Senate
22 March 1927

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- MINISTERIAL CHANGES: HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP
QUESTION
- ANILINE DYES
PAPERS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- WIRELESS AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- WINE PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- ROYAL VISITORS
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1), 1927-28
LOAN BILL (No. 1)
NEW BUSINESS
- Suspension of Standing Order
DEFENCE BILL
STATES GRANTS BILL
- Third Reading
COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
- Additional Estimates of Expenditure
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1), 1927-28
- First Reading
PORT AUGUSTA-KALGOORLIE RAILWAY
- Dear Sir,
- Secondreading
- Schedule- -
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, MELBOURNE
HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1927-28
DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CHARGES BILL
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Healthof The President

The Deputy President (Senator Plain) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 789

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL CHANGES: HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Senate, is there any truth in the statements that have appeared in certain newspapers during the past day or two that material alterations are about to be made in the family circle; also, if it is true that Senator Pearce is to be appointed to the position of High Commissioner? If those statements are without foundation, when does the Government propose to make an announcement ?

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

– The Government hopes to be able to make a statement about the matter referred to by the honorable senator at a later date.

page 789

QUESTION

ANILINE DYES

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs if he is yet in a position to furnish replies to my questions concerning the importation of aniline dyes?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I regret that the information is not yet available.

Senator Guthrie:

– Is it likely to be available before. Parliament rises this week ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I can only say that I shall furnish the reply to the honorable senator at the very earliest opportunity.

page 789

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act - Report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ended 30th June, 1926.

Naval Defence Act - Regulations Amended -Statutory Rules 1927, No. 23.

Wireless Telegraphy Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1927, No. 24.

page 789

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Proposed Rate of1s. 3d.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Min ister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Federal Capital Commission intends to place a levy of1s. 3d. in the £1 on the unimproved capital value of all land held ‘by civil servants and others at Canberra?

Senator GLASGOW:
Minister of Home and Territories · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I have called for a report from the Federal Capital Commission upon the subject of rates, and hope to be in a position to make a statement to the Senate in regard thereto before Parliament rises.

page 789

QUESTION

WIRELESS AGREEMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Min ister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the agreement entered into by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited with the Commonwealth Government, will the Minister specify in detail the portions of the contract that Amalgamated Wreless (Australasia) Limited have notyet complied with?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The right honorable the Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

The beam stations for the English and Canadian services are not yet available for commercial traffic. The feeder stations to provide communicationbetween the capital cities and the beam station are not yet in operation. They will, of course, not be needed until the beam service is opened for commercial traffic.

page 789

QUESTION

WINE PRODUCTION

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

Is it correct that some of our largest wine-makers have sold their wine at1s. 6d. per gallon f.o.b.?
What proportion, approximately, of the exportable surplus last year was sold at this price?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The honorable the Minister for Markets and Migration has supplied the following answer : -

The information sought by the honorable senator is not in the possession of the department. So far as is known, such information can only he obtained from the various exporters concerned.

page 789

QUESTION

ROYAL VISITORS

“Renown’” not to Visit South Australia.

Senator CHAPMAN:

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

Will the Government continue to press for a visit of the Renown to South Australia, as the fraternizing of officers and men with the residents of South Australia would do much to cement the bonds of Imperial unity?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Strong representations have been made to the British Government in favour of the Renown paying a visit to Adelaide; but advice has been received from the Renown that it is much regretted that for naval reasons, and in view of considerable difficulties caused by change of programme, it is definitely impossible for the Renown to visit Adelaide.

page 790

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1), 1927-28

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

page 790

LOAN BILL (No. 1)

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

page 790

NEW BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Order

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

.- I move-

That standing order No. 68 be suspended up to and including the 25th March, 1927, for the purpose of enabling new business tobe commenced after half-past ten o’clock at night.

There is a general desire which I think is shared by all honorable senators that the Senate should terminate its sittings in Melbourne this week. To enable that to be done, it is necessary to suspend the standing order referred to, so that a number of small bills which are not of great consequence may be dealt with expeditiously. In the exchange of business between the two Houses certain of those measures might reach this chamber after half-past 10 o’clock. Unless we suspend this standing order, we shall not be able to deal with them. Honorable senators would then be called upon to reassemble for the purpose of passing the final, and usually the formal, stages of bills. The course now proposed is intended to meet the convenience of honorable senators as well as of the Government.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I realize the necessity for the motion, but I thought it as well to have an explanation from the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) as to why we should be asked to sacrifice private members’ business.

Senator Pearce:

– This motion will not interfere with private business.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is intended, as the Minister has stated, to facilitate the passage of certain Government measures so as to terminate the session this week. As I understand that many honorable senators have already made their arrangements, I do not propose to delay the motion. I presume that we shall not only end the sittings of the Commonwealth Parliament in Melbourne this week, but also that we shall give up our tenure of these premises at an early date.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– Since it is possible that the Senate may be asked to meet to-morrow morning at an early hour, I protest against any proposal to take new business after halfpast ten o’clock at night, when all respectable people should be thinking of making their way home. I do not mind an all-night sitting if the Leader of the Senate givesus ample opportunity to make the necessary arrangements. Most of us, as we grow older, are not partial to all-night sittings. It is becoming fashionable now to have theatre parties that begin close on midnight, and I understand that arrangements have been made in this city for all-night cafes; but I do not think that the example of a small section of the community, which might be called the smart set, should be followed by a seriously-minded Government such as this Administration is supposed to be. New business should not be taken after halfpast . ten o’clock at night, especially after an all-day sitting. I object to allday and all-night sittings.

Senator McLachlan:

– Perhaps the honorable senator objects to work in any circumstances.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I work as hard as any member of this chamber.

Senator Guthrie:

-Not between meals.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That comes very well from a gentleman who worked his passage so well as regards the Geelong woollen mills.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Plain).- Order !

Senator FINDLEY:

– I rose to enter my protest against the Government being allowed to take new business after half-past ten o’clock at night, if, in addition, we are to have all-day sittings. There is no justification for the course proposed by the Ministry. Many honorable senators have made certain arrangements. I do not wish to upset those arrangements; but neither do I want them to upset mine. I am not quite normal when I am in an abnormal atmosphere, such as that which prevails during long and continuous sittings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 791

DEFENCE BILL

Bill presented by Senator Elliott and read a first time.

page 791

STATES GRANTS BILL

In Committee (Re-committal) :

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Aus tralia

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted to follow clause 6 : - “ 6a. If no agreement is made in pursuance of the last preceding section and adopted by Parliamentbefore the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the Treasurer shall submit to Parliament a proposal that the Commonwealth shall take over from each State an amount of its public debt equal to the respective principal sum that would be represented by the respective proposed payment (as set out inthe schedule opposite the name of the State) if such respective proposed payment were applied in respect of such debt in payment of interest at current rates and a sinking fund of one per centum.”

Senator Givens:

– I rise to order. I submit that the proposed new clause is out of order because - (1) it is outside the scope of the bill; (2) it is irrelevant; (3) it could have no effect; and (4) it is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The effect of the proposed new clause is to give a direction to a future government that its treasurer shall submit certain proposals to Parliament. Clearly, then, it is out of order. I have had a fairly long experience in Parliament, and have had the opportunity and the occasion to study the constitutional practice of this and other legislatures. I have never seen in any act of any Parliament a provision containing a direction to a future government. Let us look for a moment at the bill itself. As its title makes clear, it is a States Grants

Bill. That is the form in which it has been passed by the committee. Is there anything in it which would justify our embodying an instruction to a future treasurer or government? The present Parliament has not, and cannot have, any control whatever over future governments or parliaments. They can act as they please, no matter what provisions we may place in this bill.. There is not in the amendment one word about grants. It is merely a direction to a future government, and, therefore, is outside the scope of the bill. I shall now deal with the second point, that the amendment is ir- relevant. I invite honorable senators to read clause6. It is as follows: -

Subject to the terms of any agreement made between the Commonwealth and all the States, and adopted by the Parliament, the Treasurer shall, during the financial year commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-seven, make payments to each State, in equal monthly instalments, to the amount specified in the schedule, opposite to the name of that State.

We have agreed to make certain payments to the States for one year only. The amendment does not refer to the making of grants to the States.

Senator McLachlan:

-In short, it would be an appropriate amendment to any proposal that might be brought down in the future.

Senator Givens:

– I do not profess to be a prophet, and cannot say what proposals are likely to be brought down in 1928 or any other year. Honorable senators are concerned only with the bill that is before them. Perhaps I had better quote the general practice with regard to amendments, according to the highest authority to which we can look. At pages 404 and 405 of the 13th Edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, the following appears: -

An amendment must be coherent, and consistent with the context of the bill.

The amendment is not consistent with the context of the bill, because the latter proposes to make grants to the States. I shall also endeavour to prove that it is not coherent -

When a proposed amendment has been so amended as to form an incoherent question, the chairman stated that, if no further amendment were proposed, he should proceed with the question which next arose upon the clause. Amendments cannot be moved which are based on schedules or other provisions, the terms of which have not been placed before the committee, or which are otherwise incomplete.

Senator Kingsmill has based his amendment upon a schedule that the committee has not considered. Continuing, May says -

Amendments are out of order if they are irrelevant to the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, or of the clause under consideration; governed by or dependent upon amendments already negatived; inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as agreed to by the committee; inconsistent with a decision to which the committee has come upon a former amendment; offered at a wrong place in the bill; or tendered to the committee in a spirit of mockery. An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of the bill, or of the clause under consideration, is out of order. Amendments have also been ruled out of order on the ground of vagueness, or because they were trifling. The chairman would decline to propose such amendments from the Chair. Amendments to a bill proposing that the address or resolution of one House of Parliament should affect the repeal of the bill have been ruled out of order as unconstitutional, while an amendment proposing that a bill relating to England alone should not come into force until a similar bill should have been passed for Scotland has been ruled to be irrelevant.

It will be seen that in that case the House of Commons took a very strong stand; it ruled out of order as irrelevant an amendment that at first glance would appear to be relevant. Another passage reads -

An amendment proposing that the provisions of a bill should be subject to a referendum has been ruled out of order. The Chairman also, in the case of an amendment offered to a bill that was limitedin scope to the repeal of a clause in a statute, ruled that the amendment was out of order, because its object was the continuance and the extension of the clause to be repealed.

Senator Givens:

– It is a States Grants Bill. The proposed clause is also entirely contrary to section 105 of the Constitution, which provides -

The Parliament may take over from the States their public debts, as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or a proportion thereof, according to the respective numbers of their people, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert, renew or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over, and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient, or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency, or the whole amount, shall be paid by the several States.

Bill reported without amendment; reports adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I hope honorable senators will now calmly think over what has been done. Even at this late hour the Government should beat a strategic retreat. There is no reason why a vote should now be taken on the third reading. That the Government has a majority does not necessarily mean that it is right. Notwithstanding the various technical points that have arisen during this debate, the question to be decided is whether the Commonwealth should deprive the States of certain sources of revenue which have been theirs for a number of years, and that only three month’s notice of its intention to do so should be given. By agreeing to the third reading of this bill the Senate will have constituted itself a court of summary jurisdiction. The authority of the Commonwealth is to be exercised, in what can only be described as a regrettable manner. The Government has stated arbitrarily that the States will receive compensation for the money taken from them; but that that will not be so has been made clear during this debate. The Government, even now, should stay its hand, and issue another invitation to the States to meet the Commonwealth in conference. The Prime Minister would then be in a position to say that although the Commonwealth Parliament desired the discontinuance of the per capita payments, it had stayed its hand pending a further conference to discuss the best means of compensating the States for the withdrawal of those payments. It has been argued that in proposing to vacate the field of taxation on the incomes of individuals the Treasurer is acting generously towards the States. That is not so, because the Commonwealth, by imposing a tax on incomes, is occupying a field of taxation which it ought not now to occupy. When direct taxation was imposed by the Commonwealth during the period of the Great War, it was distinctly stated that it was a war expediency. Nevertheless, succeeding Commonwealth governments have continued to impose it. To say now that by relinquishing its taxation on incomes to the extent of 40 per cent. the Commonwealth is compensating the States is wrong. I hope that there will be a majority of the Senate opposed to the third reading of this bill in order that the States may have a further period in which to submit alternative proposals.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I avail myself of this last opportunity to express my conviction that the Government is not justified in taking the action proposed in this measure. It has no authority from the people to introduce legislation of this kind. I go further, and say that had the people of Victoria, at the last election, known that such proposals would be brought forward they would have voted against the Government. In the Senate this question has been discussed in a cooler atmosphere than that which pervaded the last Federal election. At that time party feeling ran high; indeed, the atmosphere was somewhat electrical.

Hp, and that its responsibilities are becoming greater. That is true; and, being so, 1 cannot understand the proposal to abandon the land tax. The Government has been credited with generosity in having advanced sums to the States for certain specific purposes, such as the purchase of wire netting and the construction of roads. It has also expressed the intention to expend £20,000,000 upon a housing scheme. Its desire is to divorce the financial responsibilities of the States and the Commonwealth, and to place upon* the shoulders of the States certain obligations that it is now carrying. Why not be consistent, and allow the States to carry on their businesses in their own way ? What has the Commonwealth to do with wire netting, roads, ,and housing ? They are essentially matters of State concern and responsibility. The argument of the Government is that it is perfectly all right for it to encroach upon the domain of the States in those directions, but that the principle is wrong in its application to the -per capita payment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) maintains that the system is not right either constitutionally, legally, or morally, and that it should be brought to an end. I expect that his wish will be gratified, because the Government has for the time being made that a part of its policy. The policy speech which was made to the electors did not include the pronouncement that it was intended to discontinue the per capita payment.

I shall not occupy the time of the Senate at any greater length. My reason for rising was to enter a final protest against the measure. It is a bill for which there is no justification or warrant. Its introduction has caused financial unrest among the Treasurers of the States and irritation and hostility on the part of the Governments of the States. If there is one thing that the Commonwealth Government should do after the expiration of 26 years of federation it is to secure closer and more harmonious relations with the States, not introduce legislation that will have the opposite effect. I hope that, when the division is taken, a greater number of honorable senators will oppose the third reading of the bill than was found in opposition to its second reading.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I desire to take advantage of this opportunity to say a final word against the passage of the bill. In the earlier portion of the debate, one would have thought that it was intended to abolish the per capita payment; but when one examined the bill closely and became aware of the intentions of honorable senators it was evident that the idea is to discontinue those payments only in the case of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. Western Australia and Tasmania will continue to enjoy a very substantial grant from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is an entirely wrong principle to adopt. Had the Government decided to make the abolition complete it would have been on logical ground; but it ought not to expect honorable senators who represent those States from which it is proposed to withdraw the payment to lend their support to it. It has been stated that the Government is actuated by the fact that there are Labour Governments in five of the States; and, furthermore, it realizes that those governments will be able to resort to what is termed unpopular direct taxation. When these payments are discontinued it is obvious that, if those States from which the payment is to be withdrawn are to maintain their existing rate of expenditure they will have to seek other sources of revenue. I do not know whether the different State Governments are fearful of imposing direct taxation. Such a charge cannot be laid against the Treasurer of the State of New South Wales. He brought down a measure which imposed taxation directly upon the most powerful influence in his State - the newspaper influence; but it was declared to be ultra vires. That is not an indication of fear. The New South Wales Government has introduced a Child Endowment Bill, under which it is proposed to raise the necessary amount of revenue by the taxation of employers to the extent of £6,000,000, a year. Those proposals do not indicate any fear on the part of New South Wales to impose direct taxation. As a matter of fact the State Government is now seeking to levy a land value tax on estates valued at over £10,000. It may be true that other State Governments will be afraid to impose additional direct taxation because the taxpayers are already bearing a heavy burden, but time alone will show it. I have some very interesting figures relating to land taxation which ought to be placed on record. One return which was furnished to the Senate some years ago at my request shows that in 1915 the total value of the land in the various States and territories of the Commonwealth was £455,876,104. I am afraid, however, that those figures are now out of date, and that for comparative purposes they are of little value. In the Commonwealth Year-Booh the land taxation collected in the States and by the Commonwealth in 1924-5 is set out in the following table: -

– To explain my position will take but a few minutes, because my attitude towards the third reading of this measure was foreshadowed in my secondreading speech. I have tried my best to improve the bill in the way in which I think it should be improved. I have done what I could to prevent the Government from committing what, in my judgment, is a very foolish act. Indeed, I have tried my best to give the Government a longer lease of life than I think will be possible with this legislation on the statute-book. But my efforts have been in vain. I regret exceedingly that on an extremely technical point of order the amendment which I proposed to move was ruled out of order. Had it been accepted, it would hare made much easier the way of the Government in the direction of securing a satisfactory conference with the States. As it is, I very much doubt whether the Commonwealth will ever meet in conference with the States off this matter. Already the States have adopted the attitude of standing still and talking in a mournful tone about their moral right. They are secure for a further twelve months.

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That is all.

Senator KINGSMILL. With the States in their present frame of mind, or in that frame of mind which will be theirs after the flames of resentment caused by the alleged inequity of this bill have been fanned by honorable senators opposite, to whom this debate must have been of the greatest interest and satisfaction, any solution which the Commonwealth may offer will fall short of the agonized demands of the States. But the States will have only a short period of martyrdom, because within twelve months of the 30th June, 1928, when the existing arrangement will cease, there will be a general election. I hope that I am prophesying wrongly when I say that I look forward to that election as being the Armageddon of the Nationalist party.

Senator Needham:

– Who is now speaking with a mournful voice?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I have not said that I am personally agitated about the future prospects. I am speaking with a mournful voice on behalf of the party to which I belong. In speaking in this manner I am showing the greatest loyalty to my party, because adherence to a party means adherence to principle, though not necessarily to persons, notwithstanding , that included among the members Of the present Government are men whom I, above all others, would be extremely sorry to see out of office. But they may be headstrong persons, and may disregard the advice given to them by peoplenot all of whomare their enemies. It is possible to be a firm friend of a man, and yet to know him well enough and to like him sufficiently to criticize his actions for his own good. That I have endeavoured to do. But the die is cast; the numbers are up.

I have no doubt that this bill will pass its third reading with what is regarded as a satisfactory majority. Butthe Senate not having repaired that incompleteness which, in my opinion, is the chief fault of the bill, and which I endeavoured to repair, I shall not form one of that majority which will pass it, because I regard its introduction at this juncture as must injudicious and tactless.

Question - That the bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 11

Majority . . … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 804

COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Additional Estimates of Expenditure

Debate resumed from the 21st March (vide page 701), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the undermentioned additional estimates of expenditure of the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for the year ending the 30th June, 1927, be approved and passed : -

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

– So far as I can ascertain, the procedure adopted in connexion with this motion is of a novel character. Honorable senators will remember that last year two bills dealing with the Council for Scientific and. Industrial Research were before the Senate. One gave ordinary financial assistance to the newlyestablished council, and the other established a trust fund. The measure constituting the trust fund appropriated a certain sum of money for the purpose of enabling continuous research to.be made along certain lines. It was recognized that, in some directions, it would bo necessary for continuous effort to be made, and, in order that the council would have at its disposal sufficient funds for that purpose, a trust fund was established. That legislation also provided that no money could be taken from the trust fund for the purpose of continuous research without the authority of Parliament, which not only had to authorize the expenditure from the trust fund of the money required by the council for such continuous research, but was also to be made aware of the lines along which such research would be made. It is obvious that the money having once been appropriated under an act of this Parliament,no further appropriation would be necessary. I take it, therefore, that this motion has been introduced with the object of informing the Senate of the directions in which it is proposed that the money from the trust fund shall be spent. In another place, a similar motion has been tabled, so that both Houses of this Parliament may know the lines along which the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research proposes to work. It is proposed to set aside the sum of £1,750 for investigation into stock diseases and pests, including cattle tick dips and buffalo-fly. For horticultural,citricultural and viticultural investigations the sum of £1,000 is required. Investigations into fruit preservation and cold storage will require £1,100, and for thepurpose of State committees, sundry investigations and miscellaneous expenditure it is proposed to set aside the sum of £6,302. Some objection might be offered to the last item. Perhaps the Minister will inform us how the committees will work, and whether they will travel abroad to make the investigations required of them or whether the item is intended to cover the ordinary expenditure in connexion with continuous research. I admit that the procedure is new, but having referred to the legislation passed last year, I can see the necessity for it. A new appropriation bill cannot be brought in, because, I understand, the money has already been appropriated. We are now informed that the. council requires this additional sum to carry on necessary work. I admit that it is too early yet to expect anything like complete information as to the result of its investigations. The council is, so to speak, in its swaddling clothes ; but later we may expect fairly comprehensive reports concerning the manner in which money voted by Parliament has been expended, and the results of the investigations. If the additional sum asked for were withheld no doubt the work of the council would be crippled because, to he effective, research must be continuous.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– I move -

That after the word “ That” line 1, the following words be inserted : - “ in accordance with sub-section 3 of section 17b of the Science and Industry Research Act 1920-26.”

The amendment is merely formal. Its purpose is to put the journals in proper order. As the leader of the Senate has pointed out, the procedure now being adopted is somewhat unusual. The money that was appropriated under an earlier section of the act was paid into a trust account, and it can only be released in conformity with the resolution submitted by the Leader of the Senate. Similar steps must be taken in another place, and to make quite clear what is being done, it has been suggested, and I think the suggestion should be followed, that the amendment which I have submitted should be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 805

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1), 1927-28

Suspension of Standing Orders.

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.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I object to the motion. It refers to the Supply Bill, a copy of which has not yet been placed in the hands of honorable senators. Even if we had been furnished with the print of the bill we should not be asked to suspend the standing and sessional orders to pass it through all its stages without delay. This procedure has the effect of making the Senate a sort of hack for another place. The Supply Bill was exhaustively debated elsewhere, and, as far as I am aware, no motion was submitted for the suspension of the Standing Orders to pass the bill without delay.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, there was, and it was agreed to without discussion.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I realize that, us the Ministry has the requisite numbers, my protest will be in vain; but I put it to the Minister that since the Senate is not a very discursive chamber, and as honorable senators are not in the habit of making long speeches the motion might very well be withdrawn. I feel sure that we shall be able to dispose of the Supply Bill with expedition.

Senator Pearce:

– We could not pass it through its final stages to-morrow without suspending the Standing and Sessional Orders.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not admit the necessity for the motion at all. This Government has dropped into the bad habit of suspending the Standing and Sessional Orders for the purpose of getting its measure through. I hope that, when we are legislating in a new atmosphere at Canberra we shall not be asked lo take this objectionable course.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have a few observations to make before the motion for the first reading of the bill is put. Since last we had a Supply Bill before us the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) ‘has attended the Imperial Conference as a representative of Australia. I did object then, and I repeat my objection now, that whilst 1 recognized the necessity for Australia as an integral part of the British Commonwealth of Nations being repre sented by its Prime Minister at that important conference, it was not necessary for Parliament in the meantime to be closed down. There was any amount of work for Parliament to do in the absence of the Prime Minister. The Governor-General’s speech at the opening of Parliament shortly after the elections of 1925, indicated that a considerable amount of legislation, some of it important and some unimportant, was contemplated. If the Government had intended to keep its pledges to the people, Parliament could very well have been kept at work to give legislative effect to the Government’s pledges. Instead of that being done the shutters were put up with the result that to-day. nearly seventeen months after the elections, very little of the legislation promised by the Government is on the statute-book. Parliament was not closed down on a former occasion, when another Prime Minister attended the Imperial Conference. Both branches of the legislature continued to function, and some attempt was made to put into operation a policy that had been placed befor> the people. Could the Prime Minister ‘Mr. Bruce) not trust his partner in the Composite Ministry (Dr. Earle Page) ? That honorable gentleman toured the country as acting Prime Minister, indulging in propaganda work, when he could have utilized his time to better advantage h”7 giving effect in this Parliament to the promises that were made at the last election.

During his absence Mr. Bruce made many speeches, some of which were exceedingly interesting. He is reported to have stated in London tha: it would be a good thing if the United States of America joined with the British Commonwealth of Nations in an attempt to preserve the peace of the world. Ho was acclaimed in the press as a saviour, and given the credit of having made an original suggestion. He was not the first man to utter that wish. WheL he went to the United States of America, however, he made a speech of an entirely different character. He told ‘the Americans that they were virtually the salt of the earth. Comparing the speeches that he made in London, New York, and Chicago, with those that he made on the hustings in Australia, one cannot escape the conclusion that with him this country takes second place to the United States of America. On his departure from that country he visited Canada, where he warned the people to beware of the Americans or they would rob them of their trade. He roused the resentment of the leaders of thought in Canada because ho endeavoured to teach them their business. On one occasion the right honorable gentleman spoke also in Glasgow. I worked in close proximity to that city for a number of years, and I am fairly well acquainted with its conditions. A report of that speech appeared in the Melbourne Age of the 29th December, 1926, and it reads -

Commenting in a speech at Glasgow to-day upon a reference to Australia, like Clydeside, having labour troubles, Mr. Bruce vigorously attacked the mistaken impression that Australia had labour troubles continuously - “ Like you,” he said, “ we have our wild men going about demanding all sorts of things, but we, also like you, .have a little gang of reactionary conservatives, and I am hanged if 1 know which is more responsible for our troubles. But I believe the reactionaries are the more blameworthy, because their doctrines and actions build up and breed a spirit of discontent, which causes most of the trou’ble.”

During the last elections the same Mr. Bruce, with his colleagues, Senators Pearce, Glasgow, McLachlau, and Crawford, told the electors from every platform from which they spoke that Australia was always in the midst of industrial troubles.

Senator Crawford:

– I have never made that statement.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If the Minister did not make it himself, he supported the Prime Minister, who did. The present Government would not have been returned to power had not the electors been led to believe that red revolution was stalking through the land, :ind that if the Labour party were returned the volcano of revolution would erupt, and Australia would be no more. Tin rs, we have Mr. Bruce adopting one role in Australia and another in the United States of America. Speaking in Bristol the right honorable gentleman said -

We are putting up a plucky fight against the vested interests now dominating our country. “When he appealed to the people in 1925 he did not tell them that vested interests were dominating Australia. What he said here was that the Labour organizations were responsible for that domination, and that it would tend to red revolution. What legislation has been placed upon the statute-book to rid Australia of the dominance of vested interests? None whatever. Since its return to power the only legislation of that nature which, th’s Government has placed upon the statutebook is the Crimes Act, that has never been put into operation. The other day I asked how many men had been deported under the provisions of the Crimes Act, and how many organizations had been suppressed. The answer was “ none.” Yet the Government waa returned to power to carry out the deportation of two men ! It found that it could not deport them. I trust that Australia will not witness an industrial upheaval that will prevent the wheels of industry from revolving; but if there were such an occurrence and an attempt was made to give effect to the provisions of the Crimes Act the Government would discover that that measure is unconstitutional. It is directed solely against those workers of this country who may dare at any time to maintain their rights. No legislation has been passed to deal with the reactionary conservatives and vested interests who, according to Mr. Bruce, dominate Australia.

I come now to the important question of defence. The other day I asked the following questions with respect to the importation of munitions of war: -

. Is it a fact that we are importing munitions from overseas ;
. If so, from whom ?
. What is the nature of such munitions T
. What was the value of the importation of such munitions for the last five financial years.

The answer that I received was as follows : -

It will be noticed that there was a considerable increase in the value of the importations during the five years; yet we have been told that the Government is attempting to make Australia selfcontained in the matter of defence ! I oan imagine in what condition we should be in if, unfortunately, another war broke out, and we were isolated, or in the event of our being attacked by an invading foe. We should have to depend upon the importation of munitions, and risk their loss during transport from overseas countries. It is quite evident that the Government has not paid any attention to the recommendations which were made by the Public Accounts Committee after its investigation into the possibility of Australia manufacturing sufficient munitions to supply its own needs in time of war. Expert evidence was given before that committee which proved that we can manufacture almost every munition that is necessary for the defence of this country. I think it would be wise for the Government to peruse that document carefully to see what may be done to increase the local manufacture of munitions of war for the purpose of Australia’s defence.

When the Prime Minister was abroad he visited the shipyard ah which one of our new cruisers was being built, and he said that the day was not far distant when Australia must build her own cruisers. Yet when he was in Australia he told the people that we could not build cruisers.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The two statements are not in conflict.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The reason the right honorable gentleman gave us for not having the cruisers built in Australia was the probable cost of construction. We, on this side of the chamber, contended that if cruisers had to be built - which we did not admit- they should be built in Australia by Australian workmen, and as far as practicable from Australian materials. We knew that we had the material, and that Australian workmen had already built the cruiser Brisbane. It is peculiar now to hear Mr. Bruce saying that Australia must build her own cruisers at a time when the cost of building them would be no cheaper than it is at present. Recognizing the labour conditions in Australia and the rates of wages paid to Australian artisans ss compared with those paid in Great Britain, we cannot possibly build cruisers here as cheaply as they can be built in Britain.

I have mentioned these matters in order to show that the Government is not carrying out its promises. Despite the vast amount of money spent on Australian defence, I venture to say that in the event of an attack our defence forces would not be fit to meet it. Since the armistice and up to the end of the present financial year, as much as £45,000,000 will have been spent ou defence, not including the £4,500,000 set aside for the cruisers. Yet we find Sir John Monash only a few months ago saying that our defences are not as they should be. I trust that the Minister, if he replies to this debate, will explain why the Government is not attempting to make Australia selfcontained in the matter of manufacturing munitons; why Mr. Bruce has changed front and now tells the people of Great Britain that Australia must build its own cruisers, and that there are reactionary conservatives and no labour troubles here, when during the election he said quite the reverse.

I wish now to refer to the wireless station on Willis Island, that lonely Pacific outpost, about 800 miles from Cairns, which is so valuable to us foi’ meteorological purposes. One of the duties of the three men engaged on the island, who live there for six months of the year without seeing their fellows, is to notify the approach of cyclones. As a result of their work, li,ves and valuable property have been saved. Their timely warnings of the approach of cyclonic disturbances are broadcast in sufficient time to prepare not only mariners, but also people on land to avoid the havoc caused by such visitations. In 1925, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee on its voyage to Papua, I, in company with Senator Poll and others, had the opportunity of visiting the island. We were the first white people the men on the island had seen for months. Their only means of recreation was a tennis court, whch had collapsed, and their library was very small. When we returned to Melbourne Senator Foll and I saw Senator Pearce with a view to asking that something should be done to make the lives of these isolated men a little more pleasant than is now possible. About £200 would provide the officers oh the island with a small, up-to-date library, a tenuis court, and possibly a gramophone.. The. officers themselves are not asking for anything luxurious. They are ai fine, type, of Australian manhood,, and, as a matter of fact, they did not put forward any request, for these things that I am suggesting should be. provided for them; but, recognizing their loneliness,. Senator Foll and I put the matter before Senator Pearce. I believe that the right honorable gentleman did make some representations in regard to the- matter, and I should like to know if anything definite has been done. Wei wi.0 aire living in the etty of Melbourne,, with all’ the pleasures and advantages of civilization, a>nd with the’ opportunity to indulge in all kinds o-f recreation, should! have some thought for those men who are out on that lonely island, rendering valuable service to the people of Australia.

Senator GRANT. (New South Wales [3.42].. - Many years ago, as. the result of events at Warwick, in Queensland, a Commonwealth Police Force was incubated.

Senator Graham:

– Out of the Warwick

Senator GRANT:

– At any rate, it made its appearance at that time, and for a while there was a force of police whose numbers were not inconsiderable. Because of the opposition raised, or at any rate for some reason or other, those numbers have diminished until, so f ar as I can ascertain, this police force has almost completely disappeared. I should like to know from the Minister representing the Attorney-General, whether it is still in existence, and, if so, what proportion of the £2,980 provided in this Supply Bill, under the heading of Commonwealth Investigation Branch, is used for this particular purpose. The force itself, in my opinion,, served no useful purpose during its existence, and if it has not completely disappeared,, the time for its. disappearance is long overdue.

I referred very briefly, the other evening, to the east- west railway. It has been said by more than one person that a large proportion of the funds spent on the construction of that line carry no interest. Being curious to find out how that desirable condition of affars was brought about, I wrote to the Secretary to the Treasury, and received the following reply : -

page 809

PORT AUGUSTA-KALGOORLIE RAILWAY

15th May, 1925.

Dear Sir,

I have pleasure in supplying the following information in reply to the questions asked in your letter dated 11th May : -

The amount of £3,4ja8,51’8 was provided out of profits of the Australian Note Issue. This- debt was redeemed and cancelled on the transfer of the Australian- Note- Issue to the Commonwealth Bank, in 1920’.

In .particular, to what extent was the Note Issue, free of interest, used for the above purposes ?’ £3,428,518 from December, 1920.

Yours faithfully,

J. CERUTTY,

Acting- Secretary to the Treasury.

I direct attention to these figures, as some honorable senators are continually saying that Commonwealth money is being expended on the construction of the Kyogle to South Brisbane railway, towards the cost of which the Commonwealth, New South Wales, and Queensland contribute. The representatives of Western Australia have recently put up a vigorous fight for a subsidy from the Consolidated Revenue to enable the State to pay its way, although it had a surplus last year. For the information of honorable senators, I mention that a sum of £3,428,518, out of profits of the Australian Note Issue Fund, was expended on the construction of the east-west line, which,, of course, also benefits South Australia, and that a very substantial sum is not carrying any interest, and has not done so for the last seven years. At 5£ per cent., this sum would be returning approximately £175,000 a year, which I regard as a very substantial contribution to Western Australia. Although the Western Australian people are assured of a substantial sum such as that provided in the measure which recently passed this Chamber, they also have the use of this sum of £3,428,518 free of interest. When reference is being made to a Murray Waters Scheme, and the Kyogle to South Brisbane railway, it is very desirable that an outstanding factor such as this should not be overlooked

– It is true that this Commonwealth is represented on the directorate, but the care of its employees is a matter for the company.

Senator Needham:

– We have a share in that responsibility.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

-Senator Grant also ref erred to the advisory council for New Guinea. In answer to a recent question by the honorable senator, I informed him that the amendment of the act to give additional representation to the people of that territory would be considered when all the expropriated properies had been disposed of. That will be done.

The honorable senator urged the desirability of making available an additional number of building sites at Canberra. So far, there has been no demand for more building sites thanhave been disposed of. I remind the honorable senator that, in addition to the sites made available by sale or tender, the Federal Capital Commission hasconstructed a number of homes for public servants. Next month therewill be another sale of leases for residences and business premises. Senator Grant suggested that the Government should reconsider the period of re-appraisement, and advocated a re -appraisement of leases every year. Ican conceive of nothing that would do more to hamper development by discouraging people from building in Canberra than a proposal of that nature, because the lessees would not know from one year to the next what would be the valuation of their leases.

Senator Grant:

– Every municipality throughout theCommonwealth follows the practice I have advocated.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The policy is tohave a re-appraisement of the leases at the end of the first twenty years, and subsequently every ten years. The question raised by Senator Carroll in connexion with the air service between Derby and Wyndham will be dealt with, together with other proposals, when the general policy of the Govern ment in regard to air services is being considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Secondreading

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

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to appropriate revenue to carry on the ordinary services of the Commonwealth for the first three months of the next financial year. It is usual for a Supply Bill to be submitted just prior to the end of a financial year, or early in the new year; but owing to the transfer of Parliament to Canberra it is impossible, on this occasion, to follow ordinary procedure. Honorable senators are aware that the first meeting of the Parliament at Canberra will take place on the 9th of May, but it is anticipated that only formal business will then be conducted. The date of the further meeting of Parliament at Canberra for the resumption of ordinary business has not yet been decided. It will require some months to complete the transfer of Government departments and records to the new seat of government. That disorganization will be at its height at the end of the present month, and in the early months of the next financial year. It is highly desirable that the departments should be property settled down before Parliament resumes, and it seems quite likely that this will take three months. In the circumstances it will not be possible to prepare and submit Estimates so readily as has been the practice in recent years. It is therefore necessary that Parliament should now grant supply for three months of the new financial year, as existing appropriations of revenue for the ordinary purposes of government will lapse on the 30th of June next. The amount appropriated by this bill is £ 5, 851, 495, made up thus: - £2,212,460 for departments and services other than business undertakings and territories of the Commonwealth ; £2,566,735 for business undertakings; £72,300 for the territories of the Commonwealth; £250,000 for refunds of revenue; and £750,000 for advance to Treasurer. The items are baaed on the appropriations by Parliament for the current financial year. Mo new services are included. In the case of salaries, the amounts cover the pay-day which falls on the 7th of October. The ordinary services provided for total £4,851,49.5, which is slightly less than one-fourth of the total appropriation of £19,793,023 for these services for the current financial year. In addition, provision is made for refunds of revenue, £250,000; and advance to the Treasurer, £750,000. The advance to the Treasurer is in accord with the usual practice, and is necessary to meet unforeseen requirements; also to carry cm works in progress at the 30th of June next, which will subsequently be cowered by the Additions, New Works, and Buildings Estimates for 1927-28. It is hoped .that the budget will be brought down immediately after Parliament meets at Canberra in the next financial year. In the meantime I may say that the results for the .present financial year, to date, are satisfactory. The budget estimate of expenditure should not be exceeded in the total, and the indications are that there will be an increase in revenue beyond what was anticipated. This is due to the Customs and excise, particularly to the heavy imports of motor vehicles, and increases under apparel and textiles, and machinery.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule- -

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I should like to know if the Minister is in a position to make a definite statement in connexion, with the report of the Public Works Committee presented to Parliament last year with regard to the transfer of public servants to Canberra. iU.p to the present there has been no indication of the action which the government proposes to .take upon that report. As far as I can gather the Public Service Canberra Committee is also in .the dark. As Parliament will close this week, it is highly desirable that the Government should make a -statement dealing with the rentals, housing accommodation, and other subjects which so vitally affect the public servants who are about to be compulsorily transferred to Canberra.

Senator Pearce:

– I suggest that the honorable senator bring this matter up when the Department for Home and Territories vt under consideration. W/3 are now considering the Prime Minister’s Department, which controls only the living allowance with regard to members of the Public Service.

Senator REID:

– Then ca-ia the Minist&r say if a statement, satisfactory .to the Public Service, has been made with reference to the allowances to be paid. As far as I can see, those officers who will be transferred to Canberra will suffer a reduction in salary.

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

– The cost of living at Canberra was the subject of reference to a special committee. Considerable correspondence has passed betwen the Government and the Public Service Board on the subject. Under the Public Service Act it is the function of the board to fix allowances to members of the Public Service. Recently it issued statutory rule No. 22, which was approved by the Executive Council on the 1st March, and gazetted. That rule sets out the scale of allowances to be paid to public servants as follows : -

The factors governing the allowances include the following -

Salary, for the purpose of this regulation, shall be deemed to be the salary payable to this officer on 1st July, 1927, provided that, in the case of an officer transferred prior to July, 1927, salary until that date shall be deemed to be the salary received at date of transfer.
If, in the opinion of the board, the provisions of this regulation should be applied m the case of any officer transferred to Canberra prior to the date of this regulation, allowance as prescribed in this regulation may be paid the officer from a date to be determined by the board.
For the purpose of -this regulation, a married officer shall include a widower with dependent children, and any officer maintaining dependants whose circumstances, in the opinion of the board, justify inclusion.

The preamble to the regulation is interesting. It reads -

Whereas the special circumstances attending the transfer of departments to a newlyestablished city will necessarily involve, at the outset, additional expense to compulsorilytransferred officers of those departments in relation to housing and living :

And whereas it is expedient that officers transferred to Canberra in these special circumstances should receive special allowances :

Now, therefore, the Board of Commissioners appointed under the Commonwealth Public Service. Act 1922-1924, in pursuance and exercise of the authority conferred upon it by the said Act, and subject to the approval of the Governor-General, hereby makes the following amendment of the regulations, such amendment to come into operation forthwith.

The preamble is to guard against this being taken as a precedent; otherwise it could be argued that when an officer was compulsorily transferred from one part of the Commonwealth to another he should be entitled to a special allowance, if he had to face a higher cost of living. Transfers of officers of the Commonwealth are frequently made, and it often happens that a higher cost of living rules in the part of the Commonwealth to which an officer is transferred. He is not entitled toan allowance because of that fact; but he has a right to show cause why he should not be transferred. In the case of the transfer to Canberra, no such right will exist, because the transfer of whole departments will be involved. Thus this transfer has been treated as a special case, and allowances have been fixed by the Public Service Board. I have not heard of any protest against them.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the proposed vote, “The Attorney-General’s Department, £36,190,” by £1.

I take this step to draw attention to the action of the Government in having caused an award of the Public Service Arbitrator to be disapproved by the Senate. The matter can properly be brought up on this vote, because it includes a provision for the office of the Public Service Arbitrator. An award of that official has been disapproved by the Senate, and its benefits are denied to those to whom it would otherwise have applied. The only excuse put forward by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), when moving for the dis allowance of the award, was that it was opposed to the policy of the Government. He did not show that the Public Service Arbitrator had broken any regulation, or contravened any section of the Public Service (Arbitration.) Act. It would be unwise to allow such a dangerous precedent to pass without challenge. It is true that the matter was determined by a vote of the Senate; but I believe that we can now make a practical and effective protest against the action of the Government in constituting Parliament an industrial court. This is the first occasion in the history of the Commonwealth Parliament that that has been done. Time and again members of this and previous Governments, as well as members of all shades of political opinion, have expressed the belief that Parliament should not be constituted an industrial court, because other machinery has been provided for the settlement of the wages and working conditions of the employees of not only the Commonwealth Government but also private employers. I refer to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, under which has been established an arbitration tribunal before which can appear representatives of the employers and the employees ; and the Public Service (Arbitration) Act, under which the Public Service Arbitrator was appointed for the purpose of hearing applications by employees of the Commonwealth Government. The decisions of both tribunals are made upon the evidence that is given before them. After the Public Service Arbitrator had made an award that vitally affected members of the Public Service this branch of the national legislature was turned into a chamber of industrial review, and summarily disapproved or disallowed that award without hearing any evidence from the people who were directly affected..

Senator Ogden:

– Have we not fought out this matter previously ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That is quite true ; but a good cause is worth continuing to fight for. During the previous discussion, Senator Ogden pointed out that the action of the Government was tantamount to the introduction of political influence in its naked form. Now that for the moment we have the public purse in our hands, and are asked to vote a certain amount to enable the AttorneyGeneral’s Department to carry on, I suggest that we should extract the sum of £1 to register a practical protest against such action.

Senator Ogden:

– A good general knows when to retreat.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not concerned with the desirability or otherwise of retreating. If Senator Ogden is prepared to accept the verdict that has been given, I am not. This is the time and the place to register a more practical protest than any which has so far been made. It has been frequently stated that organizations of employees in Australia have rebelled against and refused to obey awards of the Arbitration Court. I believe there are on record isolated instances of such a revolt and disregard of awards of the Arbitration Court. But there are also on record cases of revolt by employers, who have adopted the practice of locking out their employees. Both sides, in that respect, are equally blameworthy. The Government, however, should set an example to those who are engaged privately in the carrying on of industry, and should not summarily exercise its authority to render null and void an award of an arbitrator, based on evidence submitted to him, when the parties affected have no chance to be heard. I repeat that the only excuse of the Minister (Senator Pearce) was that it was against Government policy. That policy, as enunciated by the Leader of the Government, and published broadcast throughout Australia, embodied a proposal relating to childhood endowment. Therefore, the Public Service Arbitrator did not offend against the policy of the Government, bub, on the contrary, acted in accordance with it. I emphasize the fact that a dangerous precedent has been established. The vital point upon which I lay stress is that if it is right that the Commonwealth Parliament should be constituted an industrial tribunal, it is also right that the people upon whom it proposes to pass judgment should be enabled to appear before it and state their case, just as they were given the right to appear before the Public Service Arbitrator who made the award.

Senator McLACHLAN (South Aus the matter referred to by Senator Needham was debated in this chamber only a few days ago, I do not propose to do more on this occasion than to remove any misapprehension that may be created by the honorable senator’s remarks. In the first place, under legislation passed by this chamber, any award of the Public Service Arbitrator is open to the review of which the honorable senator complains. Statutory provision is made for the disallowance of any awards, and, if an award is out of harmony with the policy of the Government, the step that was taken the other day will be taken again. If the Public Service Arbitrator had proposed to reduce to £400 the limit at which child endowment is paid, would we have heard from the honorable senator one word of protest if we moved to disallow ? Despite our violation, as the honorable senator puts it,of a settled principle, no precedent has been created. We have done no more than the law allows in our endeavour to harmonize the position in the Public Service with the policy previously laid down by us. In any case, the matter was settled in this chamber only a few days ago.

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

AYES: 6

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I want to know if the Commonwealth Police Force is still in existence, and what it costs.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:
Minister for Home and Territories · Queensland · NAT

[4.53].- There is no Commonwealth Police Force, but provision is made in this bill for the salaries of certain investigatingofficers who, in various States, obtain information for the Commonwealth Departments. For instance, investigating officers are employed to obtain information in regard to invalid and old-age pensions. Of course, at Canberra, it will probably be necessary to have Federal police.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It is true, as the Minister has said, that the men on Willis Island are employed by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, and that the Postmaster-General cannot recommend the expenditure of Federal funds to make their positions more comfortable; but it will surely be recognized that the Commonwealth is the major partner in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited; it holds a majority of the shares. In these circumstances, therefore, we, as a Parliament, should have some voice in regard to the conditions of the employees of the company.

Senator McLachlan:

– As shareholders.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Not only as shareholders, but also through our representatives on the board of directors.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– How long is it since the honorable senator saw the conditions that exist on Willis Island ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

-I was there about twenty months ago; but, as a matter of fact, I know that the conditions prevailing then remain unchanged. I am not asking for anything luxurious. Surely the work of these men on Willis Island in connexion with the recent cyclone, when they issued a warning 48 hours ahead of any other station, entitles them to our consideration. I suggest that they should have a tennis court, a fair library and, say, a gramophone. I hope that Senator Glasgow will make representations to the board of directors of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited that the lot of these men should be made a little more comfortable.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland - Minister for Home and Territories) [4.59]. - I shall be pleased to pass on the honorable senator’s representations to Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, but at the same time

I point out that this Parliament cannot vote money to improve the conditions of the employees on Willis Island. Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, is responsible for the control of the wireless station, and also for the comfort of its officers. I shall, however, place the honorable senators’ representations before the general manager of the company.

SenatorREID (Queensland) [5.1]. - I direct the attention of the Minister for Home and Territories (Senator Glasgow) to a report of the Public Works Committee on housing conditions at Canberra, in which, after a very exhaustive inquiry, the following recommendations were made -

Encourage the building of cottages in numbers up to five by small contractors.
Bring construction costs within 5 per cent. or 7½ per cent. of Sydney prices.
Reduce valuation placed on residential blocks of public servants.
Extend period of rental purchase to 45 years.
Arrange for Federal Capital Commission to carry its own fire insurance.
Eliminate at option of purchaser £125 charge for extras, leaving occupier to provide them under supervision. (h)Reduce overhead and suspension charges to 2½ per cent.
Provide for officials receiving salary of £400 and under, brick cottages of the standard of the War Service Homes Commission.
Allow officials in receipt of£400 and under to select timber dwellings provided that not more than 5 per cent. of such dwellings are allowed in any brick group.
Reduce cost of thesmaller types of concrete houses to at least 15 per cent. below the cost of similar brick houses.

– No; that is the upset price fixed by the commission. There is no private land available there; the commission does not allow a re-sale. As a matter of fact, people, in order to realize a profit, are attempting by a subterfuge to get over the commission’s interdiction. In place of a straight-out transfer a mortgage of 90 per cent. of the value of a lease is taken, on the understanding that the transfer will be completed as soon as buildings have been erected. The price placed on these new subdivisions represents a premium on former sales, and will make possible a tremendous profit for those who were fortunate enough to buy at the early auction sales. Under the conditions of sale, the purchaser of a block, say, at £1,000, does not put up that amount in cash; he pays only 5 per cent. on the capital value each year.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does the honorable senator suggest the terms are too easy?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– No; my contention is that the prices are outrageously high.

Senator McLachlan:

– If theupset price is too high, will that not be reflected at the auction sale of leases?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Not necessarily, because a certain number of people are determined to start business in Canberra, and, if the number of business sites available is limited, they will he forced to pay exorbitant prices. They fear, judging by previous experience, that if they do not buy at the approaching auction sale, they will have to wait another twelve months before further leasesare available. The policy of the commission is worthy of the mostexperienced of land boomers in

– But not an unreasonable one.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– It has taken the best advice available as to the upset price that it should place on the blocks. However high the price may be now, it is bound to increase.

Senator Grant:

– Yes, if no more blocks are made available.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Is it suggested that £50 a foot is an unreasonable price for land in the principal centre of the capital city of the Commonwealth ?

Senator Elliott:

– At the present time, yes.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.If the upset price is unreasonable, there, is bound to be a reaction.

Senator Elliott:

– Not if the supply is limited to two or three blocks.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– The commission will see that sufficient blocks are made available a3 the demand grows.

Senator GRANT:

– Some of the transfers recently made, showed a premium of £1,000.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Exactly, because the speculator was permitted to come in. The commission, in fixing the upset price of leases now being made available, would probably be guided by the values now placed on those original leases.

Senator Grant:

– Why does not the commission make more blocks available and thus prevent speculation?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.What the honorable senator suggests would provide an opportunity for the speculators to acquire leases and do nothing with them.

Senator Elliott:

Senator Grant:

– It is a scandal.

Senator DUNCAN:

– If the information supplied to me is correct, it is. I am anxious to obtain the facts. If the position is as stated, some one will have to suffer if the Government does its duty, which I believe it will.

Senator Grant:

– If the statement is correct it is outrageous.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes; it would be a most improper thing to do. I do not see why even a highly placed public servant should be allotted a site on an area 2-eserved for university buildings, even although it may not be required for that purpose for. some years. If an area reserved for educational institutions is being frittered away by allowing certain persons special privileges it is not a proper way in which to conduct public business. If the commission is guilty, it is certainly not doing its duty to the people of Australia. I mention this matter now, because I feel that I should have received a telegraphed reply to an urgent question. If the commission desired to give the information it could have been made available the next day, but I understand a reply has not yet reached the Minister. Is the commission covering up this little bit of business that is going on ? Is it the intention of the commission to withhold thisinformation until Parliament adjourns ? If that is the intention we shall not have the opportunity to properly discuss thismatter until towards the end of this year, when this cottage will have been completed and it will be too late for decisive action to be taken. I trust the Minister will again communicate with the commission by telegraph, and urge upon it the absolute necessity of immediately despatching a telegraphic reply to my question.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland - Minister for Home and Territories) [6.23]. - It is true as Senator Duncan states that he submitted to me a fairly long question, which was repeated to the commission by letter. Yesterday afternoon the honorable senator spoke to me on the matter, and this morning at his request I arranged for the despatch of a telegram asking for a reply. I have not yet received a reply.

Senator Duncan:

– There has been time to receive a reply to that telegram. I am not blaming the Minister.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.A telegraphic request has been sent to the commission to expedite the reply. I shall see that the information which the honorable senator desires is supplied before the Senate rises this week.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I regret that Senator Grant should have inferred certain actions of the Federal Capital Commission were of a questionable nature, and in doing so, misrepresented the position.

Senator Grant:

– I rise to order. I take strong exception to the statement of the honorable senator that I misrepresented the position. I usually express my views ‘with as much accuracy as Senator Foll. I made it quite clear that I had no intention of reflecting upon the commission or the Minister. I asked what would happen if a relative of the commission or the Minister-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator rose to a point of order. I cannot allow him to make a personal explanation at this stage.

Senator FOLL:

– I did not intend to refer to the statement which Senator Grant commenced to repeat, but to- the extravagant language he used when he said that the commission or the Government were doing all they could to retard the progress of Canberra.

Senator Grant:

– I adhere to that statement.

Senator FOLL:

– It is an extravagant statement. If the honorable senator believes what he says, he should, as a New South Wales representative, immediately take some action. I think it only fair to say that the Government is very fortunate in having such a capable commission. It is generally conceded that the chairman is one of the most brilliant men in Australia. The late Mr. Gorman, who was, until his death, a member of the commission, specialized in various branches of the work in which the commission is engaged, and was recognized as one of the most able authorities in New South Wales on the subject of land values. Sir John Harrison, another member of the commission, is a highly competent Sydney builder, and has rendered valuable assistance in drawing up the system under which building blocks are made available. A large number of people in Australia over-estimate the present value of Canberra as a business centre. What would be the position if those on the spot, who know the position, did not regulate the number of blocks to be made available. The possibilities are that the bulk of these business sites would be taken up, and certain, ambitious purchasers would endeavour to carry out the special conditions attached to the leases, with the result that businesses would be established everywhere. It would not be long before the persons controlling them realized that the sites were not of the value anticipated, and we would have large numbers of vacant shops, such as are seen in some portions of the metropolitan area.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Progress reported.

page 827

PARLIAMENT HOUSE, MELBOURNE

Occupation by Commonwealth - Expression oe Thanks.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

(by leave). - I move -

That the Parliament of the Commonwealth expresses to the Parliament, the Government, and the people of Victoria, its grateful thanks for their generous hospitality in placing the Parliament House of the State of Victoria at the disposal of the Parliament of the Commonwealth .

It is fitting that the Federal Parliament, before leaving Melbourne, should express to the Government, the Parliament, and the people of Victoria, its appreciation of their hospitality in granting to it the use of these magnificent buildings during the last 26 years. The Commonwealth has been treated generously by the Parliament of Victoria, and the relations between the two legislatures have, on the whole, been of a most cordial character. I believe that I speak for every honorable senator when I say that we deeply appreciate the public spirit that prompted the offer of these buildings to the Parliament of the Commonwealth at the inception of federation, and the maintenance of that spirit in granting us their continuous use ever since. The Government desires to make some recognition of the action of the State of Victoria. It, therefore, proposes to ask Parliament to vote the sum of £50,000 to be spent on these buildings in such a way as to constitute a permanent memorial of the fact that for the first quarter of a century in the - history of the Commonwealth, the national Parliament met in them. It is also proposed, with the consent of the Government and the Parliament of Victoria, to place in a suitable position in the buildings a tablet on which will be recorded that important historial fact. We feel that before we leave this city, which for over 26 years has been the temporary seat of the Commonwealth Government, we should invite the members of the Parliament of Victoria to meet us so that we may have the opportunity to convey to them, and thus to the people of Victoria, our appreciation of Victoria’s treatment of the Federal Parliament. To that end it is proposed to hold a banquet in Queen’s Hall, to which the members of the Victorian Parliament will be invited. There is no need for me to say more. 1 feel sure that the motion will receive the unanimous support of honorable senators, and that it will be accepted by the Parliament, the Government and the people of Victoria as a genuine expression of our appreciation of the spirit in which their generous offer was made, and in which we have accepted their hospitality during the first quarter of a century of this nation’s history.

Senator NEEDHAM:
I have very much pleasure, Mr. Deputy President, in associating honorable senators sitting on your left with the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce · Western Australia [8.7].

in connexion with our occupancy of these buildings. It would have been most discourteous on our part had we vacated them without in some way placing on record our very grateful appreciation, and our thanks to the Parliament, the Government, and the people of Victoria for having made available to the Commonwealth Parliament these palatial buildings at a time when it was houseless and homeless. Without any condition other than that they were to be handed back in good order and repair, Victoria placed these buildings at the disposal of the Commonwealth. In such circumstances, it is only fitting that we should record our thanks for its most generous gift. We leave this place with mingled feelings of pleasure and regret - pleasure at the recollection of having enjoyed the hospitality of the Parliament and the people of Victoria; regret that our association with them, for the time being, will be severed. We shall carry with us the historical associations of these buildings. They have echoed not only the voices and sentiments of the men who were primarily responsible for the federation of the six States, butalso the voices of those who preceded them, and within these buildings laid the foundation of Victoria’s present prosperity. Every honorable senator on this side of the chamber heartily appreciates the generosity and hospitality of the

Parliament of Victoria. During the quarter of a century that the Commonwealth Parliament has had the use of these buildings history has been made. When we first entered them the Commonwealth was a nation in its swaddling clothes. Since then it has passed from childhood to youth, and from youth to lusty manhood, until to-day it is in the full noon of its nationhood. We leave these buildings for our own home in our own place. In the nation’s own Parliament House history will continue to be made. I hope - and I know that my hope is echoed by every member of this Parliament - that the progress which this young nation has made in the 26 years during which its Parliament has met in these buildings will continue after we gather in our new home. I heartily support the motion.

Question resolved in theaffirmative.

page 828

HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– By leave. - As honorable senators are aware, the office of High Commissioner in the United Kingdom will shortly become vacant. The Government has had this matter under consideration for some time, and has decided to offer the position to Major General Sir Granville Ryrie, M.P., who has consented to accept it.

page 828

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1927-28

In committee :

Schedule. -

Consideration resumed (vide page 827).

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- Complaints have been made that the Federal Capital Commission has not made available a sufficient number of business sites ; but, in my opinion, it is better that an insufficient number of such sites be thrown open than that too many should be offered. Throughout the Commonwealth there are many people who are looking to Canberra with a view to establishing businesses there. The commissioners who know the existing conditions at the Federal Capital are better able to estimate its progress during the next 25 or 30 years than are the members of the general public. They are the best judges of the number of leases of business sites that should be offered for sale.

We all know how shop property at times depreciates in suburban areas because the supply has exceeded the demand. If, as Senator Grant suggested, the commission offered 1,000 business sites, the chances are that, in the course of a few years, a number of leases would revert to it, and we should have the spectacle of isolated empty, or partially constructed business premises, instead of uniformity in development, which the commission is endeavouring to ensure. The commission being on the spot is in the best position to estimate the probable requirements of the Federal Capital, and we may rest assured that when the first auction sale of leases was held the number offered was believed to be sufficient for the time being. Since then the population at Canberra has increased, and to meet the expected increase in business turnover, the commission is now offering twelve more retail business sites in the civic centre. Senator Grant was most unfair in his criticism of the commission. We all know that he has taken a personal interest in the development of the Capital; but it is a pity that he should have made a statement that the commission has deliberately done everything in its power to check the progress of the city.

Senator Grant:

– I was referring to the small number of building sites made available.

Senator FOLL:

– Then the honorable senator is making an irresponsible statement, for which there is not the slightest foundation.

Senator Grant:

– I was referring particularly to the number of leases that have been offered from time to time.

Senator FOLL:

– I happen to know him; and I knew his father before him . Building was their business. Can Senator Cox tell me a single landed estate with which Sir John Harrison has dealt?

SenatorCox. - The late Mr. Gorman was appointed to deal with the lands of the Federal Capital Territory, and Sir

John Harrison with its building operations. Mr. Butters was to exercise an oversight of the whole of the operations in the Territory.

Senator GRANT:

– Mr. Butters has had no experience in landed estates. Neither, so far as I have heard, has Sir John Harrison. The late Mr. Gorman occupied an entirely different position ; but, even so, can Senator Cox tell me of a single estate that he handled on the leasehold system ? He and his firm for years were accustomed to dealing with lands on the freehold system. He did not handle the lands at Canberra as they should have been handled.

SenatorCox. - He did.

Senator GRANT:

Senator ELLIOTT:

– ,’As every block previously sold has already changed hands it is obvious that the people who have bought blocks from the original holders would have been glad to take other blocks if they had been made available at a reasonable price. The first purchasers would not have had the opportunity to make a profit out of the second purchasers if the latter could have come in on the ground floor.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator evidently wants to keep down land values.

Senator ELLIOTT:

Senator H Hays:

– It is different with leasehold property.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not see that it makes any difference. The value of the freehold or leasehold is fixed, and the rateable value assessed. I trust that immediate steps will be taken to impress upon the commission the necessity of making more blocks available at Canberra in order to give the city an opportunity to prosper.

On more than one occasion I have referred to what I think is a very great blunder that is being made by the Railway Council in connexion with the construction of the first section of a uniform gauge of railway between Kyogle and South Brisbane. On this line the tunnels are to be wide enough to carry only a single line of rails. I again urge upon the Government the necessity of making representations to the Commonwealth .Railways Commissioner, Mr. Bell, to have this matter reviewed. I understand that one or possibly two other Railways Commissioners are not at all opposed to these tunnels being of sufficient width to carry double sets of rails. There is a striking peculiarity in connexion with this line which is not to be found on any other railway in Australia. In carrying the line over the McPherson Ranges, it has been found necessary to follow a spiral course, and one of the longest tunnels is on a moderately steep grade. It does not require an extensive knowledge of railway engineering to realize that when a heavy train is passing through the tunnel with a following wind, the smoke and steam from the locomotive will endanger the lives of the driver, fireman, and possibly, the passengers. For that reason alone the tunnels should be of sufficient width to carry two sets of rails. Probably there is no necessity at present to lay down a double line, but the tunnel should be wide enough for that purpose. The Sydney Harbour bridge, which is 169 ft. wide, is probably one of the widest in the world. It also has a clear waterway of 170 feet, a span of 1,650 feet, and a total height from the top of the arch to the high water mark of 455 feet. The engineer who designed the bridge is undoubtedly a man of wide vision, and realizes what the traffic of Sydney will be in years to come. From Sydney to Newcastle, all the tunnels are of sufficient width to carry two sets of rails, but when the main north line is left at Maitland, the first tunnel encountered is only wide enough to carry one set of rails. That is a most serious drawback. We have now the opportunity to take a wider vision than was taken when the line from Maitland to Grafton was constructed. This line, the construction of which is now being commenced, comprises the first section of the uniform gauge of railway, which will eventually be extended through Victoria and South Australia, to Fremantle. I feel sure that before long provision will have to be made for a double line of rails, and as the tunnels cannot be widened, while the line is in use, it will be necessary to discard the single-line tunnels and build double ones, or construct another single tunnel. I am informed on very good authority, that the cost of constructing single-line tunnels is about £150 per running yard, whilst that of building a double-line tunnel is only about £200 per yard. This is a matter which I think the Minister for Works and Railways should again bring before Mr. Bell. I do not think he would offer very much opposition, as it is largely a matter of cost. Quite recently an unfortunate driver nearly lost his life in a tunnel on the New South Wales railway system, in consequence of the density and impurity of the fume6. That may occur at any time on the Kyogle to South Brisbane railway if single line tunnels are used. Scattered throughout New South Wales are several single-line tunnels which have been discarded, and which are now used for the production of mushrooms. There should be no repetition of that wilful waste of money. I ask the Minister to consult with the three commissioners with a view to having the tunnels made wide enough to carry a double line of railway.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– As I stated recently, in reply to a question by Senator Grant, a council, consisting of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, and the Railways Commissioners for New South Wales and Queensland, has been created under the Act authorizing the construction of the Kyogle to South Brisbane Railway. The council has full authority to decide all questions in relation to that line. It, no doubt, took into consideration the representations which had been made on previous occasions with regard to tunnels, but it has decided that single line tunnels will be sufficient to meet the requirements of traffic. I shall bring Senator Grant’s remarks under the notice of the Minister for Works and Railways, although I do not hold out any hope of any alteration being made in the plans for this line.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I should be glad to know what progress has been made with the proposal to construct a railway from Port Augusta to Redhill.

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

– Parliament has not yet authorized the construction of the line, although the surveys have been completed. When we meet again, a bill to authorize the construction of that railway will be introduced.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 836

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CHARGES BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Dried Fruits Export Charges Act was passed in 1924, in order to provide funds to enable the Dried Fruits Control Board to carry out its functions under the Dried FruitsExport Control Act. The Dried Fruits Export Charges Act provides for the imposition of a maximum levy of one-eighth of a penny per pound on all dried currants, sultanas, and lexias, exported from the Commonwealth. In order to obtain sufficient funds to carry on during the first two years of its activities, the board recommended that the maximum levy be imposed. The total amount of levy collected on behalf of the board since the operation of the act to the end of February, 1927, is £55,881, of which £20,545 has been allotted for trade publicity in the United Kingdom, and £16,218 for general administration in Australia and Great Britain. The proposals now before the Senate emanated from the Dried Fruits Control Board.In its second report the board recommends that this amended legislation be passed to permit of the rate of levy being varied for the several varieties of fruit, especially in view of the poor prices realized for currants and lexias as compared with those obtained for sultanas. Over two years ago the board was appointed under the Dried Fruits Export Control Act 1924, after that act had been approved by a very large majority at a poll of producers of dried fruits throughout the Commonwealth. Four of the seven members on the board are elected by growers throughout the Commonwealth. Since the board commenced its activities, it has been recognized by the growers as their representative organization, particularly in connexion with overseas trade, on which the industry is to a great extent dependent for its existence. The members of the board, particularly the growers’ section, are unanimously of the opinion that an amendment of the Dried Fruit Export Charges Act is necessary to enable some relief to be made to the growers of currants and lexias in the form of a reduction of, or an entire exemption from, the levy on export, especially as the board has built up a substantial reserve to carry on its activities and contribute to the trade publicity campaign now in operation in the United Kingdom. The board recently decided to recommend that the rates of levy this year on currants and lexias exported be reduced by one-half, namely, one sixteenth of a penny per lb., which reduction would represent a saving of about £6,000 to the growers of such fruits, and that next year, if the circumstances warranted it, to further recommend that the levy be abolished entirely on those two classes of fruit. That would mean a total saving of about £11,000 per annum to the industry. It is further proposed, in order to inconvenience traders as little as possible, to provide for the exemption of the levy on the export of small parcels, not exceeding 1 cwt. of fruit, to destinations such as the islands in the Pacific. The levy involved in such exemption will not exceed 1s. 2d. The Senate is asked to pass this bill, which, as I have already pointed out, is intended to assist those growers whose currants and lexias, unfortunately, are not at present realizing satisfactory prices on the oversea markets.

Senator Needham:

– Will it cost the Commonwealth Government anything?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No. The whole cost will be borne by the growers of the sultanas, lexias, and currants.

Senator Elliott:

-Is it the Paterson scheme applied to dried fruits ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No. This levy is not made for the purpose of distributing the proceeds among the exporters, but to meet publicity and general administration expenses in connexion with the sale of the fruit overseas.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It is difficult to grasp the purport of measures when we have only a few minutes in which to consider them. I suggest that it would have been better had those responsible for the introduction of this bill given honorable senators more time in which to consider its provisions. I have no doubt that the intention behind the bill is good. The Dried Fruits Export Control Board, no doubt, is convinced of the necessity for amending legislation, but honorable senators are placed at a disadvantage in being called upon to deal with it at such short notice. The Minister has assured us that those engaged in the industry have lost considerable sums of money.

Senator Crawford:

– That is so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– As it is thought that this amending legislation will enable the industry to be established on a more satisfactory footing, I shall not oppose the second reading.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Exemption from Charges).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the exemption of certain dried fruits from the charges to be imposed by the bill.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– The purpose of the clause is to permit the exemption of dried currants and dried lexias from the levy. These lexias and currants are bringing very low prices overseas. They enter into direct competition with similar dried fruits from Greece and other cheap-labour countries, and they are exported and sold at a price which does not cover the cost of production in Australia.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I understand that certain classes of fruit which were exported last year re turned a very handsome profit, whilst others were unprofitable. I gather that the board was tied hand and foot with regard to the imposition of the export charge of id., which had to be levied on all classes of fruit, whether it was exported at a profit or otherwise. The proposal now is to give the board power, should any fruit prove to be unprofitable, to reduce or abandon the charge for the season if the funds at the disposal of the board are sufficient to meet the expenses incurred. That is a common-sense proposal.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without’ request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 837

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 1 1 a.m. to-morrow.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I should like to know why the Senate is to meet to-morrow morning. Honorable senators should be informed of the business which they will be called upon to deal with to-morrow. I have no objection to a morning sitting if it is essential in order to finish the business of the session. Perhaps the right honorable the Minister will indicate what measures are likely to come from another place, so that we may prepare for them. This evening we were called upon unexpectedly to consider the Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill. It is possible that tomorrow or the next day we may have a number of measures brought before us at short notice for consideration. If we are to reassemble at an unusual hour tomorrow, the Government should intimate the nature of the business likely to come up for consideration.

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

– Already we have on the notice-paper for to-morrow the Loan Bill. Another place is dealing with two bills to constitute marketing boards in the fresh fruits and pearl shell industries. There is also a bill to authorize advances to the

States for wire netting; and a bill dealing with the bounty on wine. At the moment I cannot recollect if any other measures are on the business-paper there. It is thought that if the Senate meets tomorrow morning at 11 o’clock, it may be possible to finish in time to allow honorable senators from other States to catch their trains in the evening, thereby saving an additional dayin Melbourne. Honorable members of another place are meeting to-morrow morning at 11 o’clock with the same object in view.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 838

ADJOURNMENT

Healthof The President

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– I should like to mention that on Saturday last I visited the President of the Senate (Senator Newlands), who has been ill for some time, and I am glad to be able to inform honorable senators that he is making good progress. He is able to get up daily and take gentle walking exercise in his garden.From the progress he is making, Mrs. Newlands is hopeful that he will be sufficiently recovered to take part in the ceremony at the opening of Parliament at Canberra.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.41 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 March 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1927/19270322_senate_10_115/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 March 1927

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL CHANGES: HIGH COMMISSIONERSHIP

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

ANILINE DYES

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

PAPERS

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GLASGOW:Minister of Home and Territories · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

WIRELESS AGREEMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

WINE PRODUCTION

Senator CHAPMAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

ROYAL VISITORS

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1), 1927-28

LOAN BILL (No. 1)

NEW BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Order

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

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Pearce:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator McLachlan:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator FINDLEY:

DEFENCE BILL

STATES GRANTS BILL

Senator KINGSMILL:Western Aus tralia

Senator Givens:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator Givens:

Senator Givens:

Senator Needham:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Needham:

Senator Givens:

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

Senator Givens:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Pearce:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Grant:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Givens:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Sir HENRY Barwell:

Senate
22 March 1927

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

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

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GLASGOW:
Minister of Home and Territories · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Aus tralia

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator ANDREW:
Victoria

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

Senator H HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator Sir HENRY BARWELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia