Download Fragment

Tuesday, 14 September 1937

Mr BLACKBURN (Bourke) .- The explanation given by the Minister is contradictory. He claimed, that the amendment is necessary to enable the agreement to be carried out. He said that the agreement calls for an appropriation larger than the sum mentioned in clause 7, and that it is therefore necessary to amend that clause. The only purpose of the amendment would be to enable this dying Parliament to authorize the Executive, without consulting any future Parliament, to make these payments.

Sir Archdale Parkhill - It does notmean that.

Mr BLACKBURN - It means nothing unless it implies that. The Minister said that the amendment is necessary to enable the Commonwealth to carry out its obligations under the agreement. If it is necessary to do that, the amendment would provide that money now, and in such a way that the payments would not be subject to the control of this Parliament in the future. This provision might be altered by an act passed by a future parliament, which would be said to be repudiation, but it could not be altered by this House refusing to vote the money. Sums for the payment of the salaries of judges, both Commonwealth and State, are permanently appropriated; they do not have to be appropriated every year. Under an act of the Victorian Parliament there is a permanent appropriation of the money necessary to satisfy judgments given against the Crown, and it is unnecessary to wait for parliamentary approval of these payments. Undoubtedly, an act of Parliament can be altered by another act, and clause 7 could be removed from this measure by a future Parliament, with the assent of the Governor-General ; but such a step would be regarded as repudiation. This appropriation, however, could not be expunged by any vote of this House. In future, any sums necessary to discharge the obligations of the Commonwealth under this measure would have been appropriated by the mere authority of the act, and it would not be necessary, as the need for payments arose, to ask this House to vote the money. Neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate in. any future parliament would be able to refuse to vote moneys to meet the obligations incurred under this measure.

Mr Paterson - The honorable member means that no future parliament would be able to repudiate its obligations.

Mr BLACKBURN - .Under this bill there are three obligations, but they are not obligations of the Commonwealth Parliament. The Commonwealth Executive, not the Parliament, is a party to the agreement. Of the three obligations which the Commonwealth Ministry undertakes by this agreement, one is immediate and definite, the second is not immediate, but fairly definite, and the third is neither immediate nor definite. The first obligation is to pay the sum of £334,000, and authority for that payment is provided by clause 7 as it stands. The next is the payment of certain sums under paragraph 13 of the agreement, as the result of the variation of duties, or losses sustained by the company. That is not an immediate, but a definite, obligation. The third thing is one which may or may not be an obligation, according to the decision of the Executive. Paragraph 24 of the agreement provides for something which may or may not be an obligation, as the Executive decides. The Executive is bound to " favorably consider " the company's claims. That means that it may or may not make a payment to the company; it is not mandatory at all. The Executive may look at the claim with a benevolent eye; but, once the Executive decides to give the company something under paragraph 24, that sum will be available to it under this permanent appropriation. No good purpose can be served by ignoring that fact. It might be said that without this appropriation the Commonwealth could be sued under paragraph 13 of the agreement; but there is no possibility of the Commonwealth being sued under paragraph 24 if the Executive decided not to make payment. Under that paragraph the Executive could make payments without consulting Parliament, and those payments would be in order. They would already be appropriated, just as are the salaries of judges and counsel, or moneys represented by judgments against the Commonwealth. It would thus not be necessary for the Government to submit legislation covering payments.

The agreement embodies a contract with a currency of twenty years, during which period certain sums of money are to be paid. It is not right that this dying Parliament should authorize payments covering that period. Authority to appropriate money should be vested solely in the Parliament, which' alone has control of the Executive. There was a time when Parliament voted money in perpetuity without defining the purposes for which it was -to be used. Consequently, the government of the day could use it for purposes of its own; but to put an end to this undesirable practice Parliament hit upon the device of appropriating specific sums of money for specified purposes. If under the general provisions of this bill we give authority for the expenditure over a period of twenty years of large and unspecified sums of money, we shall be dishonouring ourselves, tying the hands of future Houses, and betraying the trust of the people. This measure is entirely different from the legislative arrangements made for the payment of salaries of peace officers.

Sir Archdale Parkhill - The payments are identical in principle.

Mr BLACKBURN - They are not the same in principle. The legislation under which the salaries of peace officers are paid merely gives the Executive authority to determine the salaries of peace officers. This bill appropriates in the same way that public service salaries are appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to make certain payments. It gives the Executive authority, at any time during the currency of the agreement, to pay money, not only in performance of the obligations imposed upon it by the statute, but also in the performance of what it might regard as a moral duty. Whatever may be the merits of the bill, we cannot vote for the amendment. If, as Ministers have said,. Parliament will always have control over money to be appropriated under this measure, why not leave it at that? Why not appropriate the sum specified, and allow future sums to be appropriated by future parliaments? If the views expressed by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) arc right, that is what we ought to do. We should appropriate now the £384,000 specified in. the bill, and allow future sums to be appropriated as they become due. But this is not what the Government wants. It wants to be in a position to say, " We shall give this company, for the discovery of flow oil, compensation of an amount which we may decide. We shall not consider ourselves bound to make any payment if flow oil is discovered, but if we feel like giving compensation, we shall be able to do so without authority from the Parliament." Neither this Parliament, nor any succeeding parliament should he impotent as regards control of the Executive.

Mr. JOHNLAWSON (Macquarie)

1   5. 50]. - I take part in this discussion with some diffidence, because consideration of the amendment and the agreement involves some knowledge of the law. In that respect, the honorable member for

Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has a distinct advantage over lay members of the committee, but I believe the necessity for the amendment will be realized if honorable members will read carefully paragraph 13 of the agreement, which provides for the payment of a bounty to Mr. Davis in the event of a reduction of the duty on imported petrol. In order to ensure the payment of a bounty, it will he necessary to introduce a bill, because of the constitutional provision that bounties shall 'be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. Therefore, if a bounty is payable on petrol produced at Newnes, and petrol is produced by others operating elsewhere in the Commonwealth, those other producers will also he entitled to a bounty. As the bill stands, it provides for the appropriation for £334,000, but it makes no provision for the payment of a bounty. If, in the assertion of his rights, Mr. Davis obtained a judgment against the Commonwealth, it would not he enforcible, because no provision is made in the bill and no legislation would be in existence to enable him to take advantage of the provision for a bounty. The amendment is necessary to give Mr. Davis a guarantee that the obligations of the Government will be honoured and can be legally enforced. Without the amendment he will have no real protection, and if he did go to law and obtained judgment it would not be enforcible.

---