/19250904_senate_9_111/>.