Senate
26 March 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- MIGRATION FIGURES
QUESTION
- LISTENERS-IN LICENCE FEES
QUESTION
- BOUNTY ON BEEF
QUESTION
- ENTEETAINMENT COMPANY’S PROFITS
LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
QUESTION
- LIGHTHOUSE STEAMER CONSTRUCTION
QUESTION
- COST OF POSTAL WORKS
QUESTION
- JAVA KAPOK
QUESTION
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM : SELECT COMMITTEE
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
SOLAR OBSERVATORY FUND BILL
DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL
- Second Reading
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
- Second Reading
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- North Australia Ordinances - Manufacture of Australian Carburettors

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 469

QUESTION

MIGRATION FIGURES

Has be noticed that in an election leaflet issued by the Hon. K. G. Theodore, M.P., as campaign director of the Labour party at the 1928 election, the statement is made that Mr. Bruce brought 8,000 Italians, Greeks and Jugoslavs into Australia?

Are we to understandthat the 2,120 Europeans other than British who came into Australia for the quarter ending 30th December, 1929, were broughtin by Mr. Scullin?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not seen the pamphlet referred to, and I do not know what the right honorable senator is entitled to understand from the figures quoted by him in the second portion of his question, but if he desires further information, I ask him to place his questions on the notice-paper.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I shall do so.

page 469

QUESTION

LISTENERS-IN LICENCE FEES

Is he aware that the election leaflet, No. 11, issued by the Hon. E. G. Theodore, M.P., as campaign director of the Labour party at the 1928 electionappealed to the electors “For Free Radio, vote Labour,” and definitely set out in paragraph (2) under the heading of “ Broadcasting” the promise of the abolition of listeners-in licence fees? When is it proposed by the Government to carry out this promise?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The Government made no such promise to the electors; it proposes to honour any promise it made tothem.

page 469

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON BEEF

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate yet in a position to supply an answer to a question I have asked relative to a promise stated to have been made by the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) that a bounty would be paid on beef?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– I am not yet in a position to give the information.

page 469

QUESTION

ENTEETAINMENT COMPANY’S PROFITS

Is it a fact that in the Melbourne Argus newspaper of 22nd March, 1930, under the heading of “ Company News,” there is a report of the operations of Amalgamated Pictures Limited for the year ended 28th February, showing that the net profit for the year is £21,480, compared with £10,531 for 1 928-29?

In view of the general depression in industry and of the increased profits from amusements which these figures disclose, will the Government re-consider their decision not to tax picture companies before imposing any further taxation on industry?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The report referred to by the right honorable senator may have been published, but no one knows better than he does that the Government made no such promise.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– As the Leader of the Senate has evidently not heard my question properly, I give notice that I shall ask it again to-morrow.

page 460

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Assent reported.

page 460

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE STEAMER CONSTRUCTION

Senator SIR GEORGE PEARCE:

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

In reference to the announcement by Ministers that it is intended to place orders for a new lighthouse steamer at a cost of over £100,000, and having regard to the urgent necessity for economy, will the Government, before proceeding with this proposal, invite the Public Accounts Committee to investigate the question of the necessity for such expenditure?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– It is proposed to refer the question of building a new lighthouse steamer to the Public Works Committee.

page 460

QUESTION

COST OF POSTAL WORKS

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the department claimed from the Morning ton Shire Council the sum of £14 3s. 8d. for the removal of one telegraph post from a street corner?
What amount was recovered in the court when action was brought?
Is it a fact that the judge who tried the case commented severely upon the exorbitant charge made for this work?
In view of the Government’s expressed intention to achieve efficiency with economy, will the Ministry have an inquiry made into this case, and explain how this charge was made up, and whether in all work carried out by the department costs are on a similar basis ?

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

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

Yes.
£3 3s. 8d. additional to the £8 which the shire had paid, making a total of £11 3s. 8d. In addition, judgment was given against the shire council for departmental costs.
No ; except in respect of overhead charges which the judge considered were based upon too high a percentage.
The work was undertaken in 1927, and full investigation has already been made. Taking into consideration the nature of the work and the peculiar circumstances, the cost could not be regarded as abnormally high. The charges were made up as follow : -Labour, £718s.10d; material and incidentals, £2 4s. 10d; overhead charges, £4. The overhead charges include annual leave, sick leave, child endowment, furlough, superannuation, and general administration charges.

page 460

QUESTION

JAVA KAPOK

Is the Government considering the advisableness of imposing a duty on Java kapok, in the interests of the Queensland cotton industry?

If so, will the Government give careful consideration to the probability of the Dutch Government retaliating by imposing a duty on Australian flour, with disastrous consequences to the flour milling industry of Australia and particularly of ‘Western Australia ? ‘

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s question are as follow: -

In accordance with established policy the Government cannot disclose its intentions in respect of the imposition of new duties.
Yes, if the occasion arises.

page 460

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Visit to Tasmania

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

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

Is it a fact that the Public Accounts Committee spent four or five weeks recently in Tasmania?
If so, what was the object of this visit?
What was the cost?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s question are as follow : -

The committee arrived in Tasmania on the6th February, 1930, and left again on the 1st March, 1930.
The object of the visit was to investigate the general disabilities of Tasmania at the request of the Commonwealth Government
The information is being obtained.

page 461

STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM : SELECT COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Sir Hal Colebatch for Sena tor R. D. Elliott) agreed to: -

That the time for bringing up the report from the Select Committee appointed to consider, report and make recommendations upon the advisability or otherwise of establishing standing committees of the Senate upon Statutory Rules and Ordinances, International Relations. Finance, and Private Members’ Bills, be extended to Wednesday, 2nd April. 1930.’

page 461

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.

page 461

SOLAR OBSERVATORY FUND BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Barnes) read a first time.

page 461

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators who have had an opportunity to peruse the bill will have noticed that, apart from the actual principle involved, it is one which can be more effectively considered in committee. Prior to 1926 the subjects of development and migration were under direct and complete ministerial control. The establishment of a Development and Migration Commission represented a complete change in such control. The control of the Minister became indirect and partial. The Development and Migration Commission, being a creature of Parliament, built up its own organization, engaged and employed its own staff, and, within its ambit, defined its internal policy free from the control of the Minister. The present Government seeks to amend the law to provide that the complete control of development and migration shall once again be vested in the executive. The case for the Government in support of its contention may be conveniently stated in the following propositions: - (1) That our system of constitutional government implies, as a general rule, that executive administration shall be supervised and controlled by individual Ministers; and (2) That necessity only, as opposed to convenience, should be the exception to such general rule, and such exception, once it is created, should continue only so long as the necessity exists.

As honorable senators will admit, the first proposition needs very little argument to support it. It is true that the Parliament is the titular council of the Crown in legislative matters, and that all laws are still enacted in the name of the Sovereign by and with the advice and consent of Parliament. It is also true that, as a titular council, it can prescribe the mode by which it suggests that the Sovereign shall exercise his executive powers. But the exercise of executive powers vested in the Sovereign is delegated in practice to the various political officers who compose the Ministry or the Government, or to government offices whose staffs are comprised of members of the Public Service. The reason for the existence of this practice is obvious when one considers that - (1) The responsibility to Parliament of a Ministry, individually and collectively, is secured by the fact that Ministers are, in effect, dismissible at the pleasure of Parliament through their inability to carry on the government without its support and (2) A member of the Public Service may be dismissed by the the Crown.

– The point is not whether a man is called a commissioner, but whether work is entrusted to a commission. I do not submit that a commissioner cannot do the work as effectively as a Minister can do it; but that the task is one for a Minister and not for some one outside Parliament. On the two propositions I have already stated, and on this additional proposition I shall rest my case, that even if the necessity to appoint the Development and Migration Commission did exist when the previous Government appointed that body, that necessity no longer exists. The control should be in the hands of a Minister.

That leads me to relate the historical facts which led up to the appointment of the Development and Migration Commission; to discuss the present organization - its functions and cost - and to conclude with the Government’s proposals for the future. An Empire conference, attended by representatives of all parts of the Empire, met in London in January and February, 1921, to discuss various systems of Empire settlement. Various decisions were arrived at with a view of securing co-operation between the British Government and the governments of the several dominions in relation to the carrying-out of a comprehensive policy of a permanent nature embracing Empire land settlement, and the promotion of migration within the Empire. Co-operation having been secured, the next step was the passage in May, 1922, of the Empire Settlement Act. That act empowered the British Government to co-operate with the dominions in the promulgation of schemes to assist the migration of suitable persons who desired to settle in any part of the oversea dominions. The co-operation and assistance could be either in developmental or land settlement schemes, or schemes for facilitating settlement by helping with passages, initial allowances, training or otherwise. The act provided that the contribution of the Imperial Government should not in any case exceed half the cost of any adopted scheme. Such contribution was limited to fifteen years after the passing of the act. Following the passage of the Empire Settlement Act, agreements were entered into with the States of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. These agreements were concluded on the 14th November, 1922; 21st September, 1922; and 9th February 1923, respectively. In New South Wales the capital cost of the schemes was fixed at £6,000,000; in Victoria, £2,000,000, and in Western Australia, £6,000,000. New South Wales did not proceed very far with its scheme; after providing certain facilities for the training of migrants and settling approximately 28 migrants, nothing further was done. The Government is now in communication with the Government of New South Wales regarding the liability for this scheme which has conferred absolutely no benefit on either Britain or Australia. About £100,000 is involved.

Senator Payne:

– Why were the operations suspended in New South Wales?

Senator DALY:

– I cannot say; but I understand that they were suspended because of a change of government; but that does not alter the fact that under the scheme certain liabilities were incurred. At that time the Development and Migration Commission had not been established; the scheme to which I refer was undertaken in connexion with the £14,000,000 agreement. In Victoria 700 migrants were accepted under the agreement, and passages and assistance were provided for them. Approximately only 400 of them reported on arrival in Australia, and of that number only 335 were provided with farms. Judging by- the disturbing complaints that have been received from those settlers, and the pressing and insistent requests from the British Government for an inquiry, as well as from the knowledge I have gained since I have been in charge of this department, the scheme has not been successful.

Senator Foll:

– Were requests submitted for migrants who did not exist?

Senator DALY:

Migration under the new scheme became the subject of unified control by the Commonwealth, and with that end in view the system thenceforth to operate was that - (1) The Commonwealth on approved schemes should make available to the States loan moneys at low rates of interest and the British and Commonwealth Governments should for a period of ten years share between them the balance of the interest cost; (2) Certain other expenses attendant upon the administration of the now arrangement should be borne and shared by the British and Commonwealth Governments between them; and (3) The Commonwealth should see that immigrants accepted under a scheme were satisfactorily settled in terms of the agreement.

Collateral to the main agreement, agreements were entered into between the Commonwealth and the States. At this time, the subject of State expenditure of loan moneys was causing grave concern. Quite apart from the arrangements with Great Britain schemes for development which had cost millions of pounds were top heavy and without considerable relief in the way of writing down huge capital losses they were certain to collapse.

The Government was faced with these facts -

The arrangement with Britain ; (2) The. financial drift in both the Commonwealth and State developmental expenditure ; and (3) The urgent necessity for placing development and migration on a much sounder basis.

The only quarrel that I have with the late Government is that, instead of directly controlling the position, it adopted the expedient - it cannot be justified on any other ground - of appointing what is known as the Development and Migration Commission. The act appointing that commission resulted in the appointment of four commissioners at salaries in the aggregate of £13,250 per annum, or the equivalent of the salaries of seven Cabinet Ministers; in the setting up of a staff of experts which might just as conveniently have reported to a Minister, who. in turn would have had £13,250 per annum with which to pay the salary of a Director of Development, and to pay any fees necessary for consultant experts. It further enabled the setting up of administrative staffs in London and in Australia, with attendant administrative heads to perform work which could conveniently have been carried out by the staffs at Australia House and in the office of the Prime Miinister

To give the Parliament some idea of the cost involved in maintaining such an organization, even in a year when those controlling it knew that migration had fallen from 31,260 in the year of its creation to 12,943 in 1.929; that definite bases had been reached in the way of soil investigations to guide States in developmental projects, and that a Loan Council had such limited resources at its disposal that it was forced to ration its funds, I shall quote from a schedule furnished to me by the Development and Migration Commission -

As, under the Constitution, money bills cannot be initiated in the Senate, it will be necessary, when this bill reaches another place, to insert a clause providing for an appropriation to cover the remuneration of the members of the commission. I have given this bill very careful consideration, and have no hesitation in advising the Senate that its passing will effect considerable savings without lessening efficiency. Should it be found desirable later to increase our migration activities, that can be done as well under a Minister as under a commission. In commending the bill to the Senate, I desire to inform honorable senators that I am prepared to supply any information concerning it which they may desire.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) adjourned.

page 474

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure seeks to bring about more direct ministerial and departmental control of the Federal Capital Territory. The Labour party pledged itself at the last election to alter the method of Government then in vogue in the Territory, and to substitute one which would bring the people of the Capital more closely into touch with its administration. The original Federal Capital Commission was inaugurated in 1924, and began its operations early in 1925. It was charged with the construction of buildings and essential services necessary for the transfer of Parliament and certain portions of the Public Service to Canberra. This work was practically completed in 1927, when activities of a constructural nature diminished , and problems relative to civic administration came into prominence. It quickly became apparent that the opposition to the Commission form of control, voiced by the Labour party in 1924, was justified. Complaints began to come in from all quarters. Residents of the territory had practically no say in its administration. The Government of the day endeavoured to mend matters, and to placate the residents by appointing a locally elected representative to the Commission. This representative and his successor found that they had no real power, and they were continually at variance with their fellow Commissioners.

It is beyond dispute that the Commission has failed as an administrative body, and that it has proved to be an exceedingly costly experiment. Further, the system is objectionable as it is an abrogation of Ministerial and Parliamentary responsibility. Its era of usefulness definitely ended when the majority of the public servants were provided with living quarters and moved to Canberra. Much of the Commission machinery is a duplication of that already existing departmentally, and considerable administrative savings should result from the proposed change. The intention of the Government is to abolish the Federal Capital Commission and place the affairs of the Territory under departmental control, with provision for Ministerial responsibility. It is proposed to divide the present functions of the Federal Capital Commission as follows: -

Health Department -

Protection of public health. Sanitation - omitting night soil and garbage removal. Medical inspection of school children. Control of preparation and sale of drugs and food - including abattoirs, dairy supervision, milk supply, sale of meat. Hospitals. Control of stock diseases. Orchards, fruit and plant pests.

Works Department -

Construction and maintenance of all engineering works including roads, footpaths, bridges, culverts, levees, sewers and treatment works, water courses, drains, water supply, darns, reservoirs, electric power stations, mains and services, mechanical works, &c. Construction and maintenance of all buildings and residences other than those constructed privately. Provision of electricity and water. Acquisition and disposal of all public buildings excluding hotels, private buildings and residences. Control and management of factories and workshops, brick works, quarries, cement products, &c. Plant required for construction of all works. Purchase and supply of materials and stores. Supply of furniture and fittings for all Commonwealth requirements. Surveys, maps and plans.

Attorney-General’s Department -

Registration of titles.

Preparation of ordinances, by-laws, regulations, &c, for the government of the Territory.

Home Affairs Department (Civic) -

Development of city according to Griffin plan.

Special local government activities.

Social service.

Preparation of balance sheets.

Collection and accounting for all amounts due for rents, rates, electricity, water garbage, &c, &c.

Approval of designs, &c., of all buildings erected in the Territory.

Sub-divisions.

Fire brigades, &c.

Land valuation.

Control and management of Crown lands.

Levying and collecting rates.

Forestry.

Destruction of vermin and noxious weeds.

Disposal of residences,including sale, letting and inspection.

Advances for buildings to lessees.

Credit Foncier.

General municipal government.

Education.

Hotels and boarding houses.

Bus and transport (other than for works, tractors, cars for works inspectors).

Collection of charges for electricity, water and sewerage.

Markets, weighbridges, pounds.

Sanitation, garbage removal.

Industrial matters, including tribunals.

Cemeteries and burials.

Parks and gardens, recreation grounds.

Administration and accounting for above.

The Government intends to create by ordinance an advisory council, the chairman of which will be the civic administrator, an officer who will be attached to the Department of Home Affairs, and in charge of the branch of that department dealing with the affairs of the Territory.

The remaining members of the council will be the secretaries of the Home Affairs and Works Department, the Director-General of Health, and three residents of the Territory elected by adult franchise for a period of twelve months. As some of those elective members may be artisans, part of whose working time may have to be sacrificed in attending to the affairs of the community, it is proposed to pay each of them an honorarium of £100 per annum. The council will deliberate on all matters affecting the Territory, and its recommendations will be of service to the responsible Minister when making his decision on problems that arise from time to time.

I think that it will be conceded by honorable senators that the measure of representation granted to the residents of the Territory by such a council is fair and just as, while bearing their share of the cost of municipal services, they are. not called upon to bear the whole burden. It may be urged that the people of Canberra should be responsible for the election of all of the members of the proposed council, as they are the ones to be governed. It must be remembered that, while they are more closely in touch with Canberra than are the rest of the people of Australia, the whole of the expenditure incurred in establishing the Federal Capital has to be borne by the taxpayers of Australia. The revenue collected from the people of Canberra amounts to only a little over 6 per cent. of the total interest on the capital expended. It is felt that the people of Australia will have their interests cared for by the Ministers and responsible heads of departments on the council, and that the people of the Territory will also be provided with adequate representation, and have an active interest in the affairs of the Territory.

I hope that the progress of the measure will be facilitated, and that it will render better service to the people of Canberra and of Australia generally than have the efforts of the past. One hears a good deal about the huge and unwarranted expenditure on the Federal Capital. It must be remembered that a huge expenditure must necessarily be involved to establish such a city as this in virgin country. The efforts of its pioneer administrators should be viewed with a certain measure of generosity. Many prominent and able gentlemen have been connected with the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Capital Territory, and they should be accorded credit for the admirable way in which they handled their colossal task. If they made mistakes, it must be remembered that “ to err is human “ and that the job might easily have been less ably performed by others. With the experience which we have gained during the last few years, we believe that the change we propose now to make in the control of Canberra will lead to better results and give more satisfaction to the people. I hope that honorable senators opposite will deal as generously with this bill as they have with other measures which this Government has brought forward.

Senator Sir GEOEGE PEARCE (Western . Australia) [4.52]. - When members of the Ministry and their supporters were in opposition they never tired of decrying the action of the Bruce-Page administration in appointing boards and commissions, and declared that when they had the opportunity, they would abolish a number of those bodies. We are entitled to assume, therefore, that this bill is in part fulfilment of that undertaking. But I would remind honorable senators that although the Government proposes to abolish the Federal Capital Commission, it seeks to establish in its stead an advisory council, so the difference is largely in name only, though the functions of the advisory council may differ somewhat from those of the Commission. Whilst the Ministry evidently has a high opinion of its administrative ability, it still feels the need of an advisory council to assist it even in the government of Canberra. Apparently, Ministers do see some virtue in boards and commissions, and are prepared to carry on. with the aid of such bodies. The original Commission, I remind the Senate, is not now in existence. Although the act constituting it was not amended by Parliament, the change was made by executive action, so while there are still two Commissioners and an elected Commissioner, they are not receiving anything like the salary that was paid to the original Commissioners when the important developmental works were in progress. The change was not made by this Government; but by the Bruce-Page administration, and the Commission now functioning is comparatively inexpensive. I suggest that Ministers have an itch to be continually changing existing conditions. No one can deny that the present Commission is working satisfactorily. I have heard of no complaints from the people concerned since the change was made, and up to the time of the resignation of the Bruce-Page Government, considerable savings in expenditure had been effected by the Commission on the recommendation of Mr. Christie, who is now the Chief Commissioner. In view of this fact where is the need for any change at this juncture? The people of Canberra have their elected representative on the Commission and, apparently, are fairly well satisfied. At all events, we are entitled to assume they are, because some time ago practically one-half of the time of the House of Representatives and probably one-fifth of the time of the Senate was occupied in discussions on questions affecting the Federal Capital, whereas now’ no complaints are heard. In the circumstances, why not leave well alone?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I think the people have become broken-hearted, and have ceased to complain.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.At all events very few complaints are now made; probably this is because the people have come to the conclusion that after all they are not so badly treated. If any change is necessary, I should prefer to see provision made for the election of a municipal council to work in conjunction with the present Commission, for I am firmly convinced that much of the trouble in the past has been due to the fact that the people have not been entrusted with the control of purely municipal affairs. As a member of the Bruce-Page administration, I strongly urged that the citizens should have control of all purely municipal functions, and I believe that if the course which I then advocated had been adopted, we should not have had one half of the grumbling from the people of Canberra. They might very well be allowed to control local health matters, recreation grounds, fire brigade and educational activities, to mention only a few of the functions discharged by a local governing authority. As all honorable senators are aware the local school board is a popular institution with the parents of scholars attending nearly all the State schools throughout the Commonwealth. The municipal council, if appointed, could make representations to the Minister or to the Commission, on matters affecting the progress of the city generally. It could administer all purely municipal affairs without in any way interfering with the functions of the Commission, which should be concerned only with matters of national importance. To illustrate how closely these subjects affect the lives of the people, I may mention that yesterday I received a copy of- the annual report of the Canberra Australian National Football League. That document makes reference to a number of pin pricks which, if not attended to, help to make things uncomfortable for the people. Obviously, sporting bodies should have some voice in the control of recreation grounds which their members use. It may not be out of place if I read the following extract from the report: -

During the past two seasons, the League, recognizing that the development of Australian football was seriously retarded by the lack of suitable playing conditions, repeatedly made representations to the. Federal Capital Commission for a measure of thu consideration which had been given to the requirements of other sporting organizations. Our delegates and the members of Parliament, whose assistance we sought in putting our case, wore received with courtesy, and almost the assurance that our modest requirements would be granted. And they were, to the extent that n loud of clods was dumped over a concrete cricket pitch in the middle of Kingston Oval, where also a rail fence was placed around the playing urea; cubicles, devoid of electric light or a water supply for training purposes, were provided, and £!> was required of us for the “ lease “ of the area ; some cubicles were placed on the unenclosed paddock at Acton and another £5 was debited to our account: the playing space at Northbourne Oval waa enlarged, additional cubicles were placed in position and £15 was charged. But in spite of the fact that we are asked to pay for the privilege of occupying these areas, and with no opportunity of securing a “ gate “ except at Northbourne, and then only because of the honesty of the spectators, and when the ground was required by no other code. One of our clubs (Manuka) was without a home ground during the whole of the season. A similar state of affairs is threatened for the forthcoming season. Manuka Oval, which lias been subjected to intermittent reconditionings since 1025, and has not yet recovered from the last attack, may be made available for the coming season to all winter sporting organizations in turn, provided that between them they can amass in rental what the authorities consider a “ reasonable “ proportion of the amount of £000, which is estimated as a “ reasonable “ return for the outlay in the various reconditionings.

I suppose there are at least a dozen senior and junior football and cricket clubs in Canberra as well as several tennis and bowling clubs, the membership of which constitutes a not inconsiderable proportion of the population of the city. Because they have , no voice in the control over the playing areas which they use, they are continually being subjected to pin pricks which give rise to a feeling of restiveness and dissatisfaction. If the administration of purely local affairs were vested in a municipal council, all complaints would go before that body instead of the-Minister. I suggest, therefore, that before the Government makes this change, it should give careful consideration to the proposal which I have outlined. But I am not going to fight the Ministry on that point. If Ministers wish to have their lives made miserable, by all means let them go ahead with the scheme outlined in this bill. I certainly do not envy them, because if the bill is passed in its present form every person with a grievance will take it to the Minister of the department concerned. Ministers will then be sorry that they made the change. If they are looking for more work, certainly this is the way to find it. It would be better to provide at once for the appointment of a municipal council, to deal with purely municipal as distinct from national matters. Let the people elect their own mayor. Doubtless there will be keen competition for the honour of being the first occupant of that position in the capital city of the Commonwealth. I feel sure that the appointment of a local municipal council, would do away with a lot of the bickering and dissatisfaction which has been evidenced during the last few years. The people of Canberra will not be satisfied until they have a substantial measure of local government. I do not suggest that they should have complete control of all activities in the Capital, because the great bulk of money expended on works in this city comes from the national exchequer. It would be ridiculous to expect the city to be maintained out of the local rates. It appears to me, therefore, that for many years to come, we must have two forms of government for Canberra - one dealing with the matters of national importance, and the other administering municipal affairs. I strongly urge the Government to take a bold plunge and try out this experiment.

The proposals outlined in the bill are. badly conceived. Authority is to be divided between four Ministers. In other words, there will be four kings in Canberra. As a result, whenever the people are dissatisfied, we shall have complaints ventilated in Parliament, and much of the time of the Senate, as well as of the House of Representatives, will probably be occupied in discussing kerbing and guttering problems, as well as other subjects which properly fall within’ the jurisdiction of a municipal authority. The Ministry is deliberately inviting the people to ventilate their grievances in Parliament, because, under the bill, four Ministers will be responsible for certain acts of administration, and, naturally, if the people are dissatisfied, we shall have their dissatisfaction voiced in Parliament.

The Advisory Council will be a farce. This scheme was tried in Darwin some years ago and it proved a failure. At that time there was trouble with the local administration, which was chiefly centered in Darwin, and to obviate it in future, the Government of the day made arrangements for the election of an advisory council. That body held three meetings, each of which was very much in the’ nature of a dog fight between the members of the council and the administration. Eventually the ordinance constituting the advisory council became a dead letter, and was not operated. I am afraid we shall have very much the same experience with the Advisory Council in Canberra.

I invite honorable senators to visualize a meeting of this body. On one side of the table there will be three departmental heads, with, behind them, the Ministers to whom they are responsible. I wonder why the Attorney-General is not to be represented on the council, because, in the bill, there is reference to four Ministers, but provision is made for representation of only three on the Advisory Council.

It cannot be pretended that any one of the departmental heads will have a mind of his own, or that he is likely to vote against his official colleagues. Actually, he will not dare to do that. He will first make it his business to find out what are the views of his Minister in regard to any particular question that comes up for discussion at meetings of the Advisory Council. And so these three gentlemen will have to sit there as dumb dogs unless they have been previously instructed by their Ministers. There will be no exercise by them of their own individual opinions. They will not give expression to a single thought that may occur to them until they have first ascertained that their Ministers approve of what they are about to say. The ludicrous nature of this council becomes more apparent when we remember that each permanent head of a department is also a resident of Canberra. If the question of kerbing and guttering, which so much disturbed the peace of the last Parliament, and almost wrecked the Government, Senator H. E. Elliott getting to the stage of incipient rebellion over it, comes up before the Advisory Council, Mr. Deane - I mention his name because it comes most readily to me and not with any desire of giving offence - will be sitting there solemnly representing the Minister for Home Affairs. He will be saying to himself all the time, “By George I should like to let myself go on this matter. As a resident of Canberra, I consider.it infamous that I should be rated for this charge. I regard it as barefaced robbery on the part of the Government, but I dare not say a word about it; I have to remember that the Minister for Home Affairs ‘ has told me that the Government insists on rating the residents for kerbing and guttering.” He would like to let himself go on the matter, but as the representative of the Minister, he will have to vote solidly for whatever the Minister desires. The representative of the Minister for “Works and Railways, who is also a resident of Canberra, may like to see cottages built with verandahs, but if it is the policy of his department that it is rank heresy to have verandahs in Canberra, he will be obliged to oppose any proposal submitted by a lay member of Advisory Council that verandahs should be provided. Mr. Deane and the other gentlemen, having been obliged at the meeting of the Advisory Council to voice the views of their Ministers, may probably be called upon as citizens of Canberra, and possibly as members of the Citizens League, to attend an indignation meeting at the Albert Hall, and submit a motion condemning some action taken by the Government.

Senator Ogden:

– They are not likely to do so.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I do not know. ‘The Government has already announced that it stands for full liberty of action on the part of all public servants.

Senator Ogden:

– I doubt it.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.But the Government says that it will give this full liberty to the public Service, and surely the permanent head, who is also a member of the Advisory Council, would only be acting in accord with the desire of the Government in moving a motion at an indignation meeting, and eventually Cabinet would have to be called in to referee the dog fight. The fact of the matter is that the three heads of the departments can have no minds of their own; they can only be dumb dogs representing a Minister who does not find it convenient to be present. Having listened to what the Minister has told him, the departmental head will attend the Advisory Council meeting and vote as directed. In the circumstances what a farce it is to have three elected representatives of the residents. The representatives of the citizens may talk until they are black in the face, but they will never alter the official views of those who are sitting with them. The gentlemen whose minds might be altered by the arguments advanced will not be sitting there. They will probably be away attending to the coal trouble in Newcastle or taking part in a State election or something of the kind. If an ordinance is laid on the table of the Senate containing such a farcical proposal, I shall do all I can to prevent it from having any effect. Let the Government do one thing or the other. If it wants to run Canberra by deparmental control, let it do so ; but do not let it tack on a proposal of this kind, under the pretence that it is giving the people of Canberra control. If the people in the Capital are to be given some control, let it take the form of a municipal council, but do not let them be humbugged in the way now proposed.

It is now very popular to join in the cry that the criticism that has been levelled against those who have had control of the development of Canberra has been unfair. One criticism has been that there has been lavish and extravagant expenditure here. I am not now defending anything done by the late Government, of which I was a member. The charge lies at the door of quite a number of governments. But I propose to give one example to show that the criticism has not always been correct. I was a member of the Federal Parliament when it was sitting in Melbourne, and while I was there I had the curiosity to ascertain what the House of ‘ Parliament there cost, and what were the conditions under which it was built. That building was erected in the seventies or eighties when the highest wages paid to tradesmen were 10s. a day and the hours of work were not 44 a week. The labourers on that building did not receive more than 7s. a day; many of them were paid only 6s. Material was correspondingly cheap. That House had cost £750,000 before the Commonwealth Parliament entered into temporary occupation of it. Honorable senators remember its lack’ of accommodation. Two committees could not sit at the same time, because there were no rooms available. On the Senate side one Minister had a room to himself and the other Ministers had to share a second room with their secretaries. On the House of Representatives side there was accommodation for only three Ministers, and their secretaries had to get in whereever they could in the alleyways. There was very little accommodation for members. The building was badly ventilated and the acoustic properties were bad. Externally it was a magnificent structure; but it cost £750,000, whereas the building we are occupying to-day and its furnishings cost less than £700,000. The accommodation provided here for members is infinitely better than we had in Melbourne, the furnishings and internal fittings are infinitely superior. There is accommodation for all the committees and their staffs, every Minister and bis secretary, and for the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses and their secretaries. The lowest wage paid to any labourer employed on this building was 25s. a day and some of the tradesmen received as much as £2 2s. a day. Those who loosely use the argument about the waste and extravagance displayed in Canberra, should be asked to remember this contrast between the two buildings. I do not credit the building to the Federal Capital Commission altogether. I think it was planned and commenced by the Works and Railways Department, but it was completed by the Commission.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– It is not quite fair to compare a brick building with a stone building.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

-I am speaking particularly of the accommodation provided. The building we are occupying to-day certainly does not demonstrate that there has been waste and extravagance in its erection. I am not going to say that there has not been waste or extravagance in Canberra, but a good deal of the talk about it is wild. It is based on lack of knowledge. People see things in newspapers and repeat them without investigating their truth. Many of the buildings in Canberra were erected during the peak years of labour scarcity after the war, when, in order to induce tradesmen to come here, they had to be paid1s. or 2s. a day more than was paid in the capital cities where there was a tremendous demand for labour. As there was insufficient accommodation available in Canberra many workmen had to maintain two homes, and consequently had to be recompensed by being paid higher wages. If that had not been done it would have been impossible to obtain the services of competent artisans. There is a disposition on the part of some persons to place all the blame for the high cost of construction in Canberra upon the Federal Capital Commission; but it has to be remembered that the Commission was acting under the instruc tions of the Government of the day, and that the Government was acting on resolutions passed by Parliament directing it to take immediate action to transfer the seat of government to Canberra. I remind honorable senators that very strong pressure was brought to bear upon the Government of the day, especially by members representing New South Wales constituencies, and certain honorable senators. It was undoubtedly that pressure which led to the seat of government being transferred to Canberra when it was, and which was largely responsible for the extra cost involved. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the position as I feel sure that it is making a mistake in placing the Federal Capital Territory under departmental control. My contention is that the Commission should be allowed to continue to function at least for a time.

Senator Ogden:

– Does the right honorable senator suggest that the construction work should be undertaken by the Department of Works and Railways?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Yes. I do not see any objection to that being done, but the administrative work should still be undertaken by the Commission. The proposed advisory council will not satisfy the residents of Canberra, and will lead to more trouble, necessitating the ventilation in this Parliament of the grievances of the people who reside here.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) has, I think, rightly stressed the circumstances under which the Federal Capital was established, but if he went back further he would find that this enterprise was commenced nearly 50 years before its time. When Parliament decided to transfer the seat of government to Canberra it was known that, as the prices of labour and material were unduly inflated, the cost of construction would necessarily be high. However, the right honorable gentleman has pointed out that that is a matter for which Parliament took the entire responsibility. So far as I can see the driving force in the matter was not the Government of the day, but the then members of the Opposition, who were threatening to make the transfer a political matter. A majority of the members of the Federal Parliament at that time carried a motion in favour of the transfer being made as early as practicable, with the result that the Commonwealth has been involved in a very heavy expenditure, which it will take a long time to justify. The Federal Capital Territory has not progressed to the extent anticipated because of the extensive powers granted to the controlling body which, among other things, deliberately restricted the number of blocks of land to be made available, with the sole object of squeezing the last farthing out of the unfortunate people who have to live here, or who have selected Canberra as a centre m which to carry on business. Every resident of Canberra, and practically every visitor, has seen the small motor garage - it is really a petrol station - opposite Canberra railway station, the proprietor of which has to pay no less than £550 a year in the form of ground rent for the land on which a building costing only about £1,500 has been erected.

Senator Thompson:

– “Were not the land values established by competition at auction ?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Of course they were, but unfortunately only one site in that locality was made available for carrying on a business of that nature.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Cannot another such business be established in the same neighbourhood?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– No. Under the zoning system as established here - really a zoning system gone mad - specified businesses can be carried on only in the areas allocated to them. For instance, boarding houses cai! be erected only on the allotments set, aside for such establishments. Another instance in which purchasers of leases have been penalized is in connexion with the type of tiles to be used on buildings erected. Only tiles of a certain type are to be used as those which can be purchased in the ordinary market are, it is alleged, not supposed to be in keeping with the architectural beauty of the city. How can a city progress when tiles manufactured only by one firm in Ballarat may be used, and increase the cost of the roof of an average building by £200 ? The shop window frames, which have to be of sheathed copper, are designed in such a way that only one firm in Australia, which manufactures them, can tender for their supply. I understand that the window frames of an ordinary shop cost £1,000. Lessees, who are anxious to build, are hampered by regulations at every turn, and the conditions prevailing are so unreasonable that it is impossible for the city to progress.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce) seemed rather facetious concerning the final decision reached in connexion with ‘the guttering and kerbing charges, but what was a joke to him, was a very serious matter to the tenant, for he overlooked the fact that the auctioneer announced the conditions of the leases which did not include that the cost of guttering and kerbing had to be met by the purchaser. Subsequent to the sale an ordinance was passed purporting te compel the lessees to meet the cost of the work. It was held by counsel that inasmuch as the buyers did not obtain a document under the seal of the Commission embodying the verbal representation made by the auctioneer or representative of the Commission, their representations would not have the slightest effect. If that sale had been made by a private individual, the buyers could have approached the court and sought a rescission of the contract, but under the conditions which prevailed in Canberra, purchasers were helpless. “When purchasers bought leases at Manuka, there was no suggestion of establishing a shopping centre at Kingston. That policy was decided upon, apparently, in consequence of a collapse of the proposed railway system, as, according to the original plans submitted at the sale, the Canberra railway station was to be .immediately behind Civic Centre, and practically in the back yards of those who bought leases in that locality. Had purchasers, in connexion with a private subdivision, been so misled, they would have claimed damages and a rescission of their contracts. The unfortunate purchasers, in this instance, were shamefully treated, and it ia time tho authorities knew that they cannot play fast and loose with the people in this way. The action of the Commission has been such that development has come to a standstill and hundreds of leases, which in ordinary circumstances would have been developed, have been surrendered. That has reacted in another way, as services, which are at present unprofitable, would, with a larger population, have been returning a substantial amount of revenue. By thus restricting the number of blocks sold the rates have been increased out of all reason. For instance, the ground rent for a block purchased at the first sale was £20, and the rates £5 or £6 ; but, although the ground rent is the same today, the rates are now £22 15s. The result of the Commission’s policy is that before a single brick is placed on some leases the weekly ground rent is about 17s. 6d. Some years ago, there were many young married couples renting houses in Melbourne, Ballarat, and other such cities at an amount equivalent to what is charged here as ground rent. If Canberra had been established under the freehold instead of the leasehold system the land would have sold readily, and the cost of services would have been distributed over a much larger population. Hundreds of blocks of freehold land in Queanbeyan sold very readily although there was little likelihood of Canberra extending in that direction. I know that the supporters of the Government are chasing this will-o’-the-wisp in the form of a leasehold system, or an appropriation of the so-called unearned increment, in order to prevent speculation, but I remind them that those who make money out of undeveloped land do not hold it. Mr. T. M. Burke, of Melbourne, and others have made fortunes by purchasing land, subdividing it, and selling it as promptly as possible on long terms. Had the Government adopted that policy it would have large sums of money available to’ pay off the war debt or to reduce our national indebtedness in other directions. As it is, the land is lying idle. Every year more leases are being surrendered ; the lessees who are left have to meet all the charges. The new proposal is extraordinary; I do not think that it will be the success that the Government predicts.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS (South Australia) [5.36]. - I feel bound to say a word or two in defence of Canberra and its buildings. When the work of building this city commenced, I frequently visited Canberra as a member of the Public Works Committee. The people of Australia will yet be glad that Canberra has been built along the lines then laid down. The land monopolist has no footing here. The first land sale held in Canberra was well attended, and the competition was so keen that, in some instances, extraordinary prices were offered for blocks. Those who expected to make large profits out of the land have only themselves to blame if retribution comes upon them. Early in the history of Canberra it was decided to adopt a system of zoning in connexion with the erection of its buildings ; that the mere purchase of a block should not entitle the purchaser to erect on it a hotel, a boarding-house, or a petrol station according to his own desires. In the interests of the city the erection of buildings was strictly regulated. Moreover, it was decided that only small portions of the city should be made available for building from time to time. Those who decry Canberra and complain of the little to be seen for the expenditure involved forget that during the war period all constructional work ceased and the city was deserted. Honorable senators know how buildings deteriorate when neglected, and the heavy expenditure involved in renovating them. Later, an unprecedented flood washed away works and did other damage involving a loss of many thousands of pounds. Indeed, almost half of the money then expended in the development of the city was represented by construction works which were washed away. Heavy expenditure has been necessary to make good the depreciation caused by neglect ‘when the city was deserted and damaged by flood waters. Some of the things which have interfered with the proper development of the national capital have been unavoidable. During the war, and for some time after its conclusion, work was at a standstill; money could not be made available for a building programme. The bill proposes to hand over constructional work in Canberra to the Works Department. I remember that in the early stages of the development of Canberra, when that department had control of the erection of buildings, the time of Parliament was largely occupied in dealing with complaints against the department and its officers. I fear that under the new system we shall have a repetition of those complaints. It is to be regretted that, instead of showing a pride in their national capital, the people take pleasure in decrying it. That may be due in part to the heavy charges levied on residents by the Federal Capital Commission ; but that position could have been rectified without the necessity for such drastic action as the Government is now taking. Canberra has now reached a stage in its development from which Washington, the federal capital of the United States of America, has emerged. There was a time when no American would say a good word for Washington; but throughout America to-day there is a feeling of pride in the national city. If Canberra had developed along the lines established by those who laid its foundation many mistakes would have been avoided. The sole aim of those who were responsible for the early development of this city was to make Canberra a place worthy of Australia.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Regardless of cost.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS:

– Those who speak of costs overlook the facts I have mentioned. The Federal Capital Commission has been liberally blamed both for what it has done and for what it has left undone. The Commissioners, after all, were only human. I desire to pay a tribute to the first Chief Commissioner, Sir John Butters. He did a great amount of good work in the development of this city; yet he received more blame than praise. I do not think that a popular elective advisory council Will have the outlook necessary for the proper development of this city. There is a danger that the high ideals of the founders of Canberra will be lost sight of. We should plan for the future and work along lines that will ensure that those who live here in the years to come will be surrounded by comfort and have every convenience. One hunderd years hence living conditions in Canberra should be far better than in any other city in Australia.

I am afraid that there will be such dissatisfaction with the new administration that before long the people will be clamoring for a change. I rose chiefly to pay my tribute to those who did such good work in laying the foundations of this city.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like to bring home to honorable senators the fact that the construction of a federal capital was definitely demanded by certain States before they agreed to federation. Quite a number of well-informed people complain about the expenditure of huge sums of money on Canberra. I believe that in time to come that expenditure will be justified. I do not object to the existence of Canberra, or even to the way in which it has been governed. I believe that one of the troubles of Australia is that its cities have grown out of all proportion to the development of the country that surrounds them. The establishment of a city such as Canberra tends to relieve the congestion in our coastal capitals.

I have no fault to find with the Government making a general onslaught on commissions and boards. If this little Commission falls by the way I shall not shed any tears about it. But it is necessary to determine where the proposed change will lead us. We are told that Canberra is to be administered by Government departments. The weakness of such a system is the frequent change in ministerial personnel. That will necessarily involve changes .of policy, due to the political demands of the party in power for the moment, and will have a very detrimental effect on the continuity of policy in building Canberra. One has only to look around any State or Commonwealth office, and see its walls literally plastered with the photos of men who have held office - in some cases only for a few hours - to realize the danger involved in the proposal. New kings make new laws. Immediately a new Minister assumes office he sets out to undo the work of his predecessor. That procedure might have a very injurious effect on the orderly growth of our capital city, and I believe, viewed from that angle, that the Commission’s system has its advantages. But then the cost has to be taken into consideration. One cannot look on placidly while an enormously costly Commission carries on a task that could be done as efficiently, possibly, by a department. I understand that the yearly municipal expenditure in Sydney amounts to £4,000,000, und that the cost of administration in 1927 was something less than 3 per cent. The municipal expenditure in Melbourne is somewhat less, a little over £2,000,000, and there the cost of administration amounts to 5 per cent. We are in the dark as to what has been the administrative cost of the Federal Capital ‘city. I realize that the position of Canberra is unique. Other cities and towns are the product of natural growth. They usually begin with a store on one corner, and perhaps a blacksmith’s shop on another. Then comes the inevitable hotel, and eventually there takes form a provincial town, or a city. In the case of Canberra we have a combination of natural growth plus a big leaven1 of national patronage. We must remember that Canberra is the property of the people of the Commonwealth, and not merely of its residents. We should endeavour to evolve some plan whereby the civic functions of the city will be placed under a competent administrative body. I rather favour the gradual evolution of a form of municipal control. The Government could attend to building, beautifying the city, and other matters. All State Governments possess the power of eminent domain. They can allocate to themselves power to remodel any section of a city if necessary: Take, for instance, the Government of Victoria. At any time that it desires to make provision for its railways or tramways it has but to will the act, and it will he done. The Federal Government could have a, similar status in Canberra. Its civic administration could well be in the hands of a municipal body. I instance the municipal control of Melbourne and Adelaide, two cities comparable with any others in the world, which have received the unstinted praise of visitors. Their example could well be emulated in Canberra.

Senator McLachlan:

– It is difficult to find a basis for municipal control in Canberra.

Senator LYNCH:

– I quite realize that, because the community is so small.

Senator McLachlan:

– There is also no freehold here.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is a thorny question. It is necessary to build up a city worthy of Australia, one of which all will be proud. To do this the Government contemplates vesting very considerable authority in different Ministers. Surely it would be preferable to have- a municipal body controlling minor matters, such as rating, &c, leaving the function of government to the Federal Government. Something should be done by way of such a dual control. I do not think that the proposed Advisory Council will administer the Federal Capital very satisfactorily, because its policy will be influenced by the frequent ministerial changes that will occur. The Minister will certainly be advised, but whether the advice will be helpful in shaping the true lines of civic policy is a totally different matter. There is no more effective means to ensure sobriety in expenditure of public money than to vest, the person or persons concerned with responsibility. One can find no better illustration of the truth of this than is to be found in the city of Brisbane. For a number of years the men and women of that city, in elections for the State Parliament, have voted solidly for candidates of a certain political complexion, but in municipal elections they have voted for candidates of a totally different political party.

I have no serious objection to the bill and I shall vote for it in the expectation that it. .will work for the public good. Nevertheless, I believe that we should be moving in the direction of providing for some form of municipal control, as has been suggested by other honorable senators. But the local governing body should be entrusted only with the administration of purely municipal affairs, and I am not so sure that such a body would be competent to carry out important public undertakings that would dovetail in with proposals of the central government for the development of this important, city. For the moment we are living in difficult times. It is important that all those bodies entrusted with the expenditure of public money should see that for every 20s. expended they get £1 worth of value. I have no fault to find with the Government’s proposal to abolish the Federal Capital Commission, but I am not certain that the advisory council which, in a sense, is to take its place, will be as effective as the Government expects it to be. Nor can I speak with complete confidence of the alternative which has been suggested, but I believe that we should work in the direction of providing for municipal control.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I cannot help thinking that poor unhappy Canberra, this city of surpassing beauty, with its glorious setting and unrivalled atmosphere, has not had an absolutely fair deal from the several governments. It appears to me that one of the fundamental errors in the development of this capital city is to be found in the fact that those who, by force of circumstances, have been compelled to live here have been obliged to accept a Government form of tenure in respect of the ownership of land. I can find no historical similarity in the development of any other city or town. The blight that appears to be on Canberra is due largely to the original land policy which has been endorsed by successive Parliaments. Those who are compelled to make their homes here should not be debarred from the enjoyment of any unearned increment in land values, if there is to be any for many years, which I doubt very much. They should not be compelled to accept the leasehold tenure. It would have been infinitely better for the Commonwealth Treasury if this policy had been reversed prior to the first auction sales of leases, when the city area was made available for settlement. The freehold system of tenure would haye checked the mad orgy of speculation which then took place. The man who, according to Senator H. E. Elliott, paid £10,000 or £11,000 for the site of certain business premises, would never have offered that sum if he had been obliged to pay cash for it. Under the leasehold system he would estimate, of course, that he would only have to pay interest on that amount at the rate of 5 per cent. and he did not fully realize the extent to which he was committing him self in the excitement of the moment. He and others who bid keenly for business sites were like the man who, on a racecourse, bets “ on the nod “ and becomes involved in obligations which he would never dare to risk if he hadto find the cash. I understand that, even at this stage in the development of the city, less than 20 people have accepted the leasehold form of tenure and have made their own homes here. For the remainder, the people of Australia stand in the position of landlord.

Senator Reid:

– And the people are obtaining good rents for the houses.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Perhaps that is so, but the Government is not getting the equivalent of the amount which it would have received had the people been given an opportunity to convert leasehold tenure into freehold. Nor should we then have been confronted with so many difficulties in the development of Canberra. With other honorable senators I deplore that the many purely local problems so closely associated with the progress of this city should be the subject of debate in this Parliament. When Parliament passed the act under which the Commission was appointed, I thought that we should no longer be concerned with the consideration of problems affecting the development of this city. I believed that we should see the orderly development of the plan on the lines laid down.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Although I did not have the advantage of hearing the whole of the Honorary Minister’s speech, it appears to me that the Advisory Council which is proposed to be set up will partake somewhat of the nature of a picture film. It will be a visionary body; it will have no municipal control, for the reasons Senator Pearce has pointed out, and the effort to give representation to the citizens of Canberra, so far as this bill is concerned, will be entirely abortive. I agree with Senator Lynch that the inability of any government to give municipal control in the true sense of the term to the people of Canberra is due to the absence in Canberra of the basic principle upon which such control is usually supposed to rest. There is no great body of persons here who hold even leases. There is certainly a body of tenants of the Government, but, as the Minister has indicated in his speech, itwould be impossible togive them full control. I am, therefore, at a loss to understand what good purpose will be served by changing the present form of control. It seems to me that the alteration will only serve to introduce into this Parliament further discussions relating to the administration of the Territory for the Seat of Government and to the troubles we have heard all about since our advent here in 1927. Owing to the fact that the financial responsibility for the development of the capital does not, to any large extent, rest on the citizens of Canberra, it is my opinion that if the Government could, even at this late hour, spray this blight of tenancy which is resting on the city, it might be able to discover a more fitting solution than the proposed purely visionary body under the control of a Minister, and in which the citizens will have no definite voice. We ought not to take too much to heart the existing conditions. We know that people who are torn from the surroundings of a lifetime and sent away to help to form a new city in the interior are bound to have nostalgia. There are bound to be heartburnings and dissatisfaction among them which it will take a long time to cure, and if they are demanding a measure of municipal government, all I can say is that they are not getting it from the present Government. What they are getting will prove to be nothing but a sham and a delusion. With municipal government outside the possibility of accomplishment, it is very difficult indeed for one to see what other form of control can be devised other than government by commission.

– I hope that the bill will confer some benefit on the people of Canberra. If it does not I shall certainly seek to have it altered. It is the desire of the Government to bring about a better condition of affairs in the Federal Capital and, in its wisdom, it is introducing this measure for the purpose. I believe that there will be fewer complaints under the new control than there were in the past, and I sincerely hope that it will bestow considerable benefits on the inhabitants of Canberra.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- I should probably not have spoken had it not been for the remarks made by Senator Hoare. We have to remember that the Department of Public Works was the governing authority in this city before the inception of the Federal Capital Commission. Under this bill the control of Canberra will again be mostly under the direction of that department. The past administration does not reflect very great credit upon the original authority. One has only to look at the unsuitable and extremely costly hotels to appreciate that. Who in his sane moments would have erected the Hotel Canberra?

Senator Hoare:

– Who did?

Senator OGDEN:

– The Public Works Department. It is inconvenient, uncomfortable in its surroundings, and costly to administer. Similar remarks apply to the Hotel Kurrajong. In. the winter its boarders almost perish. There is only one hotel in Canberra that can be economically managed, and that is the Hotel Wellington.

Senator Barnes:

– The Hotel Kurrajong was built by the Federal Capital Commission.

Senator OGDEN:

– It was designed before the Federal Capital Commission was appointed. The Hotel Kurrajong was certainly completed before the original Commission was abolished.

Parliament demanded that we should go to Canberra and make it the centre or administration. I was not one who voiced such a demand. Although I realized the necessity for a federal capital I did not want to come to thiswilderness. One has only to look at the sad faces of the inhabitants of Canberra to appreciate their unhappiness. The big influences of Sydney forced the Government to come to this lonely and uninviting spot. All the designs were got ready, and it became necessary to get an administrative body to go ahead with establishing the capital here. The PublicWorks Department had neither the staff nor the organization to give effect to the desire of Parliament, so the Federal Capital Commission was appointed. I do not claim that money was not wasted. It is inevitable that money should be wasted in connexion with any big scheme. After the completion of the urgent works necessary to carry out immediately the wishes of Parliament, I used my efforts to abolish the Federal Capital Commission, but I now realize that the work it performed could not have been done as well or as expeditiously by any other form of administration. Sir John Butters gave effect to the desire of Parliament and rapidly developed the city. Had the task been left to the Department of Public Works it would probably have cost £15,000,000 instead of £8,000,000 or £10,000,000.

Many complaints were made with regard to the old Commission. I believe that they arose, not from any extravagance, but from the irritating annoyances inseparable from any socialistic community. Sir John Butters became autocratic, and the Federal Capital Commission too socialistic. Residents were told that they must not build a house to this or that design, that they could not have verandahs, fences, or even privacy. I pity the poor people who live here when I see the miserable homes in which they are compelled to dwell. People could not even obtain board at a private place, as the Commission, in order to compel residents to go to hotels, forbade householders to take in boarders. It was not possible to sell refreshments at the Cotter River Dam, or to keep a few fowls in one’s backyard. Those were the kind of things that got on the nerves of the people, and it is not to be wondered at that they became discontented.

Eventually the different public buildings were erected and provision of a kind was made for the public servants. There was no longer any need for hastening the completion of the city. I am confident that its population will not exceed 10,000 or 12,000 people within the next quarter of a century.It became necessary to call a halt. There was no need to perpetuate the costly upkeep of the Commission, and the late Government, of which I was a member, decided to make an alteration. As a temporary expedient it inaugurated the existing Commission with Mr. Christie as chairman, and a Public Works officer and an elected representative as members. The present Government proposes to alter that arrangement by retaining Mr. Christie and appointing two departmental heads and three elected representatives to assist him. Actually, there is very little alteration. Had the late Government remained in power it would have evolved a more democratic scheme. It had already considered the matter, and it was only because of the pressure of public business that the new plan was not proceeded with. The present one is merely a hotch-potch. Actually the controlling body will be four ministers of the Crown, a commissioner, who is under a minister, and two departmental heads. What a remarkable proposal to emanate from a so-called democratic Government! Why has it treated the residents of Canberra with such scant courtesy? I am confident that if those people had the advantage of a universal franchise and could vote for Mr. Cusack or some similar person the present Government would not have dared to ignore the just claims of Canberra residents! This is the creation of a despotic government, callous to the interests of the people. I hope that the Government has not entirely committed itself to the bill, and that it will grant a greater measure of self-government to the people of Canberra. Let it give effect to some if its platform pledges. Why has the Ministry omitted to provide for some form of municipal control? This is a civic city as well as a civic centre, and yet there is not one person living in this community who is not compelled to live here. It is remarkable that all those members of Parliament who are continually speaking of the beauties of Canberra and the advantages of the leasehold system of land tenure - which, by the way, I unhesitatingly condemn - decline, themselves, to live under it. They do not own a land lease here. As soon as Parliament adjourns at the end of each week they hasten away, and during the recess they stay away. Meantime they make speeches and endeavour to persuade the people of Australia that those unfortunate citizens who are compelled to live here are contented. I sympathize with the citizens of Canberra, who have been torn from their friends and families in Melbourne and compelled to make their homes here. But we should do more than that. We should endeavour to make their lot easier than it is. However, the Commonwealth is committed to Canberra, and I suppose we must go on with the scheme; but the proposal contained in this bill cannot and will not satisfy. the people of Canberra. One of the great weaknesses of this city - I do not like to call it a city, for, after all, it is but a scattered collection of villages, and it will be a long time before I can forgive Mr. Griffin for his plan - is that the various settlements are miles apart. This arrangement is responsible for an unutterable feeling of loneliness on the part of the people who live here.

Senator Rae:

– It is a collection of suburbs without a city.

Senator OGDEN:

– The honorable senator is right. I am afraid that, with Canberra as the seat of government, our system of parliamentary representation is weakening. This makes it all the more necessary that we should give to the people living here a greater measure of self government than is promised to them under this bill. Men of business ability and commercial knowledge decline to come to Canberra and take part in the discussion of laws for the government of the Commonwealth. Consequently the tendency will be to allow the affairs of the nation to be left in the hands of the executive. The whole scheme was a great mistake. The stipulation that the Capital should be established in New South Wales is a blemish in the Constitution. I therefore strongly urge the Ministry to give the citizens of Canberra a full measure of local responsibility and control. I am not unreasonable, so I suggest that the Minister should have the right of veto. The municipal council should have authority over purely municipal affairs, and the construction of public works should be in the hands of the Public Works Department. Surely this is not too much to ask, and I believe I am safe in saying that, if the BrucePage Government had remained in office, this would have been its policy.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– The honorablesenator who has just resumed his seat (Senator Ogden) reminded me of the story of Moses, who, after having led the children of Israel through the wilderness, was shown from Mount Pisgah the Promised Land, but was not allowed to enter it. Senator Ogden was an Honorary Minister in the Bruce-Page Government, and I am inclined to believe that, being no longer able to taste the sweets of office,anything to do with Canberra is now a case of sour grapes with him. I suggest that the honorable senator should take a walk to the top of Mount Ainslie, and from that eminence view the Promised Land, because the fate of Moses will be his. He will be wandering in the wilderness for 40 yearsbefore again he can hope to taste the fruits of office. I was impressed with the figures quoted by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Sir George Pearce), with reference to the cost of Parliament House, Melbourne, which was for so long the seat of government of the Commonwealth. I understand that that building was erected about 50 years ago. Therefore, its cost cannot be compared with the cost of this building. Personally, I should not have objected if Albury had been selected as the site of the Federal Capital. That city, I presume, would have met the convenience of honorable senators and members of another place, as well as the business people of the Commonwealth. But I object to the tactics of certain honorable senators opposite. Senator Ogden would have us believe that the present Government is responsible for the difficulties that have arisen in connexion with the development of the Capital. The honorable senator and other speakers on his side made no mention of the administrative faults of the Bruce-Page Government in regard to Canberra. I am wondering if he anticipates another by-election in Tasmania, but I should think the last experience was sufficient. I agree with many of the previous speakers who have advocated the adoption of some form of municipal control for purely local affairs. I believe this scheme will come later, after the more essential important works have been carried out. It is advisable that the Government should continue to control the expenditure of vast sums of public money for developmental purposes. If undue prominence has been given in Parliament to purely local grievances, such as kerbing and guttering, something must have been wrong with the administration of the previous Government, of which the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Sir William Glasgow and Senator Ogden were members. I believe that the bill will meet with the approval of the citizens, and that they- will be satisfied with the representation which they will have under it. Canberra could be made more popular. Various sites have ‘ been set aside on the Yass-road for industrial establishments, and I see nothing wrong in bringing to Canberra the small arms factories, the Commonwealth clothing factory, and establishments for the manufacture of postal requirements, all of which industries would tend to build up a big city. I feel sure that as time goes on they will be set up here. Of course Canberra would be all right from the point of view of some honorable senators if it were in Tasmania or South Australia, but because it happens to be situated in territory which was formerly part of New South Wales it seems to be all wrong. My friendly advice to Senator Ogden is that Canberra is a very nice place; and that he should try to enjoy it for the short time he is likely to be here.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Every time Canberra is discussed we have people against it and people for it, but I think the time has arrived when we should recognize that it is a factor in our national life and that instead of decrying it to the outside public, we should do the very opposite. It is quite unnecessary to exaggerate its disabilities. We have to remember that when the Government sent its officers here to make a start with the building of a seat of government for the Commonwealth, a plan was adopted to lay out a garden city. The majority of people are only beginning to realize the cost of building a garden city. As the city grew, and a Parliament House was required, as well as accommodation for public servants, a commission was appointed to make the necessary provision, and as the Assistant Minister has explained, it did splendid work, perhaps better than any body could have done. It accomplished its task and people came to Canberra. But a great deal of discontent existed among them because many of their grievances were ignored. The late Government as an experiment gave them an opportunity to appoint a representative on the Commission. I think it is very well known that unfortunately the commissioner so elected, did not and. did not even attempt to work well with the other members of the old Commission. He was always at loggerheads with them. At any rate the Government gave the people an opportunity to elect a representative even if he failed in his duty. Later, owing to the decrease in the amount of developmental work to be done, the late Government abolished the old Commission, and made another experiment, and the result was evidently fairly successful, because since the present Government has come into power I do not think one question has appeared on the notice-paper about Canberra grievances. We have reached that stage in the history of Canberra when I think it should have a council representative of its citizens. I have not heard one reason brought forward to disabuse my mind of the belief that such a body should be a factor in the life of this city as it is in other cities. The great majority of the citizens of Canberra are public servants, who have passed the necessary examination to enter the Service, and in the matter of intelligence they are more or less above the level of citizens of other cities. It is, therefore, natural for them to be dissatisfied at being disfranchised, and ignored, and without any voice in the control of their own affairs. I am astonished that the present Government has not seized the opportunity to allow the citizens to work out their own salvation.

It is useless for other people to attempt to remove their grievances. They should be allowed to do it themselves, and I think they could do a good deal in that direction by having their own council.

One of the great grievances of the people of Canberra is the rates they have to pay. As a member of the Public Works Committee for a number of years, I have heard many aspects of the grievances of the people in this city. There is not the slightest doubt that they have veal grievances. They have been compelled to come here and live in houses for which a high rent, is demanded - a rental which in many cases their incomes are not sufficient to meet. A city council representative of the people and understanding their grievances could look into this question of high rents and rates. Another grievance is the ground rent charged, which, in my opinion, is too high. The citizens have no voice in the matter, nor will “this hybrid thing that the present Government is appointing. The people have to pay these high rates and rents, but they have no control over the expenditure of the revenue thus derived. A council could look into the question of housing, one of the most pressing in Canberra to-day. There is need for a type of house that will suit the incomes of the industrial classes and lower paid public servants. It is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that when public servants are discontented because of the inconveniences to which they are’ put and the high rents and rates they have to pay, the Commonwealth does not get from them the same service that it is likely to get from a contented population. Of course the city council would have nothing to do with the erection of houses. I would not allow the citizens of Canberra to have any control over the spending of public money provided by the people of Australia. This Parliament is the body which has been appointed by the people of Australia to look after the money collected from them as taxpayers, and whatever the public departments can do in Canberra they should do quite independently of the citizens. The council that I suggest would not have the right to rate government buildings. But the Government could subsidize it.

Such a council would have sufficient revenue to provide the necessary services for the city, and, being representative of the views of the people, could submit them to the Government as a body. All the petty grievances that worry the Minister would thus disappear. The Minister will be very full up of the job he is setting himself before he is very much older. In any case he ought to be spending his time on national affairs, and it is preposterous to think that he should be expected to spend it in dealing with local affairs, which should be attended to by representatives of the citizens.

In any case Canberra is on the map, and I strongly object to the depreciatory remarks that some people are always making about it. No one can deny that the people here are healthier than those in any other city of Australia. Those who came from Melbourne growling and discontented at being taken away from their friends, have now to admit that the health of themselves and their children has greatly improved and if that fact were known generally, I am sure it would induce more people to settle in Canberra. I do not think there is any ground for Senator Ogden’s statement that this Parliament will lose good men because it is. sitting in Canberra. So far it has not lost any good men on that account, and I do not think it is to the credit of this Parliament or to the people of Australia that it should go forth that some would not be willing to serve the Commonwealth because Canberra is so far away from the big centres of population. I think that in the future we shall have as many good men anxious to serve the nation at Canberra as Ave had when the seat of government was in Melbourne.

Another Canberra grievance to which some government will have to give attention, is the fact that at the first land sales there were very large ideas abroad as to the future of the city, and values were rushed up to a point far above what they should be. Somebody, perhaps a city council, will have to take into serious consideration the way in which values have been forced up to a fictitious point.

I trust the Government will accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and amend the measure in such a way that the residents of Canberra will he able to appoint their own representatives to control local affairs allowing the Government to undertake the necessary constructional work.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I feel that I cannot allow the statements of those two Cassandra-like senators - Senators Hoare and Ogden - to pass without a few remarks from me. I arn more unsatisfactorily placed than either of them, since 1 come from Central Queensland, whir-li is a long way from Canberra ; but although it takes me much . longer to reach the Federal Capital than it does either Senator Hoare or Senator Ogden, I have no complaint to make. It is impracticable for me to return home during the week-ends; hut I find the surroundings here very congenial.

Senator Reid:

– No Queensland representative can reach his home and return during a week-end.

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Foll:

– Does the Minister think that the people of the Territory should be given parliamentary representation ?

Senator BARNES:

– Personally, I think they should ; but that is beyond the scope of this bill. Canberra is different from any other city in Australia. The revenue collected from the residents of Canberra is only about 6 per cent. of the total amount expended annually in the development of the city, and would not do more than pay interest on the cost of the buildings erected in the city. If Canberra’s development depended on the amount contributed by its residents, there would be no progress. In dealing with the administration of the Territory it must be remembered that the whole of the taxpayers of Australia contribute to provide the necessary funds. Whilethe Government’s proposals will lead to some economies, it is not in that direction alone that they will effect improvements. There is a fear in some quarters that the new control will mean the dismissal of a large number of men. Fortunately, that will not be so, for it is hoped to place many of them elsewhere. The advantage of the new system will be felt particularly in the better organization which it will make possible. The cost of control will not be so great as under the old system. The bill will give to the residents of the Federal Capital Territory some representation on the Advisory Council. In addition, there will be on the council experienced and well-trained officers of the Public Service, with experience in the government of the cities in which they have lived previously. The whole administration of the Territory will be under a Minister, who, in turn, will be responsible to Parliament.

Some honorable senators appear to fear the effect of the proposed new section 12c, which provides -

The Minister may, by writing under his hand, delegate to any person all or any of his powers or functions under any ordinance made under this act.

Sub-section 2 of that section provides for the revocation of that delegation by the Minister at any time. I think that honorable senators have nothing to fear from this provision. Nor do I think there is ground for the fears expressed by Senator McLachlan. I realize that the question of land tenure, if included in this bill, would provide scope for lengthy argument, but the bill does not deal with that matter. In the sincere belief that the bill will improve existing conditions, I commend it to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

After section 12 of the principal act the following sections are inserted: - “12a. - (1.) The Minister may at any time, by writing under his hand, modify or vary the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and’ its environs, published in the Gazette of the nineteenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, as modified or varied prior to the date of the commencement of this section, but no such modification or variation shall be made until after the expiration of thirty days after notice of intention, published in the Gazette, so to modify or vary the plan has been given. “ (2.) A copy of the instrument by which any modification or variation of the plan has been made shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fifteen days of the making thereof if the Parliament is then sitting, or, if not, then within fifteen days of the next meeting of the Parliament. “ 12b. The Minister may, on such terms and conditions as are agreed upon, supply water or electricity from the Territory to any person outside the Territory. “12c. - (1.) The Minister may, by writing under his hand, delegate to any person all or any of his powers or functions under any Ordinance made under this Act. “ (2.) Every delegation under this section shall be revocable at will, and no delegation shall prevent the exercise of any power or function by the Minister. “12d. The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This clause arms the Minister with authority to alter the plan of the city if he thinks fit. The only check upon his action will be disapproval by Parliament of the alteration, within fifteen days of the making thereof if Parliament is then sitting or, if Parliament is not sitting, then within fifteen days of the next meeting of Parliament. The plan of the city should not lightly be altered. Canberra is being developed in accordance with the Griffin plan, which gained first place in a world-wide competition. I do not claim that the plan is perfect in every detail: but it has the approval of a body of experts, who selected it as the best of the schemes submitted. In my opinion fifteen days is rather too short a period in which to object to any alteration of the layout of the city.

Senator Barnes:

– This provision is taken ‘from the old act.

Senator McLachlan:

– The difficulty appears to be that Parliament might not be in session and that, in terms of subsection 1, there is a 30 days limit. However, as no Minister would take the risk, there appears to be no real danger.

Senator Daly:

– Probably Senator Lynch is afraid that some of the roads will be straightened.

Senator LYNCH:

– A graceful curve has some attraction; but it might he necessary, in the interests of safety, to cut down some of the trees near road intersections. By agreeing to this clause we are really throwing ourselves on the mercy of the Minister. “We can only hope that he will act wisely and not take undue advantage of the powers conferred on him.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I desire to draw attention, to the provision in new section 12d providing that the Governor-General may make regulations for carrying out or giving effect to this act. All such regulations should be laid on the table of the Senate.

Senator Daly:

– That is provided for in the Acts Interpretation Act.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I direct attention to sub-section 2 of proposed new section 12a and suggest that instead of “ within fifteen days of the next meeting of the Parliament “ it should read “ within fifteen days after the next meeting of the Parliament.”

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South. Australia · ALP

.- Whether the word is “of” or “ after “ the sense is not altered.

Senator Thompson:

– Within fifteen days of the next meeting of the Parliament might mean fifteen days before Parliament meets.

Senator DALY:

– The sub-section provides that the alteration shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I think that Senator Thompson will agree, on reflection, that “ of “ is the proper word to use.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government to the decision in the Bunnerong case. While I understand that these provisions have been incorporated in another act, I am somewhat doubtful whether this power is within our authority.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I am indebted to Senator McLachlan for having drawn the attention of the Government to this matter. In the interim, I have consulted the Crown Solicitor about the matter. It is necessary for the actual purposes of the Seat of Government Act to grant power to the Government to sell its electricity outside of the actual limits of the Territory if necessary.

Senator McLachlan:

– The words that are troubling me are “ any person outside the Territory.”

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The Government has been selling power to Queanbeyan for years and nobody has challenged the practice.

Senator DALY:

– Whether that power would be ultra vires or not, I think Senator McLachlan will see that it is necessary to. make some provision in the act to cover trading for the express purposes of the Seat of Government Act. I see no harm in the proposed new section in its present form. A similar provision is in the principal act.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I am aware that provision is made in the principal act. The difficulty that I see is in connexion with the words “ to any person outside the Territory.” It is quite competent for the Government to supply itself or any of its activities, but I have grave doubts about “ any person outside the Territory “. However, as the constitutional authority has not yet been challenged, I shall not press my objection. It occurred to me that difficulties might arise and I thought it my duty to draw the attention of the Government to the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Validation of regulations made by authorityof ordinances) -

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I should like some explanation from the Minister as to the necessity for this clause. If these regulations are validly made under an ordinance there can be no question as to their being good in law, but if they have been passed by the Commissionultra vires, I do not think that we should he asked to validate them in this fashion.

Senator Daly:

– We could not validate them if they wereultra vires.

SenatorH. E. ELLIOTT. - This clause proposed to validate them no matter how they were made. It reads, “ all regulations made or purporting to have been made. . . . “ They may purport to have been made and yet be quite outside the scope of the powers vested in the authority concerned. As a matter of fact the Roads and Footpath Regulations purported to be made in pursuance of the powers vested in the Federal Capital Commission, but the High Court held them to be ultra vires. We should not be asked to give our support in this blindfold fashion to regulations that may beequally ultra vires, but which have not yet been tested in the Court.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Is there any reason for exempting the Roads and Footpaths Regulations published in the Gazette of the 10th November, 1927?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Yes, because they were declared invalid by the High Court.

Senator LYNCH:

– Has that worked any injustice on anybody?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– The case established the right of the people concerned by overriding the regulation.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 500

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

North Australia -Report by the Government Resident on the Administration for the year ended 30th June, 1929.

Ordered to be printed.

Agreement dated 26th March. 1930, made between the Commonwealth and Herbert William Gepp, Esquire.

Agreement dated 12th March, 1930, made between the Commonwealth and Walter PageDevereux, Esquire.

Agreement dated 26th March, 1930, made between the Commonwealth and the honorable John Gunn.

Agreement dated 26th March, 1930, made between the Commonwealth and Edward Joseph Mulvany, Esquire.

Tariff Board - Reports and Recommendations -

Antimony.

Dates.

Gum and Wading Boots.

Paper Cake Containers and Paper Chocolate Containers. - Request for increased duty.

Pasteurizers, Pasteurizing Vats and Jacketed Vats.

PeanutButter. - Request for increased duty.

Roller-type Hand Mowers, Electricallydriven Lawn Mowers.

Sheep. - Request for increased duties.

Thymol and Menthol. - Request for increased duty.

Women’s and Girls’ Headwear, &c.

Woven wire gauze of from 30 to 120- mesh per lineal inch.

Audit Act - Transfers of amounts approved bv the Governor-General in Council -

Financial Year 1928-29- Dated 13th March, 1930.

Bankruptcy Act -

Rules and Amendments to Rules. - Statutory Rules 1928, No.8- No.63- No. 82

Regulations- Statutory Rules 1928, No. 64.

Commonwealth Bank Act - Treasurer’s Statement of the Combined Accounts of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Savings Bank at 31st December, 1929, certified to by the Auditor-General.

Public Works Committee Act - Fifteenth General Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Maternal and Child Welfare in Australia - Report by Dame Janet M. Campbell, D.B.E., M.D., M.S., Senior Medical Officer for Maternity and Child Welfare, Ministry of Health, London.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Blyth, South Australia - For Postal purposes.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Scat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance No. 2 of 1930 - Church Lands Leases.

page 501

ADJOURNMENT

North Australia Ordinances - Manufacture of Australian Carburettors

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- 1 Seek some information from the Honorary Minister with regard to regulations under ordinances that have recently been made by the Government Resident in North Australia. Ordinance No. 14 of 1927 provides that the Minister may make regulations,” &c, which are to be “ laid before both Houses of Parliament within 30 days after the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within 30 days after the next meeting thereof.” In an ordinance relating to aboriginals and notified in the Gazette of the 13th June, 1918, it is provided that -

AH regulations made by the Administrator under this ordinance shall he notified in the Gazette, and copies thereof shall forthwith be forwarded to the Minister.

The Minister may by notice in the Gazette disallow any regulations and the regulations shall thereupon cease to have effect.

The regulations in force immediately prior to thu passing of this ordinance shall continue in force as if made under this ordinance until such time as they arc repealed by regulations made under this ordinance.

I was of the opinion that it was necessary, under the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act, that any regulation under any act should be laid on the table of Parliament within a definite time, but I have here some regulations under the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-28, wherein it is stated -

In pursuance of the powers conferred upon me by the Northern Australia Act 1020, and by virtue of the provisions of tho Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-28, I, Robert Hunter Weddell, the Government Resident of North Australia, do hereby make the following regulations under the said Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-28, to come into operation on the 28th day of February, 1930.

A considerable time has elapsed since that ordinance caine into operation, but so far as I can recollect it has never been laid on the table of the House. Is it necessary to table regulations made under an ordinance? I shall be glad if the Minister will let me know as soon as possible what is the practice with regard to tho ordinances and regulations made by the Administrator, and why this particular ordinance has not been tabled.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I am not in a position to inform the honorable senator; but I shall have the necessary inquiries made and inform him later.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I wish to direct attention to the following letter which I have received from the Automotive Manufacturers Association of New South Wales, under date Sydney, 25th March : -

Carburettors for replacement purposes enjoy a £3 specific duty. This was granted by the Forde tariff- schedule revision in December last. A month later a Melbourne motor trader’s official voiced the opinion to the writer that the granting of the carburettor duties “ to help one firm with three employees “ was “ over the odds.” He was wrong, and I gave him tho facts there and then. On his return to Melbourne, however, he repeated his three-man firm story publicly and official])’, and it was telegraphed to most of the daily press in Australia. Next day corrections of the mis-statement, given by Mr. Forde and by myself, were widely published.

In spite of our prompt correction, the Country party organization in New South Wales bus included the three-man story in one of its bulletins, and ignored the subsequent statement of the facts.

The position is that the three-man firm mentioned by the Country party bulletin is merely an assembling depot where carburettor parts, made in sundry other establishments, are assembled, tested, packed and despatched.

Carburettors wore made by the thousand during war years by Electricity Meter Manufacturing Company, Sydney, a firm which now employs 900 hands, admittedly not on carburettors, but it has grown to these dimensions from a one-man shop in the past 17 years. As evidence of its capacity to make carburettors, one has only to quote the fact that its competition in electricity meter manufacturing - a mechanism with 300 integral parts - has brought the prices down from 4;3s. to 28s. in a period of a few years. This firm makes and supplies at the same price to all Australia electricity meters for 28s. each, a price which is 2s. less than the home price of the English electricity meters made and sold in England. This firm has stated that the moment opportunity offers it intends to return again to the manufacture of carburettors.

Another firm making carburettor parts is the Alpha Engineering Company, of Camperdown, employing 40 hands. Its prices show no increase as a result of the 100 per cent, increase in tariff ; in fact, it is making a certain carburettor part for ls. 9d. each at the present time which is retailing in Sydney at 12s.

The Rosebery Engine Works Limited, previously importers of a type of carburettor which they prefer to call a vapouriser, now makes them at Rosebery, Sydney, for their own industrial engines.

And now a new Richmond is in the field. Messrs. Vincent Bros, are making and assembling carburettor parts on a mass-production basis.- We have their testimony that the Australian-made article runs with a perfect smoothness and a gratifying efficiency.

In addition to the firms named, several other would-be carburettor manufacturers have made inquiries of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales. They will start in the business the moment an opportunity appears. Thus is the tariff justified of her children. The suggestion that Australian makers could not cope with the variety of sizes and styles is mere chatter. The carburettor lends itself admirably to standardization, and in good time we shall ask the Federal Parliament to help us in that particular.

I have directed attention to this matter because the publicity officer of the Country party in New South Wales has made a good deal of political capital out of it in its weekly bulletin. If Colonel Munro wishes to say anything on the matter he should tell the truth, and not circulate a pack of lies.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– It seems extraordinary that this statement which appeared in the press of Queensland five or six weeks ago, should have been mentioned on the floor of this chamber to-night and that this length of time should have elapsed before any attempt was made to deny the report. I have not had an opportunity to investigate the statements made; but I am surprised that Senator Dunn should have read the letter.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I also have received a copy of the letter which Senator Dunn has just read. It would appear that the three-man firm which was alleged to be making carburettors is not actually manufacturing them in Australia at all, but is assembling carburettors. To that extent, therefore, it would appear that the statement was incorrect. The letter goes on to state that many other manufacturers were about to commence manufacturing carburettors. I contend, therefore, that, in the main, the statement made by Colonel Munro was accurate. It is unfair that motor car owners as well as the owners of motor trucks and tractors should be called upon to pay this duty of £3 especially as it now appears that carburettors are not, at present, being manufactured in Australia.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

.- The letter which’ Senator Dunn was good enough to read just now does not state that any firm is actually making carburettors in Australia, but that several firms are making carburettor parts. The honorable senator showed bad taste in stating that the weekly bulletin of the Country party organization contained lying propaganda. The letter is a clever advertising dodge on the part of the people concerned.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [10.23]. - I understand that before long we shall be dealing with the tariff schedule, and I put it to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) that if Government supporters begin this practice of reading letters, which they receive in regard to the tariff, before the schedule is under consideration in this chamber, the Government is not likely to get its business through with that expedition which it desires. It is bad tactics for the Government Whip to set an example in this matter. If I were to read all the letters which I have received about the tariff, the Government business would be delayed considerably.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I am anxious to facilitate the business of the Senate as much as possible, but honorable senators opposite will, I am sure, recognize that I cannot absolutely prevent any honorable senator from directing attention to matters which he considers should be mentioned. I did not know what was in the letter which Senator Dunn has just read. The honorable senator mentioned that he had received a letter and asked me if he would be in order in reading it on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, and I said I thought he would be. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that it is not my wish that honorable senators on this side should set a bad example. I assume that Senator Dunn naturally felt hurt at” the statement contained in the bulletin, and as the Standing Orders of the Senate allow honorable senators to ventilate grievances on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, Senator Dunn took advantage of that opportunity. I give the Leader of the Opposition my assurance that I am anxious that Government business should be facilitated.

Senator Foll:

– We are prepared to accept Senator Dunn’s apology.

Senator DALY:

– Senator Dunn is capable ofspeaking for himself. He must have felt that he had a real grievance, otherwise he would not have directed attention to the letter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.27.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300326_senate_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 March 1930

QUESTION

MIGRATION FIGURES

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

LISTENERS-IN LICENCE FEES

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON BEEF

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

ENTEETAINMENT COMPANY’S PROFITS

Senator DALY:ALP

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

QUESTION

LIGHTHOUSE STEAMER CONSTRUCTION

Senator SIR GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

COST OF POSTAL WORKS

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

JAVA KAPOK

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator THOMPSON:QUEENSLAND

Senator DALY:ALP

STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM : SELECT COMMITTEE

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

SOLAR OBSERVATORY FUND BILL

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DALY:

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Ogden:

Senator DALY:

Senator Reid:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Lynch:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Foll:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senate
26 March 1930

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT