View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
10 August 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION
QUESTION
- NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION
PRINTING COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL DELEGATION TO UNITED STATES OP AMERICA
QUESTION
- FOOT-ROT IN SHEEP
QUESTION
- NAVAL TRAINEES
QUESTION
- GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY
PAPERS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
THIRD READING OF BILLS
ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS, 1926-27
FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2)
QUESTION
- HOUR OF MEETING
FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL
- Second Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. J.Newlands) took the chair at 3’ p.m., and read prayers.

page 5090

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that Parliament recently passed a

Development and Migration Bill, providing for the appointment of certain commissioners, I desire to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if the announcement appearing in the press, to the effect that certain gentlemen have been appointed, is correct, and, if so, whether the Minister does not think that Parliament should have been advised before the announcement appeared in the newspapers?

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Three of the commissioners, Mr. Gepp, Mr. Nathan, and Mr. Gunn, have been appointed, and a fourth commissioner has yet to bo selected.

Senator Needham:

– Should not the information have been given to Parliament’ before it was given to the press?

Senator PEARCE:

– This is the first opportunity I have had since the Senate reassembled of making a statement on the matter.

page 5090

QUESTION

NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– As the Northern Australia Bill, which provided for the appointment of a commission, was passed long anterior to the Development and Migration Bill, will the Leader of the Government inform the Senate why the Development and Migration Commission was appointed before the North Australia Commission?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– There is no reason, apart from the fact that it has been somewhat difficult to determine the constitution of the North Australia Commission ; but I hope to bo able to make an announcement before Parliament rises.

SenatorFINDLEY.- Has the Government found it more difficult to appoint the North Australia Commission than to make appointments at higher salaries to the Development and Migration Commission ?

Senator PEARCE:

– If the honorable senator were a member of the Government he would realize the difficulty of dealing with such matters.

page 5090

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator Elliott brought up the third report of the Printing Committee.

page 5091

QUESTION

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Is the Leader of the Government yet in. a position to reply to a question I asked on 8th July

concerning the number of boards and commissions appointed ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The following return has been compiled: -

Senator FINDLEY:

– Is that return up to date, or can we assume that no further boards or commissions will be appointed before the House rises ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Wait and see.

page 5093

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DELEGATION TO UNITED STATES OP AMERICA

page 5093

QUESTION

FOOT-ROT IN SHEEP

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if he has an answer to the question I asked last week in connexion with the outbreak of foot-rot in sheep?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– When the honorable senator asked the question I dispatched the following telegram to Mr. Julius, the chairman of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research: -

Senator Guthrie urges in view outbreak of foot-rot disease in sheep that immediate action be taken to investigate whilst disease still prevalent. Has conference veterinary pathologists made any recommendation on this? 5094 Naval Trainees. [SENATE.] Northern Territory Ordinance.

On the 9th instant I received the following reply: -

Conference veterinary pathologists gave special attention question foot-rot. Intensive field and research work already in hand at Glenfield Research Station, and special man appointed to push matters. Expect report from conference shortly.

page 5094

QUESTION

NAVAL TRAINEES

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following questions regarding the training of boys for the Australian Navy : -

Has the Government definitely decided to scrap the Tingira training ship?
Has it been decided to alter the age at which boys will be accepted for training, and, if so, why?
Is it the intention of the Government that in future boys will not be accepted except between the ages of 17 and 21 years?
If so, will such a system preclude any of the boys commencing their training at such a late age advancing to senior rank?
Are the changes in the system of providing for the training of boys for the Australian Navy being made with the full approval or under the advice of the Navy . Board ?
Did the Navy Board report against the advisability of training boys at’ the Flinders Naval Base, and urge that they be trained at a separate base from that of grown men.
If so, why is the advice of the Navy Board being ignored?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– I propose making certain comments on the points raised by the honorable senator when discussing the budget papers, but in the meantime I ask him to place his question on the notice-paper.

page 5094

QUESTION

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY

Single and Double Line Tunnels

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– On the 15th July, Senator Grant asked the following questions : -

In view of the loss of life and the destruction of property on the 9th instant, consequent upon the stifling atmosphere in the Ardglen singleline tunnel on the Main Northern line, New South Wales, and as practically the same conditions may exist in the proposed single-line tunnels on the Kyogle to Brisbane railway - will the Minister state what is the estimated cost per lineal yard for -

Single-line tunnels,

Double-line tunnels, and what is the annual estimated loss if double-line tunnels are constructed.

The chairman of the Railway Council advises as follows,: -

The cost per lineal yard is approximately : -

Single-line tunnels, £147.

Double-line tunnels, £257.

The provision of double tunnels instead of single tunnels would mean an increase in the cost of the work by approximately £280,000, and interest alone on this sum would represent approximately £15,500 per annum.

The tunnels which are being constructed on the South Brisbane-Kyogle railway are 13 per cent. wider, and the area above rail level is 20 per cent. greater than the Ardglen tunnel.

The grade in the main tunnel on the South Brisbane-Kyogle railway is 1 in 150, as against 1 in 40 in the Ardglen tunnel.

page 5094

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Boards, Commissions, Tribunals, &c- Statement showing those brought into operation by the Commonwealth Government during 1924-25 and 1925-26, and annual cost of eachboard, &c

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act - Statement re Pensions for the twelve months ended 30th June, 1926.

Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 18 of 1926- Crown Lands.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended- Statutory Rules 1926, Nos. 72, 91, 92, 93.

page 5094

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should like to know if the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance, which the Minister for Home and Territories has just laid on the table will automatically come into force at the expiration of 30 days, or must it lie on the table for the balance of that period when Parliament reassembles ?

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– Unless disallowed, it will come into force at the expiration of 30 days.

Senator GRANT:

– Then I give notice of motion to disallow it. ‘

page 5094

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator GUTHRIE:

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

Are there any officers holding appointments in the Royal Australian Navy, who are in receipt of pensions from the Royal Navy?
If so, how many?
What positions are these officers occupying?
What pensions are the various officers drawing?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Minister for the Navy supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s question: -

Tes.
Twenty -seven.
Four captains, 1 commander, 6 lieutenants (promoted from warrant rank), 3 engineer lieutenant-commanders (promoted from warrant rank), ,2 paymaster commanders, 5 paymaster lieutenants (promoted from warrant rank), 1 shipwright lieutenant, 2 commissioned engineers, 1 commissioned electrician, 1 commissioned supply officer, 1 commissioned instructor in cookery.
No information on this point is available in the department.

page 5095

THIRD READING OF BILLS

The following bills were read a third time : -

Canned Fruits Export Control Bill. Canned Fruits Export Charges Bill.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill.

War Pensions Appropriation Bill. Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill.

page 5095

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS, 1926-27

Debate resumed from 6th August (vide page 5011), on motion by Senator Peakce -

That the .papers be’ printed.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I had almost finished my remarks on this subject when we adjourned on Friday. I “was then about to make a few comments on the Australian Commonweal’th Shipping Line. When the bill relating to the Line was before this chamber, I advocated that accounts covering the operations of the Line should be taken out every six months, and if it were found that the Line was losing money, which I felt sure would be the case, the Government should sell the ships, and get out of the business. Considerable time has elapsed since then, and it seems to me that my prophecy has been fully borne out. There is no doubt that the Line has been losing money, and the disquieting part of the whole business is’ that, whilst a number of ships have been sold, we have no assurance that the. money received from their sale has not been absorbed in meeting the general losses that have been incurred, instead of being applied to a reduction of the capital indebtedness of the Line. My attention was particularly directed to this subject by an article in the well-known British shipping journal Fair Play, in which the following appears: -

It now appears that, during the twelve months ending 31st. March, 1925, the gross earnings of the lino amounted to £1,831,640, and the expenses to £1,967,462, showing a loss of £135,813, to which has to be added £94,317, office expenses. After allowing for brokerage fees and various commissions, the loss for the year is £209,364; but, if depreciation and debenture interest are added, it is increased to £593,879. It is stated that during the year 65 complete voyages were made by 24 vessels, which resulted in a deficit of £130,459, while additional losses on voyages completed during the previous year, together with laid-up expenses during the year, totalled £5,354, making the £135,813 referred to above, lt is pointed out that the Bay steamers and chartered vessels made a profit of £41,938, the remaining boats losing £177,751, exclusive of depreciation. The capital value of the fleet on the 1st April, 1924, was £4,103,000, from which has to he deducted £195.000 for steamers sold during the year, and £200,445 for depreciation, leaving it at £3,921,685 on the 31st March last year.

I have rejoiced to see that honorable senators, irrespective of party, have adopted an independent attitude in their criticism of the Government’s proposals. 1 should be glad if they would go further and register an independent vote. The Senate was once an independent Chamber. It was created to conserve the interests of the States, and to review the legislation passed by another place. From those high ideals it has departed. With the passing of time, the Senate has become a mere gramophone, repeating the policy of the Government and the decisions of another place to an extent that is to be deplored. I should like the Senate to assert its authority and to regain its vanished prestige. It should adopt an independent attitude, instead of bowing down abjectly before the party Joss, and sacrificing all those great principles of independent judgment which the framers of the Constitution expected of it.

– Apart from that aspect of the matter, I contend that the State ‘ Governments will not be able to raise the amount estimated by the Commonwealth Treasurer. It is self-evident that they will be severe losers by the proposed alteration, and I am, therefore, opposed to it. But I am not opposed to some modification of the financial relationship of the Commonwealth and the States. A better scheme can be evolved, and provision for it is actually made in the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 105 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth may take over any portion of the State debts, although formally it was able to take over only the State debts which existed at the time of federation. When a referendum was taken in 1909, on a fixed payment of 25s. per head to the States, and on the question of the State debts, a fixed payment to ‘ the States was defeated by a small number, but the proposal in regard to State debts was endorsed by the Commonwealth electors. The words in section 105 of the Constitution, which provided that the Commonwealth could take over the State debts “ as existing at the time of federation,” were then excised, leaving it open to the Commonwealth to take over any portion of the debts of the various States. When the Commonwealth’s financial arrangements with the States are altered, the Government should take over a proportion of the State debts. This is not only a constitutional provision, but it was endorsed by a vote of the people. Such a scheme is sound in principle as the Commonwealth, with the assistance of the Loan Council, would then have some control over the future borrowings of the States. The continual run on the pawn’ shop is one of the greatest evils with which we are faced to-day. I may be told that the Loan Council does not function effectively, because New South Wales has refused to be represented upon it, but the present Government of New South Wales will not always be in office, and when a wiser and more reasonable Government comes into power, it will appoint a representative to the Loan Council. We shall then be able to reach the ideal of the founders of federation, and effectively control future State borrowings.

Is is certainly worth waiting a few years, if there is a possibility of making a better arrangement than the one proposed. For the reasons I have given, and owing to the fact that the State Governments will not be able to raise the same amount of revenue as the Commonwealth does from various sources of taxation, I hope the Government will abandon its proposed financial arrangements. If the States cannot secure sufficient revenue under the proposed system to balance their budgets, and there is a loss on the aggregation of incomes or on land taxation, the result will be that those who have all their assets in one State will have to carry an unnecessarily heavy burden. The primary producers in particular will be more heavily penalized than under existing conditions, and I warn the members and supporters of the Country party of the inevitable consequences. I am surprised that the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), who has ruined the Country party, and who is now threatening to bring about the downfall of the Government, should pursue such a foolish policy.

It was my intention to refer at some length to the Navigation Act, but, apart from a few observations which I shall make at this juncture, I shall reserve further comment until the Appropriation Evil is before the Senate. An alarming statement was made in the press a few days ago, to the effect that our mercantile marine is decreasing to such an extent that our coastal passenger tonnage has been reduced by 80,000 to 100,000 tons during the last year or. so. The Navigation Act was passed to encourage the mercantile marine, but the effect of its operations has been to penalize almost every section of the community. The act should be amended in the direction of easing the coastal provisions so that our interstate and intra-state trade will be profitably carried on, and the produce of primary industries enabled to reach the market as rapidly and as cheaply as possible.

We have to ask ourselves the serious question of whether Australia is really prosperous, and if the Federal Govern ment is not departing from the real functions of federation. It was never intended that the Commonwealth Government should embark upon a roads policy, or undertake a housing scheme. These are works which the States can effectively perform.

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator not realize the necessity for good national roads?’

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes ; but their construction is a function of the States. If the Federal Government would get out of the way the States would do all that is required, of them. Tasmania, for instance, has spent £4,000,000 of borrowed money on main roads, which is more than has been spent by all the other States combined.

Senator Cox:

– And it has then allowed the roads to go to pieces.

Senator OGDEN:

– The proposal of the Government is to provide money, not for maintaining roads, but for constructing them.

Senator Guthrie:

– And reconditioning.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– Only for re-conditioning roads on which Commonwealth money has been expended.

Senator OGDEN:

– Yes. Tasmania has spent its money,, and if this proposal is adopted thousands of pounds will be wasted on roads which are not essential to the development of the States. This is, however, a matter upon which I shall have more to say when the Federal Aid Roads Bill is before the Senate.

In conclusion, I desire, to say that I hope the day is not far distant when the Senate will assert itself by adopting an independent attitude, and refuse to consider parties before the welfare of the country. The Senate has not power to make and unmake Governments, and it should not have power without responsibility. We have not power in this Chamber to defeat the Government.

Senator ANDREW:
Victoria

Senator McHUGH:

– Dr. Earle Page voted for high duties.

Senator ANDREW:

– I did not, and I am responsible only for my own sins. Dr. Earle Page is answerable for his own actions. However, I rose chiefly to direct attention to certain subjects in which I am interested.

At a recent conference of Health authorities, the statement was made that during the last seventeen years no fewer than 70,000 people had died in Australia from cancer. That is a most alarming statement. This subject should receive immediate attention at the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament. Here is an opportunity for research work. Coupled with cancer, is that other dread disease, tuberculosis. The statistics show that during the last seven years between 25,000 and 26,000 persons have died in Australia from that disease, which is well designated the White Plague. Some spasmodic attempts have been made to check it, but, unfortunately, lack of funds has prevented anything from being done on an extensive scale. Any proposal for the treatment of tuberculosis should include adequate provision for dependants of sufferers. Clinical observation, hospital treatment, and sanitoria are essential features in any scheme to deal with it. Unfortunately, tuberculosis is very prevalent in mining .centres where men are obliged to work under more or less unhealthy conditions. In Bendigo we have established an X-ray laboratory, a sanatorium and hospital- accommodation, but, as I have stated, the stumbling block is the n necessary financial provision for the maintenance of dependants. I trust that the Government will give this subject careful consideration, and devise some scheme to forward the movement.

Yesterday I was privileged to attend a lecture delivered by Colonel Pottinger, who recently completed a tour of 20,000 miles through India, and I wa3 impressed by statements which he made as to the possibility of opening un the Indian market for our surplus primary products. Colonel Pottinger stated that at present the market is being supplied by the United States of America. Since India is much nearer to Australia than to America, we should be able to secure a good footing there.. During the war the native population acquired a taste for European food products, particularly flour and fruit. We should take advantage of our proximity to that market and seek to develop our . trade in that country. Standardization of all labels is important, because the natives buy mostly on the label. Colonel Pottinger stated that on one occasion when he wished to give a present to one of his Indian servants, he gave him a choice of three knives. One pocket knife was a combination affair, with which we are familiar, but to his: surprise the native chose a smaller knife. He gave as his . reason that it was a Rodgers cast steel knife. That brand, I understand, is well known to the natives, “who believe it to be the best article of its kind produced.

Recently, Australian apples have been a glut on the English market. The landed cost, exclusive of orchard charges, is about 8s. 7d. a case from Tasmania, and 8s. 4d. from the mainland, and yet they -were sold at from 5s. to 9s. a case. ‘If, owing to our distance, -or to the fact that our season clashes with the season in countries that are nearer to Great Britain, we are unable to dispose of any of our surplus primary products at a profit on the London market, we should consider the possibility of developing trade with India.

On several occasions I have directed attention to the policy of the Pensions Department in withholding a certain pro portion of pension payments in cases where pensioners are inmates of public institutions. The practice. is to pay 10s. 6d. to the institution, and 4s. to the pensioner and to retain the balance. In the budget statement, the liability on .account of invalid and old-age pensions is stated at £1 a week, and the excuse is made that where pensioners are inmates of a public institution, it is necessary to retain some portion of the amount to cover administrative expenses. It should be less costly to pay a number of pensioners by one cheque than to distribute the amount of pension money -to a large number of individuals. I have been supplied with the following particulars of Victorian institutions which provide homes for invalid and old-age pensioners: -

The revenue was -

As a general rule, the old people only become inmates of such institutions when they are unable to look after themselves. Consequently, their maintenance is more costly than otherwise it would be. The daily average of old-age pension inmates in the several ‘benevolent homes for the year ending the 30th June, 1925, was as follows : -

I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision in connexion with payments on behalf of inmates of public institutions, and pay the full amount.

Not long ago we passed a measure authorizing the payment of £25,000 for assistance to mining, but as £10,000 of that amount will be paid in respect of operations in the Northern Territory, only £15,000 will be available for the development of mining throughput the Commonwealth. The whole of it could, with advantage, be spent on one mine. The Government would be well advised to provide a much larger vote, if it wishes the industry to be revived.

Recently, also, we passed a measure for the payment of 4d. a gallon on the production of power alcohol from cassava. I opposed that proposal on the ground that it was not comprehensive enough. If bounty is to be paid on the production of power alcohol, it should not be restricted to one source of production, but should be paid irrespective of the substance from which it is produced. It could be manufactured from the huge heaps of sawdust that lie at the timber mills in the forests, and also from the refuse of the canefields and the wine presses. If its production from all sources were- encouraged, Australia would be in a fairly independent position in the event of the stocks of petrol from over-‘ seas being withheld. I commend the Government for the work it has done during the session, and I am confident that the electors will be satisfied that it has made every effort to comply with the mandate given by them.

Debate (on motion by Senator Elliott) adjourned.

page 5103

FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– 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.

Honorable senators are aware that the Government desires to close the session this week. If the motion is carried, the debate will not be curtailed, but we shall be able to proceed with the consideration of the measure forthwith.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– Do I understand that the Government desires not only that the second reading shall be moved to-day, but also that the second-reading discussion shall take place? Does the Leader of the Government wish the bill to be passed through all its stages before any other business is considered ?

Senator PEARCE:

– That depends on whether we receive another bill from the other branch of the legislature; but if it is desired that .the formal stages should be postponed until to-morrow, I have no objection to the adoption of that course.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill <(on motion by Senator Crawford) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Provision is made in the measure for a comprehensive scheme of roadconstruction throughout Australia from funds to be made available by the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States, on the basis of £1 being paid by the Commonwealth for every 15s. contributed by the States. The agreement, which is embodied in the bill, was arrived at by negotiation between the Commonwealth and State Governments, in conference and by correspondence, and the proposal of the Commonwealth Government to make available, under the conditions set out in the agreement, £20,000,000 for allocation to the States on the basis of three-fifths population and two-fifths area, was fully discussed. While the Government realizes that road -construction generally comes within the jurisdiction of the State Governments, it recognizes, also, that, in view of the rapid development of motor transport, the provision of suitable roads has now become a problem of national importance, and of too great magnitude for the various State Governments to handle without the aid of the national Government. The following statement sets out the amounts allocated on the £1 for £1 basis to each of the States, in pursuance of the main road grants from 1923 to 1926, the commitments entered into, and the actual expenditure up to the end of the last financial year: -

It will be noted that the total actual expenditure amounts to £1,316,580. This sum includes only that expenditure which ‘ has been finally examined and passed by the Auditor-General. A considerable sum has been expended, the audit of which has not yet been completed. In addition to the sums allotted from the grants amounting to £1,500,000, the Government, during last year, made a further grant of £250,000 to the States, free of any contribution by the States, for expenditure on the reconditioning of existing roads. The allocation of the whole of this additional money has been approved, which indicates that the States have taken full advantage of the grants and that the expenditure is proceeding at a satisfactory rate.’ Considerable benefit has accrued to Australia as a result of the assistance rendered to the States under the Main Roads Development Acts. The expenditure of these moneys, together with the corresponding State contributions, has resulted in the following works being eompleted : -

Those works could not otherwise have been completed for years to come. The bulk of the expenditure has been incurred on entirely new roads, requiring in many cases complete surveys, and relocation of proposed roads, in localities varying from wet, hilly, heavily-timbered country to dry, sandy, and open plains. The Commonwealth and State authorities have co-operated in every possible way, with a view to securing the best results from the moneys made available. As to the proposal to make available to the States the sum of £20,000,000 for expenditure on roads over a period of ten years, as set out’ in the bill and the agreement attached thereto, the intentions of the Government in this connexion were referred to in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister in October, 1925. I need not enlarge. on the necessity for good roads, nor refer to the handicaps which are being . experienced in this connexion in every part of the Commonwealth. In the United States of America, the’ central government has fully realized the necessity for encouraging the expansion of the road system throughout the union. It endorses the view that the progress of a nation depends largely on the reduction of its transport costs and the facilities provided for the economical and expeditious marketing of its products. Up to the end of June, 1925, the total length of Federal-aid roads completed in the United States of America, since the Federal Aid Road Act came into operation in 1916, was 46,485 miles. The mileage of the roads under construction and nearing completion was over 12,000. The appropriation of Feder.al funds for this purpose amounted to some £100,000,000. It is proposed, under the Federal-aid highways system of the United States of America to construct some 200,000 miles of highways, the Federal Government’s contribution towards the cost of which will be on the basis of £1 for every £1 of State expenditure. Mr. T. H. MacDonald, chief of the United States Bureau of Public Roads, describes highway transport as the “ new great force in our national life.” At the International Road Congress, held at Seville in 1923, Mr. H. E. Riggs stated that ‘ ‘ the problem in transportation in the United Spates of America was the most vital thing in the nation to-day.” If this is true with regard to America, which is within a week’s journey of the European markets, how much greater must be its application to Australia with its great distances from the sea-board, practically devoid of natural waterways, and five weeks’ sail from the world’s greatest markets? While the Governments of the Commonwealth and the States cannot hope at the present time to undertake a scheme approaching the magnitude of that adopted in the United States of America, it is claimed that the proposals now submitted will provide a system of Federal aid roads which will be of inestimable value to the Commonwealth generally. The proposals were fully discussed at a conference of Ministers representing the Commonwealth, and the six States which sat in Melbourne in February last, the agreement embodied in the bill being the outcome of those discussions. The scheme proposed will, in effect, be the first instalment, and will form the basis of a national roads system. When completed, it will be capable of extension in such a manner that the whole of our future roads construction .will dovetail into the works now proposed. The scheme is an amplification of that which has been in existence for the last three years. It will be found that the general plan will include most of .those sections of roads which have already been completed, and will, to that extent, shorten the length of many roads which will be included in the general scheme to be undertaken under these proposals. No scheme of this magnitude has ever been undertaken, or even contemplated in Australia previously. It involves an expenditure of £35,000,000 over a period of ten years. The agreement was arrived at after very lengthy conferences and consultations with representatives of the States. It is -wrong to suggest that only country districts will benefit from the construction of good roads under the agreement. Roads in country districts that are good enough to carry motor traffic are largely used by motorists from the cities.. The cities, also, will benefit in the highest degree, because good roads mean cheaper transport, and cheaper transport means cheaper food and raw materials for the residents of the cities. Cities and city motorists will thus derive direct benefit from the construction of good roads in the country districts. Further, it is only just that the cities should contribute through the tariff to the welfare of sparsely settled areas, seeing that the cities obtain so much benefit from the tariff in the shape of thriving industries and increased population. The road policy is a national one, providing that the more highly developed and wealthy parts of the country should contribute something to the welfare of the less developed districts. It is impracticable and absurd to expect that, in a country like Australia, each area or each section of the community shall look after only its own needs. Clause 1 of the agreement reads -

This agreement shall have no force or effect, and shall not :be binding on either party unless and until it is approved, adapted, authorized, or ratified -by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth and of the State.

Senator Findley:

– How many States have ratified it?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– So far, there has been no parliamentary ratification.

Senator Duncan:

– How many State Governments have ratified it?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Three. The State Governments will submit the agreement to their respective Parliaments. Five of the States became parties to the agreement. Sub-clause 1 of clause 2 of the agreement provides -

The Commonwealth will, subject to and for the purposes of this agreement, provide the sum of (a) during the period of ten years, commencing on. the Ist-day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six; 5106 Federal Aid[ SENATE.] Roads Bill.

The amounts proposed to be paid by the Commonwealth under this sub-clause are as follow: -

Senator Findley:

– Is that money available now, or is it proposed to tax the people to obtain it?

Senator CRAWFORD:

-It will be made available from year to year, as provided in this bill.

Sub-clause 2 of clause 2 of the agreement, provides -

The said sum of (a)’ will be paid by the Commonwealth into a trust account established for the purpose under section 62a of the Audit Act 1901-1924 of the Commonwealth, by payments into such account of the sum of (b) in each year during the said period of ten years.

It will be seen that the payments into the trust account each year will be, in respect of each of the States, one-tenth of the sum to be provided by the Commonwealth under sub-clause 1 of clause 2. Sub-clause 1 of clause 3 of the agreement provides that -

Subject to clause 7 of this agreement, the State will provide an additional sum of (c) for the purposes of this agreement. Sub-clause 3 of clause 3 provides -

Of the amount to be provided by the State under this clause the sum of (d) shall be provided from revenue. The balance of the amount to be provided by the State may, at the option of the State, be provided out of current roads expenditure or from revenue or loan moneys.

Of the total amount which the Commonwealth is providing for this purpose, annually, it is intended that £500,000 shall be paid from present revenue, and £1,500,000 shall be raised from new sources of revenue. Of the amounts which they will spend the States will also be expected to raise a certain proportion each year. To show how the scheme will work, I give, as an example, what would happen in the case of Victoria. The amount which the Commonwealth Government will pay to Victoria, for the construction of new roads, will be £90,000 per annum out of present revenue. From new sources of revenue, £270,000 per annum will be paid for the construction of new roadsor the reconstruction of old roads. The State Government will be expected to find, from revenue, £33,750, and from revenue, loan, or present roads expenditure, another £33,750, making a total of £67,500 for expenditure on new construction. Victoria will be expected to provide, from revenue, loan, or existing roads expenditure, an additional £202,500, for expenditure on construction or reconstruction, making a total of £270.000 per annum, against the Commonwealth’s contribution of £360,000 per annum.

Clause 4 of the agreement provides - If any instalment provided by the State as aforesaid is, or includes, loan moneys of the State, the State shall, at the time when the instalment is provided, so inform the Commonwealth, and specify the amount of loan moneys in the instalment.

The purpose of this provision is that a proper check may be kept on loan moneys, on which the Commonwealth has agreed to pay 3 per cent. out of moneys payable to the States towards a sinking fund for the first ten years.

Clause 4 further provides -

The Commonwealth shall thenceforward in each year, during the remainder of the said period of ten years, withdraw from moneys in the said trust account, and. pay into the sinking fund hereinafter mentioned an amount equal to Three pounds per centum (£3 per centum), per annum accruing from day to day on the amount of loan moneys in the instalment.
The State shall, on the thirtieth day of June in each year after the expiration of the said period of ten years, pay into the said sinking fund an amount equal to £3 per centum per annum accruing from day to day on each amount of loan moneys included in an instalment provided by the State as aforesaid, until the amount paid into the sinking fund under this and the preceding sub-clause in respect of that instalment (together with all interest credited thereto) is sufficient to repay the loan moneys included in such instalment.

Clause 5 reads -

For the purposes of this agreement the following classes of roads shallbe deemed to be Federal Aid roads:

Main roads Which open up and develop new country;
trunk roads between important towns; and
arterial roads to carry the concentrated traffic from developmental, main, trunk, and other roads.

Clause 6 provides -

All moneys paid to the State under this agreement, and all moneys provided by the State under this agreement, shall be expended solely on the construction and reconstruction of Federal Aid roads.

– This board will cost the country nothing. When the five-years scheme is finally approved, each State will signify which part of the scheme it desires shall first be undertaken. Clause 6, sub-clause 3, of the agreement reads -

The Minister shall have the power to decide from time to time how the .balance of the moneys paid to the State under this agreement and the balance of the moneys to be provided by the State under this agreement shall be expended, but so that such moneys shall be expended solely in the construction of Federal aid roads and/or the reconstruction of Federal aid roads.

In some of the States, long lengths of existing roads need re-conditioning, and in other States a greater proportion of new construction is required. Clause 7, sub-clause 1, reads -

Where a road being constructed or being reconstructed under this agreement passes through a town whose population (according to the latest statistics available at the time the work is ‘being done) does not exceed Five thousand (5,000) persons such road may be constructed through! the town or reconstructed (as the case may be) as if the town did not exist: Provided that the width of any road constructed or reconstructed through a town pursuant to this clause snail not except with the approval in writing of the Minister exceed 20 feet.

It is not intended to allocate any sums for expenditure within the boundaries of towns with a population exceeding 5,000; and expenditure will be incurred in towns with a population under 5,000 only in eases where the road being constructed or reconstructed passes through such towns. In some small country municipalities it would be impossible, to raise sufficient revenue to reconstruct and maintaining lengths of road entirely for the use of traffic originating outside the municipal boundaries. Clause 7, sub-clause 2, reads -

If any portion of the cost of constructing or reconstructing ‘a road pursuant to this agreement is contributed by the municipal or other local governing authority of a town referred to in the last preceding sub-clause, the amount to be provided by the State under clause 3 of this agreement shall be reduced by the amount so contributed: Provided, however, that the State shall not require any such municipal or other local governing authority to contribute more than one-half of the amount to be provided by the State as its proportion of the cost of constructing or reconstructing such road.

Senator Duncan:

– It is a direct invitation to the States to bring pressure to bear on the municipalities to increase their rates.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– That power is limited. The municipalities are not bound to do it. Assuming that a mile of new road was required to be constructed within a town at a cost of £3,500, the Commonwealth’s contribution towards that amount, would be £2,000, and the State’s contribution £1,500. The State would be able to recoup itself from the municipality to the extent of 50 per cent, of the £1,500. The Government does not intend that the States shall make a levy on the municipalities for roads outside the boundaries of towns. One can readily visualize long stretches of road which pass through poor country, where the municipalities, if they were called upon to contribute £500 or £750 a mile for 15 or 20 miles of road, would not be able to take advantage of the offer of Commonwealth money. In that case, there would be a break in the continuity of the road, and the object of the scheme would be frustrated. Clause 8, sub-clause 1, reads -

The State shall to the satisfaction of the Minister make proper provision for the adequate and continuous maintenance in good repair and condition of all roads constructed or reconstructed in pursuance of this agreement. Such maintenance shall be taken in hand immediately following upon the completion of the construction or reconstruction of any road or portion thereof and shall be met from moneys provided by the State.

The Government considers that it would be folly to incur a large expenditure on a national roads system without providing for adequate maintenance. Clause 8, subclause 2, reads - _ If any such road is not adequately and continuously maintained in good repair and condition to the satisfaction of the Minister the State shall not (if the Minister so directs) be entitled to payment of any further moneys out of the said Trust Account until the road has been put in good repair and condition to the satisfaction of the Minister and until proper provision to the satisfaction of the Minister has been made by the State for the road being adequately and continuously maintained in good repair and condition.

That sub-clause is self-explanatory. Clause 9, sub-clause 1, reads -

Prior to the submission by the State of any proposals for expenditure of any moneys provided by the Commonwealth and the State in pursuance of this agreement the State shall submit to the Minister for his approval full particulars of the roads proposed to be constructed or reconstructed during the period of five years commencing on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twentysix and prior to the expiration of the said period of .five years the State shall submit to the Minister for his approval full particulars of the roads proposed to be constructed or reconstructed during the period of five years commencing on the expiration of the first mentioned period of five years.

The works will be carried out on a comprehensive plan. Each State will put forward a scheme covering a five year period.

It is not proposed to expend these amounts on small and scattered sections of road. A definite objective will be aimed at, and every endeavour will be made to complete the scheme adopted during the . five-year period, after which a further programme will be decided upon. The municipalities that desire these roads to pass through their territories will apply to the roads boards in their respective States, and the roads boards will report to the State Ministers. Sub-clause 2 of the same clause reads -

All proposals in connexion with works to be carried out in any financial year in pursuance of this agreement shall be submitted by the State to the Minister for his approval, and the State shall not commence any proposed work without first obtaining the approval in writing of the Minister.

First, the five-year scheme will be approved. Then proposals for the first year will be presented to the Commonwealth Minister, and each year afterwards further proposals will be submitted. All proposals will require to have the approval of the Commonwealth Minister. Sub-clause 3 reads -

When submitting any such proposals the State shall specify by what method it is proposed the work shall be executed.

Sub-clause 4 reads -

The method of execution shall be by contract except that where the Minister for the State considers that tenders received for the execution of the work are unsatisfactory, or that execution by day labour would be more economical and/or expeditious, and so informs the Minister, the Minister may, if he is satisfied that action has been taken by the State to ensure that the work will be carried out according to approved methods of construction, in which modern plant is utilized to the fullest extent, approve of the execution Of the work in whole or in part by day labour.

Sub-clause 5 states that, in the event of any moneys provided not being used in any one year, they shall not lapse. Clause 10, sub-clause 1, provides that all necessary surveys and supervision shall bc undertaken by the State; and sub-clause 2 reads -

An amount equal to 2 per centum of the cost of the work carried out will be paid to the State out of the said trust account towards the cost of the survey and supervision of that work, and of the preparation of plans and other preliminaries in connexion with that work.

Under the old arrangement, the States were liable for the cost of surveys, supervision, and general administration. In

Western Australia, the cost on some of. the outback roads was very bigh, amounting in some localities to as much as 8 per cent. After discussing the matter at great length, it was decided that the Commonwealth should provide an amount equal to 2 per cent. Clause 11, subclause 1, reads -

The final portion of the Commonwealth’s proportion of the cost of carrying out any work under this agreement will be paid to the State after the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the Minister.

Sub-clause 2 provides -

The Minister may satisfy himself by such means as he thinks fit as to whether any work has been carried out in accordance with this agreement.

Clause 12 provides -

The Commonwealth will establish a board to be known as the Federal Aid Roads Board consisting of the Minister and a Minister representing each of the different States to which any money is made available in pursuance of the hereinbefore recited proposal of the Commonwealth. ‘J he said board shall meet in the month of April in each year, and at such other times as the Minister considers necessary for the purpose of discussing any matters in connexion with the carrying out of the works.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Not at all. His opinion as to the unconstitutionality of the measure was most emphatic.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Yes, and he gives as his reason the fact that this is a measure to grant financial assistance to the States. Let us see what the Attorney-General said about the -Main Roads Development Bill in 1925 -

I venture to assert, although I know that it will be unpopular to do so, that in passing legislation of this description we are not acting constitutionally. This Parliament has no power to legislate for main roads. It has power, of course, to grant financial assistance to States- which need it.

He dealt with that point later. Let me now refer to the matter mentioned by Senator Elliott. The Attorney-General went on to say -

This is not a bill dealing with roads for defence purposes, and no one pretends that it is. It is possible to say that all useful developmental work in Australia improves the capacity of a country to defend itself; but are we, as a Commonwealth Parliament, to spend our revenues for the achievement of any desirable object that may improve the resources of a country from the point of view of defence?

This, T remind honorable senators, is Mr. Latham’s view -

This bill does not pretend to provide for anything of that character, as. honorable members know very well. It cannot be said that the States require financial assistance from the Commonwealth.

There is the other point -

We should be in an entirely different position if the Government had brought down a measure to provide for the construction of main roads between the capital cities of Australia based upon strategic considerations that have the backing of its technical defence advisers.

Apart altogether from defence, I contend that this bill is not a measure to grant financial assistance to the States under the provisions of section 96 of the Constitution.

Senator Elliott:

– But, under the Constitution, the Government has power to build strategic roads.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Undoubtedly, the Commonwealth Government has full power with regard to defence. If it wished, it could have brought in this bill as a measure to provide for the construction of certain roads for strategic purposes. If the proposals were based upon those considerations, to use the words of the Attorney-General, they would be within the power of the Constitution.

Senator Elliott:

– We have that constitutional power, and it would not be questioned by the High Court.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.The High Court would have to determine whether the roads to be constructed under this measure were designed for strategic purposes.

Senator Elliott:

– The High Court itself would not judge whether they were for strategic purposes, and would not attempt to do so.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– But does not the Attorney-General himself answer the question. Let me again quote his own words -

We should be in an entirely different position if the Government had brought down a measure to provide for the construction of main roads between the capital cities of Australia based upon strategic considerations that have the backing of its technical defence advisers.

Senator Elliott:

– I do not see how the High Court could enter into that phase of the subject.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.It would be a question of fact. The Government does not suggest that this bill is in any way a defence measure, or that the proposals are based upon considerations of defence.

Senator Elliott:

– Because the facts speak for themselves. Good roads means facilities for defence.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.If the honorable senator cares to argue the subject along those lines then he might, with equal justice, say that because a migration policy will increase our population it also may be regarded as a defence measure.

Senator Elliott:

– That would be too remote.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Nevertheless, the honorable senator may argue that an increased population, and an increase in the production of wealth, will give greater security from a defence point of view. One cannot defend the bill on the plea that the roads are required for defence purposes, or that the States are in need of financial assistance. Section 96 of the Constitution contemplates the granting of financial assistance only to States that need it and make application for it.

Senator Chapman:

– .The Constitution does not say that.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.No, but it presupposes it.

Senator Chapman:

– It gives this Parliament power to grant financial assistance to the States.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I shall reduce that argument to an absurdity. If it were sound, the Commonwealth could enter any State sphere. It could, for instance, with regard to education, say to the States, “ You require monetary help ; we are going to give it to you and dictate the terms under which that assistance is to be given and the policy to be adopted. It is absurd to argue in that way. To put my arguments consecutively, I contend that section 96 presupposes two things - that there is a State in. need of financial assistance, and that it applies to the Commonwealth Government for it. Then the Commonwealth is to inquire into the merits of the case, and grant such assistance as it thinks necessary, and upon such terms as it thinks fit. Every honorable senator must admit that the sphere of the States is being invaded by the Commonwealth Parliament. I do not see how it can be argued otherwise. It cannot be maintained that the Commonwealth has a right to interfere with the States in the matter of road construction, or maintenance. Under the Constitution this Parliament has strictly limited powers which are enumerated and particularized in the Constitution itself. Whatever powers are not expressly conferred by it are withheld, and those powers are exercisable by the States. The power with regard to roads is not conferred upon the Commonwealth by the Constitution; consequently, it is a power withheld and a power exercisable by the States.

Senator Foll:

– What does “ transport “ mean ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– If the honorable senator imagines that the Commonwealth has power over all transport, he is quite wrong.

Senator Foll:

– I mean interstate transport.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Interstate and oversea trade and commerce come within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and transport may fall under that heading; but this Parliament has no power over the domestic trade and commerce of the States.

Senator Elliott:

– Does the honorable senator go so far as to say that the Commonwealth cannot make a road?

Senator McLachlan:

– Is it their real objection that the grants are unconstitutional?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Yes, undoubtedly.

Senator McLachlan:

– Then why have they not previously said so?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– South Australia replied that’ it did not want the money, and it went even so far as to suggest that it would contest the matter at law. One of the States has withdrawn its signature to the agreement, and three of the States are standing out of it.

Senator Crawford:

– But the States’ representatives approved of the agreement.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Yes, before they knew how the money was to be raised; but when they realized the nature of the proposals, they withdrew their consent.

Senator Elliott:

– Last year we passed a bill for the extension of a railway from Kyogle to South Brisbane. Was that unconstitutional ?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.That is an entirely different matter. The Constitution contains a specific provision enabling such a work as that to be done. The Attorney-General also said -

If we were to reduce Commonwealth taxation, and to confine ourselves to our proper functions, the States would find it easier to . raise the money required for their roads. The making of roads is a State function. The Commonwealth is collecting too much money from the people, and is expending upon a State basis money which has been collected upon a Federal basis, and that without the matter having first been submitted to the judgment of the people.

In other words, he said that the Commonwealth had no right under the Constitution to do it.

Senator Elliott:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the AttorneyGeneral has changed his opinion?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

-‘ No. He is the Attorney-General in the Ministry that is taking this action; he practically has the Commonwealth Government for a client. It is a case of special pleading. How does he try to distinguish the present proposal from that of 1925 ? All he says is that the present measure grants financial assistance to the States, and under section 96 of the Constitution it is possible to do that. In 1925, however, he dealt with that very point, and said that there was no escape from the fact that since the States were not in need the matter was not covered by that section of the Constitution.

Senator Elliott:

– If it were a case of special pleading, surely he could not have found a better reason than the need of the roads for defence purposes? If he contended that the roads to be built under this proposal were required for strategic purposes, he could not be contradicted.

– Must we not rely on the opinion of the Crown Law officers?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.No opinion from them has been quoted. No less an authority than the AttorneyGeneral himself said that a bill which was on all-fours with this was unconstitutional. I defy any lawyer to distinguish between that bill and the one now before us. The opinion of the AttorneyGeneral and of the Crown Law officers of Victoria and South Australia, as well as of eminent outside counsel employed . by both Governments is that the action proposed to be taken is unconstitutional. I repeat that, before voting on this measure, every honorable senator should satisfy himself as to its constitutionality. It would appear that some honorable senators, whose States want the 5116 Federal Aid [SENATE.] Roads Bill. money, and have signed the agreement, are afraid to face the question, fearing that if they do so, they must come to the conclusion arrived at by the AttorneyGeneral last year in relation to a similar measure. Are honorable senators mere puppets, prepared to do the bidding of the Government as the strings are pulled? Senator Ogden this afternoon was reproved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) for having suggested that Government supporters were willing to accept blindly the Government’s proposals. The Minister asked why it should be considered wrong for honorable senators who were elected as supporters of the Government to vote for its proposals.

Senator Foll:

– Senator Ogden, who criticized other honorable senators for following the Government, was glad enough to enter Parliament on a party ticket.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I do not propose to discuss” that aspect of the question, but I do appeal to honorable senators to prove themselves worthy of the position which they occupy. The Senate is not merely a house of second thought; it was established primarily to preserve the rights of the States. No duty is more pressing on honorable senators than that of satisfying themselves regarding the constitutionality of the Government’s proposals, particularly when they threaten the sovereign rights of the States. That is the position which now confronts us. The sovereign rights of the States are being threatened by the unconstitutional proposals of the Government. Honorable senators should vote according to their convictions ; and if they do so in relation to this measure, they must decide that it is unconstitutional.

Senator Foll:

– By voting according to their convictions, honorable senators would not necessarily support the views expressed by the honorable senator.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Quite so. I ask only that they vote according to their convictions. Senator Foll will admit that honorable senators do not always do so.

Senator Grant:

– In that respect the honorable senator can only speak for himself.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.Honorable senators will not deny that frequently they vote on party lines. If there is one House in the Parliaments of Australia where there should be independent thought, it is the Senate.

Senator Cox:

– Has not the honorable senator himself voted on party lines?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Not always. I exercise independence of thought. Did not the AttorneyGeneral say tht it would be unpopular to oppose this legislation for the reason that the States were prepared to take the money? Whether my attitude is unpopular or not, I shall continue to say that this legislation is unconstitutional, because I believe that to be the case. I am satisfied on that point, and I ask other honorable senators to satisfy themselves regarding it. But even if this legislation were constitutional, I should still oppose it, because it is unwarranted and unnecessary. Let us examine the bill. The preamble reads -

Whereas it is expedient to provide for financial assistance to the several States for the purpose of the construction and reconstruction of roads.

While the preamble is different, the effective provisions of the bill are similar to that of the bill introduced last year, which the AttorneyGeneral said was unconstitutional. An attempt is being made to bring this legislation within the scope of section 96 of the Constitution. But the mere wording of the preamble to a bill does not bring it within the Constitution. For this legislation to be constitutional, the States must be in need, and must apply to the Commonwealth for assistance.

Senator Grant:

– Tasmania is in need of assistance.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.It is clear from the agreement that not only is the Commonwealth proposing to enter the State sphere of constructing and maintaining roads, but also that it intends to exercise supreme control in that sphere. Everything that is done must be done to the satisfaction of the Federal Minister. Let us see what the agreement provides. Sub-clause 3 of clause 6 of the agreement reads -

The Minister shall have the power to decide from time to time how the balance of the moneys paid to the State under this agreement and the balance of the moneys to be provided by the State under this agreement shall be expended but so that such moneys shall be expended solely in the construction of Federal aid roads and /or the reconstruction of Federal aid roads.

Clause 8, sub-clause 1, sets out -

The State shall, to the satisfaction of the Minister, make proper provision for the adequate and continuous maintenance in good repair and condition of all roads constructed or reconstructed in pursuance of this agreement. Such maintenance shall be taken in hand immediately following upon the completion of the construction or reconstruction of any road or portion thereof and shall be met from moneys provided by the State. -The position is the same in clause 9 -

Prior to the submission by the State of any proposals for expenditure of any moneys provided by the Commonwealth and the State in pursuance of this agreement the State shall submit to the Minister for his approval full particulars of the roads proposed te be constructed or reconstructed during the period of five years commencing on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six and prior to the expiration of the said period of five years the State shall submit to the Minister for his approval full particulars of the roads proposed to be constructed or reconstructed during the period of five years commencing on the expiration of the first mentioned period of five years.

All proposals in connexion with works to be carried out in any financial year in pursuance of this agreement shall be submitted by the State to the Minister for his approval and the State shall not commence any proposed work without first obtaining the approval in writing of the Minister.

Again, clause 13 provides -

The Minister on behalf of the Commonwealth undertakes that any regulations necessary or desirable to enable this agreement to be carried out will be made by the Governor-General in Council.

As the Governor-General in Council means the Commonwealth Government, honorable senators will see that the Commonwealth Government intends to dominate the whole position, although the Commonwealth Attorney-General said that these matters were within the sphere of the States.

Senator Lynch:

– Could the Imperial Government enter into a similar agreement with the States?

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– The Imperial Government could lend money to the States, hut it could not interfere with the control by the States over the expenditure. The Imperial Government could not dictate the policy of the States.

Senator Lynch:

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.If is the position in South Australia, New South Wales, and Queensland, and, I believe, in Victoria also. . I cannot understand any State placing itself in the humiliating position which the acceptance of this agreement would involve. Although South Australia is now controlled by a Labour Government, I congratulate that State upon the stand it has taken in this matter. The Government of South Australia, in view of the opinion of its Crown law officers, as well as of independent eminent counsel, that this legislation is unconstitutional, has rejected the Government’s proposals. It is not a question of the States wanting the money, but rather the intrusion by the Commonwealth into the sphere of the States. The States might be in dire need of the money ; but some of them are not prepared to accept it from the Commonwealth if to do so means that they are condoning an unconstitutional action by which the Commonwealth will dictate their policy.

Senator H Hays:

– South Australia has accepted previous Commonwealth grants.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– I am acquainted with the position that existed when former grants were offered, because I was in office at the time. We protested strongly. In effect, we said, “Mind your own business; we do not want your money.”

Senator Foll:

– But you took it.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

Senator H Hays:

– The States that are not interested in the work have to contribute towards its cost.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.That is a matter which, under the Constitution, can be dealt with by the Commonwealth. I point out that these proposals are a direct violation of what the Commonwealth Government said were sound principles, to be observed in the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States. Road construction and maintenance are essentially local and provincial matters. Even the States themselves adopt the policy of decentralization and leave these matters largely in the control of district councils. What is the best policy to pursue? The States know far better than the Commonwealth what their requirements are in regard to road construction and maintenance, what money is necessary to meet those requirements, and how it can best be raised and expended. The money for this grant will have to be raised by the imposition of special taxation, provision for which is made in a separate bill. I, therefore, confine myself to the argument that the bill is unconstitutional; and that, even if it is not unconstitutional, interference by the Commonwealth in this sphere of the States is unnecessary; because the matter can be handled far better by the Governments of the States and their local governing bodies. Again, if the Commonwealth insists on advancing to the States, money to bc spent upon that which, according to the .terms of the Constitution, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the States, it should not laydown conditions governing the expenditure of that money. I understand that the States are to be practically forced to accept this grant. The amount is to be allocated among the various States on a population and area - basis. Any State which refuses to accept it is to be treated like a spoilt child who refuses food; the amount allotted to it is to be held in the trust fund until the sulks pass.

Senator Crawford:

– Eventually, every. State will accept the grant.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL.The opportunities of the States to impose taxation will be restricted bv the action of the Commonwealth in raising this additional sum from new taxation. Those States that now refuse to accept the grant will be told, “If you do n t care to take it now we shall hold it until you think better of your decision.”

Senator Foll:

– A carrot will very often tempt a donkey.

– I intend to do so. This bill relates to roads. Is not the construction of roads in the Northern Territory a necessary work? Should not the money which the Government apparently has to offer to the States for road construction and developmental purposes be spent in the Northern Territory? The Government has disposed of some of its surplus moneys by assisting the States in purchasing wire netting. It is now offering to aid the States in road construction. I agree with Senator Barwell that if the Commonwealth Government can constitutionally assist them in roadmaking, there is nothing to prevent it rendering financial assistance in the matter of educational facilities. The schools in Victoria, for instance, are overcrowded, and that is true, also, I daresay of other States.

If the Government can constitutionally assist the State Governments in this direction, it can aid them in that and many others. This Government has set out on the road to unification, and if its political life is sufficiently long, it will, undoubtedly, reach its objective.

– Under this bill the Commonwealth is, in no sense, obtruding itself into the matter of road construction, but merely proposes to advance certain money to the States for the purpose of road construction, and to control that expenditure in a certain way. The bill of 1925, however, contained no reference to co-operation with the States, and. in that respect, the present measure distinctly differs from it. The 1925 bill consisted of roads legislation h” the Commonwealth Parliament, but this is a bill for the purpose of appropriating moneys to be handed over to the States on certain conditions which are laid down in the agreement contained in the schedule to the bill. It needs no stretch of imagination to reconcile the position under this measure with the constitutional powers of £he Commonwealth, and to show that the power sought to be exercised is constitutional. Apart altogether from the provisions of section 96 of the Constitution, there is a considerable . body of public opinion in this country that holds that the original proposals of the Commonwealth were constitutional on the broad ground that the Government was only appropriating moneys to be spent in a specific way. I know of nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Commonwealth from appropriating moneys for the purpose of building roads. We have been told that the States, not the Commonwealth, are responsible for road construction, but I point out that, in the United States of America, Federal grants for that purpose have been made for a considerable time. It is competent, I maintain, on broad grounds, for this Parliament to appropriate money for this and other purposes. Undoubtedly, this Bill is constitutional, because of the provisions of section 96.

Senator Grant:

– Do the Federal authorities in the United States of America make the roads?

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– I understand not. The work is done on lines similar to those laid down in the bill under consideration. Section 96 provides: -

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the- Commonwealth, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

An eminent constitutional authority - Quick and Garran - dealing with that section, points out that the language employed is of the widest character. It states : -

Even without the express mention of terms and conditions, the Parliament, as the party in whose discretion it is to either grant or refuse assistance, would have been able to make its own terms. But though apparently superfluous, the words are not really so. They help to place beyond doubt the intention of the section, and make it clear that the discretion of the Parliament is absolute, and that no duty is imposed upon it of giving assistance without demur and without enquiry, whenever assistance may be asked. The section is not intended to diminish the responsibility of State Treasurers, or to introduce a regular system of grants in aid. Its object is to strengthen the financial position of the Commonwealth in view of possible contingencies, by affording an escape from any excessive rigidity of the financial clauses. It is for use as a safety-valve, not as an open vent; and it does not contemplate financial difficulties, any more than a safety-valve contemplates explosions.

It has been contended this evening that before section 96 can operate there must be some approach on the part of the States. With that statement I venture to disagree entirely. It is for the Commonwealth to say whether it thinks that States require assistance, for what purpose, and in what quarter. In the present case the Commonwealth Government has said to the States: “ We think you require assistance in the development of your roads.” What section of the community does not agree with that view of the Government? There is an express provision in the Constitution, it is true, in relation to railways, but not in regard to roads, and that fact may be used as an argument against me. But throughout the Constitution we find that this assistance is always to be given with the consent of the States. Paragraph xxxiv of section 51, refers to “Railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State.” It is clear that under an agreement such as that contained in the schedule to the bill, it would be possible, with the consent of a State, for the Commonwealth to agree to construct a railway in that State, and I believe that at the present moment the construction of a railway is about to proceed in my own State under that very power. How does that power differ from that now to be exercised under this bill in regard to roads? Everybody agrees that they are absolutely necessary. This Government says to the States :. “ We think that your roads, which are a national necessity, are insufficient, and we shall endeavour to help you.” This power does not necessarily connote that the States must come cap in hand asking for financial assistance from the Commonwealth. It indicates to me that the Federal Government may say to the States : “ We think that you require a scheme of national development in reference to your roads.” So far from the States being forced into acceptance of the agreement, they are at liberty to refuse to accept it. I cannot conceive why the State of New South Wales has refused to enter into the proposed agreement, and has fought it all along. It i3 not for us to discuss when or how the money will be obtained, but I venture to say that we should not have heard a word as to the constitutionality of the measure if the proposal was that the money should be granted out of surplus revenue, or a windfall that the Government had received. When on the hustings I stated that I was wholeheartedly in favour of this proposal, which I regarded as a bold one. I knew then that it would involve extra taxation on the people of Australia. I do not think that the statement that the States are being forced into accepting this agreement can be justified; any State that so desires may stand out. There may be in connexion with these proposals certain inequalities, and even injustices; but I know of nothing which will do more to develop the country than will a proper system of road-construction and maintenance. The Commonwealth is setting its hand to a national scheme of development, the work being entrusted to the States, subject to some control by the Commonwealth Minister. That control the Commonwealth should retain. The money should not be handed over unreservedly to the States. An agreement has been entered into between the Commonwealth and certain States under which the Commonwealth advances certain moneys to the States. The power to do so is conferred upon the Commonwealth by section 96 of the Constitution, which also empowers the Commonwealth to lay down conditions governing the advance of money. Up to that point no constitutional objection can be raised to this legislation. The only possible objection on constitutional grounds to this legislation is that the final control rests with the Federal Minister for Works and Railways, who has the right to say whether a scheme submitted by a State shall be proceeded with. Subject only to that qualification, the .Commonwealth is competent to make advances to the States. It is possible that, when the AttorneyGeneral in 1925 expressed the opinion to which reference has been made to-night, he took too narrow a view of the powers of the Commonwealth in relation to the appropriation of moneys. This bill is a bill to appropriate money for a certain purpose. The Attorney-General has been assailed this evening for having changed his views; but the circumstances in connexion with this bill are different from those existing in 1925, when he expressed the views referred to. The preamble to the bill reads -

Whereas it is expedient to provide for financial assistance to the several States for the purpose of the construction and reconstruction of roads :

Be it therefore enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, for the purpose of appropriating the grant originated in the House of Representatives, as follows -

This, therefore, is an appropriation bill. The agreement begins -

Whereas the Commonwealth proposes to make available to the different States for the purpose of the construction and reconstruction of certain roads to be designated “ Federal Aid Roads “ the total sum of Two million pounds (£2,000,000) in each year ‘for a period of ten years

And whereas the Commonwealth proposes to distribute the said sum of £2,000,000 between the different States on the basis of three-fifths population and two-fifths area

– I have already expressed my view regarding the ambit of section 96 and the view held concerning it by the framers of the Constitution. I fail to see that the Commonwealth is intruding into the sphere of the States. Hitherto .we have regarded the making of roads, as we have the making of railways, as the function of the States. But the Constitution confers on the Commonwealth the power to construct railways with the consent of the States. 5126 Federal Aid [SENATE.] Roads Bill.

Senator Sir HENRY Barwell:

– Adopting that argument, full power over all railways would be given to the Commonwealth.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The High Court has plainly stated the limitations on that power, and they are very few indeed. I have no doubt that it would embrace the use of railways, quite apart from any special provision in’ the Constitution in that direction. Mr. Justice Barton, in the judgment which he delivered in the case of Pankhurst v. Kiernan, said -

If a measure were capable of contributing to the common defence, it was for the court to affirm that capability, and to go no further.

That is to say, if this matter ever came before that court, the only point which it would have to determine would be whether a road was capable of being used in connexion with defence. Having decided that in the affirmative, its duty would be not to inquire any further. That is made still clearer by the judgment of Chief Justice Griffith, who suggested that the test to be applied in all cases was - “Can the measure in question conduce to the efficiency of the forces of the Empire, or is the connexion of cause and effect between the measure and the desired efficiency so remote that the one cannot reasonably be regarded as affecting the other?

That case ‘ related to price fixing. The court held most decidedly that even price fixing was not so remote from the question of defence as to prevent its being considered part of it.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:

– Does the honorable senator contend that the Commonwealth Parliament can fix prices ?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– It can if it so chooses. The court has made it plain that if any matter can, in the remotest degree, be considered as affecting or likely to affect the efficiency of defence measures, the Commonwealth has power to legislate in regard to it. Roads clearly are connected with defence. Therefore, it would be no business of the court to inquire whether this or that road was strategically or tactically necessary for defence.

Senator Thompson:

– Any road would be conducive to military efficiency.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Yes. Mr. Justice Isaacs, in the case of Pankhurst v. Kiernan, refers to such a position, and, in quoting a decision of the Privy Council, said -

Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what national security requires.

The following is very important, and has a bearing on the view expressed by Senator Barwell : -

It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject in any court of law or otherwise discussed in public.

*Federal Aid* [10 August, 1926.] *Roads Bill.* 5129 would not look for any specific label declaring it to be a strategic act. **Mr. Justice** Higgins, who was of the same opinion as **Senator Barwell,** in a dissenting judgment in the same case, said - >In order that an act of the Commonwealth Parliament for the protection of private property may be valid as being within the defence power, it must at least appear in the act, either by express words' or by necessary intendment, that Parliament regards the law as necessary or expedient for the distinctive object of the defence of Australia. In his opinion, it would be merely necessary for the Commonwealth to say that roads were to be used for defence purposes, and it is obvious that the court would not question the constitutionality of the Government including the words to which reference has been made. The majority of the court, however, brushed aside as a technicality the opinion expressed in the dissenting judgment, and said, "Is this incidental to the defence power of the Commonwealth?" It came to the conclusion that it was. The court was then dealing with an action taken under the War Precautions Regulations forbidding interference with private property, and even in that instance it upheld the defence power of the Commonwealth. That being so, how can there be any doubt concerning the Commonwealth's power to spend money on the construction of roads? {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- Could the Commonwealth assist the States to build roads for developmental purposes through sparselysettled country, which would assist agricultural production-- {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator ELLIOTT: -- Yes; those roads could be used for the transportof troops and irrespective of the place at which such roads commenced and terminated, they would be of advantage for military purposes. If they ran from the Mallee they would be of use to transport grain and other supplies to the troops. If they led to a port they could be used to repel an invader. Obviously, the court could not set itself up as technical advisers; that is the responsibility of the Government. All the court is concerned with is whether roads can be used as an aid to defence. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- The Commonwealth could say that any road was for defence purposes. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator ELLIOTT: -- Yes ; so long as it has said that the roads were for such purpose, the court would not interfere. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- If there is any power it attaches itself. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator ELLIOTT: -- Yes. The subject of roads is so inextricably inter-relatad with that of defence that I cannot see how the court could possibly take any other view than that I have expressed. Clause 5 of the agreement provides for the construction of roads as follows: - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Main roads which open up and develop new country; 1. Trunk roads between important towns ; and 2. Arterial roads to carry the concentrated traffic from developmental, main, trunk, and other roads. According to the general acceptance of the term, they are all main roads, although classified under three distinct headings. The Commonwealth Minister for Works and Railways will have power to see that the money is properly expended. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by **Senator McLachlan,** and even if the roads to be constructed were not to be used for defence purposes, it is competent for the Commonwealth, under section 96 of the Constitution, to make financial grants to the States. I have, therefore, much pleasure in supporting the bill. {: #subdebate-13-0-s10 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE:
South Australia -- It would appear that there is a difference of opinion between the members of the legal profession in this Chamber concerning the constitutionality of this bill. They remind me of the man who always travelled in a coach instead of a railway train, and who said, " If you meet with an accident when travelling in a train, where are you? But if you are. travelling in a coach and the wheel comes off, there you are." That is the stage we have reached. **Senator McLachlan** has said that the Government can constitutionally proceed with this measure, and **Senator Barwell** has stated that, as the bill is unconstitutional, it should be dropped. I am not concerned with its constitutionality, but I should like to know if the Government is doing something which is morally right. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- That is a point with which the lawyers are not concerned. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- No; but it is of great importance to the people. In my 5130 *Federal Aid* [SENATE.] *Roads Bill.* opinion, the action of the Government is morally wrong, and, therefore, should not be legalized. Parliament has no right to force upon the States something which they have declared they do not. want. **Senator McLachlan** said that the South Australian Government has made a very poor attempt to carry out a progressive roads policy; but, in fairness to that State, he should have mentioned that a tax was imposed by the South Australian Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue for road construction, and as it had only been in operation a short time the Government of that State should not be charged with inactivity. The South Australian Government was carrying out a satisfactory roads policy when the Commonwealth Government said that if it persisted with its petrol consumption tax, legal action would be taken, and a writ has now been issued by the Commonwealth against it. The Commonwealth Government is now saying to South Australia, and to certain other States, " Here is our policy, you have to accept it whether you like it or not." If the scheme is not accepted by the States which have declined to sign the agreement, I understand the money to be allocated to them will be placed to their credit in a trust fund until they are forced to use it. That is morally wrong. This Government has set up a dictatorship. Why should it force upon a State Government a scheme that is not wanted ? "Under the agreement, it will not be possible to spend any portion of the money upon feeders for main roads. The Commonwealth Government will determine where and how the money shall be spent. The making of roads is a State function, and I submit that the State authorities are the only competent judges of what are the most urgent proposals. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator Elliott: -- This bill will not prevent district councils from' constructing the less important roads. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- The conditions attached to previous grants prevented Tasmania from using money allocated to that State on roads which it considered most urgently needed attention. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- The Labour Government " mopped " up the money pretty quickly in Queensland, and it wants more of it. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- The fact that Queensland has accepted this proposal is no reason why other States should have it forced upon them. But they will be . obliged to come in because the money will be collected and placed to their credit in a trust fund. **Senator Elliott** stated that he had advocated this scheme from every platform during his election campaign. I do not doubt the honorable gentleman, but I am sure that neither he nor the Prime Minister indicated the means by which the necessary revenue would be raised. The Government should hand the money over to the States, and allow them to expend it on roads which, in their opinion, most urgently need construction. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- Under this scheme, suggestions as to the roads to be constructed will come from the States. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- My point is that the South Australian Government does not approve of the agreement. It considers it has a better policy for road development in that State. I agree with the general principle of the bill, but the agreement should not be forced on States that do not approve of it. It is sound policy that the people who use the roads should pay for them; but the States should have the right to determine which roads shall be constructed. It would have been better if the Government had allowed South Australia and Western Australia to work out their own destinies in connexion with this roads policy. {: #subdebate-13-0-s11 .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania -- I think we are all agreed that better roads are a pressing need. In my State, we have built a considerable length of light roads out of loan moneys, and we are now facing a huge interest bill on that expenditure. Unfortunately, we are unable to maintain our roads efficiently for modern traffic. Methods of transport have entirely changed since most of our roads were constructed. Roads 12 feet wide and with 9 inches of metal were good enough for the class of traffic that went over them several years ago; but with the improvement in road transport systems, it is necessary now to have wider and more expensive highways. When the Commonwealth scheme was announced, I welcomed it. I understand now, from a reply given by the Minister to a question which I asked, that the Government will allow Tasmania to spend 75 per cent. of its allocation in reconstruction of existing roads. *Federal Aid* [10 August, 1926.] *Roads Bill.* 5131 {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The bill provides that 75 per cent. of the amount allocated may be utilized in the reconditioning of roads. {: #subdebate-13-0-s12 .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES: -- I like the word " reconditioning " better than " reconstruction," and I hope that I am right in assuming that the Government will interpret the act sympathetically as far as Tasmania is concerned, because we have spent a big proportion of our revenue on road construction, and the reconditioning of existing highways is more important than the construction of new roads.I thought, when the bill was introduced, accompanied by a tax. that the money might reasonably have been obtained from duties on some other commodities, so that the motor users in common with the rest of the community could pay their share of the cost. The general taxpayer in Tasmania - I do not know what the position is in the other. States - pays over £250,000 in interest on loan money that has been spent on roads. {: .speaker-K1P} ##### Senator Sir Henry Barwell: -- What about the owners of other vehicles that use the roads? {: .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES: -- Farmers in Tasmania pay what is known as a road rate which easily covers all the damage they do. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- Is that a wheel tax? {: .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES: -- No; a straight-out road rate, ranging from 1s. 3d. to1s. 6d. in the £1. This would equal in many cases1s. to 2s. per ton on the produce that they cart over the roads. The farmers, in this way, contribute a big share of the cost of road maintenance. I do not like the petrol tax, but since I am anxious to see £100,000 come to Tasmania every year, I intend to support the bill, and let the tax take care of itself, though I would like to see the money raised in some other way. The provision in the bill that 75 per cent. of the money allocated to Tasmania may be expended on reconditioning of roads removes a substantial grievance which we had, because, as I have said, it is essential for Tasmania to spend a substantial sum on existing roads. I reiterate that it would be better if, instead of imposing conditions as to the manner in which the money shall be spent, the Government would hand it over to the State authorities and throw upon them the responsibility for spending it in the right places. Under this scheme we shall have dual responsibility, and experience has taught us that where responsibility is divided it is impossible to sheet home blame if the money is not expended to the best advantage. It will be possible for the State authorities to say that it was a Federal responsibility, and the Federal authorities will have a good answer. They will be able to say that the State Governments must have approved 'of certain schemes, or else the money would never have been spent upon them. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The State Governments have to find part of the money, I remind the honorable senator. {: .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES: -- I am aware of that, but we all know that mistakes occur under any system of dual responsibility. I have seen money spent in the wrong places, but I have been unable to interfere. I know there is a tendency in the Federal Parliament to say that, as the Commonwealth is providing the money, the Government should have some control over its expenditure, but I submit that as it will be impossible to have a common roads scheme for the whole of the Commonwealth it would be better to hand the money over to the State authorities, and make them entirely responsible for its economical expenditure on road schemes within their respective spheres. Another provision which I do not care for in the agreement is the clause which states that municipalities will not be compelled to find more than 50 per cent. of the money to be raised by a State Government. I am afraid that the clause will be interpreted in some localities as meaning that the municipalities should find half the money; but in my opinion they have plenty of work to do in looking after the by-roads, and should not be expected to provide any portion of the funds to be made available under the scheme. I hope that that clause will be eliminated. Controversy has arisen over the fact that city roads will not be improved under this bill. While I should not vote for. a reduction of the amount to be allocated for country roads in order to assist the cities, I should support a special grant, if the Government could see its way clear to make it, to those cities that feel aggrieved. The scheme is capable of improvement, but I welcome it most heartily. Evidently a great deal of thought has been given to it, and I consider that the proposed expenditure will prove one of the greatest boons that Australia has ever enjoyed. Road engineers differ on the methods of construction, but all are agreed that the more money available for road construction the better the roads will be. The proposed tax should not fall heavily on the people. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Bruce)** has declared that the tax will not be passed on to them ; but, even if that were done, the measure would still be beneficial. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Does the honorable senator know one case in which an additional Customs duty has not been passed on? {: .speaker-KOF} ##### Senator J B HAYES: -- The extra duty on tires was operative on the 9th July, but I purchased tires after that date at the old price. In that case, the extra duty had not been passed on to the public. I believe that the Australian tire companies promised that the tax on tires would not be passed on, and that owing to the increased demand for their products that would result from the proposal of the Government they even hoped to reduce prices. The benefits that the bill will confer will more than outweigh any disadvantage due to the tax on petrol. {: #subdebate-13-0-s13 .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH:
South Australia -- I regret that a bill of such importance as this does not bear the imprimatur of the whole of the States. Three of them favour it, but the three that are opposed to it contain threefourths of the population of Australia. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator Elliott: -- Why say three States are opposed to it? {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- Victoria we cau say is opposed to it, since the State Government, which represents the people of Victoria, has declared against it. Similarly, the people of South Australia and New South Wales are opposed to the measure. Although State Governments representing three-fourths of the population of the Commonwealth do not want the bill, this Government holds a revolver at the heads of those States, telling them that, whether they accept the measure or not, the tax will be collected from them. South Australia, I suppose, has more motor cars per head of the population than any other State ; but while Western Australia has £336,000 allocated to it, my State will receive a little less than £200,000. Naturally the people of South Australia will want to know why those who use petrol on the roads, and are to be specially taxed, should not be benefited in proportion to their numerical strength. I venture to predict that the bill, which will, no doubt, be passed, will result in endless litigation. The States that oppose it are almost certain to apply to the courts for injunctions restraining the Federal Government from collecting the petrol tax. If the Commonwealth Government had approached the States in a reasonable manner, possibly they would have accepted the scheme. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- It is difficult to persuade .all the States to accept any proposal. {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -A compromise could probably have been arrived at, but the Government in its usual dictatorial manner attempted to force the States to accept the scheme. Speaking on the bill of 1925, the Attorney-General **(Mr. Latham),** who was then a private member, said - >I venture to assert, although I know it will be unpopular to do so, that in passing legislation of this description we are not acting constitutionally. This Parliament has no power to legislate for main roads. . . . The Commonwealth Government has no power to raise a finger to construct main roads. It is only because the Federal Government has more money that it knows how to spend that these grants have been made. If- we were to reduce Commonwealthtaxation, and to confine ourselves to our proper functions, the States would find it easier to raise the money required for their roads. At that time the Attorney-General expressed an independent opinion, but now he is a member of the Government. I propose to quote the opinion of **Mr. F.** V. Smith, K.C., of Adelaide, who is an authority on constitutional law. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Is he not a criminal lawyer ? {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- He is accepted in South Australia as possibly the greatest constitutional authority in that State. Referring to the present bill, he said - >The effect of the legislation in question is specifically to appropriate moneys to the purposes of constructing new main roads and reconditioning or strengthening existing main roads. It contemplates a complete control in the execution and choice of works by the Commonwealth in all respects other than the subordinate executive part, which is left to the States, which have no further or other control than, if tenders having been let for the works, they became the successful tenderers for the respective works. A perusal of "The Commonwealth Government's Hoad Proposals," which contain details of the scheme, satisfied me that the Commonwealth Government are embarking upon a system of roadmaking, using the States as agents for the execution of the programme. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- Was not **Mr. Smith** briefed by the South Australian Government ? {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- It asked him for his views, and I accept them as his honest opinion. **Mr. Smith,** further, stated - >In my opinion, the Commonwealth Government have no power to appropriate money for expenditure outside the Federal legislative area. I know of no decision which definitely establishes this view, but it seems to be the the only one compatible with the general scope of the Constitution, and particularly with the preservation of the residuary powers of the States. Chapter IV. of the Constitution, sub tit. " Finance and Trade," passim, clearly indicates the limits of the Commonwealth power of expenditure. > >Section 81 provides that all revenue or money raised or received by the Executive Government shall form one consolidated revenue fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by the Constitution. > >This provision connotes two things: - (1) The appropriation is to be for the purposes pf the Commonwealth. In my opinion, this confines and limits the objects of appropriation to those which can be lawfully administered by the Commonwealth. (2) Given valid objects of appropriation the manner of appropriation is restricted to that authorized by the Constitution, that is to say, in conformity with sections 53-57 of the Constitution dealing with the rights and privileges of the two Houses *inter se* with regard to money Bills. And see also sections 83, 87, 89, and 93. > >It follows, therefore, that the Main Roads Development Act 1923-1925, requires for its support that the subject with which it deals must fall within the subjects allotted to the legislative power of the Commonwealth. If I am right as to this there are, as it seems to me, only two powers to which the Act could possibly, by any sort of argument, be referred.. The first of these is the trade and commerce power, s. 51 (pi., 1) and s. 51 (pi. vi.), military defence. As to the trade and commerce power, I think this affords no support to the statute, for it fails to take notice of the necessity for roads of an interstate character, and deals generally with intra-state roads (sections 8 and 9 of the Main Roads Development Act 1923; sections 6 and 7 of the Main Roads Development Act 1925), nor does it limit its application to roads useful to interstate trade. See also regulations 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Statutory Rules, 1923, No. 104)'. > >Similarly with regard to military defence the Act and the regulations ignore - indeed, negative - t.lip factor of utility for defence purposes. The regulations clearly disclose the plan of the > >Commonwealth Government, at least in part, to open up and develop new country by means and with the aid of the statute (see regulation 4, Statutory Rules 1923, No. 104). I do not see, therefore, how it is possible to defend the Act either by reference to the trade and commerce power or to the military defence power. But I should say that if the Act is to be defended, the Commonwealth Government will rely upon section 96 of the Constitution. This provides that during a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth, and thereafter until Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. > >In my opinion, this provision does not apply to and cannot be used to support the Act, for the following reasons: - (1) The scheme contemplated by the Act is not intended as " financial assistance " to the States as such. It embodies the Commonwealth's own policy, and is thrust upon the States against their will. Section 96 contemplates a State in need of and willing to accept " the financial assistance." If and so far as it does yield financial assistance to the States, this is merely incidental to the main purpose of the Act. (2) The section cannot be used, alio *intuitu,* so as to permit the Commonwealth to encroach upon the powers- left to the State. And if the course pursued can be justified as regards roadmaking, .it is not easy to see where the line can be drawn beyond which the Commonwealth may not transgress. It may, e.g., invade the field of education, housing, agricultural settlement, or any other purely State topic under cover of "financial assistance." (3) It may be said that the financial assistance may be refused; that its acceptance only requires the voluntary assent of the States. But this is more plausible than sound, since the money to be raised to administer the scheme is drawn by the Commonwealth from all the people of the various States, so that any State which refused the " financial assistance " would still be bound to yield in taxation sums of money to be spent in other States which accepted the proposals. The scheme, therefore, is a mere simulacrum of voluntary agreement so far as the individual States are concerned. (4) Moreover, the scheme shows that the expenditure of the money is irrespective of the financial needs of the various States. Its allocation follows a stereotyped formula, and is distributable among all the States whether necessitous or otherwise. In short, it is a device to execute works outside the ambit of Federal power by the agency of the States, who have no voice in the application of the " financial assistance " except as an echo of the Federal command. (5) Lastly, the terms and conditions upon which the financial assistance is provided are those which " Parliament thinks fit " to exact. No doubt Parliament may delegate its powers to a Minister in an appropriate case and where no contrary intention appears. *(Baxter* versus *Ah Way,* 8 C.L.R., p. 26). But I am disposed to think that on the true construction of this section the terms and conditions are those which Parliament itself declares, and not such as may be left to the discretion of the Minister. 5134 *Federal Aid* . [SENATE.] *Roads Bill.* > >I am accordingly of opinion that the Main Roads Development Act 1923-1025 is *ultra vires.* In my opinion, a suit may be instituted by the State of South Australia for appropriate declarations, challenging the Act and the appropriations made under it, and for an injunction forbidding the appropriations and their application to the disclosed object. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Does the honorable senator think that, in the event of litigation, **Mr. Smith,** K.C., would be prepared to accept a brief from the Commonwealth Government to prove that the legislation is constitutional? {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- I do not know; but I am of the opinion that members of the legal profession are at all times prepared to plead in the cause of justice. I understand that they take an oath to that effect when they are admitted to the Bar. If the South Australian Government desires to retain **Mr. Smith-** {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I was referring to the Commonwealth Government. ' {: #subdebate-13-0-s14 .speaker-JXV} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Newlands: -- I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the bill. {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- The Minister in charge of the bill could, no doubt, answer the honorable senator's question by communicating with **Mr. Smith.** {: #subdebate-13-0-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The honorable senator's, remarks are not relevant to the bill. {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- The distinguished King's Counsel, **Mr. Smith-** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- Should I be in order, **Mr. President** in saying that, in view of the opinion expressed by eminent counsel, including the AttorneyGeneral, **Mr. F.** V. Smith, K.C., and leading legal authorities in Victoria, I consider this bill to be *ultra vires ?* Three of the States, for various reasons, have rejected the agreement. The Victorian Government has done so on the ground that it considers that the money should be spent in the State in which it is collected. In South Australia, where, under a Labour Government, the people are so prosperous that the number of motor cars in proportion to the population is greater than in any other State, the reason is much the same. The Government of South Australia feels that it should not be called upon to build roads in Western Australia and Queensland, which are reputed to -be richer States. South Australia, being well governed {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- Does the honorable senator imply that Queensland is badly governed ? {: .speaker-KTH} ##### Senator McHUGH: -- No; it is well governed. I can understand the attitude of an honorable member in another place, who said that he was prepared to accept the grant for his State with both hands. That honorable member came from Western Australia, which State, under these proposals, will be treated better than South Australia. I am here in the interests of South Australia, and I object to my State being called upon to contribute to the cost of roads in other States. Some of the States will not accept these proposals. Bad feeling will exist between at least three of the States and the Commonwealth. Debate (on motion by **Senator Thompson)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 5134 {:#debate-14} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) Bill received from the House of Representatives. {: #debate-14-s0 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Western Australia · NAT .- 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. Honorable senators must not take the motion as meaning that it is intended to have an all-night sitting. I have moved it to enable the measure to be proceeded with without any delay. {: #debate-14-s1 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I should like to have the assurance of the Leader of the Senate that it is not intended to go right through with the bill to-night. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Not if it means sitting beyond 11 o'clock. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The debate on another measure has been adjourned. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- It will be resumed. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Is it intended to put the Federal Aid Roads Bill right through to-night? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- If possible. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Accepting the assurance of the right honorable gentleman, I shall not object to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill (on motion by **Senator Crawford')** read a first time. *Federal Aid* [10 August, 1926.] *Roads Bill.* 5135 {: .page-start } page 5135 {:#debate-15} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-15-0} #### HOUR OF MEETING Motion (by **Senator Pearce)** proposed - >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow. {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- Why should the Senate meet at 11 o'clock to-morrow? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- To enable us to finish the business. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The noticepaper has upon it only the Federal Aid Roads Bill, and that which has just been received from the House of Representatives. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- We shall also have to consider the Cotton Bounty Bill and the Estimates. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The passage of this motion will not prevent an all-night sitting. Honorable senators ought to have been advised earlier that they were to be called together at 11 a.m. to-morrow. If another place were waiting for us to complete certain measures I could understand the necessity for an earlier meeting than usual. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The other House met at 11 o'clock this morning, and will meet at the same hour tomorrow morning. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- If we met at the usual hour to-morrow afternoon we could keep pace with the other House, and dispose of all the business that is sent to us. I shall not agree to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 5135 {:#debate-16} ### FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL {:#subdebate-16-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed. {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland -- I am not particularly concerned with the legal aspect of this question, to which so much attention was paid by **Senator Barwell,** who, I think, was effectively answered by **Senator McLachlan.** As a layman, I consider that section 96 of the Constitution meets all objections on the grounds of unconstitutionality. I have had sufficient commercial experience to know that lawyers frequently differ and dependence cannot be placed on any opinion that they give. I rose particularly to say that as far back as March last, I received from motor users in Queensland a number of requests to which I sympathetically replied. I was urged by them to believe that the whole of the cost of this scheme would be borne by the motor users of Australia. Since then I have been subjected to a continuous stream of correspondence, which in the last few days has culminated in protests from all sorts of bodies. I have received telegrams and letters from personal friends, and from institutions with which I have been connected for many years. They have a very healthly fear that this will impose a tremendous tax upon those who use motors. If my friends had had the advantage of having the position explained to them as clearly as it has been explained to us, I feel sure that they would not urge me to protest against this measure. Motor users will have to bear only a portion of the tax. It is claimed that the owners of other vehicles should be called upon to provide a percentage of the amount that the Government requires. Unfortunately this Government cannot enter that arena, because it would undoubtedly be an invasion of State rights. It proposes to use the only avenue that is open to it, namely, that offered by the imposition of a duty. The acceptance of the agreement by the Queensland Government induces me to give the measure the support that it ought to have. That State especially is crying out for good roads. I have no doubt that at a later period the States which are now standing out will be pleased to come intothe scheme. I do not anticipate the litigation of which **Senator McHugh** appears to be so afraid. I am not surprised at the attitude which is being adopted by the Government of New South Wales, because this Government is anathema to **Mr. Lang** and his followers, and they would not accept any proposal that it advanced. I am pleased to find Victorian senators supporting the bill, and I am sure that eventually this State will accept the agreement. There is no occasion for the strong protests that have been made by the oil companies. They will derive an advantage from a larger consumption of petrol when an improvement in the quality of the roads brings about a greater volume of motor traffic. They will be justified in refraining from passing on the extra 2d. per gallon. **Senator Payne,** by interjection, said that these duties" are always passed on. On occasions they are not. It would be wise for the oil companies to bear the extra cost. Even if the consumers of petrol are asked to pay a higher price, I" am. assured by those who are qualified to express an opinion that good roads will enable them to effect a saving on tires, and in other directions which will more than cover the extra cost of petrol. The proposal is in the interests of motor users, the oil companies, and the nation in particular. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the bill. {: #subdebate-16-0-s1 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania . - There can be no difference of opinion concerning the urgent necessity for a progressive roads policy for the Commonwealth. Australia cannot be developed without good roads." If we fail in that respect we shall be unable to keep pace with other countries which have given greater attention to the question of roads construction. We have also to recognize the fact that motor transport, which is essential for the proper development of any country, has not only come to stay, but is rapidly increasing. The agreement contains provisions which, in my opinion, are grossly unfair. I do not know whether I shall be in order, **Mr. President,** in referring to the method by which the money is to be raised to carry out this project. {: #subdebate-16-0-s2 .speaker-JXV} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Newlands: -- The honorable senator is entitled to refer only incidentally to that aspect of the question. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- When the Main Roads Development Bill was before the Senate last year, £1,750,000, all of which came out of the genera) revenue, had been provided by the Federal Parliament for the inauguration of a roads scheme. That was contributed by the whole of the people, and I cannot understand why more extended reference has not been made to the injustice of asking a section of the people, as is now proposed, to contribute the whole of the money required to carry out a national roads scheme. {: #subdebate-16-0-s3 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT -- A contribution of £500,000 per annum is' to be made from the general revenue. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Yes; but £1,500,000 will have to be found by a section of the people to provide works of general utility. After giving the activities of this and preceding Governments the closest attention I cannot discover one instance in which the Government has expended in the interests of the whole people, public funds which have been contributed by only one section. In perusing the bill I find that on certain roads essential to the community not one penny will be spent, although those who use them will have to contribute the money to be raised by the imposition of an additional duty on petrol. It would be impossible to mention any city in Australia which has not arterial roads leading to it that are of the utmost importance to those living outside. There are a number of motorists, commercial and otherwise, whose business never takes them beyond the confines of the cities, but who will have to make a heavy contribution towards this fund, and who will not benefit in the slightest degree. I have received two letters in connexion with this matter. One is from the Mayor of Hobart, and reads - >I have received a letter from the honorary secretary of the Melbourne Metropolitan Conference **(Mr. W. R. Butcher, Town Clerk, Collingwood)** on the Federal Roads Grant, drawing attention to the fact that under the terms of the Federal grant all towns and cities whose population exceeds 5,000 are excluded entirely from the operations and benefits of the grant, and asking my council to cooperate in endeavouring to have this remedied. I must say that it appears to me extremely unfair that in cases such as Hobart, where at least three of our streets are practically main roads, we should not derive some advantage from the proposed tax, and I would be very glad if you will be good enough to give the matter your special attention and endeavour to obtain for us a reasonable amount of benefit from the grant. . . . I have also received the following communication from the town clerk of the city of Launceston - _ It has been brought under the notice of the council that, under the terms of the Federal roads grant all towns and cities whose population exceeds 5,000 are excluded entirely from the provisions and benefits of the grant, despite the fact that the motorists of the above-mentioned towns and cities will contribute 70 per cent, of the revenue devoted to the grant. This will, doubtless, appeal to you as being a most inequitable arrangement, particularly as the bulk of the revenue to be devoted to the construction of country main roads is to be derived from additional duties on petrol, tires, and chassis from the motorists, of whom the abovementioned percentage operate constantly on metropolitan roads. As taxation implies service, it will be readily admitted that it would be sound in principle to give such service in the shape of good roads to those motorists who supply the revenue for roads, yet the claims of the city motorists have been entirely ignored. . . . It appears to me that the representatives of these councils have made out a good case for special consideration if this project is to be carried out. When a member of the Tasmanian Parliament, I took a great interest in Tasmania's development, and since I have been a member of the Federal Parliament, in the development of the whole Commonwealth. No one has been more energetic and enthusiastic in advocating good roads than I have been, but, although I wish this scheme to become operative, I am entirely opposed to the method by which the money is to be raised. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- In what way does the honorable senator suggest the money should be raised ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- It should come out of the general revenue, and if sufficient is not available from .that source, a loan should be raised for the purpose. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator Findley: -- - Does the honorable senator think that the Commonwealth Government should interest itself in road construction ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Yes, because it is more imperative in the interests of the Empire than it has ever been to proceed with a progressive developmental policy, and no State is at present sufficiently strong financially to incur the expenditure inseparable from carrying out a comprehensive roads policy. Notwithstanding all that has been said concerning the unconstitutionality of this measure, ' federation was established in the interests of the whole of Australia, and the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth can render financial assistance to the States in order to ensure their development. My principal objection to the bill is that it is not fair to ask one section of the community to meet three-fourths of the expenditure involved. In order to raise sufficient money to cover the .cost of road maintenance, every State has found it necessary to impose a special tax on users of motor vehicles and almost every other vehicle. This direct tax, which is fairly heavy, varies in amount, but, in addition, indirect taxation is imposed in the form of municipal rates, to which will have to be added the further tax which the Commonwealth authorities propose to levy. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Newlands: -- I direct the honorable senator's attention to the fact that there is nothing in the bill concerning the method by which the money to finance the scheme is to be raised. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I admit that; but I do not see how I can intelligently discuss the measure, which provides for the expenditure of a huge sum of money, without at the same time referring to the system under which it is proposed to raise that money. In view of the limitations imposed upon me, I shall conclude by repeating that I approve of the Federal authorities assisting the State Governments, but am strongly opposed to the method by which the money is to be collected. {: #subdebate-16-0-s4 .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator ANDREW:
Victoria . - I intend to support the second reading of this bill, as I believe it will assist the development of the Commonwealth. It is well known that the country districts cannot be properly developed under the present' system of road construction, as the local governing bodies have not sum'cient funds at their disposal to undertake extensive road-construction schemes. All their revenue is used in maintaining roads already constructed, and unless additional money is raised by way of loans, further construction is practically impossible. It was announced during the election campaign that if the Government were returned, it .would embark on a comprehensive roads scheme. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- But no mention was made of the imposition of an additional tax on petrol. {: .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator ANDREW: -- That phase of the question cannot be discussed on this bill, but may be considered when the measure under which the additional rate is to be imposed is before the Senate. A good deal has been said concerning the constitutionality of the Government's proposal to make grants to the States for road construction purposes ; but, in my opinion, section 96 of the Constitution permits that to be done. Even legal authorities, however, differ on the point. I was chairman of a Court of Petty Sessions for about six years, and gave a number of decisions, only one of which was challenged. Honorable senators, I think, have been somewhat confused by the difference in the opinions of legal gentlemen as to the constitutionality of this bill. All I can say is that, if it is unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to spend public revenues on road construction, possibly the States will be asked to repay the ?1,750,000 which they have already received from the Commonwealth Government for this purpose. I am afraid there will be very little chance of getting it. Roads are essential to the proper development of the Commonwealth. We have adopted the Government's migration proposals, and before long we shall be expecting a steady stream of migrants from the Mother Country. The other day I had a conversation with the head of the Salvation Army in Victoria on the subject. He told me- {: #subdebate-16-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- (Senator the Hon. J. Newlands) - I must ask the honorable gentleman not to discuss, in connexion with this bill, the migration proposals of the Government. {: .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator ANDREW: -- The State Governments will be required to submit a roads programme extending over five years. I am wondering if it will be possible to set aside some portion of the money for the construction of roads to open up new settlements. Unfortunately, the' cost of construction is increasing from year to year. The first contract I made with gas companies for tar was on the basis of from 5d. to 6d. a gallon. To-day the price is about ls.- 2d. a gallon. It is impossible for the States, unaided, to carry out -a great- roads construction programme. The agreement provides that towns with a population exceeding 5,000 shall not participate in money allocated under the agreement. This will operate unfairly in the cases of a large number of municipalities which have main roads running through their territories. For example, the main roads from Melbourne to Echuca, and from Melbourne to Mildura, pass through a number of towns with a population exceeding 5,000, so the provision limiting any expenditure under this agreement to main roads outside the boundaries of such towns will penalize the municipalities mentioned. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- Why should not Melbourne also participate in the grant? {: .speaker-JZW} ##### Senator ANDREW: -- I understand that municipalities in the metropolitan areas have made representations for an extra ?5,000,000 to meet their needs. No doubt that proposal will receive con sideration in due course. Exception has also been taken to the roads policy being administered by the Commonwealth Government. On this point I direct attention to the clause which states that the Ministers for Public Works in the various States, together with the Minister of State for the Commonwealth, shall . comprise a board which shall have the direction of policy. From what I know of State Ministers, I am satisfied that their presence on the board will materially influence its policy. It has also been objected that the allocation to some of the States will be less than the amount contributed by them under this scheme. Probably Victoria will suffer to the extent of ?1,000,000, but we should regard these proposals from a Federal stand-point. We should not forget that the Commonwealth has' contributed ?2,500,000 towards the cost of the river Murray . scheme, which will benefit primarily the States of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. Nor should we forget that in four year's the Commonwealth has assisted the iron and steel industry in New South Wales to the extent of ?667,331, and South Australia to the amount of ?245,000 in connexion with the wine bounty. We should discuss all proposals such as this in a purely Federal spirit. I agree with the principle of the bill. The method by which the money is to be raised will be dealt with in another measure. I support the bill because I believe it will play an important part in the development of Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Schedule. {: #subdebate-16-0-s6 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- I direct attention to clause 7 of the agreement in the schedule, which provides that, where a road passes through a town whose population does not exceed 5,000, it shall be constructed as if the town did not exist. Does this apply only to new townships? Many municipalities whose population exceeds 5,000 are responsible for the maintenance of main arterial roads over which a heavy volume of tourist traffic passes. Are they to be shut out? I have in mind such centres as Olaremont, Iremantle, and Subiaco, suburbs of Perth, as well as similar municipalities in the metropolitan areas of the other States. {: #subdebate-16-0-s7 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- The clause applies to every centre whether metropolitan or rural, and the governing factor is the number of its inhabitants. If there are 5,000, or more, no money can be contributed under this bill towards the cost of road construction in that centre, but if the population is under 5,000 a Commonwealth grant can be so applied. A desire has been expressed for certain amendments of the schedule, but I point out that it constitutes the agreement arrived at in conference with the States. If any amendment were made, the States as a whole would have to be consulted again; and since that would cause great delay, I suggest that the agreement should be not amended except for the gravest possible reason. {: #subdebate-16-0-s8 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- It now appears that the large centres of population will not benefit under the agreement. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- If they do not exceed 5,000 in population, they are included. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The Minister knows that between Perth and Fremantle are suburbs, the population of which is more than 5,000, which should be embraced in the scheme. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Western Australia has accepted, this agreement. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Such centres should receive consideration. I have no desire to delay the measure, but I ask that consideration of this clause be postponed. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- That would hang up the bill for months. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- In the meantime, the Minister could get into touch with the States. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The States that have accepted it have made no complaint regarding this provision. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I am under the impression that they do not appreciate its significance. Have the various State Governments had the agreement before them in the form in which it is now' presented to this committee? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Yes, word for word. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- For what period have they had it? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Ever since the conference. The schedule embodies the agree ment that has been signed by three State Governments, and they are now submitting it to their Parliaments for ratification. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The agreement was arrived at "after a most exhaustive discussion. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Do I understand that the Premiers of Western Australia, Tasmania, and Queensland have signed the agreement in this form ? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- If the Parliament of Western Australia decided, on looking at clause 7 of the agreement, to reject it, what would the position be? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The whole agreement would be rejected, so far as Western Australia was concerned. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I take it, then, that the agreement has been signed by three of the States, and that the responsibility now rests with the State Parliaments. {: #subdebate-16-0-s9 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- The clause embodies an important principle, and I consider it wrong to restrict the scheme to towns not exceeding a population of 5,000. As the population, of towns increases, there is greater concentration of traffic on the main roads running through them, and the local authorities are unable to cope with the problem of maintaining those roads. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- But a town with 5,000 inhabitants, or more, has greater taxing power than one with a smaller population. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Yes, but las the numbers increase, the rate of taxation per head becomes greater. The main road from Launceston to Hobart, as it approaches the capital city, passes through the suburban areas of Glenorchy, Derwent Park, Moonah, and Newtown, each of which has a population of over 5,000. Those towns are not financially strong enough to keep the main roads in good repair. A circular which has been sent to me states - >It is understood that some months ago a deputation consisting of representatives of metropolitan municipalities on the mainland requested the Federal Minister for Public Works to recommend that, in addition to the £20,000,000 grant for country roads, a special grant, spread over ten years, be made to assist towns and cities with populations exceeding 5,000 in the construction of their main arterial roads, which bear an enormous amount of foreign traffic. The Minister would give no decision, but referred the deputation to the Prime Minister, who promised to look into the papers on the matter and reply, hut to date he has not stated his intention. It would appear that this matter has been brought under the notice- of the Government, and I cannot understand why some provision of the nature requested has not been made. If towns and cities with populations exceeding 5,000 are excluded the scheme will break down, because when the municipal boundaries are reached the roads will be so bad that motorists and others will find their journey interrupted. The agreement ought to be referred back to the States which have' signed it with a request that they should accept an amendment in accordance with the suggestions that have been made to-night. **Senator** GRANT (New South Wales) [10. 58 J. - The agreement seems to have' been hurriedly drawn as the result of a nominal conference which merely gave perfunctory attention to the subject. It is clear from correspondence I have received that there is the strongest opposition to the proposals contained in the bill. The Commonwealth Government has decided, wrongly, I think, to engage in the business of roadmaking, and that no part of the money shall be expended in towns or cities having populations exceeding 5,000. Presumably, a road from Esperance to Port Lincoln via Eucla would fulfil the requirements of the bill. A few years ago the present Attorney-General said that the Commonwealth Government had no constitutional justification for spending millions of pounds upon the construction of roads. But if the Government will persist in raising revenue for this purpose, and handing it over to the States to spend, it will do well to realize that they have a knowledge of roadmaking, and should be permitted to expend the money in a way they consider best, subject, possibly, to the formal approval of the Federal Minister for Works. It would be in the interests of the recipients of this assistance, and of roadmaking generally, if this bill were postponed until we could learn more fully the views of the people directly concerned. There is no reason why this legislation should be hurriedly forced through Parliament merely because the Government has a majority supporting; it. {: #subdebate-16-0-s10 .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria . I do not think that sufficient time has been given to the consideration of this allimportant measure. The more I examine it, the less favorably I am disposed towards it. The principle it contains is unsound, and the scheme itself is unfederal in spirit, and does not meet with the approval of some of the States. {: #subdebate-16-0-s11 .speaker-K0S} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Plain:
VICTORIA -I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the schedule. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I intend to do so. Moreover, the bill does not meet with the approval of 'some of the principal municipalities in Victoria. At a very important conference of metropolitan municipalities held in Melbourne, the delegates pointed out how unfair is the proposal to exclude cities with a population of over 5,000 inhabitants. A circular which I have received from the Town Clerk of Collingwood says - >By direction of the chairman (Councillor A. J. Dunkin, Collingwood Council) of the conference of metropolitan municipalities .on main arterial road construction, I am desired to draw the attention of all Federal members of both Houses, representing towns and cities with populations exceeding 5,000,- to. the facts that under the terms of the Federal Government's scheme for main road construction all towns and cities with populations exceeding 5,000 have been excluded from the provisions and benefits of the £20,000,000 Federal grant for main roads. > >This will doubtless appeal to such members as being a most inequitable arrangement, particularly in view of the fact that the bulk of the revenue to he devoted to the construction of country main roads is to be derived through additional duties on petrol tires and chassis from the motorists of whom 70 per cent, operate constantly on metropolitan roads. As taxation implies service, it will be readily admitted that it would be sound in principle to give such service in the shape of good roads to those motorists who supply the revenue for roads. Yet the claims of the 70 per cent, mentioned have been entirely ignored. What answer can the Minister give? According to this circular, a deputation waited on the Prime Minister to ask for a grant of £5.000,000, but it was given no definite reply other than that its representations would receive consideration. This clause does not apply to the metropolitan district of Melbourne only, but to all cities with a population of over 5,000 persons. We must remember that motorists from all parts of the country visit the cities, and if damage is done to roads by motor traffic, these people from the country contribute to that damage. Yet, the bulk of the money, under these proposals, will he collected from the users of motor cars in the big cities of . the Commonwealth. The principle underlying these proposals is wrong. No one section of the community should be singled out to provide revenue for the making of roads and, at the same time, be precluded from participating in the grants that are made. No one would oppose a sound proposal for the construction of good roads. When the Government's roads policy was announced it was not understood that only a Bection of the road users would be taxed. . The Labour party believes in good roads; but it also believes that all the users of those roads . should . contribute towards their cost. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Is there anything in the schedule about money? {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- Good roads cannot be constructed without money. I am anxious to see good roads throughout Australia, but I submit that if the cost of such undertakings is to be borne by road users they should be paid for by all the persons who use them, and not by only a section of them. I do not think that those States to which . this scheme is unacceptable should be called upon to provide money for the construction of roads in other States. I know that the Government supporters are pledged to support, the measures introduced by the Government {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- On a point of order. I submit that the honorable senator is not dealing with the schedule, but is discussing the attitude adopted by honorable senators who support the Government. Are we to have a general discussion on the policy of the Government? The **CHAIRMAN (Senator Plain).I** have allowed the honorable senator considerable latitude. I ask him now to confine his remarks to the clause before the committee. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I appreciate the latitude that you have given me. {: #subdebate-16-0-s12 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable senator must not take advantage of it. {: .speaker-JYX} ##### Senator FINDLEY: -- I am the last to take advantage of the Ohair. At all times I endeavour to pay respect to the ooenpant of the chair, whoever he may be. There are many cities within the metropolitan area of Melbourne that hare grown considerably during recent years. A few years ago, Caulfield was not a city and its population was small. Now, it is a city with a population of considerably over 5,000 persons. Some of the roads ' in Caulfield are in bad order. More buildings have been erected in the city of Caulfield during the last few years than in any other municipality in Victoria, with the result that some of the roads have got into a state of great disrepair. It is well known also that some of the roads within the metropolitan area are so bad that children attending school are forced to walk through pools of water and slush, thereby contracting colds, which may lay the foundation for future ill health. Naturally, l am concerned about those municipalities whose population exceeds 5,000' persons. I can well understand the anxiety which the conference manifested. I do not desire to delay the passage of the bill, but I wish the Minister to make a definite - statement respecting the request of the representative gentlemen who waited on the Prime Minister recently that £5,000,000 should be spent within these municipalities. The **CHAIRMAN (Senator Plain).The** honorable senator has exhausted his time. Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided. AYES: 15 NOES: 7 Majority . . . . 8 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Schedule agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported, without amendment. Report adopted. Senate adjourned at 11.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 August 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260810_senate_10_114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 August 1926

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT AND MIGRATION COMMISSION

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Needham:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

NORTH AUSTRALIA COMMISSION

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator PEARCE:

PRINTING COMMITTEE

QUESTION

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DELEGATION TO UNITED STATES OP AMERICA

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

FOOT-ROT IN SHEEP

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

NAVAL TRAINEES

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

QUESTION

GRAFTON TO SOUTH BRISBANE RAILWAY

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

PAPERS

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCE

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator GRANT:

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

THIRD READING OF BILLS

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS, 1926-27

Senator THOMPSON:Queensland

Senator McHUGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator McHUGH:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Needham:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Needham:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Pearce:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Pearce:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator McHugh:

Senator OGDEN:

Senator Needham:

Senator OGDEN:

Senate
10 August 1926

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator ANDREW:
Victoria

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT