Download Fragment

Wednesday, 23 November 1910

Sir JOHN FORREST (Swan) - I thank the Government for having afforded me an opportunity of saying a few words upon the Budget before my departure for my own State. It is an extraordinary circumstance that it is only during the closing hours of the session that we are permitted for the first time to debate the financial position of the Commonwealth as set forth in the Treasurer's Budget statement. I suppose the position is unprecedented. It is difficult to understand the reasons which prompted the Government to adopt that course. If they had not had such a large and docile majority behind them they would not have been able to act as they have done. I do not think that any other Government, however strong, would have dared to treat the House in the way that the Ministry have treated it. As a matter of fact, we are almost precluded from discussing the Budget, inasmuch as all the important matters which are mentioned in it have since been dealt with in various Bills. During the session we have had a good dose of what is commonly called "spoils to the victors" legislation. We have passed many measures, one of which, in my opinion, is of a very confiscatory character. The extraordinary feature about that very drastic measure of taxation is that it is directed at those who are not supporters of the Ministry. It is intended to effect an influential class - but a very small one - whose members have acquired some wealth in the country, and who are deemed to be fit subjects for spoliation.

Mr Higgs - They cannot comprise a small class if the tax will yield £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 annually.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not think that their number will be found to be very great. At the same time the Government and their supporters have exempted from the operation of that measure those whom they regard as their political supporters, and through whom they have been returned to this Parliament.

Mr Higgs - That statement is not correct.

Sir JOHN FORREST - In my opinion it is absolutely true. The exemption of £5,000, which was inserted in the Land Tax Assessment Bill, was nothing more nor less than a bribe to those persons who returned honorable members opposite to this Parliament.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY (INDI, VICTORIA) - The honorable member would not make the twenty-acre man pay?

Sir JOHN FORREST - It was intended to exempt from the operation of the Bill the persons to whom I have referred, because honorable members opposite get a large measure of their political support from them. I say that the confiscatory land tax which we have passed is a class measure. Honorable members opposite, by supporting it and by voting £6,000 to subsidize a press cable service, have shown that in their desire to support those who support them they will stop at nothing. Labour newspapers have been subsidized, and now get cheap news at the expense of the country. The reluctance of the Minister of External Affairs to tell us how many newspapers are getting this news, and how many additional words are now being transmitted over the Pacific Cable, evidences that he does not desire to give information to the public. The action of honorable members opposite in voting money to bolster up newspapers which are devoted to their cause is one of the most gross of which I have heard during my political career. I look upon it as an absolute job. I regret, too, that during the session we have had a long series of attempts to undermine the Constitution and to place the whole control of this great country in the hands of Labour unions.

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - That is another unfair statement.

Sir JOHN FORREST - Labour unions nominated the honorable member for this House.

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - They did not.

Sir JOHN FORREST - They must have done so.

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - They did not.

Sir JOHN FORREST - Then who did nominate the honorable member?

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - The electors of my constituency.

Sir JOHN FORREST - But who first nominated the honorable member?

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - The electors of my constituency. There was only one nomination.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I must express my regret that we have not been given an opportunity of dealing with these important matters until so late in the session. I cannot think that it is in accordance with the courtesy which one side of the House owes to the other. However strong a side may be in numbers, it ought always to afford an opportunity to discuss the finances within the first week after the Budget has been delivered, as has been the case in the past.

Sir William Lyne - The honorable member refused every opportunity; he applied the gag.

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member is not just in that remark. When he has any feeling in a matter he is somewhat unreasonable, and sometimes unfair. He cannot say that an opportunity was not given to the House, within a very few days of its delivery, to discuss the Budget speech delivered either by himself or myself. The revenue of the Commonwealth is estimated at £17,248,329 ; the expenditure, which includes £406,700 brought forward from the previous year, is the same amount; there is no balance. I listened to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on that subject, but I take no exception to there being no balance. There never will be any balance under the procedure laid down by the Government for themselves. They have passed Acts appropriating the balances to the Trust Funds. These will absorb any balance that there may be at. the end of the year, so that the revenue and expenditure will always equal one another. That is done in order to drive a coach-and-tour - perhaps it is legitimate - through the Constitution, section 94 of which provides that any balances that there may be at the end of the year are returnable to the States. As we have now fixed an amount for payment to the States, it would, of course, not be reasonable for them to expect any payment of surplus revenue. That is the reason why the expenditure and revenue of the Commonwealth will always balance. They will be made to balance by means of payments into the Trust Funds.

Mr Frazer - The right honorable member did not get them balanced last year.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I was subject to the operation of the Braddon section.

Mr Frazer - There was a substantial deficit when we began.

Sir JOHN FORREST - If the present Government had had the Braddon section in operation during the whole of this financial year, they would have had a deficit, not of £400,000, but of nearly ten times as much. The estimated revenue of £17,248,329 is very much inflated, because it includes all revenue received. The same remark applies to the estimate of expenditure, but, of course, we cannot deal with the matter in that way. The Post and Telegraph Department, for instance, shows on one side a revenue of £3,899,000, which helps to make up the £17,000,000 odd. On the other side appears £4,408,939 as the total expenditure of the same Department. There is, therefore, no net revenue there; in fact, there is a loss of ^£509,939. Other items of a similar kind could be referred to, but that is the main one.

Mr Higgs - How, otherwise, would the honorable member state the items?

Sir JOHN FORREST - I am not finding fault with the way they are stated. I am simply pointing out that they do not show the real revenue available for the services of the Government, until we take out all those concerns which cost as much as. or more, than the revenue received from them. Although I have shown that there is a deficit on the Post and Telegraph Department of over £500,000, the Department itself shows an estimated profit for the year of £364,248, but new works and buildings are estimated to cost .£874,187, bringing the deficit on the whole transaction to what I have stated.

Mr LAIRD SMITH (DENISON, TASMANIA) - Does the honorable member think that those works and buildings should be charged to one year only?

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not; it is bad financing and bad management, and if we had remained in office we should have changed the system. No one year should pay for buildings that will last for twenty years, and we should adopt some such system as that obtaining in the British Postal Department, whereby capital moneys are obtained from the Treasury -by the sale of temporary annuities or financial bonds of some sort, and gradually paid off by the Department in practically the same way as a sinking fund. The Postal Department of Great Britain is self-supporting, and also provides a large amount of revenue. Our system of charging, say, £874,000 odd against one year for work which is to last for twenty years is unscientific. It is very interesting to know the actual revenue available, after paying for the upkeep and maintenance of Departments. The Commonwealth's sources of revenue are not very many, and Departments which spend all their revenue, and more, such as the Post and Telegraph and Telephone Department, are not revenue producers at all. The revenue of the country can be stated shortly in this way : The Customs and Excise revenue, less £291,222 for cost of collection, is £11,421,928. That is a real revenue available for the administration of the affairs of the Commonwealth. It is, in fact, our main source of revenue ; but out of it we must pay the States £5,267,500. There is also to be paid this year an amount of £451,832, charged against the States to repay the deficit on the Commonwealth accounts of last year, so that, if it were not for that fact, the amount that we should pay the States would be £5>7i9,332- That leaves us £5,702,596 of net revenue from Customs and Excise, after paying the States and paying for collection. We have also other sources of revenue. The proceeds of the land tax are estimated at £1, 000, 000, which, less £35,000 for collection, represents a revenue of £965,000. There are profits of £137,500 from coinage, a new revenue of £44,129 from small items, and £3.850 from miscellaneous sources. That is the whole of the revenue which the Commonwealth has available for its expenditure this year. It amounts to £6,853,075 - a very different statement from that which showed a revenue of over £17,000.000. The actual cash which we. have available for all the services of the Government is, therefore. £6,853,075. The Acting Treasurer remarked that we left a deficit last year. We certainly did, but last year, notwithstanding the good times that came at the end of the year, there was available only £3.682.884, and this included £451^832 taken improperly from the Trust Funds, or withheld from the States. It will be seen, therefore, that £3,170,191 more is available for the services of the Treasury this' year than last. If that had not been so, if it were not for the large additional amount from Customs and Excise, and the new revenue from the land tax, I should like to know where the present Treasurer would be at the end of this financial year. Notwithstanding the fact that over £3,000,000 more revenue is available this year, the Government have to borrow £1,500,000 from the Note Issue Fund, in order to carry them on for the first half of the financial year. Of course, I know that the reason is that the Braddon section operates until 31st December next. The Acting Treasurer's remark was, therefore, most ungenerous, seeing that last year we had to pay over £8,000,000 to the States, whereas this year the Government are paying only £5,719,000 odd, or about £3,000,000 less. How do the Government intend to spend the £6,853,075 available this year? First, they propose to spend £2,070,000 on invalid and old-age pensions, and on defence, less a small amount °f £7.- 000 received in revenue from sales of rifles, &c, a sum of £2,826,895. Those two items alone will absorb £4,896,895, leaving only £1,956,180 available for all the other services of the Government. Those figures should give us cause for reflection and consideration. The two large items referred to absorb nearly 70 per cent, of the whole revenue, including £965,000 net receipts from the land tax, and leave only 30 per cent, for all other expenditure.

Sir William Lyne - Does the honorable member think that the land tax will not bring in more than £1,000,000?

Sir JOHN FORREST - That is the Treasurer's estimate. Honorable members know that I regard the tax as confiscatory and unfair.

Mr FRANK FOSTER (NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES) - What method would the honorable member propose, in lieu of it, for the raising of extra revenue?

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do' not feel myself called upon to discuss that question now. In addition to the expenditure on oldage pensions and defence, there is an estimated loss on the Post Office amounting to £509,939, and departmental expenditure totalling £740,592, made up of the following items: - Governor-General. £23,520; Parliament, £18,126; External Affairs, £110,971; Attorney-General, £34.634; Home Affairs, £190,907 ; Treasury, omitting coinage, £82,579; New Works, other than Post Office and Defence buildings, £116,164; loss on Patents, £554. Further, we must provide £635,950 for bounties on sugar, iron, and other things, £10,272 for pensions and re- tiring allowances, £22,574 for quarantine, less £3,000 revenue, £19,539forrent, repairs, &c, and £17,314 for miscellaneous expenditure. The expenditure can, therefore, be classified as follows: - Old-age pensions, £2,070,000; Defence, £2,826,895; loss on Postal Department, £509,939 ; expenditure on Departments, £740,592; sugar and other bounties, and miscellaneous, £705,649,which absorbs every penny of the revenue, making a total of £6,853,075. The affairs of the country are clearly set out in the statement which I have made, which shows more clearly how we stand than can be seen by dealing with the whole of the items of expenditure and revenue. I have dealtonly with surpluses and deficits. By doing that it is easier to ascertain the exact position of our finances.

Mr Webster - Is the cost of the transcontinental railway included?

Sir JOHN FORREST - The expenditure in connexion with that work has been very small. There is an amount of £5,000 on the Estimates for it. I wish now to deal more in detail with the subject of Defence. As I have shown, it is proposed to expend on Defence £2,826,895, from which must be deducted a credit balance of £7,000. The sum of £850,000 has to be found in connexion with the payments for the fleet unit. The revenue necessary to cover this expenditure will be obtained by what I consider an obnoxious and class land tax, which invades the province of State legislation, and confiscates the property of all coming within its reach. The last Government proposed to get the necessary funds by raising a loan repayable within sixteen years, and that proposal carried out the principle that permanent works, or works which will endure for a considerable time, should be provided for, not by harassing the people by increasing taxation, and half-ruining the taxpayers, but by spreading the expenditure over a number of years.

Mr Higgs - Did not the honorable member propose to tax tea and kerosene?

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not remember having made such a proposal.

Mr Higgs - The honorable member's party made it.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not look upon tea and kerosene as more sacred than sugar, but, so far as I know, the Governments with which I have been associated have not proposed a tax on tea and kerosene.

Sir William Lyne - It was so stated.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I should like the honorable member to say when, and by whom. I never made any such statement, nor did any Minister of a Government of which I was a member. The honorable member may have made some such statement himself.

Sir William Lyne - No.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I certainly did not. Why does the honorable member try unfairly to fasten these things upon me?

Mr Webster - If a Government of which the honorable member was a Minister made the statement, he should take the responsibility for it.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I say thatno such statement was made by any Government of which I was a member.

Sir William Lyne - I think that the honorable member does not know.

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member for Hume owes it to himself, if he wishes to act honorably and uprightly, to substantiate his statement by giving authority for it. He throws out these innuendoes hoping that some of the mud may stick. I have no patience with those who act in that way. His present position shows where his dodges and trickery have led him. I do not desire interjections which convey untrue suggestions. Last year the Defence expenditure was £1,513,972, less £21,820 revenue, and this year the expenditure is to be , £2,826,895, or £1,312,923 more than last year. This increase is to continue. The Prime Minister is reported to have stated in South Africa that he will not be alarmed if the defence expenditure increases to £10,000,000. Honorable members opposite are quite ready to take the necessary money out of the pockets of the few. They laugh and cheer when measures harassing and half ruining many of our fellow-citizens who have borne the heat and burden of the day are passed.

Mr Frazer - Did the honorable member vote against either of the Defence proposals ?

Sir JOHN FORREST - I am not speaking about them. My objection is to the manner in which the revenue for Defence is to be obtained. A small section is to be called on to contribute all of it. It is shocking to me to know that some of my fellow-citizens will be practically ruined by this legislation which honorable members cheer, and which they supported as if they had a vendetta or some wrong to avenge. On old-age pensions were expended last year £i,497.-33°j and this year it is proposed to expend £2,070,000, an increase of £572,670. The cost of old-age pensions for this year is estimated at 9s. 3d. per head of a population of 4,474,000, or upon those of the supporting age, that is, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five years, who number about 2,500,000, about twice as much. The cost per head to these people- will be - Defence, 22s. ; old-age pensions, 17 s. ; and all other expenditure, 1 8s. j making a total of 57s. I did not rise with the object of finding fault with the items on the Estimates. It seems to me that the Acting Treasurer, and those who are responsible for the administration of our financial affairs, must give to these matters careful scrutiny, because the expenditure is growing.

Sir William Lyne - The honorable member has always said that we did not pay enough for defence.

Sir JOHN FORREST - Yes.

Sir William Lyne - The Government propose to spend more.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I am- not finding fault with their proposal, ' but calling the attention of honorable members to the manner in which the expenditure is increasing, and bringing it home to the Acting Treasurer that the greatest care in management, and the establishment of a sound system, is necessary. In regard to one question, which has been talked about a good deal during this session, and that is the question of immigration, I regret to say that there is hardly any provision made on the Estimates in that regard. The scheme which was propounded by the High Commissioner does not seem to have found favour. I have not seen a copy of the scheme, and, therefore, I do not know whether it is a good or bad one. There seems to be a general consensus of opinion that some action should be taken to increase our population by introducing immigrants from abroad. I am aware, of course, that, for the last twenty years, perhaps longer, the Labour party has been ^ opposed to immigration. Their influence has been sufficient to prevent Governments from embarking on a scheme.

Sir William Lyne - Does the honorable member know how many immigrants are coming in now?

Sir JOHN FORREST - No.

Sir William Lyne - There are a great many .more than the honorable member thinks.

Mr G B EDWARDS (NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES) - The number is increasing largely.

Sir JOHN FORREST - That is what we want. The Government should give their earnest attention to this matter. The party which they represent has done nothing in the past, but that is no reason why they should not do something in the future. As we were taught at school, no man is wise at every hour. There is no reason why, if we have been unwise in the past, we should not be wiser in the future. I commend this to the Government - that the only way to make this country great is to bring in people. I am not one of those who advise the introduction of a number of persons to walk about the streets and to be out of employment. That is a matter for the Government to look. after. They should work in harmony with the Governments of the States, who have the land under their control, so that we can bring people here, and they can settle them on the land.

Sir William Lyne - The States should not dominate the Commonwealth Government.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not see any reason why each should not work out its destiny, within the Constitution, in its own way. I will not believe that the Commonwealth Government cannot work in harmony with the States in regard to the provision of land for settlement when immigrants arrive. I do hope for better things from the Labour party in the future than have resulted in the past. Hitherto, they have been the strong opponents of the introduction of immigrants. I hope that, under better auspices and also better management for the reception and settlement of immigrants, a new era will arise. I desire to say a few words regarding the sugar bounty. According to these Estimates, the Excise is estimated to yield £684,000, while the bounty and other expenses are set down at £579,000, leaving a profit of £105.000, which goes to the general revenue of the Commonweal th .

Mr G B EDWARDS (NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES) -" Profit " is a funny word to use.

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member can call it what he likes, but £684,000 goes into the Treasury, and £579,000 is paid out. I regret very much that on a commodity in daily use, from the richest to the poorest, the Government should impose a burden of £105,000 for no purpose other than revenue. Every endeavour should be made to make sugar as cheap as possible, and, without discussing the question of the bounty or the Excise at the present time, my opinion is, as every one knows, that we should do away with both, and allow the Tariff to operate in regard to sugar as it does in regard to any other commodity.

Mr Bamford - It would not be anycheaper under those conditions.

Sir JOHN FORREST - This Government, which poses as a poor man's Government - I do not believe for a moment that it is, but that does not matter - unnecessarily takes £105,000 from the people. Surely an impost of £5 on every ton of sugar consumed is taxation enough without imposing this addition of £105,000 ? That is the way in which the Government and the Labour party show their sympathy with poor people. They encourage the poor to get cheap sugar by levying £105,000 more on it than is necessary to pay expenses and bounty.

Mr Bamford - The' right honorable gentleman was a member of the Ministry which did this thing.

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member, who is generally so very fairminded, is at times ungenerous, like the whole of his colleagues when it suits them. He knows very well that he was one of those who forced it upon the Government of the day. He and his colleagues would not sleep or rest, day or night, until they got this system carried out. He knows very well that he was responsible for this thing, but now that the Braddon section is about to expire, there is no reason why both the bounty and the Excise duty should not be abolished. Apart from that, the Excise ought not to exceed the amount required to provide the bounty and meet expenses, and the difference ought to go into the pockets of the people in the form of cheaper sugar. The honorable member poses as the poor man's friend - by putting £105.000 more duty a year on sugar than is necessary.

Mr Bamford - If the Excise and the bounty were done away with to-morrow, sugar would not be any cheaper.

Sir JOHN FORREST -My proposal would be to reduce the import duty to £5 a ton. It would be better for the people if this sum of £105,000 were not collected. However, it is useless to speak to dull ears. My honorable friends who come from Queensland ought not to allow this wrong' to be perpetrated on the whole people of Australia.

Mr Bamford - The Commonwealth gets only 25 per cent, of the £105,000, anyhow.

Sir JOHN FORREST - It gets the whole of the money now.

Mr Bamford - Not until next year.

Sir JOHN FORREST - It will get the whole of the money from January until the end of the year. So long as the honorable member is all right, he does not mind. He shows his sympathy with the poor people of Queensland by not only providing enough to pay the bounty and the expenses on sugar, but by fastening on the people of Australia a burden of £105.000 a year for no purpose whatever.

Mr Higgs - That must be why the honorable member submitted to the forcing process.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I desire to say a few words about another important matter, and that is the Trans-Australian railway. I urge the Government to begin the work as soon as possible. I have seen statements in the press that they propose to make a start, but they have not yet made an announcement to the House. As I intended to speak on this matter if I got an opportunity, I did not wish to ask any questions, but I do think that when the Prime Minister, 'or any other Minister, has any important statements to make on matters of policy, he might make them first to the House. I do not know why the press should get important information as to what the Government propose to do, and the House be kept in ignorance of it. It has been stated in the press that the Government intend to . proceed at once with the construction of the Trans-Australian railway. Only a sum of £5,000 has been placed on the Estimates, but there is a foot-note to the effect that the work will cost £3,988,000. As the item was passed without demur, I suppose it may be taken that both Houses have acquiesced in the proposal that the work should be proceeded with. I urge the Minister to begin as quickly as he can. The work will not cost more than £3,000,000, and when it is finished we shall know who was nearest to the mark. It must be remembered that the engineer's estimate of £3,988,000 includes £600,000 for water supply. During the last six months there have been great changes in that respect, for good water has been found in two places. The authority to proceed with the work in Western Australia was given by Statute years ago. It gives the Commonwealth an exclusive choice as to route and gauge, and authorizes the State Government to lay down a line from Kalgoorlie Junction to Fremantle, on any gauge which the Commonwealth may adopt. South Australia has at length passed a law enabling the Commonwealth to choose the route of the line, although I believe that that has been already surveyed, and to adopt whatever gauge it pleases. There are no legal difficulties in the way of the Commonwealth Government making a beginning. The only question is whether they consider that they have sufficient authority from this Parliament to make a start. That is a matter which, of course, they will.judge for themselves. I hope, however, that they will think that they have sufficient authority, seeing that the Parliament has already voted the sum to which I have referred. A foot-note that the work is to cost so-and-so has generally been taken as an authority to the Treasury to spend on the work more than the amount actually voted, and to charge to the Treasurer's Advance. I can see no reason why there should be any delay in this matter - that is, if we believe the work to be necessary and good. I believe that everything is ready in respect to plans, sections, and quantities. It has been stated that the quantities have not yet been obtained, but I think they have all been prepared, and that all the Government has to do is to proceed with the work. A whole year will be saved if arrangements are made to start at once. Without even laying down the rails, there is a great deal to do in the preparation of work-shops and other things, and the formation of a staff. It will take a good while to get the plant together. In the first instance, it will be necessary to decide the question of gauge. Had the late Government remained in office, the work would have been put in hand. Seeing that Parliament is practically unanimous - there may be a few here, though not many, opposed to the scheme - there is no political or other reason for delay. I ask the Acting Treasurer to make a note of my remarks, so that if it is possible before the close of the session to make a statement as to the Government's intention, one will be made. Of course, financial matters are always a trouble to a Government. At the same time, the expenditure in making preparations would not be very large, and the payments would not be made at once. After 31st December, the Government will have complete control of the finances. I hope, therefore, that, in the interests of the country, there will be no further delay, and that before the session closes the Government will make a definite statement on the subject.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I wish now to refer to the proposed referenda in April next to secure certain amendments of the Constitution. I notice that the date on which it was rumoured that these referenda would be taken has been extended by a month.

Mr Frazer - With the object of securing the most suitable day for the whole of the people of Australia.

Sir JOHN FORREST - Although the procedure proposed to be followed is that for which the Constitution provides, it seems to me that our experience in regard to the efficacy of these referenda as a means of ascertaining the will of the majority of the voters of Australia is not altogether satisfactory. Unless we obtain a better system of recording the votes of the electors on the roll these referenda will become a farce. Other countries have experienced a like difficulty, although it has not been so marked as it has in the Commonwealth. In Switzerland, for instance, in 1898, out of sixty-eight laws submitted to the referenda, only one obtained the votes of half the number of electors registered. Where a Bill receives the support of half the registered votes the position is fairly satisfactory, but our experience is altogether different. The Financial Agreement was made a test question at the last general election. Candidates for both Houses of Parliament took part in the campaign, and the agreement was defeated by the votes of one-third of the people on the roll. In other words, only about one-third of the electors of Australia voted for the Bill, whilst a little more than one-third voted against it. The voting was 670,838 against the Bill and 645,514 for it, whilst no fewer than 942,130 electors refrained from voting. That shows that the system is an unsatisfactory means of obtaining the will of the people. We do not know what were the views held by those who abstained from voting. We hear in this House far more than is justifiable as to honorable members opposite having on all questions a mandate from the people. It is ridiculous to talk of legislation based on a mandate of the people in this connexion when out of a total of 1,316,352 who voted on the Financial Agreement there was a majority of only 25,324 against the Bill, whilst 942,130 electors refused or neglected to exercise the franchise. More electors refused to vote than actually voted for or against the Bill.

Mr Riley - Perhaps it is just as well that they did not vote - they might not have known much about the Bill.

Sir JOHN FORREST - That is not a logical remark. The majority of the people did not vote on the Financial Agreement, and whatever may be the views of the Government, the present Opposition like to win or to lose by the will . of a majority of the electors. Having regard to the number of votes recorded, the less said about the mandate given by the people to the Labour party at the last general election the better. On the authority of this supposed mandate we have had foisted upon the people during this session a lot of very harsh and discriminating legislation, in passing which the Government and their supporters have displayed political partisanship to an extent unprecedented in any Australian Parliament. To those who say that such an observation is unwarranted, I can only reply, " Have we not listened in this House to the gibes of some honorable members opposite? Have we not heard them say, ' Now is our chance, and we are going to avail ourselves of it, to undo the wrongs under which those whom we represent have suffered for many years?' "

Mr West - Hear, hear.

Sir JOHN FORREST - If that is not harsh and improper language to use in this House, I should like to know what is. The honorable member for East Sydney says, " Hear, hear." His interjection is uncalled for and unwarranted, and serves only to show how deep is his bias and venom.

Mr West - Do not be downhearted.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I am not, but I like a little reason and proper feeling to be exhibited by public men in discharging their public duties. I can see by the honorable member's appearance that he has been well treated, and has done very well. He has no cause to complain. Probably, many people have just as much cause to complain of his actions as he has to complain of the actions of others.

Mr West - The right honorable member is off for a holiday this afternoon. Let him be generous.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I am not going to do anything which the honorable member may not do if he is a free citizen. Perhaps, after all, he is not. I am a free citizen, and am not bound hand and foot by any Caucus.

Mr.Ozanne. - The right honorable member was bound on the Financial Agreement.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I was not pledged, but, on the contrary, was as free as any one could be. I was one of those who took part in the making of that Financial Agreement, and surely it was right that I should support that to which I had agreed.

Mr.Jensen. - And when we agree to our platform, surely we have a right to support it.

Sir JOHN FORREST - Honorable members opposite agree to their platform in order to get into Parliament. They could not secure their return unless they belonged to the Labour party. Scarcely any of them would be able even to put his head inside this chamber but for the fact that he is a member of the Labour party. The Opposition, on the other hand, are returned to this Parliament on the votes of the people, and are absolutely free. We have also behind us a record of some service to the people. Some honorable members on the Government side of the House, however, cannot point to anything of the kind. A man has no right to expect to be returned to the Federal Parliament unless he has rendered some good service to his country. He has no right to be pitchforked into this Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN - Order ! The honorable member must discuss the question.

Sir JOHN FORREST - An honorable member opposite has talked of the wrongs which the people have suffered. Is the Commonwealth system of old-age pensions a wrong to the people? Is free education a wrong? Who provided for that system? Not the Labour party.

Mr West - Yes, the Labour party.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I introduced the system in Western Australia long before the Labour party was known there. Then, again, are free hospitals a wrong? The charitable effort of Australia comes, I suppose, mostly from those who have got something. Yet the honorable member for East Sydney says, " Hear, hear," when I quote a statement as to the Labour party saying that they intend to redress wrongs. He has no regard for the past, or gratitude for the present. I wish, however, to point out that the Ministerial party, who claim that they have a mandate from the people, represent only 673,697 votes, whilst 1,584,785 voters either voted against them, or refrained from voting at all.

Mr Riley - What is the point?

Sir JOHN FORREST - The point is that the Labour party represent a minority of the electors of Australia.

Sir William Lyne - And the right honorable member and his party represent a still greater minority.

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member represents the electorate of Hume, but could not secure his return without the assistance of the Labour party. He had to go on all-fours to them, just as he has been doing for some time. The hounds, however, will have him; the fox will yet be caught. I wish to show how ineffective is our system of referendum with a view of obtaining the opinion of the people. The trouble is that thousands of electors refrain from voting.

Mr Spence - What is the remedy?

Sir JOHN FORREST - That has yet to be ascertained. I am not here to lay down a cut-and-dried scheme, but surely a remedy can be found. The present system is unsatisfactory, and we ought to adopt one under which a majority of the people would carry a measure submitted to them.

Mr Spence - Would the honorable member make voting compulsory?

Sir JOHN FORREST - Something should be done, and compulsory voting might be a very good thing; at any rate, it would have better results than this bogus mandate given at an election at which more abstained from voting than voted. At the last general election, out of a roll of 2,258,482, there were 942,130 electors who did not vote.

Mr LAIRD SMITH (DENISON, TASMANIA) - They were at work on election day, perhaps.

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not know why they did not vote. It is now proposed to take a referendum when there is none of the excitement that attaches to a general election; and it is not at all likely that a larger number of the electors will vote than in April last. On the contrary, I am inclined to think that there will be a small poll. Only about 30 per cent, of the electors voted for the present Ministerial majority, and 70 per cent, are not represented by honorable members opposite, or in this House. I deny that there is any great urgency before the next general election for the settlement of these questions by a process which will cost £40,000 or £50,000. On the score of economy and convenience, the elections for both Houses are held at one time, and a general election has, on two occasions, been taken advantage of for the taking of referenda. There may be some disadvantage in submitting so many questions at one time ; but there is the compensation that there is greater interest and excitement, with the result of larger polls than otherwise would be the case.

Mr Tudor - More voted in April last than at any previous Commonwealth general election.

Sir JOHN FORREST - At any rate, it appears to me that we are not likely to have a large poll for the referenda, and that, therefore, the result is not likely to be satisfactory, whichever side wins. What is desirable, above all, is that questions submitted in this way to the people should be thoroughly understood, and that cannot be accomplished between now and next April unless there is considerable canvassing, which is not likely in the absence of the ordinary inducements of a general election. Altogether, I think it' most ill-advised to take the referenda at the time proposed. A great number of honorable members are going to other parts of the world in search of recreation and health after a long session; and yet, in the next three or four months, they are to be exposed to the trouble of practically another election. As to the State debts, although we heard much from honorable members opposite last session in regard to the absolute necessity for their being taken over by the Commonwealth, in order to secure the solvency of the country, little or nothing has been heard of the matter since the Labour Government came into power. Apparently, the taking over of the State debts was only useful to the Government as a placard during the elections. When before my constituents I advocated the taking over of the debts, though I said that the world, of course, would not come to an end if the people decided otherwise. I took the view that as we had the right to take over £200,000,000 of debts, we might as well take over another £50,000,000, though I knew that that was not the opinion held by the whole of my colleagues. The question was carried in the affirmative in all of the States, except New South Wales, where there was a large majority against the proposal. At any rate, the Government have r.ow been seven months in office ; and, beyond answers to one or two questions to the effect that the matter will be dealt with next session, no intimation or information has been vouchsafed to us. In 191 1, there will mature, in round figures, loans representing £7,000,000, for which provision will have to be made. Are the States to be left to make that provision, or is the Commonwealth going to undertake the work? In 1912, debts representing £11,000,000 will mature ; in 1913, debts representing ^£10,000,000; in 1914, debts representing £2,000,000; and, in 1915, debts representing £20.000,000 ; or debts -to the amount of £51,000,000, with an interest bill of £9, 000,000, will have to be provided for in the next five years. This is a question so important to Australia that it ought to be grappled with at once; and I should like to know whether the Government have done anything in the matter. Have they written to the authorities at Home, and is there any correspondence that can be communicated to honorable members? If the Government have not done anything, what do they propose to do?

Mr Fenton - I' thought that, in the honorable member's opinion, the Government have already done too much !

Sir JOHN FORREST - The honorable member is not seized of the serious importance of these questions, or he would not make such interjections.

Mr Fenton - I am as strongly in favour of taking over the debts as is the honorable member !

Sir JOHN FORREST - Then the honorable member ought to help me to rouse the Government to action, because something ought to be done quickly. There is in the Treasury correspondence with the financiers in England years ago, when I was Treasurer; so that something has been done already. Of course, we do not desire the Government to tell us everything that transpires ; but we ought, to have the satisfaction of knowing that they are active, and whether the prospects are good or bad.

Mr Fenton - What about taking over some of the State assets - the railways, for instance ?

Sir JOHN FORREST - The Commonwealth has already taken over the Customs and Excise revenue.

Mr Fenton - We should take the railways, too !

Sir JOHN FORREST - I do not see any force in that argument. The honorable member talks like the man who made a bargain, and then turned to the other party, and said : " Well, now, I think this is too fair an arrangement, so I am going to dispossess you altogether, and take the lot." That is the sort of dishonest ideas to which such interjections give rise. If we desire to take over any properties, we must pay for them, and give a fair price. The Government have an obedient majority in both Chambers. We have heard that another place has ceased to be a deliberative assembly ; and I think we may say the same of this House. Honorable members opposite vote en bloc on all subjects; if they do overstep the mark one day, the are rounded up the next, and made to toe the line. We saw an example of that the other day, when honorable members opposite, on a popular proposal, voted against the Government, but subsequently came back like " dumb, driven cattle," to quote Longfellow, and recanted all they had previously said. Honorable members opposite settle these questions in caucus, and are bound to act accordingly in the House ; and the Government are using their obedient majority for carrying out a species of oppression and injury on those opposed to them>. If they have a mandate, as they declare, it is not honest to say one thing before an election and another thing after gaining the victory. Before the election we were told that the land tax was to be 4d. in the £1, but when the Labour' party had attained power the figure was made 6d. Then, as to the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, every Labour man in Western Australia declared that the payment was to be 25s.- for twenty-five years, whereas now we find that it is to be 25s. for ten years. The expenditure of the Government is already very large, and is constantly being added to. The opening up of the Northern Territory will cost £20,000,000 in the next ten years. I do not make that statement without some reason. It is already provided that our Fleet shall- soon be doubled in size and strength. There is also the building of the Trans-Australian railway, and other large works. All these matters will entail an immense expenditure on the Commonwealth within the next ten years. The question which we on this side of the House have to ask ourselves, and which I have already asked myself again and again, is," Are the party at present in power capable of dealing satisfactorily with all these matters?" My answer is an emphatic " No."

---