Senate
27 August 1925

9^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S VISIT TO SYDNEY
QUESTION
- FLOATING DOCK CONSTRUCTION
AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL
PRINTING COMMITTEE
DISTILLATION BILL
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTHRAILWAYS BILL
- Second Reading
NAVAL PROPERTIES TRANSFER BILL
QUESTION
- BUDGET, 1925-26
QUESTION
- NAVIGATION ACT
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 1733

QUESTION

SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S VISIT TO SYDNEY

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate say why Sir Robert Garran, the SolicitorGeneral, is visiting Sydney; whether it is true, as stated in the press, that he is carrying with him summonses to deliver to certain individuals; or whether it is true, as not stated in the press, that the Government finds it difficult to secure the appointment of a board that will be certain to convict those for whom summonses are intended?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I do not propose to answer the honorable senator’s questions, supposititious or hypothetical, except to say that the Government will make a statement to both Houses at the proper time.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does not the right honorable gentleman think that the public should know what is happening?

Senator PEARCE:

– The public will know.

Senator Gardiner:

– - Surely the time is now ripe to let the public- know. There is no room for secrecy in such matters

Senator PEARCE:

– Is that why the door is locked when the honorable senator’s party is holding a meeting ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

OLD-AGE PENSIONS.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Was the total amount of old-age pensions paid to all benevolentasylums and other charitable institutions for the year ending the 30th June, 1925, in respect of pensioners in these homes’, ?96,504?.
If so, was the total number of old-age pensioners for whom the Commonwealth Government paid this allowance of ?96,504, and who were inmatesof all these homes, 4,997?
Is the weekly amount that is paid to an asylum or charitable institution on account of an old-age pensioner who is an inmate of any such home, 10s.6d. per week?
If so, how does the Minister account for the fact that, according to information received a few days ago, the- weekly amount paid to these charitable institutions works out at 7s. 5d.?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

Yes.
The Commonwealth pays only for the maintenance of those inmates of charitable’ institutions- who were pensioners or claimants for pension at the date of their admission to the institutions. The number of these is approximately 3,100. The remaining inmates, approximately 1,900, were already inmates of the institutions when they became pensioners, and the Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for their . maintenance.
Yes.
The amount of ?96,604 paid for the maintenance of pensioner inmates of charitable institutions is made up as under: -

page 1734

QUESTION

FLOATING DOCK CONSTRUCTION

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways,upon notice -

What was the nature of the proposals of the State Government of New South Wales in regard to the construction of the proposed floating dock?
Were such proposals aocepted, or were they modified in any way by the Commonwealth Government before construction was derided upon?
If modified, in what way?
To what extent is it proposed by the Commonwealth to subsidize the State Government of New South Wales in regard to the construction of the dock?
When is it expected to begin the work of construction?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

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

In March, 1925, the State Government of New South Wales informed the Commonwealth Government that it would be prepared to install and operate a floating dock, capable of lifting a 10,000ton cruiser, or a limit of 13,000 tons, in connexion with Walsh Island, subject to the Commonwealth Government paying a subsidy of £120,000. The conditions for use during war time were to be made the subject of definite arrangement. 2, 3, and 4. The Commonwealth Government modified the proposal by stipulating that the -lifting capacity of the dock should be 16,000 tons, and that, in consequence, the proposed subsidy wouldbe increased to £135,000.
The whole proposal is still a matter of negotiation, and the date of commencement of construction cannot be anticipated.

page 1734

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 1734

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Findley) agreed to -

That the report from the Printing Committee presented to the Senate on 26th August, 1025, be adopted. commonwealth: bank (rural credits) bill.

Bill received from Blouse of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time.

page 1734

DISTILLATION BILL

Second Reading

SenatorWILSON (South AustraliaMinister for Markets and Migration)

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a small amending bill, which it has been found necessary to pass because the administration of the Distillation Act 1901 has shown that certain amendments are required. Section 40 of the act provides -

No entry authorizing the removal of spirits shall be passed in respect of spirits of a lower strength than 25 per centum under proof, nor in respect of a smaller quantity than 10 gallons.

Section 76 of the Act provides that -

No person shall sell spirits of a lower strength than 25 degrees under proof.

That section was repealed by an amending act passed in 1918, and section 40, which I have already quoted, should have been amended at the same time to conform to the action Parliament then took. The State Governments, under their own food and drugs acts, provide various strengths at which spirit can be sold, and the Commonwealth Government cannot interfere with that legislation. In New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, brandy and whisky is fixed at 25 per cent, under proof, and in South Australia 35 per cent, under proof. The amendment is a small but necessary one, and I trust the bill will have the support of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

page 1734

COMMONWEALTHRAILWAYS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26th August (vide page 1675), on motion by Senator

Wilson -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -I understand the proposal embodied in the bill is to give the Government authority to increase the salary of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner from £2,000 to £3,000 per annum, and that the increased salary need not . necessarily be paid to the present occupier of the position. Although I have known the present commissioner for some time, and have always found him capable, considerate and courteous, I am not able to state whether he is entitled to receive the higher remuneration, providedfor in the bill. The activities of the Commonwealth Railway Department must necessarily extend as Australian development proceeds. The Commonwealth Government is at present controlling the transAustralian railway between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie and is now engaged in the construction of the north-south line from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek. It was stated by the Minister (Senator Wilson) that the present commissioner is also performing the duties of engineer-in-chief. That is a policy with which I do not agree.

Senator Wilson:

– Most of the commissioners are engineers.

Senator Kingsmill:

– They are ex officio heads of their engineering departments.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That may be so. A railways commissioner should possess extensive commercial knowledge, as well as organizing ability . I do not think it is altogether an economic policy to combine the positions of commissioner and engineer-in-chief, and 1 would not be opposed to- the appointment of an engineer-in-chief independent altogether of the commissioner. Whilst I recognize that we shall have to pay higher salaries to some of our executive officers in the Railway Department, .we must not forget the splendid services rendered by others in the department, particularly those in the lower grades, who sometimes have to perform their duties under very trying conditions.

Senator Wilson:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of their rates being increased on the same basis ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– When the agreement arrived ‘at between the depart-, ment and the representatives of the men expires, more generous consideration should be afforded those who are isolated from their fellow men, and who are working under severe climatic conditions. The loneliness of the lives of some of these men warrants their receiving a higher remuneration, and an improvement in their conditions .of living. Whilst I am offering no personal objection to an increase in the salary to be paid to the commissioner, I wish to utter a word on behalf of those who are really responsible for maintaining the services.’ I refer to the engine-drivers, firemen, cleaners, and all the other employees on the east-west line.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T, Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– I remind the honorable senator that it has been ruled over and over again in the Senate that” the debate on an amending bill must be confined to the particular sections of the act which the bill proposes to amend. The measure now before the Senate seeks to make one short amendment in the Commonwealth Railways Act, and the honorable senator must confine his remarks to the subject of the proposed amendment. I have already allowed him to make extended references, by way of illustration, to other railway matters.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I realize, Mr. President, that I was transgressing previous rulings in this Chamber, and I shall desist. I have no objection to the bill. In view of the magnitude of our railway undertakings it is desirable that we should get the very best man available for the position of railways commissioner, and to do this we must be prepared to pay a substantial salary.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister (Senator Wilson), in moving, the second reading of this measure. To some of his statements there can be no objection. We all know the length of the east-west railway line, the Queanbeyan line, the value of the various railway properties, also the annual loss incurred in their working, and we are not unfamiliar with the magnitude of the Commonwealth railway undertakings. I have no objection to the proposal to increase the salary of the Railways Commissioner (Mr. Bell) by £1,000. but I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to direct attention to what I consider a very grave dereliction of duty on the part of that official. It will be remembered that some time ago the Commonwealth joined with the states of New South Wales and Queensland in an agreement to construct what was then regarded as the northern section of a uniform gauge railway to connect the various capital cities of the Commonwealth. I refer, of course, to the Grafton-South Brisbane railway. I understand that Mr. Bell is chairman of the Railway Council, and that it is now proposed to increase his salary because railway works in contemplation will throw a greater responsibility upon his shoulders. One would think that a man of Mr. Bell’s experience would not countenance the construction of a single line of rails connecting South Brisbane and Grafton, because eventually when a double track is laid there will have to be considerable and costly alterations to tunnels and other sections of the permanent way.

The PRESIDENT (‘Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honorable senator is now ‘discussing a matter that has already been, dealt with by the Senate, and he must know .that a question cau.ia.ot be revised in the session in which it has been dealt with. I ask him to respect my ruling.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no wish to transgress your ruling, Mr. President. At the same time, I should like to say that when the Senate dealt with that proposal

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The salary paid to the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner at that time was £2,000 a year. Since then it has been decided to increase it by £1,000.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not so. The matter is now before the Senate for discussion., .and again I ‘ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks strictly to the bill.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At all events, Cabinet has decided that the salary of the Railways Commissioner shall be increased by £1,000 a year, and you, Mr.. President, know very well that when Cabinet decides a matter it is about 100 to 1 that its decision will be accepted by Parliament.

Senator Reid:

– New South “Wales and Queensland, not the Commonwealth, had the biggest say in the settlement of the uniform gauge problem.

The PRESIDENT:

– -That matter is no concern of .the Senate at the present time. It has always “been ruled that a subject once .decided by the Senate may not be revived in the .same -session. Therefore, the question referred to may not be discussed on .this bill.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– -1 can see, Mr. President, that the enforcement of your ruling will substantially curtail my remarks. So far as I am able to gather, although I have not seen a statement to that effect, Mr. Bell favours the 3-f t. ‘6-in. gauge, which has been decided upon for certain proposed railways in the Northern Territory. Therefore, I take advantage of this opportunity to express amy en tire disapproval of that decision. I hope that no farther construction will be “undertaken there except on the uniform gauge of 4 ft. in.

Senator MCHUGH:

– Mr. Bdi is a Queenslander, I believe.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no idea which ‘State Mr. Bell comes from. We all know that the Queensland and “Western Australian railway lines are on the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge, whereas in New South “Wales the gauge is 4 ft. 8^ in., and in South Australia and Victoria 5 ft. 3 in. * The decision in favour of a 4-ft. S½-in. gauge for the Commonwealth was arrived at after innumerable discussions and careful investigation. Therefore^ I consider this an opportune time to emphasize the desirability of completely abandoning proposals for the construction of railway lines in the Northern Territory on the 3- ft. 6-in. gauge. The lime from Queanbeyan to Canberra was constructed on the 4- ft. 8½-in. gauge.

Senator Reid:

– It could not be constructed on any other gauge.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There was nothing to prevent the adoption of a narrower gauge. If, at that time, the same erratic policy had been pursued that has been adopted since, we should probably have had a 3-ft. 6-in. or even a 2-ft. 6-in. gauge. We now have the opportunity to tell the commissioner what are our views. We do not object to the salary that he is receiving. I think that, for a man who has charge of the many millions ‘that have already been invested in the Com.monwealth Railways, and who will be responsible for a very considerable expenditure in putting down new lines in the future, £3,000 a year is a very paltry salary-. ‘Taking a long distance view of the situation, and a broad outlook of the position, it is my belief that it would be a short-sighted policy bo construct any railway om less than a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The honorable senator has made an extended reference to ‘that matter. I ask ‘him now to come back to the bill.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no objection to the salary that it is proposed to pay to the Commissioner, but I hope that the same broad spirit will be evidenced Later when we come to deal with the British .seamen, who are expected to be ;satisfied with a wage of £8 a month.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator . must know that that matter is not in any_ way connected with the biE.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Can I not refer to it by way of illustration ?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator cannot.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thought that I should be perfectly in order in doing so. I have no objection to this office carrying a salary of ?3,000 per annum, nor to the present occupant being paid that amount immediately.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The whole-hearted support that the bill lias received must be gratifying to the Minister in charge of it. The two speakers who preceded me must have left upon the minds of honorable senators the impression that they intend to support it in a spirited fashion. My only objection to the proposed ‘salary is that in certain circumstances it may be altogether inadequate. As the Minister rightly stated, the bill is ibo be considered quite apart horn the merits ?ir demerits of the present occupant of the office. It must be remembered, however, that that gentleman accepted the position under very ‘definite conditions. It lay with .kim to say whether the remuneration proposed was adequate or inadequate. But it must also be remembered that he has since had put upon him a large number of additional important duties and responsibilities. It is only right that the Government and the Parliament should recognize the changed circumstances, and be prepared to provide an adequate remuneration The Commonwealth Commissioner may be called upon to meet in conference, gentlemen who hold corresponding positions under the Governments of the states, to discuss matters of great importance relating not only to the Commonwealth railway system, but also to the queston of transport facilities throughout Australia. It is quite clear that an anomalous position may be created, as, on account of Ms occupying the senior position, he may have to preside over gatherings of men some of whom receive a salary two and a half times as great as his, and by reason of that fact he may7 not find himself able to advance his opinions as forcefully as he would desire. On that ground alone there is every warrant for raising his salary to a figure approximating the value of the work he is called upon to undertake. There is another aspect of the matter which has been touched upon by honorable senators who have already spoken. It is the responsibility of giving advice upon the many railway projects that will have to be undertaken in the Commonwealth in the immediate future. Until recently, at all events, the railway systems of Australia have been disjointed and unconnected. It is quite true that there is one linking up of .the different systems, but that does not confer the maximum benefit upon the people of the Commonwealth. Those systems will have bo be connected at other points before that maximum advantage can be derived, and whatever their nature it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to have the best professional advice that is .procurable. To obtain that advice the payment must be commensurate with its value. If the remuneration is on a comparatively low scale the value of the services obtained will be correspondingly slight. We have frequently seen instances of men leaving government services to accept higher remuneration outside from persons who appraise them at a higher value. Those who have been prepared to give a greater amount to obtain the benefit of those services have been none other than the capitalists, who are so frequently declaimed against, and who are said to sweat and grind the faces of the poor. They are always anxious to obtain the services of talented men, and to do so they are prepared to pay a much higher sum than the people, through their ;governments, are willing to give. Unless we pay for brains we shall never get them; and rightly so, too, because brains are a very rare commodity in the market. In the abstract I regard a salary of ?3,000 a year as outrageous, especially having regard to the doctrine that is so often enunciated by gentlemen like Senator Hannan. But why do we pay it? For the simple reason that we cannot get the best advice available unless we do so. I should like the principle that honorable senators opposite are now supporting to be applied generally. If it is a good thing to pay according to ability for professional services, it ought also to te a good thing to do it for other services. When a man in the lower ranks of life proves by his service that he is worth more than others who are doing similar work, he ought to be paid accordingly. I suggest to Senator Hannan and to other honorable gentlemen opposite who advocate his views that they should approve of the general application of this principle. Instead of doing that, they are attempting to reduce all the workers to the level of the most inefficient man among them. Men are encouraged to be- satisfied with mediocrity instead of with nothing less than excellence. Every man should be paid in accordance with his ability.. Why should all be reduced to a dull, dead monotonous level?

Senator McHugh:

– Does the. honorable senator believe in an irreducible minimum?

Senator LYNCH:

– If a man has the capacity to earn £2 or £3 a day, he should be permitted to do so. Honorable senators opposite agree with that principle in certain cases, but disagree with it in others. I urge them to help all the workers to go forward instead of permitting some to go forward and obliging others to go backward. We propose to pay £3,000 per annum to the Comrnissioner of the Commonwealth Railways, because we believe that that is the market value of his services. We should pay all workers according to the market value of their service. We would not think of paying £3,000 a year to Senator McHugh ro manage our railways, for, although he may be the finest possible embodiment of political wisdom and sagacity, he is not a railway expert. Honorable senators opposite seek to fix the rate of payment in some” walks of life without having any regard whatever to the efficiency of the service rendered.

Senator McHugh:

– Does the honorable senator believe in an irreducible minimum?

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe in applying the principle of this bill to all workers, and in paying for brains. The present Commissioner of the Commonwealth Railways should receive more adequate payment for the arduous duties which . he is called upon to perform. I should like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation of the manner in which he is doing his work. It is because he is doing so well that we propose to pay him a higher salary. He came to. us with very high credentials from a state service. He has been tried and tested over a long period, and he has come out of the crucible with credit. I hope that this bill will be the forerunner of others which will provide for the. application of the same principle generally. If that is done, the people of Australia will be gratified.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I also support the bill. I congratulate Senator Lynch on his lively imagination, but I have yet to learn that honorable senators on this side of the chamber have ever used their power to try to pull down the workers and lower their standards of living. The Labour party hasalways been prepared to pay its administrators according to their ability and according to the responsibility of their work. I do not think it is a fair thing, however, to compare the responsibilities of the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Railways with those of the commissioners of the various state railways. One has only to consider for a moment how different are the circumstances of the state commissioners and the Commonwealth Commissioner to realize that such a comparisonis unfair. The Commonwealth Commissioner has nothing like the revenue, nor the number of men in his employ, that the state commissioners have. He has nothing like the same network of railways to control. At the same time I take no exception to the payment of £3,000 a year to him, although £2,000 a year cannot be said to be on the breadandbutter line. Senator Lynch argued that because honorable senators on this side of the chamber are supporting this bill they ought to support the general application of the piece-work principle. I am totally opposed to piece-work, and I am consistent in my opinion. I can well remember that, not very many years ago, Senator Lynch was just as bitterly opposed to piece-work as I am. He knows perfectly well that we do not oppose it simply to prevent men from earning more money. We all know that it is done in the interests of the men themselves. It has the effect of regulating to a certain extent certain men employed in certain industries. It is only those who have worked in industries where this obnoxious system prevails that realize how, ultimately, it is not for the benefit of the men engaged in those callings. Any . government, state or federal, ought to be prepared to pay the highest possible salaries to those who devote their brains to the management of the great state-owned enterprises of which, in proportion to its population, Australia has probably more than has any other country.

Senator Kingsmill:

– Hence these tears !

Senator HANNAN:

– The Government ought to be prepared to pay the highest possible fees for the services rendered by those who are employed to control these enterprises. For that reason, I want to see the Commonwealth Shipping Line become a great success; I want to see the shipping of Australia controlled by the Commonwealth, and I want to see other great industries nationalized and controlled by the people for the people. But to ensure success we must pay well for the best brains to control them.

Senator Lynch:

– Would the honorable senator take away the shipping from the control of Mr. Walsh?

Senator HANNAN:

– Shipping in, Australia is controlled by private enterprise.

Senator Kingsmill:

– Nominally.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Shipping has nothing whatever to do with this bill, and I ask Senator Lynch not to introduce the subject.

Senator HANNAN:

– It is the business of those honorable senators who declare that affairs in Australia are in the control of any individual to> see that the Government controls the country.

Senator Lynch:

– What about the honorable senator’s support?

Senator HANNAN:

– My support will be given so long as justice is meted out to every one, but not if the Government uses its power to crush any body of working men. I support the proposal to pay the Commissioner of Railways £3,000 a year. If his responsibilities were greater I would, vote for a salary of £5,000. I shall always give my support to any proposal which will place the Government in the position of being able to get the best brains in the community for the control of great national enterprises.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I also desire to support the bill, because I am satisfied that we must pay high salaries to get the best brains procurable for the control of a big business such as a railway system. In comparison with the £5,000 paid to the Commissioner of Railways in South Australia, the proposed salary of £3,000 for the Commonwealth Commissioner of Railways looks small. Taking into consideration the extent of railway construction likely to be undertaken by the Commonwealth, there may soon be a great deal more work for the Commissioner and his staff to do. When Senator Hannan was speaking of Governmentcontrolled concerns, Senator Kingsmill remarked, “ Hence these tears.” In the State of Victoria the Government controls the railways, water supply, tramways, electric lighting, and coal mines. No other state in the Commonwealth has so many Government-owned enterprises. It is pleasing to note that these stateowned enterprises have evidently come to stay in Australia, and I take the view that we should secure the very best brains ro control them, which, of course, means that we must pay well for them.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– I should like to explain to Senator Lynch what I meant by my reference to the irreducible minimum. Labour declares that no man in Australia shall be employed under what it says is the irreducible minimum, as laid down by the Arbitration Court. I am sorry to’ say that the present Federal Government is employing labourers in the Post and Telegraph Department, in South Australia, at 7d. a day under the declared living wage of the state.

Senator Reid:

– Is the living wage higher in South Australia than in other states ?

Senator McHUGH:

– In South Australia what is known as the Board of Industry, presided over by Professor Jethro Brown, declares the wage upon which a man who has a wife and three children can live in South Australia. This board has declared that 14s. 3d. a day is the irreducible minimum. Men can earn more. As honorable senators are well aware, in almost every industry in Australia many men, who are considered to be worth more, are paid more than the minimum laid down by the court. For instance, I reckon that I am worth £1,500 a year, and that Senator Lynch is not worth more than £200 a year.

The PRESIDENT:

– (Senator the Hon. T. Gaven). - The honorable senator has been speaking for three minutes, and has not said a word on the subject-matt eT of the bill.

Senator McHUGH:

– One cannot say much in three minutes. Mr. Gladstone used to take 26 minutes to get a proper 8 tart.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator, now, to make bis remarks’ relevant to the bill.

Senator McHUGH:

– My remarks will be relevant to the raising of some one’s salary. I agree with Senator Hannan that Australia has been deprived of the services of many men, whose brains would have been- of great value to it, because we did not pay them sufficient salaries. A gentleman who- was’ formerly employed by the South Australian Government as Trade Commissioner, at a salary of ?700 a year, waa offered ?5,000 by people in the Argentine, and, naturally, he accepted the offer. Me is a meat expert. We want experts in Australia. I hope that Mr. Bel will de* the right thing. I have nothings against him, except that I do not like his policy of building 3-ft.. 64a. railways. I think we ought to have a national gauge. The Commonwealth Parliament is bigger than a state Parliament, and should have a national policy.

Senator Lynch:

– How many gauges; are there in South Australia ?

Senator McHUGH:

Senator McHUGH:

– The standard gauge of 4 ft. 81/2 in. which has been recommended should be adopted for every railway tobe constructed by the Commonwealth. When a line is built from South Australia through the Northern Territory, I trust that the Government in power will favour its construction’ on the 4-ft.81/2in gauge.

Question resolved in- the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

page 1741

NAVAL PROPERTIES TRANSFER BILL

In committee: Consideration resumed from 26th August (vide page 1680).

Clauses I and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3’ -

The agreement made between the Commonwealth, and the state and set out in the schedule to- this act is hereby ratified and confirmed.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I regret that in drafting this bill the draftsman omitted to include a slight amendment which was made in the original agreement. Perhaps I may be permitted to explain the first amendment, which is somewhat technical. I move -

That after the word “ agreement,.” line 1, the words “ (in this act referred to as ‘the principal agreement ‘)”. be inserted.

This is one amendment which I have to ask the committee to make. The other is to insert new annexures in the form of two maps- in the schedule. Unfortunately, when the bill was being prepared, tha draftsmen inserted maps bearing the signatures of witnesses that did not appear on the original agreement. The agreement, in the first place, was signed by Mr. Fisher, as Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and’ by Mr. W. A. Holman, as Premier of New South Wales, and was witnessed respectively by Messrs. M.L, Shepherd and E. B. Harkness. A copy of it was signed by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Holman, and witnessed respectively by Mr. E. A. Box and Mr. F. F. Clausen.

– Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That before the word “ schedule,” line 3, the word “first” be inserted, and that the following new sub-clause be added : - “ (2) The agreement made between the Commonwealth and the state and set out in the second schedule to this act is hereby ratified and confirmed.”

Honorable senators may experience some difficulty in ascertaining the difference between the agreements, but if they will look at the first clause of the second schedule they will see the words “ plus 41/4 acres.” This refers to the area of reclaimed land. It is to be construed as “ including 41/4 acres.” In the second clause, “ 153/4 acres “ is to be construed as “ 161/4 acres.” In other words, under the agreement we had the right to reclaim 161/4 acres, whereas the principal agreement indicated that we had the right to reclaim only 153/4 acres. In the third clause, which deals with the fee-simple of bed of harbour, we have the right to reclaim 63/4 acres instead of61/4 acres.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 consequentially amended and agreed to.

The Schedule.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the word “First” be inserted -before the word “Schedule”.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

.- I move-

That the words in Annexure “ A “, “ This is the Plan marked ‘ A ‘ referred to in the annexed agreement dated the 26th day of October 1915, made between the Hon. William Arthur Holman, and the Right Hon. Andrew Fisher. (Sgd.) E. A. Box (Sgd.) Andrew Fisher. (Sgd.)F. F. Clausen (Sgd.) W. A. Holman Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office “, he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words - “ This is the plan marked ‘ A ‘ referred to in the annexed agreement dated the 26th day of October 3915, made between the Honorable William Arthur Holman and the Eight Honorable Andrew Fisher.

Witness : (Signed) M. L. Shepherd (Initialled) A. F. (Signed) E. B. Harkness (Signed) W. A. Holman.”

This will bring the annexure into conformity with the original agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the words in Annexure “ B “, “ This is the plan marked ‘ B ‘ referred to in the annexed agreement dated the 26th day of October 1915, made between the Honorable William Arthur Holman and the Bight Honorable Andrew Fisher.

Witness : (signed) E. A. Box (signed) Andrew Fisher (signed) F. F. Clausen (signed) W. A. Holman (Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office)”, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ This is the plan marked ‘ B ‘ referred to in the annexed agreement dated the 26th day of October 1915 made between the Honorable William Arthur Holman and the Bight Honorable Andrew Fisher.

Witness : (Initialled) M. L. S. (Initialled) A. F. (Signed) E. B. Harkness (Signed) W. A. Holman “

The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
(Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I move-

That the following new schedule be added : - “ The Second Schedule.

This agreement made the twelfth day of September One thousand nine hundred and twenty-four between the Honorable Sir George WarburtonFuller the Premier of the State of New South Wales for and on behalf of the Government of the said State of the one part and the Honorable Stanley Melbourne Bruce, P.C., M.C., the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia for and on behalf of the Government of the said Commonwealth of the other part Whereas this Agreement is supplemental to an Agreement under seal (hereinafter called ‘ the Principal Agreement ‘) made the twenty-sixth day of October One thousand nine hundred and fifteen between the Honorable William Arthur Holman for and on behalf of the Government of the State of New South Wales of the one part and the Bight Honorable Andrew Fisher for and on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia of the other part and is intended to be annexed thereto

And whereas as certain errors have been discovered in certain of the annexures to the Principal Agreement and for the purpose of correcting the same the parties hereto desire to vary, the Principal Agreement* in manner hereinafter appearing

Now This Agreement Witnesseth -

The words and figures ‘ Cockatoo Island - Freehold land 32 acres plus 41/4 acres reclaimed ‘ written in the column headed Particulars’ in Anuexure ‘ C’ to the Principal Agreement shall be read and construed as though the words and figures Cockatoo Island - Freehold land 32 acres including 41/4 acres reclaimed ‘ had at all material times been written therein in place of the words and figures first mentioned in this clause.
The words and figures ‘ Fee simple of bed of harbour with right to reclaim 153/4 acres ‘ written in the said column headed Particulars ‘ in Annexure’ C ‘ to the Principal Agreement shall be read and construed as though the words and figures Fee simple of bed of harbour with’ right to reclaim 161/4 acres ‘ had at all material times been written therein in place of the words and figures first mentioned in this clause.
The words andfigures Fee simple of bed of harbour with right to reclaim 61/4 acreswritten in the seventh and eighth lines of the column headed ‘ Particulars ‘ in the said Annexure ‘ C ‘ shall be read and construed as though the words and figures ‘ Fee simple of bed of harbour with right to reclaim 63/4 acres ‘ had at all material times been written therein in place of the words and figures first mentioned in this clause.
Save and except as it is varied by this Agreement the Principal Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
In the event of any Legislative Authority being necessary on the part of the State Parliament to confirm or render effective the Principal Agreement and this Agreement or any part of the Principal Agreement or this” Agreement the Premier undertakes to obtain such Legislative Authority without delay. In the event of any Legislative Authority being necessary on the part of the Commonwealth Parliament to confirm or render effective the Principal Agreement and this Agreement or any part of the Principal Agreement or this Agreement the Prime Minister undertakes to obtain such Legislative Authority without delay.

In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.

Signed sealed and delivered by the said The Honorable Sir George Warburton Fuller in the presence of - (l.s.) (Signed) George W. Fuller. (Signed) F. C. G. Tremlett.

Signed sealed and delivered by the said The Honorable Stanley Melbourne Bruce, P.C., M.C.,’in the presence of - (l.s.) (Signed) S. M. Bruce. (Signed) F. Strahan.”

Senator Needham:

– What is the reason for the addition of the second schedule?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– In annexure “ C “ to the first schedule the words “ plus four and a quarter acres “ are used instead of “ including four and a quarter acres”; the words “fifteen and threequarter acres “ instead of “ sixteen and a half acres” are used; and the words “ six and a quarter acres “ instead of “ six and three-quarter acres “ appear. That is practically the only difference. The other alterations are of a minor nature, and were found to be necessary as the result of subsequent negotiations.

Amendment agreed to.

Title agreed to.”

Bill reported with amendments.

page 1743

QUESTION

BUDGET, 1925-26

Debate resumed from 26th August (vide page 1687), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Estimates and budget-papers be printed.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I rise with a good deal of pleasure to speak to this motion. I have perused the budget speech fairly carefully, and have had a cursory glance through the budgetpapers and Estimates. One cannot fail to be impressed by the great care that has (evidently been exercised in the preparation of these valuable papers, which contain the whole of the information that honorable .senators should have. In my opinion, the preparation of the speech reflects very great credit upon the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page). As a rule a budget speech is a very uninteresting document. The present Treasurer, however, evidently laid himself out to prepare his speech in such a way that one would be able to grasp the details that appear in the papers, and gain a fair indication of the work of the Government during the past year. It is gratifying to read of the successful results of the Government’s operations. It is always satisfactory to learn that a surplus is disclosed in the accounts at the end of a financial year. Some persons who profess to take a very keen interest in the transactions of the ‘Commonwealth object to the accounts showing a surplus. I am very well aware, from experience, of the difficulty of estimating accurately the years’ revenue and expenditure. I was not at all surprised to find that, as a result of the operations of the Tariff Act, the revenue received through the Customs reached very great dimensions. The fact that there was an excess of revenue over the estimate of something like £4,000,000, enabling a surplus of £3,018,000 to be shown, .convinces me that the people of Australia have been unprecedently prosperous during the past year, and that their spending power was not in any way diminished.

Senator Ogden:

– In spite of all their handicaps.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is so. One cannot help wondering what would have been the result of the year’s operations had trade and commerce been allowed to proceed smoothly instead of being frequently disturbed by industrial troubles. T believe that we should then have had a surplus of over £5,000,000.

Senator Ogden:

– We do not want big surpluses.

Senator Hoare:

– Why should we have a surplus?

Senator PAYNE:

The reference in the budget speech to the work done by the Commonwealth Health Department during the last year leads, me to say, quite definitely, that no matter how much has been done in the past, there is a tremendous need for greatly increased activity in the future. I had the opportunity, lately, of attending two lectures in Melbourne,, which have indicated to me that certain diseases are playing havoc with our people. It is essential that something should be done to prevent the spread of venereal disease, which is undoubtedly Australia’s greatest menace. We can no longer look upon this as a state responsibility, for it is national in every sense of the word. I advise honorable senators to attend the series of. lectures to which I have referred. Urgent matters touching public health are dealt with in an interesting and informative way by competent lecturers, who are not cranks, but scientists.. We ought to. launch a big campaign against this terrible scourge. In the nature of things, the state governments cannot properly cover the ground. Different states may do very good work, but they cannot prevent sufferers going from one state to another. Effective action will entail heavy expenditure, but I have, no doubt that if the Government introduced a well-considered plan for combating the disease, it would be supported by honorable senators of all parties.

I come now to that part. of the budget speech which deals with business undertakings. The Treasurer pointed out that the expenditure from revenue last year in the Postmaster-General’s Department alone totalled £10,288,437, and he estimated that the expenditure for the ensuing year would be £10,616,435, an increase of £327,998. Although that seems a large increase, one has to bear in mind that with our growing population we must expand our departments. Last year’s expenditure from revenue in this department would have been very much greater had it not been for the new policy that the Government has adopted. The Treasurer said in this connexion-

Tlie increase would have been much greater but for the fact that the Government has now approved of charging to loan, a portion of the salaries and wages of .permanent employees who ure engaged upon capital construction.

In my opinion it is reasonable that a. proportion of . the wages of permanent employees who are engaged upon capital constructions should be debited to such work. Until a few years ago that was not done at all. Even in 1919-20 and 1920-1 it was done to only a limited extent. A continuation of the old policy would have been unfair to the taxpayers. I believe that so long as the raising of money for expenditure on capital work is reasonably safeguarded, and an adequate sinking fund provided, the present policy will meet with the unqualified approval of members of both Houses of Parliament.

I wish to direct attention to the magnificent work that is being done by the Postmaster-General’s Department in providing new trunk and other telephone lines, and in extending the existing services. The country owes a great deal, not only to the present PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Gibson), but also to his two predecessors, for the adoption of this policy. The Hon. A. Poynton was the first Postmaster-General to introduce a programme of any magnitude in this regard. His scheme was looked upon as being most progressive. Last year 47,000 miles of trunk and telephone wire were erected, and it is expected that 48,000 miles will be erected this year. We are a small community after all, and the Government and the department may well be proud if in two years they are able to erect 95,000 miles of trunk and telephone wires. The problem is being tackled effectively.

As substantial interest concessions were to be granted to -the soldier settlers, . and as ‘the states had to lace other losses under the scheme, the Commonwealth agreed to share the burden by reducing the rate of interest on each loan by21/2 percent. per annum during the first five years of its . currency. Thisconcession was also allowed in respect of certain moneys raised ‘by the states themselves with the consent -of the Commonwealth.

The total cost to theCommonwealth of this concession will be £4,740,699. In addition, the Commonwealth paid sustenance allowances, pending productivity of farms, totalling £501,561, and payments of this character still continue. The Commonwealth has -thus contributed to date more than £5,000,000 towards soldier land settlement.

As it is evident the losses of the states wall be greater than at first anticipated, the Government has considered what further assistance should ‘be given to the States so as to provide for . the equitable distribution between Commonwealth and states of the total losses. After a careful review of the position, the Government decided that it is proper now to writeoff £5,000,000 of the loans made by the Commonwealth to the states for this purpose.

That is another way in which the Government is helping to lighten the burden of the man on the land, and assisting him to combat the difficulties with which he has te contend.

I read with interest that although £500,000 has been granted for road construction in past years, the Government now propose to introduce legislation to increase the amount to£750,000 for the present financial year.Up to the present we have not, perhaps, received the best value for the money expended, but I have never known a new Commonwealth or state ‘departure to be altogether successful from the outset. It is only fey experience that we areable to detect the mistakes made in the past.I am hopeful that the Government and the Minister controlling this department will fully inquire into this question to see that our national highways are placed -in such a condition that they will be able to carry the traffic for which they were constructed, and that attention will he devoted to the opening up’ of roads, the construction of which will lead to further development.

It is also satisfactory to note the manner in which our national debt has been (reduced during the last few years. Last year the amount used for that purpose was £5,529,467. On page 23 of the Treasurer’s speech reference is made to the future borrowing policy of the Government, and’ it is gratifying to note . that the Government recognize that the internal borrowing which to a great extent was unavoidable during the war period, and the years immediately following the war, should., as far as possible, be discontinued. Under a system of internal borrowing iflie difficulties of many settlers, and others engaged in commercial pursuits were accentuated, as the financial assistance they required to enable them to carry on their undertakings was not readily forthcoming. It is pleasing therefore to learn that the Government has wisely decided to restrict internal borrowing, which should result in industries already established increasing their production, and others being established.

I hope that every care will be ‘exercised in the OldCountry to ensure the migration, to Australia, of the right class of people, who are most likely to adapt themselves readily to our conditions. Unfortunately, many migrants, after spending a mouth or two in country districts, surrender to the. superior attractions of ourcities, take up city industrial occupations, and in some cases swell the ranks of the unemployed. If care is taken in the selection of the people, a great deal of good will result, because we want our country districts more densely populated, so that our production may increase. At the risk of wearying honorable senators, I quote the following from the Treasurer’s budget speech to indicate clearly what has been done by the National Government during the last few years: - ;

The record of financial adjustment made in and since 1922-3 is both important and striking. In 1922-3, when the present Prime Minister was in office >as Treasurer, certain reductions in taxation’ were made. The policy and administration of the Government in the ensuing three years have been such as not merely to continue these reductions, but, in each subsequent year, to make further reductions in taxation, all of which are cumulative.

[Extension of time granted.] If these facts are brought home to the people, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, their appreciation will be such as to ensure for the National Government and the National party a continuance of power to carry on the good work in the future.

I wish now to utter a note of warning. In Australia we have the finest country, and we ought to be the happiest people in the world. It appears, however, that the more favorable our conditions the more enraged a certain section of our people become, and the greater efforts they make to unsettle the minds of our industrial population. Fancy any person endorsing the statement that any individuals ,in Australia are slaves ! Undoubtedly, we have the best country in the world, and if we could get all sections of our people to realize its possibilities Australia would very quickly be the envy of the civilized world. But this happy state of affairs cannot be brought about by strife, and the manufacture of industrial grievances. On one occasion when a prominent Labour politician, who is now a state Minister, was addressing electors,

I interjected that he was always trying to make men discontented, and he replied - “ Of course, that is our policy. When we see men contented, we look upon them as slaves.” Recent events have confirmed us in this view of that class of politician, and I say that Australia is no place for them. It” only our people would all pull together arid keep the wheels of industry going, Australia could easily maintain a population, not of 6,000,000, but of 20,000,000 people. The other day something happened that completely astounded me. We have lately gone through a deplorable shipping strike, in which the steamship service to my state was completely dislocated. As a result of negotiations, a settlement was arrived at a few weeks ago, and we were informed that the Seamen’s Union had definitely abandoned the principle of. job control. Naturally, the people expected that everything would work smoothly for the future. Unhappily, that expectation is not being realized. Very shortly after the signing of the agreement, there was an instance of job control in Melbourne, and I think the people ought to be informed of the insincerity of certain members of an organization that was a party to the agreement. A week or two ago the steamer Lutana arrived at Hobart from Melbourne with a union crew on board. Quite contrary to the instructions of the union officials in Melbourne, who had ordered the union crew to bring the steamer back to Melbourne, the men left the ship at Hobart. The cook remained on the vessel. He is a member of the cook’s organization. I have seen his ticket, and I know that it does not expire until next October, so no exception could be taken to him on that account. He received no instructions from his union to go on strike, and, as I said, he remained on the vessel to look after the needs of the officers. A volunteer crew having been obtained, the Lutana was brought back to Melbourne. On the return trip the union crew, which had then been signed on, refused to take the vessel to sea unless the cook was put ashore and a new cook obtained. They objected, so they said, to sail with a man who cooked for “ scabs.” Was that not job control? The captain was obliged to put the cook ashore and pay his fare back to Hobart. All this has happened since the agreement was arrived at between .the Ship-owners’ Federation and the Seamen’s Union.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– It was a case of victimization.

Senator PAYNE:

– Undoubtedly it was. I mention this incident to show that even now there is every need to keep awake to prevent this pernicious principle of job control from being exercised.

In conclusion, I should like to say that the position of Australia, as disclosed by the budget papers, is apparently very satisfactory, and I am sure that if we can keep our industrial machinery well oiled by the exercise of common sense, we shall ensure for Australia as great prosperity in the future as was experienced in the year just closed.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I intend to confine my remarks principally to the Treasurer’s intimation concerning the proposed increase in invalid and old-age pensions. In his budget statement for 1923 the Government provided for an increase from 15s. to 17s. 6d. per week. That was very acceptable to our pensioners, and I commended the Treasurer at the time. We are now informed that it is proposed to increase the pensions from 17s. 6d. to £1 per week. The following statement appears in the Treasurer’s budget speech: -

Honorable members will remember that, following the proposals made in my budget speech in 1923, the rate of invalid and old-age pensions was raised from 30s. to 35s. a fortnight, to bring the pension to a basis corresponding to the increase in the cost of living since the original payments were begun. The Government at .that time stated that the existing system did not fully satisfy the needs of the community, did not remove that sense of insecurity which haunts great numbers of people throughout their life, because of the fear of accident, sickness, unemployment, and a destiti,de old age after a life of toil. The Government, therefore, proposed a royal commission to examine the whole matter. A royal commission was appointed accordingly to report on national insurance, and has now been sitting for two years. It has .presented an interim report, which indicates that, during the present session, its researches will have been sufficiently advanced to enable the Government to bring down a national insurance scheme, at any rate in connexion with old ago and sickness, even if -the research into the question of unemployment is not completed. Information at present in the hands of the Government shows that a payment of 20s. per week will be found to be that most closely approximating the requirements and conditions of a national insurance scheme. The Government considers that it would be an anomaly for existing invalid and old-age .pensions to bc kept on a different scale. Provision, therefore, is being made in the Estimates for the increase of invalid and. old-age pensions to fi per week, simultaneously with the passage of such portions of the national insurance proposals as may be approved by Parliament.

The Government desires .to dispel the fear of members of friendly societies that some action may be taken to hinder the good work they are doing in the portion of the field that they cover. It will be remembered that the Government specially asked .the commission to consider the possibility of associating the present machinery of friendly societies with national insurance administration, so that administrative costs might be kept down. In view of the imminence of this legislation, and in view of .the removal, in 1923, of the anomalies then existing in the pensions laws, no further action in this connexion beyond the increase mentioned will be taken until after the consideration of the proposals for national insurance. The Government considers that it would be an anomaly for existing invalid and old-age pensions to be kept on a different scale. Provision, therefore, is being made in the Estimates for the increase of invalid and old-age pensions to £1 per week, simultaneously with the passage of such portions of the national insurance proposals as nm-y be. passed by Parliament.

Will the bill, embodying portion of the recommendations of the National Insurance Commission, have to be passed by Parliament before the increased pension is granted, or is it the intention of the Government to bring down immediately an amending bill to grant the increase ? If appears to me that the pensioners will not receive it before the end of the year. Having a surplus of £3,000,000,, the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) should, in fairness, make the increase applicable immediately. The purchasing power of the sovereign is not any greater to-day than it was at this time last year. Although the proposed increase of 2s. 6d. a week will prove acceptable to those who rely upon the pension, I do not consider that the extra sum will be sufficient to meet their needs.

Senator Payne referred to health matters, and to the anxiety of the Government to do all in its’ power to assist in the cure of certain specified diseases. I entirely agree with his remarks. I favour the nationalization of health, and also the nationalization of the medical profession. The Government, if it is willing to meet the necessary expenditure, should be able to secure the services of the best men in the medical profession. It should have the use of the best skill that is available for the treatment of occupational and other diseases.. Occupational diseases are very extensive iu the auriferous mines of Western Australia. The experience there is that nien do not work underground for very lengthy periods before they contract diseases that are peculiar to their occupations.

Senator Kingsmill:

– A great deal has been, done to improve the conditions in the mines.

Senator GRAHAM:

– I agree that that is SOl but much more remains to be done. There are stages of the miners’ complaint known as: fibrosis,, pneumokoniosis, and tuberculosis. There are on record cases of tuberculosis in the Old. Country that have been cured by . the Spahlinger treatment. In that connexion, I refer honorable* senators to the Melbourne Argus of the 1 5th August, in which they will find a report relating to persons, who have been under Mr. Spahlinger’^ treatment, and have been perfectly cured and made fit to follow their occupations. One manhas shown no trace of tlie disease for twelve months, although, prior to undergoing Mr. Spahlinger’s treatment, he was given up by the doctors. If Mr. Spahlinger has a serum that is capable of combating consumption the Government should obtain supplies to enable the medical profession in Australia to treat that disease. Last session t when this matter was referred to, we were informed that the Prime Minister was conducting negotiations regarding the methods that were being adopted, the quantity of serum that could be supplied, and its cost.. It was. said that Mr. Spahlinger would not put hia card’s on the table, or publish the results, of his scientific research.. In the Argus report to which I have, referred, there are descriptions by doctors who have watched the effects upon the patients and have subjected them, to teats which prove that they have been cured. Consumption causes terrible ravages amongst thousands of people. Those who work in woollen mills and flour mills., for example, get dust on the lungs* and ultimately suffer from lung complaints. I agree with Senator Payne that sufficient information or instruction is not given to young people to enable them to’ protect themselves from certain diseases-. The subject being a delicate one, it is too often allowed to slide. The Government could’ not do better than nationalize public health in< order to- combat the dreadful diseases to which the burman race is prone.

I hove perused wish interest the figures, relating to the proposed expenditure ora defence.. Since the Armistice was signed the Government lias spent on defence no less than £30,000, 000, or even, a greater amount. According- to the advices that we have received, the benefits which have- been derived from that expenditure are very slight. I have no desire to. sound a discordant note. I realize that we must take defensive measures-; but at the same time one wonders what is done with this large expenditure that is; incurred from time to time with very little- result. Quite recently Parliament decided that two cruisers should, be constructed’ in Scotland. Those vessels are to be attached to the British- Navy. Although I do not.’ altogether object to that, I want to know where we stand. Why are we not to’ have those cruisers in our own waters ? It appears as though we are spending millions of pounds on vessels that will not be able to protect us..

Senator Guthrie:

– Does, the honorable senator contend that the British Fleet has never protected Australia?

Senator GRAHAM:

– I am not so foolish as to say that. I am quite satisfied that it has protected Australia, and that it will continue to do so.. But what I want to know is, whether our expenditure is being incurred in directions that will benefit most the Motherland or Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– If our cruisers work in- co-operation with the British Fleet it will be a benefit to Australia.

Senator Kingsmill:

– We. are bearing only a. portion of the responsiblity that is OUTS.

Senator Wilson:

– The best reply that can be made to. the honorable senator ls that every vessel for which we pay belongs to us.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– A little training with the British Fleet will not come amiss.

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator GRAHAM:

Senator Thompson:

– No gold mines that I know of are paying handsomely.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Mines at Boulder, for instance, the Perseverance - which is being worked on tribute - as well as the Ivanhoe and Lake View, have in their best days turned out as much as a ton of gold a month. There are still some rich patches, but there is also low-grade ore in them that could be worked if a little help were provided. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to this proposal.

Debate (on motion by Senator Thompson) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to S p.m.

page 1754

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Effect on Tasmania.

Debate resumed from 13th August (vida page 1360) on motion by Senator Ogden -

That in the opinion of the Senate, the Navigation Act should be amended so as to exclude Tasmania from the operations of the sections of the act relating to coastal passengers, thus providing for freedom of intercourse by any ships between Tasmania and mainland ports.

That this resolution be transmitted to the House of Representatives with a request for its concurrence therein.

– But I have a sentimental regard for Tasmania; my father was a native of that state. It is of no use to try to persuade the people of Australia that there is a general outcry from Tasmania that that state is being seriously injured by the operation of the act. This demand for the repeal of certain provisions of the law comes from traders who want to get a closer grip on the produce of Tasmanian growers.

Senator Ogden:

– That is rather an old platitude.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– I support the motion submitted by Senator Ogden. Honorable senators of the Opposition seem to forget the disadvantages under which Tasmania is labouring. According to those honorable senators, who are opposing the motion, Tasmania has a wonderful tourist traffic every year, numerous boats, working under Australian conditions, are bringing pasengers to Tasmania, and in .every way our interests are being conserved by the shipping ooni.pan.ifiB employing .Australian seamen. That is a statement to which I give a flat denial. During four of the last five tourist seasons the traffic has .been utterly ruined owing to seamen on Australian boats refusing to work. As the result of such strikes Tasmania has .been left in a state of isolation. If it could be shown that a sufficient number of Australian boats would regularly visit Tasmania, and that there was a reasonable prospect of the tourist traffic being carried on uninterruptedly, there would be no need for a motion such as we are now discussing. But since the tourist traffic, which is in a sense the lifeblood of Tasmania, is being severely interfered with, and at times has been practically ruined, are we not to seek redress? We are not asking that a single additional vessel shall be permitted to trade to Tasmania. Many at present going to that state from the mainland have ample unoccupied passenger accommodation. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) said that oversea vessels would not visit Tasmania for the sake of carrying 20 or 30 passengers. That is quite correct. We would not expect them to do so. But boats come from Sydney two or three times a week during the apple season with practically the whole of their passenger accommodation unoccupied. Prior to 1914, 25 to 30 overseas vessels visited Tasmania each year to ship apples, and these ships carried in 1914’ no less than 855 passengers to Tasmania in addition to 4,240 in transit to other ports. The whole of that traffic has now been lost to Tasmania. When we consider that at a low estimate these passengers, would spend from £30 to £40 each during their stay in that state, we can see the immense loss which has resulted, not only to the trading community, but also to the Tasmanian worker, who also benefits in consequence of the increased amount of money circulated. As it has been stated that the representatives of Labour are unanimously opposed to any amendment of the Navigation Act in the direction indicated, I quote the Premier of Tasmania, who is a good Labour man, and who is reported in the Mercury of the 25 th August of this year -as having said -

In the special circumstances -which surround Tasmania’s .case I agree that overseas steamers calling at Hobart should be permitted to carry interstate passengers.

That is .a statement made by the Leader of the Labour party in Tasmania, who is respected by all sections, and yet we are told that the Labour supporters in Tasmania are opposed to any amendment of the Navigation Act. It is useless to say that the motion if carried would involve the employment of black labour on the Australian coast. Of all I he oversea steamship lines which send their vessels to Tasmania during the apple season, there is practically only one which employs black labo.ur *en its ships. All the others employ British seamen, and, consequently, there should be no objection to Tasmania’s produce being carried on vessels maimed by whitelabour. lit would appear that honorable senators who are .opposed to the motion would sooner see our produce carried either by foreign .or black labour crews. At the present time only one British shipping company whose vessels call at Tasmanian ports employs black labour. Others employ Norwegians, Germans and seamen of other nationalities. They are not being interfered with, but, unfortunately, British shipping, which could handle our trade, is being harassed.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– And the wages paid by foreign ship-owners are less than half the wages paid by British shipping companies.

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– That is so. The present shipping trouble has been brought about in defiance of instructions from the organization controlling British seamen in England. It has been said that Tasmania is not suffering any serious disadvantage from the operation of the Navigation Act. That statement, of course, is not in accordance with facts. In the matter of light dues, to mention only one, Tasmania has been seriously inconvenienced. Prior to the proclamation of the Navigation Act two companies were trading regularly between New Zealand, Tasmania and England. The only port of call in Australia was Hobart, and the light dues then were only £25. The vessels came into Hobart by day and went out by daylight, so they were not obliged to use a single light on the Australian coast. Nevertheless, when the

Navigation Act waa proclaimed, they were charged as much as vessels that used every lighthouse on the Australian coast. Honorable senators may also remember that recently a Norwegian whaling expedition, under the control- of Captain Larsen, desired to make Hobart its head-quarters, but owing to the restrictive provisions of the Navigation Act, itwas forced to use a New Zealand base. Captain Larsen stated definitely that his intention had been to make Hobart his base, if he could have, avoided the heavy Commonwealth light dues. Be said he could have got better coal, cheaper and more quickly, in Hobart than elsewhere, also better water and better shelter, and the Marine Board charges would have been much less. He also wished to ship 20 or 30 Tasmanians each year for his crew.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What, are the charges ?

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– About £lo0 for half «7i hour.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do those charges apply all round the Australian coast?

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– Yes. It has been said that this fs a purely Tasmanian agitation, and that Tasmanians are always airing some imaginary grievance. As a native of Tasmania I repudiate that statement. I consider that, in connexion with the Navigation Act, Tasmania has not had a fair deal from the Commonwealth. The following resolution was carried unanimously at the fourth Interstate Harbour Conference held in Melbourne in October last: -

That, in the opinion of this conference the conditions imposed by the Navigation Act in the case of Tasmania and other isolated portions of the Commonwealth which are wholly dependent on seaborne transit have meant the withdrawal of steamers which previously called nt these ports, and which withdrawal has brought about isolation and serious loss, of trade. This conference, therefore, desires a modification of many of the conditions, including particularly the coastal clauses of the act, which have brought about these limitations.

No one will accuse the delegates who attended the interstate conference referred to of being biased in favour of Tasmania. It was a gathering of principal officials of harbour authorities throughout Australia. I suggest, therefore, that the resolution just quoted should carry weight with honorable senators. Senator J. B. Hayes has already read the resolution of the Hobart Marine Board. It might be urged that the Marine Board is biased in favour of its own port. If to be biased means a desire to improve the conditions and facillitate trade, then the Hobart Marine Board is biased, and I, also, am biased. There is.no reason why the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) ‘ should have displayed so much heat in the, debate to-night, and why he should have suggested that Tasmania was not entitled to consideration in regard to this act. I have already pointed out that only one British shipping company trading with Tasmania employs black labour. All the other vessels have British crews. If honorable senators who are opposing the motion prefer that the trade should go to foreign seamen or to ships employing black labour crews, then the responsibility must be theirs, not ours. I have’ already emphasized that the Premier of the Labour Government in Tasmania, speaking not only on behalf of Labour, but in the interests of the state generally, has urged that some relief should be given to Tasmania. Evidence given before members of the Navigation Commission indicated clearly that: this need is urgent. Unfortunately, the commission did not furnish a unanimous recommenda- tion but four of its seven members expressed the’ belief that some relief should be given.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– How does the honorable senator propose to get over the constitutional difficulty J

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– I am not attempting to do so. That must be the responsibility of the Government.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But what is the use of passing a resolution to which effect cannot be given?

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– It could be given effect by introducing amending legislation to make these provisions apply to certain ports of Australia for certain periods of the year.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That cannot be done.

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– The difficulty I believe, could be overcome by granting an exemption in general terms for vessels to carry passengers between Sydney aDd Hobart and Hobart and Melbourne.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is power to do that now.

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– But it is necessary to apply for a permit for each trip. We suggest that there should be a general permit during the fruit season. If there was a provision that permits would be granted only to ships employing white labour, Tasmania would be quite satisfied. Perhaps that would meet with the objections offered by honorable senators of the Opposition. The Navigation Act has also prejudicially affected trade between Tasmania and New Zealand. Many years ago we had a splendid and regular weekly passenger and cargo service between Melbourne, Hobart, and New Zealand. For some reason, just prior to the passing of the act, the vessels were taken off the run, and for many years now we have had no regular passenger or cargo service between Hobart and Melbourne, which is our nearest capital city on the mainland. Tasmania’sonly means , of communication is by sea. Should not this fact have some weight with honorable senators ? We consider this matter of vital importanceto Tasmania. It has been suggested that we should wait until trouble eventuates. We found last year that it wastoo late. Trouble occurred after our tourist season had started, and very much inconvenience was caused to a large number of people. Many, who were in employment on the mainland, were detained in Tasmania, fur so long that upon their return they found their positions filled by others. After a great deal of difficulty we succeeded in getting one of the Commonwealth vessels outside Tamar Heads, and were able to return many tourists to their homes. It has been said that the Commonwealth vessels are at our disposal. Are honorable senators aware that, except, during the fruit season, we never see a Commonwealth steamer in Tasmanian waters?We hear about them from time to time being tied up owing to- strikes, or else lying anchored off Williamstown or in Sydney harbour. When the fruit season is on one or two come down to Hobart to lift our fruit. Tasmania, I remind the Senate, is paying its share of the tremendous losses incurred annually by the running of these vessels, as well as its share of losses in connexion with other Commonwealth Government activities, so we should certainly have some consideration in this matter. The Government did its best, during the last strike, to keep thepassenger boats running to Tasmania. I hope that next season we will not have a recurrence of the disastrous happenings of the last five years.

Debate (on motion by Senator Duncan) adjourned.

page 1772

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

European Security - Additional Documents relating to proposed Pact.

page 1772

ADJOURNMENT

Private Members’ Business : Motion as to Industrial Disturbance.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

Thatthe Senate do now adjourn.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– In view of the slight progress that has been made with business since the dinner adjournment, and the manner in which the motion standing in my name on the notice-paper has been shut out. I should like to know, whether the Government will afford me an early opportunity to place the matter before the Senate ? The importance of the motion is equalled only by the urgency of the situation. Therefore I request the Government to take into consideration the fairness of allowing me to place the matterbefore the Senate at the earliest date consistent with the transaction of Government business.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– The Government is not altogether tie final arbiter in the matter, but so far as we are able we shall endeavour to give the honorable senator an early opportunity to move his motion, if the state of public business permits us to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.5 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 August 1925, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1925/19250827_senate_9_111/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate27 August 1925

QUESTION

SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S VISIT TO SYDNEY

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

FLOATING DOCK CONSTRUCTION

Senator McHUGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL BILL

PRINTING COMMITTEE

DISTILLATION BILL

Second Reading

COMMONWEALTHRAILWAYS BILL

Second Reading

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Wilson:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Wilson:

Senator NEEDHAM:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T, Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (‘Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Reid:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator MCHUGH:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Reid:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator McHugh:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator McHugh:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator HANNAN:Victoria

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Kingsmill:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator GRAHAM:Western Australia

Senator McHUGH:South Australia

Senator Reid:

Senator McHUGH:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McHUGH:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Lynch:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

Senator McHUGH:

Senator Reid:

Senate
27 August 1925

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T, Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (‘Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
(Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania