Senate
4 May 1932

13^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
INCORRECT NEWSPAPER REPORT
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA
QUESTION
- EDUCATION IN NEW SOUTH WALES
QUESTION
- COAL SUBSIDY
QUESTION
- DARWIN UNEMPLOYED
QUESTION
- RABBIT POISONS
QUESTION
- TOBACCO DUTIES
IMMIGRATION BILL
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION BILL
PUBLIC SERVICE BILL
SPIRITS BILL
CUSTOMS BILL
QUESTION
- NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M
ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL
- Second Reading
FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS ENFORCEMENT BILL (No. 3)
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- HOUR OF MEETING

The President (Senator theHon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. -

page 279

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

League of Nations - Twelfth Assembly, September, 1931 - Report of the Australian Delegation.

Papua - Annual report for 1930-31.

page 279

INCORRECT NEWSPAPER REPORT

SenatorREID (Queensland) [3.2].- by leave - This morning’s issue of the Canberra Times incorrectly reports an, interjection I made yesterday afternoon when Senator Barnes was speaking. Senator Barnes was saying -

This Government might not misuse the’ powers, which it was taking to itself, but the present Public Service Board would not last for ever, and neither would this administration.

I am reported . to have interjected - “ It will be a good job for Australia if it doesn’t.” What I really said was - “It will bo a good job for Australia if it does.” I object to being misreported in this way.

The PRESIDENT:

– It merely shows the undesirability of making interjections.

page 279

QUESTION

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will an opportunity be afforded to the Senate, before this part of the session closes; to discuss’ the subjects -set down for deliberation, at the forthcoming Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa?’

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I understand that the Prime Minister is now considering how the matter can most suitably be brought before Parliament for discussion.I shall see that when a decision is reached on that point the Senate will have an equal opportunity with another place to discuss the subjects to be considered at Ottawa.

page 279

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LYNCH:

– In view’ of the result which has followed free education in New South Wales, and its ruinous effect upon other parts of Australia, I should like to know if there is anything in the Federal Constitution to enable the Education Act of the State to be repealed ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The powers of the Federal Constitution do not include education; it is a matter which is reserved to the States. But I am quite sure that whatever may have been the result of free education in New South Wales, the education the people of that State have been receiving during the last few months will have a very important effect at the first opportunity they have of expressing their views:

page 279

QUESTION

COAL SUBSIDY

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

– A report of the Under-Secretary for Mines in Queensland, for the year 1931, published in the Queensland Government’s mining journal, contains the following: - “There was a decided drop in the coal production from the collieries in the northern and central districts of Queensland. Loss of bunker and overseas trade from the Bowen field was largely responsible for the reduction. It was found quite impossible to compete with the southern coal, which is helped along with a Commonwealth subsidy.

I presume that the subsidy -referred to was paid on coal from New South Wales. I should like to know if it is still being paid and, if so, whether it can be extended to other States ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I am not quite sure whether the subsidy is still operative, but when it was payable it was paid to any State on its exported coal.

page 279

QUESTION

DARWIN UNEMPLOYED

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

With reference to the return tabled by the Minister in the Senate last week, showing that since the 1st January, 1929,65 unemployed persons have been given free sea passages from the Northern Territory to Queensland, 48 to New South Wales, 70 to Victoria, and 95 to Western Australia, - why is it that no such free passages are issued to South Australia or Tasmania?
In view of the protests made by the Government of Western Australia on this subject, will the Government kindly relieve that State of the preference it is receiving as a destination ‘ for unemployed from the Northern Territory?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following reply: -

The question asked by the honorable senator on the 28th April related to the number of passages by sea provided for persons from the Northern Territory to the States. Ko passages by sca were granted to South Australia, hut u number of fares were paid over the railways from Stuart (Alice Springs) to Quorn, in South Australia, during the period mentioned. Apparently, no free passages were granted to Tasmania, for the reason that none of the applicants came to the Territory from that State.
A greater number of passages were granted to Western Australia for the reason that a larger number of men proceeded to the Territory from that State than from any other State.

page 280

QUESTION

RABBIT POISONS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the following statement -in a recent .issue of the Western Australian Sunda;/ Times, ‘ regarding the Government’s action in retaining taxes on rabbit poisons: - “ But the cruel irony of it. Fancy taxing the unfortunate, men on the land in order to extort further revenue from them, and forcing them to use these (rabbit) poisons so- that the revenue may be increased “1
In view of the serious increase in rabbits this year throughout many parts of the Commonwealth, will the Government immediately relieve rabbit , poisons from the burdens of sales tax and primage duties?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following reply: -

The statement referred to had not previously come under the notice of the Government.
The matter will be considered at an early du te in connexion With, the budget proposals fur next year.

page 280

QUESTION

Senator Dooley:

– Public servants have to bear their full share of taxation.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not deny that, but persons who are not in the Public Service shoulder a much heavier burden, and, as I have already stated, they are not in a position to carry it. In these times of stress it is quite improper to provide this amount on the Estimates, because - I say it advisedly - the money is not earned, inasmuch as public servants are paid on a yearly basis.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Who was responsible for this arrangement?

Senator PAYNE:

– I cannot say, but this is about the third time that the item has appeared in the Estimates.

Senator Guthrie:

– No private employer would pay it.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am aware that nothing can be done to obviate the payment this year, because the Estimate? have been passed, and we are nearing the close of the financial year, but it is just as well that the Government should know that honorable senators generally do not approve of this extraneous payment, which cannot be justified.

There is another matter to which I desire to direct attention. In the Estimates for this year there is provision for £42,310 to meet claims for higher duty pay. This item, I suggest, might be reviewed with a. view to effecting substantial economies. I have no objection to higher pay being given to any public servant who is called upon to do special work in a higher grade than his classification, but I do object to additional pay being given to one of two men working side by side who may be required to do some of the work of his higher paid colleague during the latter’s temporary absence through illness. This does not seem to be a reasonable arrangement, and I believe that substantial savings could be effected if, in these difficult times, there was a greater spirit of co-operation in all branches of the Public Service with a view to keeping down public expense. I hope that the Minister will bring this matter under the notice of the Government, so that it may be dealt with when the Estimates for the ensuing financial year are under consideration.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– Though it is not customary to debate the motion for the third reading of a bill, the departure in this instance is, I think, fully justified. There is one matter which has been exercising my mind a great deal since yesterday.. The right honorable the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) said yesterday that the policy of preference to returned soldiers operates only in the case of appointments ; that once in the Service, a soldier receives no further preference. That information came to me as a shock.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is the position so far as the Public Service Act is concerned.

Senator SAMPSON:

– I have always thought that the preference principle applied also in the case of dismissals from the Public Service. Only recently, I received the following letter from the President of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia dated the 24th March, 1932 : -

Re possible retrenchmentof permanent stuff, Commonwealth Public Service, I have pleasure in stating that as the result of representations made by me to the Prime Ministerduring recent interviews, he promised that if the men concerned are in the same division, preference in dismissals shall be given to returned soldiers. With regard to temporary employees in the Service, he also promised that returned soldiers possessing the requisite qualifications shall be transferred to the positions held by non-soldiers.

I feel that this practical interest of the ‘Prime Minister in the welfare of returned soldiers will be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

j. C. Dyett, Federal President.

I should like to know definitely the policy of the Government in this matter. Time after time, I have been disappointed and grieved with all governments. On Armistice Day, Anzac Day, and on the hustings, the policy of preference to returned soldiers is advocated, because it is felt that it goes down well with the people, but I regret that on far too many occasions, governments, municipalities, and other public and semi-public bodies regard the principle as a dead letter when it comes to honouring it. As a supporter of the Government, I should like to know the Government’s policy regarding this matter.

– With regard to the payment of higher duties allowances, honorable senators will remember that I stated that nearlyall these extraneous payments, with the exception of pay for holidays worked, are covered by awards of the court, not by the Public Service Act, I think that the higher duties allowance is covered by an award, so that an amendment of the award would be necessary to discontinue it. That matter is under the consideration of the Government.

Senator Sampson will remember that yesterday, when I referred to the policy of preference to returned soldiers, I was speaking of provisions of the Public Service Act, not the policy followed by the Government in its administration. The honorable senator will see that the two things are entirely different. The Public Service Act does not provide for preference to returned soldiers, excepting in the making of appointments; but I can assure the Senate that, in its administration, the Government certainly does give preference to returned soldiers. On many occasions ithas demonstrated its adherence to that policy; it is demonstrated by the letter read by Senator Sampson.

Senator Sampson:

– That is why I read it.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– As the honorable senator knows, this question and others are now receiving the consideration of the Government in the light of representations which have been made to it as the result of the last, conference of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 283

SPIRITS BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from the 3rd May, vide page 170) :

Bill reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

page 283

CUSTOMS BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from the 3rd of May, vide page 176, of amendment by Senator Grant) :

That the following new clause be inserted: - “ 10a. Section 132 of the principal act is a mended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso: - “‘Provided that goods imported on any vessel shall, upon entry for home consumption at any port after the first port of call in Australia, be dutiable at all ports at the rates of duty in. force on the date the vessel carrying the goodsfirst reported at an Australian port ofcall.”’

Senator McLachlan:

– Would it not be more difficult to have two merchants in Melbourne clearing the same class of goods at different rates of duty on the same day?

Senator THOMPSON:

– In regard to a shipment of ginger the other day, every port, escaped the increase of duty except Sydney, because the increase was imposed before the vessel reached Sydney after discharging at the other ports. The great bulk of shipping in Australia is of a distributive character, and, I think, it would be better for the Government to agree to the request of the commercial people.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

. - I hope that the committee will accept the advice of the Assistant Minister (Senator Greene). We all realize that the imposition of duties creates anomalies. The formula now applied is the best, that, can be devised by those who are administering the Customs ActWhen the previous Government was in office, and the complaint which is now being ventilated was raised,I had several conferences with customs officials in regard to it. I ascertained from them that greater anomalies than now exist would be brought about, if the formula suggested by Senator Payne were adopted. As the

– I do not suppose that anything has adversely affected States like

South. Australia, “Western Australia, and Tasmania more than has the incidence of the federal tariff. That is one of the prices we pay for federation.

Senator E B Johnston:

– It is too high a price.

Senator DALY:

– That may or may not be; but we have to decide the best formula to adopt in fixing duties, and, in my opinion, the proposed formula would create greater anomalies than now exist. The committee would be well advised to accept the advice of the Assistant Minister until, upon further inquiry, it satisfies itself that an amended formula would be an improvement.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I am surprised at the opposition of the Government to this amendment. Although the Assistant Minister (Senator Greene) says that the question is hoary with age, and that every government which has considered the matter has found it necessary to refuse to amend the act in the direction I have suggested, I have evidence to prove that such is not the case. On the 30th August, 1928, Mr. D. Cameron, the then member for Brisbane, asked the following question : -

Referring to the question by the honorable member for Brisbane on the 27th April last, regarding the unanimous resolution of thelast conference in Hobart of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, requesting the introduction of uniform customs duties, will he state what action has been taken, and what the present position is?

And the reply of Mr. Bruce, the Leader of the then Government,was as follows : -

This matter has received consideration, and an amendment to the Customs Act has been drafted to give effect to the request of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It is the intention of the Government to proceed with this amendment as soon as practicable.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The bill was afterwards dropped by the same Government.

Senator PAYNE:

– But, in view of that reply, how can the Assistant Minister say now that every government that has considered the matter has found it necessary to refuse to amend the act? I take it that the answer of the then Prime Minister was given after consultation. At any rate, several months afterwards, the then Minister for Trade and Customs was asked a similar question, and his reply endorsed that which had been given by Mr. Bruce. Consequently, I naturally expected that a bill would be introduced that session to amend the Customs Act in the direction suggested. It has not been done so far, and, for some reason or other, the present Government finds itself advised to oppose this amendment. I can quite understand its attitude if it is following departmental advice. But I cannot accept difficulty of administration as an adequate reason for opposing the amendment. A little extra work might be entailed, but every ship must carry its manifest. That manifest must be endorsed at the first port of call, and must be produced for inspection whenever required. The only additional work entailed on the customs authorities would be the inspection of the manifest. The present position is intolerable.I direct the attention of honorable senators to section 51 of the Constitution which enacts -

TheParliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Trade and commerce with other countries and among the States.

Taxation : but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States.

– Time after time the Bruce-Page Government promised to alter the existing law.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– That is so. On one occasion that Government prepared a bill to make the alteration desired by the Senate, but it did not proceed with the measure. It is true that difficulties would be encountered if the amendment were accepted, but there are difficulties even under the existing law. For instance, some of the goods discharged from a vessel at Melbourne may be cleared on arrival, in which case they pay duty at a certain rate, while the remainder is placed in bond, and, before they are released, are subject to probably two or three alterations of the tariff. I do not think that the difficulties would -be any greater if the amendment were made law.

Senator Daly said that, although there are difficulties under the existing law in respect of interstate trade, it obviates difficulties in respect of intrastate trade. That is not the position. A? honorable senators know, a tariff schedule operates from S o’clock in the morning of the day following its being tabled in Parliament. Goods unloaded thereafter are subject to any alteration in duty, so that, the difficulty in regard to intra-state trade is not removed. I trust that the Government will accept the amendment.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I desire to remove any doubt which may exist in the mind of Senator Crawford in regard to goods in bond. The proviso refers to goods imported in any vessel and entered for home consumption. That means goods which are cleared straight away; they would be affected by the duty. Goods” placed in bond remain there until they are cleared; and when they are cleared, they are subject to the then existing duty.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I appreciate the spirit in which senators have approached this subject, and I sympathize with the view that has been expressed by those who favour the amendment. But I feel confident that when the matter is closely examined honorable senators will realize, as I myself regretfully do, that it is difficult to do anything to remove these peculiar anomalies. The Government will, however, give further consideration to the representations which have been made and, if it can see its way to do so, it will endeavour to meet the wishes of honorable senators.

Senator Grant:

– We have heard that promise for twenty years.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

- Senator Thompson said that the amendment would overcome difficulties. It would not; on the contrary, it would create difficulties. It seeks to amend section 132 of the principal act which provides -

All import duties shall be paid at the rate in force when the goods are entered for home consumption.

The position would not be difficult if we had to deal only with goods for home consumption as they leave the ship. But many goods go into bond, and are entered for home consumption only when they are taken from bond. The act of putting them into bond merely postpones the time when they are entered for home consump-tion.

Senator Payne:

– Will the Minister accept the amendment if amended to meet that position?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not say that. I am advised that goods are entered for home consumption when they are taken out of bond. It would appear, therefore, that, no matter how long they remain in bond, they are dutiable at the rate in force when the ship in which they were carried reached Australia.

Senator Payne doubted the accuracy of some of my statements, and he quoted a reply given in another place in 192S to a question asked by Mr. Donald Cameron. The then Government did not proceed with the measure which it had prepared, for the reason, I am informed, that after full consideration it found that, not only were there grave practical difficulties in the way, but also that doubt existed as to its constitutionality. That difficulty arose in connexion with section SS of the Constitution which provides that, “ uniform duties of customs shall bo imposed.”

Senator Grant:

– That is all we want.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The court has interpreted “ uniformity “ in point of time; that is to say, the duties must be uniform at the time they are imposed. Consequently, there is grave doubt, to say the least, about the validity of any such provision. I understand that the matter was submitted to the then AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) and it is probable that the decision of the then Government, not to proceed any further with the matter, was taken as a result of his advice. Although I understand that this was not one of the specific matters upon which the Constitution Commission was asked to express an opinion, it came under its purview. That commission, after considering the resolution of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, said -

The claim is, in effect, that once a vessel is entered at an Australian port the rate of duty on goods imported in that vessel should Ite the same wherever those goods are landed. Under the present system an importer of goods at one port of call may pay a less ratu ti mil an importer at a later port, and may possibly be able to undersell the later importer by transferring his goods from one State to another. Section .132 of the Customs Act makes administration simple, and while it may be practicable to amend it without creating any serious difficulties, care will be needed not to infringe the requirements as to uniformity, ami after such an amendment it might happen that there would bc similar goods in different ships in port cleared on the same day, paying different rates of duty.

Senator Payne:

– Uniformity of what:?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Uniformity of customs duties.

Senator Payne:

– That is what we are

Irving to achieve.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The point 1 am striving to make is that the court, so far as we can learn, has interpreted the word “uniformity” to mean uniformity in point of time.

Senator Grant:

– Has there been any decision on that point?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not an absolute decision. The court has, at all events, given an indication that “ uniformity “ refers to the actual time at which the duties are levied. They must be uniform throughout Australia at the specific time at which they are imposed. If honorable senators agreed to the proposed new clause, they would find that greater anomalies than those now existing would arise, and that we should be faced with serious and definite constitutional difficulties. The advice tendered to the Government is definitely in the direction that this proposal would, in all probability, imperil the validity of the section of the Customs Act which it is proposed to amend. For that reason, if for no other,, I ask the committee not to support the amendment. All I can say at the present juncture is that before the bill is dealt with by another place, the Government will give the matter further and fuller consideration with every desire to, if possible, remove in a constitutional way, the anomalous conditions which we frankly admit exist. The Government desires to meet the views of honorable senators, but, realizes that constitutional and other difficulties of greater importance may arise.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

– The Assistant Minister (Senator Greene) referred to the word “uniformity.” For the sake of argument we may assume that a vessel discharges a portion of her cargo at Fremantle, which is dutiable at a definite rate. The ship then proceeds to Port Adelaide, but before reaching that port duties on the cargo carried are increased. Does it make .any practical difference whether that cargo goes -to Port Adelaide in a ship’s bottom, or by rail? If it were lauded at Fremantle and transported by rail, it would be dutiable at the rate of duty iu operation when the ship called at Fremantle. If the goods were sent from Fremantle to Port Adelaide in a ship’s bottom, and the duties were increased while the vessel was between those two ports, there would be a variation in the duty as between the goods carried by sea and those carried by rail.

Senator Sampson:

– A similar position would apply as between Hobart and Launceston.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes; I mentioned Fremantle, as that is the port which has frequently been quoted during the debate. I appreciate what the Assistant Minister has said with respect to home consumption. If goods go into bond, the duty applicable is that in operation when they are released from bond.

Senator Thompson:

– The owner of the goods pays the duty in force when they are cleared.

Senator MILLEN:

– Exactly. I see nothing in the contention that because a vessel discharges a portion of her cargo at. Fremantle and carries the balance to Adelaide, Sydney, or Hobart, there should be any difference in the duty paid on the goods comprising that cargo whether carried by a ship or by rail. I support the amendment.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

. -The Assistant Minister (Senator Greene) intimated that if I withdrew the proposed new clause, the Government would see if the difficulties to which I have referred could be overcome in a constitutional way. Previous governments suggested that the Associated Chambers of Commerce should obtain the opinion of a recognized constitutional authority on the subject. Such an opinion was obtained from Mr. T. S. O’Halloran, K.C., of Adelaide, who said that there was nothing- in the Constitution to prevent an amendment of the Customs Act in the direction I have proposed. That opinion was accepted by the Government of the day, and some time later it agreed to bring in an amending bill. If there is any doubt with respect to goods in bond, the Government will have ample opportunity before the measure, is considered in another place to frame an amendment to overcome any difficulty which may exist. I am anxious that the principle shall be embodied in the bill.

Question - That the proposed new clause be inserted - put. The committee divided. ( Chairman - S en a tor. Plain. )

AYES: 14

NOES: 14

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Plain).There being fourteen “ Ayes “ and fourteen “ Noes “, I declare the question resolved in the negative.

Clause’ 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Conditions relating to application of preferential tariff).

AYES

NOES

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South. Australia

– I ask the Minister to give some explanation of this clause, and of the alterations that are made in the law by it.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This clause amends section 151a of the principal act. That section specifies the requirements to which goods must conform to be entitled to admission at preferential rates of duty as the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom. Such goods are divided chiefly into three classes. They are -

Goods wholly produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom. (The use of materials of Australian origin does not exclude goods from this class, nor does the use of such raw materials of other origin as are covered by a determination by the Minister published in the Gazette.)
Goods of which not less than 75 per cent. of the factory or works cost consists of United Kingdom labour or material.
Goods, of a class not made in Australia, of which not less than 25 per cent, of the factory or works cost consists of United Kingdom labour or’ materia)!.

In regard to goods under class a, the act at present allows only such raw materials, other than. United Kingdom or Australian, to be used as are gazetted. This has caused a good deal of difficulty, as a considerable time may elapse before a material is gazetted, and the British manufacturer, who is in the meantime utilizing such a material, is at a disadvantage. It is considered that these difficulties will be alleviated if the use is permitted of crude raw materials generally, that is raw materials which have not been subjected to any processes of manufacture other than those of their primary produc- tion, such as timber in the log, crude petroleum, ores, grain, hides, &c.

On the other hand, gazettal would still be necessary of raw materials which had been processed beyond the stage of primary production. For example, wool imported into the United Kingdom as greasy wool could be used by a manufacturer, but wool imported as scoured wool could not be so used unless it had been gazetted.

To make the position as clear as possible, a distinction has been drawn in the new section between “unmanufactured” and “manufactured” raw materials, and a definition of the former has been incorporated. Should any question arise as to whether a raw material is “ unmanufactured “ or “ manufactured,” power is given for the Minister to give a decision which is final. This does not apply to raw materials of wholly Australian production, which may, as hitherto, be used irrespective of their stage of -manufacture.

As to goods under class b, the present position is that 75 per cent, of their value must be due entirely to United Kingdom labour or material. If Australian material has been used its value is not allowed to be included in the 75 per cent., but is on the same basis as foreign material. It is possible, therefore, that a British manufacturer might be making goods largely from Australian materials, and very little foreign material, and yet the goods would not be entitled to preference, whereas, if the Australian material were allowed as part of the 75 per cent., the goods would be entitled to preference. The existing position is not consistent with that in regard to goods under class a, namely, goods wholly manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom,. regarding which there is no limit to the extent to which Australian material may be used and the goods still be entitled to preference. It is reasonable that, in determining whether 7 5 per cent, of the value of goods consists of United Kingdom labour or material, Australian material used should be allowed to be included. The section is amended accordingly.

Shortly put, the position is that, up to the present, the value of Australian raw materials used has not been admitted in calculating the 75 per cent. Now it is proposed to admit it. The same situation exists in regard to goods under class c - that is, goods of a kind not commercially manufactured in Australia and of which not less than 25 per cent, of the cost requires to be due to United Kingdom labour or material, and the amendment provides for Australian material to be included in the 25 per cent.

An innovation is introduced in subsection 2 of the new section in regard to goods under class c. It is to give the Minister power to determine in suitable cases that the minimum percentage of United Kingdom value shall be 50 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. It has been brought under notice by some British manufacturers that the goods they make consist of not less than 50 per cent. United Kingdom labour or material, whereas other makers of the same type of goods may, in the interests of cheap production, use. foreign material to the greatest possible extent, and limit the extent of the United Kingdom labour and material to the minimum of 25 per cent, to qualify for preference. The former may, in such circumstances, be at a disadvantage,, which could be removed by the exercise of this sub-section.

Sub-sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the revised section do not embody any new features.

Sub-section 7 sets out a definition of “ unmanufactured raw materials “ which are now referred to in paragraph a of the new sub-section 1. This sub-section follows closely the New Zealand section on the subject and United Kingdom manufacturers should, therefore, find no difficulty- in following it.

Sub-section 8 gives power to the Minister to finally settle any question as to whether a particular material comes within the heading of “ unmanufactured raw material,” or any difference of opinion as to whether or not goods are the produce or manufacture of a particular country. The latter provision has been inserted as on occasion cases have arisen in which the manufacturer contended that his goods were entitled to preference, but the department was unable to agree. If in such a case the goods had been entered at preferential rates, and the department had recourse to law to obtain the higher duty under the general tariff, it would be necessary for the department to prove that the goods were not of United Kingdom origin within section 151a. Such a proceeding could be so cumbersome as to be impracticable, and would involve the obtaining of evidence on commission in the United Kingdom. The department has its officers abroad, and it is considered that if, as a result of investigation by those officers, the department is satisfied that any particular goods are not entitled to preference, the department should be in a position to see that duty is paid on the proper basis without involved and ‘expensive legal proceedings.

The last sub-section, 9, is a special provision to cover cinematograph films. From the point of view of production these are in a different category from goods generally, as the nature of a picture may require a large part of it to be photographed outside the United Kingdom. In order that British film producing companies may not be debarred from preference in such cases provision has been made to regard as entitled to preference any film which is certified by the British authorities to be registered as a British film.

The intention of these new provisions is to clarify the whole of the subject relating to British preference, to make that preference more effective and more definitely favorable to the British manufacturer, and to render its administration easier. The only amendment which might be regarded, in some quarters at all events, as detrimental to British manufacturers, is that which gives the Minister power to determine in suitable cases that the minimum percentage of United Kingdomproduction shall be 50 per cent, instead of 25 per cent. That, amendment, however, is being made deliberately with the intention of assisting those British manufacturers who are using the greatest possible amount of United Kingdom labour and materials.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [5.2]. - I move -

That the following new clause he inserted: - “ 15a. Section 226 ofthe principal act is amended, by adding to the section the words ‘ or until three months after such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, whichever period is the shorter.’ “

Section 226 would then read -

No proceeding whether against an officer or otherwise for any thing donefor the protection of the revenue in relation to any tariff or tariff alteration proposed in Parliament, shall except as mentioned in the next section be commenced before the close of the session in which such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, or until three months after such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, whichever period is the shorter.

[5.26]. - I can assure Senator Colebatch and other honorable senators that this amendment was not necessary to awaken the Government’s interest with regard to this matter. At the last elections, practically every member in the United Australia party, under the leadership of Mr. Lyons, was pledged to alter the present state of affairs in tariff legislation. Consequently, immediately it assumed office, the present Government took this matter up. But I wish to point to one or two practical difficulties which we encountered. These difficulties,I remind honorable senators,, were not of our own creation; they were inherited from our predecessors. Usually there has been some delay following the presentation of new schedules before Parliament has had an opportunity to discuss tariff policy, but never was that delay so protracted as during the regime of the previous Government.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– We are drifting from bad to worse, and this is the fault not of one government only.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.It does not do to simply brush aside practical difficulties like that.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– The honorable senator’s Government showed the way.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Do not let us assume that everybody is wrong. On the contrary, let us assume’ that there is the desire to do the right thing but that sometimes we are the victims of circumstances. Not infrequently, a tariff discussion has occupied another place for some considerable time, and there has been delay in the presentation of schedules to the Senate. The first Parliament, I remember, took about nine months to deal with the first tariff schedule. Parliament insisted on its right to fully examine the Government’s proposals. With the exception of the 1921 tariff, all other tariff schedules have been amendments of existing tariffs, and the discussion has not occupied quite the same length of time. It remained for the Scullin Government to set an example of delay that is unprecedented in the history of the Commonwealth. That Government brought down many drastic tariff amendments, and made no pretence of submitting them to Parliament for discussion. Consequently, immediately prior to the last election, Parliament had to enact practically the whole of the schedules. The present Government was obliged to pass a validating measure by the 28th February, and we had then to bring down resolutions covering practically the whole of the schedules introduced by our predecessors. We took this course because we had promised the electors that we would not make any drastic alterations in the tariff without recommendations from the Tariff Board. Actually, two pledges were given to the people. One was, that we would introduce legislation to limit the period for which tariff resolutions, could operate without the consent of Parliament, and the other was that we would put an end to the reprehensible practice of making sweeping changes without consultation with the Tariff Board. To honour those pledges, we first gave our attention to those duties in the Scullin Government’s schedule that had been the subject of reports by the Tariff Board. We have done that. The amendments submitted by this Government were based on recommendations by the board and presented to Parliament since the various Scullin schedules had been tabled. In pursuance further of our election pledges, we referred other items of the Scullin tariff to the board for examination and report. Since our last schedule was tabled in another place, we have received further reports and action was taken upon some of them yesterday in another place. As soon as the Government can get a little time - honorable senators will readily understand that we have not much time just now - we shall examine other reports that have come from the Tariff Board, and bring forward further tariff amendments based on the recommendations of that body. Honorable senators should bear in mind that the Scullin tariff included approximately 400 items, so it is a pretty extensive job to clean up that mess. When we have run the whole gamut of the scale of duties brought down by our predecessors, and have presented altered schedules to Parliament, we shall have a clean sheet, and will be able to inaugurate some such principle as is embodied in the amendment. It will probably take more than three months, the period mentioned in the amendment, to do that. We shall then be in a position to declare as a definite principle of government policy, that no alteration of the tariff shall be made except upon recommendations of the board. We might, therefore, be able to implement some such plan, as is indicated in this amendment with, .possibly, greater elasticity in the matter of time. I ask honorable senators to visualize the posi- tion which would arise if the amendment became law; it would be impossible to comply with its provisions. The Government would have to break its other election pledge, and deal with the balance of the Scullin tariff without any examination by the Tariff Board.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Why accept that tariff as a basis?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE That the Government does not accept it as a basis is shown bv its acceptance of the alterations which have been recommended by the Tariff Board. Moreover, it has referred to the board the remaining items of that schedule.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Why not go back to the previous tariff?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is not what we told the electors we would do. We promised them that we would submit the Scullin tariff to th> Tariff Board, and be guided by iti reports. We did not promise to adopt them. That undertaking the Government is carrying out, but if this amendment were law, the Government would be unable to carry it out. I have no quarrel with Senator Colebatch for having brought, this matter forward ; but I appeal to him, as one who has had ministerial experience,, to examine the position, in which case I feel sure that he Wil realize the seriousness of rendering it impossible for us to give effect to the pledge given to the electors that before altering the tariff we would have a thorough examination by the Tariff Board. I do not think that the honorable senator would willingly place the Government in that position. With the assurance that I have given that the Government has already given consideration to this matter, that it intends to clear up the difficult position created by the previous Government, and that it will have the duties examined by the Tariff Board, I trust honorable senators will be satisfied. This principle will be incorporated in the Customs Act, although the Government does not expect that the period suggested will meet the position.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [5.38]. - It is no part of my duty to reconcile the speech of thB right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) in this chamber with the speeches he made on the hustings.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator suggests that my speech to-day is inconsistent with my speeches to the electors. I resent the insulting inference.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– I am sorry if I have offended the right honorable senator. I should have no objection to altering the period from three months to six months, or even longer, because it would still be competent for Parliament, at any time, to pass a validating resolution covering any time that might be necessary. But I see no necessity for extending it at all. There would be a check, in that both Houses of Parliament would not be prepared to pass the resolution unless they were satisfied that the Government had honestly endeavoured to deal with the tariff. I do not object to delay ; but I do object to avoid- able delay, such as has taken place during the last two years. Had this amendment been the law when . the previous Government was in office, and that Government had approached Parliament to pass a validating resolution, I feel confident that the Senate would have refused to pass it on the ground that the Government had not tried to deal with the tariff.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What is to prevent a government from tabling the same resolution again?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

-I am coming to that. In the United States of America no customs duty can be collected until both Houses of the Parliament have approved of it. Yet, in spite of that, provision, that country has managed to impose a tariff which is higher than that, of any other country. In England a duty becomes operative directly it is tabled ; but no government that unduly delayed its discussion could live. Similarly, no continental government has unrestricted power to impose duties. ‘No government outside Australia would dare to do what successive governments in Australia have done - hold up the discussion of its tariff schedule for many months. A little while ago the Irish Free State, conceiving that it might be necessary to establish duties of customs, because of England’s depreciated currency, gave the Government power to impose them. But it did not give the Government unrestrictedpower in that direction ; it limited the percentage of duty which might be imposed to 45 per cent., and provided, further, that the duties could not be collected for more than 30 days without the approval of Parliament. Yet we are told that a similar provision is not possible in Australia. Are the representatives of the people not to be allowed to have any say in the matter of imposing taxation on the people? The fact is - and I say it not offensively - that governments do not want their tariffs to be discussed ; they merely want to have the duties collected. When section 226 of the first Customs Act was passed no one dreamed that requirements of the words “ before the close of the session “ could be overcome by continuing a session for the whole life of a Parliament. No one thought it possible that such a subterfuge would be used to defeat the clear purpose of the framers of the Constitution. Taxation of the people without, their consent should not continue beyond what is generally understood as the end of a session. The Assistant Minister (Senator Greene) suggests that if the amendment were accepted “ the Government would resort to some other subterfuge-

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I said that it could be clone; not that it would be done.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH Surely the taxation of the people is a matter of first importance, not something to be deferred, as the consideration of the tariff has been deferred in the past ! The Constitution gives to the Senate the same law-making powers that it gives to the House of Representatives. There are certain qualifications in respect of money bills, but otherwise the Constitution is clear that the powers of the two Houses shall be equal. Unless the Constitution had so provided, and, in addition, gave to the smaller States the same representation that it gave to the larger States in the Senate, there would have been no federation; the smaller States would not have agreed to come in. The practice which has been adopted in regard to tariffs is nothing less than the defrauding - I use the word deliberately - of the smaller States of the political rights which (hey were supposed to be given under the Constitution. Obviously, the larger States, which generally favour high tariffs, have a majority in the House of Representatives, where governments are made and kept in office. Under the practice that has grown up during the regime of various governments, the clear intention of the Constitution in connexion with the smaller States has been dishonestly defeated. If the Minister says that there are no means of protecting the smaller States, then the sooner those States get together and make some concerted move towards secession, the better it will be for every one. It is no defence to say that the position is difficult. Taxation should not be imposed on the people other than in an orderly fashion; the rights of the States should be preserved. Those are the outstanding matters for our consideration; before them, minor things must give way. I see no difficulty in giving effect to the amendment, because a validating resolution could cover any position that might arise. That resolution could not be passed unless both Houses of the Parliament were satisfied that the Government was doing its bent to deal with the tariff. Senator Johnston said that the Government was adopting the Scullin tariff as a basis. The Government is practically adopting the Scullin tariff as if it were the law of tlie land, and is telling us that an early opportunity will be given to discuss all those schedules in which we have reduced the Scullin tariff; but no opportunity “will be given to discuss because other than those which have h<?en reduced by the present Government until after the Ottawa conference. It is true that the reductions which have been made have been based on the recommendations of the Tariff Board ; but not every recommendation of that board has been given effect to. The Tariff Board recommended that the duty on galvanized iron should be removed until the price of Australian galvanized iron was reduced to £23 per ton. That has not been clone. I do not disagree with the reductions which have been made; but it is unfortunate that the two principal items in which reductions have been made affect primary industries.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– - There are others.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Those are the two outstanding cases. If, because of promises made on the hustings, certain desirable things cannot now be done, the sooner the Senate registers a. definite protest the better.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– We do not say that. Why use. that language?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– The right honorable gentleman has given no alternative ; he merely says, “ Do nothing.” I am not prepared to adopt that attitude.

Senator DALY (South Australia) 5.48]. - There is a great’ deal of justification for what Senator Colebatch has said. I was a member of a ministry which must accept its share of the blame attaching to all ministries for holding up tariff discussions ; but, as I believe that this Parliament should be the controlling body, and that the people, through their representatives, should, at the earliest possible moment, have an opportunity for discussing every form of taxation, I agree that there should be some time limit for the discussion of a tariff schedule by both Houses of the Parliament.

I hope that something will come out of this discussion. As a representative of one of the States referred to by Senator Colebatch - a State which is vitally affected by the tariff - I should like to see the law amended to give the smaller States the representation on the Tariff Board to which they are entitled. Instead of the Tariff Board being constituted as it is of customs officials and nominees of the Government in power-

Senator Payne:

– The Government of which the honorable senator was a member ignored the recommendations of the Tariff Board.

Senator DALY:

– I am not. now defending the actions of the Government of which I had the honour to be a member, but it must be remembered that that Government had to act in an emergency, and whether it was right or wrong it did its best. At present I am discussing the principle enunciated by the mover of the amendment. If honorable senators on both sides of this chamber and another place recognized to the full that under the Constitution we are a federation, and not. a unified commonwealth, a better tariff system would prevail than is in operation at present. If wo limit the activities of a government so that it will be forced to bring down its tariff within a specified time, we shall then determine what is wrong with the tariff. We should have a tariff board consisting of one direct representative of each of the States. The voice of South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania would then be heard before Parliament was called upon to decide the issue. I feel that the period sought by Senator Colebatch is too short. If the honorable senator is prepared to extend it, I shall support him.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– What does the honorable senator favour?

Senator DALY:

– I should say at least six months. At present it appears to be nobody’s responsibility to bring down a tariff; every one wishes to avoid doing so. We should make it obligatory upon the Government to bring down its tariff within a certain time; we should then have a more scientific schedule than we have had from this or any other government which has preceded it. Such an arrangement is consistent with the principles of parliamentary government in Australia. It would give Parliament full rights over important governmental activities, and, in addition, would bring the States to a clearer realization of the defects of our fiscal system, and how they could be remedied.

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

. - I intend to support the amendment moved by Senator Colebatch. I listened with interest to the arguments that he adduced, and to the reply of the Assistant Minister (Senator Greene), and I appreciate what he has said in relation to validating the tariff. It has been further suggested that it would be easy for a government that was not altogether honest in its intentions to overcome the time limit by bringing down a new tariff schedule within a three months period in order to keep it alive if the Parliament had not considered it in the meantime. I. am not suggesting that this or any other government has not been honest in its intentions, but there is ‘a possibility of tariff discussions being delayed for political purposes. That could easily be avoided by compelling the Government to bring down a validating measure within a specified time. When Parliament is about to be prorogued, and the tariff schedule has not been disposed of, a validating bill has to be passed, and the duties can then be reviewed by the succeeding Parliament. Some of the greatest difficulties with which the commercial world has to deal is the extraordinary elongation, shall I say, of time before Parliament is permitted to discuss a tariff schedule. No one knows what is to happen. A tariff schedule virtually becomes law immediately it is introduced, and it may be operative for two or three years before it is discussed. If a manufacturing company erects certain buildings in the belief that Parliament will validate the tariff it incurs the risk of Parliament amending the schedule in such a way that the money it has spent on buildings and plant may all be lost. Is that fair? Manufacturers must have some security in matters of this kind. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) made a rather startling pronouncement this afternoon. He said that after the present chaotic condition of affairs had been overcome the Tariff Board could consider various items in the tariff, and its recommendations could be included in tariff schedules which would be introduced in another place. Could anything be more detrimental to the commercial life of this country than that manufacturers should not know exactly where they stand? If tariff schedules are to be continually amended manufacturers and importers will be in a serious position, and financial institutions will not know to what, extent they can assist them. At present manufacturers and others have no security under the tariff under which they are working. Senator Daly suggested that the States should be represented on the Tariff Board. I have a great deal of. sympathy with such a proposal, but I should prefer to see the interstate commission reappointed so that the States could have a more definite voice not only in tariff matters, but also in many governmental activities.

Senator Daly:

– A good deal can be said in favour of such a proposal.

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes. I am not in favour of the limitation of three months, proposed by Senator Colebatch; but I do not think the honorable senator wishes to adhere strictly to that period. He has merely put it forward in order to enable the whole subject to be discussed. I am not particular as to the time, but governments should be required to provide for the discussion of a tariff schedule within a definite period. Something must be done to prevent governments bringing down schedules and allowing them to remain in operation indefinitely without the representatives of the people having an opportunity to discuss them. While uncertainty exists, manufacturers and importers do not know where they stand.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I commend the action of Senator Colebatch in submitting this amendment, which represents an honest attempt to restore parliamentary control in tariff matters. During the three years I have been a member of this chamber, Parliament has had no such control. One government with a large hostile majority opposed to it in the Senate where the viewpoint of the States is represented did just what it liked. It defied the law by imposing duties without obtaining reports from the Tariff Board, while the people of Australia were compelled to groan and put up with it. Under such a system the people have been oppressed and parliamentary control ignored. I venture to suggest that a great deal of the unemployment which exists in Australia today would not exist had the law of the country provided that no increases in customs duties should be made until they were first ratified by both Houses of the Parliament. I am sorry that the amendment of Senator Colebatch does not go further and provide even now that all alterations to the tariff since that last approved by both Houses of Parliament - I refer to the Pratten tariff - shall be inoperative unless and until they are approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Senator Daly:

– How would the Commonwealth have paid £730,000 to Western Australia under the £34,000,000 agreement!

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The Commonwealth is not paying anything under that agreement to Western Australia. The agreement was cancelled by the last Government of which Senator Daly was a member. That State has been bled since the inception of federation, and I hope that the honorable senator will be able to make a more reliable contribution to the debate than is suggested by his interjection. Not one-fourth of the increases in the customs duties during the last five years would have been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The Government of this country, in tariff matters, has been carried on in defiance of Parliament, and that condition will operate at the hands of most governments we are likely to have in power until the law is amended in the manner provided in the amendment. Three years ago I was returned to this chamber as a tariff reductionist - to assist in reducing the duties in every possible direction. What opportunity have I had during that period to vote for a reduction in customs duties? I was elected in August 1929, when the BrucePage Government was in power.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator has made good use of every opportunity.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am glad to have that interjection; but whatever I have done has been almost ineffective, because with one or two minor exceptions, not one of the reductions agreed upon in this chamber have been given effect by the Government. Three senators representing Western Australia, including myself, arrived here in August, 1929, just after the elections, on the understanding that we were to fight for reduced duties. Immediately the Government we were supporting introduced schedules providing for some considerable increases, which with other schedules that had not been considered by Parliament were entirely opposed to the policy of the Country party and disastrous to the people of Western Australia. Shortly afterwards that Government was defeated, and Parliament passed a validating bill covering the tariff increases including some of those made before the election of 1928. A general election was held with most disastrous consequences to Australia. A new go- vernment then came into office - the Scullin Government. Had legislation of this nature been on the statutebook during the period of that. Government’s administration, we would have been in a strong position to keep it in order. But we had no such legislation, and at short periods for over two years huge and disastrous increases. were made in customs duties, imposing additional burdens on the people of Australia, driving primary producers off their farms and throwing men out of employment. When at last an election occurred, that Government was defeated. A new government was returned last December on a policy of tariff reduction throughout the Commonwealth. I am not blaming any particular Minister, but we find that fresh tariff schedules have been introduced by this Government containing only a few minor reductions and several increases, and perpetuating the whole of the Scullin tariff with its objectionable increases. ‘ Generally speaking the existing tariff is the same as the Scullin Government left it. It would be much more in accordance with the principles of parliamentary government if after the election this Government had tabled a schedule of duties that had been adopted by both Houses of Parliament. That would have meant the adoption of the Pratten tariff which, although oppressive, was very much lower than the present tariff. The Government has not done that. We could have accepted those duties temporarily, until the tariff could be considered in detail, and in. addition have put into effect the reductions agreed to by the Senate during the discussion on the first few items of the Scullin tariff. The taxpayers are burdened by these excessive tariff increases, which have not been considered by Parliament. There is no excuse for the delay which has occurred. We have had no opportunity to consider any of the tariff alterations made during the last three years. The Senate had an opportunity to consider only a few items in the Scullin schedule before the last general election. We did our duty by making substantial reductions; but even those have not been given effect. What is the position now? When are we to have the tariff dealt with item by item by another place as well as by this chamber? We know that the Minister for Trade and Customs is going to Ottawa, and admit the importance of his representing Australia at the conference which is to be held there. At the same time, however^ we have in Senator Greene one of the most capable men in the Cabinet and a gentleman who, as Minister for Trade and Customs, has piloted a customs tariff through Parliament. The question of considering and reducing the tariff, or at any rate of giving effect to the wishes of the people in regard to every item of it, is so important that there is no justification for closing Parliament while these schedules remain unconsidered. Surely, no difficulty would be experienced in arranging for pairs for the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Bruce) and the Minister for Trade and Customs, during their absence from Australia on this important mission. The consideration and reduction of the tariff could then be proceeded with at once. For the three years that I have been a member of the Senate, and I believe for two years prior to that date, the alterations made in the tariff since the Pratten schedule was passed, have not been considered in detail. It is imperative that that work should be undertaken without further delay.

I am entirely in favour of the alteration proposed by the amendment. I wish that it went further, and that the law provided that no increases or alterations in the tariff should have effect until they were approved by both Houses of Parliment. Only by making that change shall we restore proper parliamentary control over taxation in the Commonwealth.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have a suggestion to make that I think may meet the views of honorable senators, and at the same time allow the Government to fulfil the pledges that it made to the people. Senator Pearce has indicated the difficulties confronting the Government. Those difficulties were created very largely by our predecessors. One is, that the Government definitely undertook not to make any alteration to the tariff, except on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. It must take some time to cover the whole of that ground.. Meanwhile, the Government desires to conclude the whole of its review of the tariff as early as possible, and is as anxious as any honorable senator that the practice which has grown up of late years, of bringing down schedules and leaving them more or less in the air until Parliament has to validate them when it is about to expire, shall cease. Of course, die trouble originally arose out of a practice which developed during the war. Any honorable senator who was associated with the Commonwealth Parliament before the war will remember that it met regularly towards the end of June, sat until towards the end of December, and then terminated the session by prorogation. That happened year in and year out. I believe that the only occasions when the sessions of Parliament were extended from one year to another was when it was necessary to conclude a- debate on the tariff. I do not know whether we shall ever revert to that system. It has its merits, and I should like to see it return. The difficulty in regard to the tariff has arisen out of the departure from that system which arose inevitably during the war. There was then no prorogation except for an election. That practice, unfortunately, has been continued since the war came to an end, and it is that alone which has enabled tariffs to remain, like Mahomet’s coffin, suspended between Heaven and earth. The Government is just as anxious as any honorable senator to end the practice, and is prepared to accept the spirit of Senator Colebatchs amend-‘ ment provided he will make the period six months-

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– Certainly.,

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– And provided also that he will give us this year, at all events, to clean up the mess that we have inherited.

Senator Daly:

– To what mess does the Minister refer?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not think it i3 necessary to explain that to Senator Daly. If we are allowed this year to clean up the position, we believe that’ we shall be able to fufil the pledges that were made to the people. I did not make any pledges personally, because I did not address one meeting during the last election campaign; but the Government definitely pledged itself in certain direc tions, and now feels obliged to observe those pledges so far as is humanly possible. I, therefore, suggest that the proposed new clause read in this way -

Section 226 of the principal act ia amended by adding the words “or until six months after such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, whichever period is the shorter;
The provisions of sub-section 1 of this section shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1933.”

In addition to enabling the Government to keep its pledges, such an amendment would be a safeguard in the future, so long as sessions were prolonged. It also, I consider, fairly meets the views of those honorable senators who have expressed their opinions.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The character of the speech delivered by the Minister gives me pleasure. I rose to speak at the same time as he did, with the object of urging him to make some concession in this particular matter. There is no doubt that the decision of the Government will commend, itself to the very large number of people in Australia who have watched with increasing exasperation the delay that has taken place in considering tariff schedules that have been introduced into Parliament. While not favouring the increases that have taken place of late, they are especially strongly opposed to the practice of placing schedules on the table of the House of Representatives, and allowing them to remain there without adequate discussion by that chamber, and with no discussion by this chamber, for a very long period. With Senator Lynch and others, I considered that the period of three months proposed by Senator Colebatch was probably not adequate. I quite realize that the assurances given by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) and Senator Greene are genuine, and that they wish this matter to be pushed ahead more quickly in the future. But this Senate also has to legislate for the future as well as for the present; and it might well prove that the existence on the statute-book of some such provision as this Will not be a bad thing should any government later on feel inclined not to bring tariff schedules before either House for discussion.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– In this matter I have no feeling that we are whipping a dead horse. In my opinion, we are patting a very live horse. The point at issue is not the tariff itself, but whether a tariff, like any other form of taxation, should be considered, debated and passed by the representatives of the people, not simply placed on the table of another place and allowed to become and to remain law without the representatives of the people of a democracy having an opportunity to discuss it. I accept the bona fides of the Government in this matter, and admit that this is not the time to impose a limitation which would be too short in its operation, particularly in view of the fact that further tariff amendments may be necessitated as a result of the forthcoming Ottawa Conference. But the whole history of the last few years leads us to believe, nol only that there has been an increasing tendency to delay, but also that when a schedule is considered a year or eighteen months after it is first brought down, it is debated as something which is dead, and interest in which has, to a considerable extent, lapsed. Obviously, therefore, some limit is necessary. In an Australian review about a year ago I expressed the view that a limit should be placed upon the time within which a tariff schedule must be ratified. It is undesirable that tariff schedules should be. practically permanently tabled, and not debated.

It is pleasing to find Senator Daly, as representative of the other side of politics in the State from which I come, anxious to have tariff schedules debated forthwith. But I am not at all in accord with his suggestion that the Tariff Board should be representative of each State. There is a tendency,.! think, for State representation to be overdone. We do not necessarily get the best board because it has on it a member from each State. At present we have a South Australian on the Tariff Board.

Senator Daly:

– He would be all right if he were a Western Australian. Being a freetrader, he does not represent South Australia.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I have known Mr. Kelly for some years, and I should have expected him to be regarded as what one might call a reasonable protectionist.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– He is certainly a very competent member of the board.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– .1 understand that he is an admirable mem ber of the board. But if the board were selected on a birth basis, South Australia would have a smaller representation than it now has. I do not believe in the birth basis. I cannot accept the view that we are as likely to get a good Tariff Board member out of Tasmania with its small population as we should get out of New South Wales with its large population. I like to approach these things from an Australian rather than from a State viewpoint. I congratulate Senator Colebatch on having submitted this amendment, which I feel sure will give satisfaction to a large number of people throughout Australia. We have also the satisfaction of congratulating the Government on the step it has taken, but the credit is due to Senator Colebatch.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I rise to a point of order. The bill contains certain clauses dealing with British preferential tariff items. When they were under discussion I was prepared to discuss this matter with the honorable senator. If Senator Payne is permitted now to discuss in detail the policy of British preference, I feel that I must also be given an equal opportunity to deal with that phase of the Government’s policy, and I am afraid that Ave shall then open up a general debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Payne is distinctly out of order. I gave him a certain amount of latitude, but I must now ask him to confine his remarks strictly to the amendment.

Senator PAYNE:

– If I had attempted to deal in detail with those tariff items in which we are supposed to give preferential treatment to Great Britain, I certainly would have been out of order, but as I did not do that, I submit that I have not offended against our Standing Orders. I am simply dealing with a principle which must necessarily come up for discussion in a debate on an important amendment like this. My remarks are intended to show why I believe the amendment should be accepted. I believe it is necessary that Parliament should, as quickly as possible, be allowed the opportunity to deal with the tariff schedule with a view to removing those prohibitive duties which come under the category of British preference. Later. I hope to be in a position to give to the

Minister particulars of certain items, which, in my judgment, should be reviewed. For the present I content myself with supporting the amendment, and I hope that Senator Colebatch will accept the suggestion made by the Minister.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [8.28]. - I have no hesitation in accepting the Minister’s suggestion, and for three very good reasons. In the first place whatever the committee might feel inclined to do it is obvious that we cannot get an amendment of this kind on the statute-book without the goodwill and assistance of the Government. But there are two other and better reasons. The second is, that I fully recognize the difficulties of the present position. I by no means share the optimism with which very many people look forward to the Ottawa Conference. Nevertheless, I quite understand why the Government considers it necessary to be adequately represented at that gathering in order to do the best it can for Australia. I come now to my third reason. I am sorry indeed that the right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) should have taken offence at any remark of mine, but prior to the dissolution the majority of members supporting the present Government took up the attitude that duties on many items had been imposed by the Scullin Government either without reference to the Tariff Board or in opposition to the board’s recommendations, and that, therefore, they had been imposed illegally. In one of a series of most excellent letters written to the Sydney Morning Herald by Senator Greene, during the illness from which we are all glad to see that he has recovered, he made the specific statement that these duties should be forthwith repealed. That was the attitude in which we faced the . matter in Western Australia. Almost at the last moment some kind of undertaking was given by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Latham. I do not say that that undertaking is not binding on the Government; but I do say that it is not at all consistent with what we said -in this chamber before the adjournment, and with what we told the people of Western Australia. I accept gladly the altera tion suggested by the Assistant Minister, because I regard it as substantially giving effect to the undertaking of the Government, as well as that which candidates gave the people of Western Australia. I, therefore, ask permission to withdraw my amendment.

Amendmen t - by leave - wi thdrawn .

Amendment (by Senator Sir Hal Colebatch) proposed -

That the following new clausebe inserted: - “15a. - (1.) Section 226 of the principal act is amended by adding at the end thereof the words ‘or before the expiration of six months after such tariff or tariff alteration if proposed, whichever first happens’”. (2.) This section shall commence on the first day of January, 1933 “.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [8.32]. - Senator Colebatch referred to my resentment at some of his remarks. I did not take any exception to his criticizing the statement, that I made when setting out the difficulties which confronted the Government in respect of the amendment in its original form; but I regarded as insulting his remark that it was no part of his duty to attempt to reconcile my speech in this chamber with my speeches to the electors. It seemed that the honorable senator was imputing to me a motive which one honorable senator should not impute to another. It was to that imputation that I took exception, not to his general criticism of the position of the Government as I had set it before the Senate.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– It was my intention to support the original amendment moved by Senator Colebatch, although I regarded the time limit set out therein as too short. I congratulate both the honorable senator who brought the matter forward, and the Government on the solution that has been arrived at. When speaking to the electors I made my position clear in regard to the tariff. I did not say anything about referring items to the Tariff Board; but I made it clear that in my opinion no tariff schedule should operate unless it were ratified by Parliament within a certain specified time. I know well that in that respect I differed from other candidates, who urged that these matters be referred to the Tariff Board. I am glad that the matter has come to a head, and is to be finalized. For two years this country has been unconstitutionally taxed. Section 90 of the Constitution provides that on the imposition of uniform duties of customs and excise the power of the Parliament to impose such duties shall be exclusive. Section 1 of the Constitution defines the Parliament as the Sovereign, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. For two years customs taxation has been levied on the people of Australia without the approval of Parliament - in fact, without Parliament having been consulted - but now the representatives of the people are within measurable distance of having a say in the matter. I realize the position of the Government in having an enormous accumulation of tariff matters to clear up, and I doubt whether it could do what is desired in the time suggested. For that reason, I welcome the agreement that has been arrived at, and I hope that this will be the last occasion on which the Senate will have to face a situation similar to that which has confronted it during the last two or three years. If the present Government does nothing else than clear this matter up, it will have deserved well of Australia.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21-

Where, prior to the commencement of this act, the importation or exportation of any goods has been prohibited by proclamation, and the proclamation is in force immediately prior to such commencement, any such proclamation may be cancelled or varied by regulation, and until cancellation shall remain in force according to the terms in which it was issued, and, if varied, shall have effect according to its terms as so varied.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [8.38]. - Although we have done well in providing that future proclamations shall be subject to the approval or disapproval of Parliament, we should also provide that existing proclamations, which have been in force without parliamentary sanction, shall come up for approval. I therefore move -

That after the word “bo” the word “re- enacted “ be inserted.

Should the amendment be agreed to, I propose then to move to add to the clause the words, “ Any such prohibition not reenacted by regulation within six months after the commencement of this act shall cease to have effect.” That would mean that existing prohibitions which have been made by proclamation will stand for six months, when they will lapse unless reenacted by regulation. Upon their being re-enacted by regulation, they will stand unless either House of Parliament disallows them.

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It would have facilitated matters had the honorable senator distributed copies of his proposed amendments before he introduced them. At the moment, I do not see any objection to them; but, in. order to enable them to be examined, I suggest that progress be reported.

Progress reported.

page 309

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[8.43].- I move-

That Standing Order No.68 be suspended for the present sitting to enable new business to be taken after half-past ten p.m. this day.

I do so as a precautionary measure, hoping that we shall not have to implement it. The Government desires to pass through the Senate to-night a bill which it expects to receive from another place. Although the indications are that it will reach us before 10.30 p.m., it may not do so, and consequently the motion is necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative by an absolute, majority of the members of the Senate.

page 309

ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Acting Attorney-General · South Australia. · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a measure to effect, certain amendments in the law which governs the interpretation of Commonwealth statutes. It must be remembered that there are two separate and distinct acts, which deal with the interpretation of Commonwealth statutes, and lay clown principles involving the effect of expressions and enactments appearing therein. The acts which are now in existence are the Acts Interpretation Act. 1901-1930, and tlie Acts Interpretation Acts .1904-1930. It is proposed by this bill to amend both of those acts. As there are two acts on the statute-book dealing with the same subject it i3 necessary that they should have the immediate attention of Parliament.

Section 32 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1930. provides that where an act confers power to make, grant or issue any regulations, expressions used in the regulations shall, unless the contrary intention appears, have the same meanings as in the act conferring the power. The effect of this provision is to enable definitions contained in an act to be invoked for the purposes of regulations made under the act. Section 32 also provides that expressions which are defined in the Acts Interpretation Act itself shall, in any regulations made under any act, have the same meanings as are specified in the Acts Interpretation Act itself. It is now found necessary to go a step further. In addition to the actual definition of particular expressions the Acts Interpretation Act lays down certain salutary rules of construction, and it. is now proposed that provision be made to enable these rules of construction to be invoked for the purposes of regulations, rules or by-laws made under any act. It will, of course, bc possible to rebut the application of any particular rule of construction where so desired by the use of express language in the regulations. The object I have referred to is effected in this bill by clause 2, and by the first part of clause 3.’ Clause 3 also deals with another matter. In section 15a of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1918, a provision is made which is applicable to all statutes, whether passed before or after the commencement of the section, to ensure that where any competent court declares against the validity on constitutional grounds of any part of any statute, that part may he made severable from the rest of the statute, so that the invalidity of a part of the statute will not bring about the invalidity of the whole statute. It is now proposed to extend this principle in a limited degree to regulations so that where a regulation may be found to be ultra, vires the authority by which it was made the associated regulations will not become invalid by reason only of the invalidity of portion of the regulations. In the Acts Interpretation Act 1904-1930 provision is made which relates to the date of commencement of regulations, their notification in the Gazette and their disallowance by Parliament. It is now proposed to prohibit the re-making of regulations which have been disallowed by either House of the Parliament. The provision which is included in the bill prevents tlie making of a regulation the same in substance as a regulation disallowed by Parliament, within six months of the disallowance, unless first the disallowing resolution has been rescinded by the House by which it was passed. Honorable senators will recall the fiery debates in this chamber regarding the disallowance of certain regulations and the re-enactment of others which were substantially the same. Whatever the difficulties mentioned in this chamber yesterday, maybe it is clear that Parliament should have the right to disallow regulations. Having regard to the fact that that power is vested in Parliament, no government should have the right to bring into operation a regulation that has been disallowed by either House of Parliament unless a resolution for its disallowance has been rescinded. I think that this measure meets the wishes of honorable senators who have previously expressed their opinions on this ^matter.

The Government has carefully considered the position with respect to ordinances. In the opinion of the Crown Law officers it is preferable to deal with ordinances which affect the territories under ‘the control of the Commonwealth in a somewhat similar way, but by ordinance. It was found that the matter was too complex to be embodied in this bill, since the law with respect to ordinances differs in many of the territories concerned. The matter is under review, and I can assure honorable senators that as soon as the opportunity offers effect will be given to the objections taken in this chamber with respect to ordinances. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I do not propose to offer any strong objections to the bill in so far as it deals with the definition of the meaning of various legislative terms used in statutes. There is, however, one provision to which I propose to offer a strong objection. I refer to the authority provided in the last clause of the bill to curtail the regulating power of the Executive. I protest most strongly against any attempt to fetter the power conferred upon the Executive under many of our acts to make regulations. For obvious reasons the Executive should retain the power which exists under the existing law. I can see danger in the proposal embodied in this measure should it be exercised in certain circumstances. I should like to know if the Acting AttorneyGeneral (Senator McLachlan) has obtained the opinion of officers in the Customs or Defence departments us to the effect of this legislation. The Senate in its wisdom might disallow a regulation under the Customs Act, and within a few weeks, when Parliament was not in session, and a resolution of disallowance could 11Ot be rescinded, it might be desirable to reenact it.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– The disallowance of a regulation would have to take place while Parliament was sitting.

Senator BARNES:

– I can visualize a situation arising in which, Parliament would not be sitting and consequently could not rectify an obvious error. Is Parliament to be called together whenever it is deemed necessary to reenact a regulation which has been disallowed by either House ? I have gathered some information which may be illuminating to honorable senators. In 1926 the Bruce-Page Government sat for 54 days; in the following year Parliament was in session for 59 days, and from the 24th March until the 2St.h September it was in session only on the 9th May, when this building was officially opened. During a period of over six months a regulation, if disallowed, could not have been reenacted or a resolution of disallowance rescinded had this measure been in operation. During 192S the Commonwealth Parliament sat for only 62 days, and in 1929 for only 40 days. What would have happened had this provision been in operation and the Government had found it necessary to re-enact a regulation which had been previously disallowed? The. proposal is fraught with danger, and when the bill is in committee I propose to move for the deletion of this clause, and to cite certain specific cases where ithas been found necessary to bring into operation certain regulations which under this proposal it would be impossible to do. If the Government gives serious consideration to the effect of this provision, I feel sure that it will realize its dangers.

Honorable senators will recall that last year the late Government found it necessary to re-enact certain regulations after they had been disallowed by the Senate. The circumstances then prevailing were exceptional. It appears unnecessary and unwise for Parliament to restrict its powers in the manner suggested. In certain circumstances, the Government, knowing that it was an urgent matter which required immediate attention, would have to call Parliament together when it had no intention of doing so, or allow the mistake to operate until six months had expired and Parliament met in the ordinary course. A chamber so full of wisdom as this one would not be acting wisely if it agreed to such a provision. It may have been incorporated in the measure without the consideration that it deserves, and obviously under it Parliament might easily be tricked into “ beating its own joss.” That is something that we should avoid doing. I should have no fault to find if the practice was for Parliament to sit continuously, and the provision could operate whenever it was found that a mistake had been made. Fancy calling Parliament together to rectify a mistake which had occurred in the making of a simple regulation ! That is an unheard-of thing, and would not warrant the expense and inconvenience that would be involved. Itwould be foolish to agree to a provision that would tie the hands of the Government for six months. Let us restrict its operation to the period when Parliament is sitting, and make it possible for the Executive to cope with any situation that might arise during recess. I urge the Minister to give further consideration to the matter, and to remove the danger that is so obvious. I shall vote against the provision as it stands.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

. [9.5]. - I agree that circumstances might arise in which, unless a. government acted carefully and cautiously in bringing forward regulations, it might find itself seriously embarrassed in the event of the disallowance of a regulation. I point out, however, that recently the position was somewhat altered by the setting up by the Senate of a standing committee on regulations and ordinances.I take it that if an honorable senator intended to move to disallow a regulation he would first ascertain whether it had passed the scrutiny of that committee. I should probably draw the attention of a member of the committee to the particular regulation that I considered obnoxious, and I believe that the majority of honorable senators would act similarly. Therefore, we have, not only the safeguard that the regulation, before being promulgated, had been carefully considered by departmental officers as well as by the ministerial head of the department, but also the further safeguard that in the Senate itself all regulations pass under the security of the standing committee on regulations and ordinances. Should an honorable senator move to disallow an important regulation. I am inclined to think that the Senate would first of all want to know what that committee thought about it; and the probability is that, before agreeing to such a motion, the matter would be referred to the committee. The departmental officer, whose particular branch was concerned with the regulation that had been promulgated, would probably be called before the committee,’ and would give, in full, his reasons for it. Those reasons would be investigated impartially by the committee, and the result would be communicated to the Senate. In the last Parliament that opportunity was not available to us; honorable senators individually had to watch the regulations that wore tabled, and take action upon them. It is not likely that any regulation would be disallowed on the last day of the session ; consequently, there would be a period during which Parliament would be sitting, when the Government would be made aware of any inconvenience that had resulted from the disallowance. It would make known to the House respon sible its reason for desiring to re-enact the regulation, and would ask for the recission of the resolution disallowing it. It . is suggested that during recess some particular thing might arise necessitating the promulgation of the same regulation. That is a very unlikely contingency. I ask honorable senators to consider the abuse that can be made of the regulationmaking power by an executive, if it is allowed to disregard the will of the lawmaking authority. Parliament, and not the executive, is the law-making authority, and as the promulgating of regulations is law-making, Parliament must in that matter be made superior to the Executive. That is all that this bill seeks to do.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It is wellthat this subject should be brought forward once more, if only for the purpose of giving us a chance of tuning up our imagination. That process has been indulged in very creditably by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes). He has conjured up instances in which it would be very inconvenient for a. government not to have the power of making a regulation under certain circumstances, as is proposed by this bill. I suppose that the majority of us can recall the time when there were no such things as regulations, when acts of Parliament were acts of Parliament. I can remember reading certain acts of Parliament to which no regulations were attached. The law was writ as it was found to be necessary, and no power was given to the government to put into a regulation an afterthought. I do not know whether it would not be wise to revertto that practice, especially in view of the experience which was forced upon us in the immediate past. What was that experience? An act of Parliament was passed by this Parliament after due deliberation. It was written in plain language, and its intention was clear. But when a government, which I shall call ‘“‘X’’, came intopower, it proposed to place a different interpretation upon what Parliament intended, and by way of a regulation which was given the force of law, twisted the act out of the form in which it had been cast and moulded by Parliament. That “ X “ government was not entitled so to act; it abused its power by going behind the back of Parliament to interpret in a wrong way the intention of Parliament. As a safeguard against similar abuses in the future, this Parliament was given the right, through either of its Houses, to disallow these afterthoughts of the Ministry. We know that that “X” government brought in regulation after regulation designed to compass the same end, to give a false direction to the law itself. This chamber, in the exercise of its authority, disallowed that regulation. It appeared, of course, in various guises. This form of words was used now, that form then, and a different form on another occasion, all for the purpose of compassing an identical end. Enjoying the right to disallow, this chamber disallowed; but its action had no effect, because immediately the “X” government’s regulation was disallowed, back it came dressed in a new suit of pyjamas, in which garb it was disallowed just as quickly. I point out to the members of that “ X “ government who are present, that a “Y” government may propose to follow in the same foolish pathway, to twist an act of Parliament to suit its own purposes. If it did - I hope that it never would - the members of that “X” government would be up in arms to resist what, after all, would be a most unjustifiable procedure, even though the government which adopted it had been elected by the people. This measure is intended to deal with such a contingency. My old friend. Senator Barnes, with the most finely-attuned imagination conceivable, has discovered this, that, and the other particular instance that would give rise to a serious public grievance, and the inflicting of terrible hardship on sonic of our citizens, if the old order was not preserved I remind him that if a “ Y “ government sought to give an act of Parliament a wrong direction, as the “ X “ government undoubtedly did, there would be “ wigs on the green “ so far as he was concerned. He should seize the opportunity of ensuring that both “X” and “Y” governments do their plain duty; that is, to read the English language as it is written, not to read into it any false notions, any u n becoming or unjustifiable meaning that it does not contain. It. has been said that language was given to man to enable him to conceal his thoughts.

Senator Mclachlan:

– The honorable senator does not use it for that purpose.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have never done so. If I thought that I would use it in that way, I should prefer not to have any language at all. But I am pointing^ out to the learned Leader of the Opposition the need for reaching out with both hands and seizing this opportunity of preventing any government from doing what the X “ government did in the past. Language should be plain. The Almighty gave it to us to enable us to express our meaning. He intended us to say “ Yes “ when we mean “ Yes “ ; but, when we find a government saying anything but “ Yes “ when it should be saying “ Yos,” its administration of the law is a travesty. The time has arrived when common sense, long submerged, should rise to the surface. Tyrannical authorities may ride roughshod over their victims; but, in the end. justice will be vindicated. It is being vindicated in this bill. I appeal to Senator Barnes, who to-night claims to bc the protagonist of the liberty of the subject, to put aside his fine-spun sophistry, realize that other governments may follow the footsteps of the “X” Government, and how necessary it is to pass this bill as an effective moans of preventing them from doing so.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH (Western Australia) [9.18]. - I regret that the Government has not seen fit to amend the Rules Publication Act instead of the Acts Interpretation Act, and to go back to the pre-publication of rules except in cases of emergency. Rules and regulations are binding on people in all parts of Australia, and, as this is a country big in area, except in cases of great emergency every effort should be made to let the people in distant parts know what regulations are to be brought in prior to their publication. However, the step now proposed is in the right direction, and I support it. The Minister has given an undertaking that something of this character shall be clone in regard to ordinances.

Senator McLachlan:

Senator HERBERT Hays:

– The honorable senator was unfortunate in quoting the Transport Workers Act, because, although his Government was pledged to repeal that law, it did not do so.

Senator DALY:

– I have answered that charge on a number of occasions. We did not repeal the Transport Workers

Act, because we wished to clean up the mess that had been caused under it. We should have taken all necessary action to give effect to our - promises, but for something which happened prior to last Christmas. There would have been no necessity for this legislation if the Scullin Government had not been defeated. We had under consideration proposals which would have given effect to our promises, and would have brought Parliament nearer to the time when it would be sitting more than 59 days in the year. In what way shall we be benefited by this proposal? If, between the time of the gazettal of a particular regulation and its disallowance and re-enactment, certain proceedings were taken by a litigant in the High Court to test the validity of the regulation in question, Parliament would be inclined, possibly, to allow the matter to stand over until the legal proceedings had been decided. This particular amendment is a clumsy gesture. It will not give to Parliament one iota more power than it has to-day, but it will be an invitation to people to litigate. I am not prepared to support the bill.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Acting Attorney-General · South Australia · UAP

– I, agree with several observations that have been made by honorable senators who have criticized the bill. In the first place I agree that there is far too much delegated power in our legislation. Probably it would be preferable if we attached the major regulations to our more important acts: but a practice has grown up in this Parliament, and, indeed, in nearly all Parliaments, of delegating this regulationmaking power to such an extent that it is now threatening parliamentary control of the statutes. Notwithstanding that, as far back as “1904, an attempt was made to protect Parliament from this danger, we saw last session an absolute breach of parliamentary authority, and an attempt to override Parliament by the reenactment of certain regulations or statutory rules that had been disallowed by this chamber. It was not an elevating spectacle from the point of view of those who were responsible for this breach of the law or from the point of view of this chamber, but the action taken by the Senate was the only remedy which it had.

The Acts Interpretation Act provides in section 10 -

Where an act confers power to make regulations, all regulations made accordingly shall, unless the contrary intention appears -

take effect from the date of notifica tion, or from a later date specified in the regulations: (c)be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within thirty days of the making thereof, or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within thirty days after the next meeting of the Parliament.

But if either House of the “Parliament passes a resolution of which notice has been given at any time within fifteen sitting days after such regulations have been laid before such House disallowing any regulation such regulation shall thereupon cease to have effect.

One would have thought that would he the end of a regulation that was disallowed, and in former days, when, probably, party lines were not so sharply drawn as they arc to-day, no government would have had the effrontery to re-enact in almost identical terms, a regulation which had been disallowed by one branch of the legislature. It. is within the power of Parliament to control the quantum of power which is delegated to the Executive. In some of our statutes, such as, for example, the Defence Act and similar legislation, this delegated power must be sufficiently wide to give effect to the wishes of the legislature. No one has ever suggested that Parliament should judge whether any re-enacted regulation is the same in substance as one which has been disallowed. The courts have always decided that issue. If this amendment of the act had been made last year regulations which were disallowed could not have been re-enacted. The difficulty referred to by Senator Barnes must confront us in other legislative spheres also, and full responsibility must rest upon the Parliament, which must be careful to see that the regulating power vested in the Executive Government is not abused. Secondly, it must realize that unless the legislature exercises its power of disallowance within the specified time, the regulations will have the force of law, and may only be altered by a further regulation or a substantive enactment. I see no disability in what we are doing. On the contrary, I see control being restored to this Parliament over its legislation. In many respects it has not had this con trol -during the last two or three years. I could not help thinking while my honorable and learned colleague from South Australia, Senator Daly, was emphasizing that this regulationmaking power should be closely scrutinized, that possibly some weaknesses could be discovered in legislation passed by the Government of which he was so distinguished a unit. I find, for example, that in the Wheat Advances Act 1930, there is this provision -

The Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this act.

Senator Daly:

-I was not in the Ministry then.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I have no doubt that I could discover similar weaknesses in other legislation passed during his association with the Scullin Ministry. In any event, the honorable senator must, as a member of the Cabinet, accept his share of the collective responsibility. Under that act extremely wide powers were vested in the Executive.

Senator E B Johnston:

– They were not of much value in getting the money.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I do not think that the honorable senator would agree to the disallowance of the regulationmaking power in that act.

Again, under the legislation providing for a gold bounty, which Senator Daly took a prominent part in passing through this chamber, wide powers were given to the Executive. Another similar enactment was a measure to amend the Seat of Government Act, which was passed by the Government of which Senator Daly was a distinguished member. For the growth of the regulation-making power no government is wholly to blame; the system has crept gradually upon the legislatures of this country. It is a system towards which every Executive reaches out, for it is convenient for departmental heads, . and the administration generally, to make a regulation to meet a situation which was not, foreseen when the act was passed. There may be objections to the granting of this power; but I submit that they should not weigh with this chamber since the power applies to every law. In the circumstances, I trust that the opposition to the measure will be withdrawn, thus providing an excellent example to the Parliaments of Australia of the wisdom of putting a curb on the regulation-making power of the Executive, which has been the subject of much criticism by members of the legal profession.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator Hon. W.

Kingsmill.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Disallowed regulation not to be re-made unless motion rescinded).

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

. - I ask the committee to vote aga inst this clause, to which a good deal of attention was given in the secondreading debate. Senator Lynch gave us a dissertation about, X and Y governments. If we continue to legislate along the lines of the legislation already introduced by the present Government, we shall soon have the Z government, and then we shall probably write “ finis “. This legislation adds another jerry-built room to a crazy cottage. It provides for extensive powers being delegated to the Executive - a principle whichall honorable senators agree is not sound. In my opinion, the regulation-making power of the Executive should be confined to purely machinery matters designed to give effect to the original intention of the Parliament which passed the parent act, in which case there would be no conflict such as we have seen in recent months. If the bludgeon prepared by the Bruce-Page Government for use against the waterside workers of this country was converted by the Scullin Government into a shield to protect those workers, then those who forged the bludgeon have no reason to complain. There is a good deal in the contention of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) that this measure will hamper the Executive in giving effect to the intention of Parliament in some cases. It may be that we shall have a recurrence of that type of litigation which has resulted fro rn the passing of certain legislation by this Parliament - litigation which not only is costly to the taxpayer, but in addition inconveniences the people.I. hope that the committee will reject the clause.

Question - That the clause be agreed to -put. The committee divided. (Chairman– Senator Plain . )

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

AYES

NOES

page 317

FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS ENFORCEMENT BILL (No. 3)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · West ern Australia · UAP

[ 10.5].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

As the bill is mainly of a machinery character I do not propose to mate a lengthy speech in moving the second reading; but, in committee, I shall refer to each of those clauses in which any important amendment is made. It may not be desirable when specifying a class of revenue to include the whole of that class in the resolution to be passed by both Houses of Parliament, and provision is, therefore, being made to enable only portion of the class of revenue to be specified in the resolution.For the information of the Senate, I may say that within the last few days New South. Wales has defaulted in respect of an additional sum of £1,200,000. The recent amounts were -

In each of these cases a formal demand was made on the Treasurer of New South Wales for payment of the moneys, but the demands were ignored. The Commonwealth, therefore, made arrangements to meet these obligations as they fell due. The gross default to date, after allowance for the Commonwealth contributions under the Financial Agreement, but excluding recoveries under the Financial Agreements Enforcement Act, is approximately £3,200,000. Of the total interest on which the State has defaulted, £3,235,000 -was payable overseas, and £713,000 in Australia. The recoveries under the Financial Agreements Enforcement Acts to date are approximately £440,000, and the net amount outstanding is now £2,760,000. When this bill has been assented to a resolution will be submitted to the Senate, and I suggest that the action to be taken under the law can then be more properly debated. In moving the second reading, therefore, I do not propose to enter into a discussion of that aspect of the question.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

– This is the third instalment of the Government’s Financial Agreements Enforcement legislation. When dealing with a previous amending measure I warned the Government that what it was proposing was not as easy as it had led the Senate to believe.

Senator Sampson:

– It was never considered to be an easy matter.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Some thought it an easier matter than it has proved to be. My contention all along has been that the Government is adopting a wrong attitude. As this is the third instalment of this legislation, it will be seen that what the Government is attempting to do is not nearly so simple as the right honorable the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) would have the’ Senate believe. This legislation has farreaching effects. In the first place, we were informed that New South Wales had. defaulted to the extent of £1,200,000. The only point on which the Government seems to be concerned is how it is to obtain revenue in order to meet its obligations to the bondholders. No provision has been made in the legislation or resolutions passed by Parliament to protect those in receipt of the dole in New South Wales. No effort has been made by the Government’ to allow for the payment of child endowment, or to meet widows’ pensions. I contend that these are matters of paramount importance to the people of New South Wales.

Senator Sampson:

– To which Government is the honorable senator referring?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The Commonwealth Government. This Government is collecting revenue in order to pay interest to bondholders without making any provision for child endowment or widows’ pensions. Mr. Lang is telling the people of New South Wales that the Commonwealth Government is responsible for their non-payment, and, until such time as this ; Government shows the people of New South

Wales that it is sincere in its efforts to meet these commitments, it is only reasonable to expect the people in that State to do what they are doing. The first duty of this Government is to ensure that these payments are made. No effort has been made to honour the promises given to certain sections of the community in that State.

– I thank you, Mr. President. I do not interject to any extent while other honorable senators are speaking, nor do I take up a great deal of the time of the Senate. I feel, therefore, that honorable senators will observe your instruction. The danger that I apprehend is that people who are not responsible for the position that has arisen in New South Wales will be penalized. State public servants are in duty bound to take their instructions from “the State, as the tax collector did in connexion with bookmakers’ licences, when he was instructed not to issue the tickets. Victimization was practised in that case, and no protection was afforded to the individual. As a matter of fact, I have been asked by some persons what the Commonwealth proposes to do. The query put to me has been, “ Are we to be victimized ? _ Where do we stand? Have we to pay to the Commonwealth only, or first to the State and then to the Commonwealth ?” If a State employee carries out the instructions of his superior officer, as he has been in the habit of doing, he will be subject to the provisions of this legislation when enacted, and will be liable to a penalty of £1,000. Is that a fair deal to an employee who is not responsible for the actions of a Minister, the Commissioner,, or his immediate superior officer ? Then there is the case of hotelkeepers. The advice given to the people of New South Wales by Mr. Lang, when it was suggested at, a meeting held in East Sydney that certain newspapers should be boycotted, cannot have been forgotten. If a hotelkeeper pays his licence-fee to the Commonwealth, and the State organization determines that his hotel shall he boycotted, what redress willhe have? None whatever. No provision is made for his protection, nor for the protection of State servants who act, in accordance with their instructions. To-morrow or the day after a State servant will learn from his daily newspaper that; this bill has become law and that it is binding upon him. Naturally, he will inquire of the head of his department as to the attitude that he should adopt, and will be told to carry oat the instructions of his superior officer. Yet, if he does so, he will be liable to a fine of £1,000. Some honorable senators say that the penalty will be made so great that the State will not be able to pay it, and as a consequence Mr. Lang will be imprisoned. But there may be some one else who is prepared to take his place, and so the thing will go on until eventually the unemployed in the other States will have to be engaged upon the building of a sufficient number of gaols in New South Wales to hold all those whom the Commonwealth wishes to incarcerate. Carried to its logical conclusion, that must be the effect. The course that should have been pursued by this Government is that which was taken by the previous Government; but that is not agreeable to it. Seeing that it has the power to act in the manner proposed, it is in duty bound to protect those who are likely to be penalized. I intend to oppose the bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.25]. - The reply to the honorable senator is this : New South Wales is not the only State in which there are widows. They are to be found in Victoria, and South Australia, in both of which States the Government has made provision for them, and in addition has made its interest payments. Surely if those States, which are poor compared with New South Wales, Can do that, New South Wales also should be able to do it.

Senator MOONEY:
New South Wales

.- Mr. President-

The PRESIDENT:

– The reply of the mover of the motion closes the debate.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Senator MOONEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LANG LAB

– I intended to speak on the second reading, but unfortunately, not being accustomed to the procedure of the Senate, thought that Senator Pearce was replying to a question, and was not closing the debate. It is fortunate for this newly-elected Government that it found opposition from the Premier of New South Wales, otherwise it would no:, have functioned. For the last four months it has. been thriving on the alleged ill deeds of that gentleman.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator MOONEY:

– I think I can deal better with the subject-matter of the bill on clause 4, and, therefore, will not speak further at this stage.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator DALY:

– ‘The new section proposed to be included, by this bill reads as follows : -

Where in a resolution passed in pursuance of thisact there is specified or described a portion of a class of revenue, it shall not be necessary that the whole of the portion so specified or described shall be included in a proclamation, but part of that portion may be included in a proclamation, and the part so included may be varied- from time to time by successive proclamations having effect as from the dates respectively fixed by those proclamations.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The resolution has first to be passed by Parliament.

Senator DALY:

– The resolution when passed may authorize the Government to take over the railway revenue and the revenue from the betting tax and hotel licences, but a proclamation may issue taking the whole of the railway revenue and only portion of the revenue from the betting tax and hotel licence-fees. It can be done under this proposed new sub-section.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It is not done under the sub-section, but the subsection gives the power to do it under the proclamation.

Senator McLachlan:

– What -objection can there be to taking a portion if we can take the whole?

Senator DALY:

– I desire to prevent any extension of the powers to legislate by proclamation in this or in any other bill.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator is willing to give power to take the whole but not part, of the revenue.

Senator DALY:

-No. If I had my way this Government would never have had the power to do what it has done. I do not believe in legislation by proclamation in any form, but, unfortunately, the Government has a sufficient, number to prevent me from making an effective protest against its action. I hope that the Senate will not, agree to an extension of this power, thereby buttressing this inquitous system of legislation by proclamation.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Plain.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Commonwealth may sue for moneys due and payable to a State).

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– When moving the second reading of the hill, the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) stated that, as it was largely a machinery measure, he would be prepared, in committee, to offer any explanations that might be necessary with respect to the various clauses. This clause gives to the Government far-reaching powers over the citizens of New South Wales, and I should like to know to what extent it amends the original act.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.51]. - If the honorable senator will read the clause, he will see that it is consequential on previous amendments. It provides that action may be taken to recover moneys which “ but for this act “ would have been payable to the State during the currency of any proclamation, and would have formed part of the specified revenue of that State.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Payments during currency of proclamation).

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.52]. - These amendments are also consequential on amendments already referred to. Sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 10 permit payment of certain State revenues to bo made to the proper officer or employee of a State in accordance with directions given by the Treasurer. The amendment nowproposed is to ensure that if State revenues reach the hands of any other State officers or employees they shall be dealt with as directed by the Treasurer by notice in the Gazette.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Moneys held by banks on behalf of State).

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [10.53]. - The- amendment proposed in this clause is made in consequence of the reasons for the judgment delivered by the High Court yesterday in the case of New South Wales v. the Commonwealth relating to section 15 of the principal act. In that case four of the justices held that the main provisions of the sections were valid, while two justices held that the whole section was invalid. Three of the four justices who upheld the validity of the main provisions of the section, however, expressed some doubts as to the validity of sub-section 5 of the section, . but took the view that’, even if the sub-section was beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth, it was severable from the rest of the section. It will be remembered that sub-section 5 purports to empower the Treasurer, where moneys which have been received by the Commonwealth front the banks in pursuance of section 15 include contractors’ deposits, to refund such deposits where he is satisfied that the conditions upon which the moneys were deposited have been fulfilled.

It is proposed by the amendment contained in clause 7 of the bill to take power to deal with such deposits in the prescribed manner, that is, in the manner specified by regulation. Any manner which is specified must be a manner consistent with the provisions of the act. Before the exact manner in which these moneys will be dealt with can be decided, consideration must be given to the position created by reason of the fact that the moneys which the banks are required to hand over will apparently not be nearly sufficient to enable all the claims of this nature to be satisfied in full.

Clause agreed to.

Clause8 (Power to require information).

– This clause reaches the limit of absurdity, and I should like the Leader of the Government (Senator Pearce) to explain it. It provides that a Minister of the Crown may be fined £500, or imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year in respect of an offence under the act. That fine is to be inflicted by one of his own magistrates - a person who is in his employ. Should the magistrate fine the Premier of a State, the Premier could retaliate by dismissing him. In that case, the Commonwealth would prob- ably appoint its own magistrate to conduct the trial. Then, if the Premier were convicted, the State police would be called upon to take him to gaol; but the Premier, being still a Minister of the Crown, might exercise his right to sack the policemen who escorted him.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If the honorable senator has read the Constitution of his own State, ‘he must know that the Minister would be disqualified from being a member of Parliament on his being committed to gaol.

Senator DOOLEY:

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Plain.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

page 327

QUESTION

HOUR OF MEETING

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · West ern Australia · UAP

[11.81].- I move-

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

I submit this motion to enable the Senate to complete the business to be brought forward to-morrow, including probably the resolution arising out of the measure which has just been disposed of, and adjourn at the dinner hour. Such an arrangement will enable honorable senators to catch their trains to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 May 1932, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1932/19320504_senate_13_134/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 May 1932

PAPERS

INCORRECT NEWSPAPER REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE AT OTTAWA

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LYNCH:

QUESTION

COAL SUBSIDY

Senator THOMPSON:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

DARWIN UNEMPLOYED

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

RABBIT POISONS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

TOBACCO DUTIES

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

IMMIGRATION BILL

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION BILL

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Dooley:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator SAMPSON:Tasmania

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator SAMPSON:

Senator Daly:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Thompson:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Sampson:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

SPIRITS BILL

CUSTOMS BILL

Senator REID:Queensland

Senator GREENE:Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator Thompson:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Carroll:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Payne:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator GREENE:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMPSON:Queensland

Senator Lynch:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senate
4 May 1932

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:
Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South. Australia

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
Assistant Minister · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT