Senate
8 July 1926

10th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. J. Newlands) took the chair at 8 p.m., and road prayers.

page 3888

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION REFERENDUM

MinisterialStatement.

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

(By leave.) - I desire to announce to the Senate that the proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution in relation to Industry and Commerce and Essential Services, which have been passed hy an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, willbe submitted to the electors at a poll to be taken on Saturday, the 4th September next. The dates to be fixed for the purpose of the referendum are as follow : -

Date of issue of writs - Monday, the 26th July, 1926.

Date of polling - Saturday, the 4th September, 1926.

Return of writs - On or before Tuesday, the 12th day of October, 1926.

page 3888

ELECTORAL LAW AND PROCEDURE JOINT COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Pearce) (by leave) agreed to -

That Senators Sampson and Thompson he appointed to the Joint Committee on Electoral Law and Procedure, in place of Senators Payne and Plain, discharged from attendance.

That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 3888

TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Newlands:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have to announce that, consequent upon the appointment of Senator Plain as Chairman of Committees, a vacancy exists in the panel of Temporary Chairmen of Committees,and I lay upon the table my warrant as follows: -

Pursuant to Standing Order No. 28a, I hereby nominate Senator W. L. Duncan to act as TemporaryChairman of Committees when requested to do so by the Chairman of Committees, or when the Chairman of Committees is absent.

page 3888

QUESTION

POSTAL CONTRACTS

Pay, Allowances, Etc

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-Genera], upon notice -

In view of the fact that the department, when estimating the cost of any telephone construction work, has to take into consideration the rate of pay, allowances, working conditions, &c, involved, will the Minister insert in all contract articles when future tenders are to be called for in connexion with telephone construction work, the following: - “That the successful tenderer shall give to all persons employed by him the same rates of pay, working conditions, supply of equipment, child endowment, travelling and camping allowance, &c, as those embodied in the Linemen’s award of the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.”

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following reply: -

The department, in its contracts for line construction work, stipulates that the contractor shall pay his workmen not less than the minimum rates provided for in the arbitration award of the Linemen’s Union. There are, however, certain payments which, under the regulations of the Public Service Board, this department has to take into account in preparing its estimates, which a contractor would not require to pay, as the men he em- ploys are mostly residents in the locality in which the work is done. The department, however, specifically provides, in addition to the award rate of pay, that the contractor shall also observe the conditions recognized in the locality in which the work is done.

page 3889

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Proposed Demolition of Houses

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, at Canberra, there are five abort rows of wooden houses facing the main Queanbeyan to Acton road, situated behind the power-house, and known as the “ En- gineers’ Mess,” which are occupied principally y fitters, power-housemen, storemen, &c, in the employ of the Federal Capital Commission ?
  2. Is it a fact that, on account of these housesbeing considered rather an eye-sore to some person or persons, the Commission intend to demolish them?
  3. If so, and in view of the fact that the majority of the occupants of these houses are satisfied with them, and that the position enables them tolive close to their work, will the Minister see whether such houses can be repainted and renovated instead of being pulled down?
Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Information in regard to this matter is being obtained from the Federal Capital Commission, and will be made available as soon as possible.

page 3889

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Classification of Lands and Survey Branch

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the classification of the Lands and Survey Branch, Department of Public Works and Railways, has been held in abeyance for a considerable time by the Public Service Board?
  2. Will the Minister state when the result of the board’s determination will begazetted?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The right honorable the Prime Minister, has supplied the following reply: -

  1. The Public Service Board has advised that it was unable tomakethe classification of the Lands and Surveys Branch until certain questions of organization, consequent upon the transfer of the branch from the Home and TerritoriesDepartment to the Works and Railways Department, had been determined’. These have been settled and the board is now in a position to classify the officers concerned.
  2. Within the next two weeks.

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, &c.

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Will the Minister furnish the Senate with a statement showing the different boards, commissions, tribunals, &c, brought into existence by the Commonwealth Government, and which were in operation during the years 1924-2S, and 1925-26, together with the annual cost of each board,&c.?

Senator PEARCE:

– A statement on the lines indicated willbe prepared and furnished as early as possible.

page 3889

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL

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

page 3889

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th July (vide page 3842) on motion by Senator William Glasgow -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– This measure purports to amend the act which was brought down in 1924, under which the Government transferred to a commission the administration of the Federal Capital Territory. It strikes me forcibly that the Government is almost daily guilty of transferring its responsibility to either a board or a commission. To-day, I sought information relating to the number of boards and commissions that are at present operating. They are numerous. The Minister (Senator Pearce) promised to furnish that information as soon as possible. Prior to the passage of the 1924 act, the whole of the work at Canberra was conducted by the Government through its various departments. The original measure, which gave the commission power to administer the affairs of Canberra, was strenuously opposed by honorable senators on this side of the chamber because, when the bill was before the Senate, we contended then, as we do now, that as all the spade work at Canberra had been done by the Department of Works and Railways, the appointment of a commission was unnecessary. The foundations of the great city had already been well laid. Going back a little further, we find that, in 1912, an administrator was appointed who, subject to the Minister was in charge of the affairs of the Federal Capital. In 1920, an advisory council was appointed to assist, not only the administrator, but also the Minister. In 1924, when the Federal Capital Commission was appointed, the then Minister for Homeand Territories (Senator Pearce), who introduced the bill, said -

The Government feel that the problems which are awaiting solution, and the advent of private enterprise, in the transfer of the seat of government, demand that a change be made in the administration.

That was an admission of the inability of the Government to deal with the problems confronting it. A Federal Capital Commission, consisting of three persons, was, therefore, appointed, and practically the whole of the work of construction and administration in the Federal Capital Territory was placed in its hands. It is regrettable to find that that policy is still being pursued, and that in other directions the Government is delegating its powers to other bodies.

Senator Barnes:

– The Federal Capital Commission can spend even more money than the Government without any inquiry being made.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Undoubtedly it can. Apparently the boards and commissions already appointed are not responsible to any one. Parliament, which votes the money, has the last word, but before Parliament can intervene, the damage done may be irreparable. The objections I am raising to the bill must not be construed to mean that I am hostile to the establishment of a national city, as I believe that, in the near future, Canberra will become a model city, and reflect the true Australian characteristics. Yesterday, the Minister for Home and Territories (Sir William Glasgow) supplied the Senate with certain particulars in regard to the bill, and one would have thought from his speech that it is simply a machinery measure; but having read the Minister’s speech, and examined the bill, I find that it contains a good deal more than he suggested. Clauses 1 to7 inclusive are of little importance, because they simply deal with the designation of the chairman of the commission, who, in future, is to be known as the Chief Commissioner. Clause 8, however, proposes to vest extraordinary powers in the Chief Commissioner. Paragraph 7c of section 14 of the principal act contains these words -

Subject to this act, and to any ordinance . . . the powers of the commission in relation to the Territory shall include the following: -

The construction and maintenance of all works and buildings required for the purpose of the commission.

Sub-section 4 of that section provides -

The provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-21, shall apply in relation to works and buildings proposed to be constructed by the commission in like manner asthey apply in relation to public works proposed tobe constructed by the Commonwealth.

Clause 8 of the bill provides -

Section 14 of the principal act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1) thereof, after paragraph (k), the following paragraph: - (k a) the construction of buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the Territory;

I ask honorable senators to particularly note the word “ residences.” Paragraph k b of the same clause reads -

The disposal uponsuch conditions as the commission determines to lessees of land in the Territory, of residences and other improvements erected or made by the commission on that land.

Paragraphk c reads -

The advancing, upon such conditions as the commission determines, to lessees of land in the Territory, of money for the purpose of building or other developmental work on that land.

Sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of the bill, which is worthy of special attention, reads -

This section shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date of the commencement of the principal act.

Paragraphk a of clause 8 deals specifically with the construction of buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the Territory. Some time ago the Public Works Committee conducted an investigation in connexion with the construction of houses at Canberra, and its report was unfavorable to the Government. I desire to ascertain if under the 1924 act the commission had power to let private contracts for the construction of houses, the total cost of which exceeded £25,000, without reference to the Public Works Committee. If it had not, does the bill give the commission that power !

Clause 8 is the most important provision in the bill. I am of the opinion that it has been inserted for the purpose of validating a certain contract, entered into by the commission, for the construction of 300 cottages, the average cost of which is, I understand, about £2,000, making a total cost of about £600,000. As the result of a protest made in another place, or by the Public Works Committee, the authority of the commission to let that contract without having first referred the matter to the Public Works Committee for inquiry and report, has been referred to the Crown Law authorities!. The Public Works Committee Act provides that before any work estimated to cost over £25,000, is undertaken, the proposal must be referred to the Public Works Committee. Notwithstanding that a small number of cottages may have been built at a time, the contract was really for 300 cottages, costing much more than £25,000. I desire to know from the Minister whether clause S has been inserted to validate the commission’s action in connexion with that contract.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– No.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The commission either had the power to let that contract, or it had not. If it had the power, where is the necessity for clause 8 ? If it did not have the power - and I think that is the position - it was guilty of an illegal act in letting the contract without first having referred the matter to the Public Works Committee. While it is true that the bill does not propose to amend that provision in the principal act which sets out that proposals for works and buildings - and certainly a residence is a building - the cost of which is estimated to exceed £25,000, must be referred to the Public Works Committee before a contract is let, I have no doubt that the reason for this clause is that the Crown Law authorities have discovered that the commission did not have power to let the contract entered into for the construction of 300 cottages. Honorable senators on both sides will agree that, since its inception in 1915, the Public Works Committee has rendered excellent service to the Commonwealth, and has been the means of saving the taxpayers of this country hundreds of thousands of pounds.

As the result of its investigations, it has frequently been able to reduce departmental estimates, and thus to save the country unnecessary expenditure. I desire to know whether, in the event of this bill becoming law, the commission will be empowered to proceed with the construction of buildings without reference to the Public Works Committee?

Senator Pearce:

– This bill will not effect the position one iota. The existing provision, requiring the .Public Works

Committee to investigate all projects estimated to cost £25,000, remains. That question is not affected by this bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Does it effect the contract that has been let?

Senator Pearce:

– It only adds additional provisions to section 14 of the principal act.

Senator NEEDHAM:

-Senator Pearce knows well that there is a doubt regarding the validity of the action of the commission in letting that contract.

Senator Pearce:

– That is a different question, which is not affected by this bill. -

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I think that it is. If it was intended that the principal act should give the commission power to Jet contracts without reference to the Public Works Committee, I consider that it was unwise. Why should not the public servants who have to go to Canberra be safeguarded by the Public Works Committee, in connexion with the houses which they must occupy, and for which they must pay? The seat of government is shortly to be removed to Canberra, and the provision of housing accommodation there is a matter of supreme importance to the public servants who will be transferred. From what I can gather, the houses to which I am referring cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered cheap. The average price, I understand, is about £2,000 for homes similar to those built under the “ Thousand Homes Scheme “ in South Australia, at a cost of £700 or £800 each. I want to stress the point that if the Public Works Committee had had the opportunity to investigate this matter, it is more than likely that the cost of the buildings at Canberra would have been considerably reduced. But the commission, of its own volition, let this contract without inquiry. The people who are to occupy those houses should he given some consideration.

Senator McLachlan:

– They will have to pay for them.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes. Had the Public Works Committee conducted an inquiry into the provision of residences at Canberra, representatives of the officers to be transferred would have been called, and they would have given evidence which would h&ve been of great assistance in arriving at a decision as to the class of houses required. The commission acted in an arbitrary manner, seeking no information along those lines. These houses are being erected, and those who are to occupy them must do so willy-nilly. Those of us who have seen the pamphlet which has been issued by the commission must admit that something is wrong when houses of the types shown cost so much. The houses are not worth the money spent on them, and it will be difficult for those who have to occupy them to meet their cost. Why should the Government regard the commission as more competent to deal with these matters than any Commonwealth Department that is obliged to refer proposed works to the Public Works Committee? Why should it be set on a pedestal in this respect? Where the aggregate cost of any work undertaken by it exceeds £25,000, it should be referred to the Public Works Committee.

Senator McLachlan:

– I suppose that the commission could have let a contract for 100 houses, and not exceeded the £25,000.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes. Therein lies the danger of giving this power to the commission. It could have let contracts for groups of ten or twenty houses, and thus evaded the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act.

Senator McLachlan:

– But in those circumstances the houses would probably have cost more.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes, because mass construction is the cheaper method to adopt. A contractor would rather build a large group of houses to which he could apply mass construction than groups of 10, 20, or 30 houses. It would be cheaper for him to do so. The fact remains that the aggregate cost of the houses contracted to be built for the com mission far exceeds £25,000, and we know that all Commonwealth works which cost more than £25,000 must be referred to the Public Works Committee for investigation and report. I ask honorable senators to consider this matter very carefully before they give a vote. This is by no means a formal bill. Already the powers exercised by the commission are extraordinary, but the bill proposes to enlarge them. To this I cannot agree, because I think the commission already has too. much power, and has used it illegally in the instance I have mentioned. Clause 11 proposes that the commission may make a by-law, and whether the consent of the Governor-General has been obtained or not, it will take effect from the date of notification, or from a later date specified in the by-law itself. It is true that the next sub-clause provides that if the consent of the Governor-General has not been obtained within 60 days, the bylaw shall lapse, but in that 60 days serious things may happen. In the framing of by-laws, I see no reaosn why the Federal Capital Commission should not be tied down like any other department of the Commonwealth. This extraordinary power is not vested in any other commission. The commission can carry on for 60 days under a by-law framed by itself, although the by-law has not been approved by the Governor-General.

Senator Pearce:

– It may relate to the registration of dogs.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The right honorable the Leader of the Senate is treating the matter somewhat facetiously, but he ought to know that this wide power could be exercised in relation to matters much more important than the registration of dogs. We have here another example of hasty legislation. The Senate is supposed to be a house of review, but within the past eighteen months it has not functioned as such. The Deportar tion Bill was gagged, bludgeoned, and guillotined through this chamber, as well as another place, and when it finally reached the serene judicial atmosphere of the High Court, it met afate which is now a matter of history. The Peace Officers Bill and the Crimes Bill were also measures bludgeoned through the Senate. It is time honorable senators weighed well all measures that come before them. Yesterday, when we were discussing a message from the Governor-General relating to certain amendments which had been found necessary in the Customs Tariff Bill, Senator Sir Henry Barwell said that the fault was not so much due to the Government, or its advisers, as it was due to a non-alert Opposition. So far as this and all bills are concerned, the Opposition is very alert. It asks honorable members opposite to assist in reviewing this measure so that it may not run contrary to the Public Works Committee Act, or section 34 of the Seat of Government Administration Act. I have no objection to offer to the concluding portion of the bill, which brings the Federal Capital Commission into line with the Worth Australia Commission by requiring it to ask the Commonwealth Treasurer for any money it needs. When such a request is submitted to the Treasurer, he will, on behalf of the commission, endeavour to borrow the money, or raise it in some other way. The effect of the clause will be to prevent another Australian borrower from going on the money market. A States Loan Council has been formed for the purpose of preventing the States and the Commonwealth from going on the loan market at the one time, and the proposal in the bill is another step towards carrying out that very laudable object. However, for the reasons I have already given, I move -

That all the words after the word “ That “ . be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words, “ tlie Senate is of opinion that before extending the powers of the commission as provided for in clause 8 of the bill, the contracts for 300 houses let by the commission should be investigated by the Public Works Committee.”

Senator Pearce:

– I ask your ruling, Mr. President, whether the amendment is in order, and whether, being moved to the motion for the second reading of the bill, it is relevant to the measure. It states -

The Senate is of opinion that, before extending the powers of the commission as provided for in clause S, the contracts for 300 houses let by the commission should be investigated by the Public Works Committee.

This amendment, I submit, raises the question of administration. It is questionable whether the bill does extend the powers of the commission. It certainly proposes to alter the powers of that body in certain respects, but contains no reference whatever to the contracts referred to by Senator Needham. I direct your attention to standing order 194, which deals with the second-reading stage of a bill, and reads -

Amendments may be moved to such question by leaving out “now” and adding “this day six months,” which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the bill; or by referring the bill to a select committee; or the previous question may be moved.

Standing order 195 states -

No other amendment may be moved to such question except in the form of a resolution strictly relevant to tlie bill.

I submit that the amendment is not relevant, because it is arguable whether the powers of the commission are being extended by this bill. Certainly, the latter portion of the amendment is entirely irrelevant, because the bill contains no reference whatever to contracts let for houses. The principal act provides that works shall be referred to the Public Works Committee. That portion of the act is not being altered in any way by the bill. Since Senator Needham’s amendment raises the question of administration, it should not be moved as an amendment to this bill, but should stand by itself.

Senator Findley:

– Before you .give a ruling, Mr. President, on the point raised by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) I should like to understand the position. Under the Public Works Committee Act the Public Works Committee is given certain powers in respect of all public works costing not less than £25,000. It appears to me that under this bill greater powers are to be given to the Federal Capital Commission, and that, if the bill be passed in its present form, powers which the Public Works Committee at present exercises in respect of works in the Federal Capital Territory will be taken away from that body.

Senator Pearce:

– No. This bill does not touch that power.

Senator Findley:

– In other words, the Federal Capital Commission will be authorized to proceed with works costing over £25,000 without such works being referred to the Public Works Committee.

Senator Pearce:

– This bill does not touch that matter.

Senator Findley:

– Is it correct, as stated by Senator Needham, that contracts totalling over £25,000 have been entered into between the Federal Capital Commission and other parties?

Senator Pearce:

– That action was taken under the principal act, and it is the subject of a reference to the AttorneyGeneral.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– This bill does not extend the powers of the Federal Capital Commission in that regard.

Senator Findley:

– It gives the commission greater powers than it possesses to-day.

Senator Pearce:

– Not in respect to the obligation to refer works to the Public Works Committee.

Senator Findley:

– We ought to have some definite information from the Minister on such an important matter as this. The opinion is generally held by honorable senators, and also by members of another place, that no works exceeding in value £25,000 shall be proceeded with in the Federal Capital Territory unless such works have been referred to the Public Works Committee for inquiry and report.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is the honorable senator speaking to the point of order or delivering a second-reading speech?

Senator Findley:

– I do not know whether Senator Thomas was a candidate for the presidential chair recently. If he were, I could understand why he put that question to me. The point that has been raised ought to be cleared up. We should have a definite statement from the Minister. How long has this matter been under consideration by the Crown Law authorities, and when are we likely to get a decision in respect of it? We should be informed of the decision before the bill is proceeded with.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The bill does not affect that matter at all. That action was taken under the principal act.

Senator Findley:

– It was never anticipated that the Federal Capital Commission would have power to carry out works involving such heavy expenditure without reference to the Public Works Committee. We are now told that the subject is being considered by the legal authorities. Those authorities have not, so far, given a definite opinion upon the matter; yet in- the meantime, although we are in doubt as to the position, we are asked to confer upon the commission enlarged powers. The amendment ought to be accepted by the Government, which should be as anxious as any member of this Senate to have the Federal Capital Territory administered in a business-like way. It would be more satisfactory to the electors, the Parliament, and the commission itself, if the position were exactly defined. We do not know where we shall land ourselves.

Senator Pearce:

– That matter is not touched by the point of order.

Senator Findley:

– The right honorable gentleman raised the point that the amendment was not relevant to the bill. One of the main reasons which was advanced by Senator Needham for delay in this matter was that the commission had entered into a number of contracts which, in his opinion, were not legal. As further works are to be proceeded with, this allimportant matter should be fully and freely discussed. Within a few months, so it is said, there will be a big move to Canberra. It is the duty of honorable senators to ascertain whether the commission is acting within its rights. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has shown that there is a very grave doubt upon that point.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to order! Is the honorable senator in order in discussing the merits or the demerits of a dispute between the commissioners and the Public Works Committee? I submit that that matter has nothing to do with the point of order which I have raised. It can be more properly discussed when the legal opinion of the Attorney-General is before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT (Senator Newlands:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Although Senator Findley is inclined to digress slightly, I am not at present disposed to call him to order; but I ask him to confine his remarks to the point of order that has been raised.

Senator Findley:

– I was endeavouring to show that the amendment which has been moved by Senator Needham is in order, because the Federal Capital Commission has entered upon certain works.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The only way in which the honorable senator can prove that the amendment is in order is to show that it is relevant to the bill.

Senator Findley:

– The provisions are so intermixed that it is hardly possible to dissociate the bill from the principal act.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The reference in the bill to the Public Works Committee is identical with that in tne principal act.

Senator Findley:

– I hope that you, sir, will rule the amendment in order. A great deal of good will result from a full and free discussion.

Senator Needham:

– Before you give your ruling, sir, I urge that the amendment is quite relevant to the subjectmatter of the bill, because, under the provisions of the bill, the powers of the commission are proposed to be extended. I direct attention to section 14 ofthe principal act, which provides that the powersof the commission shall include the following: -

  1. The control and management of Crown lands ;
  2. the levying and collection of rates upon land in the Territory alienated from the Crown, and upon land held under lease from the Crown;
  3. the construction, maintenance, and operation of tramways;
  4. the construction, maintenance, and control of roads, bridges, culverts, levees, sewers, drains, and watercourses;
  5. the provision of gas, electricity, water, and sewerage;
  6. the provision and maintenance of markets, weighbridges, pounds, and abattoirs;
  7. forestry and afforestation, and the pre servation of fauna and flora;
  8. the destruction of vermin and noxious weeds ;
  9. the protection of public health and the maintenance of sanitation.
The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to the honorable senator that the Senate is not dealingwith section 14 of the principal act, but with the amendment he has moved.

SenatorNeedham. - Clause 8 of the bill reads as follows : -

Section 14 of the principal act is amended by inserting in sub-section 1 thereof, after paragraph k, the following paragraphs : -

I contend that I am in order, therefore, in referring to section 14 of the principal act.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is referring to gas and other services.

Senator Needham:

– I was dealing with the powers of the commission. Clause 8 proposes to add to the existing powers the following - (ka) The construction of buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the Territory.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator quote any clause in which reference is made to the Public Works Committee ?

Senator Needham:

– I am trying to show the relevancy of my amendment. As the principal act did not give the commission the “power to construct buildings for use as or in connexionwith residences in the Territory, and as the bill proposes to extend the powers of the commission in that direction, I contend that my amendment is relevant to the subject-matter of the bill.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I could make the honorable senator’s amendment relevant to the bill, but I do not propose to do so. In my opinion, it. is not relevant now.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator has ably filled very high positions in the government of this country, and may doso again, but he is not yet the President of the Senate. It will rest with the President to determine the relevancy or otherwise of my amendment. With all humility and modesty I contend that, as the bill proposes to extend the powers of the commission, my amendment is relevant to it.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order which has been raised by the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Senator Pearce) must be sustained. It is not my function to interpret the relationship between a section of an act and any amendment thereof that may be proposed; that is a duty which properly falls upon the legal authorities. If anything has occurred that has given rise to a difference of opinion between the Federal Capital Commission and the Public Works Committee, which Senator Needham regards as improper, quite another method should be followed for the settlement of the matter than that which he has adopted. I find, on studying the bill fairly closely, that there is not in it any reference to the matter upon which the honorable senator has chiefly based his amendment; nor can I find in it anything affecting the obligation to refer to the Public Works Committee works the cost of which is estimated to exceed £25,000. 1 must, therefore, rule the amendment cut of order.

Senator Needham:

– I move -

That the ruling of the President be disagreed with.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must submit his disagreement in writing, and forthwith.

Senator Needham:

– I do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) has dissented from my ruling on the following grounds: -

I contend that clause 8 of the amending bill aims at inserting in paragraphk, of section 14 of the principal act, the power to deal with buildings for use as or in connexion with residences within the territory which power the principal act does not contain. I hold that the amendment is relevant.

The question of whether that dissent from my ruling shall be determined forthwith or held over until to-morrow rests with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce).

Senator Pearce:

– I shall not move that the matter should be determined forthwith.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question will then stand over until to-morrow. The question now is “ That the bill be now read a second time.”

Senator Findley:

– Do I understand, sir, that you have submitted the motion “ That the bill be now read a second time” although the dissent from your ruling is not to be decided until tomorrow?

The PRESIDENT:

– Standing order 429 provides; -

If any objection is taken to the ruling or decision of the President, such objection must be taken at once, and in writing, and motion made, which, if seconded, should be proposed to the Senate, and the debate thereon forthwith adjourned to the next sitting day, unless the Senate decides on motion, without debate, that the question requires immediate determination.

My action is, therefore, in accordance with the standing orders.

Senator Duncan:

– Do I understand that in the meantime the amendment which you have ruled is relevant may be debated ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) is out of order.

Senator Findley:

– For the moment I cannot understand the position. We are asked to agree to the second reading of a bill upon which an amendment has been moved, which you, sir, have ruled out of order, dissent from which ruling the Leader of the Opposition has moved. The Senate should not be asked to agree to the second reading of the bill until that motion has been disposed of, because the Senate may support the motion which the Leader of the Opposition has submitted. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) should move - “ That the matter requires immediate determination.” It is farcical to continue the second reading debate until a decision has been reached on the ruling of the Chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not in any way responsible for the position which has arisen. For the information of the Senate I quote the following ruling of an ex-President, Senator Sir Albert Gould-

It is for the Senate and not the Chair to decide whether a disputed ruling requires immediate determination. Otherwise the consideration of the point is adjourned automatically by standing order until the next sitting day, and the Speaker must either resume his speech on the main question subject to the observance of the ruling, or forego his right of speech thereon, unless a motion is submitted that the debate on such questions should be adjourned immediately, when he can ask leave to resume his speech after the point of order has been decided.

I therefore rule that the debate may continue.

Senator Pearce:

– Perhaps it will facilitate matters if I submit the customary motion at once. I therefore move -

That the matter be determined forthwith.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question now is, “ That my ruling be disagreed with.”

Senator Payne:

– So far as I can understand the position, the bill provides for an extension of powers of the commission, and for making certain powers retrospective. Under the principal act, certain works have to be submitted to the

Public Works Committee for investigation, and notwithstanding the retrospective provision at the end of clause 8, the position is not affected in the slightest degree. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) fully appreciates the fact that, although clause 8 contains a retrospective provision, it does not prevent the Public Works Committee from conducting investigations.

Senator Pearce:

– The question of whether certain works shall or shall not be referred to the Public Works Committee has been raised by that committee, which has objected to certain works being undertaken by the commission before an investigation has been undertaken by the Public Works Committee. The Government has not taken sides with either the commission or the committee. It has referred the Public Works Committee’s report and the commission’s reply thereto to the Attorney-General’s Department for a legal opinion on the point whether the commission has disregarded the act. As this measure has not any bearing whatever on the position, that phase of the question need not be discussed. It is a question of legal interpretation of the principal act, and when the opinion of the Crown law authorities has been obtained, it will be tabled in the Senate, and the Public Works Committee will be informed of the decision reached. No reference to that matter can support the motion to dissent from the ruling which has been given.

Senator Needham:

– Quite unconsciously the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Pearce) is misleading the Senate as to the purport of the ruling of the Chair. I am not concerned with the question which the Crown Law authorities have been asked to determine, but with the contention of the Minister that my amendment is irrelevant to the subject-matter of the bill. Under this bill the powers of the commission are to be extended, as under clause 8 the commission has power to deal with residences which are not mentioned in the principal act.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is not the real point whether it extends the powers of the commission as against the Public Works Committee? Where does it do that?

Senator Needham:

– I maintain that, under clause 8, the powers of the commis sion are to be extended, inasmuch as paragraphka refers definitely and distinctly to the construction of buildings for use as or in connexion with residences in the Territory. Senator McLachlan must admit that the principal act does not contain the word “ residences.” Section 14 definitely and distinctly sets out the powers of the commission.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator say that sub-section 4 of section 14 does not apply to these new subclauses ?

Senator Needham:

– I am not disputing , that point now, but the Minister’s contention that clause 8 does not extend the powers of the commission. If the Minister will compare section 14 of the principal act with clause 8 of the bill, he will see that the powers of the commission are to be extended. If the commission had power to construct buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the Territory, why have these additional words been inserted in the amending bill? It is obvious that the commission does not at present possess the powers proposed to be conferred upon it. It possesses power to do certain other things, but does not give it the authority proposed to be given under this billFor that reason, I contend that my amendment is relevant. This clause extends the power of the commission to the construction of residences, and, in my opinion, the Public Works Committee should inquire into such proposals involving an expenditure exceeding £25,000.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

. I move -

That all the words after the word “That” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ the bill be read a second time this day six months.”

I am sure that all honorable senators are as anxious as I am that Canberra should be a model city, surpassing any city in the world. Statements have been made that Canberra is an extremely cold place in winter, some even going so far as to say that it is necessary for people living there to be clad in attire similar to that worn by explorers at the poles. Probably such statements emanate only from those whose minds are warped and prejudiced. Again, it is said that Canberra in the summer time is hotter than Hades. That also is probably an exaggeration.I believe that the climate of Canberra is bracing and invigorating. Most of the people who have visited the Federal Capital Territory for the first time have been agreeably surprised to find the climate so congenial. For my part, I am not particularly anxious to go there for the first time. There seems a. disposition on the part of the representatives of some States, particularly New South Wales, to get to Canberra at express speed. I hope that those gentlemen are not like the man who, although always in a hurry, is never on time. Should the bill be passed in its present form, the commission will be clothed with suchpowers that it will be able to administer the Territory in its own way. Only yesterday, as it were, Parliament passed a measure appointing a commission to administer the Federal Capital Territory; now we are told that that legislation is full of defects. That statement will please Senator Barwell, who has expressed the opinion that such defects are inseparable from our method of government. Certainly, defects are inseparable from the present Government. No Government has introduced into this Parliament so much amending legislation as has the present Administration. A board of three was appointed to control the Federal Capital Territory. It is now, apparently, infra dignitatem to refer to that body as a “ board “ ; and, therefore, legislation has been introduced to refer to its members as “ commissioners.” and to the chairman as “chief commissioner.” Moreover, it is thought necessary to extend the powers of the commission to enable it to administer the Territory according to its owndesires. I have no fault to find with the personnel of the commission. I believe that its members possess the qualifications necessary to fit them for their high and important duties. But they are not infallible; I expect that they sometimes make mistakes. Apparently, they have exceeded their duty in calling for tenders for a certain number of dwellings without tho matter having first been fully investigated by the Public Works Committee. Parliament appointed that committee to carry out certain important work, and it has discharged its duties well. From time to time the members of the committee have visited the Federal Capital Territory. Probably no body of men is more familiar with the work that has been done there than are the members of that committee. They are as anxious as the members of the Federal Capital Commission that all work done at Canberra shall be satisfactory, both from the point of view of the taxpayers and of those who will be called upon to reside there permanently. In the interests of the latter it is essential that the fullest inquiry should be made into the class of dwelling to be provided for them. It is all very well for honorable senators who are well circumstanced in life, and are not troubled with financial matters, to treat the cost of houses at Canberra as a matter of little or no concern ; but, to the public servants, many of whom are near the bread line, the cost of the buildings which are being provided for their needs is of considerable importance. The smallest cottage to be provided for their accommodation will cost over £1,000. I understand that the Government intends to take action so that transferred public servants will not have to sacrifice their homes in Melbourne; but, in addition to that, Parliament should see that they get value for their money in the homes which they will occupy in the Federal Capital Territory, and, moreover,’ that those homes will suit their needs. Surely this is a matter which calls for investigation by the Public Works Committee. If, as a result of its inquiries, the committee is of the opinion that something has been done which ought not to have been done, it will draw public attention to the matter in its reports. How many honorable senators knew that the commission was undertaking this big work without the Public Works Committee having been consulted ?

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– If in every case the commission had to wait for investigation by the Public Works Committee, it would be years before the transfer to Canberra could be made.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not think so. Some of the biggest works ever undertaken by the Commonwealth have been undertaken only after inquiry by the Public Works Committee. While work in the Federal Capital Territory has been carried out much more expeditiously during the past year or two than was the case previously, that result is not so much due to the creation of the Federal Capital Commission as to the fact that large sums of money have been granted by Parliament from time to time for works in the Territory. I am sorry that New South Wales representatives have shown such extreme haste to get to Canberra. I do not know what fault they have found with the State which I have the honour to represent in this chamber. They have been well treated in Melbourne.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Look at the weather outside.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Melbourne’s climate is such that people can live in it; its people are kindly disposed; its press has regard to the actions of legislators. My desire is to delay the passage of this bill. By so doing we ought to be able to get the opinion of the Government’s legal advisors regarding the relation of the Public Works Committee to the Federal Capital Commission, and also a better understanding of what the commission proposes to do during the next few months.

Senator McLachlan:

– In what way would delaying this bill affect matters?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It would enable Parliament to know the view of the Crown Law authorities regarding the necessity or otherwise of works proposed by the commission being referred to the Public Works Committee.

Senator McLachlan:

– Apparently there is a difference of opinion between the two bodies; but what has that to do with the passing of this bill?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Until that difference of opinion has been settled, Parliament should not grant additional powers to the commission. If it has exceeded its powers under the existing legislation, it is likely to do worse if granted additional power.

Senator McLachlan:

– This bill will not make the slightest difference to the question of referring the contracts for the building of these houses to the Public Works Committee.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The bill will give the Federal Capital Commission greater powersthan are now given to it by the existing act, under which it has already undertaken certain work, which the Public Works Committee declares should not have been undertaken until it had had an opportunity of investigating it. A delay of six months in the passage of this bill will be in the best interests of the people and of that section of the public service that is very much concerned as to the cost of the houses they will be called upon to occupy at Canberra.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- As a member of the Public Works Committee, I have been at Canberra, and I know something of the conditions there, but I do not see what Senator Findley expects to gain by submitting his amendment. Acting, probably, under legal advice the Federal Capital Commission has taken unto itself certain powers, which others declare go beyond even the power of this Parliament, and the Crown Law Department has been called upon to settle the point. The purpose of the Public Works Committee in calling attention to bhe step taken by the Federal Capital Commission was to have the matter cleared up, and not to interfere with the work of the commission. As things are now, the chairman of that commission is the commission itself. In letting contracts in his own name he is exercising a power that Parliament itself cannot exercise, because Parliament has already decided that no money shall be spent on a work costing more than £25,000, until it is first inquired into by the Public Works Committee. I may say in passing that many thousands of pounds have been saved by the committee. It has justeffected a saving of between £20,000 and £30,000 on the projected first permanent administrative building at Canberra. No tone knows what that building would have cost if the matter had been left to the decision of the Federal Capital Commission. The Public Works Committee bases its reports on expert evidence gathered from all quarters ; whereas the Chairman of the Federal Capital Commission acts on his own initiative. It is time Parliament looked into the question of the high cost of building in the Federal Capital Territory. Every time it has visited Canberra, the Public Works Committee has drawn attention to this. The trouble is that in order to get an adequate return in the way of interest and sinking fund on the money which has been more or less squandered in the Territory, the commission must charge a heavy rental to those public servants who are compelled to live there. The houses themselves are all right, and there is nothing particularly wrong with the workmanship in them, although they are very plain and ordinary looking, but in the matter of cost they do not compare with similar houses now being built in Adelaide.

Senator Duncan:

– There is a great deal of difference between labour costs in Adelaide and Canberra.

Senator REID:

– For the money spent on them there are no better houses in Australia than those now being built in Adelaide at a cost of £700 each. Why should the cost of building be so much higher at Canberra? Why is it that in Adelaide for £700 one can get a much better class of house than one which costs £1400 at Canberra ? There ought to be some check on costs in the Territory. Commonwealth public servants having no choice in the matter must go there to live, and they must become discontented if they are called upon to pay double the rents they are now paying. Parliament must inevitably increase their salaries. With their present salaries they will not be in a position to pay the rents demanded by the Federal Capital Commission for houses much inferior to those they are now occupying in Melbourne.

Senator Duncan:

– Even members of Parliament will not be able to afford to buy houses at Canberra.

Senator REID:

– I am speaking, not of members of Parliament, who will he there a few days and nights, but of the public servants who must spend the whole of their time there. I disagree with the scheme proposed by the commission to be applied to those officers who are obliged to rent houses. The brick turned out at Canberra brickworks can hold its own with any other brick in Australia. It will probably stand’ the weather for 100 or 200 years, and at the end of that time I have no doubt it will be as good as it is to-day. In these circumstances, making allowance for the wear and tear on the Canberra houses, I think the commission could extend the terms of repayment to a much longer period, and thus considerably reduce the weekly rental charge.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Newlands:

– In discussing the details of the houses at Canberra, I think the honorable senator is going beyond the scope of the bill.

Senator REID:

– I do not think I am.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that the honorable senator is doing so, and what I think must go in this chamber.

Senator REID:

– That may be; but I think I can show that I am not going beyond the scope of the bill. The measure proposes to give the chairman greater powers, and authorizes the commission to spend public money and flout the wishes of this Parliament that finds the money.- As a representative of the taxpayers, I think I am entitled to show how costs can be reduced, and how the people who have to pay the rents at Canberra, including members of Parliament, can be treated in a much better way.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be in order if he can show me how that is dealt with by the bill.

Senator REID:

– Clause 8 provides for the construction of buildings for use of residents in the Territory.

Senator Needham:

– That is a power which is not in the principal act.

Senator REID:

– No; it is additional power given by this bill. Therefore, I think I am keeping within the scope of the bill when I am dealing with the commission’s proposals for the construction of buildings for the use of residents in the Territory. My chief purpose is to try to avoid trouble. Outside Melbourne very few members of Parliament are influenced by the votes of Commonwealth public servants but many members will object strongly to the expense they will be likely to meet when they get to Canberra. For instance, it costs a member of Parliament 25s. a day to stay at one of the hostels. If the charge for accommodation at these hostels is to be such that the lower-paid officers of the Public Service cannot pay it, the annual loss on running them will be considerable.

Senator Thompson:

– That is a good reason for increased remuneration.

Senator REID:

– Yes; members of Parliament will ask for £1,500 a year. From my knowledge of the houses at Canberra as compared with the type of house the public servants will be obliged to leave in Melbourne, I can say that they will not be fairly treated. I would make the period of repayment three times longer that is proposed by the commission. The houses are government property, and the money will be coming in all the time. In my opinion Canberra will pay for every shilling spent on it. It is unfair to average the price of land on the sales of leases at public auction. It may suit some business people to pay large sums for particular business sites, and it may suit some private persons to pay large sums for specially attractive building sites; but the prices thus paid should not be the guide to the prices charged to the public servants for the sites of the houses they will occupy, particularly when the period of repayment is so short. That period should at least be doubled, and the rents should be half what they are at the present time. We should not require the public debt to be extinguished by means of sinking fund payments until the 100 years have elapsed. Therefore, I say that the matter should be reconsidered. It will have to be done; otherwise with the high cost of building and living, there will be great trouble at Canberra because of a discontented Public Service.

Senator Duncan:

– It is a poor advertisement for government enterprise if the houses cannot be built cheaper than the cost mentioned by the honorable senator.

Senator REID:

– I am not speaking* about government enterprise ; I am merely pointing out what will face the public servants, as well as members of Parliament, at Canberra. I do not know why building should be so costly there. Of course, there has been a good deal of the go-slow business among the workmen, but I have no desire to bring in a controversial subject like, that at the present time, except to say that like a boomerang it will hit back at the very people who went slow on the job. There has been too much casualness about the expenditure at Canberra. I have protested against it, because I always knew that it would ultimately injure our public officers.

Senator McLachlan:

– A government brewery might pay at Canberra.

Senator REID:

– The commission is positive that hostels will never pay without licences. As a prohibitionist and strict teetotaller I have nothing to lose whether Canberra is wet or dry, but those who are not teetotallers will find conditions there a little hard. If the hostels are not permitted to sell liquors Parliament will have to make good their losses. The whole question will have to be reconsidered. If the Public Works Committee had been instructed to inquire into and report upon the erection of dwelling houses in Canberra, it could have made a comparison of prices for houses built under the different housing schemes in the various States, and made a recommendation to Parliament concerning costs at Canberra. Unfortunately, houses being built there are costing practically twice as much as similar houses in South Australia, and very much more than homes in Victoria.

Senator McLachlan:

– The system of mass production obtains in Adelaide.

Senator REID:

– I am aware of that, and my point is that there should be mass production in Canberra. Two years ago the Public Works Committee impressed on the commission . the advisability of investigating the system adopted in Adelaide.

Senator Duncan:

– Contracts for 500 cottages have been let in Canberra . That, surely, is mass production.

Senator REID:

– Yos; but the commission contends that the contract for each house stands by itself, and that, therefore, it was not necessary to refer the contracts to the Public Works Committee. This point, I understand, has been referred to the Crown Law authorities.

Senator McLachlan:

– Are the cottages at Canberra being erected under the group system ?

Senator REID:

– Considerable numbers are being built in the same locality. They are being erected in all suburban areas. I have no objection to offer to- the work being done by the commission, but I think that there should be some check upon its expenditure. I am afraid that Senator Findley^ motion will not help us very much, because, unfortunately, tho damage has been done.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:
Minister for Home and Territories · Queensland1 · NAT

[4.54].- The point raised by Senator Needham, with regard to construction work at Canberra, really does not arise under the. bill. The Federal Capital Commission -let certain contractu under the principal act, which has been in operation since the beginning of last year. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), on a point of order, showed clearly that this bill does not in any way interfere with the authority of the Public Works Committee ‘to inquire into public works proposals in the Federal Capital

Territory. The question whether there has been an evasion of the Public Works Committee Act by the commission, in letting the contracts referred to, is at present before the Crown Law authorities. As honorable senators are aware, a. considerable number of houses are in course of erection at Canberra.Undoubtedly, it is more econocical to build them under the group system than to let a large number of small contracts, each of which is under £25,000. I understand that the commission took the view that, as the contracts were let at so much for each house, it was not necessary to have that work referred to the Public Works Committee. Notwithstanding that, the total of the contracts aggregated a large sum of money.

Senator Needham:

– It was one way to evade the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The commission was not particularly anxious to do that. Its sole purpose was to expedite the building of houses at Canberra to enable Parliament to function there next year. . When an opinion has been given by the Crown law authorities as to the legality of the action by the commission, the Public Works Committee and the commission itself will be advised.

Senator Thompson:

– It is to be hoped that the work will be proceeded with in the meantime.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– A number of small contracts are going on. It must be obvious that, if the commission could let contracts for a large number of houses on the group system, the price should be lower. Senator Reid particularly stressed the high building costs at Canberra, and mentioned a number of other difficulties. I can assure the Senate that if public servants and other people who intend to live there will build their own houses and take the responsibility off the shoulders of the commission, that Body will be very pleased.

Senator Duncan:

– That is not a fair thing to ask.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Perhaps it is not, but I can assure the Senate that the commission is doing its best.

Senator Duncan:

– The commission is buildingunder mass production methods and is charging enormous prices for the houses. Thatis the trouble.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The commission did all that was possible to ensure that prices should be reasonable. It called for tenders for these contracts throughout Australia. Canberra is a considerable distance from the coast, so the cost of all raw material there is greaterthan in our capital cities, in addition to which workmen have to be engaged and taken to Canberra.

Senator Reid:

– That is altogether wrong. If there is work at Canberra the men ought to go to the job.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The honorable senator must realize, surely, that, as Parliament will be sitting there next year, it is important that all the work should be expedited. If there was any slowing down, members generally would be very much concerned. The commission is endeavouring to expedite the work so that Parliament may meet there next year.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator Reid says that houses in. Canberra cost twice as much as better houses in Adelaide. That is a serious allegation.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.I am notina position to say if Senator Reid’s statement is in accordance with fact.

Senator Reid:

– It is quite correct.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– In any case, this Bill does not raise that issue.

Amendment negatived.

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

AYES: 18

NOES: 4

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Powers of the commission).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The committee should reject this clause. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) has admitted that the Attorney-General is at present considering the question whether the commission acted rightly in letting a contract for the construction of 300 residences. The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Glasgow) confirmed that statement by saying that there is still a doubt as to the legality of that action of the commission. He quite candidly admitted that he was not au fait with the position, and pointed out that, although the contract had been let, the houses were being built a few at a time. It is a fact that a contract was let for the construction of 300 houses, at an average cost of £2,000 each. That cannot be disputed by the Government, and it has not been disputed by any honorable senator who has addressed himself to the measure. It has been confirmed by Senator Reid, who is a member of the Public Works Committee. Yet it is proposed to vest in the commission the power to construct buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the Territory. The vital provision, however, is that which is contained in sub-clause 2, to which I direct special attention. It provides -

This section shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date of the commencement of the principal act.

If the Attorney-General has not decided the legality or otherwise of the action of the commission before this bill becomes an act that provision will validate the contract. If it will not, why has it been inserted ? Ineffect it says that the powers which are now about to be conferred upon the commission are to be regarded as having been conferred by the act of 1924. The question as to whether the commission has already acted rightly or wrongly will go by the board, because a higher authority than the AttorneyGeneral will have decided that since the passing of the principal act the commission had the power to construct those 300 residences without reference to the Public Works Committee.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is not correct; sub-section 4 of section 14 will still stand.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Even if subsection 4 is left intact, will Senator McLachlan contend that sub-clause 2 of clause 8 will not validate that contract ?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– It will be a validation of the construction of the houses that have already been built, but it will not affect the obligation to refer to the Public Works Committee works that are estimated to cost £25,000 or more.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I want to be extremely careful in this matter. Let me refer honorable senators to section 14 of the principal act, which enumerates the powers of the commission just as explicitly as the Constitution enumerates the powers of this Parliament. The clause proposes to add to those powers. It would be all right if it stopped there; but it also provides that the section shall be deemed to have commenced from the date of commencement of the principal act.

Senator McLachlan:

– If the honorable senator is contending that the clause proposes to increase the powers of the commission, he is quite right ; but I point out to him that that increased power will still be subject to the provisions of subsection 4 of section 14of the principal act.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do nob think so.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Yes, it will.

Senator Pearce:

– The memorandum supplied for the information of honorable senators will show the way in which the act will read if it is amended by this bill. The honorable senator will also see that sub-section 4 of section 14 will govern the new as well as the old sub-sections.

Senator Kingsmill:

– The commission will be able to side-step sub-section 4 ; it will not rely upon this legislation to enable it to exclude the Public Works Committee.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I should admit the contention of the Minister if there were no dispute regarding the validity of the commission’s act in letting the contract I have referred to. I do not want the clause to pass before I am sure that we are not validating an act of the commission, the legality of which is in doubt. I cannot think otherwise than that, if the clause is passed, the determination of. the AttorneyGeneral will have no weight. Speaking on the motion for the second reading of thebill, I said that it did not propose to amend sub-section 4 of section ‘14, which gives the Public Works Committee the power to investigate works the cost of which is estimated to exceed £25,000; but I still contend that that provision has been evaded by the commission.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator’s contentions are, firstly, that the commission had not the power to have residences constructed; and, secondly, that it has violated the provisions of subsection 4 of section 14 of the principal act.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I say that the aggregate cost exceeds the amount of any work that can be undertaken by the commission without reference to the Public Works Committee. I do not go so far as to say that the commission has violated that provision. My argument is that it has evaded it, in having called tenders for the construction of 300 houses, the aggregate cost of which is to be £600,000; that - as the Minister stated a moment ago - by having them built in twos, threes, fours, fives, or even tens, it has kept itself within the law.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– I did hot say it had done that, but that it might have done it.

Senator Reid:

– That is the interpretation of the chairman of the commission of the obligation that is imposed upon him by the act.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no desire to misrepresent the Minister. That is the way in which the houses are being constructed, and it is an evasion by the commission of the provisions of the act. If we pass this clause it will have the power to continue acting in that way.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– No.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It will be able to call tenders, and have the houses built in such a way that the cost will be kept below £25,000.

Senator Pearce:

– The clause will not affect that matter one iota.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The right honorable gentleman has not, so far, convinced me that I am wrong in that assertion. A member of the Public Works Committee (Senator Reid), who has taken part in this inquiry, has confirmed my statement that the chairman of the commission has interpreted his obligation in that way. A very important principle is at stake, and I ask honorable senators to weigh the matter very carefully before they pass the clause in its present form.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Apparently some misunderstanding has arisen because the Government proposes to give to the commission certain powers that were not conferred upon it by the principal act. One additional power will be that of the construction of buildings for use as or in connexion with residences in the Territory. If the commission has proceeded to erect premises of that character, possibly it has acted irregularly and even illegally. But I understood Senator Needham to argue that the action of the commission in entering into a contract for the construction- of such buildings was a violation of sub-section 4 of section 14 of the principal act. All I can say is that the provisions of sub-section 4 have so far governed the position under the principal act, and that they will continue to govern it when that act is amended in the direction of granting to the commission the additional powers thab the bill proposes to confer upon it. Senator Needham’s contention may be based on the former, but if he considers the provision violates sub-section 4, what he proposes will not have the desired effect. That portion of the bill is to give retrospective power to the commission as from the date when the original measure was passed. We are not interfering with tho limitations provided by sub-section 4. If the Attorney-General’s Department advises that the commission has acted contrary to the provisions of the act, the matter will have to be dealt with by the Government or Parliament. We have to give the com mission the power to construct residences, but subject to the Public Works Committee Act.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– The point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) is clear enough. I differ, however, from him in his contention that the commission has acted in excess of its powers in constructing the class of buildings which this amending bill seeks to empower the commission to construct. If honorable senators will refer to the memorandum, which is clear, they will see that, under paragraph h of subclause 1, the commission has power to construct and maintain all works and buildings required for the purpose of the commission. It is now proposed to enable the commission under paragraphka to construct buildings for use as or in connexion with residences in the Territory.

Senator Needham:

– That is an added power.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Yes ; and one which the commission will not possess until this measure becomes law. The commission has constructed, and has let contracts, for the construction of buildings, the wisdom of which is very questionable.

Senator Thompson:

– Are they not for the purposes of the commission?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Certainly not.

Senator Elliott:

– That is covered by paragraph j of section 14.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– That paragraph reads - “ Subject to the approval of the Minister, the construction of all works and buildings requiredlby the Commonwealth in the Territory.” … I venture to assert that residences are not required by the Commonwealth, but by private persons in the Territory. It is straining paragraph j almost to breaking point to apply it to the construction of residences.

Senator Pearce:

– As the powers contained in the principal act are not sufficiently wide, we have brought forward an amending provision.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Possibly so; and because I do not think it is in the best interests of Canberra, or of the public that the construction of residences by the commission should continue, I am rather inclined to oppose the paragraph which it is proposed to add.

Senator Pearce:

– The commission is also inviting private persons to build houses.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Judging by the buildings already erected at Canberra, I think the commission is inclined to be somewhat autocratic. Its officers have ideas concerning appearance and comfort which do not in any way coincide with those of the general public. Furthermore, the prices of the residences constructed by the commission are extortionate, and apparently” the commission does not consider it possible to make any reduction. The cost of construction in Canberra is, I believe, at least 33 per cent/higher than in any other part of the Commonwealth. I do not know why it should be. As excellent bricks and tiles are produced in the Federal Capital Territory, it should not be necessary to ask such exorbitant prices. If the construction of residences was left to private contractors, the buildings would be more pleasing - we could not get anything more unpleasing than at present - the benefits of competition would be apparent. I understand there is some desire for uniformity; but in the construction of houses at Canberra, uniformity has been carried to such an extreme that it has resulted in monotony. The whitewashing of the beautiful bricks of which the houses are constructed, is nothing short of barbarous. Before a prospective resident can build in the Federal Capital Territory, plans of the proposed structure have to be passed by the commission. I made some inquiries in this connexion, and asked what I had to do if I desired to build a home. I was informed that I had to submit a plan, and if it were acceptable to the commission it would be passed. I then asked who was to decide whether the plan was or was not a good one, and I was told that that was a responsibility of the commission. .Why should the commission arrogate to itself that right?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– There must be some supervision.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I admit that; but if what we see at Canberra is the result of supervision, all I can say is that the supervision is very faulty.

Senator Pearce:

– A person cannot construct a house in any large municipality without first having his plans approved.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I am well aware of that; but there seems to be a tendency on the part of the commission to confine construction to houses which are inartistic and altogether unpleasing to the eye. I have carefully examined nearly all of the 25 plans submitted which are regarded by ‘the commission as eminently suitable; but I did not find one which embodied my architectural idea of comfort in a home.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator mention one case where a private person has been prevented from building because the plan submitted was not in accord with the commission’s ideas?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I do not know of any. I am giving only my own impressions. The action of the commission in my own case leads me to believe that its attitude will act as a deterrent. I can quite understand one being discouraged by the type of building being erected, and also by the excessive cost of construction, which, so far as I can gather, no effort has been made to reduce. A building said to be worth £2,000 at Canberra would be valued at about only £1,200 in another part of the Commonwealth. The position is absurd, and unless something is done to reduce the cost, I doubt very much whether the public will incur the risk of building at Canberra in the way we should like them to, in order to make it a great city and the glory of the Commonwealth. I have serious doubts whether the granting of additional powers to the commission to erect all residences will have the effect we desire.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– It does not mean all residences.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Perhaps not. The members of the commission have quite enough to do to look after the various buildings to be erected for Commonwealth use without undertaking the construction of residences which are generally admitted to be of most inferior type. If the commission leaves the construction of residences to others without interference, which is altogether unnecessary, and allows prospective residents to build to designs meeting what one might call a catholic taste, it will be performing its duties satisfactorily, and saving itself and the public a great deal of perplexity and trouble. I do not propose to submit an amendment, but I have serious doubts concerning the wisdom or practicability of the amendments proposed by this clause.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- A gooddeal could be said in support of the points raised by Senator Kings mill. Senator Pearce interjected that the designs of all residences constructed in large municipalities have to be approved by the local authorities. That is true, but it seems that the Federal Capital Commission is altogether too autocratic. There is no appeal from its decisions. Almost every week the courts are dealing with cases in which municipal bodies have attempted to prevent the erection of certain types of buildings, and, in some cases, the by-laws under which action has been taken have been declared ultra vires. The construction of houses for public servants is, I think, covered by paragraph j of section 14 of the principal act. The houses at Canberra are being constructed on leasehold land, and the whole property will ultimately revert to the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Some are being erected on the hire purchase system.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– That does not affect the point at issue. The freehold of the land cannot be acquired and the longestlease on which it can be secured is 99years. If the houses were being constructed on freehold land outside the Federal Capital Territory, special legislation might be needed ; but when built for public servants, on land which will ultimately revert to the Commonwealth, the position is covered by paragraph j. Apparently it is intended that the commission shall construct houses for whoevermay require them, and, therefore, an extension of power is necessary.

Senator McLachlan:

– If the commission has let certain contracts, its action must be validated by legislation.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– If these houses could be easily disposed of to public servants, probably there would be no difficulty. From what I have heard only five of the 37 designs submitted by the commission are considered to be in any way suitable, and, doubtless, it desires to unload those of an unpopular design on the outside public. From that view-point, it may be necessary to grant the commission more extensive powers even in connexion with the houses already erected.

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

– I gave a good deal of attention to this measure and was largely responsible for its introduction. If honorable senators realize the true position they would know that some most unreasonable remarks have been made here to-day. When it was decided that the seat of government should be removed by a certain definite date, the Government set to work to provide accommodation for those who would be transferred. I can imagine how those honorable senators who now are belabouring the Government for having decided to erect houses, would have criticized it if no houses were provided. They would have talked of the injustice of transferring public servants from Melbourne without first having made provision for their accommodation at Canberra. To expect 2,000 or 3,000 people to remove to Canberra and to provide themselves with homes, would be ridiculous. They would not be able to do so. Did honorable senators expect that when it was announced that Parliament would assemble in Canberra on the 9 th May next, private enterprise would have rushed to Canberra to build houses for public servants and others? Would honorable senators themselves have acted in that way, and left their money lying idle? The Government had to take time by the forelock. On behalf of the Government and the commission, let me say now . that . if private contractors will go to Canberra to build houses, they will be welcomed. Both the Government and the commission have been inviting, almost begging, private builders to build residences in the Federal Capital Territory. My colleague, the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Glasgow) will, later, lay on the table the arrangements which the Government is making to encourage public servants to build their own houses at Canberra, to their own design, and by their own contractors. The more they do that, the better the Government and the commission will be pleased.

Senator Kingsmill:

– And the better for Canberra.

Senator PEARCE:

– If honorable senators think, as some appear to think, that the commission is desirous of having a monopoly of the building of houses at Canberra, they are entirely mistaken. The commission will welcome private enterprise, and will encourage public servants to build houses to their own plans, and, if necessary, to do their own financ ing. The more that is done, the more will the commission be relieved of responsibility in the matter. But the Government and the commission cannot leave this business to chance. Were they to do so, there would be hopeless confusion when the transfer takes place next year. The commission has issued to public servants a booklet containing 25 different house designs, and they are asked to say whether they consider any of those designs are suitable, and, if so, whether they desire the commission to build houses for them. The price of each type of house is given in the booklet. No public servant is compelled to accept a house of the type being erected by the commission. He can say that he does not want a house built to any of the designs submitted, but prefers to submit his own plans. So long as the plans he submits comply with certain regulations, similar to those which are prescribed by every municipality, no objection will be raised. Why should not the commission have the right to exercise some control over the class of building to be erected in the Federal Capital Territory?

Senator Kingsmill:

– No one said that it should not have that right.

Senator PEARCE:

– In this case the commission takes the place of a municipality. It has powers similar to those possessed by every municipality. We do not desire that there shall be any “ jerrybuilt “ houses in the Federal Capital.

Senator Kingsmill:

– Certainly not.

Senator PEARCE:

– Nor do we want any slum dwellings there. If Canberra is to be a model city, there must be regulations governing the erection of buildings.

Senator Kingsmill:

– The aesthetic effect of the buildings should be taken into account.

Senator PEARCE:

– I ask the honorable senator to mention one instance in which a design submitted has been rejected.

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– How many submissions have there been?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not know; but there have been a good number. Several speculative builders are already operating in the Federal Capital territory, and not one of the plans submitted by them has been rejected.

Senator Kingsmill:

– How many of the houses built by them have been sold?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not know. Any builder or architect who desires to set up in business in Canberra will be welcomed by the commission, and every public servant who wants to build a house to his own design will receive every encouragement. The commission is not grasping for more powers. It does not want to build more houses. But, both the commission and the Government are concerned with the necessity for providing houses for officers when they are transferred. The original act did not give the commission power to erect residences for private individuals - and the public servant must be regarded as a private individual. It was thought necessary to extend the powers of the commission to enable it to erect buildings for public servants; not all buildings, as mentioned by Senator Kingsmill. The word “ all “ is not in the bill.

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I do not remember using the word “ all.” I did not mean to use it.

Senator PEARCE:

– Paragraph k.a. reads : “ The construction of buildings for use as, or in connexion with, residences in the territory.”

Senator Kingsmill:

– I was alluding to the construction of works and buildings required for the purposes of the commission.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable Senator said that the commission had power to erect all buildings. It has no exclusive power in that connexion. I have had many consultations with the chairman of the commission, Mr. Butters, and I know that the commission is prepared to encourage public servants to build their own houses according to their own designs, and, if necessary, to do their own financing. The Government has made certain arrangements for financial assistance for public servants desiring to build their own homes. Is that wrong? Private institutions may- or may not help. We want to be sure that money will be available, if necessary, and we have taken action accordingly. All that we have done is to ensure that when the removal takes place, there will be some guarantee that houses will be available. That is the Government’s only object. The commission does not want to have a house-building monopoly, or in any way to limit the architectural designs of houses, provided that they conform to the ordinary building regulations necessary to prevent slum buildings and “ jerrybuilt “ houses.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

. -The Federal Capital Commission has not only a big task before it, but also a thankless one. I am satisfied that its members are actuated by the best motives, and that they desire to make suitable provision for those who before long will be permanent residents of the Federal Capital. But the fact remains that the commission has contravened certain provisions of the principal act, notwithstanding that the Minister said that it had not.

Senator Pearce:

– The Minister did not say that. He said that the matter had been referred to the Government’s legal advisers for their opinion. He himself expressed no opinion.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The point should be cleared up. Notwithstanding the provisions of the principal act, or the additional powers to be conferred on the commission by this legislation, the commission could, if it so desired, contravene both.

Senator Pearce:

– We do not know that.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In Victoria there is a Railway Standing Committee whose duty it is to report on all proposals for the construction of new railways and tramways the estimated cost of which exceeds £20,000. Although the committee may recommend the construction of a line, Parliament has the right to decide whether it shall, or shall not, be constructed. Some years ago a Victorian Minister, who was as familiar with the provisions of that act as was any member of Parliament, wanted a tramway constructed between St. Kilda and Brighton. To have taken the tramway into Brighton would have exceeded £20,000, and therefore the line was terminated a short distance from Brighton. The Minister knew that it was only a matter of time when the people would urge that the line should be completed. At a subsequent date it was completed into Brighton. If the complete work had been contemplated in the first instance, the Railway Standing Committee would have been called upon to investigate and report on the proposal. The Federal Public Works Committee is authorized to inquire into all constructional proposals the estimated cost of which exceeds £25,000; but it would be an easy matter for the Federal Capital. Commission to carry out an extensive programme, providing for the construction of 200 or 300 houses at a cost far exceeding £25,000, without the matter being first referred to the Public Works Committee. It could decide to undertake the work in sections while calling for tenders for the whole programme; or it could make six separate contracts.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The Federal Capital Commission has not done that. It has let one contract covering the whole programme.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The point for us to decide is whether we approve of the commission’s action. If it is to be authorized to act in that way, there will be no necessity for the Public Works Committee to inquire into any constructional programme in connexion with the Federal Capital Territory.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The same argument applies to any public Works Committee.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Generally, the provisions of the act are observed.

Senator McLachlan:

– What is the position if the law is violated? That is our present concern.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We do not anticipate that it will be violated. I expect that the commission is having these houses built because expedition is the order of the day, and delay would be occasioned by reference to the Public Works Committee.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is the only reason.

Senator FINDLEY:

– But I hope that it will not be taken later on as a reason for proceeding with all public works at Canberra without reference to the Public Works Committee. I see now why it has been found necessary to validate what has been done in the past. Although, like other honorable senators I was at first surprised when I heard this matter mentioned, I am satisfied with the statement of the Minister that the commission is doing this work because it is necessary to push on at express speed in view of the fact that the date for the assembling of the Federal Parliament at Canberra is fixed for the 9th May next. Possibly if the commission had not moved as speedily as it has it would have been subjected to strong and serious criticism.I have no fault to find with this commission. I believe it is well fitted to do the work allotted to it, that it is actuated by the best of motives, that it will carry on its business in a business-like way, and that it is fully alive to its responsibilities. It is only men who are fully alive to their responsibilities who could undertake the thankless job entrusted to the Federal Capital Commission of building up a city which will be a model for the rest of the world. When I hear honorable senators complain that plans and specifications have to be submitted to the commission I wonder what would happen if that were not the case. Every one familiar with municipal building regulations throughout Australia knows that no building can be erected unless the plans and specifications have received the approval of a municipal authority, and that not even the slightest addition can be made to an existing building without the further appeal of the municipal authority. As this work has been done, and cannot be undone, and as the Minister has assured us that it was extremely necessary, it should be proceeded with as speedily as possible, I am quite content to withdraw my objection to the clause, but, of course, if a division is called for I shall have to vote with my party.

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Australia [5.56]. - My objection to the clause has not been diminished by the reference of Senator Elliott to the practice of municipalities in regard to plans and specifications. 1 think that plans and specifications of buildings at Canberra should be submitted to the commission, because that body should have no less power in that respect than is possessed by any roads board in Australia. But what I am concerned about is whether, by giving these additional powers to the commission, we shall be validating a contract already entered into by the commission.

Senator McLachlan:

– We shall not validate it from the point of view which the honorable senator has in mind.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator with all his legal knowledge has not relieved my mind on that point. I am not anxious to have the Commonwealth buildings in the Federal Capital erected by private enterprise, and it is well known that the Labour party is always in favour of departmental construction. It was amusing to hear Senator Pearce declare that the Government and the commission would welcome any member of the

Public Service who is prepared to build his own home at Canberra and relieve the commission and the Government of the task of building for him. We know perfectly well that very few public servants could undertake that responsibility. I have with me a pamphlet issued by the commission for the information of the Public Service, and giving particulars of the types of houses available. The costs set out verify what has been said by Senator Reid and others, and how an officer drawing a low salary can pay. for one of them I do not know. The prices of these cottages complete range from £2,250 to £2,310, and they may be paid for in 20 or 25 years. It will be a heavy burden on our officials to make the necessary weekly payments.. One wonders why the houses are costing so much. There is first-class clay at Canberra which makes the very best brick in Australia.

Senator Elliott:

– The men at Canberra work 44 hours a week.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I believe that the workmen in Adelaide work 44 hours a week, and in Adelaide a better cottage can be built at half the cost of a Canberra cottage. As Senator Thompson has said Canberra is a long way from the coast, but the three principal items in the building of a house are close at hand, namely, clay for making bricks and tiles; vast stacks of seasoned timber and a spot saw-mill. In these circumstances one wonders why these exorbitant prices are charged. I refer Senator Glasgow again to paragraph k of sub-section 1 of section 14 of the principal act which gives the commission power to construct and maintain all works and buildings required for the purpose of the commission. Are the residences referred to in the proposed new paragraph ka required for the purpose of the commission?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The residences referred to will not be required for the purposes of the commission.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Then the proposed new paragraph is an extension of the power given by the principal act.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– That is so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The further we proceed the more I realize the danger of passing the clause, because if Parliament puts its imprimatur on this clause, no matter what the Attorney-General says about the action of the commission in let ting contracts for the building of these cottages without reference to the Public Works Committee, its action in this respect will be validated.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– When the Public Works Committee was considering proposals for the building of hostels for public servants at Canberra it recommended that the commission should build cottages.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That may be so, but I am concerned about the retrospective nature of this provision which gives this additional power to the commission as from the beginning of the principal act. If that retrospective provision were not in the clause I should not have occupied so much of the time of the committee. It is this provision which, in my opinion, will validate the action of the commission in letting the contracts for the 300 cottages. However, I realize that it is useless to discuss the matter further. I trust that the committee will delete the clause.

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

AYES: 18

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Transfer to and vesting in commission of land) -

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I direct the attention of the committee to proposed new sub-section 5, which provides that the commission shall have full powers of managing, leasing, and otherwise dealing with any land vested in it.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– That provision was in sub-section 4 of section 15. It is a re-enactment, with a slight alteration in drafting.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Borrowing of moneys)

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Are we to understand that the purpose of the proposed new subsection is to bring the Federal Capital Commission into line with the Northern Territory Commission in regard to borrowing money?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– It provides that the commission shall borrow money through the Treasurer, instead of going on to the market itself.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Does the Minister mean that the Treasurer will borrow money for the commission?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 3911

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, and Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Fund, for the year ending 30th June, 1927.

The Budget 1926-27- Papers presented by the Honorable Earle Page, M.P., on the occasion of opening the Budget of 1926-27.

Transfer of Officers to Canberra - Proposal by the Commonwealth to acquire the Melbourne homes of certain officers about to be transferred.

page 3911

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Assent reported.

page 3911

BUDGET PAPERS, 1926-27

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.15]. - I lay upon the table of the Senate, by command, Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure and Estimates of. Expenditure for Additions, New Works, and Buildings, &c, for the year ending the 30th June, 1927, and the Budget 1926-27 Papers, presented by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) on the occasion of opening the budget of 1926- 27. I move -

That the papers be printed.

As honorable senators are aware, this course is adopted to give them the earliest opportunity to consider the financial statement of the Treasurer, because usually theAppropriation Bill is presented too late to allow of a general discussion. The placing of this motion on the notice-paper gives them that opportunity. Honorable senators will agree that, in presenting the statement to-day, the Government has established another record. This is the earliest date in the financial year on which the financial statement has ever been presented to the Federal Parliament. It will be of great value to honorable senators in discussing the important legislation to be brought forward, and will enable the commercial and industrialcommunity to make, in good time, any arrangements so far as they are affected by the proposals. To do this it has not been possible to give all the detailed information usually presented with the budget, but this will be given as early as possible. The information now in the hands of senators, however, is sufficient for budget purposes. The transactions are shown upon the clear plan adopted last year of dividing the accounts into parts, sothat the cost of government proper, the position of our business undertakings, and the cost of the Territories, may be readily ascertainable. In addition, an elaboration of this division has now been made in connexion with our financial transactions with the States, which are set out in Part IV. of the Estimates.

Turning to the accounts of 1925-26, it will be observed that the estimates of expenditure were exceeded by £1,174,254. The increase was due chiefly to the following : -

The interest and sinking fund estimates were exceeded because provision was made on the assumption that only a halfyear’s interest would be required in connexion with the conversion of the £67,000,000 loan in December last. A conversion loan, however, was floated with the right of subscribers of new money to receive interest from the date of their subscriptions.

The invalid and old-age pensions increase was due to the earlier operation, from September, of the additional payment of 2s. 6d. per week, instead of from January, the date on which the estimate was based.

The bounties increase was due largely to the increased export of Australian wines, which, owing to this bounty, are competing abroad most successfully with the European wines. The expenditure in excess of the estimate on account of this item was £172,109.

Iron and steel products bounty accounted also for an excess of £31,005, and the balance of the net increase in bounties and other special appropriations is. made up. of sundry other increases and decreases.

In the ordinary votes of departments, £38,183 of the increase is for minting silver coin to replace British coin withdrawn from circulation. The actual receipts due to the profit on this replacement were £207,036 in excess of the estimates.

The estimate provision for science and industry investigations was exceeded by £25,466. This represents the amount that was anticipated, when the budget was framed, would be paid from the trust account.

On the revenue side the chief increases on the estimate were : -

The large increase in Customs and excise was due to the contemplated reduction in duties not becoming operative last year. Reductions in duties do not operate until the amended tariff is passed by Parliament. The increase in direct taxation is due almost wholly to income tax, the normal growth of taxable incomes (6 per cent.) being much exceeded, and the position in regard to arrears being improved.

As regards Part II. of the Estimates, business undertakings do not -show any considerable variation from the estimate.

Under Part III., Territories of the Commonwealth, the expenditure was £46,537 less than the estimate. This was due to the amount provided for the transfer of staffs and office equipment to the Federal Capital, £50,000, not being required during the year. The surplus at the close df the year was £286,944, which it is proposed to set aside as follows: -

In addition to this surplus, however, the following amounts not provided for in the budget of 1925-26> were paid to trust fund in anticipation of a surplus in the accounts of the year : -

Coming to the programme for 1926- 27, it will be seen that provision has been made for a readjustment of the finances between the Commonwealth and the States. More particular reference to these proposals will be made later. Under the loan expenditure, which last year was £7,682,089, it will be seen that nearly half (£5,000,000) of the total provision for 1926-27, £10,560,499, is set down for the Postmaster-General’s Department, for land and buildings, and extension of telegraph and telephone services. Commonwealth railways absorb £1,474,500, and the Grafton-South Brisbane railway, £1,000,000. The expenditure on war and repatriation services, mainly War Service Homes, is estimated at £938,202.

Other estimated loan expenditure for 1926-27 is as follows:-

In addition to the total loan provision mentioned, provision is also made for £3,400,000 inrespect of loans to States for immigration. This sum is intended to meet the expenditure under the terms of the agreement, which has been made with all States except New South Wales. The total contemplated expenditure is £34,000,000. The scheme provides for the absorption of 450,000 migrants in ten years.

There is also provision for £2,000,000 for loans for theFederal Capital Commission, which is proceeding as rapidly as possible to complete the necessary buildings for the opening of Parliament at Canberra in May, 1927.

Coming to the ordinary recurring expenditure out of revenue for 1926-27, it will be seen that the total provision under this part of the Estimates is £49,287,443, being a reduction of £3,096,804 on the expenditure for 1925-26.

The largest items in the decreases, amounting to £4,432,467, are £2,500,000 on account of naval construction and £1,000,000 on account of special payments for debt redemption. From the total decreases, however, it is necessary to deduct increases amounting to £1,335,663, the largest item in which is invalid and old-age pensions, £747,618, on account of the2s. 6d. per week increase, which did not operate for the whole of 1925-26.

The strictest supervision is being maintained over expenditure, and the Government is pursuing policies such as the amalgamation of Commonwealth and State Income Tax Departments, to reduce duplications, and permit of further savings.

As regards the estimated revenue for 1926-27, the receipts, apart from the special taxes that are to be raised for payment to the States, are estimated at £51,382,000, a decrease of £7,614,261 on the receipts for 1925-26. The chief items of decrease are: -

Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– In view of the new proposals regarding the Commonwealth’s financial relations with the States, Part IV. of the Estimates, page 374, is of considerable importance, and to this I should like to make reference. Under this part of the Estimates provision is made for a more satisfactory adjustment of the financial relationships between the Commonwealth and States, based on the true Federal principle that the States should, so far as is possible, be financially independent of the Commonwealth. The Government’s programme in this connexion is the withdrawal of the present capitation payments and the discontinuance of the imposition of certain Commonwealth taxes. The State Governments will thus be enabled to recoup themselves for the loss of the capitation payments by raising equivalent funds by their own taxation methods in the surrendered fields. The Commonwealth, in this respect; is proceeding on the principle that the authority which expends money shall have responsibility for raising it. Under the new scheme, duplication of existing taxation collection agencies will be avoided, with a saving of approximately £100,000 to the taxpayers of Australia. The Government has given careful attention to the objections made by the State Governments to the Commonwealth proposals, but it is firmly convinced that the proposals are sound in principle and should be translated into statute form. To meet objections by the States that the States have not sufficient time to put the required machinery into motion for 1926-27, the Government has decided to ask Parliament to pass such legislation as will enable the Commonwealth to operate the scheme during the first year, instead of leaving the arrangements to the State Governments. This will give to the State authorities an additional period of twelve months in which to formulate their plans for raising the necessary revenue.

Senator Elliott:

– Will there be any saving during that period ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot say that there will be, because the two taxing authorities will be operating. In the States Grants Bill a clause will be inserted to enable the Commonwealth to pay over to the State Governments land tax, entertainments tax, and estate duty, for 1926-27 - collected at the rates which existed in 1925-26 - and also 40 per cent. of the income tax at last year’s Federal rates.

Senator Needham:

– In the meantime will the per capita payments remain intact ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No. This will take the place of the per capita payments. Bills will be submitted to Parliament for the repeal, as from the end of the year 1926-27, of the Land Tax Act, the En tertainments Tax Act and the Estate Duty Act. For the year 1927-28. the Commonwealth will abandon 40 per cent.. of its income tax. The special payments to Tasmania and Western Australia, amounting to £828,000, to meet special conditions existing in those States, show the unsuitability of the payments on a capitation basis.

The next item, Main Roads Construction £2,000,000, is the Commonwealth’s contribution under a scheme arrived at with the States for an expenditure of £35,000,000 covering a period of ten years. Motor transport has so much entered into the commercial and social life of Australia that roads of a standard suitable for motor traffic are now an absolute necessity. It is considered that the users of these roads should share tha cost in proportion to their use of the roads, and the most effective method of obtaining this is through the Customs. The Commonwealth’s contribution will be distributed amongst the States on a basis of area and population - three-fifths according to population, and two-fifths on area. The roads included in the scheme with the States are -

  1. Main roads which open up and develop new country.
  2. Trunk roads between main towns.
  3. Arterial roadsto carry concentrated traffic from the developed main trunk and other roads.
Senator Elliott:

– Will not that be perpetuating the system of one authority collecting the revenue and another authority spending it?

Senator PEARCE:

– To some extent, it will.

I wish now to refer to the national debt. The gross debt at the 30th June, 1926, was £458,443,637. Deducting loans to the States and other sums repayable to the Treasury, the net debt amounts to £338,841,476. The war debt is £28,500,000 less than four years ago. New borrowing is, of course, increasing the amount of gross debt; but, since the war, this borrowing has practically been limited to developmental and reproductive works which provide revenue-producing assets to offset the new debt created. The national debt sinking fund, established less than three years ago, has resulted in the satisfactory figure of £20,067,046 being applied to the redemption of debt.

The steps taken to reduce the national debt have enhanced our credit, and will result in future loans being floated at a lower rate than otherwise would be the case.

I have now outlined the principal features of the financial’ statements, and the manner in which they are set out will enable honorable senators readily to obtain any other information desired. For the benefit of those honorable senators who are unacquainted with the procedure in this chamber, I again direct their attention to the fact that, if they desire to debate the general principles underlying the budget, they should do so when the motion for the printing of the budget papers is before the chamber, as that is the only effective opportunity provided. The Appropriation Bill comes before this chamber rather late in the session, when there is usually only sufficient time to discuss the items in the Estimates. This procedure was adopted early in the history of Federation to give the Senate an opportunity to fully discuss the general principles of the budget.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

page 3915

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This, one of the most important bills that Parliament has been asked to consider since it assembled, is designed to enable us to deal with two great fundamental problems calling for solution, namely, migration and settlement upon practical and scientific lines. Let me refer to some of the reasons that have rendered its introduction imperative. Australia is the greatest undeveloped country in the world, and the eyes of the people of all nations are upon us to see what we intend to do with it. I direct honorable senators’ attention to a discussion which occurred at the recent international conference of Labour organizations, at which two Labour representatives from Australia were present, and which was not in any way associated with the League of Nations. I am not exaggerating the position when I say that the deliberations of that gathering came as a rude shock to many enthusiastic labourites in Australia. There had been a tendency on their part to think that the rest of the world calmly acquiesced in the attitude of some Labour leaders in this country on the question of immigration; but they learned for the first time that their comrades of the same political thought in other countries do not lookupon this question from the’ same viewpoint as they do. Other nations, whose populations are increasing beyond the ability of their economic resources to maintain them, are looking for outlets for their surplus peoples. During the last twenty years we have increased our population by some 2,000,000, but the rate of increase should be greater. Taking the percentage increase in population, we, of course, compare very well with other nations; but our population twenty years ago, for instance, was only 4,000,000 as against America’s population of between 80,000,000 and 90,000,000. Universal peace is not yet secured, and to he forewarned is to be forearmed. Our very national existence is at stake. Australia is part of the British Empire ; our people are proud of our British origin and connexion, and know that our future safety depends upon the British Empire maintaining its position in the world. A factor that will ensure this is the better distribution of the white population of the Empire, and Australia, with its great spaces, offers the opportunity to a greater degree than any other land can offer. The better distribution of the white population of the Empire will benefit us more than any other part of the world, and it will also tend to solve the great economic problems with which Great Britain is faced, namely, the maintenance of her commercial, industrial, and financial position. In adding to our population and developing an ever-expanding production, we must have markets, and Great Britain will be our best market in the future, as she has been in the past.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– We shall have to take something in return from Great Britain.

Senator PEARCE:

– I know the honorable senator wishes to draw me into a discussion of fiscal questions; but he will have an opportunity of ventilating his views on that interesting subject on some other occasion. Australia’s problem of development can best be solved by the migration to Australia of persons of our own race. Every Australian welcomes a member of the British race, and if we keep Australia a British community, we shall keep it free from the racial problems which have afflicted many nations. Therefore, the fundamental fact that we have to recognize is that the interests of Australia can best be served by promoting a flow of migrants from Great Britain. For many years Australians have spoken of the necessity of migration, provided that the migrants were of our own kin.

The only way to solve the migration problem, it is admitted, is by progressively linking up the development of this country with the absorption of migrants. That was the basis of the scheme arranged between the British and Commonwealth Governments, and it has now been accepted by all the States except New South Wales. The scheme recognizes that, while we can absorb only a limited number of migrants, we can increase that number by carrying out useful and wise developmental works. In this measure we have the first well-considered scheme for tackling these two problems through, the one agency. The commission to be appointed under the bill is not merely to assist migration, but also to encourage developmental projects, whether conducted by governments or by private enterprise, to establish new industries, and to increase -the productivity of those already established, as well as to increase the facilities for developing our potentialities of industry generally.

Senator Kingsmill:

– There is a wider field in the latter.

Senator PEARCE:

– It is easier to bring migrants to Australia than to provide suitable employment for them when they arrive. It is generally agreed that there is hardly a limit to the number of migrants we can absorb if we create new industries and add to our national wealth, but we must find more population and develop the country concurrently. In carrying out such a scheme, we must make sure that we do nothing to lower the standards we have created for ourselves. We must increase our efficiency, bring science to our aid, and do many other things with a view to increasing our power to absorb migrants. Parliament has approved of the proposals of the Government for bringing science to its aid in the development of this country. I venture to say that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is now at work, will prove a very useful factor in the development of Australia.

A word may be said here regarding the agreement which now exists between the British and Commonwealth Governments. That scheme was not, as some would have the people think, merely the creation of the British Government. It was drawn up by representatives of the British and Commonwealth Governments, and submitted to the various State Governments for their criticism. Some of their suggestions were adopted. In its final form it has again been submitted to the States for their consideration and acceptance. Most of them, I am glad to say, have adopted it. The migration agreement provides that if the whole of the loan moneys to be made available under that agreement are taken up by the Governments of the States, 450,000 migrants will be absorbed within the ten-year period over which the agreement operates. It is realized that to increase the existing numbers to 45,000 per annum immediately might cause some congestion, and it has, therefore, been suggested that the increase should be gradual, the total for the first year advancing to 31,500, and the annual increase thereafter to be 3,000. The agreement, which involves the expenditure of £34,000,000 of public money, will require ability, knowledge, and. experience to secure its efficient, and faithful execution. This will be entrusted, subject to ministerial and parliamentary control, to a board of commissioners, to which I shall refer’ later. The necessity for’ a closer concentration on the question of migration to Australia is obvious when the conditions and results of to-day are compared with the conditions which obtained and the results secured during the period immediately prior to the war. During the three years ending the 31st December, 1913, 124,000 assisted migrants were introduced into the Commonwealth. The annual average for the three years was over 41,000, the record year being 1912, when 46,712 migrants were introduced and satisfactorily settled. Since the Commonwealth assumed control, in 1921, of all oversea activities in relation to migration, the average annual number of migrants introduced has been approximately 25,000, while it is anticipated that during this year the figure will be slightly in excess of that average. Since the firstmentioned period, Australia has expended huge sums of money in creating additional facilities in the way of transport, water conservation, and other works, which to-day provide conditions which should enable this country to absorb a larger number than when such extended facilities did not exist. The opportunities for development are greater than those that existed immediately prior to the war. The latent wealth of this country must be exploited. The continued development of the resources of the Commonwealth will, it is believed, enable us to demand from the Mother Country a flow of migrants at least equal to the flow during the years immediately prior to the war, and the increased production and the increased wealth thereby secured will encourage us to increase that number to the total aimed at under the terms of the migration agreement.

Senator McLachlan:

– That agreement is somewhat involved as to our financial obligations.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think so, but I shall refer to that later. When the United States of America was the same age as Australia is to-day, its population was about 4,500,000 compared with our 6,000,000. It is realized that that country developed very rapidly as a result of more or less indiscriminate immigration, to which her industrial progress was partially due. It is not suggested that the resultant problem in the United States of America to-day should be repeated in Australia; we have a policy which precludes that possibility. Protest has been frequent to the effect that, in an alleged endeavour to relieve conditions in the United. Kingdom brought about by trade depression and unemployment, Australia, by her migration policy, is merely transferring the trouble and difficulties of one part ‘ of the Empire to another, and that unemployed persons are being selected and brought to Australia to swell the ranks of the unemployed in the cities of the Commonwealth. The facts are that of the assisted migrants who arrived in the Commonwealth from the 1st January to the 15th May of this year, only 15 per cent. were unemployed at the time of selection and approval, and that the arrivals during that period were possessed of a declared capital of £162,640, which was transferred to the Commonwealth through the official banking institutions. The experience of migration experts is that the “ declared “ capital of migrants does not represent the actual cash at their disposal. Again, fears have been expressed that migrants are being brought to swell the ranks of the unemployed, and that the result will be to reduce the standard of living and the social conditions generally. That is not possible under our policy and our political safeguards. As many loose statements have been made about the number of unemployed in Australia, and the percentage of unemployed, I asked my officers during the day to obtain from the Commonwealth Statistician (Mr. Wickens) some figures bearing on that point. The figures supplied by him show clearly that many of the statements which have been made are the wildest of wild guesses. They show also that it is very difficult to estimate accurately the number of unemployed, for the reason that while trade unions are expected to submit returns showing the number of their members who are unemployed, the returns which they make are of. a very meagre character, and, in most cases, do not disclose any information at all in that regard. Mr. Wickens states that any figures available through him represent the proportion of unemployment in unions which have reasonable facilities for furnishing information. These represent from 50 to 60 per cent. of the total workers in Australia who are members of unions, but. do not include workers engaged in official activities, or outsiders who d.o not belong to any unions. The figures employed by the Government Statistician are merely to suggest the trend of unemployment, and cannot be accepted as indicating the actual position. While the figures for the four quarters of 1925 showed an average of 8.9, the figures for the March quarter of 1926 were 8.2, as compared with 9.3 for the same quarter of 1925.

The methods of selection and the medical examination imposed, have attracted the attention of critics, and attention has been directed to the odd cases where unsuitable migrants have slipped through thetightly drawn system in operation in the United Kingdom. Everywhere, except in Australia, the complaint is that our methods are too stringent; that we are seeking only the best, and that we should be satisfied with an average standard. We want the best we can get. The efficacy of the system in force is perhaps best indicated by the fact that less than 2 per 1,000 are repatriated at Commonwealth expense as unsuitable, and, in the majority of cases, their disabilities were such as to preclude any possibility of detection at the time of approval. From time to time, there has been some criticism regarding the alleged influx of foreigners; it is felt that our responsibility is first towards those of our own people who are seeking an outlet in a country which has the capacity to absorb them. To those who have referred to the arrival of foreigners, I would say that, assuming that the arrival of Britishers in Australia during the next ten years was limited to 20,000 per year, and that the present annual flow of foreigners was doubled each year for that period; and further, assuming that the natural annual increase in Australia was limited to the present number over that period, the proportion of Britishers in Australia at the end of the ten years would still be 96 per cent. The- figures employed, so far as the British migrant is concerned, are very low, and those for the non-British exceptionally high ; but in spite of this the result would be as already stated. There is a feeling in the minds of many persons in Australia that if more migrants are brought here the quantity of work available will be lessened. That is not so, if we, at the same time, extend our productivity, and move forward by creating new industries, and opening up new country. Every man placed in useful employment requires the services of others to supply his wants. Let me mention my own experience in this connexion. As a young man, I went to Western Australia in 1892, before gold was discovered at Coolgardie. I went there just after Western Australia had obtained responsible government, when Mr., afterwards Lord, Forrest was Premier. He introduced a comprehensive public works policy. It is a mistake to think that the influx of population from the eastern States commenced only with the discovery of gold at Kalgoorlie. That influx began about 1891, the people being attracted to Western Australia by the public works policy of that State. I was at that time working for my living as a wage earner. After gold was discovered at Kalgoorlie, there was a great rush of population from the eastern States, as well as from other countries ; but never in the history of that State was work so plentiful, prosperity more general, and unemployment so inconsiderable as at that time, when Western Australia’s small population of 40,000 persons was added to almost daily by thousands. The experience of Western Australia at that time is sufficient to show that an influx of population does not create unemployment.

The United States of America, which is smaller than Australia, contains more than 110,000,000 people; but the cry in America is not that they have too many people, for whom they cannot find work, but that they have not enough people to handle the great industries they have created, and to develop their vast natural resources. The regulated immigration in the United States is directed towards getting the right class of people.

Now, as to the main objects of the bill itself. The Government proposes to create a commission of four members, whose task will be to deal with the problems of development and migration. Those two problems are linked together and are inseparable. We cannot develop unless we have more population, and we cannot absorb more migrants unless we develop. The powers and functions of the commission include : “ The consideration of matters in relation to the development of the resources of the Commonwealth, whether by co-operation between the Commonwealth and the several States, or otherwise.” The commission will consider all schemes submitted by the State Governments, or that come before it from other sources. Generally, it will advise the Government in relation to all questions of developmental policy, in order to ensure the best utilization of our resources, and the most- effective and rapid method of dealing with them. It will also consider Australia’s requirements. Those requirements have never yet been analysed. We have not yet determined to what extent we are able to produce many of the things which we’ now import. Another function of the commission will be to examine Australia’s labour needs. Hitherto, no steps have been taken in that direction. There is nothing to guide us as to the labour requirements of our various industries, or the extent to which we are endeavouring to supply them. That position should be cleared up. Save for that floating proportion which cannot be absorbed under any system, namely, the “ unemployable,” the genera] policy of development provided for by the bill will ensure that Ave shall have no unemployed. The commission will also be required to keep in touch with those who are controlling industries in Great Britain and other countries, with a view to discussing with them the possibility of the establishment of branches of their business in Australia. In this regard the commission should be able to give valuable information and advice based on a first-hand knowledge of the local conditions and requirements. During the last visit of the Prime Minister to Great Britain, a considerable portion of his time, and that of those who accompanied him, was taken up in answering inquiries by British manufacturers and others who contemplated establishing branches of their businesses in Australia. As a result of the negotiations which took place on that occasion, some important British firms have since established industries in Australia. The various schemes which may be suggested under the migration agreement with the British Government will be submitted to the commission. Honorable senators are aware, for instance, of the experience of Australia in connexion with the doradilla grape. To prevent a repetition of su’ch happenings, the commission will necessarily have to keep closely in touch with the Minister for Markets and Migration, and advise him as to the possibility of obtaining a market for the things which it is contemplated shall be produced in Australia for export. Many of the problems which during the past few years this Parliament has been asked to solve have arisen bv reason of the introduction of schemes to extend our production before proper steps were taken to ensure a market for that increased production. The task of investigating all undertakings or schemes proposed by the States under the main migration agreement, and the supplementary agreements entered into between the States and the Commonwealth, will rest with the commission. Under those agreements, it is contemplated that the States will submit to the Commonwealth schemes for the development of Australia. Those schemes are subject to approval by both the British and the Commonwealth Governments. As the British Government has its representative in Australia, no delay will be occasioned through the schemes having to be referred to Britain for consideration. Already a number of schemes have been submitted by Western Australia, South Australia, and Victoria. The British Government looks to us for a lead regarding the desirability or otherwise of such schemes, and an exhaustive examination of each scheme is necessary before a conclusion as to its practicability, or the justification for its being approved by the Federal Government can be arrived at. That work in its initial stage is not work for the Cabinet ; and it is proposed to entrust it to the commission, which will submit reports to the Government. The final decision rests with the Government, but the Government will not approve of any scheme concerning which the commission has reported adversely. While the Government can reject a scheme approved by the commission, it cannot go on with any State scheme which the commission has rejected unless each House of Parliament gives its approval by resolution.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– Has Mr. Bankes Amery full power to approve on behalf of the British Government?

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot say that he has, but no doubt he will advise the British Government from time to time, and if they express their disapproval of any scheme they will refer the matter to the Commonwealth Government. All the work in connexion with the schemes will be undertaken by the. individual States. Under the migration agreement it is contemplated that schemes shall be initiated by the States; but that, with regard to developmental questions generally, the commission shall advise the Commonwealth Government. It is desirable that the commission should have the power of initiation, because one of the handicaps from which we are at present suffering is the lack of personal touch so far as the Commonwealth and State Governments are concerned. It is also proposed that the commission shall take control of the migration office, and handle the whole question of migration on behalf of the

Commonwealth Government. The Government desires to make the commission representative of the whole of the people of Australia, so that they may have the utmost confidence in it, but its principal task will be to show the people that the problem of migration is wrapped up in and part of the problem of development. The commission will not have control of any land. The Commonwealth itself controls only the lands of the Northern and Federal Capital Territories. It will be quite open to the commission to initiate and submit to the Commonwealth Government a scheme relating to land settlement in the Northern Territory; but the States must initiate schemes for the settlement of people within their own borders. The clause in the old agreements made between the Commonwealth and Imperial Governments, which required the settlement of only British migrants with the money advanced by the Imperial Government has been withdrawn, and it is now competent for us to provide for the settlement of Australianborn so long as 50 per cent, of the farms created are given to British migrants who arrive within a specified period. As to the money mad? available to the States for settlement purposes, the rate of interest payable by the States is 1 per cent, for five years, and one-third of the effective interest rate for a second period of five years. The British Government has agreed to pay half the interest charges for the first five years; and one-third of the interest charges for the second five years. In addition, it will bear one-third of the cost of the farm training depots established in pursuance of the old land settlement agreements, and of similar institutions established during the currency of the new agreement. The Commonwealth Government accepts a similar responsibility in relation to training depots. For the first five years it meets the interest charges, representing the difference between half the interest and the 1 per cent, payable by the States. In the second five years it pays one-third of the interest. The agreement requires that for every £75 of loan money issued to the State Government one assisted migrant shall sail direct from the United Kingdom, and that in every 10,000 assisted migrants there shall be a number of migrant families, without capital, aggregating 3,750 persons. The commission will also deal with’ such important matters as the passage money agreement between the British and Commonwealth Governments, and will advise the Commonwealth as to the desirability, or otherwise, of amend- ing that agreement with a view to providing further financial assistance to migrants towards the cost of their passages to this country. There must be the closest linking up of the activities of the States, the Commonwealth, and the commission in connexion with migration. Under this bill the question of the submission of estimates does not arise, for the reason that the commission will have no funds other than those Parliament makes available. The proposed expenditure of the commission will be placed upon the Estimates under a developmental and migration commission vote. The details of this bill can be fully discussed in committee. I have only attempted to give a general outline of the proposals and of the reasons for introducing the measure. We have to face the problem of’ migration and development, and, difficult as its solution may be, I invite honorable senators to join in an earnest attempt to arrive at that solution by passing the bill now submitted.

Senator Sampson:

– What is the estimated cost of training these British immigrants to follow farming pursuits ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall endeavour to obtain the information for the honorable senator when I am replying. There are no doubt many points that honorable senators may think I should have dealt with, but there is ample time for this discussion of this important bill, and if there is “any matter upon which an honorable senator requires further particulars, I ask him to mention it, and I shall get the information for him and give it in the course of my reply.

This is one of the most important bills we have had before us and I am sure honorable senators will regard it as such. We have one of the richest countries in the world. We have one asset in respect of which Australia stands out above any other country and that is its climate. We abuse our climate frequently, but one has only to sample the climates of other countries to realize what a valuable asset it is to us. We hear a Jot about the tremendous wheat areas of the middle- west of the United . States of

America, the tremendous prairies, ti Canada, and the enormous water resources of either country, which enable farming to be carried on cheaply. I have had an opportunity of visiting those wheatgrowing areas, but unlike ours which are comparatively near the sea coast and close to the point of shipment to overseas markets they are situated in the centre of the continent. Wheat has to be conveyed to the port of shipment over 1,000 and in some cases nearly 2,000 miles of land haulage, the most costly of all methods of hauling. Australians have a tendency to exaggerate their droughts and dry seasons. When I was in Canada a gentleman asked me some questions about Australia. I was praising our country to him and he remarked, “ You suffer a great deal from drought in Australia.” I replied, “ We do have a drought occasionally in Australia, but you have the equivalent of a drought in Canada every year.” He looked at me in astonishment and asked what I meant. I told him that a drought as we understood it in Australia meant an absence of feed and sometimes a scarcity of water for stock, and that I had just passed through the prairies of Canada and seen large farms, but not a single head of stock in any of the paddocks. As a matter of fact the fields were covered with snow. That snow was frozen, and when’ I asked where the stock were I was shown huge barns, and told that the stock was housed in those barns for the winter. I learned that for periods of from three to five months every year the stock in Canada must be artificially fed, and that there was no water for the stock unless it made available by artificial means. That is to say it was all frozen and so far as the stock was concerned it might have been one of our droughts and the water holes might as well have been dried up. I learned that the barns themselves had to be artificially heated, not only to make water available for the stock, but also to keep them alive. Owing to the absence of timber in some cases coal had to be carried hundreds of miles to the farms, where it is used throughout the winter to artificially heat the barns and melt the ice to enable the animals to get a drink. Thus Canada gets every year what we get in our occasional times of drought, so that when we deplore the fact that occasionally in some parts of

Australia we get a drought we ought also to remember that we do not get these conditions as frequently as they do in Canada. But the difference between Australians and Canadians lies in the fact that the latter do not make it known to the world that these conditions exist ; they do not boast about them as we seem to do, about our droughts. They keep a stiff upper lip and talk of Canada as God’s own country. When an Australian travels through other countries and sees the conditions under which their people carry on production he must realize what a glorious climate Australia possesses. Over the greater part of this continent for the whole of the year, stock can be turned out in the open and men can work out in the fields without danger to their health, or any discomfort. Australia has many things to be thankful for. But comparing our Country with other lands, no one can travel anywhere in the Commonwealth, even in the oldest and most settled parts, without seeing what an infinite capacity for development there is beyond that which has already been reached. In the north of. Italy for instance, in country no better than most of our coastal areas things are done which would be thought impossible in Australia. There one finds vines trellised on poles with fruit-trees growing below and vegetables beneath the fruit trees, practically three crops on one area of ground. The utmost use is made of the land available. In Australia we would not think of mixing vegetables with fruit trees, nor of planting an orchard in a vineyard. We have only touched the fringe of the irrigration possibilities of our country. I remember a statement made some years ago by Mr. Elwood Mead, one of the world’s greatest authorities on irrigation, who was brought from America to inaugurate an irrigation scheme for the State of Victoria. He said that if the capacity of the Murray Valley and the valleys of the tributaries of the Murray River were made full use of that country would support a population of 10,000,000 people. One who has seen what is done by means of irrigration in California must realize that that is not an overdrawn statement. There are infinite possibilities of irrigation in every State of the Commonwealth. Is it too much to say that, in the circumstances, we should obtain the very best men available for the solution of these problems? Parliament is too busy with legislation, and Ministers are too busy with details of administration, to give that attention to detail which is so essential to secure success. The urgent need is for the employment of capable men to survey the whole field in a scientific way and propound schemes for the solution of these problems, so that we may utilizethe resources of Australia to the best advantage. This bill is brought forward with that object in view. I submit it to the Senate in the hope that it will commend itself to honorable senators, and Iinvite suggestions for its improvement. The Government does not take up a dogmatic attitude in regardto its provisions. We believe that the bill contains the germ of success, and in that spirit I submit it to the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Austra- lia [8.47]. - With the Minister, I agree that migration and the development of Australia are subjects of paramount importance; but I should have thought that this Government, which claims to be a business government, would be able to grapple with this all-important’ business without adding another commission to the numerous bodies which it has already created. I approach the consideration of this measure with a full sense of my responsibilities and of the importance of the subject. This aspect was stressed by the right honorable the Leader of the Senate. No one will deny the importance to Australia of the successful development of migration schemes, so that we may make the best use of our great natural resources. Last year the Government signed an agreement with the Government of Great Britain with regard to migration. I have yet to learn that Parliament has ratified that document. Unless Iam mistaken, it has not been submitted to members of either House, although it is the basis of the measure which we are now discussing.. This is a remarkable state of affairs. Recently the Government created a new portfolio, and appointed a Minister for Markets and Migration; yet Parliament is now asked to assent to the appointment of another expensive commission togive effect to the triangular agreement between the British Government, the Commonwealth Government, and the Governments of the several States. It would have been better if Parliament had had an opportunity to discussthat agreement before this bill was introduced. The Government, in becoming a signatory to it, without the authority of 1 arliament, adopted an improper procedure. Under this measure the Ministry seeks to increase the population of Australia by migration, and, by the adoption of certain schemes to develop our resources, and to increase production in both our primary and secondary industries. Migration and unemployment are so closely allied that it is impossible to discuss migration schemes without considering also their effect upon unemployment, which is oneof the most serious problems that confronts every country. For some considerable time a royal commission, appointed bv this Government, has been taking voluminous evidence with the object of making a recommendation for the solution of this problem in Australia. I agree with the Minister that the difficulties created by our unemployables are scarcely possible of solution, but it should not be beyond the realm of practical politics to do away with unemployment. This is one of the gravest questions that has ever presented itself to the British Government. In the Mother Country millions of pounds have been handed out in the form of doles to millions of unemployed. Naturally, Britain is anxious to improve the position of her people, just as every wise parent desires to make the position of his children secure. In this matter Britain is looking to Australia, and this bill presents an opportunity to relieve Britain of a certain proportion of her army of unemployed.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Does the honorable senatorsay that Britain has no right to look to Australia?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not questioning Britain’s right, but I question the method which has been adopted to relieve her of some portion of her army of unemployed people. It is natural, of course, that Britain should desire to keep her people within her vast Empire.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– It is a question of the better distribution of population.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Let us analyse the position. The agreement certainly is advantageous to Great Britain, because it enables her to transplant some portion of her population to one of the dominions of the Empire. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) told us that when he was in England in 1923 there were then about 1,500,000 unemployed in the Mother Country and that, as the position was very acute, pressure was brought to bear upon him to place the order for two Australian cruisers with British shipbuilders. That this view is. correct, is borne out by statements made during the debate that the letting of the contract to British shipbuilders was, in some respects, a patriotic move to help Britain in regard to her unemployment problem. I mention these facts to show that whilst Great Britain has everything to gain by inducing her people to migrate to Australia, the British Government is very parsimonious with regard to the assistance to be given to the migrants. That Government has taken very good care to safeguard itself at every turn. Perhaps it would be as well if, at this stage, I restated the migration policy of the Labour party. It has been alleged on several occasions that Labour is antagonistic to immigration. That statement is not correct. Labour is not opposed to the principle of migration. With honorable senators supporting’ the Government, we realize the urgent need for the development of our great resources. We recognize also that the Commonwealth is capable of supporting many millions of people more than are here now, but we say that employment should first be found for our own people. If this condition is complied with, we shall have no objection to millions of Britishers coming to Australia if work can be found for them also. There is nothing to be gained . by bringing people to Australia unless we can find remunerative employment for them either on the land or in our secondary industries. An examination of our position will disclose that we are not able to fulfil those conditions.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– If we are going to wait until there is no unemployment in Australia we shall wait forever.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator will learn before I resume my seat that I do not take that extreme view. Apparently the policy of this Government is to introduce migrants, whether or not work is available for them.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is not the policy of the bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– But the Government is fathering the bill just as it fathered the agreement to which I have referred without reference to this Parliament. Under the agreement it appears that work is to be made available for migrants in preference to Australians. The Government is determined to increase population at any cost. On this point let me interpolate that the best way to increase population is to encourage the natural-born way, by inaugurating a scheme for child endowment. Let me remind honorable senators of a significant statement made by Mr. Hughes when he was Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour party. On one memorable occasion the right honorable gentleman said -

Nothing oan be more inconsistent with the advocacy of migration than to neglect to utilize the whole of the available labour in the community.

That is the policy of the Labour party to-day. We contend that the whole of the available labour in Australia is not being utilized. Mr. Hughes went on to say-

To cry out for more men and decline to employ those already here is folly, or worse.

I believe that he is of the same opinion to-day. By this measure the Government is encouraging the folly to which he referred. The right honorable gentleman added -

The unemployed man is the deliberate creation of the capitalistic class.

Although he has associated himself with the party to which honorable senators opposite belong, I am of the opinion that he still believes that unemployment is the deliberate creation of the capitalistic class. It cannot be denied that in this country we have idle capital and workless men; it is a truism that requires no elaboration.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator knows why there is so much capital lying idle.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am stating a fact. I leave it to Senator Payne to explain to the Senate why capital is lying idle.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– The first duty of the commission will be to see that capital is utilized and labour employed.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I doubt whether the commission will be able to bring into use that idle capital.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– Its first duty will be to make a survey of the economic position of Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am afraid that that survey will be an academic one. All wealth comes from labour; consequently, every unemployed man is an economic loss to the country. Senator Barwell smiles.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– I agree with the latter part of the honorable senator’s statement.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Private enterprise is the main employer of labour, and upon it rests the onus of seeing that unemployment is kept at a minimum.What steps is it taking towards that end? It is allowing its capital to lie idle, and consequently there are unemployed men in our midst.

Senator McLachlan:

– “Where is this capital ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator knows where it is. The reason for the fact that thousands of men, in winter time especially, are out of employment in our capital cities, is that capital is lying idle. On the 17th September, 1924, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) made the following statement : -

It is of no use to increase our population unless every individual who enters the country becomes a productive unit.

That is a sane statement; but I am extremely doubtful whether the passage of this measure and the appointment of a commission will lead to every person entering Australia from overseas becoming a productive unit. To be a productive unit every man must be in employment of some kind.Why does the Prime Minister preach one doctrine and practice another which is totally different? He is practising a different doctrine from that which he enunciated in the speech from which I have quoted when he asks Parliament to pass this bill.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– No; he is entirely consistent.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The average migration to Australia during the years 1922 to 1925 inclusive was 39,000 per annum. The average number of unemployed in the membership of the trade unions during the same period was, approximately, 33,000 per annum.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– Do those figures include the unemployment that was due to strikes?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No ; they relate to ordinary unemployment. They have been taken from returns that have been furnished by the trade unions. When the census was taken in 1921, it was found that 159,000 persons were out of employment in Australia. If a census were taken to-day, I believe that the result would be astounding. There is another phase of migration which has a bearing on this measure; it is that of foreign migration. I have been supplied, by the Government Statistician, with figures which show that the net migration, other than British, was 5,581 in the year 1923-24, and 12,504 in the year 1924-25, showing an increase of 124 per cent. in one year.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator had obtained the figures relating to the period subsequent to that which he has quoted, he would have found that foreign migration had fallen away considerably, and, that in some cases, the departures now exceeded the arrivals. The restrictions were imposed at that time.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In March last, a deputation waited upon the Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Collier, complaining that 700 foreigners had arrived in that State since the previous July. In considering this question of foreign migration, it is interesting to read that the Premier of New South Wales, in December, 1924, stated that he had received from the Prime Minister a statement to the effect that, by an arrangement with Italy, only 100 migrants a month were sent from that country. I should like Senator Pearce to tell me whether that statement is correct. If it is, why did the Italians who entered Australia between July and December, 1924, number 3,085, an average of 514 a month ; between January and June, 1925, 4,276, an average of 712 a month; and between July and December, 1925, 1,826, an average of 304 a month?

Senator Payne:

– Did the arrival of those foreign migrants have any effect on our unemployment problem?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The arrival of those 700 foreigners in Western Australia, between July, 1925, and March, 1926, has a considerable effect upon unemployment; because, according to the Premier of that State, they went direct to work at a time when more than 700 Australians could not obtain work.

Senator Payne:

– Would the Australians go to the work to which the Italians went?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– They were eager to obtain work, but it was not offered to them.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Who gave it to the Italians ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I could not say. Mr. Collier’s statement, that 700 Italians were absorbed in employment whilst he and his Government were unsuccessfully endeavouring to place in work unemployed Australians, has not been disputed.

Senator Payne:

– What class of employment did they get?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Different classes. Are the true facts regarding employment told to intending emigrants? Sir Joseph Cook is credited with having said, in 1923, that no emigrant left Great Britain unless employment, carrying good wages, was waiting for him upon his arrival in Australia. I have here a photograph that appeared in the Melbourne Herald on the 30th June last, which depicts a notice stating thatwork is guaranteed to people going to Australia. The letterpress at the foot reads : “ The writing on the wall: Australia - Work guaranteed, is the notice prominently displayed on the wall of the Sheffield Employment Exchange, which was besieged recently by a crowd of workless men seeking jobs offered by the local corporation.”

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable senator aware that when immigrants are brought out at the request of the States, the States guarantee them employment?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The States are a party to this triangular agreement, on which the bill is based, and I hope that they and the Commonwealth, when inviting people to come to Australia, will place before them the true facts. Workless men in Great Britain were informed that if they came to Australia, employment would be guaranteed. That is misleading.

Senator Pearce:

– It is not.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The information is not only misleading, but the authorities in Great Britain have been sending out migrants of all classes. I quote an extract from the Daily Guardian of Sydney, of the 12th May, 1926, relating to some migrants who have reached the Commonwealth -

page 3925

UNWANTED MIGRANTS

Mental Oases

Too many migrants to Australia are not up to standard. In the past few weeks, an amazing state of affairs has been disclosed, and Australia House has an impeachment to answer.

To-day, the liner Jervis Bay will reach Melbourne, en route to England.

One of her passengers for London is a young woman, assisted out here by Australia’ House, and returned by the authorities, at the taxpayers’ expense, on account of mental deficiency and venereal disease.

Yet she is only one of many.

By the Moreton Bay, which left here a few weeks ago, a German-deported passenger from Rabaul was booked in an ordinary cabin with three others toy the New Guinea agent.

On arrival from the islands, the Federal authorities placed him in quarantine, and kept the nature of his disease so secret that no one guessed it - until he was well out at sea.

Once the disease was diagnosed by the ship’s doctor, he was placed in hospital - also at the expense of the State.

The liner Esperance Bay preceded the Moreton Bay to London.

An officer on board, at an inquiry, said that she left Australia with eight mental defectives in various stages, of whom all had been previously assisted out to the Commonwealth by Australia House.

Among them were three young men, aged 18, 21, 22, who had been deported from Australia, and had charges to answer when landing in Britain.

At each port of call made by the Esperance Bay, between Sydney and London, detectives boarded, handcuffed the trio, and kept them in local prison cells until the ship sailed again.

Two others were declared insane.

One passenger was on board in charge of a keeper.

Another was a girl of 22, who was put aboard - with a kindly injunction for Captain Rod McKenzie to keep a watchful eye on her.

She tried to jump overboard the same night, and it was discovered later that she was an English girl in an acute state of melancholia.

That should be sufficient to prove that proper supervision is not exercised over the migration, on which £610,000 has been spent during the last three years. The present Treasurer, when a private member, strongly condemned the Government of the day for assisting migrants out of loan money instead of out of revenue; but the policy which he then so strongly condemned is still being adopted by the Government of which he is a member. Under the agreement, which has been ratified by the Commonwealth Government without the consent. of Parliament, the Commonwealth Government can borrow £34,000,000 from Great Britain for the purpose of assisting migration. It has been said by some that the terms are reasonable, but before many years have elapsed, it will be found that they are the reverse. All the State Governments, with the exception of New South Wales, have signed the agreement, and from what I can gather from a perusal of the document, the States will be charged 1 per cent. for the first five years, and onethird of the rate of interest for the second five years; the Commonwealth and British Governments each paying onehalf of the remainder. If the interest were 5 per cent. for the first five years, the States would pay 1 per cent., and the. Commonwealth Government and the British Government each 3 per cent.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It may appear so at first sight, but a closer study of the agreement will disclose that the rates will be higher than some suggest. If the interest for the following five years were 6 per cent., all the parties to the agreement would each pay 2 per cent. I should like the Minister to explain if my contention is correct, as it is only right thatwe should know exactly the interest to be paid.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does not clause 4 fix the interest at £2 per centum for the first five years, and not more than £2 10s. per centum for the next five years?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is not clear.

Senator McLachlan:

– It is rather obscure.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes. I think we can safely assume that for the second five years the interest will be 6 per cent., and that the three parties to the agreement will each pay 2 per cent. Two salient points in the agreement bear out the view I previously expressed that Great Britain is safeguarding her position. For instance, Great Britain will pay interest for only ten years, after which the whole of the responsibility will fall upon the people of Australia. The second point to which I wish to direct attention is contained in clause 11 of the agreement, which reads -

The total contributions of all descriptions paid by the Secretary of State under this agreement shall in no case exceed the sum of £7,083,000.

That is very definite. Sub-clause 2 of clause 5 provides -

That for every principal sum of £75, issued to a State government …. one assisted migrant shall …. be received into it and satisfactorily settled in that State.

That is une oi the obligations attaching to the loan. Paragraph g of clause 9 provides that -

That in any case assisted migrants shall be found suitable employment in Australia at the same rate of wage as Australians of similar experience. . . .

What right has the Government to guarantee to persons overseas permanent employment to the detriment of our own people ?

Senator Pearce:

– Not to the detriment of our cwn people.

Senator Findley:

– The Government does not guarantee employment to the Australian people.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No; but employment is guaranteed to British migrants before they come to Australia. If the guarantee were reversed and employment first provided for Australian citizens, we could then give preference to those from Great Britain. With the exception of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the question of unemployment and other kindred subjects, the Government has not done anything to solve one of our most pressing problems. To comply with the conditions of the agreement,the Government must give preference to migrants.

Senator Pearce:

– That is an obligation ofthe States four of which have Labour governments.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In commenting upon theterms of this agreement, I am criticizing the State governments as well as the Commonwealth Government. Paragraph 2 of clause 5 of the agreement provides that -

There shall have been included in every 10,000 assisted migrants received into and satisfactorily settled in the State concerned such a number of assisted migrant families without capital as consist in the aggregate of 3,750 persons. …

I presume that means that, for every 10,000 migrants received by a State, 3,750 without capital shall be settled on the land. For every £1,000 which the States receive, they must provide immigrants withone farm. We have had an unfortunate experience in settling returned soldiers on the land, some of which was purchased at exorbitant prices, and it would be interesting to know if migrants are to be settled on land of the type of that sold to returned soldiers with such disastrous results in Victoria. Hundreds of them, after having struggled to make a living, were forced to give up their holdings. In nearly every State commissions have been appointed to revalue the properties. I understand that under this agreement 50 per cent, of the farms purchased with this allegedly cheap money may be offered to Australians. Why hot give our Australian citizens who are anxious to settle on the land the first chance? I should like to know where, excepting Queensland or Western Australia, in a convenient situation, any good, cheap Crown land is available.

Senator Pearce:

– The Western Australian Government says that it can provide 6,000 new farms.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have here an extract from’ the Melbourne Age of the 9th June, 1926, which reads -

page 3927

DEMAND FOR LAND

3949 Applications for Farm.

Narandera, Tuesday. - Considerable interest has been taken in the making available for selection as a homestead farm the area formerly used by the Aborigines’ Protection Board as the Warangesda Mission. The farm contains 1,612 acres, is situated 10 miles from Wilbriggie railway station, and1½ miles from Darlington Point township, and is improved to the value of £915. The area has attracted applications from all parts of New South Wales and many parts of Victoria. It is thought that the number of applications received, 3,940, is a record for the State. A ballot willbe taken by Narandera Land Board next week.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That statement requires proof. I have also an extract from the Labour Daily of the 6th October, 1925, as follows: -

page 3927

LAND HUNGER

As showing the land hunger in the Moree district, 1,205 applications were received at the local Lands Office last week for a block of land of 3,810 acres.

This is easily a record for the Moree district.

The Sydney Morning Herald of the 14th October, 1925, relating to the same block of land in the Moree district, stated -

page 3927

RUSH FOR LAND

Over 1,200 Applicants

Block in Moree District.

Moree, Tuesday

The Moree Land Board has been occupied for several days examining the applications of 1,205 landseekers for a Crown lease area of 3,810 acres, in the parish of Gil Gil. A meeting of the hoard was held on Friday, when the chairman announced that they had rejected 684 applications, leaving 521 to go to the ballot. The names of the rejected applicants were read by the clerk.

The board adjourned until next morning, and announced that it had decided to add three additional names to the ballot list, making a total of 524. Twenty marbles were drawn. Donald Louis Gordon, of Kurrajong Hills, Warialda, secured first.

Applications came from every part of the State and several from Queensland. They embraced all varieties of occupations. The number is a record for Moree land district.

In the same issue the Sydney Morning Herald, referring to the number of applications received for land in the Condobolin district, said -

page 3927

CONDOBOLIN DISTRICT

Condobolin, Tuesday

To-day two ballots were held before the Condobolin Land Board, in the parish of Brotheroney. There were 51 applicants, and 38 were allowed to participate in the ballot. The following were the first four: - James Knight, C. J. Byrnes, George Brown, and H. Lamont. For a homestead farm area of 3,020 acres, in the parish of Guagong, there were 173 applicants, and 127 were allowed to participate in theballot. The following were the first four: - Sydney Raymond Tavlor, Thos. H. Shaklin, A. P. Blake, and C. G. A”. Norman.

Honorable senators will therefore see that there are thousands of Australians eager to take up land. Their requirements should be satisfied before we attempt to bring other land settlers here. Does the Minister believe that £1,000 is sufficient to purchase a farm, implements, and stock? Senators Andrew, Carroll, Chapman and others who have knowledge of these things know that that sum is not sufficient, especially when it is remembered that for the most part the migrants will be without capital.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The Commonwealth Government may be asked to incur a further liability.

Senator Pearce:

– In Western Australia the agricultural bank is at the disposal of settlers.

Senator NEEDHAM:

-If is evident that the British Government itself is sceptical in this regard, because it has limited its liability to £100. The question also arises whether we are likely to get the most suitable settlers if we place migrants on these farms. Will English farmers leave their holdings to come here? When I was secretary of the Trades Hall in Perth I came in contact with a number of migrants, not more that 25 per cent. of whom were fitted for farm work. I cannot imagine the British farmer leaving his farm to come here.

Senator Pearce:

– I had a letter by the last English mail from a relative of mine asking for particulars regarding obtaining land in Australia, as he desired to settle here.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– He may be the exception to the general rule.

Senator Andrew:

– I heard recently of a man who was willing to give up a position returning him £8 a week ibo settle on the land in Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Under the bill, a board or commission is to be appointed consisting of four members to be appointed by the Governor-General. The powers of the commission are set out in clause 13. This bill is an admission on the part of the Government of its inability to do anything towards the development and progress of Australia. The Minister said that Parliament and Ministers are too busy to devote their time to this allimportant question. Why, then, has the Department of Markets and Migration been created ? Is it not possible for the Minister to bring to his aid experts, by paying them good salaries ?

Senator Andrew:

– That is what he is going to do.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– He is not. He is giving to a commission a task which be himself should perform. The control is being removed from Parliament, in accordance with the policy which this Government has adopted since it has been in office. About eighteen months ago the Prime Minister suggested that it might be well for Australia if a dictator were appointed to control affairs. Instead of that, he is gathering around him’ a number of directorates which are taking from Ministers and from Parliament the control which they should exercise. The number of boards which the Government has created is evidence that it recognizes its inability to govern, and feels it must resort to boards and commissions to do the work that it either cannot or will not do. I now wish to touch on another phase of this question. While it is essential that markets be found for our produce, it can scarcelybe said that the appointment of a commission is necessary to discover those markets. I was under the impression that the finding of markets was one of the functions of the Department of Markets and Migration.

Senator McLachlan:

– -What portion of the bill deals with markets ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The agreement deals with it. Under this bill, the commission is given exceptional powers. Honorable senators should recall what happened in connexion with the repatriation of our soldiers when considering the appointment of further commissions. This commission will have power to override the State Governments, because the bill provides that the Commonwealth cannot approve of any scheme or undertaking initiated by a State unless approval to that scheme has first been given bv the commission or it has first been approved of by both Houses of Parliament. Under this scheme the States will submit schemes for development. For instance, the Western Australian Government might desire to extend its system of group settlements ; but if the commission says “ No,” it will be unable to proceed. Too much power is being vested in the commission. Parliament should be supreme: it should govern, and not be governed. Clause 13 a(ii) deals with the investigation of existing industries by the commission. When speaking on the tariff recently, I mentioned that many of our industries were either inefficiently managed or were equipped with out-of-date machinery. In that connexion it is hoped that the recently appointed Council of Scientific and Industrial Research will assist to establishour industries on a sounder basis. Is it the intention of the Government to ask the commission to compare our industries with those of the United States of America! Why should we delegate powers to different boards to enable them to override the decisions of Ministers and of Parliament itself? The party to which I have the honour to belong is not opposed to immigration. It recognizes the need for peopling this vast continent of ours and developing its resources; but it does not think that the Government, by introducing this bill, has adopted the right means of doing so. Therefore, it is our intention to oppose the second reading.

Debate (on motion by Senator Duncan) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 9.47 p in.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 July 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260708_senate_10_114/>.