Senate
23 March 1927

10th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 903

QUESTION

WIRELESSROYAL COMMISSION

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

– Can the Leader of the Senate inform the Senate if the WirelessRoyal Commission will take evidence in Tasmania?

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

– Iam not aware if the commission will visit Tasmania, but I will endeavour to ascertain and let the honorable senator know if possible before the adjournment.

page 903

QUESTION

ANILINE DYES

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs in a position to furnish replies to the questions which I asked a few days ago relating to the importation of aniline dyes?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– I very much regret that I am still unable to furnish the honorable senator with replies to his questions. Every effort is being made to expedite the inquiry, but as it involves the examination of hundreds of invoices Senator Guthrie and other honorable senators will realize that it will take some time to compile the information. I am afraid that it will not be available until after Parliament rises. As soon as it has been prepared, it will be sent direct to the honorable senator.

page 904

QUESTION

AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTION

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

– I notice that it is proposed to appoint a select committee to inquire into and recommend alterations to the Constitution. Can the VicePresident of the Executive Council inform the Senate if the committee will inquire into the method of electing senators?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

-If the select committee is appointed - and about that matter there seems to be some doubt at present - it undoubtedly will consider the subject mentionedby the honorable senator, as that question arises under the Constitution .

page 904

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Pacific Islands Shipping Facilities

Senator KINGSMILL brought up the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts upon the Pacific Islands shipping facilities.

page 904

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

National Museum

Senator REID broughtup the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence, relating to the proposed construction of buildings and formation of reservation at Canberra for the national museum of Australian zoology.

page 904

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Leave for Employees to Attend agricultural Shows.

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Leader of the Senate furnish me with a reply to the question which I asked last week concerning the granting of leave to the Commonwealth Bank employees to attend royal agricultural shows?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– I have not yet received the reply. I shall endeavour to find out the reason for the delay, and, if possible, will give the honorable senator the desired informationbefore the adjournment.

page 904

QUESTION

TASMANIAN HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER SCHEME

Suggested Connexion with Mainland.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Government consider the possibility and the desirability of connecting the hydroelectric power scheme in Tasmania with the mainland in order to ensure a continuanceof that power which is so essential to the development of Australia?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The honorablesenator has submitted a rather stiff proposition without notice; but in view of what is happening in this city and this State at the present juncture, it may be that the time has arrived when it should receive consideration.

page 904

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Proposed Rate of1s. 3d. - Housing Conditions. - Houses at Acton:. Rentals Paid by Officials.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Home and Territories yet received a reply to my question, put to him a few days ago, with regard to the report that the Federal Capital Commission had decided to impose a rate of1s. 3d. in the £1 on the unimproved value of land at Canberra ?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– I think the information has been received, and I will endeavour to make it available to the honorable senator, possibly this morning.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.On the 16th of March, Senator Duncan asked me the following questions: -

  1. Willhe furnish, for the information of the Senate, a list of officers of the Federal Capital Commission for whom houses have been provided at Acton, giving in each case -

    1. total cost of houseand all improvements on the land;
    2. floor area ofhouse;
    3. rental of house ;
    4. area value and rental of land on which house is erected, and manner in which, and authority by which, such value has been determined?
  2. Whether a meterfor registration of electric current is installed in each house?
  3. Whether arrangements have been made or promises given underwhichany public servants not employed by the Federal Capital

Commission are to have residences in the neighbourhood of Acton; and, if so, who are those public servants, and why has an exception been made in their case?

  1. Whether any or all of the houses, if any, mentioned in the previous paragraph of this question are built on land shown on the approved plan of the city as being part of the University site,

I desire now to state that I have to-day received from the Federal Capital Commission the following information in reply to the questions of the honorable senator : -

  1. (a), (b), and (c) -

Note. - The rentals in the cases of the officers numbered 5 to 12 inclusive were fixed as a result of a recommendation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1921.

The land valuations wore made by the Commission’s Land Office in conference with late Commissioner Gorman, and were confirmed by the Valuer-General, Sydney.

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, in one case, viz,, that of the Secretary, Prime Minister’s Department. Only one block is at present available, and that was applied for by the official mentioned during a visit to Canberra, and was allotted to him upon such application.
  3. Some are on the outskirts of the land shown on the approved plan of the city as being required for University purposes. The commission advises that it is economically impossible to erect University buildings on the sites proposed in the plan, and it proposes to seek a modification of the design in this respect. The commission also states that all the houses constructed in this area are of timber, so that their removal will be more easily effected in the event of the land being required for other purposes.

I desire to add that I am making further inquiry of the commission as to the circumstances in which the block referred to in question 3 was made available to the applicant to whom it was allotted.

page 905

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Norfolk Island - Report for the year ended 30th June, 1926.

Ordered to be printed.

Commonwealth Railways Act - By-laws - Nos. 43 and 44.

Federal Capital : Officers Houses at Acton - Particulars re Costs, Rentals, &c.

page 905

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Bill received from House of Representatives.

Standing andSessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLach- lan) read a first time.

page 905

LOAN BILL (No. 1)

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the billbe now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to enable loan works to be carried out during the first three months’ of the next financial year, pending a full loan programme for 1927-28 being brought forward with the next budget. Honorable senators will realize that the transfer to Canberra will cause a certain amount of disorganization of departments, especially at the end of this financial year and in the early months of the next financial year. On this account it will not be possible to observe the usual procedure in connexion with the loan estimates for next year. The full programme of loan works for 1927-28 will accordingly be submitted when the budget is brought down next year. In the meantime, it will be necessary to carry on works and services in progress at 30th June next, and this bill contains provision for these works and services to be continued for three months. No new services arc included in the bill. The amounts are based on the appropriations contained in the Loan Act for 1926-27. The chief items included in the bill, as compared with the corresponding amounts appropriated by Parliament for the present financial year, are as follow : -

This comparison makes it clear that no new commitments are being entered into, and that the amounts for which approval is now sought are well within the appropriations made by Parliament for 1926-27. Immediately after Parliament resumes at Canberra, the full loan programme for 1927-28 will be submitted for the approval of the Senate.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The bill gives authority to borrow £1,115,350 for new works and buildings for the Postmaster-General’s Department. I remind honorable senators, and particularly the members of the Ministry, that as a private member Dr. Earle Page was emphatically of the opinion that the Postal Department should be selfcontained and relf -reliant, and that it should meet the whole of its expenditure out of the revenue that it obtained. There is a great deal of logic in that argument. But since the honorable gentleman has been Treasurer of the Commonwealth he has departed from that policy. Up to a couple of years ago, the revenue of the Postal Department was paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and the biggest portion of both its general expenditure and that on new works was defrayed out of that fund. From 1901 to 1912, every item of expenditure was met out of general revenue. In 1912-13, the expenditure out of revenue on new works was approximately £1,500,000, and that out of the loan fund only £152,000. The sum of £1,500,000 may appear small in comparison with the estimate of £5,350,000for the present year ; but we must take into account the additional cost of building to-day compared with pre-war days. The increase has been at least 75 per cent.

Senator H Hays:

– Is not that an answer to the criticism of high rents?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am unable to discuss rents on this measure. The total expenditure on new works, buildings, &c, in the Postal Department, in 1914-15 was, from revenue, £2,279,000 ; and from loan, £911,000.

Senator Payne:

– Is the honorable senator arguing against the policy of borrowing for new works ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If Senator Payne will exercise patience, he will learn where I stand. In 1917-18, the expenditure from revenue was £9,176,000, and that from loan £1,174,000. In 1921-22, the expenditure out of the loan fund showed a large increase, the figures for that year being - from revenue, £940,000; and from loan fund, £848,000. During the ensuing year, practically the whole of the expenditure was defrayed out of the loan fund, the amounts being £221,000 out of revenue, and £2,288,000 from loan moneys.

Senator Payne:

– That is as it should be.

Senator NEEDHAM:

- Senator Payne doubtless will contend that the works are reproductive. If they are, the policy is all right ; but there is a considerable doubt about the matter. In 1924-25, the whole of the commitments in respect to new works, buildings, &c, were made out of the loan fund. My sole reason for quoting these figures is to draw attention to the fact that Dr. Earle Page, as Treasurer, has been pursuing a different policy from that which he advocated as a private member. He has not been an economical Treasurer.

Senator H Hays:

– The figures which the honorable senator has quoted do not prove that.

Senator NEEDHAM:

-! agree that when works are reproductive there is justification for borrowing.

Senator Payne:

– Will the honorable senator define “reproductive”?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There is only one definition - works which will return a profit on the money that has been invested, and enable provision to be made for repayment. Indiscriminate borrowing is prejudicial to the individual as well as to the nation. The present Government, and some of its predecessors in office, borrowed recklessly.

Senator Payne:

– Can the honorable senator give an illustration of reckless borrowing in connexion with the Postal Department?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I could cite numerous instances, not particularly in connexion with the Postal Department, but over the whole of the administration. Had the bill been introduced at an earlier stage, ample time would have been allowed for a more comprehensive review than that which I have given. Any further criticism that I may have to offer regarding the borrowing policy of the Government, I shall reserve until the Parliament meets at Canberra and Dr. Earle Page presents his next budget.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– The reasoning of the Leader of the Opposition is greatly at fault, as it often is when he endeavours to tackle financial problems. He has charged the Treasurer with a change of front in regard to postal operations. Such a statement is absurd. The honorable senator has failed to realize that, in a business such as that of the Postal Department, it becomes essential to borrow money if the people are to be given the best possible service.

Should the revenues of the department be sufficient to meet interest and sinking fund payments, the policy which Dr. Earle Page enunciated as a private member is carried out. If, as a business man, the honorable senator found it necessary to borrow £10,000 for additions to his premises to cope with increasing trade, and he was able to make provision out of his revenue for interest payments and a sinking fund spread over a number of years, would he say that the business was not self-supporting ? The same principle applies to the Postal Department. In view of the development of the department, the policy followed years ago, that of depending entirely on revenue for carrying out its various important functions, would be quite out of place to-day. A borrowing policy on sound lines is justifiable in any business which has developed as our Postal Department has done.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Perhaps one of the greatest and most important works the Commonwealth, in conjunction with the States of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, has undertaken is the conservation of the waters of the river Murray. The construction of the Hume Weir is, I understand, proceeding in a satisfactory if somewhat slow manner, but for various reasons the estimated cost of a few million pounds lias been greatly exceeded. Inquiries as to the probable date of the completion of the work are always met with the answer that it will be at least four or five years before the weir is ready. I am not sure that objection can be raised on that score, because of the Colossal magnitude of the work, which will have far-reaching effect on the whole of the irrigable .area between the weir and the mouth of the river Murray. I noticed, some time ago, that it was intended to carry the water from the weir through a syphon under the river so that’ it might be used for irrigation purposes on the New South Wales side. Whether or not that scheme will come to fruition I cannot say, but it seems to me that it is time steps were taken to ensure that the waters impounded in the weir are made use of for irrigation purposes. Ifc is of no particular value to impound water unless it is to be used for navigation or irrigation purposes. I understand that already a considerable number of locks have been completed along the river, but I should like to know what steps have been taken to utilize the impounded water for irrigation purposes, particularly on the New South Wales side of the river.

Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland-

Honorary Minister) [11.36]. - The Government claims to have put the Postal Department on a business basis, and it considers that it is in strict conformity with business principles to spend loan funds on postal works. The Department otherwise could not be expected to meet the steadily increasing demands that are being made upon it for telephones, telegraphs, post offices, and other facilities. They certainly could not be met out of the ordinary revenue of the department. When the present Government took office there were 50,000 applications for telephones that had not been dealt with, and during the past four years applications for new telephones have been received at the rate of about 5,000 a month. To meet the heavy demands for post and telephone facilities has involved the department in an expenditure amounting to over £5,000,000 a year, the bulk of it being incurred in providing telephones for new subscribers and on new telephone exchanges. Most of the new exchanges are automatic which, although costly to hiatal, are cheaper to operate than manual exchanges. For the current year the capital expenditure of the Postal Department will be £5,250,000. Under the present administration substantial reductions have been made in postal and telegraphic charges, and there have been considerable extensions of telephonic and telegraphic services in country districts, which it would have been impossible to provide without the expenditure of loan funds. On the money borrowed for its development, the Department is paying interest, and making payments to a sinking fund in order to liquidate the debt in 35 years.

The Commonwealth’s contribution towards the cost of the Hume Weir and the other works which have been taken in hand by the River Murray Waters Commission is £75,000 for the first few months of the new financial year. As the Commonwealth finds one quarter of the total cost, the remainder being provided by the Victorian, New South Wales and South Australian Governments, the total expenditure on the Murray Waters scheme for the new year will thus be £1,200,000. The largest proportion of this expenditure will be devoted to the construction of the Hume Weir. When the weir was ‘ originally designed it was intended to impound 1,000,000 acre feet of water, but, subsequently, it was thought advisable to increase the capacity of the reservoir, and foundations were provided to carry a weir sufficient to impound 2,000,000 acre feet. It is considered that this quantity of water will be sufficient to irrigate large areas of land on both sides of the river.

Senator Grant:

– What steps are being taken to ensure that the water will be used for irrigation purposes?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– That is a matter which concerns the States. Having gone to the expense of building the weir they will- undoubtedly see that the waters are used. The scheme would otherwise prove most unprofitable to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

The Schedule -

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

– In discussing the proposed vote for the Postmaster-General’s Department, I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Gibson), the fact that when a lighthouse crane was being erected at Tasman Island a few weeks ago one man was thrown down the cliff and killed and another seriously injured. As the wireless station at Hobart does not provide a continuous service, the injured man was compelled to remain on the island in a very precarious condition for practically two days. Although the wireless service at Hobart is at present under private control, it is urgently necessary that some effort should be made by the Department to provide a continuous service, which may be the means of preventing hardship and perhaps saving human life. Considerable inconvenience was also caused some time ago when a ship wrecked on the North-West Cape was, in the absence of continuous wireless service, unable to communicate with Hobart. I trust the Minister will bring this matter under the notice of the Postmaster-General.

Senator Crawford:

– I shall do so.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I should like to congratulate the Government on its progressive policy, as reflected in the Postmaster-General’s Department, and also in the Department of Works and Railways in respect of which £300,000 has been allotted for the Oodnadatta to Alice Springs railway. It is gratifying to see that the Commonwealth Government is honoring its promise to South Australia. Great progress has been made in the Postmaster-General’s Department, and settlers, particularly in country districts, have been provided with much better means of communication than were available a few years ago. I understand the Government is spending about £5,000,000 a year on new works and in providing facilities urgently needed. Although these muchdesired results are being obtained, the Department has been able, in some instances under reduced charges, to pay its way. Good progress has also been made in providing improved telephonic facilities for settlers in the out-back portions. When in Adelaide recently, the PostmasterGeneral spoke of the progress which the Department had made, and stressed the fact that direct telephonic communication has now been established between Adelaide and Brisbane. An opportunity was taken at the time to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, which is known as the West Coast, where one-fifth of the wheat grown in the State is produced, many of the settlers cannot get in direct telephonic communication with the capital of the State. As direct communication has been established between Adelaide and Brisbane, it is the duty of the Department to provide settlers in the more remote parts of the State with a better service to the capital of the State. The Postmaster-General went into the matter, and I understand that what is termed the “ booster “ has been strengthened, so that residents of Cowell, on the eastern side of Eyre Peninsula, can now communicate with Adelaide. Those on the far west coast, which extends for a distance of 300 miles, however, cannot do so. I understand the lines have to be strengthened before this will he possible, but I trust the matter will be treated as urgent. As the settlers in that part of the State do most of their business with

Adelaide, with which there is no direct railway communication, they are seriously inconvenienced by being denied a direct telephonic service. When the proposed aerial mail service between Western Australia and South Australia is in operation, landing grounds will have to be provided on the west coast, and I urge that provision be made for the conveyance of passengers and mails to and from the depots to be established. This matter should also receive the early attention of the Government.

Senator Crawford:

– I shall bring the matters mentioned by the honorable senator under the notice of the Post-. master-General (Mr. Gibson).

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

– Under the heading “Department of Health,” provision is made for the expenditure of £2,100 on scrum and health laboratories, which, I understand, are to be established in the various States. I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether a laboratory will be established in the south of Tasmania as well as in the north, as is proposed?

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I am unable at the moment to give the information which the honorable senator desires, but I shall bring the matter under the notice of the Minister for Health, and doubtless a reply will be furnished in due course.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

, - Provision is made in the schedule for the expenditure of £2,600 on the Department of Health. As very serious damage has, and is being done by pests, it is very important, from a health viewpoint, that fruit of the best quality should be produced. The men on the land have experienced considerable hardships during the last few seasons, and, in some cases, have received little or no return for their labour.

Senator Crawford:

– That matter should be discussed in connexion with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. There is no vote for that department in this bill.

SenatorFINDLEY.- We are told that, in order to ensure good health, we should eat more fruit, and if we cannot procure wholesome fruit, our health is likely to be undermined.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Duncan:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing that matter under this proposed vote.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That I shall bring it forward at some other time.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill read a third time.

page 910

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1926

Summary of Proceedings

Order of the day for the resumption of the debate (vide page 401), on the motion by Senator Pearce that the paper be printed, called on.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 910

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Seventh Assembly

Debate resumed from 15th March (vide page 386) on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the paperbe printed.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council [12.2]. - Honorable senators will remember that the Australian delegates to the Seventh Assembly of the League were the Attorney-General, the Hon. J. G. Latham, M.P., the Hight Hon. Sir Joseph Cook, and A. G. Manning, Esq., M.P. The substitute. delegates were Sir Arthur Rickard and Miss Freda Bage. The outstanding feature of the Seventh Assembly was the admission of Germany, not only as a member of the League, but also to a permanent seat on its council. It surely was a milestone passed on the road towards peace when the leading nation among those opposed to the Empire and its Allies in the Great War became associated with them on the League of Nations, the declared object of which is to safeguard the peace of the world. The important subject of disarmament was dealt with by the third committee of the League. This subject, with which is linked up arbitration and security, is in an improved position today because of the Locarno agreement, the coming into operation of which was dependent on the entry of Germany into the League. This matter is still in the hands of the preparatory commission, which is engaged in technical investigations, and is drawing up a programme for the conference to be held this year on the limitation of armaments. Honorable senators will have seen in the press this morning a draft of the proposals that are being put forward. Should this draft he favorably received by the nations at the meeting of the League, it will constitute a further step in the direction of dealing with the vexed question of the limitation of armaments. That matter is also the subject of an announcement by the Government of the United States of America, which invited the great nations to consider the question of further naval disarmament. Although that invitation has received a mixed reception, no advocate of peace can take exception to its reception by the Empire of which we form a part. Great Britain has again shown that her objects and desires are peaceful, and that she is willing to assist in any movement in the direction of peace consistent with the safeguarding of her own interests as an Empire. Another matter of a somewhat different character dealt with at the Assembly was that of the proposed International Economic Conference. This matter deserves the serious consideration of the Senate, and I propose to quote from the report on the subject submitted by Mr. Latham. If there is one danger that confronts the League, it is that of dealing with subjects that might lead to meddlesome interference in domestic concerns. Therefore, the International Economic Conference needs to be carefully watched and wisely directed. The report of Mr. Latham in this connexion commences -

  1. Theunis. the Chairman of the Preparatory Committee for the International Economic Conference, addressed the Second Committee at length upon the work of the committee. He stated that the lengthy and exhaustive programme of subjects which appeared in the report of the committee was not intended to he the agenda of the proposed conference, but was merely a list of subjects upon which documents were being obtained or prepared. The actual agenda would be decided by the council.

From the report of Mr. Latham’s address before the Assembly I take the following extract : -

The people of Australia were greatly interested in the proposal to hold an international economic conference, but they also regarded it with some concern. The question of holding a conference was raised by a resolution of the assembly, dated 24th September, 1925. That resolution left it to the council to decide the date upon which the conference should be held. The council had appointed a preparatory committee, but there had not yet been any authoritative description by the council of the nature and scope of the conference. The reports of the economic committee and of the rapporteur of the council recommended that the conference should be composed of members who would not be regarded as government delegates. The rapporteur to the council had gone further, and’ suggested that the conference should freely discuss all forms of programmes and doctrines, and should not be bound by the immediate necessity of transforming the conclusions of the conference into international engagements. It was very important, in view of the nature of these provisional recommendations, for the council to decide as quickly as possible as to the convening of the conference. There was a certain fear that the conference might feel itself entitled to make recommendations upon which the League might bo asked to take action, but many of which might prove to be of a domestic character. A declaration of the council upon the scope and nature of the suggested conference was, therefore, an early necessity.

Potential subjects of inquiry by the conference included questions of tariffs, questions of protection and freetrade, more particularly preferential tariffs, selling organizations, State trading, bounties, the organization of internal trade and commerce in relation to the utility of middlemen, & c, together with various questions affecting migration. Until the council had settled, at an early date, the scope and nature of the conference, work on all those matters would lie carried on, and thus a position might be reached in which all those matters would be assumed to be fit subjects of inquiry by the league.

Upon a number of those matters political opinion was acutely divided. It would be an error for the league to hold a conference of such a character that the league would risk becoming a party on one side or another in a domestic controversy. A definite decision upon the nature and scope of the conference should bo taken, and the conference should be defined as one of experts, not representing their governments, with the proviso that the League would best serve its own interests by avoiding domestic questions not of a truly international kind.

That was a timely warning to the League issued by the Australian delegate. I feel sure that the Senate will concur with those views. Sir David Gordon, a wellknown business man of South Australia, has already been nominated as one of Australia’s delegates to the further conference, and others have yet to be appointed. Mr. Latham’s statement represents the considered view of the Common wealth Government on this question. Mr. Latham also attended the meeting of the Second Committee when the general discussion on this matter took place. I shall read from the report of his address: -

For that reason he was very glad to hear M. Theunis (Belgium) say that it was for th, council to determine the scope of the work of the conference, and that, although so many questions had been touched upon in the preparatory committee, the object had merely been to collect information. The conference should avoid domestic issues, and confine itself to questions of a truly international character.

The conference ought to be a meeting of experts, and not of politicians or government delegates. The success of the Brussels conference had, in his opinion, been due to the fact that it had not been a conference of persons invested with power to bind any governments, but of men who had been able to express their views quite freely, without being influenced by political considerations.

Another important question to Australia discussed at the Assembly was that of mandates. The Sixth Committee, whose duty it was to consider this matter, expressed its appreciation of the work done by the Permanent Mandates Commission. Two points of interest to Australia arose. One referred to the right of individuals in mandated territories to petition to the League or to the Permanent Mandates Commission. At present, individuals have the right to send petitions by way of correspondence; but a suggestion was made that they should be entitled to attend personally before the Mandates Commission and advocate their claims. That was opposed by Australia on the ground that it would be embarrassing to the Power concerned, seeing that it might have no knowledge of the matters to be brought forward, and would, therefore, not have an opportunity of preparing evidence in rebuttal of any charges that might be made. The Government felt that, if complaints were submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Mandates Commission, and by him transmitted to the mandatory power, it would then be possible for a reply to be prepared. The Mandates Commission would then have before it, not only the charge, but also the defence. I am glad to say that the Mandates Commission adopted that view. The second point arose in connexion with the commission’s practice of submitting to the mandatory powers a questionnaire upon the subjects concerning which they are expected to report to the commission. As honorable senators are aware, there are different forms of mandates. In the past, these questionnaires have been prepared in accordance with the different kinds of mandate; but it was proposed to issue a general questionnaire dealing with all classes- of mandates. In the case of Australia’s mandate over New Guinea, that would have meant that we should be asked questions by the Mandates Commission, and presumably be expected to furnish replies, upon subjects concerning which Australia is under no obligation to render any account to the commission. Our delegates took exception to the general questionnaire, and it was not persisted in by the Mandates Commission, the view of the Commonwealth delegation being generally accepted by the League.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Yes, the old basis was perfectly satisfactory. A question arose as to the scope of the League. This subject was dealt with by the First Committee in connexion with the proposals made by Viscount Cecil in relation to the interpretation of the preamble and articles 3 and 4 of the covenant. This proposal raised the question as to what matters were “ within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world “ in the meaning of the covenant. On this point, it is as well that I should read extracts from Mr. Latham’s speech in the First Committee. The report of the delegation states -

Mr. Latham said that lie thought that the League would make a mistake if it sought to net iu matters plainly outside its jurisdiction, lt had been founded to safeguard the peace of Hie world. If its founders had wished to make i he League responsible for all matters which affected international relationships they would not have considered it necessary to include in the covenant a number of provisions conferring jurisdiction in specified international questions.

Mr. Latham went on to say ;

He thought, however, that it would be an advantage to sketch the general outlines of a policy for the League, without attempting to bind it permanently. Its activities might be divided into two classes: - Matters which were more or less critical and likely to disturb the peace of nations, and matters of general interest in which international co-operation was desir- able and which the covenant placed within the sphere of action of the League.

As to the first class, all members, by adhering to the covenant, had bound themselves to submit to the authority of the League, except in cases covered by Article 15, paragraph 8, which dealt with matters of domestic jurisdiction.

Under the second heading the League could not adopt any decision which would become binding upon its members, and he hoped that this class of activity would not become predominant lest the idea should be developed that duly made decisions of the League were not effectively binding. Every country desired to be master of its own internal policy, and he thought it would be to the advantage of the League if it kept that fact very clearly in view.

I think that all honorable senators will heartily endorse the attitude which Mr. Latham and his co-delegates took. In another portion of the report Mr. Latham states -

In addition to the matter dealt with above much of the time of the Assembly and its Committees was devoted to other important matters which demanded close and careful consideration. Satisfactory progress was made on such matters as health, intellectual cooperation, protection of women and children in the near East, traffic in opium, child welfare, and slavery.

I am sure that honorable senators will acknowledge, from what I have said and from the extracts made from the report, that the Australian delegation safeguarded the position of Australia in the League. They took a leading part in its deliberations, and it is gratifying to know that their view-point on those world affairs in which Australia is vitally interested apparently meets with the approval of other leading nations.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 912

DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AUSTRALIA

Proposed Railway to Barkly Tableland

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I move - (1.) That the Senate is of opinion that it is essential for the proper development of Northern Australia that a railway should be constructed from, north to south, which would connect the western portions of New South Wales and Queensland with the Barkly Tableland and other portions of Northern Australia.

  1. That the Senate is further of opinion that the Commonwealth Government should immediately call a conference of representatives of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland Governments, the Northern Aus- tralia Commission, and the Development and Migration Commission, with a view to apportioning the expense of constructing such a line.
  2. That, in view of the fact that the recent terrific losses in sheep owing to drought conditions would have been greatly minimized had such a line been in existence, the Senate is also of opinion that the Commonwealth Government should treat the matter as an urgent one.

