10th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.
page 857
The following papers were presented : -
Lands Acquisition Act - Laud acquired for Postal purposes at -
Bellata, New South Wales.
Collinsville, Queensland.
New Guinea - Ordinance No. 4 of 1926 - Appropriation 1925-26.
page 857
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.
Upon such further motion or motions with regard to the allotment of time being moved, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than one hour, and in speaking thereon no senator shall exceed ten minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded, then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the President or the Chairman shall put any questions on any amendment or motion already proposed from the chair.
Ordered to fee printed.
page 857
Supply of Serum
asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Health, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are : -
page 858
Bill read a third time.
page 858
Motion (by Senator Sir Victor Wilson) proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
Question put. The Senate divided.
AYES: 20
NOES: 5
Majority . . . . 15
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 858
– (By leave.) - In order to enable honorable senators to make their arrangements, I wish to intimate that from tomorrow the sittings of the Senate “will probably be adjourned for a fortnight. It is anticipated that at the expiration of that period further business will be available from another place.
page 858
Debate resumed from 5th February (vide page 736), on motion by Senator Peaece -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I have had an opportunity to study this measure since the Minister made his second-reading speech. So far as I can see, it is merely a machinery bill which has for its object the securing of the authority of the administrator. Under the principal act the Governor-General may appoint an administrator for New Guinea. The administrator, in turn, may appoint some one to fill his place during his absence from the Seat of Government. Power is also given to the Governor-General to appoint someone to act temporarily as administrator should the office at any time become vacant. Clause 2 maintains the authority of the administrator during the period of any temporary appointment. As the measure is merely a machinery one to preserve the authority of the duly appointed representative of the King, I offer no objection to the second reading.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.
.- I move -
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
My reason for doing so is that it seems hardly worth while for the Senate to meet to-morrow to pass three bills through the third reading stage. I anticipate that satisfactory progress will be made to-day with the other bills on the notice paper. This measure, at least, is a formal one. On the grounds mentioned, I ask the Senate to agree to the motion.
– As a rule, I do not like the standing and sessional orders . to be suspended, but in view of the announcement of the Minister that he proposes to ask for an adjournment of the Senate for a fortnight, I do not feel disposed to offer any objection on this occasion, as to do so might seriously inconvenience honorable senators. £’o far as I can see the measures to be dealt with to-day are not contentious, and to assemble here tomorrow, merely to pass them through the third-reading stage, would prevent honorable senators who desire to do so from returning to theirhomes to-night. In the circumstances, I shall not, on this occasion, oppose the motion. I hope, however, that the Minister, having moved for the suspension of the standing and sessional orders so early in the session, will not form the habit of doing so during the remainder of the session.
Question put.
– There being more than the statutory majority of the whole Senate present, and no voice being raised in dissent, I declare the motion carried.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 859
Debate resumed from 5th February (vide page 739), on motion by Senator Pearce -
Th,it the bill be now read a second time.
– Since the Minister moved the second reading of this measure I have had an opportunity to study it. Its object, is to allow certain commodities grown in Papua and New Guinea to enter Australia free of duty. Although, from a geographical stand-point, those two territories are separated from Australia, I consider that Papua, at least, is an integral part of Australia. I realize that we are only administering New Guinea under a mandate; we are, for the time being, the custodians of that territory. I was in Papua a few months ago, and found it difficult to realize that I was not in Australia. I was, however, astonished to find that the people there spoke of Australia as they would speak of a foreign country. Just as the Constitution has abolished tariff barriers between the several States, we should abolish the existing tariff barriers between Australia and Papua, and New Guinea. We should do all in our power to make those territories self -supporting ; they are not selfsupporting to-day. If this measure will assist in that direction, I cannot see any objection to it. While the object of the bill is to benefit produce grown in- Papua and New Guinea, I am afraid that, as drafted, it will allow produce which is not grown in Papua or .New Guinea, to receive the benefit of the preference
Clause 3, sub-clause 1, reads as follows : -
From and after a time and date to be fixed by proclamation, the importation into Australia, direct from the Territory of Papua or the Territory of New Guinea, of such of the goods specified in the Schedule to this Act as were produced in the Territory from which they are imported, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Customs Tariff 1921-1924, be free of duty.
I suggest that if the words “ and grown in “ were inserted after the words “ direct from “, it would be clear that the preference was to be given only to products actually grown in the Territories.
– Do not the words “ produced in the Territory “ provide the necessary safeguard ?
– I am afraid not. I support the second reading,- but in committee I shall suggest an amendment in the direction I have indicated.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time-.
In committee:
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Rates of duty on imports from Papua and New Guinea).
– I suggest that the clause would be improved by inserting, after the words “ direct from “, the words “ and grown in “. Such an amendment would ensure that the goods allowed into Australia free of duty were actually grown in the Territory to which the bill applies.
– I am informed that the word “produced”, in this case, means “ grown and treated “. For instance, the schedule refers to “ coffee, raw and kiln-dried”, and “fruits, dried, viz., Litchi The preference is to be given only if the goods are wholly produced and treated in the Territory.
Clause agreed to.
Schedule.
– Among the items enumerated in the schedule are - “ nuts, viz., coco-nuts, whole; (b) coco-nuts, prepared; (c) coconuts, shelled or unshelled”. In different parts of Australia nuts of various kinds are grown, and a certain amount of income is derived from their cultivation. Walnuts, for instance, are produced in Victoria. Does the schedule apply only to coco-nuts, or to any variety of nuts, shelled or unshelled?
SenatorPearce. - It refers to all. kinds of nuts that are produced in these territories, but almonds and walnuts will not grow there-.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without request; report adopted.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill’ read a third time.
page 860
Debate resumed from 5th February (vide page 741), on motion by Senator Pearce -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This measure is complementary to that with which we- have just dealt. It provides that a- bounty shall be granted on goods that are produced in Papua and the mandated territory of New Guinea. The amount of the. bounty is £250,000, and the period during which it is to operate is ten. years. I understood the Minister (Senator Pearce’), in his. second’ reading speech, to say that since 1901’ Papua had’ been subsidized to- the- extent of £752,000, in addition to other assistance by way of loans and that the Commonwealth also grants to New Guinea, an annual subsidy of £10,000, for the benefit of the natives-, in. regard to agricultural work and health matters. I am not, and never have been, a believer in the indiscriminate granting of bounties. At times, they ares necessary to- encourage an. industry.. I have never lent support to such a- proposal unless, evidence has. been forthcoming proving the necessity for it. I look upon a bounty only as a grant in aid. In view of our desire to put the Territories on their feet perhaps we may act wisely if we- authorize the. expenditure- of the sum provided for in. the bill, over the period of ten. years, specified. The Minister stated that invariably the granting of’ a bounty was. limited to five years. That, of course, applies to the mainland. Different, and difficult climatic conditions are encounter ed in the Territories. I understood the Minister to say - that in their case ten years was decided upon because five years are necessary to enable certain crops’ to. come, into bearing. If that is so, the period stipulated! is not too long. Clause 7 of the- bill states -
No bounty shall be paid to other than the exporter or his authorized agent.
I hope that that provision will be rigidlyenforced. If a bounty is paid at all it should be paid only to the producer of the article specified-, in the schedule. It is within the experience! of; some . honorable senators that bounties have been. ‘ granted ostensibly to the’ producers of: a particular article, but the benefit- has been derived by middlemen. I have no desire to assist in voting moneys that will benefit middlemen’. I am anxious that the producer- shall get- the full benefit of the bounty.
-brockman. - That is the object of the specific provision in the bill.
– I am doubtful if the clause is framed in such a way that that object will be attained. So long as that provision is- properly carried out middlemen will not be able to get any benefit from the bounty. As I am desirous of assisting’ in putting the Territories on a sound footing I shall support the bill. I hope that at the- expiration of ten. years, the production- of the Territories will have so developed’ that it will- not fre necessary for this Parliament to- give them further- assistance m the way of abounty.
.I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this measure.. Any one who has visited Papua and the mandated’ Territory of New Guinea, and has been at all’ observant, must have recognized that the inhabitants have all their eggs- in . the one basket. That is not a good thing for any eountry. So far, they have been dependent” entirely upon the production of copra. I realize, of course, that that is am excellent industry;- but dtaring my visit to different parts of the Territories it appeared to me that there was ample scope for launching out -into other forms of agricultural development, which might bring’ to that wonderful1 counllry a greater degree of stability. I, therefore, welcome this proposal, which I feel sure will, be accepted by the Senate. It will give encouragement to those who are prepared to live in. the Territories, and so assist their development, that in years to come they will not have t© depend entirely upon one product. The Minister delivered a very .interesting speech when he moved the motion for the second reading of the bill. It was so interesting that I was impelled ‘ to ‘search for more information than I possessed -with -regard to tropical products. I have taken the opportunity to ascertain what progress has been made in -other countries in the production of certain of the products that are itemised in the schedule. The Minister referred to cocoa, which is produced in the mandated Territory of New Guinea to only a very small extent. If honorable senators turn up tobe latest records they will find that the exports of copra (realized £686,519 out of .a total, of £718,500 from all products. Some years ago on the group <of islands then known as the French Islands, but now known as the Witu group, planters laid out a cocoa plantation on a small atea. The plantation is still being worked. Unfortunately the production of cocoa in New Guinea has fallen off very considerably in recent years. The total quantity exported in the last year foi- which records are available, was 7’0 tons. A. few years previously it was double that quantity. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) suggested that the period of the bounty is a somewhat lengthy one. His remarks, however, led me to believe that he realizes that the tropical -conditions existing ia the Territories are vastly different from those that exist in Australia, and I am afraid that the period specified will be found to be insufficient. The time taken lay a cocoa plantation to come into profit varies considerably. In some countries the cocoa pods can be plucked in from three to four years after the planting of the trees, whilst in other countries from six to seven years are required. To ensure the success of the cocoa growing industry it is essential to provide ample shade in the way of shade trees. Those trees should possess some commercial value. During the first year the expenditure of a large sum of money is required. In the. British West Indies, where there is an extensive production- of cocoa, it is estimated that the cost of starting a plantation of a reasonable size is about £2,500, and that the outlay of the planter until his first crop is gathered is from £25 to £30 an acre. Therefore, a great deal of work will have to be done in New
Guinea. Furthermore, if the land there is not -similar to that in other countries where the pods -can be produced in from three to four years, and if it will take from six to seven years for a plantation to come into bearing, it will be necessary later on to extend the term of the bounty if it is to be at all effective. In Papua a considerable area has been placed under sisal hemp, but it has been allowed to deteriorate to such ‘ an extent that it is no longer a commercial proposition. Australia needs a considerable quantity of sisal ‘hemp, and, if we could by means of this bounty encourage its production in Papua, it -would be. a great boon to us. It is far better for us to obtain from our own Territories the commodities we require than to import them. For instance, the value of our annual imports of cocoa is £231,000, so that if cocoa could .’be grown successfully in the Territories it must lead eventually to a large trade with the mainland. Cocoa is coming more and more into favour. In 1848 the British’ consumption was 2,500,000 lb., in 1908 it was 46,000,000 lb. The Minister, in moving .the second reading of the bill, told us that the manufacture of confectionery in Australia had increased toy leaps and bounds. Consequently,, the importation of cocoa, which is so largely used in that industry, has also increased by leaps and bounds. A department of agriculture can play a great part in giving suitable advice to the residents of tropical countries. It is regrettable that mistakes have been made in’ the past owing to the absence of satisfactory advice., but such mistakes have not been confined to tropical countries. Elsewhere land has been devoted to the cultivation of products for which it has subsequently been found unsuitable. In conjunction with the granting of these bounties, an -agricultural department ought to be able to advise how the land can be utilized to the best advantage. There is a great field for the investment of capital in New Guinea and Papua, and, given sufficient inducement, I feel mie it will toe forthcoming. Australia requires enormous quantities of kapok. To make our Empire selfcontained, every dominion should play its part, by legislation or otherwise, in encouraging the production of those commodities -winch are -so essential to its wellbeing. I hope that the toll will meet with the hearty acceptance of honorable senators.
Senator FINDLEY (Victoria) [3.45 j. - It- is well for honorable senators to understand the steps they are about to take if this bill goes through. It will commit the Commonwealth to an expenditure of £250,000 over a period of ten years. The amount is not very large, but it is to be for the definite purpose of encouraging tropical production in Papua and New Guinea. There is, however, a portion of Australia that lies within the tropics. Senator Payne devoted some time to the possibility of producing sisal hemp in Papua. Sisal hemp can be grown in the Northern Territory,, and is being grown there to-day. It is proposed in the schedule of the bill to pay a bounty of £6 a ton for the production of sisal hemp in Papua and New Guinea, and it is almost certain- that if this industry is started in either of these Territories it will be firmly established at the end of ten years. What hope, then, would there be of establishing such an industry in the Northern Territory ? It could not be established there on a commercial basis in a period of ten years.
– That depends upon the requirements of the Common.wealth.
– In a measure it does, but as cheap labour is plentiful in Papua and New Guinea, the production of sisal hemp would not be as costly iri those Territories as it is in the Northern Territory. Therefore, if we agree to. the schedule of bounties in this bill, we can dismiss from our minds the possibility of establishing the sisal ‘ hemp industry in the Northern Territory. I confess that I am more concerned with the progress of the Northern Territory than with that of Papua or New Guinea. We are hopeful that big developments will take place in the Northern Territory before many years pass away. With the appointment of a commission to carry out a progressive developmental policy, and with the encouragement that we hope will be extended to them, new industries will probably be established. But, when I visited the Territory some years ago, no industry gave greater promise of development than did the sisal hemp industry. The director of the Botanical Gardens at Darwin, Mr. Holtze, showed us samples of hemp which had been grown under his care, as well as samples of other tropical products. I merely rose to point out the effect this bill is likely te have on the development of the sisal hemp industry in the Northern Territory. If we agree to this schedule and give a bounty of £6 a ton on sisal hemp grown in Papua and New Guinea, where labour is cheap, will the Minister explain in his reply whether there will be any possibility of establishing the sisal hemp industry in the Northern Territory?
Question resolved in the affirmative. ‘
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Appropriation for payment of bounty) .
– In speaking on the second reading of this bill I asked the Minister (Senator Pearce) whether he thought there was any possibility of the sisal hemp industry being established in the Northern Territory if this bill were agreed to. As the Minister did not reply to the second reading debate, perhaps he will answer my question at this juncture.
– I heard what the honorable senator said.
– We should not commit ourselves to the payment of a bounty of £6 per ton on sisal hemp produced in Papua and New Guinea for a period of ten years if it will in any way prevent the establishment of the sisal hemp industry in the Northern Territory.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - -Minister for Home, and Territories [3.53]. - The information at my disposal is to the effect that it is not likely that any of the items mentioned in the schedule will come into competition with similar commodities produced in Australia.
– Not at present.
– Or in the future. The items in the schedule are essentially tropical products, and I understand that manila and sisal hemp, on which bounties are proposed to be paid, are not of the kind which have been cultivated in some parts of the Commonwealth. Mr. Percy Wilkinson informs me that the sisal hemp plant grown in New Guinea differs from that which has been cultivated in the Northern Territory. Its product, therefore, is not likely to come into competition with that produced in the Commonwealth.
– Senator Findley should not be perturbed because it is proposed to give some encouragement to production in the mandated Territories. If the honorable senator thinks that we are doing too much in proposing under this bill to spend £25,000 a year on these Territories, which are lying dormant and unproductive, I do not know when he considers a start should be made. If encouragement is not given to industry in the manner proposed, we have no right to hold these Territories, particularly when other nations are sending their agents abroad looking’ for undeveloped areas on which people can be settled and production undertaken. Itis about time we asked ourselves whether we intend to continue this policy of inertia. I find that goods from the Philippine Islands, which are under the flag of the United States of America, are admitted to the United States of America duty free. Under the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) Bill, which we have just passed, a few paltry item’s are to be admitted to the Commonwealth free of. duty. The total exports of the Philippine Islands last year were valued at $129,000,000, and of that amount $92,000,000 worth were exported to the United States of America, and if shipped direct, admitted duty free. Senator Findley knows that the United States imposes higher protective duties than we do, but we are running suspiciously in the same direction. America with its high protective tariff has allowed over £18,000,000 worth of goods from the Philippine Islands to enter the United States’ of America free of duty, and to come into competition with the products of that country. I welcome this bill and the measure which we have just passed, as I believe they are only a beginning, and an attempt to justify our title to these possessions. Instead of spending only £25,000 per annum, as is proposed, the amount should be increased. We should adopt the American plan. The people -under the American flag in the Philippine Islands are more fortunate than are those under the British flag in New Guinea, because the American Government is giving the producers in the Philippine Islands an opportunity to advance, while we are doing nothing. We merely hoist our flag and expect industries to prosper without assistance. We cannot proceed indefinitely under the policy pursued in the past. We cannot hoist our flag on that long string of islands and remain in control without assisting their development.
– We hoisted our flag in the Northern Territory, and have done nothing there.
– This flag hoisting racket, coupled with lack of enterprise, will not be countenanced much longer. Gutta percha, timber, and other products, which can be profitably used in the Commonwealth, can be successfully produced in New Guinea. On the wharfs, and in timber depots in various parts of the city, one may see piles of timber from tn Baltic and Puget Sound, 8 feet and 10 feet high, when timber from New Guinea, which could be admitted to Australia free of duty, is not being utilized. What are we doing ? It is about time we made a start. If we do not, it will soon be known to the world that we are only in nominal possession of these Territories, and that we are not embarking on a progressive developmental policy. I have shown that America has ‘ admitted £18.000,000 worth of produce from the Philippine Islands, so that, on a 20 per cent, basis, it has actually made a grant of £3,000,000. Senator Findley believes that if a bounty is paid on these products they will come into competition with similar commodities produced in Australia, where wages are higher. We cannot have it both ways. The League of Nations, through its representatives, is keeping a close watch upon our activities. We cannot expect to hold these productive lands unless we assist in their development, particularly when other nations are endeavouring to find space for th ir surplus population . I read an article in an Italian magazine the other day in which it was stated that the mandated territories should have been handed over to Italy, and that greater facilities should be provided for Italian migrants to enter this country. I welcome this measure as the beginning of a new policy. In its present form it is only a makeshift and a skeleton, but, if a bounty is paid on the products mentioned in the schedule, it may be the means of placing upon their mettle those engaged in the production of similar commodities. in Australia.
– I see - overboard with Customs duties!
– We cannot have it both ways. We must either put these Territories to better use or haul down our flag there.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 10, and Schedule, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Standing and. sessional orders suspended.
Bill read’ a third time.
page 864
Debate resumed from 5th February, (vide page 741) on motion by Senator Pearce -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– This- is a measure which occupied the attention of the Senate during, the last session of the last Parliament.. In the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906-19, provision is made for’ the issue of a pamphlet containing the arguments fox and against any question referred to the electors by way of re£ferendum. Since the inception of federation only two referenda of real importance have been taken.,, one in 1911 and another in 1913. On each occasion six. proposals were submitted to the people, ‘ each involving an alteration of the Constitution. In order that the people, with whom the ultimate decision rested, should be enabled to understand the technicalities of the Constitution, and of the proposed amendments., legislation was enacted to permit of pamphlets being distributed throughout the Commonwealth. That arrangement, worked very well. The pamphlets were welcomed by the electors, who were assisted by the information they contained. What motive is now actuating, the Government in introducing this measure, the. object of which, is to prevent such pamphlets from being circulated ? While the bill does, not specifically prevent the publication of pamphlets, it alters vitally the procedure to be adopted.. If it becomes, law, any political party or body of men that wishes to issue pamphlets to the electors, setting out its views on the proposed alteration - either for or against - will have to. ob tain the authority of this Parliament to do so. Such permission is not necessary under the principal act. The Minister has not adduced one argument to justify the proposed alteration. Honorable sena. tors- opposite have said that the views of all parties are published in the press. That that is not correct was clearly demonstrated during the recent election campaign. It is true that honorable senators supporting the Government experience no difficulty in getting the press to circulate their views among the electors. So far as they are concerned there is no necessity for a pamphlet; they can reach the public through, the press. But that is not the experience of honorable members on this side. I can see no valid reason for the proposed alteration of the law. Once Parliament passes a measure proposing an alteration of the Constitution no obstacle should be placed in the way of the electors becoming fully acquainted with its intricacies.. We must remember that the final decision in these matters rests- with the people. So long as the pamphlets are prepared by competent authorities, and set forth fairly their views, they should assist the electors to cast an intelligent vote at the ballotbox. It is more difficult to advise the electors regarding the necessity or otherwise of an alteration of the Constitution than it is to set before them, during an election campaign, the policy of a political party. The people generally are aware of the different principles enunciated by the respective political parties which seek their suffrage; almost every adult can discuss intelligently the proposals of the respective parties. But those honorable senators who took part in the referendum campaigns of 1911 and 1913’ know the difficulty that was then experienced in conveying to the electors the meaning of the proposed alterations to the Constitution. That being so, it is wrong to introduce legislation’ which may prevent the fullest information from being placed before them. It should be possible for both sides of a question to be presented to the people without the permission of Parliament being first obtained. The passing of measures for submission to the people should cany with it the right to issue literature explaining what has been done. Honorable senators’ may argue that there is little doubt that the authority of Parliament would be obtained1 to the issue of pamphlets. But that would depend upon the constitution of the Parliament. If legislation to amend the Constitution passed through Parliament, and we on this side’ disagreed with it, would we obtain permission from honorable senators opposite to issue a pamphlet getting forth our views? No. Where an alteration of the Constitution is proposed, we should, so far as possible, sink party bias; but even if a party principle were involved’, as might be the case, why should the electors be prevented from having the fullest information placed before them? By studying the arguments on both sides they would be able to grasp the meaning of the proposed alterations much better than by listening to a speech delivered by any honorable senator.
– The various newspapers throughout Australia state the case fairly and fully, both for and against.
– I have yet to learn of the existence of such a newspaper in Australia. I object to this bill. The authority which has hitherto existed for the printing of pamphlets has resulted in no injury to any one. On the contrary, it has done much good,as it has enabled information to be placed before the electors which has been of great assistance to them. That authority should remain.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Distribution to electors, of arguments for and against proposed law).
– I intend to oppose this clause, which reads -
Honorable senators will see the injustice of that proposal. In the first place, there would not be sufficient time to prepare the pamphlet. Within one week of the measure passing Parliament, permission would have to be granted by Parliament . for the publication of any pamphlet which it was proposed to issue.
– The clause does not mean that the pamphlet would have to be published within one week.
– We may rest assured that those administering the law would require to see the pamphlet before authority for its publication was granted. They would be foolish if . they did not. Unquestionably, they would want to know what the pamphlet contained, and this clausemakes it imperative that the pamphlet shall be produced within one week of the passing of the measure. One week is not sufficient time in which to prepare a pamphlet. Even it it were prepared within a week, the work would be done hurriedly, and a proper case could not be presented to the people. This clause will lead to injustice being done. No sound reason for the alteration has been given. I, therefore, propose to test the feeling of the committee on this clause.
– I think that Senator Needham is under a misapprehension as to the procedure to be followed regarding the publication of the pamphlet. It is not intended that the pamphlet shall be prepared within one week after the passing of the proposed law by Parliament, but it is intended that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide whether any pamphlet should be printed. Parliament is not concerned with: the merits of any pamphlet which may be prepared. It is not responsible Tor the different views put forward by the opposing sides; its concern is only whether the proposed alteration of the Constitution is pf such a nature that a pamphlet setting forth the arguments for and. against the proposed alteration would assist the electors to come to an intelligent, decision ? There is nothing to- prevent persons favouring or opposing the proposed amendment from placing their views before the people. Parliament will be asked to determine only whether an official pamphlet should be prepared. If the proposed alteration were an important one, necessitating a full explanation, the Government of the day would move that a pamphlet should be prepared. But the intended alterations might be of such a nature that the preparation of an official pamphlet would be only a waste of money. Instead of the obligatory provision in the existing legislation, this bill is to give to Parliament a permissive power.
Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 20
NOES: 7
Majority … … 13
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Standing and sessional orders suspended.
Bill read a’ third time.
page 866
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd March.
Senate adjourned at 4.26 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 February 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260211_senate_10_112/>.