View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
22 October 1919

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- ECONOMYCOMMISSION’S REPORT
QUESTION
- ADMIRAL VISCOUNT JELLICOE’S REPORT
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING
NAVIGATION BILL
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF RABBITS
QUESTION
- WHEAT POOL
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- DEPORTATIONS
QUESTION
- WAR LOANS
SUGAR
- Supplies for Millaquin Refinery
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
- Lt. -Colonel Ramsay Smith
ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2)
APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1919-20
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- COCKATOO ISLAND REPORT
TREATY OF PEACE (GERMANY) BILL
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Electoral Rolls - Holdsworthy Camp Canteen Funds

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

page 13667

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

War Gratuity

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if his attention has been directed to a statement attributed to the Prime Minister in Brisbane in regard to the issue of war bonds to soldiers ? Has the Minister any information to convey to the Senate on the matter referred to?

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– I have had an opportunity of hastily perusing the statement mentioned. In general outline the statement attributed to the Prime Minister is correct. The details have yet to be worked out by the Government, probably at their next meeting.

page 13667

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Disturbance atport Dar win.

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence if he has noticed in to-day’s Age the text of the letter Tead by Senator Ferricks in this chamber yesterday, which is alleged to have been written by Mr. Carey to Dr. Gilruth ? Has the Minister noticed that the letter contains inherent evidence either of being a forgery or of being written by a person unacquainted with, the ordinary rules of the English language? In the circumstances, to clear some one’s character, or determine the matter, will an inquiry be instituted at once?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– By courtesy of Senator Ferricks, I was supplied with a proof of his speeches, which I have submitted to the Minister for Home and Territories (Mr. Glynn). I prefer not to express any opinion on the matter until an opportunity has been afforded for investigation. The matter is certainly worthy of inquiry.

page 13667

QUESTION

ECONOMYCOMMISSION’S REPORT

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Defence whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a statement by Mr. King Salter, Manager of the Cockatoo Island Dock, to the effect that he knew nothing of the existence of the Economy Commission until he saw theirreport. Is it a fact that the Commission issued their report upon the Cockatoo Island dock without visiting the island ? Has the report been compiled, as regards other Departments of the Public Service, upon a similar lack of information?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– My attention was not drawn to the matter referred to by the honorable senator, but I should not be surprised if the statement attributed to Mr. King Salter were true, because I had no opportunity of meeting the Economy Commission either.

– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of his question with a view to the supplying of as full information as possible.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask whether the report of Admiral Jellicoe placed On the table of the Senate yesterday will be printed and circulated amongst honorable senators, and, if so, when?

Senator RUSSELL:

– The report is already in print. .

page 13668

QUESTION

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Shipping Insurancerates

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister in charge of the Wheat Pool, upon notice -

What was the insurance rate for shipping wheat in 1916?
The same for 1017?

SenatorRUSSELL. - A statement giving this information is attached. It reads -

page 13669

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Superannuation Scheme

Senator GARDINER:

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

Will the Government introduce a Bill before Parliament adjourns, providing for a scheme of superannuation, particularly in regard to the Defence Department?

SenatorRUSSELL. - The measures proposed to be dealt with this session do not include a Bill for the purpose mentioned, but the question of superannuation is receiving the consideration of the Government.

page 13669

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Separation of Families

Senator GARDINER:

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

Will the Government take into consideration the question of ceasing from deporting fathers of Australian-born children?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– All circumstances affecting these cases are carefully reviewed by the Internees Release Commission.

page 13669

QUESTION

WAR LOANS

Commission Paid to Members of Stock Exchanges

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

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

What amount has been credited in commission or brokerage to members of Stock fixchanges in Australia in connexion with the flotation of the Peace Loan?
What is the total amount so credited in connexion with the previous loans raised in Australia by the Government since the outbreak of war?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

The information in regard to brokers’ commission in connexion with the Peace Loan is not yet available.
Onehundred and four thousand one hundred and eighty-eight pounds thirteen” shillings and one penny. This amount represents commission at the rate of 5s. per £100 on subscriptions totalling £41,675,460. Commission to brokers is paid only on applications lodged through brokers. ‘ The total amount of subscriptions to loans in respect of which the above commission was paid was £188,470,700.

page 13669

SUGAR

Supplies for Millaquin Refinery

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

What is the estimated tonnage of raw sugar that it is intended to divert to the Millaquin refinery at Bundaberg?
For what period is it estimated that such tonnage will keep the refinery in operation?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– It is not possible to give the detailed information desired at present. As previously stated, it is hoped to keep the refinery employed during the year.

page 13669

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Visit of Warships to Darwin

Senator FERRICKS:

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

What was the cost to the Government for the Sespatch, retention, and return of H.M.A.S. ‘ Una and H.M.A.S. Encounter in connexion with their visits to Port Darwin at the end of last pear and the beginning of this year?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– There was no special cost to the Government, as these ships were commissioned ships of war, and the cost of their cruising and upkeep is provided for in the ordinary Navy Estimates.

page 13670

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Lt. -Colonel Ramsay Smith

With reference to the recall of Lieut.-Colonel Ramsay Smith, O.C. No. 1 Australian General Hospital, Heliopolis, Egypt, in 1915 -

Was he, either before or after, furnished with any reason’s for his recall? If so, when, and what were they?

Was any inquiry made before or after his recall? If so, by whom, and in what manner, and to -what effect?

Did he ask for any inquiry into the circumstances of his recall ? If so, was the request considered, and was he informed of the decision.

Is the Government possessed of any reports or documents of the War Office or other authorities relating to his recall? If so, has he been advised of the nature or contents of these?

Will the Government lay on the table of the Senate all correspondence referring to the subject of his recall?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are - 1 to 4. The correspondence on the subject of the recall of Lieut.-Colonel Ramsay Smith, Australian’ Army Medical Corps, Australian Imperial Force, to Australia, shows that he was informed by letter on the 15th August, 1915, by the Director of Medical Services, Egypt, that under instructions received from the Minister for Defence, Melbourne, he was to return to Australia at an early date. There appears to be no record indicating whether he was furnished with reasons for his recall before or after his return; but it has been’ explained by the Minister for Defence in Parliament that the decision was taken on the advice of the competent responsible authorities overseas, presumably given after due local investigation of the situation. A Court of Inquiry into the general administration of No. 1 Australian General Hospital and related matters was subsequently held iri Egypt by the local military authority, but, so far as the Department of Defence is concerned, it has -not been proposed to take action thereon.

The documents upon which the Minister acted in accepting the advice of the authorities overseas have already been shown to honorable members, and I shall be happy to enable the honorable senator and others to peruse them.

page 13670

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2)

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 13670

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1919-20

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

It has been the practice for a number of years to submit the Works Estimates some little time in advance of the General Estimates, in order to prevent unemployment by keeping in progress works which are already in course of construction. The total amount included in the Estimates for additions, new works and buildings for the current financial year is £397,144, which is £57,807 less than the amount appropriated for the year 1918-19. When it is remembered that the Estimates submitted for last financial year were £802,666 less than the amount provided for ‘the year 1917-18,it will be recognised that every endeavour is being made to curtail the expenditure wherever possible. The provision made in the measure now under consideration is mainly to continue works which were in progress on the 30th June last, and only in very urgent circumstances have new services been provided for. The principal items of expenditure are as follow: - Quarantine buildings, £12,552; Federal Capital TerritoryPhysical testing plant and incidental works, £4,800; drill halls and ordnance stores for Defence Department, £49,100; other defence works and buildings, £10,944; Post Office buildings £43,974; water boring, dredging, and other works and buildings, Northern Territory, £15,100; telegraphs and telephones and conduits, £165,000. The last is a fairly heavy item, but owing to the shortage of materials during the period of the war, postal works have been largely starved, in some instances very much to the detriment of the public.

Senator Guthrie:

– There is plenty of copper here.

Senator RUSSELL:

– There is now. The other items are: - Warlike stores, including field and machine guns, equip- ment, &c, £20,000; aviation- towards acquisition of sites and construction of hangars, workshops, &c, £40,000 ; other defence provisions £17,192; Naval works, £9,000; vessels for Customs and Quarantins Departments £5,100; and other war works and buildings, £4,382; making a total of £397,144. The list of works provided for in the Bill is not a very large one, but every honorable senator will re-‘ cognise that we must go a little slowly in our public expenditure until such time as an adjustment has been made, so that we may know precisely where we stand. In Committee, I shall be glad to give any information required by honorable senators. I wish it to be distinctly understood that the money proposed to be appropriated under this Bill is to be taken out of revenue, and not out of loan funds.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

. -I do not intend to indulge in a lengthy criticism of this measure. But I have here a statement which was. published in the Argus of 22nd inst., and which reads -

page 13671

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND REPORT

” Most Unjust,” says Manager.

Sydney, Tuesday. - In connexion with the re port of the Economy Commission, in which the administration of Cockatoo Island was trenchantly criticised, the general manager of the dock, Mr. King Salter, stated to-day that, like Captain Bromwich, manager of Garden Island, he was unaware of the existence of the Commission until he read its finding on Saturday. “ The decisions of the Commission,” he said, “ are most unjust. The Commission neither took evidence from the administration of the dock nor made any examination.” Mr. King Salter added that he was at a loss to understand how the Commission had arrived at its decisions, but he was absolutely certain that it had not got evidence to support its findings direct from the dock.

May I also refer to the delay which has taken place in connexion with the removal of the Seat of Government to Canberra ? It has frequently been stated that the supply of water at Canberra is inadequate, but honorable senators who have made such statements have never troubled to investigate the true position. At present there is an excellent supply of water available from the Cotter River, sufficient to meet the requirements of 250,000 to 500,000 people, and I do not suppose there will be such a population for some years to come. If the supply from the Cotter River fails, the Murrumbidgee could be drawn upon, and that river is capable of supplying an unlimited quantity. Any one who knows the watershed and the catchment area must admit that the supply available is ample for a large city.

Senator Shannon:

-A mistake was made in the system of supplying water.

Senator GRANT:

– It is quite possible that a more satisfactory arrangement could have been made by carrying the water by gravitation. The cost of erection of public buildings at Canberra suitable for accommodating Parliament, together with the necessary offices, has been over-estimated. I have been assured by a well-known Sydney architect that such works could be completed within nine months at a cost not exceeding £250,000. The estimate given by the Treasurer (Mr. Watt) is erroneous, and does not carry much weight. The delay in removing the Capital to Canberra is not creditable, and although I do not expect this Parliament or Government to agree to the removal of the Seat of Government, I intend to move an amendment which will give honorable senators an opportunity of recording a vote on the question of increasing the Federal Capital vote. I do not wish the vote to be regarded as one of censure or of lack of confidence, in the Government, but merely as an expression of opinion as to whether the Government are prepared to incur the necessary expense associated with the early removal of the Seat of Government to Canberra. It is particularly fortunate that the previous Parliament absolutely refused to sell any land in the Federal Territory, where there is an area exceeding 1,000 square miles, as well as a right of access to Jervis Bay.. The Territory is eminently suitable for the establishment of the Federal Capital, and there is, in addition to other advantages, a magnificent site for a racecourse. I suppose before very long we shall hear of the Canberra Cup, and such an event will doubtless eclinse the Melbourne Cup. A railway was proposed from Yass Junction to Canberra, and although the distance isi only a short one, nothing has been done. I doubt very much whether the railway from Queanbeyan has been extended to meet the proposed line from Yass Junction, and if it has not, I hope the Government will proceed with the work. I now give notice that I shall move -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator will not be in order in giving notice of his intention to. move an amendment, but he can indicate an amendment.

Senator GRANT:

– I wish to indicate that I intend moving an amendment to the vote in the following form: -

That in the opinion of this Senate the item set down for buildings at Canberra is insufficient, and that the item be referred back to the Government for consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Issue and application of £397,144).

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I ask the Minister how this total compares with the amount voted last year?

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

– It is £57,000 less, and as the vote of the previous year showed a reduction of £802,000, the total reduction is approximately £900,000 for two years.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Schedule

Divisions 1 to 8 (Department of Works and Railways), £140,852

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I should like some information with reference to the item £15,000 for new services in the Northern Territory.

Senator Russell:

– In that amount are included £8,000 for water boring and £3,900 for dredging at Darwin wharf.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I invite the attention of the Committee to the item £1,700, incidental work in the Federal Capital Territory, and I move -

That, in the opinion of the Committee, the item £.1,700, incidental works, Federal Capital,, is insufficient, and that the House of Representatives be requested to increase the amount to £250,000.

My object is to give honorable senators an opportunity of placing on record their votes, and making a pronouncement that there shall be no further delay in removing the Federal Parliament to its own home. I take it that it is possible to increase the amount, so that a sufficient sum may be. made available to proceed with the erection of temporary premises for Parliament and the officers whose services will be required in the Federal Capital. The time is opportune for the removal of the Seat of Government. If we are to continue in Melbourne year after year, we shall be much in the same position as the people of the Argentine, where, I understand, a .proposal for the removal of the capital to its proper site has been under consideration for more than fifty years. The proposal to have the Federal Capital at Canberra was specifically placed in the Constitution, and this, I am sure, had a considerable effect upon the people of New South Wales and Queensland when they were asked to enter the Federation. The removal of the Federal Parliament to Canberra will not mean very much to Sydney or New South Wales, but it might represent a slight loss to Melbourne. But an agreement like this ought to be respected. The people of South Australia are asking for the construction of a railway from Oodnadatta to the Katherine River because it was understood that that line would be built by the Federal Government. Another costly railway, from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta has been con structed, and some time ago the Commonwealth Government agreed to recompense Tasmania to the extent of £90,000 a year for her loss of Customs revenue. There is an impression in the minds of many people in New South Wales that there is a provision in the Constitution fixing a time limit of ten years on the location of the Federal ‘Capital in Melbourne; but, of course, there is no such undertaking in the Constitution at all, though there was an understanding that the Federal Parliament would meet at Canberra at the earliest possible moment. If it is going to remain in Melbourne for an indefinite number of years it would be just as well to remove from .the Constituion the provision fixing Canberra as the Federal Capital. I am satisfied that it would be a very good thing for Australia if Parliament were removed to its own home, and my abject is to give honorable senators an opportunity of proving whether they are favorable to this course or not.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

– I can speak without bias on this subject. I voted against the selection of Dalgety and Yass-Canberra, because I wanted to see the Capital City established away from the influence of any other town. I believe the people of Australia desire the Federal Parliament to be in its own home at an early date, but during the period of the war our national responsibilities were so heavy that it was impossible for the Government to proceed with public works of this nature. The vote now asked for is merely to preserve existing works. If the war were really over I would be inclined to take a broader outlook, but, so far as our expenditure is concerned, the war is not over, as we have very heavy obligations yet to meet. I am quite satisfied, therefore, that Senator Grant will not get a test vote on this matter. Certainly in my case it will not be a test vote, and I have no doubt other honorable senators are in the same position. As a member of the Government I do not know where we would get the money even if we were .prepared to go on with Federal Capital works at present. A vote on the request therefore will only place honorable senators in a false position.

I hope to see the Federal Parliament removed to the Capital City as soon as our national obligations, arising out of the wai-, make this course possible. I admit that the New South Wales members have been patient during the war period, and I ask them to be patient just a little longer. When we have disposed of some of our war responsibilities I shall be prepared to help them get the Federal Parliament removed to Canberra at the earliest possible moment.

Senator MCDOUGALL:
I will vote for Senator Grant’s amendment; but I agree that it has scarcely been introduced in the most appropriate place. The Minister (Senator Russell · New South Wales [4.50].

has remarked that the Government are at their wits’ end to know where to find money. I know where to find it for them. Cables from London in our daily papers tell us of the awful waste of money in the pleasures of life by the wealthy’ classes of England to an extent far greater than that before the war. The same thing is going on in Australia. We had evidence in a Court lately that a lady had given £80 for a coat and had worn it twice and thrown it aside; while another poor unfortunate devil gave evidence that she had worn the same coat for five years and could not throw it away till it fell to pieces.

When we speak of the difficulties of finding money we should consider this awful waste, and meet it with a wealth tax that could be devoted to useful purposes..

The transfer of the Federal Capital to Canberra involves the carrying out of an obligation, the honouring of a treaty which we cannot look upon as a scrap of paper to be torn and dishonoured; but if the Government intend doing anything at all it is due to New South Wales and to the Commonwealth, in fact, to state what they propose. If the Government have no intention of carrying out this national obligation, then they must be made to realize that that involves the breaking of a solemn promise. I do not say that because I come from New South Wales. Certain obligations were entered into upon the establishment of Federation. All those obligations, with the exception of the building of the Federal Capital, have been honoured. Western Australia has got its railway; South Australia has got rid of its territorial burden : Tasmania has been financially recompensed, and in a very liberal manner; Queensland has got rid of its black labour; but New South Wales has not got its Federal Capital.

Senator O’Keefe:

– A great many members of the Federal Parliament have taken a broad and federal view in respect to these obligations.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– They looked upon them as solemn obligations, and they assisted to carry them out. I look forward to the time, by the way, when the Government of Australia shall have become a purely Australian Government, and will no longer be hampered by purely State considerations. I think that that day is not far distant, if the present temper of the people may be accurately judged.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– These Estimates indicate increasing care on the part of the Government in connexion with Commonwealth expenditure.. It is highly satisfactory to learn that, as compared with last year, the Estimates are more than £50,000 less in connexion with one relatively small item; and that, compared with the Estimates of the year before, there is a reduction of more than threequarters of a million sterling. But there are certain items which still appear to be large. No doubt there will be still further scrutiny of various matters.

Senator Russell:

– Most of the items refer to works which are still going on. We must finish our jobs.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I understand that; and I realize that some of the money has been expended. Even if the Government thoroughly agreed with the recommendations of the Economies Commission, certain outlay has already been partially made, and economies with regard to those particular items could not be effected, at any rate, this year.

I desire to say a few words in support of the case put forward by my fellow senators from New South Wales. Whatever personal sympathy I have with Senator Grant’s proposed amendment, I would suggest that a test division should not be sought at this stage. Probably nearly half of the members of the Senate are away engaged upon activities in’ connexion with the forthcoming election. A division taken at this stage, therefore, would not be in any sense a test of the feeling ‘of the Senate with respect to the establishment of the Federal Capital at Canberra. No one in this Parliament can claim a greater measure of credit than Senator Grant in respect to the case for the establishment of Canberra. The honorable senator has acted as Parliamentary Secretary to the movement, and has at all times been very earnest and genuine in his efforts. The war interfered with the Capital project. Probably but for the war the matter might have been forced to an issue before now. I would like to see the question of the early erection of the Federal Capital at Canberra placed upon the programme of both the parties which are now about to appeal to the electors. This question has been largely the sport of parties in the past.

Senator Russell:

– That has not been so in the Senate.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I mean that in no unkindly way. But it has not been a plank in the platform of either party hitherto. No party has, so far, pledged itself that, if returned to power, it would carry out the transference to Canberra forthwith. If neither party makes the transfer a plank in its platform, no party will be under obligation, to proceed with the work. That being so, I fear that the presentsituation will be indefinitely prolonged. I suggest to Senator Grant that instead of forcing the issue at this stage, all those honorable senators who believe that Canberra should be swiftly made the home of the Federal Parliament should endeavour to have the question placed upon the platforms of both parties. Then, whatever may be the result of the forthcoming elections, the obligation to New South “Wales will be the more quickly honoured. I believe that parliamentary life at Canberra will afford a freer and fuller expression of the views and desires of the people of Australia.

SenatorDE LARGIE (Western Australia) [5.0]. - Whenever the question of the transference of the Federal Capital to Canberra has come before this Chamber, the debate has been conducted in a broad and generous manner. The only legislators who have adopted the parochial view have been certain Victorian senators. Senator Grant would have been better advised if he had introduced a motion at an earlier stage, and had inaugurated a clear and straight-out debate. To bring forward the matter now, in the dying hours of this Parliament, when the Senate is not fully attended, and when practically nothing can be done, appears to me to be rather unwise. Senator Grant would have been better advised had he first consulted his colleagues. In the interests of New South Wales I suggest that he withdraw his amendment rather than force a division which could not possibly be favorable at the present juncture.

Senator Pratten:

– You sympathize with the honorable senator?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Undoubtedly ! I have always beenprepared to carry out the obligations entered into by the people of Australia. The Federal Capital should be established at Canberra at the earliest opportunity; but to take a vote upon the subject now would merely have the effect of recording an inadequate expression of honorable senators’ views.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- During my connexion with the Senate I have never hesitated to express definite opinions with respect to Canberra. I look upon the subject in the light of a solemn bargain made between the people of Australia and the citizens of New South Wales. The latter have good cause for complaint. They should not have been kept . waiting for nearly twenty years in the expectation of witnessing the fulfilment of a very definite obligation. The Federal Capital should have been established at Canberra long ago. Personally, its establishment in the Federal Territory would be inconvenient to myself; but that is not a question for one moment’s consideration. The figures presented by Mr. Watt with regard to the transference amount to a rather miserable excuse for the inaction of the Government. If the matter of cost is to be regarded as an effective bar to-day it will as effectively hinder the establishment of the Federal Capital at Canberra for all time. I will not now enter into a discussion of the advantages to be derived from the transfer, except to remark that it has always appealed to me that the sooner the Capital is established at Canberra the sooner will the time arrive when the Commonwealth will receive a larger and ever larger amount of ground rent from the land which cannot be alienated in the Federal Territory. For that reason, if for no other, I would urge the establishment of the Federal Capital at the earliest possible moment. The principal consideration with me is that we have entered into a solemn pledge to establish the Capital in New South Wales territory, and have failed to Tedeem that pledge for nearly twenty years. We should have something better than the poor excuse that is set up now to prevent us going ahead with the Federal Capital scheme. For various reasons, I have been unable to visit Canberra. I have heard reports of the disadvantages of the site, and other reports which favour its selection very strongly. I do not know, which are right, but I have some confidence that those who are in charge of the work know what they are doing. There may have been a good many mistakes made in connexion with the building of the Capital, but I am inclined to think that they would not be more numerous than could be attributed to any other Department in Australia.

Whatever the cost of the building of the Capital might he, it would be repaid possibly a hundredfold within a few years. The sooner it is established, the sooner we shall be receiving income from the ground rents of land there. There occurs to my mind a very fine example, which was brought under my notice in Western Australia, of the advantage of the non -alienation of land in a city. I happened . to be passing through Kalgoorlie, and learned that, owing to the foresight of a few miners who formed the first municipal council, a block of land was purchased in the main street, and it was decided that it should not be alienated by the council. It was leased on a twentyone years’ lease. The mayor of Kalgoorlie explained the matteT to me when I was there. Buildings were erected on the land, and the council was receiving £2,000 a year ground rent. Either last year or this year, the whole of the buildings erected on the land came into the possession of the council, and for these they will probably get now £20,000 a year in rents. The mayor told me that they had £80,000 worth of assets in Kalgoorlie, and that the city did not owe one penny. When so much could be done in such a small place as Kalgoorlie, what might not be done in a city such as we hope to build at Canberra? We hold the land in the Federal Territory for the use of the people, and we can secure the communitycreated value due to the establishment of the Capital there for their benefit. This issue having ibeen set before us, I determined to express my views upon it, because I do not care to Tecord a silent vote on so important a matter. I shall be compelled to vote for the establishment of the Federal Capital, no matter when the proposal is brought before the Senate while I am a member of it, because we have entered into a serious and solemn obligation under the Constitution, and we should not delay the fulfilment of that obligation any longer.

Question - That the request (Senator Grant’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Division 9(Postmaster-General’s Department), £165,000; divisions 10 and 11 (Department of Defence), £77,192; divisions 12 and 13 (Department of the Navy), £14,100, agreed to.

Title and preamble agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 13685

TREATY OF PEACE (GERMANY) BILL

Second Reading

Senator GARDINER:

– I am aware of that. The powers conferred under the Customs Act were used by the Government with which I was associated, and by succeeding Governments, in a way in which I hope they will never be used again. But, the war having ceased, I trust that every business firm is now going to be placed in a position of absolute equality. Let me point to Article 264 of Part X. of the Peace Treaty. It reads -

Germany undertakes that goods the produce or manufacture of any one of the Allied or Associated States imported into German territory, from whatsoever place arriving, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges (including internal charges) than those to which the like goods the produce or manufacture of any other such State or of any other foreign country are subject.

Germany will not maintain or impose any prohibition or restriction on the importation into German territory of any goods the produce or manufacture of the territories of any one of the Allied or Associated States, from whatsoever place arriving, which shall not equally extend to the importation of the like goods the produce or manufacture of any other such State or of any other foreign country.

Article 265 reads -

Germany further undertakes that, in the matter of the regime applicable on importation, no discrimination against the commerce of any of the Allied and Associated States as compared with any other of the said States or any other foreign country shall be made, even by indirect means, such as Customs regulations or procedure, methods of verification or analysis, conditions of payment of duties, Tariff classification or interpretation, or the operation of monopolies.

Article 266 provides -

In all that concerns exportation Germany undertakes that goods, natural products or manufactured articles, exported from German territory to the territories of any one of the Allied pr Associated States, shall not be subjected to other or higher duties or charges (including internal charges) than those paid on the like goods exported to any other such State or to any other foreign country.

Germany will not maintain or impose any prohibition or restriction on the exportation of any goods sent from her territory to any one of the Allied or Associated States which shall not equally extend to the exportation of ‘ the like goods, natural products or manufactured articles, sent to any other such State or to any other foreign country.

Article 267 sets out -

Every favour, immunity, or privilege in regard to the importation, exportation, or transit of goods granted by Germany to any Allied or Associated State or to any other foreign country whatever shall simultaneously and unconditionally, without request and without compensation, be extended to all the Allied and Associated States.

Article 268 says -

The provisions of Articles 264 to 267 inclusive of this chapter, and of Article 323 of Part

(Ports, Waterways, and Railways) of the present Treaty are subject to the following exceptions: -

– I have named a member of the Government-

– The Minister has said the terms of the Treaty are very definite. I shall continue reading from the economic clauses in the Treaty: -

For a period of five years from the com ing into force of the present Treaty, natural or manufactured products which both originate in and come from the territories of Alsace and Lorraine re-united to France shall, on importation into German Customs territory, be exempt from all Customs duty. TheFrench Government shall fix each year, by decree communicated to the German Government, the nature and amount of the products which shall enjoy this exemption. The amount of each product which may be thus sent annually into Germanyshall not exceed the average of the amounts sent annually in the years 1911-1913.

Senator Russell:

– That is fairly definite.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, in regard to France and Germany. The clause continues -

Further, during the period above mentionedthe German Government shall allow the free export from Germany, and the free reimportation into Germany, exempt from all Customs duties and other charges (including internal charges), of yarns, tissues, and other textile materials or textile products of any kind and in any condition, sent from Germany into the territories of Alsace or Lorraine, to be subjected there to any finishing process, such as bleaching, dyeing, printing, mercerization, gassing, twisting or dressing.

Senator Senior:

– On a point of order, Mr. Deputy President, I draw attention to the fact that the honorable senator is reading extracts from the Peace Treaty dealing with the importation into German Customs territory of products or manufactured articles from the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, a matter that is not touched by the Bill at all.

Senator O’Keefe:

– During the many years that I have been a member of the Senate I never heard a point of order stated on such flimsy grounds. Senator Gardiner was dealing with clause 2 of the Bill, which states -

The Governor-General may make such regulations and orders and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out antl giving effect to the provisions of Part X (economic clauses) of the said Treaty.

Senator Gardiner was reading from Part X. of the Treaty.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - The honorable senator was quite in order in reading the extracts referred to.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not surprised that Senator Senior should be under the impression that I was out of order, because he never attempts to make himself acquainted with the business of the Senate. The only justification there is for the introduction of this Bill is that regulations which may be made under it will be limited by the clauses of the Peace Treaty to which I am referring. I realize, of course, that Senator Senior does not know anything about Part X of the Treaty, and apparently does not want to know anything about it. Article 269 of the Treaty states -

During the first six months after the coming into force of the present Treaty, the duties imposed by Germany on imports from Allied and Associated States shall not be higher than the most favorable duties which were applied to imports into Germany on 31st July, 1914. During a further period of thirty months after the expiration of the first six months, this provision shall continue to be applied exclusively with regard to products which, being comprised in section A of the first category of the German Customs Tariff of 25th December, 1902, enjoyed at the above-mentioned date (31st July, 1914), rates conventionalized by treaties with the Allied and Associated Powers, with the addition of all kinds of wine and vegetable oils, of artificial silk, and of washed or scoured wool, whether or not they were the subject of special conventions before 31st July, 1914.

Article 270 provides -

The Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to apply to German territory occupied by their troops a special Customs rdgime as regards imports and exports, in the event of such a measure being necessary in their opinion in order to safeguard the economic interests of the population of these territories.

– I used Switzerland as an illustration because it is one of the countries adjacent to Germany; and I venture to say it would be the simplest thing in the world to enter ostensibly upon trading relations with Switzerland, and arrange for the delivery of the specified goods to a German, port. The Government, by means of such regulations, would really have power to control the whole of our import and export trade, and without the restraints of an Act of Parliament, just as they controlled Australia during the wax period by means of the War Precautions Act regulations. The Government should get no extension of power without the approval of Parliament as representing the people of this country. If the power hitherto vested in the Government has been sufficient, surely they can ‘carry on until after the general elections. It is improper, to my. mind, for a Government to ask for these additional powers when their responsibility to Parliament ends next week, because it is quite probable that many of them will not be returned.

Senator Russell:

– That is not so; but the fact is that those matters have not yet been finalized.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Prime Minister said much more in Brisbane than Senator Russell was able to tell this Chamber yesterday.

Senator GARDINER:

– All the Minister could tell us was that finality had not been reached with respect to soldiers’ gratuities.

Honorable senators opposite always appear to be unduly irritated when criticism is launched from this side of the Chamber. Why should they be upset by my endeavour to analyze, in discussing this Bill, the powers sought for the making of regulations ? I confess that it was only when Senator Russell addressed the Senate that I began to realize the importance of this measure, the significance of what the Government are seeking to do, and of what we are failing to prevent them from doing. Parliament has never before been asked to confer on the Government powers for making regulations in this way.

Senator Senior:

– Has there ever before been such a Bill before the Senate?

Senator GARDINER:

– Never, except the Wai* Precautions Act. That measure conferred on the Government these very same powers. I do not think there is one honorable senator who will agree with the manner in which the powers conferred on the Government by the War Precautions Act were exercised. During my term as a Minister, I confess that I learned much; but I was never a party to any effort to interfere with the powers vested in Parliament. I early learned the principle of responsible government. I learned that a Government must be responsible to Parliament, just as Parliament is responsible to the people. The powers sought to be secured under this Bill indicate an effort to undermine responsible government. What is the Government of a country but a Committee of Parliament deputed to conduct the affairs of the country, supported in office by a majority of the members of Parliament? The present Government exercised huge war powers, and then, when they found that those powers could no longer be retained, they framed this Bill. What is the Executive? It consists, perhaps, of three Ministers and a representative of His Majesty. The latter does not take part in the meetings of Cabinet. He has no power or influence over the will of Parliament; but he is an important factor at the meetings of the Executive. By conferring upon the Executive the power to make regulations, we would be taking the recognised powers of Parliament from the representatives of the people, and handing them back virtually to the King’s representative^ - a distinctly retrograde step along the path of freedom. Certainly I shall not permit such a step without strong protest. It amounts to an effort to revert to the bad old days from which parliamentary government has slowly developed. I do not accuse the Government of any deliberate intention of doing wrong; but I do blame them for thoughtlessness; they have apparently failed to recognise and realize the direction in which they are tending. They are virtually seeking to end responsible government, and to place the power of government in the hands of an executive authority in which the King’s representative plays a very large part. The Executive may not even comprise a majority of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) is quite openly moving towards a dictatorship.

Senator Guthrie:

– Hear, hear! And you helped him !

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask honorable senators not to curtail the powers of Parliament by conferring upon the executive authority to issue regulations which may not meet with the approval of the people’s representatives in Parliament. Whenever an effort has been made to filch the rights of the people, that effort has not been made in the light of day, but by the slow undermining of principles upon which the liberties of the people have been based. In my opinion this measure is nothing more or less than an attempt to encroach upon the rights and liberties of the people, and I am endeavouring, with the highest possible motive, _ to bring the Senate to a sense of its responsibilities. I shall . oppose this measure at every stage.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– If the Government possess any reasons for introducing this Bill the Minister (Senator Russell) has failed to indicate’ them. If he had been able to relate any circumstances in which the powers nought to be conferred by_this Bill are likely to be required, now that the war is ended, my objections would not be so strong. Why should not the Government frankly make known their reasons? They propose to take to themselves unlimited and unknown powers - powers even more drastic than those conferred under the War Precautions Act. They are asking us to agree to regulations which may provide for the punishment of offences against those regulations by the imposition of certain penalties. If the offence is prosecuted summarily there may be a fine not exceeding £500, or imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve .months - or both. And if the offence is prosecuted upon, indictment a fine of any amount may be imposed, or imprisonment may be inflicted for not more than seven years - or both. If the Government expect to be confronted with circumstances such as would justify the imposition of these penalties, why should they not give Parliament some indication of the character of those circumstances ? Why should we not be made aware of the serious possibilities? Why should the Government seek to clothe themselves with wide and drastic powers practically behind the backs of the people’s representatives? I am not prepared, to give the Government the powers for which they ask. I am prepared to consider any measure which the Government may bring forward clearly defining the powers they desire. In view of the use which the Government made of the powers given to them under the Crimes Act and the War Precautions Act, I doubt very much whether any Opposition will again consent to any Government in this country being given the plenary powers which the present Government possessed under the measures I have mentioned. This Bill, if passed into law, will vest in the Government powers of a very farreaching character. It will place in their hands the absolute control of all commerce, internal and external, in this country, without any reference to Parliament. Such a measure should not receive the support of honorable senators. Let the Government introduce a Bill defining exactly the powers they require,, and the Senate will give it favorable consideration, but I do not think that the powers asked for in this measure will be conceded to’ the Government by any honorable senator on this side of the Chamber.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– The Bill before us is probably the most far-reaching -piece of legislation ever submitted to .this Parliament. It is a blank cheque in the fullest sense of the term. So far as I can remember, no Statute previously passed by the Federal Parliament has ever been confined to merely authorizing the Government of the day to legislate by regulation. We have had many Bills dealing with different subjects which have contained provisions enabling the Government to effect their purpose by regulations. In all these Bills there has been a general provision to the effect that for the purpose of the Act and withinits scope the Government should have power to make regulations. These regulations were in all cases to be made for a defined and indicated purpose within, the four corners of each particular measure and within its scope. If the Government, in the supposed exercise of the power to legislate so conferred by this Parliament, went outside the indicated purpose or made regulations not consistent with the Act or beyond its scope, those regulations would inevitably be held to be ultra vires. Parliament, when it gives the Government power to legislate by regulation, invariably indicates the scope for the exercise of that legislative authority. That scope is broadly, fully, and in as much detail as possible indicated by the provisions of the particular Statute conferring the power.

I am aware that it is said that the legislative authority proposed to be conferred upon the Government of the day under this Bill is limited in its scope to the provisions of Part X., covering the economic clauses of the Treaty of Peace, to which reference is made in the measure. That may be so, but I wonder if any member of the Senate, or if the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell) has contemplated the extent of Part X. of the Peace Treaty. Senator Gardiner, in addressing himself to the motion, has made a reference to some of its provisions, but even his references, though they might be considered extended, dealt only with matters of exports from Australia to Germany. Part X. of the Peace Treaty covers a very wide range of activities not merely in relation to export and import, but in relation to invention and the exercise of the ordinary faculties of mankind. If honorable senators will look at the table of contents in the document setting out the Treaty of Peace, they will find that Part X., covering the economic clauses of the Treaty, is divided into a number of sections. Section 1 deals with “ Commercial relations “, and is divided into -

Chapter I. Customs regulations, duties, and restrictions. (Art. 264-267).

I think it was only in regard to that that Senator Gardiner made any quotation. The section also covers the following chapters: -

Chapter II. Shipping (Art. 271-273).

Chapter III. Unfair competition (Art. 274 and 275).

Chapter IV: Treatment of nationals of Allied and Associated Powers (Art. 276 and 279).

Chapter V. General articles (Art. 2S0 and 281).

Then there come -

Section II. Treaties (Art. 2S2-295).

Section III. Debts (Art. 296).

The Minister made some slight reference to the matter of debts when moving the second reading of the Bill. He pointed out that it was proposed to establish something in the nature of clearinghouses as between the Allied Powers and Germany. As a matter of fact, there is a whole Annexe to the Treaty, covering more than a page or two, and in smaller print than the ordinary text of the Treaty dealing with the establishment and operation of these clearing-houses. “We have also -

Section IV. Property rights and interests.

Section V. Contracts, prescriptions, and judgments.

To that section there are three Annexes, each printed in smaller type than the ordinary text of the Treaty. There is an Annexe covering general provisions, another covering provisions relating to certain classes of contract, and a third covering special contracts of insurance. Then we come to section VI., “ Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.” The Minister referred to that section, to which there is another Annexe, in small type. Then there is section VII., dealing with “ Industrial Property,” upon which the Minister touched very lightly indeed. We all know that the rights of persons in different countries with regard to industrial property and the recognition of those rights in other countries is preserved by various conventions entered into between the great Powers before the war. We know that with regard to patents, trade marks, copyrights, and matters of such concern there are conventions existing between different European countries, and even countries outside Europe, such as Japan, are parties to these conventions. This subject alone is of enormous ambit, and, so faT as the possibilities of the future are concerned, it is absolutely unbounded. In it and connected with it are all the possibilities of invention, of enterprise, and of commercial ambition.

Upon all these subjects it is proposed to invest the Government of the day with full legislative power in a way in which power has never been conferred upon any Government before in .relation to any other matter. Then under Part X., covering the economic clauses of the Treaty, we have a further section VIII., dealing with “ Social and State insurance in ceded territory.” That may not concern us very much, but I have read enough in quoting the heads of the sections of Part X. to show the wide field of possibilities covered by that part of the Treaty of Peace. Over all that field - existing, future, present, and possible - we are to give to the Government permanently, if we pass this measure, unlimited authority to legislate by regulation. I, for one, am not going to do that. I have more than once objected to legislation by regulation, even when the Government of the day were tied down to legislate within the compass of the measure in which the provision enabling them to legislate by regulation was contained. To pass a Bill which authorizes any Government, I do not care what, to legislate by regulation over the illimitable field of possibilities disclosed by Part X. of the Peace Treaty to which this measure refers is something that I am not prepared to do.

Sitting suspended from 6.S0 to 8 p.m.

Senator KEATING:

– I ask honorable senators to reflect for a moment upon the present powers and responsibilities of this Parliament. Last week we dealt in this Chamber with a Bill relating to elections for the Senate. Let” us suppose that a Government came down to this branch of the Legislature and submitted for our consideration a Bill which read as follows : -

This Act may he cited as the Senate Elections Act. 2, The Governor-General may make such regulations and orders, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the Constitution with regard to the election of members of the Senate, would any honorable senator support it? I unhesitatingly say “No.” Yet such a Bill would give the Government of the day the power to legislate by means of regulations upon only one subject. Of course, it may be urged that in our Electoral Act we do give the Governor-General power to make certain regulations. Of course we do. We give it under that Act, and for the purpose of giving effect to the general principles and provisions of the Act itself. But here we are asked to do nothing of the kind. Instead, we are invited to endow the Government with full legislative authority to give effect, to the provisions of Part X. of the Peace Treaty. Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I read merely the headings of the sections contained in that portion of the Treaty, with a view to showing the numerous fields of activity and endeavour which they cover. If Parliament were invited by this or any other Government to pass a similar measure to that we are now considering, in regard to the subject of immigration,, would it do it? Certainly not. If it were asked to empower the Government to legislate by means of regulation upon the subject of marriage or divorce, would it do it? No. Would it ve3t in the Government the. power for which we are now asked in regard even to the one subject of naturalization? Certainly not. We would not endow the Government with power to legislate by means of regulations upon any one of the subjects contained in the thirty-nine paragraphs of section 51 of the Constitution. Yet here we are asked, at the very commencement of the reconstruction period in Australia, to give the Government unlimited authority for all time in respect of numerous fields of activity. I protest most strongly against such a course of conduct. If we are unmindful of our responsibilities, we shall be abdicating our functions and shirking our duty. To my mind, too great a disposition in that direction has been exhibited by this Parliament during recent years. We have very frequently acquiesced in provisions under which the Government have been enabled to legislate by means of regulations, not merely upon subjects connected with the war, but upon matters which have been dealt with in piecemeal fashion. During the period of the war, I never hesitated to clothe the Government with any power for which they asked. But in time of peace, when the big work of reconstruction lies before us, and when we are called upon to put this important Commonwealth in its proper position before the world in relation to recent enemy countries, the work of legislation is primarily one for this Parliament as being representative of the people. It is not primarily, let alone solely and for all time, the work of the Government of the day.

There is one feature of the Bill to which I take strong exception, namely, the inclusion of the word “ orders “ in clause 2. That clause provides that -

The Governor-General may make such regulations and orders, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of Part X. (economic clauses) of the said Treaty.

Now, if effect is to he given to the provisions of Part X. of the Peace Treaty by means of regulations, our Statute law requires a certain procedure to be followed. Under that law, the regulations have legal effect unless within fourteen days after they have been placed upon the table of both branches of the Legislature either House sees fit to annul them. But that does not apply to any “ Orders “ made by the Governor-General. Of recent years, it has been the practice to get the regulations made under our various Statutes put together in something like alphabetical form in annual volumes, so that any honorable senator may consult them. Indeed, if he chose to keep the copies which were sent to him periodically through the post, he would have on hand at any period of the year a complete record of these regulations. But what access have honorable senators to “Orders”? What access will the general public have to them? “Where does an “Order” of the Governor-General find publicity? In the columns of the Government Gazette. About twelve months ago, in a spasm of economy, the Government cut off our copies of the Gazette. I do not know how many members of the general public read that publication; but, quite recently, I came into contact with a man who claimed, whether rightly or wrongly, that he was not being dealt with legally, and in a constitutional way, by the Government. In endeavouring to advise his legal representatives on the matter, I was obliged to consider the possibility of the Government action finding justification under an “ Order “ issued in conformity with a particular Act. But I could not find any such “ Order “ ; and, as a matter of fact, I had to depend on the Department itself to inform me Whether any such “ Order “ was in existence. These “ Orders “ are not published in the books .^supplied to honorable senators containing the regulations framed under our Commonwealth Statutes. Nor are they published in the volumes of the Statutes themselves. They appear only in the Commonwealth Gazette, the circulation of which has recently been considerably curtailed. Therefore, I strongly object to giving the Government power to legislate y means of “ Orders.” There is too much privacy about it. I do not suggest that secrecy is sought for sinister purposes, but there is a very old legal maxim to the effect that everybody is supposed to know the law. When once an “ Order “ has been published, it has the force of law, and ignorance of its existence will afford no excuse for its infringement. Whatever may be the fate of the Bill, I do hope that if the Government are to be endowed with this power of legislation, it will be strictly limited to the framing of regulations, because this Chamber, and the other branch of the Legislature, have some jurisdiction in regard to them, although our power is of a purely negative character. At least we have power to annul regulations within a prescribed .period. Of course, when that time,has elapsed we are powerless. It is true that representations may be made to the Government, who may, if they choose, withdraw any objectionable regulation, and replace it by another regulation. In that respect, the course which we are now asked to follow possesses one advantage, in that it enables any matter to be dealt with expeditiously. But it has many disadvantages, one .of which has already been stressed by Senator Gardiner I hold, therefore, that we shall be committing an error if we consent to the passing of this Bill in this form.

During the course of his secondreading speech, the Vice-President of the Executive Council referred briefly to matters involving industrial, artistic, and literary rights. At various periods prior to the war, there have been Conventions, Conferences, and treaties be-‘ tween the different great Powers. To some of those Conventions, .Germany was a full contracting party. Take, for example, the subject of copyright. So far as international recognition is concerned, that was. governed by the provisions of aConvention held at Berne in 1886. That Convention was afterwards modified by the Additional Act of Paris of 1896. It was still more recently modified and brought up-to-date by a Conference held in Berlin in 1908. The arrangement made at these gatherings practically provides that each of the countries which is a party to the Convention, or to the Additional Act of Paris, or to the Berne Conference, agrees to recognise within its own borders certain rights which have been acquired outside those borders. Thus, if an Australian has obtained a copyright here, that copyright would avail him in Germany, Norway, Prance, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Japan, and other countries. Austria-Hungary had a separate arrangement. I suppose we all recognise that our recent foes are now out to capture their previous position in the world, and that consequently a great many interests are involved. Copyright is only one subject which may be said to affect certain limited classes in the community. But, even in relation to that subject, which affects only a limited class in the community, there will probably be such a clash of interests that, by means, of regulations, legislation will be rapidly enacted which will fail to recognise the rights and demands of important sections of citizens in Australia. On the other hand, if the subject be dealt with by Parliament in open debate, those who have claims to assert will be able to voice them through their representatives. But there are far larger subjects than that. There are matters which will interest a far larger number of our citizens than are interested in questions of copyright, patents, or trade marks. These are referred to in Part X. of the Peace Treaty, or in one of the annexes to that Treaty. The provisions of Part X. cover a vast field within which legislation* may be enacted; and I contend, therefore, that the Government are asking too much from us in this Bill.

– They should have to. We would be justified in giving the Government limited power, and they could come down next year and say that they required the Peace Treaty Act of 1919, which was about to expire, to be extended for another period. If necessary, it could also be urged that it be extended in relation to certain specific matters mentioned in it, which experience had shown should be dealt with and disposed of at the earliest possible moment. I admit that the Government, to a certain extent, are working in the dark, and they do not know what matters are likely to assume concrete form. Something like twelve months’ experience in the work of reconstruction may give them the opportunity of indicating to Parliament what particular matters need to be dealt with.

Senator PRATTEN (New South and innocuous Bill is one of the many evidences we have of how changed conditions are becoming as the result of the war. We realize how much more complicated and complex the duties of Parliament and of Cabinet are now when compared with the halcyon days of peace of long ago. This is a another indication that Australia has an enlarged interest in the world and its affairs, and, as a result, we are called upon to discuss an apparently simple Bill, but the ramifications of which are numerous and varied in character. I listened very attentively to the remarks of Senator Gardiner and of Senator Keating. I am not in agreement with the attitude they adopted in criticising this Bill and referring to it as a means of delegating the responsibilities of Parliament to government by regulation. In the Peace Treaty, Part X., we have seventeen pages of closely printed matter relating to all sorts of things in connexion with the trade of Germany. I draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact that this is not a Bill for establishing relationships in connexion with international copyrights, patent laws, or trade, but exclusively for the purpose of regulating our connexion or communication with our late enemy - Germany.

Senator Keating:

– I said with our recent foes.

Senator Russell:

– It is for regulating administration .

Senator PRATTEN:

– Yes; and it seems to me that in the seventeen closely-printed pages, we are dealing, as Senator Keating pointed out, with hundreds of individual things. This is to be done when trade relations have not been officially Tesumed, when the Peace Treaty has not even been ratified, and it is a problem likely to tax the wits of any Government which endeavour to include in the four corners of any Act of Parliament the clauses embodied in the Treaty.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was that not decided at Versailles on the 20th June?

Senator PRATTEN:

– I thank the honorable senator for his interjection, because the argument has been raised here that this Bill is in skeleton form, and is only to give power to the Government to make regulations, and it ought to be an Act under which regulations could be framed. What is it for? Specifically, the Bill lays down that the

Government of the Commonwealth shall have power to do all such things as are necessaryand expedient. What for? For giving effect to the Treaty on the part of the Commonwealth. The Treaty, as it has been stated, was signed by our representatives at Versailles, and has been ratified by this Parliament. Further, it could be argued that Part X. of the Treaty, containing the whole of the economic clauses, is practically the Act of Parliament under which we are asked to give the Government power to make regulations. They only seek the power to make regulations for giving effect to the Treaty. They only have the power under ordinary Acts of Parliament for giving effect to regulations framed under such Acts. Therefore, as I see the position, the power of the Government would be confined to the four corners of Part X. of the Treaty, which comprises the economic clauses of the Treaty signed at Versailles. Beyond that the Government cannot go. I think honorable senators will admit that I have taken as firm a stand as others in support of government by Parliament as against government by administration or regulation. I know that trade licences often mean favoritism, and that the restrictions placed upon trade and commerce of this country in consequence of the war have given almost uniform dissatisfaction. Seeing that the Peace Treaty has not yet been proclaimed, that the War Precautions Act will not expire until three months after it has been proclaimed, and that we are on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, I think this Chamber can well pass the Bill. No one can. anticipate what will be required under the terms of the Treaty until the position develops. What do we find in England to-day ? The lifting of the blockade has given British commerce practically -a free hand. I take it that the Government of Australia - whatever Government may be in power - will be guided very largely by what is taking place in connexion with similar matters in the Old World. There are veiy few restrictions in England to-day in regard to German trade, excepting; in relation to transactions that do not involve the payment of money arising out of pre-war transactions, delivering or dealing with property held in the country for persons in Germany since the outbreak of the war, and the transfer of securities by or on behalf of persons in Ger many, and other similar provisions’. These economic clauses, as pointed out by Senator Keating, cover an immensity of ground. What honorable senator here tonight, including Senator Keating, is able to tell us what is likely to crop up in Australia within the next twelve months in connexion with enemy patents? What honorable senator can tell us what will be the ultimate balance as between the amount of money owing by Germany to Australian subjects, and the amount owing by Australians to German subjects ? It is beyond the wit of man to prophesy, and therefore, it is impossible to draft a Bill that would provide for all the circumstances. In my opinion, the Government have done the only thing they could do, namely, to arm themselves with power to deal with any situation that might arise. E realize, and I believe honorable senators will realize also, the many obligations that must be provided for until every matter is cleaned up as between us and our late enemies. I shall not, with any degree of pleasure, vote for the Bill giving further power to the bureaucracy in Melbourne; but I cannot see any other way in which the situation can be met. Honorable senators who have criticised the Bill have not offered any alternative suggestion, except in the case of Senator Keating, who made what I think was a very excellent proposal, namely, that there should be some time limit for the operation of the Bill, so that, during its administration, the Government may, as a result of experience, be able to provide legislation to cover -the various matters that may crop up. The Bill has been introduced for the purpose of arming the Government with power to make regulations dealing with the subjects specifically referred to in Part X. of the Peace Treaty, dealing only with our late enemy and their trade marks, commerce, assets, liabilities, and so forth. I cannot see how it is possible, at this stage, to provide for all the possibilities, and, therefore, I shall support the Bill; but I would like the Minister to take into consideration the suggestion made by Senator Keating to limit the operation of’ the Act, so that we may revert to parliamentary authority as soon as possible.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Part X. of the Peace Treaty which is specifically referred to by this Bill, and which the Bill is designed to deal with, seems to me to constitute a series of obligations on the part of Germany. I have counted the phrase “ Germany undertakes,” or similar phrases, “ Germany agrees,” and “ Germany contracts,” about twelve or thirteen times in Part X. It deals almost solely with obligations imposed upon Germany or accepted by our late enemy, and anything that we may be called upon to do in connexion with this part of the Treaty will simply be sequential upon Germany’s obligations or undertakings. That being so, and recognising that our jurisdiction, so far as it relates to punishment, exists only in connexion with our own people, I should like some further explanation from the Minister. Clause 2 provides -

The Governor-General may make such regulations and orders, and do such things, as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of Part X.

That means that the Governor-General may make regulations giving effect to the provisions of that part of the Treaty that affects us only in a sequential -way respecting German obligations. The Bill further states that the regulations may provide for the punishment of offences by the imposition of certain penalties. That is to say, if an offence is prosecuted summarily, by a fine not exceeding £500, or imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, or both; and if an offence is prosecuted upon indictment, there may be a fine of any amount, or imprisonment for any term up to seven years.

Senator Russell:

– If the honorable senator looks at page 63 of the Treaty, paragraph 3 and the annexe, he will find that those penalties are part of the contract.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Paragraph 3 of the annexe states -

The high contracting parties will subject contraventions of paragraph (a) of Article 296 to the same penalties as are at present provided by their legislation for trading with the enemy.

Where is the penalty specified?

Senator Russell:

– They are the penalties specified in connexion with trading with the enemy.

Senator BAKHAP:

The Governor-General may make such, regulations and orders, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of Part X. (Economic clauses) of the said Treaty.

It matters not whether the Government, as the mouthpiece of Parliament, or Parliament itself, takes action under that provision, we have no option but to give effect exactly to the terms of the Treaty. I do not want to waste further time upon a matter which should not be beyond the intelligence of a school girl.

– Senator Gardiner puts half-a-dozen “ if s “ into his arguments, and so the possibilities are very hard to conjecture. Some Parliament will be here, and whether Senator Gardiner and I are here or not will not matter. There may be better men than either of us here. If Senators Gardiner and Keating are here they will be in a position to challenge the right of the Government to pass regulations which will not carry out the intentions of this Parliament. Our Standing Orders provide for this matter. Standing order 119 reads -

A motion disallowing a regulation shall take precedence of Government and private business.

Everything must give way to such a motion. Government business must stand aside if one member of the Senate thinks that a regulation passed by the Government in accordance with the provisions of this measure does not carry out the intention of the majority in this Parliament. Of what use has been all the talk that has been indulged in this afternoon about this Bill ? I again repeatthat we have no option but to carry into effect the terms of the Treaty of Peace which the representatives of ‘this country have signed in our name. If we do not do so we shall repudiate the bargain made with Germany, and Germany will have its court of appeal in the League of Nations. This BUI merely provides handymachinery for carrying into effect the terms of the Peace Treaty.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [9.10]. - No doubt powers are necessary to deal with the economic clauses of the Peace Treaty; but I do not think that the Minister has satisfied honorable senators that the Government have not the power already to deal with trade matters, including those embraced by Part X. of the Treaty of Peace. We have not all the same confidence and child-like belief in the Government that the last speaker has. Prom our experience of .their abuse during the last few years of Executive powers given to them, we are not prepared to intrust them with additional powers without the proper supervision of Parliament.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the- honorable senator not realize that an abuse of. this power would be an abrogation of the Peace Treaty?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– Senator Lynch referred to the power of Parliament to veto regulations, but his Bill would enable the Government to pass orders, and I should like Senator Lynch to show me that Parliament has any power to deal with Orders in Council made ‘ by any Government. Senator Keating pointed out that difficulty, and it has not so far been met. Orders in Council are not laid before Parliament, but merely published in the Commonwealth Gazette. The Bill gives the Government certain powers to deal with trade relations with Germany. So far as trade with Germany is concerned, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) has emphatically told us that he will be no party to trading with Germany at all. Possibly, one of the regulations which, will be passed if the Prime Minister stands to his word, as he very seldom does, will be one to prohibit trading with Germany altogether, and that can be passed without the consent of Parliament. I hope that Senator Lynch can see the force of that point. As I am satisfied that the Government have sufficient powers already to deal ‘ with matters of trade and commerce, including those referred to in the Peace Treaty with Germany, I am not prepared to support Ellis Bill. T think there was a great deal in the point raised by Senator Keating, that it is not necessary to make this a permanent enactment, and its operation should be limited to a definite period. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to agree to the insertion of a proviso to the effect that the powers which may be exercised under this Bill shall cease to operate on the 31st October next.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– It does not appear to me that there is a very great difference between the attitude taken up by Senator Keating on this Bill and that assumed by Senator Lynch. As a matter of fact, in nearly every Bill power is given to the Government to make regulations, and we know that those regulations must be submitted to Parliament. I think that the Senate is indebted to Senator Keating, and, to a great extent, to Senator Gardiner, for pointing out the serious nature of the powers we are asked to confer upon the Government under this Bill-. We are asked to permit them to pass regulations under which a person may be fined an- unlimited amount or be imprisoned for seven years. All that Senator Keating proposes is that a limit shall be placed upon the operation of this Bill. On the one hand, we know that such a measure must be dealt with here and now-

Senator Bakhap:

– In our domestic legislation we have already abolished imprisonment for debt. Yet in this Bill it is proposed to imprison a man for seven years for an offence of that description.

Senator MULCAHY:

– What harm can result from limiting the operation of the Bill to a prescribed period, I cannot understand. Of course, I do not believe that it would be fair to limit its operation to one year.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Why not? If it were found necessary to do so, we could re-enact the measure next year.

Senator MULCAHY:

– But a political crisis might arise, or many other things might happen to prevent us re-enacting it. It would be fair to provide that the Bill shall continue in force for a period of two years. At the end of that time it can be reviewed in the light of the experience which we shall have gained.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

– This debate seems to have developed into a wail that Parliament has lost its control over legislation.

Senator Mulcahy:

– There has been a growing tendency for the Government to legislate by means of regulations.

Senator RUSSELL:

– There has been a growing tendency in that direction, but I do not know that many unnecessary regulations were promulgated during the war. Those regulations were subjected to a good deal of criticism; but I never found anybody who was able to get right home in his condemnation of any particular regulation. We all know that during the war life was much more complex from all view-points than it is during a time of peace. The Government were, therefore, asked to accept responsibility for governing Australia under extremely difficult conditions. I have a strong objection to war regulations - just as strong an objection as I have to war; but Australia had to bow to inevitable conditions.

– When once we recognise that collective action must be taken in this regard, we must admit that the individual who acts upon his own initiative is guilty of a criminal offence. There can be no payment of debts, nor any communications in regard thereto, other than through the clearing house. Such transactions must collectively go through a clearing house established by the Government. If a person endeavour to evade his responsibility, he shall be guilty of an offence, and the offences are indicated in the Treaty. It is impossible to state all the offences until the regulations have been made, but these regulations will merely enable us to carry out the rules laid down in the Treaty. Therefore, any offence will be an attempt to commit an act inconsistent with the provisions of the Treaty, and Parliament has indorsed that Treaty. In common with other honorable senators, I favoured the War Precautions Act, and, although probably errors were committed under it, and there may have been an abuse of power, it must be remembered that it enabled commercial men during the war period to conduct their businesses on satisfactory lines. In times of peace, I am not prepared to give to any Ministry power to carry on legislation, and if I thought that this Bill were framed for that purpose, I would not ask the Senate to support it. But it is merely to give the Government power to create administrative machinery, and nothing more. I ask honorable senators who supported the Treaty to loyally stand by this measure, and allow its provisions to be put into operation to enable the Government to determine what shall be done in regard to our trade with Germany.

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

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

The Governor-General may make such regulations and orders and do such things as ap pear to him to be necessary for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of Part X. (Economic Clauses) of tie said Treaty.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the words “ and orders,” line 2, be left out.

– I -will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the clause, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the afnrinative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 -

The regulations may provide for the punishment of offences against the regulations, by the impositions of the following penalties: -

If the offence is prosecuted summarily - a fine not exceeding Five hundred pounds or imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, or both;

If the offence is prosecuted upon indictment - a fine of any amount or imprisonment for not more than seven years, or both.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [10.0]. - This clause is most extraordinary. Honorable senators must seriously consider the powers which the Government are desirous of -taking to themselves. If an offence is prosecuted summarily a fine not exceeding £500 may be inflicted; or there may be imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months. If the offence is prosecuted upon indictment, a fine may be inflicted “ of any amount,” or there may be imprisonment for not more than seven years, or both. Those are astonishing words. I have never heard of the employment of the term “ any amount “ in any other measure. The Government are seeking power to make regulations which will imperil the liberty of every individual in Australia. Any person may be fined to an unheard of extent, and may receive seven yeaTs’ imprisonment. It is a monstrous proposal, and I am astonished that the Government should endeavour to enact it. I move -

That the word “Five,” line 5, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ One “.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

– The penalties set out are maximum. There is nothing to prevent the infliction of a fine of ls., if the offence is deemed to be of a minor character. There may be some offences which would not be regarded as very serious ; while there may be others considered very serious at a time when the world is endeavouring to shake off war conditions. I point out that the conditions imposed in this Bill are part and parcel of the Peace Treaty itself. On page 63, paragraph 3 of the Annexe, are the following words : -

The High Contracting Parties will subject contraventions of paragraph a of Article 296 to the same penalties as are at present provided by their legislation for trading with the enemy. They will similarly prohibit within their territory all legal process relating to payment of enemy debts, except in accordance with the provisions of this Annexe.

It stands to reason that no person would be fined the maximum amount or sent to prison for the maximum period unless his offence were regarded as very serious. It would be just as serious for a person to attempt to destroy the peace to-day as though he had endeavoured to prolong and aggravate the condition of war last year.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– 1 do not think Senator O’loghlin was present when I addressed myself to the very feature which has forcibly struck him. It does appear that these penalties automatically apply, because it is specifically stated in the Annexe to the Peace Treaty-

The High Contracting Parties will subject contraventions of paragraph a of Article 296 to the same penalties as are at present provided by their legislation for trading with the enemy.

Thus these drastic penalties become applicable really to payment of debts, or to debt collection, for the reason that the preceding paragraph of the Annexe describes pecuniary obligations as those mentioned as debts in the first paragraph of Article 296. I suppose the Government cannot avoid the automatic incorporation in this Bill of that particular provision, which is obligatory upon us by virtue of the Peace Treaty. But we have arrived at a very peculiar position. A murderer in this country, if he escapes the extreme penalty of the law, is not likely to be imprisoned for longer than seven or eight years. If he pleads the unwritten law, the chances are that he will escape scot free. Yet here are the most drastic penalties for unknown offences. There must be degrees of offence.

AYES: 8

NOES: 13

Majority…. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the following new clause be added : - “ (4) This Act and the regulations made under the authority of this Act shall continue in operation until the 31st day of December, 1920, and no longer.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Make it 1919, and I will vote with the honorable senator.

Senator KEATING:

– I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee at any length in discussing this proposal, because the arguments in support of it have already been adduced. In reply to Senator Gardiner’s interjection, I would point out that it is quite possible that the Peace Treaty covers matters which will require to be disposed of very soon. It is necessary, therefore, that we should have the requisite machinery for administering the provisions of Part X. of that Treaty. Consequently, the necessary powers should be vested in the Government. But, inasmuch as Parliament ought to participate as far as possible in giving effect to the Treaty, I am of the opinion that if Ministers are endowed with unlimited authority to legislate by means of regulations in respect of the matters covered by Part X. of the Treaty until the end of nest year, they will be in a position to deal with anything which is of an extremely urgent character. They will, by that time, have acquired some knowledge of the particular matters that will have to be dealt with, and in respect of which they may be disposed to invite the co-operation and assistance of honorable senators. If they are not in a position to do that before the end of next year, they will at least be aware of the fact some time before the close of that year, and consequently they will be able to come down to Parliament and ask for an extension of the Act for a further period. Parliament, upon the merits of their application, will then be in a position to determine whether or not an extension shall be granted. In other words, I think that this measure should be a temporary one, in view of the unlimited powers which it will confer upon the Government in respect of the provisions contained in Part X. of the Peace Treaty. I have already indicated the extensive field that is covered by those provisions, but I recognise that at this stage it is impossible for the Government to bring down specific proposals. This debate, I hope, will serve to indicate our desire that Parliament shall be consulted before anything is finalized in regard to these matters. In the meantime, the Government will not be embarrassed in the slightest degree in connexion with matters of urgency, as in dealing with such questions they will have the benefit of time and experience, and will be able to come to Parliament and express the true position. By this means the Government will be able to invite the co-operation and assistance of Parliament in performing their obligations under the Treaty of Peace, to which we have already assented.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I desire to second the amendment moved by Senator Keating, and to indorse all he has said in favour of the view that these regulations should have some finality. If no limitation is placed upon the regulations, they may be in force for from one to ten years, and if action is not taken by Parliament within fourteen or fifteen days after they are tabled, they will ‘be unalterable by Parliament. The regulations will be framed in the Attorney-General’s Department, and they must necessarily, for the present at all events, be similar to many regulations made in connexion with trade and commerce under the War Precautions Act. Under these regulations, all direct export to Germany may be prohibited, with the result that Australian wool, for instance, will be shipped to London into the hands, perhaps, of some favoured persons who will sell to German buyers. The net result to Australia will be that the growers will receive reduced returns, while the middlemen will be enriched.

The export of metal and ores to Germany may also be prohibited; and, again, middlemen in England may be benefited, while the metals and ores may ultimately go to Germany. It would be better for the Government and for Australia if a definite time limit were inserted in the Bill. It would give the Ministry all the freedom they may require to meet matters as they arise, and would enable the new Parliament to exercise revision in view of experience gained. If the regulations framed under this Bill are allowed to continue in force indefinitely, our continental trade will be subject to the sweet will of the Ministry or of those persons who advise Ministers. We shall be creating in some European centres a position whereby middlemen will be able to “scale” our producers of portion of the return from their products. I have had some experience of regulations governing trade, and of the restrictions placed upon the Empire’s commerce as the result of war. In connexion with the sale of tin oxide, the so-called inter-Allied tin control, which set out with high ideals to conserve metals produced in the Empire foT the use of the Empire, operated in such a manner that the producers were robbed - owing to the activities of middlemen in England and America - to the extent of £15 per. ton upon every ton of oxide produced. I do not believe that any regulations should he promulgated which may compel the producer to pay more than a fair commission. Such regulations in connexion with the trade of Europe may merely make Great Britain the middle party between Australia and the country to which our products ultimately reach. We cannot tell what regulations may be required, or what the development of the future is likely to be. The Minister has said that before long Germany may be admitted to the League of Nations, and, by giving away our right to limit regulations made under this Bill, we will be giving away our right to revise this necessary legislation from time to time. I can visualize such a position as that; and, seeing that Ministers as well as honorable senators are likely to be for some time before the electors fighting for their political existence, there is the risk of this important work being controlled by officials sometimes swayed by misguided advice. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Question - ‘That the new clause proposed to be added (Senator Heating’s amendment) be added - put. The Committee divided..

AYES: 8

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 13716

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow.

page 13716

ADJOURNMENT

Electoral Rolls - Holdsworthy Camp Canteen Funds

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I invite the attention of the Senate to the fact that much unnecessary delay has occurred in providing rolls to be used at the coming election. I have been informed, on very good authority, that 61 per cent, of the names in some of the country rolls in New SouthWales are ineffective. Some rolls, I believe, are more than two years old, so that it is impossible for electors to know whether, they are enrolled or not. I suggest that the Government, even at this late stage, should issue instructions for the reprinting of the rolls at once. I am informed that in the divisions of Cook, Dalley, East Sydney, North Sydney, and South Sydney it is proposed to reprint the rolls after the writs ‘have been issued, so that there will ‘he no supplemental rolls in those divisions. I understand that the rolls for the divisions of Lang, Parkes, Wentworth, Cowper, Gwydir, Macquarie, and Newcastle are five months old, and it is not proposed to reprint them.. “We were informed that the roll for the Barrier Division would be reprinted almost immediately, but this has not been done yet. Then with regard to the divisions of alare, Darling, Eden-Monaro, iHunter

Senator Earle:

– I direct attention to the state of the Senate. [Quorum formed.]

Senator GRANT:

– I have no desire to delay the ‘Senate, and, in conclusion, I will say -that it is understood that the writs will be issued on the 3rd November, and I presume the rolls will be closed on the 2nd of that month, so there is only the very brief period of eleven days within which people may become enrolled.

Another matter to which I desire to direct attention is the distribution of funds in connexion with the canteen managed by the guards at the . Holdsworthy Camp. I am informed that there is a Bum of £2,500 to the credit of that fund, but that, instead of distributing it among the members, as was done in the case of the amount to credit of the can teen managed by the Germans themselves, it is proposed to distribute the money among . war widows and orphans. I should like to know why different treatment is being meted out to the guards, as compared with the Germans, who have since left these shores?

SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence) [11.6].- I am not in a position to give the honor able senator definite information with regard to the rolls; but I shall endeavour to furnish a statement to-morrow. Concerning the funds of the Holdsworthy Camp canteen, I may say that the matter is to be dealt with by legislation at a later stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 October 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1919/19191022_SENATE_7_90/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 October 1919

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

ECONOMYCOMMISSION’S REPORT

Senator EARLE:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

ADMIRAL VISCOUNT JELLICOE’S REPORT

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator Russell:

Senator GRANT:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator GRANT:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator GARDINER:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

EXPORT OF RABBITS

Senator GRANT:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator GARDINER:

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Senator GARDINER:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

WAR LOANS

Senator FERRICKS:QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

SUGAR

Supplies for Millaquin Refinery

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Lt. -Colonel Ramsay Smith

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2)

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1919-20

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

Senator Guthrie:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND REPORT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Keating:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Earle:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator EARLE:

Senator GARDINER:

Senate
22 October 1919

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council and Acting Minister for Defence · Victoria · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales