Senate
1 May 1930

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1930

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

page 1286

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORGENERAL

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell me whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Government is considering the advisability of recommending an Australianborn Britisher for the office of Governor-General, and, if such is the case, whether the Government is aware that in selecting an Australian Britisher without trial and rejecting a home-born Briton, it is not acting in accordance with its cherished ideal of the brotherhood of man?

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

– The relationship between the Commonwealth Cabinet and His Majesty the King involves the making of recommendations by Cabinet to His Majesty, and, as I pointed out to the honorable senator yesterday, matters concerning the discretion of His Majesty are not proper subjects for discussion in one of His Majesty’s Houses of Parliament.

page 1286

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TORETURNED SOLDIERS

  1. Is it a fact that provisions have been inserted in such conditions of tender requiring that labour shall bo engaged through the Trades Halls or trades unions?
  2. Is it a fact that a condition has also been inserted requiring that such labour shall be paid through the Trades Halls or unions?
Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

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

In view of distress through wide-spread unemployment, the question of distribution of labour has given the Government serious con cern. The final instructions issued are as follow: - “ In carrying out the work under this contract preference shall be given- other things being equal - firstly, to returned soldiers andsailors with satisfactory service, who are members of trades unions, and, secondly, to members of trades unions.”

  1. No.
  2. No.

page 1286

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHISKY

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What firms are engaged in the manufacture of whisky in the Commonwealth?
  2. What are the proportionate quantities of whisky removed from bond - (a) within the minimum statutory period of two years; (b) in bottles; (c) in bulk?
  3. What firms, if any, remove from bond in bottles the whole or the greater proportion of their product?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The information will be obtained.

page 1286

QUESTION

TARIFF RESTRICTIONS

Effect on South Africa.

Senator OGDEN:

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

  1. Whether the latest emergency tariff restrictions have application to the dominions of the Union of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia ?
  2. Ifso, will the Government, in view of our favorable trade balance with those dominions, consider the question of exempting them from the operation of such restrictions?
Senator DALY:
ALP

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

  1. The recently imposed import restrictions would apply to the dominions mentioned if goods on the prohibited list were imported from those countries, but importations from those places of the classes of goods on the restricted list are extremely small.
  2. The situation does not appear to call for action in the direction indicated.

page 1286

QUESTION

BOUNTY ON NEWSPRINT

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Isit the intention of the Government to introduce a bill thissession to provide for a bounty on newsprint?
  2. Ifso, will the Government give Parliament an early opportunity of considering same?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– This matter is now receiving the careful consideration of the Government.

page 1287

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA MINING LEASES

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is the Government aware (a) that in the year 1914 the British Government appointed a select committee, presided over by Lord Halsbury, to investigate a certain share scandal in which members of the Government were involved, (6) that such committee concluded its report with a strong expression of opinion as follows, viz. - “ That there should be henceforth an inflexible rule to preclude those who hold any public office from entering upon any speculative transactions in stocks or shares in any circumstances whatever, and that this rule should be by them inculcated on their subordinates both by precept and example. The evils that may arise from a violation of this principle are incalculable”?
  2. Does the Prime Minister approve of this pronouncement?
  3. If so, what steps does lie propose to take?
Senator DALY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has not had an opportunity of considering the report of the committee referred to, or the circumstances which gave rise to the appointment of the committee, and is, therefore, not prepared to answer hypothetical questions based on the report.

Senator LYNCH:

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

  1. How many gold-mining leases have been granted in Now Guinea?
  2. What is the maximum area of such leases ?
  3. Has the Government taken care to see that the land granted for such leases has been exhausted of all gold that could be recovered by alluvial miners of small means?
  4. If not, does not the Government recognize that Australian gold-miners have been disinherited of their inalienable right - alluvial gold?
  5. If so, what steps does the Government propose to take to restore that right?
Senator DALY:

– Certain of the questions asked by the honorable senator necessitate inquiry of the Administrator. Inquiry is being made accordingly, and answers will be made available as soon as possible.

page 1287

QUESTION

WESTERN AUS TRALIAN ELECTION

Senator LYNCH:

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

  1. . As the Prime Minister is reported to have announced that he regarded the triumph of Labour in South Australia as a vindication and endorsement of the fiscal policy of his Govern ment, does he by the same reasoning regard the defeat of Labour in Western Australia as a condemnation of the fiscal policy of his Government?
  2. If so, will he so recast his fiscal policy as to lighten the burden on Western Australia, as recently desired at the polls in that State?
Senator DALY:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

page 1287

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK, PERTH

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Work3, upon notice -

  1. .fs the Government aware whether there are firms in Western Australia who desire to tender for (and are capable of carrying out) the supply of the. bronze doors and other bronze work mentioned in items 218 to 224 of the specifications of contract for the new Commonwealth Bank at Perth, and for which f 23,000 is allowed, as a separate contract?
  2. Will such firms be afforded an opportunity of tendering for this work. If so, when?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. It is anticipated that tenders will be called in about three months.

page 1287

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Boorabbin, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

Agreement made between the Commonwealth Government ‘and the German Reich relating to the release of Property Rights and Interests of German Nationals.

Final Act of the Hague Conference.

Norfolk Island - Annual Report for year ended 30th June, 1929.

Public Service Act- - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 34.

page 1287

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

ADVISORY Council Ordinance: Motion fob Disallowance.

Debate resumed from 30th April (vide page 1228), on motion by Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce -

That Ordinance No. 4 of 1930, Advisory Council, made under the Seat of Government Acceptance Act and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, be disallowed.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

– I understand that certain suggestions have been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) to the Leader of the Government (Senator Daly), with regard to this matter, and t hat they may meet some of the objections raised to the ordinance. Owing to the slight indisposition of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Blakeley), an interview with him has not yet taken place, and, in the circumstances, it may be advisable to adjourn the debate. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 1288

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (POWER OF AMENDMENT)

Second Heading

Debate resinned from 80th April, (vide page 1237). on motion by Senator Daly -

That the hill lie now read a second time.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.1 2]. - Many proposals have been made for the alteration of the Federal Constitution and some have been agreed to, but 1 venture to say that the bill now before the Senate is the most extraordinary, and the most revolutionary that has ever been conceived, let alone put forward. Equally extraordinary, I think, was the speech with which the Leader of the Government (Senator Daly) introduced it in this chamber. As I read that speech, the justification for the introduction of this bill to amend the Constitution in such a revolutionary fashion is that there have been differing interpretations of the Constitution by Justices of the High Court. That is such a staggering proposition that it almost takes away my breath. Let us translate that proposition into another arena. One cannot take up one’s newspaper any day in the week, but one reads of interpretations of statute law by the State Supreme Courts. One judge gives a certain decision, and a little later the Full Court, on appeal, over-rules that decision. From day to day different interpretations arc placed upon the statute law by ordinary courts of the land. But. does anybody suggest that we should, therefore, do away with statute law? The honorable senator’s speech consisted almost entirely of quotations from judgments, and the sotting out of cases in which differing interpretations of the Constitution have been given, and because of that the Senate is now asked to make the most revolutionary alteration in the Constitution that has ever been suggested. The proposal is so revolutionary that it would entirely alter the basis on which alterations of the Constitution can now be made. It would take away from the people any voice with respect to such alterations. It would destroy the balance of the federation made up as it is of States. The bill treats Australia as a unity, and lays down the axiom that, in future, amendments of the Constitution are to be decided not by a majority of the people in a majority of the States, but by a majority of the people as represented by a majority in Parliament, taking Australia as a whole.

The more one looks at this revolutionary proposal, the more extraordinary it becomes. Clause 2 of the bill reads -

The Constitution is altered by inserting, after section one hundred and twenty-eight, i lie following section: - “.129. Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section, the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution in the following manner -. -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must, after the lapse of one month from its origination in a House of the Parliament, be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and bc assented to. hy the GovernorGeneral.”

There is no “ go slow “ about that ! We are to have alterations of the Constitution at quick notice, and by the shortest possible cut.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Yes. Parliament is to have power to alter the Constitution as it thinks fit from day to day. There may be a chance majority elected on a distinct issue quite ;i part from constitutional matters.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is making a football of the Constitution.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Entirely. That chance majority might actually represent a minority of the people, so far as this chamber is concerned. Honorable senators are aware that each State returns six members to this chamber and that half the members of the Senate retire every three years. Let us assume that the Senate is constituted of sixteen Labour senators and twenty nonLabour senators, and that of the twenty non-Labour senators, eighteen are to retire at an ensuing election. That may come about, because the swing of the political pendulum sometimes gives one party almost the whole of the eighteen contested seats. Therefore it is not improbable that, at some election, eighteen of the twenty on the majority side might have to submit to election. I class the parties in that way merely by way of illustration. In the event of eighteen of the non-Labour senators having to go before the people for re-election, in these circumstances it only needs three Labour senators to be returned at that election to give Labour n majority in the Senate. If the issue at the election were some proposal for an alteration of the Constitution and fifteen of the eighteen senators elected were against the alteration, and three for it, the alteration could still be made. It will be seen, therefore, that it would be possible for the voice of the people to be ignored and the Constitution altered by men who were returned three years previously on an entirely different issue.

Honorable senators will see in this bill the Government’s views on the rights of the States, ana its estimate of the Senate and its place in the legislature of this country. I think it was Carlyle who spoke of the arrogance of elected persons. This bill is the last word in political arrogance. Here is a Government which coolly says to the people of Australia that, although they have adopted a Constitution which can bc altered only with their consent, that right is to be taken from them and vested in the Parliament which shall be competent to alter the Constitution almost from day to day as it thinks fit, without even consulting the people. The Government’s action shows a distrust, amounting almost to contempt, of the people of Australia. It reveals an exalted and arrogant conception of the position of Parliament. The Constitution differs from an ordinary act of Parliament in that it is the machinery by which the people of Australia are to be governed. Before the Constitution can be altered the people, not Parliament which is the creation of the people, must be consulted. The people are more vitally interested in the Constitution than is the Parliament; yet the Government proposes to put the cart, before the horse by making the will of the people subservient to that of the Parliament. Evidently the Government regards the people as of no account, for by this bill it is seeking to take from them the power which they have expressly reserved to themselves.

I am not a lawyer, and I should, therefore, like Senator McLachlan or any other lawyer in the Senate to explain the meaning of the proposed alteration as an addendum to section 128 of the Constitution. To me, as a layman, it is a most puzzling piece of draftsmanship. Section 12S of the Constitution lays down a carefully thought-out system for the alteration of the Constitution. It provides for an expression of the view of Parliament, for the submission of the question to the people, and also the means by which decisions shall be arrived at. That section is to be left in the Constitution, but there is to be an addendum that, notwithstanding ali the elaborate provisions in the section mentioned, Parliament may alter the Constitution in any way that it thinks fit. Why is section 12S to be left in the Constitution ?

Senator Guthrie:

– It is a vital section to the States and the people.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Is it conceivable that the Government has such a low opinion of the intelligence of the people of Australia that it believes that their objection to this bill will be met by telling them that the provision for consulting the people still remains? It seems incredible that the Government should propose to leave section 128 in the Constitution if it really desires that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have the powers sought to be conferred on it by this bill. It would appear that the Government is not in earnest in regard to this measure; that not only does it not believe that the bill will be carried, but also that it does not desire it to be carried. Apparently the bill has been introduced merely to placate that section of the Government’s supporters which is constantly clamouring for unification. In my opinion, it has been deliberately framed in such a way that it will be rejected with contumely and contempt, and that small, though very noisy, minority of Government supporters forever silenced. I cannot believe that any government that really desired the acceptance of this bill would have framed it in this extraordinary way.

The Government has introduced two other bills for the amendment of the Constitution. If it really believes in this bill, then the other bills are unnecessary, for the greater includes the less. If this bill represents the Government’s views on the Constitution, and the Government is in earnest in its desire to place it on the statute-book, then it is sheer humbug and hypocrisy to introduce the other measures. I regard this bill as a mere demonstration on the part of the Government and the other two bills as embodying its real desires.

I scarcely have patience to debate thi3 measure, because I regard its submission to us as an insult to the Senate. Does the Government believe that the Senate, which represents the States, is prepared to consider seriously a bill which would render the Senate a mere excrescence on the Constitution? This bill, if passed, will give to that chance majority of which I have spoken the power to wipe out the Senate altogether. At present that cannot be done without the consent of the people of Australia. It is useless for the Government to talk to me about mandates, because during the last few months it has done things which indicate that it places a very elastic interpretation upon that blessed word “ mandate.” Under the guise of acting on a mandate from the people, all sorts of things can be done. I understand that in another place the Government gave an assurance that it did not contemplate making any alteration to the Constitution which had not previously been placed before the people; but that assurance carries no weight whatsoever with me. I feel sure that the Senate will reject this measure with that contumely and contempt which it deserves.

What would be the position of the States if this bill became law? To-day the States have certain definite powers; in fact, thc-y have < all the powers that are not expressly defined in the Federal Constitution as resting with the Commonwealth. They have all the undefined powers. Let us assume that this proposed alteration of the Constitution is made. What would be the position ? A Federal Government, returned with a mandate for preference to unionists or something of that kind, suddenly conceives the bright idea that it can control education much better than the States. It then proceeds to put the necessary bill through both Houses, and in the short space of one month assumes control of the education systems of the several States. Having done that, it may come to the conclusion that it can administer lands more effectively than the State Parliaments, and proceed to pass legislation to take over the control of lands. And likewise in regard to mines. In the short space of one session a very active Government “with a majority behind it in both Houses could strip every State Parliament in Australia of its powers. Yet that Government might have been placed in office by a chance majority on some question such as preference to unionists. The extraordinary position is that having lived out its term of three years, and having met with the fate which would inevitably await it on going to the people, it would be replaced by another administration which could reverse the policy of its predecessors, and so amend the Constitution as to hand back to the States the various powers of which they had been stripped. One can imagine the absolute confusion that would result in Australia if the Commonwealth Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution in the way proposed. The British Parliament has no written Constitution ; it has no subsidiary parliaments. In this country the State Parliaments preceded the Federal Parliament; State sovereignty preceded Federal sovereignty, yet this proposal disregards that historical fact and proceeds to legislate as if the federal authority is the predominant partner. There is no predominant partner in the federation. It consists of six States joined together with equal powers under the Constitution.

I suggest that this bill is a glorification of that policy which I believe the Labour party of to-day holds dear to its heart, and that is the policy of centralization. It seems to be the policy of the Labour party that all government and administration shall be centralized in Canberra. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, during his speech, quoted some remarks which I made some years ago, in which I referred to the wisdom and advisability of uniformity. I did. I was speaking of uniformity in matters federal in character, but there are some directions in which uniformity is the last thing that is desirable in the interests of Australia. There are some directions in which diversity is preferable to uniformity. Take our land legislation. Will anybody say that it would be well to have uniform land legislation for the whole of Australia? Is it not obvious that what might be a perfect land law for a small State, such as Tasmania, would be the worst possible land legislation for such States as Western Australia or Queensland. Nevertheless this measure is aiming at centralization and uniformity in all things. Again I speak with bated breath as a layman, when I say that I very much doubt the validity of this bill. If it is passed, then in twelve months’ time Senator Daly may be quoting another important judgment of the High Court in which it is declared that this legislation is unconstitutional. I invite the Vice-President of the Executive Council, when he is replying, to tell us what will be the effect of this proposal on certain sections of the Constitution. Let us look at section 106, which relates to the States. It reads -

The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue us at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

If this amendment were carried, it would be competent for the Federal Parliament to alter the Constitutions of the States. The States did not contemplate such a possibility when they accepted the Federal Constitution ; they thought their Constitution would remain inviolate. Section 123 of the Constitution, which relates to new States, reads -

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may, with the consent of the Parliament of a State, and the approval of the majority of the electors of the State voting upon the question, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of the State, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed on, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any State affected.

Is that to be altered by this proposed amendment of the Constitution? Will the Commonwealth Parliament have the power to diminish or alter the boundaries of a. State without any reference to the State concerned? If so, let the people of the various States know it. If that is to be the position, let the people of New South Wales know that if this alteration of the Constitution is agreed to the Federal Parliament will have the power, for instance, to take from it the district of the Riverina and attach it to Victoria or to South Australia. It would also have the power to take from New South Wales the Monaro tableland, add it to the province of Gippsland, and so form a new State. It would have the power to take away the northern portion of

Western Australia and attach it to the Northern Territory. If this is the power which it is proposed to give to the Federal Parliament, let us understand clearly what is being done; the States will then know what to do. Section 124 of the Constitution reads -

A now State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of -the States affected.

I can imagine the Minister, if this proposed alteration is made, bringing in a bill to amend the Constitution by omitting from section 124 the words, “but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.” If that were done, the Parliament of the Commonwealth could carve up Australia in any way it thought fit. I understand the Government has in mind the establishment of provincial councils, something in the form of glorified roads boards, to take the place of State Parliaments. In order to give effect to its policy in that respect, it Would only be necessary for it to pass legislation to amend the Constitution by omitting from this section the words, “but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.” A Federal Government, with its chance majority, could then enter upon a redistribution of the governing areas of Australia.

I do not propose to devote any more time to this bill. It is so ridiculous, so extreme, so arrogant, that I am sure the Senate will give it the same short, shrift that the people would give it if it were submitted to them. My concluding words are that it has a value in that it will give to the people of Australia, when considering the other constitutional amendments proposed, an indication of what is in the minds of the Government. The people of Australia in considering the proposals of this Government for alterations of the Constitution will know that, whatever they may be, this measure is a clear indication of what the Government has in view. L intend to vote against, the motion for the second reading.

Senator FOLL (Queensland) [3.40’.- I agree with my leader (Senator Sir George Pearce) that little need be said concerning this measure. The right honorable gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that the introduction of this bill, to a deliberative assembly like the Senate, was an act of audacity on the part of the Government. The older members of this chamber will recall the debates that took place at the several conventions prior 1o the inauguration of the federation. I was then too young to take an active interest in the deliberations of those bodies, but I have studied many of the debates, and I can say without fear of contradiction that none of the States would have entered federation if the people had believed that, ir would be a federation without a constitution. That, however, will be the position if this bill becomes an act. The Government of the day would then be authorized to alter the Constitution at will. When one considers that the leaders of public though r in Australia gave careful consideration to the framing of the Constitution and provided against all probable contingencies, it is an impertinence on the part of this Government to bring clown a measure to undo, at one stroke of the pen, the work of those conventions. I hesitate to compare the rules or articles of association of clubs and companies with the Constitution under which this Parliament functions, but for the purpose of illustration. I emphasize that members of such minor institutions would never dream of allowing the executive to scrap their rules or articles of association at will. They would insist upon being consulted and given an opportunity to express their views before any alteration of a vital nature was made. If this proposed amendment is accepted the people of Australia will be for all time denied the opportunity to be heard before alterations of the Constitution ure made.

We all know that the ultimate aim of the Labour party is unification. This being so, we should consider how it is likely to affect the several States. How would Queensland fare under such a scheme? At present, that State has ten representatives out of a total of 75 in another place. Some of the other States have fewer members than that in the House of Representatives, but all have equal representation in the Senate.

Under unification, Queensland and the oilier smaller Stales would be dragged at the heels of the more populous States of New South Wales and Victoria, and would have practically no voice in federal administration. Even now a large number of electors in Northern Queensland consider that Brisbane is too far away to permit of a satisfactory form of government from that centre, and there is a feeling among certain sections in Central Queensland, as Senator Thompson knows, that they also are too far removed from Brisbane. They are hoping some day to have a seat of government nearer to them. Under unification, which is so dear lo the hearts of certain members of the Labour party, the Federal Government, functioning in Canberra, would be responsible for all acts of administration irrespective of the views of people in any Stale on any particular matter. I sincerely hope that the bill will not be accepted by the Senate; but if it is passed, I feel sure that the people will reject it by a substantial majority in every State. Senator Pearce suggested that it had been introduced for the purpose of placating the extremist wing of the Federal Labour party and those union executives who control the political destinies of the party outside Parliament. We know that is true. This Government did not receive n mandate at the last election to destroy the Federal Constitution. Had Mr. Scullin, the present Prime Minister, indicated that, if returned, he would introduce proposals of such a drastic nature as the amendment contained in this bill, he would not have secured a majority and would not now be in power.

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– He did advocate the alteration of the Constitution.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– But only in a guarded manner, particularly in relation to the control of industry. I challenge the Minister to point to any portion of the Prime Minister’s policy speech in which he indicated that he would bring down amendments to destroy the federal character nf the Constitution.

Senator Barnes:

– What is the position in Great Britain?

Senator FOLL:

– In the Mother Country there is no division of governmental authority as is the case in Australia. The States have sovereign rights which the Senate, as the States’ House, should jealously guard. Senator Barnes has referred to the conditions prevailing in Great Britain; but the conditions there do not vary as they do in Australia. For instance, land legislation applicable to Western Australia can by no means be made applicable to the Northern Territory. Variations in climate and soil have to be taken into account in framing land laws suitable for the whole of the Commonwealth.

Senator Barnes and Senator Daly cannot be serious in their support of this bill. It is quite probable that if at the first party meeting they attended after the recent, election, any one had suggested the introduction of such a proposal, they would have held up their hands in horror. But their trouble is that the Labour party contains a section of extremists and it is these the Government is desirous of placating. Personally. I believe that Senator Daly is as anxious as any other honorable senator to protect the Constitution; but he is compelled to follow the dictation of the Labour caucus.

Senator Daly:

– This bill will make assurance doubly sure.

Senator FOLL:

– It will make it doubly sure that there will be no longer any Constitution. One that could be altered simply to meet the whim of any chance majority in Parliament would be utterly useless. When it was first mooted that our Constitution should be altered, the Leader of the Labour party in the State of* New South Wales was distinctly hostile. Knowing nothing more than that the Constitution was to be altered for the purpose of overcoming the difficulties which had been encountered by the BrucePage Government, he said that he and his supporters would not accept any proposal for the alteration of the Constitution which did not involve the carrying out of the full platform of the Labour party and. in particular, the abolition of the Senate. The New South Wales members of the Federal Labour party had to fall into line behind him and consequently we have before us a measure which is simply an attempt, and a very poor one, to placate the extremists in the Labour party.

We are all well aware that there are constitutional limitations upon this Parliament, but as many of them were deliberately put into the Constitution bv the delegates to the Federal Convention, it is amusing to hear it said that this Parliament is hamstrung because of the shortsighted policy of the framers of the Constitution. Limitations were deliberately imposed on the Commonwealth Parliament to protect the rights of colonies which otherwise would not have come into the federation. We should be ill-advised to pass a bill giving the Commonwealth Parliament the right to scrap the Federal Constitution. If a federal government finds itself in difficulties because of the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution, there is ample opportunity to consult the people and ask for whatever alterations are deemed necessary. The fact that the people have previously declined to effect alterations of the Constitution is no justification for the introduction of an audacious proposal such as that now before us. It is an outrageo’us proposal, and, as Senator Guthrie has interjected, is an insult to the intelligence of the electors. It is only a waste of time to debate it at any length, and, like my leader (Senator Pearce), I do not propose to take up more of the time of the Senate beyond saying that I believe the people of Queensland will overwhelmingly reject any proposal which seeks to rob .them of every right they enjoy under federation. If this proposal were carried by the people, the Labour party, comprising, as it does, among its ranks, an extreme element which is in control of the outside organization, would very soon proceed to replace our present system of Government by a Soviet form of control. To ask honorable senators elected to safeguard the interests of the individual States, to vote for or debate a bill of this description, is to insult their intelligence.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– It has been said that the Government cannot be serious in introducing this bill, but I give it credit for being serious, and I take a serious view of the measure. The question at issue is one of the most momentous that has been brought before Parliament since the inauguration of the Commonwealth. Senator Daly has referred to a number of diverse legal opinions, and High Court judgments upon the power or want of power of this Parliament under the Constitution; but it seems to me that the passing of this bill would lead to a. far greater diversity of opinion than before. ‘ We are told that on one occasion the High Court gave a judgment, and at a later date reversed it. What may happen if this bill becomes law? If the High Court gives a judgment on the supposed powers of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, this Parliament may be asked to meet the difficulty arising out of the judgment by altering the Constitution. But if, that having been done, the High Court reverses its previous judgment we shall be no better off than before. Therefore, although the legal decisions cited by the Leader of the Government (Senator Daly) in the Senate are very interesting they appear to have no bearing upon the solution of the difficulties under which we are labouring.

Senator Daly:

asked whether it was suggested by those who were opposing the measure that the Constitution should never be altered. I do not know that any honorable senator in opposition or any member of the Opposition in another place, has ever contended that the Constitution should never be altered. As a matter of fact the necessity for alterations of the Constitution was foreseen by its framers, and they made provision by which alterations could be effected. But it appears to be generally forgotten that the Constitution itself belongs to the people of Australia, and not to the Federal Parliament. The bill before us is an attempt by the Government to take to itself a power which really belongs to the people. The time will come when the present party will go out of office, and when that happens, the Constitution having thus been taken away from the people by the present, Government, will become the plaything of another Government directly opposed in its political principles to the present occupants of the Treasury benches. Foreseeing such a possibility, the framers of the Constitution rightly ordained that it should not be an easy matter to alter it - that it should not be altered on any flimsy pretext - but only with the consent of a majority of the people in a majority of the States.

There has been a great deal of talk of what a Commonwealth Government might do if the people gave

Parliament the power to amend the Constitution at will, and, in rather indignant tonus, honorable senators have been asked if they thought that the present Government would do all the foolish things that it has been said it would do. When honorable senators have replied that it is quite possible for all these things to be done, they have been charged with having put up men of straw only for the purpose of knocking them down again. In this connexion 1 draw attention to a statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr. Blakeley, in January last, when he was returning from. Broken Hill, via Adelaide. In a telegram to the Melbourne Herald, published on the 13 th January last, occurred the following: -

Mr. Blakeley said today that if the people by referendum supported the move, the early abolition of State Parliaments would not necessarily follow. The process must be gradual.

He did not say that the Government never contemplated such a thing; he distinctly said that it did contemplate it, but the process would be gradual. The statement of the Minister continues -

The proposals included the elimination of State boundaries. In their place would be a subdivision of ureas. Smaller agricultural States eventually would be better off under this scheme.

Subdivided areas could be more economically and efficiently worked by people living within the boundaries of the provinces or shires.

It would bo necessary to have a financial institution working with the proposed scheme of local government, and in all probability a branch of the Commonwealth Bank would bc an avenue through which the provinces would be financed.

State functions which were essentially of local character would be vested in the Lands of people of the provinces, and matters of national aspect would be handled by the FederaI Government.

That is not a wild, irresponsible utterance by n member of the Opposition in this House; it is a considered statement by a responsible member of the Government. Without doubt, those who are opposed to the Government’s proposals fear that the abolition of the States and of State Parliaments would naturally follow the passing of this bill, and in that belief they have the solid support of a ministerial statement. A little earlier, the Minister for Trade aud Customs (Mr. Fenton), speaking in the pride of his newly- acquired prominence as a Minister of the Crown, stated in the Melbourne Town Hall, in referring to the Government’s proposals regarding the Constitution, that the only “ fly in the ointment “ was the Senate. Dr. Maloney remarked, “Abolish the Senate,” and Mr. Fenton replied “ That is on our programme.”

Senator Daly:

– On our platform.

Senator CARROLL:

– I am glad that the Minister has made that interjection, because he stated yesterday at the conclusion of his remarks, in moving the second reading of the bill, that the Government was going on with its programme and platform.

Senator Daly:

– No, with the legislative programme placed before the people.

Senator CARROLL:

– I stand corrected to that extent. Are we to understand that the proposal was not put before the people at the last election?

Senator Daly:

– The abolition of the Senate was not on the legislative programme of the Labour party.

Senator CARROLL:

– The bill would give the Parliament power to alter the Constitution at will.

Senator O’Halloran:

– The alteration of the Constitution was a policy submitted to the people at the recent election.

Senator CARROLL:

– Yes, but that is vague. We have three proposed alterations of the Constitution under consideration already. If the first proposal were agreed to it would be all-embracing and would naturally cover all the ground sought to be traversed by the other two. ‘

I now come to the matter of the rights of the States. Members of this chamber are here by the will of the people of the States, and each State is represented by the same number of members, irrespective of the differences in population. I, as a representative of one of the smaller States, from the point of view of population, say, without hesitation, that if I supported this bill, I should be a traitor to the State that sent me here, and I should be deserving of the fate that I know very well would await me at the next election. I should be retired into private life as one who had betrayed the trust reposed in him. By way of interjection, I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) yesterday, whether this bill would alter the concluding paragraph of section 12S of the Constitution, which reads: -

X”i alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either T-Tome nl the I’ii r Iia i nun I:, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, »r increasing, diminishing or otherwise altering the limits of the. State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the ‘lectors voting in that State approve thu proposed lau. lt is proposed by the Government to insert, after the concluding paragraph of that section, the words “Notwithstanding anything in the last preceding section, the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution in the following manner,” &c. If the bill is agreed to, that will be the concluding section of the Constitution. If that does nor mean thai this Parliament will be able to alter at will the paragraph I have just read, the bill has no meaning at all. 1 am not a legal nian, but I claim to have an ordinary amount of common sense, and the effect of the bill seems to mc to be so clear that “ the wayfaring nien, though fools, shall not err therein.” If the Parliament were given such wide power there would be an end to uniform representation of the States in the Senate, even if the States were permitted to exist. For that reason [ have no hesitation in registering my protest against the bill. T intend to vote against it, and I shall do my best to prevent the people of my State from recording their votes in favour of the Government’s proposals. I feel confident that the overwhelming majority of the people of Western Australia will reject them.

Senator O’HALLORAN (South Australia) [4.14 J. - Despite the efforts of some opponents of the bill to heap ridicule upon the Government for having brought it forward, 1 claim that it should receive the serious consideration of this chamber. We should discuss it. not on narrow party lines, but from the point of view of whether it would make for the bettor government of the. Australian nation. Remarks such as “ revolutionary proposals,” “ the enunciation of destructive principles/’ “ attempting to do something without a mandate from the people,” and “ the destruction of the sovereignty of the States,” which were used by the Leader of the Opposition in the course of his speech this afternoon, are not such as the people of Australia look for in seeking guidance to enable them to decide how to vote on this important issue. It is much to be regretted that the matter and the manner of amending the Constitution should be dragged into the cock-pit of party politics. The Government has suggested to this chamber that it should give consideration to an additional means of altering the Constitution. It does not propose, as honorable senators who have spoken in opposition to the bill would have us believe, the destruction of the Constitution. It does not imply that the people’s rights in that regard should be taken from them, but it does suggest that, the method of altering the Constitution ought to be simplified. Instead of discussing this bill in a narrow party spirit, as many opponents of the measure appear to be doing, we should remove ourselves from the clutch of the dead hand of the past, which was so effectively referred to by Senator Pearce in 1914, and visualize the changed conditions that operate in Australia today as compared with the time when the constitutional garment was made to clothe the young Australian nation. At that time there was ample excuse for some conservatism on the part of the pioneers of federation - and I am not going to detract from their effort one iota - because the conditions that obtained then were altogether dissimilar to those of to-day. But to say that the present generation of Australians, and this Parliament, constituted nearly 30 years after the election of the first Parliament, should be bound by the conditions laid down by .he delegates to the federal conventions would be, taking the most charitable view, to ask us to shut our eyes to progress and ignore all that has occurred since then.

Honorable senators opposite have declared that this proposal of the Government will deprive the people of their sovereign rights. I must confess that I am somewhat perplexed. If it were not for the seriousness of the measure wc are discussing I should almost bc amused, when honorable senators in opposition proclaim themselves ast he champions of the rights of the people.I come from a State in w hich a party similar to the Nationalist party in the Senate has controlled the Parliament for many years, I have seen its valiant, and, unfortunately, successful attempts to maintain in that State a second legislativechamber which pays no heed to the rights of the people or to the will of the majority of them as evidenced by the overwhelming majority the Labour party has gained in the popular chamber of the legislature. During my eleven years of parliamentary life I have seen governments conic and go in South Australia. In 1924, the Labour party was returned with an overwhelming majority in the House of Assembly, but the party in opposition in the Legislative Council was able to frustrate the efforts of the Labour Government to give effect to its policy which had the endorsement of the people. A chamber whose restricted franchise meant that it represented only ahout one-third of the adult population of the State was able to nullify the decision of the people. History has recently repeated itself in South Australia for again in the popular chamber of that State - a chamber elected on adult suffrage - the Labour party has an overwhelming majority. The Labour party made a determined effort to secure a majority also in the Legislative Council. It contested practically every vacancy, but owing to the restricted franchise for that chamber, no improvement in its representation there was made. In the face of such evidence it is idle for honorable senators who sit opposite to proclaim themselves to be the standard bearers of democracy. Their objection to the Government’s proposal is based not on any concern for the rights of the people, but on a fear that the bulwarks of the privileges of the few, in the Legislative Councils of the States, will be destroyed.

Senator Pearce said that the Government’s proposals mean the destruction of the Constitution. The speech of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) last night showed clearly that they contemplate no such thing. I am prepared to leave to the members of the legal profession in this chamber the discussion of points of constitutional law, but, as a layman, I believe that the basis of our Constitution is such that it cannot, be destroyed by any instrument provided in the Constitution itself.We can come to no other conclusion if we take a common sense view of the Constitution and of constitutional law as interpreted for us from time to tunc by competent authorities. The Opposition would have the people believe that the passing of this measure would mean the destruction of the Constitution and federation as they understand it; but the charge is without foundation and unworthy of serious consideration. The result of this legislation will be to make the federation more effective and better fitted to fulfil those functions for which it was created.I repeat that we ought to consider this proposal, not in the atmosphere of the past, but in the atmosphere of to-day.

Senator Ogden:

– The honorable senator should be serious.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator himself should be serious, and give to this measure that consideration which he would have given to it a few years ago when he supported the Labour party platform, which included the abolition of the Senate. The federal conventions which were held in the ‘nineties were conducted in the atmosphere of that time. In those days, communities were more self-contained than they are to-day, and were better able to work out their destinies in their own way. Conditions have changed since then - the air has been conquered by aircraft; the roads have been conquered by the internal combustion engine; distance has been annihilated by fast express trains and modern steamers. Circumstances to-day demand a broad national outlook, and a proper regard for the rights of the people as a whole. Is this nation to be compelled to continue to wear the constitutional garment which shortly after it was fashioned was considered to be inadequate, even by those who fashioned it? Some of those great figures of the past who framed the Constitution and illumined the conventions with their ability and eloquence recognized, soon after the inception of federation, that the constitutional garment was inadequate for an expanding nation. As far back as 1903 some of them seriously proposed that greatly extended powers should be conferred on this Parliament.

Senator Ogden:

– The Constitution provides a method for doing that.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– That is the genesis of this discussion. “We are now called upon to decide whether the method provided in the Constitution, or that proposed by the Government, is the better means of altering the Constitution. The proposals of the Government are simple and effective; they are, moreover, incapable of doing those things which the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) said they would do. Under the existing law, the Constitution can be amended only with the consent of a majority of the people in a majority of the States. The method set out in the Constitution must be followed whether the proposed alteration means sweeping changes in our governmental system, or is a simple amendment designed to meet the peculiar needs of a particular community. Irrespective of the magnitude of the amendment, or of the effect of the alteration, the people must be consulted, notwithstanding that thetaking of a referendum costs the taxpayers of Australia approximately £100,000. The Government’s proposal is that this, the National Parliament of Australia, should have the right to speak on behalf of the Australian nation.

Senator E B Johnston:

– It should confine its attention to national affairs; and not interfere with petty matters as is proposed in this instance.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I shall deal with that phase of the question in a moment. As this is the Parliament which has to deal with national problems we are justified in asking that it should be clothed with similar powers to the Parliament of Great Britain, from which we derive our being as a. nation. Is there any logical reason why the powers of this National Parliament, speaking as it does on behalf of the Australian people, should be more circumscribed than those of the Mother of Parliaments?

Senator Payne:

– Certainly.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I hope the honorable senator will show why he thinks they should be. Senator E. B. Johnston said that the Federal Parliament should confine its activities to purely national affairs and should not interfere in petty matters. That is what has caused so much trouble since the inception of federation. How are we to decide what is a national and what is a parochial matter ? Defence, the payment of invalid and old-age pensions, maternity allowances, and the imposition of customs and excise duties, are considered to be of national importance; but education, which I contend is of equal importance, is controlled by the States. Studying this matter from the view-point of the Australian nation, I should like to know why there should be any differentiation between provision for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions and provision for the education of the people. Both are benefits, conferred in one case by the Parliament of the Commonwealth and in the other by the States. The payment of invalid and old-age pensions is a benefit conferred upon the whole of the people of Australia who come within the provisions of that legislation, and the benefit conferred upon the people with respect to education is governed by the ability of the State finances to provide that benefit. This has particular application to the State represented by Senator Ogden.

Senator Payne:

– In what way?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– For years Tasmania has been a suppliant for financial assistance from the Federal Government. Financial assistance has been granted to that State because it has not derived from federation benefits comparable with those obtained by other States. One of the strongest arguments in support of Tasmania’s claim is in connexion with education. The education authorities in that State have contended that they train teachers in Tasmanian schools, but as soon as they become proficient they resign their positions and accept more lucrative appointments in the more populous mainland States. The Tasmanian authorities state that, they have great difficulty in maintaining a standard of education similar to that in force in the other States, because of the exodus of their teachers to the mainland. If the control of education were entrusted to the Commonwealth Parliament instead of to the State authorities as it is to-day, there would be no complaints concerning Victoria or New SouthWales pirating teachers from Tasmania. If education were under federal control it would be practicable to transfer teachers from Queensland to Tasmania or from Victoria to Western Australia without any loss in status or salary.

Senator Foll:

– Is not there healthy competition in the matter of education between the States ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– There should not be any competition in education ; the same rights and opportunities should be available to the whole of the citizens of Australia, irrespective of the State in which they live.

Senator Ogden:

– In what way could the federal authorities provide better facilities?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I have just said that there would be a uniform system under which teachers could be transferred without loss of salary, but that is not included in the Government’s programme. I am merely showing that there ought to be a simple means provided whereby the States, if they so desired, could surrender the powers which they possess.

Senator Ogden:

– They can do that now.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The method should be simplified. At present there must be agreement between the States to be affected by the proposed surrender of powers. This opens up another aspect, with respect to the elimination of local industries due to the breaking down of those barriers to which I referred a few moments ago. The massing of industries has created a. problem which is nation-wide, and which 30 years ago was confined to the limits of a State. Thirty years ago a large number of small implement manufactories were scattered throughout the agricultural districts of South Australia, and were supplying practically the whole of the agriculturists’ requirements in the districts in which they were operating; but to-day, in consequence of a concentration of manufacturing in the vicinity of sources of power, these small implement manufacturing industries have almost ceased to function. The primary producers are now depending upon mass production near the source of the cheapest power.

This, in itself, creates difficulties between the States, inasmuch as some States are deriving greater benefit from federation than are others.Who is going to adjust the balance, and to provide that all States shall receive equal benefits to which they, as members of the federation, are entitled? Although the National Parliament is the only body which could properly do so, it, is precluded from so doing because of its limited constitutional power. Honorable Senators representing those States which arc deriving smaller benefits than other States from the federal principle, ought to be the last to oppose or to offer any serious criticism to this proposal. Their objection appears to be that the people should always be consulted when amendments to the Constitution are being promulgated.

Senator Guthrie:

– So they should.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– That might be so if we were going to alter the whole fabric of the Constitution; but this proposal does not change the federal character of the Constitution, neither does it destroy the authority of the States whose rights were safeguarded when they entered the federal compact. This proposal will give to this Parliament the right to make simple alterations to the Constitution which from time to time have been found necessary. In discussing this subject, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) referred to the manner in which this chamber is elected, and said that it might be possible for three out of eighteen senators returned at a general election to give the Government a sufficient majority to amend the Constitution. The right honorable gentleman suggested that prior to a general election the Labour party might have a small minority in the Senate, and the party opposed to Labour a small majority; and that as the result of a turnover of two or three seats the Labour party might secure a majority. The right honorable gentleman did not say that there is another place, the members of which go to the people every three years, and that it would be necessary for the party seek to amend the Constitution to secure a mandate from the people. The members of that chamber must go to the people triennially, and it would be impossible to secure a mandate that was not representative of the views of the majority of the people.

Senator Ogden:

– Surely the Senate is the best test.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The best test is in the chamberwhere the whole of the members go to the people at the same time, and aree lected on the same franchise.Under the Constitution we have representation in the Senate based, not upon population or territory, but upon the rights of those sovereign States which entered federation.

The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition argued that this power to amend might be used by a Labour Government to effect sweeping constitutional changes in a single session of Parliament. I assure him that his fears are groundless. Any Government see king to pass legislation toalter the Constitution would have to consider the views of the people. The political history of this country is strewn with the wreckage of governments which failed to recognize this fundamental fact. With these warnings to guide future governments, there need be no fear that any administration would seek to amend the Constitution unless such amendments were desired by the majority of the people.

Many other aspects of constitutional amendment might be considered in the discussion on this bill, but as they are contained in other bills which will come before this chamber at a later date, I do not propose to deal with them now. 1 hope that this measure will receive the consideration which it deserves, and that it will be accepted on its merits. It is a sincere attempt to overcome difficulties due to constitutional limitations upon the authority of the Federal Parliament. As we all know, attempts have been made over a period of many years to overcome these difficulties by seeking the approval of the people to suggested amendments. In recent years this movement has grown in intensity, and consideration has been given to suggested amendments by extraparliamentary and extra-constitutional bodies. At present it is necessary to have conferences between the Commonwealth and State Ministers two or three times each year, because constitutional limitations prevent this Parliament from legislating upon issues of vital importance to the people of Australia. It is undesirable that we should continue to resort to this clumsy and unwieldy- expedient of convening conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers. One recalcitrant Premier may be able to defy the wishes of five other Premiers; the representative of one State may be able to prevent action being taken which would be to the interest of the five other States.

Senator Ogden:

– Fortunately so.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The honorable senator’s interjection is characteristic of the views that have been expressed by honorable senators opposite concerning these constitutional amendments. It is characteristic, also, of the attitude of those who, living in the past, cling to age-old traditions. Our purpose should be to build for the future; to seek to clothe the Australian nation with a constitutional garment worthy of a people who desire to work out their destinies, in the interests not of one section only, but of the nation as a whole.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I do not propose to speak at great length upon this important subject. I take it that at a later date we shall have to address our remarks to a wider audience, the people of this country. I cannot conceive that the Senate will sign its own death warrant by passing these proposals to amend the Constitution which the Government has placed before us.

Senator Daly:

– Surely the honorable senator does not take that view?

Senator THOMPSON:

– I do. I agree with the Government that the Constitution requires to be amended, butI consider the methods proposed by the Ministry amount to a breach of faith with the States when they entered the federation. As everybody knows, prior to federation the States enjoyed full sovereign autonomous powers. As time went on it was deemed necessary to come together for the purpose of legislating uniformly upon such matters as defence, post and telegraph services, the imposition of customs and excise duties, and other subjects of national importance. Accordingly, conventions were held to consider a form of constitution which would be most acceptable to the people. Personally, I do not approve of certain provisions of our Constitution. It seems to me that if the eminent leaders of public thought who were responsible for framing the Constitution had modelled it. upon that of Canada, instead of upon that of the United States of America, we should to-day be in a much better position than we are. The Canadian Constitution, as most people know, vests the central government with greater legislative authority, and the States or Provinces with less power than is the case in Australia. The provinces have LieutenantGovernors responsible to the GovernorGeneral, who is the link with the Crown. The Lieutenant-Governors are appointed by the Dominion Government, and the legislative powers of the provinces, as well as of the central parliament are strictly delineated ; but the residual power is vested in the Dominion Parliament. That is as it should be. I cannot help thinking, therefore, that if we had modelled our Constitution on that of Canada it. would have proved to be a better instrument of government for our needs. We have, however, to remember that our circumstances prior to federation were somewhat different from those obtaining in Canada. The parliaments of Australia’s various colonies had the power of delegation similar to that of the States in the United States of America, and for that reason, I suppose, the framers of our Constitution favored that model. When I was in Canada with the Empire Parliamentary Delegation the people with whom I discussed our constitutional problems expressed surprise that Australia had not adopted the Canadian Constitution, which, in their opinion, is vastly better than that of the United States of America. They said that, having lived alongside the United States of America for so long, they knew the defects of its ( Constitution and would have none of ir. One defect of the Canadian Constitution is the manner in which amendments may be made. The Dominion Parliament has full power to alter the Constitution. The amendments are then submitted to the British Parliament and accepted without comment or discussion. That system does not appeal to me. No constitutional amendment should be made without the approval of the people. Apart from this weakness the Canadian Constitution, in my opinion, is better than our own and 1 would gladly make the change tomorrow if that were possible. I recognize, of course, that it would be extremely difficult, if not. impossible, to jettison our own Constitution and replace it with another on the Canadian model.

Senator Payne:

– We might, with advantage, adopt the Canadian provision for the appointment of senators.

Senator THOMPSON:

– In Canada members of the Senate are appointed for life. Possibly that would commend the Canadian Constitution to many members of this chamber.

Senator McLachlan:

– Under the amending proposal we might be able to do that.

Senator THOMPSON:

– The objective of the present Government, I take it, is to abolish the Senate altogether. I do not agree that senators should be appointed for life, and I consider that our own system is not so democratic as it should he. Nor docs this chamber fulfil its true function as a House of review, as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. It may be possible to remedy this defect by restricting the Senate franchise to electors over a certain age, and also placing an age limit upon candidates for election to this chamber. This would probably be an improvement on our present system.

This bill is of very great interest to the people of Central Queensland, from which part I come. They have for long desired that the Constitution should be simplified in respect of the redistribution of State territories. This movement, which some people many years ago described as separation, has gathered considerable strength in Northern and Central Queensland. The people there are very desirous that the State should be divided into more workable areas so as to ensure greater efficiency in administration. For a long time they have felt it a disadvantage to be separated by such a great distance from the seat of government in Brisbane, situated as it is in the south-eastern corner of the State. I am sure also that the people of the rest of Australia will be in the same position if these amendments are carried in their present form. Queensland lends itself particularly well to subdivision. It has many useful ports at various points in its long coastline. The port of Brisbane serves the southeastern portion of that State, Rockhampton the central division and Townsville the northern division. Nature appears to have divided Queensland into three separate workable areas. In New South Wales the port of Sydney is approximately at the centre of the coastline, and all trade verges towards it to the great disadvantage of the rest of the State. It is very much the same in Victoria and South Australia, and is practically the same in Western Australia. We have large aggregations of people in the capital cities of all the States except Queensland, which is certainly not to the advantage of the States generally, although it may be to the advantage of the capital cities. I think that in every case except Queensland, over 50 per cent, of the population of the States is in the capital cities.

Senator Ogden:

– That is not the case in Tasmania.

Senator THOMPSON:

– I am speaking of the mainland only. In Queensland, only 30 per cent, of the population is centered in Brisbane.

Our idea is that when the time is ripe the larger States should be subdivided Our difficulty is that at present the consent of the State has to be obtained before any subdivision of it can be brought about. That is an almost impossible proposition. I cannot conceive of the Premier of a State being sufficiently broad minded or having a suf-ficiently long vision to agree to a subdivision of his own territory. It would be like asking a monarch to give away portion of his kingdom. The subdivision of Queensland into three parts has been urged on many occasions, but the first obstacle is the securing of the consent of the Queensland Parliament. As we cannot visualize any State Government agreeing to a subdivision of its State in that way, our idea has been to try to get an alteration of the Federal Constitution to modify the procedure which has to be followed to bring about the subdivision of a State, by transferring the power of consent from the State Parliament to the Federal Parliament, and having that backed up by a referendum of the people in the area affected.

Some suggest that the referendum should be taken of the people of the whole State, but I do not favour that, because the more populous centres would certainly vote against valuable localities being cut off from them. Having agitated along these lines for a great many years, we were hopeful that when an amendment of the Constitution was sought to he made, it would be on those lines.

The Royal Commission on the Constitution, of which Senator Colebatch was a distinguished member, made a recommendation on the point of the redistribution of territory that would meet the wishes of the people of Central and Northern Queensland. I cannot understand why more notice has not been taken by the present Government of the very instructive report of the royal commission. I venture to say that the late Government, if it had remained in office, would have availed itself of the very valuable recommendations contained in that report. The present Government has evidently thought fit to jettison them altogether, although the report contained very good material for drastic and valuable alterations of the Constitution.

What is likely to come out of the present Government’s proposals? Unification is no doubt a possibility and, if we believe what many of the Labour party are talking about, a very, strong probability. That, I venture to say, would be one of the very worst things that could happen to Australia. The people who have been advocating a redistribution of territory are strongly against unification, because they consider that it means the State boundaries will be scrapped. If that is done honorable senators who are elected to represent State rights will in turn be scrapped. Personally, I have no desire to commit “ hari kari.” I am strongly opposed to the Government’s proposal and shall vote against it.

The disadvantages of unification are most patent. Everything would be governed from Canberra. It has been said this would simplify and cheapen government. It would do nothing of the kind. Activities now conducted by the States infinitely better than they could ever be carried on by a central government would still have to be continued.

The progress of the central and northern portions of Queensland has been greatly handicapped by government from Brisbane in the south-eastern corner of the State, and we can visualize how Canberra would stand to the whole of this vast continent. It has been said that the Mother Country has a method of government similar to that which would be brought about if these proposals were carried. But the conditions in the Mother Country are vastly different from ours. Great Britain is a small country with a com pact population easily governed from any central position, whereas Australia has wide-flung spaces and -Canberra is situated, so to speak, in its south-eastern corner. I am sure it would be found impossible to efficiently administer the whole continent from Canberra. In this connexion, we can compare Australia with other countries of equal size. The form of government in Canada is not the same as that of the Mother Country. Canada’s constitution differs very slightly from ours. It has provinces where we have States and the powers of those provinces are less than the powers our States possess. I should favorably consider any proposal to bring about a system of subdivision similar to that in operation in Canada. In the United States of America we have a shining example of a great country subdivided, with a method of government not on the lines of that of Great Britain. I think that South Africa is the only example of unification in the British Empire, and not long since a royal commission appointed to inquire into the functioning of the South African system furnished a report which was entirely unsatisfactory to the existing system. It is, therefore, idle to suggest that on the experience of other countries we should adopt unification in Australia.

It is said that the subdivision of Australia into smaller territories would multiply governments and thus increase the cost, of administration. But those who advocate the further subdivision of the Commonwealth have in mind for the various territories a very much simplified method of government compared with that which exists in the States to-day. They would be satisfied to have Lieutenant-Governors, leaving the Go vernor-General to be the only link with the Crown, and would be content to have only one chamber in each division with the number of parliamentary representatives distinctly less proportionally than it is to-day in the different States. When federation was brought about there were 72 members of parliament in Queensland. I was in South Africa at the time, just about, to return. Some of my friends in Pretoria asked mc whether I was going back to Australia. When I said “ Yes, to Queensland “ they asked where Queensland was. I said : “ It is on the map “. They asked “ How many members of parliament have you?” and when I replied “ 72 “, they asked “ Is it much greater than Cape Colony?” I said “ It is in area, but not in population or in importance “. Nor was it at that particular time. They asked “ Why do you want all those members when we have only 48?” I replied, “It was clearly stated by the people who framed the Federal Constitution that the number of State members of Parliament would be reduced by one-third and probably one-half.” I was under the fond impression, and so was every one else at that time, that there would be a very large reduction in the number of members of Parliament in each State because of the great responsibilities that were being transferred to the federal arena. But that has not come about. There has been no reduction in the number of members of the State Parliament in Queensland, and I do not know of any State where there has been a substantial reduction. If we could have simplified divisions with a very much reduced number of members of Parliament, we could bring down the cost of State government very much, and at the same time, I think, secure greater efficiency in administration by having more compact areas with which the Governments would be more in touch. I venture to say that that would be a far better solution of the problem than the adoption of the unification system which the Labour party has in view.

As the present proposal means the absolute jettisoning of the federal system and the transfer of matters which ought to be decided by the people, from the written

Constitution to the whim of Parliament, I cannot conceive of any good coming out of it. I, therefore, intend to oppose it both in the Senate and on the hustings when we go to the country upon it.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I quite agree with those honorable senators who have stressed the point raised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) that the proposals now under consideration should not be treated as a party matter. Proposals for the alteration of the Constitution of the great Commonwealth of Australia are far too important to be made the plaything of party politics, as I am afraid they would be if this alteration, which the Labour Government has seen fit to bring forward, should be agreed to. It is an extraordinary proposal, so extraordinary that one can hardly imagine there is any sincere desire on the part of the Government to have it carried. Surely Ministers are not so stupid as to wilfully insult the memory of those great Australians who, after years of labour, thought, and consultation with the highest authorities on constitutional government available in the world, framed our Constitution which, I venture to say, the people of Australia will be very slow to destroy. This bill, which in one fell swoop would destroy the Constitution, is an insult to the framers of that instrument of government, an insult to the Senate, and an insult to the commonsense of the people of Australia. They might be misled once or twice on a particular election cry, but could never be fooled into agreeing to the far-reaching alteration that this bill proposes to such a sacred thing as the Constitution. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) has shown clearly that, if this bill were carried, any party that happened for the moment, to have a small chance majority might easily be able to thwart the will of the people. It might obtain power by a majority of one or two votes only in both Houses, and thus be able to vitally alter the Constitution, lt could scrap, for instance, section 12S, which was inserted after the most careful deliberation to make it quite definite that the Constitution could not be amended unless a majority of the people wished it, and, in order to safeguard the interests of the States with smaller populations, that such an alteration must also be agreed to by a majority of the States. The greatest constitutional authorities in the world have stressed the necessity for that safeguard. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), who, for the moment, I regret to say, has allied himself with the representatives in this Parliament of the great American film interests, is recognized as a great legal authority, and I am glad to observe that he, in common with all the constitutional authorities whom 1 have been able to consult, has said definitely that he would never dream of handing over power to scrap the Constitution to any party that might temporarily be in a majority in this Parliament, hidden away in a bush city. Any party having a slight majority in this Parliament for the time being could, under this bill, over-ride the will of the States.

I regard the proposal of the Government as scandalous. It is a distinct attempt to break faith with the smaller States, who would never have agreed to federation had their rights not been safeguarded by section 12S, which was inserted specifically to prevent their being out-voted in this Parliament. Otherwise the government of Australia would be entirely dependent on the votes of the people of the two great capital cities of Sydney and Melbourne, in which, unfortunately, an alarmingly large proportion of the electors reside. Why was the Senate constituted as it is? Each State, irrespective of its size, or the number of people living in it, is given equal representation in this chamber. Under this bill, the Government could, and no doubt would, take steps to abolish this house of review, which was specially set up under the Constitution to safeguard the rights of the States and of the people as a whole. Imagine the Constitution being made the plaything of any party that might temporarily gain political power in the Commonwealth ! One government might amend the Constitution in a certain way, and, after the next election, another government might be returned by a slender majority, and might undo what the previous Ministry had done.

I cannot understand the extraordinary somersault that has been executed by part of the Labour party in this matter. The

Sydney Worker, which is supposed to be the mouthpiece of the Australia?! Workers Union, recently stated -

The Labour movement has made up its mind to fight the referendum proposals tooth and nail, lt will not have them, or any portion of them. From the first syllable to the last they are anathema.

Senator Barnes, the president of the Australian Workers Union, who has now become a Minister of the Grown, is a most successful acrobat. Speaking in the Senate some time ago on a bill for the alteration of the Constitution, he said -

Because this is an opportunity to broaden the Constitution along the lines laid down by the Labour party - it is the first plank of the Labour platform - irrespective of the source of that opportunity, I welcome it. 1 shall vote for the Government’s proposals. . . .[ am prepared to advise the people to vote for the proposals outlined in this measure, because 1 believe that they are not only in accordance with the policy of the Labour party, but that they are also truly democratic’. I do not fear that in a democratic country like Australia any great calamity will result from the granting of additional powers to Parliament.

A fortnight after that, the Assistant Minister as the Leader of the Australian Workers Union, signed a tirade of abuse concerning the very proposal that he had supported in the Senate. That almost looks as if some sinister outside influence is being brought to bear upon the Labour party at the present time. It would appear that the outside “ bosses “ of the Labour party would soon remove from the Constitution the safeguards the States now have. Apparently that party wishes to rush into unification, and would destroy this chamber. It wants to tear up the Federal Constitution, and this would result in Australia and Australians being governed by the mass vote of Sydney and Melbourne. Then the great producing portions of the Commonwealth would, in reality, have no voice at all in its government,. Western Australia comprises about one-third of the area of the Commonwealth, and is becoming a rich producing State, but owing to its comparatively small popula- tion, it would have no voice whatever in the government of the Commonwealth. Nor would South Australia, Tasmania and even Queensland. Government would come from the two great capital cities. where centralization, one of the great curses of this country, has already been accentuated. Under the present bill, that evil would be intensified.

The Labour party openly favours unification and socialization; in fact, that is one of the planks of its platform. Its dictators, and many of its supporters - some of them have expressed such opinions in the Senate - are great believers in the Soviet Government of Russia. We all know what a frightful mess Russia is now in. Under the present tyrannical and cruel mis-rule of the people of that country, it has come to such a pass that the Soviet rulers, having already murdered priests, nuns, and nurses, and hundreds of thousands of other citizens, are now attempting to fight God. They are indulging, as we all know, in an anti-God campaign. I do not for a moment suggest that anybody in Australia is in accord with them in that hopeless fight but a great many supporters of the Labour party are continually telling us what a wonderful place Russia is. They tell us that we should found our institutions and forms of government on the lines of those of Soviet, Russia. Russian propaganda is indulged in in Australia to-day. The Labour party in this country sends its representatives to Russia and to the Pan-Pacific Conference, which has passed resolutions that have been approved by a section of the Labour party in Australia, in favour of breaking down our White Australia policy, which we are determined to uphold at any cost. We do not want Australia, as a section of the Labour party evidently does, to be a country of blacks, browns and brindles. We desire to maintain the high standard of our British stock. Wc are proud that our population is 9S per cent. British. There must be no breaking down of our White Australia policy, no flirting with the Soviet, no pandering to the PanPacific Secretariat, of which the “ boss “ of the present day Labour party in Sydney, Mr. Garden, is the secretary, and of whoso journal he is also editor.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the honorable senator connect his remarks with the bill?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Yes, Mr. President. According to this measure, the Government proposes to conduct an anti-State campaign. If this proposal is put before the people of Australia and thoroughly explained to them they will reject it. They can he trusted to do the right thing if the position is put fairly and squarely before them. The Government proposes to ignore the will of the people and to wipe out their authority and that of the States. The destiny of Australia might be determined by a very slender majority, gained by a political party at a catch election.

One of the greatest constitutional authorities in the world, Professor Harrison Moore, dealing with amendments to the Constitution, said -

Tho adjustment of constitutional powers between the Commonwealth and States Governments is most obviously governed by the provisions concerning the alteration of the Constitution (section 128). The spirit o£ federalism requires that the federal pact shall not bo at the mercy of the central government. In Australia it was as necessary as elsewhere to establish the federal system upon a basis which should not be disturbed by the legislature of the Commonwealth to enlarge the power of self-government.

One could go on quoting other eminent authorities to the same effect. Indeed, every constitutional authority has expressed similar views. Yet, willy nilly, the present Labour Government places before us a bill which, if passed, will mean the scrapping of all these safeguards. The Government would have us believe that it knows more than these great constitutional authorities and the framers of the Constitution knew.

Senator Daly:

– That is scarcely a fair way of putting it.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I think it is. A political party might have a majority of one in each House of Parliament, and thus be in a position to override the wishes of the people and to scrap section 128 of the Constitution.

Senator Daly:

– The people themselves by a slender majority might do the same thing.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– No. The existing law provides that the Constitution may be altered only with the consent of a majority of the people and a majority of the States?

Senator Crawford:

– There must be at least four States out of six in favour of the alteration.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– That is not a slender majority; but under this bill a majority of one in the House of Representatives and a similar majority in the Senate could alter the Constitution. That is not democratic. Indeed, no more autocratic proposal was ever placed before the Senate.

Senator Daly:

– Does the honorable senator regard as autocratic the powers now possessed by the States?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I regard as autocratic any attempt to enable a slender majority in a bush capital to take from the States their rights and from the people the control of their own country. The bill is a serious attempt to filch from the States rights carefully reserved to them in the Constitution. I cannot believe that the Government really expects any honorable senator to support the bill. The Senate is a safeguard of the States. As one who assists to represent Victoria in the Senate - although Victoria would not be so detrimentally affected by this bill as some of the other States would be - I shall strenuously oppose the measure. I regard it as the duty of every honorable senator to resist any attempt to treat the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia as a scrap of paper.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I agree with honorable senators who have preceded me as to the importance of the measure we are now considering. One aspect of the bill has not yet been referred to. The Government has repeatedly professed its desire to keep down expenditure; yet the passing of this bill will involve an expenditure of at least £100,000 for the submission to the people of a proposal which is foredoomed to failure. The Government does not expect the people to agree to the proposal.

Senator Daly:

– That is all nonsense. The Government has a higher estimate of the intelligence of the electors than the honorable senator has.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am firmly convinced that the Government does not anticipate the acceptance of this far.reaching proposal by the people. Yet it unblushingly brings this bill forward although it will commit the country to heavy expenditure.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The expenditure will be the same if only the other two proposed amendments of the Constitution are submitted to the people.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am complying with the Standing Orders by dealing only with the measure before the Senate, and am therefore entitled to say that the submission of this referendum proposal to the people, although foredoomed to failure, will mean the expenditure of at least, £100,000.

I listened with interest to the speech of Senator O’Halloran. It was a good speech; but it did not go far enough. The Government has been astute enough not. to propose the elimination of section 128 from the Constitution. Instead it has introduced this bill, which contains the following clause -

The Constitution is altered by inserting after section 128 the following section: - 129. - Notwithstanding anything in the the last preceding section the Parliament shall have full power to alter the Constitution in the following manner: -

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must, after the lapse of one month from its origination in a House of the Parliament, be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and be assented to by the Governor-General.

The passing of this bill, and the acceptance by the people of the Government’s proposal, would mean the scrapping of section 128 of the Constitution. That section deals with one matter only - the method by which the Constitution may be altered - and as this bill provides a different method, its passing would nullify section 128.

Senator O’Halloran urged the Senate to consider this proposal, not in the atmosphere of the past, but in that of to-day. I intend so to consider it. In doing so, I must have regard to events which have occurred in Australia during the last few years, and also to the possibility of the future in respect of matters which might seriously affect the welfare of the community. I have here a newspaper extract which deals with the agenda paper to be submitted to the triennial federal conference of the Australian Labour party to be opened at Canberra on the afternoon of Monday, the 26th May next. The agenda contains 95 items, a number of which deal with alterations to federal industrial laws, the Labour defence policy, and other powers possessed by this Parliament. The newspaper paragraph to which I have referred reads -

The New South Wales executive has listed a number of proposals for constitutional and electoral reform, chief among which is a suggestion that the Federal Government should at the earliest opportunity hold a referendum on the question of unifying the Government system of Australia.

That is the atmosphere of the next week or two. The report continues -

Other proposals are that the State Parliaments as at present be abolished and that the Federal Government he requested to submit proposals for the immediate amendment of the Constitution to provide for the abolition of the Senate, the extension of industrial powers to include all callings and that adult franchisebe granted to persons when aged 18 years.

That also is in the same atmosphere. In discussing this measure I do not intend to delve into history, but to confine my remarks to what has happened quite recently, and what is likely to occur at the conference to be held in Canberra within a week or two. Although the Government may be anxious to legislate in the interests of the people, it is compelled as a result of outside pressure to put into operation schemes which are forced upon it by outsidepolitical organizations. That statement may be disputed; but, I remind honorable senators, and particularly the Leader of the Government in this chamber, of what occurred in connexion with the Franklin by-election.

Senator Daly:

– I thought that was a painful memory to the honorable senator’s party.

Senator PAYNE:

– Not at all. It is necessary to recall what happened. A week or so before the by-election a proclamation signed by the GovernorGeneral was gazetted providing that the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act were to be suspended which would have been of advantage, particularly to the orchardists in Tasmania. But a day or two before the by-election another proclamation rescinding that previously issued was gazetted owing to the pressure which had been brought to bear upon the Government by an outside political organization. The second proclamation was issued too late to have any effect on the election as that originally issued had been accepted in good faith by the orchardists in the Franklin electorate who probably represent a majority of the electors. As a result of the action taken on that occasion, the Labour party was able to increase its representation in another place.

Senator Hoare:

– What has the honorable senator got hold of?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am relating something which transpired within the last month or two and am therefore confining myself, as Senator O’Halloran suggested we should do, to the atmosphere of to-day.

Senator Dunn:

– The present member for Franklin is a good man.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not saying that he is not. I am merely showing the extent to which the Labour party is prepared to go to obtain political advantage. The first proclamation contained an intimation which was a direct contradiction of a statement made by the Prime Minister in Hobart, a few months before, when he said that he would not be a party to the suspension of the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act, but rather would make them even more rigid.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– Does the honorable senator intend to connect his remarks with the subject-matter of the bill?

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes. Senator O’Halloran asked us to consider this proposal in the atmosphere of to-day, and I am relating something which occurred quite recently, in order to show the extent to which the Government might be forced if this measure becomes law.

Senator Daly:

– Why not tell us how this Government saved the berry industry of Tasmania?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am glad to know that it has saved something.

The PRESIDENT:

– The merits or demerits of any government are not under consideration.

Senator PAYNE:

- Senator O’Halloran said that the National Parliament should deal with national affairs. He referred to the British Parliament as legislating for the whole of Great Britain, which has a population greatly in excess of that of Australia. The Parliament of one country may be able to administer the affairs of a population of 10,000,000 or more, but in another country, owing to its extent, and varying conditions, it may be essential to have a number of Parliaments. The conditions in Great Britain vary considerably from those in Australia. Would any one suggest that the whole of Europe could be effectively governed by one Parliament? The conditions in Australia vary to as great an extent as they do in Europe.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But here there is not the variety of races or languages.

Senator PAYNE:

– Of course not. The suggestion is made that we should consider the creation of new States because of the varying conditions within the existing States. Every one recognizes that legislation which might assist the development of Tasmania would be entirely unsuited to the development of Queensland. It would be just as reasonable to suggest that there should be one municipal council to control municipal affairs in a particular State as to advocate that one parliament should legislate for the whole Commonwealth. Under a system of unification the development of the Commonwealth would be most seriously retarded. It is not a matter of population but of varying conditions. We have to getdown to bedrock and consider the best way in which to increase production and add to the general prosperity of the Commonwealth. This measure will not assist in that direction. It is the responsibility of the National Parliament to encourage and assist the States with their developmental schemes. If the States prosper the whole Commonwealth will benefit. Although I assist in the representation of Tasmania in this chamber, I also regard myself as a representative of the whole of the Commonwealth. If the development of any State is retarded, the prosperity of the Commonwealth must be seriously affected. As a Tasmanian representative I am jealous of that State’s political integrity, yet I realize that the prosperity of Tasmania does not depend solely upon the activities of the National Parliament, but largely upon those of the State Parliament. I intend to vigorously oppose this attempt to force upon the Australian people a proposal which means unification. This is a measure upon which one could speak at. great length and quote constitutional authorities; but the proposal is so absurd that there does not appear to be any need to do so. L lie Minister, in moving the second reading of the bill, said -

There is in the people a general power of delegation which can be used in specific instances.

At that point Senator Lynch interjected -

If this proposal is accepted Parliament itself will lui ve authority to alter the Constitution as it pleases.

The Minister then said -

The honorable senator may be able to con- vince himself of the truth of that assertion but lie cannot convince me.

Apparently the Minister is not convinced that J his measure will give Parliament i lie power to alter the Constitution as it pleases.

Senator Daly:

– Of course it cannot.

Senator PAYNE:

– The bill provides that notwithstanding anything in section 1 of thu Constitution, Parliament shall have power to alter the Constitution in the manner set out. An alteration of the Constitution can bo passed by any government which has a majority in both branches of the legislature. Notwithstanding that, the Minister says that Parliament will not have the power. If he holds that opinion, why did he introduce the bill?

Senator Daly:

– The Government could not do anything outside the four corners of the document.

Senator PAYNE:

– This will give Parliament absolute discretion to amend the Constitution as it thinks fit.

Senator Daly:

– The Constitution must still remain a federal constitution.

Senator PAYNE:

– If the Constitution can bc amended by Parliament as it thinks fit, it will not be a federal constitution. The federal spirit will disappear, and we will have a system of unification. Coming events cast their shadows before, and the agenda paper of the triennial conference of the Australian Labour party to be held in Canberra this month should be a warning to the people of what may happen. Any resolutions passed at that gathering will be forced upon this Government, which dare not disobey the directions it receives from such a quarter. We have heard a great deal about democracy from honorable senators opposite, but I contend that the members of the party to which I belong are the true representatives of democracy. I intend to vote against the bill, and I trust that it will be opposed by a majority of this chamber.

Senator OGDEN (Tasmania) [6.4’J.- We have apparently reached a new stage of political thought and political evolution. The Labour party, which a few years ago was the champion of democracy and the rights of the people, has thrown its ideals overboard, and it now remains for those on this side of the chamber, who are opposed to Labour, to champion the rights of the people.

Senator Daly:

– I am glad the honorable senator said that honorable senators opposite were opposed to Labour.

Senator OGDEN:

– We are opposed to those people who claim to be the representatives of Labour. If I put it in that way perhaps it will meet with the approval of the Leader of the Senate. Labour has discarded those high ideals for which it stood sonic years ago, and is now prepared to take from the people their sacred rights, or what were regarded as sacred rights when I was a member of the party.

This bill demonstrates also the changed philosophy of Labour. We may trace the change in different ways. As I pointed out in this chamber a few weeks ago, a Labour Government introduced, and the Labour party, for years, supported a defence policy in which was included compulsory military training. But the extremists in Labour’s ranks secured control of the party, with the result that Labour now has abandoned that policy, and if one may judge from recent administrative acts of this Government, it is prepared to scrap altogether the defence system of this country. A few years ago the Labour party, as it was then constituted, approved of certain amendments of the Constitution. We also believed that amendments should be made, but we stood to the principle that all suggested alterations should be made in the constitutional manner provided in the act of the union. To-day the Labour Government, representing the Labour movement, is seeking to destroy the Federal Constitution. In effect, this Government is saying to the people of Australia - “ We do not consider it right that you should have this power to amend the Constitution, and to tell your elected representatives what they must do. We intend to arrogate those rights to ourselves ; so that we may amend the Constitution and use the power as we think fit.” There is nothing democratic about that attitude. Indeed it is the very antithesis of democracy. It is entirely contrary to the ideals for which Labour stood a few years ago.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is the ideal of a political autocracy.

Senator OGDEN:

– That is so. Labour has developed into an autocracy.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Perhaps these proposals to amend the Constitution foreshadow what we may expect under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Senator OGDEN:

– Possibly they do. I was reading recently certain remarks made by Senator Daly in 1927 concerning constitutional amendments. I happen to have an official report of the deliberations of the Labour party, and I have to confess that I had some difficulty in getting it because our Labour friends nowadays do not wish us to know what they are doing. The objective of the States in joining the federation was, I take it, to give power to the federation to carry out certain functions which could not properly be exercised by the States themselves - such public services as defence, administration of the customs, and so on. It was fairly evident that we could not expect to evolve an effective defence system with six State Governments administering six different defence policies, nor could there be adequate protection to Australian industries under the various customs regulations of the several State authorities. But it so happens that functions which State Governments now perform are as important as, if not more important than, those legislative powers entrusted under the Constitution to the central government. State Governments properly exercise control over all matters of domestic concern, such as land administration, justice, education and the hundred and one important domestic matters which can be attended to more effectively by a State administration. Uniform legislation cannot be applied to people living under the varying conditions of North Queensland and the apple-growing districts of

Tasmania. Because the conditions in the several States varied so much, the framers of the Constitution were careful to define the respective powers of the Commonwealth and State governments. But Labour now proposes to abolish State Parliaments. I have read carefully the speech delivered by the Leader of the Senate in this chamber yesterday. In his closing sentences he attempted to side-track the real issue. The Minister said -

Labour was elected upon a certain definite policy-

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator is hardly fair. He was not present to hear my speech.

Senator OGDEN:

– I was unable, to be here; but I have read the speech carefully. This is what the Minister said towards the close of his remarks -

Labour was elected upon a certain definite policy. It placed before the people a definite legislative programme. That policy and that programme alone will it attempt to put into operation during the life of this Parliament.

That is all very well. But can the Minister say whether the proposal which we are now considering, and which embodies a revolutionary alteration of the Constitution, was mentioned during the election campaign by any member of the Government or its supporters? We all know, as a fact, that it was not mentioned, and that this issue was never before the electors. It would appear, therefore, that this Government and its supporters are prepared to go beyond the programme outlined in the Prime Minister’s policy speech. This Government is bound, not by its platform pledges, but by the official platform of the party. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.IJ1 to S p.m.

Private business taking precedence after S p.m.,

page 1310

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Report of Select Committee: Motion for Adoption

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [8.0]. - I have to move -

That the report from the select committee on the standing committee system be adopted.

I regret very much that this duty should have fallen to my lot. The motion for the appointment of this select committee was moved by Senator B. D. Elliott, who acted as chairman of the committee throughout its deliberations, and it is only because of his temporary departure from Australia that it is necessary for me, at the request, I may say, of my co-members of the committee, to submit this motion to the Senate. I do not propose to speak at any great length for the reason that if honorable senators have read the committee’s report a lengthy speech is quite unnecessary, and if they have not, a lengthy speech would be altogether futile.

The committee took evidence in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne from a number of eminent constitutional authorities and from men with very wide experience in political practice. The witnesses represented all shades of political thought. They were select rather than numerous; and because of the qualifications of some of them and because of the enormous amount of time that they spent, without any expectation of fee or reward, in investigations, the evidence which accompanies the report forms a very valuable and instructive document altogether apart from what any one may think of the conclusions at which the committee arrived. Throughout all the members of the committee participated in its investigations and in its subsequent deliberations; and it should serve to commend the report to the Senate when I mention that the decision at which it arrived was unanimous. The recommendations represent the unqualified view of the whole of the members of the committee.

While the establishment of standing committees of the character proposed may be regarded as a novel procedure so far as the Commonwealth Parliament is concerned, the practice of having such committees has been long in vogue in almost every other part of the world. It has obtained in the mother of parliaments in Great Britain for generations. It is practised in every Continental country with a parliamentary system. It obtains in the parliaments of the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand, and is everywhere regarded as a valuable aid to sound legislation, enabling parliaments in these days when the business coming before them is so voluminous to do good work under conditions when good work would otherwise be almost impossible.

The committee has kept in mind two very important points. The first is the unwisdom of recommending any drastic or far-reaching alteration of our present procedure. It has taken the view that if there is any good in this committee system it must develop out of small tilings, and has recommended a small start so that at all events no harm may be done, but so that if the system is proved to be working satisfactorily it may be extended as time goes on. The second thing the committee has kept carefully in mind is the danger of drawing an analogy between parliaments in other countries with a large membership and a Senate with a comparatively small membership of 36.

The scope of the committee’s investigations in the terms of the motion appointing it was very wide. It had to inquire into the advisability or otherwise of establishing standing committees of the Senate upon statutory rules and ordinances, international relations, finance, private bills, and such other subjects as might be deemed advisable. The committee has confined itself to three recommendations unanimously arrived at, and it is the approval of the Senate to these three recommendations that I am seeking in moving the adoption of the committee’s report. The first recommendation, which, to my mind, is a vitally important one, is -

  1. That a standing committee of the Senate, to be called the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, he established.
  2. That all regulations and ordinances laid on the table of the Senate be referred to such committee for consideration and report.
  3. That such standing committee shallbe appointed at the commencement of each session on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the President, the Leader of the Senate, and the Leader of the Opposition, shall consist of seven members, and shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; and that four members shall form a quorum.

  4. That such standing committee shall be charged with the responsibility of seeing that the clause of each bill conferring a regulationmaking power does not confer a legislative power of a character which ought to he exercised by Parliament itself; and that it shall also scrutinize regulations to ascertain -

    1. that they are in accordance with the statute,
    2. that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties,
    3. that they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative and not upon judicial decisions,
    4. that theyare concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. 1 fully agree with a statement made quite recently by Senator Pearce, that the volume of parliamentary business makes necessary a growing mass of regulations and ordinances. This emphasizes the the necessity for some measure of control if the interests of the public are to be protected and the principles of democratic government maintained. It is important that we should consider the great difference there is between the regulationmaking power that this Parliament has conferred on the Commonwealth Government and the regulation-making power conferred on the Government in Great Britain. In theRules Publication Act of 1903, following an act of a similar type passed by the British Parliament, provision was made in Australia for the prior publication of all regulations. They had to be published in the Gazette for 60 days before they came into force, so that allpeople likely to be concerned would have an opportunity to draw attention to any regulation that was repugnant to their interests. In 1916, during the war, because of the enormous number of regulations that had to be passed and acted upon quickly, this Parliament repealed that particular provision of the Rules Publication Act. Although faced with an exactly similar difficulty the Imperial Parliament did nothing of the kind. It left that provision in its act, but included in a number of bills power to make regulations that should be exempt from this requirement of the Bules Publication Act. The Commonwealth has done nothing to restore the provision repealed in 1916, and all the protection that prior publication afforded to the people has been taken away entirely.

Thereis also another important difference. English acts conferring the regulation-making power upon the Government invariably give that power in respect to certain specified sections. The Executive may make regulations under an act only when the section in regard to which the regulation is made gives specific power to do so; whereas in Australia we insert a clause at the end of a bill giving a general regulationmaking power to the Executive. I submit that this difference in itself constitutes another very strong reason for providing some safeguard in the public interest.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Certainly. But the provision requiring prior publication has gone, and I am not suggesting that it should be revived. Undoubtedly something should be substituted for it. The recommendation of the select committee sets out exactly what the proposed Standing Committee onRegulations and Ordinances is intended to do. Its functions will be both preventive and corrective. I refer honorable senators to paragraph 24 of the report of the committee, which is as follows : -

It is conceivable that occasions might arise in which it would be desirable for the standing committee to direct the attention of Parliament to the merits of a certain regulation but, as a general rule, it shouldbe recognized that the standing committee would lose prestige if it set itself up as a critic of governmental policy or departmental practice apart from the tests outlined above.

In other words this committee would be worse than useless if it permitted party spirit in any way to enter into its investigations. Its report upon regulations should be on principles, and not upon details of administration or matters of Government policy, unless a feature of Government policy was sought to be introduced by a violation of principle. In that case, of course, an entirely different position would arise. In regard to ordinances the committee reported in paragraph 25 -

In dealing with ordinances which are necessarily of a legislative character, the reasonableness or otherwise of their provision should be carefully examined by the standing committee.

At the present time regulations are laid on the table of the Senate and forwarded to honorable senators, but the volume of them is so great that it is impossible for any honorable senator to give them careful scrutiny. What happens is the same as happens in every walk of life - what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business. The aim of the committee’s recommendation is to establish a standing committee whose definite business it should be to see that these regulations are scrutinized. At the present time it is only when some matter happens to be brought directly under the notice of an honorable senator that a regulation is ever questioned. There is no scrutiny whatever over the great bulk of regulations. I think that the knowledge that this standing committee was functioning would be a check against the issue of improper regulations. We know that already a great many regulations have been declared invalid, and I am quite sure that a great many more would be declared invalid if it were not that the public concerned with them find it easier to obey a regulation rather than go to the expense of testing it in the High Court. We have the case of the Air Force Act 1923. The act is printed on one page, but the regulations made under it cover 1.63 pages of small type, ‘and they number 523 with many schedules. Included in these regulations are such matters as the procedure and punishments in cases of court-martial; and there are a number of other matters of great importance, the principle of which, to my mind, should be laid down by legislation. Unless some action is taken we shall find that, with the increase of public business, this tendency to legislate by regulation will become a growing evil. The Senate has before it a motion for the disallowance of a certain ordinance. Without entering into the merits of that question, I suggest that, had it been the practice to submit such ordinances to the scrutiny of a committee, it would have been a simple matter to carry out a brief but very comprehensive investigation, which would have enabled this chamber to obtain in a more or less authoritative fashion the views of the people concerned. As it is, the matter has to be discussed with a very limited knowledge on the part of members of the Senate. The formation of this committee to serve as a check against the growing tendency to legislate by regulation was commended and approved by every constitutional authority who appeared before the select committee, and also by every witness, includ ing witnesses connected with various political parties.

The time will come when the people will rebel against legislation by regulation. It ‘ would be a wise step if we took such measures as we could to prevent the further development of that evil. Evidence was given before the select committee by Mr. Maurice McCrae Blackburn, M.L.A., barrister and solicitor, of Melbourne, who occupies an honoured position in the Labour movement in Victoria. He deprecated the general practice of forming committees in the Senate, on the ground that the number of senators was 110t large enough, but, on the subject of regulations and ordinances, he said -

I wish to comment on one portion of the proposals before this committee, the consideration of statutory rules and ordinances. As your chairman pointed out in the Senate debate, the Commonwealth Parliament makes provision for the disallowance of statutory regulations by the vote of either House. J recollect a case in which a regulation under the War Precautions Act was disallowed by the Senate - I think in 1917. The House of Representatives is not likely to do that work well, or, in fact, to do it at all. Upon its vote turns the fate of the ministry. The regulation is made by the ministry, and a proposal for its disallowance would certainly bo treated as a vote of want of confidence, and would be tested on party lines. No ministry depends on the vote of the Senate, and it is quite likely that in that chambera regulation would be considered on its merits, it is a very dangerous thing that in Australia, as well us in England, so much of our legislation should be done by regulations for which Parliament does not take responsibility, and which are in a great degree inaccessible to the people. The scrutiny of those regulations would be a very useful function for the Senate to discharge, one that could be done better by the Upper than by the Lower House.

The second recommendation of the committee is one that I advance with a little more diffidence. It reads -

  1. That a standing committee of the Senate to be called the Standing Committee on External Affairs be established.

  2. That such committee shall consider and from time to time report upon -

    1. 1 ) Agenda for meetings of the League of Nations Assembly. (2)Reports of Australian delegates to the League of Nations Assembly. (3)Reports of Australian delegates to any international conference under the auspices of the League of Nations, or otherwise.
    2. Reports of the administrators of the Mandated Territories.
    3. Any other matters of international or Empire concern.
  3. That such standing committee shall also furnish an annual report to the Senate.

Provision is also made in the recommendation for the appointment of the committee.The select committee makes no attempt to disguise the fact that many witnesses, and amongst them some most highly qualified persons, gave very guarded approval to this proposal. They saw the difficulties connected with putting it into operation. I suggest that the outstanding feature is the lack of interest in external affairs on the part of politicians and the public generally of Australia. It will be a great pity if we do not do something to remove that apathy. I throw out the suggestion - it is no part of the committee’s recommendation, and it would be improper if it were - that this committee, if established, might well develop into a joint committee of the two Houses. As a Senate committee it would not be in any way comparable with the External

Affairs Committee of the Senate in the United States of America, because that body has big powers and responsibilities in regard to treaties and other external affairs. Such a committee would resemble more closely the unofficial study groups in the House of Commons, which certainly do a great deal of useful work. There are the colonial group, the dominion group, and a number of others, which meet frequently, and in one respect we might copy them. Whenever there arrives in London a visitor who has some special knowledge or is closely connected with colonial or dominion affairs, he is invited to attend a meeting of the colonial group, not to make a long speech, but a very short one, and then questions are submitted to him. Various matters are discussed for perhaps half an hour, and very good results follow. I have it in mind that during the time I have been a member of this chamber, distinguished visitors have come to Canberra. We had one some time ago from Northern Rhodesia. Hewas entertained here, and he made a short speech. It would have been much better if he had been met by a committee of the kind to which I have referred, and asked questions. A great deal of information might have been given to us, and possibly some information of value might have been imparted to him.

I have no doubt that some of my colleagues on the select committee will speak at greater length on the subject of the appointment of a committee on external affairs. It is intended only as a first step - as an attempt to overcome the isolation of thought on the part of politicians and the public generally as to what is going on in other parts of the world. If we accept the position that Australia is a nation with definite obligations to other countries, with a definite obligation to play its part in preserving world peace, we ought to take the step proposed in order to promote interest on the part of politicians and the public regarding external affairs.

The third recommendation of the Select Committee relates to bills generally. It does not recommend the appointment of a standing committee, but it does emphasize the benefits likely to result in many instances from the reference of bills of a particular class to committees, but only when the Senate desires such a reference. At the present time there are to my mind two obstacles to the consideration of bills by select committees. The first is the end of the session rush, for which I have no remedy to propose. Where there is a rush there will be a risk. The second obstacle is the tendency of all Governments to regard motions for the reference of bills to select committees as a mark of want of confidence. I think that, this position is contributed to largely by the wording of the standing order with regard to select committees. Standing Order No. 193 reads -

On the order of the day being read for the second reading of a bill, the question shall bo proposed, “That this bill be now read a second time.”

Standing Order 194 states -

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

In the last-mentioned standing order the referring of a bill to a select committee is sandwiched between two other amendments, either of which would be entirely fatal to the bill, and such a proposal could not escape the suspicion of being of a similar character. In some of the State Parliaments - I speak particularly of Western Australia, because I happen to be more familiar with the procedure there - nothing of that kind happens. The reference to a select committee does not take place until the second reading of the bill has been passed. There is no question of want of confidence. A bill having been accepted, there are details of the measure which can be best considered first of all by a select committee which has power to take evidence and report. The report of the committee is submitted to the House and dealt with as the bill goes through the committee stage. I venture to suggest that the Insurance Bill now before this chamber might be dealt with much more satisfactorily in that manner, and a great deal of the time of the Senate might be saved. Under such an arrangement when the bill passed its second reading some time ago, it would have been referred to a select committee, which would have taken evidence and then have submitted its report. When the bill reached the committee stage, the report of that select committee would have been in the hands of every honorable senator. Thus, the bill would have been discussed by an informed assembly. Without any reflection on honorable senators, I contend that the details of bills of a wholly technical character are, under the present method of procedure, not understood by a majority of the members. I say that without any reflection on honorable senators. I have had some experience of insurance, having been for many years a director of a mutual life assurance company, but there are many bills of this character of which I would know absolutely nothing. The appointment of a select committee would save the time of the Senate, because the committee would operate when the Senate was not sitting. It would also mean the consideration of bills by an informed Senate. The recommendation under this heading is simple. It suggests -

That the question of the procedure to be adopted in the Senate as a result of the establishment of the Standing Committees recommended be referred by the Senate for the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee with the following requests -

That the Standing Orders be amended in such a manner as to facilitate the reference of bills to a select or standing committee.

That would mean an alteration of the present Standing Order.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.It would apply only to those bills which the Senate thought should be referred to a select committee.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Yes. The knowledge that a bill is to be referred to a select committee reduces materially the debate on the second reading, and saves an enormous amount of time. The suggestion is that the Standing Orders Committee might so revise the Standing Orders as to remove the suggestion that any reference to a select committee is a reflection on a bill or on the Government which introduced it. The reference of a bill to the select committee only when the gener.il principle underlying it has been accepted would remove that objection, and create in the Senate an informed opinion regarding the details of the measure. I s>“ill not say more except to repeat that th_ report represents a careful, impartial and nonparty investigation by the committee. The recommendations of the committee are founded on the evidence of competent and highly experienced authorities, and represent the considered and unanimous opinion of the whole of its members.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

– I second the motion, so concisely and yet so comprehensively placed before the Senate by Senator Colebatch. The honorable senator dealt with every aspect of the question which came before the committee for consideration. 1 strongly sup/port his suggestion that the report be adopted and that the subsequent action consequent on the adoption of the report, be taken. I hope that honorable senators have read the report. It has purposely been made as brief as possible because i he members of the committee are aware of the number of parliamentary papers that aare circulated among honorable senators, lt was thought that a brief report would enable honorable senators to give it careful scrutiny. The resolution which gave rise to the appointment of the Select Committee was moved by Senator li. J). Elliott, who deserves the thanks of the Senate for having brought the matter under _ notice. As Senator Colebatch has said, the personnel of the committee rrepresented every party in the Senate, and the consideration of matters was conducted entirely with a view to seeing how the work of the Senate could be more efficiently performed, and how further information on important matters could be made available to honorable senators in a concise form. Honorable senators will observe that the terms of the recommendations differ mmaterially from the form of the resolution under which the committee was appointed. The committee has made nno alteration in regard to the first subject referred to it, namely the scrutiny of statutory rules and ordinances. The second reference was in connexion with international relation. The committee realized that, to deal with international relations, a standing committee would require to have access to certain confidential matters, which Ministers would not be competent to divulge. In order to avoid treading on dangerous ground, the committee recommended that the scope of the work under this heading should be limited to external affairs embracing such matters a3 mandated territories, agenda for the assemblies of the League of Nations, and the reports to those assemblies, and other cognate subjects of international or Empire concern. It was not thought desirable that, any standing committee should probe into those confidential matters which it is the province of Ministers to deal with, and the taking of evidence in connexion with which might mean .the divulgence of secret information. No recommendations arc made in connexion with the other subjects of reference - finance and private members’” bills.

The committee endeavoured to proceed with caution and safety. It reviewed the standing committee system of the Mother of Parliaments, and the systems of the Parliaments of Canada, the United States of America, New Zealand, and other countries. It considered their differences in composition, numbers and constitution, as compared with the Australian Senate and other legislative bodies. The committee did not feel justified in recommending the inauguration of a complete system of standing committees. It obtained a mass of evidence strongly favouring the systems in operation in the countries mentioned; but it thought that it was best to proceed cautiously. Consequently it has shown moderation in the recommendations it has made. I commend to honorable senators, not only the report of the committee, but also the evidence given before it. As the mover of the motion has said, the evidence given by expert constitutional lawyers and others eminently versed in constitutional affairs, is both informative and valuable. There is, also, the evidence of men experienced in the working of the parliamentary machine and associated with the work of governments and of legislative chambers. You, sir, as .President of the Senate, gave the committee most valuable evidence, as did also the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales and others associated with the legislatures of this country. An ex-Premier of New South Wales, Mr. W. A. Holman, submitted a very valuable document for the consideration of the committee. Evidence was taken also from the Deans of the Faculty of Law of the Universities of Sydney and Melbourne. Honorable senators will see that, the committee’s recommendations are based on the evidence of men whose opinions are” entitled to respect, and whose evidence can be relied upon. The information they placed before the committee was the result of their experience and research.

I do not desire to give a detailed exposition of the various recommendations, but I ask the Government to give its benediction to the work of the committee, and I hope that honorable senators wg.ll not, by such means as a motion for the adjournment of the debate, endeavour to side-step the consideration by the Senate of the committee’s report. I realize that all- honorable senators may not, have had an opportunity to consider fully the recommendations of the committee; but if consideration of the report is indefinitely postponed another opportunity of dealing with it might not easily present, itself. If the Senate is of the opinion that the committee’s recommendations are well founded, I hope that it will agree to the motion to-night. There would still be an opportunity for further executive action to give effect to the committee’s recommendations. Honorable senators will be particularly interested in the valuable evidence given by the Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Monahan. The statement submitted by him was most illuminative, and, I suggest, also most convincing. The evidence of men who have either worked the parliamentary machine or have been closely associated with its working, and realize its defects, is entitled to our careful consideration.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is that because the onlooker sees most of the game?

Senator LAWSON:

– There is a good deal of truth in that old saying. Honorable senators should read what the Clerk of the Senate said-

Senator McLachlan:

– .1 have read i’ with interest and appreciation.

Senator LAWSON:

– I am glad to hear that. Time after time witnesses before the committee referred to The New Despotism by ‘the Lord Chief Justice of England. Conditions in England are not entirely analogous to those in Australia. On the question of rules and regulations the evidence of Sir Robert Garran was most interesting. I desire to read an extract from the evidence of Professor K. H. .Bailey, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne -

Thu rather alarmed atmosphere prevalent in Great Britain at present about the extent of this application of law-making power to the executive does not find any counterpart, and. in my opinion, it ought hot to, here. In Australia neither the amount of delegation nor the kind” of 1)owe. s delegated, is so striking. One should draw a clear distinction between a power to make rules and a power given to Ministers to make quasi-judicial decisions. ‘ have not directed my mind closely to the latter point, upon which Lord Chief Justice Hewart concentrates in his book The New Despotism. The iii st part of that book, however, deals with the power of implementing laws.

Apparently the danger is not so great here, but a committee charged with the responsibility of investigating regulations and ordinances and of considering them, not with a view of embarrassing the Government or of impeding the executive in the discharge of its proper functions, bin merely to see that the principles that have been enunciated in this report are observed in the promulgation of those regulations, cannot fail to render useful service to the community. The work will bc difficult. Its success will depend large1.;/ upon the co-operation of the Government in making available to the committee a young, energetic, alert, and industrious officer as its executive officer. Such action, while doing the Government no harm, will render useful service to the country by preventing the infraction of those principles which must appeal to every honorable senator as being thoroughly sound and well designed. It must. I think, be generally admitted that we sadly lack public interest and general information in regard to external affairs.

We are apt .to become isolated in our thought and to believe that we are absolutely independent of other countries; whereas we cannot escape from the position that for better or worse we are in world affairs. We need education in regard to external affairs and it is not easy for the average member of Parliament to obtain all the information in this respect which he desires. If a standing committee of the Senate were appointed it would assume responsibility for investigating certain aspects of external relations and could investigate those subjects which are enumerated in the report. Nothing but good could come from such an investigation. Such a committee would he, as suggested, in the nature of a study circle and used as a means of gathering information and submitting it to the Senate in tabloid form. It would give the Senate a lead in searching for information in the study of external affairs. If work of that kind could be undertaken the activities of such a committee would increase the status and prestige of this chamber. A committee or a study circle such as has been recommended would also be the means of disseminating among the electors of the Commonwealth information which would help them to realize our responsibilities in world affairs. I know that it means work. It means labour, but it is done by other parliaments and can also be done by this Senate. I repeat that the committee can he entirely efficient and completely successful only if the Government is willing to co-operate by placing at its disposal some officer with a flair for this kind of work - an officer who would act as adviser and deviller to the committee, presenting to it information which would subsequently form the basis of its reports on international subjects. Such a committee could, collect and disseminate information and increase the interest in this important aspect of our parliamentary work.

I support most heartily what has been said by the mover of the motion concerning the reference of bills to a select committee. It is most unfortunate that the provision for the reference of a bill to a select committee has been embodied in Standing Order 194 in such a way as to suggest that it might be used merely for the purpose of defeating the passage of bills or to thwart a government in its desire to carry the second reading of a measure. In the opinion of the committee it should be removed from that standing order and a new standing order should be framed by the Standing Orders Committee and submitted to the Senate for its approval. If that were done such a measure as a bankruptcy bill in regard to which, without reflecting on the energy, capacity or ability of honorable senators, I suggest the Senate would not regard itself as an expert body, could be referred to such a committee. Bills of a highly technical nature could be carefully considered by a select committee, and the best advice and information would be available to the Senate before it set its seal of approval upon them. If the Attorney-General happened to he a Minister in this chamber and submitted such a measure, he could, of course, effectively explain, its provisions. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly), in submitting to the Senate such a measure as a bankruptcy bill would bring to his task expert and technical knowledge, and the Senate would doubtless give great weight to the opinions expressed by him on a technical matter of the kind. But we may not always be so fortunately placed as to have an expert charged with the duty of introducing a highly technical measure, and we should, therefore, have power to refer such bills to a committee which would be able to obtain information from experts outside. That practice, which is adopted in some of the States, would provide the Senate with a means of obtaining information from those who have a special knowledge of the subject. In that way many of the errors into which a legislature may innocently or inadvertently fall, can be avoided. We, therefore, recommend the amendment of the Standing Orders to facilitate the appointment of a select committee for this purpose. While the committee has not committed itself to a definite recommendation concerning the appointment of standing committees on public bills, it believes that when the Standing Orders Committee is considering an amendment of our Standing Orders, it should so frame them as to facilitate the appointment of a standing committee on any particular question if the Senate were so minded. That is to say, the machinery should he provided to enable the system to be instituted if at any time the Senate thought fit to take action. This is the seed ; it provides the means for an evolutionary growth. I commend the report and its recommendations to the earnest consideration of honorable senators. I think the arguments are all in favour of its adoption. The fact has been stressed that although the committee was composed of representatives of the different political parties in this chamber, it was quite judicial in its investigations, and non-party in character and that its recommendations were unanimous. I trust the Senate will see its way clear to unanimously adopt the report.

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

– I congratulate the members of the committee upon the excellent report presented to the Senate. I cannot, however, agree to the suggestion of Senator Lawson that this motion should be disposed of to-night. As the honorable senator has said, this subject is entirely non-party in character and consequently, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I feel it my duty to consider it with an unbiassed mind. That being so, I was not prepared to make any recommendation to Cabinet concerning this proposal until I had heard the speech of the mover and seconder of the motion. I can assure the members of the committee that it is not my intention to do anything to prevent the early and full discussion of the motion. I realize the importance of bringing the necessary machinery into operation at the earliest possible moment if the Senate sees fit to adopt it. I can assure the mover and seconder of the motion that an opportunity will be given to honorable senators to continue the debate next Thursday evening if the Senate agrees to the proposal which I am about to make. In the interim I will give further consideration to the. matter. The report of the select committee has been circulated, but I am certain that all honorable senators have not had an opportunity to give it the serious consideration that it deserves.We have heard to day a good deal about revolutionary changes. This embodies a revolutionary change in certain aspects of our Parliamentary procedure, and I believe that we should deal with the motion just as we deal with bills which are introduced into this chamber. We usually hear what is to be said for or against a proposal before coming to a decision, and that is what I suggest in this ease. In view of the assurance which I have given I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1319

GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Government Assistance

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That the Senate reaffirms its previous decision when it declared that the gold-mining industry had rendered special service to the nation during the critical war period, and that on this account, amongst others, it is justly entitled to substantial help from the Commonwealth in order to arrest its increasing decline and restore to it the prosperity it once enjoyed.

As honorable senators will observe, this motion is to the effect that the Senate re-affirms the course it previously adopted in connexion with the gold-mining industry of Australia.For the information of those honorable senators who were not present on a previous occasion when I submitted a similar motion, I may mention that on that occasion the Senate discussed this proposal very fully. The result was that in view of the unanimous decision of the Senate that something should be done to assist the gold-mining industry the representatives of the Government at that time in this chamber said that the matter would be submitted to cabinet for consideration. That was done, but I regret that what evolved was not of the substance and value which I and other sponsors for the gold-mining industry considered adequate to meet the situation. It is true that the late Government took into consideration the decline in the gold- mining industry and endeavoured to alleviate the position by granting a remission of customs duties on certain machinery used in connexion with the industry. That remission was recommended by the Development and Migration Commission, but the amount involved was paltry and hopelessly inadequate. The commission recommended that assistance to the extent of £25,000 a year for a period of ten years would be sufficient to meet the needs of this industry which has done so much for Australia and has suffered so much in the interests of the Commonwealth. Qf course, £250,000 spread over a period of ten years is a paltry amount for the assistance of an industry which, as I shall show shortly, has been of enormous benefit to the Commonwealth. Although the action of that Government can be regarded as sympathetic, it did not go far enough to give the industry any substantial relief. When a prospector after experiencing the toils and hardships associated with that work discovers gold the income tax department immediately pounces upon him and demands the payment of income tax upon what is really the realization of capital. The Government said that that was wrong. It recognized that it was unfair to require a prospector to hand over to the tax-gathering authority a portion of the slender amount that he secured as a result of his arduous efforts in searching for gold, and some slight, recognition of the claims of the gold-mining industry was made by the partial remission of income taxation upon income derived from gold-mining pursuits. That was a further form of relief. Later the industry was further assisted by the complete remission of all income taxation. But what was the good of thi<5 when there was no income? But considerably more than that is required to put it once more on a satisfactory footing, and it is with the object of securing that assistance that I am once more submitting this proposal to the Senate.

The need for relief is urgent. A few figures dealing with the industry will set out the position clearly. In 1914 the production of gold in Australia amounted to over 2,000,000 ozs. In 1927, the latest year for which figures are available, production had declined to 500,000 ozs. In other words, in thirteen years the output of gold had decreased by 75 per cent., and employment had declined in a corresponding degree. In 19.14, the industry , gave employment to no fewer than 29,000 adult men ; in 1927 there were only 6,000 gold-miners at -work.

Senator Thompson:

– At one time there were 3,500 men employed at Mount Morgan alone.

Senator LYNCH:

– Gold-mining has been declining in all the States, and for a reason that is common to all - the increased costs of production. I presume that a considerable number of those men who formerly found employment in the industry have drifted to our capital cities, and some are swelling the ranks of the unemployed to-day. These figures show that there is something inherently wrong with the industry, for no one disputes that, there is still untold wealth to be won by our gold-miners. No one has attempted to state in exact terms the probable amount of potential wealth in gold, in the Commonwealth, still to be extracted from the earth, but we may safely assume that several millions of ounces would be produced if the known bodies of low-grade ores could be worked economically. If by the payment of a bounty of fi 15s., or even 10s. per oz., an additional 500,000 ozs. of gold could be produced per annum, the proposition would be economically sound, because the total expenditure of £1 per oz. would amount to only £500,000 a year. Probably also an additional 6,000 adult miners would find profitable employment, so the cost would work out at about £83 per man employed in respect of that new wealth. This industry, I remind the Senate, has been much patronized by governments in the past, hut all have had a habit of forgetting it.

Senator McLachlan:

– The payment of a bounty would be a better proposition than the dole.

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course it would. This Parliament has done a great deal for other industries in the Commonwealth, but gold-mining has been neglected. Last year when we were discussing a proposal to continue the bounty to Messrs. Lysaght and others, the debate disclosed the fact that the employees in that industry received in wages about £400,000 a year, and it was shown that it would have been a better proposition to close down the industry altogether, pay all the men employed in it £4 or £5 a week, and remove the tariff on the imported product.

Senator Barnes:

– Am I right in assuming that the honorable senator is asking the Senate to recommend the payment of £1 or 10s. per ounce above the market value of gold?

Senator LYNCH:

– That, in effect, is what my proposal means. I am not attempting in any way to camouflage it. I am asking the Government to agree to the payment of a bounty to equalize the difference between the market price for gold and the cost of production. This difference may be anything from 10s. to £1 per ounce. If the industry is assisted in the way and to the extent I am suggesting, it will be possible to work successfully millions of tons of low-grade ore, and besides doubling the output of gold, provide employment for at least another 6,000 adult miners. The cost, as I have stated, will work out at about £83 per head in respect of the gold won compared with a cost to the Commonwealth of £250 per head for all the employees of Messrs. Lysaght and Coy. But there will be this important difference. In the gold-mining industry the ratio of increase in employment compared with Lysaghts will be as three is to one. Surely it is reasonable to request the Government to stand behind this great primary industry? Are we to understand that sympathetic treatment is to be accorded only to those industrial concerns which are located in or near our capital cities and the larger centres of population, whilst, the gold-mining industry, because it is in the back country, away from the haunts of men, is to be neglected and forgotten despite the fact that it attracts the hardiest and best, of our pioneers? Is this the reason why, up to the present, it has been neglected, despised and forgotten by governments?

Need I repeat what gold-mining meant to Australia during the war period? At the outbreak of the war gold production in Australia was slightly over 2,000,000 ounces per annum, representing about £8,000,000 a year. Shortly afterwards, owing partly to the increasing cost of production and partly to the enlistment of miners for the war, it began to decline. From Kalgoorlie alone, no fewer than 3,000 men left tobear arms in the defence of our liberty - a marvellous achievement for a place of its size. Throughout the war and since, gold, unlike other commodities, has been sold at pre-war rates despite the increased cost of production. During the war years those engaged in the industry were producing a commodity that was vital to the success of the British Empire and its allies, and although they had to pay higher rates for labour and higher prices for all commodities incidental to the winning of the gold, they were unable to take advantage of the higher rates which a free market would have made available to them. I say therefore that our gold producers are entitled to the most sympathetic consideration at. the hands of this Government. I will not say that during the war they were “robbed” of profits that should have been theirs, but if I may make a comparison between the price ruling for gold and prices for other commodities, I should be quite justified if I did use that term. Our gold producers could have obtained enhanced prices from China had the Government of the day permitted them to export their product.

Senator O’Halloran:

– They could have obtained good prices in Germany!

Senator LYNCH:

– I suppose they could, if they had been traitorous enough to sell to Germany, but China was their market, and Japanese vessels were available, but that market was closed to them through the action of the Commonwealth Government, which feared that the gold might find its way into the hands of the enemy. China did not come into the war until 1917. Up to that year we could have sold our gold in that country at enhanced prices, and Australia would have benefited.

Senator O’Halloran:

– The honorable senator was a. good supporter of the government then in office.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am not praising it. I suppose I am saying as hard things as Senator O’Halloran would about it. It prevented the gold-producers of Australia from getting that enhanced value they would havesecured if they had been enabled to take advantage of the free markets of the world as other producers could. The gold producers saved the nation at a time when it needed to maintain its gold reserve, and now they are helping the revenue of the country as no other producers can by providing the necessary basis that enables the Government to make an annual profit of £3,000,000 on the note issue. Yet they get nothing in return. It is no wonder we are asking the Government to do something to provide employment for our idle miners, something that will put new. life and energy into what was once the foremost industry of Australia.

Gold-mining is a foundation industry; it is one from which many other benefits radiate. Immediately a discovery of gold is made, employment is found for perhaps 5,000 men - it does not take a very big centre to do so - and it provides a consuming centre for primary produce. Those who thus find a ready market for their produce in turn become a theatre of consumption for other kinds of production. And so the consumption and production circle widens simply because a foundation industry is set going. Every man employed in a fundamental industry carries about five others in the immediate neighbourhood, and, by reason of its consuming capacity, that neighborhood brings into existence a theatre of consumption for other commodities, the producers of which in turn bring into consumption other commodities. It is therefore a matter of sound public policy to encourage nien to bring to light dormant wealth now lying hidden in the earth.

For a series of years this Parliament has been trying to encourage industries in congested centres of population, although the trouble to-day is to find a profitable market in Australia for the things Australia produces. Is it not a sound public policy to try to create that market? It can be done only in the way I have suggested. General Thompson can tell us ‘hat at Mount Morgan there are millions of pounds worth of dormant wealth that could be brought within the pay limit if we had only a sound public policy that would enable steps to be taken to bring that wealth to light.

Senator McLachlan:

– The official figures in regard to Mount Morgan are that there is still from £16,000,000 to £3.7,000,000 worth of metal in the mine.

Senator LYNCH:

– That aspect of the fact is too often forgotten. We want to encourage any class of industry that will carry others on its back, and goldmining is one that will do so if we rejuvenate it by giving it even a small portion of the encouragement now afforded to other industries.

Senator McLachlan:

– It would put seme life into Australia.

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course it would. I have already given the Senate an idea of what past governments have done for the industry. It was not of a very substantial nature, but I trust that the present Government will be more friendly disposed towards it. The only way in which it can keep the wheels of industry whirling is to get down to the base of things and revive at least one industry every man engaged in which will carry five on his back. That five can be multiplied by five more, as I have already shown. In that way the present congestion could be relieved and a profitable market found for any Australian goods capable of being sold at a profit at presentday prices. Another half-million ounces of gold now lying alongside the horder line could be brought to market at a cost of £S3 a head against the £250 a head which this Parliament has readily granted by way of a bonus to the men engaged in the manufacture of galvanized iron. For £250 three men could be employed in gold-mining against, one nian in an industry that has had so much sympathy from this Parliament in the past. It would be an extraordinarily good bargain for this Parliament.

The men who have been engaged in gold-mining in Australia are a credit to the race. They are men who are prepared to go out into the interior wanting nothing and asking for nothing. It is only because they are hard put to it that I, with others, am taking up the cudgels in an endeavour to get for them a belated measure of justice. It is not on their behalf only. Sooner or later, because of our dwindling gold reserve, a bargain will have to be struck. Are we to go into the open market and buy gold when it can no longer be produced profitably in Australia?

Senator Barnes:

– Senator McLachlan is also advocating the payment of a bonus on gold production. Why should we have to pay £1 an ounce more than the gold is worth?

Senator LYNCH:

– For the same reason that I have been paying 30s. for a pair of Victorian boots whereas I could buy a pair of boots of the same quality or perhaps better for 15s. if I were free to get them on the markets of the world. Why should the bootmaker be favoured and the gold-miner ignored, simply because he is not under the eye of the public or close to the public press? I have said, I do not know how many times in this chamber, that if the Golden Mile and Mount Morgan were within 20 miles of Melbourne, public men would be climbing over themselves night and day in order to assist them. They should not be neglected simply because they are out in the backblocks, away from the public eye, particularly when encouragement on the lines I have suggested would be a good bargain for Australia.

I have already pointed out what good the gold producers did for this country at. a loss to themselves during the war period. I have shown how Australia would gain by a revival of the industry. J’ have indicated that if the bargain I suggest is not struck, the gold reserve will dwindle and the country will be without the annual £1,000,000” profit on the note issue which the gold producers alone enable it to make. I am not blaming the present Government. I know that Mr. Scullin, the Prime Minister, is friendly towards the gold-mining industry. In fact, I have never met a Commonwealth Prime Minister more indulgent in his attitude towards it than he was when I interviewed him on the subject; but I hope that he will translate his friendly glances and gestures into pounds, shillings and pence. A bonus of £1 an ounce for at least three years would be worth while.

During the war period the silver producers of the United States of America

Mere compelled to accept prices below world’s parity, but, recognizing the penalty thus imposed upon them, the Congress repaid them something in the neighbourhood of £50,000,000. -Why cannot Australia follow suit? Japan is paying a premium on the production of gold.

Senator Daly:

– Japan did so for a while; but, finding it uneconomic to do so, ceased to pay the premium.

Senator LYNCH:

– At any rate, it was a precedent. Australia has not paid any premium on gold production. When £7,000,000 of gold was shipped to the Old Country in order to correct our trade balance in London, everybody will recall the salutary effect that that action had throughout the world. The London Times, the Financial Times, and the Morning Post published eulogistic articles in February last concerning Australia’s determined effort to improve its trade position. Could we have obtained that £7,000,000 without the efforts of the gold-producers of this country ? We have not yet discovered the philosopher’s stone, and, therefore, Ave had to depend on those producers whose efforts resulted in the influential journals of London and New York commenting favorably on our action in shipping gold abroad. On many occasions besides the present, the credit of Australia has been enhanced because of the efforts of the gold-producers, and the prices of our stocks have correspondingly improved. I ask the Government to take into consideration the present position of the gold-mining industry, to grasp the nettle firmly, and to recognize that action should be taken immediately lest even the present limited production of gold should diminish. I realize that I am addressing a sympathetic audience. Some time ago the Senate unanimously expressed its sympathy with the industry, and the Minister of the day, who recognized the unanimity of the opinion of the Senate on the matter, said that he would convey the recommendation to the Cabinet. T now invite the Senate to reaffirm what it then declared since the case is equally strong, clear and compelling.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– While the Senate, on the occasion to which Senator Lynch has referred, stated in its wisdom that the gold-mining industry should be assisted, it had in mind the probability of large quantities of gold being found in this country. I gather that the honorable senator expects this Parliament to pay a subsidy on gold. Though he has not embodied such a. proposal in his motion, He suggests that the Government should pay to every person who finds an ounce of gold 15s. or fi more than the mineral is worth. Then he tries to convince us that that action would enhance the prosperity and financial status of Australia. I could understand such a proposal if gold-mining were only in its infancy, and if there were a reasonable prospect of the industry becoming prosperous; but, throughout the world, it is languishing. There are still tons of gold in Australia, and miners may be able to find some of it, but what is the use of their producing it if we have to pay more for it than it is worth?

Senator McLachlan:

– We are now paying over 5s. an ounce bounty on gold.

Senator BARNES:

– Would ‘honorable senators opposite settle the problem of the indebtedness of Australia by paying for gold 30s. or 35s. an ounce more than it is worth? I may not be an authority on finance; hut I have my own way of looking at this matter. When I owe my butcher or my grocer a certain sum for goods supplied, to mo, I object to paying more than the value of those goods. Most of the gold produced in Australia has been won at the cost of the lives of the miners. The cemeteries of Australia bear eloquent testimony to the sacrifice that has been paid by the many gold-producers that, have succumbed to miners’ phthisis. I remember a discussion that I had years ago with an investor at Ballarat. I was then an industrialist and the secretary of a trade union. There was a lot of talk in Ballarat, which is my home town, about gold-stealing, and the investor said, “Do you stand for that?” I replied: “ I do not know; but down in that valley thu miners are getting Ss. a day for their labour, and I am informed that after working for five years in those mines they contract, phthisis, and they are then as good as dead men. I am not a dishonest person, and I do not think that the men employed in those mines are. You do not go down into the bowels of the earth and work for Ss. a day, and you do not. contract miners’ phthisis, but you stand here and lecture the men who do. You cannot accuse me of being a gold stealer. I have never been a thief, nor have I acted dishonestly, but if I were in one of those mines working for Ss. a day, and knew that I was contracting miner’s phthisis, and .[ had a wife and family dependent on me, I would bring home with me as much gold as I could lay my hands on.” Where is the man in this country who would not do the same? Yet honorable senators expect mc, as a member of the Government, to commit myself to subsidizing the goldmining industry. It cannot be done. Honorable senators who think that they will get this country out of debt by such means will have to seek further, and find a better means of accomplishing their end. Those who support the motion believe that by paying for gold fi an ounce more than it is worth, they will bring about prosperity. If the proposal was to open up unused land ; to convert the forests into agricultural holdings, as many men have done, I would bo prepared to lend my support to the project either by the construction of railways or roads for the development of the country. T should do so because what would he done would benefit the country as a whole. If I were king and Senator Lynch came to me as the only person who could help him to convert the forest into a wheat field, I would say, “I know that you are a bold and brave man, who can wield an axe to fell a tree, that you can plough the fields and cultivate them; I know that as a result of your effort the wealth of the country will be increased. For that reason I will grant you the assistance you need. But after you have felled the trees, and cultivated the land, you must bring back to me some of the fruits of your labour.” When those fruits of the field were brought to me, I would say “well done,” because I would realize that my money had been well spent. But, if I were king and one of my subjects came to me to ask for a bounty of £1 an ounce on gold, and I knew that in winning it he would develop miners’ phthisis, and that his wife would have to bury him, I should say that, although I knew he was a good miner, I regretted that I could not render him assistance. What is the use of encouraging men to win gold if in doing so they contract a disease which will result in their untimely death? What satisfaction will the wife of a man who dies from miners’ phthisis derive from the knowledge that all that is brought back to her from the bowels of the earth is her husband’s corpse? I do not think that Senator Lynch or any other honorable senator can expect the Senate seriously to consider a proposal such as that now before us.

Debate (on motion by Senator Daly) adjourned.

page 1325

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL EMPIRE TRADE PREFERENCE

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

.- On behalf of Senator R. D. Elliott and at his request. I move -

That this Semite strongly advocates the encouragement of increased intra-Empire trade and the development of the ideal of Empire economic unity, and considers that the most effective, means which can immediately he employed towards that end is the adoption of a comprehensive system of reciprocal preference calculated to preserve and expand the particular and essential industries of each section of the Empire, upon which the prosperity of all depends. 1 1 is not necessary for me to stress the importance of this motion, but as I understand that, a similar motion is to be moved in another place, and is ou the notice-paper for this day week, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a late date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1325

QUESTION

PETROL SUBSTITUTE PRODUCTION

Proposed Select Committee

Debate resumed from 10th April (vide page 3106) on motion by Senator Foll-

  1. That, in view of the surplus production of coal and sugar cane in Australia, a select committee of the Senate lie appointed to inquire into the desirability of enforcing in the Commonwealth the use of power spirit manufactured from coal, and/or power alcohol manufactured from sugar cane and other primary products, as an admixture with imported petrol, or in substitution therefor.
  2. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, nml have leave to report its minutes of evidence from time to time. :l. That such select committee consist of Senators Cooper, Dooley, H. M. Elliott, Johnston, Ogden. ‘Rae, and the mover.
Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– As I intimated previously to the Senate the subject-matter of this motion is now engaging the attention of the Government, and has, indeed, been under consideration for some time. Dr. Rivett, the Director of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, is at present abroad, and proposes to attend a conference which will deal with the question that forms the subject of this motion. Senator Foll has undoubtedly made a very full study of this question, and, in view of that fact, and in order that the whole of the information available may be obtained, I have arranged for the necessary credentials to enable Senator Foll during his visit to Europe to attend the conference at. which this matter will be discussed. I have conferred with the honorable senator, and, with his consent, I do not propose to proceed further with this debate at present. I, therefore, ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Senator Thompson:

– Is it proposed that Dr. Rivett shall visit, Germany?

Senator DALY:

– He will visit both Britain and Germany, and if possible, also the United States of America.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1325

PROPERTY OF GERMAN NATIONALS

agreement witu g crm an government.

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

– I lay on the table a copy of the agreement between the Commonwealth Government, aud the Government of the German Reich regarding the release of property rights and interests in Australia of German nationals subject to the charge created in pursuance of the Treaty of Versailles, and ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

By this agreement, in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Young Committee with regard to the liquidation of the past, the Commonwealth Government agrees, subject to the provisions and stipulations set out, to release all property rights and interests of German nationals subject to the charge created by the Peace Treaty but not liquidated. Property which is the subject of an agreement for sale is to be considered as liquidated and consequently the agreement does not refer to the ex-German plantations in New Guinea which have been finally disposed of.

page 1326

QUESTION

REPARATIONS AGREEMENTS

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

-by leave - In laying on the table of the Senate a copy of the agreements relating to reparations concluded at the Hague Conference in January, 1930, I desire to state that on 21st November last I laid on the table of the Senate the Protocol signed at the first session of the Hague Conference. The documents which I now lay on the table comprise the final act and agreements signed at the close of the second and final session of the conference. They fill a bulky volume and include a lengthy agreement with Germany, agreements with Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, a convention with Switzerland relating to the establishment of the Bank for International Settlements and arrangements for the distribution of the annuities between the creditor powers. By the agreement with Germany, to which, of course, the Commonwealth is a party, the new scheme for reparation payments drawn up by the Young Committee and described throughout the agreements as the New Plan, is accepted as a complete and final settlement, so far as Germany is concerned, of the financial questions resulting from the war, and the German Government gives a solemn undertaking to pay the annuities for which the New Plan provides. The creditor powers agree to cease the liquidation of the property of German nationals. The Commonwealth Government has concluded an agreement with the German Government relating to the property of German nationals which I have dealt with separately. The main features of the New Plan are that the total amount of German reparations is fixed as follows : -

All controls over Germany are removed and instead Germany pledges herself to make the payments laid down. The functions of the Reparations Commission which still remain are taken over by the Bank for International Settlements, which is set up to act as the clearinghouse for reparation payments in accordance with the arrangements set out in the trust deed which forms Annex VIII. to the agreement. The agreement between the creditor Powers provides for the distribution of the annuities in accordance with the proposals of the Young Committee as amended at the first session of the Hague Conference. The average British Empire annuity is approximately £22,500,000. This will provide Great Britain with a sum sufficient to meet the debt payments to the United States of America plus an average annuity of £2,000,000 towards recouping her for the £180,000,000 she has already paid the United States of America over and above receipts from reparations and other debts. The various dominions and colonies will receive an average annuity of £2,600,000,. of which the Commonwealth’s share will be approximately £867,000. The agreement with Australia provides that, subject to any bilateral agreement already made, all Austria’s financial obligations under the peace treaties are to be regarded as finally discharged by the payments, deliveries, and cessions already made. That is to say, Austria makes no further reparation payments. The agreement with Bulgaria provides that Bulgaria’s reparations debt will be fully satisfied by the payment of an average annuity of approximately £465,000 for 36 years. The agreement with Czechoslovakia provides for the settlement of Czechoslovakia’s liberation debts by 37 annuities of ten million gold marks each. The agreements to which the Commonwealth of Australia is a party, and which it is now proposed to ratify, are : -

  1. the agreement with Germany accepting the Young or New plan as the final settlement of Germany’s reparation payments ;
  2. an agreement with Austria for the final discharge of Austria’s financial obligations under the Peace Treaty by the payments already made;
  3. an agreement with Bulgaria for the satisfaction of Bulgarian unpaid reparations by an average annual payment of approximately £465,000 ;
  4. an agreement with Czechoslovakia for the settlement of their “ liberation “ debts by 37 annuities of ten million gold marks ;
  5. an agreement between the various creditor powers as to the division of the proceeds of German reparations;
  6. a similar agreement as regards Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Czechoslovak payments.

Senate adjourned at 10.3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 May 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19300501_senate_12_123/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant