Senate
9 July 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
FEDERAL CAPITAL
- Removal of Temporary Hutments
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL
- Second Reading
DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL
- Second Reading
NEW SENATOR
PRINTING COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. Z. Newlands) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3984

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for

Postal purposes at Woodside, South Australia.

League of Nations - Agenda of the Seventh Session of the Assembly.

Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 15 of 1926- Meat Industry Encouragement (Poll).

Public Service Act - Regulation amended - Statutory Rules 1926, No. 86.

page 3984

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Removal of Temporary Hutments

Is it a fact that at Canberra there are five short rows of wooden houses facing the main Queanueyan-to-Acton road, situated behind the power-house, and known as the Engineers’ Mess, which are occupied principally by fitters, power-house men, storemen, &c, in the employ of the Federal Capital Commission ?
Is it a fact that, on account of these houses being considered rather an eyesore to some person or persons, the Commission intend to demolish them?
If so, and in view of the fact that the majority of the occupants of these houses are satisfied with them, and that the position enables them to live close to their work, will the Ministersee whether such houses can be repainted and renovated instead of being pulled down?

The following is the answer to those questions : - 1, 2, and 3. The houses referred to are hutments, containing cubicles and messing facilities, built some years ago. They are situated in front of the power-house, actually in Interlakeavenue. Renovation of these houses is impossible, for the reason that it is essential to clearthem away to permit of completing the construction of the avenue. The present occupants are being effectively housed elsewhere within reasonable distance of their work.

page 3984

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir William Glasgow) read a third time.

page 3984

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It will be remembered that in 1924 a bill was passed providing for the building of a railway between Kyogle and South Brisbane and the strengthening of the existing railway between Grafton and Kyogle, which, when the bridge over the Clarence River - to be built by the State of New South Wales - is completed, will give a uniform gauge railway between Sydney and Brisbane. The history of the uniform gauge movement goes back quite a long way, but as it has already been placed before the Senate, it is not necessary for me to cover the whole of the ground again. It is sufficient for me to say that at a conference between the Prime Minister and the State Premiers in 1920, it was agreed that steps should be taken towards unifying the railway gauges of the mainland systems of Australia, and that the cost of the work should be borne in the proportion of onefifth by the Commonwealth, and fourfifths by the mainland States of Australia on a per capita basis. It was also agreed that the Commonwealth and States would abide by the decision of a royal commission comprising engineering experts, who were, by agreement, to be brought from England and America. These experts, after exhaustive investigations, submitted their report towards the close of 1921. They unanimously recommended 4 ft. 81/2 in. as the standard gauge, and, as the first stage, the linking of the capitals of Australia and the conversion of the broad gauge lines of Victoria and South Australia, at an estimated cost of £21,600,000. In this proposal was included the GraftonKyogleSouth Brisbane railway, estimated by the royal commissioners to cost £3,500,000, but now expected to cost approximately £4,000,000. The report of the royal commission was considered by the Prime Minister and the Premiers in conference in November, 1921,and again in January, 1922. It was unanimously agreed to adopt 4 ft. 81/2 in. as the standard gauge for the Australian railway systems. It was further agreed that -

The adoption of the uniform gauge was essential to the development and safety of the Commonwealth.

In May and June, 1923, shortly after the present Government came into power, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held, but, as there was no possibility of arriving at agreement between the whole of the States concerned, a proposal was made to the States of New South Wales and Queensland, giving effect to a portion of the scheme recommended, which would link Sydney and Brisbane by -

The construction of a railway of standard gauge between Kyogle, in New South Wales, and South Brisbane, in Queensland, so as to connect Sydney and South Brisbane.
The regrading and relaying of the existing railway between Grafton and Kyogle, so as to bring that railway up to a prescribed standard.

The Commonwealth agreed to contribute one-fifth of the cost of the work, plus the amounts which Victoria, South Australia, and “Western Australia would have contributed if they had come into the scheme, subject to adjustment, as other similar works were undertaken later. New South Wales and Queensland respectively agreed to contribute towards four-fifths of the cost, in the proportion that the population of each of the two States bears to the total population of the five mainland States. The work agreed upon to be undertaken was the construction of 70 miles of railway in Queensland, and 27 miles in New South Wales, through heavy country, the cost naturally being high. The scheme included strengthening and relaying with 80-lb. rails the existing railway from North Grafton to Kyogle, a distance of 85 miles. This work is now well in hand. Between the South Grafton and the North Grafton railway stations . the Clarence River had to be bridged by the New South Wales Government. This is not part . of the uniform railway gauge scheme, but the work must be accomplished by the time the works comprised in the agreement are completed. The Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Act 1924 made the necessary financial provision, and, under section 4, the Commonwealth Treasurer was authorized to borrow moneys, not exceeding in the whole the sum of £3,500,000, together with such further sum as was necessary to meet discount and expenses of borrowing. Pending the borrowing of the money, the Commonwealth Treasurer was authorized,by section 6, to advance to the Uniform Railway Gauge Council, out of moneys in the Commonwealth public account sums not exceeding £3,500,000, which was the estimate submitted by the royal commission in 1921 of cost of providing the works referred to under the uniform gauge proposals necessary for giving a standard gauge connexion between Sydney and Brisbane. The agreement, ratified by Acts of Parliament in 1924, provided, amongst other matters, for the appointment of a council, consisting of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, the Chief Railways Commissioner for New South Wales, and the Commissioner for Railways, Queensland, which council has entire control of the work. Shortly after the appointment of the council, surveys were put in hand, and all necessary data prepared to enable a proper estimate to be arrived at. The council now advises that the work estimated by the royal commissioners to cost £3,500,000 will cost approximately £4,000,000. The estimate submitted by the royal commissioners was prepared on data submitted by the States and checked by them, but no proper surveys of the sections had been undertaken, and the estimate could only be regarded as approximate. It must be borne in mind that since 1921 industrial conditions have changed, rates of wages have gone up, hours of labour have been reduced, and many lines of materials used in railway construction now cost much more. As I have said, after the council was appointed, accurate data was obtained from surveys made, and it was found that the work, which had been estimated at £3,500,000, would cost not less than £4,000,000. Broadly speaking, of the £500,000 increase, £150,000 represents increased wages and decreased hours, and the balance may be ascribed to additional earthworks, &c, found to be necessary as the result of the surveys. The council was only authorized to spend £3,500,000, and when it was found that £4,000,000 was required, it represented the whole matter to the

Prime Minister. The work may be divided into four sections: -

Section 1. - ‘Relaying and regrading of existing line from Grafton to Kyogle. This work lias been in hand for some time under daylabour system ‘by the New South Wales Railway Department.

Section 2. - New construction, from Kyogle to the border.

Section 3. - New construction, from the border to the point near Rocklea, in Queensland.

Section 4. - New construction from Rocklea into South Brisbane; being undertaken by the Queensland Railway Department under daylabour system.

Public tenders were invited for the works in sections Nos. 2 and 3, and closed on the 1st September, 1925. Simultaneously with the closing of the tenders, the Chief Railway Construction Engineers of New South Wales and Queensland submitted sealed estimates for the work in their respective States. After consideration of the tenders and the estimates referred to, the council, which under the agreement is responsible for the work, decided to have the work referred to in both New South Wales and Queensland carried out by the respective Chief Railway Construction Engineers; but, as the financial provision under the Grafton to South Brisbane Railway Act 1924 was for £3,500,000 only, and the work, was subsequently estimated to cost £4,000,000, the council necessarily had to submit the whole matter to the Prime Minister, and also to the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland, the representatives of the other two parties to the agreement under which the works are being undertaken. The Commonwealth Government considered the representations of the Railway Council, and, on the 26th September, 1925, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of New South Wales and Queensland as follows: -

With reference to the letter of the 17th instant addressed to you by the Chairman of the Uniform Railway Gauge Council, Grafton- Kyogle-South Brisbane Railway, I have to advise that this Government Was carefully considered the position which has now arisen in connexion with the tenders recently received for carrying out the work between Kyogle and a point near South Brisbane.

In addition to tenders from two contractors, the Uniform Gauge Council received sealed estimates prepared by the Chief Railway Construction Engineer of your State, which were opened at the same time and treated by the council as tenders.

Whilst the contractors in their tenders guarantee to carry out the work at the fixed prices named, no undertaking or guarantee- has been given so far as the sealed estimates are concerned, and this Government can only agree to the construction within your State being undertaken by your Government upon a guarantee being entered into by you that the sealed estimate put in by your Chief Railway Construction Engineer is to be treated as a tender binding upon your Government, in the same way as an ordinary contractor is bound by the terms o.l his contract

Under this’ arrangement, your Government would be required to make good any excess amount due to the cost of the work being underestimated by your Chief Railway Construction Engineer. A correct comparison between departmental estimates and the public tenders would thus ‘be effected) and the parties to the agreement would be in a better position to determine the ultimate cost of the work.

My Government views with alarm the largely increased total estimated cost of the work, and it will be necessary to approach Parliament for a sum greatly in excess of the original estimate of £3,500,000. The action now suggested would enable Parliament to be approached with some confidence that the additional sum required can be relied upon as being sufficient to cover the necessary expenditure.

I snail “be glad of early advice as to the views of your Government in regard to this matter.

After negotiation between the Commonwealth and the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, the Railway Council, arrived at agreements with the two States for carrying out the work in their respective territories, and the bill now before the Senate is to ratify these agreements. The details as to prices and amounts are to be found in the documents which were laid on the table of the Senate on the 28th May last. Under these agreements the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland are in the same position as outside contractors. An extract from the agreements reads - “ The Commonwealth agrees that it will take all steps necessary to have this contract ratified ‘by the Parliament of the Commonwealth as early as possible, and the said State agrees that it will take all steps necessary to have this contract ratified by the Parliament of the said State h.s early as possible”

The Commonwealth is advancing thi moneys in the first instance, and, as I said, the arrangement is that one-fifth is borne by the Commonwealth, the remaining four-fifths by the States on a per capita basis. For the time being the Commonwealth is bearing the share which, had all the States been parties to the agreement, would have been borne by Victoria, South Australia, and 0 Western Australia. The allocation is as follows : -

Thus the Commonwealth is, for the time being, responsible for £2,243,299, whilst New South Wales and Queensland are responsible for £1,756,701. These figures are, of course, only approximate. To date there has been expended in New South Wales on the Grafton-Kyogle section approximately £320,000, and in Queensland approximately £325,000 - a large sum on the Queensland side representing expenditure for acquisition of lands. On the section Kyogle to the border there has been expended on surveys and other work about £26,000. The railway will save transhipment at Wallangarra, and a journey of over 223 miles over the 3-ft. 6-in. line from Wallangarra to Brisbane. It will provide a fast line of uniform gauge between Sydney and Brisbane; will shorten the distance by 100 miles, and save from six to seven hours on the journey between Sydney and Brisbane. It will avoid the heavy grades over the Liverpool and New England Ranges in New South’ Wales, and the Great Dividing Range in Queensland. It will also greatly facilitate the transport of fruit and merchandise between the States. Last year 166,000 tons of goods were transhipped at Wallangarra, and over 110,000 interstate passengers had to change trains at the border. Special fruit trains now run daily from Brisbane to Wallangarra, and last year 40,000 tons of fruit wore transhipped at the border. In one year recently over 250,000 head of live stock were transhipped. The railway will be of great benefit to Australia. It will develop some of the richest of our territory, and will provide one of the uniform gauge works so urgently necessary for the development of our trade andcommerce.

Senator Thompson:

– Has the Minister any figures concerning the quantity of luggage lost in transhipment at Wallangarra ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

-I have not.

Senator Thompson:

– It is considerable.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The railway, as I said, will open up very rich territory, and as it will also be the through railway from Sydney, it will carry a very heavy traffic. In the original agreement contained in the 1924 act, as passed by the Senate, provision is made for the moneys earned in excess of working expenses to be applied to the payment of interest; firstly, on the moneys advanced by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States; secondly, on the moneys for which New South Wales and Queensland are responsible; and thirdly, on the one-fifth share for which the Commonwealth is responsible. There will be a heavy revenue from the railway, a7id considerable sums should be available for meeting the interest charges.

Debate (on motion by Senator Needham) adjourned.

page 3987

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8th July (vide page 3929), on motion by Senator Pearce! -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I listened with a great deal of attention to the able speech delivered by the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Pearce) when introducing this measure. If his speech was wanting in any respect, it was not due to any lack of capacity or oratory on the part of the right honorable gentleman, but almost entirely to certain inherent weaknesses in the case he presented to the Senate. I listened, also, with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), and, although he indulged in what I might term some extravagances, still there was a good deal in his utterances with which I found myself in agreement. On thi* subject, as on many others that come before the Senate, the honorable senator was influenced by the attitude of the party to which he belongs, and for that reason was unable to express himself in the way he really desired. In spite of his unfortunate position, he presented .a fairly good case for his party, and, although he made many extravagant statements which could be most effectively replied to by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I wish to congratulate him.

Senator Needham:

– Congratulations with reservations.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Exactly ! The question of migration and land settlement is one which should be sanely considered. We should endeavour to disregard those fears and prejudices we hold on the question of immigration and the right of people of other countries to come to Australia and share in the conditions which we enjoy. Unfortunately, however, such an attitude seems to be almost impossible of adoption by many honorable senators, and parliamentarians generally. That, too, perhaps, is a reason why the Leader of the Opposition was restricted when speaking on the bill. I am not going to say that that attitude is confined to the members of one party, as I realize that there are extremists in every .political party.

Senator Thompson:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that there are extremists in this chamber?

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes, and not only here, but in the political organizations outside, which are responsible for the establishment of the parties represented in this chamber. There are extremists in the ranks of the Labour party who fear that any considerable increase in migration will result in vitally affecting the whole conditions of labour in the Commonwealth. They point to the fact that, after long years of political work and agitation, industrial conditions have been established which more than favorably compare with those in any other part of the world. They fear that a considerable influx of migrants from any country where the industrial and general conditions are not as good as they are here will destroy the high standard which has been secured after laborious effort. This fear is not entirely groundless, as at all times there is a possibility of our civil and industrial conditions being adversely affected by an undue flow of immigrants from countries where the conditions generally are not at all comparable with ours. There are extremists who, perhaps, sup- s port honorable senators on this side of the chamber to a greater extent than they support honorable senators opposite. There are, for instance, some who say that we should throw open the doors to an unlimited flow of European immigrants irrespective of any conditions. There are others who say that, as we have such great open spaces, we should allow the peoples of any country to come here to assist to build up our future civilization. There are also extremists who would not stop at, perhaps, hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands coming to Australia, but who speak of immigration in millions. The excuse which they give - the necessity for preserving our national existence - is one which need only be briefly reflected upon to show that the remedy which they themselves suggest would result in Australians losing their national identity almost as completely as if we were successfully invaded. If the stream of immigration was of the dimensions they suggest, we would lose our national identity by becoming surrounded by a stream which would eventually overwhelm us. Those who would support such a policy are as extreme in their ideas as are those who support the policy of honorable senators opposite. The fears expressed by those who say that unless this country is populated more rapidly we may be overwhelmed by Asiatics, are groundless. They say that they will demand that the broad acres of Australia should be thrown open to them. Let us consider the possibilities. I know that many people fear an invasion by some Asiatic nation. The Minister who introduced this bill hinted at it. But an invasion by Asiatic people could only occur as a result of a carefully-conceived national policy of aggression, backed by force of arms. Such a policy calls for a . common nationality, or at least a noramon view-point regarding such a great undertaking. It would indeed be a great undertaking. Australia has established a record for the fighting qualities of her people, and any nation contemplating the invasion of this country would know that we would resist to the utmost. I a3k leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3989

NEW SENATOR

Senator J. F. Guthrie made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.

page 3989

PRINTING COMMITTEE

The President intimated that lie had received a letter from Senator Payne, asking to be relieved from attendance on the Printing Committee.

Motion (by Senator PEARCE). by leave, agreed to -

That Senator Payne be discharged from attendance on the Printing Committee, and that Senator Andrew be appointed a member of the committee in his stead.

page 3989

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator GRAHAM:

– That is so. I do not blame a man for wanting to escape from uncongenial surroundings in the Old World and to get to sunny Australia, but something is wrong when migrants selected as trained farm labourers are found on arrival here to know nothing about farming. When they realize their unfitness for the work for which they have been selected, they are forced either to accept positions as apprentices on farms or to seek other employment. The result is harmful. Some of these migrants may for two or three seasons work for a mere pittance on farms rather than be thrown out of employment.

.- The Minister should be gratified at the sympathetic reception that has been given to this measure by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, not because of the inherent virtues of the bill, but on account of the great principle that underlies it. This is probably the most important measure with which we shall be called upon to deal during this or many future sessions. It touches a question that is vital, not only to our development, but also to our defence; and, in addition, it is based upon the principle that immigration should be removed from the realm of party politics. Whilst journeying through England last year I was grieved to see many persons making their weekly pilgrimage for the dole. We should endeavour, not only to relieve the Old Land of the incubus of unemployment, but also to restore to a certain section of our brothers and sisters overseas the selfrespect and moral fibre that the system of doles is breaking down. Senator Duncan stated that those people are not likely to prove attractive settlers. The sooner this problem is solved the more unlikely will be the possibility of its ever obtaining a fresh grip of men and women who belong to our race and breed. Their removal from their present surroundings, and from an atmosphere that is having such a damaging effect, will prove beneficial to them. It is unquestionably the duty and the prerogative of every unit of the Empire to assist in the settlement of this problem, which will overwhelm the people of Great Britain if it is not promptly removed. The favorable reception which this measure has had, is no doubt, due to the fact that it is. a bold and sincere, and probably the first real, attempt that has been made by any Australian Government to grapple with the problem of immigration. I am not quite sure that this is the best way to encourage migration or to make it successful. Senator Kingsmill voiced a similar apprehension in slightly different language. Settlement in Australia in the early stages was advanced, because those who handled the matter knew where every man and woman could be placed, and were familiar with the conditions that existed at each end. We require a clear understanding of what is visualized by the Government. The measure is, in the main, machinery in its character. It provides for the appointment of a board of commissioners, and proposes to make it a body corporate. It also fixes the tenure of the commissioners and the conditions governing their retirement. The essence of the measure is the provision that the commission must administer and give effect to the migration agreement signed on the 8th of April, 1925. The Government will be wise if it pays regard to various factors when making appointments to the commission. I understand that a gentleman of great eminence has been selected as chairman of the commission. I pay my tribute to his worth. He possesses exceptional qualifications mid considerable organizing ability. But in addition to organizing ability we shall, at this end at all events, require upon the commission a man who possesses a practical knowledge of the requirements of Australia and its powers of absorption. That knowledge is possessed only by men of long experience, who are familiar with the various branches of industry. I give the Government and the gentleman who is to be the chairman of the commission the credit of having in mind those considerations. The whole scope and ambit of the agreement relate to the settlement of migrants in our primary industries. Paragraph 1 provides that the Commonwealth Government shall endeavour to make arrangements .with the Governments of the States for suitable areas of land that are available for development and settlement, and for the carrying on of public works that will tend to promote the development of Australia, either directly or indirectly, and increase the opportunities for settlement. Those are the two main objects. The agreement then goes on to state -

To this end, the State Governments will be invited by the Commonwealth Government to submit’ to them full details of any undertakings proposed, such details to include the estimated total cost of each undertaking classified under appropriate headings, such as -

acquiring or resuming alienated land ;

clearing of land or preparing it for farm settlement;

construction of roads, bridges, &c. ;

construction and equipment of developmental railways, tramways, &c, directly conducive to new settlement (but not including main trunk railways) ;

construction of hydro-electric and water conservation or other similar works, in and for the purposes of rural areas;

construction of irrigation farms;

advances to settlers (including persons settling or in process of settlement on farms) for the purchase of stock, equipment, housing materials, &c. ;

advances to farmers or other rural employers for the. erection of cottages for employees;

construction of sugar mills, butter factories, and similar enterprises tending to assist in the development of rural areas;

afforestation;

settlement of persons upon farms;

any other undertaking or expenditure agreed upon.

Throughout the agreement, provision is made for only one form of settlement; and that is settlement the result of which will be the production of wheat, possibly wool, and other primary products. Afforestation and hydro-electric works are merely incidental. We must make sure that we have the land, and that it is available for settlement. There is an abundance of land that could be made ready for settlement. The existing position reminds me of the experience of an eminent chemist who considered that he had solved the problem of the destruction of the prickly pear in Queensland.

SenatorReid. - That has allegedly been solved on many occasions.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It is quite possible of solution. After having been assured of the effectiveness of the chemist’s method for the destruction of the pear, a gentleman who had had experience in land settletment said : “ I want to know exactly what it is going to cost per acre to clear the land of prickly pear?” He informed him, and then my friend turned to another gentleman from Queensland, and asked him at what price adjacent land of equal quality, but free from prickly pear, could be obtained. It turned out that it would cost more to clear the ground of prickly “pear than it would to buy land free of prickly pear. That is the economic side of the question to which regard must be paid. There are places in South Australia and New South

Wales, and there are no doubt vast areas in Queensland and Western Australia, that will permit of greater settlement, but we shall have to see that they are prepared for the reception of settlers and that suitable settlers are brought out to place on them. These settlers should be men who will understand what they will have to face, and men who are equipped by nature and by training to discharge the duties that will appertain to that branch of settlement. It is a fundamental necessity that we must provide for the absorption of the settlers we bring from overseas. The agreement provides for an examination of the suitability of migrants before they are brought here to settle on the land, but we must pause for a moment, and consider the position of the primary industries of Australia. We have given bounties on beef, wine, butter and various other things. The two primary industries that stand out, and have stood right through without assistance, are woolgrowing and wheat-growing. With regard to wool the future prospects appear to be far better than those of any other industry. Australia is not likely to be faced by any serious competition from any other part of the world in regard to its wool; but can we say the same with regard toour wheat? Once Russia gets back to some stable form of government such as it enjoyed before the cataclysm from which it is suffering, and from which it is likely to suffer for some little time - once it gets back to wheat-production, what will be the position of our wheatgrowing areas in Australia? The price then obtained will be a great deal lower than the price now obtained, and I doubt very much whether wheat can be grown in Australia to give anything more than a basic wage to the grower at anything under 5s. a bushel. Already in Australia there are men engaged in primary industries who are not receiving what city men are receiving under the minimum awards of arbitration courts. Therefore we need to be wary in what we are doing in this regard. Although I do not see any provision in the bill ratifying, adopting, or authorizing the agreement, we shall probably learn from the Minister when he replies how that is done. When I examine the agreement, it seems to me that it fails in one or two respects to meet the requirements of Australia. Apparently all the efforts of the commission are to be directed to the immigration of menfolk. Although there is ample room in Australia for more domestics to help our womenfolk, there apparently is no provision to deal with that aspect of the question. The Minister may say that it is foreign to the subject-matter of the agreement, but I should like to know if we are to have two systems in operation at the same time - the system at present in vogue, if we are pleased to honour it by calling it a system, and the method controlled by the commission - or if all the duties in connexion with immigration are in future to be left to the commissioners. There is nothing before us to show that provision will be made for boy immigrants. Speaking, not as a party man, but as one who has watched this question abroad as well as in Australia, I can say that the scheme of bringing boys into Australia is the very best one that can be adopted. The boy who is brought here, goes to a home, and there is an individual interest taken in him. He grows up amongst his fellows in this country, learns their habits and their ways, becomes accustomed to his environment and ultimately goes out into the world equipped for the undertaking he is to follow. It is’ wise to catch your bird young and train it. It is far better to get a young immigrant and mould him to Australian conditions, than to bring out a man of mature years whom it takes a long time to train, and equip for the duties he is ultimately to undertake. Unfortunately, owing, possibly, to the exigencies of party politics, the South Australian Government stopped the flow of boy immigrants under the Barwell boy scheme; but, while that scheme was in operation, it was an admirable one. There are, no doubt, individual cases of failure, but we must look at the thing in the mass in order to see whether it is working well. I venture to say that the Barwell boy scheme, so far as it was in operation, proved an unqualified success. It is regrettable that a similar provision is not made in this bill. We heard something yesterday from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) about idle capital and idle men. I suggested at the time, by interjection, that there was no idle capital in Australia, although there might be some idle men; but I agree with the honorable senator that neither condition is economically sound. I suppose that the honorable senator had in mind the fact that some people are not developing their properties, holdings, or buildings as rapidly as they should. I shall tell him why they are not doing so. Their capital is not idle in the ordinary sense, lt is idle only in this sense, that they are not employing, it on those improvements to which the honorable senator referred, because no man with a true sense of economics would improve his property to-day when he knows that any improvement he may undertake will cost a good deal more than its true intrinsic value may be if the present period of inflation comes to an end. That is one of Australia’s troubles at the present time. Yesterday we had in this chamber an illustration of the very same thing. Honorable senators criticized the cost of houses at Canberra. Every one who buys one of those houses at the prices that are being charged for them has staring him in the face an economic loss when the day of deflation really comes. The man who has_ the control of money to-day is far-sighted enough to have regard for this fact, and, if there is any idle money in Australia, it is due entirely to that fact. In bringing out a large number of immigrants, we shall risk a considerable sum of money, an aspect with which I shall deal in a moment or two. When I was visiting the Old Land, I took the opportunity to make inquiries into migration methods, and to ascertain how Australia was viewed as a suitable country for emigrants. In. many places in England I found that little or nothing was known about Australia, and that men and women were afraid of the tremendous distance between this country and the Motherland. That was a general feeling prevailing in the rural districts of England. In Scotland even less was known about Australia, and I encountered one striking instance of how Australia missed quite a number of immigrants from that country. Through the editor of the Weekly Scotsman, I was fortunate enough to get in touch with Dr. Lawrie, who takes a tremendous interest in migration, and, through his introduction, I met others similarly interested in the north-west of Scotland. They had taken part in an emigration scheme from that part of the

British Isles, which had just passed through some very bad seasons. Although there had been thousands anxious to emigrate, they did not wish to go to Australia, and the efforts of the immigration agents and those people who, very humanely, formed themselves into committees to give the emigrants every assistance, had been directed towards sending them to Canada. Altogether 15,000 were sent to Canada, and some of the men who were instrumental in sending them there were almost demented afterwards when they learned of the conditions that had to be faced there. Rigorous as may be the climate in the west of Scotland, it is nothing compared to that of Canada, and, as it was put to me, the men who had been sent to Canada were “dying like flies.” If there is one class of man suitable for attending sheep, it is the western Highlander. He knows nothing whatever about agriculture. Where he lives there is no land fit for cultivation beyond a few small plots here and there. But he understands sheep; and if there is one class of immigrant that ought to be sent to Australia, particularly for the development of the pastoral areas like the Barkly Tablelands, it is the man from the north-western Highlands of Scotland who is now emigrating to Canada. I have given an illustration of the confusion which arose when sufficient attention was not given to the conditions under which migrants were expected to work.

Senator Thompson:

– We lost the services of good men.’

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– Yes, and whether flock-masters or shepherds, the men of whom I speak make fine citizens, and do their work well. T am particularly concerned with the fact that there seems to be no provision for parliamentary control over the money to be expended under this scheme. So far as I can gather from clause 5 of the agreement, the financial responsibility incurred will be the liability of the Commonwealth. We are certainly incurring a grave risk in handing over to commissioners, however highly qualified they may be, the control of such a large sum of money. The liability of the British Government, so far as I can gather from the Minister’s speech and the agreement, is £130,000 for every principal sum of £750,000, which liability under the agreement is limited to a total of £7,083,000. A sum of £34,000,000 is to be invested in this scheme of bringing migrants to Australia, and in handling them by a rule of thumb method of government organization. It is a new system, and one to which the British Government, in its desire that we should take our share in some of the problems of the Empire, readily subscribed. In one sense, I support the Government’s proposals; but I wish Parliament to have control, so that if the occasion should arise a halt may be called. If the productive capacity of the new settlers is not sufficient to maintain them, the Government may be placed in the position it has been placed in connexion with soldier settlers, and may be faced with the responsibility of lend-‘ ing a further helping .hand. . No doubt the Minister will say that that is a problem which the commission will have to consider; but we have a duty to perform in the interests of the taxpayers. I am whole-heartedly in favour of bringing migrants to Australia and of keeping our people within the Empire, but I would be recreant to my trust if I failed to direct attention to the fact, that the bill proposes to hand over extensive’ power to a commission which we cannot control, and this may be subversive of the best .interests of the country. The Government is to be commended for its courage in launching such a big undertaking, but in admiring its .activities in this direction we should not assist in incurring heavy expenditure that may not be recoverable. If the undertaking should prove a failure the tide of migration’ will undoubtedly be against Australia for many years. I should have preferred a smaller scheme providing for a steady inflow of desirable migrants. I have no doubt that large numbers can be profitably absorbed if provision has been made for them, and the commission will no doubt be expected to undertake an extensive developmental policy as outlined, under which land will be made available to our kinsfolk from overseas. I do not think there is any justification for the fears expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) concerning the arrival of foreign migrants, particularly from southern Europe. That subject need not be discussed at this juncture, as I believe the necessary action is being taken to prevent an undue number of foreign migrants coining to Australia. There are, however, other phases of foreign migration, particularly in relation to conduct which provides ample scope for future discussion. I intend to support the bill subject to an assurance from the Minister that some control will be vested in the Commonwealth Parliament. The liabilities of the Government will, I expect, be fully explained by the Minister.

Debate (on motion by Senator Chapman) adjourned.

page 4007

ADJOURNMENT

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn. 1 ask honorable senators to come prepared to complete the debate on the Development and Migration Bill next week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 2.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 July 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260709_senate_10_114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 9 July 1926

PAPERS

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Removal of Temporary Hutments

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Needham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

NEW SENATOR

PRINTING COMMITTEE

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Reid:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Foll:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Chapman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Cox:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senate
9 July 1926

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT