Senate
9 September 1925

9^th Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- SENATOR WILSON
QUESTION
- PEACE OFFICERS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD REPORTS
DISTILLATION BILL
LOAN BILL (No. 2)
COMMONWEALTH BANK (RURAL CREDITS) BILL
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1925-26
- First Reading
- Second Reading
MAIN ROADS DEVELOPMENT BILL

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 8 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2273

QUESTION

SENATOR WILSON

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– Is it a fact that the visit of the Treasurer, Dr. Earle Page, to Adelaide during the last fewdays, was for the purpose of endeavouring to settle a dispute between the “job controllers” of South Australia and Senator Wilson?

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

– Never interfere in a domestic quarrel.

page 2273

QUESTION

PEACE OFFICERS

Senator FINDLEY:

– If it is a fact, as stated in the press, that the closest secrecy was observed in the enrolment and swearingin of Commonwealth peace officers in Sydney, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate be good enough to state the reason for such secrecy?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

- Senator Findley should not be led away by reports in the press, probably published in the hope of creating a sensation. In giving effect to the measure which was passed by Parliament, the Government will act with due decorum and with due regard to the proprieties.

page 2273

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1925, Nos. 138, 141.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1925, Nos. 139, 140.

Petroleum - Report on Petroleum prospects in parts of Western Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, by Dr. A. Wade, D.Sc. (Lond.), M.I.P.T., M.I.M.M., A.R.C.Sc, F.G.S., F.G.S. (America).

page 2273

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

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

When does the Minister propose to make available to members of the Senate the Tariff Board reports on which the recent alterations of the tariff tabled in another place are based?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– A number of the reports will be placed on the table of the Senate to-morrow. As soon as possible the whole will be made available.

page 2273

DISTILLATION BILL

Assent reported.

page 2273

LOAN BILL (No. 2)

In committee (Consideration resumed from 4th September, vide page 2246) :

First schedule.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Formerly the reports of the Tariff Board were printed and circulated amongst honorable senators, but recently, although the meetings of the board have been held in public, the reports have not been furnished to us.

Senator Pearce:

– I have just said, in reply to a question, that a number of the reports of the Tariff Board will be laid on the table to-morrow.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to know whether it is intended to publish the whole of the reports, or only a limited number of them.

Senator Pearce:

– The whole of them will be tabled. I also said that the balance of the reports would be made available as soon as possible.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Provision is made in the schedule for an expenditure of £83,000 on the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta railway, and £250,000 on railway connexion to Alice Springs. I should like to know when the line to Alice Springs will be completed, and whether the proposed alternative route from Kingoonya on the east-west railway will interfere with the construction of the north-south railway.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– Although the proposed vote under the heading of Trade and Customs hasbeen disposed of, perhaps the Minister (Senator Crawford) will be good enough to supply the particulars regarding wire netting which I asked for on Friday, and which he promised to furnish?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In the circumstances, I think the information may be asked for and supplied, but not debated.

Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland -

Findley asked for particulars of the allocation between the various States and the Northern Territory of the amount of £250,000 made available for advances to settlers for the purchase of wire netting, together with the amounts actually advanced. The details are as follow: -

Senator Findley:

– Did not South Australia receive any?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– No. Particulars in regard to the sum of £83,000 required in connexion with the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta line are as follow : -

Those figures relate to the existing line. A sum of £250,000 is provided for an extension of the line from Oodnadatta, but a bill must be passed by Parliament before that sum can be spent.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

.. - An amount is provided for the erection of a post office at Denmark, Western Australia. I should like to know whether provision has been made for the erection of postmaster’s quarters there ?’

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– Working drawings and specifications are being prepared for the invitation of tenders, and will include provision for a residence. In regard to the point raised on Friday last by Senator Findley in relation to loan moneys advanced to assisted immigrants, I now desire to inform the honorable senator that the total amount advanced by the Commonwealth and British Governments jointly to assisted migrants in respect of passage money to date is £544,089, of which£188,979 has been repaid, leaving a balance of £355,110 outstanding, of which half is, of course, Commonwealth money and the remaining half British Government money. Assisted migrants before leaving England are required to give a written undertaking that they will repay the advances made to them at the rate of so much per month, but repayment at the specified rate is not always insisted upon. Substantial reductions in the rate of repayment are frequently agreed to after the merits of each application for relief are inquired into. No case can. be recalled where a migrant has given a blank refusal to honour his: undertaking to repay theloan advanced to him, but, as may be expected where such a large number of people are being, dealt with, there have been cases of evasion.; Also, in cases where migrants arrive in Australia and move about, either within a State or from State to State, without notifying the Migration Offices concerned of their movements, the instalments f all into arrear. These would, of course, be classed as cases of evasion. Approximately, 60 per cent. of the instalments are, however, paid on the due date. In all cases where migrants are able to show that they are unable to meet their obligations, sympathetic consideration in the matter of deferring payment of the instalments due is given.

First schedule agreed to.

Second schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

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

– I move-

That so much of the standing, and sessional orders be suspended as would preventthe bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

There is only the. formal stage of the. bill left, and it is desirable, from the

Treasury point of view, that it should be assented to as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2275

COMMONWEALTH BANK (RURAL CREDITS) BILL

in committee (Consideration resumed from 3rd September, vide page 2166) :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After Part VIA. of the principal act the following part is inserted: -

PARTV1b.- Rural Credits Department. “ 60abi. Advances may be made by the Rural Credits Department, upon the security of primary produce placed under the legal control of the Bank, to -

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– Sub-clause 60abd provides that 25 per cent. of the net annual profits of the Note Issue Department shall be paid into the Rural Credits Department. I should like to know whether this is to be regarded as a loan, and, if so, what will be the rate of interest.

Senator Pearce:

– It will not be a loan, but a payment into the Rural Credits Department.

Senator THOMPSON:

– I presume the Treasurer has given the matter careful consideration, but in my opinion the principle is unsound, and I enter my protest against it. The money should be raised by some other means than a grant from the Note Issue Department. I also direct attention to sub-clause 60abe, under which the bank may issue debentures. I should like the Minister to indicate the procedure contemplated to synchronize the date of retirement of the debentures with the returns from the produce involved.

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

.- There should be no difficulty, such as is anticipated by the honorable senator, in regard to the date of retirement of debentures. The board which controls the note issue will also administer the Rural Credits Department, and will be able so to arrange the purchase and retirement of debentures as to avoid payment of interest on debentures after the produce has been sold and payment received.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

.- I move-

That the words “ or other banks,” paragraph a of proposed new section 60abi be left out.

The purpose of my amendment is to eliminate, as far as possible, the intervention of the middleman. If the clause is passed as it stands there will be nothing to prevent middlemen operating at the expense of the producer. Theunderlying principle of the measure is to assist the man on the land. “ It is a very laudable object, and has my cordial endorsement. It is a principle for which honorable senators on this side have always stood. The bill as drafted will enable the middleman to intervene, and if it becomes law in its present form it will prove a curse instead of a blessing to the producer. I can see no reason why the Rural Credits Department should lend money to another bank. Senator Pearce the other day twitted certain honorable senators with a lack of knowledge of finance. The veriest tyro in finance knows perfectly well that private banks are not philanthropic institutions.

Senator Pearce:

– Nor is the Commonwealth Bank. The honorable senator would have that fact brought home to him if he sought an overdraft from it without ample security.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The private banks charge the highest interest rate possible. In times of stress they have foreclosed on mortgagors, and made the lot of the producer very difficult. The Commonwealth Bank should not encourage such practices. I want the primary producer to be able to go direct to the Rural Credits Department.

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

– The Government cannot accept the amendment, and I ask the committee to reject it. There will be no compulsion on producers’ organizations to go to private banks; under the bill they will have the undoubted right to go direct to the Rural Credits Department. Surely it must be conceded that they are the best judges of what is in their interests? If they prefer to go to a private bank, why should we decline to allow them? The clause merely provides that producers’ organizations may obtain the necessary credits either direct from the Rural Credits Department or from a private bank.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I regard this provision as the best feature of the bill. If the wheat crop and the wool clip in any one year were of a bounteous nature, with the private banks given facilities to assist in financing them, the operation would be comparatively simple. But if, on the other hand, the Commonwealth Bank alone had to be relied upon, difficulties might be encountered, since these operations would follow closely upon each other. I hope that the amendment will not be agreed to. I should like the Minister to inform me whether a large grower of wheat or wool, who is also a shipper, will be able to approach the Rural Credits Department. There does not appear to be any provision to meet such a contingency. I can imagine a man having perhaps, 20,000 or 30,000 bushels of wheat or a large wool clip in a single bottom. Will such a man be able to obtain an advance under this scheme ?

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -We should try to save the producer from himself. The Minister (SenatorPearce) said that the primary producer should be the best judge of the way in which his business ought to be transacted. That is all very well; but if there is one institution only to which the primary producer can go, he will necessarily have to confine his dealings to it. The private banks may make it more difficult to secure credits. The operation will certainly be more expensive, and for that reason I prefer that there should be only one bank, and that the Commonwealth Bank, with which the. primary producer can deal.

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

– The clause should remain as printed. The private banks serve a very useful purpose in our community. How would the Commonwealth have fared in the flotation of its war loans but for the assistance that was given by the private banks? It will cost no more to obtain money from a private bank than directly fromthe Rural Credits Department.If every one is driven to do business with the Commonwealth Bank, competition will be eliminated. Why should any one be debarred from doing business with a bank with which he has had business relations for many years? I support the bill as it stands. Its usefulness would be destroyed if the clause were amended as proposed.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Needham’s amendment) - put.The committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I desire that the primary producer shall have direct access to the Rural Credits Department, and with that object in view, I move the following further amendment: -

That after the word “ banks,” paragrapha of proposed new section 60ab1, the following words be added : - “ or a primary producer.”

Under the clause as it stands the producer would be able to apply to the Commonwealth Bank or to a private bank, but it would be useless for him to make an individual application to the Rural Credits Department.

Senator Payne:

– Could he not receive the benefit through his co-operative association?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Whether he could or could not, the position would not be made any worse by giving him direct access to the department, for it would save him from the exploitation of the middleman.

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

– I am rather surprised at Senator Needham moving this amendment. The whole object of the bill, and of the associated legislation, is to encourage orderly marketing through collective agencies. Judging by the protestations of theparty opposite of its belief in collectivism, one would haveexpected it to support this measure strongly, because it seeks to encourage collective effort. If the producers are to dispose of their crops to the best advantage in the overseas markets orderly and collective marketing is required-. To that end recent legislation has been shaped, and the present bill represents a further step in the direction of encouraging co-operative societies and cooperative marketing. If an individual refuses to join in the co-operative efforts of his fellow-producers, the bill does not deprive him of an opportunity of obtaining finance. He can still approach either the Commonwealth Bank or any of the other banks as an individual. But ha cannot have the latter privilege and at the same time receive the benefit of this special legislation, which is specially directed at assisting cooperative effort. The Government believes that the measure will be to the distinct advantage of the producer. If he wishes to escape from the middleman, who is said to be exploiting him, it is obvious that he cannot do so by operating as an individual. Even if the producer were able to obtain credit on his own behalf, he would be unable to market his produce except through the middleman. Imagine an individual apple-grower proceeding to place his fruit on the London market without resort to the middleman. He could not do it unless he werevery wealthy, since he would need to have a representative on the other side of the world to look after his produce. Producers of butter and other commodities are similarly dependent on the middleman, and if honorable senators opposite wish to assist the producers to escape him, their best plan is to support this bill, which encourages co-operative marketing. I hope that the amendment will be rejected.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I presume that the assistance will not apply solely to the marketing of produce that is exported ?

SenatorPearce. - It relates to produce that is to be exported.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Is it not intended to help men on the land prior to their produce reaching the stage when it is ready for export? Surely assistance should be rendered in the earlier stages, otherwise a man might have no produce to export. The man who reaches the export stage referred to by Senator Pearce may be independent of any bank, and it should be our object to assist him to reach that position.

Senator Pearce:

– He needs assistance at the export stage, because he has to wait so long for realization of his exported produce.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If an individual is at liberty at any time to apply to the Commonwealth Bank or a private bank for an advance, why should he not also be able to obtain an advance from the Rural Credits Department of the Commonwealth Bank, to assist him to reach the stage at which he can export? I think there is every justification for my amendment.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

AYES

NOES

page 2278

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1925-26

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– The Governor-General is in Sydney, and this bill must be passed before the train leaves for Sydney to-morrow afternoon, so that it may be forwarded for His. Excellency’s assent, which will give the Government the necessary warrantto pay the amounts authorized by the measure. Had the bill reached us on Friday, I should have moved the first reading on that day. As it is, I have now to move the suspension of the Standing Orders, so that honorable senators will have to-day, and, if necessary, until 4 p.m. to-morrow, for a full discussion. I move -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister should have given us some information. I have not the least idea of what is contained in this bill.

Senator Pearce:

– On the first reading of a Supply Bill details cannot be furnished.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Surely the Minister could give those details. I have not even seen the bill.

Senator Pearce:

– It was circulated with other papers this morning.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was my intention to deliver a speech on the financial position. This I am prevented from doing, because I have not the details of the Government’s proposals before me.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- I should like to know what action the Government propose to take against persons., and certain sections of the press, who are condemning the men whose cases are now being considered by the Deportation Board. If these men were being tried in an ordinary court, those persons who are publicly condemning them would be guilty of contempt of court. I should like to know if the Government intends to take steps to prevent a continuance of this practice of condemning men whose case is still sub judice. The Government was responsible for the amendment of the Immigration Act which gave power to deport men found guilty of creating industrial strife, and isalso responsible for the appointment of a deportation board, and special police officers to act in accordance with the instructions of the Government. Personally, I think it is a dastardly act on the part of the members and supporters of the Government and the press of this country to convict men before evidence has been given on their behalf, and the board has come to a decision.

Senator Gardiner:

– The Government really convicted them before it introduced legislation providing for the appointment of a board and peace officers.

Senator HANNAN:

– It is a travesty on British justice. During a tour through the country, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) said yesterday that as the Labour movement and trade union organizations had failed to remove certain men from their official positions, the Government had appointed a board to protect trade unionism by putting these people out of the country. That is a damnable admission for the Prime Minister to make. I do not think the farce should be permitted to continue further without some protest being made in Parliament.

They claim to believe in the brotherhood of man. Such protestations by them amount merely to lip service. Men have been sent from the Trades Hall in Sydney to learn the conditions that exist in Russia. Who is providing the funds for such an expedition, and what is the real reason for it? Australia must be allowed to run its household in its own way. We should rid ourselves of the idea that this country does not need defending. Until the other fellow shows an inclination to hold out the olive branch, we should not make it possible for the liberties that we now possess to be taken from us. We on this side are keenly anxious to hear honorable senators opposite expound the defence policy of the Labour party. What do they propose to do? What do they expect the other fellow will do? I presume that they have a defence policy of some kind, even though they argue that every man should be at liberty to defend his country in the way that best suits him. My reading of history has taught me that sooner or later every country has had to defend itself, no matter what policy or social order it possessed. Unless Australia is to be the single exception to -that rule, we shall need to be up and -doing. We must cast from us this contemptible substitute for a defence policy that is offered to us, and that even its greatest champions will not explain. When we receive the ultimatum that our White Australia policy, or something else, is obnoxious to another country, and the warships of that country appear on the horizon, I suppose honorable senators opposite and their friends will raise the red flag, and say, “ This will save us.” When the enemy sees the red flag, it will surely throw its guns overboard! Perhaps our friends will hoist a report of the proceedings of the Third Internationale, or those who are more piously inclined may raise the Sermon on the Mount. In such a case the gun* of the enemy would surely be silenced ! No army would bear down upon our shores, no one would attack us, in those circumstances! Let us not be so foolish. If other countries were as peacefully inclined as Australia, and showed a friendly feeling towards each other, instead of glaring at each other in a warlike attitude as Russia has lately been doing Avith other countries, I could understand the attitude that is taken up by honorable senators opposite. But we must not sacrifice our liberty by an adherence to a policy that is not shared by other nations less advanced than we are.

My purpose in rising, however, was to refer to a far more important matter than the duty of honorable senators opposite, who have been elected to high and responsible positions to speak their minds, and suggest measures that will best secure the safety of Australia. I desire to refer to what is happening in the industrial field. In the. sphere of legislation we can lend a helping hand in advancing the interests of the nation as a whole. I ask that the Commonwealth Government shall come to the assistance of the gold-mining industry. That industry is now, and has been for some time, in a bad way. In 1914, 2,050,000 ounces of gold were produced. By 1923 the production had shrunk to 700,000 ounces. The decline in the number of men employed directly in gold mining in Australia was almost as great, the figures being 29,000 in 1914, and 11,000 in 1923. The men who lost their employment in the industry during that period had to seek a livelihood in other directions. On a previous occasion I had the honour to put before this Chamber the case of the gold-mining industry. I then gave facts and figures which led the Senate to come to a very definite and praiseworthy conclusion. It agreed that the gold-mining industry was hard pressed, and that it was the duty of the Commonwealth Government to go to its rescue. The industry is in a most parlous condition, and is still going down hill. Those who are acquainted with the history of its progress believe that it can be rescued; that if the Government will lend a helping hand the decline can be arrested, and a good measure of prosperity secured. I remind honorable senators of what the Commonwealth Government did for other industries when it considered that a little governmental assistance would prove beneficial. Hardly an industry, except a few in the rural . section, has not had some form of assistance from the public treasury. I do not argue that that assistance was not warranted. Were I to do so, I should merely stultify my. self, because, on many occasions in this chamber and outside I have urged a recognition of the position in which many industries were placed, and their right to receive help from the Government. The gold-mining industry has for years stood patiently by and lent a helping hand to other industries, and the time has come when its necessities should be considered. I have here figures showing how it suffered during the war period. I do not claim that it should be immune from the liability to assist other industries, but I do stipulate that it has too lone borne that burden without adequate recompense. It has been penalized in the interests of not only Australia, but also that wider family of nations, the British Empire. During the war period it became necessary for the Government of the day to prohibit the export of gold, for the ample reason that it was indispensable in the prosecution of the war. It was required for the purchase of those goods and services which, could not be obtained in Australia, and, gold being the only negotiable element outside this country, it was neces-sary to conserve it. But who had to sacrifice themselves to that end? None other than those who- were supplying the gold. Therefore, when the embargo was placed on the export of gold, when the exchanges of the world were “pegged,” and when a free market had no further influence on them, the gold suppliers were compelled to accept a lower figure than the price at which they could have sold their output in the markets of the world. The statement has been made that the Government of the day, of which the present Government is a kind of lineal descendant, of which Senator Gardiner was a member, and which I supported, gained something from the introduction of the embargo. I have never subscribed to that conclusion, except to the extent to which an explanation was given, namely, that the gain was merely a few thousand pounds.

Senator Pearce:

– It was £11,000.

Senator LYNCH:

– -From a perusal of the annual financial statements I have not discovered that there was any verygreat advantage gained over the transaction. As 1 have already indicated? while the exchanges were “ pegged,” and? an artificial condition set up regarding the value of gold, the producers of that metal, unlike the sellers of any other commodity, did not have the free market, limited though it was under war conditions, which other producers enjoyed.. They were obliged to sell at prewarrates, losing the difference between them; and the prices they could have obtained! outside Australia. I am informed. on the authority of the Australian Gold Producers’ Association, that during the years 1915-18 the industry lost a total sum of £3,000,000, which represents the difference between the price at which the Government of the day compelled the producers to sell, and that which buyers outside Australia were prepared to give. Thus it is clear that the gold-mining industry has some claim on. the community, and particularly on the Government of the day, for assistanceHaving come to the help of the Government, the people of Australia, and the* Empire,, at a critical period - having been placed in an exceptionally disadvantageous position by the action of the* Government in imposing an embargo ora the export of gold, and having suffered! in the interests of the community - there is no reason why this industry should ba penalized permanently.

It was said that the transport of gold to China, which was the principal buyer at the time, would be a, risky undertaking. During that period], however, Japanese boats were trading between Austrafia and Eastern countries, and there were ample opportunities for the export of gold if the Government had allowed that to be done. But the Government did not allow it, for the all-sufficient reason that the gold was required in this country for our own purposes. Australian notes are useless beyond our own borders. Their face value dies at our boundary lines, unless there is something to support them in the shape of either gold or goods. Therefore, the gold producers were placed in the exceptional position of having to suffer serious losses owing to the necessities of Australia during the war period. China was free to buy gold during the years 1915, 1916, and 1917, and was one of the chief purchasers during that period. China did not enter the war until 1917, and while it remained a neutral nation it would have purchased our gold, had the producers been free to export it, at a price very much more profitable than that received by them.Had our gold producers been in the same position as the producers of wheat, wool, fruit, and dairy produce, enjoying the enhanced values arising out of war conditions, they would have benefited to the extent, as I have already said, of £3,000,000. There are many reasons in addition to those T have cited for giving some belated assistance to this much neglected and patient industry. The arguments, it is true, have been worn threadbare, but some of them will bear repetition.

Ample justification for giving some assistance is contained in a statement by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) appearing in to-day’s issue of the Melbourne Age. Under the heading “ Protection for All “ the Treasurer is reported to have stated in Adelaide that “While the rest of the community was protected the primary producers must receive protection.” I know of no better phrase’ to describe the gold-mining industry than that of primary production. Those engaged in it go to the unknown spots of Australia, and under all kinds of difficulties, adversities and besetting dangers, bring to light this precious metal to the great benefit of some who engage in this hazardous occupation, but to the greater benefit of the community at large. We remember what the discovery of gold did for Western Australia, and incidentally, for the whole Commonwealth. In the early nineties Western Australia was a neglected, and by some people, a despised part of Australia; but when gold was found there a complete change was wrought. The western State became a magnet that attracted a large population from all other parts of Australia, to the great and lasting benefit of those who took part in the rush. New homes were found for over 100,000 workless people. Many men arrived in Western Australia “ stony broke,” as the result of experiences in the other States, and recovered their vanished good fortune. Subsequently, when the gold-mining industry underwent a period of adversity the prospectors, always a superior type, and mostly from the eastern States, turned their attention to other forms of primary production. The result is that to-day that State is within measurable distance of an annual output of wheat approaching 30,000,000 bushels, although when gold was discovered’ there it was importing wheat and flour. I could recount instances in your own State, Mr. President, of the discovery of gold having led to the agricultural settlement of large tracts of country. The huge pastoral areas in the Kimberley district, and other northern parts of Western Australia. owe their settlement to the discovery of this precious metal, and Australia has reaped great benefit thereby.

I shall outline briefly a few of the other reasons to be advanced in favour of the claim I am making. The first is that it is a white man’s industry; it promotes and encourages the White Australia policy, and we are entitled, therefore, to call upon the national policy of protection to be put into operation in its favour. If we are to protect other industries by tariff advantages to the exclusion of the gold-mining industry, I say plainly, that we shall not be doing a fair thing to this all-important industry which is the parent of many others. I have already referred to its effect on Western Australia, and I remind honorable senators of its influence in a similar direction in the eastern States, where armies of young men on relinquishing gold mining turned their attention to other industries and made them profitable. No one can say that gold mining in the Commonwealth has come to the end of its tether. Far from it. A- long as there are districts that are not tho-i roughly prospected, and, indeed, not well known, and as long as the hardy pioneer is willing to go to them, gold will be won. Bm under present conditions sufficient inducement is not held out to these men. They will calculate the chances of success many times before taking the risk of discovering further fields. Therefore, the industry needs adequate protection and encouragement, especially from the Government of the day. Remembering the experience through which the industry has passed during and since the war period I maintain that it has not received that assistance from the Government to which it is entitled. Any other industry in Victoria and New South Wales, for which half a dozen sponsors in the form of members of this Parliament can be found, can secure Government assistance, but the gold-mining industry is too far removed from the Seat of Government to obtain the benefits meted out to industries that are carried on under the eyes of those in authority. The gold-mining industry is one whose home is essentially in the back-blocks. It belongs to all the States. There is no State of the Commonwealth that is not a contributor to the gold production of the Commonwealth. It is true that the contribution of Western Australia is in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent., which may change, but those of us who are large-minded enough to let our eyes wander beyond the boundaries of our States realize that if good can be done to any one State, especially in a pioneering industry, the benefit it creates is not confined within the boundaries of that State, but necessarily overflows into the neighbouring States with a consequent advantage to the whole of the Commonwealth. If we can keep a number of men in the inland areas, we are making our position stronger and giving more scope to the whole community. The gold-fields of Western Australia buy the products of Victoria. Goods to the value of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 are annually sent from the eastern States to supply the requirements of Western Australia, and the goldfields of that State are very substantial contributors to the amount that is thus paid to the people in the eastern States. Consequently, if we can induce a large number of consumers to go to those parts of the Commonwealth that are least known - the Northern Territory, Northern Queensland, Western Australia, and western New South Wales - it will be all the better for those who supply the requirements of those consumers.

What is needed is to give a bonus of £1 an oz. on gold produced, that is to say, a bonus of 25 per cent. If we were to suggest that 25 per cent, was sufficient assistance for some other industries, what would the sponsors of those industries say? They would not even look upon those who made the suggestion as friends. They would declare that such meagre help would mean starvation for them. Yet the percentage which they would reject is all we want for the gold-mining industry, and that only temporarily. If we could get only that amount of encouragement which many industries in Australia are disposed to refuse, and which many others are constantly moving members of this Parliament to have increased, we should make a most excellent showing, and return to the people of the Commonwealth an ample reward and profit. I have already stressed the fact that by assisting the gold-mining industry we would create labour in sister industries.

In the past the Senate has shown itself sufficiently sympathetic, broad-minded, and economically advanced to recognize the position of gold-mining by heartily supporting the proposals I have put before it. I have reason to thank honorable senators for that support, and if the form of help for which I am asking is given, I hope that I shall have a further opportunity of thanking them. There is an old saying that “ hope deferred maketh the heart sick.” Here is an industry that ever since the closing days of the war has been told to live on hope. It has been trying to do so, but it is gradually dwindling and dwindling until compared w;th its former robust outline it has almost reached the vanishing point. I think we are entitled to give it that small form of encouragement that has been asked for by those who are intimately connected with its control. I could stress the increased area of activity that would be created by the giving of this bonus. There are in the Commonwealth quite a number of what are now known as abandoned mines. For want of a little friendly assistance, or for want of striking a rich vein in their underground parts, because the ore got too poor to pay,they have closed down. There are innumerable mines in Queensland with their toes, so to speak, almost at the paying limit, but they have had to close down for the lack of that sympathetic help for which I am asking.

We should not allow this condition of affairs to continue. We are entitled to ask ourselves some pertinent questions. Has this industry done anything for the nation? The answer must be that it has done something for the nation which all the other industries put together could not do. Has it suffered by befriend ing the nation ? The answer, again is that it has unmistakably suffered by so doing. Will it benefit by getting this form of assistance ? The answer is that, as other industries helped from the Commonwealth Treasury with the consent of Parliament have given a very creditable reply in due course, in the shape of increased activity, so also we believe that the gold-mining industry will do likewise. Then the next question is whether it is proposed to’ withhold any form of assistance. My answer is, “ If it is, why is an industry that in the past has fathered so much prosperity for the Commonwealth singled out for a special form of severity and discouragement?” It is safe to say, on the authority of men who are engaged in the industry, and who haveweighed up the possibilities of further development, that there are millions of tons of ore lying in the bowels of the earth that, by means of this bonus system, could be brought to the surface, with a consequent increase in the carrying capacity of the interior and a further consequent direct reflection on the general prosperity of the whole community. If we could only keep men working lowgrade ores, it would be better for all concerned. Men seeking work could be employed. More employment would be afforded to those engaged in subsidiary industries and in supplying the necessaries of life to the men employed in goldmining. There is no warrant for any person to say that the gold-mining industry is coming to the end of its existence. On the contrary, we have the assurance of those connected with the industry that if this form of assistance is given a new era of prosperity will open up and long con tinue. That is not an. extravagant statement. Not only would it open up a new era of prosperity for the. industry, but it would also bring great benefit to those employed in other interests, thus increasing the general prosperity. A basic industry, such as gold mining, needs to be preserved, otherwise other industries on the superstructure are bound to suffer.

Mr. Bruce has said that . what Australia chiefly wants is “men, money, and markets.” Stimulating the gold-mining industry on the lines suggested by myself and others would go a long way towards supplying those three prime essentials of the country. . If we can only ensure profitable employment in gold mining, men will come here to engage in it, new money will be created, and new wealth will be discovered’; but that can be brought about only by the granting of this bonus. The industry supplies a valuable home market, giving a more ample reward to those people who are producing the requirements of the mining community than is given by any other industry.

During the war the silver producers of the United States of America helped the nation in a very praiseworthy way, and the American Government, simply obeying the desires of the American people, subsequently came forward, and said to the silver producers, “ Since you have helped us through our trouble, we will in turn help you.” The form of help was to raise the price of silver to an artificial level above what the world’s markets would give. That action placed within reach of the silver producers of America something like £50,000,000. Japan has recently raised the price of gold for the purpose of encouraging gold mining. Japan, that has risen from the lower levels of advanced economics, has recognized the necessity of doing the very thing that is virtually proposed in Australia. We do not propose to increase the price of gold in the market. All we ask is that an opportunity shall be given to bring within the profitable zone the latent wealth in many of the abandoned mines of Australia. I feel that the Government will do something in the matter ; I feel that it should have done something earlier than this. I recognize that previous Governments of varying shades of political thought have neglected the gold-mining industry because those associated with it have been specially patient and have not asked for anything until now. When I use the word “now” 1 apply it to the period from a few years after the war until the present day. We have asked and asked, and we are still asking. No one can contend that the industry has not conferred on the nation a boon and benefit. It is acknowledged that no other industry has done more for the Commonwealth. Therefore, in the spirit of fair-play and gratitude, we should be prompted to come to its aid. It is quite clear that unless something is done it will die. It is equally clear that millions of pounds of wealth will remain where it lies to-day, dormant and useless, and not brought to light and not availed of for the benefit of the whole community unless a helping hand is given.

While we are endeavouring by the giving of bonuses and Customs protection to help industries in other spheres of activity in Australia - it is acknowledged that if only a dozen men are employed in an industry they should be given the benefit of increased protection - we have equal warrant for doing something fair, just, and substantial for the gold-mining industry, which has done so much for the nation in the past, but which is now, unfortunately, in a bad way. Those who are acquainted with mining in Australia know that there is nothing more calculated to make one downhearted than to see a deserted mining township with empty houses, poppet heads, reduction plants, and everything ready to be utilized, as soon as new discoveries of payable ore are made. We know from calculations that this can be found and will be found if the . Government treat the gold-mining industry as it has treated all other industries. Although I come from the western State, I hope it will not prejudice my case in the least. So long as we can maintain a body of men engaging in an industry on a profitable basis, it is better for all concerned. Therefore, I trust that honorable senators will not confine their consideration of this subject to the mere fact that if a bonus is given on the production of gold, most of that bonus will be paid to the western State. I dislike making comparisons, but, when the Meat Bounty Bill was before this chamber, and we were told that the bulk of the assistance would go to the so-called beef barons of Queensland, there was no opposition raised. It was recognized by all that something must be done to save the meat industry of Australia at a critical period. Every other consideration vanished. All political arguments ‘and sophistries were blown to the wind in the face of ‘ the stern necessity for doing something for the meat industry in the Commonwealth. The fact that 75 per cent, of the amount voted was likely to go to Queensland did not prevent me or other honorable senators from cheerfully supporting the proposal, because we were of the opinion that assistance could be given only in that direction. We are now asking for similar treatment, and for additional reasons which are specially applicable to the mining industry, in the belief that the Government, in giving this matter immediate consideration, will look sympathetically upon the mining industry of Australia. If it does, it will have acquitted itself in the way it should; it will have recognized, if only in a small degree, the service the industry has rendered to the people of Australia, and, indeed, the British Empire.

On a former occasion honorable senators stood solidly behind the proposition which I placed before this chamber. I now thank them for the action they took when I introduced a deputation to the Prime Minister consisting of members of all political parties. I wish also to thank Senator Grant for continuing his speech as he did on that occasion, without calling attention to the lack of a quorum^ so that honorable senators generally might take part in the deputation. On that occasion the Prime Minister’s room was practically filled with honorable senators in favour of the proposal, and we were then encouraged to hope. Certainly the Government has agreed to remit certain taxation, but the relief afforded is not what the commissioner’s report makes it appear to be. The returns from gold mining are very small, and the taxation gathered is therefore small, as will be seen by a full investigation of the position*, Whilst I am thankful for the slight assistance given and for the sympathy shown, those engaged in the industry cannot allow matters to rest where they are. They earnestly ask for the payment of a bonus in order to get the industry back on its feet, which will be of great benefit to the whole of the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Labour Government in office. Senator Drake-Brockman went on to say - .

If we were suddenly called upon to defend ourselves we wouldnot have enough munitions, war equipment, and the tilings necessary to maintain an army for 24 hours.

This, I remind honorable senators, is the opinion of a high military authority, a general in the late war, and a loyal supporter of the Government. Could the position be worse even with a Labour Government in office? The Government is spending £5,000,000 a year on defence, and this is the result. What is the’ use of Senator Pearce finding fault with the defence policy of the Labour party?

Senator Pearce:

– We cannot find any policy to quarrel about.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then for the information of the Minister let me state the defence policy of the Labour party -

) Adequatehome defence against possible foreign aggression.

Surely, that covers everything -

Convertible factories for small arms, munitions, and aeroplanes.

Is not that something very definite for the defence of Australia?

Air forces, depots, &c.

Is not that something for defence? Are not these three planks of our policy the very essentials of defence ? Ours is a policy of real defence; that of the Government is mere pretence.

Senator Reid:

– The Government is providing for those essentials now.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Government is not. It is because of this neglect to provide for the real defence of Australia that the public will deal with the Government and its supporters at the forthcoming elections. Why does the Inspector-General, in his annual report, complain of the unsatisfactory state of our defence scheme?

Senator Elliott:

– It is his duty to show wherein our defence arrangements may be incomplete.

Senator GARDINER:

– Letme again state the defence policy of the Labour party, and put the various planks in their proper order -

Adequate home defence against possible foreign aggression;
Convertible factories for small arms, munitions, and aeroplanes;
Air forces, depots, &c.
Land forces, fortifications, &c. :
Submarines and adequate above-water craft and mines. . . . .

The Hon. the Minister of State for Defence.

In accordance with A.M.R 18 (1) I submit herewith the annual report required from the

Inspector-General of the Australian Military Forces: -

During the year under review the following developments designed to improve the condition of thearmy have taken place with the approval of the Government: -
1. The annual duration of camp training for the Citizen Forces was increased from six to eight days;
2. An increase in the period of service in the Citizen Forces from two years (actual training twenty days) to three years (actual training 36 days) was authorized. It was not possible, however, to give effect to this decision during the year 1924-5, as the elder quota of the Citizen Forces trainees had necessarily been discharged on 30th June, 1924 (before the decision was given), in accordance -with the conditions then in force;
3. It was decided that, concurrently with an extra year’s service for trainees in the Citizen Forces, the training in the Senior Cadets would be reduced by one year, leaving the total duration of service the same as before;
4. A commencement was made in the purchase of the requirements of the field army in arms, ammunition, and equipment from funds provided in a special vote. . . .

This shows that nothing has been done to remedy the deplorable state of affairs complained of by Senator DrakeBrockman, by General Monash, and by the exMinister for Defence (Mr. Bowden). Again I quote the opinion of the highest military authority in the Commonwealth.

Senator Pearce:

– I should like to hear his comment on the defence policy of the Labour party.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister is ever ready to misrepresent our policy, in order to cover up the defects of his own administration. What could be more condemnatory of the incompetence of the Government than this further extract from the Inspector-General’s report: -

With reference to the purchase of armament and munitions, it is gratifying to note that a start has been made on a definite programme. A sum of £300,000 was approved, in addition to ordinary maintenance votes, towards the development of the army. Owing to reductions in the ordinary Estimates by the Treasury, and to various commitments approved by the Government, legitimately considered progress, and therefore not included in ordinary estimate, the sum available for the munitions programme was £205,795. Although such a commencement is gratifying, it is my duty to point out that the extent of the progress made in this respect was, in comparison with the requirements, relatively insignificant.

- Senator Pearce wanted me to say how I would call into existence an adequate force, and train, arm, and equip it, under the proposals devised by the Labour conference in 1924. I tell him that in defence matters the workers of Australia will be as honest as they are in their everyday lives. Those who endeavour to make them appear dishonest will be held accountable when the opportunity presents itself. I have shown honorable senators that the Inspector-General has reported that if Australia were called upon to defend herself at the present time she would do so under a great handicap and with much unnecessary loss of life, notwithstanding the fact that this Government has had charge of defence matters for the last seven years, and in that time has expended upon it no less a sum than £30,000,000. A further paragraph in the report of the Inspector-General states -

Whether this country is or is not able to meet the cost of the provision of modern equipment on an adequate scale, or whether, if it is able to do so, it would be correct policy now to undertake considerable expenditure in that connexion, are matters upon which it is not within my province to express an opinion. But it certainly is my duty to make perfectly plain the consequences which are liable to ensue, for the information of those who are responsible for deciding the policy to be followed.

Could more condemnatory language be used? If he spoke more strongly, the distinguished general would be deported by the Government. Honorable senators may decide to support the Government whether it be right or wrong, but should injury be caused to Australia because of the Government’s ineptitude they will have to accept their share of the responsibility. The Government may satisfy them by saying, “Bad as our policy is, it is better than Labour’s.” That is their concern. The Labour party’s attempt to originate a defence policy is the most intelligent that has yet been made in Australia. I shall read a little further from the report of the Inspector-General. He says: -

Should it be decided to take up the question of the provision of armament, ammunition, and equipment in an effective manner -

The inference is inescapable, that it has not yet been taken up in an effective manner - the attainment of the object in view should, as far as possible, be achieved by, or at any rate be accompanied by, a policy designed to make Australia self-contained in the production of war material.

That is what the policy of the Labour party aims at. The Government is doing nothing in that direction. The report proceeds -

How far it is possible, within any calculable period of time to place Australia in this position, I am unable to say, but that object most certainly cannot be achieved without a very groat extension of the limited programme which, with the funds at its disposal, the Munition Supply Board is now capable of undertaking.

– Of course there is, but this officer’s opinion always appealed to me. Another British officer, Admiral Kerr, remarked -

The Australian line of defence obviously comprised aeroplanes, submarines, and torpedo boats, against which no hostile fleet dare approach within 200 miles.

Senator Graham:

– Was he an admiral during the war?

Senator Elliott:

– He was out of dato before the war commenced.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not intend to go into that question. Labour may take the wrong view, as Senator Greene suggests, but we take the side that appears to us to be right. RearAdmiral Hall, another British naval officer, said -

We had a grand fleet with a preponderance of nearly two to one over Germany alone. We had the assistance of the American, French, Italian and Japanese navies, and yet our main naval purpose - the protection of our trade - could not be carried out. The Navy itself could not put out to sea without being itself protected by flotillas of little quick-turning devil-dodgers.

Lieut.Commander Rawson remarked: -

It needs little technical knowledge to see that Australia must concentrate on submarines, mine-layers, fast torpedo boats, and air craft Sixteen submarines can be built forthe price of one battleship. No extensive dry docks are required. Flotilla warfare is a form of defence particularly suitable to our needs and our resources.

– Those were obsolete rifles.

Senator GARDINER:

– Rifles become obsolete when a manufacturer, having supplied a large order, invents a new type.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator GARDINER:

– In concluding my remarks, which, under the Standing Orders I must do within 20 minutes, T wish to say that I addressed myself to this question in consequence of the newspaper articles, and the statements made by Senator Lynch and others, in which an attempt has been made to prove that the Labour party has no defence policy. Therefore, my chief aim in discussing this question has been to explain our policy, and allow it to be considered on its merits. The policy of the Labour party was adopted at a conference, which in all essentials .resembled a public meeting. It consisted of delegates from the various State Labour organization-‘, and when the policy drafted, at that gathering is taken as a whole - I do not say that there are no spots on it - I think it will be regarded as a masterpiece of draftsmanship. It shows clearly that, although Labour is not in office, it has a very clear idea of the best methods to- adopt for the defence of Australia. The Labour party’s policy provides -

Adequatehome defence against possible foreign aggression.
Convertible factories for small arms, munitions, aeroplanes.
Air forces, depots, &c.
Land forces, fortifications, &c.
Submarines, and adequate above-water craft, and mines.
Utilization, of Bureau of Science and Industry for the purpose of standardization of railway and motor rolling-stock and materials.
Roads and railways.
That the Commonwealth Constitution bc amended to include a condition that no Australian can be conscripted for military service overseas.
Amendment of Defence Act to secure -
1. Deletion of all clauses relating to compulsory training and service.
2. Abolition of trial by court martial where civil courts are available.
3. No penalties to bc imposed except in pursuance of explicit enactment. Intended regulations to be publicly advertised, and regulations to have no effect till before both Houses, either of which may veto.
4. Limitation of professional soldiers to necessary instruction and administration and working staff.
5. Abolition of military oaths.
6. Abolition of distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers.
7. Recognition of principle of election of qualified candidates as officers.
8. Salute and other useless discipline to be abolished.
9. No employment of, or interference by, soldiers in industrial disputes. Punishment of Ministers and other persons responsible for breach of this provision.
10. Citizens on completion of training to retain arms delivered to them during training.
11. Defence Acts to require annual renewal, as in England.
12. No raising of forces for service outside the Commonwealth, or participation in any future overseas war, except by decision of the people.

– I am endeavouring to argue this scheme from the point of view adopted by Senator Gardiner. He suggests that these government factories should be established in times of peace.

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear!

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Duncan:

– We do a big trade with China. That is an important trade route.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It is very important to Australia.

Senator GRAHAM:

– It has been said that £30,000,000 has been spent on defence since tho armistice was signed, and we have very little to show for it. I want to know how that money has been expended. Has it been devoted to the establishment of factories along the lines recommended by Senator Greene, or has it largely been used in providing the salaries of highly-paid officers?

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator reads the budget papers he will see how the money has been disbursed.

Senator GRAHAM:

– The Melbourne Age, of the 5th January, 1924, in a leading article referring to the Prime Minister and his Government, stated -

The increasing inconsistency- of his actions not calculated to serve as an inspiration to the robust spirit of the Australian nation, while his speeches on defence, and in justification of his actions are unlikely to impress even the feeblest intelligence.

That journal is not a supporter of the Labour party, and its comments indicate that the present Government has done little for the defence of Australia. In regard to economic preparedness, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), when speaking in Sydney at a meeeting of the Chamber of Commerce, said -

The development of our industries, trade, and commerce is of more importance” to the defence of Australia than are the armies of Australia.

I would go a long way with the right honorable gentleman in that direction. The building up of the industries of

Australia is one of the main essentials in its defence, and it is the duty of the National Government to see that more industries ave built up for the protection of the country. Lord Jellicoe, speaking on this subject, said -

A sound policy must aim at promoting Australia’s capacity to make or produce everything essential to its own protection.

According to the Age of the 31st July, 1924, the importance of industrial power was stressed by Lord Jellicoe in his Australian report. The same journal, in its issue of the 20th November, 1924, said that the Chamber of Manufactures had made the suggestion that Australian industries should be organized to make them convertible for war purposes. One of the main points of Labour’s defence policy is the establishment and organiza.tion of industries which, in times of peace, can manufacture the things necessary for the development of the country, but which, in times of war, may be so converted as to turn out everything essential and necessary for war. When Mr. Bowden was Minister for Defence he said, on the 11th August, 1924 -

At present there was only one unit of the Air Force in Australia. They had a tremendous lot of gift equipment from Great Britain, but a great deal of it was still stowed away in the packages in which it came to Australia two or three years ago.

Prominent naval authorities, such as Sir Percy Scott, Admiral Kerr, BearAdmiral Hall, Commander Rawson, AdmiralFullar, Admiral Sims, Admiral von Scheer, and others, are of the opinion that the main things essential for the defence of & country, especially a country like Australia with a huge coastline, are aerial forces, submarines, mines, torpedo boats, and such like. That is the opinion of men whoknow what they are talking about.

Senator Duncan:

– There are men with equal experience who hold a different view.

Senator GRAHAM:

– As I am a layman, I do not profess to know anything about the subject, but I accept the opinions of men who are experts. As a member of the Labour party, I stand for the defence of Australia. If Labour was in power to-morrow, it would have to supply a proper defence force for the protection of this great country, and what that force should consist of is purely a matter of opinion.

Senator Reid:

– Does the honorable senator believe in compulsory training?

Senator GRAHAM:

– No. I could quote quite a number of expert opinions in support of Labour’s defence policy.

This afternoon Senator Lynch dealt very exhaustively with the need for the payment of a bonus on gold production. I want to follow on where he left off, and. appeal to the Government to do something to assist the great mining industry in Western Australia, which is practically languishing for want of help. When it was pointed out this afternoon that the gold mines of Western Australia lost, £3,000,000 through not being able to export gold, Senator Pearce interjected that the only profit the Commonwealth got out of the business was about £11,000. It would be interesting to know where the balance went. Had the gold-mining industry been permitted to export its product as other industries could do, it would have been wealthy enough to-day to carry on operations. I think it is time the Government did something to put it on a sound footing. I make no apology for quoting at length the views of Mr. Richard Hamilton, one of the leading mining managers of Kalgoorlie -

Mr. Richard Hamilton, president of the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia and general manager of the Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited, is at present in Melbourne, and is conferring with representatives of the gold producers of the eastern States on the best means of checking the present serious decline in the gold output of the Commonwealth, and in considering proposals designed to bring about a revival of gold mining. In an interview, Mr. Hamilton said that the gold mining industry in Australia was declining at such a rate that unless something was done to assist it, not many more years would pass before it became practically extinct. This might appear to the general public to be due to the gold “ petering out,” but the rate of the decline in the average grade of the ore was not nearly so pronounced as the falling away. The output figures would suggest that Western Australia possessed the largest auriferous area in the world, the belt having a length of 1,000 miles and a width of 250 miles, while the grade of ore at present being treated averaged about 12 dwt. to the ton, which was higher than any other in the world. Taking into consideration the quantity treated, and bearing in mind that £152,000,000 worth of gold had been won in that State alone, it would be absurd to conclude that the gold resources of Western Australia, or the Commonwealth for that matter, had been ex- hausted. lt was not the poorness of the ore which had brought about the decline, said Mr. Hamilton. It was due almost entirely to the change in the economic conditions which had taken place during the last eight years. The changed conditions were directly reflected in the costs of production. Official statistics showed that the average mining costs throughout Western Australia had risen from 19s. per ton of ore in 1910 to 38s. a ton in 1924. Under the present conditions, said Mr. Hamilton, practically all tho mines at Kalgoorlie would exhaust the available profitable ore inside of five years, and would have to close. Apart from the mines at present being -operated in Western Australia, there were over 4,000 abandoned leases, all of which had produced gold. A large number of these were abandoned, not because the gold gave out, but because of the general difficulties and increased costs when Worked to the water level, while more attractive fields were -seeking capital. Many of these smaller but promising prospecting properties were neglected. The deepest workings at Kalgoorlie were at 3,000 feet, while in the Ivanhoe Mine the continuation of the ore had been proved to a depth of 4,000 feet by diamond drilling. Its value was estimated at from fi dwt. to 8 dwt., and the lode still continued under foot. In Western Australia alone, said Mr. Hamilton, 5,000 men were employed in gold mining, while fully 30,000 of the population on the mining fields were dependent on the industry. These figures were less than half of those ruling tcn years ago. Mr. Hamilton expressed himself as certain that there was a great number of new gold-fields awaiting discover, but these wore much more difficult to locate than the original fields, as in most instances they would need to be looked for in flat country, more or less covered with overburden. How to arrest this decline and bring about a general mining revival, said Mr. Hamilton, was a question that had received serious and studied consideration in Western Australia during the last year. As a result, mining and other authorities there had reached the conclusion that tho payment by the Commonwealth Government of a bonus on gold for a definite tarin of years would have the desired effect. ‘ This, it was contended, would result in tho gradual replacing of the present fields by new ones and the opening up of leases prematurely abandoned iri the early days. In submitting these proposals to the Western Australian sectional committee of the Commonwealth Board of Trade, the Chamber of Mines of Western Australia suggested that after any company had returned the whole of its capital expenditure to its shareholders, cither with or without the aid of the bonus received, it should then be allowed to retain from the bonus ls. per ton on the ore treated, and return the balance to the Government should the profits in excess of ls. a ton he earned. With regard to individuals, syndicates, or unregistered companies carrying on the work of gold mining, these should submit annual accounts, and their incomes should be liable to Commonwealth taxation as a private person.

– Yes,as is done in connexion with so many other indus- tries. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give this matter very careful consideration, and agree to assist the shale-oil industry. One of the difficulties up to the present has been to get a suitable retort. I understand that a company will begin operations in the near future. It claims to have devised a suitable process for the extraction of the oil from the shale deposits. The matter is so important that the Commonwealth Government could very well offer a reasonably substantial reward to a company which gave practical proof that it could invent and work a retort which would produce on a commercial basis oil from these shale beds. There is the further question of the big hydro-electric power scheme. It was established to assist what at the time was considered a national industry. I refer to the big zinc industry, which would be indispensable to Australia in time of war. That scheme cost Tasmania between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, but the Commonwealth did not give the slightest relief in the shape of . a remission of duty upon the machinery that was required. The industry is essential to the well-being of the whole of Australia, and it should have some consideration extended to it. Further developments are taking place, and I urge upon the Government the desirability of affording relief in connexion with the duty on the additional machinery that will be required. The Government should do all it can to encourage the establishment in Tasmania of industries that are made possible by the cheap power that can be obtained.

– Such a comparison could hardly be -made, because they are handling softwoods, whilst we handle hardwood.

I desire to refer also to the fact that goods, which, in the ordinary course, would by this time have been distributed, are still lying in the holds of overseas steamers, and when they are released they will be subject to thi increased duties provided for by the new tariff schedule. That is most unfair. I am not aware of the view of other honorable senators, because I have not discussed the matter with them. If I remember rightly, a promise was made last year that action would be taken to remove such an injustice. If the he-ld-up of overseas shipping had not occurred, these cargoes would have been landed, and thus would have escaped, the higher duties. I know that it is difficult for a “Minister to determine whether they would have been distributed immediately or would have remained in bond for some time. It is, however, fair to assume that a big proportion would have been distributed. The matter is causing importers a great deal of concern, and I believe that they have a just grievance. I ask the Minister in his reply to indicate the attitude of the Government.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I do not know whether I should express surprise at the attitude which was adopted this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner). I have almost reached the stage of not feeling any surprise at an utterance of his on the floor of the Senate. It appears to me that whenever we have before us a measure which contains a reference to expenditure upon our defence policy, the honorable senator immediately seizes upon it as a justification for attaeking the Government. I listened with keen interest to his vigorous statements, and I could not avoid coming to the conclusion that he condemned himself out of his own mouth. I took the trouble to turn up some of the statements that he made last year. He cannot deny that to-day he adopted the attitude of entire opposition to the spending .of any money on the defence of Australia-

Senator Gardiner:

– That is not so.

Senator PAYNE:

– Excepting only such proposals as he considered were necessary. He vigorously protested against the expenditure of approximately £4,000,000 a year on defence, because, he contended, no results were being obtained. Last year the honorable senator spoke very strongly against the attempt of the Government to ensure the more adequate defence of Australia by the building of wo cruisers.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Abroad.

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator stated that in a few years’ time those cruisers would be obsolete, and ihat, consequently, the money would be wasted. His argument was that there was no need for cruisers, and that we should rely upon submarines and aircraft and the manhood of Australia. On the 7th August, 1924, Senator Gardiner, according to Hansard, page 2906, made this extraordinary statement: -

If then we are to start with a serious defence scheme, and if we are to spend £4,500,000 on cruisers, what better proposal could we have than to start building cruisers now,, even if they cost £10,000,000?

That shows clearly that the honorable senator believed in the Government’s policy of defence, but the fly in the ointment was that the Government was not prepared to spend £10.000,000, when it could obtain a corresponding measure of defence for £4,500,000. I always advocate avoiding the closing of the door after the steed has departed, and I think that the Government is to be complimented upon its defence policy. To-day we have heard severe criticism about the money being wasted, but I challenge any honorable senator to take up the budget proposals for this year and show where any substantial saving could be effected with safety in connexion with the Defence Department. The honorable senator urged to-day that the whole scheme should be scrapped, but would he scrap our military college? Would he not retain, at all events, the nucleus of an army in the shape of a staff? Does he suggest that we should abandon our munition factory? I defy any honorable senator to show that we could afford to scrap any of these services, and yet maintain what is necessary if Australia is to be defended. There must be an expenditure in connexion with the central administration. The following, items show how the proposed expenditure for 1925-26 is distributed:-

I desire to refer to another item in the bill. Senator H. Hays referred to the necessity for the Government giving every encouragement that it fairly could to the shale oil industry. I have taken keen interest in the efforts of the past few years to locate flow oil in Australia and in its dependencies, and I deeply regret that so far the efforts have not been successful. I am inclined to think that we should devote more attention than we have in the past to the extraction of oil. from our shale deposits, which are practically inexhaustible.

Senator Elliott:

– How much a gallon would it cost?

Senator PAYNE:

– That is problematical. If as much vigour had been put into the development of the shale oil industry as into the attempt to discover flow oil, probably by this time machinery would have been invented which would have insured the economical production of shale oil. After all, the success of the undertaking depends largely upon the yield that can be obtained from the shale beds. I know one locality where bulk samples of shale have produced 130 gallons to the ton. The average bed would probably yield from 30 to 40 gallons. We have millions of tons of oil-bearing material in Australia that will produce high yields. Senator H. Hays was correct in saying that if we could ensure the production of oil on a commercial basis, even though it might mean a large expenditure, the cost would be more than justified since it is highly necessary for Australia to be independent of outside sources of supply.

There is another matter of which Senator H. Hays reminded me when he mentioned the hydro-electric power now available in Australia. We should do all we can to encourage the building up of local industries. In every State unemployment is rife, but we have such a productive country that the sooner we add materially to our population the better it will be for our primary producers. Great benefit would result if we did everything possible to attract the attention of people with capital to what Australia can offer to-day. I draw attention to the enormous value of the cotton textile fabrics imported into the Commonwealth. They represent nearly twenty million pounds annually. During the last few years it has been proved beyOnd doubt that Australia can produce cotton on a commercial basis. Cotton that is equal to any in the world has been grown in Queensland.. In Papua the cotton industry will be eminently successful from the point of view of quality, and I have no doubt that it has come to stay in Australia. Seeing that we have established factories in the Commonwealth for the manufacture of woollen textile fabrics and other woollen goods, it is just as imperative to turn our attention to the spinning of cotton and the manufacture of cotton textile goods. It is appalling to learn of the ignorance regarding Australia that exists in Great Britain among some of the head officials of the large cotton textile manufacturing concerns. Last year the Governor of Victoria, when paying a visit to England, visited the large cotton textile works of Horrocks, Crewdson and Company. During his tour through the works he referred to the fact that cotton was being produced commercially and satisfactorily in Australia. The chairman of directors of the company admitted that, but said that there was no possibility of ever entertaining the idea of cotton spinning and the manufacture of textile fabrics being undertaken in Australia. . It, had been proved beyond doubt, he said, that the industry could not be carried on in such a hot,, arid climate, because the cotton would break in the spinning process. But, I ask, is Australia, an island a hundred miles in circumference with only one climate 1 There are hot, arid portions, and there are also cold and foggy portions, where the humidity is very great. I could mention one portion of Australia where the conditions are almost the same as obtain in Lancashire, the Cottonopolis of the Empire. I refer to my own State. There are portions of Tasmania where ‘every requisite from a climatic point of view is to be found. I do not contend that these conditions are essential to the successful carrying on of the industry, but I know that they are highly desirable, and, when they are present, manufacture can be much more economically carried on than if machines for producing humidity have to be employed, as they are in some parts of the world. Tasmania has pure water, suitable atmospheric conditions, and. best of all, absolutely cheap power. My desire is to impress upon the Government that the High Commissioner’s Office in London should never weary of rectifying the errors of opinion existing in Great Britain regarding Australia.

Senator Elliott:

– Would the quantity of cotton used in Australia justify the establishment of a factory here ?

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes. If we entered only into the manufacture of plain cotton fabrics, grey and white, bleached and unbleached, suoh as calicoes and sheetings, we could give employment to many hundreds of operatives. As far back as 1873 or 1874 grey calico of an excellent quality was manufactured as an experiment at Ipswich, in Queensland, but those engaged in the venture had not much capital, and also for other reasons they could not extend their operations. I ask the Minister to bring this matter before Cabinet with a view to awakening some enthusiasm in the High Commissioner’s office on this matter, because the statements reported to have been made can only be harmful to Australia. Efforts should be made to rectify the false impression that evidently exists as to Australia having a hot, arid climate, which would never permit of the manufacture of cotton textiles.

I support what Senator H. Hays has said about goods in ships’ bottoms held up owing to the present unfortunate shipping strike. I do not know whether the Minister for Trade and Customs has any power to deal with the matter in the direction suggested by the honorable senator, but when I was coming through Launceston yesterday a deputation of business men waited upon me, and pointed out how unfortunately they were situated. They knew that portions of cargoes had been landed and cleared, and placed on the markets, and that they’ were goods of the same description as those on which they would have to pay a higher, rate of duty than had been paid by their more fortunate competitors in the same lines of business. I ask Senator Pearce to get in touch with the Minister for Trade and Customs to see if there is any possibility of having something done to relieve this unfortunate situation, even if it be necessary to amend the Customs Act, to prevent a. recurrence of it in the future. I trust that this will be the last occasion on which we shall hear such unjust and unfair criticism levelled against the defence policy of the Government.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister . for Home and Territories · NAT

– I shall bring the remarks of Senators H. Hays and Payne under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs. This afternoon Senator Hannan complained that certain statements were being made about two gentlemen who are now appearing, before a board in Sydney. I remind the honorable senator that the board is not a court, and that while certain statements may have been made, about these two gentlemen, they themselves have not since the case commenced hesitated to make statements reflecting on the British Empire, and most offensive to every true Australian. Senator Hannan rebuked the Prime Minister for statements he is alleged to have made, but he has not a word of protest against the gentlemen who are making the statements to which I have referred.

I have just a few brief words to say about Senator Gardiner’s utterances today. The honorable senator said that he would tell the Senate what the Labour party’s defence policy was. We were intensely interested, but when he sat down we were as wise as we were when he. commenced. We still did not know what was the Labour party’s defence policy. He read a statement showing that included in the Labour party’s defence platform was the abolition of the military oath. What is that oath? It is simply the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. Why should it be abolished? Are our friends opposite opposed to anybody proclaiming his loyalty to the King? Do honorable senators opposite know where the principles, if they can be so called, of the election, of officers, the abolition of saluting, and the abolition of the death penalty first originated? They were inaugurated by Kerensky after the downfall of the Czarist Government. But when Kerensky was in turn overthrown by the Bolsheviks, Trotsky very quickly re-established all of them. Have honorable senators seen in the illustrated papers a picture representing Trotsky reviewing the Red army? If so, they will have noticed that the Red army was going past Trotsky at the salute. Trotsky also re-instituted the death penalty.

Senator Kingsmill:

– And he was very liberal with it.

Senator PEARCE:

– He was. He instituted it not merely, as in the British Army, for desertion, but for a great many other offences which in the British Army would not be regarded as crimes. Senator Gardiner says that the Labour party stands for “ adequate defence.” Let us see what that means. First of all, the party does not want defence at sea, because last year Mr. Anstey; its Deputy Leader in another place, who was acting Leader during the absence of Mr. Chariton, submitted the following amendment : -

That after the word “That” the following words be inserted: - “as efforts are being made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to convene another conference to deal with the question of further- disarmament, and in view of the early sitting of the League of Nations, it is the opinion of this House that expenditure on naval construction should be deferred for the present.”

Every member of the Labour party in another place voted for that amendment, which was against the construction of cruisers or any other form of naval construction.

Senator Barnes:

– If cruisers are to be constructed, why not have them built in Australia?

Senator PEARCE:

– That amendment did not relate to construction in Australia. It was against construction at all.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable senator is not fair in his statement. The amendment was for the postponement of construction pending a conference then being convened. Why does not the Minister be fair and quote the whole of it?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have quoted the whole of the amendment. As recorded on page 2906 of Hansard of last year, Senator Gardiner said -

I hold the view that the expenditure of money outside Australia for the defence of Australia is worse than useless. I have heard it said that we want these cruisers for the protection of our trade routes. I believe Senator Payne will agree with that statement.

Senator Payne:

-I do, indeed.

Senator GARDINER:

– Dohonorable senators really believe that the trade routes of Australia could he protected by two cruisers of the type which the Government has in mind?

Later on he said -

Our exportable commodities are chiefly primary products. We require no fleet for the protection of. our food supplies.

Further on, as reported at. page 2911, he said -

To spend £4,500,000 on building cruisers for our defence is equivalent to throwing the money into the sea, because their construction will not be completed for two years, and they will have to be scrapped in ten years.

Then Senator Needham, now Deputy Leader of the Labour party in the Senate, said, as recorded on page 2925 of Hansard of last year-

A cruiser, in . my opinion, is a . battleship. Instead of devoting our energies to the building of ‘battleships, we should be giving our attention to the building of friendships.

Senator Crawford:

– But why not both?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Friendship is a more effective means of defence than a battleship..

On’ page 2928, Senator Needham is recorded to have said -

I wish to again emphasize the point that I am opposed to the construction of cruisers; but, if Parliament determines that two are to be built, I shall strongly advocate that the work of construction be undertaken in Australia by Australian workmen.

And he moved the following amendment : -

That after the word “That” the following words he inserted: - “as efforts are being made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to convene another conference to deal with the question of further disarmament, and in view of the early sitting of the League of Nations, it is the opinion of this Senate that expenditure upon naval construction should be deferred for the present.”

This amendment was supported on a division by every honorable senator of the Labour party in the Senate. According to page 373 of Hansard for this session, Senator Needham said -

From the outset, the members of the Labour party in both Houses of this Parliament opposed the construction of cruisers, and said that, if Parliament decided that they should be built, their construction should be undertaken in Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– Under the voluntary system.

Senator PEARCE:

– But they gave up the whole of their time.I remember conversing with an officer holding a very prominent position at the Langwarrin camp, who told me that for 25 years he had never had an Easter holiday. Every Easter had been given up to service with the military forces, whilst others were enjoying themselves. It is ridiculous to say that these men distinguished themselves and performed the splendidwork they did merely because they were trained under the voluntary system. Senator Elliott has told us of what was a common experience during the early stages of the war, and how difficult it was to obtain the services of any one who knew the rudiments of training. I remember going to Broadmeadows, and seeing men train ing there in squads of ten under the direction of sergeant-majors, or any one else who had any experience at all in’ training. If it had not been that we had had the compulsory system, even to a small degree, even that would not have been possible. If the Labour party have a defence policy, they should tell us what it is. We have not been told it to-day. I shall now give the Government’s policy for this year. We have a five years’ programme outlined, and last year’s programme is being continued this year. We intend to improve the navy, the army, and the air services, and to enlarge the organization of the munitions supplies. Contracts have been let for two new cruisers and two ocean-going submarines. We have decided, in addition, to construct a seaplane-carrier, and to subsidize the construction of a floating dock in Australia. Steps have also been taken to provide depots for the oil the cruisers will burn as fuel. The personnel of the navy is being increased. Field artillery, ammunition, and a supply of gasmasks for units of the field army, technical stores for equipment of field artillery, and a nucleus of tanks and antiaircraft artillery have been provided for. We now have factories capable of making cordite, rifles, and small arms ammunition. Provision is being made for the establishment of nucleus factories for making guns and carriages up to 4.5-in.. also artillery ammunition, including cartridge-cases, fuses, primers, detonators, and high explosives, and machine guns and pistols. The erection of an aircraftdepot at Laverton has been rapidly pushedahead. Plans for the provision of units in New South Wales have received parliamentary approval. The permanent nucleus of a land plane squadron, together with the necessary machines to be used in training the Citizen Forces, has now been established at Richmond, in New South Wales. Machines have been ordered for one flight of amphibians, to be used for co-operation, with the navy, and for training the air force personnel required by the seaplane carrier. The programme for this year is not altogether an ambitious one, but in view of our financial resources, it is satisfactory, and one which Sir John Monash believes should be proceeded with.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Towards the close of last financial year Parliament granted Supply for the ordinary purposes of government to cover a period of two months. This grant is now exhausted, and the Government is now asking for Supply for a further two months. The total of the bill is £3,322,820, made up as follows: -

When the previous Supply Bill was passed, Estimates for the current year had not been prepared. The schedule to the bill was, therefore, based on the Estimates for 1924-5 and not in the form just presented. A comparison of the first two months’ bill with the present bill, which is for a similar period, can be made on totals only. The total of the Supply already granted is £4,459,235, as compared with £3,322,820, the total of the present bill. It should be stated, however, that the first bill contained, under Treasurer’s advance, an amount of £1,000,000 to provide for a continuation of works pending the passing of the revenue and loan works bills, whilst no such provision is necessary in the present bill. In addition, a larger amount was included in the first bill for refunds of revenue, to provide for special refunds of direct taxation following on High Court judgments and amendments in the law. Omitting Treasurer’s advance and refunds of revenue, the total of the present bill is £3,122,820, whilst the amount of the first Supply was £3,109,235. This slight increase of £13,585 is unimportant when it is remembered that many thousands of pounds will be expended in quarterly and half-yearly contract payments which fall due in the period covered by the Supply. The total of the two Supply bills, which cover four months’ expenditure, excluding Treasurer’s advance and refunds of revenue, is £6,232,055, whilst one-third of the total expenditure under votes in the main Estimates in respect of which Supply is granted is £6,358,780. These figures show that the Supply bills are £126,725 less than one-third of the total estimated expenditure for the year. When it is remembered that in the four months covered by Supply there are ten pay days, the requirements for which are considerably in excess of one-third of the total salary provision for the year, it will be seen that the proposed expenditure is well within the programme for the year.

Debate (on motion by Senator J . Grant) adjourned.

page 2318

MAIN ROADS DEVELOPMENT BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Crawford) read a first time.

Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 September 1925, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1925/19250909_senate_9_111/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 9 September 1925

QUESTION

SENATOR WILSON

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

PEACE OFFICERS

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

PAPERS

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:NAT

DISTILLATION BILL

LOAN BILL (No. 2)

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Pearce:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Pearce:

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Findley:

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator GRAHAM:Western Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

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

COMMONWEALTH BANK (RURAL CREDITS) BILL

Senator THOMPSON:Queensland

Senator Pearce:

Senator THOMPSON:

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

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Pearce:

Senator NEEDHAM:

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

Senator THOMPSON:Queensland

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

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

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Payne:

Senator NEEDHAM:

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

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Pearce:

Senator NEEDHAM:

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1925-26

Senator PEARCE:Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

First Reading

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Pearce:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Pearce:

Senator J GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator HANNAN:Victoria

Senator Gardiner:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Reid:

Senator HANNAN:

Senator Pearce:

Senate
9 September 1925

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

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

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

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

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

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

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator H HAYS:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944