House of Representatives
1 May 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT
QUESTION
- PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- THE CORONATION CONTINGENT
PRIVILEGE
QUESTION
- PAYMENT OF BONUSES
QUESTION
- TRANSFERS OF MILITARY OFFICERS
QUESTION
- RIFLE CLUBS IN QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- INTER-STATE CERTIFICATES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES AND COLOURED LABOUR RESTRICTIONS
QUESTION
- SUPPLY
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
G 0 VERNORGENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT BILL
- Second Reading
BONUS FOR MANUFACTURES BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
ADJOURNMENT
- Prime Minister. - Federal Capital Sites. - Stock Quarantine. - Customs Administration. - Transferred Public Servants. - Tick Pest

– The rule laid down is this : - If a member of the contingent is a public servant in the employ of either the State or the Commonwealth, and continues to receive his salary, he will not be paid for his military services where his salary is greater than the military pay would be, but if his salary is less than the military pay, it will be made up to the full amount of that pay. In no case isa member of the contingent tobe allowed to draw both military pay and his salary as a State or Commonwealth servant. If a public servant is not allowed to receive his State or Commonwealth salary during his absence, he will be paid as a member of the contingent.

page 12197

PRIVILEGE

Comments in the “ Argus.”

Sir EDWARD BRADDON presented the report of the Committee of Elections and Qualifications upon the alleged breach of privilege brought under the notice of the House by the honorable member for Bland, and referred to the committee on the 30th April. The report was read by the Clerk, as follows : -

That your committee, having perused the. leading article of the Argus of the 30th April last, commenting on the petition of John Cooke Whitelaw against the return of William Hartnoll as member for Tasmania, beg to report that whilst certain comments in such article are, in their opinion, improper, they are not of sufficient importance to require any action on the part of the House.

– I desire to ask the Minister for Trade and Customs if it is his intention, in the event of a section of the House being adverse to the carrying out of the definite promise -he made yesterday, to override the law in deference to the views of those who disapprove of the carrying out of the agreement entered into by the State?

Mi-. KINGSTON. - No. Of course we cannot do that, but it very often happens that different people take divergent views with regard to the law.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– What are the views of the Attorney-General.

Mr KINGSTON:

– As I declared yesterday.

Sir John QuicK:

– Is the Minister about to give effect to them ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– Yes. We propose to give effect to them, and the only power to prevent us would be a section constituting a majority of this House.

page 12198

QUESTION

TRANSFERS OF MILITARY OFFICERS

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I desire to ask the Minister for Defence, upon notice : -

Is it a fact that Military officers have, notwithstanding that there is no Federal Defence Act in force, been transferred from one State to another : if so, by whose authority ave such transfers made, and by virtue of what law ?
-Does Major-General Hutton consider and revise all proposed transfers of officers from one State to another ?
What changes have recently been made in the command of the Garrison Artillery at Queenscliff, and on whose recommendation were such changes made ?

There is some doubt in my mind as to the legality of the proposed transfer of officers who hold commissions in one State, under the law of that State, to another State, while there is no federal law authorizing such transfers.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

– I do not know why the honorable and learned member should be so anxious to raise this question, as he knows very well the great difficulty experienced in the administration of the Defence department by reason of our having no Act under which we can work. The replies to the honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : -

No officers have been permanently transferred from one State to another ; but the services of officers belonging to one State have been temporarily utilized, in another.
The only medium of communication between the military forces of the Commonwealth and the Government is the Major-General commanding ; and every matter requiring Executive approval is considered by him before submission.
No changes have teen made.

page 12199

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether the capitation grant withheld from members of rifle clubs in Queensland for the financial year ended 30th June, 1901, on account of not providing themselves with uniforms, will be paid ? If so, when ?
Is it the intention of the department to enforce the clause of the regulations relating to uniforms for rifle club members in Queensland for the current financial year ?
Will the pay of members of the Queensland branch of the Defence force be assimilated to that obtaining in other States of the Commonwealth for the current financial year?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

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

Provision has been made on the present Estimates for the necessary funds, and payment will be made as soon as the Estimates are passed.
Yes.
It will not be possible to do so.

page 12199

QUESTION

INTER-STATE CERTIFICATES

Mr CROUCH:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether he can, as requested in a recent petition, see his way to allow the local constable or other officer to certify as to Inter-State certificates at Portarlington, as the local traders have at present to send such certificates to other ports at great inconvenience and expense.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable and learned member’s question is as follows : -

The Customs department has no officer stationed at Portarlington ; but if any J ustice of the Peace is willing to act, he will have the necessary authority as to his declaration.

page 12199

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES AND COLOURED LABOUR RESTRICTIONS

Mr EWING:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether Australian aborigines are affected by any restrictions with respect to coloured labour ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Aboriginal Australians are not affected by the Pacific Islands Labourers Act nor by the Immigration Restriction Act. Perhaps the honorable member will inform me whether his question aims at any other point.

page 12199

QUESTION

SUPPLY

In Committee :

Consideration resumed from 30th April (videpage 12144).

Department of Defence

Division 33. - (Central Staff)

Subdivision 1.- (Salaries), £3,600

Upon which Sir Edward Braddon had moved by way of amendment -

That the vote be reduced by £1.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I consider that these Estimates are exorbitant, and that the proposal of the Minister for Defence to cut them down by £130,000 will not effect the purpose which the committee have in view. The efficiency of the whole of the defence forces may suffer, while the salaries of the officers - society’s curled darlings - may not be in any way interfered with. I wish, first, to direct attention to the question of allowances. I have gone very carefully into these Estimates, and have found some items that are fairly staggering. On page 45 will be found the following items, in subdivision No. 2 (contingencies) of division No. 47, relating to the headquarters’ staff of the New South Wales military forces : -

According to the papers issued by the Treasurer on 9th October last, it appears that Major-General French’s salary was £1,250, and that he also had allowances as follows : - Lodging allowance, £191; stabling, £27 ; servants, £55 ; fuel and light, £33 ; table allowance, £200 ; furniture allowance, £136 17s. 6d. ; roughly speaking, £643. The salary and allowances thus make a grand total of £1,893.

Sir John Forrest:

– That was for last year, not for this year.

Mr PAGE:

Sir George Turner:

– I adopted a better plan. I told the military authorities that if they did not reduce the expenditure I would do it myself.

Mr PAGE:

– My advice to the Minister for Defence is to discharge the whole of the present officers and engage a fresh lot, when we should doubtless have a system second to none in the world. Major-General Hutton should be given authority to discharge every man whom he does not regard as fit for his position, and to appoint others at half the salary. I am sorry that we cannot deal with the present Estimates. A great deal has been said about “ discipline “ and “ pipeclay,” and as one who has -served in the Imperial forces, I may give the committee the benefit of my experience. I served with a contingent of the Boers in the Zulu war of ltS’79, and I can assure honorable members that they have a very erroneous impression if they think that the Boers are not trained. In the Orange Free State at that time every Boer, on attaining the age of 16, had to take service in a commando presided over by a field cornet, who kept a register of every youth and man liable to duty. Once every twelve months every man had to do 21 days’ commando work.

– I do not say that these men disgraced Australia ; all I contend is that those who say that the Australian soldier is superior to Tommy Atkins is labouring under a delusion. When the English private soldier has a chance to show his mettle he comes out just as creditably as does the Australian soldier : and the mounted infantry are quite as good as any other branch of the mounted service. On the other hand, the average Australian can ride, while theaverage Tommy Atkins cannot. Even in the Australian towns men have a chance, which nien in the towns in the old country never have, of learning to ride. For myself, I was reared in London, and though I saw thousands of horses every day, I was never on the back of one until I joined the service. But I am proud to say that most of my fellow-countrymen in England are educated. They may not have education in the ordinary sense of the word, but the mechanics in the old country, who are the best in the world, are educated in their own lines. Can any one say that thorough mechanics are ignorant men 1 They are possessed of brains which, other things being equal, would enable them to rank with any. The honorable member for Laanecoorie told us that in Australia we have the finest educational system in the world ; and I am proud that that should be so. Had it not been for the education of the people in Australia, such men as compose the part)’ of which I am a member would not be in Parliament to-day. It cannot be said, however, that because the British soldier has not been to college he does not fight as well as men who have had superior advantages. As to parade drill, we all know what a nice sight a military review affords. If military men allow their ideas to run away with them in peace time, it is our duty, as legislators, to impose a check ; and that is what we are here to do. The Treasurer last night expressed the hope that honorable members would not go into details when this general discussion had finished. I feel bound, however, knowing as I do the abuses in the military service in

Queensland, to move that reductions be made in some items which are anomalous. I am sorry to have to” do this, but such is my position that, even if I stand by myself, I must endeavour to achieve some practical economies. One of the pledges which I gave to my constituents when upon the hustings, was that I would do my best to have the Defence vote cut down. It is of no use to say that the money has already been paid, because I am confident that if we make an emphatic protest upon this occasion the Government will take notice of it, and carry out our wishes. On behalf of the electors of Maranoa, I appeal to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Defence to use their influence to cut down these big salaries. We must have some military men, but we can pay too much even for a good thing. I know -that where a £20 horse would do for me, a £50 horse would not suit some officers. I am no hero-worshipper, and when I know of abuses in any department I shall denounce them.

Sir John FORREST:

– The talking of generalities is of no service.

Mr PAGE:

– Then, when we come to consider the Estimates in detail, I shall be ready to deal with individual cases. Some of the Queensland officers would be dear if we paid them nothing. My criticism of the defence forces is not based upon personal considerations, because I should not know many of these officers even by sight. Of course, the Minister for Defence has to stick to his department. If he sat upon the military, as other people are inclined to do, they would be as flat as a pancake. Only a few days ago, the Queensland Minister for Railways asked the right honorable gentleman, as a special favour, to reduce the military expenditure in Queensland, and as this committee is willing to sanction a reduction, surely the Minister should have no compunction in seeing that it is carried out. I hope that he will do what Sir Thomas Mcllwraith did in Queensland. If these people will not climb down while they have the opportunity, let him cut the ladder from underneath them, so that they will fall down. I should be satisfied to let MajorGeneral Hutton sack the whole of them, and re-appoint a new lot.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I did not wish to speak in this debate, and I should not have risen at this late stage had it not been, that I wish to call attention to certain anomalies in the Estimates and in the report of Major-General Hutton. Speaking upon the general question, I have only > to say that the members of the committee who believe that we can deal fairly, reasonably, and drastically with the various items in detail ought to recognise that, until we have passed the Defence Bill, and have indicated the direction in which we desire reform to march, we cannot hope for a proper re-organization of the service. Until Parliament indicates what its policy is in regard to military matters, the Commandant cannot re-organize the defence force upon the lines of that policy. If we attempt a reorganization now by interfering with the detailed items in the Estimates, we shall be making a change which, in a very short time, when we have passed the Defence Bill, will Iia ve to be followed by another change. I agree that there is need for thorough organization, and I believe that we are not getting a sufficient return for the money we spend upon our defence forces. As to the direction in which re-organization should proceed, the question for us to consider seems to be whether we shall have a very limited number of finished troops, or a larger number of troops skilled in the rudiments of military knowledge, and especially in those branches of the art of warfare which take a long time to learn, such as rifle shooting, and ready to become finished soldiers within a very short time when mobilized, and when subjected to the only real finishing process, the operations of war, should that unhappily come about. I hold the opinion that it is better to have the larger number of partiallytrained troops than the smaller number of fully-trained troops. I rose, however, chiefly to draw attention to the extraordinary discrepancies in these Estimates. These discrepancies perpetuate previously existing discrepancies. The Commandant lias made out a table showing the cost of the forces in each of the States in proportion to population, but that is not a complete comparison. What we want to know in order to compare the systems which have been in force in the various States, is the cost of the troops per man.

Mr Crouch:

– Should not the comparison be made upon the efficiency of the training received ?

Mr THOMSON:

– I leave that for later consideration. Taking the whole Estimates, without any elimination, the cost of the defence forces of New South Wales has been £27 per man, of Victoria £38 per man, of Queensland £30 per man, of South Australia £16 per man, of Western Australia £13 per man, and of Tasmania £6 per man, while in New Zealand the cost is £23 per man, and in Canada £12 per man.

Sir John Forrest:

– But in some of the States the volunteer forces are paid, while in other States they are not.

Mr THOMSON:

– I admit that that is not a Fair comparison. There are certain disturbing elements which should be eliminated, and I have prepared a comparison of the cost per man in each State after the contributions to rifle clubs and associations, the cost of the permanent naval forces, where States have gunboats, and the cost of cadet corps have been deducted. Making those deductions, I find that the cost of the military forces of the States is £666,000. The Major-General states the amount as £681,000, so that I have eliminated even more than he has. Dividing that expenditure among the States, I find that the New South Wales forces cost £26 per man, the Victorian forces £2S per man, the Queensland forces£26 perman, the South Australian and Western Australian forces each £13 a man, and the Tasmanian forces £6 per man, while, as I said before, the cost of the New Zealand forces is £23 per man, and of the Canadian forces £.1 2 per man. It has been objected that the military systems in the various States differ. That is so, and the question for us to consider is which of these State systems has given the best result. The cost of the Tasmanian system is the lowest, and that of the Victorian system the highest, and in the three largest States it ranges between £26 and £28 per man. It cannot be said that in Tasmania people have been discouraged from joining the volunteer forces, because, although the population of that State is only 172,000 people, she has a force of 3,000 men, which is gi eater in proportion to population than that of any other State. Either the defence force of Tasmania, which costs only £6 per head, is a useless one, or the defence forces of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland cost an altogether ridiculous amount. All these things have to be taken into consideration, but before any proper system can be devised, this Parliament must indicate by a Defence Act what it desires in connexion with the organization of the military forces. Under these circumstances I am satisfied that it will be best for us to accept the suggested compromise, and to effect reductions which will not entirely shatter the present system before we have another to substitute for it. We can study economy until the Defence Bill is passed, and then insist upon such a system being adopted as will be effective and at the same time economical.

Mr SKENE:
Grampians

– I am in some doubt as to the effect of the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon, as compared with the Government proposal to reduce the Estimates by £131,000. We all desire to have a thoroughly efficient defence force, and I feel some difficulty in fixing upon any particular sum as being sufficient to meet our requirements in this respect. I should like the Minister for Defence to clearly state what the effect of his proposal will be. If we agree to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Tasmania it may leave the Minister with more freedom of action than if we accept his own proposal.

Mr Mauger:

– The result would be quite the opposite.

Mr SKENE:

– That is my difficulty. Although these Estimates may seem rather large it would be very difficult for us to fix upon a specific reduction. There are so many things to be considered. I am told that the guns of the Victorian Field Artillery are perfectly useless ; that not a shot has been fired from them since the Easter encampment twelve months ago. A large amount of money will also have to be spent upon rifles and ammunition. I have been trying to obtain ammunition for some of the rifle clubs for a considerable time past. The Minister for Defence says that the ammunition factory in Victoria is turning out a sufficient quantity of ammunition to meet all requirements, but I am informed that it is owing to the comparatively small capacity of the factory that there is a shortage of ammunition in Victoria that does not exist in the other States, which derive their supplies from abroad. The honorable and learned member for Corinella drew a very broad distinction between training and drill, and I now realize the full force of his remarks, which did not at first appeal to me. There is no question that those who aspire to the positions of officers in our defence forces should be trained as thoroughly as possible. 34 u

Young men who are resident in the country are placed at a great disadvantage in comparison with those who reside in the towns. The sons of farmers who are called upon to follow their occupations in the country districts should have facilities for undergoing military instruction and training, and perhaps something might be done in this direction by making an addition to the curriculum of our agricultural colleges. A great deal has been said with respect to naval defence, and some reference has also been made to the paragraph in the report of Major-General Hutton in regard to the railway from Perth to Adelaide. I think that a considerable amount of money will have to be spent to make railways which will be useful for the defence of the country. Nothing would prove more valuable in this connexion than railway lines of uniform gauge running through the coastal districts. We know the great advantage of being able to transport large bodies of men from place to place with rapidity, and railways would enable this to be done far more effectively than would any other means. Some comparisons have been made between our conditions and those existing in Canada, but I do not think that the circumstances of the two countries are at all similar. Canada stands in a very much better position than we do in regard to invasion. It has been said that there is nothing to prevent large bodies of troops from being poured over her borders from the United States, but it must be remembered that if war were to break out between Canada and the United States the whole Empire would be involved, and troops could be sent from England to Canada within a few days. Moreover, the standing army of the United States until a few years ago numbered only 25,000 men and there is no great disparity in numbers between the United States army and the military forces of Canada. I hope that in addition to taking over the Defence’ departments it will be recognised that the Commonwealth should assume all the liabilities of the States in connexion with military matters. I am told that some of the soldiers who have returned from South Africa, and who consider that they have certain claims against the Defence authorities, are unable to obtain any satisfaction. They are sent from the States to the Commonwealth, and from the Commonwealth back to the States.

Mr Watson:

– We have not taken those claims over.

Mr SKENE:

– I see no reason why we should not.

Mr Watson:

– It was not our contract.

Mr SKENE:

– I do not see why the men should fall between two stools, or why there should be any repudiation of liability.

Mr Watson:

– The men have their legal remedy against the State Governments.

Mr SKENE:

– That may be, but it is impossible for individuals to fight the State Governments in the law courts. I should like the cases of these men to be considered by the Defence department, which could if necessary communicate with the State Governments regarding their claims. In any case, the men should not be allowed to suffer. Fiske relates the instance of an American statesman, Robert Morris, who acted as treasurer to Washington. When funds were low he spent the whole of his large private fortune in the interests of the State, and was in his old age allowed to languish in a debtor’s prison. I hope no similar fate will overtake these men who have served their King and country so well in South Africa. Many returned soldiers have spoken to me upon this matter, and have told me that the States Governments say that they have nothing to do with their claims, because the Defence department has been taken over by the Commonwealth ; and the Defence department, in their turn, repudiate liability. I would ask the Minister for Defence to look into this matter. The question whether our troops shall be enlisted so as to permit of their serving abroad is one which will have to be fully considered when the Defence Bill comes before us again. I do not see how we can make effective arrangements for defence unless some understanding is arrived at by which our troops can be sent abroad if necessary. We may have to meet an attack in German or Dutch New Guinea or in New Caledonia, or it might be desirable for us to assist our neighbours in New Zealand. If we enlist our men for service only on our own shores we could not send away the best of our troops. This is a matter to which I have given some attention since the Defence Bill was before us, and upon which I feel very strongly. I do not see how we can lay down the hard-and-fast rule that we shall simply provide for resisting an invasion of our own shores. I feel disposed to accept the offer of the Minister for Defence.

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
South Australia

– It was my intention to support the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon, but I think the compromise suggested by the Minister for Defence, is a reasonable one, and I am glad that the honorable member for Tasmania has agreed to accept it. I sincerely hope that, in effecting economies, nothing will be done to impair the efficiency of our defence force. There should be no question upon this point, because we may have an efficient force without making it unduly costly or inflicting a burden upon the community. As a representative of South Australia I feel that we cannot follow upon the extravagant lines of New South Wales. It will be better for us to take example from Canada. What is good enough for Canada is surely good enough for the Commonwealth. I agree with the remark of the honorable member for Gippsland, who said that our first line of defence must be on the sea ; but I realize that we can more conveniently discuss this matter when the Defence ‘Bill Ls under consideration. In Australia we have the best possible material upon which to draw for the formation of a defence force, and there will be no difficulty whatever in creating such a force as will be strong in all essentials, and thoroughly efficient, although possibly not as picturesque on our parade grounds as some people might desire.

Mr. L. E. GROOM (Darling Downs).I wish to direct special attention to the Estimates which refer to the Queensland military forces. I notice that during the year 1899-1900, the expenditure upon the land forces of that State was £77,423, whilst the cost of the marine force was £17,389. In the following year, however, we find that the expenditure proposed upon the land force suddenly increased to £126,873, and upon the marine force to £25,210. In other words, the expenditure jumped from £94,812 to £152,053- an increase of £57,241. I would like the Minister for Defence to carefully look into these Estimates, because the whole of this increase took place just prior to the transfer of the Defence department to the Commonwealth. I am sure that if the right honorable gentleman investigates the matter he will discover many ways in which economies can be effected. Some of the increases are justifiable because they relate to the establishment of rifle clubs and cadet corps, with both of which branches of the service. I am in entire sympathy. I do not wish to discuss the details of the Estimates at this stage, but I desire to emphasize the fact that the people of Queensland are asking for economy. Here is a sum of £57,000 in which it is possible to make some saving - an amount which is practically equivalent to the loss suffered by Queensland through the remission of the duty upon tea. If we can so far economize, as to adopt the Estimates of 1899 and 1900, I, am sure that the people of that State will be” highly gratified. Owing to the deficit in the State finances of Queensland, there must be large retrenchment. We must assist in that retrenchment. But in this connexion I would point out that it is better to reduce the salaries of a few men by a considerable percentage than to maintain their salaries at their present level, and to have a lot of unemployed. I hope that any scheme of retrenchment which is undertaken will be in the nature of a reduction of salaries, and will not result in throwing many individuals out of employment.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

-I am exceedingly sorry, and very much surprised, that the military Estimates for the present year disclose such a marked increase in expenditure. The condition of affairs throughout the Commonwealth does not warrant an increased expenditure in any department at the present time, and on behalf of the people of Queensland, I must protest against any additional burden being placed upon them for defence purposes. In Queensland the increases apparent in the Estimates for the Defence department are relatively larger than are those in any other State.

Mr Watson:

– That increase is the work of the State Government.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– I do not deny that. During , the past twelve months Queensland has been hampered a great deal by Commonwealth legislation, and its revenue has been considerably reduced. I fear that the Immigration Restriction Act will drive the pearl-fishing industry from the Commonwealth into Dutch New Guinea. Such a result would represent a loss of £30,000 annually to Queensland. The sugar industry, too, has sustained a severe check by reason of recent Commonwealth legislation. Then the duty upon tea and kerosene involves the northern State in a loss of something like £50,000 annually. I am prepared to vote for a very substantial reduction in these Estimates. Recently the Minister for Defence, in conversation with the Queensland Minister of Railways, promised a reduction in the expenditure. To’ quote from a newspaper extract -

The latter represented to Mr. Barton and Sir John Forrest the necessity of cutting down expense in connexion with the Queensland naval and military forces, showing that Queensland’s military complement exceeded by about l,000men her proportionate share of Australian troops. The Minister recognised that Mr, Leahy had made out a good case for reducing the number of men in the various branches of the Queensland forces, and the probability is that a considerable reduction may be expected. Mr. Leahy further explained that a great portion of the money spent by Queensland to man and equip the gunboats could be saved.

I hope that the Minister will endeavour to redeem that promise so as to enable Queensland to save £20,000 or £30,000 a year, which amount represents a very great consideration. But I wish particularly to draw attention to the marked difference between the present Estimates of expenditure for the Queensland military forces, and the Estimates for the last few years. In 1897-98 the amount voted was £62,008, and in the following year it was £74,708. These years may be regarded as normal. In 1899-1900 the vote on account of defence aggregated £104,308. This increase is mainly accounted for by the inclusion of expenses incidental to the transition from a state of peace to a state of war. Under present prospects, however, there is nothing to justify a still further increase. The sum placed upon the Estimates for the present year is £166,382 ; and to this is added an amount of £49,306, which appears under the heading of “arrears” for the period ended 30th June, 1901, making a grand total required for the year of £215,728, or £100,000 more than the actual expenditure for last year. The cost of the Defence department has grown very rapidly indeed since its transfer to the Commonwealth. I may mention that the actual expenditure by the Queensland Government from 1st July, 1900, till the 1st March, 1901 - the date upon which this department was taken over by the Commonwealth - totalled, £61,417. For the following four months, the expenditure by the Federal Government amounted to £53,854. So that the sum spent during that period was nearly equal to the amount expended by the State Government in eight months. In the light of these figures, I am inclined to think that the Government must have been guilty of some extravagance, and on behalf of the people of Queensland, I protest against the continuance of extravagant expenditure in connection with the defence forces. I fear, however, that we can accomplish very little good upon the present occasion, because nearly all this money has been spent. We

Can only enter our protest in the hope that next year the Minister for Defence, realizing the temper of the committee, will bring down Estimates upon a considerably reduced scale.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I recognise that the committee are labouring under a considerable disadvantage in that very many things are necessarily discussed in connexion with these Estimates which might be more fittingly dealt with when the Defence Bill is under consideration. I do not wish to discuss this matter very ex haustively, but I desire to enter my protest against the extravagant manner in which the Defence department is being conducted. X. trust that a similar policy will not be pursued under the management of the present Minister for Defence. If the taxpayers were getting good value for the money expended, I do not suppose there would be very much complaint, but the knowledge that in the past nothing like good value has been given, gives rise to criticism. Reference has been made to the way in which the different States inflated their military appropriations just prior to the handing over of the departments to federal control. New South Wales is one of the States in which that was done, though for some years strong efforts had been made by a number of representatives in the State Parliament to secure greater economy. The Defence Estimates of that State were cut down by a lump sum, but it was deft to the military authorities to decide on the directions in which economies should be made. The result was that the purely ornamental side of the service, and the pay and allowances of the higher officers were maintained, while the real work of defence, such as the drilling of volunteers, the formation of rifle clubs, and the provision of ammunition and equipment, was crippled. What I am afraid of is that the policy which obtained in the States may he continued under the Commonwealth, and it is against such a possibility that I raise my voice in protest. As representatives of the different States we want the best value possible for the expenditure. The Minister has voluntarily undertaken to reduce the defence Estimates by £131,000 next year, and the vote of the committee may indicate that a still larger reduction is necessary. I wish the Minister to understand that the economy demanded is not in the direction of crippling the establishment of rifle clubs or light horse companies, or of reducing the amounts appropriated to ammunition and proper equipment. What is desired is the reduction of extravagant and outrageous allowances, and that gold lace, tinsel and glitter, which are really not necessary to efficiency, shall no longer be continued. Anyone who reads the valuable report of Major-General Hutton must be struck by the fact that the large expenditure in the different colonies for years has resulted in leaving Australian defence in a most unsatisfactory condition, and, further, that in order to secure real practical defence, the sum required is not, roughly, £1,000,000, as proposed in the Estimates, but about half that amount. I should like to direct attention to the following paragraph in Major-General Hutton’s report -

Equipment. - The existing equipment of the troops to be allotted to the G arrison Force may be deemed sufficient for the purposes of such troops. The equipment, however, which is available for the Field Forces leaves much to be desired. There is in all the States a complete absence of any modern infantry equipment, and only a small percentage of magazine rifles are available. The equipment of the mounted troops is equally incomplete, and only a small and quite inadequate supply of military saddles is available. The harness, equipment, and guns for Field Artillery are quite unequal to modern demands. A very small and quite inadequate quantity of Field Engineer or Field Hospital equipment is available. Cam p equipment and blankets are also inadequate. The supply of ammunition is in a very seriously defective condition.

I can conceive of no more severe censure on those who have hitherto had charge of the Defence departments in the various States. Major-General Hutton shows that the administration in regard to the provision of ammunition and general equipment has been disgracefully defective. There is no desire for reductions in directions where good returns are obtained from the expenditure, but only in those directions which practically result in no benefit. I was much pleased with the address delivered by the honorable member for Darling, whose remarks had the true democratic ring. If the Minister for Defence would only give some consideration to the suggestions of that honorable member, and formulate not only a scheme of retrenchment but plans for military defence on the lines indicated, the taxpayers would obtain good value for the money expended. I do not propose to enter exhaustively into the discussion of details at the present time. I would point out to the honorable member for Maranoa that, when he proceeds to deal with the salaries of individual officers, he maybe told that these salaries are secured under the Constitution ; and we, no doubt, here see the reason for the inflation of the military expenditure in the States. There is considerable force, however, in the suggestion of the honorable member for Maranoa that, seeing the wretched state in which the military authorities have left the work intrusted to them, the whole of the old officers should get the “ walking ticket “ and the new Commandant placed ‘ in a position to start afresh. Major-General Hutton should not be required to re-organize the department with the heavy load handed over to us as a heritage from the different States. Under the suggestion to which I have referred the taxpayer would get what he has never had before, a quid pro quo for the money placed at the disposal of the different State Governments foi1 the purposes of defence.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I understand that there is a very general desire to close the debate, and I shall merely ask the Minister for Defence to answer a question. I understand the right honorable gentleman undertakes to reduce these Estimates by £131,000 next year, and I am anxious that this reduction shall not fall on the rank and file of the service.

Sir John Forrest:

– Does the honorable member mean that the men shall have the same pay as at present ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The men are getting very little pay, and the question, so far as they are concerned, might be postponed until after the Defence Bill is introduced.

Sir John Forrest:

– But the pay of the men is not uniform at present. It will have to be put on a uniform basis throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I ask the Minister for Defence to see that the aggregate amount now finding its way to the men shall continue to find its way to them. I have had experience of cutting down military expenditure in New South Wales In that State the Government and Parliament agreed to reduce the vote by £20,000, and to leave to the Commandant the arrangement of the economies to be effected. TheCommandant performed the work in quick: time by simply abolishing the Easter encampment. He saved the whole of the-. £20,000 by this means, but he increased; rather than reduced the perquisites of the~ officers. I hope the retrenchment now suggested will not be carried out in the samewoodenheaded fashion.

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We cannot “ eat our cakeand have it.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– All I want is tohave the “ cake “ eaten by the men for thepresent, because I believe there is room tosave the amount without interfering with therank and file.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I desire to draw attention to the extraordinary increases., which have taken place in the States’ Estimates for naval and military expenditure-

Mr Wilks:

– Particularly in Victoria..

Mr TUDOR:

– Victoria is no worse in* this respect than any of the other States.. I have taken the trouble to go through theEstimates of the naval and military expenditure of Victoria during the last four years, and I find that in the year 1897-S, theEstimates of expenditure amounted to- £148,34:0, and for the next year to- £152,427. But even with that increase, the authorities could not keep the expenditure within bounds, and exceeded it by £5,500. The Estimates for 1S99-00, amounted to £16S,592, and the expenditureto £173,680. When the Commonwealth, was about to take over the forces, theEstimates were increased to £196,510, and!! the Estimates for 1901-2 amount to- £249,178, or, including the expenditureupon Thursday Island and King George’s^ Sound, to £254,901, an increase of £106,54K In my opinion we could have just as efficient a defence force, if the Minister promised to cut down the expenditure by £200,000. I trust, however, that the cutting down will not be done at the expense of the rank and file, but that those who receive large allowances will be the first to suffer. I believe that the Minister, when. he makes inquiries, will find that retrenchment can be effected, not only in this State, but in every other State of the Commonwealth.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I should like to know from the Minister for Defence, whether it is the intention of the department, in the re-organization which is to take place, to make provision for the construction of fortifications at Fremantle, which is the most westerly fort in Australia, and in the case of hostilities with foreign powers, would probably be the first point attacked by the enemy.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I wish to know whether the Minister for Defence can give me the name of one nation which would invade this country if we at once entirely abolished the army and navy of Australia ? Every one is talking of what will happen if we do not keep up a great military establishment ; but, as the history of the East shows us that tropical conditions have the effect of making those who are subject to them, the easy slaves of a military despotism, I am anxious that that shall not occur in Australia. When I was in the Parliament of South Australia, money was always being voted to purchase arms, but our men are not properly armed yet. If we spent £1,000,000 in purchasing the newest rifles, they would ten years hence be as obsolete as wooden guns. It would be better to postpone our preparations for another 20 years, until these inventions are perfected, and we can get the new American rifles which they are bringing out.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member talks of nothing but Amenca.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– God pity those who refuse to get intelligence where they can. We do not invent guns here. It is a glorious thing to see how the Christion nations are inventing guns to destroy each other. A man can become great, receive titles, and live in a palace if he can invent a gun which will enable one nation to blow another into Hades more quickly than the existing guns would do. I shall vote for a reduction of the military expenditure by £200,000, and I should be ready to vote for the abolition of the whole system, and to provide fora great volunteer system.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Why does not the honorable member abolish the United States army ?

Mr O’MALLEY:

– I have nothing to do with that. In America, 25,000 permanent soldiers are enough to defend 80,000,000 people, and they have over 8,000,000 volunteers. At the battle of Lundy’s Lane, the American cow-boy volunteers broke the line of veteran British red-coats. We must have soldiers with intelligence. No country can advance unless its people mingle brains with their work. It is because the American people have done so that that country is now leading the world in inventions and in money making, and before the next 50 years are past will own the world. The block drill system should be wiped out, because it is of no service in Australia. We do not want marionettes. Although we hear cries for reform and economy from all the States, they inflated their army Estimates immediately the Commonwealth was about to take over the defence forces, and handed to us a cursed heritage of debt. That is why we are fighting this battle on the military Estimates to-day.

Mr. PAGE (Maranoa). - Will the Minister for Defence tell the committee what recommendations the Queensland Minister for Railways made to him in regard to retrenchment in the Queensland defence forces 1 Did he specify any particular mode of retrenchment ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

– Ishallanswer the last question first. The Queensland Minister for Railways, in his interview with me, appeared very anxious that the expenditure upon the defence forces of Queensland should be reduced, :and he pointed out that the Queensland naval defences were far in excess of the requirements of the State. He also said that Queensland had more men in its defence forces than it should have in proportion to population, and he -asked for an all-round reduction of expenditure. I have issued instructions to the naval commandant of Queensland to submit to me a scheme by which the naval expenditure of that State may be reduced -from £25,000 a year to something like £10,000 a year. I think that a considerable reduction should be made in the naval expenditure of all the States. So far as I have been able to judge, from my own knowledge, and speaking also from the information which I have received from persons competent to express an opinion upon the subject, I do not think we get full value for the money which we spend on our naval establishments.

I propose to reduce thenaval expenditure very materially by retaining only a sufficient number of permanent officers and instructors to make and keep the militia efficient and to look after the armaments. The honorable member for Fremantle may be certain that, if by any possibility we can find money for the construction of fortifications at Fremantle, the work will be undertaken. It is very regrettable thatsuch an important port - the first port of call of the English mail steamers, and the chief port of Western Australia - is altogether undefended. It is the only port in Australia which is in that lamentable condition, and we must do something to remedy that state of affairs. With regard to the remarks of the honorable member for Parramatta, I shall, so far as I am able, so arrange the reductions as not to decrease the number or efficiency of the forces. I do not think any one would say that we have too many men of the rank and file. Therefore we must endeavour to economize in other directions, though that is not quitesuch an easy matter as some honorable members seem to think. Some of the partially-paid forces and the volunteers cost about £290,000 ; ammunition costs £110,000; the contributions to rifle club associations, excluding ammunition, amount to £19,000; the cost of the cadet corps is £5,000 ; the cost of heavy gun ammunition and warlike stores is £56,000 ; the cost of the naval forces - there is room for a reduction here - £72,000 ; the forts at Thursday Island and King George’s Sound, £17,000 ; and new rifles, £25,000. Of course the £10,000 expenditure which theRoyal reception entailed will not recur. Those amounts come to £610,000. Then there is £168,000 on the Estimates for the permanent force and staff. While I am obliged to honorable members for their criticisms, because we gain information and knowledge by hearing; the opinions of others, I ask them not to flog a willing horse. I have promised to reduce the expenditure by at least £131,000, and the Government are desirous to do all that is possible to place the defence forces upon an economical but efficient basis.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– The suggestion put forward by the Government does not meet the requirements of the representatives of Queensland, who say that the defence votes in their State were increased during the last year of the State control by £53,000. Nor does it meet the ideas of other honorable members, who think that something under £600,000 would be sufficient for the purposes of defence. I cannot accept the position suggested by the Government, andas it appears that the right honorable member for Tasmania has accepted the Government proposal, I wish to test the feeling of the committee in favour of a reduction of the Estimates by £200,000. I, therefore, move -

That the vote, “Chief Administration, £6,500, ‘ be reduced by the sum of £2.

Question put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 20

Noes … …. … 25

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - that the vote “Subdivision No. 1 (Salaries), £3,600,” be reduced by the sum of £1 - put. The committee divided -

Ayes………… 25

Noes………… 21

Majority … … … 4

In Division :

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

– In the papers which 1 circulated with the Budget, I showed the total expenditure for each department. However, I promise that in any future Estimates, which I have the honor to prepare, a footnote will be inserted showing the expenditure in the form to which the honorable member refers.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 12213

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of the following message from the Senate -

The Senate returns to the House of Representatives the Public Service Bill, and acquaints the House of Representatives that the Senate does not insist upon that part of Amendment No. 13 to which the Blouse of Representatives still disagrees, and agrees to the further amendments of the House of Representatives in clause 9, and does not insist upon its amendment to the House of Representatives’ amendment in clause 52a.

C. BAKER, President.

page 12213

G 0 VERNORGENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT BILL

Second Reading

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I hope that I shall not occupy too long a time in explaining its provisions. At the outset, perhaps, it is just as well to make an explanation of the circumstances out of which this Bill arises. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention Bill, the salary of the Governor-General has been fixed in the Constitution at £10,000 a year. That salary, as a salary, cannot be .altered during his continuance in office. The proceedings of the Federal Convention show that, in Adelaide, a finance committee was appointed, which made certain estimates of the probable new expenditure, based, no doubt, upon the condition of Australia - its population and state of advancement - at that time, namely, 1897. I find in these Estimates, which were laid upon the table of the Convention by our present Speaker, in his capacity of chairman of that committee, and which were ordered to be printed on the 23rd April, 1397 - just about five years ago - that under the heading of Governor-General various matters were observed as if the .amount mentioned were an Estimate which had not been made up of actual items, but had been set down in globo. It will be found in the published papers upon federation which were circulated when the draft Federal Constitution was under consideration by the Legislature of Victoria in .1897, that the cost of these heads of service, “ Legislature, Governor-General, Executive, Civil Establishments, Treasury, Justice, Mint, Defence, Customs, Navigation, and Quarantine,” was estimated less the revenue expected from them, and that certain results were brought out. Under the heading of the Governor-General, the committee estimated £10,000 for salary and £5,000 for His Excellency’s establishment. That was done during consideration of a draft Bill, in which there was never any thought of specifically naming any sum of money for the establishment of the Governor-General, because that is an expenditure which is no doubt fluctuating, and which there would be great difficulty in assessing at any particular sum. The £5,000 was merely an estimate by the finance committee. I mention this for the purpose, more than any other, of showing that amongst those who framed the Constitution, and who were elected for that purpose by the whole of Australia, it was always expected that beyond the salary of the. Governor-General there would have to be some allowance made for his establishment. Scarcely any one in the convention imagined that the myriad calls which go to make up the expenses of the GovernorGeneral’s establishment were to be comprehended in the salary of £10,000 : it was always in contemplation that that amount would, on this account, have to be exceeded. That appears in black and white as clearly as possible on the estimate of the finance committee of the convention ; and the Bill was adopted and the estimate was discussed on every platform in Australia.

Mr Mahon:

– Nothing of the kind.

Mr BARTON:

– The estimates of the finance committee were discussed, at any rate, on almost every platform in the State to which I belong.

Mr Deakin:

– And in Victoria those estimates were constantly flung at advocates of federation.

Mr BARTON:

– Those who opposed the Constitution Bill were untiring and unsparing in their criticisms of these estimates, which had, therefore, to be discussed and defended, not only by the finance committee who had a hand in their preparation, but by members of the convention, to whom they were presented. The result was that these estimates became known to the people of Australia almost as much as any part of the Bill before they voted.

Mr Mahon:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mi-. BARTON.- It is an absolute fact.

– He has not suggested that a grant should be made to him in respect to that expenditure. I am sure that if the Bill is passed he will not at any time make such a suggestion, but will cheerfully bear the expense himself. I mention the matter so that honorable members may not be induced to believe that in the event of this, as I consider it, moderate allowance being granted, any request for the repayment of that money will be made. Seeing that honorable members desire to have an earlier adjournment than usual, and that we were occupied rather longer than was at one time expected over the Defence

Estimates, I do not wish to prolong discussion, and I, therefore, conclude my remarks by commending this measure to the consideration of honorable members, and expressing the hope that they will consider it in the spirit in which it should be dealt with.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).No one will object to the manner in which the Prime Minister has submitted his case ; but I think it will be generally agreed that the Bill should not have been rushed on at a time when the Prime Minister is about to leave for the old country, and when the House is on the eve of an adjournment extending over three or four weeks. The Prime Minister stated that he was prevented by thepressure of public business from dealing with this question at an earlier period of the session. Honorable members know that we have been called upon to give our consideration to a number of measures which have since been held in abeyance, and that on many occasions we have had some difficulty in finding sufficient business to occupy our time. I need only refer to the InterState Commission Bill, the Defence Bill, and many other measures that were never seriouslY submitted by the Government, or dealt with by the House. Therefore, if, fis was stated by the Prime Minister, an understanding was arrived at .with respect to these allowances, the Government ought to have taken the House into its confidence at the earliest possible moment. They have not acted fairly either to the Governor-General or to the House, and their delay in dealing with the matter is much to he regretted. The Prime Minister pointed out that in the Estimates submitted to the people of the Commonwealth, at the time of thereferendum, it was clearly understood that this large additional allowance was to be asked for. I never understood that the appropriation of such a large amount of money was contemplated, and, in fact, section 3 of the Constitution distinctly provides to the contrary. It is stated that the salary of the Governor-General shall be £10,.000 per annum until the Parliament otherwise provides, and it is further provided that the salary of the Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office. Whatever may be said by the Prime Minister, the clear intention of this measure is to provide for an addition to the salary of the Governor-General in direct contravention of the Constitution. The Prime

Minister has referred to several items of expenditure which the Governor-General should not be called upon to bear. “With regard to the large expense incurred by His Excellency in connexion with the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York, I feel sure that honorable members are prepared to act fairly and liberally. We have no right to ask His Excellency ‘ to pay out of his private purse for the entertainment of our distinguished visitors, but the Government might have introduced this matter to the House in the form of a vote upon the Estimates. Any other items of a similar character might have been provided for as incidental expenses, in accordance with the practice followed in the various States. We do not wish to place the Governor-General of Australia in a worse position, as far as expenses are concerned, than are the State Governors.

Mr Mahon:

– But he has a much larger salary.

Mr Deakin:

– Only the same as the Governor of Victoria had at one time.

Mr Mahon:

– That was in the boom time.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I disagree with the proposal of the Government, and I intend to divide the House against it. I regret exceedingly that the Government have placed us in the position of having to discuss such an important matter at this late period. So far as I am concerned I should oppose the proposed allowance no matter when it had been brought in by the Government.

Mr Kennedy:

– Has the honorable member heard of any one who will support it ?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No, and I cannot understand the Government introducing this measure in view of their knowledge that not a dozen members will be found to support it. I do not wish to deal in detail with, the expenses of the GovernorGeneral’s establishment. The Prime Minister, has referred to such items as the cost of electric lighting and fuel ; but this Bill has not been brought down for the purpose of meeting these incidental expenses . It has been introduced with the object of increasing the salary of the Governor-General, contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to withdraw it. They can rely on the. House dealing fairly with any proposal they may make to recoup any expenditure incurred by the Governor-General during the visit of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York, because no honorable member desires that the Governor-General shall be out of pocket. I shall regard it as my duty to oppose the Bill.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I think that . the present position demonstrates the wisdom of the principle which has been followed ever since the initiation of responsible Government, and which is embodied in the Federal Constitution ; namely, that the salary of the Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office. That is the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution, and I would point out to the Prime Minister that all his statements about the report of the finance committee at the federal convention go for nothing, in view of the fact that the convention did not adopt the report of’ the committee. They carefully excluded from the Constitution the mention of anything beyond the £10,000 per annum. We are not bound by the tentative report of the committee of the convention, but by the Constitution, which is the result of the matured judgment of the convention as a whole. I regret as much as any one the necessity the Government have placed upon us of discussing the Governor-General’s salary and allowances. The only time this should be done is after the departure of a Governor-General, or before the appointment of the Governor-General to whom any alteration is intended to apply. The Prime Minister stated that at the time of the federal referendum people outside understood that the Governor-General’s salary was to be £15,000 per annum - £10,000 as salary, and £5,000 as allowances. I deny, first of all, that ‘any great number of people ever heard of the estimate of the convention committee; further, speaking as one who opposed the Bill in New South Wales, I do not remember one opponent of the measure - besides Dr. McLaurin, and one or two others, who were opposed to federation on any terms - who mentioned the question of finance so far as the new expenditure was concerned. There was no objection to pay the Governor-General £10,000 per annum, nor was any opposition shown with regard to the other necessary expenses attached to federation. But grave exception was taken to the provisions of the Braddon clause, which necessitated the raising of a larger amount of revenue than was actually required. Other objections of a. constitutional character were urged by those who opposed the Bill, but this question of the GovernorGeneral’s salary was. never brought up.

Mr Higgins:

– It was too small.

Mr WATSON:

– It was too small a question in relation to the matter at issue, that was, federation itself. But it is not too small a question for our cognizance at the present time. The Prime Minister told us that the Governor-General was now spending at a rate of something like £20,000 per annum. That is to say, that if he were granted the amount now proposed to be voted under the Bill, he would still be out of pocket to the extent of several thousand pounds per annum. If that is so, I think it is about time that the members of this Parliament, as representing the people of Australia, and beyond all, the Prime Minister and the members of the Ministry as the official representatives of Australia, should inform the Governor-General that we do not expect him to cater for a number of sycophants who crawl about Government House. We vote £10,000 to the Governor-General as salary, and he is entitled to keep every penny of that for himself if he chooses.

Mi1. Mahon. - How much do the poor people get out of it ?

Mr WATSON:

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

Mr MCDONALD:

– For whom else would the Governor-General undertake the expenditure? Of course the expenses are departmental, and therefore official. I suppose the extra sum is to help the GovernorGeneral to entertain, and we have had too much entertaining on the part of Governors in the past. Victorian members have had a fair experience in connexion with granting sums of money for the expenses of Governors. It is not so many years ago that in Victoria the Governor’s establishment, together with his salary, cost about £30,000 per annum ; and it is quite likely that if we allow any extravagance, we shall find ourselves in a similar position. The whole House seems to be against the Bill, and I shall say no more, but move -

That the word “now” be omitted with a view to adding to the motion the words “ on the 1st of May, 1004.”

That will give us an opportunity to have a general election, when we can ascertain the desires of the electors on this all-important question.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I regret exceedingly that the amendment has been proposed. It would have been far better, in view of the spirit and temper of the House, to withdraw the Bill and introduce a measure more in accordance with what seems to be the unanimous opinion of honorable members. I cannot congratulate the Government on the measure which they have placed before us. In my opinion the Bill is ill-timed and ill-considered, and a proper method has not been adopted in its introduction. On questions of this kind, in which there is a certain amount of delicacy, a practice has hitherto been adopted of ascertaining the feelings of honorable members prior to submitting a Bi?l ; and in the present instance there was every justification for adopting that course, and thus preventing a discussion which is not pleasant to many honorable members. The character and reputation of the GovernorGeneral, and the wide respect and esteem which he enjoys, make it distasteful to honorable members to have to adversely discuss a proposal of the kind, and I do not think that the Government thoroughly appreciated the position when they intra,duced the measure. Had they done so, we should have been spared this discussion. At the same time, no matter how unpleasant the position may be, honorable members must act according to their conscience. I have contended on more than one occasion that in the early stages of the Commonwealth we are bound to exercise the most rigid economy, and, further, we ought to respect the four corners of the Constitution. I regret exceedingly that at the beginning of this session it was resolved to allow Ministers to draw-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must not discuss that question.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I shall not discuss the question, but simply say I regret the decision then arrived at. Another matter which may arise is that of an increase of the allowance to honorable members, but I am against that or any similar proposal which would have the effect of going beyond the four corners of the Constitution. Kb matter what the Prime Minister may say, the general impression amongst the voters was that the Governor-General would be paid £10,000 per annum, and no more. There may have been papers locked away amongst the musty, dusty records of the early days of the convention, but the proposal that was put to the people by those who advocated federation was that£10,000 should be paid to the Governor-Generaland£400 per annum to the Parliamentary representatives. We have no right in either case to depart from the arrangement, which we all understood. I regret that this matter has been brought before the House at Jill. It would have been much better if Ministers had ascertained the opinions of honorable members on the subject before doing anything. I shall have to vote against the second reading of the Bill, but, like other speakers, I am prepared to recognise that, as the Governor-General was put to extraordinary expense at the inauguration of the Commonwealth, and in connexion with the reception of our Royal visitors, in adequately and properly representing the Commonwealth, it would be only just to recoup him that expense. That, however, can be done without any special statutory enactment, by placing the amount upon the Estimates. I am determined to vote against allowances of any kind. I do not see why officers should be allowed fuel, for instance, more than boots or oatmeal. If it is desired to increase the salary of the Governor-General, and we can afford to do so, what we should do is, not to vote an annual sum by way of allowance, but to sanction a straightforward proposal.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).I regret that this Bill has been introduced. It is little wonder that there is so much talk outside about the extravagance of the Federal Parliament. The Governor-General knew, when he accepted the position, what salary he would receive, and what obligations would fall upon him. He knew that his office, so far as entertaining was concerned, would not be a sinecure. Yet, within little more than a year of his appointment, we have this proposal to increase his salary - a proposal which, if it were carried into effect, would not be creditable to this Parliament. Many of our public servants have found that the remuneration thev are receiving for the work they do is not adequate for the services which they perform for the Commonwealth, but there has been no attempt to increase their salaries. I shall vote against this Bill, and I shall vote against any proposal to amend it in the way of providing for allowances of any kind. If it is intended to reimburse the Governor-General the amount expended by him during the Duke’s visit, that matter should be dealt with separately. If we pass the measure, we shall not be able to bring thepublic to forget that the first act of the Federal Parliament was practically to amend the Constitution so as to increase the salary of the highest paid official in Australia.

Mr. BARTON (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - In reply. I congratulate the House upon the admirable taste with which this debate has been conducted. Whatever the result of the division upon the Bill may be, it shouldbe gratifying to the Governor-General to know that no word has been uttered inconsistent with the respect, and I think affection, which weallbear towards him. I did not think it likely that any other spirit would prevail. As to the main question, the Treasurer has produced the actual figures in regard to the salary and allowances of the Governor-General of Canada, which I had extracted from the Auditor-General’s report, and honorable members are now aware that the difference between the salary and the actual amount paid to that official is practically as large as the amount provided for in this Bill, notwithstanding the fact that Canada, although her population is larger than ours, is, with respect to trade and in every other particular, a poorer country. Although the temper of the House in regard to this matter has given me pain , and regret - and I do not use those words in any unkind sense - I cannot disregard it. My own opinion on the matter was. strong, and, feeling that I entertained it conscientiously, I hoped that it would be shared by honorable members. Under the circumstances I shall not answer some of the remarks which have been made during thedebate; but Ido notthinkthe matter is closed. AlthoughI am afraid that the action of the House in refusing to grant this allowance may have a result which we shall all regret, because I do not think it will tend towards securing the best selection when, in the future, the office of the Governor-General becomes vacant, I must inevitably bow to the will of the majority. It has been suggested, however, by the honorable member for Northern Melbourne - I think the matter was first referred to by the honorable member for Gippsland - that, as this is a Bill “‘relating to the GovernorGeneral’s establishment,” an amendment providing for the reimbursement to the Governor-General of the expenses incurred by him during the visit of the Duke and

Duchess of York will come within the scope of its title.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– What amount would be required to do that ?

BARTON.- It isnotan outside estimate to say that, taking into consideration the cost of his visits to Tasmania and elsewhere, theGovernor-General; during the stay of the Duke and Duchess of York, spent about £10,000 in connexion with their entertainment. I might also mention that His Excellency, to my personalknowledge, was put to very great expense in preparing for his Governor-Generalship, to an amount far beyond anything he could have received by way of allowance from the British Government. I refer to the matter only to show that, whatevermay be done in regard to reimbursing the expenses incurred in connexion with the Royal visit, the amount voted will probably still fall short of the outofthe way orextraordinary expenditure whichhe had to meet. While a grant of £10,000 would not be anything like sufficient torecoup the extraordinary expenditureof His Excellency the Governor-General, I think it would meet the expenditure incurred by him in connexion with the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York. I shall be prepared to accept an amendment in that direction, as I have said, with regret, but in a measure of this kind no one can say that the fate of the Ministry is involved, and, therefore, I am dealing with it with that sense of respect which all Ministries owe to the House.

Question - That the word “now” proposed to be omitted standpart of the question - put. The House divided.

AYES: 34

NOES: 12

Majority … … 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 30

NOES: 14

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in. the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1- (Short title).

Question - that clause 1 stand part of the Bill - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 34

NOES: 8

Majority…….. 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resol ved in the affirmative.

Clause 2 - .

To assist in defraying the expenses of the Governor-General’s establishment there shall be paid to him out of the consolidated revenue fund, from thefirst day of January, one thousand nine hundred and one, until the occupation of his residence at the seat of Government and for one year thereafter, an allowance of eight thousand pounds a year, and the consolidated revenue fund is hereby appropriated accordingly for that purpose.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).In pursuance of the intimation which I previously gave, I move-

That the words’ ‘ in connexion with the visit to Australia of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York “ be inserted after the word.” establishment,” line 2.

– I do not pose as an authority on parliamentaryprocedure, but I cannot see on what ground the proposed amendment is in order. A message was obtained from the Governor-General for a certain specified purpose, which is set out in the short title - “ The Governor-General’s Establishment Act 1902.” Clause 2, as originally drawn, was to provide an allowance to the GovernorGeneral, but not for the purpose of any special expenditure such as that now indicated. During the second reading debate we were informed by the Prime Minister that there was a special charge to meet expenses of that character, which were in no wise covered by this Bill, .and a number of similar charges which fell under the Commonwealth have been dealt with in the ordinary way on the Estimates. After a long debate it is now proposed to alter the primary intention of this Bill, and make it apply to some other purpose, which was never intended by the Government when the Governor-General was asked to send down a message, and is only now introduced to avert the defeat of the measure. If this procedure be allowed the door will be opened to grave departure from the rulesof the House, which clearly set forth that a message shall clearly be for a certain specified purpose, and that that purpose shall form the subject of a Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The GovernorGeneral’s message is as follows : -

In accordance with the requirements of section 56 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia the Governor-General recommends to the House of Representatibes that an appropriation of moneys be made for the purpose of a Bill for an Act relating to the Governor-General’s establishment.

That Bill is now before the committee foi* consideration, and it is in accordance with the message. Clause 2, with which the committee are now dealing, makes provision for expenditure for the Governor-General’s establishment, and as the expenditure in connexion with the entertainment of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York was in connexion with that establishment, I rule that the amendment is in order.

Motion (by Mr. McDonald) put -

That the committee dissent from the Chairman’s ruling.

The committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 32

Majority…… 21

-. - If you gave a man a sovereign, would it not assist him to pay a debt of 10s. 1

Mr MAHON:

– If a man owed 10s., I do not think that a gift of £1 could be characterized as a gift “to assist” him in paying the- 10s. In any case I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I wish to say a word or two about this j wretched subterfuge of an amendment. The ‘ Ministry, to cover up a retreat, got a supporter to move an amendment which does not refl’ect any credit upon them. I look upon it as a dirty job.

The- CHAIRMAN. - I must ask the honorable member to withdraw those words.

Mr Poynton:

– I shall not withdraw them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I again appeal to the honorable member to- withdraw them.

Mr Poynton:

– I shall not withdraw them.

Mr Barton:

– The honorable member must know that, whatever’ his opinion may be, the utterance of such words is beyond the bounds of parliamentary decorum, and the Chairman is only doing his duty as an officer of the House in calling upon the honorable member to withdraw them. I ask the honorable member to remember the position which he ‘occupies, and to obey the request of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the honorable member has not withdrawn the words, it is with regret that I name him for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Mr Barton:

– Standing Order 59 says -

Whenever any member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of Committees, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or of disorderly conduct, or otherwise disregarding the authority of the Chair, then, if the offence has been committed hy such member in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question, on the motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate- being allowed, “ That such member be suspended from the service of the House “; and, if the offence has been committed in a committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a motion being made, put

I the same question in a similar way, and, if the j motion be carried,, shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the committee and report the circumstance to the House ; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same question, without amendment,, adjournment, or debate, as- if the offence had been committed in the House itself. If any member be suspended under this Order, his suspension on the first occasion shall be for the remainder of that day’s sitting.

Notwithstanding that I may have been hurt by the honorable member’s expression. I am extremely reluctant to act in this matter, and as I am sure that he spoke without deliberation and in heat, I am loth to move until I am certain that he does not intend to withdraw.

Mr Poynton:

– Let the Ministry withdraw the Bill.

Mr Barton:

– I ask the honorable member to withdraw as a duty which we owe to each other, when betrayed into undue heat. The course is one which I should take myself if I were in his position.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am very reluctant to do what the standing order compels me to do, and therefore I again ask the honorable member to withdraw.

Mr Poynton:

– In deference to the wish of the committee I withdraw the words, and I trust that the Government will now adjourn the debate, and let us have more time in which to consider this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable gentleman having regarded the authority of the Chair, I withdraw the naming.

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

– I think that the Government are to blame for what has occurred. No one knows better than does the Prime Minister that the Bill was not introduced to meet the purpose it is now being amended to cover. An attempt is being made to cover the practical defeat of the Government and to extricate them from a humiliating, position. The Government knew very well,, and they know now, that they could not have secured six votes in favour of the Bill as it originally stood. If there has been any legitimate expenditure the House should be fully informed of it, and it should be provided for in the ordinary way in the Estimates.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 32

NOES: 10

Majority … … 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I move -

That the words “from the 1st day of January, 1901, until the occupation ofhis residence at the seat of Government, and for one year thereafter,” be omitted.

The effect of this will be to omit the provision that the payment to be made to His Excellency shall be periodical. I propose to insert the word “ extraordinary” in order to show that this allowance will not recur; and to increase the amount of the grant from £8,000 to £10,000.

Mr. WILKS (Daley).- The further we proceed with this matter, the more clearly we see the patchwork methods that are being adopted in carrying on the business of the country. If the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne is not already ashamed of the consequences of his suggestion, he will live to regret the extraordinary proceedings of this evening. I am not opposed to the sum of £10,000 being granted to His Excellency, but I strongly object to this committee being dragged through the mud in order to extricate the Government from an awkward position. One amendment has already been agreed to, and a second amendment is being forced upon us with the view to entirely alter the original purpose of the Bill, regarding which honorable members have expressed their disapproval. The Prime Minister has allowed this Bill to be manipulated for a particular purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Higgins) proposed -

That ohe word “extraordinary” be inserted after the word “an,” line 7.

Mr. BROWN (Canobolas). - I quite agree that this word should be inserted. The present is the first occasion in the history of constitutional government upon which a Bill has been taken out of the hands of the Ministry and so completely altered. It is wise, therefore, to insert the word proposed, seeing that the measure is in every sense an extraordinary one.

Mr.’ MCDONALD (Kennedy).- I think that the new leader of the House in the person of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne is acting wisely in moving to insert the word proposed. Everyone recognises that the position is an extraordinary one. Usually, when the leadership of the House is taken out of the hands of the head of a Government, Ministers resign.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I move -

That the word “eight,” line 7, be struck out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ten.”

Mr HIGGINS:

– I understand that the information given by the Governor-General is to the effect that £10,000 will not cover the extraordinary expenses which he was put to by virtue of his public duties in connexion with the Royal visit.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– I have no warrant for using the words “between £9,000 and £10,000 “ except the direct statement of His Excellency, which honorable members may well accept.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I have hitherto refrained from taking any part in the discussions on this Bill, but I should like to say that in my judgment the Government have dealt with this matter precisely in the way in which they ought not to have dealt with it. If ever the Governor-General might say, “Save me from my friends,” it is in connexion with this effort of the Government. If the Governor-General has been put to large and extraordinary expenses in connexion with the Royal visit, that isa fair and legitimate charge to which no honorable member would object. But the question is, why have the Government gone about the business in this roundabout way 1 Why was this expenditure not submitted on the Estimates, and itemized, as is all other expenditure in connexion with the Governor-General’s establishment1! There would then have been no difficulty ; but by the introduction of this Bill a most pernicious precedent has been set. The ordinary expenditure of the GovernorGeneral is voted yearly and is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament, and this special expenditure should have received like treatment. I see no use in continuing this contest over the Bill. I cannot give a vote which would be in any way a repudiation of an honorable obligation, and my only object now is to protest against a wrong way of doing a right thing.

Amendment - That the word “eight” be omitted - agreed to.

Mr. MCDONALD (Kennedy).- As the clause now stands, we are asked to vote the Governor-General an additional £10,000 a year.

Mr Higgins:

– I shall subsequently move that the words “ a year” be omitted.

Mr MCDONALD:

– I am not allowed to anticipate what the committee may do ; I must deal with the amendment as I see it. The opinion generally expressed by the people during the elections for this Parliament was that the Governor-General should receive £10,000 a year ; but now, according to the amendment, we are going to vote His’ Excellency another £10,000. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether, under the Constitution, this amendment is in order ?

The CHAIRMAN:

No member shall use the name of His Majesty or of his representative in this Commonwealth irreverently in debate, nor for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

Mr PAGE:

– What I meant to say was that I would be ashamed if I were the Governor-General. Every one knows the financial position of the States at the present time, and I intend to guard my State from increased taxation. I have been trying to do all I can to prevent taxation being increased, and therefore I shall not vote for additional expenditure. The honorable member for Macquarie seems inclined to blow hot and cold on the subject, and to vote for these amendments.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I voted against the second reading of the Bill, and I have not given any expression of my opinion in regard to the matter before the committee.

Mr PAGE:

– Tf I have made a mistake, I beg the honorable member’s pardon. The honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. O’Malley, is always talking about doublebreasted eagles with diamond pins in their waistcoats, and long-tailed peacocks with patent leather boots, but immediately he gets an opportunity to pluck what he would call a golden-spurred rooster he gives it a breast-pin worth £10,000. If this amount had been placed upon the Estimates, I should not have raised a word of protest ; but I intend to do my level best to prevent the Bill being amended in the way proposed, even if I have to stop here all night. A few nights ago we were informed that a clerk getting £150 a year was required to advise the Governor-General, and now we find the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, who receives only £400 a year for his parliamentary services, doing” the work of the Prime Minister, and being white-washed for his pro-Boer speeches. However, I think I have protested sufficiently upon thisamendment, though I shall probably have something more to say before this Bill gets through committee.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).In explanation, I desire to say that I voted against the second reading of the Bill, because, although I am of opinion that we should consider any fair claim the GovernorGeneral may have for the re-imbursement of expenses incurred in entertaining the guests of the Commonwealth, we should not vote him any additional salary. If the Government had submitted the proposal now before the House on the Estimates, I should take no objection to it, but I exceedingly regret that they have been allowed to completely alter the scope of the Bill. These alterations would not have been allowed in the Parliament of New South “Wales, and I think that our standing orders have been stretched considerably to permit of them. It is now proposed to make one grant of £10,000 instead of an annual allowance of £8,000, which, assuming that the GovernorGeneral does not take up his residence in the federal capital for seven years, would involve a total appropriation of £56,000. Therefore the amendments which have been made will practically effect a saving of £46,000. I am afraid His Excellency the Governor-General will not thank the Government for the action they have taken in this matter, because they have brought about a discussion which should never have occurred.

– That is not a reason for objecting to this grant.

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not opposing it on that ground, but because the principle is bad. I have no doubt that if the honorable and learned member for Corio had had a wife she would have been invited. I trust that some time he will have an opportunity of visiting Government House with the future Mrs. Crouch. I have no doubt that, if the electors had an opportunity of pronouncing upon thesubject, they would give the same decision as was given after the attempt made in the State Parliament to increase the salary of the GovernorGeneral.

Mr. McDONALD (Kennedy).- I intend to support the amendment, because I think we want all the money we can possibly get to conduct the Commonwealth properly. But, apart from that, I could mention one or two cases where there have been men in the service of the Commonwealth who have lost their lives in the performance of their duties. The families of these men have been left almost penniless. We cannot find a threepenny-bit for their benefit ; but when it comes to voting £10,000 for the Governor-General honorable members seem quite willing. It seems to me that there has been outside pressure brought to bear in favour of this Bill.

Mr Poynton:

– Joe Chamberlain !

Mr McDONALD:

– Had not the pressure come from the Colonial office I do not believe that the Bill would have been introduced. Indeed, it was practically stated in the early part of the discussion that that is so. I enter my protest against it as strongly as I can.

Mr. BROWN (Canobolas). - I have been opposed to the proposition submitted by the Government, for reasons which I have already stated, but I do not see my way clear to support the amendment before the Chair. If the Governor-General has incurred an extraordinary expenditure of this nature, it is admitted that he is entitled to have it recouped to him. It follows that if he has incurred in some direction an expenditure of some £10,000 he is entitled to receive that amount. If it can be shown that the expenditure incurred was only £1,000, and did not exceed that amount, I shall be prepared to vote for the amendment. The Prime Minister says it amounts to £10,000, and I presume he has verified the information he has given the House, and is satisfied that that is the correct amount. In the opposition I have offered I have desired to make it clear that it is not to the amount of money or the question of whether it should be paid, but to the manner in which it is proposed to appropriate the money. . Though opposed to the main principle of the Bill, unless the honorable member for Coolgardie can show that the expenditure does not exceed £1,000, I am unable to support him in the amendment he has moved..

Mr. WILKS (Dalley).- The reason so calmly stated by the honorable member for Canobolas for his opposition in this matter is the same as my own. It is not the amount but the manner and method proposed for paying it to which I object. I say that the method proposed for meeting this expenditure is practically unprecedented in parliamentary government. I am willing to admit that the Prime Minister has given us all the information he could officially give us, and I am prepared to vote the sum of £10,000 to reimburse the Governor-General for certain specific expenditure, but I am not prepared to vote it in the manner proposed.

Question - That the word “one” proposed to be inserted be so inserted - put.

The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 27

Majority……… 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Cameron) put -

That the word” seven “ be inserted.

The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 29

Majority … … 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Higgins) agreed to-

That the word “ten” be inserted before the word “thousand.”

Mr DEAKIN:
AttorneyGeneral · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne has been obliged to leave, and on his behalf, therefore, I move -

That the words “ a year,” line 8, be omitted. That will make the provision harmonious with the remainder of the clause.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).- I desire to enter a final protest against this unseemly measure. I hope that the Government and those who have helped them are pleased with their handiwork. I trust that another Bill like this will never be introduced, and that Parliament will not be compelled to resort to subterfuges such as we have seen to-night in order to carry any measure. The standing orders prevent me from expressing my honest opinion about the whole procedure, and I do not intend to allow myself to come into conflict with them again.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report the Bill with amendments.

Mr. McDONALD (Kennedy). - There has been a very heated discussion on this measure, and if I have said anything of the right honorable gentleman at the head of the Government that he regards as offensive, I desire to apologize. I know that my manner was not very taking with the right honorable gentleman, but on the eve of his departure for England I wish to assure him that personallyI have no ill-feeling against him.

Mr BARTON:

– I should like to say to the honorable member for Kennedy that I have not the slightest’ vestige of heat left in me in regard to theincident to which he refers, and I do not think that I really felt heated while it continued. I am too old a parliamentarian not to know that sometimes some of us speak a little more strongly than we mean, and although it may be conceit on my part, I like to think that I am prone to make allowances for that tendency on the part of others, inasmuch as I know that I need allowances to be made for myself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr BARTON:

– Inasmuch as I do not desire to ask honorable members to sit to-morrow, if I can avoid doing so, I shall request the House to allow the Bill to pass through its remaining stages to-night. If that is done, I shall move that the House at its rising adjourn until Tuesday fortnight. I move -

That the report be adopted.

Mr Watson:

– A fortnight’s adjournment will be insufficient.

Mr BARTON:

– I understood from my honorable colleague, who is out of the chamber at present, that a clear adjournment of a fortnight would be sufficient to enable honorable members to inspect the various proposed sites for the federal capital.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That matter cannot be discussed on this motion.

Mr BARTON:

– Although it may have taken over a fortnight to visit the various sites before, I think that the ground having been traversed once, it will be possible to make better arrangements.

Mr Mauger:

– Let us have a day or two extra.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Barton, with concurrence) -

That leave be given to pass the Bill through its remaining stages.

Motion (by Mr. Barton) proposed -

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr. WILKS (Dalley).- It is unusual, sir, for an honorable member to address you on the third reading of a Bill. This Bill has been reported with amendments. I am quite aware that you are not cognisant oft what takes place in committee. . I do not intend to refer to those proceedings, but simply to pass this remark - that if you will only glanceat the Bill in your hands it must strike you that many and serious amendments have been made9. The Bill has lost almost every vestige of its original form. It purports to perform a certain purpose - that is to vote a sum to reimburse the Governor-General for moneys out of pocket on the occasion of the visit of the Duke and Duchess of York to Australia. The purpose of the appropriation I do not object to ; but 1 certainly object to the manner and the method of the appropriation. I wish as emphatically as possible to place not before honorable members, because they have declared their position by their various votes, but to place before you, sir, and on record, a protest against what I consider to ‘be a most dangerous practice. I can thoroughly understand the anxiety of honorable members to close this sitting. On ordinary occasions I am willing to fall in with their desire to leave after a long sitting. But I do seriously consider that to-night an action has been performed which is not ‘creditable to the Chamber. A Bill which was brought in for a specific purpose has been transformed during the exigencies of debate. It now lies in your hands, sir, so seriously amended, that practically there is only a vestige of its original form left. I admit that the expenditure incidental to the visit of the Duke of Cornwall and York to perform a national function was a national expenditure. I should be quite willing to vote the money, irrespective of the amount, on the mere assurance of the Prime Minister that it had been expended by the Governor-General, but I object to the manner and the method of the appropriation. I hold that we have established to-night a precedent which we shall regret before a very long period. I am not influenced by any consideration for the occupant of the high office of GovernorGeneral. I am merely referring ta the position itself, and the method of obtaining certain sums of money. Although agreeing with the intention of the House to reimburse His Excellency certain expenditure, I shall be compelled to vote against the third reading of the Bill if a division is taken, because I consider it is fraught with great danger, not only to ourselves but to the Constitution. I believe that we have overstepped the provisions of the Constitution. The point has not been referred to you, sir, whether the Bill is in order, or whether we have power to do that which we did. I do not intend to take an objection, because I know that I am in a minority. I cannot say that honorable members have taken this course as an act of expediency; but to my untrained eye it did appear to be an act of expediency. They have lost sight of what I consider to be the highest function of a Parliament - a close adherence to the principles of constitutional government. I am unable to place before you, sir, as clearly or as powerfully as your reading can place before your mental vision that which I desire to submit. I sincerely regret that it has fallen to the lot of one unskilled and untrained in the principles of constitutional law and government to enter this protest. I have taken this step, not for mere sport or for the purpose of obstruction, but as a matter of duty.

Sir John Forrest:

– The honorable member is sorry.

Mr WILKS:

– I do not regret any action I took in committee. I have been performing a duty in probably a feeble manner. I have not been able to influence honorable members, but I honestly believe that if the duty I am endeavouring to perform had fallen to the lot of a skilled and trained leader in the matter of Ministerial responsibility and Cabinet experience, he would have made a most powerful appeal to the House.

Mr Mauger:

– Let us catch the last trams.

Mr WILKS:

– Never, mind the last trams ; this question is more important than ten last trams. I think that’ our action to-night will not stand to the credit of the Commonwealth, or as a good example to the State Parliaments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 12243

BONUS FOR MANUFACTURES BILL

In Committee :

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue or moneys be made for the purpose of a Bill for an Act relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– As the result of to-night’s proceedings we find that a message comes down from the Governor-General covering a Bill, and that in committee the Bill can be altered to mean something quite different from what it originally did. It has been ruled that it was possible for this to be done by amendment ; and I should like to know what is the specific character of the Bill proposed to be covered by the message of the Governor-General?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot answer that question, because the Bill is not before the committee.

Mr Kingston:

– The character of the Bill will be to give effect to some of the principles which were laid down in the Tariff on the subject of bonuses.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported and agreed to.

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Barton) -

That the Minister for Trade and Customs and the Attorney-General be appointed a committee to prepare and bring in a Bill.

Bill presented (by Mr. Kingston) and read a first time.

page 12243

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 27th May instant.

I mentioned an adjournment for a fortnight before, and the reason why I do not now ask honorable members to limit themselves to a fortnight is because I understand that the visit of inspection which is to take place, will take over a fortnight, and it may not be perhaps wise or right to bring them back at the end of a week. .

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I should like the Prime Minister to extend the adjournment to a month.

Mr Barton:

– No.

Mr PAGE:

– The proposal of the right honorable gentleman is very well for honorable members who reside in Melbourne, but I think that those who come from distant States should be given an opportunity to visit their homes. I shall have to remain in this city till the House re-assembles.

Mr Watson:

– Come upon the tour of inspection.

Mr PAGE:

– No. I intend to see the eligible capital sites at my own expense when the weather breaks. I have been living in the bush for twenty odd years, and have previously had no chance of enjoying the advantages of city life. Accordingly, I intend to remain here just as long as my constituents will allow me. At the same time I think that the Prime Minister might reasonably grant an adjournment for the additional week which is asked for.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 12243

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Mauger) -

That leave of absence for two months be granted to the honorable member for Melbourne.

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Watson) - ‘

That leave of absence for two months be granted to the honorable member for Wide Bay.

Resolved (on motion by Mr. Sydney Smith) -

That leave of absence for two months be granted to the honorable member for Lang.

page 12243

ADJOURNMENT

Prime Minister. - Federal Capital Sites. - Stock Quarantine. - Customs Administration. - Transferred Public Servants. - Tick Pest

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

In doing so I wish to take leave of my friends - and I think that I can call all those who surround me by that name. The object of my visit to England is one which renders my absence from this House inevitable. I wish that matters had been so ordered that I could have left with the work of the session finished. However, as that was not to be, I leave without complaint, with every kind feeling towards honorable members, and with an assurance to them that I shall endeavour to conduct the mission upon which I embark in such a way as not to disgrace my native country, and that I shall not enter into any such undue commitment as might take the work of Parliament out of its hands. ‘

Mr Wilks:

– No hobbles.

Mr BARTON:

– I wish to start without hobbles, because it is idle to enter into a conference which implies that one is prepared to hear arguments upon both sides, if one lays down stringent rules, by resolution or otherwise, which mean that one’s mind is already made up in regard to any particular question. I have never consented to being hobbled, but it does not follow that I will do anything to leave Parliament with its hands tied when I return. For a great deal of consideration, and notwithstanding occasional heated words, for much kindness, the recollection of which, I am sure, survives all such trifles, I thank this House, and I wish every member of it God-speed.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I wish to bring under the notice oE the Government an important matter, to which, I think, some attention should be given during the three weeks’ adjournment. I refer to the quarantine laws operating in the various States, especially in regard to stock. Tins question particularly affects the dairying industry of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Under present conditions a grave danger exists of stock diseases, and particularly of the tick pest, being introduced into some of the States, owing to the lax way in which the regulations are administered. I hold that there should be federal control over this matter. Some central authority should be established so that the Government may prevent any State’ from administering the regulations under the present law in such a way as to menace the safety of the other States. In view of the great loss which has occurred in Queensland through the presence of tick, it behoves the Government to take energetic steps to prevent the possibility of any State relaxing the regulations. The same remark is applicable to fruit pests. This is a question which the Government ‘should consider at the earliest possible moment. There will be an opportunity for the Government to make full inquiry into the whole of the circumstances with a view of bringing down, on the re-assembling of Parliament, some definite proposal on this important question, which affects the interests and welfare of thousands of dairy farmers and pastoralists throughout the Commonwealth. I speak warmly on the subject, because as president of a Royal commission of inquiry, I had an opportunity of becoming practically acquainted with the disastrous results which follow these diseases. I take the present opportunity on behalf of honorable members of the Opposition to wish the Prime Minister a pleasant vogage and a safe return in the best of health - to serve his country for many years. We have had our little differences during the hard fight on the Tariff, but I am glad to say that all the strong language which may be used in a political sense is left behind in the Chamber, and that we meet as the best of friends outside, our only desire being to further the best interest of the Commonwealth.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I ask the Government to take care that before we start on our trip to the proposed federal sites on Tuesday, some programme of the peregrinations is issued. A programme ought to have been issued before now.

Mr Barton:

– I dare say that the delay has been caused by the unfortunate illness of the Minister for Home Affairs, but I shall do my best to see that a programme is issued before honorable members start on Tuesday.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– We all’ regret that the Minister for Home Affairs has been unwell, and trust that he may be restored to health in time to take part in the trip to the proposed federal sites. I believe it is the intention of the Government to run straight from Melbourne to Canobolas, and thence to Bathurst ; but as to the after arrangements we know nothing. It is only fair to the other centres which have to be visited that it should be known as speedily as possible when the visit of honorable members may be expected ; and I trust that to-morrow, or as early as possible, a general scheme will be made available to the public.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– An undertaking was given by the Minister for Defence. that next year the Estimates for his department will be reduced to £700,000, and I should like to know whether in the proposed reduction is included the £56,000, or whatever the amount may be, which appears on the Estimates of the Minister for Home Affairs for works which are strictly for defence purposes ?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

– In undertaking that the Estimates for next year shall not exceed £700,000, I did not take into consideration the votes for buildings, because we do not know what expenditure may be required in that direction. I did not in any way refer to votes for buildings on the Estimates for the Public Works department.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– As to the question of quarantine, letme put the case from the Queensland stand-point. For some time post a large number of stockowners have lost very considerably in consequence of the tick. There were, I should say, nearly 2,000,000 cattle fit for market, but the owners were not allowed to send them over the quarantine line. The cattle were perfectly clean, and, had transport been allowed, the price of meat might have been lessened in the southern States to a very large extent, while assistance would havebeen rendered to stock-owners who have suffered in consequeuce of the prevalence of red water or Texas fever. Even the pastoralists in Queensland, who have clean cattle, ‘ realize the danger of allowing the tick to spread over the Commonwealth ; but it is well known that in the Downs country the tick cannot live. Nearly all the mortality that has occurred from tick fever has taken place in the coastal districts round the Gulf and up and down the east coast; but on the Downs and over the western watershed, the cattle were hardly affected at all. I ask the Government to take these matters into consideration, and to see whether means cannot be provided for allowing the owners of fat stock in Queensland to take advantage of the high prices now ruling.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I should like the Minister for Trade and Customs to say if he has yet come to a decision in regard to the importation of unset precious stones. I would also like the Treasurer, or some other member of the Government, to consider during the recess, the position of the persons transferred from the public service of Victoria to that of the Commonwealth. A report on the subject was laid on the table six months ago, but no effect has yet been given to it.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– In regard to the remarks made by the Prime Minister a few moments ago, I should like to say that the right honorable gentleman has the best wishes of the section of the

House to which I belong for the worthy representation of the Commonwealth which I am sure he will make at the Coronation ceremonies. Those of us who were timorous about the matter were re-assured by his remarks concerning the attitude he thinks proper to assume on that occasion. We all hope that ho will have a successful trip, and will come back invigorated for the work of the Commonwealth.

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– In regard to the taking over of the administration of the quarantine laws, the subject is one of considerable importance, and cannot be hastily dealt with at the fag end of the session. We propose, however, to deal with it at the earliest convenient date, because we think that federal legislation should precede the taking over of the State departments. We have collected a wealth of information on the subject, and, as soon as we get time to mature our plans, we shall be delighted to lay our proposals before the House.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– If the matter is deferred too long, there will be serious trouble for the dairy farmers.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We have had a very long and busy session, and there areanumber of important subjects yet to be dealt with I am disposed to hope that when we conclude our labours we shall have made substantial progress with much useful work. In regard to the question asked by the honorable member for Yarra, I have in my hand a circular, which says -

Precious stones unset include all valuable stones cut or intended for use in jewellery or personal adornment, such as agates, carbuncles, green stones, &c., but articles such as paper weights, &c, made thereof are to be charged as fancy goods.

I think that that is a sound and useful distinction, and one which will be found to work fairly well.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.2 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 May 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020501_reps_1_9/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 1 May 1902

QUESTION

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT

Sir JOHN QUICK:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY

Mr R EDWARDS:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

THE CORONATION CONTINGENT

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

PRIVILEGE

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF BONUSES

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Glynn:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr Deakin:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir John QuicK:

Mr KINGSTON:

QUESTION

TRANSFERS OF MILITARY OFFICERS

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir JOHN FORREST:Protectionist

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr WILKINSON:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Sir JOHN FORREST:Protectionist

QUESTION

INTER-STATE CERTIFICATES

Mr CROUCH:

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES AND COLOURED LABOUR RESTRICTIONS

Mr EWING:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

SUPPLY

Mr PAGE:Maranoa

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir JOHN FORREST:Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir George Turner:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir George Turner:

Mr PAGE:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr PAGE:

Sir George Turner:

Mr PAGE:

House of Representatives
1 May 1902

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · PROT; WAP from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr SKENE:
Grampians

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
South Australia

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr WATSON:
BLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Protectionist

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External affairs · Hunter · Protectionist