/
19100804_senate_4_55.xml
8498 lines (8498 loc) · 502 KB
/
19100804_senate_4_55.xml
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1910-08-04</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>1</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>SENATE</chamber>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">Senate. </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1910-08-04</day.start>
<para>The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>MILITARY HEAD-QUARTERS, ADELAIDE</title>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator VARDON</name>
</talker>
<para>- I beg to ask the Minister of Defence whether the Government have made any definite arrangements for the improvement of the military headquarters in Adelaide? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Defence</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The matter is now under consideration in connexion with the forthcoming Estimates. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator VARDON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Have the Government decided to purchase, or actually purchased, from the State the site which' was mentioned here last session? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- No site has yet been finally decided upon. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PERSONAL EXPLANATION</title>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<type>personal explanation</type>
</debateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- When speaking last night to amendments, submitted first by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Vardon,</inline> and subsequently by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Rae,</inline> on the question of providing for the taking of an oath or an affirmation in the Parliamentary Witnesses Bill, I expressed my strong objection to making the taking of an oath obligatory. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Gardiner</inline> then interjected, " But you do not believe in anything." At the time I thought the remark was made jocularly, and I so treated it ; but on reading my proof this' morning it appeared to me to have an entirely different aspect, and I asked the honorable senator if he meant it seriously. He told me that he did. If that is so, sir, I want' to say that there is absolutely no justification, no foundation in substance, for his assertion that I am void of religious belief. I resent most strongly the imputation conveyed in the interjection, and I can only conceive that it was made with one object, and that not a fair parliamentary one. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator GARDINER.-</inline> I do not know whether the honorable senator was in order in imputing a wrong motive to my interjection, but as a matter of personal explanation I desire to say that I made it believing that it was correct. I gladly accept the honorable senator's statement that he has a religious belief. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K9T</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">VARDON, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Senator Vardon</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator ought not to have made such an imputation unless he had a justification. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KKZ</name.id>
<electorate>NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GARDINER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Senator GARDINER</name>
</talker>
<para>- My justification for making the remark is a lengthy knowledge of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>TRUST FUNDS</title>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1057</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6L</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHATAWAY, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator CHATAWAY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council when and why was the proportion of trust funds invested at interest reduced from about two- thirds in September, 1908, to about one-third, as stated by him last evening ? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- In 1908 we were accumulating funds for the commencement of the payment of old-age pensions in July, 1909. In this'year, of course, the payment of old-age pensions is going on, and as the trust funds were running short the Treasurer did not tie up any of the money. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K6L</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHATAWAY, Thomas</name>
<name role="display">Senator CHATAWAY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Is it not a fact that at the date I mentioned the amount in the Trust Fund was something like £666,000, whereas the amount which the honorable Minister stated last night was something in ' the neighbourhood of £799,000? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- The question was answered yesterday, and what I said is a fact. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>POSTAL COMMISSION. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>20000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata" />
<name role="display">Senator W RUSSELL</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General give any information with regard to the date when we may expect the report of the Postal Commission to be laid on the table of the Senate? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate>VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not in a position to give definite information on the subject, but we are hopeful that the report will be available within the next four or five weeks. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>LIEUTENANT McFARLANE. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOS</name.id>
<electorate>for Senator Needham</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HENDERSON, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator HENDERSON</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Was Lieutenant McFarlane appointed to the Administrative and Instructional Stall without having undergone the usual competitive examination ? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>If so, why were the regulations set aside in his case? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Was the Military Board in favour of such an appointment? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>If the Board advised against the appointment without the regulations being observed, why was the appointment made? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>Do not such appointments deal unfairly with other candidates for positions in the Military Service of the Commonwealth? 6.If 'Lieutenant McFarlane was appointed on probation, subject to passing the usual examination, has he undergone the examination ? </para>
</item>
<item label="7.">
<para>If so, with what result? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable senator's questions are - . </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Yes. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>The reason given was to keep faith with a promise made by a former Minister. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>No. </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Answered by 3. </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>This question asks for an expression of opinion which, as the appointment was made by a previous Minister, I do not feel called upon to give. 6 and 7. The examination has not yet been held, but it will shortly take place. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>FINANCIAL RELATIONS : COMMONWEALTH AND STATES. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>What were the amounts of the debit balances adjusted to 30th June, 1910, due to the respective States? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What are the amounts to be credited to the respective States out of the sums advanced under the Trust Fund Advances Bill? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Does the Government intend to refund the amounts due to the respective States by payment of the adjusted balances referred to in question1, or by payment of the <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> credit out of the sums referred to in question 2? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>What was the total or approximately adjusted amount due to the respective States out of the Customs and Excise Revenue for the month of July, 1910? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>Have those amounts been paid to the respective States, or been credited to them in the Commonwealth Treasury accounts? If the whole of such amounts have not been' paid, what amounts(a) have been paid, or <inline font-style="italic">(b)</inline> have been credited to them? </para>
</item>
<item label="6.">
<para>Is it a fact that the Treasurer has paid the following or any such sums to Commonwealth purposes : -(a) Transfer to Trust Funds to correct entries 30th June, , £63,000; <inline font-style="italic">(b)</inline> Oldage Pensions,£190,000;(c) Cruiser, £140,000? </para>
</item>
<item label="7.">
<para>Have the amounts referred to in <inline font-style="italic">a, b,</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">c,</inline> of question 6, been paid out of available Commonwealth Revenue Funds, or by withhold, ing part of the amounts due to the States on their monthly balance ? </para>
</item>
<item label="8.">
<para>Does the amount <inline font-style="italic">(b),</inline> in question 6, include a sum anticipatory of the passage of an Act of Parliament, or does it include only the amount due under the Act as passed ? </para>
</item>
<item label="9.">
<para>Under what authority 'has the sum referred to in <inline font-style="italic">c,</inline> of question 6, been paid? </para>
</item>
<item label="10.">
<para>Upon what general principle, if such principle be capable of definition as to amounts and times of payment of the ascertained monthly debit balances due to the respective States, does the Government . intend to administer its accounts in relation to the States? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1058</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K0F</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PEARCE, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator PEARCE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable senator's questions are - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="055332191008043_1_0.jpg" />
</para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="3.">
<para>Payment will be made to the States as shown in the answer to question No. i, such amounts being arrived at after crediting the amounts stated in answer to question No. 2. </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>The amounts due to the States, as ascertained by following the bookkeeping clauses of the Surplus Revenue Act igo8, were approximately : - </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">
<graphic href="055332191008043_2_2.jpg" />
</para>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="5.">
<para>The amounts shown in the answer to question 4 have been paid. 6- £63,000 was transferred to Trust Fund during July for the purpose of remittance to London. £160,000 was transferred to meet Oldage Pensions, and £70,000 for cruiser. </para>
</item>
<item label="7.">
<para>Payment of the sums stated in answer to question 6 has been made out of ordinary revenue. The balance of the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been paid to the States. </para>
</item>
<item label="8.">
<para>The passing of an Act has not been anticipated. </para>
</item>
<item label="9.">
<para>The amount has been charged to the Treasurer's advance. </para>
</item>
<item label="10.">
<para>Until the Bill now before Parliament is passed, the bookkeeping provisions of the Surplus Revenue Act will bc observed. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY,</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXJ</name.id>
<electorate>WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Can he inform the Senate as to when finality will be reached in the negotiations now pending <inline font-style="italic">re</inline> the erection of wireless telegraph stations at Fremantle, Sydney, and other places on the Australian coast ? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answer to the honorable senator's question is - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>It is anticipated that finality will be reached with regard <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> the Sydney station within a week. </para>
<para>The questions in connexion with the Fremantle station will be settled as early as POSsible. </para>
<para>These are the only two stations for which tenders have been dealt with. </para>
<para>It is proposed to invite tenders for stations at Thursday Island and Port Moresby at an early date. </para>
</quote>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator NEEDHAM</name>
</talker>
<para>- Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Minister why a distinction is made between the station at Sydney and the station at Fremantle ? Cannot the matter of both stations be settled inside a week? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question for Wednesday next, as I am not now prepared to give a reply. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KPE</name.id>
<electorate>TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KEATING, John</name>
<name role="display">Senator KEATING</name>
</talker>
<para>- Arising out of the answer, may I ask the Minister if there are any other stations in or about the coast of Australia which have been taken into consideration, and will the Government inquire into the advisableness of co-operating with the Government of South Africa and the Government of New Zealand in establishing as. many wireless telegraph stations as may be necessary in these southern seas? </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JYX</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FINDLEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator FINDLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the questions for Wednesday next. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PRESIDENT, The</name>
<name role="display">The PRESIDENT</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator cannot give notice now. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>LIGHTHOUSES BILL</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para class="block">Bill read a third time. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PATENTS, TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS BILL</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Bill read a third time. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PARLIAMENTARY WITNESSES BILL</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>Report adopted. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>TRUST FUND ADVANCES BILL</title>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>
<inline font-style="italic">In Committee</inline>(Consideration resumed from 3rd August, <inline font-style="italic">vide page</inline> 960) : </para>
<para>Clause 3 - </para>
<quote>
<para>The amount so advanced shall be credited to the several States in proportion to the numbers of their people. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate>Queensland</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>. - We have this afternoon received some information which makes it clear that, at all events, the States will know the amounts to be returned to them by the Commonwealth in respect of the last financial year. That, so far, is satisfactory.. I take it that the intention of the Treasurer, under this clause, is to pay to the States the exact sums mentioned in the answers given to the questions I asked this afternoon. I have to congratulate the honorable gentleman upon the statement he made yesterday, and the figures supplied to-day. But the intention now clearly expressed is not clearly indicated in the clause before the Committee, and it is for that reason that we yesterday called a halt on this clause. Reading the provision now in the light of the explanation which has been given, it is possible that the constitutional obligations of the Commonwealth to the States will be observed under this Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1059</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
</talker>
<para>- And it is all honest. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- No one hinted that it was not. I must be allowed to express my resentment at the honorable senator's interjection. The point raised on this side in connexion with the clause was not as to the honesty of the intention of the Treasurer, but as to the constitutionality of the clause. Honorable senators on all sides are, I hope, equally interested in a faithful observance of the terms of the Constitution. I resent the statement made by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was called " robbery." </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not remember that expression being used. " <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Millen.</inline> - It was used in an .interjection, and only by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Guthrie.</inline></para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNB</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GUTHRIE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Senator Guthrie</name>
</talker>
<para>- Nothing of the sort. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JXJ</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">NEEDHAM, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator Needham</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was called " highway robbery." </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was not so described by any member of the Opposition in this Chamber. Our criticism of the clause was as to its constitutionality, and it was, to some extent, indorsed by honorable senators opposite. It is satisfactory to know that our doubts have been cleared up by the statement of the Treasurer. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KOS</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HENDERSON, George</name>
<name role="display">Senator Henderson</name>
</talker>
<para>- - -Then what is the trouble about now? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The trouble now is, that a Ministerial supporter has imputed to us a charge of dishonesty against the Treasurer. In view of the statement made by the Treasurer, I have taken the trouble to work out what, I think, will be the process followed under the clause now before the Committee. I assume that £400,000 is to be transferred from the Trust Fund, and to be made available to the Treasurer to pay the debits due to the respective States on 30th June. The Treasurer then pays to the several States the amounts due to them on the bookkeeping system. That is to say, the adjusted balances. In the Treasury books recording the transactions under the Trust Fund, there will appear entries to this effect : - Advances to the different States, say the following amounts - though, of course, the figures which were supplied in answer to my questions this afternoon should be substituted for the amounts I have assumed - New South Wales, £120,000; Victoria, £100,000; Queensland, ,£70,000; South Australia, <inline font-style="italic">£50,000;</inline> Western Australia, £40,000; and Tasmania, £20,000 ; a total of £400,000. There next will appear in the </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">Trust Fund Advance Account debit entries of above amounts against each of the States. These entries will determine the amount to be credited to them in the distribution of the 25s. <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> grant. This amount will be paid into the Trust Fund Advance Account by the Treasurer, and the Trust Fund Account will then be squared. The next step will be that the amounts of these credits will be calculated on the <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> basis out of the 25s. <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> grant, and will appear as credit entries exactly balancing the debit balances previously entered against them. The balances over and above the 25s. <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> paid to the States will he adjusted in a Bill, which has yet to be submitted to the Senate. If that is to be the course followed under this clause, I think it is constitutional, and, that being so, I shall not offer any further objection to it. But I take the opportunity of saying that it took a good deal of trouble to read all that into this clause 3. I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council to tell the Committee now, before the clause is passed, whether it is not the intention of the Treasurer to follow substantially the course I have indicated. As I hinted last night, this clause is as much intended to guard the Trust Fund Account as to safeguard the Treasurer in his relations with the States. If the Trust Fund Account is adjusted by reason of the advance made to the Treasurer, on the lines I have suggested, I am inclined to think that the proposal is constitutional. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGregor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Hear, hear. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1060</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator ST LEDGER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If I am to regard that kind of interjection in one way, I may assume that the VicePresident of the Executive Council entirely agrees with the view which the Opposition take as to the "way in which the Trust Fund should be dealt with. If that be so, the Opposition have done good work in making the position clear. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to consult the officials, and say whether the course I have indicated is the course of bookkeeping and procedure which will be followed under this Bill. It is evident, from the explanation given by the Treasurer, that some such course will be followed, but it is not so evident from the clauses of this Bill. If I get the assurance for which I ask from the VicePresident of the Executive Council, I am inclined to think - subject to possible subsequent litigation in the High Court to decide whether the whole process is constitutional - that on the whole an equitable adjustment will have been made as between the States and the Trust Fund, and the Trust Fund and the Treasurer. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate>South Australia</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Vice-President of the Executive Council</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I am delighted this afternoon to find that a night's rest and further consideration have cleared away the trusts that have clouded the minds of some of our honorable friends on the other side. 1 am certain that everything now will proceed harmoniously. I was rather surprised, when expressing my appreciation of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger's commendations and approval, that the honorable senator should have appeared to be rather touchy. I was congratulating myself on the fact that the Government were to have his authority for saying that our action was perfectly constitutional. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K78</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ST LEDGER, Anthony</name>
<name role="display">Senator St Ledger</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have not said that yet. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGREGOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- That was the meaning that I attributed to the honorable senator's remarks. But the answers given to-day to the honorable senator's series of questions - a series which leads me to think that we ought in future to characterize him as the " serie-ous " senator - were practically on the same lines as statements made by me yesterday. I told the Senate that up to the 30th June last the bookkeeping system Had been honestly adhered to by the Treasury, and that every State had been treated as it had been in the past. I also told the Senate with respect to the distribution of the advance from the Trust Fund, that it was treated as similar funds were treated under the bookkeeping system in the past. All that has again been made plain by the replies given to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger's questions to-day. Probably I was not able yesterday to convey to the intelligent understanding of the honorable senator what I really meant, or it may Be that he was not present when I was making my explanation. I am very glad, however, that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger now sees everything so clearly, arid I have not the-least , doubt that there will be little further opposition to the passage of the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate>New South Wales</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I am afraid that the jubilation expressed by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McGregor,</inline> and in a qualified way By <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger, was a. little premature. I am afraid that in the brief space of time which was available to <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger to take down the answers to <inline font-style="italic">his</inline> series of questions, he overlooked one very important qualification. Tt is quite obvious to every one that a great difference of opinion existed yesterday as to what the Bill really meant, because we had honorable senators supporting the Government defending the measure on the plea that it was going to make a distribution on the <inline font-style="italic">per capita</inline> system, and, on that account, was going to differentiate from previous distributions on the bookkeeping system ; whilst other honorable senators say that that is not so at all. We are justified in looking closely into this question, for the simple reason that, as members of this Senate, we ought not to allow a Bill to leave our hands without being sure that we really know what it means. It is quite evident to me, however, that if the statement of the Vice-President of the Executive Council be correct, trie Opposition have the Bill that they want, though they have been opposing it, whilst honorable senators on the Ministerial side of the Chamber have been supporting it, though it gives them something that they do not want. That is the contradictory position in which we happen to be. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RAE, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Senator Rae</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable senator need not worry. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1061</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- All the worry is on the other side just now. I have said that <inline font-weight="bold">Senator St.</inline> Ledger has overlooked a very important qualification in the answers given to him. His first question was - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para>What were the amounts of the debit balances adjusted to June 30th, 1910, due to the respective States? </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">In answer to a further question, it was stated that the amount of the debit balances shown on the 30th June would, be the amounts to be paid ; but there is at the end of the sentence the statement that the debit balances shown on the 30th June are arrived at by including in the bookkeeping account those very amounts that we are now asked to pay. To illustrate what a big difference that makes, let me give the figures. The debit balance for New South Wales on the 30th June is given as ^110,811. But that balance is arrived at by crediting New South Wales under this Bill - which is not law yet - with £164,809. That is how the debit balance due to New South Wales is arrived at. If this departure were not being made the balance due to New South </para>
<para class="block">Wales on the 30th June would be something entirely different. That is the whole position. Let the Minister or the Treasury officials handle these figures as they like, it still follows that the States will receive different amounts from what they would have received, because of the inability of the Commonwealth to pay them on the 30th June - to pay them, that is, the amounts they would have received if the Commonwealth had kept its expenditure within the 25 per cent, allowed by section 87 of the Constitution, and had paid what was due to the States. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1062</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KTF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MCGREGOR, Gregor</name>
<name role="display">Senator McGregor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Did the honorable senator want the Government to stop the payment of old-age pensions? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1062</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is one of those <inline font-style="italic">ad misericordiam</inline> appeals which . have nothing to do with the question. I have never said that a single penny of Commonwealth expenditure could have been saved. But I do say that, merely because the Commonwealth had obligations to meet, we ought not to penalize a single State. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1062</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K1Z</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RAE, Arthur</name>
<name role="display">Senator Rae</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does not the honorable senator's statement amount to this - that things would have been different if they had not been the same? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>1062</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KUL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MILLEN, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Senator MILLEN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The point is that these balances would have been different if other things had been different ; and is there any justification, because the Commonwealth was confronted with difficulties and had to meet expenditure for its own purposes, why it should penalize -a single State ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>