Senate
11 June 1914

5th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1988

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– A call of the Senate having been fixed for 3 o’clock, I now direct the Clerk” to have the bells rung for another two minutes, in order to afford honorable senators a further opportunity of being present.

The bells having been rung -

Senate called by the Clerk.

The following senators were absent: - Senators Bakhap, Barker, demons, ‘and Lynch.

The PRESIDENT announced that two of the absentees were on leave, whilst the others were absent from some other cause.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales . · LP

– May I be permitted to point out that in thecase of Senator Clemons it was not possible for him to have seen the notice of the call of the Senate which, was issued by the Clerk.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– In regard to Senator Lynch, may I say that he could not possibly have received the notice of the call of the Senate in time to permit of him forwarding an apology for his absence.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– As regards Senator Bakhap, perhaps I may be permitted to point out that his leave does not expire until the 16th of the present month. He could not possibly nave received the notice issued regarding the call of the Senate.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I desire to say that Senator Barker is on leave of absence, in very sad circumstances, as the result of ill-health and family bereavement.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE ANDCOMMERCE) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) pro posed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 5

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

– I wish to state, and also to place on record, that in abstaining from calling for a division on the remaining five measures on the notice-paper, the abstention arises from a desire to curtail what would otherwise be a somewhat wearisome proceeding. I am in a position to state that the last division is, as regards those who are sitting with me, indicative of the attitude they take to the other measures.

Senator de Largie:

– And also indicative of the numbers after the elections.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have no doubt that, in that case, the wish is father to the thought of the honorable senator. Having indicated that we are not less opposed to the other measures than we were to the previous one, I have nothing further to add.

Question put.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “Ayes” have it, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and the question being allowed to go on the voices, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) put -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “Ayes” have it, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and the question being allowed to go on the voices, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) put -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “Ayes” have it, and there being more than an’ absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and the question being allowed to go on the voices, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) put -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “Ayes” have it, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and the question being allowed to go on the voices, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 1989

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McGregor) put -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The “ Ayes “ have it, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate present, and the question being allowed to go on the voices, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 1990

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Lauds Acquisition Act 1906 and Northern Territory Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1911 - Land acquired under, at Darwin - for Public Workshops purposes.

page 1990

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION

Absent Voting - Electoral Rolls: Objections : Removal of Names : Issue of Claim Cards - Inspection of Rolls

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yesterday the Minister of Defence promised the Senate every information as to the intentions of the Government regarding proposed changes, if any, iu the regulations affecting absent voting. I wish to know whether he will now give the Senate an assurance that any proposed changes will be embodied in a regulation or regulations, and submitted to the Senate before the termination of the present session; and, secondly, that after such regulations have been dealt with here no further regulation concerning absent voting will be adopted until after the meeting of the next Parliament?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I will answer the last question first. It would be obviously impossible to give the desired assurance, because it frequently happens that at quite a late moment the necessity for some other regulation makes itself apparent. I told the Senate, and I want to repeat the statement now, without reservation of any kind, that any important change which the Government contemplates, if it does do so, will be placed before the Senate, so that it can take any action which it may see fit. By that remark I mean this House and this session.

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Senate can only deal with a regulation after it has been laid on the table. That enables an honorable senator to table a notice of motion to disallow the regulation, and give reasons for the disallowance. Do I understand the Minister to mean that he will give us an opportunity by laying any new regulations on the table of the Senate?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce will see that there are other alterations which may be effected without regulations, and when I said “ any alteration “ I went beyond “ regulations,” and put it in the widest possible form, that the Government will not, in any step, spring a surprise on the Senate or the country. The Senatewill be. fully informed of the intentions of the Government. I do not think that I can say more, nor do I think that I ought to be asked more than that.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

– Is the VicePresident of the Executive Council able to give the Senate any information on the lines I asked for yesterday as to the number of names which have been struck off the rolls in each State since the last election?

Senator McCOLL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · LP

– After the questions on the notice-paper have been answered, I propose to give the honorable senator and others information in regard to the matter.

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– I am in receipt of several letters from Tasmania informing me that in the divisions of Franklin and Wilmot the utmost difficulty is experienced by electors in getting claim cards to insure enrolment. Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council be good enough to make inquiries through the Electoral Office, and ascertain if there is any truth in the statement conveyed to me?

Senator McCOLL:

– I shall be glad to make inquiries, but I cannot understand how it can be so, because an ample supply of the cards is supposed to be at every post-office, and in the hands of every registrar.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’LOGHLIN. - Without any desire to harass the Leader of the Senate, I think that we ought to have a statement more explicit in regard to the suggested regulation. He has told us that before anything is done in the nature of framing a regulation concerning absent voters the Senate will be informed. What I think we ought to know is whether that information will be conveyed in such a way that we can deal with the regulation, and negative it if we think proper to do so?

Senator MILLEN:

– Although I recognise the courtesy which marks the tone of the honorable senator, I do not know, of any words in which I can express more clearly to the Senate the assurance I have already given, that the Government will not attempt anything in the matter of a surprise, and that the Senate will be fully informed of our intentions, should it be deemed desirable to make any alteration in the existing system.

Senator RUSSELL:
VICTORIA

– Is the VicePresident of the Executive Council aware that at Swan Hill, of which the population is less than 2,000, no fewer than 500 objections have been lodged against the names of people on the rolls? Will the Minister cause the fullest inquiries to be made into the circumstances to ascertain who lodged the objections, and on what grounds? This is a specific case in a small district, and calls for inquiry.

Senator McCOLL:

– I am not aware of any fact such as the honorable senator has alleged, but I shall make inquiries.

page 1991

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Has the Min ister of Defence received a reply from the Treasurer to my written request to him last night, at his desire, as to how the Treasurer proposes to relieve the people of Australia from the severe taxation which he has said they . are labouring under ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– As the Senate is aware, in order to allay the obvious anxiety of the honorable senator, I did act as a postman for him, and forwarded his letter to the Treasurer, from whom I have received this answer -

I said “ that in a great many cases the persons who received the money were in a position to pay their own maternity expenses, but they felt that, as the money was available, and taxation was pretty severe, they might as well take it.”

I was giving a reason for that class of persons taking the allowance. I was merely surmising what I thought such persons felt.

page 1991

QUESTION

LIBERAL POLICY

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of- the Leader of the Senate been called to the following article headed “Liberal Policy - Main Points Outlined,” in this morning’s Argus? -

Federal Ministers have taken their supporters into their confidence, and at the meetings of the party which have been held several of the main points have been practically agreed upon.

An aspect of the Tariff that has been mooted, and which will be brought before a subsequent meeting, is that of the duty on sugar, which is now £6 per ton on cane-sugar, and £10 per ton on beet-sugar. Whilst determined not to allow “black” grown sugar into the Commonwealth, the question has arisen whether a duty of £5 per ton, instead of £6, will not suffice for such a purpose….. If this is found to be the case, a reduction in the duty of £1 per ton would mean the cheapening of living to the extent of nearly £250,000 a year. . . . The meeting was marked by absolute unanimity.

Is this the full instalment that we are to get of the cheapening of the cost of living to the people of Australia that the Government promised before the last election, or are we to be disappointed even in this direction?

Senator Millen:

– Are you in favour of that proposal?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not yet a Minister. Can we take it that the Argus is correct, and that the proposal I have quoted is part of the Government policy?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I have been too busy studying references and reports of the proceedings of my Labour opponents to have time to read what the Argus is saying about my own party. I have not seen the paragraph, nor do I feel under any obligation to disclose anything that takes place at the meetings of the party to which I belong. So far as I have attended those meetings, I have not heard that question raised there.

page 1991

QUESTION

COMPULSORY TRAINING

Punishment of Cadet : Solitary Confinement : Powers of Military Officers

Senator RAE:

– Has the Minister of Defence any information to give the Senate, in pursuance of the promise he made yesterday, to communicate first thing this morning by telegraph, with regard to the detention of Cadet Roberts in solitary confinement, and my statement that he was committed by a court martial subsequent to the civil proceedings?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– I have caused inquiries to be made, and am informed that there was no court martial.

Senator Guthrie:

– What was it?

Senator MILLEN:

– The action of the Commandant there was responsible for what has taken place.

Senator Guthrie:

– Was that legal?

Senator MILLEN:

– It has been the law ever since tie Defence Act has been in force.

Senator Guthrie:

– Can an officer pitt a man in prison?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is the procedure that exists all over Australia today, and has existed for some time. I am not saying whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. Another point raised in yesterday’s discussion was the size and character of the room or cell in which the lad was detained. I am informed that it is a room 9 ft. 3 in. by 9 ft. 3 in., by 9 feet high. I venture to say that many honorable senators have slept on occasion in smaller bedrooms than that. The lad gets one hour’s exercise in the morning, and one in the afternoon. I can give particulars of the diet allowed, and am certain that no complaint can be made of it. Generally speaking, the boy has meat six days a week, oatmeal every day, potatoes and other vegetables every other day, and cheese on four days, with as much bread as he cares to have.

Senator Rae:

– I am not speaking of the diet ; I am complaining of the solitary confinement.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Rae is not the whole Senate. Other honorable senators raised the question. The following are particulars of the diet per day -

I think that information justifies my claim that on the score of diet the boy has no complaint to make. Another question was asked as to the rules he has to observe. He has to get up at 6 a.m. , and go to bed at 8.45 p.m., lights out at 9 p.m. He is visited by the doctor every day. There are two windows in the room in which he is confined, and the door is kept ajar all day and secured by a chain. The windows are not glazed, but covered with wire mesh.

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the fact that solitary confinement is repugnant to the feelings of most of the people, will the Minister immediately give orders to discontinue the system in the Department?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not prepared to do that, but am endeavouring to bring the whole matter under review. I am inviting the Department to again go into certain suggestions which I have placed before them, to see ‘if it is possible to avoid this form of punishment, without, at the same time, leaving a lad who is so disposed free to practically laugh at the whole system, and the Department itself. As I told the House yesterday, I am looking for a practical way out of the difficulty with which I am confronted.

Senator Rae:

– One way out of the difficulty would be to sentence recalcitrant cadets to read the honorable senator’s speeches.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! This discussion is highly irregular. Instead of asking questions, honorable senators are making suggestions and long disquisitions as to what is the right or wrong thing to be done.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Is the Minister of Defence prepared to consider a proposal to deprive military officers of the power to fine or imprison cadets in connexion with their military services after they leave the hands of the civil magistrates 1

Senator MILLEN:

– I had that question under my notice, and also a further suggestion as to whether it might not be expedient to provide that before solitary confinement could be ordered in any case, the matter should be referred to headquarters - that is, to the Minister himself.

Senator Rae:

– While you are considering that, would i£ not be a fair thing to let the lad out?

Senator MILLEN:

– I should think he was out by now.

page 1992

QUESTION

HORSE ALLOWANCE

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister of Defence in a position to inform the Senate whether the Military Board has yet arrived at a decision in connexion with the horse allowance for the three warrant officers whose case I brought under his notice yesterday?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The official answer is, “ The matter will be considered by the Military Board at the next meeting, to be held on Monday next.”

page 1993

QUESTION

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY: KING ISLAND

Senator LONG:

– I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, as representing the Postmaster-General, if the Department has yet considered the revised offer for the sale of the wireless telegraphy station at King Island? If so, what determination have the Government come to in respect to its purchase ?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I gave the whole of the information available some time ago. So far as I am aware, nothing further has cropped up.

Senator LONG:

– When the Minister made his statement, the revised offer was not in possession of the Government. I thought the honorable senator would be able to say definitely now whether the Government had accepted or rejected the offer of the station for the sum of £1,250.

Senator McCOLL:

– I shall be “glad to make inquiries, and let the honorable senator know the result.

page 1993

QUESTION

SMALL ARMS FACTORY

Manager’s Residence

Senator RAE:

– Can the Minister of Defence inform the Senate of the reason for the long delay in fixing the rental of the residence of the manager of the Small Arms Factory, and will the Senate be made acquainted with the rental to be fixed before the session closes?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– There are two or three features about the matter which are simply awaiting consideration by myself. There are many other current matters of more importance to attend to, but I shall deal with it as soon as I can, and make the Senate acquainted with the result of my deliberations.

page 1993

QUESTION

MURRAY WATERS

Senator RUSSELL:

– In view of the proposed Murray Waters agreement, will the Minister of Defence consider the possibility of securing, and making available to honorable senators, some of the many reports that have been obtained on the question by the various State Governments, so that we may have the in formation necessary to deal with the question at the coming general elections ?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– If any reports of the kind are available, I shall do my best to secure them for the use of honorable senators.

page 1993

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT

Senator KEATING:

– Will the Government take steps, as a previous Government did, to make the public more familiar than they appear to be with the fact that there is a provision in the electoral law, making it illegal for candidates, for a certain period before an election, to contribute to the funds of certain organizations and associations?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– I think the better way to deal with that matter would be for honorable senators to refuse to make such contributions. With regard to making the matter public, I could not say now how that should be done. I shall see what was done in the matter before.

page 1993

QUESTION

STATE RAILWAY MATERIAL

Customs Duties

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

The amount of Customs duties received by the Commonwealth for the three (3) years ending 31st December, 1913, upon steel rails, fastenings, and railway material generally, imported by the several States.

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The information is being obtained, and will be supplied to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 1993

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Coal Supplies

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

In reference to the question of Senator Maughan of 7th May, 1914, relating to tests of coal supplies for use by the Australian Navy, will the Minister be good enough to say whether such tests have been completed, and, if so, will he lay the report upon the table?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The answer is -

The tests have not been completed. It should be noted that these will be practical tests in a ship of war at sea, and as many collieries have to be considered, the tests will necessarily occupy an extended period.

The reports will be made available in due course.

Senator MAUGHAN:

– Arising out of the answer given, can the Minister inform the Senate whether, in the case of Queensland, representations were made to every individual colliery owner to send supplies of coal for test purposes to the Department?

Senator MILLEN:

– I could not say that representations were made to every colliery owner, as some may have been overlooked; but I know that steps were taken to give publicity to the needs of the Navy in this matter, and from the northern States there have been received very many responses, which, with those received from the other States, are now being considered.

page 1994

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Defective Ammunition

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minis ter of Defence, upon notice - 1, Is it a fact that a large quantity of defective ammunition has been supplied for use by the Rifle Association of Queensland? 2, If so, will the Minister cause an inquiry to be made into the matter?

Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The answers are -

  1. Complaints have been received regarding the unsatisfactory quality of ammunition supplied to rifle associations in Queensland and other districts.
  2. A committee, consisting of Colonel Wallace, Commandant, 3rd Military District (late Chief of Ordnance) ; Mr. Leighton, manager, Cordite Factory; Lieut.-Colonel Senunens, Australian Intelligence Corps; Major Gipps, Inspecting Ordnance Officer; and Mr. Bell, Chemical Adviser, has been appointed to fully inquire into and report upon the whole question of ammunition supply, and to recommend what further steps (if any) are considered necessary to insure that all ammunition issued by the Department conforms to the highest possible standard. The committee is now conducting its investigations.
Senator MAUGHAN:

– Arising out of the elaborate reply to my question, for which I thank the Minister of Defence, I wish to ask him whether there is connected with the Defence Department an official stationed in the Old Country whose duty it is to inspect ammunition before it is exported to Australia?

Senator MILLEN:

– This ammunition is made here. The Department manufactures the explosives itself, and supplies it to the Ammunition Factory, which makes it up, and the Department has an inspector at the factory, who makes tests of the various classes of ammunition supplied.

Senator PEARCE:

– I should like to ask whether the Minister has considered the advisability of inviting rifle associations to nominate a representative to take part in orwatch the proceedings of the committee referred to in his answer to Senator Maughan’s question?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall not, I think, break any confidence if I say that some time since Senator Pearce suggested to me the advisability of putting a member of a rifle club on the committee. Asa result of that suggestion, Lieut.-Colonel Semmens, of the Australian IntelligenceCorps, and a most experienced rifleman,, has been added to the committee.

page 1994

QUESTION

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Evidence of Mr. Dent

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of HomeAffairs, upon notice -

In view of the extraordinary statements recently made by a Mr. Dent (formerly a temporary assistant in the office of the Federal Electoral Officer, Brisbane) before the Electoral Commission, will the Minister in chargeof electoral matters be good enough to suggest, to the Chairman of the Commission (Mr. Sinclair) that Mr. Allars, Chief Electoral Officer,. Queensland, be given an immediate opportunity of replying to Mr. Dent’s allegations, and to have such reply published before the general election?

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– The reply of the Department is -

It is understood that the Chairman of the Royal Commission intends to recall Mr. Allars at the earliest opportunity.

I have also been supplied with a memorandum as follows : -

The Chairman of the Electoral Commission has informed Mr. Allars thathe will be recalled to give evidence at the earliest possible opportunity, and Mr. Sinclair has assuredme that the whole of. the irregularities referred to in Mr. Dent’s evidence will be inquired into at Brisbane as soon as the situation here will permit of the Commission going to Brisbane.

page 1994

QUESTION

BRISBANE TELEGRAPHISTS

Overtime and Leave

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minis ter representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. What was the number of days in lieu of holidays worked due to officers of the Post and Telegraph Department throughout Queensland on 1st May, 1914?
  2. How many days in lieu of holidays worked are owing to telegraphists in Brisbane for 1911, 1912, 1913, and to the 1st May for 1914; and how many of the said days have been worked off since 1st January, 1914, to 1st May, 1914?
  3. What annual leave is due to date to telegraphists in Brisbane? 4. (a) Since the introduction of the new shifts for telegraphists in Brisbane, on 2nd February to 9th May, 1914, how many hours in the aggregate have been worked in excess of the scheduled day’s work, and how many under?

    1. What” amount of overtime (excluding Sunday payment) has been given for the excess duty?
    2. In the same connexion, the number of telegraphists on duty at each hour and half -hour between the hours of 9.30 p.m. and 8.30 a.m.; the number of telegraphists that the “ Schedule of Duty “ provides for being on duty at these hours?
    3. The number of officers who have received the four (4) shilling cab allowance for conveyance home (after their last tram had gone), and the total amount so expended?
    4. The number of occasions on which telegraph officers have worked 7, 8, 0, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 14½ hours, and the number of officers who., worked these long hours on each occasion?
  4. What was the average number of hours worked by telegraphists in Melbourne and Brisbane for week ending 9th May, 1914?
Senator McCOLL:
LP

– Inquiries are being made into these matters, and replies will be obtained as soon as possible.

page 1995

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Appointment of Mr. King Salter

Senator PEARCE:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. On what date was. the recommendation for the appointment of Mr. King Salter, as manager of Cockatoo Island Dockyard,- received from the Committee in Great Britain which was appointed to advise the Government?
  2. Upon what date was the appointment made?
Senator MILLEN:
LP

– The answers are -

  1. 5th May, 1913.
  2. The appointment dates from 30th January, 1914, but the definite offer was cabled to Mr. King Salter on 31st December, 1913.

page 1995

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ROLLS

Senator McCOLL:
LP

– Some questions were asked yesterday which do not appear on the notice-paper, but to which I now take the opportunity to reply. The first question was asked by Senator Russell, who said -

What I wish the honorable senator to do is to put up a prominent placard with the rolls intimating that the two rolls may be inspected at the registrar’s office. This is necessary, because, as a rule, the officials at post-offices and other public places are too busy to attend to electors.

Later on, the honorable senator explained that what he wanted was -

Simply an intimation that the rolls now exhibited are not final, and that new rolls will be available later on.

The reply I have from the Chief Electoral Officer is as follows: -

Immediately the new rolls, now in the hands of the printers, are printed, they will replace those at present on exhibition, and a special official notification will be posted at each postoffice inviting public inspection of the new rolls. The issue of an interim notification such as that suggested by Senator Russell would cause misunderstanding.

Senator RUSSELL:

– My point is that hundreds of people going into the postoffices to-day to see whether their names are on the rolls are being deceived, because the rolls exhibited are old rolls. These are the people whom I desire to be enlightened as to the mistakes they may make.

Senator McCOLL:

– I have given the reply supplied by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Senator Russell:

– It is most unsatisfactory.

Senator McCOLL:

- Senator O’Keefe asked a question in these terms -

In view of the statements appearing recently in the public press as to the large number of names that have been removed from the rolls since the last election, I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council whether he will promise to give the Senate some definite information to-morrow so far as it is available as to the number of names that have been removed from the rolls in each State.

I replied at the time -

I have no objection to giving the Senate whatever information there may be available on the subject. It will be impossible to obtain the information from some of the more distant States for some little time.

I have received the following reply to the honorable senator’s question from the Chief Electoral Officer : -

It is quite impracticable to furnish this information. The rolls are kept at 1,052 centres throughout Australia, and are being altered from day to day by the addition of many thousands of names, and similarly by the removal of names under the ordinary processes of the Act as the result of transfer and change of enrolment, death, and objection.

The law permits any person who desires to do so to inspect the official roll kept by any registrar as altered from day to day at any time during official hours. Instructions have been issued to the registrars to allow any elector, on application, to view the lists of objections lodged.

It should be understood that names are not being removed from the rolls on the ground of non-residence unless the officers have reason to believe, as the result of official inquiry, that the persons concerned have ceased to have their places of living within the electorate, and have ceased to live therein for a period of not less than one month, and then only after the provisions of the law in regard to the issue of notices have been duly complied with. If, after the posting of a notice of objection, it comes to the knowledge of the Divisional Returning Officer, either as the result of a reply to the objection, or otherwise, that the elector concerned has not in fact ceased to live in the electorate, he (the Divisional Returning Officer) is empowered to dismiss the objection.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator has said that the Divisional Returning Officer has a right to dismiss an objection, but if the objection has already been considered and the name removed from the roll, and the Returning Officer subsequently is satisfied that it ought not to have been removed, can it be reinstated ?

Senator McCOLL:

– I am not prepared to reply to that question now.

Senator Russell:

– On a point of order I desire to know whether I shall be in order in asking a further question arising out of the reply given to my question at a subsequent stage?

The PRESIDENT:

– No ; the honorable senator will not be in order in doing so. If he desires to ask a question arising out of an answer given by the Minister he must ask his question immediately after the answer is given.

Senator Russell:

– The answer to my question has just been given. Am I to understand that I shall be in order in now asking a question arising out of it?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, if no other business intervenes.

Senator RUSSELL:

– The Minister, in replying to my question, has said that the officials are of opinion that the posting of a placard intimating that the rolls now on exhibition are not final would lead to misunderstanding. Seeing that it will be a couple of months before the new rolls are printed, it may be assumed that nearly one-half of the electors of the Commonwealth will inspect the rolls on exhibition during that time, and they will not be in a position to know definitely whether their names will be on the rolls on the day of election or not. I think that some statement of the position should be posted up in the interests of all parties.

Senator Keating:

– I rise to a point of order.

Senator Russell:

– Why raise it now?

Senator Keating:

– I do so only in the interests of our own Standing Orders and procedure. I should like to know first of all whether Senator McColl has placed himself in order. The honorable senator has now voluntarily given replies to questions previously asked. There is a certain stage of our proceedings set apart for notices of motion and questions, and for questions without notice. A certain stage arises when questions asked without notice must cease. Then we come to questions set down on the business-paper. Only questions on notice can then be asked, and those which arise out of the replies given to such questions.

Senator Millen:

– It is doubtful if they are in order.

Senator Keating:

– That is so. We -came to-day to the end of the questions on notice, and Senator McColl, in courtesy to the Senate and honorable senators who have asked questions previously, volunteers information in reply to those questions. I do not recollect that the honorable senator asked the leave of the Senate to do so, and the questions do not appear on the business-paper. A question of order has already been raised as to whether a further question can now be asked arising out of the answer given to a question by Senator McColl. It is just as if Senator McColl was furnishing a statement to the Senate upon a series of matters that had previously arisen. I think the whole procedure is out of order. I do not wish, that any honorable senator should be deprived of information for which he has sought, but I think that in the interests of our own procedure, and of loyalty to our Standing Orders, we should follow some recognised practice. If this kind of thing is to be allowed to continue there is no knowing where it will end. It is significant that one of the papers circulated to honorable senators today is a report from the Standing Orders Committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– Strictly speaking, the whole procedure initiated by Senator McColl is out of order. The honorable senator should have given his replies to the questions when notices of motion and questions were called on, at which stage it is permissible to ask questions without previous notice, and receive replies to them. However, I thought I was consulting the convenience of honorable senators in permitting Senator McColl to give his replies now to the questions which had been asked. It seemed to me to be a fairly convenient time for him to do so. Having permitted the honorable senator to take that course, I feel that I was equally justified in permitting honorable senators concerned to ask any legitimate questions properly arising out of the answers given by Senator McColl. My own opinion is that, if it be confined strictly to that, no inconvenience will arise, whilst it may be conducive to the quick despatch of business. However, if our Standing Orders are to be strictly interpreted, I shall have no . option but to rule the whole proceedings out of order.

Senator Pearce:

– May I, sir, be permitted to make a suggestion, through you, to the Vice-President of the Executive Council? I think that the information which is in the possession of Senator McColl is information which is not only of value to the Senate, but of interest to the country at large, and I would suggest, therefore, that he should take the usual course of asking leave to make a statement. At the same time, I would suggest to my fellow senators that, if they have any comments to make upon that statement, a convenient time to make them will be on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. But I do hope that no attempt will be made to block the giving of information for which we are all anxiously looking.

Senator McCOLL:

– I ask leave of the Senate to make a statement in reply to some questions that were asked yesterday.

Leave granted.

Senator McCOLL:

– Yesterday Senator O’Loghlin said -

The Vice-President of the Executive Council has stated that instructions have been given to those who are revising the rolls to place names on them, as well as to strike names off them. In view of the fact that it is notorious that some of these officials are not putting names on the rolls, will the honorable senator at once have instructions issued to them to carry out their duty?

The reply which I gave was -

The matter to which the honorable senator refers is entirely under the control of the Chief

Electoral Officer and his subordinates. He takes no instructions in that matter from me; but I shall convey to him what the honorable senator has said, and ask him to give it attention.

I have now received the following communication from the Chief Electoral Officer : -

The police are merely engaged in assisting the Registrars, with a view to accelerating their work under the law, i.e., they are furnishing the officers with information as to the names of persons, who, as the result of their inquiries, appear to be -

qualified for enrolment, but not enrolled ;

disqualified for enrolment on the rolls for the divisions on which their names now appear, owing to removal therefrom, or other statutory cause.

Persons correctly enrolled are, of course, not required to take any action. Qualified persona who have neglected to claim enrolment in compliance with the compulsory provisions of the Electoral Act for the subdivisions in which they live, render themselves liable to prosecution. Persons whose places of living are not now in the divisions for which they are enrolled, and who have not taken the necessary steps to secure transfer of enrolment within the prescribed period, are being objected to by the Registrars under the provisions of the Act and regulations, after due inquiry.

It is not for the police to place names on the rolls. That is the business of the Registrars under the law, on the receipt of properly signed and witnessed claims, if they are satisfied that the claimants are entitled to enrolment. The police furnish the information in regard to persons assumed to be qualified for enrolment to each Registrar in the form of a list, and merely as an act of grace, as far as practicable, advise the persons concerned of their liability if they neglect to comply with the law, and inform them where they can obtain the necessary forms.

The rolls are being reviewed under the ordinary provisions of the Act, and qualified persons and electors concerned are in the same position at present as at any other time since the preparation of the new roll in 1912: I am, ‘therefore, strongly of opinion (and, I think, Mr. Garran will concur) that it would be very unwise for the Administration to undertake the responsibility of leaving cards at houses where it is assumed persons qualified for enrolment or transfer are living. Such a course could not be uniformly and effectively followed throughout the Commonwealth, and would, moreover, create a false position, in that it would lead the persons concerned to believe that this duty devolved under the law upon the officers; and that, in the absence of official action, either now or hereafter, qualified persons would be absolved from complying with the requirements of the Act.

The officers have been instructed to make claim cards available to the public at all postoffices in the Commonwealth; and Divisional Returning Officers or Commonwealth Electoral Officers are always prepared to meet the requirements of political organizations requiring supplies. Every facility is afforded electors to enable them to secure enrolment, and no elector’s name is removed from a roll at the instance of any person, otherwise than as the result of independent official inquiry, and then, of course, only under the usual statutory conditions.

Senator Findley said yesterday ;

As it is common knowledge that thousands of names have been removed from the rolls in the different States, I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he will present to the Senate exact copies of the lists that are in the Electoral Branch of the Home Affairs Department of objections sent in, and the names and addresses of all persons removed from the rolls since the last Federal elections?

To that question I replied -

I could not answer that question, as I do not know what lists there are. Such lists have been sent in from every part of Australia, and it would be quite impossible to get copies of them, except after a considerable time. I shall undertake to make inquiries into the matter.

I have since received the following reply from the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth : -

Lists of persons objected to from time to time under the provisions of the law are available for inspection at the offices of the Electoral Registrars.

page 1998

MARANBOY TIN-FIELDS: MAIL SERVICE

Senator BUZACOTT:
Western Australia

– I withdraw notice of motion number 5, relating to the production of papers in connexion with the application of a mail service for the Maranboy tin-fields, Northern Territory. A mail service to these tin-fields has now been granted, and, consequently, I am satisfied.

page 1998

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

In Committee (Consideration of first report) :

Standing order 1, paragraph g -

The writ of election of each senator, with the return indorsed thereon, having been previously delivered to the Clerk, shall by him be laid on the table, and senators may then make and subscribe the oath or affirmation of alle giance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.

Amendments - Leave out “writ” and insert “certificate” in lieu thereof, also leave out “ with the return indorsed thereon.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– Revised Standing Orders have now been under the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee for three sessions, and, as the result of the work of that Committee, certain alterations have been suggested. I shall be very glad to explain each alteration proposed as it arises, and to give the reasons for it. The Standing Orders Committee have really attempted nothing new. The alterations suggested have been framed to meet difficulties which have already arisen in the Senate, and with a view to the smooth working of our Standing Orders and to facilitating the transaction of business. The first of the proposed amendments might very well be taken together, or they may be put singly, whichever of these courses suits the convenience of this Committee. They really relate to the same thing. Honorable senators “will notice that it is proposed that the word “writ,” which at present appears in standing order number 1, paragraph g, shall be eliminated, and that the word “ certificate “ shall be substituted for it. The reason for this is that our Standing Orders provide that, after an election for this Chamber, the writ, with the certificate of election indorsed thereon, shall be returned to the Senate. Now, the fact is that the writs for Senate elections are issued by the State Governors, and not by any authority of the Commonwealth, and it has frequently happened that the State Governors have insisted upon their right to hold the writs, and have refused to return them to the Senate at all. They claim, and, I think, properly, that all that we are concerned with is to obtain the certificate of the election. The alterations contained in standing orders 1 and 2 are intended to overcome that difficulty, and will, I think, commend themselves to the good sense of the Committee. I might further explain that the amendments are entirely in accord with the Constitution, which provides for a certificate of election and not for the return of the writ. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments in standing order 2 agreed to.

Amendment.- Insert the following new stand ing order: - “38a. Unless by leave of the Senate no Standing Committee shall sit during the sittings of the Senate.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- The object of this amendment is to bring our Standing Orders into conformity with the rules which govern this matter generally in every Parliament. It will be seen that the standing order can begot over at once if it is the desire of the Senate for a Committee to sit while the Senate is sitting. All that the Committee have to do is to apply for leave, and if leave is granted, it is all right. The general theory is that the duty of a senator is first to the Senate, and that he should not subordinate that duty to any lesser duty unless by leave of the Senate. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 53 -

The Chair shall be taken and prayer read at the time appointed on every day fixed for the meeting of the Senate; but if, at the expiration of five minutes after that time, the bells having been again rung for two minutes, there be not a quorum present, the President shall adjourn the Senate to the next sitting day.

Amendments. - At beginning insert “If there be a quorum present”; after “but if” insert “ there be not a quorum present, and if “ ; after “minutes” insert “thereafter”; omit “after that time”; after “there” insert “ still.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- These alterations are merely to make clear what the original intention of the standing order was. They are a mere technical alteration, which makes no change, and only makes the meaning of the standing order absolutely clear. I move-

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment. - Insert the following new stand- in order : - “ 73a. If any business before the Senate, or a Committee of the Whole, be interrupted by the operation of any sessional order, such business may be dealt with at a later hour of the day, or shall appear on the notice-paper for the next day of sitting at the end of Government or private business, as the case may be.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- This alteration is to meet the case where, by reason of a debate having been interrupted by a suspension of the sitting, the business under discussion has dropped from the notice-paper. The new standing order will do away with the necessity of interrupting a debate in order that the business under consideration may be placed for a future occasion.

Senator Millen:

– Does it drop off absolutely now.?

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes. If an honorable senator has possession of the floor and will not sit down so that an order may be made, the business drops off the . notice-paper. The new standing order will get over that difficulty and keep the business on the notice-paper. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 99 -

Notice of question shall be given by a senator delivering the same at the table, fairly written, signed by himself, and showing the day proposed for asking such question.

Amendments. - After “written” insert “printed or typed”; after “question” last occurring, insert “ or such notice may be given by one senator on behalf of another.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- The object of these alterations is merely to bring the standing order in conformity with that which governs notices of motion. It is a fair thing that when an honorable senator gives notice of a question it shall be fairly written, printed, or typed, and also that if an honorable senator is unavoidably absent after the Senate meets, another honorable senator may give notice on his behalf. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment. - Insert the following new stand ing order : - “100a. A senator, on being requested by the senator who has given notice, may ask the question of which notice has been given.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- This is a similar alteration for the convenience of honorable senators. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 101 -

Notice of motion shall be given by the senator, stating its terms to the Senate, and delivering at the table a copy of such notice, fairly written, signed by himself, and showing the day proposed for bringing on such motion.

Amendment. - After “ written “ insert “printed or typed.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- The only alteration proposed here is that in addition to the wording being fairly written, it may be printed or typed, so that it cannot be ruled out of order on a technicality. I move -

That the amendment he agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment. - Insert the following new stand ing order: - “ 165a. Every senator shall vote in accordance with his voice, and his vote shall be so recorded.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The proposed standing order is in accordance with the practice of the Senate and the practice of all Parliaments under the British flag. It only means that an honorable senator must vote, and that his vote may be recorded in the way it is given when the motion is finally put from the Chair.

Senator Millen:

– Is there not a provision for that already?

Senator GIVENS:

– No; not in that way. We have no standing order in regard to this practice. It is also laid down in May and Todd. We thought that in order to make the matter absolutely clear, it was desirable to have a standing order. There is a simple rule in the other House.

Senator OAKES:
New South Wales

, - The words of the proposed standing order are clear enough. I take it that when the President puts the question, and an honorable senator says “ Aye,” or “ No,” as the case may be, it will be recorded in Hansard that he, by his voice, agreed to, or disagreed with the question. Standing order 164 reads -

A division cannot be called for unless more than one voice has been given for the Ayes and likewise for the Noes.

If the words “ every senator shall vote in the event of a division being called for, with his voice “ were used, I think it would make the matter clear.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I wish to bring forward a real difficulty which may arise. Sometimes we do not keep the perfect silence which we are supposed to do, and in the middle of more or less din an honorable senator may mistake the tenor of the motion, and mistakenly say, “Yes,” or “No.” I think that in order to protect an honorable senator against inadvertently falling into an error, there should be this further safeguard, “ unless prior to “the division he asks leave to withdraw his vote.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. - The difficulty to which the honorable senator alludes cannot possibly arise, because it is the right of every honorable senator to demand that the question be put again. Then the presiding officer will take the votes as they are given, so that if an honorable senator makes a mistake inadvertently once he has the means of correcting it. But if he makes a mistake twice he ought to abide by the consequences.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 279 -

A notice of the order for a call of the Senate, signed by the Clerk, shall be forwarded by post to each senator.

Amendment. - After “post” insert “or de livered by hand.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move-

That the amendment be agreed to.

When the Standing Orders are suspended to enable a call to be put at short notice, it is much simpler, better, and surer to hand the call to honorable senators who are immediately available, rather than send it through the post. Sometimes we may not be sure that the call will reach an honorable senator, when we can be sure that it would reach him by hand. Hitherto there has been no alternative but to send the call through the post, but with this amendment there will be an alternative. I think that the alternative will commend itself to the Committee.

Senator Maughan:

– In the event of it being desirable to telegraph a call to an honorable senator, will the word ‘ ‘ post ‘ ‘ cover telegraphing, as well as ordinary posting ?

Senator GIVENS:

– When the time is too short to allow of a call reaching an honorable senator by the ordinary post, he has been telegraphed to, and it has been held that it is reaching him by post, because the Telegraph Branch is a part of the Postal Department. The only object of the proposed alteration is to widen the discretion, to enable a call to be delivered by hand if that is the most effectual and ready means of attaining the object.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 313 -

Payment shall be made according to the following scale to any professional or other witnesses, or to persons whom the Committee may deem it necessary to employ in furtherance of the inquiry with which the Committee is charged; and the Chairman’s certificate on the face of an account shall be sufficient authority for its payment by the Clerk of the Senate.

Amendment. - Omit “ shall,” line 1, and in sert “ may.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– The object of this amendment is merely to allow a discretion to a Select Committee. At present the standing order is mandatory, and a Committee have no discretion. The proposed alteration allows a discretion, but does not increase the scale or the power of a Committee. All that it does is to give to a Committee a discretion to pay up to the scale if they so choose. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 332 -

Every message from the House of Representatives shall be received without delay by the Clerk Assistant at the Bar, and be reported by the President as early as convenient, and a future time named for its consideration; or, it may, by leave, be dealt with at once.

Amendment. - After “ Bar “ insert “ while the

Senate is sitting.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The purpose of this alteration is to remove any doubt as to when a message is received from the other House relating to a Bill. Last year there were certain honorable gentlemen who were rather nervous as to when certain Bills would be received by the Senate. Probably they had in their minds the test Bills, or the Constitution Alteration Bills. In order to meet the objections then raised as to the vagueness of the standing order, this alteration is proposed, so that there can be no doubt as to when a Bill is received by the Senate.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– It seems to me that we have not a proper safeguard, either at present or as is proposed, against an interruption. I believe that at any moment the proceedings may be interrupted by the President to read a message from the other House, and then the Leader of the Government generally moves that the Bill be read a first time. It would be wise, I think, if an opportunity were afforded to one honorable senator to object to that course if it was desirable that there should be time given. When a Bill is received by message from another place, it is the general custom for the Minister in charge of the Department affected by it to move the first reading immediately. This is generally regarded as a formal motion, but the fact that any honorable senator can call for a division on it shows that some honorable senators may consider it of value to them to have their names recorded as for or against the first reading. I would therefore suggest that as a Bill may come up unexpectedly by message and be read a first time, while some honorable senators are absent, provision should be made in the standing order to make the consideration of the message or the motion for the first reading an Order of the Day for some future time.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

– I hope honorable senators will simply confirm the standing order as amended by the Committee. Senator Rae’s desire is only natural, but there is not much possibility of a surprise being sprung to the injury of any honorable senator. Most honorable senators know what legislation is going on in another place, and, therefore, what Bills are likely to come up to this Chamber. It has been the invariable practice in all Parliaments to regard the first reading as formal, and even if a member were inadvertently’ absent his chances of criticising the Bill would not be seriously interfered with, because he could speak and vote on the second reading, committee stage, adoption of report, and third reading.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I would point out to Senator Rae that any honorable senator can call for a division on the motion for the first reading, and so bring every honorable senator then on the premises into the chamber. Thus all but those who are intentionally absent from the Senate for the day will have an opportunity of voting on it.

Motion agreed to.

Standing order 402 -

Every senator may speak once on -

in reply, if he is entitled to reply; but not otherwise.

Amendment. - Insert “ Unless otherwise provided “ before “ every.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

These words are necessary, because as the standing order previously stood it was in absolute conflict with other standing orders. It provided that every senator might speak once on any question, whereas other standing orders provided that on certain questions no senator could speak at all. Thisamendment will obviate that conflict between the existing standing orders.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– This is opening rather a wide gate. “ Unless otherwise provided “ might mean as the result of a Senate division, which might not allow an honorable senator to speak at all. The words should be “ unless otherwise provided by standing order,” or “ unless elsewhere provided.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– It could not be otherwise provided by the Senate except by suspending the Standing Orders. The Senate always has the right to suspend any, or all, of the Standing Orders. Each standing order must be read in conjunction with the others. The sole object of the Committee in this case is to make the Standing Orders clear where they were formerly absolutely contradictory. The words suggested by Senator Senior are quite unnecessary.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister of Defence · LP

– The Standing Orders Committee will not mind my raising the point as to whether the last words of this standing order will now be necessary. It is proposed that the standing order shall read -

Unless otherwise provided, every senator may speak once on -

in reply, if he is entitled to reply; but not otherwise.

The prefatory words proposed as an amendment of the standing order render the last three words surplusage, and they should be struck out.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I have no objection to the words being struck out. They are like a chip in porridge, and would do neither good nor harm.

Senator Millen:

– But chips ought not to be in porridge.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Senate went into Committee to consider the amendments of the Standing Orders proposed by the Standing Orders Committee. I point out that the words which Senator Millen suggests should be struck out appear in this standing order itself and not in the amendment of the standing order proposed by the Standing Orders Committee.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - As we are dealing with proposed amendments of the Standing Orders, if we find that there is any redundancy in a standing order in consequence of the acceptance of an amendment proposed by the Standing Orders Committee, we surely have a right to correct that redundancy.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not give a ruling ; I wished merely to direct the attention of honorable senators to what was proposed to be done.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That the standing order be further amended by leaving out the words “ but not otherwise.”

Amendment in standing order 406 agreed to.

Standing order 426 -

The following motions are not open to debate, shall be moved without argument or opinion offered, and shall be forthwith put by the President from the Chair, and the vote taken -

Amendment - Add the words “ (See also standing orders 71, 73, 184, 416, 424).”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The reason for this proposed amendment is to enable honorable senators, on looking up the Standing Orders, to see at a glance the motions upon which there can be no debate. The proposed amendment does not make any alteration in the Standing Orders.

Motion agreed to.

Consequential amendment for a rearrangement of numbers of standing orders agreed to.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I notice that the paper in the hands of honorable senators is described as the “ First Report from the Standing Orders Committee.” Does that mean that there are other standing orders which have not so far been dealt with by the Standing Orders Committee?

Senator Givens:

– No; it means that this is the first report from the Standing Orders Committee for this session.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.51]. - Is it intended to supply fresh reprints of the Standing Orders embodying the amendments 1

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I have consulted with the Clerk of the Senate on that matter. It is intended, as soon as these amendments have been finally dealt with and adopted by the Senate, to have fresh reprints embodying all the amendments that have been made upon the Standing Orders, and avoiding interleafing and erasures. I hope that it will be some time before our Standing Orders will require further amendment.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I wish to ask if it is the intention of the President to have the Presidents’ rulings brought up to date. We have volumes 1 and 2, which bring them up to 1909. These rulings, in my opinion, are as important as are the Standing Orders, and they have not been published since 1909.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- The rulings have been issued up to date, but have not been put together. Each President’s rulings are published separately. After the lapse of a little time they are tabulated and put together in the same form as the rulings which appear in the volumes already published, but they are, in the meantime, available for honorable senators.

Senator Guthrie:

– I have not seen them.

Senator GIVENS:

– They have been issued.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I presume that all members of the Senate are entitled to copies of the rulings?

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– I have not seen any yet.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

page 2003

MR. TEESDALE SMITH’S CONTRACT

Special Reportof Select Committee

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I move -

That the following special report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into Mr. Teesdale Smith’s contract be adopted : -

Your Committee, appointed to inquire into and report upon Mr. Teesdale Smith’s contract - Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway - have the honour to make a special report to the Senate as follows : -

The Committee made application to the Department concerned to produce the original papers and documents in connexion with Mr. Teesdale Smith’s contract; and, as obstacles were placed in the way of the production of such papers and documents, the Committee decline to proceed further with the inquiry.

  1. McGregor,

Chairman

Committee Room,

Melbourne, 10th June, 1914

It will be remembered by honorable senators that this Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Teesdale Smith contract. The Committee has held two meetings. The usual application was made to the Department concerned for the papers and documents relating to this contract. It was ascertained by the secretary of the Select Committee that the best officer to summon for the purpose would.be Mr. Munro of the Railways Branch of the Home Affairs Department. The Home Affairs Department was communicated with, the suggestion was confirmed, and Mr. Munro was summoned to attend the Committee and furnish the papers and documents required. I understand that he was also communicated with by the secretary to the Committee, and intimated that the intention of the Department was to send the originals of documents with certified copies, which after inspection of the originals the members of the Committee might keep. When this officer came before the Committee in answer to the summons of the secretary he replied to a few questions, but when asked if he had brought the papers with him he said that they were in the custody of the Minister. He could give the Committee no further information. The Committee decided that as this obstacle was placed in the way of the inquiry it was of very little use for it to continue its work. When this motion was given notice of the Minister of Defence made an interjection to the effect that there was some misunderstanding. I believe that the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs has also this morning made a statement of a similar character. It must be admitted that owing to the complicated condition of some of the Government Departments, and to the Ministers supposed to be assisting the Minister of Home Affairs, it is very difficult for the secretary to the Select Committee to be absolutely certain to whom he should address communications. Without some clear understanding on the subject, if he addressed a communication to the Assistant Minister of

Home Affairs he might be informed by that honorable gentleman that although he was prepared to give evidence the papers asked for were in the custody of the Minister. The Minister might say that they were in the custody of the VicePresident of the Executive Council. If we are not to be treated in a straightforward manner it is better that we should discontinue the inquiry, but if a satisfactory explanation can be given, seeing that we have carried a motion asking the House of Representatives to grant leave to the Assistant Minister of Home Affairs to come before the Select Committee if he wishes, and that through him it will be possible to get the papers and documents called for, the course of action I should like to take, with the consent of the Senate, would be to withdraw the special report of the Select Committee and go on with the inquiry.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister of Defence · New South Wales · LP

– As Senator McGregor has intimated, when this matter was mentioned yesterday, I interjected that there was some misapprehension. I think it is possible to clear it up in a way that will be satisfactory to every member of the Senate. The honorable senator has quite correctly stated that the secretary of the Select Committee, or probably the members of the Committee themselves, having formed a conclusion that a particular officer of the Department was the one most familiar with the matters about which they desired to inquire, not only summoned him to appear before the Committee, but also summoned him to produce certain papers. When he presented himself, as he did in obedience to the summons, he intimated quite correctly that the papers were not in his charge, but were in the charge of the Minister.

Senator McGregor:

– Why did he lead the secretary of the Select Committee to the belief that they would be produced S

Senator MILLEN:

– What the officer in question did I do not know, but if he led the secretary to the Select Committee to believe that it was within his competency to take papers out of the Department he did what was wrong. I think the Senate will see at once that an officer of the Department, who may be even a junior, has certainly no warrant for walking away with papers which are not within his custody. Somebody must be held responsible for the control of papers in a Department. When a Committee of the Senate has desired the attendance of a particular officer, the procedure that has usually been adopted - a procedure with which Senator de Largie will be familiar - has been to summon him, and for him to respond to the summons. When papers have been required, the notification that those papers were required has been sent to the official head of the Department.

Senator McGregor:

– Who is the official head ?

Senator MILLEN:

– The Prime Minister, Mr. Cook. But my honorable friend need not suppose that any advantage will be taken of any uncertainty in his mind as to who is the head of that Department. I give him my assurance that if a request is made by the Committee, either to the Minister or Assistant Minister of Home Affairs, for the. production of papers, it will be honored. But it would be impossible to entertain for a moment the idea that an officer of that Department is free to walk out of it with any papers that he may think fit. In the present case, what happened was that the Select Committee - breaking away from the recognised practice, a practice which was followed in the case of the Chinn Committee - instead of summoning the officer separately, and then forwarding a notification to the Minister that certain papers were wanted, sent a notification to the officer - who is certainly not a junior, although he is not a senior officer - calling upon him to produce papers which were not in his custody. I would point out at once that the only reason why the Committee’s request was not productive of the desired result was because that request was not submitted in the usual way. When I say that, I do not wish it to be understood that there is any matter of thin dignity involved. There is not. But when papers are sought from a public Department, the proper method to pursue is to send a request for their production to the Minister in charge of that Department.

Senator Maughan:

– That was done in the case of the Chinn Committee, but it was not always successful in getting them.

Senator MILLEN:

– I understand that the papers sought were supplied in that case. The Minister then takes the responsibility of saying whether he will or will not supply the desired papers. The

Senate, I am sure, will appreciate the difference between doing that and summoning an officer of the Department to produce papers which he has no authority to remove from their proper place.

Senator Maughan:

– Nobody objects to that.

Senator MILLEN:

– The misunderstanding has arisen in this way. As I informed the Committee on a previous occasion, this Government will not throw any obstacles in the way of it pursuing its inquiries. As the difficulty has arisen as the result of the Committee not observing what is regarded as the proper practice, I would suggest to Senator McGregor that he should now Bee his way to withdraw this motion.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– When I heard the statement made to this Chamber by Senator McGregor, I was not in the slightest degree surprised, because I have a very lively recollection of the treatment which was meted out to myself, as Chairman of the Select Committee which inquired into the Chinn case. That Committee was absolutely refused access to the papers which it desired.

SenatorRae. - To some of them.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The production of most of the papers for which we asked was refused, and after a considerable delay, instead of the originals, we got what the Department were pleased to call, “ certified copies.” I hold that a Select Committee, appointed by this Senate, has full power to insist upon the production of original documents.

Senator Millen:

– Is it not the practice, to send the originals, with certified copies of them, to a Committee, and for the Committee then to return the originals to the Department?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Of course, I do not hold the Minister of Defence responsible for what occurred in connexion with the Chinn Committee. But I must say that that body was treated in the most grossly insulting manner by the Government. When it asked for original documents, their production was refused. All that it could get of Borne of the papers for which it asked was what the Department termed “ certified copies.”

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator does not suggest that they were not certified copies!

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not know. From the obstacles that were thrown in the way of that Committee, and from the manner in which the Government built up their case, I am justified in saying that anything may have happened. They acted in such a one-sided and partial manner that.I believe the withholding of papers would not be worse than other acts of which they were guilty.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Are these remarks pertinent to the motion ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I think that they are.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I think not.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Fortunately the honorable senator has not the decision of the matter. The behaviour of the Government was not as straightforward and honest in the case of the Chinn Select Committee as it should have been when papers were called for, and I have a suspicion that the excuse which is now put forward in connexion with the Teesdale Smith Contract Select Committee is a mere afterthought. When the Chinn Committee requested the production of certain . papers, its members were told that those papers were required in the Department. That was a ridiculous statement, because, obviously, the Department had no business with them at that time. Their production was refused, and I can quite appreciate the feeling of Senator McGregor ‘ when the Committee, of which he is Chairman, met with a similar refusal, because whatever may be said to the contrary, undoubtedly it was a refusal. If, by a mere oversight the Committee applied to the wrong party for the production of those papers, why was not the information conveyed to Senator McGregor at once? Why was not the officer who was summoned able to say that the application should have gone through another channel? But no information of the kind was vouchsafed to the Committee beyond : the bald statement by the officer that he had not the papers in his custody. The time has arrived when the Senate should put a stop to this sort of thing. When the Chinn Select Committee was refused the production of papers for which it had a right to ask, and when the Government declined to provide funds to allow it to pursue its inquiries, a very dangerous precedent was created, and one which will not soon be forgotten in a free country like Australia. It was a scandalous procedure, seeing that the professional reputation of a man was at stake.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out that while the honorable senator, is perfectly entitled to show what has been done in similar circumstances if he advances it as a reason why a certain course should or should not be pursued now, he is not entitled under cover of this motion to deal with some entirely extraneous matter.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I will not. dispute your ruling, sir, but I am sorry that YOU did not allow me a little more latitude. Had I been permitted a little’ more scope, I think I could have shown up the action of the Government in connexion with Select Committees appointed by this Senate in a very bad light indeed. As far as the Teesdale Smith Contract Select Committee is concerned, I have very grave doubts as to whether it will get the papers for which it asks. I think we shall find that many of those papers will be mutilated or presented in such a form that they will be of very little value indeed. As for getting at the truth while the present Government are in power, I have very little hope of that.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould.- Oh, ye of little faith!

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Why should 1 not have but little faith in the present Ministry, knowing, as’ I do, the class of men with- whom we have to deal ? I hope that the Committee will receive better treatment than was accorded to the Chinn Select Committee, but I very much question whether it will obtain the papers which it is seeking. It will probably be found that quite a number of those papers will be missing or mutilated or presented to it in some form in which they will be of very little value.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– The honorable senator should not prophesy until he knows.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I can only prophesy in the light of the past actions of the Government. Basing my prediction on those actions, I repeat that there is very little hope that the Committee will obtain the papers for which it asks.

Senator McGREGOR (South Aus any very great necessity for discussing this question further. If a mistake has been’ made by the Select Committee, it was a technical mistake and one which, if the Department of Home Affairs had exhibited any discretion or courtesy, would have been corrected long ago, in which case this special report would not have been presented. In future I hope that the Committee and the officers who are assisting it, will be so particular that there will be no possibility of any mistake of that description occurring again. In these circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Senator McGregor) agreed to - :

That the report be referred back to the Committee.

Senate adjourned at 5.16 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 June 1914, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1914/19140611_senate_5_74/>.