View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
23 September 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE
AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- TRAVELLING FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS
QUESTION
- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRILL INSTRUCTORS
QUESTION
- ACTIONS AGAINST COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT
QUESTION
- POSSESSION OF DAWES POINT
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITES
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MILITARY REGULATION
PAPERS.
- New Sugar Regulation (No. 38)
QUESTION
- JUSTICE DASHWOOD’S REPORT
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT : WAGES
QUESTION
- DELIVERY OF LETTERS
QUESTION
- STATE HOLIDAYS : POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- PAYMENTS TO POST-OFFICE OFFICIALS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION : POWER OF DISALLOWANCE
QUESTION
- ALFRED DEAKIN
QUESTION
- BUDGET (1902-3)
SUPPLY BILL (No. 12)
ADJOURNMENT
- Extra Sittings : Prorogation

Mr. Speaker took the choir at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 15932

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Royal Assent reported.

page 15932

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of messages from His Excellency the Acting Governor-General, transmitting Estimates of revenue and expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1903, and arrears for the year ended 30th June, 1902, and Estimates of expenditure for additions, new works, and buildings for the year ending 30th June, 1903, and recommending appropriation accordingly.

page 15932

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Since our last meeting statements have been published as to a proposed increaseof subsidy onthe part of Australia towards the auxiliary naval squadron. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is able to communicate anything to the House on the subject.

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

– Information has been received that a proposal for an increase of the naval subsidy was submitted ‘ to the conference of Prime Ministers and Premiers which recently met in London, but the exact particulars have not yet been communicated to us. The statement which has appeared in our newspapers, to the effect that the proposal is that the present contributions of Australia and New Zealand shall be about doubled, is generally correct. There appears to have been, however, a contingent proposal that either the whole of the increase, or a large part of it, shall not be paid as a direct subsidy, but shall be applied by Australia for the purposes of its own naval defence in connexion with the Imperial navy. At present the details of neither proposal have reached us.

Mr Higgins:

– Is the statement of the agreement which has appeared in the newspapers substantially correct?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The proposed agreement will have no validity until it is ratified by this Parliament and by the Parliament of New Zealand. Several statements have appeared in the press as to the proceedings of the Imperial conference, some of which were incorrect; but those which have appeared within the last few days are, so far as I have been informed, substantially correct.

page 15932

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Are the Government wil ling to lay upon the table any reports which they may have in reference to the proceedings of the conference which was recently held in London, and at which the Commonwealth was represented? I understand that a good deal of information on the subject has been conveyed to the press, and I hope that honorable members will be given some authentic knowledge in regard to it as soon as possible.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The Government are not yet in possession of the report of the proceedings of the conference. Information has been received by Ministers directly from the Prime Minister in regard to the proposals submitted, and suggestions have been exchanged between them and him, but no official report of the proceedings of the conference, other than that which has been communicated to the press by or upon the authority of the Imperial Government, has yet reached us.

Mr REID:

– I should like to know whether, if any decision has been arrived at by the Imperial conference affecting the relations of the Commonwealth with the rest of the Empire, the acting Prime Minister will consider the propriety of making a statement some time during the week as to its nature?

Mr DEAKIN:

– As the right honorable gentleman has requested it, I will again examine the papers we have, to see if a statement of any interest could be made ; but the greater number of the communications between the Prime Minister and the Government relate to proposals which have been either abandoned or modified. The resolutions provisionally approved at the conference have been communicated to the press, and published as cablegrams.

Mr Reid:

– But they have not been communicated to the House.

Mr DEAKIN:

– No ; nor has the information been communicated to the press by us. The information which we have in the communications sent to us by the Prime Minister has been since duplicated by that published in the press, forwarded by correspondents in London.

Mr.Reid. - We wish to have the information as members of this House as well as in our capacity as readers of the newspapers.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Exactly ; but I have not the information from the Secretary of State officially. We have exchanged with the Prime Minister cablegrams of a consultative character, in which proposals are indicated, but no complete official information of the results arrived at has yet reached us, because a sufficient time has not yet elapsed since they were passed.

Mr Reid:

– Then the Government do not know what has been done?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I knew before what has afterwards appeared in the press, and perhaps something more in the shape of detail.

page 15933

QUESTION

PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– The Premier of Queensland, in an interview published in this morning’s newpapers, is reported to have said that -

The Federal Government proposed to differentiate between the treatment of the pearl shelling industries of Queensland and those of Western Australia.

I wish to know from the Acting Prime Minister if there is any truth in that state ment ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– No difference has been proposed, or is being made, between the treat ment of the pearl-shelling industry in Torres

Straits, at Port Darwin, and at Broome ; the same policy is being pursued in each place. Misapprehension appears to have arisen from the fact that a deputation which waited upon me in regard to the industry dealt with the effect of the Immigration Restriction Act. In the course of some observations made to them I called attention to the fact that there was a material difference between the administration ofthat Act in respect to Thursday Island - which, although an island, is practically a part of the mainland - and in regard to Broome, which, although on the mainland, is for all practical purposes really an island, as it is completely separated from the white settlements of Western Australia. I then pointed out that the Immigration Restriction Act required to be enforced at Port Darwin and Thursday Island with more stringency than was necessary in the case of Broome, because, whilst successful attempts had been made to evade the Act at the first two places, all efforts of a similar kind at Broome had failed. The other matter referred to was the fact that the owners of the pearl-shelling fleets at Thursday Island had secured a full supply of labour for the present season prior to the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act, whereas those engaged in the pearl-shelling industry at Broome had not been able to do so. Whether this was due to the monsoons or not I do not know, but it was necessary to consider applications from Broome for permission to engage men for the present season to replace those whose terms ofemployment had expired.

page 15933

QUESTION

TRAVELLING FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that few honorable members of this House or of the Senate have visited Western Australia, and that many honorable members desire to secure further information regarding the conditions obtaining in that State, I wish to know whether the Minister for Home Affairs will be prepared to grant them free passes by the steamers trading between Adelaide and Fremantle? I may mention that the Premier of Western Australia and other members of the State Ministry are only too anxious to accord the fullest possible facilities to any honorable members who may visit Western Australia, and that a hearty reception will be extended to them.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– At present I am not in a position to make a definite reply. An item is included in the Estimates in connexion with which this question can be discussed. I think that every facility should be offered to honorable members of both Houses, not only to visit Western Australia and other States, but also to take their wives with them, because it would be extremely advantageous for honorable members to obtain the fullest information possibleregarding the conditions of all the States. I intend to make a statement when the proper time arrives, and, if the House is in accord with me, I shall ask my colleagues to approve of my proposals, and give an opportunity to honorable members to see the country for which they have to make laws.

page 15934

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRILL INSTRUCTORS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

– I desire to ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether he is now in a position to give us particulars as to the manner in which the ten drill instructors recently sent to South Australia will occupy their time?

SirWILLIAM LYNE.- I have not full information on the subject, because I have not yet been furnished withall the particulars for which I asked, in the last minute I wrote to the General Officer Commanding. I understand that it is proposed that one drill instructor shall be stationed at Adelaide to instruct the Mounted Rifles, includingthe members of rifle clubs, and that three instructors shall be employed in drilling the infantry forces and members of rifle clubs in Adelaide. One instructor will be Stationed at Yankalilla to drill the Mounted Rifles, and two at Mount Gambier to drill the Mounted Rifles and infantry, including the members of rifle clubs. At Wallaroo there will be one instructor for the Mounted Rifles, and two for the infantry. At Jamestown one instructor will be provided for the Mounted Rifles, and at Gladstone one for the infantry. In addition to this information, I have been furnished with a report which gives particulars as to the number of places - some thirteen or fourteen in all - in the Adelaide district at which in all 731 men will receive instruction. At Yankalilla and other places in its neighbourhood 209 men will require to be drilled, and at Mount Gambier 286. The Mounted Rifles and infantry in the west central sub-district numbering 266, and in the east central sub-district numbering 794 men, will be drilled by the instructors at Wallaroo. The instructors at Jamestown and Gladstone will drill 346men in the north central sub-district, and 628 in the northern sub-district. I have also a memorandum written by the General Officer Commanding in reference to this question, but I should like the honorable member to read it for himself, because I cannot.

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it true that honorable members on the other side of the House, who especially object to the item of £1,000 being spent in South Australia on the military forces, are the same who voted to increase the customs taxation from £8,000,000 to .£10,000,000 1

page 15935

QUESTION

ACTIONS AGAINST COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– I desire to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision recently given in New South Wales by Mr. Justice Pring in the case of Tanner v. the Postmaster-General-, it is his intention, pending the establishment of the High Court, to invest the States Supreme

Courts, with jurisdiction in actions brought against the Commonwealth Government 1

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– Without accepting that judgment, it has been thought advisable to bring in a temporary measure - in connexion with which a Message has been read to-day - making provision for a limited time in all the States for the trial of actions against the Commonwealth.

page 15935

QUESTION

POSSESSION OF DAWES POINT

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

– I desire to ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether he can inform the House of the present position of the dispute between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales regarding the possession of Dawes Point 1

Mr Reid:

– Also the details of the Minister’s surrender to “the battle-axe.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– I am not aware that any surrender has been made, and I do not think there was any occasion for any pronouncement as to a dispute. The position simply is that Dawes Point is a reserve which, to my knowledge, has been continuously occupied by the military for the past 23 years. Upon it are located a drill-shed and a number of other buildings which are occupied by the military, and there is also a battery. At the present time the buildings are occupied by the Commandant and some of his officers, and are therefore in the hands of the Federal Government. The State Government, however, disputes our claim that Dawes Point was automatically transferred to the Commonwealth under section S5 of the Constitu-c tion Act, in the same way as were other lands and buildings. No flaming declaration of war has been made, either by one side or the other ; certainly there has been no such declaration on our part. Some little time ago the matter was referred to me by the Prime Minister, and thereupon I wrote a minute to the effect that I did not think Dawes Point was a spot which the Federal Government would care to retain, seeing that we should be obliged to pay a high price for it, but that what we really required was a water frontage, and if possible a wharf, so that we could land or discharge stores or troops. If the Government of New South Wales will recommend any site possessing a water frontage which is suitable for that purpose, the Federal Government will be prepared to accept it in lieu of the more expensive site of Dawes Point. That proposal was placed before the Premier of New South Wales, who, however, declined to entertain it, because he holds that the Commonwealth Government have no right whatever to .Dawes Point. That is how the matter stands at the present time. I may further add that he has given the Commonwealth Government two months to vacate it.

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

– Has the opinion of the Attorney-General been taken upon the subject ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– No doubt opinions will be submitted. I may also mention, in connexion with the transfer of a reserve, in Hobart, which is one of the choicest spots in that city - I refer to the old barrack square - the Minister for Lands visited Melbourne for the special purpose of interviewing me and, I think, the Acting Prime Minister. He submitted a proposal that the Commonwealth Government should abandon that reserve, as the State authorities desired it for a city park, and accept in lieu thereof a site near the Domain with a water frontage. We agreed to that proposal, and accepted the less valuable site. That is precisely what I suggest should be done in connexion with Dawes Point, which would be an expensive place to purchase. It is a beautiful spot, and, in my opinion, should be added to that portion of Sydney which is now being improved. There need be no trouble whatever if the State Government will only be reasonable, and accept our suggestion in this regard.

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask whether the Acting Minister for Defence is determined to avoid the necessity for taking over the enormously expensive city water frontage of Dawes Point, and whether, considering the enormous area of land which is dedicated to military purposes in the neighbourhood of Sydney, it is necessary to obtain any substitute in the way of a city water frontage ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I am sure it is not the desire of the Government to take any expensive water frontage - in this case 7 or S acres of what is practically park land - which could be better utilized in beautifying that particular part of Sydney. As to taking the whole of the other lands which have been occupied by the military authorities, it is quite impossible to say at the present time whether they will be all required.- For instance, there are the Victoria .Barracks, and some water frontages, notably from Athol Bay to Middle Head, and in Middle Harbor. I think, however, it is necessary to retain these lands, not because they are required immediately, but because they were reserved many years ago by, I think, Sir James Martin, for defence purposes, in case of an attack by a fleet. At the present time, however, there is no particular spot held by the military authorities close to Sydney, where the Defence department can obtain a deep water frontage or wharfage suitable for embarking or disembarking troops, or for the landing of naval or military stores. Such a frontage is what I desire, and what I have been trying to get from the State ‘ Government, not with the idea that they should give it to the Commonwealth, but that we should be able to buy it for less than we should pay for the Dawes Point land. If there were a spot close by which we could turn to account, we could very easily give up Dawes Point, but there is no such spot either at Circular Quay, Darling Harbor, or Wolloomooloo Bay, at one of which places there ought to be a water frontage, which the Defence department may use as desired. It does not follow that there would be an exclusive right on the part of the Federal Government to the use of this frontage or wharfage; they might lease it to a company, reserving only the power to utilize it at certain times. I have, I think, suggested a practical settlement of the question.

page 15936

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITES

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

– I should like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs a question in reference to the proposed sites for the federal capital. Two or three weeks ago the honorable gentleman told the House that he would submit the question of the selection of the committee of experts to the next Cabinet meeting. Has he yet done so, and is he in a position to make any communication to the House on the subject ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– I have in my hand a motion of which I had intended to give notice to-day, though I question very much whether it would be wise to deal with the matter in that way. This motion does not deal with the names of the experts, but with the names of the sites. I did promise that I would submit a motion on the question for discussion by the House, but in conversation with my colleagues to-day, it was pointed out that the matter could be dealt with just as well on the Estimates. I do not object to submit a motion as to .the sites, but I am not in a position yet to give the names of the experts likely to be appointed. The motion to which I have referred reads as follows : -

With a view to obtain necessary information that will enable the Parliament of the Commonwealth to select a site for the seat of Government, it is resolved that a committee of experts be appointed to examine and report upon sites in the following localities : - Albury, Bombala, Lake George, Orange, Tumut, in relation to accessibility, building materials, climate, drainage, physical conditions and soil, water supply, with rainfall, general suitability, and such other salient matters as may be approved by the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs.

If there is any strong desire in the House to discuss that motion, I am quite prepared to submit it.

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

– May I ask the Minister whether he intends to submit the names of the experts to the House prior to their appointment ; or, if not, does he intend to acquaint the House, before we separate, with the names of those appointed.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think the Government should take the responsibility of making appointments in a matter of this kind. I have not the slightest objection to giving the names to the House, but I regard the appointments as a matter of administration, for which the Government should take the responsibility.

page 15937

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MILITARY REGULATION

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago I directed the attention of the Acting Minister for Defence to a new regulation which had been issued in South Australia, and which reduced the pay of certain men in the force. I was then informed by the Minister that no such regulation had been issued, but he promised to obtain a report on the matter. I have since been informed by quite a number of people that such a regulation has been issued, and that it affects to the extent of 15s. or 25s. the present pay of £5. I wish to know whether the Minister has received a report, and if not whether he will obtain one in order to ascertain where lies the truth.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– The honorable member has asked me a question, and my answer, given on the spur of the moment, must be qualified by the consideration that I am speaking from memory. I have not the papers here, but I made inquiries after the honorable member asked me the question on a previous occasion,’and, so far as I can ascertain, no regulation has been issued from the head office in reference to this matter. I did hear that there was some local regulation of which I have not a copy, but I shall, perhaps, know more of the matter to-morrow or the .next day.

page 15937

PAPERS.

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers :’ -

Additional Instructions to the GovernorGeneral and Commander-in-Chief

New Sugar Regulation (No. 38)

Beer Excise Regulation, dated 11th September, 1902.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following papers : -

Defence Department, permanent officers, return.

Patents and trade murks applied for, return.

page 15937

QUESTION

JUSTICE DASHWOOD’S REPORT

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Was the evidence taken by Mr. Justice Dashwood, and incorporated in his report on the pearl-shelling industry, given on oath.
What is the total cost of Mr. Justice Dashwood’s investigations, exclusive of the charge for printing his report.
What is the total cost of Mr. Warton’s investigations on the same subject, exclusive of the charge for printing his report.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

No.
£166 16s.
£54 10s.

page 15937

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT : WAGES

Mr POYNTON:

– I should like to ask. the Treasurer what is the reason so many men in the Postal department, chiefly line repairers and letter sorters on the railways, did not receive money due to them until the 18th or 20th of this month. If there were such delay will the Treasurer see that it does not occur again ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– Such payments are made by the department, and I know no reason why they should not all be made on the first day of the month.

Mr BATCHELOR:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Why the men in the construction branch of the Postal service of South Australia have not been paid the wages due over a fortnight ago.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

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

The wages referred to were not due until September5th. The reason of the delay was that construction work is paid for out of loan funds, and there was no money available on the date when the wages were due.

page 15938

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In asking the Minister representing the Postmaster-General the following questions, upon notice -

Whether a mile radius in connexion with the delivery of letters by the department does not necessarily mean a mile in a straight line from a given centre in any direction to the periphery ?
Whether the Postmaster-General will inquire of his deputy in Western Australia how that official manages to construct such circles by taking for his measurements of the mile the various roads that diverge more or less indirectly from the given centre?
Whether the continuance in the postal ser vice of such extraordinary mathematical capacity as the said official evinces is absolutely necessary to the efficiency of the service ?

I desire to say that, within my own knowledge, residents in the suburbs of Perth have been refused postal facilities in regard to the delivery of letters, on the ground that their residences are more than a mile distant by road from the post-office, although they are well within a mile in a straight line from the office.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

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

Yes.
The Deputy Postmaster-General, Perth, has reported that he is not aware that any of his officers have attempted to take measurements in the manner stated.
The reply to this question is included in the answer to question No. 2.

page 15938

QUESTION

STATE HOLIDAYS : POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr BATCHELOR:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether the local or federal authorities were responsible for the mistake which occurred in the Post and Telegraph department in South Australia in connexion with the observance of the State holiday on 1st September?
Whether any steps have been taken to prevent any confusion arising in the future as to what men will be required to work on State holidays ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

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

. The Postmaster-General is not aware that any mistake occurred in thePostand Telegraph department of South Australia in connexion with the observance of the State holiday on the 1st September. The Deputy Postmaster-General of South Australia telegraphed to the PostmasterGeneral’s department as follow’s : - “Monday, the 1st September, Eight Hours Day, has been proclaimed a public holiday throughout South Australia. Kindly wire instructions if holiday arrangements are to be observed.” He was informed in reply that the regulation was to be followed which provided for certain branches of the department being kept open for a part of the day for the convenience of the public, but did not preclude the Deputy Postmaster-General from exercisinghis discretion as to the officers not necessarily employed in those branches. Subsequently, in consequence of an application made on behalf of the Construction branch, late on the evening of the Saturday before Eight Hours Day the Postmaster-General instructed the Deputy Postmaster-General by telegram to grant a holiday to all men who could be spared without public inconvenience.
The question of taking such further steps, as also of making any necessary alterations in the regulations, is under consideration.

page 15938

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO POST-OFFICE OFFICIALS

Mr MAHON:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether he is now in a position to supply the information as to payments to non-official postmasters and mail receivers asked for by question No. 2 of. 21st August last?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

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

Payments to non-official postmasters and mail receivers are regulated by the business to be done and by the local conditions.
The maximum payment to non-official postmasters in Queensland is £100 in one instance, and the minimum is £12. In South Australia the maximum in one instance is £70, including a daily delivery by a letter carrier, and the minimum is £5. In Western Australia the maximum is £52 and the minimum £10.

page 15938

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION : POWER OF DISALLOWANCE

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

In reference to the Commonwealth Gazette notice of the 5th September, 1902, in which the following appears : -

His Excellency the Acting Governor-General directsitto be notified, for general information, that theRight Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies has intimated that His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance with respect to the following Acts of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Australia, viz. : -

No. 17 of 1901. - Immigration Restriction Bill.

No. 6 of 1902. - Appropriation Bill.

No. 7 of 1902. - Governor-General’s Establishment Bill.

No.8 of1902.- Federal Franchise Bill. ByHis Excellency’s Command,

page 15939

QUESTION

ALFRED DEAKIN

2nd September,1902.

. Does the advice referred to mean the advice of His Majesty’s Australian or English Ministers ?
Does the intimation of. the Secretary of State for the Colonies not infer that an English Minister of the Crown has the right to advise the King in such internal Australian affairs as an Appropriation Bill and Federal Franchise Bill, and do the Government admit this right ?
Is not the assumption by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the power to advise His Majesty as to such matter an incursion on the constitutional rights of the Commonwealth ?
Do the Ministry consent to such action by Mr. Chamberlain, or do they propose to make any protest in connexion therewith?
Do the Ministry consider that the right of the Governor-General, under section 58 of the Constitution, to reserve a law for the King’s assent, gives to the English Ministry the right to advise the King on Bills so reserved, even on proved laws referring to matters affecting internal interests only ?
Does not this assent to the action of Mr. Chamberlain without protest in this matter necessarily make the Colonial. Secretary a consenting or dissenting party to all legislation of the Commonwealth, whether of external or internal importance?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable and learned member’s first question is that the advice referred to is the advice of His Majesty’s Ministers in GreatBritain. As to the other questions, I think he can draw his own conclusions. I might remind him in the words of Sir William Vernon Harcourt, that the whole question of the relations of the Imperial authorities to the representative colonies is one of great difficulty and delicacy. It requires consummate prudence and statesmanship to reconcile the metropolitan supremacy with the worthy spirit of colonial independence. As a matter of abstract right, the mother country has never parted with the claim of ultimate, supreme authority for the Imperial legislature. If it did so, it would dissolve the Imperial tie, and convert the colonies into foreign and independent States.

page 15939

– In making my calculations, where no changes have been made, I have worked from the nine months’ receipts, taking into consideration the question of loading up, and, where changes have been made, I have worked on the receipts from the date of the changes. By that means I think I have ascertained fairly the amount likely to be received. Then we must not forget the unfortunate drought which we have had over a great part of our continent, the high prices of the necessaries of life, and the fact that Governments and others are likely to expend less money. Under all these circumstances, it will not do for us to be too optimistic with regard to our estimates. But, at the same time, I quite -admit that we should not cut them down to an unduly low figure. “With regard to the item of sugar, I have estimated that the total consumption will be 170,000 tons. That is a very large amount to estimate. The average will be something between 160,000 and 170,000 tons. I estimate that out of that amount, 75,000 tons will be imported, and will pay duty at £6 per ton ; 40,000 tons will be grown by white labour, and pay at £1 per ton ; and 55,000 tons will be grown by black labour, and pay at £3 per ton. I have estimated the total receipts from that source at £675,500. That is certainly a large amount, and I have some little doubt in my own mind as *to whether that sum will be fully realized. But, on the whole, I think I have made a fair estimate in the amounts I am about to submit to honorable members. I do not desire to go too far, because the States Treasurers, if we give them back less money than we promise them, will naturally blame us. In fact, some of them blame the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament for not having given them back already, not what the Federal Treasurer said he would give back to them, but what the States Treasurers themselves estimated that they would receive. As a matter of fact, however, the Fe’deral Government has in all cases, except in that of Queensland, given back to the States Treasurers more than I estimated when I made my Budget statement on the 8th of October last year, ;so that they had a full opportunity for cutting down the expenditure when they knew that the amount they could expect to >receive was less than their own estimates.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– So that the Federal ^Government is not responsible for the deficits in the States.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– Personally I should be very glad indeed if the Customs and Excise revenue which I expect to receive is exceeded, because if that is so it will give the States’ more money, which in some cases I am well aware they will require.

If honorable members will be good enough to follow me through the papers which I have circulated I will now explain them fully, but as briefly as I possibly can. Sheet No. 1 in these papers gives the monthly details of the revenue received from Customs and Excise during the years 1900- 1 and 1901-2. It shows that in 1901- 2, during which the uniform Tariff was introduced, we derived £8,692,750, as against £8,189,529, which was the amount received in the previous year; or an increase of £503,221. To that we have to add the receipts from the special Western Australian Tariff, which during the nine months brought us in £201,569.

Mr Mahon:

– I thought that the Federal Government -had nothing to do with that.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– But I take into consideration, in dealing with the uniform Tariff, the special Tariff of Western Australia, in order to draw attention to what the amount received, or likely to be received from that source, will be. However, I do not myself place very much reliance on the comparison between these, figures which I have mentioned, because the loading up for the vear 1900-1, made a considerable difference. I simply give the details because they are useful to honorable members in looking at the results, and in considering what has happened since the Federal Tariff was passed. But I prefer myself, as I have always done, to try to make a comparison with the year 1900, particulars as to which honorable members will find on page 2 of the papers which I have circulated. Looking first to New South Wales we find that that in 1900 the total amount received in that State was £1,785,781, and in 1901-2 £2,812,722, or an increase to that State of £1,026,941. I estimate a further increase for 1902-3 to the extent of £337,278, estimating the revenue for New South Wales at the sum of £3,150,000. In the State of Victoria in 1900 we collected £2,342,485 : in 1901-2 we collected £2,376,483- an increase of £33,998. I estimate for this year that there will be a decrease of £76,483 as against last year, and I place the estimate for the State of Victoria at the sum of £2,300,000.

Mr Mauger:

– Would that decrease be on account of the falling off in trade ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– It will be due to various causes - the abolition of the tea duties, the lowering of customs rates, and so on. In Queensland, as against a revenue in 1900 of £1,561,486, we received last year £1,297,664 - a decrease, unfortunately, in that State of £263,822. I am forced to anticipate a further decrease for 1902-3 of £97,664. The revenue we anticipate to receive from Queensland for the year is £1,200,000. In South Australia, in 1900, we collected £639,004, and in 1901-2 £698,696- an increase of £59,692. I anticipate a decrease to theextent of £18,696, putting down the amount to be collected in 1902-3 at £680,000. In Western Australia, in 1900, the sum of £944,746 was collected, and in the following year, 1901-2, under the uniform Tariff, the amount was £1,134,044.

Mr Poynton:

– Does the right honorable gentleman include the Northern Territory in the South Australian estimate ?

SirG EORGE TURNER.- The Northern Territory is included. In Western Australia the collections show an increase of £189,298, and, adding £201,569 increase on the special Tariff, the total amounts to £390,867 more than in the previous year. We anticipate an increase in 1902-3 to the extent of £25,956 from the uniform Tariff, and £23,431 from the special Tariff - the special Tariff having been in force for only nine months in the previousyear - and that gives a total increase of £49,387. The total uniform Tariff revenue anticipated is £1,160,000, and from the special Tariff £225,000, or a total revenue for that State of £1,385,000 from customs and excise.

In New South Wales, South Australia, and Western Australia last year, there was a considerable increase in the proportion collected from customs and excise. In Western Australia there was a considerable increase, if the revenue from the special Tariff is included ; but if it is omitted, the proportion collected was just about the same. In Queensland and Tasmania we had decreases. The total proportion is, however, practically the same. Of course, honorable members will realize that during this year great changes will take place in connexion with that proportion, because a larger sura, on the whole, will be derived from this source, and a much larger sum in two of the States. If honorable members will now turn back to page 2, they will see thef ollowing statement, showing the amount collected per head in 1 900 and the amount estimated for 1 902-3 ; I am not comparing the figures with those of 1901-2, because I prefer to compare them with those of 1902-3, when we shall have a whole year’s experience of uniform Tariff:-

Honorable members will see that there are considerable variations. The total amount per head collected in 1901 was £2 6s. 5d., against our anticipation of £2 5s. 6d., without taking into consideration the special Tariff. The last statement given on that page shows the proportion of the collections as compared with the population and our anticipations for 1902-3. In New South Wales and Queensland the amount collected will be practically the same as the amount per head in the Commonwealth. In Victoria and South Australia it will be much less. In Tasmania it will be a little less, while in Western Australia, naturally, it will be very much more. The statement is as follows : -

On page 3 I give a comparison showing how much better or worse off the States are now compared with previous years, after deducting the cost of federation. In the first statement I compare 1901-2 with 1900, as follows : -

Comparing the present year with 1900, the figures are as follow : -

Then comparing this year with 1901-2, the figures are as follow : -

Mr Watson:

– Has the right honorable gentleman allowed for increases of salaries in the department?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– The estimate allows for the increases to postal officials. I will presently give full information in regard to increases generally. It is only fair to say that in the year which has just passed the departmental expenditure was largely increased by the amount of arrears from the previous year which had to be paid, and it has been pointed out by some of the postal officials that the year’s expenditure practically included the expenditure for five quarters. This year the arrears are smaller, and therefore a better result ‘will be shown. The statements give the actual receipts and payments during the respective years. My desire is that in every department, wherever possible, every liability shall be paid during the year in which the expenditure was incurred, so that the amount of arrears may be as small as possible. We have not succeeded in keeping down the arrears this year as well as I should have liked, because the departments have not yet got used to the new system; but I hope that next year the arrears will b.e trifling. On page 14 a table appears, showing the estimate of revenue for the year ending 30th June, 1903, compared with the receipts for the year ending 30th June, 1902, from which I have extracted the following totals : -

– The honorable member will find that I am stating what is absolutely correct. We have carried out the promise to reduce the Estimates by £131,212, and we have gone further,, and made an additional saving of nearly £44,000, so that the Estimates of this year show a reduction of £175,198, as compared with the £131,212 promised. Last year the estimated expenditure was £937,212, the actual expenditure £826,012, and the saving £111,200. These savings were made during the year, and it is hardly fair for honorable members to say that because those savings were made last year the Government are doing nothing in the way of saving this year ; the very fact of our having made these savings reduces the expenditure. If we had allowed the expenditure to go on as provided for in the Estimates, everybody would have been perfectly satisfied that we had made a good saving this year : but because we went further, and insisted on making savings last year, we ought not to be blamed. We found that last year we provided for a considerable amount of ammunition, though not so much as is now required. I mentioned the item of rifles, and the amount we have saved on the actual expenditure, and have also drawn attention to the expenditure on works, buildings, and other items. We have reduced the Estimates of the naval expenditure by £26,346, and that of the military expenditure by £125,9S2, and the Estimates in regard to other Defence items by £22,870, which makes up the £175,198 I have mentioned. On the actual naval expenditure of last 3’ear in New South Wales there is a saving to the extent of £4,019; in Victoria of £6,091, in Queensland of £8,026, and in South Australia of £2,756. These figures show a total saving on the actual expenditure of last year of £20,886. In the military expenditure there is the increase I have mentioned in connexion with the headquarters staff- - actually £9,774. In New* South Wales the reduction as compared with the actual military expenditure of last year is £5,938; in Victoria, £18,361 ; in Queensland, £16,952; but in the other three States there ore increases. In Western Australia there is an increase of £1,116 ; in Tasmania, £1,062; and in- South Australia £7,772. The increase in South Australia is, I believe, accounted for by the fact that there is an increased establishment in that State, and probably those drill instructors will crop up in connexion with this particular item. I have mentioned that it has been determined, subject to’ the approval of the House, to give compensation to a large number of officers and men whose services have been dispensed with, in many cases before they might naturally expect to cease duty. That compensation, iis can be seen from the tables above, is distributed amongst the States - New South Wales receiving £13,435 ; Victoria, £6,523 ; Queensland, £3,012 ; South Australia, £854; Western Australia, £115 ; and Tasmania, £1,198. The last department with which I have to deal in this connexion is the Post-office, and here there have been several increases, which the following statement shows in detail : -

– No, that is a different matter. I need not trouble honorable members with the details of document No. 18. It has been prepared for the purpose of enabling the committee to see in relation to the Estimates the total expenditure for the two years, and to compare it, if they choose to do so, with the different divisions in the Estimates. It also shows the total expenditure in the various States, as well as the total for the whole Commonwealth: The figures are as follow : -

I shall proceed now to deal with “ Other expenditure “ : -

Includes arrears for 1900-1, £28,541. also L’30,526 out of Treasurer’s advance (lending loan moneys which will be repaid, and £1,971 for works and buildings out of revenue pending passing of Works Estimates Act.;

The following table shows -

We are accused of indulging in enormous and extravagant expenditure in connexion with the transferred departments, and also of squandering money under the heading of “ Other expenditure.” I have set out in the Budget papers the fullest details possible with regard to the expenditure for the year which closed on 30th June last. The total actual amount debited to the States was £313,931, but the expenditure for the year amounted to £259,112. The sum of £313,931, representing the amount actually debited to States in 1901-2 includes £28,541 in the shape of arrears which we have had to pay ; and £36,526 paid out of the Treasurer’s advance account in order to keep loan works going until the House determines out of which fund provision shall be made for them. It also includes another small amount in regard to works and buildings, the total actual expenditure being £259,112 properly chargeable to the year.

Mr McCay:

– Does that allow for the new expenditure of £20,000 in connexion with New Guinea?

– I shall come to that subject presently. In the case df New South Wales we propose this year to give back £358,332, to Victoria £199,355, to Queensland only £6,999, to South Australia £S1,475, to Western Australia £246,685, and to Tasmania £22,933. So far as our expenditure of last year and our proposals for this year as I have outlined them are concerned, I think no one can say that we are taking away from the States anything like the total amount which we should be justified in taking from them if we went the full length which the Constitution allows us to go. An interesting comparison will be found set out in the table giving the receipts and payments, and the surpluses of the States in 1901-2 compared with the Estimates for 1902–3, as follows : -

We show the receipts, and we show how much the receipts of this year are expected to exceed the receipts of last year, and with regard to payments, we show how much they will be in excess or what savings it is expected’ will be made in each particular State. Then we show the amount plus or minus, comparing the two years, which we expect to return to the States. It will be seen that New’ South Wales will get back more than last year to the extent of £276,99S, and Western Australia will get back £35,6S5 in excess. Unfortunately, in the case of the other four States, we shall give back considerably less than they received in the previous year. In the case of Victoria the amount given back will be less to the extent of £42,4:40, Queensland £46,475, South Australia £43,028, Tasmania£47,371. So that honorable members when they come to deal later on with another question, must bear in mind the fact that whilst we are not using anything near the amount we could use from the States, we are still this year, in consequence of the reduced revenue we expect to get in some of the States, giving back to the States considerably less in most instances than we gave them last year. I desire honorable members now to allow me to deal with the tables contained on page 36, and the following pages of the statement submitted to honorable members, as shortly as I can. The first is a summary showing the amount we receive and pay on account of the Commonwealth. Our total receipts, as I have nl read)’ mentioned, are estimated at £1.1,510,104, and our expenditure at £4,007,967, which includes new expenditure we have to pay this year to the extent of £308,956. The new expenditure we pay this year is new expenditure properly chargeable to this year, plus the arrears we have to pay this year that properly belongs to the previous year. So that the States will get back altogether £7,501,787, whilst in 1901-2, we gave back £7,368,418. Consequently, the extra amount which we return this year is £133,369. In these figures the special Western Australian Tariff is included ; though it is only fair to say that these amounts include £33,500 postage, which has to be paid by the States, but was not previously paid, and it also includes £245,500 which the States have to pay on their own State imports. Dealing with New South Wales, the receipts in that State altogether are estimated at £4,040’,640, and the expenditure- including £111,450 “ other “ expenditure - at £1,374,497 ; and taking off a debit we propose to return this year to New South Wales £2,662,903, being an increase, as I have mentioned, of £276,998 on last year. In the case of Victoria, the receipts are estimated at £2,925,495 ; the expenditureincluding £96,723 for “other” expenditure - -is £1 048,389, and, including a credit, we give them back £1,87S,534 - a less return this year to the extent of £42,440. In Queensland the receipts are £1,523,7S0, and the expenditure - including £40,99S “new” expenditure - is £665, 4S7: and, with a credit, we return them £858,300, whilst in 1901-2 the amount returned was £46,475 more. With regard to Victoria, I might mention, in passing, that the Treasurer of that State estimates that he will get back £100,000 more than I expect he will receive. In Queensland the Treasurer estimates to get back £54,000 more than I anticipate. In South Australia the receipts’* are i 949,889, and the expenditure £378,673 - including £29,136 “ new “ expenditure. A credit brings the sum up to £573,120, or £43,028 less than was returned to South Australia in the previous year. In that State the Treasurer expects to receive back £50,000 more than I anticipate.

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

-. B. Edwards. - They are all more sanguine than the Federal Treasurer is then?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– They are all more sanguine than I am.

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

– The right honorable gentleman is a pessimist !

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I do not think so ; but I am not going to place the Commonwealth in the position of enabling the States Treasurers to say that they expected to. get back more than- I really anticipate that they will receive. I am not going to give them the opportunity of urging that because they did not get back what they anticipated that they would receive the Federal Budget was the cause of their deficits. If, as a matter of fact, the States get back more than I anticipate all the better for them; but, if not, and if they are forced to make further savings, I do not know that that will be any great hardship. I refer honorable members to the printed, statement for similar details with regard to Western Australia and Tasmania : -

– The suggestion was that the return should be made on a population” basis, and personally I should be very glad to see the whole subject dealt with on a- population basis, because that would make our accounts much more simple.

The following table shows the details of the above statement : -

On the next page, 47, and the following pages, are shown the amounts to be expended in 1 902-3 in each of the States. I have already shown the amounts to be expended, but for the further information of honorable members I show in these documents how each amount is to be expended in each of the States as follows : -

This expenditure is divided into columns; one column dealing with transferred expenditure, and another with “other” expenditure. I need not trouble honorable members with the position of the trust funds. We have £140,318 under that heading, which I am glad to say has not been trenched upon. Now, sir, I want to refer for a few minutes to charges which have been levelled against us on the ground of extravagance, and to the wild statements which have been made, especially in the State of Victoria, that federation has cost £500,000 or £600,000to the State. People reading that statement will read it as meaning that the transfer of certain departments to the Commonwealth has cost that sum. Similar statements have been made in other States, and I have endeavoured for some time past to get reliable figures in order to be enabled to compare our actual expenditure with the expenditure which has taken place in the States for some years prior to federation. I shall be prepared to show from these figures that there has been no extravagant expenditure, as has been sometimes alleged by those who either do not care to ascertain the facts for themselves or who do not know what the facts are. Now, the statement was made by the Treasurer of Victoria, as reported in the press some time ago, that the transferred departments in Victoria, under federation, were costing £100,000 a year more than they did before. That statement is absolutely incorrect. I have, in the papers submitted, taken a good deal of trouble to ascertain and. give the fullest information for the purposes of a comparison, in order that the figures may be challenged. I think that the statement which has been made must have originated in a misapprehension, which has probably arisen from the fact that the comparison was made between ten month’s’ expenditure in one year and fourteen months’ expenditure in another year. Under the Victorian practice, during July and August, payments were allowed to be made on account of the previous financial year, and were charged against that year. Under our Commonwealth system we shut down sharp on the 30th June - the end of the financial year. The consequence of that is that payments on account of the past year have to be made out of and charged against the revenue of the current ‘ year. Thus, in the post-office they have had to pay five quarters’ expenditure in the one year. That is the only means by which I can account for the grave . el’l or which has been made in the statement that federation has cost Victoria in respect of the transferred departments £100,000 extra. Last year, compared with the previous year, during the greater portion of which the departments were under State control, the post-office cost Victoria £11,954’ extra, and of that sum £9,000 extra was caused b)’ action taken by the State just prior to federation in reclassification and the adoption of penny postage, the burden of which action we have had to bear, and which was not due to any action of the Federal Parliament. Then there was a change in the port of call in Western Australia, and that caused a considerable extra expenditure. Honorable members will also realize that, as I have mentioned already, the extension of telephone communication must necessarily involve increased expenditure in all the States. Then in connexion with the Defence department we have expended in Victoria £20,442 more than was spent in the previous year, but that amount is far more than covered by one item, which I have already mentioned. ‘ We had to provide the large sum of £24,000 for supplying a reserve of ammunition. The State had allowed it practically to run out, and, as a matter of fact, the amount so expended should in strictness have been charged to the previous year, and taken off the year for which we are responsible. It would then have been shown that our working of the Defence department was much cheaper than was the case before federation took place. The Customs department was worked, if I recollect aright, at a lower expenditure of £3,489 under federation than previously. The total extra expenditure in Victoria was £28,907 ; and I unhesitatingly state that that was caused not by any action taken by the Federal Parliament or the Federal Government, but by the action which had been taken by the State Parliament previously, and for which we are not in any way responsible. I propose also to endeavour to get the best statement I can with regard to the other States on similar lines to that which I have given in regard to Victoria. I have been able to make the statement I have made with regard to Victoria, because I have some knowledge of the finances of the State, and could readily pick out particulars with regard to the departments. These charges to which I have referred are commonly made in Victoria, and there is no doubt that they have also been made in some of the other States. Unfortunately the public read the charges, but they do not stop to inquire and investigate. They take the statements for granted - as being absolutely true - and consequently come to the conclusion that the Federal Parliament is extravagant, and is wasting the moneys which belong to the States. It is unfortunate that those opinions should be given expression to, because they create in the minds of our people an impression that could not exist if they had the true facts placed before them, and knew exactly what was taking place. The State Treasurer also said that federation has cost Victoria £426,937. Probably that statement is correct. I cannot dispute his figures. I wrote asking him to give the details, but I have not received them, and therefore I cannot tell whether he is right or wrong. I think he must have included the large sum which was spent on the celebrationsprobably £100,000 or £120,000, but it was probably all returned in extra customs duties and railway fares. I do not believe that the celebrations here cost more than £20,000 or £25,000. I do not believe that they cost very much more than that sum in New South Wales. I believe that all the money, expended came back to the various State T.reasurers

Mr Thomson:

– The tea duty would cover the amount.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I think that the Treasurer takes that into consideration in other items.

Mr McCay:

– He counts that twice over.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I am speaking now of the charges that are made with regard to the cost of federation. When it is published broadcast that federation has cost Victoria £426,937, the people naturally think that it is owing to something which we have done. The total amount in eighteen month s charged to Victoria is only £ 1 40, 2 8 3 . Of that sum £91,422 was due to federation, and £30,699 to the celebrations. All that money was spent in Victoria, and contributed principally by people from other States. Victoria got the benefit of that large expenditure, and her people ought not to complain of the amount charged there. The balance of the £140,283 represents the expenditure on New Guinea and the cost of some loan works amounting in all to £18,162. A contribution to the Government of New Guinea was being made by the State, and the amount expended on loan works will be refunded. Looking at the figures which I have been able to ascertain, and which, I believe, are correct and reliable, I declare that all these charges, so far as Victoria is concerned, are absolutely without foundation. I believe that when we can properly investigate the position in other States - even in Queensland, where I notice that allegations are made of the enormous extra expense of federation - it will be found that the Commonwealth has conducted the business just as cheaply as the States would have done, allowing for the extra expenditure which must necessarily be caused by the additional work which has to be done, and the extra amount which is earned by the different departments. With regard to increments I mentioned that we had to provide a certain sum for the Post-office. The increments provided for all the departments come to £25,000, as follows :-

– No; personal allowances. As soon as I complete the delivery of my speech I shall circulate a statement giving the details of the allowances to each person, as it is my desire to give every possible information as to the exact position of the finances. I need not trouble honorable members with any comments on the paperwith regard to the number of employés in the different departments. I am sorry that I did not include a statement of the number employed last year. It was overlooked, but honorable members will find in the Budget papers the numbers, and will be able to check them off. It was suggested last year that I should give a balance-sheet with regard to New Guinea ; this is provided, and also certain information with regard to the funded debts of the States. It is too soon, sir, to be able to say anything definite with regard to the effect of federation, but if honorable members will turn to page 60 of the Budget papers, and following pages, they will see that I have endeavoured to obtain for them some information which, I believe, will be interesting and instructive. I have shown the imports into the various States, dividing them where I could into Australian goods and over-sea goods, and distinguishing InterState trade f rom over-sea trade. The figures with regard to over-sea imports are as follow : -

Of course it has always to be borne in mind that the values of goods fluctuate, and the falling off in the returns may be accounted for by the fluctuations in the values. It will be noticed by those who study the figures that there has been a falling off in the importations of New South Wales since the imposition of the uniform Tariff, and that there was not a very large increase in the importations of that State immediately prior to its imposition. We propose to undertake a large expenditure upon public works to be paid for out of revenue. Honorable members will see on page 65 of the papers already distributed a detailed statement showing how the proposed expenditure upon new works and buildings would be debited to the States if charged on a population basis. It was suggested last year that new works should be considered as “other” expenditure, and the cost distributed among the States on a population basis. But, after a reconsideration of the matter, the Attorney-General has come to the opinion that such works are , fairly chargeable as transferred expenditure, and that to treat them in any other way would be inequitable, because New South Wales would contribute £7,493 less than the amount actually expended in that State, South Australia £3,688 less, Western Australia £4,008 less, and Tasmania £3,393 less, while Victoria would contribute £11,230 more, and Queensland £7,352 more. Those amounts may appear to be comparatively small, butIdesire honorable members to bear the fact in mind in connexion with the proposed loan expenditure. If Parliament decides that the expenditure which we propose to charge to loan account shall be paid out of revenue, and charged as “ other “ expenditure, the result will be that Victoria will have to provide £56,873, South Australia £9,873, and Tasmania £15,765 more, while New South Wales will provide £17,434, Queensland £49,984, and Western Australia £15,093 less than will be expended in those States respectively. The. following table shows the details of expenditure : -

Therefore, if honorable members determine that theseworks must be paid for out of revenue, it will mean that money will be taken from Victoria and South Australia to be spent in New South Wales and

Queensland, and that £15,000 will be taken from Tasmania to be spent in Western Australia.

Mr Higgins:

– The Treasurer assumes, then, that loan expenditure must be charged upon a population basis ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I assume that loan expenditure for large public works is properly chargeable upon a population basis, but I shall deal with the matter more fully when I come to refer to our loan proposals. I mention these facts now so that honorable members may bear them in mind in dealing with those proposals. We propose to expend £174,098 out of revenue, and £571,295 out of loan funds. If this is charged as transferred expenditure, no doubt, when we come to settle with the States for the buildings handed over by them to the Commonwealth, the whole matter will have to be taken into consideration, and the money will have to be repaid. So far as I and my colleagues are concerned, if we could see any way to avoid loan expenditure we should be only too glad to follow it. I have never approved of borrowing where it could be avoided, and while Treasurer of Victoria Iwas blamed fornot borrowing and expending very large sums. But if I had adopted the policy my critics then advocated, Victoria would to-day be paying in interest £200,000 or £250,000 more than she is now paying.

Mr Wilks:

– And would be bankrupt.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I have no intention now of replying to my right honorable friend the leader of the Opposition. I think that upon calmer consideration, and upon looking further into the figures, he will find that he has imagined something that really does not exist. I shall say only one word with regard to the saving in the Defence department. When I brought down the defence estimates originally, I said there was great difficulty in preparing them, but I thought they were far and away too high. I said I had no doubt that they could be considerably reduced. My only difficulty was that I did not desire to begin cutting them down in my own way until the Commandant had arrived. The Minister for Defence did go into the matter thoroughly, and he saw his way to reduce the expenditure, and more credit to him for doing so.

Mr.Reid. - Hear, hear. We do not object to that at all.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– He found that the Estimates provided for expenditure which was not necessary.

Mr Brown:

– Then what was the right honorable gentleman doing when he submitted them ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I take the responsibility of submitting them. I say that, seeing the work we were doing then in the preparation of the Tariff, the great difficulty we had in investigating the Estimates, and the want of knowledge which necessarily prevailed amongst us with regard to a number of the States and their requirements, we had to submit Estimates which, if we had had fuller opportunity of investigation, we should never have submitted. We had to depend a.great deal upon the estimates we obtained from the various States as to their then expenditure. If I had had an opportunity of going thoroughly into them and investigating them, the Estimates, when presented to this House originally, would have been less than they were. At the time, I told honorable members that the expenditure would, in all probability, be reduced. We did reduce it in every way possible.

page 15975

SUPPLY BILL (No. 12)

Sir GEORGE TURNER (Balaclava-

Treasurer). - I move -

That a sum not exceeding £1,365,597 be granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the services of the year ending30th June, 1903.

Honorable members will recollect that I got two months Supply on the basis of the old Estimates. I am now asking for four months Supply, and that is necessary because the Estimates are now prepared in an entirely different form. The numbers and divisions are altered, and my Supply Bill could not possibly be worked in with the existing Estimates. To carry out this, I am, therefore, in the Bill I propose to submit, repealing the Supply Bill already passed, and I am asking the House to grant four months Supply, covering the two months we have already dealt with, and the two months of September and October.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I think we ought to object to this motion, because we gave the Treasurer ample notice that if he continued asking for these Supply Bills we should not help him in any way whatever. We must remember that the financial year closed on the 30th June last, and the Estimates are being brought before us nearly three months afterwards. Surely if he had been looking forward, as any prudent man would have been, the Treasurer would have known what the expenditure would be long before the 30th June? He would have done as any other Treasurer ought to have done - although this has not been usual in Australia, I regret to say - and would have put the Estimates of the year’s expenditure on the table of the House before the financial year commenced. That is one of the reforms which I wish to see brought about. Last year we had the spectacle of the Estimates being considered ten months after the financial year had begun, so that when we dealt with the defence estimates we were in the position that the whole of the money had been expended, and that Parliament had entirely lost control. However, as the leader of the Opposition has seen fit to consent to the course proposed by the Government, I shall content myself with recording my protest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Resolved (on motion by Sir George Turner) -

That the standing orders be suspended to enable all steps to ‘be taken to obtain Supply, and to pass a Supply Bill through all its stages without delay.

Resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means, covering resolution of Supply, adopted.

Bill presented, and read a first and second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 (Issue and application of £1,365,597).

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– Perhaps the Treasurer may be able to tell me if the Bill includes an item in connexion with the proposal to appoint experts to report on federal capital sites 1

Sir George Turner:

– Yes ; an item of £1,000 to cover expenses in connexion with choosing the site of the capital of the Commonwealth.

Mr REID:

– I wish it to be distinctly understood, that in passing this item, the committee are not to be taken to have approved of the proposal to appoint a committee of experts.

Mr Watson:

– It should not be included in a Supply Bill ; it ought to be voted on the Estimates.

Mr REID:

– We are practically voting the money, and the Government might fairly complain if we should afterwards take exception to the proposal.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · Hume · Protectionist

– The money is to be used in that way - partially, at any rate. I said te-night that I had intended to bring up this matter on a specific motion, and I chink on further consideration, that though I did not give notice of a motion this evening, it will be better to take that course.

Mr Reid:

– We could deal with the proposal on this item, but it would not be fair to honorable members.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I find that there are honorable members who wish to move the addition of one or two. places to the list of sites, and that question cannot be discussed on an item in the Estimates. In order to be fair to those honorable members, I propose to give early notice of the motion which I read to-night, and a discussion can then take place on the question of whether or not experts should be appointed.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). -With that understanding and explanation, I do not I wish to offer any opposition to the item. It is understood that the mere fact that we allow the item to pass is not to be taken as expressing our approval of the appointment of a committee of experts.

Mr WATSON:

– (Bland).- On every other occasion the Treasurer has drawn the attention of the committee to any special items in a Supply Bill. In my opinion it is improper to include any special items in a Supply Bill when -the standing orders have to be suspended to enable the Treasurer to provide for the requirements of the Public Service, pending the passage of the Estimates. I notice in this Supply Bill an item of £500 to cover the cost of compiling and publishing a new edition of the Seven Colonies of Australasia.

Sir George Turner:

– That is a re-vote, and the next item is a re-vote.

Mr WATSON:

– 1 was not aware of that.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– I owe an apology to the committee. My practice is to point out the special items, but my attention was drawn to the form of the resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, and I omitted to refer to four special items in the Department of Home Affairs. We take a vote for the arrears - which, of course, we must pay. I have given an instruction that, except in the case of salaries up to £200, no increments are to be paid, and no increases are to be paid under any circumstances, until they have been finally dealt with on the Estimates. Honorable members will observe an item of £8,000 for the conveyance of members of Parliament and others. In the various States the railway commissioners are anxious to get this money at the beginning of the year. The item of £500 for a new edition of the Seven Colonies qf Australasia, and the item of £100 to defray the Cost of the tabulation of customs statistics are re- votes. The only other special item is that of £1,000 relating to the federal capital site.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The Treasurer ought to tell us whether that item of £1,Q00 has been expended.

Sir George Turner:

– No.

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

Mr PAGE:

– I do not think so. At all events, before the question is settled, it may cost Queensland millions. I am not going to see the State which I represent robbed for the advantage of another. I am quite happy and contented here. We could not be better off than we are now, even if we were meeting in a federal city. We have everything that one could desire. Of course the Melbourne climate does not suit me, but if the Federal Parliament meet only in the summer months, I shall be very well satisfied to remain here. I do not imagine that we shall be here for another session of the length of the present one. I hope such a long session will never again be experienced. Of course Mr. Philp is going to jerk all the Queensland members out, so that the question does not affect us very much ; but, so far as I am concerned, the seat of government is all right where it is. When we have plenty of money - when all the States are on the upgrade, and have a few millions to spare, it will be time enough for us to begin operations. We are very good lodgers, and the people know when they have good lodgers. The only reason why I say we should remain where we are is that the forming of a new capital may involve an expenditure of millions. Everyone knows the position of Queensland. . It is suffering from over-legislation, from drought, and from too much “ tick “ : in fact it is chronically insolvent at the present time.

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– The Courier says that it was never in a sounder financial position than it is to-day.

Mr PAGE:

– I am sorry to say that during my travels in Queensland a month ago I saw some stations, as well as many selections, which had been abandoned. If that indicates solvency I am sorry for it.

Mr McDonald:

– That condition of affairs applies only to a portion of Queensland.

Mr PAGE:

– The whole of Queensland is suffering from a drought the like of which it has never experienced before, and which I hope she will never see again. Ninetenths of the pastoralists in the western parts, or practically half of Queensland, cannot pay 203. in the £1.

SirWilliam Lyne. - And what the honorable member is doing, tends to emphasize that feeling.

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

– Itis shocking for the Minister to assert that the Government have done all that is possible, when, as a matter of fact, they have done nothing. He tells the people of Sydney that he has been trying to fight this question in the House, and that we have been trying to block it. I hope that the honorable gentleman will stop his bluff. He is a very slim gentleman, but it is about time he stopped bluffing the people of New South Wales, and set to work in downright earnest to settle the question of the capital site.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2, 3, 4, and schedule agreed to. Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 15987

ADJOURNMENT

Extra Sittings : Prorogation

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

– I quite agree with the proposal of the Acting Prime Minister. I hope that we shall sit not only on Fridays,’ bat even on Saturday morning if necessary, and on Monday. It will take three weeks at the outside to dispose of the business. Honorable ‘members ought to be willing to make a little sacrifice. I daresay that the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, will be able to make the necessary arrangements to stay, which he was unable to make because he was not aware that it was intended to sit later this week. I hope that the suggestions of the Acting Prime Minister will be carried out. I believe that if the House would make up ite mind to deal with the business it could be ‘disposed of within three weeks. I would ask honorable .members to consider the position of those who come from the north and the north-west of Queensland, because after next month it will be almost impossible, if we are going to have a wet season, to get anywhere near our constituents until next March.

Question resolved in the affirmative. -

House adjourned at 8.50 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 September 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020923_reps_1_12/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives23 September 1902

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE

AUSTRALIAN NAVAL DEFENCE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr Higgins:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Mr REID:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr REID:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Reid:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Reid:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

PEARL-SHELLING INDUSTRY

Mr McDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

TRAVELLING FACILITIES FOR MEMBERS

Mr KIRWAN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRILL INSTRUCTORS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Mr BATCHELOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Batchelor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Sir Langdon Bonython:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr CONROY:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

ACTIONS AGAINST COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

Mr L E GROOM:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

POSSESSION OF DAWES POINT

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

Mr Reid:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITES

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MILITARY REGULATION

Mr POYNTON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

PAPERS.

New Sugar Regulation (No. 38)

QUESTION

JUSTICE DASHWOOD’S REPORT

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT : WAGES

Mr POYNTON:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr BATCHELOR:

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

House of Representatives
23 September 1902

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr L E GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

Mr FOWLER:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Mr MCCAY:
CORINELLA, VICTORIA

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

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