I make no apology for bringing this proposal before the Senate. The construction of a railway line which would connect the western portions of New South Wales and Queensland with the Barkly Tableland is the most urgent public work in sight in Australia at the present time. Some years ago, as a member of the Public Works Committee, I had an opportunity, in company with other honorable senators, to travel over a great portion of the country which would be served by a railway constructed along the route I suggest. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) also visited the Northern Territory a few years ago, and I am sure that, from his personal knowledge of the country which he traversed in the western portion of Queensland and the Barkly Tableland, he will confirm all that I may have to say on this motion as to its actual and potential value. The scheme which I am submitting is not altogether a new one. It has been advocated for many years by those who have interests in that portion of Australia, and it has had careful consideration from railway officials in New South Wales and Queensland. A number of trial surveys have, I understand, been made of the country that would be served, and much information has been obtained as to the likelihood of such a line being a payable proposition.

Senator Ogden:

– Roads are better than railways now for the opening up of new country.

SenatorFOLL. - I shall come to that point later. The originator of this proposal was the late Sir Thomas McIlwraith, generally regarded as the greatest statesman in the history of Queensland.

Senator Ogden:

– The honorable senator is forgetting Mr. Theodore.

Senator FOLL:

Mr. Theodore is also a supporter of the scheme. Many years ago, when Premier of Queensland, Sir Thomas McIlwraith advocated such a proposal as I am placing before the Senate to-day, for the purpose of linking up the valuable pastoral areas in the western portions of Queensland, New South Wales, and the Northern Territory. Although for a considerable portion of the route the railway would pass through Queensland territory, it could not be regarded as a Queensland line, because, as I shall endeavour to show, the object is to connect the valuable pastoral territory in Northern Australia with the richest pastoral areas in New South Wales and Queensland.

One reason why this proposal should be regarded as urgent is that during the last two years Queensland has experienced probably the worst drought in its history. It is estimated that over 7,000,000 sheep, worth in round figures £10,500,000, have perished. But that does not represent the entire loss. It takes no account of the wool which would have been taken off those sheep had they lived, nor does it include the heavy losses incurred by the Queensland Railway Department owing to the serious falling off in wool freights, or the extra expenditure incurred by the pastoralists in hand feeding sheep or moving starving stock to distant agistment areas.

Senator Abbott:

– What about the losses in cattle?

Senator FOLL:

– Unfortunately, the Queensland cattlemen also lost very heavily during the drought. It will be seen, therefore, that there is urgent need for a railway following the route I am advocating, to enable pastoralists to move stock to more favoured grass areas during a period of drought. Those who are in a position to know declare that had the line been built before the recent drought struck western Queensland, millions of sheep would have been saved to Australia. It is not too much to say that the value of the stock saved would have more than paid for the cost of the line. Experience shows that drought conditions rarely, if ever, prevail over the entire continent at the same time. Even during the recent drought in Queensland - I regret to think that the position is only partially relieved even now - there was a considerable area of good grass country available in the south-western portion of the State and the north-west of New South Wales; but. in the absence of direct railway communication, it was not possible to shift stock to it from the drought-stricken areas. As all honorable senators know, the present railway lines run from east to west. Under existing conditions, therefore, if a pastoralist in the far western portion of Queensland wished to move his stock to the south-western district, he would have to truck them 400 miles or 500 miles to the coast, several hundred miles along the coast, and then back again along another route to the south-west, or vice versa. The cost would be prohibitive; indeed, it would be almost impossible to shift starving stock in that way. Very lew would be alive by the time they reached their destination.

I direct the attention of honorable senators to the class of country that will be served by such a line as I am now advocating. The present rail-head in New South Wales is at Bourke, not a great distance from the Queensland border. The country around Bourke is somewhat similar to that to be found in the south-western and southern portions of Queensland. Travelling in a northerly direction from Bourke, the Queensland border is touched near the township of Hungerford. The next town on the route is Thargomindah, which is in tha centre of rich pastoral country. At the present time that country is devoted almost wholly to cattle raising, but it is generally admitted that with suitable means of transport a great deal of it would carry sheep. Travelling further north via Springvale, Windorah, and Eromangah, we reach country the centre of which is Boulia. It was my privilege to first visit Boulia sixteen or seventeen years ago. I did not visit it a second time until I passed through it with a sectional committee of the Public Works Committee about four or five years ago. In the intervening period a certain amount of new settlement had taken place. Boulia is at present 200 or 300 miles from the railhead. With reasonable railway communication it would lend iestlf to- a great deal of settlement for the purpose of wool-growing. Figures have been supplied to me by settlers in the district and the Department of Public Lands in Queeusland showing that, with a block of CO, 000 or 70,000’ acres it would be quite possible to make a good living in sheep.raising in that district. The absence of railway communication, and the necessity to carry everything by wagon, make it a practical impossibility to properly develop that portion of Australia. The cost per ton for the cartage of wellboring plant or wire netting for the erection of dog-proof fencing is totally against settlement on a comparatively small scale.

Senator Ogden:

– I suppose it would be possible to utilize motor transport?

Senator FOLL:

– Motor transport presents almost insuperable difficulties. When I passed through that district with the sectional committee of the Public Works Committee, arrangements had to be made in advance for supplies of petrol. Furthermore, it is impossible for motors to traverse the black-soil plains in the wet season. Motor transport might afford partial relief, but it would not be the means of opening up the country. It was tried as an experiment during the recent drought in portions of Western Queensland. It would not be possible to send large consignments of stock by that means.

It must be borne in mind that this area contains some of the finest sheepraising country in Australia. I think that every honorable senator will agree than the wool industry has been the mainstay of Australia in recent years. Something like 40 per cent, of the income tax in Queensland is paid by men who are engaged in the pastoral industry. All the lands in this district are held under leasehold from the Crown, and leases are frequently falling in and being subdivided into smaller areas. There is always a keen demand foi- the land whenever a ballot is held. Instead of carrying one sheep to every 3 or 4 acres, it is carrying only one to every 20 acres. Smaller selectors, who are far more useful to a country than those who hold large tracts, cannot take it up at present, because they would be hampered by the lack of communication.

Travelling north from Boulia one encounters the Barkly Tableland, on the border of Queensland and the Northern Territory. Every member of the Public Works Committee who travelled across the Barkly Tableland was impressed by the wonderful country available there for settlement. The rainfall is probably more regular than in any other large pastoral area in Australia. During the first three months of the year monsoonal rains are experienced. It is generally admitted that greater dependability can be placed on the rainfall there than in the Barcoo country, which is regarded as the finest merino country in Australia. The rainfall records over the last 25 years confirm the opinion expressed by many persons who are acquainted with this part of the country, that the Barkly Tableland is amongst the finest pastoral areas in Australia. Commencing on the same parallel as the township of Newcastle Waters, but a little to the south of that township, there are great plains which stretch out east and west to the coastline on both sides of the continent, and grow Flinders and Mitchell grasses, that are ideal for sheep raising. With proper communication those plains would be as rich ,as any area in Australia. Furthermore, sub-artesian water can be struck anywhere at a depth of 160 to 200 feet. The proper development of Northern Australia will not commence until the line which I am advocating is constructed.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– I expect that the North Australian Commission will report on this proposal shortly.

Senator FOLL:

– I hope that it will. Senator Sir Henry Barwell. - Should we not have that report before being asked to pass this motion?

Senator FOLL:

– I do not think it is necessary to wait for the report.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Did the North. Australian Commission report on the line from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs?

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– It had not been appointed when the construction of that line was consented to.

Senator FOLL:

– This line should have been constructed before that from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs; it would help to make up the loss on the latter. I do not wish to stress that point. The railway from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs’ is being constructed as the result of a very unfortunate agreement, which was entirely in favour of South Australia, and against the Commonwealth Government. The line that I now propose would not compete with that from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs. They would be hundreds of miles apart, and would tap entirely different country. The line from Bourke to Darwin would junction with that proposed from Alice Springs to

Darwin at Newcastle Waters or thereabouts. I do not attempt to dogmatize on the route that it should take, because it would be necessary to have the matter thoroughly investigated by the Public Works Committee.

It is not intended by those who have suggested the construction of this railway that it should compete with the north-south railway. In the course of its investigations the Public Works Committee took the evidence of Sir Brudenell White, who was then Chief of the General Staff, and was, as he still is, one of Australia’s most capable authorities on defence, and from a defence standpoint he favoured the construction of the line I am now suggesting. When Lord Kitchener submitted a recommendation to the Commonwealth Government on which our compulsory training system was based, he. suggested the construction of certain strategic railways for defence purposes, of which the line I am now proposing formed a most important link. The details of that scheme are now on file in the records of the Common wealth Department of Works and Railways. The Commissioner of Railways, Mr. Bell, who has had long experience in railway matters, also gave evidence before the Public Works Committee. He stated that he had given serious consideration to the alternative proposals for connect-, ing the Northern Territory with the south, and that he was strongly in favour of building a line through Western Queensland, because it would open up an unlimited area of new land for selection. Mr. Hobler, who has recently been appointed a member of the North Australia Commission, was formerly engineer for Railways in the Commonwealth Railways Department, and in that capacity accompanied the Public Works Committee on its tour of investigation. He has inspected the stretch of country to the west of the Darwin to Emungalen railway and running towards the Western Australian ports, and on several occasions he has traversed the rich Barkly Tableland that would be tapped by the railway I am now suggesting. He also was strongly in favour of building a line through Western Queensland. As a matter of fact, he would go further than I now propose, because he would have the north-south line, now being constructed, built through Western Queensland to Birdsville, and connect with the Oodnadatta line at Maree. Such a line would certainly compete with the present northsouth railway. Two years ago, when Senator Pearce was Minister for Home and Territories, he returned from Darwin through Western Queensland. He saw the Barkly Tableland covered with grass, and cattle there in splendid condition. He described the country as being infinitely better looking at that period than the Western Queensland areas which are already the envy of all Australia. It is generally admitted that for opening up a country, sheep are a better proposition than cattle. I am not anxious to decry the developmental work done by the cattle-breeders of Australia, but I think that Senator Sir William Glasgow, who is so closely associated with the beef-raising industry, will admit that under present conditions wool is a better proposition than beef. There are, of course, large areas of country that are unsuitable for conversion from cattle to sheep. On the Barkly Tableland and in Western Queensland there are hundreds of square miles of country now occupied by cattle, not because the station-owners prefer to raise cattle, but because, owing to the lack of means of transport, they cannot secure at a reasonable cost the wire netting and boring plants needed for sheep runs, and the means of getting their wool away. For cattle raising larger tracts of country are required than is needed by the wool-growers. The proposal that I have put forward is of considerable moment, not only to the people of Queensland,New South Wales, and the Northern Territory, but also to the Commonwealth as a whole. The construction of this railway would provide a means of guarding against huge losses through drought. I think I am safe in saying that there are, in the paddocks of Western Queensland, enough bones of dead sheep to ballast this railway, which might have been saved. As a matter of fact, if the line had been built years ago when Sir Thomas McIlwraith first proposed it, it is possible that the value of the sheep whose lives would have been saved, even during the recent drought, would have paid for the building of the line. To my mind the construction of this line is one of the most urgent public needs of Australia at the present time. I trust that the Government will accept my motion and call a conference with the States concerned between now and the time when we meet again at Canberra. I trust also that as a result of that conference the Government will realize that in the interests of the whole Commonwealth this line should be built at once. The task is too great for one State to undertake. Queensland has recently suffered frightful losses, and certainly could not assume the responsibility. It is a national work that should be undertaken by the Commonwealth in conjunction with the States, on lines similar to those followed in the case of the river Murray waters scheme and the Kyogle to South Brisbane railway.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I have much pleasure in seconding this motion, and I congratulate Senator Foll on bringing it forward. To my mind the building of the proposed railway is of vital importance, not only to the States immediately concerned, but also to the whole of the people of Australia. I have seen the country that would be served by this line, and know what it is capable of producing, I have long felt that if Australia is to derive the greatest benefit from its development, a railway such as has been suggested by the honorable senator should be built. I should like to have another opportunity to into the matter as Senator Foil has done, and I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 to 2.30 p.m.

page 916

JUDICIARY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLach- lan) read a first time.

page 916

CASE OFC. H. EVERETT

Appointment of Select Committee

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

I move -

That a select committee, with power to send for persons, papers, and records,be appointed to inquire into and report upon the ease of C. H. Everett, late Chief Armourer in the Royal Australian Navy, such committee to consist of Senators Sampson, H. Hays, Hoare, Thompson, and the mover.

This case, which concerns Charles Henry Everett, late Chief Armourer in the Royal Australian ‘Navy, who transferred from the Royal Navy to the Australian Naval Forces in 1912, is a comparatively small matter, but involves a vital principle. I would not have brought this man’s case before the Senate had I not exhausted every other means to obtain fair play. Having failed to do so, I bring the matter before honorable senators for their consideration. When Everett was transferred from the Royal Navy in 1912 to the Royal Australian Navy for a period of five years, an agreement was properly signed and executed on behalf of the Imperial authorities and the Commonwealth Government. The agreement bears the signatures of Charles Henry Everett and D. Dutton-Brown, a commander of the Royal Navy, and is counter-signed by M. Silver, a captain of the Royal Australian Navy, on hehalf of the Commonwealth Government. The agreement provided that, on Everett joining the Royal Australian Navy, his wife was to be entitled to a free passage from England to Australia, or that he was to receive a free return passage to England when the agreement expired. At the close of Everett’s five years’ term a state of war still existed, and he was not allowed to resign. He served on the Australia or the Melbourne in the North Sea during the war, and returned to Australia before the termination of hostilities, when his period of service was extended for another five years. At the end of that time, his services were still retained, and he applied for, and was given, a position in the auxiliary land forces. Instead of serving five years, as provided in the original agreement, he served approximately ten years, and was then 57 years of age. During the whole of this time, he was still of the opinion that he was entitled to a free passage to England when his service in the Royal Australian Navy had terminated. After continuing in the service for ten years, he asked the Naval authorities to observe the agreement, and provide him with free passage to London.

He was then informed that his period of service having been extended on two different occasions, and because he had transferred to the auxiliary land forces, he had forfeited his claim to a free passage to England. Everett did not think for a moment that when his period of service was extended he was forfeiting his rights under the agreement. He approached me and I brought the matter before the proper authorities. Everett also wrote to the Admiralty in England, and, on the 22nd January, of this year, received the following reply: -

I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st November, and to inform you that your claim for a return passage to the United Kingdam is one which the Naval authorities of the Commonwealth must decide, and in which Their Lordships are unable to interfere. A copy of your letter is accordingly being sent to the naval representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in London for the consideration of the High Commissioner. Your service certificate and the documents enclosed in your letter are returned herewith.

To show that Everett firmly believed that the conditions of the agreement would be observed, I may say that, when his wife, who was entitled to a free passage to this country if he did not desire one to England, was coming to Australia, he instructed her to pay her own expenses. As a definite undertaking has been entered into, I consider Everett has a proper claim to the payment of the passage money, which probably would not amount to more than £60 or £70.

Senator Payne:

– Is he asking for a free passage for his wife, too?

Senator OGDEN:

– No. He is only entitled to one free passage. If a select committee inquired into this man’s case, it could complete its work within a few days; but, if the Minister will say that an adjustment will be made in accordance with the terms of the agreement, there is no need for the appointment of a committee. The authorities experience considerable difficulty in obtaining naval recruits, as shown by the standing advertisements in every newspaper, and every consideration should be given to the claims of the men who have served in the Navy if that branch of the Service is to become popular.

Debate (on motion, by Senator William Glasgow) adjourned.

page 918

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

About five years ago tlie Government introduced into the Senate a bill for an act to amend the Defence Act 1903-1918. During the course of the debate a question was raised as to the omission of certain sections of the British Army Act from the bill. After a prolonged debate the Minister (Senator Pearce) introduced certain clauses which were similar to those in the Army Act. I refer to sections 42 and 43. Section 42 reads -

If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer and, on due application made to him, does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Army Council in order to obtain justice, who are hereby required to examine into such complaint, and, through a Secretary of State, make their report to His Majesty, in order to receive the directions of His Majesty thereon.

Senator Pearce, in introducing these amendments, said:

I have brought forward this proposal in response to the suggestion of certain honorable senators that Die provisions which are in the Army Act, and which apply in time of war and which in time of peace are contained in our own regulations, should he embodied in the statute itself. A promise was made that that course would be followed, and these proposals give effect to that promise. The proposed new section goes farther and meets the case put by Senator DrakeBrockman, who pointed out that as the officer appointed to a divisional command is appointed on the recommendation of the Military Board, an officer’s appeal under the existing regulations can go only to that Board, and that, therefore, it is really an appeal from Cæsar to Cæsar. The honorable senator suggested that an officer should have a right of appeal to the Governor-General, and that is provided for in the proposed new section. It will also give an officer similar power to obtain redress to that which is provided in the Army Act, but for the Army Council it substitutes the Military Board or the General Officer Commanding of the Australian Forces; for the Secretary of State it substitutes the Minister; and for His Majesty it substitutes the Governor-General. It is similar to the Australian Military Regulations, but it goes farther by providing for an appeal by an officer to the Governor-General, both in time of peace and in time of war, whereas the present regulations provide that an appeal in time of peace may go only as far as the Military Board. Under the proposed new section a soldier will have a right of appeal to a different authority from that which has caused the thing to be done of which he complains. In other words, if a wrong has been done by his captain he may appeal to the captain’s next superior officer, and so on, right up to the General Officer Commanding. In the British Army the appeal by a soldier does not go to the King. This, however, is not a class distinction as between the officer and the soldier. The distinction is made because in the case of an officer he would be appealing for redress from the act of his superior officer to that superior officer. A further reference to the King is therefore given in the case of an officer in order that the civil authority may intervene between the officer of whom complaint is made and the officer who makes the complaint. Under the Army Act the right of appeal is up to the General Officer Commanding in the case of the soldier. The proposals I have submitted provide for a right of appeal in peace time from the General Officer Commanding to the Military Board. In the case of an officer, however, the appeal is to the Governor-General, who, in some cases, is the only authority through whom redress can be obtained.

Ex-Senator Gardiner, at that time the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, in his speech on the bill, said -

The Minister (Senator Pearce) has made a very fair attempt to meet the wishes of the committee as expressed when the subject was previously discussed.

That the amendment was accepted by all parties in the Senate indicates that the application to Australia of these provisions of the Army Act relating to the right of officers to appeal was in accord with the wishes of all sections of the community. Subsequently, the bill went to another place, where it was heatedly debated, with the result that the Government was compelled to abandon it. Matters have remained unchanged since then, although I had expected that before now amending legislation would have been introduced. I bring this bill forward now in the hope not that the Senate will pass it to-day, but that the Government will see the desirability of doing something in the direction I have indicated. So far as their right of appeal is concerned, there is no reason why military officers in Australia should not be on the same footing as those in the British Army.

Senator Thompson:

– Are these proposals in keeping with the King’s regulations 1

Senator ELLIOTT:

– They are modifications of the Army Act, in that, for the Army Council the Military Board or the General Officer Commanding the Australian Forces is substituted; for the Secretary of State is substituted the Minister, and for His Majesty is substituted the Governor-General.

Debate (on motion by Senator Glasgow) adjourned.

page 919

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is occasioned by the impending removal of the Seat of Government to Canberra. By section 52 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904-1926, it is provided that the principal registry of the Arbitration Court shall, when the Seat of Government is established, be at the Seat of Government ; but, until that time, it shall be at such place as the Minister directs. The Minister has, on three occasions, under this authority, directed that the principal registry should be situated at various places in Melbourne. In view of the early establishment of the Seat of Government at Canberra, an alteration of the section becomes necessary, because it is not proposed, at present, to remove the principal registry to Canberra. The provisionsof section 10 of the Judiciary Act, which are somewhat similar to section 52 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, were amended in 1926 to provide that, on and after a date to be fixed by proclamation, the principal seat of the High Court shall be at the Seat of Government, and that until the date so fixed, the principal seat of the High Court shall be at such place as the Governor-General from time to time appoints. The proposed amendment is on similar lines to that made in the Judiciary Act. The hill provides that, on and after a proclaimed date, the principal registry shall be situated at the Seat of Government, but that until then, it shall be situated where the Minister directs. Section 52 (2) of the principal act also provides that each district registry shall be situated in the capital city of the State where it is situated. This would preclude the establishment of a district registry at Canberra. Under section 51 b of the act, the Governor-General may establish district registries for the registration of organizations. This power is not limited to the States. The bill provides that each district registry situated in a State shall be situated in the capital city of the State. The amendment will enable the Government, if it thinks fit, to provide for the establishment of a district registry in the Territory for the Seat of Government, or in any other territory of the Commonwealth. Honorable senators will see that this is merely a machinery measure to meet the position which shortly will arise. I therefore confidently ask the Senate to expedite its passage.

Senator Thompson:

– The High Court could more easily be removed to Canberra than could many of the departments .

Senator McLACHLAN:

– This bill refers, not to the High Court, but to the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. As the Government does not intend that the court shall function at Canberra from the date of the transfer of the Seat of Government, this bill will enable it to carry out its duties as at present, and will place in the hands of the Minister the power to remove the principal registry to Canberra when he considers that to be desirable.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– By the courtesy of the Honorary Minister (Senator McLachlan), I was given the opportunity to peruse this bill. It is, as he stated, simply a machinery measure to meet the position which will arise by reason of the transfer of the Seat of Government to Canberra. The bill seeks to vest in the Minister the power to determine from time to time the place in which the principal registry shall be situated. Realizing that we are now in a transition stage, I shall support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Situation of registries).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I should like the Minister to explain sub-section 2 of the proposed new section 52, which reads -

Each district registry situated in a State shall be situated in the capital city of the State.

If this is a new departure, I regard it as an improvement.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– So far as the district registries in the States are concerned, they will continue to be situated in the capital city of each State. I call attention to the words “ situated in a State.” The Federal Capital Territory is not a State. Any registry in that territory can be placed wherever desired ; it may be at Canberra or somewhere else.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and passed through its remaining stages.

page 920

JUDICIARY BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Aus tralia · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure, like that which preceded it, is more or less a machinery bill, to carry us over the transition period. But honorable senators will see, perhaps, that it goes a little further than that. The greater part of the bill deals with provisions necessary for the exercising of the judicial power at the Seat of Government; but clause 6 deals with minor amendments of general application. The present judicial system in the Territory is purely provisional, having been provided in 1909 and 1910, when the Federal Territory was almost unoccupied. The provision made was the bare minimum necessary at the time, and was to be superseded when the Seat of Government was established. Section 8 of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909, enacts that “Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the High Court and the justices thereof shall have, within the Territory, the jurisdiction which immediately before the proclaimed day (that is, the first January, 1911) belonged to the Supreme Court of the State, and the justices thereof.” Technically, therefore, the High Court now has full original jurisdiction in the Territory, but there is no registry of the High Court in the Territory, and no machinery for giving effect to the jurisdiction. By section 11 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, the several inferior courts of New South Wales are given the same jurisdiction in the Territory as they had. before. This provision has operated, and the district courts and the courts of summary jurisdiction have exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction in the Territory. The requirements of the Territory are - (1) a superior court of original jurisdiction, civil and criminal; (2) a court of summary jurisdiction, civil and criminal; (3) an appellate court. As regards (1), the practical alternatives were to create a Supreme Court of the Territory, or to vest the jurisdiction in the High Court. In view of the probably small amount of Supreme Court work, the former alternative has been chosen. It has also the advantage that the use of an existing court, which already has its machinery and procedure, dispenses with all the detailed legislation which the establishment of a new court would require. It is deemed unnecessary to make provision for intermediate courts, of the nature of district or county courts. The courts of summary jurisdiction will be provided for by ordinance of the Territory. Clause 3 of the bill establishes a registry of the High Court in the Territory, which will rank as a district registry until the principal seat of the High Court is transferred to Canberra. Clause 4 vests in the High Court full original jurisdiction for territorial purposes, and enables the Governor-General, by ordinance, to add such further special jurisdictions as may be found to be necessary. This jurisdiction is to be exercised according to the ordinary procedure of the High Court, but subject to any special rules of court that may be made by the judges in that behalf. The only appeal from such a decision will be such as lied to the Full Court of the High Court. Clause 5 provides for appeals from judgments of any court of the Territory. The only territorial court which it is proposed at present to establish is a court of summary jurisdiction, civil and criminal. The proposal is that such appeals will be heard either by a single judge or by the Full Court. If the appeal is taken to a single judge, the High Court may give leave for a further appeal to the Full Court of the High Court. Clause 6 is not limited to the Territory. It is an amendment to section 49 of the principal act. It would enable State practitioners, who are already given the right to prac- tise in federal courts, to practise in the courts of any territory. It also deals with the removal of names from the legal practitioners’ roll. It dispenses with the necessity to make an application to the court for the removal of a name in the case of a practitioner who was placed on the roll by virtue of his State qualification, and who has been removed from the State roll. Clauses 7 and 8 provide for the repeal, from dates to be subsequently fixed, of the sections in the acts of 1909-10 which the provisions of this act will supersede. The measure is technical in regard to certain details, but the memorandum circulated by the honorable the AttorneyGeneral, whom I represent in this chamber for the time being, clearly indicates its purpose. As the bill goes through committee, I will be able to inform honorable senators further on matters of detail.

Senator Abbott:

– Will the bill inter fere in any way with the present courts of summary jurisdiction?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The ordinances will deal with that matter. This measure is concerned more with the procedure and establishment of the High Court at Canberra. I understand that the attendance of one justice of the High Court will be sufficient for the purpose.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The bill, like that just passed, is largely a machinery measure, necessary to meet changing circumstances; but I am not clear about its effect upon the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Minister mentioned an alternative proposal. I hope that it will not in any way limit the powers of the High Court.

Senator McLachlan:

– Not at all.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The memorandum issued by the Attorney-General contains a great deal of legal phraseology rather disconcerting to the layman who may be endeavouring to define the purpose of this legislation. If the Minister can assure me that the High Court, in its original jurisdiction will not be in any way limited I shall be easier in my mind. I hope that in committee the Minister will elucidate the point I have raised.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I am wondering if this measure will in any way delay the transfer of the High Court to Canberra. If so, the mercantile community will be inconvenienced and a certain amount of jealousy will be felt by other sections of the Public Service. I take it that the High Court judges and staffs are as much a part of the Public Service as any other section of Commonwealth servants, and if they are to have the privilege of remaining in Melbourne whilst officers of other administrative staffs have to be transferred to Canberra, the proposal will be regarded with disfavour. But I am not thinking of that so much as the convenience of the mercantile community. Canberra is more centrally situated than Melbourne for conciliation and arbitration proceedings, because the great bulk of the people live on the eastern coast of Australia. I should like to be assured by the Minister that the passage of this bill will not unduly delay the transfer of both Federal Courts to Canberra.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · NAT

– I can assure Senator Needham that the jurisdiction of the High Court will not be in any way limited by the passage of this amending bill. Proposed new sub-section 30b provides - (1.) The High Court shall have, in relation to the Territory for the Seat of Government -

  1. the same original jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, as immediately before the first day of January One thousand nine hundred and eleven the Supreme Court of the State of New South Wales had in relation to that State; and
  2. such original jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, as is from time to time vested in the High Court by Ordinances made by the GovernorGeneral.
Senator Needham:

– But what is the alternative mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Up to the present we have applied the practice and the jurisdiction of the State of New South Wales to the Federal Capital Territory. We are now seeking to apply the jurisdiction of the High Court to the Territory for the Seat of Government, butwe are keeping the law as it was on the date referred to. Ther will be no limitation of jurisdiction at all. If this measure were not passed, the High Court would have to function at Canberra, necessitating the provision of . court houses, registries, and so forth.

Meanwhile, there will be a district registry only, and that will suffice for Canberra for a few years. In that registry a judge of the High Court will function from time to time as occasion requires. The whole of the appellate jurisdiction is preserved. In that respect, therefore, no limitation is placed upon the High Court’s functioning at Canberra. It would be unwise, at this stage in the growth of the Federal Capital Territory, to fix the Seat of Government at Canberra for the purposes of the Judiciary Act. So soon as it became the Seat of Government, the principal registry of the High Court would have to be placed there. To do that at present would not only be premature, but also operate to the detriment of the majority of litigants, who are situated in the two main centres of Melbourne and Sydney. The High Court now functions in every capital city, and when the proper time arrives it will function fully at Canberra. I can assure Senator Thompson that this amendment of the Judiciary Act will convenience the commercial interests of Canberra, and will not inconvenience the remainder of the commercial community that is concentrated in the big centres of population.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Registries).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western. Australia

.- The clause reads -

Section eleven of the principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2.) the following sub-section: - “ (2a) There shall also be a Registry of the High Court in the Territory for the Seat of Government, and that Registry shall ‘be a District Registry until the principal seat of the High Court is at the Seat of Government.”

The Minister has stated that it would probably be inconvenient for the High Court to move to the Seat of Government at Canberra just now, and that, in the meantime, the attendance of one justice will be quite sufficient to enable the court to function in civil, criminal, and appellate jurisdiction. I should like to know why it is inconvenient to effect the removal immediately. This Parliament is a higher court than the High Court. It is in the act of moving to the Seat of Government at Canberra at much greater inconvenience and cost than would be involved in the transference of the High Court. The importance of that court is not as great as that of the national Parliament, and it should be instructed to at once prepare to move to the Seat of Government at Canberra. With all due respect to such an august institution, ‘ 1 cannot see why it should be so tenderly handled. The other day I asked to be advised of the date of . the removal to Canberra of the Public Service Board The reply which I received was that one member of the board, perhaps, would be sent there for the time being, but that it would be inconvenient for the whole board to move because proper accommodation was not available for it. Neither the Public Service Board nor the High Court should be placed above Parliament. If it is convenient for Parliament to move it should be convenient also for the High Court and the Public Service Board and their staffs. The cost to litigants would not be any greater, and the court could function from Canberra as well as from- Melbourne. I can see no reason for delay. Will the Minister tell us how long one of the justices will exercise the whole of the authority of the High Court ?

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– Last year Parliament amended the Judiciary Act. Prior to the amendment section 10 of that act read as follows: -

The principal seat of the High Court shall be at the Seat of Government. Until the Seat of Government is established, the principal seat of the High Court shall be at such pla.ce as the Governor-General from time to time appoints.

The amendment made last year reads -

On and after a date to be fixed by proclamation the principal seat of the High Court shall be at tlie Seat of Government.

It was then recognized that it was impossible to accommodate immediately at the Seat of Government the High Court and its principal registry. I wish it to be understood that the reason for the delay is not any inconvenience that might be caused to the High Court. The removal will take place when the necessary accommodation is provided. That matter will entail a great deal of consideration by the Minister.

Senator Thompson:

– Do not those conditions operate in respect to other departments also?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– To a certain extent, no doubt they do. All that has been provided at Canberra is accommodation for those services that are absolutely essential to the functioning of the Parliament. i ask honorable senators to dismiss from their minds any idea that the delay is caused because of inconvenience to the High Court. When the proper time arrives a proclamation will be issued in the terms of section 10 of the Judiciary Act, as amended last year. Plans have been prepared for the provision of accommodation in respect of court houses, chief registry, and strong-rooms for the records.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 3.31 to8 p.m.

page 923

STATES LOAN BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

page 923

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Pearce) read a first time. pearl shell overseas marketing bill.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

page 923

PEARL SHELL 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.

page 923

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY 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:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

When the Wine Export Bounty Bill was passed in 1924, sections of the grape-growing industry were in a parlous condition. A large number of returned soldiers who had been settled on the’ land by the State Governments were growing doradilla grapes for spirit making, the sale of which is dependent on the wine-making industry, as the spirit from that grape is used principally in fortifying wine. The decision to grant a bounty was mainly with a view to help the growers of doradilla grapes. The bounty has had a marked effect on the grape-growing industry. Previously doradilla grapes brought about £3 per ton or even lower. Under the Wine Export Bounty Act, the Minister intimated that he. would not regard anything less than £5 per ton as a reasonable price, a nd this ensured an absolute minimum of £5 to growers of doradilla grapes. Since the passing of the act, the bounty has been paid on approximately 2,500,000 gallons of wine. As a result of the bounty, an export trade in fortified wine has developed, and these wines have been favorably commented on in London. The bounty paid under the 1924 act expires on the 31st August of this year, and the Government has, therefore, decided to extend it for a further period of three years. The bill further provides for a reduction in the rate of bounty as an indication to the industry that it must set up an effective organization for its marketing arrangements, so that it will be in a position to carry on when the bounty is withdrawn. The bill also extends the provision of the original act which assured a reasonable price for doradilla grapes to all grapes used in the production of the wine or the fortifying spirit used in wine. The bill, therefore, deals with three matters - (1) The extension of the period of the bounty; (2) The rate of bounty; (3) Benefits to grape-growers. The trade must realize that the bounty cannot go on for ever, and must ultimately carry on with the assistance of a refund of the excise duty of ls. 3d. paid on the fortifying spirit. The Government is of opinion that the trade must be properly organized, and that three years is a reasonable time for the trade lo set its house in order. The rate of bounty proposed is ls. 9d. per gallon, which, with the drawback of ls. 3d. allowed on fortified wine, makes a total of 3s. per gallon. When the 4s. rate of bounty was fixed, Australian fortified wine paid 4s. per gallon duty on entering Great Britain. On 1st July, 1925, this duty was reduced to 2s., and producers have since that date received this further advantage. Australian wine is sold at from ls. 6d. to 2s. per gallon f.o.b. Australian ports. It must, therefore, be realized that a bounty of ls. 9d. - approximately the sale price of the wine - is a very generous contribution from the public revenue in the interests of the industry. Under the act, as I have already stated, the Minister intimated that he would not regard anything below £5 per ton for doradilla grapes as a reasonable price. Where that price was not given, payment of bounty was withheld. It has now been decided to authorize the Minister to withhold the bounty unless he is satisfied that a reasonable price is being paid for all grapes and fortifying spirit used in the production of fortified wine in respect of which bounty is paid, or in the production of the fortifying spirit contained in such wine.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– As this measure has only just been circulated, it is quite impossible for me to intelligently discuss its provisions. In these circumstances, I shall have to depend upon the brief and somewhat incomplete speech of the Minister, from which I gather that it is proposed to decrease the rate of bounty and to extend the period during which it will be paid for a further three years from August next.

Senator Crawford:

– That is practically all the measure contains.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If that is so, and it will be a means of assisting those engaged in the industry, I offer no objection to its passage.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I should like the Minister (Senator Crawford) to say what expenditurewill be involved if this measure is passed. It seems to be the policy of the Government to continue to impose heavy dutieson imported goods, and also to grant bounties to industries incapable of carrying on without financial assistance. It would appear that, from the evidence in the possession of the Government, it is necessary to continue the bounty for a further term of three years; but that information has not yet been placed before the Senate. However, I shall not oppose the second reading.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– Like the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), I regret that we have not had more time in which to consider this bill. So far as I could gather from the speech of the Honorary Minister, it appears that although it is proposed to continue the bounty for a further term of three years, the amount of the bounty is to be reduced. I regret that the Government has decided to reduce the amount of the bounty, because, according to the evidence given in Adelaide before the Tariff Board, the cost of producing grapes for wine exceeds the amount received by the growers of the grapes.

Senator Duncan:

– That applies to the growers of doradilla grapes.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– It applies to all wine grapes, not only to doradillas A large deputation of wine-growers, who attended before the Tariff Board in Adelaide, said that even with the bounty of 4s. per gallon, many of them were on the bread line. Among the growers of grapes are numbers of returned soldiers, who have taken up blocks since their return from the war. Prior to the time when returned soldiers engaged in grapegrowing on a large scale, very little wine was exported from Australia. The wine then produced was, for the most part, consumed in the home market; but now, with the increased production) the excess quantity must be exported, and has to compete with the products of other countries. The present unsatisfactory condition of the grape-growing industry is due to the high cost of production. The high wages awarded by the Arbitration Courts, and the heavy Customs duties make it exceedingly difficult for Australian wines to compete in the markets of the world with wines from other countries,and the exportable surplus has to be sold for as little, as1s. 6d. per gallon. It must be remembered that to these men the Government has advanced large sums of money, which will be lost if they are driven out of the industry. I regret exceedingly that the Government has decided to reduce the amount of the bounty, because I feel certain that it will have very serious effects.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– When the Wine Export Bounty Act was passed, some sections of the grape-growing industry were in such a bad condition that it was felt that a generous bounty was necessary to establish the industry on a firm footing. It was not expected that, having obtained the bounty, those connected with the industry would do nothing to help themselves. After allowing a rebate of1s. 3d. per gallon on the fortifying spirit used, £328,000 has been paid as bounty during the two and a half years that the Act has been in operation.

Senator Chapman:

– More than that amount was returned from the excise.

Senator CRAWFORD:

-Not from the excise on the spirit used in fortifying the exported wine.

Senator Chapman:

– On all wines.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Is there any reason why there should not be an excise duty on the alcohol in wine when there is an excise duty on the alcohol in whisky, rum, or brandy?

Senator Chapman:

– The excise duty is a tremendous charge on the grapegrowers.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The alcohol in the two and a half gallons of Australian fortified wine is equal to that in one gallon of proof spirit. During the two and a half years that the Wine Export Bounty Act has been in operation the wine makers have done nothing to help themselves. They have been satisfied to sell their wine at from 1s. 6d. to 2s. per gallon.

Senator Chapman:

– They could not obtain more.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– They could have organized, had a control board appointed, and done their own exporting.

Senator Chapman:

– I agree that that would have been a good thing.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Evidence was given before the Tariff Board that the exporters of wine landed it at London in bond for 3s. 6d. per gallon, and that within a few weeks they sold it in bond for 5s. 6d. a gallon, thus making a profit of 2s. on each gallon exported. There is no reason why those who produce the wine should not have obtained that profit for themselves. All that was required was a little organization; but for two and a half years they remained satisfied with the bounty. In the circumstances, the Government felt that the higher rate should no longer be continued. The reduction of the bounty should stimulate them to greater activity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Crawford) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In my second reading speech I asked the Minister if he could indicate the amount of money which it was expected the passing of this bill would involve. He has not yet supplied that information. I should be glad if he would do so now.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– In concluding the second reading debate, I did not make any special reference to Senator Grant’s inquiry, although I pointed out that on the 2,500,000 gallons of wine exported during the two years and seven months that the Wine Export Bounty Act was in operation, £328,000 was paid by way of bounty, after allowing for a rebate of1s. 3d. per gallon on the fortifying spirit used to fortify the wine. It would be exceedingly difficult to forecast with any degree of accuracy the amount which is likely to be paid as bounty during the next three years. I do not know how much wine will be made during that period, or how much of it will be consumed in Australia, or exported. A mere guess would not assist the honorable senator.

Senator Grant:

– Is the amount unlimited ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes. There will be a rebate of1s. 3d. a gallon in respect of the spirit used to fortify the wine which is exported.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 926

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
cil · Western AustraliaVicePresidentof the Executive Coun · NAT

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the measure is to authorize the appropriation of£10,000,000 and the payment of that sum into the invalid and old-age pensions trust fund. Up to the present the total appropriation paid into that fund has amounted to £81,250,000, of which £75,447,000 was expended up to the 28th February, 1927, leaving a balance of £5,803,000 in the trust fund. As the expenditure on invalidand old-age pensions is about £9,000,000 per annum, it will be seen that the amount to the credit of the fund is sufficient for only seven months. Therefore, it is desired to appropriate the further sum of £10,000,000 and pay it to the trust fund.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia.

– I have no hesitation in supporting the second reading of the bill. If the Standing Orders permitted, I should like to move an amendment to increase the amount of pension. I hope that the day is not far distant when the miserable pittance of £1 a week now being paid to persons entitled to the pension, will be increased.

Senator Pearce:

– That matter is not covered by this bill.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If I set out to discuss that subject I have no doubt that the Leader of the Senate, following the course he adoptedjust now when another bill was before the Senate, would advise an honorable senator on his own side to raise a point of order. I am heartily in favour of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 926

STATES LOAN BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In 1925 a, bill was passed to authorize the Commonwealth Treasurer to enter into an agreement with the Treasurers of the States, under which the Commonwealth, acting in concert with the States, would undertake the raising of all loans for State requirements. That agreement, which was enacted for one year, was renewed last year, and the bill before the Senate seeks a renewal of the arrangement for another year. As honorable senators are aware all the States, with the exception of New South Wales, are members of the Loan Council. The State Treasurers meet from time to time to agree as to the order in which loans desired by the States shall be placed on the market. This policyhas been proved most beneficial in operation, as the Commonwealth Treasurer, acting for the States, enters into negotiations when the money market is favorable, and when transactions of that nature are not likely to interfere with the investment of money required by private enterprise. All that the bill does is to authorize the Commonwealth Treasurer for the next twelve months, to borrow on behalf and for the States. It does not give the Commonwealth Treasurer power to raise money for the Commonwealth.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I agree with the principle that the Commonwealth should, with the consent of the States, regulate all public borrowings. My only regret is that, up to the present, New South Wales has declined to join with the other States in the present arrangement.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator’s regret is tantamount to a condemnation of the New South Wales Government.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I can only repeat that I regret that one State has not come into line, and has not adopted this estimable system of regulating its loan policy. This system of control of public borrowings has proved beneficial not only to the States concerned but also to the people generally. The bill seeks to extend the agreement for another year. I hope that, before the year expires, New South Wales will deem it wise to join the Loan Council.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I am not prepared to say why the Labour Government of New South’ Wales has declined up to date to cooperate with the other States and the Commonwealth in the matter of public borrowings; but I have no doubt that it can advance good and sufficient reasons for its action. That Government has passed through a fairly strenuous time in recent years, and I am quite satisfied that if Mr. Lang could get the money he requires for New South Wales public undertakings more cheaply and more expeditiously through the Loan Council than by his present method, he would at once cooperate, as has been suggested by my leader (Senator Needham).

Senator Duncan:

– The last loan cost the New South Wales Government over ½ per cent, more than it would have cost if it had been placed through the Loan Council.

Senator GRANT:

– That is merely an assertion which will not bear examination. The Government of New South Wales, in its wisdom, has so far declined” to co-operate with the other States. It has also declined, to accept the Commonwealth’s scheme for joint electoral rolls. I rose to say that in my judgment the time has arrived when all money required by either the Commonwealth or the States should, if possible, be raised within the Commonwealth. During the war many people held the view that we should be unable to finance any considerable portion of our war expenditure within Australia; but, as we know, loan after loan was fully subscribed by the people, and altogether the transactions were eminently satisfactory. The time has come when, instead of going to London or New York for our loan requirements, any money for the needs of the Commonwealth Government or the States should be raised locally. I remind the protectionists and high tariffists who are supporting the Government, that when a loan is floated in London we do not get Bank of England notes. About all we get is a message, possibly now by wireless, that a loan has been floated, and probably the same afternoon the money is available in Commonwealth bank notes or in the form of credits in London. A huge joke is being put over the people in connexion with this system of borrowing in London. I suggest to the Government that the time is opportune to examine more closely the whole position, and, if possible, abandon the policy of raising abroad money required for Commonwealth or State purposes.

Senator J B Hayes:

– And take all the money out of industry ?

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable Senator should not talk so foolishly. Similar statements were made during the war; but, notwithstanding all the objections made, we raised considerable sums for war purposes without the slightest trouble. I invite the honorable senator to note the huge deposits in the Commonwealth and State Savings Banks as well as’ in the many private banks throughout the Commonwealth. It is absurd to say that wecannot raise within the Commonwealth all the money that we require.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 927

BANKRUPTCY BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Insert the following new clause after clause 13 - 13a. Section one hundred and twenty-one of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) after the word “ seduction “ the words “ or for breach of promise of marriage.”

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

. - I move -

That the amendmentbe agreed to.

The effect of the amendment is to enlarge the operation of section 121 (c) which provides -

An order of discharge shall not release the bankrupt from any liability under a judgment against him in an action for seduction, or under an affiliation or maintenance order, or under a judgment against him as a corespondent in a matrimonial cause, except to such an extent and under such conditions as the court expressly orders in respect of that liability.

The amendment gives a judge in bankruptcy discretion in relation to the extent to which a bankrupt may be released from liability in respect to damages given against him in an action for breach of. promise of marriage, and the conditions governing any such release.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 14 -

Section one hundred and twenty-three of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - “ 123. Notice of all orders of discharge granted under section one hundred and twenty-one of this act shall be published in the Gazette.”

House of Representatives’ Amendment.Omit “twenty-one”; insert “nineteen.”

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This is merely a correction of a clerical error, as section 121 of the act does not operate.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 16-

Section one hundred and eighty-four of the principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “(2) Where the trustee pursuant to resolution of the creditors carries on the business of the debtor, he may retain out of the estate, in addition to any remuneration under the last preceding sub-section, such commission, not exceeding One pound five shillings per centum on the turnover or sales made in the ordinary course of carrying on the business, as the creditors fix by resolution.’’

House of Representatives’ Amendment.Omit “ five “, line 10, and insert “ ten.”

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

When the measure was passing through this committee, Senator Thompson suggested that the amount which the trustee should be permitted to retain ought to be increased, and it was raised from £1 to £1 5s. per centum. The other House has further increased the amount by 5s. per centum. The Government has no objection, because the creditors will still control the position.

Motion agreed to.

Consequential amendment in clause 17 agreed to.

Resolutions reported.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator H HAYS:
Tasmania

– It is almost three years since the principal act was passed, and inquiries are frequently being made as to when it is to be proclaimed. Can the Minister supply that information?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– When I moved the second reading of this bill, I indicated that the work of preparing the regulations and the necessary forms was taking up a very considerable amount of time. The gentleman who is in charge of that work, has had to consider thousands of forms and adapt them so that they will operate over the whole of Australia. In addition, regulations of a much more lengthy character than the provisions of the Act have had to be framed and submitted to the various authorities, who have the practical work to discharge. An Inspector in Bankruptcy has been appointed, and although I cannot name the exact date, it is hoped that the Act will be proclaimed very shortly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

page 928

PEARL-SHELL OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators are, perhaps, unaware that Australia produces 85 per cent, of the world’s supply of pearl shell. The annual production in the Commonwealth is, approximately, 2,250 tons, of an estimated value of £361,000. Broome produces about 1,200 tons, Thursday Island 1,000 tons, and Darwin 50 tons. The number of persons engaged in the industry is in the region of 3,300. The cost of production of pearl shell ranges from £150 to £170 per ton, whilst the prices realized for last season’s shell ranged from £160 to £180, packed and delivered at Broome. The advance offered to pearlers by overseas agents for shell shipped on consignment is from £130 to £150 per ton against freight paid bill of lading. The freight and shipping charges amount to, approximately,£10 per ton. Practically the whole of the output of pearl shell is exported. In order to eliminate the speculator, whose actions are having an adverse effect on the industry, the Pearlers’ Associations of Broome and Thursday Island have urgently requested that an Overseas Marketing Board be established, vested with the powers that are set out in the bill. This request was supported by the Commonwealth Board of Trade. The Commonwealth Government decided to accede to the request of the producers, and the bill has been framed on lines similar to those of the Dairy Produce, Dried Fruits and Canned Fruits Export Control Acts. Honorable senators are well aware of the principles underlying those measures. I shall state briefly the proposals that are contained in the bill. Clause 2 provides that the act shall not commence until it is approved by a poll of producers taken throughout the Commonwealth. The Pearl Shell Overseas Marketing Board will consist of three members, one representing the Commonwealth, one representing the Western Australian producers, and the third representing the producers of Queensland and the Northern Territory. As in the other acts mentioned, provision is made for the appointment of overseas agencies of the board. The functions of those agencies will be to keep the board advised as to current prices and matters relative to the disposal of the pearl shell in England and elsewhere, and generally to act as agents of the board. The most important provision of the bill is clause 13, which provides for the prohibition of the export of pearl shell except under licence, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as are prescribed after recommendation to the Minister by the board. Under this clause, the control of the export of pearl shell will be placed in the hands of the producers, who will act through their’ elected representatives on the board. The remaining clauses are on the same lines as the corresponding sections in the acts dealing with dairy produce, &c. I emphasize the fact that the pearl shell industry is an Australian industry. I understand that all the owners of pearling vessels at Thursday Island and Broome are Australians of European de scent. There are many coloured people employed in the industry, but that is unavoidable, as the members of those races are specially suitable for diving operations.

Senator Grant:

– What is meant by “ pearl shell “?

Senator Payne:

– Prior to the introduction of the bill, were steps taken to ascertain the desires of those engaged in pearl shelling?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes. Application for this assistance was made by them, and their application was recommended by the Board of Trade.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It is most remarkable that the present Government will insist on doing what it has often declared on the hustings it would not do. It insists on introducing legislation of a socialistic nature.

Senator Crawford:

– Co-operation is not socialism.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Undoubtedly it is a phase of socialism. Every time we find an industry struggling or suffering a disability, this Government comes to its rescue. Already we have boards controlling the export of dairy produce and dried fruits on lines advocated in the platform of the Australian Labour party. Although the Government has condemned every plank in our platform, it takes every opportunity to introduce measures of this nature which carry into effect a most important plank in that platform. I have no objection to the bill as a whole, which I notice follows the lines of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act and the Dried Fruits Export Control Act; but it contains one provision which is worthy of review. I refer to the clause which gives the owner of a fleet of vessels engaged in the pearling industry a vote for every boat he possesses.

Senator Pearce:

– It is one boat, one vote.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Yes : and as such it lays down a method of voting which is opposed, to co-operative principles. The right honorable senator was at one time a director of a Labour newspaper in Western Australia. He will remember that each shareholder on that newspaperhad no more than one vote, no matter how many shares he held. If we allow one vote for each boat the pearl-shell fisher may own, we may give the entire control of the industry into the hands of a few men. I am sure this principle does not obtain in the legislation dealing with the control of dairy produce or dried fruits, and in committee I intend to move an amendment to eliminate it from the bill.With the rest of the measure I am in accord. I am pleased to see that at last the Government, which has been giving bounties to almost every kind of industry in other parts of Australia, hasrealized that an important industry of Western Australia needs encouragement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to-.

Clause 4 -

  1. For the purpose of this act there shall be a Pearl-shell Overseas Marketing Board.
  2. Each producer, whether an individual or company, shall have one vote in respect of each pearling vessel or attendant schooner owned by him.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Provision is made in this clause for the appointment of a board of three, two of whom are to represent the pearl-shell fishers of Broome and Thursday Island respectively, while the third is to be appointed by the GovernorGeneralinCouncil. I should like to know whether the persons engaged in the industry will have any voice in the selection of the Government’s nominee.

Senator Crawford:

– No. He will be appointed by the GovernorGeneralinCouncil.

Senator PAYNE:

– But the clause prohibits the Governor-General from appointing any person who has failed to secure election asa member of the board.

Senator Crawford:

– That is so. A person whom the pearlers have failed to elect will not be eligible for appointment by the Governor-General in Council.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– In accordance with my remarks on the second reading, I move -

That all the words after “ vote,” sub-clause 6, be left out.

The sub-clause, if amended as I suggest, would read : -

Each producer, whether ah individual or company, shall have one vote.

As it stands at present, each producer would be entitled to a vote in respect of each pearling vessel or attendant steamer owned by him, and I can easily see how the small men engaged in the industry would be swamped by the big men. One pearler with six boats, and another pearler with five boats, could outvote the small boat owners. I think that we should follow the system of electing control boards provided for in the legislation dealing with the export of dairy produce and dried fruits. That system gives each producer one vote.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator suggests that no matter how many cows a dairy farmer may havehe does not get a vote for each cow.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– And no matter how many orchards a man may own he does not get a vote for each orchard. In the choice of the board to control the export of pearl-shell the voting should be on the truly democratic and co-operative principle of one man one vote. Otherwise the pearler with a fleet of boats and an attendant schooner may dominate the whole industry. I am afraid that this bill was put through another place rather hurriedly ; otherwise I am sure this provision which may defeat the whole object of the measure would not have passed unnoticed.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– The effect of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), would be to introduce an altogether new principle. In the Canned Fruits Export Bill provision is made that the votes shall be according to the output of the different factories.

Senator Needham:

– That is a different proposition.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not think so. Moreover, this provision in regard to the voting power is in accordance with the unanimous request of the Broome and Thursday Island organizations. It is reasonable to assume that the persons closely associated with the business know the best method to adopt.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In moving the second reading of the bill the Minister (Senator Crawford), stated that 3,300 persons were engaged in the pearl-shell industry, which produced last year £350,000 worth of shell showing that they received the nominal wage of about £100 a year. The object of the bill is to secure by co-operative action a higher price for the product.

The Minister now informs us that the organizations at Broome and Thursday Island are unanimously in favour of the proposed system of voting. I should like to know how many of those engaged in the industry are members of these organizations.

Senator Crawford:

– I understand that practically all the owners of boats engaged in the pearling industry are members of the organization.

Senator GRANT:

– How many votes will be required to secure the election of a representative? I think it would be much better to admit that all those engaged in the industry are equally interested. The persons engaged in winning the shell are as anxious as are the owners of vessels to obtain a good price.

Senator Crawford:

– But they receive their wages.

Senator GRANT:

– Yes, but it is obvious that the owners will not continue to pay wages very long, unless they receive a satisfactory price for the product.

Senator Crawford:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the Asiatic employees should be placed on the same basis as the white owners of pearling vessels ?

Senator GRANT:

– The Minister did not indicate the number of Asiatics, Chinese or Japanese engaged in the industry. I understand a very substantial proportion consists of Europeans.

Senator Crawford:

– About 2,092 colored persons are employed.

Senator GRANT:

– As there are more than 1,200 white persons engaged in the business, instead of confining the franchise to the owners of the vessels, we should provide that every one engaged in the industry shall have a vote. Possibly some reputed owners of pearling craft have mortgaged their vessels, and are only the nominal owners. In all industries it is beginning to be realized that workmen should have a voice in the conduct of the business.

Senator Crawford:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the employees in a company should elect the directors ?

Senator GRANT:

– The employees in this concern are as much interested as the owners are in the securing of a good price. It is very clear that the two persons to be appointed will be paid from the Consolidated Revenue, which willbe recouped by a charge upon the industry.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator is now dealing with something which is not covered by the bill or by the amendment.

Senator GRANT:

– I know that. The bill provides that they shall be paid such fees as are prescribed.

Senator Crawford:

– There is to be a levy of £3 a ton on the shell, from which all charges will be met.

Senator GRANT:

– The money is to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue.

Senator Crawford:

– It is to be paid to the collector of Customs, who will control a trust fund.

Senator GRANT:

– If the money is to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue, even if it is to be recouped by a tax on the shell exported, those engaged in the industry should have a voice in the election of the representatives.

Senator McLachlan:

– I rise to order. I ask if the honorable senator is in order in discussing the manner in which the fees are to be paid to the persons to be’ appointed. We are dealing now only with the franchise, and I submit that the honorable senator’s remarks are irrelevant.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ogden:
TASMANIA

– I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.

Senator GRANT:

– I give notice that it is my intention to move the following amendment : -

Each adult white resident engaged in the industry shall have one vote in the election of two members provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c) of clause 4.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– The committee would be foolish to adopt the amendment suggested by Senator Grant, the effect of which would spell disaster to the industry. I do not think the crews of these vessels are at all concerned in the marketing of the product. This measure deals merely with the overseas marketing of pearl-shell, and the crews of the vessels, unless working on a co-operative basis, are not vitally concerned. It cannot be said that they know anything at all about the problem of marketing. To throw upon them the onus of electing representatives to the board which is to deal only with marketing would be of no advantage to them, and would perhaps be disastrous to the industry. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham) is in a different category, and I think the Minister would be wise to give further consideration to the question of whether the voting should be on the lines provided in the bill or in the manner suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. I feel that in this bill, as is the case in most legislation, the intention is to protect the weak against the strong.

Senator Crawford:

– How can there be in this matter a clashing of interests amongst the producers of pearl-shell?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I shall show the Minister shortly. I know a little about this matter, as certain representations have been made to me from time to time by a number of persons in Sydney who are deeply interested in the industry. The difficulty that I see, and which is foreshadowed by the amendment is that in the pearl-shelling fleet there are men who own several vessels. Quite a number are owned by one man or by the crew acting in co-operation; but if we are to give the owners of vessels a vote for each vessel it must be evident that the men who own a number will dominate the board. In such circumstances we can readily see the effect that will be produced in the marketing of the product. Wide powers are given for the control of marketing. The members of the board could withhold the product from sale for a certain period without inconvenience to themselves; but the smaller owners would be most seriously handicapped, and could not successfully carry on. If only the big owners were represented on the board, the time might come when, in order to crush the small men out of the industry, it might decide not to market the product for a considerable time. The small men should be protected. It is not wise to provide that there shall be one vote in respect to each vessel. That principle is obnoxious to all democratic sentiment. I think that the Government would be wise to accept Senator Needham’s amendment.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Before we can arrive at a proper conclusion in this matter, we must have further information. I understand that there are about 400 vessels engaged in pearl-shell fishing along the coast line of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory.

Senator Crawford:

– There are 411 vessels.

Senator PAYNE:

– Until we know among how many owners those vessels are divided, we shall be unable to say whether this is a reasonable franchise. I do not think that a man with a very small interest in the industry should have the same voting power as one whose interest is much larger.

Senator McLachlan:

– Sub-clause 2 of clause 2 provides that before the act shall come into operation a poll must be taken.

Senator Duncan:

– That poll is only to determine whether the act shall be brought into operation.

Senator PAYNE:

– Until I know how many owners are concerned, I am unable to decide whether this is a fair franchise.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– In order to allay the fears expressed by honorable senators, I suggest that we should limit the number of votes that any one owner may cast in the election for a member of the board. That number could be three, five, or more. With the bill in its present form, one owner may be entitled to fifteen or twenty votes. My suggestion, if adopted, would remove many of the objections to the bill, while not destroying its underlying principle. The franchise would then be similar to the municipal franchise.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Does the Minister know how many owners of single vessels are engaged in this industry?

Senator Crawford:

– No.

Senator REID:

– I am of the opinion that nearly all the vessels are held by companies. Broome and Thursday Island are the only two big centres at which pearl-shell fishing is carried out.

Senator Crawford:

– At both places they want this system of voting.

Senator REID:

– It is probable that the number of owners of single vessels is not great.

Senator Needham:

– If there were only one owner of a single vessel, the position would be worse.

Senator REID:

– When dealing with an industry, we should not concern ourselves about the cry “ One man, one vote.” The speeches of some honorable senators savour of window-dressing.

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

– I am unable to give the exact number of the owners of vessels engaged in this industry, but when I was administering the Home and Territories Department I had to deal with the applications of the owners of these vessels for licences to employ coloured labour. I know that there was then a comparatively small number of owners of single vessels. Some owners possessed as many as twenty vessels.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– So far no argument against my amendment has been adduced. Clause 4, sub-clause 6, reads -

Each producer, whether an individual or company, shall have one vote in respect of each pearling vessel or attendant schooner owned by him.

Why should not a company be satisfied with one vote? Senator Reid said that m should not concern ourselves about the principle, “ One man, one vote.” Surely he has not abandoned all his democratic ideas. Senator Pearce stated that there were very few owners of single vessels; but I point out that, if there were only one such person, the position would be all the worse, because the owner, whether an individual or a company, with a fleet of vessels would bc able to crush him in the manner indicated by Senator Duncan. My amendment is in the best interests of the industry.

Senator PEARCE:

– Does the honorable senator not think that those engaged in the industry should know more about it than we do?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That may be so; but we should have before us information as to the number of owners engaged in the industry. We do not know how many owners possess one, two, or more vessels. ‘We are asked to vote blindly in this matter. I have no desire to obstruct this bill, but I submit that my amendment should appeal to the common sense of honorable senators. We should not make it possible for any one section of those engaged in this industry to swamp any other section. I know of two instances of vessels at Broome being worked by their crews on a co-operative basis. The crew of each of those vessels would, under this bill, be entitled to one vote. Engaged in this industry are, also, men who possess as many as six vessels. It would be bad enough to give thom one vote for each vessel; but, in addition, they are to have a vote for each attendant schooner.

Senator PEARCE:

– Every lugger has its attendant schooner.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I ask the Senate to give serious consideration to my amendment, which has not been moved with any desire to embarrass the Government.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– There seems to be some misapprehension regarding the provisions of this measure. If honorable senators will look at clause 2, sub-clause 2, they will see that before the board can be constituted, or the act proclaimed, a poll of producers must be taken. Unless a majority of votes is cast in favour of the act being brought into operation, the proclamation will not be issued. I direct the attention of the committee to clause 3, which provides that-

In harmony with the principle that governs similar legislation, it is provided that a majority of the producers, the owners of schooners individually, must put their imprimatur upon this measure before it is brought into operation. Apart from what the honorable senator has said 83 to the method to be adopted for the election of the board, there is the additional safeguard that if the majority of those engaged in the industry do not approve of the scheme they may vote against it.

Senator Chapman:

– But those men will have no knowledge of the details of the act.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– This bill, like other measures of a like nature has been introduced at the instance of those who are engaged in the industry. There would be something to be said for the point made by Senator Duncan were it not for the fact that we have the additional safeguard in sub-clause 2, which states that a proclamation bringing the act into force shall not issue until at a poll of the producers, a majority of votes have been given in support of the scheme.

Senator Duncan:

– That voting would not be on the basis of one voter for ona boat.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Has the honorable senator overlooked the definition of “ producer? It means, “ the owner of any pearling vessel or attendant schooner licensed by any State authority to carry on pearl-shell recovery operations.” Therefore, the majority of the people engaged in the industry must vote in favour of the scheme before it can be brought into operation. The bill is truly democratic, because if a majority of the producers vote against the scheme that will be the end of it. Clause 2 might appear to be a little subtle. The first sub-clause states that sections 1, 2, 5, and 29 of the act shall commence on the day on which the act receives the royal assent, and the remaining sections shall be commenced on a date to be fixed by a proclamation. That is to provide that before the machinery is put into motion, the Ministry will be definitely informed that the persons engaged in the industry really approve of the scheme.

Senator Duncan:

– That is no reason why we should not give them a better scheme.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Is it likely that any proposal could be better than that devised by the men engaged in the industry? This proposal has, I understand from Senator Pearce, emanated from the pearl-shell associations of Broome, Thursday Island, and Darwin, who submitted a draft bill. There is no possibility of injustice, because, even if at the eleventh hour the pearlers do not like it, they will have an opportunity to vote against the issue of a proclamation bringing it into force.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

, - The Minister has furnished a strong argument in favour of my amendment. He referred to the provision for the taking of a poll of producers, and went on to show that “ producer “ means “ the owner of any pearling vessel or attendant schooner.” Why not adopt the same democratic system in connexion with the very vital matter of control?

Senator Pearce:

– Because the association says it does not want that.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We have been told on other occasions that this Government is not influenced by outside opinion, and yet the Leader of the Senate has just said that, in connexion with this matter, it has been influenced by the pearl-shell associations.I admit that it is necessary to get expert advice on certain subjects. In this case the Government has accepted the advice of the people engaged in the industry, and I should like to emphasize that, in the election for members of the board of control, the principle of one voter one vote will not obtain. One man may own ten boats, but have five out of commission. Should he have a vote for each of the idle vessels as well as for his vessels that are in commission, whilst a struggling man or a co-operative crew, as has been instanced by Senator Duncan, with one boat in commission all the time, will have only one vote? If Senator McLachlan wishes to be logical, he should advocate the same democratic voting principle in connexion with the election of the board as applies to the vote to determine the bringing into operation of the act.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I have been listening carefully to the debate, with the object of making up my mind how to vote on this clause. As it stands the clause is a little dangerous, and might very well be amended. I am afraid the Honorary Minister (Senator McLachlan) did not clarify the issue. He said that a poll of the producers would be taken to determine whether the act should be proclaimed. A good deal hinges on the interpretation of the word “ producer.” I do not know whether the Acts Interpretation Act provides that the singular includes the plural, and whether, therefore, “ producer “ means the owner of any pearling vessel. If the definition stated that “ producer “ meant “ the owner of any pearling vessel or vessels,” it would then mean one producer one vote ; but, as it stands, “ producer “ might be interpreted to mean that an owner of four or five vessels would have four or five votes. If the Minister can give us an assurance that the regulations will provide for the principle of one voter one vote, the position will be safeguarded. I understand that there are over 400 vessels engaged in the industry. We do not know how many men own them, but we have been told that there are very few single owners.

It would be interesting to know the maximum number of boats owned by any single producer or company. Surely it should not be bard to get that information. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has said that some men own 25 or 30 vessels. Are they to have 25 or 30 votes? I am in favour of plural voting in connexion with municipal rating. I approve of the principle that the man who owns a large amount of property should, within certain limits, have a greater say as to how the rates should be spent than another man who owns a smaller amount of property; but usually there is a provision fixing the maximum number of votes at three and, in some cases, five. Some such principle might be applied to this bill. It is dangerous to give the owner of a large number of luggers too much voting power, because his voting strength might be so used as to crush the small producers. The Government would be well advised to agree to an amendment of the provision, fixing the maximum number of votes per producer at five or seven. The Minister has told us that this measure has emanated from the men engaged in the industry, and that they are unanimously in favour of it. I can conceive, however, that it might have been put to them in such a way that the big producers had most to say in its initiation. If Senator Needham were to propose that the maximum number of votes should be five, or the Minister could suggest a more appropriate number, that would be sufficient, and it would be more in keeping with present-day legislation.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia · NAT

– If honorable senators wish to amend the clause they are perfectly free to do so’; but I shall let them know what will probably happen. I take it that honorable senators generally are in favour of giving to this industry the measure of relief that they gave to the canned fruits, dried fruits, and butter industries. These pearlers have been dissatisfied with their marketing conditions. They have an association which, I understand, has in its ranks the whole of the pearlers. They obtained copies of legislation that had been passed for the benefit of other industries, such as that relating to the export of butter and dried fruits, and from it they drafted a bill, which they submitted to the Government. The owners of boats number about 100 at Broome, two at Darwin, and ten at Thursday Island.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– How many vessels do they own ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Whether they own ten or 10,000 is not material to my argument. The majority of the pearlers are at Broome. The member for that district in the House of Representatives is Mr. A. Green, and through him they have made representations to the Government to pass this legislation. These gentlemen know their business very much better than we can be expected to. lt is not proposed to create a governmental authority, or to lay down a basis for the election of a local governing body. The proposal is to provide a basis upon which the people who own these boats may run their own business. The basis fixed is that foi* which they have asked. If it is amended they will say, “ This is not what we have asked for,” and they will reject it. H we really wish to help them, why not do so along the lines that they have suggested? They are merely asking to be given statutory control over the export of the pearl-shell which they are producing and they are seeking to have the board elected in the manner prescribed by the bill. The interpretation which some honorable senators have placed upon thu measure is not the correct one. It is very easy to make the mistake which they have made. Clause .(2) reads -

A proclamation under this section shall not issue unless and until, at a poll of producers taken in the prescribed manner throughout the Commonwealth, a majority of votes-

At first glance, I placed upon that provision the interpretation that has been given to it by some honorable senators. It does not mean that the number of votes which each man shall have is to be prescribed. Obviously it would not be possible to conduct such a poll in the manner in which Commonwealth elections arc held. Regulations would have to be drafted to meet the exceptional circumstances connected with the collection of the votes. That which is to be prescribed is the manner in which the votes shall

Le cast. It will be a form of postal voting appropriate to the occasion. Seeing that it will be a poll of producers, one must ask oneself, “What is a producer?” That term means the owner of any pearling vessel or vessels. If a man owns ten vessels it does not follow that he is ten producers; he is a producer whether he owns one or 100 vessels. There is nothing in the bill which indicates that he is to have a vote for every vessel thai he owns. Honorable senators are confusing the provisions in clause 4, which relate to the election of the board, with the poll that is to be taken to decide whether the act shall be or shall not be brought into operation. Those provisions shall apply solely to the election of the board. That is the construction which has been placed upon the clause by the Government, and it is clearly the construction intended. Honorable senators may, if they wish, make it the most perfect system of government the world has seen; but if they do it will remain on the statute-book unoperative. It is not intended, as Senator Needham appeared to think, to operate a piece of State socialism. This is not to be a governmental authority, but merely a board which will manage the business of the pearlers in the way that they wish to have it managed.

Senator H Hays:

– What is the object of having a Government representative on the board?

Senator PEARCE:

– Simply to see that the control of the issue of licences is not abused. Power is given to the board to advise the Minister to withhold a licence, and it is, therefore, necessary to have a representative who will see that nothing wrong is done. I appeal to the committee not to try to make this a fancy system of government, but to give the association that for which it has asked.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I desire to assist the Government to pass this measure, but I do not accept the Minister’s dictum that because the pearlers say it is all right, we must accept it without debate. If I am given the assurance that each owner will have only one vote, it will go a long way towards clearing away any compunction that I have against voting for the bill.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is my interpretation, and that of Senator McLachlan.

Senator J B HAYES:

- Senator Pearce said that this bill was drafted on the lines of the act relating to the export of butter. I know at least one butter-producing company which owns a number of small factories. Will the Minister tell me whether each of those factories has a vote? If it has, it would be a fair thing to give each lugger a vote.

Senator Crawford:

– When elections to the board are being held a butter factory has a vote for every 100 tons qf butter produced.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

.- -Had the Minister (Senator Crawford), when introducing the bill, put the position as clearly as the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) has done, a great many of the objections which have been raised would not have been voiced. It is the Minister’s own fault if trouble has been experienced in inducing the committee to accept the clause. It is about time the Government realized that it is not a fair thing to throw legislation at us as though it were something in the nature of a brickbat, and expect us to say “ aye “ to it in a meek and lowly voice, without wishing to know what it means. Most of the objections that I had to the clause were removed by the clear and explanatory speech of the Leader of the Senate. Before he spoke I intended to vote against the clause, because it seemed impossible to obtain any information from the Minister in charge of the bill. Now I am prepared to vote for it, because I realize that this is the legislation for which the pearlers have asked. If it contains mistakes, they can be remedied later when they are reported by the Government representative on the board. We can afford to allow the bill to pass, and hope for the best.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I was not at all convinced by the speech of Senator Pearce; it no more elucidated the position than did that of his colleague (Senator Crawford) . We have been told that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) and those who are controllng the industry, desire this legislation. The Minister forgot to tell us that, irrespective of the number of boats the pearlers own, they will have a vote as to whether or not the bill shall become operative. In that respect I have no objection. There is no doubt about the acceptance of this bill by the people engaged in the industry; they will vote for it because they have insisted on its introduction. But if they express their acceptance of it by voting in a certain way, which is entirely democratic, why cannot the same system be adopted for the electon of the board of control ?

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

AYES: 4

NOES: 15

Majority … … 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 29 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 937

PEARL-SHELL EXPORT CHARGES BILL

Second Reading

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is subsidiary to the- Pearl Shell Overseas Marketing Bill 1927, and provides for a maximum levy of £3 a ton on all pearl shell exported. Provision is also made for the reduction of the amount of the levy after a report has been furnished by the Pearl Shell Overseas Marketing Board. The moneys collected will be used for publicity purposes and to cover the administrative expenses of the marketing board.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I recognize that this bill is a- corollary of the measure whichthe Senate has just passed, and provides certain machinery for its administration. For that reason I have no opposition to offer to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definitions).

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Would the Minister explain the meaning of the words “ meleagrina, margaratifera, and margar atif era maxima” ?

Senator Crawford:

– Those are the scientific names of commercial pearl-shell obtained on the Australia coast.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 937

WIRE AND WIRE NETTING BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Under the Advances to Settlers Act 1923, the sum of £250,000 was appropriated for the purchase of wire netting for settlers. This amount is now exhausted, and the Government proposes to make available the sum of three million pounds during the next six years. The sum of £500,000 is provided for in this year’s Estimates. The £3,000,000 has been apportioned among the States and the Northern Territory, by taking the mean of the results obtained by apportioning the money - (a) on an area basis; and (b) on a sheep, plus cattle, basis. The allotments are as follow: -

Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia have agreed to participate in the scheme, but the other States, up to the present, have not accepted it. If any State definitely declines to participate in the scheme, the allotment to that State will be distributed amongst the participating States. The wire netting and the wire, which includes fencing wire and barbed wire, proposed to be supplied under the bill, are to be of Australian manufacture, unless the Minister otherwise approves in writing. The chief features of the scheme, in its application to the States, are as follow: -

  1. The money will be advanced to the States, which will purchase wire netting of Australian manufacture as required and issue it to settlers who apply for it, at cost.
  2. The State will pay the Commonwealth up to 4 per cent, interest and 2 per cent, sinking fund per annum for 25 years on the amount advanced.
  3. The settler will pay the State up to 5 per cent, interest and 2 per cent, sinking fund per annum for 25 years on the cost of the wire netting supplied to him.
  4. The payments specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 will extinguish the liabilities of the State to the Commonwealth, and. of the settlers to the State respectively.
  5. The excess of 1 per cent; interest which the State will charge the settler must be utilized for building up a fund to provide for future requirements. This fund will be the property of the State, but it must not bo used for any purpose except the purchase of wire netting for settlers. Interest derived from the operation of this fund will also be State pro perty, and may be devoted to whatever purpose the State thinks fit, e.g., general revenue.
  6. The State will be expected to accept the same kind of security from the settler as it would for wire netting purchased from its own funds.
  7. No restriction other than is indicated in the foregoing will be imposed on the State. Where the State refuses an application for assistance, however, the Commonwealth expects to be notified of the circumstances in order that possible complaints may be answered.
  8. The State will be allowed to charge the settler £1 per mile of netting to cover administration expenses and losses. All handling charges and freight, up to the point where the settler desires to take delivery, are to be paid by the settler.

The act also applies to North and Central Australia, and wire or wire netting may be supplied to settlers in those territories at such a price and subject to such terms as to repayment as are prescribed by regulation. In the great fight which is proceeding against pests I am sure no measure will be received with greater pleasure, particularly by those on the outer fringe of our settled areas. As it is badly needed, I ask this Senate to give it their support.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- The only objection I have to offer in this instance is to the short time in which we are allowed to consider the bill, which, I understand, will be of great assistance to settlers in combating pests.

Senator Pearce:

– If it is a good measure, why delay its passage?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not wish to do that, and am only complaining because Ave have not been given sufficient lime to consider it. As the bill embodies a portion of the Government’s policy, it should have been introduced months ago.

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

– I cordially agree with the concluding remarks of the Minister (Senator Pearce), who, in introducing the bill, said that no measure could be more acceptable to the settlers in the outlying districts than one to assist them in combating the rabbit and other pests. It will also be of great benefit in the more settled parts of the Commonwealth, because, so far as I can see, the rabbit has not a single redeeming feature. I know of no other pest that has caused such tremendous losses to producers. When I was informed that the Government intended to introduce this bill, in order to assist in minimizing the pest, I was very pleased; but I regret the Government has not been more liberal and provided for the netting to. be supplied as it was under the first measure passed. In the short time at my disposal I have not been able to see how much money is to be advanced.

Senator Pearce:

– A sum of £3,000,000 is to be paid, at the rate of £500,000 a year for six years.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I understand that £100,000 was voted this afternoon for wire and wire netting under a loan bill, and I was under the impression that that was the total amount involved. Under the original act providing for the supply of wire and wire netting, advances, which were freely accepted, were made to settlers at 5 per cent, over a period of twenty years, which extinguished the debt. The present proposal, I- believe, is to lend the States money at 4 per cent, for this purpose; but I do not know if they are responsible for its repayment.

Senator Pearce:

– The States have to recover the money from the settlers.

Senator J B HAYES:

– Suppose the States lend the money in good faith and are not repaid?

Senator Pearce:

– There is provision for an allowance to cover losses. The States can charge £1 per mile.

Senator J B HAYES:

– And also 1 per cent, more than they are charged by the Commonwealth ?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That will not nearly cover the losses. As the States will get this money from the Commonwealth at 4 per cent., which is only 11/4 per cent, less than the rate at which they can borrow over the counter, I am afraid the terms are not sufficiently liberal to induce them to take advantage of the offer. I understand that some of the

States, for instance Tasmania, will not accept the liability. The Minister has not made that clear.

Senator Pearce:

– In clause 6 of the agreement, which is the schedule to the bill, the States are liable for the repayment of the money.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I understood the Minister to say the States could keep the money to build up a fund and re-lend it.

Senator Pearce:

– Only the money obtained from the excess of 1 per cent interest charged by them.

Senator J B HAYES:

– As the 1 per cent, will not be sufficient to recoup the States ‘ for the losses they will incur, I do not think they will readily accept the offer. However, I commend the Government for introducing the bill. I live in a district where rabbits have done untold harm, and I know there are hundreds of other districts similarly situated. As there are many settlers whose financial position will not enable them to take advantage of this offer, I should likethe measure to be more liberal, so that every State Government would take advantage of it. I was wondering whether the Government could by regulation or by some other means advance the money to the States, which I know would do their best to secure its return, without requiring them to accept the responsibility. I do not know whether a mortgage must be taken over a man’s property.

Senator Pearce:

– Not under this bill.

Senator McLachlan:

– The States take a chance.

Senator J B HAYES:

– The Commonwealth Government should be prepared to take a chance. Frequently the man who needs assistance most is the one who is least able to give security. Men with capital will not take advantage of this legislation. I assure the Government that settlers are looking for this assistance, but I am afraid- that the ‘ State Governments will not be prepared to accept the responsibility of guaranteeing the return of the money.

Senator Pearce:

– Three of the States have already availed themselves of the Commonwealth’s offer, and have, in fact, sent out wire in advance.

Senator J B HAYES:

– The first scheme was accepted by all the States, and I should like to see the same acceptance of this scheme. Probably those States which have accepted this scheme already have liberal legislation of their ownin a similar direction. I doubt whether the settlers in Tasmania will benefit by this legislation.

Senator Ogden:

– What does the honorable senator propose?

Senator J B HAYES:

– The State Governments should be asked to use every care toadvance the wire only to those settlersfrom whom they can reasonably expect a return. Having done that, they should be absolved from all losses. One per cent, will not cover the losses in any credit business.

Senator Pearce:

– The States themselves have asked for 1 per cent.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That may be sufficient in some States; but, apparently, three States do not think so.

Senator McLachlan:

– South Australia has her own scheme, which has been in operation for many years.

Senator J B HAYES:

– When the first legislation authorizing advances for wire netting was passed by this Parliament, no security was required. The Federal Government was prepared to accept the assurance of the States that in. the distribution of the wire netting reasonable care would be ‘taken to prevent loss. That legislation prevented a great deal of damage from being done by rabbits.

Senator Pearce:

– This legislation is more liberal than the old act.

Senator J B HAYES:

– It is not. The first act provided either that there should be no repayment of the principal, or that no interest should be charged.

Senator Pearce:

– Under the old act the Commonwealth dealt with the settler direct, but under this legislation the money will be handed to the States, who, in turn, will deal with the settlers. That provision has been inserted at the request of the States.

Senator J B HAYES:

– If Tasmania has asked for this legislation, I have no more to say; but I feel certain that it will not accomplish what the Government expects. I recognize that the Senate would not agree to an amendment even were I to move one. I shall, therefore, content myself by saying that I hope the

Government will be liberal in its interpretation of the act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definition).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

.- Will all the wire be manufactured in Australia?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; except that in special circumstances importations may be used on permission in writing by the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Agreements with States).

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The purpose of this measure is to make advances to the States for the purchase of wire and wire netting, which they, in turn, will sell to the settlers. From the agreement it will be seen that the money will be advanced for a period of 25 years. In my opinion the method of repayment is somewhat complicated. Let us assume that to a State is advanced the sum of £100. In terms of clause 7 of the agreement;, the sum of £2 would be repaid every year, which in 25 years would only mean that £50, or one-half the amount advanced would be repaid.

Senator Pearce:

– Two pounds each half year means £4 a year, or £100 in 25 years.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Clause 6 of the agreement sets out that the interest charged by the States shall be £1 per centum more than that paid to the Commonwealth on the loan out of which the advance is made.

Senator Pearce:

– The Commonwealth will charge the States 4 per cent., and the States will charge the settlers 5 per cent. The States will retain 1 per cent.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Will the Commonwealth be repaid the whole of the money advanced ?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, in 25 years.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In that case I offer no objection to the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

Schedule preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 941

PETROLEUM PROSPECTING BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended.

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

page 941

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow.

page 941

ADJOURNMENT

Federal Capital: Gas Service: Pro- posed. Rate of1s. 3d. on Unimproved Land Value. - Wireless Royal Commission to. Visit Tasmania.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed - That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

[11.83).- On the 19th of March Senator Ogden asked if it was the intention of the Federal Capital Commission to install gas services for heating at Canberra. I have received areply from the Federal Capital Commission, which I shall lay on thetable of the Senate to-morraw. On the 22nd March, Senator Needham asked if it was a fact that the Federal Capital Commission proposed to levy a rate of 1s. 3d. in the £1 on the unimproved leases in Canberra. The, reply to that question is somewhat lengthy, and I shall lay it on, the table of the: Senate to-morrow.

Senate PEARCE (Western Australia -Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.3]. - This morning Senator J. B. Hayes asked whether the Wireless Commission was going to Tasmania to take evidence. . I have had inquiries made, and I am now in a position to state that the: Commission intends to go to Tasmania.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate ad-journed at 11.5 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 March 1927, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1927/19270323_senate_10_115/>.