Senate
18 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY
FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS
SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL
PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES ACQUISITION BILL
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
AUDIT BILL
ASSENT TO BILLS

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2690

QUESTION

EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Postmaster-General what is the duration of the agreement entered into- between Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, and ultimately Tasmania, with the Eastern Extension Telegraph Company?

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

– I am not prepared to give all the information which is desired; but I can inform the honorable senator that, so far as New South “Wales is concerned, the agreement continues until it is terminated bymutual consent. With regard to the other States, I shall endeavour to get the information by to-morrow morning.

page 2690

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator BARRETT:
VICTORIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Will he endeavonr to procure for the use of the members of the Senate copies of the Official

Report on Old-age Pensions, State Insurance, and Charitable Relief, prepared by Senator Lt. - Col. Neild, Honorary Commissioner of New South’ Wales?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– Inquiry will be made with a view to a number of copies being placed in the Library for the use of honorable senators.

page 2690

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If he will cause to be laid upon the table of the Senate the report of Mr. C. Y. O’Connor, Engineer-in-Chief of the Western Australian. Railways, on the transcontinental railway, as. furnished to the Minister of Defence and laid upon the table of the House of Representatives.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– Honorable senators will be supplied with copies of the report.

page 2690

FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS

Ordered (on motion by Senator Barrett) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate all pape rft in connexion with the circular recently issued in the Postal department (telephone branch) tonine female telephone operators on probation, with a view of ascertaining the reasons for the issue of such circulars.

Paper laid upon the table by Senator Drake, and ordered to be printed.

page 2690

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL

Report adopted.

page 2690

PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES ACQUISITION BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 17th July, vide page 2631) :

Clause 18 -

In all cases where compensation is awarded, or costs are adjudged to be paid by the Commonwealth, the amount thereof shall be paid to the . party entitled thereto, or to his agent duly authorized in that behalf, within one month after such amount has been determined.

Provided that the party claiming payment shall first be bound to make out, to the satisfaction of the Attorney-General, a title to the land, or interest in land, in respect of which he claims.

Such compensation shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum, from the date of the acquisition of the land until payment of the same is made by the Commonwealth to the claimant or until the same is deposited in the Treasury as hereinafter mentioned.

Upon which Senator Millen had moved, by way of amendment -

That the word “three,” inline 12, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “four.”

Senator Dobson:

– I am naming the lowest rate of all - 4 per cent.’

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Millen:

– That is not stating the argument fairly.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I think it is stating it very fairly. That 10 per cent, should fully compensate for wounded feelings.

Senator McGregor:

– And they get 3 per cent, on the 10 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:

– In my opinion we ought to regard this compulsory acquisition of land in the same way as we would regard voluntary transactions on either side, seeing that the 10 per cent, clears off all the injury due to wounded feelings. Another argument used by Senator Dobson is that the Commonwealth in paying interest should take into consideration the fact that the land to be resumed may be under mortgage. The Commonwealth would be landed in hopeless difficulties if we were to consider that. If the Government are to consider that one man has mortgaged his land, and is paying 4 per cent., and he should therefore get 4 per cent., they would, in equity, be bound to consider the case of another man whose land was mortgaged at 5 per cent., and give him 5 per cent. This is one of those cases in which it is perfectly obvious that, in considering particular instances, we cannot do general justice. That being so, and it being impossible for the Commonwealth to adequately compensate, by the rate of interest, any one whose land happens to be mortgaged, the best thing to do is to consider the land as subject to no mortgage at all. That being so, I urge again that 3 per cent, is an extremely fair rate. In spite of the arguments and statistics given to us by Senator Gould, I maintain that 3 per cent, is as much as any man can obtain for a short-dated loan. I interjected, and I repeat again, that a man would find it very difficult to buy Government debentures, and get a return of 3 per cent, on them, if he held them only for three months and then got his money back ; and he would then be in the same position as a man whose land was acquired by the Commonwealth under this Bill. I do not believe it is possible forany one to get more than 3 per cent, on a loan for three months. I point out that if the Government complete the transaction in a short time, by the payment of the money, the question of interest becomes immaterial. The question of percentage only becomes material if the time is extended by delay, and there is always the additional amount, to which I have referred, which will cover any hardship which mayarise from the rate of interest being small. There is also this advantage to be considered : that the interest is to be paid from the date of notification of the acquisition of the land. ,,,,, .

Senator Major GOULD (New South Wales). - Some question has been raised with regard to the date from which this, payment should take place, and the effect of it. The clause provides that a man is entitled to interest from the date of the acquisition of the land until the payment. Honorable senators will find that the date of the acquisition of the land is the time the notification appears in the Government Gazette. The notification appears in the Government Gazette: to-day, for instance, and it has the effect of vesting the whole property in the Government of the Commonwealth at once. The property may be one which has been improved. There may be tenants upon it, and a rental may be received in respect of it, possibly to the extent of 5, 6, 8, or 10 per cent, on the amount that is to be paid for it. The Government will be the persons entitled to receive those rents, and from the date of acquisition they will receive them. At a very moderate computation these rentals may be put down at 6 per cent., so that the Government will begetting 6 per cent, upon money for which they are only paying 3 per cent, to the person who is legally entitled to it. The case of the Bocks resumption, alluded to by Senator Walker, is a case in point. There lands were resumed more than eighteen months ago, and the Crown to-day is receiving, and has been receiving from the start, the whole of the rents, and has not attempted to pay interest or any remuneration to any individual concerned, unless he is prepared to go cap in hand and say that he is a beggar or a pauper, and cannot live without his rents or interest. Such a case may happen in connexion with these resumptions. There may be difficulties and technicalities in the way of an immediate settlement, brought about by no fault of the owner of the land, but through, perhaps, some fault in the nature of his title, which the Government will desire to have investigated and cleared up to ascertain who really is entitled to the money. The owner may be in this position. His land is resumed, the rents from it are being received by the Government, and he is told that at some future date he will receive 3 per cent., or about half, possibly, what the Government will have been receiving by way of rents from his property. A case like that would be a manifest hardship. It appears to me that the Government are not doing anything so wonderfully generous because the very moment the notice appears in the Gazette the property is vested in the Government, and the owner is a trespasser if he goes on to it. Surely it is fair that he should be considered under circumstances like that. Now as to the debentures. If I ask a broker to buy debentures for me he will take them out of the Treasury, and I do not pay him a commission, because the Crown pays him. That, at any rate, is the practice in New South Wales. He gets £ per cent., I believe, from the Crown while the stock goes into the hands of the purchaser at the price paid by him.

Senator O’Connor:

– The honorable senator must know that they are very soon picked up. One can very seldom buy those things first hand. They are nearly always in the market.

Senator Major GOULD:

– I am pointing out that if I did buy them first-hand it would cost me nothing for commission, because the Crown pays the commission, and I would get a bigger return than I otherwise would. If a commission had to be paid in buying stock that might interfere with the rate of interest for one year ; .but if I am buying the stock for the purpose of an investment to be distributed over a number of years, the amount paid for commission would be infinitesimal. When we want to realize on stock we- have a marketable commodity as good as banknotes, because it will have its fixed price in the market, regulated by supply and demand, and that price can be got at any moment. The price may go down to a lower rate, and then one would lose, but on the other hand it might go up to a higher rate and then one would gain by it.

– Hegets the rents and profits.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– Of course he does ; but that has nothing to do with what I am pointing out now. He has no right whatever to a farthing of money until he has satisfied the purchaser that he has a good title, and the conveyance is handed over. We put him in a different position here. Whatever his title may be, we say from the very date of notification, which we treat as a conveyance from the Government, “ You shall have 3 per cent. interest, no matter how long it takes you to investigate the title” ; so that if that work takes eight, ten, or twelve months, instead of the owner being at that loss, the Government are at the loss.

Senator Major Gould:

– They draw the rents and profits.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Of course they do if there are any rents and profits, but in the great bulk of the cases there are no rents and profits. What rents and profits are there out of a corner of land we snip off for a public building somewhere ? What rents and profits are there in a variety of cases where we take a suburban allotment for a post-office? In the great bulk of cases there are no rents and profits, but where there are, of course the Government take them over. We are dealing with these cases generally. We have to make a law which applies to the generality of cases. We cannot deal with individual cases. We have to do the best we can in laying down a general principle which will apply most fairly to all cases. The way in which we can deal mast fairly with all cases is this ; that although we give what may not under certain circumstances be a very high rate of interest, on the other hand we give a very great advantage in paying that interest while the owner is making out his title. If it takes him a long time to do it that is. his own fault, but he may make it out directly the compensation is ascertained. There is another view of it. The question of what is to be paid is not settled until after the agreement has been arrived at or the action has been tried, but we pay him interest dating back long before that has been ascertained.

We not only pay him interest from the time when the value has been ascertained, and we keep the money while he is getting his title ready and putting his title before us, but we go right back and pay him during the whole of that time, which may amount to 210 days, during which the matter has been brought to trial and been getting ready fordecision. There is another advantage; that is to pay him interest before we have ascertained the purchase money. Take these two illustrations. We have already compensated him for the value of the land, for any loss he suffers by severance from other land, and for the loss of any business he was carrying on on the land, and in addition to that we pay him this interest, which under ordinary circumstances we would not be entitled to pay. If we give him all these advantages, doing the thing in a rough-and-ready way, he is not entitled to have his interest allowed on the same scale as if the whole thing was a voluntary transaction, and he was going into the open market to sell his property. The fair tiling is to balance the advantages and the disadvantages - what you give the man with what you take away. I. submit that you cannot transact this business with attention to every nicety of detail, but, looking at the matter fairly all round, between the Commonwealth and the person whose land is taken, it is fair to the Commonwealth to pay the individual interest at the rate of 3 per cent., but it would be unfair to the Commonwealth to do more.

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … … 16

Noes………… 7

Majority……… 9

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That after the word “three” the words “pounds ten shillings”be inserted.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I must oppose the amendment. We have thrashed the matter out on the amendment to substitute 3 per cent., and I hope that every honorable senator who voted against the last amendment will also oppose this.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– An honorable senator opposite spoke in favour of 3½ per cent. being the rate of interest.If we cannot get 4 per cent., there is no reason why we should not try to get 3½ per cent.

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

Ayes … … … … 7

Noes … … … … 15

Majority … … …8

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 -

All persons claiming any purchase money or compensation shall, at their own expense, when required, produce to the Attorne3’-General all deeds and documents relating to or evidencing their title to the land in respect of which such purchase money or compensation is payable, and particulars as to any damage claimed by them.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I think that this clause in reference to costs and expenses is a little different from what we have been accustomed to in ordinary Acts of the kind. It says that persons shall at their own expense when required - produce to the Attorney-General all deeds and documents relating to or evidencing their title to the land.

I am perfectly certain that one-half of the owners whose land will be taken, will have their properties mortgaged. Why should they be compelled to pay the mortgagee’s solicitors to produce the title deeds ?

Senator O’Connor:

– If they were selling the land they would be obliged to do so.

Senator DOBSON:

– Yes, but in this case they are selling compulsorily. I have noticed that in other Lands Acquisition Acts the purchasing authority has to bear this expense.

Senator O’Connor:

– This clause is copied from the Victorian Act.

Senator DOBSON:

– The Government pounce down upon the land-owner and compel him to sell his property, and then they make him pay a guinea to a solicitor for the production of the title deeds-. There is a great difference between a forced sale and a mutual agreement. In this case the cost should be paid by the Commonwealth.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (Compensation to State in respect of Crown land).

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I observe that notice of an amendment has been given by Senator Harney.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

- Senator Harney mentioned the point to me. It is a constitutional point. He told me, however, that he does not intend to press it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44 -

The compensation payable to a State in respect of any laud acquired under this Act may, at the option of the Governor-General, be paid in any one or more of the following modes, that is to say : -

by payment to the State of the amount of such compensation ; or
by allotting to the State debentures or stock of the Commonwealth of the face value of the amount of such compensation, and bearing interest at 3 per cent. ;
by relieving the State of its liability for principal and interest in respect of an equivalent amount of any public debts of the State which may have been taken over by the Commonwealth.

– Of course it would give the Commonwealth Government more power, and I am sure no federal authority would attempt to pay with depreciated paper. If the bonds were at a discount, thefederal authority would not pay with them, and on the other hand, assuming that they were at a premium, they would not attempt to pay with them because they could sell them in the open market and pay cash to the State. I submit to the Vice-President that it would be better to leave out the word “face,” and then the federal authorities could make their own arrangements with theStates when compensation had to be paid.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- The more I look at paragraphs (a) and (b) the moreI am convinced of the grave possibility of the States being made to suffer. I think Senator O’Connor will agree with me that his argument, forcible as it was, amounts to “heads I win and tails you “lose.” I have not the slightest doubt that if thedebentures of the Commonwealth are at a premium they will not be handed over to a State in compensation for land resumed.

Senator O’Connor:

– Would the honorable and learned senator accept Senator Millen’s suggestion to leave out the word “face”?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not want toreject any fair offer, but I point out thateven then it would be at the option . Of the Governor-Genera) to say what the value was.

Senator O’Connor:

– No, that would notbe so. If he once exercised the option of paying in that way, the value would be ascertained in the ordinary manner, andwould mean the market value.

Senator Walker:

– -The words used shouldbe the “ market value.”

Senator CLEMONS:

– I point out to the. Vice-President of the Executive Councilthat the real trouble in connexion withthese two sub-clauses arises from the uss ofthe words “at the option of the GovernorGeneral.” ‘Hie option is not given to theState that is to receive the compensation, but to the Common wealth that is to pay it. This is really the greatest difficulty of this clause,, and I am not certain that if we left out the word “ face “ we would be acting in a fair way to the States. I cannot see why the option should be with the GovernorGeneral of the Commonwealth and not with, the States. The States would of course prefer to have -cash in compensation, and I cannot see any reason why we should force upon them against their will any other mode of payment. .! do not think that the option could be exercised by the States adversely to the Commonwealth if we altered the clause by giving the option to the State, and at the same time altered paragraph (&). I think the clause might be wisely postponed, and though if amended in the way the honorable senator has suggested, it would largely meet the difficulties I have urged, a better amendment would probably be made if there were a postponement of the clause for its further consideration.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I think it would be better to insert the word “market” instead of the word “face.” I think further that the option should remain with the . Governor-General, and not with the States, for the reason that under paragraph (c) no State would object to hand over a portion of its debt, because that .would be an exchange of a less valuable fora more valuable asset. The amendment I have suggested would meet the whole difficulty, because the “market value” would be the value of the stock on the Stock Exchange.

Senator PLAYFORD (South Australia).So far as paragraph (b) is concerned, I think it should not be agreed to, because I do not think we should compel the States to take the debentures of the Commonwealth. I can thoroughly understand that in many cases Uley would prefer the money to that. I have no doubt the State would prefer to have compensation paid under paragraph (c) -

By relieving the State of its liability for principal and interest in respect of an equivalent amount of any public debts of the State which have been taken over by the Commonwealth.

I see no objection to the Commonwealth having the right to say to the State, “ We are not prepared to pay you in money, but we arc willing to take a proportionate amount of your debt.” But it is not right to give the Commonwealth power to say to a State - “We will compel you .to take our bonds.” The State may not want them.

Senator Walker:

– They can get the market value for them if they sell them.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– They might ; but they would then become speculators, and the market value might go down. There would be a risk, and that proposal would give no advantage to the Commonwealth, because if the market value was high the Commonwealth could raise the money by floating the bonds itself. Directly we take out the words, “ face value,” which no doubt were put in for a purpose, we see that the Commonwealth will gain nothing by handing these bonds over to the States. A State could go into the market and sell them for the amount it had taken them as worth, and there would be no advantage to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth might just as well float them itself in the open market, receive the money for them, and pay it over to the State. There might be great advantage to the Commonwealth under paragraph (b) if the words “face value” were allowed to remain in, especially if the bonds were below par.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– For the purpose of getting on, I am quite willing to agree to the insertion of the words “ market value,” instead of the words “face value,” if that will settle the whole thing. But I certainly shall not consent to that alteration if there are to be any further amendments proposed.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).I had intended suggesting an amendment to sub-clause (o). It provides only that the Federal Government may make payment by relieving the State of its liability for principal and interest in respect to an equivalent amount of any public debt that is already taken over. But supposing that a resumption took place to-day, not having token over any public debt, we could not pay in that way. The object of my amendment would be to enable the Government to operate by relieving the State of its liability in respect of any debt which we have taken over or may take over as a part of that operation. It is assumed in sub-clause (c) that we have taken over some part of the public debt.

Senator Drake:

– Supposing that the State has not any of its stock to dispose of, how can we act ?

Senator MILLEN:

– We are not bound to take it. It is at the option of the Governor-General, and if it is not there we cannot take it. Supposing that a resumption took place to-morrow, and that it was desired by the Commonwealth to make payment by taking over a portion of the public debt, there is no provision by which it could be done. Sub-clause (c) can only be brought into operation after a portion of the public debt has been taken over. I would suggest that we insert after the word “ may “ in the sub-clause the words “ or may not previously.”

Senator O’Connor:

– We do not want to say “ may or may not.” We want to put in no limitation. If we strike out “ may have been “ it will read “ taken over by th Commonwealth.”

Senator MILLEN:

– Would it not be sufficient to strike out all the words after the words “public debts of the State “?

Senator Clemons:

– Let us say “ which may have been or which hereafter may be 1 taken.” I

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– Is it wise for the committee to shirk the important question raised by Senator Clemons. A State has a perfect right to watch with jealous eyes all we are doing, and it would be well to consider what a State Parliament would sa)’ on this clause. Would it not say that, as we men of business all know, an option is an advantage? The State would naturally ask, why should the Federal Parliament by an A.ct give itself an option to its benefit and to our disadvantage? If the Commonwealth has an option and can exercise it in three different ways as it likes, it is an absolute advantage to it. I do not say that a constitutional question arises, but I would ask Senator O’Connor to look at section 85 of the Constitution Act-*-

The Commonwealth may acquire any property of the State pf tiny kind used, but. not exclusively used iii connexion with the department ; the value thereof, shall, if no agreement can be made, be ascertained in as nearly as may be the manner in which the value of land, or of an interest in land taken by the State for public purposes, is ascertained under the law of the State in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Standing alone that certainly does not justify lis in taking an option as to the way in which we shall pay the value. But subsection (2) of that section says -

The Commonwealth shall compensate the State for the value of any property pam ug to the Commonwealth under this section ; or if no agreement can be made as to the mode of compensation it shall be determined under laws to be made by the Parliament.

We are now working under that subsection, but it only empowers the Commonwealth to make laws where no agreement can be come to. It may be said that before we exercise the o]:>tion which the clause clearly gives, we shall try to come to an agreement with the State. If we do, knowing that we have an option behind us, we may not agree to anything which the State may propose if we want to get our own way. It is arguable whether, under section 85, we have the right of boldly giving ourselves the option of three different courses. Supposing that we have the right, what will the States Say if we legislate so as to give ourselves an undue advantage. It must be apparent to every honorable senator that the States want money. It is idle to talk about giving them debentures when their public debts amount to from £8,000,000 to £60,000,000 or £70,000,000, because they will have to “ blue “ them as the saving is - to take them to their banker and get rid of them, and they may have to pay a small commission for that purpose. It would be much more handy to pay them in cash. Therefore, I am inclined to think that we ought to reserve to ourselves the right to pay them in cash, or take over part of their debts. That, I think, would not be attended- by clanger. It would be an attractive way of paying them. I am inclined to think that sub-clause (Jj) ought to come out.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This is a very important question, and 1 was just about to show the real substantial reason for this clause by a reference to section 85 of the Constitution, which Senator Dobson has cited. There is no doubt that very serious monetary obligations are imposed on the Commonwealth by virtue of that section. Clause 45 o’f this Bill provides -

Where any land of a State has, either before or after the commencement of this Act, become vested in the Commonwealth or been acquired by the Commonwealth under section 85 of the Constitution, such land shall for all purposes whatever be deemed to be vested in the Commonwealth in the same way and to the same extent as if it had been acquired under this Act, and the provisions of this Act, so far as they are applicable, and subject to the Constitution shall apply to such Land.

– There would not be any very large transaction which would seriously affect the position of any State, and I quite agree with Senator O’Connor . that the option must necessarily remain with the Commonwealth. It appears to be a perfectly reasonable thing, and if the alteration from the face value to the market value, and the alteration suggested by Senator Millenin sub-clause (c) are made, it appears to me that we shall have carried through a very reasonable, equitable, and workable clause.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- Every honorable senator will agree with me that it is just as undesirable, as it is impossible to resist the fair appeal made by Senator O’Connor.I am prepired to accept in subclause (b) the alteration which he has offered - the substitution of the word “ market “ for the word “ face.” He asks us to recognise the position of the Commonwealth in this matter, and points out how desirable it is that it should be enabled by this Bill to pay the States by debentures and not by cash. We must consider how that will affect the States. The States have, in many cases, borrowed money at a higher rate than the Commonwealth certainly will pay. The option now being allowed will put some States in the position of having borrowed money, say at 4 per cent., and lending it by taking up debentures at3½ or 3 per cent. Although I am willing to accept the amendment I wish to point out, in fairness to my side of the question, that under the clause the Commonwealth will be ableto put more than one State in that curious financial position. It will leave them borrowers of money at 4 per cent. and lenders at 3½ or 3 per cent. I am sure the Minister will recognise that there is some sound reasoning in my plea. I put it to him that, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, he can now with every graciousness consent to put in the words market value. I cannot see that acting on behalf of my own State or any other State I can urge anything further.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– There would be verylittle difficulty in my assenting to that amendment, but the other amendment raises a very important question. It is a question connected with the financial business of the Commonwealth which I should not like to decide offhand. I therefore prefer to postpone the consideration of the clause until. I have had time to consult some of my colleagues with regard to the financial aspect of the operation of sub-clause (b). I do so without consenting to either of the amendments.

Clause postponed.

Clauses 45 to 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 -

In caseany land purchased or taken under this Act is not required for the public purpose for which it was purchased or taken, the Commonwealth may sell, lease, or dispose of such land.
A receipt under the hand of the AttorneyGeneral shall be a sufficient discharge to the purchaser or lessee of such land for the purchase money or rent in such receipt expressed tobe received.
Any land sold, leased, or disposed of under this section may be conveyed or leased by conveyance or lease in the name of the Common wealth, and executed by the Attorney-General.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– In this clause it is proposed to give power to the Commonwealth to “sell, lease, or dispose of any land previously purchased, and which the Commonwealth does not desire . to retain. This opens up the whole question as to whether or not public lands, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, shall be sold or leased. As the Vice-President of the Executive Council has pointed but that it is probable that there will be a special Act dealing with the lands within the federal territory, I think it is desirable to mention this matter with a view, if necessary, to amending the clause, or at any rate with a view to directing the attention of the committee to the fact that by this clause we are asked to approve of the principle of the sale of Commonwealth land. I am strongly in favour of the retention by the Commonwealth of land passing into its possession, . but I am not prepared to redraft the whole of clause 50 now.

Senator O’Connor:

– This enables the Commonwealth either to “sell, lease, or dispose of “ any land.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not want to enable the Commonwealth to sell.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It mightbe only a small piece of land of no value to the Commonwealth.

Senator MILLEN:

– It might-be a large piece. The safest way is to be absolutely sure, and tie the hands of the authorities so that they cannot sell a small piece of land ; then we shall know that they cannot sell a large piece. It is better to force them to retain a small piece of land which they do not want than to permit them to sell a large piece which the people may want. With a view of testing the question, I move -

That the word “ sell,” line 4. be omitted.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– Not always, lt mav bean odd corner.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– It may be tin odd corner, but if it is useful to somebody, that is what constitutes its value. If the Government can sell that land for £1,000, the reason will be that the land is wanted for occupation, and has some revenue - earning capacity. Why cannot the Government be the landlord of that ground as well as any private individual? If a private individual buys land, and makes a profit out of it, why cannot the Government make a profit out of it? The Government should make a greater profit out of it, for the simple reason that the Government can borrow money for the purpose of securing the land at a lower rate than any private individual. An illustration lias been given, of land used for fortifications. It has been suggested that if the fortificationsare removed the land is useless to the Commonwealth for Government purposes. It may be useless for the purposes of erecting public works or buildings, but I still maintain that the land is just as valuable to the Commonwealth as it can be to any private individual. If it is useful for anything, say for mining, the Commonwealth can extract the minerals from it or work it just as well as any private individual.

– I have been wondering during the course of the debate whether we are looking at this question from a sentimental or from a’ utilitarian point of view. I can scarcely believe that Senator McGregor, although a Scotchman, is looking at this matter from a purely sentimental point of view. I am inclined to think that he is looking at it, as I am, from . a purely utilitarian point of view, and his intention in supporting this proposal is to secure to the Commonwealth all the benefits the Commonwealth itself will create in the value of land to be acquired. . 1. can assure Senator McGregor that I entirely agree with him in that respect, but when we come to consider the compulsory acquisition by the Commonwealth of lands in the possession of a State, I da not think we can expect much enhancement of value on those lands from the operation of the Commonwealth. Any enhanced value that is going to be added to lands acquired under this Bill from a State by the Commonwealth will, I feel sure, be given to them by theStatein which the land is situated. Senator McGregor, as a logical man, will agree with me that in this matter he is aiming at something which he cannot achieve. In the case of the land the Commonwealth is to acquire for the construction of the capital city, and for originating works and buildings of its own, there will be enhanced value created by the operations of the Commonwealth, but in this case we are proposing to take over buildings originated by the States, and we must look to the operations of the States for anyadded value. I am entirely with Senator McGregor in looking at this . matter from a utilitarian point of view, and I deny to him any higher desire than I possess myself to secure to this Commonwealth the benefit of all the improvements we make on any land we acquire. But, while agreeing with the honorable senator in that way, I am not going deliberately to tie my hands and compel the Commonwealth, perhaps, to suffer a loss. I say distinctly that if we prevent the Commonwealth from selling any of the land acquired under this Bill, we shall be running a very great risk of compelling it to keep land at a distinct loss. In other words, we’ will prevent the Common wealth ‘ from “cutting a loss,” an operation which every business man knows is extremely desirable, and which he wishes always to be free to take advantage of. If we insist that the Commonwealth shall never sell any land acquired under this Bill, I can see great clanger that it will hamper the Commonwealth in its desire to make improvements, for instance, in the way of alteration. A year hence the Commonwealth may buy some . land, and five years later we may desire to get rid of that land in order to acquire other property for more extended or more beneficial purposes, and if we are denied the right of selling the land originally bought, we may be prevented from acquiring further land. I repeat that it is desirable to put the Commonwealth in a position to secure the greatest benefit for every one of us ; and if we deny the right of selling land, we willundoubtedly so hamper the Commonwealth as to prevent it from increasing the benefit to every one of us. I am sure that the question of sentiment about the desirability of being the owner of land does not affect Senator McGregor in this matter ; and I point out that the honorable senator will largely defeat his own object if he ties the Commonwealth down so closely that we can never sell any allotments acquired, whether they be worth £50 or £500.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– To listen to Senator Clemons one would think that the only way of disposing of land is to sell it, when, as a matter of fact, we know there is far more land leased than sold in the Commonwealth. I hope to see a great deal of the land that has been sold come back again to the original owners, and remain with them. Unless we carry out that principle I think we are going altogether in opposition to the verdict of the last federal election. If there was one popular cry throughout Western Australia - andI dare say in many of the other States - it was the nationalization of the federal capital. Notwithstanding the dictum of Senator Sir John Downer that this is a fad, I would direct his attention to the fact that a few obscure individuals are heartily in accord with the fad. I might refer to such illustrious writers as Henry George and John Stuart Mill - the master minds on the subject of political economy. There was no principle on which those men agreed more in their teachings than that ‘ of land nationalization. Surely, in the face of these facts, it is a misnomer to speak of land nationalization as a fad. It is one of the soundest principles which the Commonwealth Government can accept, and I hope they will take the result of the federal elections as their guide in the treatment of any land which they may acquire.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– If land nationalizes are faddists, then I confess that I am a faddist, and am proud to advocate the principle, Senator Sir John Downer has tried to scare us by stating that we are interfering, practically, with State rights. Not only in this State, but in every other State, a very large number of the people are open advocates of the very principle which he professes to style a fad. As this clause deals with ‘superfluous lands, I think we are quite within our rights in striving to have this amendment incorporated in the Bill. As I understand the clause, it simply means that there will be land acquired by the Commonwealth from time to time, which will not, perhaps, at that particular moment be required for federal purposes, and therefore, because we have acquired land in various parts, we are to sell it as soon as it comes into our possession, if it is not required. What are we doing in regard to our public lands? Here we are under this Bill acquiring land for which we are paying in a good many cases more than the ordinary value. We are paying a larger amount for it than we would do in ordinary circumstances, and then we ure selling it. If the land in connexion with fortifications, or any other land which may be acquired by the Commonwealth is good, or if it can be put by a private owner to some beneficial purpose, surely it is good for the Commonwealth to hold that land, and to apply it to exactly the same purpose ? Supposing that in this very city, the Commonwealth may have land which at the present moment it does not require. It should still hold that land, and at the same time allow other persons to apply it to any purpose. Believing in the fad of land nationalization, I am prepared to vote for the amendment.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I also must plead guilty to being one of the faddists. For a great many years

I have been iti favour of perpetual leasing, and I have not yet seen any reason to -alter that opinion, but I do not think that question comes up to-night. Nor do I think, with all due deference, that one or two honorable senators can have had much experience in trying to get rid of small pieces of land! We have to deal with the question in a practical sense. Rightly or wrongly the Commonwealth - certainly in the Postal and Defence depart ments - has a considerable number of small pieces of land, some being not more than a quarter of an acre in extent. Fifteen years ago, when I was Minister for Defence, I tried to get rid of a number of pieces of land scattered all over the State, some reserved for drill rooms, some reserved for parade grounds, and so on. I tried to lease them, as I had not power to sell at the time, but I could not lease a single piece. The municipalities brought pressure to bear on the Government, and got the lands for nothing. That was the upshot in every case. Subsequently, when a Bill was being passed, a clause was inserted to enable the department, with the consent of the Governor in Council, to sell any small pieces not wanted. And I am glad to say that a good many of them were sold ; but they could not be leased. We have to deal with this question in a practical way. We cannot lease these pieces of land. If we carry this amendment it will simply compel the Government to retain for all time utterly useless pieces of land.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– They are of no value if they are useless.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not think the honorable senator can have had any experience of these matters, otherwise he would not have made that interjection. There is many a small piece of land which a man will buy, but will not lease on any terms. It is of no use ‘for us to go against practical experience. Unless honorable senators desire to compel the Government to kee: these pieces of land scattered all over the place, we must meet the case by dealing with them in the only way in which they can be quitted, namely, by sale.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I must also plead guilty to being a faddist, and I certainly object , to the use of the term. I take it that a fad is an innovation on an established principle. The first principle which was established as regards land tenure was that of land nationalization.. If Senator Sir John Downer . poses to-day as the champion of the principle of freehold, it is he who is the faddist, because the principle of private property in land was an innovation on the first established principle of land nationalization. But whateverour opinions on that point may be, we must face the question as it has been faced by the last speaker. We must consider the practicability of the proposal. It seems to me that the question of whether we are able to lease the land determines the question of whether we can get anything which makes it worth our while to sell, and if we cannot get anything except a nominal sum, there is no harm done if we allow the land to remain as it is until it does become of value. What is the object of the Commonwealth in selling land 1 Not merely to get rid of the land, but to get a return. If the land is not of sufficient value to enable them to lease it, the amount which they would get from its sale is not worth consideration. Take the case of a country post-office. As a rule it is in the best position - in the centre of the town. Generally the land which would have to be disposed of by the Commonwealth, is in a good I position.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– Or was at one time.

Senator PEARCE:

– Exactly. Therefore the land would have a value as leasehold land, and could be disposed of. It would only be in exceptional cases where we would not be able to lease. Take the case of a large area not sui bible for building purposes, which has been reserved for the purpose of fortifications. If it is not close to a settled part and has no value as building land or farming land, if it cannot be leased for either purpose what will be its . selling value? It will be practically nothing. Therefore, the Commonwealth would not benefit if it had power to sell that land ; it would practically have to give it away. Really, if the land has not a leasing value, the only drawback is that it has to remain in the hands of the Government. There is another method of disposing of land, and that is the method of exchange. The land which has no leasing value may . possibly be exchanged with a State Government for land which may be useful for Commonwealth services. The principle we aim at is that of retaining the land in the hands of the whole people, and an exchange to the State Government would accomplish that ‘ object as well as leasing to private persons. If the Government cannot see their way to accept the amendment, I think we ought; to have a. provision that in case of a sale it shall be sold to the State Government and not to a private individual.

Senator O’Connor:

– That would put the Commonwealth in a nice position. There would be only one purchaser, who would give what he liked.

Senator PEARCE:

– They have the alternative of retaining and leasing. I am a strong advocate of land nationalization, and here I see an opportunity where we can put that principle into force. I would ask Senator Sir John Downer if it is an innovation upon State rights to sell this land is it not equally an innovation to acquire such land from the State? If we have not the right to say that we shall retain this land on certain conditions - that we shall lease it or exchange it - then we have no right to hold theland at all. I fail to see where any question of State rights comes in. Surely, if we havepower to acquire and hold land, we have the right to say on what terms it shall be done, and if it suits the purposes of the Commonwealth Government to lease land, it is not an innovation on State rights.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales.) -

I must congratulate theVice-President of the Executive Council, on the philosophical calmness with which he submitted to theserious castigation by Senator Sir John Downer, because his remarks were an attack: on the principle of leasing which my amendment does not propose, but which the clause does.

Senator O’Connor:

– He is going to vote for it as it is.

Senator MILLEN:

– He is going to vote for the principle of leasing in the clause which he denounced.

Senator O’Connor:

– The optional principle.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator O’CONNOR:

– If the honorable senator’s argument is of any value at all, I take it to mean that there would be that way Out of the practical difficulty. Senator O’Keefe has echoed the same argument. Is it not absurd that we should tie the hands of the Government in regard to the disposal of such land, and . make it necessary for them to ask Parliament to repeal the clauses under discussion so far as they apply to particular cases? 1 submit that that position has only to be stated to show the absurdity of it. Let me put another point. I have said all through that where the Government become the owners of land, this principle of non-alienation should be carried out ; and the Government, when they bring in a measure dealing with the federal territory, will carry it out. But in this clausewe are merely dealing with land that is owned by the Government for special purposes. This land is acquired by the Government, not from the point of view of carrying on business as land-owners, but for a special purpose. When that purpose is at an end, and the land is no longer valuable for that purpose, what is to be done with it? It seems to me to be riding a theory to death to say that the Commonwealth shall, right through its career, accumulate in all the States these little bits of land originally acquired for public purposes, but no longer used for such purposes, and that they shall not sell them, and put the money into the Treasury. There may be hundreds of such pieces of land inevery State. They may be let at a low rental, and the Government will have put upon them the business of being a landlord of property, not within their own territory, but scattered about all over Australia. It really means that the Government will have to undertake a very large business in respect of lands which were originally acquired not for the purpose of producing rent, but for carrying on some public work. I submit that that is a very strong reason why this principle in which I believe as regards the territory of the Commonwealth, or the property of the Commonwealth which is held for the purpose of dealing with that territory, should not be applied in regard to pieces of land acquired for particular purposes, many of which will not be acquired by the Commonwealth ‘by any act of violation on its part, but will be forced upon it by the operation of section 85 of the Constitution. On these grounds I ask the committee to negative the amendment.

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of theclause - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … … 12

Noes … … … 9

Majority … … ‘. .. 3

Question so resolved in. the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 (Registration of notification).

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– The Minister in charge of the Bill will see that this clause provides that a copy of the notification, as advertised in the Government Gazette has to be lodged with the RegistrarGeneral or the Registrar of Titles, in order, I presume, that the Registrar of Titles may indorse the transfer or conveyance on the title. The whole of the Land Transfer Act work is done by reference to plans ; and I think the Minister should, when we recommit the Bill, pay attention to a former clause, and also incorporate in this clause the provision that thenotification shall include a description of the land taken from the survey, and that it shall have a plan attached to it. ‘ Then a copy of the notification will include a copy of the description and a copy of the plan. Unless the plan is there I will defy the Registrar of Titles to do his work and indorse on the title in his office the land which the Government have acquired. We lawyers find that when any land is subdivided the greatest trouble arises unless you keep the papers in order. The first thing you have to do is to put away the papers in their order, with a plan - attached to them. When you come to look at the matter again -twenty years after, you then know exactly what has been done. But unless you do that, endless trouble arises. I have often found that when papers have been put away by a bad deed clerk, hours have had to be spent in searching for information which should have been tied up with the parcel of papers. I am sure the honorable and learned senator will realize the trouble that will arise unless he provides that a plan is to be attached to the copy of the notification.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I quite see that it will be necessary to have a description of the land with the notification, and that must be given to make the notification legal under clause 6. But a plan is quite another matter. The honorable and learned senator will see that the plan is of no value unless there is a survey. That adds very much to the cost.

Senator Dobson:

– The registrar cannot endorse anything unless it is done by a certified surveyor.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– There is no difficulty with regard to the description, but there may be a difficulty in regard to the plan. I will look into the whole question. If this clause passes as it stands, an amendment may be made, if necessary, when some of the clauses of the Bill are recommitted.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I am not going to argue the point, because I have great confidence in what Senator O’Connor has said, but I also have the greatest confidence in the position Senator Dobson has taken up. Where the Crown proposes to purchase some part of any man’s land, and that land is divided under the ordinary Torrens Act, in force in all the States, there will be an absolute necessity for a plan.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2721

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Resolved (on motion by Senator DRAKE -

That the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 5, 15, Iti, 19, 27, 36, 68, 77, 78, 91, 92, 95, 103, .124, and 142.

In Committee:

Clause 2 -

The State Acts specified in the first schedule to this Act are repealed to the extent in the said schedule indicated.

But the regulations fees rates and dues in force under any of the State Acts hereby repealed in any State shall as regards that State continue in force as if made or fixed under this Act until revoked by the Governor-General in manner prescribed. »

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– Since we last considered this clause I have, with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsman, recast the second paragraph in order to make the object aimed at absolutely clear. I do not think I need refer at any length to the subject matter because it has been fully discussed. The object is to leave the rates now in force untouched until they shall be altered by the Governor-General in Council in the manner prescribed in the Bill. I move -

That the second . paragraph be omitted with a view to insert in lien thereof the following words: - “But the regulations in force in any State under any of the said State Acts shall as regards that State continue in force until revoked by the Governor-General and rates and charges in force in any State under any of the said State Acts shall until rates and charges fixed by the Governor-General under this Act come into operation continue in force as regards that State and be applied in the same manner as if the said State Acts were not affected by this Act.”

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– The amendment as a whole has my concurrence, but there are certain words introduced in it that I think should have been omitted, so that we might have dealt with the principle which they involve when we came to clause 19. I would suggest to the Minister whether it would not be better to take the discussion on clause 19 instead of at this stage. Under clause 19 the Governor in Council is empowered to make any variation he may think fit in regard to the rates of postage and the carriage of postal matter. I pointed out before, and I would again impress upon the committee the importance of this departure from what has been the practice in the majority of the States, namely, that when any alteration is required in regard to the rates of postage matter it shall be done by Act of Parliament, and not merely at the will of the Minister of the day. I say the Minister of the day because, although it is provided that the Governor-General in Council shall make these alterations, we who have been behind the scenes know perfectly well that in nine cases out of ten Orders in Council simply mean the decision of the Minister in charge of the department to which they relate. If this were a small matter I would readily agree that the power should be intrusted to the Governor-General in Council, but when we remember that it will involve millions of money and affect the whole of the States, I think it will be seen that the -very gravest consideration on the part of the Senate is required before we assent to leave such a power in the hands of any Ministry, let alone of any Minister. The general rule, so far as my experience goes, should be followed in this matter, and any change required in regard to postage rates and the carriage of postal matter should receive the most careful consideration of both Houses of Parliament. A proposed change of rates should be embodied in a Bill to go through the ordinary procedure of discussion in both Chambers before receiving the assent of the Legislature. The principle is really involved in a few innocent words in this amendment. It is provided that the - regulations in force in any State under any of the said State Acts shall, as regards the State, continue in force until revoked by the GovernorGeneral -

That is perfectly right, but then the amendment goes on to provide - and rates and charges in force in any State under any of the said State Acts shall until rates and charges fixed -

In -what way? Not by Act of Parliament, but by the Governor-General.

Senator Drake:

– This amendment was drafted after we had agreed to clause 19.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I think this is the time to take exception to such a proposal. I did not know until I saw the amendment that the Minister intended to- raise the question before we reached clause 19. I call attention to it now so that we may at ones decide whether the Postmaster-General - or if he likes to put it, the Cabinet - shall have the -absolute power to decide what the postal rates shall be, and to commit the whole of the Commonwealth to those rates. It may be said that in clause 19 provision is made for the Order in Council to be laid before both Chambers, and that unless either House takes exception to it, it then becomes law. We know perfectly well what happens when Orders in Council and regulations are laid upon the table of a House. They are hardly ever seen, and it does appear to me to be most unwise to trust to some honorable member of either House, having the good luck to come across these regulations, and then to move that the House do not agree with them. What happens in such a case ? The safeguards that necessarily follow the introduction of a Bill are absent. If any honorable senator, takes exception to a regulation, it simply means that each honorable senator canonly speak once. I feel that I am justified in calling the very serious attention of the Senate to what, to me, is an innovation on what has been the established practice . in dealing with postal matters. Do not let us leave it in the hands of any Minister to pass regulations changing the whole of our postal arrangements, trusting to honorable senators dropping across those regulations when laid on the table of the Senate.

SenatorMcGregor. - We should want to deal with -them more quickly than we are dealing with the Postal Bill.

Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
VICTORIA

– I prefer to be sure than sorry. Quickness is not always safety. In order to test the matter, I move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the words “the Governor-General under this Act,” lines 13 and 14, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “Act of Parliament.”

Senator DRAKE:

– This matter was fully discussed at an earlier stage in the Bill. It was considered on the second reading, and it was also fully discussed on clause 19. That clause, as amended, seems to meet with the approbation of the Senate. I have had clause 2 re-drafted in the belief that the Senate is still of the same opinion as when we adopted clause 19. I am quite willing, however, to accept a discussion and to test the matter on this clause. The practice in regard to the fixing of rates has been different in the several States. It is quite true that in Victoria it is necessary to have an Act of Parliament to alter a postal rate. Hence the necessity . ‘ recently for the passing of an Act in Victoria reducing the postal rate from twopence to one penny. In New South Wales the rates can be altered by an Order in Council. In Queensland an Act of Parliament is required.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– What is the practice in South Australia?

Senator DRAKE:

– I am not quite certain. It is not a matter of importance however. The subject did not gain any prominence until recently, when many of the States were considering whether they should not lower their postal rates in contemplation of the approaching federation. When I brought the Bill down it contained provisions that the rates for postage should be fixed by the GovernorGeneral, and that they should be laid on the table of the House within fourteen days of the assembling of Parliament,

They were to become law on proclamation in the Gazette. A number of honorable senators expressed the opinion that it was not desirable that that power should be left to the Governor-General in Council, and that the rates should become law as. soon as notified in the Government Gazette. After the second reading I made a proposal that clause 19 should be altered, so as to provide that the regulations fixing rates should be laid on the tables of both Houses for fourteen days, and should not become law if either House expressed dissent from them. The clause as it stands now apparently gave complete satisfaction to the committee. It says -

The Governor-General may fix the rates of postage to be paid upon postal articles and the charges for the transmission and delivery of telegrams or other communications by telegraph.
A scale of such rates and charges and of alterations of the same shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if the Parliament be then sitting, or if not then within fourteen days after the next meeting of the Parliament, and if either of the said Houses does not, within fourteen da)’s after such schedules have been so laid before ‘it, resolve that such rates and charges or any of them ought not to come into force, then such rates and charges shall, when published in the Gazelle, have the force of law.

I need not read the latter part of the clause, but that is the provision which apparently met with the full assent of the committee, and with such a provision there is not the slightest fear that Parliament will lose its control over the rates. This means making the thing thoroughly public, and I may say that from a departmental point of view it is likely to cause more inconvenience than the method proposed in the first place, for the simple reason that no alteration may be made in a rate, however trifling it may be, unless Parliament is sitting. Though it may be considered desirable - when Parliament is not sitting - to make some alteration in the rates, we must wait until Parliament meets again before we can do so, and the alteration proposed must then be laid before both Houses for fourteen days, when they will each have an opportunity of disapproving of it, and if either House dissents from the rates proposed, they cannot become law. Under these circumstances Parliament has ample control over the subject. I want the committee distinctly to understand the special reasons there are why we should not follow the Victorian practice on this occasion, and fix the rates by schedule: I will not express a positive opinion on the matter ‘ myself, but the general opinion is that if we by law fix a rate, it must be a uniform rate for the whole of the Commonwealth. If we fix the rates by a schedule to this Bill, we must make those rates uniform, and that would mean that we must introduce penny postage in some States which at the present time are not prepared for it. We know very well that there are several States that are not in as flourishing a condition as we should desire them to be, and the Treasurers of those States are, I know, particularly anxious that nothing should be done to make their financial condition worse than it is at the present time. What I proposed to the committee - and I think the committee was entirely in accord with me on the point - was that, however desirable it might be to introduce penny postage, it was just as well that we should first know how we stand from a financial point of view, and that we should know what our revenue and expenditure is. Our revenue is not, I think, so enormous as Senator Sir Frederick Sargood indicated. It is, I think, about £2,250,000, but inconsequence of the different methods of bookkeeping adopted in the different States, and the different methods of making payments, it is almost impossible to know with any degree of accuracy how we stand with regard to revenue and expenditure. I think, therefore, that it is very desirable thatbefore we make a reduction of postal rates which would involve financial loss to the States of £300,000 perhaps, we should know exactly how we stand. I do not desire, therefore, that the alteration should be made at the present time, but I hope it will be made as soon as possible. It is not desirable that we should be tied up to our present scale of rates until we have an opportunity of putting a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. The proposal submitted at present gives every possible safeguard, because the rates proposed must be laid on the table, and if they are objected to by a majority in either House, they cannot be passed. We know, however, that there may be very considerable difficulty in getting a Bill through both. Houses of Parliament, especially when there is any pressure of business. I trust that unless there is some very good reason for it, the committee. will not depart from the decision that it has deliberately arrived at.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– It seems to me that the PostmasterGeneral’s explanation is thoroughly satisfactory, and I intend to support him. With all due deference to Senator Sir Frederick Sargood, I think the fact that either House has the power to dissent from any rates proposed makes this a very much stronger measure than it would otherwise be. I am sure that if there are not enough members in one Chamber to look after the matter there will be in the other. We are told that in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom:

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I was in the chair when Senator Drake was dealing with this matter, and I can bear out what he said as to the assent of the committee to this proposal. As I had not an opportunity of speaking on the clause, I would like to ask the Postmaster-General a question. I understand the loss on the inland andInter-State revenue through penny postage in the State of Tasmania would amount to upwards of £20,000 a year. I am quite aware that the loss would be reduced every year, and from what we have seen in Queensland, and I think in Canada, it is astonishing how soon the loss incurred in that way is made up. Still Tasmania, in view of the shortage of revenue she will have’ to suffer under federation, would not care to have cast upon hera loss of anything like £20,000, and I wish to ask the PostmasterGeneral whetherhe thinks it wise for the Governor-General in Council to take upon himself the responsibility, by regulation, of introducing a system of penny postage, which will inflict such a loss upon one State, instead of introducing a Bill for the purpose, when the representatives of Tasmania and other States could express their views as to whether or not the proposal was premature. It seems to me that is casting a great responsibility upon the PostmasterGeneral and his colleagues, and does not give the State most interested in the matter sufficient opportunity to discuss the proposal before it is carried out. I say so because when the regulation is laid upon the table, and the press has announced that penny postage will commence from a certain date, it is possible that honorable senators and members of the House of Representatives will not care to go so far as to object to it, when if the matter had to be dealt with by a Bill they might suggest that it should be postponed to another session. I would ask the honorable senator if he is prepared to state the psychological moment at which we should commence the penny postage without consulting the members of the States, excepting in so far as they are represented in the Cabinet by Ministers 1

Senator DRAKE:

– The representatives of the States will have the most ample opportunity for discussing the matter when the rates are laid on the table of each House. With regard to the psychological moment, in my opinion it is the moment when the States can conveniently bear the additional burden, and, I say, that the change should be made as soon as possible. Senator Dobson made a slight slip in his reference to Queensland, because we have not the penny postage’ system in force there, and the burden involved upon Queensland in the alteration would be something more like £40,000 than £20,000. It is, however, quite correct that in every country where the postage has been reduced the deficit has been made up very quickly. In Great Britain, in Canada, and recently here in Victoria and New Zealand, the reduction of the postage was made in the face of a rising revenue. The principle that the postal management has always adopted is that where it is seen that the revenue is coming up possibly to overtake the expenditure then is the time - exactly in the same way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses his surplus to reduce a deficit - to reduce the rates of postage. That is the course that has always been followed, and with great success. At present we cannot be sure whether our postal revenue is overtaking the expenditure, but I hope that given twelve months - for experimenting, I was going to say - forgetting our bookkeeping into correct order, we shall know where we stand, and I hope then to be able to introduce penny postage throughout Australia.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5, 15, and 16, verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 19-

The Governor-General may iix the rates of postage to be paid upon postal articles and the charges for the transmission and delivery of telegrams or other communications by telegraph.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I wish to call attention to sub-clause (1). I am aware that theword “ telegraph “ covers telephone, but the word telegram is defined in clause 3. It occurred to me that the better plan would be to strike out the words “ other communications by ‘ telegraph “ and insert “ for the construction and use of telephone lines and instruments,” because that, as I understand, is really what is meant.

Senator Drake:

– Why construction ?

Senator Playford:

– This all deals with charges and not with construction.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– It shows the difficulty of drafting an amendment in a hurried manner.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– The expression “communications by telegraph” is to be found in many places in the Bill. It covers the use of the telephone, because, under clause 3, a telephone is a telegraph. A communication by telegraph covers something not being a message which has been sent.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - It refers to the transmission and delivery of telegrams and other communications. The department can deliver a telegram, but it cannot deliver a message by a telephone.

Senator Drake:

– We use the telephone and the telegraph in connexion with one another.

SenatorSir FREDERICK SARGOOD. -

If the Minister is satisfied, I shall not press the amendment.

Clause verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 27 -

The proprietor, printer, or publisher of any newspaper shall . . . register it … .

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– I ask the committee to reconsider its decision, substituting the word “ shall “ for the word “ may “ in the first line. The clause now provides that the proprietor, printer, or publisher of any newspaper shall in such time and such form become registered. The reasons which were given for the change appeared to be good and sound, but when we consider that we have not power to insist on a newspaper being registered unless it wants to use the Postoffice, it will be seen that it is absolutely necessary to restore the word “may,” otherwise we shall be exercising a right which we have no claim to do. I move -

That the word “ shall,” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “may.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 verbally amended and agreed to. Clause 68 -

The master of a vessel not carrying mails under a contract for the carriage thereof, and being about to depart from any port within the Commonwealth to any port or place beyond the Commonwealth, shall, before the clearance outwards of such vessel, give to the postmaster or officer in charge of the post-office at the port from which such vessel is about to depart not less than twelve hours’ notice in writing of the intended time of departure of such vessel ; and every master of a vessel not carrying mails under a contract which is about to depart from a port within the Commonwealth to another port or place therein, shall, before the clearance of the vessel, give to the postmaster at the port from which the vessel is about to depart not less than six hours’ notice in writing of her intended hour of departure. ……..

Senator DRAKE:

– I invite the committee to reconsider the reduction of the notice to be given by a ship before clearing from port. It was originally fixed at 24 hours, but it was altered to twelve hours. Twelve hours would be sufficient in a great many cases, but it would hardly be sufficient in the case of vessels clearing for foreign ports, and seeing that there is no special time mentioned for this notice to be given, it is clear that the provision could be complied with by the vessel giving a notice at 7 o’clock in the evening to go at 7 o’clock next morning. The notice might be running through the night, and it would be impossible for the postal authorities to arrange to put their mail bags on board. Under these circumstances I move - . .

– It does not refer to coasting steamers. It refers to vessels going to any port or place beyond the Commonwealth.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the word “ six “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ twelve.”

Senator MILLEN:

– I understand that this provision deals with coasting vessels. Supposing that a coasting vessel were putting into port for provisions . and going on again, it would necessitate a detention of probably ten hours, when a stay of a couple of hours would be sufficient, in order to comply with this rather drastic provision. I do not like the provision at all, but I would suggest to the Minister that if he desires to retain it he should leave the six hours’ notice as it is, as being perhaps a fair compromise between the convenience of his department and the convenience of the ship-owner.

Senator DRAKE:

– I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 -

The Postmaster-General shall have the exclusive privilege of erecting and maintaining telegraph lines and of transmitting any message or other communication by telegraph within the Commonwealth, and performing all the incidental services of receiving collecting or delivering such messages or communications except as provided by this Act or the regulations :

Provided also that nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from erecting maintaining and using any telegraph line which is wholly within and upon land whereof he is the proprietor or occupier and solely for his own purposes if no part of such line is within 12 feet of any line of the Postmaster-General.

Amendment by (Senator Drake) agreed to-

That the words “any message,” line 3, and “ messages,” line 7, be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ telegrams.”

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– It was pointed out to me after the proviso was inserted that it might be inapplicable in the case of a telephone inside a building. It provides that no private wire may be carried within 12 feet of a Government wire. There is a very good reason for that provision, because by induction, it would be possible to read the messages going along the public wire. That refers wholly to telegraph lines erected in the open. Senator Sir Frederick Sargood referred to the case of a private telephone in a man’s house, where his instrument might be on the wall, and within a very few feet of the wire outside. I propose to ask the committee to make the proviso read in this form -

Provided also, that nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from erecting, maintaining and using -

any telegraph line which is wholly within or upon land, whereof he is the proprietor or occupier, and solely for his own purposes, if no part of the said line is within 12 feet of any line of the Postmaster-General.; and
any telegraph line which is wholly within a building, whereof he is the occupier or proprietor, and solely for his own purposes.

I think that will carry out the desire which was expressed.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– This proviso at present reads : -

Provided also that nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from erecting, maintaining, and using any telegraph line.

The words “or erecting” provide for something to be done, and it has been pointed out to me that it is necessary to protect telephone wires in existence. Therefore, I intend to move that the word “erecting” be struck out, with a view of inserting after the words “ telegraph line “ the following words - “heretofore erected by him, or from erecting or maintaining any telegraph line.” The proviso will then read : -

Provided also that nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from maintaining and using any telegraph line heretofore erected by him, or from erecting or maintaining any telegraph line which is wholly within and upon land, and so on. The amendment deals with lines in existence, and with the erection of lines in the future. First of all,I move -

That the word “erecting,” line 10, be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

I move -

That after the words “telegraph line,” line 11, the following words be inserted : - “ heretofore erected by him, or from erecting, maintaining, and using any telegraph line (a).”

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:

– I now intend to move -

That after the words “Postmaster-General” the following words be inserted : - “(b) Any telephone line which is wholly within a building whereof he is the occupier or proprietor and solely for his own purposes.”

Senator SirFREDERICK SARGOOD:

– Ido not think that the amendment moved by the Postmaster-General -would be suitable. It will be noticed that the proviso says-

If no part of such line is within 12 feet of any line of the Postmaster-General.

We have to deal with three classes of lines. First, electric-lighting lines, which we know carry a heavy voltage - about 2,000 volts - and are dangerous, and should not come within the breadth of a street either of a telephone line or a telegraph line. Then we have to deal with telegraph and telephone lines, which, in the open air, where the wires are uncovered, should not “come within 12 feet of one another. But in buildings where the wires are all covered and thoroughly insulated from end to end, there is no reason why they should not even, touch and lie alongside one another without the slightest injury. Bearing in mind that the words telephone and telegraph are synonymous terms, I would point out that in almost every building in the city a telephone line comes in at the corner of the building, and then very often wires distribute the message all over the building. The message comes through from the telephone exchange, and a clerk hears what it is, and connects the two necessary lines. If the provision is to be left as it is, it will be absolutely necessary that these wires within a building should be at least 12 feet apart.

Senator Drake:

– No ; we have got rid of that difficulty. This amendment is intended expressly to get over it. The honorable senator will find that it is all right.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).As far as I make out, both Senator Sir Frederick Sargood and Senator Drake have the same object in view. I want to attain that object also, but I am not quite clear that the amendment submitted by the Postmaster-General will do so. It will do so, however, if before the second proviso, lettered (b), the word “ or “ be inserted. This would clearly indicate that under either set of conditions, the private owner would be able to carry on the operations of his private telephone.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That after the words “Postmaster-General,” the word “ or “ be inserted.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– What does the 12 feet provision apply to ?

Senator Drake:

– To lines in the open.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I do not think it says so. However, the better course will be to leave it as it is, and the clause be recommitted if we find it necessary.

Amendment (by Senator Drake) agreed to-

That after the word “or” the following wordsbe inserted: - “ (b) which is used for telephonic communication and is wholly within a building whereof he is the occupier or proprietor and solely for his own purposes.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 -

Provided that where a private line has been or shall be constructed by a person who is the owner of the land upon both sides of a road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek, then such person shall have the right on payment of the prescribed fee of continuing or carrying such private line across any such road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek at a height of at least . 18 feet from the surface of such road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek, or otherwise as approved by the Postmaster-General.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

- -This was the provision which caused a great deal of trouble to the committee. It was asked with a great deal of force what right the PostmasterGeneral had to give a licence to any private person to cross a road by a wire. It is perfectly clear to me that the department has a right to run a wire along a street, and if we can do that we interfere with private persons. I therefore think it would be better to omit the proviso and insert a new one ; so that instead of saying that we confer a right upon any person to cross a road, we say that nothing in this Act shall prevent them. I move -

That the proviso be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “Provided that where a private line has been constructed before or after the commencement of this Act by a person who is the owner of the land upon both sides of a road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek, then nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent such person on payment of the prescribed fee from continuing or carrying such private line across any such road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek at a height of at least 18 feet from the surface of such road, railway, tramway, public reserve, Crown lands, or creek, or otherwise as approved by the Postmaster-General.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I should like to ask the PostmasterGeneral whether this confers a right on the owner of a. line on both sides of a road to carry it across that road at a height of 18 feet, or whether he must first obtain the approval of the PostmasterGeneral. It might happen that the PostmasterGeneral would prefer the line to go underground.

Senator DRAKE:

– I do not think it gives any right. We simply waive our right to prevent a person from doing it. I think that in these circumstances a private person would incur the whole responsibility himself.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– Even though the department accepts the fee.

Senator DRAKE:

– Yes ; we simply receive the fee for waiving the right which we think we have to prevent such a person from carrying his line across the road. If we had one of our own lines running along the roadway we could certainly interfere and regulate the manner in which a privatelyowned wire should be carried across ours. All that we say in this case is that we believe - if we like to exercise our powers -that we could interfere and prevent aman from running his line across a road, but that we will not do so. We receive a small fee for waiving that right.

Senator Millen:

– I hope it will be a small fee. I know that in New South Wales it is pretty high.

Senator Drake:

– I think it is something like £1. That is not very high.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

– This provision will not give the owner of a private line the right to take it across a road without first obtaining the authority of those having the control of the road.

Senator Drake:

– He would have to get their permission.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– Yes. In our State he would have to get the authority of the district council, and, where there was no. district council, he would have to go to the State Government. That must be distinctly understood. The PostmasterGeneral would have a perfect right to prevent the owner of such a line from carrying it across a road, or even from erecting a telegraph line, except on his own property, under our own special law, which gives the monopoly to the postal department. We cannot give a right to a private individual to carry a line across a road, although we can take the right ourselves. Private individuals who are going to construct these telegraph lines must therefore remember that there are other authorities whose- consent they must obtain, before they exercise the privilege given them under this clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91-

The Governor-General may make regulations for the following purposes or any of them : -

Prescribing the fees, rates, and dues to be received for -

any conversation on any telegraph line on any telephone exchange or private telephone line ;

For the purpose of providing for the payment of a rate of wages and fair work’ing conditions in all contracts under this Act, such rates of wages and conditions to be those recognised in the locality in which the work is carried out.

Such regulations shall when published in the Gazette have the force of law.

The production of the Gazelle containing a regulation shall be sufficient evidence of the due making of the regulation and that it is still in force :

All such regulations and alterations thereof shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after the making thereof if the Parliament be then sitting or if not within fourteen days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– I move -

That the words “or private telephone line,” in sub-clause (2) of paragraph (n), be omitted.

The question involved is,, what the term “ private telephone “ means. If it means a line from the exchange to a private building, then the provision is quite right ; but if it means a private telephone inside a building, then these words should be struck out.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– We do not intend that the provisions shall apply to a private telephone inside a building. That is not contemplated. .

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– I understood it was, and that is why I gave notice of this amendment.

Senator DRAKE:

– I may explain that there are a number of private telephones erected by the department for, and paid for by, private individuals. We make arrangements with the owners of these lines to allow other people to use them on payment of a certain fee, part of which goes to the owners and the remainder to the department.

It is to these lines that the provision in the Bill refers.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– - In view of that statement I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by. leave, withdrawn.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I should like to obtain the opinion of the committee on the question of whether we should not have some alteration in the method of adopting these regulations. In order to test the opinion of the committee, I propose to move- -

That the words “Such regulations shall when published in the Gazette have the force of law,” lines 17 and .18, be omitted.

My object is to provide that all the regulations set out in the clause shall be laid on the table of both Houses before having the force of law. I propose to move for the re-insertion of the words at the end of the clause.

Senator Drake:

– We could not do that.

Senator PEARCE:

– If it is important that Parliament should have the power of revision as to rates of postage, then surely it is important that we should have the right to deal with regulations for the purpose of providing for the payment of a rate of wages, and fair working conditions in contracts for the carriage of mails.

Senator Drake:

– There is nothing in that, lt is a very small matter.

Senator PEARCE:

– I think it is very necessary that the Senate should have the power of determining whether such regulations carry out the wishes of Parliament. What injury can be done to the department by requiring that such regulations shall be laid on the table of the Senate in the same way as those relating to the rates of postage?

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Before the honorable senator moves his amendment, there is another matter to which I should like to refer. I am not at all satisfied with the statement made by the PostmasterGeneral as to the meaning of the second sub-clause in paragraph («). Power is given to the Governor-General to make regulations, prescribing the fees, rates, and dues to be received for any conversation on any telephone line, or in any telephone exchange, or any private telephone line. The word “any “ practically means all. It may be the intention of the Postal authorities to limit this provision to lines, such as those mentioned by the Postmaster-General ; but with considerable knowledge of the extent to which regulations are worked in my own State, I should fear to seethe sub-clause passed in that form. If the Postmaster-General only desires to have the power to charge in the cases he has referred to, I would suggest to him that he should make that intention a little clearer, otherwise ‘ some one may discover in the sub-clause a justification for attempting to make charges in regard to other lines.

Senator DRAKE:

– I would point out to Senator Pearce that this clause relates to matters that are dealt with by regulation now; they are matters connected with the continual eyery-day working of the Postoffice. We carefully overhauled the clause and took out such important matters as the fixing of rates, considering that regulations in regard to them should lie on the table for fourteen days before becoming law. Now the honorable senator proposes to put all the regulations upon the same footing. I think the Senate will see the great inconvenience that would result from the adoption of such a course. We should not be able to make the slightest alteration in respect of any of these matters while Parliament was out of session. We should be unable to do anything until’ Parliament met.

Senator Millen:

– But the regulations simply have to be laid on the table after Parliament meets.

Senator DRAKE:

– That is how the matter stands now. Senator Pearce, however, is proposing that these regulations shall not become law until they have laid on the table for fourteen days. That would be quite unworkable. In regard to the rates of wages and provision for fair working conditions in mail contracts, the honorable senator need feel no alarm, because the regulations relating to that matter must compare word for word with what is stated in the Bill itself. The only effect of making the alteration which he suggests would be to prevent us from putting the regulations into operation until Parliament met. No doubt we shall be able to prepare them before the present session closes, ‘but if we were not able to do so we should have to wait until next session.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I think our object has been to separate matters of policy, such as the fixing of rates for the carriage of newspapers and so forth, from purely administrative matters. In my opinion we can afford to leave the clause as it is, seeing that we have provided that regulations relating to questions of policy must be laid on the table of the Senate. I think we should leave all purely administrative matters to the PostmasterGeneral, who is the responsible Minister.

Senator Pearce:

– In view of the Minister’s statement I do not wish to press my proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 92-

The Postmaster-General shall have power to indict fines upon officers employed, in the department for any neglect of duty or irregularity in the conduct of the business of the department in accordance with regulations and- scale of fines approved by the Governor-General.

– Every man will have the right of appeal under the Public Service Bill.

Clause negatived.

Clause 95 (Unlawful possession of mills for making postage stamps or postal note paper).

Senator Sir FREDERICK S ARGOOD.This clause has been recommitted in consequence of my having called attention to the fact that there is no provision made for an appeal. It creates a number of crimes and misdemeanours, and, apparently, there is no provision for an appeal. The Minister promised to consider the point and say whether it was necessary to insert a special appeal clause. I am one of those who think that no man should be tried and sentenced without some right of appeal.

Probably the Minister will be able to explain whether it is needed or whether it will be covered in some other way.

Senator DRAKE:

– I have taken advice in this matter, and I am informed that it will be necessary to pass legislation to constitute a court, and that at the same time provision will be. made for an appeal.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– When ?

Senator DRAKE:

– It willbe done in one of the judiciary Bills shortly.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 103-

Any postmaster or other officer or servant employed in the department, or any master of a vessel, or other person employed or authorized by or under any postmaster to receive, sort, carry, or deliver any mail or any postal article sent by jjost or otherwise, who shall offend against or wilfully neglect or omit to comply- with any of the regulations to be made as in this Act mentioned, or with any of the provisions of this Act (for breach or neglect of which no other punishment is hereby provided) shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £25.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– This clause involves practically the same matter as we dealt with just now - - the penalties on officers of the department. My idea is that the penalty should apply to all those who are not officers of the department. I move -

That after the word “other,” line . 1, the words “person not being an “ be inserted.

It will take from the operation of the clause all officers of the department, who will be dealt with under the Public Service Bill.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– These are rather serious offences,- for which a penalty up to £25 is provided. It might be considered advisable, perhaps, to discuss them and the Public Service Bill together, but I cannot’ see that there is anything in that Bill which is inconsistent with this clause.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– The . Minister can dismiss under that Bill.

Senator DRAKE:

– The Minister can dismiss under the Public Service Bill, but these are special offences connected with the department, and this provision is taken from the Act of New South Wales.

Senator Millen:

– The Postal Act was in existence long before the Public Service Act was passed.

Senator Clemons:

– The marginal note shows that the Postal Act was passed in New South Wales in 1867.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I move -

– There is no distinction drawn in the Public Service Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 124 -

Any person who, without the authority of the Postmaster-General (the proof of which authority shall be on the person charged) sets up, maintains, or uses in or on any Crown lands, or in or on any public road, street, or highway, any telegraph line, or wilfully uses any telegraph line set up before or after the commencement of this Act, and neglects to comply with any notice from the Postmaster-General, or a deputy PostmasterGeneral to pay such charges (if any) in respect of the line as may from time to time be fixed by the Governor-General, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every day during which any such line is orcontinues to be so set up, maintained, or used contrary to the provisions of this Act.
The Postmaster-General may authorize any person to take absolute possession of, cut down, or destroy the whole or any part of any such line.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).This clause proceeds to take away a right which is given by a previous clause to owners of private wires. Clause 77 gives the right, without any authority, to a man to use telegraph lines. If it gives him an authority what is clause 124 wanted for? It is either intended to allow the owner of an existing line to continue to use it or the possessor of certain property to erect a line within that property and use it without any application to the Minister or it is not.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– Say “except as provided in section 77.”

Senator MILLEN:

– I propose that -

After the words “Postmaster-General,” line 2, the words “ except as provided in section 77 “ be inserted.

Senator HARNEY:
Western Australia

– I think the amendment is entirely unnecessary. Clause 77 says that the PostmasterGeneral shall have the exclusive privilege of erecting and maintaining telegraph lines and transmitting messages, provided that nothing therein shall be taken to prevent persons from erecting and using any telegraph line of a private character.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– No, he cannot authorize under clause 77.

Senator Millen:

– Under the clause a man has a right without any authority f rom the Postmaster-General.

Senator HARNEY:

– It reads-

Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from erecting, maintaining, and using any telegraph lines which is wholly within and upon lands whereof he is the proprietor or occupier, and solely for his own purpose if no part of such line is within 12 feet of any line of the Postmaster-General.

Senator Playford:

– He wants no authority for that.

Senator HARNEY:

– Clause 77 does not apply to the proviso at all, and clause 124 refers to persons who offend against what it is stated that persons shall not do under clause 77. It is not stated that they shall not maintain and use telegraph lines for private purposes. It is stared that they shall not use them for purposes other than the proviso sets forth, and clause 124 says that persons who do things which they are not authorized to do, shall be punished. I think it is quite unnecessary to have any amendment. Clause 124 begins with the words - “Any person who without the authority of the Postmaster-General sets up or maintains,” that is, any person who is unauthorized, and the Postmaster-General can authorize under clause 77.

Senator O’Connor:

– With the authority of the Minister is quite enough, and the authority is given in the clause.

– Then clause 124 seems to emphasize arid indorse it by referring to the authority.

Senator DRAKE:

– The authority referred to in clause 124 is authority to set up and maintain a telegraph line on any Crown lands, or in, or on an)’ public road, street, or highway. There is nothing in any other part of the Bill to show that a person has authority without the permission of the Postmaster-General to erect telegraph lines under those circumstances.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).-

Clause 77 says -

Nothing in this section shall be taken to prevent any person from erecting, maintaining, and using any telegraph line which is wholly within and upon land, whereof he is the proprietor or occupier.

That is Crown land principally in -the State from which I come. These telephones are used more largely on Crown land than elsewhere. It means the land of which the owner of the telegraph or telephone line. is in occupation. Surely that is the same as Crown land referred to in clause 124.

Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - Reading clauses 77 and 77a, what is provided is that the Postmaster-General shall have the exclusive privilege of putting up any public telegraph line and transmitting messages thereon, provided always that it is not to apply to certain private lines which are referred to. Clause 77a says that he may, on such conditions as he deems fit, authorize any person to greet and maintain telegraph lines within the Commonwealth, that is that he can authorize them to erect and maintain telegraph lines which are outside the proviso which is specially made. Clause 124 then comes and exactly fits in with clause 77a. It says that if such lines as a person cannot erect by virtue of the proviso, and which he can only do by reason of the authorization of the PostmasterGeneral are erected he shall suffer a certain penalty. It seems to me that nothing could be logically clearer than the reading of the three clauses.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I also am inclined’ to agree with Senator Harney in thinking that clause 124’ is necessary. It seems to me to be obvious that any one who will read clause 77a and clause 124 together will see that clause 77« provides for the erection and maintenance of telegraph lines within the Commonwealth - and those terms are broad enough to cover every possible contingency - upon certain conditions. Clause 1 24 then goes on to provide for what happens if lines are erected and maintained without complying with those conditions. The conditions in question are clearly the permission of the Postmaster-General. So that it seems to me that clause 1 24 is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Clause 77a provides that you may do it upon certain conditions, and clause 124 provides what will happen if you do not- comply with those conditions.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).If the clause really said what the last speaker has declared it does say, there could be no objection to it. But it does not. Clauses 77, 77a, and 78 provide that, while the Postmaster-General has the exclusive privilege of erecting telegraph lines, there are exemptions in favour of certain individuals. Clause 124 does not provide a penalty for those who erect telegraph lines contrary to clause 77, but goes on to say that persons to whom clause 77 has exempted shall apply to the Postmaster-General. That is ray point. I have no objection to a clause providing a penalty for those who erect and maintain telegraph lines illegitimately, but what I object to is that those who erect them under clause 77 shall have to apply to the Postmaster-General.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

–

It seems to me that the contention of Senator Millen is not correct, because parts of clause 77 provide for telegraph lines set up by private persons. “

Senator Millen:

– No ; upon Crown lands upon which the person is the occupier.

Senator PEARCE:

– If he is the occupier he would be in the position of a land-holder, inwhich case you could not speak of the lands as “ Crown lands.” I take it that the meaning of the words “ Crown lands “ in this Bill is unoccupied Crown lands.

Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - I think the lawyers in this Chamber will agree with me that the true construction of the proviso at the end of clause 77 is that the enactment there as to the exclusive privilege of erecting and maintaining telegraph lines that is given to the PostmasterGeneral does not apply at all to certain exempt cases ; and that, therefore, persons who within the exemption erect telegraph lines, do not “erect and maintain” lines that are dealt with by this Bill. Clause 77a, says that the Postmaster-General may, on such conditions as he deems proper, authorize persons to “ usethe same.” What is meant by “the same” ? The things that cannot be erected under this Bill, under the exemption. Therefore you have to read clauses 77, 77a, and 124 with the proviso, which merely says that those who come within the proviso shall not erect telegraph lines at all within the meaning of this measure.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I think the Postmaster-General must have seen what is fairly obvious by this time, that clause 77 refers to land of which a man may be proprietor or occupier. The land of which he can be proprietor or occupier is also referred to distinctly in clause 124 in a contradictory manner when it deals with Crown lands. It is obvious to me that a man may be the occupier of Crown lands, and so far as the words “ or on any Crown lands “ are concerned, they seem to me to be contradictory of clause 77 in so much as a man . may be the occupier of Crown lands.

Senator DRAKE:

– I think it will be better for the amendment to come at the beginning of clause 124. I therefore move -

That before the word, “any,” line 1, the following words be inserted - “Except as provided in section 77.”

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - May I again call attention to clause 77a. It involves a very important question. Practically the. whole of the trade are up in arms against it. They say that under clause 77a they cannot undertake to do any repairing or maintaining without the authority of the Postmaster-General. I must confess that the clause reads like that. I am sure that is not what the PostmasterGeneral mean’s. I hope he will make a note of the point.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 142 (Restrictions when telegraph lines injuriously affected).

Amendment (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the following new sub-clause be added -

Where such electric lines or works have, with the consent of -

the Postmaster - General or a Deputy Postmaster-General ; or

the Postmaster-General of aState before the transfer of the department of Posts and Telegraphs to the Commonwealth, been constructed prior to the erection of the telegraph line of the Postmaster-General injuriously affected thereby, the Postmaster-General shall pay to the person owning or using or entitled to use such electric lines or works the amount of any costs reasonably incurred or damages sustained by him by reason of compliance with such conditions aud restrictions.

Senator ‘ KEATING (Tasmania).- When the Bill was previously in committee the Postmaster-General promised to give consideration to such cases as that of the Municipal Council of Launceston, who, under statutory powers conferred upon them by the Parliament of Tasmania, have erected a system of electric lighting for that city. I do not think that the honorable senator has gone far enough in his proposed amendment. What I propose for the consideration of the committee is that as an amendment upon the amendment that has been moved there be inserted after the words “injuriously affected thereby” the following words -

Or have been constructed by any person under powers in that behalf vested in such person by statute of any State.

Senator Drake:

– It would be betterto move the amendment as a new sub-clause.

Senator KEATING:

-I use the word “person” advisedly, because it would cover any body politic, such as a city corporation, under our Acts Interpretation Act.I do not intend to necessarily restrict the operations of the amendment to any particular body, such as a municipal council, because in many instances inland towns have been lit - as is the case in New South Wales - by electrical authorities, the powers connected with which were originally vested in individual person’s. But those persons have assigned, their rights to a company for the purpose of exercising those rights in the public interest. Therefore, I use the word “person” to cover the case of any body politic or any local authority. I do not see that the adoption of my amendment can defeat the object the Postmaster-General intends to give effect to by his own amendment. The amendment of the honorable gentleman only refers to cases where the original wires have been erected prior to the erection of the telegraph line. In the case I am more particularly acquainted with, the city from which I come - Launceston - the telegraph wires were erected years before; but the authority to convey electric power for lighting purposes was conferred upon the Corporation by statute, together with such restrictions as would prevent the exercise of the power proving prejudicial to the State, which was conducting the Telegraph department in the interests of the people. I think I can convince the PostmasterGeneral, by reference to the statute under which the Launceston Corporation exercises its powers, that the Postal department has been amply protected, and that in the discharge of its duties it would be in no way prejudicially affected. I think the honorable senator will find, if he takes the amendment as I have suggested it, that it would be better than making it a new sub-clause.

Senator DRAKE:

– I should like to consider this amendment carefully before I agree to it. I am sorry that Senator Keating, before he brought forward his proposal, did notin some way convey to me his intention of doing so. 1 ought to have an opportunity ofascertaining whether this is really a case for special legislation. This is a particular work which has been carried out by the Corporation of Launceston, and I am not.in the position- of knowing whether the department ought to be put in the position of having to pay for an alteration of the wires.

Senator Keating:

– I drew the PostmasterGeneral’s attention to the whole of the circumstances on the 10th instant, and he promised to give consideration to the case.

Senator DRAKE:

– I have given some attention to it, and have accordingly brought forward this amendment, which was circulated some days ago. I am not prepared to go further than the proposal I ‘ have submitted. I think it is quite sufficient to exempt works which have been carried out with the consent of the PostmasterGeneral or a Deputy PostmasterGeneral or the Postmaster-General of a State before the transfer of the department to the Commonwealth. The amendment which has been suggested by Senator Keating would not fit in with the present phraseology of the clause.

Senator Sir John Downer:

– Would not the word “ lawfully “ cover it?

Senator DRAKE:

– I do not think so. A wire might be lawfully constructed and yet should not be exempt. This is not at all an analogous case to that under the English Act to which I previously referred where the wires were put up with the authority and consent of the Board of Trade.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - I find that the words “prior to “ are the key to the whole position. I am told that they will affect the whole of the wires of the city of Melbourne, and as I have said before it would be monstrously unfair to penalize any body which had erected lines in accordance with the law.

Senator Sir John Downer:

– “ Lawfully “ is the right word.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

– I am only using the word as a layman. The question whether these wires are put up prior to or subsequent to the erection of lines by the Commonwealth should not affect the matter at all. The whole question is, whether they have been put up lawfully. If they have, the PostmasterGeneral must agree with me, that it would be exceedingly unfair to throw the cost on the parties. If the Postmaster-General does something which places his line in jeopardy he ought topay for it.

Senator Sir” JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– It appears to me that the words “ with the consent of,” which appear in the amendment, are unnecessary. It would be quite sufficient to say “ where such electric lines or works have been lawfully constructed prior to,” and so on. Supposing that a line can be lawfully constructed with the consent of the Postmaster-General, and that that consent has been obtained, then the line is lawfully constructed. It seems to me that . if the Postmaster-General were to adopt the suggestion I have made he would cover the whole thing.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).The Postmaster-General has informed the committee that he wants time to consider the case introduced by Senator Keating, because it seems to him to he a special one. A general principle, however, is involved. It is not a matter of individual cases. Sir Frederick Sargood has mentioned a case in this State, and I know of several in New South Wales where municipal councils have constructed electric lighting works.

Senator Drake:

– Such cases would be covered by the words - “ With the consent of the Postmaster-General.”

Senator MILLEN:

– -Some of these works ha ve been carried out under special Acts.

Senator Keating:

– And the Postal department lias been protected by those Acts.

Senator MILLEN:

– Amply protected. I am of opinion, however, that the words “ prior to,” which appear in the amendment, will still be necessary if the suggestion made by Sir John Downer is carried out. If the Postmaster-General erected his lines first he should stand in the position which we now contend should be occupied by those who construct the works referred to here. Therefore I think the words “ prior to “ should remain.

Senator DRAKE:

– In all the States I think it is the Postmaster-General who has to consent to the erection of private wires, and probably if I had time to inquire I should find that the Postmaster-General had consented to the works referred to by Senator Keating.

Senator Keating:

– They had to give notice to the Postmaster-General before they erected the wires, so that he might take action if necessary. As he has not done so they should now be protected.

Senator DRAKE:

– Seeing that these wires have been erected with the consent of the Postmaster-General the expense of any alterations that may be necessary must be paid b3r the Postal department. That is provided for.

Senator Harney:

– Why not use the word “lawfully,” as suggested 1

Senator DRAKE:

– I do not know exactly the force of that word, but the provision ‘ contained in the amendment covers everything.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I would point out to the Postmaster-General that the insertion of the words “ prior to “ prevents this clause from covering even contingency. As a matter of fact the electric lighting lines in Launceston were not constructed prior to the erection of the State wires. They were erected, however, under statutory power, which provided carefully “ and fully - against any possible injury to the telegraph lines of the State of Tasmania. I cannot see why the PostmasterGeneral should insist upon the use of words which introduce a qualification that must inflict an indirect injustice, and a qualification for which, under no circumstances, can I see any justification. I would urge the honorable and learned senator to remove the two words I have referred to. They create a limitation, or they would not be there. If they do that the Postmaster-General must also admit that they may give rise to an injustice. As a matter of fact we who represent Tasmania assure the honorable and learned senator that they may do considerable injustice in that State if they are permitted to remain.

Senator DRAKE:

– We say that the telegraph wires are to be first, and that other wires which are erected so as to injuriously affect them, must be removed, at the expense of the owners. If there are wires which are already lawfidly in position, and it is necessary for the department to remove them, then the department must pay the cost. If the telegraph line is erected first, and other lines are subsequently put up, which we say must be removed, then the parties who own them must bear the cost.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I am still unconvinced. Why is the PostmasterGeneral not satisfied with the legislation carried out by Tasmania to secure the PostmasterGeneral of that State from injury? The State of Tasmania by direct legislation has given the Postmaster-General all’ the protection he asks for, and if he consents to insert in the clause the word “ lawfully,” he will secure his department, while at the same time he will prevent our rights from being imperilled.

Senator Drake:

– -But “those rights will not be imperilled.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General is one that I cannot possibly understand. I do submit, with all respect, that if the honorable and learned senator inserts the word “lawfully” he makes ample provision for his own department. At the same time he will satisfy us. If we are both satisfied then what is the objection.

Senator HARNEY (Western Australia). - If I am wrong in my interpretation of the amendment, I hope the PostmasterGeneral will tell me% The first ‘thing is to get a clear understanding of what is intended. I should take it that the clause means this. Where certain electric wires are put up by persons other than the PostmasterGeneral in accordance .with the law, then if the Postmaster-General puts up public wires afterwards he shall compensate the persons who are injured by anything he has to do in the the erection of those public wires. But if the Postmaster-General puts up wires for the public convenience first, and then individuals who want to erect lines for their own private purposes come along, they shall not be paid compensation. If the Postmaster - General substitutes “ lawfully “ for the words contained in paragraphs (a) and (b), then I shall have no fault to find with the latter part of the clause. The latter part says that the PostmasterGeneral shall give compensation when wires have been put up prior to those owned by the department, in case the person who has put up those wires is put to loss without any warning on the part of the department. When the Postmaster-General erects his wires first the private individual who comes ulong afterwards will get no compensation, because he should have opened his eyes and seen that the public wires were already there. I would simply suggest to the Postmaster-General the substitution of the word “lawfully” for the words contained in paragraphs (a) and (6). Those words are exhaustive of what would be “ lawful.” I think it would be better to use the more general term. If the Minister considers that private lines can only be lawful when they are put up with the consent of the Postmaster-General or a Deputy Postmaster- General, or the PostmasterGeneral of a State before the transfer of a department, it is right to put those words in, but if there are other cases in which they might be lawfully erected then we should use the general term. Certainly the PostmasterGeneral will have no objection to using the more general term if really all that he means is contained in paragraphs (a) and (b). I am not with Senator Millen in his objection to the use of the words “prior to.” I do not see nay reason why a person should get compensation when he comes along after public wires have been erected and puts up his own.

Senator Millen:

– That is what I endeavoured to saw

Senator HARNEY:

– Then I am with the honorable senator.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania). - So foi: as substituting the word “lawfully” for the words “with the consent of,” and also for the words contained in paragraphs (a) and (b), I am perfectly in accord with, those who have given expression to the necessity for such a course. At the same time I cannot agree with the Postmaster-General that there is strong necessity for the retention of the words “prior to.” Some of the authorities in Launceston who have erected these electric wires for the purpose either of: conducting power or light have done so under direct statutory authority conferred on them. Some of these lines may have been erected ten or twelve years. They were erected in compliance with the stringent, provisions of statutes, imposing on their owners obligations which necessitated their safeguarding the interests of the Postal department. If they have carried out those provisions rigidly and strictly, and have had ten or twelve years’ use of the wires,, then I say that they had an already existing vested right, when the department was transferred from the State to the Commonwealth, which the PostmasterGeneral should recognise. Take the instance to which I have already referred. The Postmaster-General has taken over the administration of the Telegraph departments of the several States, and amongst them the Telegraph department of the State of Tasmania. If the Telegraph department of that State has recognised that the erection of certain wires in the past have not -in any way prejudicially affected the wires under their control, surely the Postmaster-General should take over the property of the Telegraph department of Tasmania, subject to the conditions existing at present.

Senator Harney:

– And as laid down in the statutes

Senator KEATING:

– And as laid down in the statutes. It is precisely for that reason that I ask for the elimination of the words “prior to” from the amendment. At the present time certain persons in the State of Tasmania, have satisfied the authorities of the State, and have complied with the conditions laid down in the Act empowering them to erect certain wires. The same thing will apply in the case of persons in other States of the Commonwealth, and I think the Postmaster-General should take things over as they are, subject to’ the existing liabilities, and carrying whatever advantages the department may have at the present time. Certainly the position in Tasmania is that these wires could not be shifted by the State department without recognising the vested rights already in existence, inasmuch as those who have erected the wires have absolutely complied with the conditions of the statute. It was hardly correct to say that the PostmasterGeneral or the Deputy Postmaster-General in the State of Tasmania had consented to the erection of these wires. I find that it is only in certain cases that it is necessary for this bodyto notify the department, within a certain period, of their intention to erect wires in any direction, and if the Postmaster-General thinks fit he can then take action. If he takes no action at all, can it be said that by his silence or inaction he has given the consent which is referred to here? I contend that these bodies, by virtue of the statutory provisions under which they have constructed their works, have acquired, and will continue to acquire as the years go on, vested rights which should not be interfered with, simply because of the transference of the different departments to the control of one person. I am prepared to suggest an amendment, leaving out the words - “ With the consent of,” and paragraphs (a) and (b), and inserting the word “lawfully “ after the word “ been,” so that the amendment would read - “ Where suchelectric lines or works have been lawfully constructed,” and so on.

Senator Drake:

– I will agree to that.

Senator KEATING:

– Then I move-

That in the amendment the words “with the consent of (a) the Postmaster-General or a Deputy - Postmaster-General; or (b) the Postmaster-General of a State before the transfer of the department of Post and Telegraphs to the Commonwealth “, be omitted.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Keating) agreed to-

That the word “lawfully” be inserted after the word “ been,” line 10.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- This question is now in a serious position, because I can assure the Postmaster-General that if he insists upon these words “ prior to “ being inserted in- the clause, he will have to face a direct, collision between this Act of the Commonwealth and an enactment of the Parliament of Tasmania. I assure him that the Parliament of Tasmania hasdirectly legislated in a manner that is opposed to this clause with regard to the rights of certain corporations to erect electric works and wires, and that those works were not erected prior to the erection of the telegraph lines which the PostmasterGeneral of the Commonwealth has taken over. This clause, if amended, as now proposed, will be in direct antagonism to the Tasmanian legislation. I do not want to speak at any length now upon the constitutional aspects, and I ask the PostmasterGeneral to let us know what he proposes to do.

Senator DRAKE:

– If the works referred to were not erected prior to the telegraph line, and if their wires injuriously affect ours, they should go to the extent of putting their wires in such a position that they would not injuriously affect our telegraph wires. That is the policy in connexion with telegraphs all over the world. I think Senator Clemons does not bear in mind that the wires which do our work carry .a very light current of electricity, while the wires the honorable senator is speaking of probably carry a very heavy current of electricity, and where they injuriously affect our wires I think they should at the expense of the persons who have received authority to erect them be placed in such a position that they shall not injuriously affect our line. That is the policy adopted in England and in the States, and it is the right policy.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - This is contrary to the understanding we arrived at previously. I see that as used here the words “prior to” will have a very much wider effect than I understood was to be the case. I understood that the reference was to any line constructed prior to telegraph lines erected by the Commonwealth, but not to lines taken over by the Commonwealth, which is a very different thing. If it is to affect all lines taken over by the Postmaster-General it seems to me to be an injustice.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales). - I spoke just now in favour of the retention of the words “prior to,” but looking back through the Bill it appears to me that they are quite unnecessary. The Postmaster-General maintains that lines which maybe erected now should be removed without any claim, for compensation where they interfere with telegraph lines, and if the honorable senator does maintain that, I am with him. I point out that they would not be lawfully constructed because they would be an offence against clause 136 of this Bill, which states that no electrical works shall be carried out whereby any telegraph line of the Postmaster-General is or may be injuriously affected. We have only to deal with the lines already constructed, and we have to legalize their construction. Clause 136 appears to me to give ample protection to the postal authorities in the case of any works which may be constructed from this time forward. That being the case, I am now inclined to agree to the suggestion that the words- “ prior to “ should be omitted.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I move -

That the words “ prior to the erection of the telegraph line of the Postmaster-General injuriously effected thereby,” be omitted.

Senator Clemons:

– But he had legislative authority.

Senator HARNEY:

– Therefore make the State pay compensation.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania).- According to the definition clause, telegraph line covers telephone line, and in most of the instances which have been referred to, and which are covered by this clause, it will be the telephone rather than the telegraph lines of the Minister, which are likely to be injuriously affected. As we all know many of these wires are carried along side by side through the streets ; numbers of them possibly may have been erected before the private wire was put up, and, perhaps, a far greater number of them may have been erected after the private wire was put up. We have that peculiar position to face. I think the amendment will save the rights of those who have acted under statutory authority, and it will also preserve the status quo, not only of those particular persons, but of the several States with respect to those particular persons in connexion with the authorities which were vested in them. I ask that the PostmasterGeneral will recognise that in taking over the departments of the several States, he took them over exactly as they stood, not only in themselves, but with regard to the individualsof that community. Idonot think that honorable senators should consider, simply because illustrations have been used here having reference to existing rights in Tasmania, that this amendment is proposed merely in the interests of those particular persons. There are also others who are interested in a provision of this character. The city of

Melbourne and other municipalities and districts throughout the Commonwealth will be affected, and their rights may be seriously entrenched on by a Minister, who, taking a totally different conception of the circumstances from what was taken previously by the Deputy Postmaster-General of the State, may consider that the wires were injuriously affected. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:
South Australia

– I have had two or three opinions about this question while it has been discussed, because it is very hard to pick up the effect of the various clauses on each other.I am very much influenced by what Senator Harney said. Clause 136 says-

An electric authority shall nob construct any electric line or do any other wor k for the generation use or supply of electricity whereby any telegraph line of the Postmaster-General is or may be injuriously, affected.

That has nothing to do with the past. It all relates to future lines which he is to construct. But then comes in this proviso as to electric works which have been constructed under the common or statute law, as the case may be, prior to the erection of telegraph lines by the Postmaster-General. It is sought in an indirect way to make the two clauses consistent, and repeal clause 136 by an alteration in the subsequent clause, which is not a correct way of drafting a Bill and probably is against the standing orders. What strikes me is that there is no danger in the thing, and that we are all pulling the same way, although using different means. It appears to me that none of the difficulties which Senator Keating mentions can arise, because, so far as the lines are concerned, they are constructed. Any line which is constructed by the Commonwealth must be constructed subsequently to his lines. Therefore his lines were constructed prior to the others.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– It does not say so.

Senator Sir JOHN DOWNER:

– The Commonwealth is dealing with what exists now, and with lines to be erected in the future. Supposing that you have the lines existing, or supposing that you have not the lines existing, and that after your lines are created the Commonwealth erects some line which is in conflict with it; it has to pay you, but if your line is erected subsequently to that line no State shall have authority to give you power to construct a line which is destructive of a Commonwealth line. I think the provision is entirely right.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD (Victoria). - If the clause means what Senator Sir John Downer states,’ I am entirely with him, but it must be borne in mind that the Postmaster-Generalhas already taken over a number of lines and that some of these private lines have been erected since those lines were put up. As I understood the clause it was to apply to all lines to be erected subsequently to the passing of the Bill, and if words are put in to that effect I think we shall all be content, but with all due deference to the last speaker I do not think that it reads in that way. It says -

Prior to the erection of the telegraph line of the Postmaster-General.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– Lawfully put up?

Senator HARNEY:

– Lawfully, by virtue of a private Act of Parliament.. I acted as counsel for the promoters of the private line. I think nobody will deny that if the particular private line I am speaking of were put up after this Bill becomes law, and it then had to be removed, the promoters would have to pay. All the PostmasterGeneral asks is that he should be put in the same position in reference to the State lines he takes over in regard to private lines already erected as he is in at the present moment in reference to private lines put up hereafter. In. Western Australia it was considered a very great grievance that the lines of the public authority having control of the telegraph system should have been injuriously affected by the private lines. Nothing was done in that case; but I think it should be in the power of the PostmasterGeneral to say to these people - “Though your lines were put up before this Bill became law, you arc in exactly the same position as if you put up the lines after I was clothed with the authority. I give you notice by this Act that you put them up at your own risk inasmuch as if you interfere with public property you take the consequences ; and it is not because the State of “Western Australia has not hitherto asked you to remove those lines, that the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth on taking over the work should be precluded from the same power of removing, at your expense, that the State of Western Australia would have had if it had chosen to exercise the right.”

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I should like to point out to the Committee that it is quite obvious to us who are arguing this matter in reference to a case that we know well, that at the present time the telegraph lines in Launceston are not being injuriously affected by the electric lighting lines. In that respect we feel confident that this Bill will not hurt us even if the words complained of are left in ; because ample provision has been made by legislative enactment to prevent any injury. The Postmaster-General may ask - “ Why, then, are you making this fuss “1 I will tell him.

It is quite possible that the PostmasterGeneral may erect in Launceston an additional telephone wire, which may be injuriously affected by the electric works that have been erected there, under legislative enactment. The electric lighting wires might communicate injury to the whole telegraph service, under . which circumstances this clause would come into operation. I do not wish to detain the Senate, but the point is important, and I desire to place honorable senators in possession of the facts. I admit frankly that unless the Postmaster-General should do that sort of thing, these words would not hurt us, but I respectfully call his attention to the fact that wo should be very seriously, injured if a new telephone line were put up, by means of which the wires belonging to the corporation did injury to practically the whole of the lines in Launceston, which would not be injured, however, except for the erection of that new line. That is the difficulty we have to consider, and I appeal to honorable senators to help us in the matter.

Senator DRAKE:

– It seems to me that the honorable senator who has just sat down misapprehends the point. I understand now that he is supposing that if there’ has been a certain line of telegraph erected before some other wires were put up, it would bo held that those wires were put up after the telegraph line was’ constructed. The case, however, is as follows : - The department puts up a telegraph line. We find that it is injuriously affected by some other wire. The only question that will arise is - did wehave our telegraph wire there before the private wire was put up ? If so, the private wire must be removed at the cost ofthe owner; but if that wire were there’ before the telegraph line was erected, the removal must be at the cost of the department.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with further amendments.

page 2743

AUDIT BILL

Bill received from the House of Represen tatives, and (on motion by Senator O’Connor) read a first time.

page 2743

ASSENT TO BILLS

Royal assent to the following Bills, reported : -

Acts Interpretat ion Bill.

Supply Bill (No. 3.)

Senate adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1901/19010718_senate_1_2/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate18 July 1901

QUESTION

EASTERN EXTENSION TELEGRAPH COMPANY

Senator MCGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Senator BARRETT:VICTORIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Senator PEARCE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

FEMALE TELEPHONE OPERATORS

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL

PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES ACQUISITION BILL

Senator O’CONNOR:President of the Executive Council · New South Wales, Vice · Protectionist

Senator Millen:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Playford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Walker:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Walker:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Dobson:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Dobson:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Keating:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Keating:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Dobson:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator WALKER:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator WALKER:

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator Clemons:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator DOBSON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Millen:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator MCGREGOR:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McGregor:

Senate
18 July 1901

Senator MCGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE:
Postmaster-General · QUEENSLAND · Protectionist

Senator BARRETT:
VICTORIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
President of the Executive Council · New South Wales, Vice · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Col CAMERON:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales