View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
21 March 1927

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
- Commonwealth Offices, Sydney
QUESTION
- ROYAL VISITORS
KIDMAN-MAYOH CONTRACT
QUESTION
- CRIMES ACT
QUESTION
- NATIONAL INSURANCE
QUESTION
- TARIFF AMENDMENT
QUESTION
- KYOGLE TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF MUNITIONS
DEFENCE BILL
QUESTION
- COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
STATES GRANTS BILL
PAPERS
HOUR OF MEETING

The Deputy President (Senator Plain) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 699

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

University Building Site - Rental

Purchase’ Scheme : Rate op Interest - Re- appraisement of Building Sites.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Home and Territories yet received an answer to my question of last week concerning the reported erection of a building or buildings on the site reserved for university purposes at Canberra?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– No; but I shall endeavour to expedite the inquiry.

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the rate of interest charged to public servants under the rental-purchase scheme of the Federal Capital Commission includes a bias of¼ per cent. per annum “ to induce officers to purchase under their own financial arrangements with the Commonwealth Bank and to relieve Commission of responsibility.”(Vide page 24 of evidence given before the Public Works Committee, as per their report of 11th August, 1926.) ?
Ifso,will the Minister see that such bias is eliminated?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– I am in communication with the Federal Capital Commission in regard to this matter, and shall advise the honorable senator as soon as the necessary information is available.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Has the Government reconsidered the Ordinance for the Territory of the Scat of Government fixing the first period of re-appraisement for Canberra building sites at 20 years?
If so, what decision has been arrived at?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

No.
See answer to No. 1.

page 699

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Commonwealth Offices, Sydney

Senator BARNES brought up the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence relating to the proposed erection of Commonwealth offices, Sydney.

page 699

QUESTION

ROYAL VISITORS

Renown at Outer Harbour.

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Ministry aware that there is great disappointment throughout South Australia in consequence of the report that the Renown, which is bringing the Duke and Duchess of York to Australia, will not visit that State? Is he aware, also, that strong representations have been made to induce the imperial authorities to allow the Renown tocall at theOuterHarbour; and will the Government continue to press this request in view of the fact thatthefraternizing of officers and men of the Renown with the peopleof South Australia will do much tocement the bonds of imperial unity ?

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– With regard to the first two questions put by the honorable senator, I may say that all the representatives from South Australia in the Federal Parliament made strong representations to the Government on the subject, and the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) communicated their request to the British authorities.I am not seizedof the nature of the reply, so I suggest that thehonorable senator repeat the latter part of hisquestion to-morrow.

page 700

KIDMAN-MAYOH CONTRACT

SenatorNEEDHAM asked the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate, upon notice - 1.Willthe Ministerstatewho advised the Government that interest was not payable on the money due by Messrs. Kidman and Mayoh to theCommonwealth in connexion with, the wooden vessels contract, from the date of the decisionarrivedat by Sir.Mark Sheldon?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The right honorable the Prime Ministersupplied the following answer : -

The effect of the advice has been stated. It is not usual to give further information.

page 700

QUESTION

CRIMES ACT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Have any deportations been made under the Crimes Act,and, it so, how many?
Have any organizations been disbanded under the Crimes Act, and if so,how many?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The righthonorable the Prime Minister has supplied the following answer:- 1.No . 2.Therehavebeennoprosecutionsofanyperson for being or continuing to be a memberof an unlawful association, the act having proved effective in discouraging violation of its provisions.

page 700

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice-

Whether the investigations of the Royal Commission on National Insurance have proceeded sufficiently far to enable the Government to proceed with the promised National Insurance Bill?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

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

The Government is awaiting the royal commission’sfinal report on finance and admin istration, which is necessary to enable it to proceed withlegislation.

page 700

QUESTION

TARIFF AMENDMENT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Whenit is. proposedtoaskParliamentto deal with the lastamendmentofthetariff?

SenatorPEARCE.-The matterwill be dealtwithasopportunityoffers.

page 700

QUESTION

KYOGLE TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY

Senator GRANT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

Hasthe Governmentreconsideredthedecision arrived at to construct the tunnelson the Kyogle to South Brisbane lineto carry only one setofrails ?
If so, what determination has been arrived at?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The honorable the Minister for Works and Railways has supplied the following answer : -

This is not a question for reconsideration by the Government. Under the acts passed by the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Queensland,, the construction of the Grafton to South Brisbane railway is vested in theRailway Council, which has entire control, and decides the standard of permanent way bridges, tunnels,&c., &c
See answer to No. 1.

page 700

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF MUNITIONS

Is it afactthat we are importing munitions from overseas?

If so, from whom?

What is the nature of such munitions? 4.What was the value of the importation of such munitions for the last five financial years?

I replied to questions Nos. 1 to3 andnow furnish the informationaskedforin question No. 4 -

page 701

DEFENCE BILL

Motion (by Senator Elliott) agreed to-

That leave begiven to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Defence Act 1903-1918.

page 701

QUESTION

COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

AdditionalEstimateofExpenditure.

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia -Vice-PresidentoftheExecutive Council) [3.10]. -I move -

Thatthe undermentioned additional estimates of expenditure for the Common wealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for the year ending the 30th June,1927, be approved and passed: -

Honorable senators will rememberthat last year Parliament appropriated from the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund an amount of £250,000, to be expended by the Council for Scientificand Industrial Research. It was notintended thatthat sum should be spentin one year, but that it should suffice forthree, four, or a greater number of years. To secure parliamentary control over the expenditure, the money was paid into a trust fund. Section 17b, sub-section 3, of the act provided that nothing should be spent from the trust account except in accordance with the estimates of expenditure approved by Parliament. The council met and prepared its programme for the year 1926-7. The various sums for which it asked may be found at page 269 of the estimates for the current year, which were duly passed by Parliament and were embodied in the AppropriationAct 1926-7. On the passing ofthatact those moneys became available from the trust fund. The council has since discovered that theamountsthenmadeavailable are notsufficientforitspurposes:hence the necessity to seek additional sums. I draw particular attention to the fact that this is not on all fours with ordinary expenditure, because parliamentary approval must first be obtained before the expenditure of any of the money in the trust fund is permissible. It is, therefore, necessary to bring the matter forward in this way, and not in the form of a bill.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– No.

Senator Millen:

– Are allof the investigations mentioned in themotionbeing carried on in the Commonwealth alone?

Senator PEARCE:

– Not all of them. The investigation into food preservation and cold storage is being carried on partly in Australia andpartly on vessels travelling between Australia and the United Kingdom. That, of course, is necessary.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

page 701

STATES GRANTS BILL

Second Readied.

Debate resumed from the 18thMarch (vide page 669), on motion by Senator Pearce-

Thatthebillbenowreadasecondtime.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– Ever since the proposals contained in thebill were first mooted, I have been endeavouring, by careful study and thought, to arrive at a sound conclusion and a right decision as to whether they are in the best interests of those Australian citizens who reside in the State of Tasmania, whom I have the honour to serve in the Senate, as well as the citizens of the other States of the Commonwealth. It has been no easy task for a political novice like myself. It has necessitated much careful reading and thought, and a close study of the history of the birth of this great Commonwealth of which every right-thinking Australian is justly proud. I am in my political babyhood, and I find it rather difHcu.lt, at times, to discover the best way of approaching subjects such as this. But I am a soldier of a good many years’ standing, and I have learnt to adopt a certain line of action in the working out of any problem with which I am faced. My training has taught me that the proper method is to put down on paper the pros and the cons, the factors that operate against your success and those that assist you, and I have followed that method In the present case. In a federation such as ours, the financial relations between the central government and the component states are of the utmost importance. The conferring of large powers on the central government is absolutely useless unless sufficient revenue is provided for that government to operate those powers. The determination of the financial relations between the States and the central government was the principal stumbling block in the path of the framing of the Constitution and the inauguration of the federation. Those financial relations are still the subject of considerable controversy, and a solution of the problem which they present is not yet in sight. It is a most difficult and, I consider, a very urgent problem. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that has been put forward by certain honorable senators who oppose the bill, that there is no need for haste in this matter, that no mandate has been given to the Government to take this action, and that the Commonwealth should continue to rub along as it has been doing for a number of years. I do not for a moment admit that the per capita system is either just or equitable. The main financial feature at the inception of federation was the provision in the Constitution that the Commonwealth should have sole control over Customs and excise. The States and the Commonwealth were given equal powers in regard to all other forms of taxation. The power of the Commonwealth over Customs and excise, however, was limited and qualified during the first ten years of federation. Those qualifications and limitations, in my opinion, were of a strictly temporary character. At the outset it was obvious that the Commowealth would not attempt to give effect to the whole of the 39 articles of section 51; and, as honorable senators are aware, many of those powers are still dormant. The expenditure of the Commonwealth was limited during the first ten years to one-fourth of the net revenue derived from Customs and excise; but control over that revenue was vested absolutely in the Commonwealth after the expiration of that period. That principle was confirmed when, in 1909, the people of Australia at a referendum definitely refused to make it a constitutional obligation on the Commonwealth Government to pay to the States 25s. per head of the population. On the expiry of clause 87, commonly known as the Braddon blot, Australia adopted the per capita system for the distribution of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth to the States, not, in my opinion, because it was the best or fairest method, but because, possibly, it was the easiest to calculate, and was the least likely to arouse hostility from the States. At that time, we must remember, the Commonwealth had undertaken direct taxation to only a very limited extent. It derived the bulk of its revenue from Customs and excise duties, and the money so derived was assumed to be collected approximately at an equal rate from each individual in the Commonwealth. In other words, it was deemed to be raised in proportion to the population of the States, and it was distributed on the same basis - that is to say, on a per capita basis. But that assumption of equal financial ability in proportion to population is a fallacy. It has no foundation in fact, because necessarily the States cannot be equal in wealth, resources, or natural advantages. Even if they are equally endowed in these respects, they may be at very different stages of development. Inequalities are also brought about through the application of Federal policy, some States getting greater benefit than others through the operation of Commonwealth laws. For instance, a protective policy may be a great advantage to a State like Victoria, and at the same time a considerable burden to a State like Western Australia. When States differ so much in climate, natural resources, area, and development, there are bound to be great divergences of wealth, and clearly a per capita system of distribution of surplus revenue to the States cannot be regarded as equitable. However, that was the system adopted in 1910, and under it Australia carried on with special temporary grants to

Western Australia and Tasmania until 1914, when, like a thunderbolt, there came upon us the war. It was necessary for us to fight for our national existence, and everything else went by the board. By the end of the second year of that desperate and bloody struggle, the Commonwealth was compelled to enter the field of direct taxation, and as the war progressed it had a steeply-graded income tax, death duties, taxes on wartime profits, and an entertainments tax. It was committed definitely to direct taxation, because there was no longer sufficient revenue from its indirect taxation. Logically, and on principle, when there was no surplus revenue from indirect taxation, the per capita payments to the States should first have ceased ; but at that terrible time of stress and strain no one had much thought for logic. We were out to win, and . possibly the easiest course politically was taken - that of imposing sufficient direct taxation to cover the extra burden on the Treasury. The end of the struggle thus saw us with both federal direct taxation and per capita payments to the States, and we are still in that position to-day.

I believe in the abolition of the per capita payments to the States, and in the substitution of some more statesman-like system of finance between the Commonwealth and the States. How the change is to be brought about, I do not know; but I hold that the present position is untenable. It may be of great importance to the more populous States to retain the per capita payments, but these payments are, in themselves, of comparatively little importance to a small and struggling State like Tasmania, which, even with its per capita grant, does not receive sufficient revenue to meets its absolute financial obligations, and must have further assistance from the central Government. The population of Tasmania, which was one-twentieth of the whole of the population of Australia at the time of federation, is now, notwithstanding an increase, only one-thirtieth of the population of the whole of the Commonwealth. Obviously the per capita system does not suit Tasmania. Senator Barwell told us that the Commonwealth is rolling in wealth, and that the Commonwealth Treasurer has to rack his brains to know what to do with all the money he is getting. I do not believe it. If it is true, I should like the Government to give those who are serving in our Citizen Forces a better deal. When, recently, I put in a requisition in the ordinary way for a rubber stamp, costing about 2s. 6d., I received in due course from head-quarters, Melbourne, word regretting that there were no funds available for the purpose. It does not seem to me, therefore, that the Commonwealth is rolling in wealth, and has very much money to throw away. As a matter of fact, a careful study of the position will disclose that it has tremendous commitments to face in the immediate and near future.

I do not know who are competent to say what it is the duty of the Senate to do, but we are told by Senator Ogden, that if it does not do its duty, and reject this bill, it will sound its own death knell, and that if the bill is passed the Commonwealth will automatically assassinate the States. I may bo somewhat dense, but I do not think I have ever heard a sillier statement than that, because it follows that if we assassinate the States we automatically kill the Commonwealth also, the people of the States and the Commonwealth being absolutely one and the same. It has been maintained that the Government has received no mandate for this legislation, but fourteen or fifteen months ago, when I was attempting to woo the affections of the electors in Tasmania, the payments to the States was a very prominent question. I do not think I addressed one meeting at which the matter was not mentioned. The cry then was that the Commonwealth should get out of direct taxation as far as possible, and if the proposals put up by the Commonwealth Treasurer, and set out in a pamphlet he issued, were not a step in that direction, I should like to know what they were. Notwithstanding what Senator Barwell and others have said, this question does not appeal to the political passions or personal feelings of the electors. It does not make the slightest difference to- me if I disburse £1 to one authority or make two payments of 10s. to two separate authorities. That is the crux of the whole matter. I do not hold any brief for the Tasmanian Government or any other government. I was not sent here by the Tasmanian Government, but by the people of that State whose interests I intend to protect so far as I am able.

During the debate I have endeavoured to follow the arguments of honorable senators opposed to the bill, who seem to think that the people of Australia are divided into two hostile camps. That is not so; but there may be two hostile camps of politicians. We have been informed that if this measure is passed the States will he financially strangled - that the Commonwealth Government is now ende3.vour.1ng to assassinate them. It has also been said that the -Government is challenging the States with a double-barelled pistol, one barrel of which is to be used te shoot them and the other to murder them. That statement is stupid. I have tried quite dispassionately to follow the arguments of those opposed to the hill; but from the figures placed before me, and from the information I have been able to obtain, I believe the measure is entirely in the interests of the States. Prom some of the arguments adduced it would appear that the Commonwealth Government has no right to introduce legislation without first consulting the State Governments; but with that I do not agree. We have a duty to perform to the people, and that is to assist in framing laws for the good government of the Commonwealth. To say that the Commonwealth desires to strangle the States is ridiculous, because to do so would be equivalent to committing suicide. I have no fears concerning the results which may follow my action in supporting the bill. I have endeavoured in my own way to come to a right decision, and the future alone will prove whether I am right or wrong.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

Senator McHUGH:

– I believe in the fairness of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, and that they will meet the State Treasurers and come to a fair and businesslike agreement with them.

Senator Ogden:

– It is not businesslike to abolish the payments first and then ask the States to come to an arrangement.

Senator REID:

– The State Premiers were invited to conference after conference, and they were distinctly informed that the per capita system was to be brought to an end; but instead of coming to the last conference with a definite statement as to how the States would fare, and with a definite appeal to the Commonwealth Government, like sulky boys they sat back in their chairs and said “We have a moral right to the payments.” It was a childish attitude for them to take up.

Senator Ogden:

– But that is no excuse for the Commonwealth injuring the States.

Senator REID:

– This bill is not to injure_ the States. It is to bring them to their senses. When the State Treasurers meet the Commonwealth Ministers, the whole thing can be settled on a businesslike basis. Representatives of the same electors will be dealing with the problem.

I claim that the Government has public opinion behind it. There is no one in favour of the present system. No doubt Queensland will suffer, because its people are the highest taxed of all the States; but they will welcome a settlement of this question by the adoption of a businesslike arrangement. It seems to be the proper course to pass this bill and invite the Treasurers to come to that arrangement, and, as I can see no obstacle in the way of such an arrangement, I have no hesitation in casting my vote for the second reading of this bill.

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

– As the bill has been exhaustively discussed, I do not propose to go over the whole subject again, but, during the course of the debate, certain points have been raised to which I think I should make some reply. In the first place, there seems to be somemisapprehension about a statement made by the Honorary Minister (Senator McLachlan). When that honorable senator was asked whether the special grants for Tasmania and Western Australia could not be put in a separate bill, if this measure were defeated, he replied that they could. That is certainly so, but the Honorary Minister’s reply, I am sure, was not intended by him to be exhaustive ; it did not explain the whole position. The special grants to Western Australia and Tasmania, in such circumstances, could be included in a separate bill and submitted to this Parliament for approval, but not by the present Government. If done at all, that step would have to be taken by some other government. It is obvious that this measure constitutes an important portion of the Government’s financial policy, and if a vital amendment had been carried in another place the Government would have had no option but to resign. Equally if a request for such an amendment were carried in this chamber the Government would, of course, have to ask another place to reject it, and if it were made the Government would be defeated, and would have to resign. This would not be because of a desire on the part of the Government to make this a party question, but because of the inexorable rule which every self respecting government follows in respect of its financial proposals.

Let me answer at once an attack made by Senator Greene, who said that the Government had been guilty of a tactical blunder and had in some way damaged the party by introducing this bill. My reply is that this measure finds its place in the financial proposals of the Government after full consultation with both parties supporting the administration. Before it was brought before Parliament both parties supporting the Government were called together so that they might know what it was proposed to do, and only three of those present at that meeting took any exception to our proposal. The Government, therefore, had a right to assume that in bringing it forward it had behind it the overwhelming support of members of both parties. So much for that criticism. Another point was raised by Senator Carroll, who asked why the special grants to Western Australia and Tasmania found a place in this bill. I point out that in the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910 special provision was made for a grant to Western Australia. At that time no special grant was being paid to Tasmania, but if it had been it would also have been included in the bill. ‘ In that respect, therefore, we have only followed precedent. There has been a good deal of undue heat, and, if I may say so, much unnecessary eloquence, expended on the bill. It seems to me that one of the last to speak - Senator Sampson, who made, perhaps, one of the shortest speeches - put the whole question in a nutshell, when he saidthat from the people’s point of view it was largely a question of whether they should pay 10s. to each of two governmental authorities, or £1 to the one authority. The question at issue really resolves itself into that.

Senator Abbott, in criticizing Senator Greene in his second-reading speech, said -

Is Senator Greene, who is opposed to the bill, unmindful of the fact that in 1920-21 he was a member of the Hughes Ministry which advocated the withdrawal of the per capita grant?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Did that not happen in 1920-21?

Senator PEARCE:

- Senator Abbott was referring to the proposal put forward in 1920, when the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt), Senator Greene, and I were members of the same Cabinet. Senator Abbott continued -

Did Senator Greene say, “ Yes, I was a member of the Ministry in 1920-21 that resolved to withdraw the per capita payment, but I omitted to tell my leader or my electors in the north of New South Wales that I objected to the. proposal.” As a member of the Government of the day he must be supposed to have held the opinion that it was necessary to withdraw the per capita payment.

Senator Greene then interjected ;

I can give the honorable senator an explanation. The suggestion for the gradual withdrawal of the payments was not accepted, and I subsequently introduced a tariff which made the withdrawal unnecessary.

– It is open to the honorable senator to make another personal explanation. I come now to the general debate, concerning which I have a few comments to make. The statement has been made on several occasions that the Senate represents the States. That, of course, is true; but what is meant by “ the States “ ? According to some honorable senators, it means, not the people of the States, but the Governments of the States. Let me remind those honorable senators that when the Constitution was drawn up, its framers largely followed that of the United

States of America as a guide. At that time in the United States of America senators were elected by the legislatures of the States. Had the framers of our Constitution intended that the Senate should represent the State Parliaments, and thereby the State Governments, is it not obvious that they would have adopted the American system of electing senators? They did not do that. They deliberately turned their backs on the American system, and provided that senators should be elected by the people of the States. It is idle, therefore, to say, on this or any other question, that the Senate should be guided by the opinion of State Governments, and that when an honorable senator does not adopt the view of the Government of the State he represents, he is acting contrary to the opinion of his State. Let me give one illustration of how ridiculous it would bo for us to assume that the State Governments in this matter speak on behalf of the people of the States. A while ago, when we were considering the imposition of taxation for the purpose of assisting States in the matter of road development, we imposed a tax on petrol. At that time, we were told iu the Senate and outside that we were acting against the interests of the States, because certain States objected to that proposal. The Government of Victoria refused to accept its share of the revenue obtained from the petrol tax, so that, if a3 some honorable senators argue, the State Governments speak for the States, Senator Guthrie, Senator Findley, and other Victorian senators, if they were doing their duty, should have voted against that tax. A few months afterwards, however, the State Government adopted a different attitude and decided to accept the money collected in that way. What would have been the position of these honorable senators had they adopted the view that they are here to represent the State Governments? It would then have been too late for them to put themselves right, and they would have been wrong in either case. It is clear that, in speaking of the responsibilities of the Senate in this way, some honorable senators are arguing on wrong premises.

I also wish to correct a statement made by Senator Lynch, who said that the per ca-pita system is in the interests of

– The Government necessarily makes a party question of its financial measures, but I point out that the Government gives to its supporters a. liberty that the Labour party does not grant to its members. The division lists in another place, as well as in this Senate, show that Government supporters have voted against this bill ; but, notwithstanding that in this Senate we heard from Senator Grant what was probably one of the strongest speeches in support of the bill, no member of the Labour party voted in favour of it.

I desire now to refer to the point raised by Senator Needham, that at the last conference Mr. Bruce would entertain no other proposal than that submitted by him. As other honorable senators repeated the statement, I shall read from the official report of the conference. Under the heading “ Commonwealth Proposals “ we find the following -

As the nearest approach now practicable towards the ideal solution, the Federal Government proposes -

1 ) That the Commonwealth and State finances be now separated as far as possible, on the principle that, normally, indirect taxation is the proper field for the Commonwealth and direct taxation the proper field for the States.
That as a first step towards this ideal, the Commonwealth evacuate the field of taxation of incomes of individuals.
That the capitation payments now made to the States under the Surplus Revenue Act be discontinued.
That temporary financial assistance be given to the States to prevent undue dislocation of the State finances under the new arrangements.
That for the development of the national resources, the Commonwealth give financial assistance, without regard to State boundaries or population, in special cases where proper and necessary development cannot otherwise be secured.

These proposals offer a satisfactory basis for a definite and final determination of the present unsound system of capitation payments with its accompanying duplication of income taxes.

After giving details of various proposals, the statement concluded -

It is recognized that the problem to be solved is difficult. It must, however, be solved in the interests of both Commonwealth and States. It is most desirable that the solution should be reached by agreement, and it is with that object that the Commonwealth Government, instead of proceeding direct to legislative action, invites the States to give these proposals their most careful consideration.

On page 28 of the report, Mr. Bruce is reported to have said -

We have now reached the point when this question has again to be considered, and the Commonwealth Government has asked the Premiers of the States to come here and discuss it with them. Of course, I recognize that this question of per capita payments to the States is one entirely within the discretion of the Commonwealth Parliament. But I think it is essential that the State representatives should come here and be afforded an opportunity to discuss any proposals which may bo put forward by the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister also said -

We are trying to bring about the change with the least possible dislocation of the finances of the States, and we have been reasonably generous in our proposals to obviate the States being placed in an embarrassing position. Therefore, we ask the State Premiers to co-operate with us.

I draw Senator Needham’s attention to the next sentence -

If they can suggest a better, more efficient and easier way of doing what we propose, we shall bo only too pleased to listen to them, and to have their assistance.

At the end of the second day of the conference, Mr. McCormack said : -

Mr. McCORMACK. ; I do not question the morality of the present Commonwealth Government in the matter. The proposals may appear quite sound to the Government of which the Prime Minister is the head, but from the point of view of the States, they constitute a breach of a moral understanding or contract entered into at the time of federation. The question is whether the people of Aus tralia at the present time consider that there is a moral obligation upon the Commonwealth Government to hand over portion of the Customs revenue to the States.

Mr. BRUCE. ;That is the very point I have been trying to make. The Commonwealth has put forward certain proposals, and listening to the speeches made by the Premiers this afternoon, I have gathered that the Commonwealth action is being challenged on the ground that something is being done which is morally wrong, and opposed to the right of the States under the federation.

Mr. McCORMACK. We believe that, under the general terms of the Constitution, the States have a right to participate in the Customs revenue.

To indicate the feeling of the Premiers as to the attitude of Mr. Bruce, I desire to quote from the remarks of Mr. Allan, the Premier of Victoria, when seconding a vote of thanks to Mr. Bruce -

We are also grateful for the way in which you have presided over the proceedings because you have not taken up a standanddeliver attitude, such as,I regret to say, was adopted on a previous occasion, and which must always result in a deadlock.

It will be seen that every opportunity was given to the States, not only to consider the proposals of the Commonwealth, but also to submit alternative proposals.

Senator Kingsmill:

– But they put forward nothing.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so. They merely rested on their “moral right.” That being so, can the States now complain when this Parliament is proceeding in accordance with its undoubted right under the Constitution to take what action it thinks fit in relation to the per capita payments ? That right was exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament in 1910. The Government recognizes that it is not desirable, in the interest of either the Commonwealth or the States, that the States should be disregarded, flouted, or bludgeoned, and for that reason it is now saying to the States that, while the Commonwealth Parliament is determined to end the existing system, the Commonwealth is still willing to meet the States in conference to discuss any alternative scheme that may be put forward by them. When the Government’s proposals were first placed before the States, the State Premiers said that the figures submitted were wrong; but when asked to agree to the examination of those figures by experts they would not do so. The

Commonwealth Government is now saying to the States, “Come, let us reason together, with a view to arriving at the best arrangement possible in the interests of the Commonwealth and the States.”

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What will happen if the States maintain the attitude that they are not prepared to relinquish their share of the Customs revenue.

Senator PEARCE:

– With the passing of this bill, that share goes from them. Seeing that the Commonwealth’s obligations exceed ?50,000,000 per annum, and that the Customs and excise revenue is a little over ?40,000,000 per annum, the argument that the States are still entitled to a share in the Customs revenue is, in my opinion, humbug and nonsense. The States would be foolish to maintain the attitude they adopted on the occasion of the last conference. I do not think that they will take that stand again, but that they will come to the conference in a reasonable frame of mind, prepared to submit alternative proposals. It is significant that when at the last conference it was suggested that State officers should examine the Commonwealth figures which had been criticized, one Premier admitted that he had not brought with him any officer capable of examining the figures. Evidently, he intended that there should be no examination. I hope that the bill will be passed, and that when the States meet the Commonwealth in conference a spirit of harmony will be manifest, and that results satisfactory to all will accrue.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 11

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 1.

This act may be cited as the States Grants Act 1927.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I am sorry, Senator Duncan, that you are in the chair while this clause is under discussion, becauseI believe that, if given the opportunity, your voice would be heard in opposition to it. It is not usual to discuss the first clause of a bill, but this is such a most unusual measure that I wish the committee to consider the advisableness of making some alteration to the title.

Senatorkingsmill. - Short title.

Senator FINDLEY:

– As a rule, the title of a bill clearly indicates its purpose, but this title is misleading. It would convey the impression that the Government proposes to grant financial assistance to the several States of the Commonwealth. That is not the purpose of the bill, so the title should be altered. Western Australia and Tasmania will receive grants under this bill, but no other State will be in that position. The committee would be well advised to give this clause careful consideration, because, if it is passed in its present form, itwill not be so convenient to alter subsequent provisions of the measure.

Senator Payne:

– What is wrong with the title?

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is nothing right about it, because the bill does not propose to grant financial assistance to States other than Western Australia and Tasmania. Of course, one would not expect Senator Payne to be perturbed about the title of the bill. His State and Western Australia will benefit financially under it, but other States will have payments taken away from them. I suggest that the Government should agree to a postponement of the clause until the other provisions have been dealtwith. Before the motion for the second reading was carried I heard strong opposition voiced by certain honorable senators opposite to the title of the bill. I hope, therefore, that the committee will not hastily pass this clause. Therewould be more prospect of harmonious discussion at the proposed conference between the Commonwealth and the States if the title were altered. Harmony at that gathering would be most desirable, because, if one may judge from assurances given by the responsible Ministers, the conference will pretty well settle the problem of the per capita grants, if not for a considerable length of time, then at least for the lifetime of this Government.

Senator Ogden:

– Cannot the honorable senator suggest a desirable amendment of the short title.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I rose without having a definite proposalin my mind, so that I shall be glad to receive suggestions from honorable senators. Like me, they are unable to do it on the spur of the moment. It is a matter that requires thinking out. The probabilities are that the framers of the bill expended a lot of time onthe decision of its title. Those gentlemen have been born and reared in a legal atmosphere. It is their business to give appropriate titles to bills. They have an intimate knowledge of draftsmanship. Since the inception of the Commonwealth they have been responsible for the submission of innumerable bills, each containing a short title. In 99 cases out of 100 the title suggested is agreed to with little or no discussion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have no hesitation in opposing the title of the bill, and I move as an amendment -

That the word “ Grants “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Burglary.”

The short title will then read, “The States Burglary Act.” I contend that in essence and in fact the bill has been wrongly named. Senator Pearce interjected a moment ago that it proposes to make grants to the States, and he instanced clause 6. That clause does not say that this is a measure to make a grant to the States. It reads -

Subject to the terms of any agreement made between the Commonwealth and all the States, and adopted by the Parliament, the Treasurer shall, during the financial year commencing on the 1st day of July, 1927- do certain things. The clause has no relation to the title, in so far as it purports to make this a States Grants Act. There is certainly a reference to grants to the States of Western Australia and Tasmania. I point out to the committee that if the hill becomes an act it will lessen the income of the States, notwithstanding the fact that grants may continue to be made in one form or another. The point I wish to stress is that, under this proposal, the States will not receive an equivalent of the per capita payments. There is not the slightest doubt that this is one of the vital clauses of the measure, l t has been argued that those who oppose the bill speak as the representatives noi of the States, but of the governments of the States. We have listened this afternoon to a lecturette on our constitutional position. If my amendment were submitted to the people, I venture to think that it would be carried. We who oppose the bill do not claim to voice the opinions of only the governments of the States. An opportunity has not been given to the people we represent to express their views respecting it. In my opinion the word “ Grants “ wrongly appears in the title, and a more suitable word would be “Burglary.” The Commonwealth Treasurer proposes to enter th’e States household, rob it of its ready cash and leave it with a few shillings to carry on; just as a burglar would take all the money and jewellery he could find, and leave behind him only the price of a tram fare. It is idle to say that the Commonwealth is not proposing to rob the States of the benefits which they now enjoy, and to curtail to a great extent the special grants that certain States at present receive. Clause 3 sets out that there is to be a curtailment of existing grants. That is a breach of the promise which the Government made when appealing to the people in 1925. Senator Pearce has stated that the payment of £450,000 to Western Australia is to be continued in two ways.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to order. Is the honorable senator in order in proceeding to reply to a speech that I made on the motion for the second reading of the bill, dealing particularly with the grant to Western Australia, which is specifically provided for in a clause other than that which the committee is now considering ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:

– I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to clause 1. The grants that are to be payable to the State of Western Australia may be discussed when the committee is considering clause 3.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I dare say that I deviated slightly from the question before the chair ; but I contend that, as a result of the operation of this measure, the State which I represent will suffer in respect to the grant that it receives. It proposes to fix the grant to Western Australia at £300,000, whereas under a former proposal the amount was £450,000.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing that matter on this clause.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No clause of the bill furnishes a reason for entitling it, “the States Grants Act.” There are numerous words in the dictionary that would more aptly and correctly describe it. I agree with Senator Findley that if we agreed to the title without protest we should in a sense signify our acceptance of the following clauses. The title embraces the whole purport of the bill. As has already been stated, it is not customary to discuss the title of the measure; but it is necessary to express our opinion in this case, because our acceptance of the title would indicate agreement with every provision that follows. I commend the amendment to honorable senators.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot accept the amendment in its present form. It is, I consider, frivolous, and not relevant to the” bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2- (Repeal of sections 4-7 of the Surplus Revenue Act 1910).

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– This is one of the most important clauses of the bill, and if agreed to will have a very undesirable effect upon, at least, the State of New South

Wales. Section 4 of the Surplus Revenue Act of 1910 reads -

The Commonwealth shall, during the period of ten years, beginning on the 1st day of July, 1.91.0, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, pay to each State by monthly instalments, ov apply to the payment of interest on debts of the State taken over by the Commonwealth, an annual sum amounting to 25s. per head of the number of the people of the State.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This, of course, is the provision of the bill to which I take exception, and I shall vote against it; but I should like to point out that many things have been said during this debate which I regret had to be said. I regret the manner in which Senator Pearce has approached the matter, and that he should have taken it that I spoke with bitterness. I can assure him that I did not. If he will cast his memory back to the events of 1919-20, when it was decided to place before the States tentative proposals for the reduction of the per ca/pita payment. Senator Pearce will remember that those proposals were put forward in a way entirely different from that in which those now before us have been made. He will also recall the fact that when the matter was definitely turned down by the States, and the Government found that the Customs revenue would be sufficient for its purpose, it was entirely dropped. Mr. Brace’s statement of 1922 embodied the definite policy of the Government, and. therefore, it is not I who have changed. I still stand where I have always stood in this matter. What are the reasons that have been advanced for the change? The only reason that amounts to anything is the claim that the Government that raises revenue should spend it. A little while ago, the Honorary Minister (Senator McLachlan) said that he regarded this as a matter of abstract right. When we elect to stand on a principle as an abstract right, we cannot follow it and depart from it at one and the same time. lt is, apparently, the one principle upon which the Government stands, as an abstract right, and, if that is so, I maintain that it . cannot make grants to any State. But we have always realized that States situated like Western Australia and Tasmania, are entitled to receive some further consideration from the Federal Parliament than the per capita payment. After all, the present system is simply a basis of payment in which all the States share; and to the amount so distributed the Federal Parliament has added, in the case of several States, amounts that it has thought justified by their special circumstances. To that extent, therefore, the Government lias departed from the per capita basis. I do not want to say anything more on the matter. I have taken a very definite stand against this proposal, and I think Senator Pearce will do me the justice of saying that I have opposed it vigorously and as well as I was able to do, both inside and outside Parliament, ever since it was first suggested by the Government. I have not varied in my opposition, because I think the proposal is wrong and that is why I arn voting against the Government on this issue.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- The withdrawal of £2,978,343 from New South Wales will throw upon the Government of that State the necessity of imposing taxation sufficiently heavy to enable it to recover a somewhat similar amount. But I should like to know why the States of New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and Queensland are singled out for this invidious treatment, while other provisions in the bill provide Tasmania and Western Australia with very substantial sums. The

AYES: 18

NOES: 12

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.37to8p.m.

Clause 3 - (1.) There shall be payable to the State of Western Australia, in equal monthly instalments, during the period of five years commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, the sum of Three hundred thousand pounds per annum. (2.) All sums paid to the State of Western Australia during the period from the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six to the thirtieth day of June One thousandninehundred and twenty-seven, in pursuance of section five of the Surplus Revenue Act 1910, shall be deemed tohave been payments made to that State in fulfilment of the obligations of the Commonwealth to that State under sub-section (1.) of this section in respect of that period.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the words “ three hundred,” line 6, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Four hundred and fifty.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator must move that the House of Representatives be requested to make the amendment he desires to have made.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Then I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out the words “ Three hundred,” line 6, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Four hundred and fifty.”

During the Federal elections in 1925 the Government, through its mouth-piece (Senator Pearce) promised that, as a result of the findings of the royal commission which was appointed to inquire into the disabilities of Western Australia arising out of federation, the sum of £450,000 would be paid as compensation to that State for one year. The Minister added, “ As to whether or not that amount will be continued will be determined by a conference of State Treasurers.” Western Australia has received only one payment of £450,000, and so far the Treasurers of the States have not been called together to decide whether or not the Commonwealth should continue to pay that amount. That it was the intention of the Government to include it in this bill is indicated by statements that have been made by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page). He is reported to have said that the amount of £450,000 for Western Australia, and that of £378,000 for Tasmania, represented the assistance to be given to those States. When the honorable gentleman was asked, “ How can the position of Western Australia be made better by giving that State £152,000 for a loss of £188,000?” he replied, “ We have made provision for a special grant of £450,000 to Western Australia.” . He was then asked whether that was apart from the provision in the bill, and he replied, “ It will be remembered that when the grant of £450,000 was proposed early this year, the diminishing grant of £97,000 was to be subtracted.” Therefore, the total amount to be voted to Western Australia this year was £363,000. He went further, and said that an adjustment would be made and included in this measure. I have in my hand a statement entitled, “ Separation of Commonwealth and State Finances. Table Showing Effect of Commonwealth Proposals.” Under the heading, “ Adjusting Grants and Special Assistance,” it states: “ The full amount of £450,000 is accordingly included in column 10, and the deduction of £87,000 has been allowed for adjusting purposes.” I contend that the full amount of £450,000 should stand, independently of the abolition of the per capita payment. Whilst there was no mandate from the people of Australia to abolish the per capita payment, there was a definite statement by Senator Pearce, in Western Australia, that £450,000 would be given for one year, and that then there would be an inquiry by the Treasurers of the States. The right honorable gentleman added to that statement later, when he said that Western Australia would not be treated less generously in the event of the finding of the State Treasurers not being in accordance with that of the com.missi.on. The point I wish to stress is that a royal commission was appointed to ascertain whether or not Western Australia was suffering as the result of federation. It found that the State had suffered, and was suffering, by reason of the disabilities imposed upon it under federation. There was a majority and also a minority report. The former recommended that the sum of £450,000 per annum should be paid for a period of 25 years; and the latter suggested that the amount should be £300,000. It appears to me that for election purposes the Government adopted the majority report, and that for the purposes of this bill it is adopting the report of the minority. The object of my requested amendment is to have the amount recommended by the majority of the commission continued when the per capita payment is abolished, less the diminishing amount of the special grant.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– The Government cannot accept the requested amendment, and if it is carried will have to ask another place not to make it. It would certainly destroy the bill, and subsequent happenings would be on the lap of the gods. The following is the statement which I made in Perth when outlining the policy of the Government and I had the authority of the Government for making it. It is taken from the West Australian of the 9th October, 1925-

The Commonwealth Government, after fully considering the position, has decided to ask Parliament for authority to make a special grant this year to Western Australia of £450,000, which will be inclusive of the grant now paid.

That statement, to any intelligent person, cannot have a doubtful meaning. I was applauded, which is a proof that it was not unpalatable to my audience. I continued -

Although this proposal is made for this year only, pending the holding of the conference with the State’ Governments on Federal and State financial relations, to which I have already referred, it is a recognition and an admission by the Commonwealth Government that the findings of the Royal Commission justify Western Australia receiving that amount of financial compensation, and it therefore establishes a basis upon which any decision as to future financial relationships shall rest - (Applause). The amount of £450,000 is not granted for the purpose of being splashed up on State enterprises or political adventures - (Loud applause). The Commonwealth Government expects that it will be used to give relief in the directions indicated by the commission to those industries which it has been proved are suffering from the tariff or from other conditions of federation that adversely effect Western Australia. One of these disabilities, the commission points out, is the present high rate of State income tax, particularly on the higher incomes, which is undoubtedly driving capital out of the State.

Later, I repeated that statement at Kalgoorlie, and added that, apart from any financial arrangements the Commonwealth might make with the States, Western Australia needed, and must receive, £450,000 a year inclusive of the . special grant. This is a result of the appointment of the Disabilities Royal Commission by the present Government. It does not follow that when a commission is appointed a government is bound to advise Parliament to accept the methods it may propose for giving relief. In this case the Government did not follow the exact methods by which the commission recommended that relief should bc given. Any honorable senator who reads the report and the findings of the commission will recognize immediately that the mere giving of a grant of money to Western Australia is not the best method for relieving that State of her heavy financial liabilities. Right through the report will be found references to the fact that one of the chief disabilities of Western Australia is the vast territory that she has to administer and govern with a handful of people. One of the commissioners went so far as to recommend as a partial remedy that the Commonwealth should assume financial liability for the territory in the north-west of Western Australia. The calculation of the amount of relief that would bo given to Western Australia, if that were done, is the calculation of the Under-Treasurer of i iic State, not of the Commonwealth Treasurer. The figure which he stated before ( lie commission was £150,000 per annum. In addition to undertaking to pay thi3 grant of £300,000 inclusive oi’ the diminishing grant to which Western Australia is entitled, the Commonwealth Government offered to take over the northwestern territory of Western Australia, down to the 26th parallel of south latitude. To that the Western. Australian Government has demurred, but it has expressed its willingness to discuss the question of the Commonwealth Government taking over the north-west territory, down to the 20th parallel of south latitude.

Senator Kingsmill:

– That is quite fi good proposal.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Commonwealth Government has replied that it is willing to negotiate the matter, and take over the territory clown to the 20th parallel of south latitude, and our information is that it would not make very much difference in the amount of financial relief given to Western Australia, because the greater amount of the liability of the State arises from government activities north of the 20th parallel of south latitude. The Commonwealth Government, therefore, has adopted the £450,000 recommendation of the majority of the Disabilities Commission, but it has said that it will give that relief in two directions, the first being a grant of £300,000 for five years, and the second the taking over and assumption of the obligations and debts appertaining to the north-western territory of the State, down to the 20th parallel of south latitude, and interest on the liabilities incurred amounting roughly to £150,000 a year. Seeing that the Western Australian Government is willing to negotiate on those terms, and seeing further that with the relief already given this year the Premier of tho State is able to announce a surplus for the year, it cannot be said that the Commonwealth is treating the State ungenerously. No State has the right to ask the Commonwealth Government to vote more money than is actually required to put it on a fair financial basis, unless it be a mendi cant State seeking charity. The Government believes that if Western Australia has a grant of £300,000 for five years, and the Commonwealth assumes the liability for the north-west territory referred to, the State will very soon be able to put its finances in order and need not seek relief from any other source. At any rate, the Government is doing justice to the State, and also to the finding of the royal commission, although not in exactly the way the commission has recommended. Five years hence I venture to say this Parliament will be as national iu its outlook as it is to-day, and can be trusted to deal fairly with the State if then the State is still in need of assistance. In these circumstances I ask the committee .not to endanger the grant or the bill by carrying an amendment, but to agree with ina that,, having regard to all the circumstances, and the .immediate necessity of the State, the Government has done substantial and fair justice to Western Australia.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– I intend to take two sporting chances, the chance of the amendment getting through the Senate, and the more serious chance of its not being sent back to us by the House of Representatives because we have exceeded our powers by seeking to amend a money bill. I have the liveliest as well as a pleasant recollection of the meeting to which Senator Pearce has alluded, because I was there, and I have the keenest recollection of the words he spoke, and the way in which they were received. I also fully indorse the action of the Wester n Australian Government in refusing to hand over to the tender cares of the Commonwealth the strip of country between the 20th and 26th parallels of south latitude. That, by the way, has not very much to do with the amendment, but I simply rose to say that I shall take these two sporting chances. If the State of Western Australia is dependent on the extra money, I should advise it to sell its chance if it can find a buyer. I intend to support the amendment for the reasons I have stated. As a matter- of fact I do not suppose the honorable senator who moved it had any idea that the Government would accept it, and if he did he had uo reason to believe that the Senate would pass it.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– In his endeavour to show why it was dangerous to give the States so much money Senator McLachlan read a list of socialistic enterprises into which he said the various State had entered with the result that they had lost quite a lot of money. Among other enterprises he mentioned the Wyndham Meat Works of Western Australia, which he said had lost something in the neighbourhood of £500,000. But these meat works cannot be classed by any fair-minded man as a socialistic enterprise in the ordinary sense, because they were established by the Government of the day as an honest effort to provide means to find a market for the stock of small squatters in the Kimberly district. There were quite a number of small cattle-raisers in East Kimberly who declared that they found it impossible to market their stock. The larger growers had a habit of procuring all the bookings on the limited shipping service available, and the small men were thus compelled to sacrifice their cattle on the spot, or let them roam at large on their runs. These meat works were established to meet that position. Unfortunately they have been run at a loss, but they have been of great assistance to men who could not be assisted in any other way. Therefore, Senator McLachlan can hardly class them as one of the socialistic schemes indulged in by State Governments. I want to do Senator Pearce the justice of saying that I also was at that meeting in Perth, to which he has referred, and that the statement he has read to-night is an absolutely correct report of what was said by him on that occasion. One member of the royal commission seemed to have come from the eastern State with the settled idea that the State had too much territory, and could not handle it all. He lost no opportunity during the inquiry to find out what the various witnesses thought about the wisdom of giving portion of the territory into the hands of the Commonwealth. Candidly the experience Australia has had of the administration of the Northern Territory is a very big factor in inducing the people of Western Australia to think that it would not be altogether wise to hand over any portion of their territory to the Commonwealth. We are certainly looking for an improvement in the ad ministration of the Northern Territory, but so far results have not been very encouraging.

Senator Abbott:

– They think it would be a case of out of the frying pan into the fire.

Senator CARROLL:

– Yes; that is the view the people of Western Australia take. There is a great difference between the north-west of Western Australia and the northern part of South Australia, now known as the Northern Territory. Darwin and the Northern Territory generally, might just as well have been in New Zealand, so far as the people of Adelaide and the southern part of South Australia were concerned. In Western Australia we have a continuous and unbroken coast line from the southern portion of the State to the north-west. We have not one thousand or two thousand miles of very difficult country to traverse, as is said to be the case between Adelaide and Darwin. Consequently I do not think there is the same necessity to urge a division of Western Australia as there was for the division of South Australia. To that extent, therefore, I do not agree with the finding of the royal commission. In any case I think the matter should be referred to people in that part of Western Australia, who after all is said and done, have to abide by what is decided. They should be consulted as to what their future should be.

Senator Abbott:

– The honorable senator wants a referendum of the people in the area as is provided for in the Constitution in regard to a new State.

Senator CARROLL:

– Exactly.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator would have no objection to a subdivision if the people in the area desired it.

Senator CARROLL:

– No. I would be the last in the world to put anything in the way of their securing what they desired in that regard. The position is just like a State alienating its freehold. It does not part with the land; neither would the State, in a sense, be parting with the northern portion of its territory. But that does not effect the point that it is a matter that should be referred to the people in that particular area, and for that reason T support the amendment.

– I rise to order. I submit that this requested amendment is distinctly out of order. As I understand that the practice in committee is to refer points of order to the President or Deputy President for his ruling, I do not propose to give my reasons now, but shall do so later.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:

– It is the duty of the Chairman, or Temporary Chairman of

Committees, to give a ruling on points of order; but, if an honorable senator dissents from a ruling so given, the President then has to give his decision.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That being so, I submit that it is not in order for the committee, by an indirect method such as is now proposed, to increase the appropriation under the bill. If honorable senators will refer to section 56 of the Constitution, they will find that a very definite provision is made in relation to’ appropriations governed by messages. That section reads -

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not bo passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General tothe House in which the proposal originated.

Senator Needham:

– This is not an appropriation bill.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is. If the Leader of the Opposition had served in another place, he would know that this bill must be founded on a message from the Governor-General. There is no other method by which it could be introduced. Such messages provide that a certain sum shall be appropriated. Another place cannot increase that appropriation. If this request were agreed to, what could the House of Representatives do? It could do nothing. The only course open to the Government would be to bring down another message from the GovernorGeneral and reintroduce the proposal in a new bill. I cannot see how it is possible for us to do anything effective in the manner proposed. The requested amendment ofthe Leader of the Opposition is, in my opinion, out of order.

Senator Pearce:

– I am very glad that Senator Greene has raised this point of order, because if I had done so my motives might have been suspected. A similar question has arisen in this chamber on a previous occasion; and in a little booklet which has been issued to members, entitled Practice and Procedure on Appropriation, Taxation-, and Other Bills, I find on page 20 the following, which has application to the present case: -

The rule that no amendment can bemade in a bill by the Senate which would havethe effect of widening the area of proposed expenditure, and thus increasing a charge or burden on the people, was upheld by the

President in connexion with the Bounties Bill 1907-08 in the followingruling:-

The bill as received from the other House represented the requirements of the Crown, and must be so accepted without reference to the form in which it might have originally been presented to that House, and there was no power to make alterations that would have the effect of altering the destination of the grant sought or of creating another bounty.

The Senate, with certain exceptions under section 53 of the Constitution, had powers similar to those of the House of Representatives, and as this was such an amendment as that House could not make in the bill, he ruled that the Senate was restricted in the same manner, and the amendment was not in order.

It is clear that if this amendment were carried, it would increase the charge or burden on the people.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is no doubt about that.

Senator Pearce:

– In that case, the amendment could not be made in another place without a fresh message from the Governor-General. Clearly, we cannot request another place to make an amendment which, under its own rules, it would be prohibited from making. So far as I know, the ruling which I havequoted has not been amended. It would, therefore, seem that this is a case which comes within the prohibition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:

– A similar point of order has been raisedon previous occasions in this Senate. Honorable senators will remember that when Senator Needham proposed to move his request by way of an amendment I ruled that I could not accept any amendment that proposed to increase a proposed charge or burden on the people. In this connexion, the Senate is governed by section 53 of the Constitution, which provides that-

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The practice followed by the Senate is laid down in Boydell’s Practice and Procedure on Appropriation, Taxation, and Other Money Bills, which has been referred to by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Pearce) ; but the ruling given in connexion with the Bounties Bill, 1907-8, which the Minister quoted, does not, in my judgment, apply in a similar way to the present case. In the first place, I point out that Senator Needham has not moved an amendment.

I have already ruled that the Senate has not the power to make an amendment in a bill of this nature. But the Senate would be in order in requesting the House of Representatives to make this amendment. It would be for the House of Representatives to determine whether or not the request of the Senate should be agreed to. I call attention to the decision given on page 17 of the publication mentioned, which reads -

The practice, therefore, has been established that, while the Senate cannot amend a proposed law so as to increase a proposed charge or burden on the people, it may yet request the House of Representatives to make amendments having that effect.

I therefore rule that the request moved by Senator Needham is in order.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I give notice in writing of my dissent from your ruling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It is now necessary for me to leave the Chair and report the matter to the Deputy-President.

In the Senate:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– In the committee Senator Needham desired to move an amendment to clause 3 to strike out the words “ three hundred “ with a view to inserting the words “ four hundred and fifty.” Seeing that the Constitution provides that it is not within the power of the Senate to increase a proposed charge or burden on the people, I informed Senator Needham, that it would be out of order for him to move the amendment, but that he would be in order in moving it by way of a request to the House of Representatives. He did so, whereupon, Senator Greene raised a point of order. I ruled that the request moved by Senator Needham was in order. Senator Greene then gave notice of dissent from my ruling on the ground that, according to section 56 of the Constitution, a vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or money cannot be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General in the House in which the proposal originated. I submit that in this matter we are governed not only by the Standing Orders of the Senate, but also by the practice and procedure that has grown up during the last twenty-six years. I direct attention to Boydell’s Practice and Procedure on

Appropriation, Taxation, and other Money Bills, on page 17 of which he says -

I submit that my ruling is in accordance with the practice of the Senate as set out by Boydell. Senator Needham has not proposed to amend a proposed law; he has merely moved a request to the House of Representatives that the law be amended in a direction that lies within the power of the House of Representatives.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Temporary Chairman has quoted from page 17 of Boydell in support of his ruling. I point out that ‘the ruling referred to related to a duty of Customs which it was proposed to impose. It is perfectly clear, and has been established by long practice, that this Senate has an undoubted right to make requests to the House of Representatives to increase the burden on the people in all matters of taxation, and that the House of Representatives is free, after the receipt of such a message, to proceed to impose extra duties at the request of the Senate.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– That is within the power of the House of Representatives.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes; it can proceed at once to impose extra duties. It can do it at once and without trouble. This, however, is an entirely different matter, and is not in any sense governed by the ruling to which the Temporary Chairman referred. Let me refer you, sir, to section 56 of the Constitution. It reads -

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the GovernorGeneral to the House in which the proposal originated.

I wish to direct your attention particularly to the words. - “ to the House iu which the proposal originated.” The proposal which we have under consideration originated in the committee of the Senate, and I ask where is the GovernorGeneral’s message covering it t Is it here? In Quick and Garran ‘s The Annotated Constitution of the Australian

Commonwealth, page 682, there is reference to the point now under discussion. Mr. Barton is quoted as follows -

Mr. Barton was not in doubt as to the advisability of requiring those impositions and appropriations to bo recommended by message. “ .Even if I am right in thinking that a bill of the character indicated in the first part of the clause 54 -

Senator Givens:

– It is quite true that there have been established in this Senate precedents for attempting by request to amend bills which we have power to amend in the ordinary way; but I have never agreed with those precedents. If any honorable senator cares to look up the Constitution and the Standing Orders, he will find that there are only two classes of bills which this Senate may not amend. The first are bills providing for the ordinary annual services of the year, and the second are bills imposing taxation. It is quite clear that the proper course in relation to such measures is to proceed by request; but it is anomalous for the Senate to proceed by request in the case of bills which this Chamber has a perfect right to amend in the ordinary way. A common-sense reading of the Constitution and the Standing Orders leads one to the conclusion that the only bills upon which the Senate should proceed to amend by request are measures which this Chamber may not amend in the ordinary way. lt is clear that the Senate can amend the bill now under consideration, and therefore it should not proceed bv request. I do not propose to traverse the ground covered by” Senator Greene, who put the case clearly and cogently; but I wish to emphasize that the practice of this Parliament is based on the practice of the mother of parliaments, the House of Commons. Where our own Standing Orders do not make cleaT the procedure that should be followed, Ave are always guided by the practice of the House of Commons. Invariably, that course has been followed. In May’s Parliamentary Practice, 9th edition, page 510, there appears the following, which hears on the point under discussion : -

A3 is subsequently explained (see page 531), the constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of tho Crown for the service of the State.

That absolutely forbids the increasing of the amount, because on the Crown rests the whole responsibility of saying how much is required. On page 531 there appears the following: -

The constitutional principle which vests iu the Crown the sole responsibility over national expenditure (see page 504), and which forbids the Commons to increase the sums demanded by the Crown for the service of the State (sec page 510) is strictly enforced in the committee of supply. For instance, it was held. 9th March, 1S03, that a member could not move an addition to the number of men stated upon the army estimates, although, apparently, the grant for pay upon the estimates provided for a number of soldiers larger than the number therein specified.

It will be seen that the British practice does not even allow a member to move for the addition of a man to the service, because his inclusion would increase the amount asked for by the Crown for the maintenance of the army. It is not necessary to quote further from May, but I should like to say that all the rulings establish the principle that the charge cn the taxpayer may not be increased unless the Crown specifically asks for it. What are we asked to do? In voting annual supplies of any amount, we are asked to supply sufficient money for the necessities of the Crown; but we are not supposed to know whar the necessities of the Crown are. That responsibility rests upon the Ministry of the day. The practice of voting more than is asked for has always been frowned upon by the House of Commons, and has never been assented to. It would be wise to follow that safe constitutional practice which has proved a valuable safeguard to the British taxpayers down through the centuries.

Senator Pearce:

– I agree with the point made by Senator Givens. Section 53 of the Constitution elucidates the point which is engaging our attention at the moment. It provides -

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys or imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation or proposed laws appro priating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The bill under consideration cannot be regarded as a measure appropriating moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government, such as an ordinary supply bill or an appropriation bill. I therefore agree with Senator Givens that this measure does not come within the category of those provided for in the second paragraph of section 53. The power of request was inserted in the Constitution to meet the position which might arise in connexion with bills which the Senate may not amend. In order that the Senate might have some control over those’ measures, it was provided that the Senate could request the House of Representatives to make amendments. As this bill is neither a taxation measure nor a bill appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government, it is not one 111)OIl which the Senate should exercise its power of request. It is a bill which the Senate may amend. In section 53 it is further provided -

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Two things are clear. This is not a bill upon which we should make requests, because it is not a taxation measure; and it is not a bill appropriating money for the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth. This is a bill that wc can amend; but we cannot amend it in such a way as to increase the proposed charge or burden upon the people.

Senator Needham:

– At the outset I so worded my motion as to make it a direct amendment to the bill; but the Temporary Chairman of Committees ruled that this was not a measure that we could amend. I, therefore, moved by way of request. During the 26 years that the Senate has been in existence, similar requests have been made to another place. Why this point should bc taken on the present occasion I am not aware. Various sections of the Constitution have been quoted by some honorable senators who are lawyers, and others who are not. I shall quote a portion of section 53, which has not been referred to by other speakers. It reads: -

The Senate may, at any stage, return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting by messagethe omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein–

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That provision does not apply to this particular measure.

Senator Needham:

– The section continues -

And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modification.

In committee:

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– I listened with pleasure to the statement of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), but I point out that the services of the Development and Migration Commission and the Council for

Senator Givens:

– How does the honorable senator know that?

Senator MILLEN:

– If it is of any interest to the honorable senator I may say that I have that impression.

Senator Pearce:

– I do not know what it is likely to contain, although I am the Minister controlling the department under which it is operating.

Senator MILLEN:

– I suggest that Senator Givens should read Sir Nicholas Lockyer’s report, in which specific recommendations are made concerning production in Tasmania, and the direction in which it should he financially assisted. I feel in this instance that “Western Australia has also the assistance pf these two bodies, and that the grant should be paid to Tasmania for five years, as is being done in the case of Western Australia. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the word “ two “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five.”

– That is not correct.

Senator PAYNE:

- Senator Grant knows that one reason why Tasmania is not so prosperous as New South Wales, is that in Tasmania visitors are always given, full value for their money, with the result that the huge surpluses, with which New South Wales is familiar, ure comparatively unknown in Tasmania. Senator Grant compared the population of New South Wales with that of Tasmania. I remind him that one reason for Tasmania’s smaller population is that New South Wales is always offering inducements to Tasmanians to settle in the larger State. The people of New South Wales know that Tasmania each year spends enormous sums of money on the education of her people, with the result that from her educational institutions a greater percentage of brilliant men is turned out than is the case in any of the other States. New South Wales is always on the lookout for such men. I remind Senator Grant, also, that had it not been for Tasmania there would to-day be no New South Wales, because very many years ago the people of New South Wales depended on Tasmania for their food and clothing. Had it not been for foodstuffs sent from Tasmania, the people of New South Wales would have starved.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask the honorable senator to direct his remarks to the clause before the committee.

Senator PAYNE:

– Senator Grant said that there was nothing to justify financial assistance being given to Tasmania; but if he weve to peruse the reports of men who, as royal commissioners, have inquired into Tasmania’s position, he would realize that the present unsatisfactory financial condition of that State is largely due to actions for which Tasmania has no need to be ashamed. Providence has been good to Tasmania in that in the great lake districts there is an abundant water supply available for the development of hydro-electric power. Tasmania recognizes that that wonderful storehouse of energy has been entrusted to her, not only for her own’ use and benefit, but also for the good of Australia as a whole ; and her financial position to-day is largely due to her acceptance of the responsibility of developing that source of power. Will any honorable senator deny that the development of that hydroelectric scheme is not of benefit to Australia ? lt has attracted the attention of many large, industrial magnates, and there is no doubt that in the future-

Senator Findley:

– What has this to do with the clause ?

Senator PAYNE:

– A great deal. Enormous capital expenditure has been incurred, and Tasmania now finds itself seriously embarrassed. I regret that provision is not made that Tasmania shall receive this grant for a more extended term; but after hearing the explanation of the Minister, I am prepared to acceptthat proposal, and believe that an investigation will prove the justice of continuing the proposed assistance.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- I wish to place on record certain figures in support of my statement that the people of Tasmania are more highly taxed than the people in any other State. Senator Grant said just now that New South Wales was paying nearly as much as Tasmania in State direct taxation.

Senator Grant:

– I said New South Wales was paying more than one-half.

Senator OGDEN:

– According to the Commonwealth Tear-Book for 1926, New South Wales pays £3 12s. per head, State taxation; Victoria, £2 18s, 2d.; Queensland, £4 13s. 9d.; South Australia, £4 5s. Id. ; Western Australia, £3 7s. 3d., and Tasmania, £5 19s. lid! I admit that in the case of Tasmania there should be a deduction of about 7s. or 8s. for lottery income derived from contributions from other States, but even then taxpayers in Tasmania pay nearly £2 a head more than taxpayers in New South Wales.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

The schedule.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I should like the Minister to explain upon what basis the amount provided in the schedule has been calculated. The bill provides that during the financial year commencing 1st July, 1927, the Commonwealth shall make monthly payments to the several States in respect of the amounts set out in the schedule for the year commencing 1st July, 1927. Section 7 of the Surplus Revenue Act provides -

Where in this act reference is made in relation to any payment or debit, to the number of the people of a State, the reference shall be deemed to be to the number of the people of the State, as ascertained according to the laws of the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Statistican as at the 31st December, in the financial year in respect of which the payment or debit is to be made.

According to this bill the number of people for the year commencing 1st July, 1928, should be calculated as at the 31st December of that year. Honorable senators will see that we cannot possibly estimate what the population at that particular time will be. We can only assume that the calculation has been based upon the latest available statistics. This may be alright from the Government’s point of view, but it may not suit the States. The Government in reply to the representations of honorable senators have repeatedly assured us that no State will suffer; but we have no sure knowledge that the figures in the schedule are correct. On a former occasion, figures submitted by the Commonwealth were challenged by the States. The Government has said that any discrepancy in ‘ the figures will be adjusted; but honorable senators are now asked to agree to definite figures in the schedule. Will the Minister inform us of the basis upon which they have been compiled 1 In view of the fact that this is portion of a new scheme for the adjustment of the finances between the Commonwealth and the

States, we should like to have an assurance that, in the event of the figures being proved to be incorrect, the States will get a fair deal, and that discrepancies will be adjusted.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I think Senator Chapman is under a misapprehension. The figures challenged by the States had relation to the amount of taxation which the Commonwealth proposed to abandon, and which the States could reimpose. In regard to the schedule, the figures have been arrived at by the formula laid down in the Surplus Revenue Act. The figures circulated by the Treasurer in the memorandum to which the honorable senator refers, were issued in advance of December, 1926, and, therefore, were an estimate only. We arrived at them” in this way: We knew what the population was at the end of December, 1925, but had to forecast what it would be at the end of 1926. Basing our figures on the rate of increase in population during the preceding year, and adding that to the population as at the end of December, 1925, we arrived at the figures which were circulated by the Treasurer. We now know what the population was in 1926, hut we have to deal now, not with the year ending 1926, but with the year ending June, 1928. Therefore, again we have to forecast in exactly the same way as we did last year. We take the population at 31st December, 1926, and add to that the known rate of population increase for the preceding year. Excluding the special payment to Western Australia, this method of procedure givesus £134,678 more than was set out in the memorandum supplied by the Treasurer, but which, as I have stated, was arrived at by the same method of calculation.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I point out to honorable senators that there is a difference between the figures furnished by Dr. Earle Page when he introduced the bill in another place and the amounts provided in the schedule. According to the present figures, New South Wales is to get £2,978,343, as compared with a previous estimate of £2,909,020, representing again of £69,323. Victoria will now get £2,152,615, as against the previous estimate of £2,144,796, a gain of only £7,819; Queensland will now get £1,131,646, as against £1,094,766, the previous estimate, showing a gain of £36,880; South Australia will get £721,269, as compared with the previous estimate of £700,849, a gain of £20,420;. and Western Australia will now get £564,688, less a special grant of £87,188, making in the case of that State a gain of £6,250.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is all this about ?

Senator CHAPMAN:

– It is important that honorable senators should know that their States will not lose by this new arrangement, as compared with what they would get if the per capita grants were continued.

Senator Givens:

– We have already voted the amounts in clause 6.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– Nevertheless, the schedule should receive careful consideration. Page 41 of Hansard of the present session contains figures relating to the capitation grant over a period of ten years. Those figures show that the amounts have increased or decreased very consistently over a number of years. Between 1924-25 and 1925-26 the following increases took place : -

Tasmania showed a loss of £780. Yet we find that the increases shown by the amounts actually paid for the last year I have quoted are New South Wales, £69,323, and Victoria, £7,819. There appears to be a discrepancy. No opportunity has been afforded for a check of the figures by either honorable senators or the State authorities. If the Commonwealth figures are wrong, and any State loses thereby, the representatives of that State will be held responsible. I ask the Minister (Senator Pearce) whether the undertaking of the Prime Minister to adjust any discrepancy will be observed.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the report he adopted.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That the bill be recommitted for the consideration of a proposed new clause 6a.

I apologize for having to take this action ; it has been rendered necessary by the irregular progress which was made in the debate. Whilst Senator Payne was delivering a very impassioned and, I feel sure, effective reply to a lot of irrelevant remarks that had been made by a member of the Opposition, I left the chamber for a few minutes in the belief that, in all human probability, he would continue for at least half an hour. To mydismay, when I returned to the chamber I found the committee considering clause 7. I therefore could not move for the insertion of a new clause to, follow clause 6. I trust that the Leader of the Senate will agree to the recommital of the bill.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I object to the recommittal of the bill. Wo have had a very long and animated discussion upon it. Are we to be kept here longer because an honorable senator neglects his duty ? If the motion is agreed to, I shall prolong the discussion by taking the point of order that the proposed amendment is outside thescope of the bill, is irrelevant, and has nothing whatever to do with the purpose of the measure.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– It has been my invariable rule during my ministerial life to oppose the recommittal of a bill ; but, having had to listen to the speech to which Senator Kingsmill has referred, I can well understand his desire to be outside the chamber during its delivery. Therefore, on this occasion, I must depart from my usual practice and afford the honorable senator an opportunity of submitting his proposed new clause. If I had had any doubts regarding the wisdom of doing so, the intimation that Senator Givens has just made would have encouraged me to agree to the recommittal. If the question can be dealt with in the way suggested by Senator Givens, there will be a happy issue to our afflictions.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The Senate has listened at times to long and irrelevant remarks by Senator Kingsmill. This evening he neglected his duties. Whilst Senator Payne was delivering one of those orations that he knows so well how to deliver, and which are appreciated by every intelligent member of this chamber, Senator Kingsmill found it necessary to absent himself. He now asks us to agree to the recommittal of the bill so that he may move one of those foolish amendments for which he is noted. If the motion is carried, I shall exhaust every form of the Senate to put the case for the State that I represent.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to order.Is the honorable senator in order in making threats regarding the speeches he will inflict upon honorable senators?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Plain). - The honorable senator is not in order in making threats; but he is quite in order in informing the Senate of his intentions in the event of the recommittal of the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– I merely wish to say that if the bill is recommitted I shall use every means in my power to place before honorable senators the case for the State that I represent. We are compelled to sit here night after night listening to remarks by Senator Kingsmill which are pointless and meaningless. Then, when he neglects his duty, he desires to delay the Senate so that he may submit a motion that, I feel sure, will not meet with the approval of this chamber. I shall oppose in every possible way the proposed new clause.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 28

NOES: 4

Majority . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In committee (Recommittal).

Progress reported.

page 744

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Immigration Act- Return for 1926. Contract Immigrants Act - Return for 1926.

page 744

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till to-morrow, at 11 a.m.

Senate adjourned at 10.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 March 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1927/19270321_senate_10_115/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate21 March 1927

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

Senator KINGSMILL:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Commonwealth Offices, Sydney

QUESTION

ROYAL VISITORS

Senator CHAPMAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

KIDMAN-MAYOH CONTRACT

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CRIMES ACT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

TARIFF AMENDMENT

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

KYOGLE TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY

Senator GRANT:

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF MUNITIONS

DEFENCE BILL

QUESTION

COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

STATES GRANTS BILL

Senator SAMPSON:Tasmania

Senator McHUGH:South Australia

Senator Sampson:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Givens:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Carroll:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Carroll:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Givens:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Chapman:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator ABBOTT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Sampson:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Lynch:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator H Hays:

Senator GIVENS:

Senator H Hays:

Senator GIVENS:

Senate
21 March 1927

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

Senator ABBOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator REID:
Queensland

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

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT