Senate
14 December 1916

6th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 9758

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Hospital Treatment

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Defence received any reply yet to the allegations brought forward by me the other daywith regard to the hospital treatment of Australian soldiers at Perham Downs, in England ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– On Thursday last the honorable senator asked the following questions: -

Is the Minister for Defence aware that the Convalescent Hospital at Perham Downs, on

Salisbury Plain, in England, where Australian soldiers are sent from France, has been described by an Australian soldier as - ‘- one of the dirtiest and filthiest holes that convalescent men could be sent to’ … all grouped together in huts, or, to be more explicit, hovels.; and there are some in tents which are not even rainproof. Eighty per cent, of the men were coughing and spitting all over the ground. Diseases will kill more men than the Germans.”

Will the Minister cause full inquiries to be made by cablegram respecting this complaint?

A cablegram was sent to the Australian Imperial Force Head-quarters in London repeating the statement made by the Australian soldier, and the reply is as follows : -

Surgeon-General N. R. Howse, V.C., C.B., Director of Medical Services, Australian Imperial Force, again inspected Perham Downs Camp to-day. He states that the representations made in Parliament referred to in your telegram are absolutely without any foundation. All the troops are housed in well ventilated, well warmed, dry huts. No Australian troops are under tents. The health of the troops is exceedingly good, with the exception of mild infectious diseases, ‘ mumps, and measles.

page 9759

QUESTION

HOME SERVICE PROCLAMATION

Dismissal of Military Clerk

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Defence aware that a clerk over sixty years of age was dismissed at the Victoria Barracks, Sydney, for refusing to enlist for home service?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I am not aware of the allegation, but if the honorable senator will give me the name and particulars I shall have inquiries made..

Senator Grant:

– I will supply the particulars.

page 9759

QUESTION

THE WOOL CLIP

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

– Is the Leader of the Senate yet in a position to make a statement with reference to the proposed acquisition of the Commonwealth wool clip for the Imperial Government?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– On the motion to adjourn the Senate last night I made a statement giving the constitution of the Committee.

Senator Ready:

– Iwas not present. You have no further statement to make ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No.

Later :

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Arising out of the question asked by Senator Ready, is the Leader of the Senate aware that to-day a statement was made in the

House of Representatives by the Leader of the Government announcing that the price at which- the wool clip had been sold was ls. 3½d. per lb. I would like to know whether the honorablesenator had such information in his possession last night,or whether he gave such information in his previous statement?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I was not aware that a statement to that effect had been made in the House of Representatives. It was not included in the statement which I read last night, and I was not aware of that fact.

Senator READY:

– Will the Minister say why the Senate has not received the informationin the same way as the other House ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No; but I shall have inquiries made into the matter.

page 9759

CANBERRA CITY RAILWAY AND ORNAMENTAL WATERS

Reports of the Public Works Committee relating to the proposed city railway at Canberra, and the proposed dams for ornamental waters at Canberra, presented by Senator Story.

page 9759

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911 -

Order dated 27th October, 1916, varying

Award made by Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on plaint submitted by Australian Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Officers Association; together with Statement re Laws and Regulations, Copy of Reasons for Judgment, and Opinion of AttorneyGeneral.

Order dated 27th October, 1916, varying Award made by Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on plaint submitted by Australian Letter Carriers Association; together with Statement re Laws and Regulations; Copy of Reasons for Judgment, and Opinion of Attorney-General.

Order dated 27th October, 1916, varying Award made by Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on plaint submitted by Federated Public Service Assistants ‘ Association; together with Statement re Laws and Regulations, Copy of Reasons for Judgment, and Opinion of Attorney-General.’

Order dated 21st November, 1916, further varying Award made by Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration o’n plaint submitted by Australian Postal Electricians Union; together with Opinion of Attorney-General.

Order dated 22nd November, 1916, further varying Award made by the Common wealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration on plaint submitted by Australian Telegraph and Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union, together with Statement re Laws and Regulations, Copy of Reasons for Judgment, and Opinion of Attorney-General.

Customs Act 1901-1916-

Notification dated 22nd November, 1916, by Minister for Customs, relative to Proclamation of 26th July, 1916, prohibiting exportation of goods (except under certain conditions) to Liberia.

Notification dated 30th November, 1916, by Minister for Customs, relative to Proclamation of 29th March, 1916, prohibiting exportation of goods (except under certain conditions) to China and Siam.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906 - Land acquired under, at -

Bherwerre, New South Wales - For establishment of a port, and for Defence purposes.

Broken Hill, New South Wales- For Postal purposes.

Public ‘Service Act 1902-1916.- Promotion of W. Reid, Postmaster-General’s Department.

S. W. Gibbs, Department of Trade and Customs.

War Precautions Act 1914-1916. - Regulations amended.- Statutory Rules 1916, No. 293. printing committee.

Report (No. 8) presented by Senator Barker. king island.

Will the Minister lay on the table of the Library the report of the officer who recently visited King Island to advise on the question of the amalgamation of the King Island wireless station and the Currie post-office?

When the line between Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta is completed, will the Government ‘remove all the necessary plant to Fremantle and Kalgoorlie so as to be in readiness in the event of the continuation of the line from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle ?

Will the Government get into communication withthe Government of Western Australia with a view to determining who shall bear the cost of construction of the line between the above-named points ?

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works and Railways · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answers are -

  1. The matter will not be lost sight of when the disposal of the plant is being considered at the completion of the Kalgoorlie-Port Augusta Railway.
  2. Correspondence with the State Government is in progress.

page 9760

QUESTION

CRUISER BRISBANE

Senator MAUGHAN:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Will the Minister state when the cruiser Brisbane will pay her promised visit “to Queensland ports?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

-It is regretted that . owing to war requirements the promised visit must be postponed indefinitely-.

page 9760

QUESTION

COMFORTS TO SOLDIERS

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minis ter for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Do hard and fast rules, as to weight, govern the despatch of parcels of comforts to Australian soldiers in France?
  2. If the ‘maximum weight allowed be eleven pounds (11 lbs.) would a disputed overplus of one or two ounces in weight prevent a parcel being sent?
Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. There is a limit of weight for parcels sent through the post-office, viz., 11 lbs., which has been fixed by International arrangement.
  2. I am unable to say what would be done in individual cases of dispute of weight, but I should think that the benefit of ‘ the doubt would be given to the sender.

page 9760

QUESTION

WIRELESS CHAIN

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Since the Naval Department took over the wireless telegraph system, have any steps been taken to make a complete wireless chain around Australia?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Full information will be f urnished to the honorable senator privately.

page 9760

QUESTION

MERCANTILE MAKINE

Uniforms

Senator MILLEN:
for Senator Bak hap

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

Will he cause an order to be promulgated in terms similar to those employed by the British Board of Trade, to the effect that officers of the Australian Mercantile Marine must wear their uniforms when on shore?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The conditions which render it desirable in Great Britain that officers of the Mercantile Marine should wear uniform when on shore do not obtain in Australia, and it is thought that it would be preferable as regards the Australian Mercantile Marine if this matter were settled by the officers themselves.

page 9761

SUSPENSIONOF STANDING ORDER

New Business

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That standing order No. 68 be suspended up to and including 22nd December, 1916, for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after half-past 10 o.’clock at night.

page 9761

VALUE OF FREEHOLD ESTATES IN COMMONWEALTH

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In view of the fact that the Government have supplied the major portion of the information sought in notice of motion No. 2, private business, and are prepared to furnish the balance of that information as soon as possible, I withdraw it from the business-paper.

page 9761

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Appointment of New Member

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913, Senator Newland be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in place of Senator Lynch resigned.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I take it, sir, that the ballot will be conducted by the usual method.

The PRESIDENT:

– A ballot will not take place unless it is demanded.

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask that there shall be a ballot.

The PRESIDENT:

– So far, there is only one candidate for the position, and there cannot be a ballot unless more than one candidate is nominated.

Senator GARDINER:

– I intend to nominate Senator Needham for the -vacancy on the Committee. My reason for doing so is that there is in this chamber a party of nineteen members which has no representation on any of the existing Committees. The Ministerial party, which is composed of only eleven members. fills nearly all the positions in the Senate. Out of its eleven members, eight or nine occupy important offices, and, in all fairness, the Government should accept the nominee of the party which I represent. I therefore move -

That the word “Newland” be left out, with a view to insert the word “ Needham “ in lieu thereof.

Senator Pearce:

– Before the question is put, sir, I ask that a ballot be taken.

The PRESIDENT:

– A ballot will be taken. Ballot-papers will be supplied to honorable senators, who can indicate their preference by putting a cross before the name of the honorable senator whom they wish to support. Of course, there are only two gentlemen eligible for the position, as only two have been nominated.

A ballot having been taken, the President announced the result as follows: -

Senator Needham, 18 votes; Senator Newland, 16 votes.

Amendment agreed to.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 9761

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1916-17

Military Service Referendum : Senator Russell and the Labour Party: Action of Labour Executives : Conduct of Campaign: Questioning of Voters: Soldiers’ Vote - WarPrecautions Act: Regulations - Public Works - Prosecution of the War: Recruiting Scheme - Military Hospitals - Peace Terms - Coal Strike - Industrial Workers of the World - Financial Policy: Taxation: Repatriation Fund : Expenditure : Monthly Balances - Labour Platform and Conscription - Case of Mr. Gilchrist - Sale of Enemy Goods - Home Affairs Commission - Fixing of Prices - Queensland Meat Enterprises: Export of Cattle - Maltese Immigrants - Wheat Pool - Unimproved Land Values - Protection.

Debate resumed from 13th December (vide page 9709), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Under ordinary circumstances I would not have taken part in this debate, but I rise to do so as the result, practically, of an appeal by certain honorable senators that I should explain my position. If I may judge from the speeches that have been delivered, particularly by those honorable senators with whom I have been associated for so long, their criticism of me was of a mild character, for I believe I have always been on the best of terms with honorable senators, and I know the present situation is the result of action by a certain section of the Labour party, which arrogated to itself powers which it was never intended should be- exercised and which cannot be defended under any law of justice or equity. My present position is not the result of my own deliberate choice-=-though I am proud to be associated with those members who are now supporting the present Government - but it is - the result of tyranny, not exercised by the Labour party as a whole, but by a section of our party, which, I believe, exceeded its constitutional powers. . As a politician I have been put upon a trial as severe as that ever experienced by any man in public life. Therefore, in fairness to myself, as well as to those who may be trembling in the fear that what has happened to me might happen to them, I desire to explain all the circumstances leading up to the present position, and also* to express the hope that power which in my case I believe was wrongly exercised, may not be so used in the future. I desire to preface my remarks by saying that any ideas I ever held I still hold; that any political principles I subscribed to I still maintain. To me the Labour movement is based upon the organization of the great masses of the people, and it was my hope that this power for good, springing as ‘ it does from the masses- of the people, should long continue. During the whole of my parliamentary career, extending now to just on ten years, I have never shirked my duty, and .have never broken a rule of the party to which I belong, or given a vote in contravention of any rule or plank of the party platform. Why, then, do I find myself today excluded from that ‘party? I am in my present position because members of the local executive exceeded their powers in regard to myself. When I joined the Labour party, like others, I did so because I believed it was the most democratic party in Australia at that time, and because I was prepared to uphold its principles. Nobody who knows my record in this State can say that during my association with the party, any man gave his services more freely or worked harder than I did to bring about success. And as a result of that I received the confidence of the party on four occasions. I came into this Parliament as one of its youngest members, and on two occasions was so honoured with the confidence of my party as .to be elected to the Ministry, on the second occasion, with my colleague, almost unanimously.

Senator McKissock:

– - Were you elected on the last occasion ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– No; but what was the position^ As a Government, representative of the Labour party, we were not. dependent upon one individual, but received our appointments at the hands of the party ; and so long as we carried out its principles, there was no power, under our’ party constitution, to interfere with members of the Ministry. I was elected to the Ministry to fight for the policy that we all believed in, and I did so upon all occasions.

Senator Ready:

– Why were Messrs. Archibald and Spence removed from the Ministry ?

Senator Pearce:

– Not at the dictation of the State executive, anyhow.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Messrs. Archibald and Spence were not thrown out of the Ministry. The Ministry of which they were members resigned, and Messrs. Archibald and Spence failed to secure their election, and failed largely as the result of activity and canvassing on the steps of Parliament House by members of the i executive who to-day have downed me. Whether they were justified or not on that occasion matters not now, but I was asked a question and I answered it. Coming back to the time of my inclusion in the Labour Government, I want to’ remind the Senate that I was elected .by the party to fight for certain principles, and I did so in conformity with the views of the majority of our party. Then in a panic, probably, brought about by the war conditions, I . was asked to make a sacrifice, not because , my views were wrong, but because the. views held by some one else were considered wrong. I did not question the honesty of those who differed from me. I believe they were honest men, and prepared to support the country and the

Empire. I thought that they were mistaken in their views, but was that a reason why I should at once set about a mad hunt after the scalps of those who differed from me upon the most important question that could come up for consideration, and involving the greatest responsibility in its decision ? Who was it that determined that I was wrong ? Was it the Federal Labour party ? It was not. Was it any organization whose decision we were supposed to accept? Not at all. Not a single member of our Federal party ever asked me to withdraw from the Ministry. Many of them made a special request that we should not break up the Ministry, but should retain our seats in it.

Senator Turley:

– I think the names of those who made that request ought to be mentioned.

Senator RUSSELL:

– No; they would meet the fate which , I met with at the hands of the Labour executive if their names were mentioned. I do not wish to implicate anybody else.

Senator Millen:

– Do not hand them over to the Labour executive.

SenatorRUSSELL- No; I do not intend to do so. I believe that, I speak correctly when I say that I had the sympathy of 99 per cent, of the members of the Labour party. I was not told by the electors who sent me to this Parliament to withdraw from the Ministry. I was not told to do so by the Labour members of this Parliament with whom I was associated in Caucus, but I was told by a majority of a divided local executive to get out of the Ministry. Let me make the position perfectly clear. This cannot be said to be a Democracy if this sort of thing may prevail. I received the following letter: -

Trades Hall,

Melbourne, 19th September, 1916.

Senator E. J. Russell,

Federal Parliament House, Melbourne.

Dear Comrade,

I am instructed to inform you that the resolution carried at the meeting of the Central Executive on the 12th inst., calling on the Victorian Ministers to resign forthwith from the Hughes Government, has been re-affirmed by a meeting of the executive held on Friday, 15th inst.

Fraternally yours,

Arch. Stewart, Secretary.

Senator Millen:

– From what body was that letter received?

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– From the Political Labour Council of Victoria. This is the resolution which was carried-

That, in the opinion of the Central Executive, the two Victorian members of the Federal Labour Ministry, Messrs. Tudor and Russell, should resign forthwith from the Hughes Ministry.’

The date of the carrying of that resolution was 12th September, 1916. In commonfairness to myself, I ask any member of’ the Labour party to tell me of any crime of which I had beenguilty up to 12th September, 1916. I ask any member of the party to point to any plank of the Labour platform that I had broken. I ask whether any young man with ordinary ambitions, and possessing the confidence of the Federal Labour party, and of the mass of the party outside Parliament, should be subjected to the power of a section of a local central executive, and told to go out from a Ministry that was controlled only by the party in Parliament. Although I had the support of nearly sixty Labour members in the Federal Parliament, who desired that . I should remain a member of the Ministry, ten outsiders who have never faced the people at all, said to me, “ Come out of the Ministry, or weshall ruin you socially, financially,’ and politically.” Is that Democracy in a free country?

Senator McKissock:

– It is strange that the honorable senator has just found out that it is not, when he has stood for that all these years.

Senator RUSSELL:

– No, I have not. Senator. Millen. - Honorable senators have made their accusations, and they should give the Assistant Minister a chance to reply to them.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I said to these men, “ I am a Democrat.” As I indicated earlier, I joined the Labour party because I believed in majority rule. I said further, “ Supposing any question arises to-morrow upon which you have a majority of Labour members of both Houses of the Parliament, and in connexion with which they may carry any law upon which they are agreed, and suddenly a local executive of twelve or thirteen members takes the question into consideration, and seven of them decide thatthe Labour members shall vote in the opposite direction to that upon which they have agreed, are these seven men to dominate the Parliament? I am not speaking now of the Labour platform, which members of the party having signed are in honour bound to vote for, whatever a local executive may do ; but I am speaking of a matter not considered in detail by the Labour party, and outside the written contract which Labour members have made with the party. What follows if seven members of an outside executive may dominate this Parliament in a matter of that kind’? In fairness to the Labour movement and to the great majority of Labour supporters outside, I want to saythat that kind of thing was never intended by supporters of the movement, and should never have been brought into operation. My quarrel is not with the Labour movement or its principles, and my contention is that the Government -of this country must be controlled within the walls of Parliament by the elected members of the Parliament, and not by an irresponsible few outside, no matter how honest and good, or how enthusiastic they may be.

Senator Pearce:

– Hear, hear ! That is the dividing line.

SenatorRUSSELL. - It is of no use to consider anything as private now since. Cabinet secrets have been blown out. The views which the Labour party hold, I hold. I was honest in the expression of those views, but because certain people developed a hatred against some other man, they did not care whom they ruined or whom they pulled out of the Ministry. I asked this one question of them : Whether they were prepared to take the responsibility of breaking the party down and allowing our political opponents to come into power ? When they said “ Yes,” and that we could put the responsibility on the other party, I said that I was sent here to vote for my own principles and not to put responsibility upon others. Did the local executive suspect me of being a conscriptionist ? None of my colleagues did. I asked Mr. Hughes to relieve me, because I felt that I should not continue to sit behind a leader whom I could not enthusiastically champion in a particular matter. Mr. Hughes begged me to remain with other colleagues of mine in the Ministry. I was going to refer to Senator Gardiner as “ My dear old colleague,” but, perhaps, that would be too familiar. Still I may say that on most questions Senator Gardiner and I never had a difference. Yet to-day, after working for twenty solid years in the Labour move ment, in season and out of season, I am branded by the men for ‘whom I’ have worked, and thrown upon the scrap heap, whilst my colleague Senator Gardiner, to whom I wish all good luck, and for whom I have every respect, is made leader of the party in the Senate. What a responsibility these men who have dealt with me have taken upon themselves. They have done what they could to ruin me and my family, my name has been blackened, and I am called a traitor at the. corners of the streets at the dictation of a few. If that is Democracy, it , is about time that we had some other system in operation here. Asearly as 16th June, 1916, the Political Labour Council wrote to’ me asking my views on conscription. I will not read their letter, but I will read my reply-

Mr. Arch. Stewart,

Secretary PX.C. of Victoria,

Trades Hall, Melbourne.

Dear Sir,

With reference to yours of 13th June, 1916, forwarding a copy of the anti-conscription resolution carried by annual conference, permit me to say that I have always been, and am still, a supporter of the voluntary system for the purpose of raising soldiers to participate in the present European war.

Considering the limited population of Australia, I am certainly of opinion that this country’s achievement in raising an army of 300,000 has amply proved the success of the voluntary system as carried out by the present Government.

Yours faithfully,

  1. J. Russell.

Those were the views which. I held then. I gave public expression to my views to the Melbourne Herald. I was guided by one principle alone, and that was tohold and keep together the party which I have worked for and loved. When I stood as a candidate for . Parliament, I signed a printed programme, but the question which has broken the Labour party to-day is not mentioned in that programme. It was the greatest question which this country had ever faced. There was a heavy responsibility resting on every individual elector, and every politician, to win this war, for the war must be won. Being conscious of that fact, and realizing that the supreme question of life and death was in the hands of every man and every member of Parliament, who could dream that anybody could be dishonest in connexion with such a matter? Fancy a man with the record of W. G. ‘Spence suddenly going wrong and being dishonest after bis years and years of service I Paney a man like our President, or a man like our friend, Senator Pearce, who I always thought was a good military man, though sometimes’ he went too far in that direction for me, going wrong ! Who would question the solidarity of these men, who not only led us well year after year, but led us honestly till we were prepared to worship them and do anything for them. It was represented in this country that I was guided by no other principle than that of getting place and pay. Rather than run any nsk, and. to get our Government safely over the difficulty, I wrote to the Political Labour Council executive, and offered to get out at the end of the month when the referendum was over. Was I guided then by the consideration of one month’s pay ? No man who has been some years in Parliament has made more sacrifices in- regard to place and pay than I have done. On two occasions I have refused promotion to the Ministry. On one occasion I was offered by the Wheat Board, represented by Messrs. Hagelthorn, Good, and Graham, an opportunity to go to London, but I would not look at the offer because I thought that people would say, “ That was the price.” Yet these persons permitted it to be represented that the only object I had in life was the acquisition of money, when everything I have done in my political career has been on the side of sacrifice.

Senator Pearce:

– And by accepting that offer you could have dodged all this trouble before it came on.

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– Yes. I am not blaming the members of the Labour party inside Parliament. I wish to relate a rather unique event. During the two years I have been in the Ministry, with the full confidence of most members of Parliament, I have at times carried a good deal of responsibility in some of the Departments. I defy any one to say- that in either House of this Parliament there has been one word of hostile criticism of two years’ administration of principles in which I believe. I remember that when Mr. Hughes returned from England, in the presence of seventy or eighty members of the Labour party, he went out of his way to congratulate me on my successful administration of difficult Departments. What did the members of the party say then? They said, “ Hear, hear !” with one voice all round the Caucus room, but at the Caucus meeting where the members were after the scalp of Mr. Hughes, member after member got up and said that he was going to stand by .the executive’s decision. I was included in that decision. Why? As a conscriptionist t No, as one who had disobeyed the few. Then I went along and made another sacrifice. I resigned from the Government. I took what I believe was the only course open to me. I had a quarrel with Mr. Hughes. The moment I left the’ Government I stood in this Parliament without a party. That is a nice position for a man to be in if he is honestly battling for what he believes to be right.

Senator Needham:

– You had friends here.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I had plenty of friends, but no political party. Were these men out simply after conscriptionists? If so, listen to the resolution which they carried after the trouble about the regulations -

The P.L.C. executive pronounced emphatically against “ reconciliation.” It decided that the members of the Federal and State Parliamentary party be informed, that there must be no reconciliation with, members who have been expelled from the movement, or who supported conscription during the recent referendum. When the executive were kind enough to expel me from the Labour movement, I had given my word to my leader that I would stop in the Government till the 28th October to see the referendum through. Under the party system of government, I could not break my word nor speak publicly against my leader. I knew the penalty. All the risks were on my side, but I was doing that for the sake of the party. The executive misrepresented me through their official journals, both the Labour Call and the W Worker Through the press I asked them to give to the public the reasons why I had been dismissed. They maintained a perfect silence all the time. More than that, there was a personal bitterness at the back of their action. That was the treatment I received from the party I had served so well. I have no hesitation in saying that in fighting for what I thought was a principle I gave Mr. Hughes about as hard a knock as a man had had for a long time. Did he immediately proceed to look for my scalp, as the other persons had done?. Not,at all. There was the act of a Democrat. The decision of the people had been given; Mr. Hughes had decided to abide by the decision and let the national question drop. There was Democracy. There, was gratitude for services rendered in the past, which did not exist amongst the few who were panic stricken and had no other desire than to down those who .differed from them. I do not wish to continue much longer this statement of the experience I have had of the Labour movement. I speak as a man who has been thrown out of the movement. I do not want to say that I made the sacrifice of coming out of it. I was pushed out,’ purely and simply. I have no complaint to offer against the great masses of the people outside, who made wonderful sacrifices to build up the movement to the position which it occupies to-day. I have received nothing but kindness from members of the Labour party inside and outside of Parliament. I have never had a personal quarrel with any member of the executive outside. I believe that the people can help in drafting political platforms outside. I believe that they can help to improve their material conditions by. organization outside, but you cannot help bv giving an outside executive ‘ the control which the whole people should have in their Parliament elected on a democratic franchise. * I look forward with a good deal of hope to the reconciliation of ideas. It may npt be that I shall be permitted to participate in it, but I do hope that, if not on the exact lines existing now, Australia will always be ruled by a great democratic party with ideals for the improvement of the national conditions of the people. That is my hope. But to-morrow, if I were offered a position in a Ministry controlled by an outside executive, not for £10,000 would I take the position, because I believe that it is against Democracy, and against the institutions which the national intelligence has established in this country. For that reason I believe the idea to be wrong. The experience I have been through has not been a pleasant one. It has been a hard time for me. But what I did I did out of loyalty to my country and. to my colleagues. I have no complaint to offer against them except that I think that inasmuch as nearly every member of the party did express his sympathy with me for the action which the Political Labour Council execu- tive had taken. My honorable friends might have lifted ‘a hand collectively to say that this sort of business should not be permitted.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I had intended to speak in the debate on the policy of the Government, but as it is probable that there may be no opportunity to do so, I desire to make a few remarks on the present occasion. Possibly I am one of the members of the Labour executive who have come under such a castigation from the Assistant Minister, and, therefore, I desire to say a word in defence of the action taken by that executive, and by the people outside.

Senator Russell:

– Only in your collective capacity.

Senator BARNES:

– Who are represented by that executive .in their official way? Senator Russell and every Labour member here knows very well the machinery which governs and guides the Labour movement. We are all aware, of course, that the Labour movement did not anticipate, and could not foresee, the great calamity which has fallen on this country and on the Empire. When it occurred, surely those in authority would not have been fit to occupy their positions had they not “been prepared to pronounce in the. way they did. The members of the executive of the Labour movement in Victoria, as in every other State, are elected by a conference*. The executive is not a little irresponsible body, but a body elected by a conference which, in its turn, is elected by the people of the whole State. The Victorian conference com- prises about 300 delegates, who come from every part of the State, and represent all the people of the State, and the executive is elected from, the conference. What is the use of a man getting up here, and saying, “ Here is a little irresponsible body of people who have no responsibility,” when all the time the whole of the responsibility of conducting the work of the Labour movement rests on their shoulders ?

Senator Russell:

– T say that they were irresponsible so far as the central programme was concerned.

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Was the executive instructed by the people outside to kill all conscriptionists ?

Senator BARNES:

– Everybody knows well, every man in this chamber knows, that there has not been a Labour body, representative or otherwise, which has met in Australia during the last two years, or since the possibility of introducing conscription in Australia arose, but has pronounced absolutely against that principle.

Senator Pearce:

– What about Western Australia?

Senator BARNES:

– I shall have to except Western Australia, but even there they did not go the whole hog. They said at their conference that they were prepared “to trust the Government, and in all probability they are “ whipping the cat ‘ ‘ now for ever trusting the Government which brought about the present position.

Senator Lynch:

– That is the reason why they sent me to the recent InterState conference?

Senator BARNES:

– That is the reason why they are sending wires to Melbourne repudiating your representation there.

Senator Lynch:

– I know all about that.

Senator BARNES:

– Every Labour organization which has met in Australia since the introduction of conscription in this country was thought a possibility has pronounced against the principle without any dissension. Some people profess to have a great regard for the Labour movement. Where is their regard?

Senator Story:

– They have got other instructions from the people who elected them.

Senator BARNES:

– The instructions came from every Labour body which has met in Australia during the last two years. They have been unmistakable in their opposition to conscription, and to those who advocated it. They have no apologies to make in’ regard to their attitude. They have said, “ We are opposed to conscription, and to the men who advocate it, and we will do all that we can to down them when the opportunity offers.” Unfortunately there were in the Labour movement persons who, whilst professing a great admiration for that movement, refused to pay any heed to those in authority, preferring rather to be influenced by the Tory press of this country, which has always advocated the enslavement bf Australia. I did not wish to get into a quarrel of this kind with Senator Russell, because he and I have been close personal friends.

Senator Russell:

– Look at the position I am in now ?

Senator BARNES:

– I think that the honorable senator has put himself in it. It is very painful to get into an argument of this character.

Senator Russell:

– How does the honorable senator contrast the treatment which has been meted out to his present leader in this Chamber with the treatment which has been meted out to me?

Senator BARNES:

– The present Leader of the Australian Labour party in. this Chamber went to his own State and publicly announced what he intended to do in regard to conscription.

Senator Russell:

– So did I. _

Senator BARNES:

– In a private letter to the Labour executive the honorable senator did, but he did not make the statement publicly. After a quarter of a century of self-sacrificing work, chiefly on the part of men outside this Parliament, I did ho,p& that there was at least one section of the earth which would put into operation laws for the benefit of the masses of the people. The energy which had been expended upon the movement during the past twentyfive years bore great fruit when this Parliament was’ elected. The Labour party dominated the politics of this country. But because there were men in the movement who preferred tq take more notice of the capitalistic organizations and the Liberal press of Australia than of the Labour organizations we have to-day a split in the party. I regret it exceedingly. I do not think that there is any possibility of the breach being healed, although Senator Russell expressed a wish’ in that direction.

Senator Ready:

– He has not explained why he returned to the Ministry after the issue of the regulations.

Senator BARNES:

– His explanation will go out to the people of this country, and they will read his good words on his own conduct. They will be able to judge him - the people who made it possible for him to become a senator.

Senator Russell:

– The reason why I returned. to the Ministry is that the objectionable regulations were withdrawn.

Senator BARNES:

– I am not judging Senator Russell or any other honorable senator who was a member of the Labour party, and who has since joined the National Labour party. Every member of that party will have to justify his action to the people.’ The men who have remained in our movement can be effectively judged only by the constituencies. The Labour organizations probably have many faults, but one fault which cannot be laid at their doors is a -desire to do an injustice to any man. They have always fought for a fair deal. That is why we have a Labour party in Parliament .to-day. They could not get justice, and they had to build up a political party and send men here who were prepared to give them that justice.

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the honorable senator give the people an opportunity of judging between us?

Senator BARNES:

– The people have had that opportunity. Our organizations have spoken. There is no question about that. I have heard no dissentient voice in the Labour movement in regard to the conduct of the Labour organizations during the past two or three months in which the conscription issue has been fought except in Western Australia. I do not wish to deal with that exception, because I believe the people of Western Australia are quite capable of cleaning up their own house when they are ready to dp so. The question of conscription has been responsible for a split in the Labour party, and for the mixing up of other political parties in this country in such a way that the latter do not know where they are. Heaven “knows where they will be- at the next election.

Senator Findley:

– They will be down and out,.

Senator BARNES:

– That ‘may’, be. When they next face the electors they will have put before them a programme by the Australian Labour party, on the one side, and, on the other side, a programme framed By the Government, with a special eye to what will suit their present political supporters. We know that to-day the Ministry have such a small following of their own that they are absolutely dependent upon the” support of men to whom they have been politically opposed all their lives. I admit that many persons who are now direct followers of the Government have rendered yeoman service in building up the Labour movement. But that circumstance does not in any way excuse their recent actions. If a man who lives to be 100 years of age works for ninety-nine years in a particular cause, and then betrays it, he can only expect that’ the guillotine will fall upon him.

Senator Story:

– It is the honorable senator’s side which has been guilty of the betrayal.

Senator BARNES:

– It has been said time and again that the Labour programme contains no indication of what Labour members were expected to do in Parliament upon the question of conscription. Though there is no definite plank pledging the Labour party to oppose conscription, there is a plank in its platform which states that it favours a Citizen Force for the defence of this country - a force whose services shall be limited to the boundaries of Australia. Men who are to-day in the National Labour party fought the , Defence BUI when it was going through this Parliament for the special purpose of limiting military service by Australians to our own territory. That measure contained a provision / for universal service without any limitation. Who stood up and fought that? The Labour party. It forced a Liberal Government to excise from the Bill the clause which would have empowered the Government to send our men to any corner of the earth, and substituted for it a provision that their services should be limited to within the boundaries of Australia. Yet we are told that none of the members of the National Labour party has broken a plank of the Labour platform which he signed. Technically, that is correct, but in reality it is absolutely wrong. One of the members of this Parliament, who was most highly respected “in the ‘Labour movement, vigorously opposed the proposition that Australians should be eligible for service abroad when the measure was under consideration in this Chamber. When Sena tor O’Connor moved -

That this House affirms the readiness of Australia’ to give all requisite aid to the Mother Country in order to bring the present war to an end - the motion having reference to the Boer War, Senator Pearce said -

We have to consider at the present time whether Australia is justified in offering further aid in the prosecution of this war or of any -other war which Great Britain likes to enter upon. I say that we have a duty to perform to Australia. The figures which the Vice-President, of the Executive Council gave us show that, after the present proposed contingents have left, Australia will have contributed 4 out of every 1,000 of her population, while the Mother Country has only contributed 6 out of every 1,000 of her population. That brings this thought to my mind : Seeing that we are the junior partner, and a very junior partner, in this concern, are we not taking upon ourselves more of the responsibilities of the Empire than we should be called upon to bear?

Are we. not neglecting our duty to ourselves in taking upon ourselves so much of the responsibilities of Empire? Have we so many of the young and best of our population that we can spare them for the purposes of war? Can we spare 1,000 men, who, in the next few weeks, will be leaving for the war? A leading paper in this State is at the present time publishing urgent appeals regarding the scarcity of labour in our country districts. We are being told that our farming industry is paralyzed because of the scarcity of labour; that labour is becoming so dear that men are actually demanding 7s. per day; and yet the Commonwealth Government say that men are so plentiful in Australia that we can afford to send them by thousands to the Transvaal to be shot or to be rendered incapable of following peaceful vocations. One State Government ten’s us that they cannot find sufficient men to take the place of the 10,000 kanakas we shall be deporting from the Commonwealth; and yet that Government hurried to send a contingent at the behest of Mr. Henniker Heaton. That Government freely raises 500 men to send to South Africa, and, at the same time, they freely receive forty or fifty Japanese to replace them. It seems to me that we are neglecting the interests of Australia, though we may be doing our duty as a part of the British Empire. We have also to remember that any aid we can send for the prosecution of this war is but very slight for the accomplishment of the end Great Britain has in view. The few thousand men we can send will have very little effect in bringing the war to an end any more quickly.

Senator FRASER:
VICTORIA · PROT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– They are very good for the purpose.

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– They are very good for the purpose, but I say they are more valuable to us in developing our own country than they will be in fighting the Boers. I make, bold to say, also, that they would be more valuable to the Empire in developing this country than they will be in shooting the Boers of the Transvaal. We have to remember that the development of the Empire has not been brought about altogether by means of war, or by means of aggression. It has been brought about largely by means of industrial aggression ‘and industrial war.” If we weaken our population, and weaken the number of wealth producers of the country, we weaken our powers, as a portion of the Empire, of industrial aggression and development. We have to be careful that we are not sacrificing too many of our wealth producers to the god of war. We have a duty to Australia, and that duty impels me to say that the time has come when we should say “ No more “ to the demands of the Colonial Office for further contingents. I, for one, if asked for a vote upon this question, will say that there should be no further contingent sent to this war. We have done our duty and have done all that could have been expected of us as a part of the Empire and as Britishers. We have now our duty to’ Australia, and it is our first duty. It is our duty to see that those who are the wealth, the bone, and sinew of the country, and to whom we must look for the future of the country, shall be retained here in health, and in useful employment. This is the spirit in which I enter my protest against the second part of the motion.

That was a very fine speech’, and well put. Senator Pearce at that time was a great Australian patriot. He was putting Australia before every other part of the British Empire.

Senator de Largie:

– Can you make a comparison between the present war and the Boer War?

Senator BARNES:

– I am using the extract for a twofold purpose. At that time Senator Pearce and others, probably including Senator de Largie, were fighting to build up a sentiment and principle in the Labour movement absolutely repudiating the right of a Government to conscript its manhood for overseas service,’ and the argument put forward on every occasion at our conferences was on the lines of the very able speech which I have quoted from Senator Pearce.

Senator de Largie:

– Because he was opposed to that war.

Senator BARNES:

– I shall make quite clear to Senator de Largie shortly my purpose in reading that speech. That sentiment in the Labour movement has grown right from the time that those words were uttered, and before it, until now, and yet we are told that a Labour man breaks no principle when he advocates the conscription of the manhood of this country. I have another purpose in using that extract. I have no complaint to make of my own experiences in the recent campaign. I had better-‘ meetings than in any election I have ever fought, and they appeared to be most unanimous. I have no complaint to make about people trying to stop me from speaking. I was able to say what I wanted to say, and I appeared to convince everybody there that it was necessary to vote against conscription. I conducted thefight in what I thought was a fair manner. I did not abuse Mr. Hughes, or Senator Lynch, or Senator Pearce, or various other people who were going about Australia getting a lot of vitriolic stuff off their chests. I depended on convincing the people of Victoria by putting the case to them as ably and fairly as I could. The campaign was opened by “Kaiser” William Hughes, who came back from Great Britain prepared not to listen to the voice of the

Labour organizations which had made ,it possible for him to be Prime Minister, but to every other voice’ whispering around Australia. The voices which eventually “lobbed” him on their side of the fence were the most Tory that .this country has ever been cursed with. I have here a cutting from a newspaper which in a few words speaks volumes with regard to the conduct’ of Mr. Hughes. At the Town Hall meeting he told the people how he saw the light, and was going to follow it, and wound up by saying, “ If they can arrest my progress, let them do it ; but they will not.” That was a reference to the people opposed to conscription; and showed that Mr. Hughes listened, not to the voice of the Labour movement, but to the voice of those who have always been opposed to its aspirations. During the fight much vitriol was poured upon the devoted heads of the Labour people opposed to conscription. Mr. Hughes and his supporters went around Australia saying that the opponents of conscription were pro-Germans, shirkers, wasters, rotters, and were receiving German money. If somebody had said to Senator Pearce, when he expressed the sentiments that I have quoted, “You are a proBoer, a rotter, a shirker, a waster, and disloyal,” what would he have thought?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was very freely said.

Senator BARNES:

– I know it was frequently said, but Senator Pearce would have been the first to repudiate an accusation of that kind after he had spokenso well and nobly for the people he epresented The recent : fight was the most bitter and unscrupulous ever fought in .’ Australia from the Government side.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Prom the Opposition side, too.

Senator BARNES:

– No; the Opposition did not have charge of the machinery of this country. They fought the fight fairly, as they have fought every other Labour fight, not on German money, but on the few shillings the people who support them were able to put m, and it is well known that there is never much of a surplus when the -fight is over. On the other hand, we were promised a fair deal from the newspapers and ,on the public platform. We got nothing of the kind. The Labour papers did not have a fair go. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Hughes had not been defied by the daily papers of Sydney, he would have been prepared to go so far as to close up the Worker altogether. I am satisfied that he would have gone a lot further than he did on the day of the election had things gone the way he expected. Before the referendum his Government brought in a Bill to give the soldiers a vote. There s was no opposition to that proposal in this chamber. We thought the men who went away to fight for us should have a say as to whether we should conscript their fathers and’ brothers. The Government, therefore, made provision to take the soldiers’ vote, and it was taken.- After seeing a paragraph in the daily papers on the subject, I asked Senator Pearce in this chamber whether the Government intended to publish the result of the soldiers’ vote on the morning of the poll, or not. He replied, “No; the soldiers’ vote will be published when the other vote is published.” The soldiers’ vote was expected by the Government to give them . a lead of at least 200,000 over the *-est of Australia before they started at all. They, and Mr. Hughes in particular, thought it a dead . certainty that the soldiers would vote for conscription. The Government gave the soldiers the vote without any protest from us. They promised that it would not be used to influence the polling in Australia, and it was not used, not because Mr. Hignes wanted to honour the promise made by his representative in this chamber, but because it had not panned out in the way he expected. I do not know what the result was, but we have a very good idea, and it is certain that if the soldiers had < cast an overwhelming majority for conscription Mr. Hughes would have had it published in every paper in Australia on the morning of the 28th.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - Is it not a fact that space was reserved in the leading papers of Australia for those figures on that day?

Senator BARNES:

– I have been told so, and believe it was so, but have no proof of it. To show whether the fight was fair or not, two documents I have “ here will be interesting. We are told that soldiers, particularly those in official positions, are specially forbidden to interfere in political affairs with the men under them, or to endeavour to guide them in the exercise of the franchise. The following document was circulated amongst the Australian troops at ‘ the front : -

To Members of A.I.F.

As General Officer Commanding the Australian Imperial Force, it is not. for me to interfere in any political matters or to influence the voting of our men on the coming Referendum.

I know well that, in any case, all will vote as seems to them necessary in the bestinterests of Australia and the Great Empire to which we belong, whose freedom has been, and still is, in danger of being turned into slavery by Germany. I feel, however, that 1 can inform you all of how really essential it is that we should get all the men available to keep these magnificent Australian Forces, which are now in the field, and whose fame is renowned throughout the Empire, up to their strength.

Every single man would, I am sure, bitterly resent and regret it if we had to reduce a single battalion, battery, or company, every one of which has now made history and established a tradition which we all hope will last as long as the British flag flies over our worldwide Empire. But it is, I think, probable that all ranks do not know as well as I do the absolute necessity of keeping our reinforcements right up to strength, and the present system is not doing this. I feel sure all know the great feelings of regard and pride which I have for every man of this force who has, up to now, come forward of his own free will, and after great self sacrifice.

Many brave men have given their lives for the sake of our Empire and the freedom of the world- lives which will have been uselessly sacrificed if we relax our efforts in any way until we have the Germans right down to their knees. Remember, too, boys, that the word freedom’ does not only mean freedom for ourselves, but, what is far more important, freedom for our children and our children’s children. For them I know no sacrifice can be too great.

In the magnificent manifesto which our Prime . Minister, Mr. Hughes, has sent us, he has. fully shown what exemptions there will be when universal service is adopted. It will be seen from this that members of families, some of whom have already come forward, will be fully safeguarded, and no men need fear that there is danger of, we . will say, the brother who has been left behind to look after the affairs of the family, being ordered to come out. The shirker, however, will be caught, and made to do his share instead of staying, at home as- he has done up to now, not only evading his duties, but getting into soft jobs, which we want to see kept for our boys here when they . return, or for the representatives of their families who have beenleft in Australia.

I have nothing more to say, boys, except to point out to you as strongly as I can that the necessity does exist, and I hope that after these two years, during which we have been soldiering together, we know each other well enough to realize that I would not say this without good reason. Having said it, I leave it to you to act according to your conscience for the good of our kin, and country, the honour of our people, and the safety of our wives and children.

  1. R. BIRDWOOD,

Lieut.-General, G.O.C., A.I.F.

Had it been possible for the Labour organizations of Australia to get in touch with the Australian soldiers at the front, in all probability some of the literature distributed so widely and effectively here would have found its way to them, and have influenced a great many of their votes, but, although we were promised a fair go in the fight, our soldiers, were denied the opportunity of reading our side of the case. That opportunity was denied to them, although General Birdwood was allowed to distribute the circular to which I have already referred, and the Prime Minister of Australia also took advantage of an opportunity to address our soldiers with the object of persuading them to vote in favour of the conscription of their brothers or relatives and friends in Australia. The following is a copy of the manifesto which Mr. Hughes addressed to our soldiers at the front : -

page 9771

QUESTION

MANIFESTO TO AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS

From Mr. W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth.

Soldiers of Australia!

After more than two years of heroic effort, the tide of battle, which so long ran strongly with the enemy, who had been prepared for and deliberately provoked war, turns slowly but surely in our favour. The results of the Great Offensive, during which you have added fresh lustre to the glorious name of Anzac, have shown that if the Allies but press resolutely on, decisive victory must crown their heroic labours.

But though the valour and dash of the Allied forces have pushed her legions back along a wide front, the day of decisive victory is not yet in sight. No one of you who knows the tremendous resources of the enemy, his courage, his determination, will say that Germany is yet defeated.

Yet she must be defeated.

The world yearns for peace, but any peace would be but a hollow mockery, unless the great disturber of the world’s peace were first beaten to her knees. Until Germany is driven headlong from France and Belgium, and decisively beaten on her own soil, she will never consent to the peace that the Allies want and are determined to have.

In order to ensure decisive victory the Allies have decided to put every available man into the field, so that their Armies may be kept at full strength, and every man in the trenches be kept fit by frequent reliefs.

The Path to Victory

When you know all this, you know also that the path of victory lies stretched in front of you. You know it is on ‘ the Western Front that’ the -crushing blow must be delivered. Yon know that more men are needed, and the British Empire must supply them.

France for nearly two years endured the brunt of the most ferocious, batterings of the enemy. The bones of her gallant sons strew the soil of their dear France like shells on the sea shore. She has covered herself with imperishable glory. She was never so great as in this supreme hour of her trial. Despite their great losses, her glorious soldiers still fight on with unshaken resolution, and will fight while one Frenchman, capable of bearing arms, remains alive.

Now is the hour when our race must prove itself worthy of its traditions and its heritage.

This is our War, Soldiers!

France’s or Belgium’s. Our liberties and our national existence are equally, nay, more, at stake. Australia must do her share. Britain has told us what she expects ns to do; it is not” more than we can or ought to do, it is indeed, much less proportionately than she herself has done.

We Have sent overseas and have in camp in Australia or in ‘England and in the field less than three hundred thousand troops. Britain has five million under arms. If we had done as much “we should have enlisted five hundred thousand instead of little more than half that number.

Voluntary recruiting has, unfortunately, proved quite inadequate to supply the necessary number of men during the past three months.

Though voluntarism fails, Australia must not fail:- Duty, honour, and self-interest alike point the path we must tread.

The Spirit of Patriotism: TheDuty of Free Men.

Upon the citizens of Australia, the freest Democracy the world has ever known, there rests a grave and solemn responsibility. They are called upon to show themselves worthy . of their great privileges. The sacred duty of every free man is to fight in the defence of his, country. Men ought not to wait to be compelled to do their duty, they ought rather to rush to the ranks on the first sound of the tocsin.

It was this spirit,soldiers, that inspired you to enlist. It was this spirit that spurred you to your great deeds on Gallipoli and in France. It is this spirit that now upholds you, and urges you on.

Voluntarism has Failed.

I had hoped that this spirit so permeated

Australian manhood that we should only need to ask for men to be overwhelmed with recruits ; but during these past five months the number of men offering themselves has been steadily falling off, and is now a mere fraction of those required for drafts.

The Government Proposals

In these circumstances the Government has decided that the deficiency between the number of men required and the monthly quota must be made up by compulsion. On the twentyeighth of this month, the citizens of Australia will be asked to vote “Yes” to the following question : - “Are you in favour of the Government having in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service for the term of the war outside the Commonwealth, as it now has in regard to military service within the Commonwealth?”

If the citizens and soldiers of Australia approve, the Government will thereafter provide that either by voluntary enlistment or by compulsion the regular monthly reinforcement shall be trained and sent abroad to maintain the Australian Army.

Exemptions

The Government consider that the number of fit “single men without dependants is sufficient, when supplemented by voluntary recruiting, to carry us through the war. The Government believe that it will not be necessary to call up married men. The following classes of single men will be exempt : -

  1. All under 21 years of age; 2.Only sons ;
  2. Single men who are the sole support of dependents;
  3. When one or more members of a family have enlisted, th’e remaining members up to at least one half of the whole family, will be exempt.

There will also . be exemptions for the number of men requisite to carry on certain vital industries.

Other men who claim exemption for special reasons will have their cases heard by nonmilitary tribunals, with appeal to a State Judge, and final appeal to a Justice of the High Court of the Commonwealth.

No State to Makeup any Deficiency in the others.

No State of the Commonwealth which has furnished its own quota of reinforcements by voluntary recruiting or by compulsion will be required to make up the deficiency of any other State.

For the Term of the War only.

The power asked for to compel military ser vice abroad will be granted to the Government for the term of the war only.

Australia’s Duty to Britain and her Allies.

Soldiers, if the people of Australia vote “No,” they encourage the enemy, they abandon you, they desert France that has shed its blood in the common cause, they desert Belgium, they leave unavenged those foul outrages* inflicted upon women, children, and helpless noncombatants of the Allied nations, they repudiate the debt they owe to Britain, under the wing of whose mighty Navy they have lain secure and safe from all the horrors of this war. Indeed they cover Australia with the mantle of eternal shame; the glorious name of Anzao becomes a tarnished and dishonoured thing.

Australia Looks to You

Soldiers of Australia, your fellow citizens, confronted with the greatest crisis in their history, look to you for a lead. Your votes are being taken first. I appeal to you who have gone out to fight our battles, who have covered the name cif Australia with glory, to lift up your voices and send one mighty shout across the leagues of ocean, bidding your fellow citizens do their duty to Australia, to the . Empire, to its Allies, and to the cause of liberty and vote” Yes.”

  1. M. Hughes,

Prime Minister

That manifesto, as well as the circular prepared by General Birdwood, was an eloquent appeal. The Prime Minister may be congratulated upon his excellent choice of language, and I am surprised that, after so much care had been expended upon it, the document itself did not have a better result.

Senator BARNES:

– - I do not know how the soldiers voted, but probably the honorable senator is in the confidence of the Government. In all probability the Leader of the Government now has to go around, cap in hand, to the caucus of the Liberal party divulging to them things which, under other circumstances, he would not dream of telling. The Government took very great care to exercise the strongest possible influence upon the soldiers to .persuade them to vote in favour of conscription, but they absolutely refused to allow the other side of the question being placed before our men at the front. The Labour Government of Queensland desired to communicate with the Queensland soldiers and’ tell them what the Government of that State thought they ought to do in regard to the referendum.

Senator Story:

– You mean a section of the Queensland party?

Senator BARNES:

– No; I mean the Labour .party of Queensland. The Queeusland Government sent ,a circular to the Agent-General with instructions that it should be submitted to the soldiers through Mr. Philip Snowden, but a week after the referendum vote had been taken they were informed that the cable had not been sent because the word “ Snowden “ could not be coded. No man will be gulled by such an excuse as that. If the name could not have been coded it is not such a bad one, anyhow, to send without being coded, and the Queensland Government had a right to expect that their message should be sent. If it had been, in all probability it would have had some influence on the Queensland soldiers at the front. Senator Bakhap, by interjection, has informed us that a majority of the soldiers voted in favour of the referendum. Well, that is information which the party to which I belong have been endeavouring to get from the Government, but up to the present without success. ‘It has been said that the Imperial Government desired that the vote should not be disclosed, for what purpose I do not know, because it will not give the Germans one bit a better chance-r-they have none now we know - of winning the war if they know how our soldiers voted than if the information were kept from them.- The Government of this country are guilty of a distinct breach of confidence with the people of Australia over this matter. During the referendum campaign one of the strongest appeals by the conscriptionists took this form, “ Are you going to desert your comrades in the trenches? Are you going to scab on them ?”

Senator McKissock:

– All their lies were based on that.

Senator BARNES:

– It has been suggested that the Moldavia, the last boat due-to reach Australia before 28th October, the day of the referendum, was delayed a day of two in order that letters from our soldiers should not reach their destination before polling day. I am not making that charge myself, but I know the statement was’ made and there may be something in it. The Moldavia mail, I believe, included hundreds of thousands of letters from pur soldiers to their friends and relatives in Australia ; to those people, including relatives and friends of our soldiers, whose chivalrous instincts had been aroused by the appeal made in the manner I ‘ have described ; and although the vessel arrived on the 28th October the mails were not distributed till the following week. We have had scores of instances of parents who after voting in favour of conscription, in the belief that they were doing the right thing, and following the course desired by their sons or relatives at the front, received letters by the Moldavia containing an appeal, “ In God’s name, don’t vote for conscription; vote against it.” These letters came from men who knew what conscription was in Great Britain and Prance.

Senator de Largie:

– What is the position in Great Britain, then ?

Senator BARNES:

– In Great Britain, according to letters received, there are scores of thousands of children whose mothers have .to get over the wash-tub because the fathers are at the front and are not getting sufficient pay to feed their wives and kiddies. That is the position in Great Britain, and that also is the position in every country where conscription obtains. That is the reason, too, why, the capitalistic press and institutions of

Australia were so whole-heartedly in favour of this policy. They believed that if they could carry conscription and send 500,000 of Australia’s manhood to the front, whether they had in power the Hughes Government or any other Government, they would be able to repudiate the contract to the soldiers and cut their pay down to the ordinary “bob” a day of conscript armies. That is what they wanted, and that is why they fought for conscription.- -

Senator Findley:

– That is what Senator Bakhap believed.

Senator Bakhap:

– And I do still.

Senator BARNES:

– Yes. Senator Bakhap did not make any secret of the probable financial position under conkscription He stated it on the floor of this Senate and at meetings elsewhere, and in doing so he was voicing the opinion ‘ of the men and the organizations that are behind him. Senator Bakhap may have made the admission indiscreetly, but that is what. the daily papers of this country would have advocated! if the vote, in favour of conscription had been carried. I believe that the “ No “ vote would have been carried by many scores of thousands more had the Moldavia’s mail reached Australia a week earlier than it did. “We who advocated no conscription have been threatened with single and double dissolutions and told that we would be dragged before the people very quickly. Personally, I have no more desire than have other honorable members of this Parliament to be defeated, but neither have I any desire to “ craw-fish “ away from any responsibility which I may have incurred by the action which I took in connexion with the referendum campaign. I fought against conscription, believing that in so doing I was doing the best I could for this country. I believe that still, ‘and as time goes on I am only the more con-, firmed in the belief that Australians acted wisely when they turned down conscription. In speaking on the Defence Act in 1902 or 1903, Mr. Hughes said -

The history of England has taught Englishmen that their only safety lies in the supremacy of the civil law.

That is an eloquent little passage from a speech of the present leader in Australian politics, and the statement is just as true to-day as it was when Mr. Hughes uttered it. Yet this is the man who was prepared to put Australia under (military rule if he could. We had some evidence, of that only quite recently. The Senate refused to allow a regulation framed under the War Precautions Act by the Government; and what happened? A couple of. days later, so the newspapers allege, Mr. Hughes was interviewed on the subject. He was asked, “ What about that regulation? What are you going to do about it, Billy?” and his reply was, “ This Government will take all the necessary steps for the preservation of the safety of the country,” indicating asclearly as he possibly could that as soon as- Parliament rises he will bring in another regulation, and in spite of the protest of the Senate he will bring into operation a military law which the representatives of the people in this Chamber have said that the people do not want. That is what we get under a military law, and that is the kind of thing we should get under conscription, only a hundredfold worse. That is the kind of thing which the present Government tried to impose upon the people of Australia. Is it any wonder that the “Labour people protested, knowing the evils that have arisen from conscription in every country which has adopted it. Senator Lynch has intimated in a speech or two he has made since the taking of the referendum that, so far as he is concerned, the fight is not yet over. The honorable senator is now ‘in a responsible position, in which he handles the funds.,of the people of Australia. The present Treasurer has said that the policy of the Government is to pare down expenditure on public works to” the bone. What is the object of that policy? We had a financial statement from the exTreasurer, Mr. Higgs, only a few short weeks ago. There was then no panic in the minds of honorable members of the Government in regard to the condition of the finances of Australia. The then Government were not afraid that they would be unable to carry on the affairs of the country. They could finance the war quite easily according to the statement submitted by Mr. Higgs. Yet a few weeks later, when the Labour party has been split in twain, and a remnant still cling to the Government benches and hang there by the support of their lifelong political enemies, we get another financial statement in which we are told that expendi- ture upon public works is to be cut to the bone.

Senator Findley:

– They are going to drop the construction of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway.

Senator BARNES:

– In all probability they will stop that work, and all other public works. They are going to impose upon the people of Australia by starvation what they could not impose upon them as the result of an appeal to their votes. They will try to starve men into going to the front. They propose to stop all public works, and thus throw thousands of men out of employment. Their, troubles, so long as they can starve men into going to the front, even though the voice of the people has been given against them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

-The honorable senator does not believe that for one moment.

Senator BARNES:

– I do believe it absolutely. I am very sincere in the expression of the belief that these are the tactics which the Government have in view. I may be doing them wrong, but they can prove ‘that by keeping public works going, and by spending money to give those who are not fit to go to the front an opportunity to earn a livelihood. The Government would be taking a very much wiser course if they determined to utilize all the productive resources of Australia for the raising of’ foodstuffs to help to feed the Mother Country. Senator Millen, in a very able speech made here a few days ago, reminded us that the people of Great Britain are on the verge of starvation. The honorable senator’s remedy for that is to send more men to. the Mother Country to be fed. My remedy . for it is to send men who are here on to the land to produce the foodstuffs, which Australia can produce in great quantities, and then to send those foodstuffs to the Mother Country, when the people there will ‘be in no danger of starvation. I believe that by the adoption of ““this course we should be doing more towards winning the war than by any method which has up to date been indicated by the Government. The Government have come forward with a new recruiting scheme, and in this connexion the Leader of the party to which I belong told them frankly what the position is. He has said that a Government so discredited, and kept in power by the rag- tag-and-bob-tail still left in this Chamber of Conservative and Liberal parties is not) in a position to make any appeal to the country. They are going to make a second appeal to the patriotism of the young Australians, and ask them to go to the front. We have been talking this thing over for the last twelve months. The daily newspapers were writing about it for longer. Members of the Liberal party were talking of it until they converted a section of the Labour party. Then together they talked conscription to the people of Australia. With ample time to consider the matter the people turned down their appeal, and yet we have the present. Government coming along now, and telling” us that we can still get 16,500 men per month under the voluntary system.

Senator de Largie:

– They have never said anything of the kind.

Senator BARNES:

– If they, know anything, they are convinced (now, or they ought to be, of the truth of what we told them on the floor of this chamber before the referendum took place. We said that, even supposing all the fit men were prepared to go to the front - and we know that all are not prepared to go to the front - they would be unable to get the number of men they say is required. Speaking from memory, about- 200,000 men responded to the compulsory call for military service under the proclamation, and of that number about 100,000 passed the doctors. There were 47,000 of those who passed the doctors who applied for exemption, and exemptions were being granted at the rate of nearly 70 -per cent, of those who applied.

Senator Findley:

– Over 80,000 applied for exemption.

Senator BARNES:

– The honorable senator is right. Nearly allwho passed the doctors applied for exemption. -A few days before the referendum was taken the Government came out with a statement showing that they were prepared to exempt almost every one. Yet they think now that they will be able to get 16,500 men per month, though the figures of the compulsory call show that they cannot get anything like that number, even if all who are fit to go to the front volunteer to enlist. In the circumstances, it is of no use for the Government to expect success for the proposed recruiting campaign. The Leader of our party in the Senate the other day rightly said that a Government so utterly discredited as the present Government is cannot expect to successfully appeal to the people on that or upon any other question. They have said that they will take us to the country, but I think that about the last thing the Government want is to face the country at the present juncture. I hope that the negotiations now going on in Europe will result in a peace being arrived at which will be satisfactory to our own people. I do not profess to be capable of judging what the terms of peace should be. I know that such a peace as I would suggest is not likely to be made, because all the Governments concerned are Tory Governments, but my conception of what would be the greatest safeguard to the people of the world is that all the nations that are now fighting should be prepared to’ go back to their homes and live, there quietly, and should make provision, in every country engaged in the war, to give the -people a universal franchise and to establish compulsory education. If that were done, I am satisfied that there would no longer be any fear of a recurrence of such a war as we are now engaged in. The Government may pride themselves upon carrying on the affairs of Australia successfully, and those who have gone from the Labour party may believe that they did right. I believe that they did wrong. I believe that they have, perhaps unwittingly, assisted in the consummation of a plot that was in the minds of our political, enemies, not for a day or two, but for quite a long while. We know that they are cute and wily, and are prepared to descend to any trickery to defeat the Labour party. How could they defeat a party like ours that had fought through all the stress and storm of political life of this country, and had reached such a position that up to a few weeks ago we were the dominant political party in Australia, and were engaged in the passing of the laws which our people had demanded centuries ago. This is what is now being done in England. The Labour organizations of .Great Britain have been telling the capitalists how they should organize the productions of the country. To-day we find that in Great Britain they have nationalized the coal mines. That is a plank in the platform of the Labour party in Australia. They have nationalized the coal mines. They propose to nationalize the railways and shipping, and to organize the nation in the way in which the Labour party have been saying during the last century that it should be organized. This great thing, which has happened in Great Britain, the nationalization of the Welsh coal mines, might have happened in Australia only the other day had another Government been in power in this country. The miners and mine-owners of Australia were engaged in industrial turmoil, and they came to Mr. Hughes, the Leader of the Government. Had the Prime Minister then been leader of a majority of Labour members in ‘this Par-1 liament he would not have argued, for long with Mr. John Brown and his people. He would have said, “ Send the men to work, or within twenty-four hours the mines will be ours.” That is what has been done in Great Britain today. But because the Prime Minister was dependent for his place on the votes . of his lifelong political enemies he had to negotiate with Mr. John Brown in a way which I, have no doubt was eminently distasteful to him.

Senator Lynch:

– How does the honorable senator reconcile that with the fact that the miners passed a vote of thanks to the Prime Minister?

Senator BARNES:

– I have not the slightest doubt that the miners were very grateful indeed for the small measure of justice given them by Mr. Hughes. They are getting now, in all probability, as much as they could have expected from a nationalization of the mines in the way of conditions, but they are not getting what they believe they should get. On more than one occasion during the last twenty years they have said that the only way in .which the mines can be .satisfactorily worked is by the Government taking them over. They have not got what they wanted; they have only received what they could squeeze from a Labour Government dependent upon the Liberal vote.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [5.3].- It has been very interesting to . listen to many of the speeches which have been delivered during this debate, but I do not propose to refer to the explanations which have been made by Ministers in connexion with the charges made against them. I do intend to refer to some of the statements made in the speech which has just been delivered. I must say that I am not surprised at the vote recorded at the referendum if the people were guided by speeches containing so much fiction as distinguished the speech of the honorable senator who has just sat down. If they were guided- by speeches such as that, not only fallacious, but including expressions, of disloyalty and disaffection towards the Empire, it is no wonder that they were misguided and recorded the vote they did. I quite realize that many persons voted .”No” at the referendum honestly and conscientiously. I am not finding fault with them for doing that, but I contend that very many persons without sufficient knowledge, and thoughtlessly, were guided and carried away by the speeches made by the leaders of the anti-conscriptionist party.

Senator Grant:

– What statement in the speech just made by Senator Barnes do you regard as incorrect?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The whole speech from beginning to end was a tissue of fallacies with a few statements of fact. When Senator Barnes proceeded to quote Senator Pearc’e’s speech on the motion submitted by the late Senator O’Connor with regard to the Boer war, he was on grounds which have no parallel with the present position. In 1902 did any one doubt the position of the British Empire? Did any one imagine for. a moment that the Empire was struggling in its hour of need and trial to retain and maintain its nationhood? The conditions of the two wars are absolutely distinct and apart. The speech which was delivered in 1902 by Senator Pearce is entirely in accord with the action which was taken by the Government the other day to get a larger number of men for the front than they were obtaining under the voluntary system of recruiting. . We were told that we had to provide a certain number of men in order to make up for the wastage and to give the men at the front an opportunity to rest occasionally. It had been shown clearly that under the voluntary system we could -not get the necessary number of recruits. Whether we required the number specified or not I do not know, but it was so stated by the best authorities to whom we could refer. At the time of the Boer war, when Senator Pearce’s speech Was delivered, what was the position ? The Mother Country was involved in war with a nation in South Africa, and it found that nation very much harder to deal with than had been anticipated. Australia had already sent a certain number of men to fight against the Boers, and the object of the proposal before the Senate in 1902 was that Australia should send an additional number of men. Then the advocacy was, “ It is well to help the Mother Country,” and the reply was, “Yes; but, first of all, our duty lies to Australia. We think that we have done our fair share in the conduct of this small war, and unless circumstances become very different from what they are now, we do not intend to send any additional troops.” Honorable senators must bear in mind that not a suggestion has been made that conscription should be a portion of the standing policy of Australia. Not one word in that direction has ever been said.

Senator Findley:

– Once you adopted conscription here you would never turn back.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– On this occasion we proposed this safeguard to the people that conscription should only apply during the existence of the present war, and, of course, when the war had ended, the principle would have completely lapsed.

Senator Findley:

– Until the next war.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– When the next war arose we could then have considered the attitude which the circumstances might dictate. No people among the nations of the world were more strongly opposed to the idea of conscription than were the people of Great Britain and Ireland. I do not suppose that the opposition to the principle was even as great in Australia as it was in the Old Country. It was driven home to the British people by the circumstances of the war that the fate of the British nation was involved, and that daily it was becoming more and more necessary that every man and woman should be brought under a system of universal service; that every man or woman should be intrusted with the performance of the work which was most needed in order to defend the country. Was more than that ever desired in Australia ? What we were told was that .Australia’s existence as an integral part of the British Empire was being threatened. What matters it whether Australia meets the foe on Australian soil or on French, soil. Ts it because we have managed, so far, to keep the horrors of war away from our own soil that we should wait until these horrors come immediately to us. This maxim has always been emphasized, especially in connexion with naval strategy, “ Seek the enemy. Fight him away from your own shores whenever possible.” That applies also to military strategy. What has been the policy of the Germans ? It has been to fight the battles, not in Germany, but on the soil of adjacent and other countries. If it could be proved that the integrity of the Empire was not threatened, that the existence of Australia as a portion of the Empire was not threatened, the Government would not have been justified in asking the people of this country to make the supreme sacrifice on the 28th October last. It was an innovation in our system of government that we should ask the people to say whether they would be conscripted or not. I believe that, if the war goes on as it is doing now, it will become more abundantly clear to every man who has the love of his country at heart, that a supreme sacrifice, whatever it may be, must be made. With her 5,000,000 of troops and 4,000,000 of munition and other workers, Great Britain is talking about trying to add to those numbers. Is she considering this step because it is any pleasure to drag more men to the front? We hear that in the Mother Country it is proposed to raise the military age -from forty-five years to fifty, or even to- fifty-five. Would the Old Country do that if she did not realize what is at stake ? Can. we set ourselves up to say that she is wrong in that respect ? The people of Great Britain, though their franchise is not as wide as ours, have men who are fighting their battles as vigorously as such battles can be fought in the House of Commons and the public life of the country. They have their Labour representatives, and, as we know, Labour is represented in the . present Administration, and, through its representatives, is heart and soul with their policy. If we. who owe so much to Great Britain, are not prepared to take upon ourselves our fair share of work, we are not fit to be a portion of the great British Empire. If, for the sake of argument, we were to turn round and say, “ We think we can go alone. We. believe that we can do without putting our men in the forefront of battle, without running the risk of our men losing life or limb,” what would our position be in a crisis? With our sparse population and enormous area of country, we. could not stand up against any military Power. We would have to ask some Power to come and help us to maintain our integrity and independence. Is there one man in the Senate, or in the country, who could honestly say that he would prefer to live under therule of . any nation other than Great Britain? We have our freedom, and the opportunity to work out our destiny in the fullest possible way. We could never get that privilege from any other Power than Great Britain. For many years to come we shall not be strong enough to stand up and defy the world. We have our policies, our principles, and our opinions. How have we been able to maintain them? By the mighty arm of Great Britain, who has madeit clear to the world that a hostile demonstration made in the most remote part of her Empire would be viewed as a demonstration made against its heart, and to be resisted with . all her force and power. I regret that the people of Australia recorded the vote they did on the 28th October: If any ill effects follow from the vote, they will have to put up with them, but I expect that, after a time, the people will realize more clearly the position which we occupy. I believe that, if circumstances do not materially alter, many electors will soon change the opinion which they expressed on the 28th October. .

Senator Findley:

– Every one isregretting now that the people had a chance to vote.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - No; but they may regret the decision which was arrived at and hope that the people will be better educated in the future. Undoubtedly the Empire can win the war, but to become victorious the British people must work as one man, with one heart and one “determination. Men must put on , one side all ideas of self, and say, “ We are prepared to sacrifice self in order to maintain the position of our nation.” That consideration I put to my Labour friends as strongly as possible.

Senator Guthrie:

– It was the Liberals who put up the “. No “ vote. ‘

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - There may be selfish men amongst the Liberals, as there are amongst other sections of the community. The Labour party claim that their plank of universal service was intended to apply to, only, a hostile- demonstration against Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– That limitation was never made.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– It was stated here this afternoon that, when a Liberal Government submitted a Defence Bill, it contained no provision for sending men out of the country. That limitation was placed in the Bill because otherwise Australians might have been compulsorily despatched to South Africa to take part in a struggle in which no such vital interests were at stake - so far as the Empire is concerned - as are at stake in the present war. It was a matter of precaution rather than of determination that our Forces should not be compelled to serve outside this country. If it were otherwise, why did not the advocates of voluntary service go out and tell the men of this country that it was their duty to wait until an enemy had invaded our shores, or was threatening our cities, before offering for service abroad? But, fortunately, they were not so craven. They did not put such a degradation on Australia. They were willing to invite men to volunteer for service overseas. But if they are honest in their convictions, is it not just as bad that we should lose our men under the voluntary system as that we should lose them under the compulsory system ? Do we not know that many a man may be willing to go and fight for the Empire if other men equally qualified will do likewise, but is not prepared to go abroad and fight while they remain at ‘home in snug jobs - in otherwords, he is not willing that they should receive all the benefits while he takes all the hard knocks. ‘ What, I ask, is the very essence of the policy of the Labour party but compulsion? Certain planks comprise the platform of that party, and the men elected to Parliament under its auspices have to stand by those principles or get out. But quite recently a few men at the head of the organizations arrogated to themselves the right to dictate the policy of this country. Senator Barnes affirmed this afternoon that those men represent the people of Australia. I say that they do not. They may have been elected to their offices by a section of the people, and an important section, but they do not represent a single man outside the Labour organizations.

Senator Henderson:

– They do not represent the whole of the Labour party.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– They may represent their own particular section, but they do not represent the people of this country. These men who arrogate to themselves powers outside those conferred by the Labour platform rendered a great service to the opponents of the Labour party. They enabled those opponents to say, “This little oligarchy, comprising a few men who have climbed into a position which enables them to control the Labour organizations for a few months, have gone beyond the platform of the party, and have openly declared, “’ We are the judges of what is right . outside the platform, and we alone will decide the attitude which Labour members of Parliament shall adopt towards the question of conscription.’ “ Are not the men who are sitting in the Ministerial benches in this chamber to-day as good Labour representatives as those, who have broken away from them ? I am prepared to support the Government only on matters connected with the war, and so long as I believe they are doing the right thing in the interests of the Empire.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator has to do what his. “boss” tells him.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I ask the honorable senator whether it is not true that a large portion of the Labour party is permeated by the Industrial Workers of the World influence? Do we not see the slowingdown process adopted? Do we not see sabotage practised ? Did we not hear that quite recently a monstrous crime was committedby some unknown persons in destroying the means of communication from the bridge of the cruiser Brisbane?

Senator Ready:

– Gross misrepresentation.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I had heard it whispered previously that there were men who had got into a position to do injury to that vessel, and that they had done it. Do honorable senators realize that such an outrage could be perpetrated only by an enemy of the Empire? No loyal subject - no matter what his political views might be - could ever be guilty of such a crime, which might easily prove to be the most powerful means of enabling an enemy to secure victory over this country.

It has now become necessary to dismiss members of the. Industrial Workers of the World in the employment of the Government, because the property of the Crown is not safe while they remain there.

Senator Guthrie:

– Nor are the lives of the people. -

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– How many of these men were represented in a cartoon which I saw the other day in which the Political Labour. League was depicted as whitewashing his brother the Industrial Worker of the World? In Sydney, members of the Industrial Workers of the World have been convicted of crimes which have made that organization stink in the nostrils of all honest men. If I am asked what authority I have for associating the Industrial Workers of the World with certain Labour men, my reason is that the latter are largely their apologists. I recognise, of course, that every man is not cast in the same mould. There must be differences of opinion between individuals. But when I find that disloyalty is at the bottom of our differences, I say that is a curse to the country, and I call upon every honest Labour man to exercise his powers to ‘ the utmost in hunting members of the Industrial Workers of the World out of Australia, just as they were hunted out of the United States, where they were known as incendiaries and murderers.

Senator Turley:

– They vote for the honorable senator’s party every time.

Senator Lt Colonel SirALBERT GOULD:

– Whatever our differences of opinion may have been, we have never had cause for accusing each other of disloyalty.

Senator O’Keefe:

– D - Did not the honorable senator see that the Inter-State Labour Conference repudiated the Industrial Workers of the World by means of a straight-out resolution?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Yes. Yet many Labour men are to-day exercising their influence to secure a commutation of the sentences which were recently imposed upon members of the Industrial Workers of the World who attempted to fire the city of Sydney-

Senator Guthrie:

– And to bring about a general strike in order to do it.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Yes. Some Labour men are to-day vilifying the Judge who sentenced the accused on account, of the remarks that he -made from the Bench after their conviction. They are also endeavouring to get a commutation of the sentence that was passed upon men who were guilty of one of the most atrocious murders that has ever been committed in Australia. I . do not know that I need to say very much more on this question, but I would like to make a few observations on the policy of the Government. I have not previously had an opportunity of referring to their taxation proposals. Some honorable senators have affirmed that the policy of the Government has been dictated by the Liberal party. That allegation ‘is absolutely untrue. It is possible, however, that the. Government may have been awakened to the mistakes that were about to be committed by their predecessors in office. Many honorable senators have urged that it is a wicked thing to reduce - taxation, and declared that the Government ought to take all they can out of the pockets of the wealthy. But does not every honorable senator do his best to improve his position in life? If he is earning £100 a year outside of Parliament, does he not attempt to increase it to £200 ? , Is not that desire one of the incentives of life ? If a man has an income of £1,000 a year, whilst another has an income of £20,000 a year, I say that each should pay taxation proportionate to his income.

Senator Grant:

– That is a wrong basis.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– It may be, but I have not yet been educated up to a land tax of ls. in the £1.

Senator Grant:

– I have not got up to ls. yet. How far is the honorable senator prepared to. go ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I do not think that I am prepared to go that far. I protest against the idea that because a man has wealth he should be dealt with differently from a man who has not yet acquired it. The fact that a man has been able to better his ‘position shows that he has helped to betterthe position of the country.

Senator Senior:

– You admit that wealth has its responsibilities?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I not only admit, but I affirm, that it has. I am not one of those who want tosee anybody creep out of paying his fair and just dues to the Government of His country, but I protest against the spirit that seems to animatethe minds of so many individuals in regard to this matter. Repatriation must be undertaken, and it is much fairer that the people as a whole, rather than a few individuals, should pay for it; but if a wealth levy of 1½ per cent, is to be adopted, it should not be regarded as a matter of every-day occurrence. Rather it should be looked on as a course only to be justified by the supreme necessities of the moment. , On the wealth of the country depends the revenue of the country. A man has to pay in accordance with his wealth. If we destroy wealth, we get smaller revenues. It is really a case, of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, and is economically unsound.

Senator Senior:

– It is wealth’s contribution in return for what the men at the front have done for wealth.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The men who have gone and are going to the front are doing great service to the people in helping them to retain, and, possibly, increase, their holdings, and I would not suggest that any of the latter should shirk his responsibilities. But if the principle of a levy on wealth is recognised, it should be . remembered that it is a most dangerous one, because it has a tendency to destroy the very source from which we are to get our revenue to carry on the government in the future. The way in which it is to be paid is a mere matter of detail. We must frame our taxation in such a way that it can be most readily met by those who have to pay it. I do not suppose that the Government would like to see every man rushing on to the market to sell a part of his property to pay the wealth tax, and therefore they will give time to pay it. The late Government spoke of three years. The. present Government suggest five. The only principle I would lay down is, “ How will the money be required to meet the calls upon it?” If the tax can act as fairly and well by distributing it , over a larger number of years, I should be prepared to so distribute it. If it had to be collected within a briefer period, I should be prepared to support that course, but in either case the necessity would have to be most clearly and distinctly shown. The whole principle of taxation is to take just so. much, and no more, than is absolutely necessary for the government of. the country from the people who are in a position to pay it, in such a way as will cause them the least inconvenience. I am no believer in the principle alleged to have been stated by a member of the Labour party, that once the Labour party got into power there would be very few rich men left in Australia, although, of course, the remark is ambiguous, as it might refer to either a levelling up or a levelling down. We shall also have to consider this session an increase ofthe income tax. If the money is needed, the increase is justifiable, and should be borne. Unfortunately, we have to pay income tax not only to the Commonwealth, but to various State Governments. It is one of the misfortunes of our present system that each body has the power to levy similar taxation except Customs taxation. When we find enterprising State Governments determined to spend all the money they can get, and to find employment, as one of them has put it, for every man in the country, the result is sure to Be rough on the people who are called upon to pay for it. As you diminish a man’s ability to lay out his money in private employment, so you diminish the opportunities for private employment and increase Government employment. If Government employment is to be made the only employment for the people, it will be doing them a great wrong. It is far better to have plenty of private employment, in addition to the employment rendered necessary under Government by those functions which Government must carry out. Senator Millen pointed out that, under the terms of the war loans so far floated by the Commonwealth, holders get something over 5 per cent, through freedom from income and other taxation. The only justification for adopting that system was the need for raising large sums of money from the people, making it desirable to offer special inducements. It is suggested that future loans should not carry such conditions.

Senator Senior:

– The increased interest may extend longer than the need of the country for the money.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– That is quite true, but we placed the loan on the market at 4½ per cent., and it was well subscribed because of the additional inducement of freedom from certain taxation. Great Britain began by raising loans for war purposes at 3 or3½ per cent. These were Treasurybills, payable in 1920. The rate of interest has now gone up to 6 per cent, because of the difficulty of obtaining money. Great Britain has a large number of Exchequer bonds due in 1920, on which she is paying 6 per cent., and a large number of others, payable in 1919, 1920, and 1921, on which she is paying 5 per cent. Others due in 1920 are carrying only 3 per cent. This all, shows the increasing difficulties of obtaining the money necessary to carry on the war. Of course, all those loans are short-dated. Ours is a ten-year loan. What is known as the American loan floated by Great Britain was for five years. It was a 5 per cent, loan, but the underwriters got it at 96, and it was placed before the public at 98, making it really a 5½ per cent, loan at the very least, and perhaps nearer to a 6 per cent. loan. If Great Britain could have got money in America at 1 per cent, less, she would undoubtedly have done so, but she found that she could not. Another reason the money was raised in America was for exchange purposes, and. it might have’ been justifiable to give a bigger percentage to save exchange in the exportation of gold to America, which was at that time overflowing with gold. Fortunately for America, this money was kept in Great Britain, and thus a great deal of it was saved from being put into wild-cat speculations. The whole tendency is for money to become increasingly expensive. Our Government are going to raise another £18,000,000. Is this to be on similar terms to the loan now existing ? We must either adopt that course or give a greater rate of interest, if we are to work on the parity of Great Britain. If we give a greater rate of interest, that interest will be paid during the currency of the loan, just as the existing remissions of taxation have tobe made for the currency of the existing loan. Of course, if we pay a greater rate of interest we reserve the right to treat the bonds in the same’ way with regard to taxation as any other property in the community. At the same time, if we try to raise a loan at 4½ per cent, without giving the existing advantages, all those who hold, our war bonds to-day. will find their security greatly appreciated. The effect would be to make two classes in our war loans, which would be undesirable. I believe we shall also be called on to consider, this week, an other form of taxation in the entertainments tax. There is a great deal of misapprehension in the minds of many honorable senators on this point. A deputation waited upon Mr. Higgs, when Treasurer, to protest against it as unfair and a class tax. His reply was virtually that the showmen could pass it on to the people. That appealed to many persons, and it seemed right to me at first, but since then it has been pointed out very strongly and clearly that it would have a very injurious effect on the industry of catering for the amusement of the public. If it be intended to destroy the amusement industry, let it be done straight out, and not by a side wind. This . new taxation proposal means taking 16 per cent; of the gross receipts of every show, and I do not think many of such entertainment businesses ‘return 10 per cent, upon capital. A great many, I know, are in struggling circumstances, and probably it would suit the proprietors to be closed up altogether. It stands to reason that if the weaker propositions have to yield up 16 of the gross receipts to the tax gatherer, they will go to the wall. Could not the tax be materially reduced, and could it not be upon the profits, and not upon the gross receipts? The object of taxation is to get as much revenue as can reasonably be obtained without injuring the industry concerned, and in fairness to all connected with it, I understand ‘that about 7,000 people are directly employed by amusement companies, apart from shareholders, who are. looking for dividendssome relief should be afforded, because if these businesses are to be so seriously affected by unfair taxation the employees will have to find work elsewhere. The amusement tax has been tried in Great Britain, but upon a different and a lower basis.

Senator Guy:

– Is it not proposed to tax the gross receipts here, because the tax will, then be easier of collection ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– It would be just as easy to collect a tax upon the profits as upon the gross receipts.

Senator Bakhap:

– Profits pay income tax now.

Senator Lt Colonel SIR ALBERT GOULD:

-Yes; that was one of the protests made to the late Treasurer. As I have said, the tax has been . tried in Great Britain, and I understand it had the effect of closing up from 800 to 1,200 of the smaller shows which, . as a rule, were the places that were patronized by people of more moderate means. The proper principle to observe to regulate amusements so that they may be fit for decent people to patronize, and enjoy, is to take the tax, not out of the gross receipts, but out of the profits. I am reminded that, already, in three of the States, an amusement tax is in operation, and that, with the Commonwealth proposal, it represents anything from 24 to 26 per cent. - whether from profits or gross receipts I am not able to say, but in any case it is a heavy tax, though I admit it pertains to States more than to the Commonwealth, because the States are responsible for the management of such shows. In my opinion, the war-time profits tax is a matter of great moment. I do not want to say much against the principle in an emergency such as this, because I recognise that the Government of a country have the right to obtain a portion of any available money. In Great Britain, it is called a war tax, but in this country we use the term “ wartime profits tax, “ as it embraces not only industries which show a profit because of the war, but businesses that have, improved or increased from the time when war started. In Great Britain the maximum tax is 60 per cent, of the profits beyond a’ certain amount, but in this country it was proposed to take 50 per cent, of the profits in the first financial year and the whole of the profits in the second financial year. A more suicidal policy, and one more likely to destroy revenue, could not have been suggested. The principle of taking 50 per cent, may be all right, and if, in the following year, we took about 60 per cent., as under the English Act, that would be quite as much as we would have been justified in doing. Some honorable senators appear to think that a man would not slow down in production if his profits were going to be taken by the Government of the country, but we have to realize that if we want a man to work to make money, he must have some inducement and must see some benefit for himself out of . his transactions. Let me quote the case of a manufacturing business. A man might put £100,000 worth of machinery into a factory and might be prepared to work three shifts, but if by working one shift only he could make his ordinary profit and escape this additional impost as proposed under the war-time profits tax, he would naturally decline to take the risks of extending his business, because it would bring him in no further return for his labour and depreciation of plant. There is a good deal of human nature in everybody, and in the case of a factory such as I have instanced, it must be remembered that machinery deteriorates. It is true that an allowance is usually made for deterioration, but I know of many cases in which the amount allowed is not anything like the true depreciation of value. We have also, to bear in mind that machinery which might have cost £100,000 before the war would possibly now cost £180,000 to replace, and, moreover, a plant which is quite up to date, might have to be scrapped ten years hence. There is also the case of an industry which might have been struggling for many years before it was properly established and raised to a good position. It would not be advisable to hamper such an undertaking still further by destroying the incentive to progress. While it is. proposed to have a referee board to deal with all cases of hardship, it would be better, I think, not to leave too much in the hands of such an authority, which might be unduly liberal in some cases or unduly stringent in others. I urge upon honorable senators the advisability of not taking too great- a proportion of the profits of an industry, because that policy would have the effect of destroying revenue which might reasonably be expected to be obtained under a more moderate system of taxation.

Senator Guy:

– Do you think 75 per cent, would be too much?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I think 60 per cent, would be a fair proportion to take. We have to remember also that the Government will levy income, tax upon the remainder. In my opinion, it would be better to follow the lead of the Old Country in this matter.

Senator Turley:

– Why should we always follow English legislation in a matter like this?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Because in the Mother Country there are men much more experienced in the principles of government than we are.

Senator Turley:

– But we are always contending that our experimental legislation is turning out favorably.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– In a matter like this we might well consider what the Mother Country and other parts of the world are doing. Another proposition emanating from the Government affects the ‘ mining . industry, which has been treated favorably under the amended taxation proposals1. Possibly the mining industry as a whole could not be considered in exactly the, same way as gold-mining companies.

Senator Senior:

– Many minerals have increased in price, but gold has not.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Yes ; I am aware of that. In the case of a factory managed on a satisfactory basis, the business is of increasing value from year to year, but in the case of a gold mine, the working of the property will reduce its value as the years go by. Where minerals have increased in price, as the honorable senator has interjected, the Government get a higher return in the way of income tax, and in connexion with that tax I point out that it has been laid down as a principle that any money paid in the way of calls on a mining industry is exempt from such taxation.- That is the manner in which these properties should be dealt with. The honorable senator has mentioned minerals other than gold.^ I have in mind a copper proposition wfiich has been followed up by the proprietors for eight or ten years, and up to the present it has not paid a dividend. Now, however, the material is available, and the life of the property is from six to eight years. I think’ the maximum is eight years. That proposition has now become dividend-paying, but the possibilities are that the dividends , will not be able to make up to the proprietors an amount commensurate with the expenditure incurred and the loss of interest on capital during the period when no returns were received. We want to encourage all such men engaged in our primary industries.

Senator Watson:

– Do you mean the workers?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- The worker gets his wages out of the pockets of the men who own the mines. In many cases the worker is him self the owner of the mine. If Senator Watson claims to be a worker, I shall be very happy to hand over to him my interest in certain mines for the money I have invested in them. We should not adopt a policy that tends to the discouragement of our industries, but should rather encourage their development in every way possible. If any are making decent profits, it should be remembered that those who make them have to pay income tax. Such’ a case as I have referred, to would probably go before the proposed board of reference, and there is a danger that some of the members of the board might have very restricted ideas on these questions. I have had the opportunity to express the views I hold on the matters to which I ‘have referred. I want honorable senators to bear in mind that I do not speak as the representative or mouth-piece of any party. I claim the right to exercise an independent judgment upon all questions which are vital to the prosperity and life of the country. I should be recreant to the trust placed in me by the people if I were to allow the strong convictions I hold upon public questions to be diverted. I do not intend to do anything of the kind. Whilst the views I have expressed may be generally the views of the party to which I belong, honorable senators will recognise that upon certain matters to which I have referred I believe that one of my most appreciated and esteemed colleagues has strayed away a little from the track.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to take up the time of the Senate at any great length in fighting over again the battle which has already been fought and won. But certain statements, have been made concerning myself in connexion with the referendum campaign to which I think it necessary to refer. So far as I am personally concerned, I did my level best to secure victory for the “ Noes,” and now that the anti-conscriptionists have been victorious I am prepared to assist the present or any other Government to carry on the war, and to get the men who are wanted, under the voluntary system. Some persons have twitted me with adopting a “Yes-No” attitude on the conscription question, and some have described me as a twister. It has been said that before I left England, and while I was on the’ transport returning to Australia, I was in favour of the Prime Minister’s pro- posal, and was an out-and-out conscriptionist. I wish to place on record a few facts which will go to show that I never violated in any way one of the principles which I have professed during my lifetime. I knew of the agitation in favour of conscription in Australia before I left England. I was told by the gentleman who”ran” Mr. Hughes’ campaign in England, where I admit he did good work for Australia, that I would have to vote for conscription before I was a month- in Australia. I wanted to know how that could be, and I was told that I would have to do so or get out of the Labour party, because the party would listen to Mr. Hughes, would change its principles, and stand for conscription. My opinion then was that the trade unionists of Australia would not vote for conscription. Events have proved that I was right in coming to that conclusion. They were not prepared to vote for conscription, not because of any desire on their part to escape their obligations, but because they believed that every obligation to the country could be fulfilled without forcing conscription on this young nation. While I was engaged in the referendum campaign, the following statement, which appeared in a Western Australian newspaper, was sent to me: -

A Senator’s Promise

Kalgoorlie, 17th October

Sergeant George Boyland, of the Miners’ Corps, who is at present in Western Australia on sick leave, addressed a meeting of ladies at the Boulder on Monday. In the course of his remarks he said, “When I was in hospital at Harefield, in’ England, Senator McDougall visited’ us. The men in the ward were discussing the necessity of more men being sent from Australia. ‘ Senator McDougall told us that he would be going back to Australia shortly, and would do. his best, even by legislation, to force the men to come along and help the boys in the trenches. My interpretation of his remarks was that he was a conscriptionist. When we were leaving Portsmouth for Australia, Mr. Andrew Fisher, Senator McDougall, and others, came to see us off, and Senator McDougall again said be would help to secure more men to relieve those in the firing line. I find now that Senator McDougall has declared himself an anticonscriptionist. I don’t know why he somersaulted.

The alleged conversation at the hospital is a matter betwen Mr. Boyland and myself. I do not remember meeting Mr. Boyland at all. I fancy that I did meet him, but I do not remember his name. I met a sergeant in the hospital who told me that he was an overseer on one of the stations owned by Sir John Forrest and his brother in Western Australia. The alleged conversation at the hospital is, as I have said, a disputed matter between Sergeant Boyland and myself. I am, however, in aposition to say that I never addressed anybody in the wards of the Harefield Hospital, and never said one word in connexion with the conscription campaign. I can leave the conversation at that. Mr. Boyland . further says that when I went down to the boat to see ‘the men off I made use of certain expressions, and the truth of the statement in this connexion can be tested by . a reference to Mr. Hughes or to Mr. Shepherd, who were on the boat at the time. Mr. Hughes returned to Australia in the same boat with Mr. Boyland, and I make the statementnow that we who desired to see them off did not arrive at the wharf until the boat was pulled out and no one was allowed to go on board of her. Mr. Hughes did not have an . opportunity of saying any words to the men on the wharf or on the ship. 1 desired to bid goodbye to Mr. Charles Fern, the member for Cobar in the New South Wales Parliament, who was returning by the vessel invalided to Australia, but I could not get on board to say good-bye to him. Either Mr. Hughes or Mr. Shepherd will be able to say that Mr. Boyland’s statement in this connexion is a fabrication. Not one word was said on the occasion referred to upon conscription or upon any other matter. On the day the ship sailed I went with Mr. Hughes to review the troops at Salisbury Plain, and after the. review we took’ the train down to Plymouth, arriving there about 5.30 p.m. The vessel sailed about 6 o’clock, and it is clear, therefore, that Mr. Boyland’s statement can be proved to bea fabrication.

SenatorLynch. - His statementwas confirmed in Tasmania by a returned soldier.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– They might all claim to be able to confirm it, but Mr. Hughes or Mr. Shepherd can bear out the truth of what I say.

Senator Bakhap:

– There could surely have been no knowledge ‘ of the . conscription campaign then.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– It was not spoken of.

Senator Gardiner:

– When did the boat referred to leave ?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I think about the end of June or the beginning of July

I wrote a letter to the Argus in connexion with Sergeant Boyland’s statement, and they were good enough to publish my denial. I will not read that letter, because it would be only a repetition of what I have just said. After the referendum campaign was over, this paragraph was put into my hands : -

Senator McDougall’s Two Voices.

Stratford. - Messrs. McLachlan, M.L.A., and G. A. Maxwell, addressed a large gathering in the local Town Hall on Saturday afternoon in favour of the Conscription proposal.

Mr. Maxwell said Senator McDougall, who recently returned from England, was influencing a large number of voters-

I hope I did influence a large number - by stating that’ Conscription was not necessary, and that men were not needed.

That is an absolute falsehood.

Yet Rev. Macrae Stewart, who was a chaplain at the front, and who had travelled back to Australia with Senator McDougall, stated publicly last week that, on the voyage out, Senator McDougall had expressed himself as strongly in favour of Mr. Hughes proposals, and that every effort should be made to get more men. That, said Mr. Maxwell, was Senator McDougall’s opinion before the Labour Party had dragooned him into line with those who were opposed to Conscription.

That is the sort of thing I object to. No one has ever yet dragooned me into anything. The first man I met on landing in Australia from the Old Country was Senator Ready. I then met Senator Gardiner, to both of whom I expressed my views against conscription. I arrived on a Sunday, and the two senators I have referred to will bear me out when I say that I had no word from the Political Labour party, no letter, or telegram, and it was impossible for them to dragoon me into anything. It would appear that this reverend gentleman has gone out of his way to brand me as a twister. On the return journey in the transport I occupied my time in doing what I could to make the trip as pleasant as possible for the invalided soldiers. My time was mostly occupied with them. I do not suppose that I had a quarter of an hour’s1 conversation with this reverend gentleman during the whole of the voyage. There were five or six chaplains on the boat. I believe that they ‘were well liked by the men. Their simple duty was once a week to have a church parade, and they could not be found with the men at any other time. Some of the men on the boat did speak to me about these conscription proposals of Mr. Hughes, and some even of those who differed from me on the question have been good enough to write to me concerning the views I expressed to them, and permitting me to place their statements on record if I think fit. I am thankful for their statements. I received the following letter from a Melbourne lad: - 200 Bourke-street,

Melbourne, 16th November, 1916.

Dear Friend and Sir,

Allow me to write to you with the express purpose of conveying ‘to all whom it may concern, that, while returning from England on the S.S. Marathon-A74 - that your, ideas and suggestions were decidedly and conspicuously against conscription from the beginning to the end of the voyage. I very much regret having to state the above, asmy sympathies are with the conscriptionist-

This returned soldier is a conscriptionist himself, and, therefore, he would not be likely to make a statement like this if it was not correct -

Believe me, I am, ; Your. well-wisher,

Arthurf.Purnell. 20 West Melbourne-road, Newtown, Geelong.

This young fellow is well known in Victoria. He has relatives, I believe, in the Military Forces of the State, and his word would be taken even before that of the reverend gentleman who gave this information to Mr. Maxwell. Here is a letter from Sydney - 54 Muston-street, Mosman,

Sydney, 23rd November, 1916.

Dear Senator McDougall,

I noticed during the conscription campaign that your name was used as an example of the Yes-No politician in regard toquestion.

I myself can refute the imputation. When we discussed the conscription issue during the voyage out, on the H.M.T. Marathon, you were always strongly against conscription of any sort.

Am sorry to see that any false assertions have been made against you. I am always ready to refute them.

Yours sincerely,

T.U. Roy Wilson (late A.I.F.).

The next letter is from Victoria -

Numurkah, 26th November, 1916.

Senator McDougall,

Dear Sir,

Ithas been brought to my notice that Chaplain McCrae stated in the Argus that, whilst on the Marathon, you were in favour of conscription. This was rather a surprise to me, as in course of conversation with me you frequently expressed yourself in unmistakable terms against conscription.

Knowing what your views on the question are, I think that this statement of the chaplain’s is calculated to do you harm; therefore I think that it is only a, fair thing that I

I am, sir,

Yours faithfully,

Harold E. Krutle (late of the A.I.F.).

Here is a letter from a young soldier who has been through the battles and is a conscriptionist himself. His father is well known ‘as a business man in a big way in Sydney, and he writes in these terms: -

To whom it may concern.

I, Corporal E. L. Edwards, of the 1st D.A.P., having heard that the consistency of Senator the Hon. Alan McDougall’s attitude on the . question of compulsion for Australia has been questioned, hereby declare that throughout the voyage of the Australian transport Marathon, by which vessel I returned from the front, the honorable senator’s attitude on the- question was one of consistent and determined hostility.

As I was strongly in favour of conscription, many arguments arose between us, and, though I cannot say that I was uninfluenced by his consistency, I voted for conscription, as in duty bound, and am still in favour of it.

L. Edwards, Cpl. “

Milton-street, Ashfield, Sydney. .

I have here a letter from a well-known

Melbourne pressman, who gave his services to his country and was invalided back in the same boat as I travelled in. I will not read the whole of his letter, because it is too long, but only some extracts

During the late campaign of vituperative abuse I read with much surprise in the Argus a statement by one of the military chaplains - theRev. (Something) McCrae, I think it was - that you had, on the Marathon, declared yourself in, favour of conscription. I may state that on a number of occasions, when the topic arose, you expressed yourself most unequivocally against conscription in Australia in the presence of myself and several others in my cabin; and your views on the matter seemed to be well known to those and others with whom you were in the habit of conversing on board- although you were by no means given to airing your views in general from the church-tops or mast-head.

I remember one occasion particularly, by reason of the circumstances: - On the evening of Saturday, 16th September, when we had just arrived at Fremantle, you came into my cabin with an exclusive copy of the Perth evening paper containing news of the expulsion of Mr. Hughes from the LabouT party by the executive of the P.L.L. in Sydney. In the presence of Sergeant T. U. E. Wilson, A.A.M.C., and Corporal Edwards, of the 1st D.A.P., we had an animated discussion, during which you unmistakably declared yourself against conscription, and that you would take the platform against it.

Faithfully yours,

  1. H. Rogers,

Late Staff-Sergeant Transport A.I.F.

Senator Allan McDougall,

Parliament House.

  1. want to dispute the attitude taken up by some of my opponents during the campaign, and especially the assertion that I was dragooned by the Political Labour League into taking the action which il did. I can hardly understand that this reverend gentleman could give this information ; but,’ if he did, I can only put it down, as the pressman does, to a misconception on his part. I desire to put the letters on record, in order to . maintain my political reputation. I think that since I have been in the Senate I have been constant on all questions affecting the Labour movement. The reason why I took up the attitude I did after my ar-. rival from England was because the trade unionists I met in France and on Salisbury Plain were unanimously against conscription for Australia. They asked me to take back to the trade unionists pf Australia a message, which I . faithfully brought back. So far as the voting was concerned, I believe that it was very emphatic at the front, and also on Salisbury Plain. What it was in Egypt I do not know. Here is a letter which I haye received from a trade unionist - a -man belonging to my own union, and one of the best supporters whom the Prime Minister has ever had. He was one of those who formed, or his father did, the West Sydney League before the first Federal campaign, in which Mr. Hughes was elected member for West. Sydney. The old man is still alive, and his boy is at the front holding the same opinion as I do. When a man, who was in the first landing at Gallipoli, and has been wounded at the front on several occasions, writes to me inthe way he does, and asks trade unionists to vote against conscription, surely that” man and men like him are not to be spoken of in the language which was used during the referendum campaign ! I do not object- to it at all personally, but to call men who have been to the front, and have done their share in this great battle for the Empire, pro- Germans, mongrels, and other terms of that description, is not, I think, a fair repayment for their services to the nation. Is it any wonder that, when such letters come from the battlefield as they do, the people, of this country voted as they did ? Writing from Belgium, this soldier says -

I have heard all about this talk of conscription, and if there is a referendum taken, and we all get a vote, “ No “ will have a big majority here.

Billy Hughes is getting himself badly liked ewer here on account of his twisting and turning, I see where the P.L.L. has turned him down, also Holman and Coy. Nearly time.

All the boys here are fed up with Hughes, Fisher, and Birdwood, and all their talk about the gallant Anzacs.

How happy they are in the trenches. Some late arrivals were told that the Second Division had to be pulled out of the trenches during the recent fighting on the Somme. Yes, I know all about that. None of us could get out quick enough.

There is another part of this letter referring to a visit by Mr. Fisher and General Birdwood, which I will not read as it is rather hot. That is the sort of stuff which is coming from these boys by every mail, and can any one wonder at the result of the referendum vote?

Senator Keating:

– Have you the date of that letter?

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not the date, as the original letter is at home. It could not have come by the last mail, because the writer talks about a visit by Mr. Fisher to the trenches. I have a letter from an officer. The Prime Minister received a cablegram from the Miners Corps in France asking the people to vote “Yes,” and this’ is a letter from an officer holding a high position in the corps recommending the people to vote “No.”

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– When the sitting was suspended I was about to quote from, a letter by an officer of the Miners’ Corps, who is one of my personal acquaintances, a mechanic with, whom I worked for many years. He writes! -

Conscription appears to be a burning question in Australia. Personally I am opposed to it. I know there are many here who will vote for it; but I still believe in the grand old spirit of coming forward and fighting for the cause of liberty and humanity.

I am sure the way in which our Australian soldiers have acquitted themselves is the best appeal that could be made to the manhood of any nation; and I. hope that the needs of the hour will never force us into following in the wake of a conscript country.

He is a man who believes that the voluntary system will provide all the reinforcements that we require. During the recent referendum campaign one of the arguments used against conscription was that its adoption would interfere with the harvest, that it would produce a shortage of labour, and that the crops would thus be lost to the nation. Senator Millen has pointed out that there is likely to be a shortage of food in Britain, because’ the Board of Trade has asked the people of the Old Country to be satisfied with an inferior loaf. Personally, I do not think it is an inferior loaf. It is not quite so tasty a loaf as the old one, but it is just as good. Mr. Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, recently stated that -

Next year we will have to depend upon Australian suppliesfor our food.

His words bear out the contention of anticonscriptionists that it would have been better for us to have continued growing food for Britain and her Allies than to send men out of the country and allow our crops to go to waste. I have already expressed my desire to whole-heartedly assist in the recruiting campaign. The best way in which we can do that is to remove the disabilities which now exist and the prejudices which are entertained by men against enlistment. The accommodation provided on our transports and in our camps has considerably retarded recruiting. In my opinion, these defects can easily be removed. The greatest bar to recruiting is to be found in the fact that the conditions on board our transports are not fair. I believe’ that they are capable of considerable, improvement. At present, too many men are crowded on to these vessels, and they are not provided with proper food. I had an opportunity of seeing these things for myself, and Iascertained that the shipping companies are not entirely to blame. On one vessel by which I travelled complaint was made as to the food supplied to the men. I interviewed the captain, who produced his scale of food, and who showed conclusively that the ls. 9d. per day allowed for each man’s food was insufficient, and that practically the company was providing more than it was called upon to provide. The rations on our- troopships should be increased, so as to permit of an ample supply of good food being provided. Another source of dissatisfaction relates to the” dependants of men who volunteer for the front. These do not receive sufficient money, and they do not get it in the way that they should. Personally, I favour an increase in the separation allowance, so as to place every dependant of a soldier beyond want. I have heard many men express their willingness to go to the front so long as the Government would provide for their wives and families in the way that they are being provided for at present. That could be done by increasing the separation allowance. The Government should see that the dependants of all who make sacrifices by volunteering for service, abroad are properly provided for. Taxation should be levied for the purpose of enabling these dependants to be maintained in the same degree of comfort as they are being maintained to-day. If that were done, we should get adequate reinforcements, but it is unreasonable to expect men to leave their wives and families when the latter receive only the small pittance that is at present payable. Better treatment should also be extended to men who leave good positions, and we should insist upon them being reinstated in those positions upon their return. I know of a man who has been working in the General Post Office, Sydney, as a temporary employee for some years. He has three sons at the front, and yet he has been dismissed, and his place has been filled ‘ by another temporary employee who has been in the country only a very short time. That is the sort of thing that deters recruiting. We ought to give a guarantee to the men who enlist for service abroad that those whom- they leave behind will be well treated. If I were going to start recruiting, I would commence at the top of the tree. I would begin with Parliament House, and would, ask why all the eligible men there have not enlisted. If we did that, we would remove a disability which tells heavily against the recruiting system. ‘ Then I would go to the large factory employer, and say to him, “We want your men to go to the front. Are you prepared to’ give them their positions on their return?” If he said “Yes,” it would be all right; but if he said “No,” we should deal with him. I would advise the Ministry and the War Council to attempt something on the lines I have indicated, and I venture to say that adequate reinforcements would then be forthcoming. Another way of securing additional volunteers is by increasing the age limit. Quite recently Mr. Winston Churchill told us that there were too many noncombatants behind the firing line. He assured us that there were two armies - the army at the front, and an army of 200,000 behind- the British lines. We have non-combatants in the same ratio.; and it seems to me that we might easily form a brigade of 1,000 men up to fifty years of age, who would be capable of releasing these men for service in the trenches. I saw able-bodied men in Prance who were anxious to get to the front, but who could not be released from their non-combatant* duties because there were no others able to fill their places. If we could furnish men to perform these non-combatant duties, some 12,000 or 15,000 able-bodied soldiers would be released for service in the firing line. There is just one other matter upon which I should like to touch, namely, the desirableness of forming distinctive brigades. If that were permitted, I think that we should obtain a great many more men than we can hope to obtain under present’ conditions. My own countrymen, are anxious to form a brigade, but they are not allowed to do so. When the late Government refused to allow distinctive dress to be worn by Scotch regiments, we were told by Senator Pearce that men were not permitted to wear distinctive uniforms at the front. That statement was absolutely incorrect, because I saw men wearing the kilts near the firing line and at the depots in France. Quite recently our returned, soldiers desired to form a distinctive brigade; but I understand that their offer has been refused. Mr. Neilson, who has just returned from America, has also stated that when the war broke out he sent an offer from Australians in America “ who were anxious to serve in Egypt. He inserted a notice in his window calling for applicants, and no fewer than 250 had responded by the next morning. There are Australians in America willing to go to the front to fight for their native’ country, but they cannot raise the passage money to come. to Australia to enlist, or if they do they may be refused. I know some that have come from America and enlisted here. Others have been turned down as medically .unfit’ and have had to go right back again. I see no objection to accepting the offer of brigades and battalions wherever they come from. While I was in England there were many Australians there willing to form distinctive brigades and battalions, and willing also to take positions in the ranks, but they were refused., Our military authorities there, for what reason I do not know, would not’ allow them to do so. The Australian Natives Association in England had the matter before the High Commissioner, ‘ and offered their services to form a brigade, but the offer was not accepted, and our men had to join there, of course at a very small rate of pay. I believe that if my advice in this matter were adopted, we should get a great many more men. My duties as a commissioner of the Australian Comforts Fund in Egypt, England, and Prance gave me a great insight into the conditions in our hospitals. I did not hear many complaints, but the Surgeon-General, Major-General Howse, Brigadier-General Sir Newton Moore, and the High Commissioner, gave me permission during my .visits to the hospitals or the camps to tell the men if they had any complaints to make them there,’ and if I saw anything that wanted remedying I could report it either to the SurgeonGeneral or the High Commissioner and it, would be rectified. I did that on very, many occasions. I saw several things that I thought could be bettered, and reported them,” and they were attended to. The complaints we’ have heard are unfounded, because the men have the option, if anything is wrong, of making complaints in the proper quarter, when, I believe, they will be attended to. For instance, in No. 2 General Hospital in France, those in charge were afraid, as it. was a canvas hospital, that they would not be able to cope with the difficulties of retarding disease when the. cold of winter came on, and also feared an accident when the strong winds blew. I made a report recommending the substitution of wooden huts, and there was no hesitation, at all, for an order was at once given for wooden huts to replace, the canvas tents.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– As I know it is the natural desire of the Administration to get this Supply

Bill through in the interests of the nation, I shall not occupy any more time than I feel is absolutely necessary to comment .on some features of the two debates that have been under way in this chamber during the last two or three weeks. I congratulate those Ministers who have secured portfolios in the new Administration as they had them in the past. . I can sympathize with them. They have had two years of- the stress and strain of administration during this great world-wide struggle, and any criticism which I may feel it necessary to address to them regarding acts of administration will be of a kindly and not of a vitriolic character. My old friend and very valiant supporter, who subsequently developed into the principal in the advocacy of conscription - I refer to the Minister for Public Works - has my hearty congratulations also. I am pleased that the gods do indeed sometimes take care of Cato, and that if -he has been kicked out by those valiant gentlemen of great political integrity who have gone into opposition, he has certainly been kicked upstairs. Long may he remain there to do his best in the interests of the country. My general attitudetowards ‘the Administration may be likened to that utterance which Sir Walter Scott has put into the mouth of the Grand Master in Ivanhoe. I may be permitted to paraphrase the sentence a little. To the present Hughes Administration and the members of the Labour party who, like sensible’ patriots land lovers) of liberty, are supporting that Administration, I say, “You have always been our political opponents, but we willi meet you honorably withal.” Every criticism shall be made in honour, and not with the vulgar desire to dispossess that Administration in order to supplant it with a Liberal one. The split in the Labour party, of which I know little and care less, is of very little moment to the nation at this juncture. The fortunes of the Liberal party as a political party matter not one jot to me at this stage of our history. The only concern is that of National and Imperial victory. I want peace, like everybody else,’ but I want that peace ‘which is the daughter of victory, that ‘ peace which comes along bearing the fruits of victory. No other peace will suffice for the prestigeand glory of our Empire and its Allies..

As the greater includes the less, I suppose I may be pardoned a short reference Jio that vainglorious, boasting, and yet somewhat solemn declaration of the German Kaiser in regard to the peace proposals .which he and his Allies have placed before the world. I am not a very great believer in the magnanimity of the members of the German race if they . consider that a great advantage can be obtained by material force. They are now attempting to place themselves in a superior moral position in the eyes of the neutral nations. They tell us that (Germany is willing to give- peace to the world, and they ask the world to conveniently forget that only two years ago Germany gave it war, inflicting the horrors of warfare on the innocent and unoffending- people of Belgium. Are the people of the world, much as they desire peace, going to forget this?. The Kaiser is asking us to accept peace, as he says, while the Germans have the consciousness of victory. Peace is offered in this arrogant fashion.- I am well aware that it was the statesmen of the Home Country who took the responsibility of saving the honour of the Empire by embarking in this great struggle, and, of course, the responsibility rests upon them of accepting, in the interests of the Empire and of humanity, whatever peace terms they consider sufficient. But, insignificant individual though I am, I may be pardoned for obtruding my opinions in the interests of the British race and of that British civilization which I honestly love. The only answer that will suffice for British and Allied honour is the answer which the Czar of Russia gave to Napoleon’ when Napoleon was in occupation of Moscow, and found it necessary if possible to obtain peace terms from the Czar whose capital he was in. The Czar said, “ We refuse to treat while there is an enemy soldier on Russian territory.” That should be the attitude of the Imperial, and -Allied statesmen at this juncture. They should say ‘ to the Germans, : We desire peace, but we are not going to negotiate peace with you while a German soldier is on the territory of our Allies.” If the Germans want peace let them retire from those countries they have invaded, ravaged, and ravished, and then in the interests of humanity, without attempting to inflict the horrors of war on the people who are living on.Ger;man soil, the Allies in their magnanimity and the consciousness of impending and certain victory, can . offer to Germany those peace terms which alone can be honorable to the British and allied races. If the statesmen of Great Britain,/ notwithstanding the national stress and strain, are so futile and faint-hearted as to make peace on terms anything like those suggested by the Germans, I say with pain and reluctance, that I shall then believe that the sun of Great Britain has long passed its meridian, and is well on the way to its decline. God ‘ forbid that that result should be arrived at; but, unfortunately, there comes a time when irresolution enters into the counsels of a nation, and into the hearts of a people, and the people do not see clearly their own destiny and their own interests. It is at times like these that a -fatal step may be taken, and the whole future of a magnificent race ruined. Let no citizen of the British Empire make any mistake about this world struggle. It is the old struggle of Rome versus Carthage reproduced. I have already averred that the resources of the British Empire are in. themselves sufficient, if intelligently wielded, to defeat our great foe, formidable though he may be. If we make peace with German .militarism uncrushed with the German people full, as their Kaiser has said, of the consciousness of victory, this peace will be only like the peace made after the first Punic war be- . tween the Carthaginians and Romans, both sides well knowing that .the struggle had to be renewed. Do the allied people’s really want this struggle to be renewed? Some pessimistic philosophers believe tb.a£ there will be war as long as the human race inhabits this planet, and undoubtedly there will be war of some kind ‘from time to time, but I am sure that the British and other allied peoples sincerely hope for peace, not only in their generation, but for many succeeding generations of their descendants. It is only by showing that great resolution which enables the patient to submit to the surgeon’s knife that the peace which is symbolical of all that is best in a nation’s history, that peace which is sequential on victory, can be secured. I have heard a great deal during these two debates of what Australia has done, and how a period should be put to her efforts. Many of the arguments used upon this side- of the chamber by the gentlemen who have lately seceded from the Labour- party are, in themselves, contradictory.

Senator Watson:

– -There has been no secession on this side.

Senator BAKHAP:

– A party which does not. retain some remnant of the principle of liberty is not worth calling a party. I recognise only those gentlemen on the Government bench, and their supporters, as the Labour party. It is the only Labour party that can be worth anything to the Democracy of Australia, because it alone enshrines the last remnant of liberty to be found in- Labour ranks. The arguments used by a lot of these gentlemen- on this side are selfcontradictory. They argue that we should win the war, and that as many men as can be got under the voluntary system- - which, as has been well said, is. -neither voluntary nor a system - should be sent to the war, and a few minutes afterwards they say that Australia has been denuded of her men, and cannot afford to send any more. T cannot understand that sort of argument. Either Australia wants the men. and should send no more, or she should put forth the supreme effort .of which she is capable. There has been a. gr eat deal of balderdash talked about the danger of denuding Australia of .her manhood, but let me remind the Senate that Australia is more’ typically British than any .other country in the world. The British Empire differs from every other Empire. The German Empire has a majority of Germans in its population ; the Russian Empire has a majority of people who are Russian in extraction; and the Japanese Empire has a majority of people who are pure Japanese ; but the British Empire is a congerie of races. Iri this Empire of ours, numbering about 447,000,000 human beings, the reins of the government are in the hand of a dominant race of about 65,000,000 white people, not all of British extraction. Upon this portion -of the British Em: pire’s population devolves the duty of maintaining the prestige of our nation. Australia, of all the Dominions, is the most homogeneous, containing, as it does, about one-eleventh of the white British population of the Empire; and, although it has been a popular thing to say that Australia is so small as to be of no consequence in this great struggle, I remind the Senate that Australia has one-eleventh of the white races’ of the Empire of British blood, and consequently it must have one-eleventh of the responsibility. Australia is more homogeneous as a British community than even the United Kingdom itself, for there they still retain their racial divisions of Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and English nationalities, while here we are purely British in extraction. Moreover, the percentage of masculinity here is higher than elsewhere. I emphasize this fact because it has been the foolish practice of late to tell the servant girls of this country that if conscription were carried they would have to marry Chinamen, and all that sort of nonsense. In 1914, there were, in Australia, 180,000 more males than females. I do not mean to say that the surplusage of males consisted of .adults, but there was that excess of males in Australia. In other words, to quote Mr. Knibbs, there were in Australia 106 males for every 100s females. Now, what is the position in Great Britain ? In normal times, before the war, there were nearly 2,000,000 more women than men, and, in view of this fact, on which portion of the British Dominions does the responsibility rest for putting forward the major effort in this war? Is it upon Australia, where one-eleventh of the white British population of the Empire is , situated, and where, in 1914, there was an excess of masculinity amounting to 180,000, or iri Great Britain, where, before the war, there were 2,000,000 more women than men ? . The fact that we are some distance away from the centre of the Empire does not absolve us of our responsibility. I mean to say that it is our duty to put forward a greater proportionate effort than is being put forward by the people of the Old Country; but I must state that I am bitterly disappointed in the people of Australia. I am not disappointed or chagrined merely because I advocated conscription for over two years, and that the principle was rejected by a small majority at the referendum. I am not particularly disturbed over the “ No “ vote, but I am appalled by the psychological manifestation incidental to the referendum! poll. We know how many conflicting reasons were advanced by different people to justify their own votes and yie votes of others in regard to this question. One man told me that he was going to vote “ No “ because the hotels were closed at . 6 o’clock; while another man, who hap- pened to be married, said that he would vote “ No “ because too many unmarried men were being exempted by the Courts. All sorts of reasons were given to justify the “No”, votes on this momentous question.

Senator Watson:

– What about the other side?

Senator BAKHAP:

– On the other side, only one reason actuated the people, and that was the supreme need for an immediate and great sacrifice in the interests of the Empire, which it is the duty of every British citizen to preserve.

Senator Watson:

– What about all the scandalous abuse that was indulged in?,

Senator BAKHAP:

– I know nothing whatever about that. So far as I was concerned, I indulged in no scandalous abuse in my advocacy of the principle, but rested on the justice of my cause to persuade the Australian people of their duty. The appeal failed, however, and Australia failed the Empire. Before the poll was taken, Australia could have stood against the world, so far as international influence was concerned, but now there is none so poor as to do her reverence. If there is to. be a- peace conference, as suggested by the later news from the seat of war, and if the Prime Ministers of the different Dominions are to be called in consultation with the parliamentarians of the Old Country, what status will the Prime Minister of Australia have, irrespective of the political party to which he belongs ? He will be in the position of representing that portion of the Empire which was the first to throw in the towel; the first part of the British Dominions ‘ which refused nationally to make the supreme sacrifice. The Prime Minister, at such a conference, would have no status whatever; and if Australia, through her delegate to that conference, demanded the retention of German New Guinea in order that Australia should not be confronted in the future with Zeppelins flying at her gates, what status would he have? In such circumstances, the international diplomats would be entitled to say, “ Why did you fail us? Why did you stab us in the back?” I do not say’ that those who voted “No” were not patriots, or were disloyal, or anything of that sort, but I do say they were misguided, and took nationally and Imperially a wrong course. There can be no doubt about that ; and therefore the Prime Minister of Australia could hardly attend a peace conference and resolutely make a demand for the retention of New Guinea.

Senator Mckissock:

– Yes.

Senator BAKHAP:

– They would spit, diplomatically speaking, on our national beard. In the face of the situation as disclosed at the referendum poll, would Senator Gardiner have the hardihood to suggest that the Australian Parliament should, by resolution of both Houses, ask the Imperial Government not to accept any unsatisfactory peace terms, but resolutely hold the conquered territory in New Guinea back from Germany? Would he be able to do as Regulus did in the Roman Senate-when a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians, sent by them as a peace embassy to Rome in the hope that he would advise the Romans to make peace - tell his countrymen to make no peace; but to continue the war to the end, as the resources of Carthage were practically exhausted? In the light of the recent referendum poll, that would be a ghastly joke, and still further lower the prestige of Australia as a nation.

Senator Mckissock:

– We have enhanced Australia’s reputation. Make no mistake about that.

Senator Gardiner:

– Are you in the pay of the Germans to make such a statement?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I cast that imputation in Senator Gardiner’s teeth. He does not frighten me.

Senator Ferricks:

– We would take care that the Prime Minister did not go to a peace conference without some hold over him.

Senator Keating:

– They want to send a shackled Prime Minister to a peace conference.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I have said that while the “ No ‘ vote did not particularly grieve me I greatly deplored it, for I recognise that popular opinion varies. with circumstances. That is the diffidulty about a referendum poll; and, just as Senator Gardiner and his party would not accept the verdict of the people twice recorded in opposition to certain proposals for the amendment of the Constitution, it is no more incumbent on those who advocate conscription to accept the verdict of the people, given on the 28th October, as the final verdict on that question. If we had an election in a few months, and. the result of the poll meant the return of a majority of members favorable to conscription, do honorable senators say that they would not regard that as a mandate from the people? In the population of every country there is a certain proportion o£ people martially minded, and who will naturally fight. Iri some countries this percentage is greater than in others, but in every race there is a percentage of these martiallyminded men, who are ever ready to advocate the cause of their country, and to engage in its defence on the battlefield.

Senator Barnes:

– And there is a percentage who will always send the other fellow.

Senator BAKHAP:

– That has always been the position. It does not matter if a man is approaching < the very last days of his life, if he is sixty or seventy years of age; and advocates conscription, there will be found young men saying to the grey beard, “Why don’t you go yourself?” Is it thus that the young men of Rome spoke to their elders ? Is this the way that the young men of Scotland spoke to the old men of Edinburgh when they marched forth to meet the. Southron?

Senator Watson:

– You are not too old to fight yet.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Let me tell the honorable senator that the Minister for Defence can inform him that my name is at. the disposal of the Government.

Senator Barnes:

– Many men who are older than you have gone away, and have never been asked a question.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes; and I am aware that some members of the honorable senator’s party secured a cheap advertisement by approaching the recruiting officers, knowing all the. time that they were well over the military age, and could not be accepted. Over two years ago I contended that it would be necessary to tho roughly inform the people of Australia concerning the military situation, in order that we could show that military prevision which, up to the present, seems almost to have been the sole property of the German people. I took that action in order that we might have things placed upon an orderly, equitable, and democratic basis throughout the Empire. But what happened’? We had gentlemen like Mr. Catts going about and assuring Australian people that there was immediate danger, and that it was unwise to send any more males out of the Commonwealth. If it was unwise, granting, .for the purpose of .the argument, Mr. Catts’ contention of local danger, was it .not wise . to immediately start to drastically and properly train the males of fighting age whom we had here? The Prima Minister, wisely, or unwisely, decided to call up the manhood of Australia under an Act which is already on the statutebook, and the whole credit for which was claimed by the Labour party two’ years ago. Let honorable senators not forget that, a little over two years ago, at the general election which took place subsequent to the declaration of war, when the members of the Labour party were taking credit for doing everything warlike in connexion with Australia’s policy, they insisted upon the Australian people believing that it was to their party that all the credit was due for placing upon the statute-book of the Commonwealth the Defence Act, which embodies and emphasizes the principle of compulsion. Is that not so?

Senator Story:

– Of course it is.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The members of the Labour party, so to speak, cut our political throats by using that as an argument at the general election.

Senator Story:

– The honorable senator’s party made the same claim.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I admit that- we did. I said that I ^bought the credit for the Act ‘might be fairly apportioned between both parties, because both desired to do something for the defence of Australia, and in regard to our naval defence, it was between us only a question of methods to be adopted. The Labour party, claimed the whole of the honour for “the passing of that legislation. Is that not so?

Senator Barnes:

– Yes. Have we not done any good that has been done in the country ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I ask the honorable senator whether the Labour party did not claim the entire credit for putting the principle of compulsory military service upon the national statute-book of Australia ?

Senator Barnes:

– Yes; and we claim, also, that, as a result of our legislation, we were able to send 300,000 men to the front.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I ask my honor- able friends whether, at the present time, they contemplate an amendment of the 1 Defence Act, eliminating the principle of compulsory military service?

Senator Watson:

– No.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then the principle of compulsory military service is not in itself an unclean thing?

Senator Watson:

– No; it depends on how it is used.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then the difference between Mr. Hughes and his late followers is only one of military strategy. Honorable senators are crucifying Mr. Hughes because, as military administrator, he believed it was necessary to keep the zone of battle away from the shores of Australia. ‘ Are they pillorying the Prime Minister for believing in the same principle of compulsion which they claim credit for having introduced into the Defence Act ?

Senator Watson:

– No.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then what are they pillorying him for?

Senator Watson:

– For proposing to take people out of Australia against their will.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then I repeat that the difference between honorable senators and the Prime Minister is one. of military strategy, and, after all is said and done, and despite all his faults, I think it is clear that Mr. Hughes is the best strategist. Honorable senators are elevating this question into a cross on which they wish to politically crucify the Prime Minister, and the whole-souled patriots who adhered to their leader in this time of national crisis.

Senator Ready:

– The honorable senator means to say that he is another private in General Hughes’ army?.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am one of those who are always sure of themselves. I have always properly appreciated those principles of liberty without which the Labour party will be an extinct volcano. The interjections which have been made have led me somewhat off the track. I was referring to what I regard as a startling revelation in regard to the psychology of the Australian people. Honorable senators must remember that a certain proclamation was issued under the Defence Act for which the Labour party claim all the credit, and by virtue of which men cannot be sent out of Australia compulsorily without the nation giving its consent either per medium of a referendum or the expressed and indicated will of its representatives in Parliament. Remember that men of a certain age ‘were called up, and were paid while they were called out a higher wage than is paid to any soldier . in the world except the soldiers of the Australian Expeditionary Forces and the soldiers of the Federal Army of the United States of America. We may assume that many had dependants and were filial. Undoubtedly, some of them would be filialy disposed, and I ask whether the young men who were called out gave -30s. or 35s. of their weekly pay for the maintenance of their old fathers, of mothers? Not many of them did. Honorable senators must remember that , while they were in Mr. Hughes’ tents they were fed and. clothed and received 5s. a day for seven days in each week. I am referring to young adult men and not to minors and. lads like some of those who went away with tne Australian Expeditionary Forces. I am not referring, either, to old men like some who dyed their beards, shaved off their moustaches, and told falsehoods about their age in order to get to the front, because they were men of martial souls. I am referring to the picked manhood of the nation, men from twenty-one to thirty-five years of age. Well, I say that a startling thing occurred which, in my view, represented a military and moral Sedan of - a disastrous character, and something worse than the capitulation of Ulm. Some 80,000 of the fit men out of the 200,000 called up under the proclamation “ dropped their bundle,” asked that they should be allowed to lay down the gun, and made claims for exemptions. There were, of course, a few honorable exceptions.

Senator Ready:

– And Mr. Hughes kept on extending the grounds for exemption.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It has to be said that in the national interest a certain percentage of exemptions would be found necessary; but did anybody believe that when the fit manhood of Australia in a military sense were called up there would be an application made for exemption from practically every man who had been declared to be medically fit for military service? I certainly did not. I anticipated a possible “ No “ vote at the referendum but I did not anticipate that deplorable result from the proclamation calling up men for military service. Some of the manhood of Australia did not respond to the call and did not even report themselves.

Senator de Largie:

– -And then got on to Mr.. Hughes because their votes -were to be challenged.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The very men who in this Parliament passed a clause in the Military Service Referendum Bill permitting the drastic questioning of and the investigation of the votes of people who .might be declared disloyal, because of alien extraction, championed the cause of these young fellows who fought such a wonderful rearguard action at the ballotbox. There were plenty in Tasmania, although it must be said for Tasmania that the men who there went into Mr. Hughes’ camps responded to a greater extent than did the. men in any other State in the Commonwealth to the call for .voluntary enlistment. I am not here for the purpose of playing to the young men at the . next, election, and asking for their votes. ‘ I am going to tell them what I think of them, in the hope that my bitter words may make them whole.

Senator Barnes:

– If the honorable senator had been a member of an Exemption Court, what would he have done with them ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not believe in these exemptions at all. My brotherinlaw’s only son has gone to the war twice. He came back here invalided, and returned to the front. Let me say that I did not believe in the very voluminous list of exemptions which accompanied the calling of men into the proclamation camps.

Senator Watson:

– The honorable senator would not have referred the question of conscription to the people at all.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am not going to be diverted from the matter to which I wish to refer. I read the proceedings of the Exemption Courts, and very rarely ‘ did I find from any single man anything like what I would call an honest and manly claim for exemption.

Senator Ready:

– Does the honorable senator approve of those questions being asked at the ballot-box?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Most decidedly. Does Senator Ready mean to say that the men who would refuse to report in obedience to the call und-i- the proclamation were ‘not more dangerous to the interests of the Empire than are men and women of possibly alien extraction, but loyal to Australia, whose votes might be challenged at the ballot-boxes under the legislation passed by this Parliament for the conduct of the referendum? These men were to be asked a simple question as to whether they had reported themselves for military service under the proclamation, and I say of. those who did not do> so that their disloyalty was quite equal in degree to any probable disloyalty on the part of a man who might have some modicum of alien extraction in him: I really cannot understand* how, in this great national crisis, there should be so much solicitude expressed on behalf of those young scoundrels, as I call them, who dared to disobey a lawful order based upon an enactment passed by the Parliament of their country to meet a situation of crisis and danger. Mr. Catts, and hia fellows, who said that Australia was in very great danger because of certain contingencies, and who said that men should be kept here in order that they should be trained to meet those dangers, were ‘the first to protest against men being trained to meet the very dangers with the recital of which they deluded the Australian people. ‘ We have here a gentleman who was at the time a Minister of the Crown, and who, with a great show of firmness, said that, whatever his opinions might be in regard to conscription, he certainly thought that the law should not be evaded, and that unquestionably the penalties provided by the law should be meted out without fear or favour to those who, in connexion with the preliminary step, failed the country in her hour of need. Certain contingencies developed into actualities, and the- honorable senator retired from the Ministry. Almost immediately, and before the ink with which his words were recorded was dry, we found him heading a deputation, and demanding that the ‘ Government should take the very action which he had reprobated as a Minister.

Senator Ferricks:

– He got what he demanded, too.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Singular to say, and lamentable to relate, the honorable senator achieved his purpose.

Senator Gardiner:

– Allow me to say that I headed no deputation to ask for exemption for any one who had broken the law. The honorable senator’s statement to that effect is not correct.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator was a member of a deputation that asked that the proclamation should be rescinded, and that certain’ action should be taken. Were you a member of such a deputation, or were you not?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must address the Chair.

Senator Gardiner:

– I take exception to the statement which Senator Bakhap has made, that I was present with a deputation asking exemption for any one who had broken the law or the regulations.’ I was a member of a deputation asking that men who had obeyed the proclamation should be let out of camp.

Senator BAKHAP:

– As Senator Gardiner has interrogated me, I will ask him whether he was in favour–

The PRESIDENT:

– I remind the honorable senator that he has made a statement which Senator Gardiner says is incorrect. The Standing Orders provide that an honorable senator must accept the assurance of another honorable senator in such a case. I ask Senator Bakhap, therefore, to accept Senator Gardiner’s assurance, and withdraw his statement.

Senator BAKHAP:

– If Senator Gardiner denies that he was a member of a deputation which had’ for its object the remission of the pains and penalties which might be passed upon men who had disobeyed the proclamation, I accept ‘his denial and withdraw my statement. I am quite prepared to forgive errors, because I have made plenty myself during my life; but if there is one thing which I do not like in a man who aspires to’ be considered a statesman it is irresolution. I am not going to condemn the Prime Minister for having thought it desirable , to promulgate regulations which certainly had a proper object in view. It is said that those regulations frightened men away from the ballot-boxes. I have no doubt they did frighten those cravens who failed to report under the proclamation. ‘ What harm was done if they were intimidated, and if they sought the shelter of the. ranges rather than face the returning officers at the ballot-box? Was any great harm done? Was any great injustice done? The only thing I am sorry for is that the Prime Minister did not carry the regulation right through to the end. Having promulgated the regulation, he should have enforced it, and if it was enforced, if it was of any’ effect, that effect, in my mind, could hardly be classed as other than beneficial.

Senator Watson:

– You were not intended for a Democracy.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It is a very singular thing that the Democracy of Tasmania, and a virile Democracy it is, considers me quite eligible to represent it in the National Parliament.

Senator Watson:

– I “do not think they will after that statement.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am never afraid ‘of anything I say, because I am not one of those who have to qualify their words at- any time. What I have said here I will never deny and repudiate.

Senator Watson:

– You’ have demonstrated that you are an autocrat of the first water.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am one of those who are not afraid to use stern measures to secure, in small things as well as great things, the triumph of our Empire in this crisis.

Senator Watson:

– You would make a splendid dictator.

Senator BAKHAP:

– As a matter of fact, this discursive statement, involving comment on. other equally discursive statements, is taking place On a financial measure. I will venture to say a little about the financial side of this war. I, as a man who had advocated conscription and low pay to the conscript soldiers, so that we would be financially better, able to remunerate and provide for those who returned from the field of honour, was condemned for a very long time in Tasmania and other States because of my utterances. But those utterances did not prevent the triumph of the conscription cause in my State.

Senator Ferricks:

– Did you make that statement at the last election?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I did not, but I made it very shortly after my election.

Senator Ferricks:

– That, is the time to make it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I did hot reudi- ate the statement the other day in Launceston during the conscription campaign, nor has it affected my status in the minds of the Tasmanian people in the least way, because they know that I made the statement honestly, and that I believed the financial resources of the Empire had to be intelligently conserved,- in order to meet this ‘probably great and enduring crisis. During the referendum campaign in- Tasmania the very gentlemen who thought that I had made a statement of great enormity in regard to this matter went about using as an argument against conscription the great cost of the war. The .very men who were prepared to make political capital out of a statement which 1 had ‘honestly made, believing it necessary to conserve our financial resources, used as an argument against conscription the great and growing cost of the war. But, to the honour of the Tasmanian people, in whom the ancient British ^ characteristics are still very markedly predominant, both Labour and Liberal men knew what to do with this argument, and the “Yes” cause secured a very much larger majority than any political party has been able to secure in Tasmania since the Federation was established.

Senator Watson:

– And you will be the first to speak of economizing and reducing the expenditure on works, and so forth. ‘ i

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes. Why we want to have financial strength when the war is over is mainly for the purpose of doing our duty to the veterans who, I hope, will return in large numbers, and the lessened financial cost as a corollary of conscription, which I recommended, would have enabled us to do far more for those men than we shall be able to do in the set’ of circumstances in which we are likely to find ourselves if the struggle continues. The Commonwealth would have been able, if conscription had been introduced at the start and payments made on that scale which should be a corollary of conscription, to give every returned soldier perhaps a cheque for £100 with which to start a farm or business. Will we be able to do that? ,

Senator Watson:

– Do not fool them like that.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator knows very well that we will be able to do it.

Senator Watson:

– It is not in your mind to do it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It would not cost us much more than £10,000,000 to give every returned soldier in poor circumstances £100 to start a farm or business. I shall do my best while I am in the Chamber to assist in making such finan-“ cial provision as will prevent the veterans from being door-to-door beggars when pot-valiant people have forgotten about the war and wish to spurn’ the men who have returned from the fields of battle. Volunteer soldiers, not conscripts, who have returned from the war have been assaulted in the streets of this city as well as in the streets of other Australian cities. I have heard controversies going on between, them when they were recommending a “ Yes “ vote and no-conscription youths who ought to be volunteers, and the soldiers were told that no thanks was due to them for having volunteered, that nobody asked them to go to the war, that they went of their own volition, and were not compelled, and that, consequently, they had no claim on the generosity or the justice of the Australian people. And .that situation, which may occur, for the morale in some respects of a very large section of the Australian people is not particularly high, has to be guarded against as a contingency. Therefore, I say to the people of Australia - and I say it to the Liberals of Australia, if we are going to introduce a measure of party into the discussion - you have to be prepared for heavy taxation for the needs of the war, and the need for doing justice to the returned veterans will cause a very large and heavy load of taxation to be necessary for the nation. In reply to an interjection from Senator Mullan, I say that I, representing a very large section of the Liberals of my State, am not going to assist in the evading of any taxation. All that we ask ‘is that certain principles be observed which will be equitable, and which .will prevent the impairment of the financial situation in such a way as to, perhaps, cause a partial collapse of industry. . We want the industries of Australia to be stimulated; we want them to be kept productive, and all measures of taxation will be reviewed by me in that spirit. But I do not hope for anything like a light load of taxation on the people, particularly if the war continues. They have to be prepared to make financial sacrifices as well as other sacrifices, and I would be a very poor man indeed if I were to go up and down the length and breadth of this continent and advocate the conscription of the Australian manhood while failing to recognise the desirability, nay, the imperative necessity, of a load of taxation which would enable the responsibilities and duties of the Commonwealth to be met and properly performed. In regard to the measures themselves, some of them are said to be wrong .in principle, and some of them are said to be wrong in detail. But a good many of our principles - have to be swallowed at times in the light of necessity. In time of war very often principles have to be subordinated to expedients. I recognise the nature of the situation, and am not going to be any very great stickler for the correctness of academic principles - principles quite valuable in themselves; principles that must be observed in connexion with taxation in normal times, when the stream of progress has resumed its even flow. But in this time of war I have consented to and voted for a measure which is, in effect; a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. I am not going to have that state of things continued. In fact, it will automatically cease as soon as peace is proclaimed. ‘ I shall vote for and support many things in time of war which in time of peace I would regard as undesirable. I am going to apply these remarks to the financial measures of the’ present Administration. I repudiate the suggestion that the Libera] party has attempted to intimidate or bring in any machinery to whip or scourge the Hughes Administration and its supporters. The few Liberals on this aide have supported the Labour party when it was unbroken in regard to ite war measures, and that support has been generously acknowledged.

Senator de LARGIE:

– There is no fresh compact.

Senator BAKHAP:

– No. We are prepared at this moment, and I hope we shall continue in our intention to support the Administration in any measures which are necessary for the successful prosecution of the war. That standard of criticism and that attitude, mental and political, is the standard I adopt and the attitude I take in connexion with the financial proposals of the Administration. I think that I have occupied the time of the Senate quite as long as I would be justified in doing, seeing the urgency of the Supply Bill. I honestly and, sincerely urge the Administration and ‘ its supporters to persevere in the honorable, and patriotic course which they have followed. I can assure them of my sympathy. I can assure thom that while we are divided, from them on the questions and issues of domestic importance so far as their war legislation is concerned, I will not wobble at trifles but will give them every chance to make good in the eyes of the Australian people, and in the eyes of the people of the Empire. I want now to refer for a moment to what I call the psychology of one section of the people. I never knew before that there were .so many Christadelphians in this country. I believe that . they are a more numerous denomination than the Roman Catholic, to which denomination I belong. I expect in this country to see a crusade for the erection of a temple or a cathedral, or whatever they call their principal place of worship, as big as Mount Macedon, for it will want to be as big to hold all those persons who claimed to be Christadelphians before, trie Exemption Courts. Why, sir, a pugilist - a man who would knock a fellow about for a few pounds - in Hobart- declared that he was a Christadelphian and could not take life, and my old friend Mr. Crosby Gilmore, who was presiding over the Court, very properly called him an arrant humbug. The people of Australia have to take this thing into consideration.. I do not say that it is impossible to make soldiers out of the men who claimed exemptions. As I have said, a very large percentage of tho people of any nation is nonwarlike, but these persons can be trained .if they are given sufficient training, into very good soldiers. We will take our. French Ally - probably one of the most martially souled people in the world. There are many cold-footed people amongst them occasionally. I have read how in the battle of the Moyne the stern Republican gunners had to light their matches and drive some of the regiments recruited from the Parisian rabble on -the unfortunate Royalists of La Vendee. I have read of the Servians, who have been fighting so gallantly, classed by writers on military subjects as timid men at best and no fair match for the hawk-nosed troops of the Turkish Empire. I know that the Japanese - one of the most warlike nations of the world-have a certain province in which it is traditionally believed the inhabitants do not care to fight. To show what can be done with even poor material, on one occasion a regiment of men recruited from this province, was called on by its major to “ go over “ -and make an attack on an entrenchment of Port Arthur, and they stood pat. They refused to go over and the gallant major, advancing single-handed, waving his sword, and calling upon them to go on, was shot down. The regiment was marched’ to the rear, a Japanese professor lectured them on patriotism and on duty to their country, took them out to the tomb of the fallen major, made them do obeisance there and beg pardon of his soldier soul for the way in which they had neglected to follow him in a critical moment until the men pleaded to be given another chance, and when the chance was given the very gates of hell would not have- prevailed against’ them. This can be done with the Australian material which was lodged ‘for a month in Hughes’ camp.. But it is not by training men for sixtyfour hours a year, by giving them a month or two of loose, ineffective military exercise that we can hope to make soldiers who will stand up to defend Australia in her hour of need. We must give them more training than we would require to give those men who have volunteered. It is because of that fact that I hoped to see conscription instituted when I commenced its advocacy at the very outset of the war. T wish now to say a word or two by way of personal explanation. I have’ been asked by the Director of Recruiting to accept a position on the State Recruiting ‘Committee for Tasmania. As I am not one of those men who get soreheaded because one of their pet projects has been rejected, I have accepted the position, and I will do my best to insure that Tasmania provides its quota of reinforcements.

Senator O’Keefe:

– A - After branding the men of that State ‘as scoundrels.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It is to the young fellows who are begging their mothers for permission to proceed to the front that we must look for reinforcements. I lived for years in a township in which there was only one single man of fit age to respond to the ‘Hughes’ call. Every other man who was physically fit had gone to the war. This -man is a cripple as the result of an accident, and his young brother, who is only sixteen years of age, is day by day endeavouring to enlist, while three more brothers are in the field. A little further on, in. another township, there is also only one man of military age who is loft. Be had endeavoured to enlist, but had . been rejected on -account of varicose veins. These are the sort of men whom I nursed as boys, and in these particular townships there was a majority of three or four to one in favour of conscription. All the men and women resident there asked themselves this question,

If all dur young men have gone to the front, why should other families refuse to send the’ir young men?” - That is a justification of the equity and democracy of the principle of compulsory service. I. do -not abate my opinion one jot that if this war continues compulsory servicewill be necessary. At the outset of my advocacy pf conscription I was met with ejaculations of astonishment. I was told, “ Mr. Asquith does not believe in it, nor does Mr. Lloyd George, and Lord Kitchener does not say that it is necessary.” These statements, however, did not daunt me. I knew that if the war continued conscription would be necessary. If the people of Australia are ever going to hold up their heads again, and meet the gaze of the world, compulsory service must be adopted.. But for all that, I am going to do my best to make Mr. MacKinnon’s recruiting scheme a success. I know that Tasmania for the months of October and November furnished its quota of reinforcements. But whether it continues to do so or not, I will do my best to secure under a system - which I believe is not a system - that flow of reinforcements which is essential to performing our part in the war, and to redeeming the promises. of our leading men. This country was pledged to assist the Empire to the last man and the last shilling. We are now told that this was merely a metaphor - that it was only a painted tiger to be thrown upon the Australian wall in the hope that it would frighten the enemies of the Empire.

Senator Watson:

– Who would recruit for service under the honorable senator’s advocacy’1?

Senator BAKHAP:

– The people know thai, on some matters, I hold very strong and drastic opinions, but they also know that I have faith in the remedies which I believe to be necessary for the safety of the Empire. A few words regarding the financial proposals of the Government, and I shall have finished. Under their taxation proposals, gold mining is properly to be exempted. If I can show that there are other ores in Australia which have not appreciated in price on account of the war, I think it will be conceded that they, too, should .be exempted from the operation of the wartime profits tax. It may be that incidental machinery will have to be provided to enable these ores to be exempted, but

Senator Guy:

– If the price of tin has declined, there will be no war profits to tax.

Senator BAKHAP:

– If gold is to be exempted from the operation of the wartime profits tax, why should not tin be similarly treated, seeing that it is cheaper now than it was prior to the outbreak of the war 1 I wish the Administration every success in its prosecution of the war. Naturally, I hope that it will be supplanted in due time by a Liberal Administration, but that can. happen only when the Australian people become seised of the fact thatLiberalism is truly synonymous with liberty. Until then’, letus bend all our energies to the successful prosecution of the war, and I shall regard the Government with great satisfaction if, during its term of office, we get a victorious peace.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I desire to congratulate the Leader of the new Opposition upon the stand that he has taken up. But, after carefully reading his speech, I confess that I am puzzled as to what was his frame of mind when he made it. He seems to have been in a land of dreams, of doubts, and of fears.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator asked for facts, and the Government have given out the facts, just as I predicted them. They have watered down their taxation proposals.

Senator SENIOR:

– First of all, the honorable senator wanted to know where Senator Millen stood, and what pledges he had given to the Government, as ifthat was a matter upon which Senator Gerdiner was not fully informed already. I was astonished to hear the honorable senator say that he possessed the confidence of a majority of the people. I do not know how he arrived at that, conclusion, because I am absolutely certain that no man will contend that the vote which was cast on the 28th October was a vote for either Liberalism or Labour. For Senator Gardiner to deduce from that vote that he. has a majority of the people of Australia behind him is about the most peculiar deduction that I have ever heard

Senator Ferricks:

– What about South Australia?

Senator SENIOR:

– I knew that that question would come. What about the gentlemen who went to South Australia to enter a Labour conference in which they were not representatives of that State ? And what about the gentlemen who endeavoured to get into that conference upon credentials that the society did not recognise ? ‘

Senator Ferricks:

– As a member of the Australian Workers Union I was entitled to be present.

Senator SENIOR:

– Then the honorable senator’s co-representative, Mr. Blackburn, wis not. I have never claimed, as Senator Gardiner has done, that the people of South Australia were behind me on the question of conscription. My attitude was based on a conviction which I held.’ But my honorable friend does not plead that his attitude was the result of conviction. He pleads that the majority of the people of Australia are behind him, when, as a matter of fact, the representatives of Victoria and Tasmania, and five of the representatives of Western Australia - some ten members in all - should be supporting the Government in this chamber, because a majority of those States voted in favour of conscription.

Senator Mullan:

– If the honorable senator’s logic be carried a little further, “ all the members upon the opposite side of the chamber should be over here, because there was a majority of “ No “ votes cast, throughout Australia.

Senator SENIOR:

– But I have already pointed out to my honorable friend that I attach no’ importance to the figures quoted by Senator Gardiner, and that my attitude on the question of conscription is based on my personal convictions. Senator Gardiner stated that the members who are directly supporting the Government are the remnants of those who broke away from the Labour party. The position reminds me very much of a trip which was undertaken by a friend of mine to the island upon which the mutineers of the Bounty are settled. To me it looks as if my honorable friends opposite have mutinied against the officers of the good ship Labour.

Senator Mullan:

– I am afraid that the honorable senator is one of the mutineers.

Senator SENIOR:

– They have entirely departed from the spirit of Labour by the action which they have taken. They are preventing members of the Labour party from saying what they have hitherto been able to say, namely, “ Outside of our printed platform, we are free men.” Can my honorable friends say that .now ?

Senator Gardiner:

– Certainly.

Senator SENIOR:

– They cannot. Never -again, so long as the so-called Labour party exists, can they stand on a public platform and say, as I have said a hundred times, “ Here is the printed platform; outside of that I am a free man.” I have claimed that always, and shall claim it to the end. I have subscribed, and still subscribe, to that platform. Here it is, no further back than 1915, and I challenge the wisest amongst my honorable friends to prove to me that conscription is in it.

Senator Watson:

– If your political freedom is so precious, the marvellous thing is that you have any platform.

Senator SENIOR:

– I signed the platform, and acknowledge that I am bound by it; but I claim freedom outside it. That was an inalienable right that we held in the party until the trouble occurred.

Senator Findley:

– -You are putting up an extraordinary defence. You claim that it is not in the platform, while others on your side claim that it is.

Senator SENIOR:

– Will the honorable .’ senator show me where it is ? So that the general public may know that conscription is not in the platform, I will read it: “ White Australia;” is it there? “ Oldage and invalid pensions;” is it there? “ Graduated tax on unimproved land values;” can Senator Grant find it in that ? “ Citizen Defence Force, with compulsory military training and Australianowned and controlled Navy;” is it there?

Senator de Largie:

– Pretty close to it.-

Senator SENIOR:

– If it is there, my honorable friends opposite have violated the platform.

Senator Watson:

– We do not admit that it is there.

Senator SENIOR:

– Then why do they persecute men for what is not in the platform ?

Senator Watson:

– There is no persecution. You have simply left the party. The party has not expelled anybody.

Senator SENIOR:

– Has it not? On the 5th July I received a letter which was practically a pistol at my head. To continue the platform : Commonwealth Bank ; Electoral Reform; Effective Federation;’ New Protection ; Nationalization of Monopolies; Arbitration Act Amendment; Navigation Laws ; Commonwealth Freight and Passenger Steamers; Restriction of Public Borrowing. Is it in any of these? Let the general public see what “bunkum” has been foisted on them by their so-called friends. Is it in any of the following : Initiative and Referendum; Abolition of State Legislative Councils; Abolition of State Governors? I come now to the general platform : Maintenance of a White Australia; Maintenance of a Graduated Tax on Unimproved Land Values ; and so on. It is not in any one of those. The letter to which I referred was receive’d by me before I had said one word as to whether I, was a conscriptionist or an anticonscriptionist. It did not come from the Political Labour party, but from the United Trades and Labour Council of South Australia. It is another violation of our principles. It has always been held that the Trades and Labour Council dealt entirely with trade, and not with politics. We .have. distinguished between the political and industrial Labour party; but there is a great difference, now. The letter is as follows: -

I have the honour to forward copy of resolution carried by the United Trades and Labour Council on Friday last: - “ That the secretary ‘ be instructed to issue a circular-letter to all State and Federal members of the United Labour party in South Australian and Commonwealth Parliaments respectively, pointing out to them the resolution of the council to oppose any member on the next plebiscite who dares to support the pernicious policy of conscription, and to ascertain from them whether it is their intention to carry out the desire of the industrial workers, which is to oppose conscription of males of military age, and also the new scheme of a citizens’ levy, which is being engineered by the capitalistic class of this country.”

Your reply to the above is required to reach this office within thirty days from date.

Senator Watson:

– Do you think that they are not interested when their liberties are involved ?

Senator SENIOR:

– The political interests have always been’ kept distinct from the industrial interests, and no organization has the right to hold a pistol at any man’s head after he is elected.

Senator Watson:

– The industrial and political movements will never be separated again. You are now trying to separate them.

Senator SENIOR:

– They have been held separate for many years. There has been a series of similar occurrences, showing what is possible under the new regime. It breaks down entirely that solidarity which has been the boast of the Labour party. If South Australia can hold a pistol at my head, the other States can do the same to their members. The result will be that they can have no Federal representative in the true sense. If this sort of thing can occur after a man is. elected, there is no guarantee that he will be able to fulfil the pledges he made on the platform.

Senator Ferricks:

– Why concern yourself about the Labour party now that you belong to the National party ?

Senator SENIOR:

– Because, equally with the honorable senator, I am a Labour . man. I have not veered one iota from the principles of the Labour party: I am concerned because something distinctly foreign to the spirit of the party has been introduced. Not only may there be a divergence amongst the different States, but there might be a divergence from the platform on every meeting day-, if any organization chooses to dictate to its representatives. It will mean that we are not longer representatives, but delegates, ‘bound to do and vote just as we are told, not according to our consciences or the promises we have made, but according to the orders we receive.

Senator Blakey:

– They tell me that you promised the Trades Hall anything to get elected.

Senator SENIOR:

– That is a distinct falsehood. The honorable senator knows that I am not , built that way. If he thought for a moment, he would see which side I was likely to save my skin on if I wanted to. To go with my friends over there, for they are’ friends still, because this is not a personal question, was to take the lineof least resistance.

Senator Ferricks:

– The honorable senator thought he was on the safe side when he took the step he did.

Senator SENIOR:

– I have never thought whether I was on thesafe side or not. My thought has always been-, “Is it right? “

Senator Watson:

– Was it to be on the easiest side to be called all the names you have hurled ‘ against us ?

Senator SENIOR:

– No man can charge me with calling names. Instead of sailing orders being given to the captain for the voyage, he will be liable to receive new sailing orders every day. In the expressive words of one of, the American writers, he will be facing north by south all the time and will never know where he is going.. He will never know what he is trying to do, because the orders will change with the changing winds. Seeing that the Labour party had not laid down what stand should be taken, I claimed freedom to exercise my judgment according to my conscience without being victimized, and I think every man had the right to make that claim. My honorable friends on the opposite side have always been strongly against victimization, and what is this but victimization? Because a man dares to advocate what he believes to be right in a national crisis, he is to lose all that he Has been striving to build up for twenty-five years.

Senator Blakey:

– Was not conscription victimization?

Senator SENIOR:

– No, for the simple reason that it was a duty. We cannot be a nation without defence, and we cannot maintain society without defence. The men who will not defend society, by their own act prove that they are not worthy to be members of society.

Senator Guy:

– Would the honorable senator feel free to vote against adult suffrage?

Senator SENIOR:

– No, because it is on the platform.

Senator Guy:

– Is it on the Federal platform ?

Senator SENIOR:

– No, it is on the State platform, and being a representative of a State,I adhere to that policy. I admit, however, that it is not on the Federal platform.

Senator Guy:

– Would you be free to oppose it then?

Senator SENIOR:

– No, because the principle is involved in our representation in this House. It was advocated by the Labour party, and is. one of the principles of the Labour party. For that reason, therefore, the honorable senator cannot weaken my argument concerning conscription by quoting adult suffrage as an analogy.

Senator O’Keefe:

– S - Seeing that the Adelaide conference represented the whole of the Labour movement in South Australia, do you not think they were within their rights in asking their Federal members to take a certain stand upon a great question ?

Senator SENIOR:

– The conference, to which my friend alludes could only be the conference of 1915, and for his information I will quote the motion tabled at that gathering. The following motion was sent in by the Port Adelaide committee -

  1. This conference solemnly pledges itself to oppose, by all lawful means, the conscription of human life for military service abroad, and directs all affiliated unions and leagues to take immediate steps to oppose all Labour members who vote for, or otherwise support, conscription, so as to make this matter a clear-cut issue between the forces of ‘ Democracy and Despotism; where unions or leagues fail to take such action, the central executive is hereby instructed to refuse, under any circumstances, to indorse conscriptionist candidates.
  2. That it be an instruction to. the delegates on the Inter-State executive to oppose, at all costs, the policy of conscription.
  3. That copies of the foregoing resolutions be sent to the central body of the Labour organizations of each State, the Acting Prime Minister (Senator Pearce), and the Minister for Customs (Mr. Tudor).

This refers to an occasion when several senators have a long time to go, and it would apply to my friend Senator Newland who has six years to go yet just as it would apply to me. That motion, however, was not carried. The conference indorsed a resolution against conscription of human life, but favouring the referendum. The president of the conference was then interrogated immediately, “Where does that leave members?” and he replied, “ It leaves them with a free hand.” The members were, therefore, admittedly free, the statement of the president not being challenged. We accepted that freedom.

Senator O’Keefe:

– M - My point is that the conference declared against conscription of human life.

Senator SENIOR:

– Yes, but in favour of the referendum, and that allowed every man to vote according to his ownconscience. Immediately afterwards a motion expressing confidence in the Hughes Government was carried, and Federal members received an instruction from the executive to support the Hughes Government. This instruction, I remind the Senate, was given while the conscription referendum was in full blast.

Senator Blakey:

– Did not Mr. Hughes tell the delegate’s that if they did not support him, they would be sure to get conscription under Mr. Cook?

Senator SENIOR:

– What Mr. Hughes told the delegates had nothing to do with the resolution of the conference. Having received that instruction to support Mr. Hughes, what could we do ? We complied with it and now we are condemned for doing so.

Senator Watson:

– Supposing that instruction had not been given, what action would you have taken?

Senator SENIOR:

– Supposing my honorable friend were a conscriptionist, would he not be a wiser man then? He must not quote a hypothetical case and expect, me to draw a satisfactory conclusion from it. If the conference had voted for conscription, it would have been a recommendation to the Federal conference.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Will the honorable senator ask Senator Watson what he would have done if the Political Labour League had been conscriptionist?

Senator SENIOR:

– I think that is a question that is probably troubling the honorable senator a great deal, so I will allow him to think it over. I point out to Senator Watson that the pledge they would bind us to in regard to this conscription issue is not in accordance with the platform of the Labour party, so they are violating the platform principle and usage in their endeavour to reach the position they occupy to-day. I want that fact to be clearly stated and widely known. The attitude of the honorable senators opposite has not caused me to veer in the slightest degree in regard to the principles which underlie a great Labour movement.

NowI want to say something concerning the Government policy, and incidentally to refer to this question of conscription. Three points are comprehended in the Government programme. The first is the prosecution of the war as earnestly as possible. My friends opposite say that conscription is’ wrong, and they believe that voluntarism will bring in the necessary number of recruits. They cannot say that Great Britain to-day has not need for every man,’ and if in Great Britain there is the same cry that was heard when Nelson declared that England expected every man to do his duty, surely we in Australia should do our duty now. The point I want to drive home is this: Our Labour friends opposite say conscription is wrong. Therefore they must admit that voluntarism is right. On that reasoning they cannot escape their duty - I am not going to shrink from mine - and they must do their utmost to see that voluntarism does succeed in furnishing all the men required. They say, however, that they do not want men to go outside of Australia for any purpose. But can the defence of this country be defined by degrees of latitude? If, Papua were invaded, Senator Watson said Australia would spring to arms. That being so, I ask : Shall not Australia spring to arms to defend this country on’ the plains of Flanders ?

Senator Watson:

– We are prepared to defend Australia here and we are defending Australia overseas; but we are not going to submit to a system that will compel men to leave Australia against their will. That is our attitude.

Senator SENIOR:

– Let me point out to the honorable senator that “ we” means Australia, and on his’ line of reasoning this country has not sent a single man to the front.

Senator Watson:

– She has never compelled one to go.

Senator SENIOR:

– To the honour of Australians it can be said that very many thousands have volunteered and gone, but Australia, as a nation, has absolutely abstained from taking any part, in this war.

Senator O’Keefe:

-Yo -You are wrong there. The men volunteered, and Australia equipped and is paying for them.

Senator SENIOR:

– But according to the reasoning of my honorable friends,

Australia as a- nation has not sent a man. Now, defence is the basis of all society. If defence is destroyed, the basic principle on which society rests disappears. The policeman is a representative of the Army. He is a unit guarding the safety of society here, and yonder in Flanders ia a military unit carrying out the same task. If it is right that we should defend ourselves at home with a policeman, it is equally right that we should defend ourselves in Flanders, where undoubtedly the battle is being fought to maintain the liberties of Australia.

Senator Watson:

– We are doing it, too.

Senator SENIOR:

– My honorable friends will not contend that a man’s duty in this matter arises only when he feels it incumbent on him to go to the front. There is imposed upon every man in the community a duty to defend the country. That is what I wish to drive home,. Is there no compulsion in the admission of that duty ? ‘ Will honorable senators say that many of those who have gone from Australia did not go because of the compulsion of other forces. Will it be said that there were not some who were practically hungry before they went.

Senator Watson:

– The more shame to Australia.

Senator SENIOR:

– Yes, the more shame to Australia, but if my honorable friend is going to allow compulsion of one kind to force a man to the front he cannot complain of compulsion of any other kind. He cannot say that one form of compulsion is right and another is wrong. It is a duty which we owe to the nation to defend itwith every power we possess. Whatever we may think on the subject of conscription we may be agreed that if Germany could reach us to-day the fate of Belgium, Servia, and Rumania would be our fate. If it was right for the people of those countries to defend their homes, surely it is right’ for us to attack the common foe where we can best defeat him. If a bush fire were threatening Senator’s Watson’s homestead, he would not wait until it had reached his back yard before he would try to put it out.

Senator Watson:

– He would not be afraid of it if it was 10,000 miles away.

Senator SENIOR:

– It must not be forgotten that distance is fast becoming annihilated. A distance which could not be covered except in a considerable time some few years ago may be covered to-day in comparatively a very short time. It is not long ago since we had the first record of a submarine crossing the Atlantic. We read to-day that there are submarines being constructed that have a radius of 4,000 miles. Are not these things annihilating distance? If it was right for us to sink the Emden outside of our own territorial waters,-‘ and not one of my honorable friends have pronounced it as wrong, it cannot be wrong for us to meet the same enemy on the plains of Flanders. There is another point which we ought to consider. Great events like those which we are passing through at the present time try nations and men. I am expressing a .thought with which some people may not agree when I say that I am not sorry that the Labour party has had to pass through its day of trial. I am not sorry that the nation should pass through its day of trial. It is only by such tests that we can discover the strong men, the strong nation, and the strong party.’ It is by trial that we are perfected. Senator Findley knows very well that a boiler is tested again and again because human life may be sacrificed if there be any weakness in it. He knows that if any specially strong machinery is wanted, the steel of which it is constructed is refined and tempered again and again. It is through such trials as we are passing through to-day that great nations are proved. If in the day of trial we are weak and fail, we must pass out as we have a right to pass out, and others must take our place. One of the most valuable things in nature is the diamond.Where do we find it. If we go to Cape Colony we shall find it buried in the debris in the throat of a volcano. How was it made Let us consider the trial to which it was subjected. It is to-day extracted from a blue clay; but was at one time enclosed in a molten mass of iron under a pressure which could be measured only by thousands of atmospheres. It’ passed through a fire sufficiently intense to make every rock around it melt. Buried in a catacomb of iron and rocks that lost their individuality in the trial it remained. When disclosed by the miner’s pick in the blue clay- which has lost its form to such an extent that it is impossible to say what it previously was, the pure carbon is still there, but has assumed a crystal form which it never had as carbon. So the nation, the community and the party must be tried, and if they stand firm they will be bright and better than ever they were before. I had hoped that this land, which almost witnessed my birth, arid which at least- has nurtured me’ from childhood, and is in my opinion one of the grandest places where men dwell, would have produced the grandest of men. Some who have gone from us we have every reason to be proud of. When the record of Australia is written their names will be high on the scroll of fame. But surely there should be put forth some effort to compel other men to stand side by side with those who have gone to the front. Why should the bravest in the land be the only defenders of ^Australia? Why should not all men in this country do their share. We, as Labour men,, believe in equality of sacrifice.- Should it be sacrifice for the brave and the avoidance of sacrifice for those who are not brave? We believe in equality of sacrifice, and Australia, to be true to that principle, should have said to every man in the country, ‘ ‘ You are enjoying the privileges of society, ‘ and in this time of trial you are called upon to take a man’s place and stand firm for the liberties >of your country.” I sincerely hope that out of our present difficulty will come, a spirit of stronger union than we ever “had before, and that Australia will emerge from her trials the greatest and best country in the Southern Seas.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I have no wish to take much of a hand in what is going on just now. Senator Senior has given us a long rigmarole about what has occurred between himself and an organization in South Australia. The matter with which he has dealt must be settled by those who are concerned. We have practically nothing to do with it. It is to the organization to which he has referred that the honorable senator should direct his complaints. I take it that the Labour party in South Australia will be prepared to deal with them- effectively. The honorable . senator is quite right when he says that it is through trials that nations grow strong. It was through trials that the Labour party grew strong. It is through a trial like the present that the Labour party is going to come again, and be stronger in Australia than ever it has been before. I am not worrying, as I said the other evening, about the future of the Labour party. That is assured. There need not be any pessimism indulged in regarding it. We have gone through fire perhaps too often in some of the States, and certainly in the State from which I come. We have become stronger than ever because of the trials through which’ we have had to pass. Senator Bakhap has given us some peculiar ideas about the State from which he comes. There must be ail awful lot of scoundrels in Tasmania. I never thought that there were so many in any State of Australia. He has spoken to-night of a lot of wretched scoundrels who would not do certain things. These are statements which the honorable senator should make to the people of Tasmania. Some of us may feel that since, in the opinion of the honorable senator, there is such’ a large number of scoundrels in Tasmania, it is not a good place for the people from the mainland to go to. He has told us, not only that he believes in conscription, but has been honest enough to tell us, as he told us before, that he believed in giving conscripts the conscripts’ pay. I think ls. a day is the right amount.

Senator Findley:

– No, to be correct it is ls. 2d. a day.

Senator TURLEY:

– Well, let us admit that it is, the enormous sum of ls. 2d. per day.

Senator Bakhap:

– The pay which the volunteer soldier in Great Britain is getting.

Senator TURLEY:

– The volunteer soldier in Australia gets a great deal more. Whilst in camp here he gets 5s. a day and everything found. As soon as he goes abroad he gets 6s. a day and everything found, and, in addition, Ms wife, if he has one, is given an allowance for maintenance.

Senator Bakhap:

– What about the British volunteer soldier?

Senator TURLEY:

– We are not talking about the British volunteer soldier. He has nothing to do with us. The Government’ of Great Britain do not fix the wages which’ we pay our soldiers in Australia. If we had’ offered our soldiers ls. 2d. per day, I am satisfied that not many of them would have volunteered to enlist. But Senator Bakhap would have compelled them to serve at this magnificent wage, and he says that then, when they came back, we should be in a position to give them a cheque for £100 each. He would have docked them of 35s. a week so that out of the money saved in that way we might say to them when they came back, “ Here is a cheque for £100; you can go away and do what you like.’” It seems to me that the Australian soldier would prefer to be in the position in which he is to-day. Let it not be forgotten that when the referendum was taken it was announced by the Government that, whatever the result of the vote might be, there was to be no interference with the rate of pay which Australian soldiers were receiving.

Senator Bakhap:

– That was quite so. That was the policy of the Government.

Senator TURLEY:

– The honorable senator has spoken of his going into certain villages in Tasmania, in one of which he said there was not a single virile man left. In another he said there was only one person pf military age, and he had been rejected.

Senator Bakhap:

– I want the honorable senator to understand that I referred to the particular classes called out.

Senator TURLEY:

-r-I am not wondering very much at these statements. I have only to turn to the population statistics of Tasmania to discover that all the young and virile in the population of that State have to go somewhere else to earn a living ? It is no wonder that they are not in the State. How could we expect them to be there? When young men and young women have grown up, and looked round for employment in Tas- mania, what have they found? Until very lately they found that they had to take wages which, in many cases, would be regarded on the mainland as blackfellow’s wages. And the result was that the young people said, “ This is no country for us.” They had heard that, on the mainland, there was an opportunity to improve themselves. Every time we refer to the statistics, we find that there are less and less people in Tasmania. In 1913, the population was 201,675; in 1914, it was 201,416; while in 1915 it was 201,025. .Here is a State in which the population is decreasing ‘ all the time. We do not wonder, therefore, at not finding in the State a great many persons’ between the ages of twenty-one and thirtyfive years to be drawn upon for military service.

Senator Bakhap:

– They have gone to the war, I tell the honorable senator.

Senator TURLEY:

– Men have gone in rather greater proportion from Queensland than from Tasmania, and, as a witness, I quote Mr. Donald Mackinnon, who made that statement ip Queensland.

Senator Bakhap:

– Did you see the figures in this morning’s press ? Tasmania is the only State which, for the last two months, has furnished its quota for the reinforcements.

Senator TURLEY:

– I have only to say that Queensland has increased in population every year by thousands, although it has in proportion sent considerably more recruits than other States, except Western Australia. I rose, however, to deal with one or two matters, as I had a previous opportunity to speak on the question of recruiting. I wish to refer to the report of the Royal Commissioner on the charges made by Mr. Gilchrist. The other day I asked the Government whether on Judge Eagleson 8 report Gilchrist was going to be prosecuted for perjury, and the Minister said that the matter was under consideration. That is the stereotyped reply which is given, and I do not feel like accepting such a reply for very long. I want to know whether anything is going to be done. The other day I picked up a newspaper, and read of a young man in the employ of the Victorian Railway Service who had annexed a few pounds of their revenue. He was arrested, I believe, and punished with a term of imprisonment which I think would be indorsed by practically every honorable senator. But here is a worse offence which has been committed. Here is a case where a man has been able to get hold of the ear of a member, or members, of Parliament, and to have inquiries made into charges at a cost of probably thousands of pounds to the country in an endeavour to defame the character and the ability of men who are employed by the Commonwealth to do its work. He has been able to incur this enormous expense, .and when the Judge makes the statements which he does in the generalremarks at the end of the report, we Have an apparent hesitation as to whether any action should be taken. Let us see what the Judge says. On page 57, this statement occurs -

In the course of the investigation Mr. Gilchrist was allowed to examine all documents which he desired to, and to put in all documents relevant to any of the charges. He was allowed free and unrestricted access to, and examination of, all the files, from which he selected whatever documents he desired. He accompanied me on my tour of inspection of the western section of the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta line, ‘ and had every opportunity afforded him of inspecting the whole of that section, the plant, the engines, and rolling-stock at the depot, and of pointing out whatever he thought fit to me. In other words, he was afforded the most ‘ample opportunity of proving all or any of these charges.

On page 58, the Judge makes .these further statements -

Out of all the witnesses called there were only three whose testimony- 1 found it impossible to accept, unless and until it had been corroborated. Those witnesses are Henry Chinn, Dane Carrington, and Dudley Lynton. Gilchrist.

The Judge deals with the two first mentioned witnesses, and then refers to the man who had made the charges -

In the case of Dudley Lynton Gilchrist, I am satisfied that during the investigation, more especially while giving evidence in Kal- , goorlie, he has repeatedly committed wilful and corrupt perjury of a very flagrant character. But, apart from that, I found it absolutely impossible to place any reliance whatever upon his evidence, for the following reasons: -

The Judge gives quite a number of reasons^ -

  1. Where I had an opportunity of examining for myself any place or work referred to by Mr. Gilchrist in his evidence, I found that his evidence was incorrect.
  2. Tho documentary evidence in many cases proved that his evidence was untrue.
  3. He made statements on oath in a reckless fashion, without having any knowledge as to their truth or otherwise’.

I do not know that it is necessary to read all the reasons, but the whole thing is summed up by the Judge in the paragraph I read, in which it is . stated that Gilchrist had “ repeatedly committed wilful and corrupt perjury of a very flagrant character.” Tb seems to me that a man may come along and be able almost to ruin the characters of men who have been in the employ of the Commonwealth or a State for many years, and that nothing apparently is to be done. We have asked the Government whether anything is to be done in this case.- I have not seen this man yet. T do not know him in any way. I am dealing with the matter purely from a public point of view. If a man makes charges of this description, and, after an inquiry is held, we get a report of this nature, not from an ordinary individual, but from a gentleman who has been accustomed to weigh evidence, there is .no action which should be taken by a Government except prosecution if they are going to protect the characters of their officials. There was a number, of people who evidently knew Gilchrist before the inquiry was started. The report of Judge Eagleson ia - dated 13th September, 1916. ‘I propose to read a letter showing the estimation in which Gilchrist was held by those with whom he was associated in ‘ Western Australia a considerable time ago. The letter appeared in a Brisbane newspaper of 22nd April last, and it came from Western Australia to the Clerks Union in Brisbane. It reads as follows: -

Dear Comrade, - Your wire received, also letter in confirmation. We are immensely gratified to learn that in the extreme part of Australia to our branch is a body of fellowworkers in sympathy with our movements -and ever ready to encourage. Mr. D. L. Gilchrist, whom you will recognise is the subject of inquiry at present; made charges against, the administration of the western end of the KalgoorliePort Augusta railway after he had enlisted. Mr. W. 0. Archibald, late Minister for Homo Affairs, ridiculed the charges made when personally visiting the line here. Mr. King O’Malley thereupon appointed, .Gilchrist to the Kalgoorlie office after the ‘latter had been refused by the military authorities. The members here decided they would absolutely refuse to’ work with Gilchrist, whom they considered to be a pimp and informer, moreover a lying one. The matter then devolved upon Mr. Darbyshire (supervising engineer), he having received, a notification to reinstate Gilchrist, to do -which he point-blank refused. Mr. Darbyshire then received notice of dismissal, and. the union sent the Minister for Home Affairs an ultimatum, giving him forty-eight hours to reinstate Mr. Darbyshire, and remove Gilchrist, or a strike would eventuate on the 15th ult. As you know, the ultimatum was given effect to, and work was not resumed until the 20th ult. In the meantime Gilchrist was transferred to another part of this State, and Mr. Darbyshire, together with his second in command (Mr. Marnie), reinstated. You see we were conceded all our demands without any victimization, and it is cause for great gratification that in our first fight we won, and probably the first strike of its kind in the world, certainly in Australasia. Wishing your members every success, and hoping to have the pleasure of personally greeting your delegate at conference. - Yours fraternally, T. D. Gar diner, secretary.

T ‘am taking this course because I think it is a public necessity. I do not think that this sort of conduct should be encouraged. If men are permitted . to make reckless charges, and when a report of this character is submitted the Government are not prepared to take action against the offenders, no man in. the employ of the Commonwealth, whatever his professional capacity or character may be, will be safe from attacks of this de scription. I should like to know whether the Government are going to take any action in connexion with this report. Some few weeks ago I asked a question in regard to it, but all I have received by way of reply was an assurance that the matter is ‘ under consideration. I hope that the Government will make an effort to protect the officers in their employ.

Senator Millen:

– Apart from the protection of officers, is not perjury .a crimein this country?

Senator TURLEY:

– Undoubtedly it is. The statements which I have read are made in the report of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who is used to weighing evidence, ‘ and who would bereluctant - unless he were very sure of hisground - to make such definite statements as he has made regarding the author of these charges. I come now to another matter. We have been assured that the Government have not received any instructions from the Opposition. I accept that assurance. Apparently, however, the Ministry occupy a position similar to that occupied by a vessel when passing through the doldrums. In such circumstances, a vessel desires to make headway, and in the case of a sailing ship the entire time of the crew is taken up in endeavouring to , catch any breeze which may be blowing, in. order that it may be assisted to strike the trade winds, so that it may be enabled to continue its voyage. That is the position of the Government in respect of one or two matters in regard to which they have taken action. One of these has relation to the sale of enemy goods. When I was supporting the late Government I was more or less tied down.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable’ senator evidently appreciates his changed position.

Senator TURLEY:

– I recognise the difference between being in a branding yard and in an open paddock. The late’ Government took certain action in regard’ to the sale of enemy goods, probably as the result of panic. My own view is that persons who had purchased .enemy goods prior to the outbreak of war should have been allowed to sell them. But, owing to the action taken by the late Government, many men who had planked down Australian money for enemy goods - were victimized, whereas those who were able to keep those goods on their shelves, are at liberty to-day’ to sell them free of restrictions. I think that the recent action of the Government will be appreciated by all those persons who have these goods, and who are now able to sell them without any restriction. The Government have power - and they should exercise that power to the . utmost limit - to prevent alien enemy goods entering Australia. It would have been much better if the late Government had done that instead of taking the action which they did. Then, again, we witnessed a few months ago the spectacle of a Minister making all sorts of charges - charges which practically amounted to corruption, and which certainly made it appear thatcertain officers engaged in carrying out Government works were inefficient. A Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into those charges.But here again a change has come over the spirit of the dream. Since recent political happenings we have had the announcement that-

It is understood that the restriction of the inquiry will be to matters relating to the Federal Capital, on which evidence ‘has been taken for some months past. This, it is expected, will be concluded by Christmas, and Mr. Blacket, K.C., will then bring in, as a final finding, what would have been a progress report. The matters to be dispensed with under this arrangement include works connected with the General Post Offices in several of the State capitals, parcels post-offices, the Commonwealth offices, and the Treasury Buildings, Melbourne, &c.

I wonder what, is responsible’ for the change which has occurred in connexion with this inquiry. If the charges made by the Minister were ‘justified, there is no reason on earth why the investigation should not proceed. The Minister who made those charges is still on the Treasury bench, and if ever there was a time when his action should be either justified or proved to be without warrant, that time is now. If those who are indirectly supporting the Government have not made any demand in this connexion, it is only another instance of the ship of State passing through the doldrums and having its sails trimmed to catch every passing breeze. Recently a statement by Mr. Cook in regard to extravagant expenditure of public money was published in the newspapers.. He said -

There should be a vigorous pruning of expenditure in all Departments, and public works, such as the East-West railway, the Federal Capital, and the expenditure on the Northern Territory, should, where at all possible, wait until the war is over. The expenditure on the Murray waters scheme was wise. While the Commonwealth was setting an ex ample, he hoped that it would force economy on the States. He said that deliberately, for it was high time it was done. The nonsense that was going on in Queensland, where money which should be devoted to the war was being squandered in butchers’ shops and other Socialistic enterprises, should be stopped at once.

I do not mind that statement. It is just exactly what I should expect to come from the quarter from which it emanated. The Government will find that, in order to please Mr. Cook, Sir John Forrest, and others, to whom they are indebted for their political existence, they will have to say, “ Yes. We will do exactly what you want.” . I wish to set out what are the facts of the case so far as Queensland is concerned, because it seems to me that it would be a good thing if the other States were prepared to follow its example. I know that the Commonwealth Government have declared Epsom salts to be a necessary commodity, but that circumstance has not reduced the cost of living. I have always held that to effectually fix the prices that should obtain in any industry it is necessary for us to embark upon that industry. In my opinion, any enterprise, either State or Commonwealth, is fully justified. Nobody_ has ever heard me protest against the Government fixing the price of wheat or flour. Now, what has been done in Queensland ? It seems to me that the action which has been taken there is one which redounds to . the credit of the Government of that State. In the first place, they have established butchers’ shops there. They have not fixed the price of meat; they have simply said, “‘We are going to embark upon this business.”

Senator Millen:

– Are you dealing with the Western Australian meat enterprise?

Senator TURLEY:

– No; but I see certain statements in the press to the effect that that has . been dropped.

Senator Millen:

– They are not rich enough to carry it on.

Senator TURLEY:

– Surely the great State of Western Australia, in the northern part of which there is cattle country that cannot be beaten in any part of Australia, is not going to admit that it is not rich enough to transfer stock from one part to the other, and maintain a system of supplying the public with its own product?

Senator Needham:

– We had the cheapest meat of any part of Australia, but a new Government has come in.

Senator TURLEY:

– There may be another change by-and-by in ‘Western Australian politics, when we may look to the Labour party to send not only a majority . into the State Parliament, but a pretty big majority into this Parliament, so far as their means will allow. On page 9 of his Budget Statement, the Queensland Treasurer said -

As a summary of the operations of the several business undertakings may be of interest, I will briefly refer to them. State Butchery; premises for the retail sale of meat were opened as follow : - Roma-street, 12th November, 1915;Woolloongabba, 2nd June, 1916; Valley, 29th June, 1916. The number of customers served daily has averaged 2,500.

The balance-sheet of 30th September, 1916, discloses a net. profit of £7,576, made up as follows : - State’ butchers’ shops, £2,865; sale of meat to southern- buyers, £4,711; total, £7,576.

In arriving at the profit on these shops, due provision for rent, rates, and depreciation on plant at the rate of 25 per cent, per annum has been made.

That is a large amount to put aside for rent, rates, and depreciation of plant. It looks as if they are taking precautions against failure on that score. I have a list issued by one of the ‘Government- meat shops in Brisbane, the one near where I live, having obtained it from the manager on 24th November, l916. On 8th December I obtained from the gentleman appointed by the Commonwealth in connexion with food arrangements here figures showing the prices in Melbourne. I specially inquired if the cuts coincided, and was told- that they did. I had previously supplied him with one of our lists, and he. had got his information practically on the same basis. I made sure that the prices I got from him were those paid over the counter. The two lists, which I received within fourteen days of each other, are as follow -

Senator Millen:

– Would not the . prohibition against the export of cattle from Queensland to the other States account for the lower prices?

Senator TURLEY:

– Before the Queensland Government entered into this enterprise, we were paying 2d. and 3d. a pound more than we are paying in Brisbane to-day.

Senator Millen:

– But the export of cattle was allowed then.

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes; but I am not referring altogether to the question of beef. I do not see that any other State can reduce the price of beef so effectively as Queensland has done; but Queensland is not the home of mutton so much as some of the other States are, yet, since the establishments of these shops in Brisbane we have been able to obtain mutton at less than Melbourne prices. If other States took the same action, the people throughout Australia would be getting meat at considerably less than most of them are now paying.

Senator Story:

– Does Queensland’ grow, enough mutton for her own consumption ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, anda long way more; but, for some time, no other State did so much boiling down of mutton as Queensland did, for extract and other purposes).’ Our mutton prices are as cheap as, if not a little cheaper than, in the mutton-producing State of South Australia. I am informed that the Melbourne prices supplied to me were arrived at by the Department getting lists of credit and cash, prices from nearly all the butchers’’ shops and averaging them up, for it must be remembered that in some districts asmuch as 2d. and 3d. a pound more is charged . for the same cuts than in other districts. That State enterprise in Queensland has been carried further, and, in all probability, that is the gravamen of the charge being laid against that State at the present, time. It is all very well to talk about fixing prices; but go into the business, produce your own material, work it up yourself, and put it on , the market, and then there will be no question whether the State is able to compete with private enterprise. Realizing they had to depend upon the, people growing beef in Queensland, for the supply of meat necessary for the public, and that some 12,000 tons had been acquired by the Government under an agreement to be delivered as required, the Government decided that the time had arrived to grow their own beef. They had enormous areas of country leased to other people who were making a success of growing meat - for no one will deny that for the last year or two the cattle men have been having a very fair innings.

Senator Shannon:

– They have had bad times.

Senator TURLEY:

– No doubt. ‘ I remember when, for a considerable time, i was very glad to live on bread and treacle, but that was some time ago. It is the same with the cattle men. I remember the time when stock were at a low price? and cattle could have been obtained for from 40s. to SOs. per head,’ which would to-day, I suppose, bring from £10 to £11. I am thinking, however, of the stock away back, and which would cost a considerable amount to get to market. The Government have decided to go into this business, and I understand that in some cases the owners of stations that were acquired did not demand cash, but were prepared to take up Government bonds for the country in which they have been interested. The money, therefore, involved in the purchase of such properties would not have been required for war purposes at any rate. On page 12 of the State Treasurer’s statement appears the following information : -

Early in the year the Government decided to enter into the pastoral industry as a business proposition. Up to the present the following properties have been acquired, namely: -

Mount Hutton, Leichhardt district, comprising an area of 525. square miles, carrying, approximately, 260 horses, 10,243 cattle. The unexpired term of the lease was ten and a half, years. The property was purchased for £73,500, and the purchase included all improvements and plant, valued at £2,322. This holding will ultimately be , subdivided for closer settlement, but will be used as ‘a State station until railway communication is completed and subdivisional surveys are made.

It must be admitted that was not a bad bargain.

Senator Millen:

– I should like to see the cattle first.

Senator TURLEY:

– No doubt the honorable senator would; but any one who knows Queensland is aware that Mount Hutton carries one of the bestherds to be found in the western part of that State. The following other particulars were given in the Treasurer’s state-, ment: -

Dillalah, Warrego district, comprising an area of 515 square miles. The stock purchased comprises 160 horses and 4,000 cattle. The price paid was £61,226, which’ included £9,265 for 1,090 bullocks purchased in North Queens-‘ land for Dillalah. The purchase included all improvements and .plant, valued at £23,624. The lease of this property had expired; but,, owing to the suitableness of the country for a depot, it was decided to retain it as a State station.

Wando Vale, North Kennedy district, comprising Wando Vale, Jamison, Bulgeri, and Kinloch leases, a total area of 778 square miles. The unexpired terms of the leases were 22, 35,. 32, and 32 years respectively. The stock purchased were 350 horses and 10,000 cattle. The property was purchased for £82,000, and the price included all improvements and plant, valued at £5.620.

Other properties are under offer to the Government, and negotiations for their purchase are proceeding.

Senator Millen:

– That is about £7 per head for all the cattle, including calves. ,

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, but there were horses on the property, and I point, out that after the purchase there was- a “ bang tail “ muster, .with a result that the Government came .out- with about 1,200 head of stock to the good.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has been too long in the back country not to know how a “bang tail” muster is worked.

Senator TURLEY:

– They would not do anything while they were treating with the Government for the station. I have here the Ministerial statement dated 27th September, 1916, and- another statement issued .by the Treasurer last week. I- had intended making- some comments upon it, bub I think I have said enough to make the people of Australia realize that the statements concerning the eis1’‘penditure of money in Queensland on this project did not place the position quite fairly, and that money which would otherwise have gone into the war was not necessarily directed to the purchase of these properties. At all events, the statement to this effect was probably only partially correct. When we realize thebenefit that is being conferred on the people of Queensland as compared with, the prices that are being . -paid by the. people in the rest of the States, it seems to me that the action of the Queensland Government has been fully justified, and I do not think that that Government will permit interference with their undertakings in the direction of providing meat for their people.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I think it is an established fact that the whirligig of time makes strange changes in the spheres of human activity ; but the change that has taken place in the Federal arena recently has been so remarkable that one is tempted to ask oneself -

Do I sleep ? do I dream ?

Do I wander and doubt?

Are things what they seem ?

Or is visions about?

A few short weeks ago there were in the Federal Parliament but two parties - the. Australian Labour party, intrusted with the government of this country and having a working majority in both Chambers, with, opposite to them, the Australian anti-Labour party. To-day there are three parties on paper. There is still the Australian Labour party.

Senator Millen:

– On paper?

Senator FINDLEY:

-N o, in reality, and as a living entity.

Senator Millen:

– But you said just now that there were three parties on paper, and the Australian Labour party must be one of them.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The Australian Labour party is’ not on paper. It is a living organism.

Senator de Largie:

– It is on toast.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Then there is a “National” party.

Senator Ferricks:

– That is on the grid-iron.

Senator FINDLEY:

– God knows where it is.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is on the Treasury benches - the right place for it.

Senator Needham:

– It is ‘ only there temporarily.

Senator FINDLEY:

– As I have said, there is a National Labour party and an Australian anti-Labour party. The National party depends wholly and solely for existence on the anti-Labour party.

Senator de Largie:

– That is a bitter fill.

Senator FINDLEY:

– A while ago the members of the present so-called National party were members of the Australian

Labour party, and they met in caucus to consider the financial proposals of the Government; but they stood up for it when the Caucus was attacked by those upon whom they are now relying for their support. We’ have been told that this National party also took into consideration proposals to finance this war. Those proposals were previously considered by the Australian Labour party, every member of which at that time had an opportunity of expressing his opinions upon them.

Senator Millen:

Mr. Higgs, in the other House, has stated that he did not see the Government proposal until halfanhour before it was brought in.

Senator FINDLEY:

– But the wealth levy of to-day is /different from the proposal as it left the Australian Labour party’s Caucus a few weeks ago..

Senator Story:

– Was- it not hurriedly considered ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No, it was not more hurriedly considered than any previous proposal bearing on finance.Are the Government proposals of to-day the same as those indorsed by the Australian Labour party, and which members of this National party supported when they were members of that party?

Senator Story:

– They are an improvement.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Improvement ! They have been watered down so that the Government could command the -support of their former opponents, who, whilst they criticise vigorously certain acts of the National Government are prepared to give them their wholehearted support until the psychological moment arrives when they hope to come into their own. When the financial proposals of the Australian Labour party were put forward in both Houses they were not very warmly received by at least some of the supporters of the present Government. I refer in particular to one, Sir John Forrest. He was alarmed at them.

Senator Mullan:

– Is he a member of the “ National “ party?

Senator FINDLEY:

– He is one of their chief supporters. He was so alarmed at the suggested proposals of the Australian Labour party to in any way conscript wealth, that he, with others, had circulars forwarded to different organizations in Western Australia, in which mention was made of the fact, that three gentlemen were prepared to contribute £100 each per annum for a period of three years, in order to prevent the taxation proposals of the Australian Labour Government being put into operation. When this National Government came into power, the Age, in outlining the financial policy of the Government, had a number of double-column cross heads in big bold type. Amongst them were the following: - “War Tax Amended,” “ Levy on Wealth Lightened,” “ Contributors, to War Loan Escape.” Sir John Forrest, in another place, when thesefinancial proposals were submitted by the so-called National Government, said that the alterations proposed by the Treasurer were in the direction desired. Desired by whom? By Sir John Forrest and those with whom he is associated. Why were the proposals of the previous Government watered down ? To placate whom? The Australian Labour party? No; but in order that these high-minded gentlemen who put principles, before everything else, could hold on to office and the sweets attached to office. They might say of themselves, in regard to these taxation proposals -

A marciful Providunce fashioned us holler,

O’ purpose that we might our principles swaller.

As marking a comparison between the taxation proposals’ of the National Government of Australia and those of the Liberal Government in Great Britain, I find in the Age of 9th December, threedays after the publication of the National Government’s proposals, these cross heads referring to the proposals of Mr. Lloyd George’s Government - “ State Control pf All Industry,” “Also of Land and Sea Transport,” “Food Prices to be Rigorously Controlled,” “All War Profits to go to the State.” Let us see what our National Government have done in regard to war profits. The present Treasurer, in making his financial statement in another place, said, referring to the War-time Profits Bill-

The Bill as originally drafted provided that 50 per cent, of the war profits should be taken; but at a later date, the 27th September, the - ex-Treasurer announced that it was proposed in the second year of the operation of the Act to take 100 per cent, of such profits. In examining this proposal, I have taken into consideration the following factors: -

Its effect on new businesses particularly; and

its effect on business and industries generally.

Were ‘these matters . not taken into consideration by the Australian Labour party only a few weeks previously ? Will any honorable senator belonging to the Labour party of, a few weeks ago have the temerity to say in this chamber that, at a properly-assembled meeting of our party, we did. not give full and ample consideration to ‘ the financial proposals that were foreshadowed when the Australian Labour party held the reins of government ?

Senator Mullan:

– A meeting attended by the present Prime Minister and the present Treasurer.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Exactly.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How much consideration did they get? No one had a chance to object to them.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not think there was a dissentient voice or a vote given in opposition to those financial proposals.

Senator Grant:

– I was against them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator is off the track now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not off the track. So far as my memory serves me, there was not a single voice raised at that meeting of the party against the tax proposed on war-time profits. Every member of our party said then, and every man and woman supporting the party today say now, that during the currency of this war huge profits have been made in Australia by a certain section of the community, some of whom have exploited the people to a greater extent during war time than they were able to do during peace time. It is known that immense profits have been made. A perusal of the financial columns of the ‘daily newspapers discloses the fact that in many spheres of industrial activity greater profits have been made and higher dividends paid to the shareholders of various businesses than were secured by them during peace times.

Senator Guy:

– The very estimate of the amount to be received from the tax shows that.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Guy has very pertinently reminded me that £3,000,000 was anticipated to be raised by tbis form of taxation. That amount was anticipated to be raised from additional profits made during war time, let me repeat, by gentlemen interested in honorable understandings, in rings, trusts, and combines. If there is anything which our party has stood for in peace time, as well as in war time, it is that the powers of these organizations should be restricted. If they cannot be restricted under the Constitution, at any rate it can be said that during war time the War Precautions Act gives the Government of the day all the powers necessary to prevent the exploitation of the community. The Treasurer said -

In England there is a similar tax in operation; but there the tax was 50 per cent, in the first year, and60 per cent, in the second year. I should like to submit that the operation of such a . ‘tax in an old and established country, where businesses, generally speaking, are of long standing, is not a reliable guide to us in a new country, where businesses and industries are springing into existence almost daily - a condition which it should be our policy to encourage.

That paragraph is so much piffle, because industries are not springing up daily in Australia in war time, and, there is no business that has come into existence during the currency of this war, and is making huge profits, so far as my knowledge goes. It was with a view to discouraging the old established businesses from continuing to pursue the policy which they have followed in the past that the Labour party decided that the whole of the war-time profits in the second year should be taken . from them.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does the honorable senator say that there are no indications of new businesses and industries springing up in Australia in war time?

Senator FINDLEY:

– There are indications of lots of things. According to the statement of the honorable senator this evening, there is no hope of anything happening unless we immediately conscript a few thousand’ men, because otherwise we shall not be able to hold Australia.

Senator Bakhap:

– If the British Empire is hot triumphant,’ we shall not hold Australia in the near future.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I admit that, there are great opportunities for new and big industries to be established in Australia, but I am one of those who hold that those opportunities should not be made the means, for private enterprise to exploit the community. The Government of the day, if they were anxious to help progress and advance the principles to which we were all pledged a few weeks ago, would launch out and establish those industries as Government enterprises, and any profits made would belong to the whole of the people.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does not Government appropriation of industries indicate that private enterprise first had to blaze the track, and do the initial work, in connexion with the establishment of those industries ?

Senator FINDLEY:

-Iwill not admit that. All pioneering work in any country with which I am conversant has been done by the Government or by private enterprise subsidized by the Government. Who built the railways and made the roads ?

Senator Bakhap:

– Who first invented and constructed railways ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is beside the question. The pioneering work has been done by the Governments of different countries. Senator Gould stated, that the Imperial Government did not go as far as was proposed by the Treasurer in

Tegard to the taxation of war profits. Evidently the honorable senator took the statement of the Treasurer as his guide. It is perfectly true that the taxation in Great Britain was 50 per cent, in the first year and 60 per cent, in the second year. But what does Mr. Lloyd George propose to do? He has stated -

There will also be a large extension of the war profits tax. All profits would be calculated on an average of three years before the war, and all profits in excess of that amount would go to the State.

Seriator Mullan. - The only fair way of imposing the tax.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Those are the proposals of a Conservative Government in Great Britain. Yet the National Government in the Commonwealth have watered down these proposals to such an extent that they give satisfaction even to Sir John Forrest.

Senator Bakhap:

– Remember that Australia is a borrowing country, whereas Great Britain for ages past has been a creditor country.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is another instance of the influences that are at work in certain directions to cause the Government to do’ what even some of its supporters, including Senator Millen, do not approve of. I refer to the proposal to free from taxation all contributors to the war loan. On this matter the Treasurer said -

Clearly they were not to be free from all taxation, but many of the public appear to have been under the impression that the principal would; not be taxed in any way, and the announcement that a levy of per cent, per annum for three years on war bonds, as well as on ordinary wealth, was to be imposed has unsettled the value of these securities, and in some few instances, so I am advised, investments have gone to other countries because of this proposal.

Is not that an extraordinary statement to be made by the Treasurer of a National Government - that there are in- Australia men whose patriotism is measured by the amount of interest they can get from their investment, and who are not prepared to put money into the war loan, although the supporters of the Government say the country is in danger, and that our lives and liberties are at stake. These persons say, in effect, that unless they are freed absolutely of all taxation they will invest their money in other lands. Is there no way to prevent those people investing their money abroad? I understood that the War Precautions Act gave the Treasurer absolute power to prevent * anything of that nature happening. I remember that when Mr. Higgs was Treasurer more than one deputation waited upon him and requested permission to form companies to engage in. various businesses. These deputationists pointed out that the creation of these new businesses and the “extension of others would be of advantage to Australia, and would increase employment. Mr. Higgs told them in plain language that the money was required for war purposes, and that they should put their spare cash into the war loan. But, according to Mr, Poynton, unless investors are freed from taxation in regard to future war loans, it is probable that they will make investments abroad.

Senator Needham:

– That is the test of their loyalty.

Senator FINDLEY:

– When Australian citizens wanted to embark upon new industries here, they were told that it would not be patriotic to do so. Apparently the only way to get at these so-called patriots is to say to them, “ Because there is an impression abroad that you were to be freed, from taxation, we will see that so long as we are in power you are the best treated section of the whole community. You will put your money into a gilt-edged security. You will get 4^ per cent, interest upon your investments, and at no time will those investments be taxable.” Talk about equality of sacrifice. Can Senator Bakhap subscribe to these principles ? Can he honestly support a proposition of this kind, seeing that he is an out-and-out conscriptionist who maintains that the voluntary system is inequitable?

Senator Bakhap:

– Quite true.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Then the honorable senator, to be consistent, will not permit future investments in our war loans to be free from taxation? ,

Senator Bakhap:

– When I said that I would support the Administration in regard to the first issue of the war loan, I did not bind myself in regard to future issues. The honorable senator will also recognise that a good deal of the money which may be diverted to our war loans may. be earning much larger rates of interest elsewhere.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I leave that matter to the honorable senator, and , como now to another one. It is a matter of great moment to every citizen of Austra-Iia. Senator Bakhap incidentally referred to it this evening, and in his utterances made some extraordinary statements. In his advocacy of conscription, everything would be all right if power were exercised in the way that he desires. On the 28th October, 1916 - a day which will never . be forgotten in Australia- ra referendum was taken.

Senator Bakhap:

– It will always be remembered with shame.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There are certain honorable senators who regret that that referendum was ever taken. There are men in this chamber who, as soon as the Referendum Bill was carried, assisted to have the railway stations, the main buildings, and the chief thoroughfares in the capitals of the different Statesplacarded with, big,- and, in some cases, offensive, posters;- and there were gentlemen who supported the passage of the Referendum Bill who declared that those who voted “No” would be helping the enemy. Some of the members of the present Government denounced everybody who was not disposed to vote for conscription. If they werethen of opinion that anybody who held, an opposite view to themselves on theconscription issue was helping Germany,. they were the chief offenders for having provided the people with an opportunity to do that.

Senator Senior:

– Too thin.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They branded all the opponents’ of conscription as enemies of the Allies’ cause.

Senator Millen:

– The referendum was not taken to give the people an opportunity to help Germany, but to give them an opportunity to help the Allies.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It was taken to give them an opportunity of saying either “ Yes “ or “ No “ to the question of conscription. If there were not two sides to that question, where was the necessity for the referendum? The recent campaign was a memorable one.

Senator de Largie:

– Look at the clock.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the honorable . senator does not desire to hear me speak, he is at liberty to leave the chamber. I do not desire the occupants of the Treasury bench to remain there five minutes.

Senator Pearce:

– There will be no pay for the civil servants to-morrow.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I take exception to the statement of the Minister that civil servants will not get their pay unless I cease speaking. This is the, first occasion on which I have spoken since Parliament re-assembled. If I forego my opportunity now, I may not have, another one, because I know that negotiations are well advanced with a view to closing Parliament by Saturday. It is true that if this Bill were permitted to go through, I might be afforded an opportunity of speaking on the Ministerial statement of policy; but as we are told that we will have a Works Bill to-morrow, and then a Bill to. tax entertainments, presumably the debate on the Ministerial statement will go down the list, and as there will be keenness on the part of senators living in the other States to catch their boats and their trains, I shall not have the opportunity of speaking again.

Senator Pearce:

– All these reasons sound very well here; but they will not appeal to the civil servants to-morrow.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the Minister for Defence is tired and weary of his responsibility there is nothing to prevent him going home.

Senator Pearce:

– I am not weary; but the public servants will be worrying.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The referendum campaign was a short and strenuous one that was taken seriously by all sections of the community. The leader of the conscriptionist party, the Prime Minister, addressed many meetings in different parts of Australia, and there is no mistake about the language he employed. But I shall have another opportunity of expressing my opinion on some of the’ statements that he made. The Minister for Defence was most pessimistic until he took on a few meetings in Victoria. He went to New South Wales, and when he came back he said that the conscriptionist cause would win by three to one in that State. There was another gentleman in New South Wales - in fact, there was a trinity there, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, and the PostmasterGeneral, and the Postmaster-General made things hum. -I have some of the telegrams that he sent to the National Campaign Council, in Melbourne. I suppose that they were sent at urgent rates. At first he was a bit brief. He did not commit himself too much. The first message published said -

Mr. Webster telegraphed that he had spoken at a good meeting at Gunnedah, and. a large meeting at Boggabri, and a record gathering at Narrabri, at which there were 1,600 people present. He had experienced no interruption, and considerable enthusiasm had been shown.

That was the beginning of his campaign. Then he began to launch out, and the wires began to ‘be worked. In the Age of the 23rd October, 1916, the following appeared : -

Sydney.

The following telegram has been received by the secretary of the platform committee from the Postmaster-General from West Maitland: - “ Addressed 2,000 in Picture Theatre, Cessnock. Spoke for two hours and answered questions for another hour. Splendid hearing. Nailed down “ anti “ delusions, letting light into dark places. The tide is turning. Civilization will survive. Australia will be there.”

Some of the metaphors in this message are, indeed, gems. Here is another-

Bumper meeting at Wellington, though abit lively. Mangled Doyle’s manifesto. Routed the shirker. Inspired the workers. Opened the eyes of the farmers, and made many converts.

After that triumphal tour, what was the result? Gwydir spoke; and, in spite of routing the shirker, inspiring the workers, and converting the farmers, the PostmasterGeneral has had ‘ ‘ cold feet’ ‘ ‘ ever since, because of the way in which the electors biffed and banged conscription in that district. He talked of letting the light into dark places. Members of the Ministry seem to have “ light “ on the brain. When the Prime Minister came back he said, “ I see the light ; I will follow it.” He saw the light in London long “ before he came back to Australia, and he thought he saw it throughout the. whole of the voyage. When he reached Western Australia he saw the conscriptionist lamp. Where? At the Town Hall. Then he came to Adelaide, and he saw the same light. Where? At the Trades Hall? No.

Senator Lynch:

– Yes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Did he? He came to Melbourne, and he saw the light at the Melbourne Town Hall. He did not look up towards the Trades Hall, or he would have seen, the anti-conscriptionist light burning much more brilliantly. He imagined that the light he saw in London was shining just as brilliantly in every part of Australia.- ‘ After he commenced the campaign, the light that he imagined he saw got dimmer and dimmer, and when’ the people of Australia had an opportunity of recording their votes on the 28th October they gave Mr. Hughes and’ his followers the surprise of. their- lives by blowing out the light. Senator Lynch, at the Celtic Clubthe other night, said the, referendum was defeated “ for the time being.”

Senator Bakhap:

– Hear, hear !

Senator FINDLEY:

- Senator Lynch is more frank than some men, and so is Senator Bakhap. That, is the Ministerial statement, and the echo in regard to the conscriptionist issue. It is to be revived. Those gentlemen are awaiting their opportunity, with those who are supporting them, to conscript the manhood of Australia at the first available opportunity, either by- proclamation, or, if they think the time has arrived, by making another appeal to the people. If they want an appeal to the people here and now, the Australian Labour party will help them to get it. Senator Bakhap, in his warm advocacy of conscription, approved of the regulations that were not passed atan Executive meeting in Melbourne, but were afterwards passed at an Executive meeting in Sydney, instructions in anticipation of their gazettal being issued. He went further., and called those who were tq be treated in the way that Mr. Hughes saidhe was going to treat them, “ scoundrels.” I believe, if the honorable senator had had the opportunity, he would have gone further than Mr. Hughes proposed to go. I do not often agree with what Senator Millen says, but I cheered him the other day when he dealt with those regulations. ,

Sitting suspended from 12 (midnight) to 1 a.m. (Friday).

Senator FINDLEY:

– In referring to the regulations which had been disapproved of at an Executive meeting held in. Melbourne, and subsequently approved by a special Executive meeting held in Sydney, I incidentally drew attention to the difference between the views expressed by Senator Millen and Senator Bakhap. Senator Bakhap not only expressed his warm approval of these regulations, but said that those whom the regulations were intended to deal with were “ scoundrels.”

Senator Barker:

– He said that most emphatically.

Senator Bakhap:

– Very emphatically; they were , intended to be dealt with as deserters.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have never heard any one, either inside or outside this chamber, go so far as Senator Bakhap did in stigmatizing as “ scoundrels “ thousands of Australian-born citizens because they intended to exercise their rights as citizens under the Electoral Act, for which the honorable senator himself voted. His leader, Senator Millen, recently had a few words to say with respect to these regulations. I had expected from him an ‘expression of opinion regarding them, because they were of great importance and of serious moment to Australia and its citizens. It was the first time in the history of Australia that any man had had the temerity to tinker or tamper with the secrecy of the ballot- box. In season and out of season the Labour party have fought for the principle that every person shall be free and unfettered in respect of the vote he feels disposed to cast when called upon to exercise his rights.

Senator Bakhap:

– Were not the circumstances of this referendum recognised as abnormal in the Act itself ? ‘

Senator FINDLEY:

– If they were abnormal, there was ample opportunity to deal with these men in the way provided for by machinery at the disposal of the Government, i

Senator Bakhap:

– But why was a clause inserted in the recently passed Referendum Bill enabling a vote to be associated with an individual, and to be dealt with by a specially constituted tribunal’? Where is your secrecy there?

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is no analogy between the case cited by Senator Bakhap and that with which I am going to deal. A more damning indictment was never made against a Government than that made by Senator Millen in referring to these regulations. According to Hansard, he said -

It seems to me that the action taken by the Prime Minister was so extraordinary, so arbitrary, and so absolutely unreasonable, that if those Ministers who dissented from the regulation had remained in the Government they must have done so at the forfeiture, not only of their own self-respect, but that of the community at large. Apart from the method pursued to get it adopted, the regulation itself was sufficient to have justified the resignations of Ministers. … I disagree altogether with that regulation. Seeing that it involved a matter of vital public policy, it had no right to be put through the Executive Council in that way. Let there be no mistake about it - it was put through, and it was acted upon. It was only withdrawn, not because of any change of policy on the part of the Government, but because of the fear of the consequences that might follow from giving effect to it.

We are told that the Prime Minister is a man of great tenacity of purpose, and that when he makes up his mind to do a thing he will do it irrespective of the consequences. He had made up his mind regarding these regulations. He said that he would not only have passed them, but have gazetted them, and have made them operative, had he considered them necessary. Let me show that he did ‘consider them so necessary that he did what Senator Millen attributed to him, and took an action that was “ extraordinary, arbitrary, and absolutely unreasonable.” On the 24th October, there was a meeting of the Federal . Executive in Melbourne, at which I understand Mr. Higgs, Senator Gardiner, Senator Russell, and also, I believe, Mr. Jensen were present. While the Executive was holding’ its meeting, Mr. Garran, the Solicitor-General, handed Mr. Higgs the proposed regulations with a request from the Prime Minister that they should be signed, but not published or notified in the Gazette until . Mr. Hughes directed. The purpose was to issue them on the morning of the polling as an election surprise. Did not the Prime Minister consider them necessary when he requested Mr. Higgs to attack his signature to them ? Because the Ministers assembled at that Executive meeting refused to do what Mr. Hughes directed them to do - because they disapproved of the regulations - another meeting convened by the Prime Minister was held in Sydney, at which there was present, I’ understand, the Governor-General, -the Prime Minister, and Mr. Jensen, who, I have every reason to believe, was present at the first meeting. At that Executive meeting the regulations, which were disapproved in Melbourne, were agreed to. Immediately the other Ministers, who were present at the meeting of the Executive in Melbourne, were acquainted with that fact, they tendered their resignations. Prior to the receipt of the resignations of those Ministers, Mr. Higgs, Senator Gardiner, and’ Senator Russell, every provision had been made by the Prime Minister to have the regulations, gazetted, and instructions issued to all presiding officers throughout the Commonwealth. Mr. Hughes, when replying in another place to the charges levelled against his Government, and particularly against himself in respect of these regulations, said -

If I had thought it right to issue those regulations I would have issued them if every other member of the Cabinet had resigned. I say, therefore, that the statement that the regulations were withdrawn after having been issued because of the resignation of Ministers is inr accurate.

Why were they withdrawn ? They were considered necessary by the Prime Minister on the 24th October. He then directed that the signature of Mr. Higgs should be attached to them. He considered them so important that he did what no other Prime Minister in Australia, or any responsible Minister in the world’s dominions had done, I believe - he convened another meeting of a section of his Cabinet to do what seems to me to have been an illegal act. In normal times, it would have been considered such an act that any Government that had attempted it would not have- lived twentyfour hours. It- has been said that the regulations were never issued. That is a mere playing with, words. They were passed in Sydney. I want te emphasize that point as well as the fact that, in my opinion, the only reason for the nongazettal of these regulations, and the issue of instructions under them to the electoral officers in Australia was that three members of Mr. Hughes’ Cabinet had resigned. When this matter wasfirst referred to some went so far as to say that no instructions were issued to presiding officers in any part of the Commonwealth, but the day before yesterday Senator McKisso’ck placed a series of questions on the Senate notice-paper, and one had a direct application to the matter about which I am speaking now. It was to this effect: “Under whose instructions were those telegrams sent?” He was referring, of course, to telegrams respecting instructions to presiding officers. Prior to that we had been told that no instructions had been issued, but Senator. Russell replied to Senator McKissock in the following manner: -

The Chief Electoral Officer, acting on a regulation approved by the Executive Council on 27th October- / confirming what I said about the regulations being passed in Sydney - a certified copy of which was forwarded to him by the Attorney-General’s Department, issued instructions to the Commonwealth Electoral Officers for the several States for transmission to the Divisional Returning Officers. Those instructions were subsequently cancelled on receipt of an official intimation from the Attorney-General’s Department that it had been decided not ‘to proceed with the regulation.

So the instructions were issued, and they were cancelled at the eleventh hour; too late, however, for the presiding officers to do other than put the question provided for under the regulations. That question was asked in certain parts of Australia.

Senator Guy:

– Up till the afternoon of polling day.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We know thatMr. Hughes before ever he asked the Executive to consider the regulations said at Albury that those who did not respond to the proclamation would, on the 28th October, get the surprise of their lives. What right had any Prime Minister to talk in that. way? If those men’ had done wrong there was a method of dealing with them, but apparently Mr. Hughes, and those who supported him, wanted to hold a double-barrelled gun at their heads. ,

Senator Guy:

– They wanted less “ No “ votes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In the first place, the Prime Minister and his supporters wanted to strip those men of their citizenship rights, because if those instructions were carried out, and the question was asked, the votes cast by the men concerned were to be quarantined, so to speak, to be dealt with by a- tribunal, and in the event of that tribunal coming to the conclusion that the ‘-men had wilfully disobeyed the proclamation, they were to be labelled as disloyalists, and their votes ‘ disallowed. After that, in all probability, they would be proceeded against for having disobeyed the proclamation. When Senator O’Keefe was speaking the other night Senator Pearce asked him if he believed in the provisions for the absent voters, and in a manner he likened those provisions to the regulations complained of. But the absent voters provision is clear and unmistakable in its terms. It provides that those who have reason to believe they will be absent from Australia before, an election day may have an opportunity of recording their votes in the same way as any other citizen, only by a different method. Their votes are not quarantined, and there is never any doubt about their ballot-papers being counted as other votes are.

Senator Stewart:

– They are put in an envelope, you know.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, but that is the only difference, and any one who says that the placing of an absent voter’s ballotpaper in an envelope is the same as was proposed under these regulations, is talking so much nonsense. There is as much difference between the two provisions as there is between night and d&j-. I am one of those who believe that under jio circumstances should we interfere with the ballot-box. We ought jealously to guard the provisions for the secrecy of the vote of every man and woman. I speak feelingly on this matter, because some years ago I contested an election in this State, at a time when feeling ran very high] There were then three kinds of voters, namely, those who voted on the ratepayers’ roll’, those who voted on the manhood suffrage roll, and those who voted on the voters’ certificate roll. At that time it was difficult for many people to become enrolled, and there was in existence then a law entitled the Purification of Rolls Act, under which interested par- tisans were always actively at work to do what they said was a necessary work hy purifying the rolls. Unfortunately, in this process numbers of men entitled to be on the roll were struck off, and they did not discover this fact until late in the day. Provision was, therefore, made for them to get voters’ certificates, and vote in that way. At the election to which I am referring, and at which I was a candidate, a number of men were entitled to the voter’s certificate, so the Electoral Department decided to keep the electoral offices open at night for the purpose of granting this privilege. Quite a large army of men, the majority of whom would have cast their votes in my favour, because I was to stand as a Labour candidate, made application for these certificates up till, say, Saturday night; there was a provision in the Act that seven clear days’ notice must be given in respect of the replications. The Revision Court was held on the following .Saturday night, but the Presiding Officer maintained that seven clear days’ notice had not been given., so he knocked out the whole of the applications, notwithstanding the fact that the electoral offices had been kept open the previous Saturday night for the special purpose of issuing the applications for the certificates. Not satisfied with doing that, further action was taken on election day. I was walking down Swanston-street on the day of polling, when I met a friend, who said to me, “ They are carrying on a fine game at the booth in Collins-street ; you ought to stop it.” I asked him what he meant, and he replied, “ At the. voters’ certificate table, where the majority of the; votes, no doubt, will be cast in your favour, there is a man with a camera trying to intimidate voters by taking a snapshot of them as they come to the table.” 1 went to the booth and made a complaint about such conduct, but as little or no notice was taken of my representations, accompanied by Dr. Maloney I went up to see the Chief Electoral Officer and tell him that certain persons’ were violating the Electoral Act. He did not seem disposed to take any action, so Dr. Maloney and I got into a cab and went back to the polling-booth. Dr. Maloney asked on whose authority the photographer .was taking snapshots of the voters, and as the man in charge of the camera did not give a satisfactory reply, Dr. Maloney seized the camera and smashed it to smithereens. We then journeyed to another polling-booth where the same business was going on, and Dr. Maloney destroyed the camera in charge of the man there. Afterwards we went to two other polling-booths where the same gang were at work with their cameras, and altogether that day Dr. Maloney smashed up four cameras. We were threatened with all sorts of punishment, but that was the end of’ it. If now we permitted any tampering with the ballotbox, or the conduct of elections, we would be encouraging “ Tammany Hall “ tactics of the worst kind. No matter how honorable members of this Government may Attempt to shelter ‘themselves over the matter, they cannot get away from the charge that the Prime Minister did attempt to do something which I am satisfied the majority of the sensible and impartial citizens of the Commonwealth will resent at the first available opportunity. Three “members of the Cabinet got out because of the action by the Prime Minister. Two remained out, and one returned to the Cabinet.

Senator Keating:

– You are not connecting the camera episode with any Federal election, are you?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No ; it was a State election, but I say that if we encouraged any attempt at those practices we should be doing something that would be inimical to the best interests of Australia. As I have said, one member of the Cabinet returned to the Ministry, hut I urge that a wrong cannot be righted by a person who disapproved of that wrong remaining in close company with the honorable gentleman who acted the part of a dictator in matters Australian.

Senator Russell:

– On your argument, then, your party must have approved of the regulations, seeing that it reaffirmed my expulsion after preserving the secrecy of the ballot. I selected the most -Democratic party available to me, having made a protest against the regulations.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Two others resigned from the Ministry.

Senator Shannon:

– Would they still be members . of it had it not been for these regulations ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That I cannot say. I am dealing with events of which we all have knowledge. The Prime Minister stated, in another place that, had he considered it necessary, he would have given effect to his intentions, despite all the Ministers of his Cabinet. Such a man is not, according to Senator Millen, worthy to be supported as Leader of the National Government, and, were circumstances slightly different, the party to which Senator Millen belongs would have joined with the Australian Labour party in removing the present Government from the Treasury bench. Senator’ Millen’s excuse is- that, choosing the lesser of two evils, he must follow the Prime Minister, but he will do so only’ while it suits him. The party to which he belongs is only awaiting a suitable opportunity to get into office.

Senator Keating:

– The same accusation may be made against the Australian Labour party.

Senator FINDLEY:

- Senator Millen has shown how strongly he disapproves of the proposed interference with the provisions of the Electoral Act. My party also disapproves of it, and showed its sincerity by moving a motion of want of confidence in the Government.

Senator Russell:

– Had I run away from my responsibility, as Mr. Tudor did, the regulations would have been in force to-day.

Senator FINDLEY:

- Mr. Tudor resigned from the Ministry because of his opposition to conscription, before these regulations were mentioned.

Senator Russell:

– The honorable senator knew ‘the risk that I ran. I accept responsibility for my action.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have the right to criticise a Cabinet Minister. The honorable senator’s quarrel is with the central executive of this State. Having gone with two of his ex-colleagues a certain distance, he rejoined a leader who, as Senator Millen says, wished to do an extraordinarily arbitrary, ‘ and unreasonable thing.

Senator Keating:

– Is not the executive of another State going to deal with Senators Higgs and Gardiner?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The State executives are the controlling authorities of the Political Labour machine, and until recently no Labour member had a word to say against them ; but I have lately heard them referred to superciliously as juntas.

Senator de Largie:

– So they are: and brutal juntas, too.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They are respected members of the community, and earnest and honest members of political and industrial organizations. We owe our positions in Parliament to the organiza-‘ tion of Labour. Some honorable senators who are here because of ‘the support of organized Labour are now more bitter in their opposition to it than its direct political opponents. -

Senator de Largie:

– I would not be governed by a junta for five minutes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator belonged to the Labour organization for many years. It has been said that these executives are irresponsible, but they are elected by men and women who have put us into the position that we occupy.

Senator Russell:

– When a youngster in knickerbockers, I heard, the honorable senator supporting Labour principles without the aid of an executive.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I hope that I shall never get off the track that I have been following for so many years. I have reason to be satisfied with the progress that Labour has made. The State executives are appointed by the Conferences, which are composed of representatives from all parts of the States. Members of them who make mistakes, and forfeit the confidence of organized Labour, soon lose their positions. How can those who today call themselves the members of the “ National “ party ever hope for the support of the Australian Labour party ? The sneering references to the State executives must embitter feeling. Whatever may be the outcome of the present confusion in Federal politics, I am satisfied that, at the first opportunity, the so-called juntas will exercise such a mighty influence that there will be very little reason for those who have been true to the Labour organizations to fear. The conscription issue has split the party, as other questions have done on former occasions. But, while you may kill an individual politically, you can never kill the Labour movement. The movement is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar, though i it has had its good and its bad times. Sometimes its supporters are disappointed and discouraged, but they are ever full of optimism, and do not lose hope. When they set out to defeat conscription they knew what forces would be arrayed against them ; andI do not know that in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia, Labour has ever had to fight such an uphill contest. Every newspaper, with a few exceptions, placed their columns at the disposal of those who were fighting for conscription. Dp to the time that the anti-conscription movement got some strength and influence, none of the newspapers gave publicity to the meetings and doings in connexion with it. “With the exception of the Daily Post in Tasmania, Barrier Truth at Broken Hill, The Worker, Sydney and Brisbane, The Labour Call in Victoria, The Standard in Brisbane, the Daily Herald, Adelaide, and a few other newspapers whose names do not occur to me, every journal in Australia went “ baldheaded “ for conscription; and there is no doubt that the advocates of that policy anticipated a veritable triumph. Nothing will convince me- that the conscription of manhood in Australia is a dead issue. I believe that certain members of the Ministry, and a number of gentlemen supporting them, are just as eager for conscripting the manhood of Australia to-day as they were during the campaign.

Senator Lynch:

– More so, if you want to know.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the honorable senator is more eager to-day to conscript our manhood than he was when on the rampage in this and other States, there is no obstacle in the way of going to the country on the issue, though this is about the, last issue that some honorable members in this Parliament desire to go to the country on at the present juncture.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Particularly in Victoria.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have no fear of what may happen in this State. I, and others with me, may.” go down,” but if the Conscriptionist party does go to the country on the issue, my view is that they will not come back on it. If they do, when the war is over, and they have had their way in conscripting the manhood of Australia, it will be “Good-bye, John “ to a number of them at the next election. Evidence is not wanting of the influences at work in the furtherance of conscription. When the Prime Minister was introducing the Referendum Bill, he was asked by Mr. Cook what would happen if the majority of the people voted “ No,” and the reply was tha’t we should have to find the men. Later on, Sir William Irvine was asked what he would do if the vote were adverse, and he said that he would go on as if nothing had happened. I am not too sure about the attitude of Senator Millen, because that gentleman says that we are bound to fail in this war unless we put forth a supreme effort, which, in his opinion, cannot be done under the scheme outlined in the Government statement.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator might quote that portion of my speech in which I said that the decision of the people must- stand until the people themselves altered it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator said that we cannot win the war without a supreme effort, and that that effort cannot be put forth under the Ministerial scheme. On that line of reasoning we are bound to lose this war unless we conscript the manhood of Australia

Senator Millen:

– How can we lose a war which you say we have already won t

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator said we cannot win this war unless weconscript the manhood of Australia.

Senator Millen:

– I said nothing of the kind. I object to you stating that I said we cannot win the war unless we conscript the manhood of Australia.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator said that we are bound to fail unless we put forth a supreme effort, and that it was hopeless . to expect any great measure of success from the Ministerial scheme. Therefore, on that line of reasoning, we cannot put forth a supreme effort on the voluntary system.

Senator Millen:

– In this section of the Dominions only ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– We have only to do with this Dominion.

Senator Millen:

– Do you think “that when I use the word “ we “ I mean Australia?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Certainly.

Senator Millen:

– Certainly not !

Senator Keating:

– Hear, hear ! The honorable senator did not say that Australia cannot win the war ; when he used the word “we” he meant the British Empire and its Allies.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Then Senator Millen “was not addressing his remarks to the scheme here or to any effort put forward in Australia.

Senator Keating:

– Read his remarks.

Senator FINDLEY:

-Am I to take it that the honorable senator was referring to efforts that might and ought to be put forward by Great Britain, Russia, France, Italy, Servia, and Rumania. If so, the honorable senator ought to have said “you,” and not “we.”

Senator Keating:

– You dare not read his words.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The words are recorded in Hansard, and to please Senator Keating I will read them.

Senator Mullan:

– I rise to a point of order. Is Senator Findley in order in quoting the Mansard report of a previous debate in the same session on another question ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- I do not know of anything in the Standing Orders to prevent Senator Findley from quoting the words he has before him.

Senator FINDLEY:

– To show that I am not misquoting Senator Millen, I should like to read his exact words, which are as follow : -

We should bring home to our people two things, and this we have failed to do yet. First, instead of saying “ We are bound to win,” we should bring home to them what I believe to be a simple truth, and that is that we are bound to fail unless we make a further effort.

The honorable senator was dealing with the Ministerial statement, and also with the failure of the referendum, and he made no reference whatever to the Allies. It will be seen, therefore, that I am not doing the honorable senator an injustice. Senator Millen. - You are doing me an injustice if you suppose I intended to imply that Australia can win this war.

Senator FINDLEY:

– What does the honorable senator mean?

Senator Millen:

– It is obvious what I mean.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That argument was ‘used, not only by the honorable senator, but by the Prime Minister and Senator Pearce, who ‘said that our lives and liberties were at stake - that . Germany had her eye on Australia, and that if we lost this war we should be under the heel of the Kaiser. We were told that unless we conscripted a few thousand men we were likely to lose the war and Australia.

Senator Millen:

– You did not say that conscription meant a few thousand men, but that we -were going to “bleed Australia white.”

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said, and I repeat, that the proposals of the Government at that time would, if carried into effect, absolutely “ bleed Australia white” in ten or twelve months. It meant 32,500 men in September, and 16,500 men each month up to March; and this, in turn, rendered it most probable that the call for married men would come at the beginning of next year. I am informed that a number of men were passed who under no circumstances could be regarded as physically fit for oversea service; and when the proclamation and regulations were issued provision was made for everybody to apply for exemption. When the regulations were being discussed in this Chamber I pointed out that so many provisions were made in the interests of those who desired to apply for exemption that it . would take weeks, and probably months, before all the applications for exemption could be finally dealt with. When the men were called up, we found that almost every one of them applied for exemption. We know how some of the applications were dealt with. It was said that -the interests of the man on the land had to be considered, and we know how some of them were treated in the Courts of this State. Some who asked for exemption on the ground that they had an area under crop were told that the needs of the country were greater than theirs. Some who said that they had a certain number of cows to milk, and needed the labour called up for that purpose, were told -that they should get milking machines. Honorable senators know that the Sydney Bulletin has all along been in favour of the conscription of the manhood of Australia, and they may recollect that one of the cartoonists engaged on that paper applied for exemption when he was called up. The case was heard before Mr; Dwyer, and I think that I am rightin saying that Mr. McLeod, whose home is in Sydney, came all the way to Melbourne to back up the application made by this man on the ground that he was performing a national service. If a man was to be exempted because he was engaged in drawing cartoons, what about those who were engaged in the production of cereals? I feel certain that in their calmer moments the conscriptionists realized how very difficult was the task set them to find the number asked for by the Imperial Army Council. It was so difficult that, if the attempt had been made to carry it out, I believe that all the available man power of Australia would have been exhausted sooner than we predicted. It was shown that a large percentage of the men called up under the proclamation were medically unfit. I heard a gentleman say that a bigger and a better army could be found in Australia now than the army we have already sent overseas. I have never agreed with that view. I say that the best of Australia’s manhood have gone overseas.

Senator Lynch:

– Why snould they go whilst the others remain?

Senator FINDLEY:

– They went of their own free will.

Senator Lynch:

– Of course they did, because they were more manly than those who stopped behind. The honorable senator has no sympathy for them.

Senator FINDLEY:

- Senator Lynch will have a further opportunity to have a go at the men of whom he has already said very hard things.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator has no sympathy for those who have gone, but he has for those who have remained.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is not the way in which to help on the recruiting scheme of the Government.

Senator Lynch:

– I am sick of all this kind of thing.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There may be many who are sick of what Senator Lynch has been saying from public platforms. Surely there is in Australia room for a difference of opinion. If Senator Lynch had had his way, he would never have given the people an opportunity to express an opinion on the question of conscription. I am satisfied, judging by his recent speeches, that in his heart of hearts the honorable senator is very sorry that the people were appealed to, because, in effect, he says that this time of crisis is not a time in which to submit such a question to the people.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator has plenty of sympathy for those who applied “for exemption from military service, but he has none for those who have gone to the front.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I said nothing concerning the exemptions beyond calling attention to two, or three cases that were dealt with by the Courts. ‘

Senator de Largie:

Senator Findley tried to prevent the question being sent to the people.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I did, because I do not believe in the principle.

Senator de Largie:

– Then why complain that Senator Lynch would like to have done the same thing?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Because Senator Lynch supported the Military Service Referendum Bill, and now regrets that the people were given an opportunity to express their opinion.

Senator Lynch:

– Why did the honorable senator oppose it?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Because I am opposed to the conscription of the manhood of Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Because the honorable senator got his orders, as did the representatives from Queensland.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is extraordinary that when the majority differ from some people they are always in the wrong. Every one is out of step but Jock.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator was wrong in violating the referendum principle.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In what way was I wrong. Has Senator de Largie never opposed the principle of the referendum? Have other members of the Senate not broken away from the principle?

Senator Ferricks:

– Every one of them has done so.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, every one, including Senator de Largie.

Senator de Largie:

– When ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– When the proposal was made for a referendum to embody the Financial Agreement in the Constitution for all time. We all opposed the reference of that proposal to the people because we were opposed to the principle.

Senator Millen:

– That was not the reason given then. Honorable senators said that the matter had been previously discussed ; that Mr. Fisher had announced his policy; that the matter had been before the people, and it was not necessary that it should be put before them again.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I say that the members of the Labour party opposed the Bill to refer that matter to the people. I am not opposed to the referendum as a principle or a political instrument, but I do not believe that it is a panacea for all political ills- far from it. I felt that conscription was a question upon which the people ought not to be called to give a vote, because I was sure that the anticonscriptionists would not be given a fair deal in their efforts to put their side of the question before the electors. I felt that their hands would be tied. The literature we desired to have distributed throughout Australia was censored to such an extent as not to be worth while circulating. We know of the raids on the Labour Gall and on the Trades Hall. We know that these things incensed the people, and we were satisfied that we would not be given a fair opportunity to state our case. Consequently, we did our very best to prevent the passing of the Military Service Referendum Bill. I did not rise this evening to prevent the passage of the Supply Bill, but to make a fejv remarks upon matters which, I think, are of great moment to the people of Australia. I have occupied perhaps a little longer time than I should have done had circumstances been different. I have availed myself of this opportunity to address the Senate, because I know that the present Government, with the assistance of their supporters, are extremely anxious to put up the parliamentary shutters as quickly as possible. I hope that the shutters will not be up for any length of time. They would not be up for any time worth speaking of if I had my way.

Senator de Largie:

– Honorable senators have the power in this Chamber, if they are game to exercise it.

SenatorFINDLEY. - We can exercise certain powers in this Chamber, but Governments are not made and unmade here. It is the duty of Parliament to continue sitting during this critical period of our history.

Senator Millen:

– We have had other adjournments, possibly longer than that now in contemplation, but the honorable senator never spoke of them as he is speaking now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Because I never had occasion to speak of them in that way. Events have taken such a turn in this Parliament that, in the interests of the citizens of Australia, it should not’ be out of session for any length of time.. The condition of affairs is very different to-day from what it has been during any previous period of the currency of the war. It is on this account that the people of the country are keenly watching events in this Parliament. It is because they do not desire that the destinies of Australia shall be intrusted to a Government, the leader of which has lost the confidence of the majority. The people are with the Australian Labour party in their desire for an early appeal to the electors, in the hope that the political atmosphere may be clarified.

Senator de Largie:

– Why does the honorable senator not give them the chance ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not stand in the way. I will do nothing to keep the present Government in power a day longer than I can help.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator has the votes to turn them out.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator de Largie is aware that a motion of noconfidence tabled in another place was defeated. We shall no doubt have several opportunities of challenging the Ministry, and I can assure Senator de Largie that they will not be missed, because we are not trifling with this matter at all. It is too serious a matter to trifle with. Our political lives rest with the people, in whom I have every confidence. My motto and guiding principle has always been, “Trust the people, and they will trust you.” Once the people lose confidence in a Government or in the leader of a Government, try as they may, that leader or his Government can never secure the trust of the people again.

Senator de Largie:

– You are afraid to trust them now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not. The trust reposed in organized labour is as strong to-day as at any time in the party’s history. I know that Labour will organize itself for the next fight, because there will be a mighty issue to settle, and I have no fear as to what the result will be. Some honorable senators may lose the numbers of their mess, but what is that compared with the growth of the Labour movement ? In spite pf the clouds overhanging it to-day, gooddays are coming, and the sooner the people have an opportunity of removing those clouds and clarifying the’ atmosphere the better I and others belonging to the Labour party will be pleased.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– During the last twelve hours we have listened to speeches by honorable senators who a few weeks ago sat on this side of the Chamber, but who to-day are sitting in opposition, and I have been amazed to think that such honorable, upright, and innocent gentlemen as they profess to be should ever have had. association with any honorable senator supporting the Government to-day. Their statements have been at once amusing and saddening, because behind all their remarks has been the determination to, by insinuation and direct charge, accuse the men with whom they have been for so many years associated of all the political crimes ever practised by politicians in the past, or capable of being practised in the future.

Senator de Largie:

– They are willing to wound, but afraid to strike.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is their attitude. As the honorable senator- interjected to Senator Findley, if those who are opposed to the Government are dying for an election fight, as they profess to be they have a splendid chance. The people of Australia are in the right frame of mind to deal with any party responsible for putting the country to the expense of an election at the present time, simply because a certain political section is on the. Treasury benches and another section is kept off them. I have no doubt as to what the verdict of the people will be if the Opposition are game to put their threats into execution and compel Parliament to go to the country. No man who has taken the national stand adopted by myself and others supporting the Government could wish for a better time than the present for such an appeal, and I challenge the Labour Opposition to do their worst, because I know that, if they send us to the country now, they will have a particularly warm reception at the hands of the electors. The speakers from the Opposition seem, to have taken their cue from their leader. Senator Gardiner commenced by claiming that events had verified his prophecy that the present Government would purchase the support of the Liberal party by trimming their sails to suit the wishes of that section. He stated that the Government had watered down their financial proposals. In that remark there is a clear innuendo that an understanding has been arrived at between the Government and the Liberal Opposition to revise the financial proposals in exchange for Liberal support. I remind honorable senators that the members of the Labour party never had an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the previous Treasurer.

Senator Ready:

– Did your Caucus discuss the present taxation proposals?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There is a new rule in our Caucus, that nothing shall be said as to what takes place at our meet ings. We shall not have anybody running to the newspapers to disclose the secrets of the party.

Senator Mullan:

– Is it not a fact that the honorable senator voted in favour of Mr. Higgs’ financial proposals?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- Mr. Higgs brought his proposals to the party meeting, and told us that he himself had not seen them more than half-an-hour earlier.

Senator Mullan:

– Did you vote for them ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Every man at that party meeting was given freedom to amend the taxation proposals as he pleased, so long as the main principles were not interfered with.

Senator Needham:

– Was a vote taken ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The proposals were submitted, and every member was given liberty to discuss them on the floor ofParliament, because there was no time to discuss them at the meeting. As regards the charge of watering down the Government’s financial proposals, that process would have been attempted by many of us in connexion with Mr. Higgs’ taxation measures if they had come before this Chamber.

Senator Ready:

– Did the honorable senator’s party, elect their own leader?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Ministerial party consists of honorable men, who will not disclose what was done at our private meetings.

Senator Ready:

– A secret junta ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Our party cannot be called a secret junta, because we do not exercise authority over any other persons but ourselves. We attend to our business, and keep our own counsel, and that is something which was impossible in the caucus of which I was, until recently, a member. My assurance should convince any man whose mind is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not anxious to do an injury to his opponents, that there has been no consultation between the Ministerial party and the Liberal party. The taxation proposals were framed according to the best judgment of the party at present on the Treasury bench. They have been submitted to the people, and are meeting with infinitely greater approval than did the proposals of the previous Treasurer.

Senator Mullan:

– Do you mean to say that there has been no consultation’ between the parties?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator is one of those gentlemen who will use any means to hurl dirty innuendoes against his opponents. I have already stated emphatically that there has been no consultation, arrangement, or understanding between the Government and the Liberal party.

Senator Ready:

– We have discovered the closest secret junta of all.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We do not endeavour to impose our will upon others, except by such action as may be decided upon on the floor of the House. To that course no objection can be taken.

Senator Ready:

– A minority is trying to impose its will on the majority in this Parliament.

Senator de Largie:

– You are not game to exercise your majority.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– A good deal has been said in regard to the proposal to relieve war bonds of all taxation. Whatever the strict reading of the Act may be, 90 per cent, of the people who invested in war bonds did so in the belief that those stocks would be free from taxation. There is no doubt in my mind that the taxation of money invested in war bonds is a breach of faith with the people, and that is something against which Parliament should carefully guard. For that reason I approve of the assurance of the Treasurer that no tax will be levied on bonds in the direction indicated by the ex-Treasurer. If such a tax were imposed we should probably have to pay more for our future loans than we would derive from this form of taxation. As soon as the public were made acquainted with the fact that the late Treasurer proposed to levy a tax upon war bonds, their value declined to the extent of the tax. This afternoon we heard a good deal about the loyalty of those persons who would send their money out of the country or invest it in other directions than Government stock, but we know perfectly well that men with money naturally look for the best market in which to invest it, and are anxious to make as much as they can out of their investments. I believe that the effect of such -a tax as that outlined by Mr. Higgs would be that the Commonwealth would have to pay more for its loans in the future, and that money would be more difficult to procure. Senator Gardiner has complained of the high-handed manner in which men were called away from their businesses under the recent procla mation. But every man who has done anything whatever in connexion with the war has suffered some inconvenience. Thousands of those who volunteered gave up comfortable homes, and I fail to see why men who had businesses which were returning them £10 per week, and who were called upon to enter our military camps for, say, £3 a week, are entitled to any more sympathy than those who volunteered.

Senator Gardiner:

– I was drawing attention to the fact that though the Government were willing to conscript the manhood of the country, they were shirking their obligation to appropriate all profits made during war time.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Government are not shirking the taking of profits made during war time. It is true that they are not taking as much of those profits as the honorable senator would like, but they are nevertheless taking a considerable proportion of them.

Senator McKissock:

– They are not baking as much as the honorable senator himself would like.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They are. I am satisfied with’ the Treasurer’s proposal so far as the taxation of war-time profits is concerned. If the whole of these profits were commandeered, there would be no incentive for a man to make any war-time profits. A man will not incur the risk of losses, bad seasons, accidents, &c, and make all the profits thathe can out of his business if he knows that the Government will commandeer them.

Senator McKissock:

– I thought that the honorable senator was ‘a conscriptionist.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– So I am.

Senator McKissock:

– Then why does he not favour the conscripting of wealth ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I think that we are conscripting wealth. The damage that would be inflicted upon industries by reason of the Government appropriating practically the whole of a man’s working business capital would do more harm than it would do good. Senator Senior referred briefly this afternoon to the relations’ which exist between the South AustralianLabour party and the Labour members from that State, who are the direct supporters of the Government. I am sorry that he did not go into the matter as fully as he might have done, because there are quite a number of honorable senators who are anxious that the electors should have a thorough knowledge of their position in relation to the various Labour Leagues. However, I do not intend to traverse the same ground again. I wish now to refer to a circular which was recently issued by Mr. Tudor for the purpose of contradicting some of the statements contained in it. I understand that it is being sent out to all the Labour Leagues. It is only fair to Mr. Hughes that a few of the statements contained in it should be refuted. Paragraph 2 of that circular says -

Mr. Hughes branded those advocating and supporting no-conscription, generally, as traitors in the pay of Germany, as enemies of their country, and as being responsible for the’ policy of the I.W.W. A leader who would hurl such unfounded charges against his own party was unfit to be a leader.

I absolutely deny that Mr. Hughes did anything of the kind. He did say - and I do not think that honorable senators opposite will deny it - that there were men connected with the. anticonscriptionist movement who deserved to be put in that category.

Senator McKissock:

– He did not differentiate. He made the charge all round.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– He did not. Mr. Hughes was particularly careful not to do so. I do not say that I approve of everything that he said during the recent campaign. There are many others who made statements which I do not indorse. But I do not want to see the leader of this great party, the man who has done more towards winning this war than anybody else in the Southern Hemisphere branded in this way by a gentleman who is after his position as Prime Minister. Mr. Hughes did not make those statements in regard to members of the Labour party generally. It is well known that German money has been spent in every country in the world.

Senator McKissock:

– It is strange that, although the Minister for Defence and others are constantly making that statement, no prosecutions have taken place under the War Precautions Act.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The question of prosecutions as far as the interrupting of public meetings is concerned-

Senator McKissock:

– I am talking of the recipients of German money.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– My honorable friend knows perfectly well that there are a thousand and one things which enter into his life every day of the truth of which he is perfectly sure, and yet he cannot prove the truth of them. He knows that in every country in the world it has been proved up to the hilt that German money has been used to engender anger and resentment against Great Britain. Let me quote from the Herald of Thursday last, the 7th instant. In it I find the following : -

London, Wednesday, 3.55 p.m.

It is reported by the Giornâle d’ltalia (Rome) that there were 60,000 German spies in Bucharest when the war broke out. Many were arrested, and others were interned.

On the morning on which war was declared King Ferdinand ordered the arrest and courtmartial of all the servants at the palace. Senator Pearce. - But there are none in Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No, none in Australia. The same remark is applic- ‘ able to Greece. The same journal refers to the number of enemy spies in Athens, and to the fact that in Russia, German influence and German money nearly wrecked the Duma owing to a separate peace being practically signed by the Premier, who was a traitor to his country. Here in this one paper are three instances of German influence being at work in. the different countries.

Senator Pearce:

– Oh, but they would not do that in Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am not accusing Senator McKissock, or any other honorable senator, of being ‘‘influenced by Germany. Neither did Mr. Hughes-, nor any one else. In his own heart the honorable senator knows that there is an undesirable class of persons in this community who will take anybody’s money to do anything; and that if there happens to be any German money about they will take it and do anything they are told to do for it.

Senator McKissock:

– There is something wrong in our administration if we cannot get at them. Every one seems to know that all this is being done, yet we cannot get at the men who are doing it.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There is a good deal known that it would not be wise or prudent to mention here. In this circular Mr. Tudor says -

That the issue of regulations by Mr. Hughes on the eve of the polling designed to intimidate voters from exercising the franchise, was a base betrayal of Democracy, which showed him to be unfit to lead a great political party. It has been proved up to the hilt that these regulations were never issued.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does the honorable senator believe that?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do believe that the regulations were never issued. ,

Senator Mullan:

– Were instructions issued ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I grant that instructions were issued ; but Mr. Tudor refers to the issue of “ regulations,” and not instructions. Why is he not truthful in the statement which he has sent out to the community? It is sent out with the idea of poisoning the minds of the people against the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has admitted that he sent -out instructions in anticipation of the regulations being issued ; but event if they had been issued, what’ were they intended Ato catch ? Simply defaulters. I am as keen as any other honorable senator in i±he matter of preserving the secrecy of the ballot and seeing that no interference with the ballot, good, bad or indifferent, is allowed. But there was too much made of this incident.

Senator Mullan:

– Why are you people shirking the1 responsibility for the issuing of the instructions?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am npt apologizing for them. Mr. Hughes was wrong in issuing them, but no man has ever lived who has not done something wrong, and this was a comparatively small thing. But for the difference in the Labour party, honorable senators would have been defending Mr. Hughes against Senator Millen on this matter just as strenuously as they possibly could.

Senator Mullan:

– No one blames a man for making a mistake, but we blame one who has not the honour to own up to his mistake. ‘

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Mr . Hughes has not denied the issue of the instructions. He told honorable members in another place that the instructions had been issued.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - The honorable senator says that this was a small thing. How is it, then, that three Ministers thought it a big enough thing to resign on?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am not the keeper of the consciences of those Ministers. 1^ do not know what I might have done in the same circumstances.

Senator Pearce:

– The three Ministers did not resign over the instructions. They resigned as a protest, against the regulations being issued.

Senator Gardiner:

– We resigned when we found that instructions were issued to the Returning Officers under the regulations.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- -Mr. Hughes has been accused of saying that the members of the Labour party and those supporting no-conscription were traitors in the_ pay of Germany. Mr. Hughes never intended that those remarks should apply to any honest citizen of Australia. He has also been accused by Mr. Tudor of saying that the anti-conscriptionists and the rest of them were responsible for the policy of the Industrial Workers of the World. No honorable senator sitting on the opposite benches will say that there is not such an organization as the Industrial Workers of the World, or that its objects’ ire not the damaging of property and the injuring of industry.

Senator Pearce:

– Or that the Industrial Workers of the World were not against conscription.

Senator Guy:

– They are against the Labour party.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Its members are in the Labour party. They have got into various unions, and their influence is being felt in the Labour party. It is up to the organizations, instead of pleading f ot the members of the Industrial Workers of the World, to take steps to see that these men are expelled from their ranks. This would purify the organizations to the benefit of Australia and the betterment of industry generally.

Senator Lynch:

– A member of the Industrial Workers of the World beat Mr. Spence in Queensland for the presidency of the Australian Workers Union.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In this circular Mr. Tudor also claims that Mr. Hughes has assumed the role of a dictator. That statement is absolutely wrong. I have no more use for a dictator than my friends opposite have, but I have always contended that if there .is any time in the. history of a nation when a dictatorship is the kind of government that is needed, it is during a time of war. But, to my mind, Mr. Hughes has not been a dictator. He has simply been a strong man keen on the prosecution of the war, and he may have said things that may have been indiscreet or unwise, but it is most unfair to send out a circular of this kind to the industrialists of Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– Every word of the circular that the honorable senator has read is true.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is not true. The sentences are purposely coloured in order to give to the people of Australia the very worst impressions so far as Mr. Hughes is concerned, and it is most unfair that any one who aspires to be leader of a party should issue such sentiments. The same sentiments run through the circular that have permeated the speeches delivered in this chamber and elsewhere during this debate. Anything that is wicked and bad can be said about Mr. Hughes. Anything that will stick and will possibly make him unpopular among the people outside has been said here and in the circular. Reverting to the question of the regulations, I remind honorable senators that they opened (he door to a great extent to them by the passing of the Military Service Referendum Bill, which, in itself, opened the door to interference with the Electoral Act. Honorable senators agreed to the clause of the Bill which authorized the returning officers to ask certain questions of naturalized British subjects and others.

Senator Pearce:

– It also authorized treating their votes in a certain way.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes, as Senator Findley has put it, their votes were to be quarantined.

Senator Gardiner:

– That referred . to electors who were born in an enemy country.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Not necessarily. The section provided -

  1. In addition to the questions prescribed by section 141 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-1911, the presiding officer may, either of his own motion, or at the request of a scrutineer, put to any person claiming to vote at the referendum, and shall put to each person who he has reason to believe was born in any country which forms part of the territory of any country with which Great Britain is now at war, the following question : -

Are you a naturalized British subject who was born in any country which forms part of the territory of any country with which Great Britain is now at war?

  1. If any person refuses to answer the question fully, or by his answer shows that he is not entitled to vote at the referendum, his claim to vote shall be rejected
  2. If any person answers the question in the negative, the presiding officer shall, before permitting him to vote, indorse the ballot-paper with the words “ section 9.”
  3. If, in the case of any person enrolled in any proclaimed subdivision, the presiding officer has reason to believe that that person is the son or daughter of a person who was born in any country which forms part of the territory of any country with which Great Britain is now at war, the presiding officer may issue to the person a ballot-paper indorsed with, tha, words “ section 9.”
Senator Gardiner:

– We were prepared to deal in that way with persons born inenemy countries.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– By putting this; provision in the Bill, Parliament deliberately broke the Electoral Act. Even: if the suggested regulations had come down to this Chamber for approval, I’ am quite confident that, after the circumstances had been pointed out, we would have agreed that those who had not reported when they were called upon should be questioned just the same as foreignborn subjects. The Prime Minister had considerable justification for issuing such a regulation, because . Parliament had agreed to a similar course being taken.

Senator Ferricks:

– A few minutes ago the honorable senator said that the Prime Minister had made a mistake in doing it.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I say so still; but Parliament had already agreed to a breach of the Electoral Act.

Senator Ready:

– It is one thing to deal with enemy subjects, and another thing to deal with Australians.

Senator Pearce:

– I see ; it is hot a question of the ballot ; it is a question of where a man is born.

Senator Grant:

– The provision was never intended to apply to Australians.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was applied bo many people, but not to many to. whom it should have been applied. Every blunder that has been made during the course of the referendum, every mistake made by an electoral officer, has been laid at the door of the Prime. Minister.

Senator Grant:

– That is an absurd statement.”

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is true. Every error made by an electoral officer has been purposely laid at the door of Mr. Hughes in connexion with this circular.

Senator Ready:

– He was the man who principally ran the show in the recent referendum.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– My honorable friend knows that there are electoral officers who are not very familiar with their work.

Senator O’Keefe:

– D - Do not you think it strange that the Prime Minister went over this business with the man who has charge of the Electoral Office?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am not as familiar with what the Prime Minister does as the honorable senator seems to be.

Senator Pearce:

– The real Minister was lost somewhere in Canberra.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Prime Minister has been blamed for blunders made even at Exemption Courts. Statements made by magistrates have been quoted by many speakers, and I think at the back of the mind of the members who made the quotations was the thought that this was an innuendo which would stick to the Prime Minister afterwards as the man mainly responsible. I have two instances of what happened in South Australia at Exemption Courts. I do not lay these at the door of the Prime Minister or the Government. It is only fair that the magistrates should take the blame of what they do or say themselves. This is one case -

Mr. Herman Homburg, solicitor and exAttomeyGeneral, made an eloquent appeal at Norwood on behalf ‘of his younger brother, who acted as the firm’s representative at Tanunda in the capacity of auctioneer and estate agent. A document handed to the magistrate showed that the firm managed large estates, and had made advances to farmers on a large scale, the total involved being about £250,000. An exemption was granted on the ground that Homburg was doing work of national importance.

This young man’s work was to stay at home and collect as much money as he could from the farmers, to whom the firm had made loans.

Senator Ready:

Mr. Hughes kept extending the exemptions to nobble the voters.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If every crime connected with the referendum cannot be saddled on to the Prime Minister it will not be Senator Ready’s fault. This was another case -

A blacksmith, employed by his father, appeared before the Port Adelaide Court and asked for exemption. He had three brothers, none of whom had enlisted. “ If every family were likeyours we would have a lovely war,” said the magistrate in allowing fourteen days’ exemption.

That man did not deserve an exemption. In another case the magistrate told a farmer who wanted some men exempt to take his harvest off that he ought to turn his cattle into his crop. That is the kind of thing that was largely responsible for the defeat of the referendum. Conscription would have gone very much nearer being carried if there had been no Exemption Courts, and everybody had been called up.’

Senator Gardiner:

– What influenced the vote at the front?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know.

Senator Gardiner:

– No misrepresentations reached the men except through Mr. Hughes himself.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I think there was a good deal of mismanagement. A hospital ship arrived in Melbourne about a fortnight ago with about 600 people aboard, but only 100 ballot-papers went down to the ship before she left Home.

Senator McKissock:

– Whose fault was that?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Of course, it was the fault of Mr. Hughes, who was somewhere in Australia trying to catch up to the fairy tales told by his opponents, and had sent some one to London to do his business for him !

Senator Ready:

– No anti-conscription tales reached the men at the front, yet how did they vote?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not suppose the honorable senator knows much more about it than I do, and that is nothing at all.

Senator McKissock:

– The fact that the result from Australia was cheered all along the line tells you how they voted.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I heard some fanciful message which came through from a. well-known legislator warrior stating that. there were so many merinoes, and so many crossbreds. If all the information my honorable friends have to go on is a telegram from such a biased source, they should be ashamed to make use of it.

Senator Ready:

– If the result had been “Yes,” it would have been printed in big headlines all over Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Minister for Defence told the Senate that the vote would not be published. I believed him, and I believe him still. 1

Senator Ready:

– There were good reasons.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is more slinging of mud which the honorable senator thinks will stick. I do not care whether the soldiers’ vote was affirmative or negative, although I should certainly prefer it to be affirmative.. I simply say that it has not been published, as the Minister for Defence said it would not be, although anticonscription speakers on public platforms offered to bet their “ bottom dollar “ that the Prime Minister would publish the results on the Friday before the referendum. That was a wicked insinuation, and honest, honorable men should have nothing to do with it.

Senator Ferricks:

– Did you not hear Senator Barnes read Mr. Hughes’ message to the men, stating that their vote would be taken first? What was that for, except to publish it in time if it had been favorable ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was “for nothing of the kind. It would have been impossible to publish the result at that time, because votes were taken on board ship and all over the place. The taking of the soldiers’ votes went on for weeks, and there was no intention on the part of the Prime Minister-

Senator Ferricks:

– How do you know ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am taking the Prime Minister’s word. I do not think he is a liar. I would not have the honorable senator’s conscience for all the tea in China. I do not think that he believes anybody’s word, and am sorry for any man whose conscience is in so bad a state. ‘ I have been, ever since the war started, a consistent believer in compulsory service, and a rational method of calling the men to the colours. I have never believed in the four or five sons of the widow going away to the war and the four or five sons of the wealthy man next door staying at home.

Senator Ferricks:

– When did the honorable senator first declare himself publicly, on the question of conscription?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The day that war was declared.

Senator Ferricks:

– You did not do so last May, when the discussion took place in this chamber.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I did. I declared myself on the question the first time I spoke on the hustings, a day or two after war was declared. When Mr. Poynton and I returned from the WestCoast, I stated at Port Lincoln that the voluntary system- was wicked and pernicious, and would lead us into trouble. My declaration of where I was is, therefore, nearly three years old.

Senator Ferricks:

– I was going on your silence in this chamber.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I invite the honorable senator to turn up Hansard. I spoke on two occasions in this chamber, and on both made myself perfectly clear. Senator Ferricks, who claims to be a Democrat, is the only man in ‘the Senate who said he would not abide by the decision of the people if it was in favour of conscription .

Senator O’Keefe:

– M - Mr. Watt and Mr. Boyd said the same in the other House, if the vote went the other way.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I never heard them. Any man who refuses to comply with the decision of the people cannot claim to be a Democrat. I have the best of reasons for the attitude I have taken. The manifesto issued by Mr. Fisher before we went on the hustings last time clearly told the people that we would prosecute the war with all the vigour possible. This was what it said -

As regards the attitude of Labour towards war, that is easily stated. . . . War is one of -the greatest realities of life, but it must be faced. Our interests and our very existence are bound up with those of the Empire. In time of war, half measures are worse than none. If returned with a majority, we shall pursue with the utmost vigour and determination every course necessary for the defence of the Commonwealth and the Empire in any and every contingency.

What possibility is not embraced in that declaration? Everything that Australia could do in the defence of the Empire is covered by it. Under it the conscription of wealth, the conscription of men, and of anything else is possible. Like a good many more honorable senators who a few weeks ago opposed conscription, I told the people of Australia at the last general election that they need have no fear in returning the Labour party to power, beeause in this manifesto, signed by its then leader, Mr. Fisher, and the secretary of the party, Mr. Watkins, it was stated that under a Labour Administration Australia would pursue this war to the last man and the last shilling. No Government could get outside the four corners of that manifesto. I had intended to put into Hansard an article by a British Labour leader and writer, which I am sure every honorable senator would be pleased to read. I refer to an article in the Clarion, by Robert Blatchford, in which he dealt with compulsion in England and spoke of certain workers who were striking while his sons and those of many others were fighting in the trenches. .At this early hour of the morning, however, I shall not attempt to quote this article, although it is a very valuable one. I propose to deal with some of the public utterances of honorable senators who have been complaining very bitterly during this debate that the. press was closed to them during the referendum campaign. Such a complaint could not apply to the press of South Australia, for the anti-conscriptionists were allowed to publish whatever they desired in the three daily newspapers of Adelaide. I have no wish to see the press suppressed, but a section publishes matter which is neither edifying nor educative to the people. That section of the press ought not to be encouraged.

Senator Barnes:

– The honorable senator is referring to the Tory press?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No ; I am referring to another section which might well adopt better methods. One could not help being struck by the difference in the opinions expressed by those honorable members of the Federal Parliament who recently returned to Australia after a visit paid to the Old World with the object of ascertaining the facts of the war, and seeing how it was being carried on. It is’ rather significant that Labour representatives of States where the Labour executives had not taken action to expel those in favour of conscription spoke in support of compulsory service on their return from the Old Country, whereas the representatives of States where conscriptionists had been expelled by the Labour executives were opposed to compulsory service. That is a somewhat peculiar fact. An honorable member of another place, who, before he went to the Old World, was one of the strongest anticonscriptionists in Australia, came back a strong supporter of compulsory, service. I refer to Mr. Glynn. There was no stronger opponent of conscription than he was. His whole nature revolted against the principle of conscription, and his opposition to it was lifelong. He went, however, to the front, saw for himself what was being done, and returned to Australia an ardent conscriptionist. He took the platform with the rest of the conscriptionists in South Australia. When a man like Mr. Glynn departs, because of what he saw at the front, from what has been the whole course of his life, there must be something more than a mere matter of opinion involved. Every one knows how eloquent Mr. Glynn can be.

Senator Barnes:

– The politics that Mr. Glynn advocated for twenty years did not alter the honorable senator very much, anyhow.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know that his politics have varied very much. Twenty years ago he was considered one of the foremost Democrats in South Australia. This is what he said on his return from England, just before the referendum -

For every man in the trenches two were required behind to carry out the army organization. On the evidence of the men at the Admiralty and the men of the Army, he be- lieved, if they did now bring to bear on. the foe the tremendous might of the British Empire, victory would be much surer than it could otherwise be. There was no question of reinforcements being wanted. Already there had been drafts on the Australian fifth division in England in order to keep up the strength of the Australian forces at the front. He was sure Australia would respond nobly in this grave emergency.

Mr. Burchell, a representative of Western Australia, also advocated compulsory service on his return.

Senator Ferricks:

– Do not forget that he refused to make a statement when he first came back.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not think he did. I have here a statement on the question which was made by Senator de Largie on the 23rd October, and a statement as to his attitude towards conscription- was made by Mr. Burchell on the same day, so that I do not think there was any delay on his part in declaring himself. Some members, of this Parliament on returning from the recent trip to the Old Country did take a little time to make up their minds as to their attitude towards conscription. I refer to Mr. Thomas, Mr. Watkins, and Senator McDougall. (

Senator McDougall:

– There was no delay on my part.

Senator Gardiner:

– He told me what his attitude was on the very day of his arrival here.

Senator Story:

– Did not Senator Gardiner meet him on his return and tell him what to do?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– He took some little time to make up his mind.

Senator McDougall:

– Write to Andy Fisher and find out from him what was my view of compulsion before I left the Old Country.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I have merely pointed out that those who represented States where no pressure was being applied to the Labour party, came back and defended compulsion, while other members representing States where compulsion had been applied - -where they were not free - declared themselves against conscription. We have heard a good deal about the Maltese. The anticonscriptiontionists in South Australia and elsewhere had a great deal to say about Mr. Hughes and the millions of Maltese he was bringing to Australia. Every time the tale was told the number of these Maltese was increased.

Senator Senior:

– One man told me that he counted 2,000 of them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We were told that there were 2,000 .employed on the East-west railway - more than the total number of hands working on the line. We were told also that there was a shipload of Maltese off Fremantle, that another vessel with a large number of Maltese on board was lying off the Semaphore, Port Adelaide, and still another at Sydney. All these Maltese, we were informed, were to be landed after the referendum had been taken.

Senator McDougall:

– It was a good “ gaS>” a* all events. It came off.

Senator Barnes:

– Are they not sending back 200 of these Maltese?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is precisely what was proposed from the first. Had the’ anti-conscriptionists told the truth they would have informed the people, as I did, that there was a ship coming to Australia with a number of Maltese on board; that Mr. Hughes had said that there were over 200 Maltese immigrants on board this vessel, but that they would not be allowed to land. He made that statement early in the campaign, and repeated it again and again. Apparently, it was not seen by the anticonscriptionists, because, as the story was repeated, the number of Maltese was increased until they became as numerous as the sands on the sea shore.

Senator Barnes:

– That statement by Mr. Hughes did not appear in the Victorian newspapers.

Senator Findley:

– A shipment of Maltese arrived in Australia,’ and some went to Tasmania and others to New South Wales.

Senator Millen:

– A curious fact is that these Maltese . were allowed year after year to land, and no exception was taken to them by the very honorable senators who now object to their admission.

Senator Barnes:

– We did not know they were landing then.

Senator Grant:

– Why did the Prime Minister issue instructions prohibiting any reference to the matter in the press ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We will come now to the statement by Senator Findley, that these Maltese were allowed to land.. I have in my hand a copy of a press telegram from Sydney, dated 10th November, to the following effect -

Fifteen Maltese were charged at the Water Police Court this morning with being prohibited immigrants. All were healthy, strong, and clean. Their ages were from 18 to 30 years. Sergeant White said they had been refused a landing from the steamer Gauge, but had come ashore on their own account. They would be returned to the ship and sent on. to Noumea. All were discharged.

This, it appears, is the 15,000,000, or 10,000,000, or’1,000,000, or whatever the number might be, of Maltese that were to be landed in Australia. It turns out that a few of them were brought before the Sydney Water Police Court, charged with being illegally at large. They were returned to their ship, to be sent on to Noumea.

Senator Findley:

– They were all of military age, were British subjects, and were only four and a half days’ journey from the scene of the war. Were they brought to Australia to take the place of Australians who were to be conscripted?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is another of those villainous statements that were made during the referendum campaign with the object of discounting the Prime Minister, in spite of his denial, made so often.

Senator Millen:

– And that is the race which treated our wounded soldiers .with the utmost kindness. /

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The statements I am making are hurting the honorable gentlemen opposite. They would not be making such a noise if I were not getting under their ribs somewhere.

Senator Millen:

– But the honorable senator’s opponents in the Labour party have. at other times welcomed Maltese as members of their trade unions.

Senator Guy:

– Will the honorable senator tell us why news regarding the Maltese was censored?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was not censored, so far as I am aware, because the Prime Minister told the people of Australia, when he was advised of the arrival of this ship, that he had cabled to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, asking that no more Maltese should be allowed to come to Australia. There was no secret about the matter.

Senator McDougall:

– Why did the Prime Minister stop them, then ? .

SenatorSenior. - Are there not Maltese in the Northern Territory as members of the Labour unions?

Senator Gardiner:

– Will the honorable senator give us the exact, figures concerning the Maltese the Employers Federation intended to bring to this country ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Personally, I have no knowledge whatever of the indention on the part of any person to bring Maltese to this country.

Senator Millen:

– Perhaps the honorable senator can give us the number of Maltese that came to Australia during Senator Gardiner’s term of office?

Senator Gardiner:

– There would be less than during Senator Millen’s . term.

Senator Millen:

– The numbers have increased steadily during the last three years.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I have just received from the Minister for Works a return showing the number of Maltese who arrived in Australia during recent years. This shows that, in 1911, 41 landed in Australia; in 1912, 122; in 1913, 193; in 1914, 464; in 1915, 57; and in 1916, to 30th September, a period of nine months, 147 . There were 218 on board the French ship Gauge, and they were sent on.

Senator McKissock:

– The anticonscriptionists’ agitation stopped them from landing here.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - Is it not a fact that Mr. Hughes sent a wireless telegram to the captain of that ship telling him to stand off, and not to put in to Albany ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That telegram has been made use of so often, and on so many platforms, and it has been denied so often, that by this time the facts ought to be known by the people. It is not true, but it was one of the instruments used by the anti-conscriptionists to defeat the referendum. On 8th Decem ber the Prime Minister is reported in an Adelaide paper as follows: -

In the House of Representatives to-day, the Prime Minister told Mr. Riley that a party of 200 Maltese immigrants were refused permission to land in Australia during the month of October.

Mr. JosephCook. Why?

The Prime Minister said eight or nine were being allowed to settle here under special arrangements, but the remainder were being sent back to Malta.

I understand that the special arrangements were made in the case of the eight or nine, because they had businesses or relatives in Sydney, and thus they were permitted to land. That bogey, like others, has been absolutely destroyed, but during the campaign it won thousands of votes for the anticonscriptionist cause, because, young girls all over the . Commonwealth were told that “Billy” Hughes had these ships full of Maltese waiting to land in Australia as soon as he got our young boys away, and that “ Billy “ Hughes was going to compel the girls to marry the Maltese for the purpose of breeding cheap labour for “Billy” Hughes and his capitalistic friends. That is a sample of the eloquence and of the arguments used by the anti-conscriptionists during the campaign.

Senator Ready:

– Who said that?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It appeared in the newspapers. The honorable senator can find it if he likes.

Senator Ready:

– The honorable senator does not know himself where the statement appeared.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes, I do.

Senator Barnes:

– The honorable senator does not expect that the Australian girls would give the “glad eye” to the. “Dagoes,” does he?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There is not much fear of the “Dagoes” coming here. The White Australian policy is as safe in the hands of the Government and their supporters as it would be in the hands of the members of the Opposition. It is quite safe with either party. I want to go further into this Maltese question, and read for the information of the Senate a cable received from Mr. Bonar Law, because the anticonscriptionists during the campaign were gifted with a very vivid imagination, and worked this bogey for all it was worth.

Senator Guy:

– Did I understand the honorable senator to say that there was no censorship on the publication of news concerning the arrival of the Maltese in Australia ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– So far as I know,there was none; but, of course, my imagination may not be so keen as that of the honorable senator.

Senator Guy:

– I saw a copy of the censor’s instructions.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I saw some people who said they saw a copy, but I did not see a copy myself. Now this is what the Secretary of State for the Colonies cabled to the Commonwealth Government on this question under date 22nd October-

I gather that statements have been made in Australia to the effect that arrangements are in contemplation here for the introduction of coloured or cheap labour into the Commonwealth to take the place of tha men sent to the front. I request that your Government will issue ah immediate and categorical denial. It is absolutely untrue that any such intention or desire exists on the part of His Majesty’s Government, the Government of India, or the Governments of any of the British Possessions. That was a point-blank denial of any intention on the part of any Government to introduce cheap labour into Australia. I am satisfied that the people will not forget all that has been said on this subject, and that there will be a day of reckoning for those who have been endeavouring to deceive them. Another story toldsby the anti-conscriptionists was to the effect that the French soldiers sent to fight at Salonica were volunteers, and not conscripts. That statement was made use of in this Chamber and outside fora considerable period. Now, this is what the Consul-General for France in Sydney stated in a letter to the press -

It is being widely circulated that French soldiers are only liable for service in France, and that only volunteers may be used for service abroad. I should be glad if you will kindly allow me to correct this statement through your columns. The French law renders soldiers liable for service in France or anywhere else the interests of their country require them to be sent.

Our friends are anxious to get the Prime Minister to apologize for those things which they say he said, but they will not apologize for anything that they said. I wish now to follow the example of “Senator Barnes, and to put into Hansard some recent remarks of anticonscriptionist friends of his. Speaking of the Labour party, Mr. Anstey said not long since -

This party has no argument against conscription. It cannot have any. lt was the first party to make it a party battle-cry to have conscription of men for the defence of our country. I quite agree with the honorable member for Balaclava . when he says that once we admit the fact, and accept the principle of conscription, it is a matter of indifference where the men shall be called upon to fight. It may be a policy of discretion that rather than have the fight round our own doors we should carry it as far as possible away from our own doors.

Mr. Anstey and the rest of those who have opposed compulsion were never tired of facing the Prime Minister with a statement that he made before the war, and it is fair that they should be faced with their own statements. I come now, to Mr. Catts. He said -

So far as I am personally concerned, it does not matter whether compulsion is introduced, because when my country is fighting for its existence I am prepared to go wherever I am ordered.

Where is Mr. Catts now?.

Senator Gardiner:

– He has gone abroad for his health.

Senator Pearce:

– We saw him just before he went, and he then looked as well as any man here.

Senator Millen:

– And “a day or two before he left, he denied that he was going away.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am sorry if Mr. Catts is ill. Since he made the statement I have read, he has gone back on every word of it, and few men during the campaign were more vicious in their remarks than he. He swallowed his own words, and invented a great many for other people. Then this is what Mr. Finlayson said -

The demand for men now is for reinforcements to back up the men at the front, and to assure them that they shall have whatever support is necessary. Upon that point I assure the fight honorable member that my attitude has been, and is now, that we cannot stop. We must see that those men are adequately supported.

Let me also read this paragraph -

Before leaving for a tour of the northern towns of Queensland,Mr. Finlayson, M.H.R., stated, “ I may not have another opportunity to address my constituents on the Military Service Referendum. I venture to warn the citizens of Australia against two items that I am strongly convinced the Prime Minister will use to secure a majority for the conscription of human life;”

The items are these - “ 1. Two or three days before polling day we will probably have another of those vivid iurid messages from the Right Honorable Lloyd George, which have, since the return of Mr.

Hughes to Australia, arrived at eminently suitable moments. 2. At about the same time a heavy casualty list will probably be released.”

The man who is capable of associating Mr. Lloyd George with afaked cablegram to the Prime Minister, and of associating the Prime Minister or Minister, for Defence with the issuing of a faked casualty list, or with the holding back of a casualty list for political purposes, is guilty of a wicked falsehood, and should be heartily ashamed of himself. The people of Brisbane, at the next election, will well rid this Parliament of a man who is so evil-minded, and has been so keen to secure the German vote to himself.

Senator Gardiner:

– Are senators permitted to make unseemly attacks on the members of the other House?

The PRE SIDENT. - A senator is entitled to criticise whomsoever he pleases, including a member of another place, provided that he makes no offensive reflections on that member. Senator Newland has referred to the public utterances of certain members, but he has not made any offensive attack upon them. ,

Senator Gardiner:

– Is a senator permitted to say that a member of another House is unfitted to occupy a seat in Parliament ? .

The PRESIDENT:

– It is for the electors to say who shall occupy seats in Parliament. If Senator Newland made the statement attributed to him, I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I withdraw anything unparliamentary that I may have said. I come now to Senator O’Keefe, who, at Ballarat a few weeks ago, made a statement which, I think, he will, before I have finished, admit to be without warrant. He -said -

A Colonel Weir, speaking at Adelaide, said there was one division which had never been relieved, which was now reduced to half its strength, and which would have to fight on until every man perished, as it could not get reinforcements. That was not true, and the man who made such a statement ought to be interned.

Let us see what kind of man it is who, according to Senator O’Keefe, ought to be interned.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I also said that the statements regarding him could not be true, because, if they were, they would brand the 6fficers in charge of the men as asses - or words to that effect.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am confident that, after I have finished, the honorable senator would not think of repeating what he said the other night, and will be sorry for having injured such a man. I have here a newspaper report of Colonel Weir’s speech.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I spoke from a newspaper report. .

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The newspaper report is as follows : -

Colonel Weir said he was never more disgusted with anything in his life than when he heard that compulsory service abroad had been turned down, and he believed that the people who voted “ No “ would live to regret their action. (Applause.) However, the majority of the people seemed to be against conscription, and he really did not know what they were going to do. Australia had earned a name of which she should be proud. The First Division had not been relieved since going to the front, and when he left Belgium it was felt by all that it was proper for that division to be taken out of the trenches and given a long rest. However, unless there- were reinforcements, the First Division would have to go along as best it could. ‘ He believed that the “No” decision was arrived at by the vote of a lot of people who did not ‘think; out the matter.

Senator Pearce:

– For that he is to be interned !

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– For that he is to be interned.

Senator Pearce:

– This officer has been fighting since the beginning at? Gallipoli.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I desire to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not interrupt a speaker, though he may make a personal explanation at the conclusion of a speech.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I quoted an entirely different newspaper report - the Argus report.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am quoting an Adelaide newspaper report. However; another officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Dollman, also back from the war, spoke at the same function as follows- -

Lieutenant-Colonel Dollman said it was almost impossible to conceive the magnitude of the war in France. The casualties were so great that it was imperative for Australia’s good name that reinforcements should be continuous. It was seldom that a unit going into action suffered less than 60 per cent., of casualties. When Colonel Weir and he heard, on the transport, of the conscription vote, they felt that they could heap ashes on their heads in misery at the thought that Australia had turned down conscription, and had not played the game as British soldiers and men.

At another function Colonel Dollman said -

Through the intervening months Australia’s flag had flown honored and sung. Australia had been held up as an object-lesson to the world. The call had not died away yet. England, France, and Belgium were still calling for men. lie believed a member of the State Parliament had said the war was over. Well, the State Constitution said a lunatic ‘had no right to a seat in the House. Such men were doing a lot of harm to Australia and their cause. They should think for themselves before they talked such utter rot.. The war was raging - just as furiously as ever. Many kind things had been said of the boys of Unley. Some of them had been left in Gallipoli, others in Egypt and Belgium, and many in France. But he knew that if the people could do more for the Empire they would use their influence to send men to help those already at the front. (Cheers’.) If Australia’s effective strength in’ the firing line was to be kept up it would be necessary to send more than 10 per cent, reinforcements each month, and the sooner they realized it the better it would be.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - If the Argus report is correct, I adhere to what I previously said.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I should like to quote, from a newspaper interview, remarks made by Colonel Hurcombe, another Australian, who returned about the same time - “What do You think of the ‘No’ vote?”

I think those people who voted “ No “ really did not understand the position. Probably they thought it meant sending men to certain death; but that is not the case. The percentage of deaths is very small, and they would go to fight men who will surrender if the least opportunity is given. Of course there is a danger in the game, but as I have told you, the number of casualties on our side is small compared with the other side’s record. More men are wanted. One hears people say there are 4,000,000 in training or reserve in Great Britain, but they forget that a large army has to be ever ready there lest anything should happen which would give the enemy a chance of invading England.

Now, I should like to tell Senator O’Keefe what General Birdwood had to say about this officer who “ ought to be interned.” In a letter to Colonel Weir before he left, General Birdwood said -

My’ Dear Weir,

In case you should have gone over to England before I get up to our new destination, I write just ‘these few line’s to wish you goodbye, and to thank you. most sincerely for all the really excellent and good work which you have done for us during these last two years. I know you are not so young as you were, and I do think it has been extremely good of you to have gone through all you have done so whole-heartedly and courageously for the sake of the cause for which we are fighting. I am so thankful, too. that you hove so marvellously got through everything you have done unscathed, for I know you have always been in the thick of the fighting with your men, who have indeed done magnificently; and I am only so sorry to look back on bur losses which have been sustained, and which have been so bravely borne since we landed on the Peninsula. You .will, indeed,- have much to look back upon when you return to Australia, where I most sincerely wish you the very best of good fortune, and where I hope you will be of still further use in the training of troops, who, I fear, we will want out here for many a long day yet.

Again, all good wishes to you, and my grateful thanks.

Yours very sincerely,

  1. B. Birdwood.

Colonel Weir left Australia with the first contingent, and, although over fifty years of age, went through the whole of the severe training in Egypt, - and was almost the first man ashore at Gallipoli. He led the men up the cliffs, and remained there for many months, finally being carried away on a stretcher. He was then sent to England, and, after his recovery, to Egypt, and he accompanied the First Division on service in France. From the’ day he landed in France until the day he left, he performed his duties in the most heroic as well as in the most efficient manner. The troops under his command had no relief.

Senator O’Keefe:

– H - He said he would have to stay there until the last man perished, arid I said that that was silly.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– My son, who is an officer under Colonel Weir, went through the whole campaign with him; and I am told that, from the day they landed in France until a fortnight or three weeks after Colonel Weir left the trenches, they were not relieved. Further, out of the whole 10th Battalion there were not twenty left when my son wrote to me.’ The others are not by any means all killed, but many are sick in Australia, England, and other places. My son claims that it is time something was done for the battalion, and he tells, me that every “ stunt” they make takes one or two more of the old hands out of the ranks. He asks, “What is Australia doing V Colonel Weir, who, on his return, quite indorsed what my son had stated, is a man who, although up in years, and has fought from start to finish; and yet he is told by somebody, who has done little, that he ought to.be interned. Further confirmation of what I have said is furnished by a returned clergyman, the Reverend Mr. McNichol; and all who are acquainted with the facts 9840 Supply BUI [SENATE.] (IVo. 3) 1916-17. know that our Australian boys are being wiped out one by one. It is true, the battalions are not being reduced, but the old hands “go out” at every attack; and after two years’ fighting it is time those boys were relieved They have faced the fearful heat of Egypt and the freezing cold of France and Flanders, and should be returned to Australia, to have a spell and recover their nerve.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - It is time that they were relieved, but do you say they are not relieved because we have not conscription ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not say that, but if we bad conscription they would be relieved more frequently. They are in the trenches for days together, and they prefer to fight, not with the British troops, but as an Australian unit; and they will continue to do this until there is not a man left to handle* a rifle. As a matter of fact, we in Australia have every reason to be ashamed of our conduct in not providing regular relief for those boys who have done such excellent service. ‘ I wished to vindicate the character of Colonel Weir, because I know the man and his work - I know the great care he takes of bis troops, and how he never sacrifices a man unnecessarily, but sets out to do the best he can for the Empire without any effort at the spectacular. Having performed that duty to Colonel Weir I shall not detain the Senate longer.

Senator SHANNON:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words to make clear one or two matters that have been referred to during the present debate. So -far as the War-time Profits Bill is concerned, the Government will, in my opinion, make a serious mistake if they ask for any more than 50 or 60 per cent, at the outside. If they propose to take the whole of the profits of a business at the end of a year, they will leave no’ incentive to the owner to make any profit at all, and if he makes no profit there will be nothing for the Government to take. If they are satisfied with 40 or 50 per cent, the owner will still have an incentive to make as big a profit as possible. With respect to the military service referendum, which has been the cause of so much dissension, especially in this branch of the Legislature, I wish to say that I never advocated conscription. I was always an opponent of the principle until it was impressed upon my mind by the exigencies of the Empire and by the statements of those in charge of affairs in Australia that -the voluntary system had failed, and that some further effort must be made to secure the necessary reinforcements for our boys at the front. I then came to the conclusion that conscription was the only means whereby the necessary reinforcements could be obtained. Having come to that conclusion, I did what I could to induce the people to vote “Yes” on the momentous occasion of the referendum. A majority of the people of Australia turned down the Government’s proposal, and, in the circumstances, my present position is perfectly clear. Some honorable senators have said that honorable senators on this side are awaiting the’ earliest opportunity to enforce conscription without asking the consent of the people; but, in view of the decision of the people at the referendum, I shall not vote for it until the people have again been asked their opinion and have agreed to consent to it. I do not know that I should have troubled the Senate even to make myself clear on the two matters to which I have referred were it not for the fact that the Leader of the self-appointed Opposition in this Chamber accused me of being impertinent in making certain interjections. I felt and believe now that the honorable senator to whom I refer was doing himself and other members of the Senate a great injustice. He admitted that he accepted the denial of the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition that no arrangement between them had. been made, and immediately afterwards by innuendo /he said that he did not believe a word of their statements. That is what annoyed me. I could understand the honorable senator saying straight-out that he did not believe the statements of these gentlemen.

Senator GARDINER:

– The rules of Parliament do not permit me to say that. They compel me to accept their statements.

Senator SHANNON:

– There is the same innuendo again coming from a man who stood up here and metaphorically patted himself on the back and said, “ Thank God I am not as other men are.” I have been reminded by the honorable senator’s action of the story of the man in charge of a turnpike, who, because business was slack, left his gate and went to help his son in an adjacent harvest field. A gentleman coming along found the gate open, and seeing no tollkeeper, but seeing the men in the field, went to them and asked them whether there was not a toll-gate on the road. The toll.keeper said, “ Yes, was not the gate open.” The gentleman replied that itwas open, but that he had come down to pay his toll. Then the tollkeeper said to his son, “ Jock, see this man off the premises, he is far too honest for us.”

Senator Millen:

– Surely the honorable senator is not suggesting that we should see Senator Gardiner off the premises on those grounds ?

Senator SHANNON:

– That is the moral of the story. This leader of a self-styled Opposition would have us believe that he is the embodiment of honesty, and could not do anything wrong. He has charged the present Government .with dragging men from their farms and keeping them from their work by calling them up for military service under the proclamation. Does the honorable senator wish the Senate to believe that that was done by the present Government? Has he forgotten that it was done by the Government of which he was a member, and that he was himself responsible for it. If the honorable senator has forgotten that, let me remind honorable senators that Senator Gardiner was responsible for what he now blames the present Government for. I have noticed that Senator Ferricks, from Queensland, has a peculiar kink. In his speech during this debate he said, “ Let the men who voted ‘Yes’ volunteer.” That is just the reverse of what I think should happen. The people who voted “ Yes “ voted to give the Government of Australia the power to call them or any one else to go to the front to fight for the Empire. Those who voted ‘ ‘ No ‘ ‘ refused to give the Government that power, and voted for the maintenance of the voluntary system. If they believe they were right in the vote that they gave on the 28th October it is up to those who voted “ No “ to come forward now and volunteer in sufficient numbers to reinforce the men at the front. Certain honorable senators would have us believe that they are anxious that the Ministry should be deposed, but it is the scalp of the Prime Minister’ they are all after. ‘ They have made many charges against him, and in their view his most serious offence was the framing of certain regulations in connexion with the taking of the referendum.

In this connexion Senator. Ferricks said that so craven was the Prime Minister in his methods that he even went the length of altering the form of the ballot-paper. He said that the ballot-papers should have been printed in alphabetical order, and that instead “Yes” was printed at the top and “No” at the bottom, although alphabetically N comes before Y. The honorable senator had not even taken the trouble to look up the Act which provided for the taking of the referendum, or he would have known that in that Act the form of the ballot-paper was clearly laid down.

Senator Ferricks:

– That does not prove that it was right

Senator SHANNON:

– It does not prove either that the honorable senator was right in accusing the Prime Minister of altering the form of the ballot-paper.

Senator Ferricks:

– If he did not alter the ballot-paper he made provision for it in the Act.

Senator SHANNON:

– I have said that I suspected a kink in the mind of the man who would ask that those who voted ‘ Yes ‘ ‘ at the referendum should now volunteer, but the kink is greater than I expected when I find that the honorable senator says that if the Prime Minister did not alter the referendum ballot-paper he provided for the alteration in the Act under which the referendum was, taken.

Senator Ferricks:

– When the Bill was going through I drew attention to the fact that Mr. Hughes could not ask a straight question, but obscured the matter with verbiage’. My offence was that I did not draw attention to both matters at the same time. ,

Senator SHANNON:

– I can direct the honorable senator’s attention to some other Acts which make provision for a ballot-paper for a referendum in the same form as that adopted for the military service referendum.

Senator Ferricks:

– Can the- honorable senator say why the questions, were not arranged alphabetically ?

Senator SHANNON:

– No, except that it was in accordance with the decision of Parliament. I know that the alphabetical order is provided for where the names of candidates appear on a ballot-paper. I have a word or two to say concerning statements made by Senator Turley. I hope that the people of Victoria will take his remarks about tough steak to heart.

I am sorry that he did not refer to Adelaide at the same time, because Adelaide is probably suffering more severely than is Melbourne, so far as the beef supply is concerned.

Senator Turley:

– And the mutton supply, too, I suppose.

Senator SHANNON:

-The cattle king of Australia is a South Australian. He has large vested interests in Queensland, from which he draws the supply of cattle required for South Australia, and from which’ the general supply of beef is brought to the Adelaide market. The 0 Queensland Government placed an embargo upon the export of cattle from their State. The High Court has said that they were within their rights. But, is their action in accordance with the true Federal spirit? Does it disclose anything like the Federal spirit which the people of Australia expected would prevail when they agreed to Federation? Certainly, I never expected this kind of thing. I believed that when Australia was federated we should be one people, and that the imaginary lines between the States would not be allowed to interfere with the interchange of stock and produce. We have found that those imaginary lines are real lines, and that, as a consequence of the Queensland embargo, the people of that State are paying half the rates for beef that the people of the rest of the Commonwealth have to pay for it.

Senator Pearce:

– And Senator Turley gloats over it.

Senator SHANNON:

– Yes. The honorable senator dealt with the matter tonight in order to induce honorable senators to believe that the Government butchers’ shops in Brisbane have been able to give the people of that city cheaper meat than the people of Melbourne are able to secure. How has that been made possible? It is not due to the fact that the Government of Queensland have seen fit to open a butcher’s shop, but because their embargo upon the export of cattle has had the effect of raising the price of beef in other parts of Australia and of reducing it in Queensland, where the market is over-supplied.

Senator Turley:

– No, I referred to an agreement for 12,000 tons made four months ago.

Senator SHANNON:

– There are no cattle coming out of Queensland, and that is why beef is cheaper there. If cattle were leaving Queensland .as they did prior to the embargo, beef would be at a higher price than it is to-day in that State, and would be cheaper here.

Senator Turley:

– It would not be dearer in Queensland.

Senator SHANNON:

– It would, because the available . supply would be less. The cattle market is regulated by supply and demand, and if the supply in Queensland were not kept up by the embargo the price of beef would rise in that State.

Senator Needham:

– Why was meat cheaper iri Perth in Mr. Scaddan’. butcher’s shop 1

Senator SHANNON:

– It was not cheaper, as the honorable senator would find, if he looked up the facts.

Senator Turley:

– We made a profit, of £.7,000 in Queensland.

Senator SHANNON:

– I do not wonder at that, when the cattle were kept within the State. The Government could commandeer them at their own price, and sell the meat at their own price, and under those conditions they could make any profit they pleased.

Senator Turley:

– The Government acted perfectly legally.

Senator SHANNON:

– That may beso; but the honorable senator referred to the matter to induce us to believe that it was because the Queensland Government had opened butchers’ shops that the price of beef was reduced in Brisbane.

Senator Turley:

– That, is so.

Senator SHANNON:

– That is not the reason of the reduced price, but because there has been an embargo placed upon the export of cattle from Queensland. Senator Turley referred to another matter upon which I must confess that I agree with what he had to say. He mentioned the suggested prosecution of D. L. Gilchrist in connexion with evidence which he gave before the Royal Commission that inquired into the charges he made in connexion with the KalgoorliePort Augusta railway. In view of the scathing and unqualified denunciation of Gilchrist” by Judge Eagleson, I say that the Government’ should not hesitate a day about proceeding against him, and in protection of the men whom he is alleged to have vilified. I have to com- mend Senator Turley for bringing the matter under the notice of the Senate, and for the persistence with which he has urged that Gilchrist should be put upon his trial. Senator Turley has said that the embargo placed upon the export of cattle by the Queensland Government is legal; but if the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia placed a similar embargo upon wheat for export to Queensland, we should have the honorable senator coming down to the Senate and kicking up an awful bobbery.

Senator Turley:

– They cannot do it.

Senator SHANNON:

– I do not know how Queensland could hold her cattle if the other States could not hold their wheat. The New South Wales Government prevented the export of wheat from that State at one time.

Senator Turley:

– But the control of wheat is now a Federal business.

Senator SHANNON:

– As a representative of a wheat-growing State; I say that I would not be a party to such an un-Federal act as putting an embargo on its export to other States. I wish now to say that on the face of it the wheat pool ana the arrangement made with the imperial Government looks like a real good thing for the farmers of Australia, who are assured of 4s. 9d. a bushel for the surplus of last year’s crop, and for the surplus crop of this year. I say that on the face of it the arrangement seems to be altogether in favour of the farmers of Australia ; but when we come to probe into the matter a little more deeply it does appear to me that there is something radically wrong when we find that the world’s market price for wheat is 10s. per bushel, and the Australian farmers are to receive only 4s. 9d. per bushel.

Senator Pearce:

– It is a question of freight.’

Senator SHANNON:

– That is just what I wish to refer to. The Government have had a great deal to do with the fixing of prices.

Senator Pearce:

– In Australia.

Senator SHANNON:

– That is so ; but in making the deal with the Imperial Government, they could have made provision for freight for the removal of the wheat crop.

Senator Russell:

– Most of it is neutral freight, and what control have we over that?

Senator SHANNON:

– I say that if there is sufficient freight anywhere in the world to be got to remove our wheat between now and next August it ought to be secured. There is a wide difference between 4s. 9d. per bushel and 10s. per bushel.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator overlooks the fact that the freight that could be secured could get the same rates by going elsewhere. It will not come here if it is not given a reasonable rate.

Senator SHANNON:

– In normal times a fair freight from Australia to Europe is ls. per bushel. If we make an advance of 150 per cent, upon that we could pay a freight of 2s. 6d. per bushel, and there would be 5s. per bushel difference between the price paid for wheat in the Old Country and the price to be paid to the farmers of Australia. As the Imperial Government has entered upon this deal they should, in- my opinion, commandeer some ships for the removal of our wheat, and pay a fair but not an exorbitant rate of freight. If the Commonwealth Government will make such recommendations in the matter I shall be behind them. If the consumers of wheat in the Old Country were getting the advantage of the price I would not have a word to say about the matter; but with the wide margin between the price of wheat in the Old Country and the price to be paid to the producers in Australia I feel that our farmers are not getting what they ought, to get for their wheat.

Senator Turley:

– The honorable senator is in favour of Socialism.

Senator SHANNON:

– I have always been in favour of the State helping the individual to do better for himself than he could do on his own account. That is the kind of Socialism that I have advocated. I commend it to the notice of the Government, and if anything in that direction can be done the farming community will be under a lasting debt of gratitude to the present occupants of the Treasury benches.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The taxation proposals of the Government are extremely distasteful to me. Senator Pearce, who at one time expressed himself as being in favour of a land tax for Federal revenue purposes, without any exemption at all, has gradually reneged on those principles, and to-day stands forth as a member of a Government which is prepared to move no more in that direction, but to tax a miserable sixpenny ticket for a picture show in order to get revenue. There may be something to be said in these abnormal times in favour of taxing the more costly tickets for amusements, but nothing whatever can be said in Justification of the Government’s proposal to levy a tax of 1d. upon a ticket worth only 6d. That tax is a shabby and contemptible way of getting revenue, and is a disgrace to the Government. I do not propose to enter to-night into a discussion of land values taxation, but there is no man in this Chamber who could put this ‘ question more forcibly and convincingly to the electors than could Senator Millen. At one time that honorable gentleman was game to stand up for proposals of this kind in the same way as Senator Stewart does, but for a number of years he has been silent on this question, and it will be only a matter of time before he buds forth as a high-revenue tariffist, like Senator de Largie. I have no great hope of very much revenue being derived from the so-called tax on war-time profits. I am awaiting developments in that matter, but I doubt very much if the Government will secure anything like the sum -they estimate to get from that source. I doubt if that will prove even a moderately fair way of securing revenue in these times. With regard to the wealth tax, I understand that some objection was raised by certain investors to the proposal recently made that the amounts invested in Commonwealth war loans should be subject to the operations of this tax, and that, in ‘ consequence of that opposition, the Government have abandoned the proposal to levy even a. nominal tax on such investments. It does seem to be very unfair that a person who may have invested money in a home should be taxed on a 5 per cent, valuation, whereas, if he mortgaged that home and invested the money in the war loan, the whole amount would be exempted from taxation. I believe that if it were known that a war loan was to be subjected to taxation, it would not be supported so willingly, or to such a large extent as it otherwise would be, and that, in the long run, it might be better to exempt war bonds from the operation of the- wealth tax, as they are now exempted from the operation of the income tax. While I am opposed to the idea, it is a wonder to me that the Government do not also find some ways and means of collecting more revenue through the Customs House. Senator Beady stated the other night that 90 per cent, of the taxation through that medium falls on the working’ people. As they are prepared to make a raid on, the 6d. tickets, I am surprised that they have not gone further in this direction. I do not often advocate anything in the way of retrenchment, because I have an idea that, in the event of retrenchment being effected, the Government will so arrange matters that a considerable number of workmen will be displaced. In the light of the answer given by the Minister for Defence to a question which I put to him yesterday regarding the amount that is being paid annually to the press censors, which constitutes only a very small portion of the total expenditure of the censorship, I think that the Government might very well issue regulations to the newspaper proprietors and printers generally which would entirely obviate the necessity for the employment of censors.

Senator Findley:

– The return supplied by the Minister covered only the cost of the press censorship.

Senator GRANT:

– Exactly. The total cost of the censorship may be fifteen or sixteen times the amount therein set out. The present Government, which governs chiefly by regulations, might very well issue regulations which would entirely obviate the necessity for the employment of censors. Then there is a Commission . which for some months has been inquiring into the administration of affairs at the Federal Capital. It has already cost the Commonwealth £4,000, and it is still sailing merrily ahead. Such an expenditure at the present time ought to at once engage the attention of the Government. I wish now to point out, for the benefit of Senator Millen and others who have forgotten their early training, what I regard as a very proper source of revenue. I know that Senator Stewart the other evening made a few observations under this heading, and perhaps I may be pardoned for adding to them. I say that a Government which neglects to tax the best of all sources of revenue ought not to receive very much support in this Chamber. It will be remembered that some time ago a deep-laid scheme on the part of the Government, in connexion with the wealth census cards, was brought before the Senate. An effort was made, in the first place, to prevent the information which is now partially at our .disposal being elicited, and to have a return which I ‘desired so prepared that the value of the lands within the Commonwealth, and of the improvements upon them, would be given in a lump sum. With the assistance of Senator Millen we succeeded in getting a separation effected between the value of the lands and the value of the improvements upon them. Until then no attempt had been made to ascertain what was the value of the lands of the Commonwealth. The return which was supplied the other day, although only partially complete, shows in a way which ought to appeal to honorable senators, the direction in which additional taxation should be levied. The total unimproved value of the lands of the Commonwealth are set down by the Government Statistician at £4:4:6,121,056. Like Senator Stewart, I do not for a moment believe that the owners of these estates would be prepared to part with their unimproved values for this sum. But, accepting the return as .correct, it would be very much better for the Government to come down to the Senate and invite it to impose a flat rate on the unimproved land values of the Commonwealth, to enable them to overcome their present difficulties. A fiat rate of 3d. in the fi would yield £5,000,000 annually. If it is desired to secure more revenue from the same source, the way to do it is perfectly clear. A flat rate at per £1 value, and without any progressive gradations, would be very easily collected. It would not be difficult for the land-owner to estimate the amount that he would have to pay. Such a tax would be ‘much more economically administered, and the position would be more satisfactory in every way. It has been frequently urged that an impost of this character would press harshly upon the poor man. But the poor men of this country own less than £100 worth of’ land, and the total value of the land held by persons in this category is only £11,800,000. A tax of 3d. in the £1 would not hurt them. The total value of land in the Commonwealth valued at from £100 to £5,000 is £256,753,547. Under existing conditions the whole of that amount is exempted from taxation. Now it is admitted by all who have given attention to this matter that one of the effects of a land tax is to reduce the selling value of large estates and to make it more difficult for their owners to hold on to them. The land comprising such estates is thus brought within the reach of those who desire to; use it for the purposes of settlement. If that be so, the working men of this country, who have not £5,000 with which to speculate in land values, should have the same benefits extended to them. It is only on sections of land worth less than that amount that they can operate. It must be evident, therefore, that the effect of the present exemption is to make it more difficult for the poor man to secure a piece of land at all. This condition of affairs does not exist in Australia alone. It obtains all over the world. Only to-day I read an extract relating to the township of Hamilton, in Scotland. That township is typical of ‘ many others in Great Britain. In it I find that there are settled 38,000 Scotchmen, with their wives and families, and these people live on 300 acres. The men are chiefly miners, and 27,000 of them live ir. houses of one or two rooms. The Duke of Hamilton’s palace stands on pleasure grounds comprising 2,500 acres, and contains about 100 rooms. He has 2,200 acres more than have the 38,000 residents of the township. It is men like the Duke of Hamilton - and there are many of his type in Australia - who should carry the taxation of this country. Land values taxation, imposed in proportion to the values of the estates held, would fall but lightly, on small owners. To-day we have to recognise that the land question is the question which is preventing settlement in Australia. I read recently in a work which was published some years ago a description of the scandalous clearances which took place in the heart of Scotland. -I read of how the Sutherland shire estates were cleared out one after the other. As many as 300 houses were in flames at once. These countrysides are now occupied by sheep and deer. The men who had been prepared to fight for the Empire were evicted from that country many years ago. That is one of the reasons why Great Britain is in such sore need of men to-day.

Senator De Largie:

– A man could not get a living on much of the country around where the honorable senator came from.

Senator GRANT:

– He could get a very good living, very much better than men can get round a township like Hamilton, where 38,000 Scotchmen and their wives and , families are obliged to live on 300 acres, and’ pay a pretty stiff rent to the Duke of Hamilton for permission to live there and work in his mine. Hamilton is typical of all the mining districts in that part of the world. It is common knowledge that miners are generally very badly housed, and one has only to visit the south coast of New South Wales to see that it is true. The matter is frequently reported in the press, and I have seen for myself that the houses are not what they ought to be. This state of affairs is due to the fact that much of the land there is owned by the mining companies, who will not permit the miners to get a freehold or even a decent leasehold.

Senator De Largie:

– The honorable senator knows very well that most of the land in the townships along the south coast is held by private persons.

Senator GRANT:

– The houses in Scarborough and Coledale and around that district are anything but satisfactory, because the land is held in what is merely a reproduction of the way in which it is held in Hamilton. It is a scandalous disgrace that working men in this Senate should deliberately close their eyes to such a state of affairs, instead of going to the land-owners of Australia for whose estates the men of this Continent are now fighting, and calling, on them to pay a very large proportion of the cost of the war. Yesterday Senator Stewart asked why we have never had an effective Protectionist policy in Australia. There never has been a Protectionist party in power in the Federal or State arenas. There have been make-belief Protectionist Governments which have been really highrevenue Tariff Governments, and they have always brought, forward high revenue Tariffs which fall to the extent of 90 per cent, on the poorest section of the community. They realized that if they cut away the revenue derived through the Customs House they ‘ would have had to look somewhere else for revenue, and they were afraid to stand up, as Senator

Millen used to stand up some years ago, and advocate that the owners of land should pay their fair share of taxation. Victoria has been renowned as a Protectionist State, but because the people in Victoria have never been game enough to stand up for the taxation of the larger estates, the State, like many other States in the Commonwealth, is so honeycombed by these large estates that people find it very difficult to get land on which to settle.

Senator Findley:

– If the honorable senator will help to get a truly Protectionist Tariff we will help to get him his land taxation.

Senator GRANT:

– I will help to get the land tax straight away. The Government propose to get revenue by taxing 6d. picture show tickets, and by imposing a wealth tax, ‘ which . will tax industries, make it more costly to build, discourage employment, and drive capital out of the country. I will join with any honorable senator in opposing that taxation in order to compel the Government to get a larger proportion of their revenue from the land-owners of Australia who, according to a return which has just been furnished by the Commonwealth Statistician, own unimproved values in land to the extent of £446,000,000.

Senator De Largie:

– The honorable senator’s leader in the Senate wished to tax 3d. tickets..

Senator GRANT:

– I do not support such a proposal. The honorable senator has not heard me support a tax on 3d. tickets or 6d. tickets.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator would have to get the consent of the junta before he could dispute it.

Senator Gardiner:

– Victoria, by its Protectionist policy, has produced a great many more conscriptionists than’ New South Wales.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not know about that, but I Ho know that’ men who have . enlisted in New South Wales, and have been sent to Victoria, and on some flimsy pretext have failed to pass tests which they had already passed in New South Wales, are . drafted into the Victorian infantry. This is very unsatisfactory and very unfair, but I am not going into that question now. It is very ‘unfair to the workmen of Australia that, year in and year out, they return men to this Parliament to look after their interests, yet those men, instead of placing taxation on the shoulders of those who can bear it well, are not even game enough to make any increase in our present imperfect Federal land tax. There is nothing much in a proposal to increase the income tax by 25 per cent.

Senator de Largie:

– That is where we get at the honorable senator.

Senator GRANT:

– It will not trouble me, but it will trouble the thousands of working men who assist in putting the honorable senator here to learn that he is notprepared to do anything in the way of getting homes or cheap land for them. It is up to men who have been returned to this Chamber by the workmen of the country to take the only step that can be taken that will give them relief, and that is to impose a straight-out land values tax.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– During thissitting I have listened to a number of speeches. Some of them have been interesting, and others have been used in erecting the “ stonewall “ that the Opposition have been building to-night.

Senator Gardiner:

– Two belonging to the honorable senator’s party have spoken toeveryone who has spoken from this side.

Senator STORY:

– I do not wish to take up much time. I wish to combat one or two statements that have been made. When Senator Barnes was speaking I interjected with the object of ascertaining from him whether the Labour executive, which takes upon itself the ordering of members of Parliament as to what they are to do, is instructed by the people who elect itof whether it is acting merely on its own initiative. From my experience an (executive is simply a body elected by a number of larger bodies for the purpose of carrying out the instructions . of those larger bodies or the instructions of the rank and file of the organizations. .

Senator de Largie:

– Hear hear ! They must not think for themselves

Senator STORY:

– That is so; but in this case we had an executive which had not been instructed by the people who elected it yet claimed the right to instruct members of Parliament as to what they should do. It claimed that it was empowered to order members of Parliament to do things which they, in seeking election, promised their constituents they would not do, or to order them not to do things which they had promised their constituents they would do. Senator Barnes said that Labour has always been against conscription, but, during the present debate, I have heard quite a number of the colleagues of the honorable senator admit in this chamber that they are not against conscription. They say that the Labour party was responsible for having conscription in Australia, and that credit is due to the party for having introduced compulsory service: Most members of the Labour party, until quite recently, claimed to be proud of the fact. Yet when a great crisis arose in our history, and members of Parliament had to make up their minds as to how they should act and vote in regard to a very important question, because some of them decided to do something which some of the executives-not the whole of them - claimed was the wrong attitude for them to adopt, these bodies have asserted the right to ostracise them, expel them from the Labourparty, turn them out of Parliament, and do their utmost to prevent their ever getting back into Parliament again.

Senator Ready:

-The action of those executives has been indorsed by 99 per cent. of the organizations and by ‘the people of Australia.

Senator STORY:

– Nothing of the sort. A few men in some of the organizations which elect the executives - speaking on behalf of the organizations - which they have no right to do - have supported some of the executives. But there is not an executive or society in Australia which has dared to take a plebiscite of its members as to whether the attitude of the executives met with their approval.

SenatorMullan. - You can test that by going into the plebiscite in South Australia, and see how you get on.

Senator STORY:

– I shall deal with that in a moment. Although one of the planks of the Labour platform is the initiative and referendum, several executives ordered members of this Parliament to oppose the referendum when the measure was before the Senate. In other words, they ordered members of Parliament to distinctly break one of their election pledges. Many members yielded, and, judging by their looks, some of them have been ashamed of themselves ever since, as they ought to be, because a man who has convictions upon a question like conscription and meekly yields his manhood and votes against his own conscience at the dictation of some outside executive for fear of failing to secure re-nomination for a seat in Parliament, ought to be ashamed of himself. I am not surprised that some members of the Senate have been wearing signs of shame on their faces for the last six or eight weeks. Others stoodup to their manhood, claiming the right to decide for themselves on such a question. They said there was nothing in the Labour platform to prevent them from advocating conscription, and no member of the Senate on the other side has yet brought any proof that there is anything in that platform to prevent any member of the Labour party from advocating compulsory service or, at least, advising the people to empower the Government to compel men to go and fight for their country in the only place where there is any fighting to be done. Senator Mullan interjected just now about my submitting to a plebiscite. The Labour party is composed of two sections, the industrial and what I may’ call the democratic. The industrial, of recent years, has set itself out to control the whole Labour movement, and that is the cause of the present trouble. The Australian Worker, the official organ of the Australian Workers Union, contains two letters from Adelaide on the position in South Australia. The first, appearing on page 16 of the issue of Thursday, 9th November, and signed by 0*. E. Baker, president of the Trades and Labour Council of South Australia, was as follows: -

The special meeting of the industrial section of the Labour party was held in the Australian Workers Union rooms on that historical evening of 2nd November before the Labour Council meeting.

That means that the industrial section had a preliminary meeting of industrialists only, where they fixed up a ticket, and decided that they would all vote on similar lines, in order that the industrial section should entirely control the whole proceedings of the larger bodies -

Mr. Lundie was in the chair. At the Labour party conference the industrial section was outpointed in tactics, and again at the last monthly meeting of the party in October.

Senator Ferricks tried to work a point over there. He and some of his friends tried to get himself appointed as a representative of South Australia on the State Conference of that State. That is what is referred to there -

The politicians knew more about the gameBut this time the industrialists were organised magnificently. At previous meetings the politicians had talked the business out. This time the industrialists arranged their motionsand picked the movers and seconders for them, while nobody else was permitted to speak. That is the party that has been howling about freedom of speech -

To a man - aye, and to a woman too - this arrangement was loyally carried out. Men and women, despite the tense feeling of the past weeks, controlled themselves admirably. Victory, after victory was recorded on the minute-book of the party. It was the outraged feelings of the rank and file taking toll of the men who had stigmatized them as traitors, pro-Germans, and who circulated literature that disgraced those who were responsible for it.

It was decided to take plebiscites and details are given by the writer, who then goes on -

None of the politicians spoke -

Because they were not allowed. There were between twenty and thirty politicians there’ who desired to explain to the Labour party the reasons which animated them in advocating a “Yes” vote, but the industrialists had packed the meeting in such a manner that not one of them was allowed to speak. Apparently Senator McKissock approves of that, yet he has been one of the loudest howlers for freedom of speech. What many of the freedom-of -speech advocates really wanted was licence to make revolutionary speeches. We learn that -

After two speakers had put the case for the politicians the industrialists moved the closure.

Instead of the executive being allowed to control the taking of the plebiscite, it is stated that -

Mr. Jesse Smith, assistant secretary of the Australian Workers Union, was unanimously elected returning officer after some discussion. The chairman ruled that the executive should control the ballot, but the meeting thought otherwise, and the industrialist nominee was given a walk-over.

The industrialists demanded an immediate plebiscite for Federal as well as State members, although the State Parliament does not expire until March, 1918, because they thought there was a strong feeling among the rank and file against those members of Parliament who had advised the people to vote “Yes.” On page 20 of the issue of Thursday, 16th; appears another South. Australian letter headed “ The Conscriptionist’ s Quandary.” It is unsigned, and is a complete answer to Senator Mullan’s interjection. It states -

The action of the industrialists in going for the plebiscite will rank as one of the shrewdest political moves ever made. The politician was never in such a cleft stick before. If he runs he commits certain political suicide. They admit that. If he docs not run he cannot say that he was victimized. They wanted to be expelled. They would then have been able to pose as martyrs.

Senator Mullan will now know why I could not accept his challenge, and offer myself to the plebiscite, when the official head of the industrial movement over there outlines the position in that way.

Senator Gardiner:

– You cannot claim that a plebiscite of the whole of the or- ganizations is a secret junta.

Senator STORY:

– I have never called them a junta yet. Another statement repeatedly made by nearly every member of the new, Opposition, to distinguish them from the old Opposition, is that recruiting has been made difficult by the people who advocated “ Yes.” I give that statement an emphatic denial. The position has been rendered most difficult by those who, by misrepresentation invited the people to vote- against conscription.

Sitting suspended from 5.S0 to 6.15 a.m. (Friday).-

Senator STORY:

– It is not correct that those who advocated conscription have made future recruiting difficult. The position has been made difficult by those’ members of Parliament who, owing to want of courage, spoke and acted against their own convictions, and deliberately misled a large number of the people in order that they might be sure of. being selected to contest a seat in Parliament once more. And yet we hear these honorable senators claiming, one after another, that they are just as anxious as any one could possibly be that we should win this war. I shall make a short quotation from a speech by Senator Watson, which is typical of the claims made by honorable senators -on the other side. He said -

The true patriot will be the man who refused to advocate a policy of conscription, but who is yet prepared to appeal to ‘the people to voluntarily offer themselves for service. I am prepared to play my part now as formerly. I yield to no man in my love of country and the Empire to which I belong.

That is an illustration of the trend of the speeches now being made by honorable senators who persuaded the people to withhold from the Government the only power that would enable them to do their duty to the Empire, and to assist in winning the war in the shortest time. What was the burthen of their song during the referendum debate in this Parliament? They said that Australia had done, enough; that we could not spare any more men.

Senator Ready:

– Who said that?

Senator STORY:

– I believe the hon- orable senator did, or, if he did not, a number of his colleagues made the statement.

Senator Ready:

– I did not. Who did?

Senator STORY:

Senator Barnes for. one said that we could not afford the expense of the war. Senator Findley and others declared further that the war was already won, and that, therefore, there was no necessity to do more. What sort of a reception are these honorable senators likely to receive when they go on the platform and advise ouryoung men to enlist? Can they do so with any hope of success in view of statements of this kind that they have made, hot only in this Parliament, but on every platform from which they have spoken. They know they cannot hope to do anything. Their professions of loyalty to the Empire, and of a desire -to do everything to help the Mother Country are mere hollow pretensions, and mean nothing. I would remind these honorable senators who are throwing all the blame on Mr. Hughes - who fear that they have made a mistake, and that, although they have secured their selection, the electors themselves may turn them down - that they subscribed to a manifesto issued by Mr. Fisher, il– Prime Minister of Australia, one short paragraph of which reads as follows : -

As regards the attitude of Labour towards war, that is easily stated. War is one of the greatest realities of life, and it must be faced. Our interest and our very existence are bound up with those of the Empire. In time of war, half measures are worse than none. If returned with a majority we shall pursue with the utmost vigour and determination every course necessary for the defence of the Commonwealth and the Empire in any and every contingency. Regarding as we do, such a policy as the first duty of Government at this juncture, the electors may give their support to the Labour party with the utmost confidence.

Tha electors believed this manifesto, and trusted the Labour party. Senator McKissock and others who subscribed to this manifesto practically said that half measures in connexion with the war were worse than useless. But as soon as we are asked by the Mother Country to do something, to make some sacrifice, they say “No! We have done enough.” “ We cannot do any more,” they said, and they persuaded a majority of the people to their way of thinking.

Senator McKissock:

– Can it -be said that Australia, which has sent 300,000 of her best men to the front, and has equipped an even larger number, has taken only half, measures in connexion with the war?

Senator STORY:

– Australia has done very well ; but, until she has done all that she can, she will not have carried out the promise made by Mr. Fisher. Every one approved of his promise on behalf of Australia to give the last man and. the last shilling. That, of course, was a figure of speech. It did not mean that we w’ould actually give the. last man or spend the last . shilling, but. it did mean that Australia would spare no effort and fear no sacrifice necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Honorable senators who no longer follow Mr. Hughes have stopped half way, and have prevented Australia from carrying out the promise made on her behalf.

Senator McKissock:

– Why does your Government stop half way in dealing with war profits ?

Senator STORY:

– I shall tell the honorable member presently. . Senator Ready asked just now by whom these statements had. been made. They were so general that I need not trouble to particularize. Quite recently, however, Senator Ready, in this Chamber, expressed great indignation at the action of the Ministry in hanging on, as he said, to the Treasury bench, depending for their existence upon a party whose “principles are absolutely antagonistic to their own. He waxed very indignant, and said it was something of which the Ministry ought to he heartily ashamed. He went on to say-

The reason we find ourselves in opposition is because we have been true to the pledges we have made to the people who sent us into Parliament.

Has he been true to the pledge that the Labour party would, do everything possible to win the war? As a matter of fact, he has been instrumental in preventing the people of Australia from fulfilling that pledge which he, as a member of the Labour party, gave to the electors.

Senator Ready:

– That is not so.

Senator STORY:

Senator Ready said, further -

We elected to sacrifice whatever emoluments we might have been receiving for the sake of our principles.

This comes with an ill grace from Senator Ready, . who hung on to the salary of his Whipship under the Hughes Government all the time that he was away in Tasmania publicly denouncing Mr. Hughes. During the whole of that time he was in Mr. Hughes’ pay. He was taking his money,’ while at the same time endeavouring to condemn him throughout Tasmania.

Senator Ready:

– Do you not know that I offered to resign ?

Senator STORY:

– And yet this honorable senator condemns the Government for having to depend upon the Opposition for support. There may be some room for condemning a Government which relies for its existence on the support of the party in opposition. In ordinary times I should be alongside Senator Ready denouncing any Government who did that; but the honorable senator seems to be unable to realize that we are at war - that things are totally different now, and that there should be no party and no party politics in the Federal Parliament to-day. Until the war is over all party feeling should be dropped, and all parties should combine to win the war. These honorable senators boast about their principles and the sacrifices they have made, although they have not given up what they should have given up had they acted decently. I was asked just now- something in regard to war profits. Senator Millen put the case very clearly when he said, “ If the Government are going to take the whole of the excess war profits there will be none.” You might just as well say you are going to take excess wages. There are tens of thousands -of piece-workers who, because of the war, are receiving higher wages.

If the Government proposed to take all the excess wages because during a war workmen were getting higher . rates of pay, could it be expected that the workers would earn any extra wages? Certainly not.

Senator Ready:

-Would it not be better for the honorable senator to advocate taking excess profits from firms that were getting more than 6 per cent.

Senator STORY:

– I am not prepared to say. that 6 per cent, is enough for all businesses, though I am willing to admit that it is a fair return for some, and can conceive that a profit of even 15 or 25 per cent, would not be excessive for some undertakings owing to heavy expenditure incurred in a time like this. But the point I am making is that a workman would refuse to do extra work to get a higher rate of wages if the Government intended to take all his excess pay ; and likewise a business man. would not put extra pressure on his plant in order to make excess profits if the whole of those excess profits were to be taken from him. It is not in human nature to expect that. But I suggest to honorable senators on both sides of this Chamber that an effort might be made to induce the workmen of Australia to understand that because, we are at war it is their duty, if they are really patriotic and understand their obligations, to work for rather a longer period each day. during, the war in order, that there may be greater production.

Senator Ferricks:

– While gangs of profiteers are at work ?

Senator STORY:

– At a time like this. I think it is the duty of every one to do something extra to increase the production of wealth. Pf every one would agree to work an extra hour per day for the same wages if devoted to that purpose, what a grand contribution that would be towards winning the war.

Senator Mullan:

– What is Senator Lynch doing? He did not take much pushing to get where he is.

Senator Lynch:

– You are a liar.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable the Minister must, withdraw that statement.

Senator Lynch:

– I withdraw it, but how can I keep quiet with a wretch like that over- there ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister must withdraw unreservedly.

Senator Lynch:

– I withdraw it, Mr. President.

Senator STORY:

– I am not aware that anything I have said should have led up to this electrical disturbance, because I was merely endeavouring to point out how every one, including the workmen of this country, could contribute towards winning this war.

Senator Gardiner:

– Sow can they do that when they are now paying twice as much for meat as they were before the war?

Senator STORY:

– I am assuming that they have a living wage. I know we cannot reduce wages, but I say that if every man would agree to work an extra hour per day for the same wages he could do it without injuring himself or his family in any way, and it would be a very valuable contribution towards the war.

Senator Ferricks:

– What about the big shipping companies making their 65 per cent. of. profits?

Senator STORY:

– Shipping companies and every other big undertaking’ should be included. A good deal has been said about the profits made by the larger concerns, and I am. endeavouring to suggest a way by which every man in Australia can contribute something towards this war. I am glad of the interjections, because they indicate that I am interesting members’ of the Senate.

Senator Turley:

– Yes, and some of the working men will be interested in your remarks, too.

Senator STORY:

- Mr. Hughes and. his followers have been expelled from the Labour party, not by the men who made the party, but. by those who came into it yesterday, last year, or the year before; by the men who know nothing about the sacrifices that have been made to obtain the conditions which they were born into and which, evidently, they do not appreciate. These are the men who had the presumption to expel from the Labour party a large number of its members, every one of whom has taken a prominent part in building up trade unionism and gaining the present comparatively comfortable conditions for the working classes of Australia. These men who have been ex-‘ pelled have borne the heat and burden of the day Many of them lost their jobs, were persecuted, and ostracised for years because of their association with, trade unionism, and now these presumptuous upstarts, who came into the movement yesterday, figuratively speaking, and who know nothing about the work that was’ required to build up the industrial system of Australia, have the impudence to say that the pioneers of the movement shall be expelled.

Senator Ferricks:

– Some of those men appear tohave become weary in well doing.

SenatorSTORY. - Well, what ‘has Senator Ferricks ever done for the industrial movement in Australia ?

Senator Ferricks:

– I have done more than the honorable senator has.

Senator STORY:

– I became a trade unionist 40 years ago, and I have endeavoured in every possible way to encourage and help trade unionism from that day to this. I was one of the founders of the Labour party in South Australia, one of the original members to form the first little party out of which has grown the magnificent organization now existing in that State, but which is being ruined to-day by a few dissatisfied industrialists, some of whom want our jobs, and can see no other way of getting them than by expelling us from the Labour movement. I want to tell the people of Australia, however, that I am just as good a Labour man as ever I was, although I have been expelled.

Senator Lynch:

– You are a better one.

Senator STORY:

– I believe in every plank of the party platform as strongly as ever I did, and I am not going to take my dismissal from Parliament at the hands of the industrial section of the Labour party. I am prepared to go to the electors who sent me here and pit myself against any nominee of the industrial section of the party, and I will accept the verdict of the electors when the time comes.

Senator McKissock:

– The honorable senator said just now that he helped to establish unionism in South Australia. That being so, how can he now turn and rend the movement that he helped to create ?

Senator STORY:

– I am not rending anything. It is the industrial section of the movement that is endeavouring to rend me and the other members who are supporting the Government ; but if honorable senators opposite ever have to rely on the votes of industrialists alone to bring; them back in the Senate, they will never return to this Chamber.

Senator Lynch:

– Hear, hear ! And they know it, too.

SenatorMcKissock.-Well, we will go down with our colours flying, at any rate.

Senator STORY:

– Outside the Labour party itself there is a big democratic section of the people who vote for the Labour party because they believe its policy is in the best interests of the country. Some dissatisfied industrialists have created a. split in the Labour party, but I feel sure that when an election comes we shall get thousands of votes against any industrial candidates that are put up against us. At all events, I am not afraid to face the position, and the sooner the opportunity comes the better I shall like it.

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I do not propose to unduly prolong this debate, and the remarks which I shall make will be mainly directed towards the financial proposals of the Government. However, before proceeding to deal with that aspect of the question, I should like to say that one of the mysteries surrounding the referendum campaign which was so successfully concluded from the point of view of the Australian Labour party, was the extraordinary “No” vote obtained in South Australia, where we had the press, the pulpit, and the platform against us. There was only one Federal member fighting there on behalf of the “ Noes.” But having heard the wail of Senators Story, Newland, Senior, and Shannon, and their rehash of the speeches that they; made during the campaign, I now understand why the electors of the State so decisively voted “ No.” Senator Story has said that not an executive in Australia is game to put this question toits members by means of a plebiscite, but in his own State it was recently proposed by the executive to invite nominations for candidates to fill vacancies in the Senate and other parliamentary positions. Why did not Senator Story try conclusions with them then ? It was because he knew that the Labourites of South Australia would have turned him down. He said that there should be no party during the war, and repeated the old myth about the last man and the last shilling. Why did he not mention the other part of ‘ Mr. . Fisher’s programme? Prior to the general election, a section of the Labour party held out the olive branch to the Cook party,, and offered a cessation of hostilities during the war. That offer was declined, and the Labour party went to the country intent on doing everything it could for the winning of the war, but also determined to secure as much as it could of the Labour programme. Senator Newland made a- great mouthful of the statements about the Maltese. No one ever so polluted the public life of Australia as the Prime Minister did in connexion with that matter. The censorship was prostituted by the Government in connexion with it. Senator Newland would have us believe that there was no censorship in regard to the Maltese question. Every one knows that Maltese were , being imported into Australia, and Mr. Hughes felt that it would damage his prospects to let the people know the number of arrivals, or anticipated arrivals. Consequently, he used the censorship to prevent the publication of news about them. . At the height of the dispute the military censor in Queensland, no doubt acting under the instructions of Mr. Hughes, sent the following note to every newspaper in the State : -

Commonwealth Military Forces, 1st Military District,

Censorship Office, Brisbane, 13th October, 1916.

Memorandum for the Editor.

I have to advise you. that the following instructions have been received from the Deputy Chief Censor, and to request your compliance with the same: - “Prohibit any reference to the arrival or expected arrival of Maltese in Australia.”

  1. C. Coxon, Captain,

Censor, 1st Military District.

There was no reason for withholding the truth, and by suppressing it the Government -was mainly responsible for the rumours that were circulated. Had every one been told the facts, there would have been no ground for these rumours, whereby the Government suffered.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator object to Maltese coming to Australia?

Senator MULLAN:

– At a time when the manhood of Australia are being asked to fight for the Empire at the other end of the world, it is not a fair thing to fill their places with men physically fit, brought from a country within a few day’s sail of the firing line.

Senator Lynch:

– That is a shuffle, as usual. I say that they have a right to come here.. The honorable senator is not man enough to say that.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am more concerned about the welfare of Australians than about that of Maltese. I will look after Australians, and allow the honorable member to look after Maltese.

Senator Lynch:

– All that the honorable senator is fit for ‘ is to look after goats.

Senator MULLAN:

– I wish to say a word or two regarding the attempt of the Government to suppress information’ about the yoting of the Anzacs.

Senator de Largie:

– The effect of anything that the honorable senator may say will be spoilt by his statement that Mr. Hughes polluted the public life of Australia.

Senator MULLAN:

– If the honorable senator is.notcareful, I will hurl at him that terrible threat of Senator Lynch, “ I will deal with you.”

Senator de Largie:

– You are not game. I am old enough to be your father, and would pull the nose off you.

Senator MULLAN:

– Surely there never was a time when any one wanting to fight had more opportunity for doing so. My honorable friend should have stopped on the other sfde of the world and taken part in the fighting in the trenches. Information regarding the voting of the Anzacs has been suppressed for political reasons, and, therefore, we resent its suppression. Here is my proof. The vote was taken on the 28th October, and the regulation prohibiting the publication of the Anzac voting came out on the 3rd November, when the result would be sufficiently plain. It was cowardly to prevent Australia from knowing how the boys at the’ front voted. They have won imperishable fame on Gallipoli ; they have immortalized themselves in France, but generations yet unborn will revere and honour these heroes who in the face of death voted . against conscription and for a free Australia. The Government, for mean, petty, selfish, political reasons, suppressed all news regarding that voting.

Senator Lynch:

– How does the honorable senator know how the Anzacs voted ?

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator, speaking from the public platform during the campaign, denounced as wasters, cold-footers, shirkers, and traitors, all who should vote “ No,” and the

Government now feel that they cannot afford .to let the country- know how many of our soldiers they have-thus insulted. Are the men in the trenches who have voted “No” shirkers, or disloyal, or in receipt of German gold? These things are burning into the soul of Senator Lynch.. These are the facts which prevent the Government, revealing, as they will be compelled to do before long, how the Anzacsvoted.

Senator Bakhap:

– As a conscriptionist I should welcome the publication of the vote !

Senator MULLAN:

– I am “full up” of- those men in the Senate who are all howling, for the blood of. other men. I should here like to quote that celebrated statesman, Edmund Burke, because the quotation very aptly applies to Senator Lynch; Senator Bakhap, and others who ceaselessly howl here for any .blood but their own. Burke said -

I ‘cannot conceive any existence under heaven which is more truly odious-and disgusting than an impotent, helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles which he is not to fight.

Senator Bakhap:

– That applies to every elderly statesman, in every one of the Allied countries !

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator can apply it to whom he likes - including himself. As- to the Supply Bill proper, the Government are, of course, anxious to have an adjournment, so that they may, as in the past, proceed to govern the country by regulations - a. form of government to which I strongly object being’ exercised by this or any other Administration. We have a Parliament designed for the government of the people of Australia, and they ought to be governed by that Parliament alone. No Government - especially when we find it possible for two members of it to issue regulations - should be allowed to rule a country in that fashion; and the only way to stop it is for Parliament to deny the Government - especially a Government that cannot be trusted - from going, into a long recess on a motion for adjournment. A unique position has resulted from the referendum vote and the mutiny of Mr. Hughes and a portion of his late crew. This has led to the establishment of a new Government, or, rather, the old Government under new conditions. The position is that the present Government have not a quorum in the other House, where Governments are made and unmade, and they are to-day at the mercy of their erstwhile opponents. The policy of every Government must be dictated by a majority of its followers. It is; axiomatic in politics that the policy of a Government is coloured by the majority which supports- it. It, therefore, follows, as the night the day, that the policy of the present Government will not be the policy of Mr.. Hughes and, the few men who, with him, left the Australian Labour party, but will be the policy of the men behind Mr. Cook: Senator Lynch, who, politically speaking, has hounded Sir John Forrest from one end of Western Australia to the other, has now to “ eat out of the hand “ of that right honorable gentleman. This is a nice spectacle for the electors of Australia ! Here we have a1 sturdy .Democrat, who, a few months ago, was utterly opposed to Sir J ohn Forrest, now humbly, meekly, and obsequiously “ eating out of his hand.” It is to be deplored that a Government; or’ any member of1 a Government, should come to such a pass.

Senator SENIOR:

– That has been denied by the Liberals - why assert it now.

Senator MULLAN:

– I shall prove what I say, and I have the most definite proof that anybody could’ possibly have. On the 30th August last, as honorable senators may discover on reference to Hansard, page 8396, Mr. Hughes made a statement specially dealing with the financial policy of his then Government, in the following words: -

Sir, we. are passing through the greatest crisis in OU] ‘ history-

The PRESIDENT:

– I understand the honorable senator to say that he is quoting from Hansard something said in another place. Under the Standing. Orders that is not’ permissible. Standing order’ 411 provides -

No senator shall allude to any ‘debate of the current session in the House of Representa.tives, or to any measure impending therein.

Senator MULLAN:

– Then I shall give only the substance of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

-I should not have known that the honorable senator was going: to- quote from Mansard had. he not informed me of the fact.. ,

Senator MULLAN:

– Earlier this evening I rose to a point of order on the same matter’, and the Deputy President ruled that the honorable senator then speaking was in order. On that ruling I thought I should be justified in proceeding.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be in order in quoting Hansard if it refers to debates . in the Senate.

Senator MULLAN:

– I can get over the difficulty by quoting the statement as to the financial policy, delivered in this Chamber by Senator Pearce, who said -

Sir, we are passing through the greatest crisis in our history. Our national existence, our liberties, arc at stake. There rests upon every man an obligation to do his duty in the spirit that befits free men. The Government asks men to make a great sacrifice; it asks them to risk their lives in order to save their country. Sir, I believe that they are prepared to make this sacrifice. But the country must in its turn prove itself worthy of such men. There must be, as far as humanly possible, equality of sacrifice. Wealth has its duties; it owes all it has to the State, and must be prepared, if necessary, to sacrifice that all to the State. Many wealthy men have responded nobly to the call of duty; others have not. But they cannot be allowed thus to evade their responsibilities.

All other considerations must be swept aside; one great principle must now govern our every action. Whatever is necessary for the salvation of the country must be done; and since we are calling upon men to sacrifice their lives, we ought not, and shall not, hesitate to compel men to sacrifice their wealth.

That was the financial policy of Hughes, the Labourite - of Hughes, the so-called Nationalist! Let me quote an incident to show the price which the people of this country are paying in order to keep the present Government in power - in order to keep Hughes and his fragment or remnant of a party in power. The Labour party, before the destruction of the Hughes Government - while Mr. Hughes was. the head of that party - agreed to the imposition of a tax on war profits amounting to 50 per cent, for 1915-16, and . 100 per cent, for 1916-17. What is the concession which the present Government have had to make in order to maintain its political existence? They have had to forego £400,000 of this tax for 1915-16, and £1,100,000 for 1916-17, or a total of £1,500,000; and to that extent the exploiters of the public have been relieved of taxation which will have to be borne by the poorer classes of the -community.

Senator Senior:

– The present Treasurer has said that the revenue from that tax was over-estimated.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am dealing with this matter in my own way. ‘Honorable senators opposite say, that if we take the whole of the war profits there will be no incentive to industry. Let us take the case of a man who, before the war, earned an annual profit of £4,000. If we tax him to the extent of 50 per cent., all he has to do in order to maintain his income is to pass an additional £4,000 on to the public, half of which will go to the Government and half to himself ; while in the case of a tax of 75 per cent., he has to make a profit of £16,000 in order to keep himself square. Just as we increase the amount of the tax, the more such a man is able to pass on to the community.

Senator Needham:

– Should a man derive profit asthe result of the spilling of human blood?

Senator MULLAN:

– No ; I think that all profits during war-time should be devoted to war purposes. Senator Story, when giving us his pitiful tale, pleaded that the working men of Australia should make additional sacrifices for the purpose of carrying on the war. He suggested that if they made a contribution of 10s. per week it would represent very considerable assistance in financing the war. I remind the honorable senator that in proportion to their incomes the workers of Australia are making the greatest sacrifices of all. The cost of living ‘‘has gone up during the war. At one time it had increased by as much as 40 per cent. It is down now to 28 per cent, above prices before the outbreak of the . war. But the average increase in the cost of living since the declaration of war has been 33 per cent. In other words, a man in receipt of £3 per week is mulcted in a penalty of £1 per week as the result of increases of prices due to the war. Surely that is a sufficient sacrifice for a working man to make. It is all very well to contend that we should not take so much of war-time profits, but is it fair that in a time of warmen should be enabled to exploit the mothers, wives, children . and even the widows and orphans of the men who have gone to the front to fight our battles? That is what we shall be permitting if we allow these men to continue their exploitation and retain their profits. The only thing for us to do is to follow the example of the Tory Government in England to-day in this matter, who have decided that henceforth all profits are to be considered “ in “ during the war. I have indicated the penalty which the people of Australia will be called upon to pay as represented by the loss of revenue we will sustain from the proposed alteration in the war-time profits tax, in order that the present Government may be kept in power by the Liberal party, who would not keep them in power five minutes unless they were prepared to make these . concessions. I take now the wealth levy. The Labour party, under the leadership of Mr. Hughes, agreed that there should be a levy of £10,000,000 for the Repatriation Fund, to be paid within three years. Since he has been compelled to give allegiance to Mr. Cook, Mr. Hughes has discovered that the levy will not be required so rapidly, and has extended the period to five years. Under the first scheme proposed the demand upon the wealthy classes would have been for £3,333,333 each year, but under the scheme proposed by the present Government the wealthy classes will be called upon to pay less than £2,000,000 per annum, because those who decide to pay in advance will be allowed discount.

Senator Bakhap:

– The aggregate sum to be paid is the same.

Senator MULLAN:

– We do not know that it will be, because after the three years’ period we might have found under our original scheme that it would be well to make an additional levy, and any attempt to do that will be prevented by. the proposed extension of the period of payment. The difference in the payments to be made under the scheme proposed by Mr. Hughes, “the Labourite, and under that proposed by Mr. Hughes, the Fusionite, amounts to £1,333,333 per annum. This is also. part of the price which we are asked to pay to keep the present Government in power. I come now to the sinking fund. The Labour party, desiring to finance the war on modern and up-to-date lines, were unanimous in agreeing that there should be a sinking fund provided for, though there may have been some difference of opinion as to the percentage to be paid into the fund. It was agreed by the Labour party that the last Hughes. Government should ask for a sinking fund of 2¼ per cent., equal, upon our present debt, to £2,747,000 per annum. Mr. Hughes has suddenly discovered that the percentage proposed is too high, and that a sinking fund of 1 per cent, will be ample: This will require only £1,301,778 per annum to be paid into the fund, so that the amount which the financially fit of the Commonwealth will be able to secure as the result of this alteration in the financial policy of the present Government will be £1,445,222 per annum. I take now the proposal that war bonds shall be free from taxation. When the Australian Labour party was in power, and Mr. Higgs was Treasurer of the Commonwealth, it was laid down that war bonds were not to be free from taxation. Within a few weeks of that decision Mr. Hughes, under, the newrégime, says that war bonds shall be free from taxation. What is the loss represented by this alteration of policy? One can only make an approximate estimate. The war debt up to the 30th June of the present financial year will be £141,78.9,479. If we assume that the odd £41,788,479 is held by small holders, that will leave £100,000,000 held by those liable to a wealth tax. Reckoning the wealth tax at l½ per cent., the alteration of policy will mean relieving these men of an obligation to the country to the extent of £1,500,000 per annum. If we add together the totals of the reductions proposed in respect of war-time profits, wealth levy, sinking fund, and loss sustained in making war bonds free of taxation, we shall find that the gigantic price the Commonwealth is called upon to pay in order to keep the present Government in power by the support of Mr. Cook amounts to no less than £5,778,555 per annum. I think that price is too high.

Senator Millen:

– What would the honorable senator consider a fair price?

Senator MULLAN:

– Ileave that to Senator Millen, who is a much better judge of such matters than. I.

Senator Ferricks:

– This is the first step only.

Senator MULLAN:

– It is, and the Lord only knows where it will lead to. No one can justify the exemption of war loan bonds from legitimate taxation. We should not discriminate in such a way as to create an exclusive afistocracy of finance as the Government propose to-do. Sooner or later this will lead to trouble.

Only twelve months ago it was understood in this Parliament that war bonds were to be free from taxation. We had a long debate upon the matter. Two months ago Mr. Hughes declared that they were not to be free from taxation. One month ago he again said that they were to be free. I say that in the interests of the financial stability of the Commonwealth this financial jugglery should cease. It has been said that the financially fit in the Commonwealth are making great sacrifices. I do not think that file financially fit have yet been called upon to do anything like their proper share. If we consider all the direct taxes to be collected this year we shall find that” “they, are estimated to produce an aggregate revenue of £7,300,000. But our interest bill for the same financial year will amount to £8,162,000, or £862,000 more than we shall receive from the total direct taxation of the country.

Senator Millen:

– The amount the honorable senator has mentioned is not the correct interest bill. It includes the sinking fund.

Senator MULLAN:

– The sinking fund ought to be included. No Government can be said to be proceeding upon proper financial lines if the direct taxation proposed is insufficient to meet the ‘interest bill of the country. Coming now to the expenditure, I find that for 1913-14, the year prior to the war, the normal, rate of expenditure had reached £23,161,000. The normal expenditure, excluding the war vote, proposed for the present financial year reaches the staggering figure of £32,586,000.

Senator Stewart:

– Does the honorable senator not ‘ think that communitycreated values should be called upon to pay the interest bill?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am entirely in’ sympathy with all the efforts that Senator Stewart’ is making to secure more of the community-created values for any public purpose at all. I was about to say that our expenditure is increasing by leaps’ and bounds. There has been an increase of not less than £~9,000,000 in .three years, or an average increase of £3,000,000 per annum. In the circumstances I say that we should at least keep the direct taxation of the country up to the interest bill. The States debts on the 30th June next will amount, approximately, to £382,925,669. The total debt of the Commonwealth at that date, including the note funds, will be £206,021,186, or a total for Commonwealth and States of £588,946,855. This works out at £117 per head of the population, which, for a family of five, represents a debt of £585 per family. This shows that the indebtedness of the country is assuming serious proportions. I am quite prepared to admit that our debt differs in some respects from the public debts of most countries which have been incurred in financial wars, and represent unproductive expenditure. Fortunately the great proportion of our money is expended in tangible assets, which remain. Apart from that, however, we are getting into very deep water financially, and the sooner that fact is realized the better. Before we go too far, we ought to realize what would be a fair thing for the financially fit of this country to do, especially in war time. They are not doing nearly as much as they should. Another matter with which I wish, to deal is what appears like maladministration on the part of the Treasury. A very serious loss has been ‘sustained by this country as a result of the enormous balances that have been lying idle in the Treasury. From the 1st September, 1915, up to the present time, the monthly balances have been from £5,000,000 to over £20,000,000, and it seems to me a ridiculous policy to have these enormous sums lying idle.

Senator Millen:

– We are paying per cent, for the money.

Senator MULLAN:

– The loss is not only that 4£ per cent. ; it is nearer 6 per cent. We are paying 4-J per cent, to the lender, and whilst I do not say that the money should be earning that rate of interest, I think that arrangements might be made whereby the balances available in the Treasury in excess of a reasonable amount for current requirements could be let out in short-dated loans at from 1 to 1-J per cent.

Senator Millen:

– Then we should be losing 3J per cent.

Senator MULLAN:

– Allowing that the Government could have obtained 1 per cent, on the balances at’ the end of each month, I find that in the twelve months the country has lost something like £128,767, and if we add the interest paid by the Commonwealth for this money, the total loss is £750,000.

Senator Millen:

– We should not call up the money before we require it.

Senator MULLAN:

– I admit that the. calling upof the money before it is required is bad, but the failure to make proper use of it when it is called up is worse. The real remedy is, I believe, that we should only call up the money needed for reasonable requirements. If that were done, the Commonwealth would not have to pay 4½ per cent, for idle money, and there would be no obligation to let the money out on interest. I do not think, that we could let out £20,000,000 in Australia at short dates.’ The money would have to be transmitted to London, and that would cost about 10s. per cent. I am not seeking to make political capital, out of this matter,, but there appears to have been a blunder which could have been avoided by ordinary foresight - on the part of the Treasury officials, for, whilst I respect, tha ability of the late Treasurer and the present occupant of the office, we know that in matters’ like this Treasurers are guided, by their experts, who, in this instance, do not appear to have come to the rescue. We have had the statement repeatedly dinned into our ears that Australia is not doing anything like sufficient in this war; that, in fact, our efforts have been very small. It is not fair to be continually defaming the fair name of Australia, because, no matter what differences we may have on the questions of voluntarism and conscription, we ought to admit that ‘ the country has achieved wonders in equipping and sending to the front 300,000 fighting men. That was a magnificent effort. Our financial contribution, too, has been a gigantic one.

Senator Millen:

– Do you mean the amount. of money we borrowed from the Mother Country?

Senator MULLAN:

– We have to repay that money, and are responsible for it. Our financial task is on’ the same basis as that of England, which has borrowed, too. The Treasurer has stated that the private wealth of Australia is about £1,000,000,000, and the private wealth of the United Kingdom, is nineteen times as great. Australia’s expenditure on the war to the end of this financial year is estimated to reach £141,789,479. The expenditure by Great Britain has been £3,456,000,000, of which she has lent £815,000,000 to her Allies and Dominions, making, the net expenditure of the Mother Country £2,641,000,000. Multiplying Australia’s expenditure by nineteen - her private wealth in comparison with that of Great Britain being, in the ratio of 1 to 19 - we find that proportionately our expenditure is greater than the Mother Country’s record.

Senator Millen:

– You have included in the amount’ spent by Australia the money which the Mother Country raised and lent to us.

Senator MULLAN:

– We spent that money, and. we have to repay it. However we obtained the money, the fact remains that we have had to pay out of the Treasury £141,000,000 for war purposes, which, sooner or later, we must repay. Great Britain, also, has paid out a certain sum which must be repaid.

Senator Millen:

– You are taking credit for spending money which England borrowed.

Senator MULLAN:

– The’ Mother Country itself has been borrowing-, recently in Japan, and earlier in America, although mostly for the purpose of regulating exchange. My figures prove that, in proportion to our private wealth, Australia has made a slightly greater financial effort in connexion with the war than has Great Britain. That fact is one of which we may be proud.

Senator Millen:

– But Great Britain advanced us most of. the £141,000,000.

Senator MULLAN:

– Most of themoney we have spent has been raised in Australia.

Senator Millen:

– I am referring to the amount that Great Britain has lent; and which Australia has not yet repaid..

Senator MULLAN:

– It cannot be denied that this country has done very well in money, as well as in men.

Senator Needham:

– Will you add tothat effort the contributions of private people ?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am not in possession of those particulars, but the people of Australia have done magnificently in the direction of private contributions to war purposes. As, however, the people of Great Britain have done likewise, ‘the two countries are probably equal on that score. In conclusion, I regret that this country should be penalized financially in order to keep any particular body of men in power. The proper course for Mr. Hughes to have taken when the referendum verdict was recorded, and the Labour party indicated clearly that he no longer enjoyed its confidence, was to resign; but Mr. Hughes, like Milton’s Satan, would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. He will reign in a political hell for a long time if he follows the dictates of Mr. Cook, who. will, take care that Mr. Hughes and’ his party remain in power only so long as their financial policy suits the Liberal party.

Senator Millen:

– It must be heaven for the Prime Minister to get away from you fellows.

Senator MULLAN:

– The Labour party treated Mr. Hughes very well. Until he introduced the conscription issue, he was given loyal support. In fact, it was its loyalty and discipline which has enabled the party to progress so well; but when Mr. Hughes found that he could not be theleader, and would probably be the tail instead of the head of the party, he immediately found cause to quarrel with it. However, he has left the party, and, as I said on a former occasion, men may come and men may go, but the Labour movement will live and prosper, in spite of Mr. Cook, Mr. Hughes, or any other politician.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading.

Motion(by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That this Bill be . now read a second time.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

– In view of the fact that in this measure the Government seek a grant of three months’ supply, it is one whieh should be very closely scrutinized. We know that if the Bill passes this Chamber without any request, Parliament will not re-assemble until March of next year. I will ask my leader, who has just entered the Chamber, to make a statement indicative of our attitude towards the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I shall follow the example that I set upon the motion for the first reading of the measure by being as brief as the importance of this subject permits me to be. We shall not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but in Committee I shall move a request for an amendment to reduce the grant of Supplyfrom £3,293,290 to £2,195,527. The latter sum is two-thirds of the former, and will consequently cover two months’ Supply. I ask the Government not to regard my request as an act of war against them, but as a friendly intimation that we are willing, in view of the Christmas season which is upon us, to grant them two months’ Supply, notwithstanding that they have not a sufficient following of their own”, in either House of this Parliament, to constitute a quorum. .

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Before the honorable senator does anything rash, may I suggest for his consideration two facts. The first is that the Governvernment have appealed to the members of this Parliament, and to the people generally, to assist them in launching a recruiting scheme in order that by voluntary enlistment we may provide the . necessary reinforcements for our troops at the front: The basic idea underlying that scheme is that Federal members may be afforded an opportunity to visit their constituencies and assist in the organization of the requisite committees. Now, the Government take the view that three1 months is none too long to permit of that being done, especially at this, time of the year, when we have to recollect that nearly three weeks of the period will be holiday-time, during which little public work of that kind can be undertaken. I ask honorable senators, in all friendliness, to consider this view, and to say whether we are unreasonable in seeking three . months’ Supply. I wish’ also to direct attention to anotherfact in connexion with this Bill. The Government do not propose that Parliamentshall be definitely adjourned for three months. The usual course will be followed, and the Senate will adjourn until some date to be fixed by the President.

Senator Needham:

– And ordered by the. Government.

Senator PEARCE:

– Undoubtedly, the Government would indicate the date upon which they desire Parliament to be called together. I am sorry that honorable senators are disposed to treat my remarks in a hostile spirit. I am putting the position in all friendliness. Further, we never know from time to time what events may transpire which may render it necessary to call Parliament together at any moment. It may be’ found necessary for the Legislature to re-assemble during the first week of; the New Year, and if we fix a definite date, as suggested ‘by SenatorNeedham, our hands will be tied.

Senator Needham:

– -I did not suggest that.

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot please the honorable senator anyway. I do ask Senator Gardiner, before taking the action that he has foreshadowed, to consider the points which I have mentioned. The grant of Supply for three months does not mean an adjournment for three months in any case, and it will still be open to us to call Parliament together at any time that course may be rendered necessary.

Senator Millen:

– December is one of the months which the proposed grant of Supply covers, is it not?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. Half of the present month has gone, and the other half will be devoted to holidays, so that the longest adjournment we can possibly have will in reality be two months.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 postponed.

Clauses 3 and 4 .agreed to.

Schedule (Proposed vote, £3,293,290).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives’ be requested to reduce the amount, £3,293,290, to £2,195,527.

In doing so I wish to say that there is no desire on my part, or on the part of those associated with me, to in any way interfere with recruiting. But the Minister in charge of this Bill must recognise that during the period that the war has been in progress, very rarely has more than two months’ Supply been granted. For a new Government, without even a quorum of their own party in either branch of the Legislature, to ask for three months’ Supply is to ask too much. I have no desire to dwell upon . that aspect of the matter, because it might* be thought that I was doing so in a carping spirit. As regards the re-as sembling of Parliament I propose that we shall fix a date beyond which it cannot stand- adjourned, but in such a way that the Government will still have power to call it -together at any time that the occasion demanded. I am endeavouring to deal with a most serious proposition in a most friendly way. I think that the Government must be aware of that fact. Last night I was as anxious as was the Government to see this Bill put through as soon as possible. As to who was responsible for the all night sitting I think that honours are even. But the position of the Ministry is different from that of any other Administration that I can remember during my parliamentary experience. In view of the fact that, for a fortnight out of the period over which we adjourn, members of the Parliament from distant States will- be occupied in going to and returning from their homes, we are satisfied to grant two months’ Supply. If the Government are willing to regard this as a peace offering, I shall be pleased; but if they are not we are prepared to meet any contingency which may arise. As far as the public servants are concerned, we have sat here all night in order (that they may receive their pay at the usual time. We have been anxious to proceed speedily, with a view to the civil servants receiving their pay without any- unnecessary delay.

Senator Pearce:

– That cannot be done now.

Senator GARDINER:

– If that is the case, it is not our responsibility. The Government should have called Parliament together a little earlier, or placed a little restraint on their own. supporters to enable it to be done.

Senator Pearce:

– And let your party do all the talking?

Senator GARDINER:

– The time that honorable senators occupy in speaking is recorded, and will show that the representatives of the party with which I am. associated have not taken an undue length of time in discussing any matter regarding the Bill.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Neither has any one else.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not complaining of any one else, but when the implication is put forward that we have already prevented the civil servant? from being paid in proper time, I can claim that honorable senators have been ready to meet the Government and come to a division at any time if they had wished it during the last twenty-four hours.

Senator Pearce:

– For the first half day you had the whole debate to yourselves. Not one honorable senator on our side spoke during that time. <-

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - The Minister for Defence will not contend that the Senate has kept the Bill longer in proportion to the other House, considering the importance of the occasion?

Senator GARDINER:

– The occasion is very unique. Things have happened of such magnitude that what has surprised me has been the moderation of all honorable senators. Even if’ the Minister for Defence is a little out of sorts through having been kept out of bed all night, he should recognise the generous way in which we are treating the Government, but if there is no response to generous treatment, and the gauntlet is thrown down, we are quite prepared to pick it up. Honorable senators are prepared to submit the amendment without any further delay or debate, in order to enable the Government to accept it, or, if they do not do so, follow, with the utmost expedition, whatever course their’ wisdom has mapped out.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I regret that Senator Gardiner, notwithstanding my appeal, has moved this request. I again appeal to him not to follow this course, and I appeal to honorable senators not to vote to carry the request; “because, if it is carried, it will practically prevent members of this Parliament from taking part in the recruiting campaign, as can easily be demonstrated by. a reference to the dates. We are now in the middle of December. If the request is carried here, and is acceded to in another place, we must meet again not later than ‘ the second’ week in February, which means that the members from Queensland and Western Australia will not have more than a week or two in their States. Obviously, nothing can be done in connexion with recruiting for the rest of this year.

Senator Blakey:

– Has not the Premier of Western Australia said that’ there are no men remaining in that, State who can be got, voluntarily or otherwise ?

Senator PEARCE:

– What he has said is not. the point at” the present moment. What the Government have said is the main thing. We have asked the’ people to endeavour to make recruiting successful. Senator Gardiner has said that it can be made a success, and a number of members of his party say that they are willing to help to make it a success, but it cannot be done unless they have time to visit their constituencies and make arrangements for the formation of committees.

Senator O’Keefe:

– U - Under the Government scheme it is not proposed that members of the Federal Parliament shall be doing much platform work.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Federal member is asked to make himself the primary agent for forming committees in his electorate, but if the request moved by Senator Gardiner is carried and acceded to by another place, it will give the member, at the most, only a month in which to do that work, even in the districts that are within easy reach of Melbourne, while in the districts at a distance from Melbourne it will not give him a fortnight.

Senator Mullan:

– If that argument has anything in it we ought not to meet until May.

Senator PEARCE:

– There is something to be said for that. The most important question we have to deal with at the present juncture is that of supplying reinforcements for the troops at the front I ask honorable senators to realize that the action that has been taken by Senator Gardiner will prevent that being done, and to vote according to their consciences. I shall pursue the matter no further, except to reply to -Senator Gardiner’s remark as to the position of the Government. The honorable senator takes up the position that if the Government will accept what he and his party like to give everything will be all right. The Government do not propose to take up that attitude. We have escaped from one form of tyranny, and do not propose to put ourselves under another.

Senator Barnes:

– You were a long while in finding it out.

Senator PEARCE:

– We were not. As soon as it was attempted to be exercised we acted accordingly. . The Government do not propose to accept the request. If it is pressed to a division, I hope those honorable members who wish to assist in the recruiting campaign will vote against it.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I would be reluctant to take any step that would prevent the utmost effort being put forward in connexion with the recruiting campaign; but, at the same time, I think it is highly desirable that this Parliament should not go into a lengthy recess. We have heard that a certain section of the community, which has been condemned from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, advocate a go-slow and ca’canny policy, but there, is no institution whichis so liable to go slow as Parliament is. I do not like so much government by regulation. It will be no inconvenience to the great bulk of members of this Parliament to assemble in the first week in February. If we were about to set out on an election campaign we would find ample time to speak and return here by that time ; and, as the question of securing the necessary reinforcements is even of greater importance to the country than an election campaign, I am satisfied that the great bulk of members of this Parliament could engage in the campaign most persistently and determinedly during the month at their . disposal, and be back here during the first week in February.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How long does the honorable senator think that it will take to get the recruiting scheme into working order before an actual start can be made ?

Senator GRANT:

– It is being got ‘ into working order now. Any one who has carefully perused the document handed to us over the signature of Mr. Mackinnon will have noticed that steps are now being taken throughout the Commonwealth to get the full scheme into working, order at very short notice. If members of Parliament care to put their efforts behind the scheme it can be got into working order at very short notice.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In South Australia we have had only one preliminary meeting; it will take a month or two to. get startedproperly.

Senator GRANT:

– It should not take more than twenty-four hours to get to all the railway centres of South Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There are places hundreds of miles from a railway.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator will not be expected to do’ all the work in South Australia. We can assemble here in the first week in February, but I. do not think that it will be necessary even then to remain in session for a long period. I am not in favour of Parliament going into a long recess at the present juncture, and I am not prepared to offer opposition to any scheme that the Government may have in view for the purpose of maintaining reinforcements in sufficient number under the voluntary system in order to keep our Forces up to the normal strength.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator Gardiner has invited us to notice the striking similarity he presents to that great Indian proconsul who was staggered at his own moderation. At times . I might have been inclined to think that Senator Gardiner was moderate, but when he followed his claim for moderation by a threat there was no mistaking the attitude’ he has taken up. Apart from that, I wish to emphasize the honorable senator’s statement that this is a claim for moderation. No request, short of refusing the Bill altogether, could have been submitted which was less immoderate. We have already exceeded half a month of the Supply asked for.

Senator Gardiner:

– The Supply commences from to-day.

Senator MILLEN:

– No; it commences from the 1st December, and two weeks have now gone by.

Senator Gardiner:

– They will still be available at ‘the end of the period.

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall deal with that point later. Already to-day two weeks have gone. The honorable senator proposes to give two months’ Supply. He could not give one month’s Supply only, unless he is prepared to stop here through the Christmas holidays. Therefore, in his talk of moderation, it is not moderation for -the Government that he is thinking of; it is the convenience of honorable senators who have the holidays in view. So let there be no pretence as to moderation in this matter. I come now to the suggestion that, though we have lost two weeks at this end of the term, we shall gain two weeks at the other end of the period. That is true. But what is the complaint made? It is that the Senate has not had sufficient time to examine the Bill. Senator Gardiner points out that there has been an overlapping in the due time of payment to the Civil Service, owing to the fact that the Bill did not come- to. this Chamber earlier, but that, position arises from the fact- that when you have no Supply to go on with’ you have immediately to get’ it within a few days. There is another test of the sincerity of the declaration of Senator Gardiner that he did not wish to harass the Government. If he was sincere- in the declaration that all he sought was some guarantee that Parliament would meet within a reasonable period, the motion might have been preceded by a request to the Government to state when they intended to call Parliament together. Does he want a guarantee of. when the Senate will meet,, or. does, he want to hamper the Government in the matter of Supply? If the latter; he is taking, the correct, course’ now, but if he merely wanted an assurance’ that Parliament would not be kept in. recess, when it ought to be sitting, his. proper course was to ask the Government, first, to what date they intended to adjourn Parliament, or to promise that they would call it together by a certain date. That he did not do. Therefore, he is not seeking an assurance as to the re-assembling of Parliament, but is endeavouring to harass- and, possibly, humiliate the Government. Many honorable , senators living, in distant States will naturally desire to return home for’ the Christmas’ holidays. A holiday till the middle of January is not unreasonable for men situated as. many honorable senators are-. But if the requested amendment is carried we shall meet early in February. It takes some honorable senators a> week to- come from their States, and thus- we should have only two’ weeks to- give to recruiting.. Are not honorable senators who say they are prepared to help , the voluntary method open to the suspicion, if they vote for the request, of seeking to create some excuse for their absence from the recruiting platform?’ It will have a very damping effect on the recruiting organizations throughout the country if there is the slightest suspicion that members of Parliament, whilst throwing their verbal blessings over the movement, are in some way or- other seeking, to avoid their share of responsibility for doing what they- can for the movement. It will have a very bad ‘ effect on the agencies to which we are looking to carry the brunt, of the work. “We at least owe it to these bodies of private citizens to render them what little assistance and ‘help we can by our presence and advice. For that reason we have to ask ourselves whether we will support the Government proposal, leaving ourselves, at least six weeks for recruiting, work, or practically placard Australia with the statement that we- have adopted such a course as will leave’ only two or three weeks available for that, important national work.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Members’ from Western Australia are placed in an awkward position. Because of the uncertainty as to the rising of the Senate, I have been unable- to book a passages to Western Australia until this week.. The earliest time I can leave for the West is. the 26th, arriving in Fremantle on 3rd January,If the amendment is carried, no one landing in. Western Australia, on that day could do any earnest work in the im-. portant recruiting campaign before us before he would have to leave again for Melbourne for the meeting of Parliament. If this move is simply to tie members to Melbourne, or humbug. , the Government,. I advise honorable senators opposite to go straight for what they are aiming at, and “ fire “ the Government out. I prefer’ sudden death to the Government being kept from doing the work of the country. If their desire is to prevent the granting of Supply, members of the Opposition have the numbers in this Chamber to bring the Government down at one fell swoop. The country will not tolerate any humbug, but will have a great deal more regard and respect for the Opposition party if they do what they have been threatening so often to do. Three months’ Supply, with the holidays intervening, is not too long if any work at- all is to be done in connexion with the recruiting scheme. Personally, I have not been able to get to my own State since I returned from the Old Country.

Motion, by Leave, amended to- read as follows : -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the amount of the total £3,293,290 and to insert £2,195,527 in lieu thereof, and to make the consequential amendments in the schedule.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Schedule, as requested to be amended, agreed to.-

Postponed clause 2 -

There shall and may be issued and applied . . Three million two hundred and ninetythree thousand two hundred and ninety pounds

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the words “Three million two hundred and ninety-three thousand two hundred and ninety,” and to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Two million one hundred and ninety-five thousand five hundred and twenty-seven.”

Clause, as requested to be amended, agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported with requests; report adopted.

page 9864

SUPPLY (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL (No. 3) 1916-17

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill to cover three months’ Supply in respect of works, the amount asked for being £2,702,760. With the exception of certain amounts, which were paid out of Treasurer’s advance, in respect of expenditure in the Federal Capital, and which are authorized under this measure, the Bill contains nonew items that have not already been . authorized.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I should not have risen, but for an aside just now between the Minister for Defence and myself, and in which I received for the second time during the present sitting a sort of lecturette from him. Whilst I was offering a few observations on another measure, I was told that I was delaying the payment of the salaries of Commonwealth public servants. That statement was absolutely incorrect. I was not doing anything of the kind. Quite a number of other honorable senators took part in that debate, and several supporters of the Government had a good deal to say. While one of the supporters of the Government was speaking, ‘ and after he had been an hour or more in getting into his stride, the Minister for Defence encouraged him and he kept going for quite a long time.

Sitting suspended from 8.45 to 10.15 a.m. (Friday) .

Senator FINDLEY:

– When the sitting was suspended I was saying that the last thing I desire would be the stoppage of any works in progress or any works contemplated by the amount provided in this Bill for the present financial year. I know that there is a movement afoot in different quarters to prevent a number of works in progress in different parts of Australia by Federal ‘Departments from being proceeded with. I am told - I do not know whether it is correct or not - that a number of men have been dispensed with at the Flinders Naval Base, and that, although their services have beendispensed with, there is work which, in the opinion of some persons, might well be proceeded with now.

Senator Stewart:

– What do you want the Naval Base for just now? -

Senator FINDLEY:

– What do we want many things for?

Senator Stewart:

-We want money for the war.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator is, apparently, disposed to join in the cry from various sources that all

Works of a non-productive character should cease during the progress of the war.

Senator Stewart:

– Hear, hear! I think it is plain, downright business.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I understand that the honorable senator would forthwith, whether it was sound economically or not, support a proposition to stop the works being proceeded with to complete the trans-Australian railway.

Senator Stewart:

– Yes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I understand that the honorable senator would stop any developmental work in the Northern Territory, and various other items ?

Senator Stewart:

– Yes, and the works at the Federal Capital. What do we want with a Capital just now? Could it not wait?

Senator FINDLEY:

– These ‘ repeated cries for economy come in cycles. They come in peace periods; they come in normal times, and they come in such times as we are going through now, and the moves are not always so much in the true interests of economy as they are for party purposes. Did we ever hear in peace time, especially from a New South Wales representative, that the works at the Federal Capital should be stopped? Did we ever hear from any representative of Western Australia, either Labour or Liberal, that the trans- Australian railway should not be completed? I know the fight which the Labour members from the latter State, at one time members of the Australian Labour party, put up for years to convince a number of honorable senators, and a number of the people in different parts of the Commonwealth, that that railway was not only essential in the best interests of the Federation, but that it ought to be looked upon, not so much as a productive enterprise as an imperative necessity from the defence stand-point.

Senator Needham:

– The Age still calls it “ the desert railway.”

Senator Stewart:

– Hear, hear! That is all it is, anyhow.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I was one of the few representatives of Victoria who gave a support to the passage of the Survey Bill, and to the measure for the construction of the line itself. I gave the representatives of Western Australia every assistance I could, in order to hasten the completion of that work. If it is to be stopped now because it will be nonproductive, that kind of economy, and the reasoning applied to that kind of economy, could be made applicable to almost every undertaking now in progress in. Australia. Are there any Commonwealth buildings to-day which, in. themselves, are productive enterprises?

Senator Stewart:

– Of course. There are numbers.

Senator FINDLEY:

– A few; . not many.

Senator Stewart:

– Are not the postoffices productive?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It all depends upon what the honorable senator means by the word “ productive.”

Senator Stewart:

– You. know the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word, do you not?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I can quite understand that post-offices are productive in the sense that revenue is raised from them; but we know also that the post-offices, in some years at least, have been nin at a loss. We know, too, that a number of the telephone services have been run at a loss. We know that nearly every railway built in Victoria before it became a State was non-productive from the start. We know, further, that the roads and the bridges are non-productive. We know that all military expenditure is non-productive. Is Senator Stewart going to join issue with those gentlemen who are crying out “ Economy, economy !” to prevent all undertakings which are not productive - ‘

Senator Stewart:

– I did not say all undertakings.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Which are not revenue-producing, which do not show a profit to the Commonwealth, which are run at a loss? The construction of the trans- Australian railway is to be stopped when it is almost nearing completion because it, so it is said, will be a nonproductive undertaking. If it were laid down as a basic principle that no money should be voted by this Parliament’ for any works in any one of the States unless they would be revenue-producing, and. profitable, enterprises from the word “ Go,” I wonder how many undertakings would be proceeded with.

Senator Watson:

– The country would be in a state of stagnation.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Absolute stagnation.

Senator Watson:

– And the people in a state of starvation.

Senator Stewart:

– Nothing of the kind.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I say. to members of our party in all friendliness, “Beware at certain times, of those who cry Economy, economy, economy !’ “ When they desire economy and apply the praning-knife, who are the first people that are affected? Who are the class, that, mostly suffer ? I do not know how many men are employed on the transAustralian railway. Perhaps Senator Lynch can. tell me.

Senator Lynch:

– Two thousand.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It can be safely said that at least double that number would be, more or less, affected by the stoppage of the railway.

Senator Stewart:

– Do you not think that they could be better employed at the present time?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator suggests that we should begin, by sacking all these- men and stopping the construction of the railway. Then, to be consistent, he would not stop there. He would displace all the men employed at the Federal Capital. There may be 200, or 300, or 1,000 at work there. Then there is a number of men employed in the erection of public buildings in different States and in making, additions to existing buildings. All these men would be more or less affected. If Senator Stewart and others are consistent in their advocacy of economy, and adhere to the principles which they apparently believe in, there will be a general cessation of Commonwealth undertakings from now onwards. In what direction, may I ask Senator Stewart, could Commonwealth workmen be better employed ?’ Can he give me an answer ?

Senator Stewart:

– I will give you some information from my point of view when you are finished.

Senator FINDLEY:

-Very. good. Many of these men,, Senator Stewart may say, might be at the front, or might be employed in avenues which would be- helpful in the furtherance of the war. But I do not think that he would say for a moment that it would be a proper thing, to stop public works in order to force these men to the war; that they would have to choose between starvation and going to the front.

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– You are trying to suggest something which I. never thought of. I do not want to force any man to the war.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not want to do that.

Senator Stewart:

– But I wish to see them engaged in industries which are likely to be of profit to the country in the present emergency, and there are plenty of opportunities..

Senator FINDLEY:

– I do not know where those opportunities are-.

Senator Stewart:

– I do, if. you do not There, is any number of, them.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I know that in Victoria there is a number of men who are on the union books to-day, and have been there for a long time,, who would be very glad to get from Senator Stewart information which would lead them to obtain work.

Senator Shannon:

– They could get 11s. a day at Port Pirie.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They may not be suitable for that class of work. During the last’ few days I have seen men canvassing who-, till’ recently, were in employment. The stoppage, of coal supplies threw quite- a big army of men out of work in this. State, and this may apply to other. States, too. If,’ in ‘addition to these hardships, thousands of other men are to be thrown out of work, there- is a bad look-out for everybody in Australia as a result. The present Government, I believe, have started to economize in certain directions. The other day the Treasurer was asked in another Chamber to what extent economies had been effected, or were proposed to be effected during the . coming year,, and he said that the Government expected to effect a saving of £740,000, and he instanced the buildings which, apparently, were not to be proceeded with. The list includes quarantine buildings, lighthouses, postal buildings, naval and military buildings. This apparently is but the beginning of a policy approved by the Government and indorsed by tbeir supporters, who appear to be extremely anxious to stop all public undertakings. This course would inflict- severe hardship upon thousands of citizens in Australia. I am not one to advocate expenditure that is not justifiable, but I maintain that we shall never have progress in Australia if we listen to the editors and writers of special articles in the different papers. I remember that a similar cry was raised in 1913. It is a familiar cry, ‘and as I have said, it comes in cycles. At that time the Age devoted leading and special articles to the amounts voted by Parliament for naval and military purposes. One article appearing in the Age on the 26th November, 1913, was as follows: -

The only object of our Citizen Force is to drive out an invader if he once got into the country - an extremely vague and shadowy contingency. To accomplish that defensive action we should be sufficiently equipped if we had an army of bush fighters and marksmen similar to the force used by the Boers against Great Britain. Such a body of citizen defenders does not need to be trained by the drill-ground and barrack-room methods of an offensive military system, such as th’at directed by the War Office. Nor need it involve the waste of millions of treasure. The form of defence most suitable to our need -must be evolved by Aus- tralian genius free from the effete influence of General Ramrod and Major Pipeclay, and adapted to the means and resources of a peaceful and industrious people.

The PRESIDENT:

– May I ask the honorable senator if he intends to connect his remarks with the Works and Buildings Bill ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I intend to do so by pointing out that the article dealt with the naval and military expenditure of that time.

The PRESIDENT:

– But I would point out that the honorable senator will have an ample opportunity under the heading of military expenditure. At present he is only entitled to speak with regard to the works and buildings. The extract read by the honorable senator was not directed against works and buildings, but against general military expenditure, and by referring to that matter now, he will be duplicating the discussion.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have no desire to duplicate the discussion, but I am not so sure about your interpretation of the extract.

Senator Millen:

– The criticism of the Age referred to the time when Senator Findley and his colleagues were criti cising, schemes for military and naval expenditure.

Senator FINDLEY:

– When I was a member of the Fisher Government, I did all I could to see that money intended for the defence of Australia was judiciously expended.

Senator Pearce:

– Does not the honorable senator think he has done pretty well?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am afraid the Minister is getting a bit irritable this morning.

Senator Pearce:

– I frankly admit I am getting very tired after the all-night sitting.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have no quarrel with the Minister, but twice during this session he has said to me things which I resent, and it was because of his remark an hour ago that I rose to make a few -remarks on this Bill. I do not mean to say that I would not have spoken but for the Minister’s interjectin. because I . had something to say, and I believe other honorable senators also intend to say soniething with regard to the measure. I shall not detain honorable senators longer than to express the sincere hope that the Government will not be moved by certain influences that are at work to throw thousands of men out of employment, by cutting down public works, and in that manner inflicting hardships upon a large section of the Australian citizens at a period of the year when no one should be in need of . sustenance, and of that good cheer associated with the closing days of this month. I again assure the Leader of the -Government that I do not desire any works to be stopped. On the contrary, I . wish to see them pushed on with, and I hope the Government will prove that they are as anxious, as are all members of the Australian Labour party, for . the welfare and advancement of the cause to which I belong, and that they will further the policy upon which they were elected to this Parliament.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I have listened with a good deal of interest to the address delivered by Senator Findley, and I could not help wondering if the honorable gentleman had not quite forgotten the circumstances in which the Commonwealth finds itself. The honorable gentleman talked as if we were living in the “ piping times of peace,” when normal expenditure’ might be proceeded with without difficulty, instead of in a time when we require every farthing we can lay our hands upon for such productive works as may be necessary to the “ welfare of this Commonwealth. We are, in short, at a very difficult period in our history with our public debt, due to the war, mounting to within easy distance of £200,000,000 sterling, and before we know where we are, we shall have an interest bill of about .£10,000,000 per annum. That money will have to be found by the working people of Australia, and the more we borrow now to keep people employed, the heavier will become the burden upon those engaged in reproductive industries. When the war ends we shall also have to provide for our soldiers - to see that the men who were brave enough to go out to fight for their country are suitably rewarded. That is a duty -which we shall not be able to avoid. Then we shall also have an army of dependants. In addition to all” this expenditure, we have the old-age pensions bill to meet. A very short time ago we increased those pensions by 2s. 6d.a week, and I have heard it mooted that pensions are shortly to be paid to widows a,nd orphans. That is quite a legitimate way of spending public money, and I could enumerate a number of other directions for such expenditure. When we have such an array of proposals for expenditure before us, it behoves every man who has the interests of the country at heart to see that not a single shilling is spent at the present time that can be avoided. I look through these. Works Estimates, and I notice that it is proposed to spend over £1,000,000 on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway. The most sanguine man in Australia will scarcely contend that that railway will pay in the ordinary sense of the term within the next fifty years. If that be so, why not put this £1,000, 000, which I remind honorable senators We have to -go cap-in-hand to some one to borrow, to some immediately productive use. I do not say that the construction of. this railway should be stopped for ever. I would not advance such a proposition for a moment, but I say that the Commonwealth is now in the position of an individual whose house happens to be on fire. He would trouble himself about nothing at the moment but the quenching of the flames. I have seen fields of sugar cane and of grass in flames, and the farmers have called upon every man on their holdings, and every man they -could gather in their neighbourhood, to help them put out the fire. Every other work was stopped until the fire was beaten out. Speaking of the Commonwealth, I say that our house is in flames. At the present moment we are at war, and every resource of the country should be employed in carrying the war to a successful, issue. That is the attitude I take up, ‘ and I can defend it before any audience and in any company.

Senator Findley:

– Will the honorable senator tell me how he proposes to find employment for those -who would be thrown out of employment by the adoption of his policy? ‘

Senator STEWART:

– T hope that Senator Findley will have a little patience. I know what his ideas n these matters are. Unfortunately for himself and the country, his experience has been confined to Melbourne. He has seen hardly anything of the rest of Australia.

Senator Findley:

– I knew Australia before the honorable senator landed here. Let him talk sense.

Senator STEWART:

– I said the other evening that the cities of Australia have grown out of all proportion to its population. They have grown to such dimensions largely because of the adoption of a policy such as that suggested by Senator Findley to-day. Numbers of people live in the cities. They have votes and political power. They have the control of politicians, and they insist upon the poli’ticians borrowing money to spend - where ? In the cities. I have heard ,men openly proclaim that it did not matter to them whether public works paid or hot. So long as money was spent, and they earned good wages, that was all they required. That kind of thing has been going on for fifty years in Australia, and is as rampant to-day as ever it was. It has become a very Frankenstein, and those who are behind the adoption of such a policy are like the horse leech, they are never satisfied. Any man who would say these things to the people of our large cities would make himself exceedingly unpopular to them, but we have to take a square look at the condition of things in Australia. It is not by letting things slide that we shall ever get the Commonwealth out of its difficulties. I remember

Senator Findley:

– I said at its commencement.

Senator STEWART:

– I have been up and down Australia as much as have most people, and I am satisfied that the part of this continent with which I am most familiar is very -much over rail-roaded I am satisfied that it would be very much better for Australia if to-day she had only about half the railway lines she has in operation.

Senator Ferricks:

– That is an argument for going back to the bullock dray. ° Senator STEWART.- The honorable % senator may use whatever arguments he pleases for himself.

Senator Ferricks:

– The argument is Senator Stewart’s, not mine. .

Senator STEWART:

– That may be the interpretation which “the honorable senator puts upon my argument, but it is not the interpretation I put upon it, nor is it the meaning I wish to attach to it. If Senator Ferricks will have a little patience, I shall discover the matter to him. I suppose that I may be permitted to say a few words here upon land monopoly?

The PRESIDENT:

– Provided the honorable senator connects them with the Bill. ‘

Senator Findley:

– That applies ‘ to nearly all mining towns.

Senator STEWART:

– I am not talking of mining towns, but of agricultural districts. I know of districts in Queensland through which .railways run for 100 miles with hardly any settlement along them. In other parts of the State there are huge areas of excellent land unoccupied, although they are within easy reach of railway communication. This evil of land monopoly is intimately connected, not-only with our railway systems, but with the public expenditure of the country. No one will tell me ‘that if the railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta were completed to-morrow there would be any volume of traffic over it. I do not believe that there would be a ‘ large passenger traffic, though members of Parliament, being able to travel free upon it, would probably be compelled to use it. I do not believe that .many other people would travel over the line. There would be no great goods traffic. It would be very much more pleasant for people going to and comin’g from Western Australia to travel by sea ‘than to go across hundreds of miles of this desert railway line.’ With regard to the carrriage of goods, every one is aware that sea carriage is much-cheaper than is land carriage. “So that the probability, or even the possibility, of that railway being anything like a financial success during the next fifty years ‘is extremely problematical. We are going to spend a comparatively large sum of money upon the Federal Capital. I ask why, in the name of common sense, we should not put a stop to that expenditure. Other proposed works might be dropped and the money set aside, or profitably employed in other ways under a properly organized system. Senator Findley seems to think that I am desirous of. throwing a large number of people out of employment.

Senator Findley:

– I do not think the honorable^ senator is desirous of doing so, but the policy he proposes would have that effect.

Senator STEWART:

– I have no doubt that that would be the immediate effect of such a policy, but I ask Senator Findley and every other member of the Senate to consider whether those men could not be more profitably employed so far as the Commonwealth is concerned in some other direction. Any one who considers the question must admit that ‘there will be no immediate return from the Federal Capital. Whatever money is spent there will be sunk without any return for a long period of years. The same thing applies to the money spent on the railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta. I do not suggest for a moment that when the war . is over, and conditions become normal again, the expenditure on the railway and at the Federal Capital should be stopped. I say by all means, when we have this urgent business of the war off our hands, let us turn our attention to these ventures again and completethem.

Senator Findley:

– I do not agree that the Federal Capital is not a good business proposition. It might be made a paying proposition from the start.

Senator STEWART:

– We cannot at present get any return from it.

Senator Findley:

– We could if we removed the Parliament to the Capital.

Senator STEWART:

– I direct attention to the fact that the- projects on which we should spend money at this time are those from which we may look for a speedy return. We cannot expect a. speedy return for money expended at the Federal Capital.

Senator Findley:

– The longer we delay the building of the Capital the longer we’ must wait for a return from it.

Senator STEWART:

– I say again that we cannot afford to complete the Federal Capital at present, because there is more urgent . work to which we should direct our attention. In regard to finding employment for the men who would be thrown out of work if these undertakings were stopped,I would ask Senator Findley whether the resources of Australia have been exhausted ? The Labour party has a platform. The Labour party was in power in New. South Wales till a very recent date. Unfortunately, it is not in power there now, but I have not the slightest doubt that if the matter were put before the present Government of that State, it would be able to find em ployment for those men who might otherwise be deprived of their means of livelihood. I say that these men should be put to some more productive task than that on which they are engaged during the present crisis. We hear a good deed about providing for our soldiers on their return from the war. Would it not pay the Commonwealth better if the New South Wales Government set to work, and employed the men who are now engaged at the Federal Capital in getting farms ready for our soldiers, who will soon be returning, clearing the land for them, fencing it, erecting buildings upon it, and commencing to cultivate it? Would it not pay the country better if money were spent in that way instead of being expended on the Federal Capital? ‘The position ‘ requires only to be stated in order to demonstrate its advantages. This is not a new idea. The same thing is being done in Canada at the present moment. The Canadian-Pacific Railway is busily engaged preparing farms along the whole length of its lines. If a private railway company can do that, surely a sovereign Government can do it. But providing’ for the needs of our soldiers is only one way in which the discharged men might be employed. We require to produce more and more primary products. Could not each State Government engage in some industry which would be immediately ‘productive? In New South Wales, I believe, the Government . have embarked upon wheat-growing. That sort of thing might be enlarged indefinitely. A similar remark is applicable to the Government of Western Australia, and I am sure that the Victorian Government, if it cared to do so, could also find ‘employment for a large number of men in this way. By giving effect to a policy of this sort, we should be only following along the lines of the Labour platform, and if ever there was a time when the inauguration of such a policy was in the interests of the Commonwealth, that time is now. It must be evident to everybody who gives this matter the slightest consideration that, whilst there may be difficulties in the way, those difficulties are not insurmountable, and that any Government which is sincerely anxious to cope with the unemployed evil can do so effectively by the means I have suggested. If that were done, instead of our burying money in the sand, as is being done in so many ways in Australia at the present time, our enterprises would become almost immediately, . reproductive. Look at the wheat crop which has just been sold to the British Government. We are told that the farmers of Australia will get about £27,000,000 for that crop. Surely if private individuals working here ana there on small patches of land, in the most haphazard fashion, can create an industry out of. winch £27,000,000 can be got in one season, the various State Governments can do very much better, and can insure the employment of armies of men on the lands of Australia. I do not wish to go into this matter in detail. I merely desire to outline my ideas’ on. the subject, and to point out. to Senator Findley and others, who may think I am callous to the welfare of the men who will be displaced’ ifour public works are discontinued, that I am nothing of the- kind. I merely object to money being wasted onenterprises which may well be deferred, in view of, the desperate position which we occupy at the present moment; We haveseveral Labour Governments in Australia, on the platform of’ each of which is to be found the ideas to which I have been giving utterance. Yet in scarcely a singleinstance has any real attempt been made to engage in enterprises in the way I have suggested. I think that it ought to be done, indeed, that it must be done, if the country is to emerge- successfully from the difficulty in which it now finds itself, and in which it will remain, for a considerable time after the war ends. I know that to talk about reducing expenditure is unpopular, and for the reason which has been given. But a community must order its life on the same lines as a private individual, and a time comes in the history of every private individual when he is compelled to- review his methods of life, to examine his expenditure, to take a; square look at his income, and to see ‘whether he is so regulating his business as to get the best out of it. The- same remark applies to a community. If ever there was a necessity for any country to- take stock of its position, that necessity exists in Australia today. I have given utterance to the sentiments which I have expressed, because I think more, of the welfare of Australia than I do of what may be thought of me. Some persons may imagine that I take up this attitude because I wish to find fault. Nothing of the kind. But I realize that if Australia persists in following the course which she is pursuing, ruin must be the result.. And if ruin comes to this country, who will suffer? I am speaking on behalf of the working men and women of Australia. If bad times befall us, it is they who will suffer most. Everybody will suffer more or less; but there is a. considerable section who will always have plenty to eat, a place in which to live, and the ordinary comforts of life. But in the dark days which are to come in Australia there will be thousands of men, women, and little children who will want for the necessaries of life. It is to guard against these consequences as much as possible that I have ventured to put forth the ideas to which I have given expression to-day. I think it would be wise if the Government cut down expenditure to the narrowest limits. Unfortunately, we have not,, at present, the means of providing employment in the direction I have indicated for any considerable section of the community. But the time may come when- the Commonwealth will be able to embark on socialistic enterprises on a very considerable scale. That time, however, has not yet arrived; and, until it does, we must depend largely on the good services of the State Governments to help us out of whatever difficulties may arise. I do- not wish to say anything more on the subject. I have outlined my ideas on this matter, and I am content to leave it at that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 postponed.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I brought under the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs some time ago a united request from the whole of the building trades of New South Wales for a reduction by the Department of the hours of labour to a uniform fortyfour per week. So far I have received no satisfactory reply. The men ask that they should be paid only at so much per hour, as they’ are paid now, so that this is not a request for an increase’ through the reduction of the hours of labour. Will the Minister for Works favorably consider the suggestion? It is proposed to expend £95,000 on the erection of a building in London. That is a” work which might with advantage stand over.

Senator McDougall:

– It is almost finished..

Senator LYNCH:
Western AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– In certain works under the control of the Department a forty-four hours- week is at present in vogue. I am not prepared to say off-hand whether that can be extended to the other part of the labour employed, but if those employees who want the hours of labour shortened appealed to the Arbitration Court that would be the best way to settle the matter. I am not prepared to interfere in the fixing of rates of pay and conditions of labour while Minister. I am wedded to the principle of arbitration as a means for adjusting rates of pay and conditions of work for employees in the Commonwealth Service. Forty-four hours may be enough for some classes of labour and too much for others. I have never been a slavish believer in an eight-hours day for all classes of labour, knowing from experience that a six-hours day is too long for some kinds of work and eight hours not enough for others. I am not disposed to alter the existing conditions unless directed by. the proper tribunal after an appeal by the employees concerned.

I do not know what stage-the building in London has reached, but great quantities of marble have been ordered from Australia to put the finishing touches to it. It would, therefore, be foolish at this stage of the work of construction to arrest its progress. We can afford’ to spend the trifling amount necessary to complete the work without inconveniencing the Department or running it into any unnecessary expense.

Schedule agreed to.

Postponed clause 2, preamble, and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 9872

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the past administration, and the policy for the future general administration and conduct of affairs in the Northern Territory.

I am not anxious to incur any additional expenditure at a time like the -present, when economy is the order of the day, but during my recent visit to the Territory many matters came under my observation which justify an inquiry. My idea is for the Commission not only to inquire into those questions, but to frame some great scheme for the future management of the Territory. The Commonwealth is spending large sums there, and I am confident that we are not getting the return from it that we have the right to expect. I do not know that the Territory has received any greater benefit from the Commonwealth than it did from South Australia while it was under her control, although a tremendous increase has taken place in the expenditure. I am not so much finding fault with the salaries, because it is absolutely ‘ necessary that men who go to the Territory should be paid decent amounts. But I am convinced that a re-organization of the whole position in the Territory would be effected by the appointment of a Commission, - such as I suggest, to go there and investigate matters. In my speech here, I endeavoured to show that many matters require investigation and organization. I pointed out the amount of dissatisfaction which exists among the people, for one reason, amongst many others, because they are defranchised. They have no representation in this Parliament ; th’ey have no votal voice in the government of this country. Any honorable senator will realize that a person living in any portion of Australia regards it, not as a privilege, but as a right, that that portion shall be represented in theNational Parliament. I recognise that there is some difficulty in arranging this matter. I am not sufficiently familiar with the Constitution to be able to say whether the people of the Northern Territory can get representation without an alteration of the Constitution, but I believe that they can. While the Northern Territory was being governed from Adelaide, it had two representatives in the House of Assembly. I am confident that that fact went a long way towards insuring fair management and due consideration of the requirements of the Territory. At the present time, these distant people have no voice whatever in their own government. I found that every section of the community at Port Darwin was totally dissatisfied with this state of affairs. If the Commonwealth is going to spend any more money, apd attempt to develop this, country as it ought to be developed, it is absolutely essential that a representative should be returned to this

Parliament, so that, whether he is sent to the Senate or the other House, from time to time the people and the Parliament of Australia may be brought more closely in touch with the requirements of the inhabitants of the Territory.

Senator Mullan:

– The fact that we “gave these people the right to a vote at the recent referendum is an admission that

We . ought to consider their claim to a vote for representation in this Parliament.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I may say that the- people of the Northern Territory returned a very substantial “Yes” majority at the referendum, but I must not tread on that dangerous ground. We gave these people a vote at the recent referendum, and it is only fair that they should have a vote so that they may be represented in the Parliament of Australia. Since my return from Port Darwin I have received many communications from residents, who have been pressing me all the time to bring forward this motion and ask the Parliament of Australia to agree to the appointment of a Commission to go to the Territory, not with the idea of finding fault, not so much with the idea qf condemning past administration, as with the idea of laying down some plan by which the government of the Territory could be carried out, and the Administrator, or the Government Resident, or whoever the Commonwealth may p°ut in charge in future, shall know exactly what lines he will be expected to travel along; that he shall not be an autocrat; that he shall not be left in the position of having to refer everything he does, or what is done, to Melbourne. The distance between Darwin and Melbourne is too great, and the time occupied in communication is too long. The amount of money spent in pursuing ‘every year this roundabout system,’ even on telegrams, I venture to say, must be very considerable. So far as agriculture is concerned, although in the Queen’s Hall there may be seen some samples of the agricultural products - the sample of rice is a very good one - the agricultural industry in the Territory is in a very undeveloped and very unsatisfactory state. Not much is to be expected from agriculture there for a very considerable time, and one of the reasons is the unscientific methods which were adopted in conducting experimental farms.. I went very fully into that subject when I was last addressing the Senate, and I only desire to say now that; so far as I know, only two men are making a success of agriculture. I want honorable senators to understand thai I am satisfied that this position is owing to no fault of the Territory itself. In years to come, I think farming will be possible and profitable; but a more scientific method, of experimenting, hybridization, and so on, will have to be carried on. A Commission such as I suggest will be able to investigate matters on the spot, and compare the Territory with territories largely similar, and not so far norths with, for instance, the northern portion of Queensland and the north-western portion of Western Australia, which are practically in the same latitude. Queensland has done a very great deal to render the northern portions of her territory - productive, and from that State we could expect to get experts who would have a knowledge of that class of country and climate, and of what was required. From the establishment of the Batchelor farm, and from the time men were invited to go and take up land, nothing of a practicable nature has been done in the Northern Territory, for a reason which I will point out. A man goes up and stays for a year or so as an experimentalist, and then something transpires.. There is a dispute with somebody, he leaves the place, and a considerable period expires before his successor is appointed. Whatever work one man may have done has entirely disappeared before the arrival of the other man. I am by no means condemning the agricultural industries of various kinds in the Territory ; but I hold that they are practically useless until the local population is large enough to consume the major portion of the products. As regards mining, the northern portion of the Territory, that is to say, from Darwin to Pine Creek, is very promising. There are large mineral belts, not very well prospected, and very poorly developed. The other day I received a telegram informing me what the cost of treating the ore was. I am sorry that I have not the message here, otherwise I could have told honorable senators exactly the cost of treating ore in the small batteries which have been erected. The cost is altogether too great, and unless some action is taken to increase the power of the batteries and reduce the expenditure in someway or other, these small tin mines will not be profitably worked.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is the honorable senator anticipating the report of the Commission which he proposes to have appointed ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No, sir; I am only urging that a Commission should be appointed, so that matters of this kind could be reported on. I am endeavouring to show the necessity for a Commission to be appointed to inquire into this and other matters, because of the failure with the mining industry. Speaking of another portion of the Territory with which I am not so well ‘acquainted - I refer to the southern portion - there is an urgent necessity for some steps to be taken to inquire into what we believe to be very much richer mineral deposits. I do not wish to go into various details of the duties of a Commission, and I had no intention to do that; but I want to impress upon honorable senators, if I can, that the residents of the Territory are anxiously awaiting an inquiry of this kind. They desire to have representatives in the Parliament of Australia. They want an inquiry into their local governing organizations, and various questions, such, for instance, as the native, problem and the half-caste problem, which, I may say, are tremendous problems. I can assure honorable senators that during my brief visit I saw ‘conditions which certainly ought to be removed, and can only be removed by means of an inquiry by a Commission, such as I ask for, visiting the Territory and investigating matters. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up very much time in submitting, this motion. I understand that the Government are not opposing the appointment of a Commission. I understand that they recognise that some inquiry of . this kind is wanted for their own information, as well as for the advantage of whoever may have the administration of the Territory in future. I am not asking for an inquiry as the result of any dissatisfaction with any person in authority in the Territory. I have no fault to find with any person in authority in the Territory. It will be the object of the Commission to discover and recommend remedies for any faults that may be disclosed. I understand the Government are not opposed to the appointment of the Commission, and I would like the matter to be settled to day, because if Parliament is rising at a very early date it will be necessary to determine this matter in order that the Commission may visit the Territory after the rainy season, which will be over in January or the beginning of February.

Senator Needham:

– Would the appointment of the Commission interfere with recruiting,?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Possibly it might.

Senator Millen:

– But the Commission need not be a parliamentary ‘one.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I think it should be a parliamentary Commission, but it might be wise to have an expert also upon it.

Senator Needham:

– If you can assure me that it will not interfere with recruiting I will vote for the motion.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I cannot give the honorable senator that assurance, because I do not know who will be appointed, and I am not informed what members will take part in the recruiting campaign.

Senator Needham:

– But if members of Parliament are appointed to the Commission they will be taken away from the recruiting duties.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– This matter, I submit, is important. The term of the Administrator will expire -early in the new . year, and it would be advisable that the new Administrator should go to the Territory and take over his duties on the recommendation or with the advice of the Commission for which I am asking. That is whyI am anxious that a vote should be taken upon the motion without delay. It is an important matter for the people of the Northern Territory, because if, as a result of the Commission’s inquiries, a proper system can be laid down for the administration of the Territory, ‘ I have no doubt that within a few years it will cease to be a- burden on the Commonwealth, and become a revenueproducing country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Russell) adjourned.

page 9874

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL,

(No. 2).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

With the idea of expediting the business before the Senate, it is ‘my intention to make only a few remarks upon this,the first of the Bills for an alteration, of the Constitution, and merely move the second, reading of the other measures, because this Parliament has already discussed” and passed all the measures. The Bills were ready to go to the people when the Government, of which I was a member, withdrew them as the outcome of a definite pledge given by the Premiers of the several States that in order to avoid a referendum they would voluntarily surrender to the Commonwealth all the powers asked for during the term of the war, and for twelve months afterwards. Much inconvenience was caused to the Government by the failure of the States to honour the agreement.A large number of regulations had to be passed to deal with matters that could have been embraced within the several measures referred to.

Senator Millen:

– Have you only discovered this lately?

Senator GARDINER:

– No, . but it was a question of the difficulty of being able to remedy the position caused by the treachery of other people.

Senator Millen:

– But you knew of that treachery a good many months ago, and yet you remained silent.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not mind the taunt from the Leader of the Opposition, as I recognise that he may feel justified on any occasion when he thinks fit to taunt me with being silent with regard to this matter. I remained silent because there was no other course open to me, and because the Government, of which I was a member, were exercising certain necessary powers under the War Precautions Act. To the credit of Mr. Holman, it must be said that his Government honoured the promise made. The New South Wales Parliament passed the necessary . Bills through both Houses, and I venture to say that if every Parliament of the Commonwealth had done likewise, the position would have been quite satisfactory.

Senator Turley:

– I think, the Queensland Government honoured the promise as far as possible.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes; the Queensland Government did succeed in passing the Bills through the Lower House, but the Legislative Council deliberately tore up the scrap of paper by rejecting them. After the definite promise made by the Premiers, the several Parliaments should have honoured the agreement. At the time of which I speak, the Bills, having been passed by the Federal Government the necessary steps had been taken to appeal to the people, and when the agreement with the Premiers was made, the Commonwealth Government had to withdraw the writs by means of a proclamation issued by the Governor-General. I emphasize distinctly the fact that the blame for failing to honour the agreement made by the Premiers rested with the various State Parliaments rather than with the Governments of the States.

SenatorMillen. - You. could not blame the Parliaments because they were not parties to the contract. They could not help themselves.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Parliaments, in view of all the circumstances, should have honoured the agreement. Referring- to the Bills, I point out that they are identical with those introduced on a former occasion and passed through both Houses by a constitutional majority. That being so, I will refrain from a further advocacy of their principles. I might sum up the position by saying that at present our legislative authority is limited by the Constitution, and that there is a consensus: of opinion throughout the Commonwealth that the National Government should have power to deal with the several matters referred to in the different Bills. The Commonwealth Parliament, representing Australia as a whole, should possess the fullest powers of sovereign government. These measures have been before the people on previous occasions, and on the last occasion secured a larger support than when they were first submitted. It is apparent that there is a growing feeling that the Federal Parliament must be given greater powers than it at present possesses. If the States persist in refusing these powers, there will be be an increased feeling that the time when there should be six sovereign State Parliaments, each with full powers, and one Parliament of the Commonwealth with only limited powers, has gone by. I shall say no more except to repeat that this Bill and the other Constitution Alteration Bills with which I propose to proceed were passed by the Senate on a previous occasion.

Senator Lynch:

– I wish to take a point of order at this stage. I raise the point that the question that this Bill be now read a second time is the same in substance as a question which was during the present session discussed in the Senate and passed in the affirmative, and under Standing Order 133 it is therefore not in order.

Senator Gardiner:

– On the point of order I wish to say that although these Constitution Alteration Bills were introduced and passed by the Senate, they were withdrawn by an Act passed by both Houses of this Parliament. An Act was passed authorizing the Governor-General to issue a proclamation to withdraw the writs which would have enabled these Bills to be given effect to.- The proclamation provided for under that Act was issued, and so far as the previous Bills similar to these are concerned, they are quite dead. The only way in which effect could now be given to them is that they should be brought up again in the Senate and dealt with as I propose. I have overlooked for the moment the title of the Act authorizing the issue of the proclamation to which I have referred.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think that the fact that an Act was passed to authorize the issue of such a proclamation is in dispute.

Senator Gardiner:

– I therefore contend that the Bills to which the proclamation under that Act refers, are defunct.

The PRESIDENT:

– That . is quite another matter.

Senator Millen:

– I wish only to say on the -latter point raised by Senator Gardiner that the Act to which he refers did not repeal the Constitution Alteration Bills, and even if it did the Standing Order is explicit and is against their reconsideration during this session. Whether those Bills were repealed or cancelled by the proclamation or not, under the Standing Order it is quite clear that they cannot be again submitted during this session -

No question or amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which, during the same session,’ has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or vote on such question or amendment has been rescinded. It does not matter what became of the previous Bills. The question which Senator Gardiner is asking you, sir, to put to the Senate is one which, in this same session, has already been dealt with. It is quite immaterial in the circumstances what proceedings were taken under theAct to which Senator Gardiner has referred.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have examined the Bill, the second reading of which Senator Gardiner hasmoved. I havelooked up the facts connected with an exactly similar Bill passed by the Senate during this session. I have also looked upall the authorities on the matter. I find that, as pointed out by the Minister for Works, Standing Order 133 says -

No question or. amendment shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which, . during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or vote on suchquestion or amendment has been, rescinded.

It is quite evident that this Bill has already been before the Senate and was decided by this Chamber during this session, and under the Standing Order it cannot be again revived during this session. That is perfectly plain. There can be no dispute about it, The point taken by Senator Gardiner that these Constitution Alteration Bills were withdrawn by an Act of Parliament has been taken under a misapprehension. They were nob withdrawn. Nothing was done fo those Bills under the Act of Parliament referred to. There is an Act on our statute-book withdrawing the proclamation under, these Bills. As Senator Millen has pointed out it does not matter one iota whether these Bills were withdrawn’ or not. The only question to be decided by me is whether these Bills have already been dealt with by fhe Senate during the present session. It is indisputable that they were so dealt with. The Standing Order is very clear on the point that consequently the attempt now made to revive them is not in order. I have fortified myself in connexion with this ruling by looking up the Imperial practice, which is also quite clear on the point. In the 11th edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, at page 300, I find the statement made -

It is a rule, in both Houses, which is essential to thedue performance of their duties, that no question or Bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session.

There are numerous* instances given of the application of this rule. May goes on to say, at page 308, that the only way in which that rule can be got over is by. inducing the Government to grant a pro- rogation of Parliament so as to overcome the difficulty. At page 308 May says -

Hence, in 1707, Parliament ‘was prorogued for a week, in order to admit the revival of a Bill which had been rejected by the Lords.

That was the remedy adopted in that case. It is unfortunate for Senator Gardiner and those who desire that these Constitution Alteration Bills should be revived that owing to the war and the necessity that Parliament should constantly be in a position to be called together, there has been no prorogation since this Parliament met for the first time on the 8th October, 1914.

Senator Gardiner:

– Have you, sir, considered the point that these Bills, although passed, cannot be submitted to the people, because, under the Constitution, it is necessary that they should be submitted within six months after their passing ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have considered that point. Under the standing order, they cannot be revived in the same session, and the Senate is now unable to deal with them. I supported these Constitution Alteration Bills when they were previously introduced, and I would support them again if they, could be brought properly before the Senate at the present time. I am, of course, dealing with the matter entirely from the point of view or the proper procedure to be adopted by the Senate. I am bound, as the Senate is hound, by the Standing Orders, the practice of Parliament, and the Constitution. Constitution Alteration Bills are the only measures which., under the Constitution, may be passed more than once by either House in the same session, but the condition on which they may be so passed in the same session is that either House will not have agreed to them. In all the circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to give a more elaborate ruling. The position is unmistakable under the Constitution, our Standing Orders, and the practice of the House of Commons, which is very largely our guide. The point taken by the Minister for Works must be sustained, and the Bill ruled out of order. Does Senator Gardiner propose to take any further action with respect to the other Bills of which he has charge?

Senator Gardiner:

– I have been so surprised by your ruling, sir - though I do not desire to reflect upon it - that I hardly know, whether I should proceed with the other Bills, as they will, no doubt, be treated in the same way.

The PRESIDENT:

– The . honorable senator can take plenty of time to consider what he will do, but if they are submitted, I shall simply be obliged to rule them out of order for the reasons which I have given for ruling that the first Bill cannot be proceeded with.

page 9877

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL (No. 2)

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– For the reasons which I stated at length in dealing with the Constitution Alteration (Trade and Commerce) Bill (No. 2), I have to rule that this Bill is also out of order. It is unnecessary for me to repeat my ruling. It is sufficient to say that the Bill cannot be further proceeded with.

page 9877

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL (No. 2)

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is unnecessary for me to say more than that, for exactly the same reasons as I have given in connexion with the other Bills, this Bill is also out of order, and cannot be proceeded with.

page 9877

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL

(No. 2).

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– For the same reasons as I gave with regard to the previous Bills, I rule that this Bill is also out of order, and cannot be proceeded with. .

page 9877

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL (No. 2)

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– For the reasons I have already given, I rule that this Bill is out or order, and cannot be proceeded with.

page 9878

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL (No. 2)

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read asecond time.

The PRESIDENT:

– For the reasons I have given in ‘dealing with the previous Bills, I have to rule that this Bill is also out of order, and’ cannot be proceeded with.

page 9878

QUESTION

ELECTRIC CABLES

Manufacture by Government.

Debate resumed from Thursday, 22nd

April, 1915 (vide page 2529), on motion by Senator McDougall -

That for self-reliance and economy the Government should at once establish works for the manufacture of all electric cables required to supply its ever-increasing, needs.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– It is some time since the debate on this motion was adjourned. Honorable senators will be aware from the speech with which Senator McDougall introduced his motion, that the principal needs to which he referred are those of the Post and Telegraph Department. The war has taught us. how very necessary it is that we should establish manufactures of essentials for our own use. Matters are in a very different position to-day from what they were when Senator McDougall introduced this motion. If his reasons for recommending it to the Senate were good at that time, they should now apply with greater force. We, have a very great interest in the establishment of manufactures, necessary to make us self-supporting. The. Government are carrying, on in the Post and Telegraph Department a huge concern in connexion with which, for instance, thousands of tons of copper wire are used. We require the establishment of a wellequipped factory to supply the needs of such a huge spending Department, and the sooner we set to work in real earnest to provide factories for the manufacture of all necessary supplies to meet Government requirements the better. I suppose that. Australia is as rich in metals . necessary for manufactures of this kind as is any other country in the world. The copper mines of South Australia, and of the other States, can provide us’ with all of this kind of metal that we require. Since the beginning of the war we have appointed a Science Committee to inquire into matters in which science can. assist industry and industry can be instructed by science. Having ascertained the most scientific method for dealing with- this and cognate questions, we shall then be in a position to establish industries in this country. That would be a much more efficient way of providing employment for our own people than is the old-fashioned method of levying imposts on imports with a view to compelling private individuals to embark in industry. I feel quite sure that the Government will give immediate effect to this motion if it should be carried. I am satisfied that it will be carried, and if, as a result, we find in the near future that an earnest’ attempt is being made to supply from own own mines the increasing requirements of our public Departments, this Senate will have accomplished a very good work.

Motion (by Senator Lynch) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 18

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The position now is that I am asked- to express an opinion upon a proposal submitted by Senator McDougall, which, if carried, will commit the Government to the establishment of certain works for the manufacture of electric cables. When the motion was moved, the adjournment of the debate was proposed by Senator Gardiner, who was then a Minister. When any honorable senator submits a proposal of this character, it is only reasonable that a Minister should be afforded an opportunity of placing before tbe Chamber the view that is held by the Go-, vernment regarding the advisableness of giving effect to it. A change of Government having taken place, Senator Gardiner’s name still stands on the noticepaper, indicating that he had the right to resume the debate, and he has spoken upon the motion, although I venture to say that he was not prepared to do so. But whether he was prepared or not, the fact remains that we are being denied a statement by the Minister. When a proposition is submitted to the Senate, which, if carried, would commit a public’ Department to a certain line of policy, there is naturally a desire on the part of every honorable senator to know precisely what arguments, either for or against the proposal, the Department chiefly interested will advance. I hope that even now an opportunity will.be given to the Department, through its Minister, to express its views on this project. Personally, it is one which appeals to me. But I will not accept the responsibility of voting for the motion without first having an opportunity of learning from the Minister all the information which the Department most directly concerned has upon it. I ask Senator McDougall to consider this aspect of the case. Even if the motion be carried, it will not help him one jot unless he secures the cordial co-operation of the Government. It is merely owing to a change of Ministry that we have not had an opportunity of securing the Minister’s advice in regard to this proposal. I ask Senator McDougall to recognise . the reasonableness of my suggestion that the Government should be afforded an opportunity of placing before honorable senators all the information they have in their possession in this connexion.

Senator McDougall:

– I am quite agreeable to do that. I am only ‘anxious to . secure a vote on the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ready) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.30 to4. p.m. (Friday) .

page 9879

UNIMPROVED LAND VALUE TAXATION

Senator GRANT (New South Wales) (4.2]. - I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, and for the purpose of assisting in defraying the cost of the war., the Government should without delay submit a Bill for the imposition and collection of a land value tax of not less than 3d. per £1 on all alienated land values in the Commonwealth, such tax to be operative from lst July, 1915, and to continue in force until all expenses consequent upon the present war have been liquidated.

It is a considerable time since I gave notice of the motion, but as time passes it seems to be more than ever necessary that it should be passed by the Federal Parliament. We are to consider in the near future Government proposals for raising a portion of the necessary taxation, ‘ including a tax on amusements. That is not to be. compared with the tax outlined in the motion. Another proposal is to secure revenue by taxing more or less mythical war profits. This will also involve the Commonwealth in no end of expense in a difficult endeavour, to locate the people who ought to pay the tax. The wealth , tax, or repatriation levy, may meet with the approval of a considerable number of people, but is not based on equity, and will give no additional employment. It is, therefore, not to be compared with the tax now under consideration. This, in ordinary times, would commend itself to a large section of the community, but a proposal to appropriate community-created values is not by any means new. It is impossible to trace the first exponents of it; but some French writers, notably de Tocqueville, strongly advocated something in this direction. Unquestionably, however, the man to whom the honour of bringing the idea into public prominence is due more than to any other is the late Henry George. No man so determinedly and effectively put forward the proposal to appropriate for communal purposes the value which the community gives to land as Henry Georee did. A number of people object strongly even to his. name. At the mere mention of it they will go into . the- highways and byways of - discussion and talk about all other kinds of questions.

Senator GRANT:

– It is a proposal to tax the unimproved value.

Senator Bakhap:

– It does not say so.

Senator GRANT:

– If it does not, it is due to a misprint. . I propose a straightout land value tax on the unimproved value of land. I ask leave to continue my remarks on a future date.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 9880

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1916-17

Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with the message that it had not made the requested amendments.

Ordered -

That the message be taken into consideration, forthwith.

In Committee:

Motion (by Senator Lynch) proposed-

That the requests be not pressed.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I regret that the Minister did not give reasons why this most reasonable and just request of the Senate should not be pressed. When it isdeliberately decided by a large majority of the Senate-

Senator Millen:

– A large majority?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes; a majority that was actually half the Senate. When eighteen members out of thirty-six make a request to the House, the Senate is entitled to insist on pressing it. I shall, therefore, vote against the motion.

Senator Keating:

– What about the other eighteen?

Senator GARDINER:

– Sixteen were present, and I take it that the other two would have been with us had they been here.

Senator Keating:

– They would have been with us.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall insist on the request being pressed.

Senator Guthrie:

– And put up with the consequences?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think anybody in this Senate is to be bullied or threatened by fear of consequences. If the consequences in this case mean the Government going to the country immediately, and us with them, we shall be quite prepared to accept the challenge, and also the decision of the people.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 16

Majority … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

If the Bill is returned to the Senate by the House of Representatives with any request not agreed to, or agreed to with modifications, any of the following motions may be moved : -

That the request be pressed.

That the request be not pressed.

That the modification be agreed to.

That the modification be not agreed to.

That some other modification of the original request be made.

That the request be not pressed, or agreed to as modified, subject to a request as to some other clause or item which the Committee may order to be reconsidered being complied with. ‘

It appears to me that the Committee will now have to deal with some other motion. There are two courses open, namely, either a motion that the request be pressed, or a motion that the request be pressed subject to such-and-such a modification, and then a message would have to be sent to the other House. It is for honorable senators who supported the request to decide which is the better course to adopt.

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works · Western Australia · ALP

– I would also point out that, in order to facilitate the business of the Senate, the request could be modified in the direction of insuring that Parliament shall be called together on the 27th February, or at such earlier date as may be deemed necessary by the President. The majority who votedfor the request being pressed said that their principal reason was that it was undesirable that Parliament should adjourn for such a long period as three months. I beg now to inform them that we cannot leave the position as it is at present; but if it will satisfy them to any extent, they can agree to a proposition that Parliament be called together as I have just suggested. Having given that undertaking, I cannot go any further in my attempt to meet their wishes. The Minister for Defence has explained quite fully our reasons for asking for three months’ Supply in this measure. Three months’ Supply has been repeatedly granted by the Senate. In the course of this session it has been given without murmur, but now we are face to face with the situation that several honorable senators refuse to grant the ordinary amount of Supply which has been given without question on previous occasions. I realize that there are certain grounds which are more or less of an unstable character supporting the claim that this request be pressed,” but. I would point out that, as mentioned by my colleague, we are living in a time when we need to avail ourselves to the full of the opportunities afforded to honorable. members of this Parliament who desire to take a hand in the recruiting campaign.” If, my honorable friends are going to ask members of Parliament to come from distant parts of the Commonwealth merely to satisfy the whim of a brutal majority in this Parliament, and leave recruiting to be thrown to the winds, they can accept the responsibility, and it will not rest upon honorable senators on this side. That is the naked position. Otherwise, honorable senators coming from Western Australia will have no time in which to visit their- homes and enjoy that respite which should be theirs, just as much as honorable senators .living in States close to the Seat of Government. My honorable friends are not only unkind and unjust to these honorable senators, but they are destroying every opportunity which would be reasonably afforded to honorable members of both Houses to take a share, as they are entitled to do, in the recruiting campaign. If my honorable friends propose to come back here for an idle purpose, merely to look at each other - and no other reason has been assigned for meeting at such an early date in January - let it be stated. If they propose to come back here for no visible reason at that early date, to leave recruiting to take its own course, to let honorable members of Parment please themselves as to what share they should take in the .campaign, again let me say-

Senator Millen:

– It will give them an excuse for not going on the platform at all.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes. Again let me say that the responsibility will not rest with the minority on this side. It is quite clear that my honorable friends have a majority here to enforce their will. But I would point out that in the other Chamber this request was rejected by an overwhelming majority of thirty:six to sixteen. Here my honorable friends have a flimsy majority of eighteen to sixteen, and why, in the face of the overwhelming majority elsewhere, are they seeking to force their will here? I appeal to the leader of that section of the Labour party to realize thoroughly the position which he and his friends will occupy, not only in the Senate, but also in the eyes of the electors throughout the Commonwealth. The responsibility will rest on his shoulders, and on those of his seventeen followers here if, after casting to the winds every shred of excuse which he might have, he insists upon this request being pressed. As already mentioned, the Minister for Defence, who has had to go to his native State, has never had a day off for the last two years? I feel sure that honorable senators will not begrudge my colleague that well-earned rest to which he is entitled after two. years of continuous work, and during a time when it required all the physical energy which he could bring to his aid in the discharge of his important office. He has already explained the position to the Chamber. I appeal to Senator Gardiner, and to those who think with him, to modify their views in the light of the promise I have made, and not to insist with a bare majority upon destroying every opportunity which honorable senators would otherwise have to share in the recruiting campaign.

Senator Mullan:

– Will you state why you want, three months’” Supply if you can meet Parliament on the 27th February, or at an earlier date?

Senator LYNCH:

– As I said, three months’ Supply has been asked for previously, and given freely by the Senate. But apparently such a. request from this Government is in the eyes of honorable senators a wrong one.

Senator Mullan:

– That is not an answer to my question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Needham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– There “ is nothing definite before the Chair. I allowed the Minister for Works to put the position before the Committee, and I now suggest that nothing be said by way of interjection until a definite motion is ‘submitted.

Senator Gardiner:

– If the Leader of the Government here at the present time will permit me, I will put something definite before the Committee in a very few words.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Has the Minister concluded his remarks?

Senator LYNCH:

– No, sir, as I wish to reply to Senator Mullan.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That cannot be allowed. There must be some question before the Chair.

Senator LYNCH:

– The three months’ now asked for is really not three months’ Supply from this date, as the term starts from the first of this month. We are well into the middle of the first month of the period, and in the ordinary course of events we would need to be back here about the time I indicated, namely, the end of February. I appeal most earnestly to Senator Gardiner to consider the position which he and his party are unconsciously drifting into. The responsibility will not rest on the minority here, but on his shoulders, and he will have to stand up to it. I do not want to make an ad misericordiam appeal to him. If he does not wish to give honorable senators an opportunity to share in the recruiting campaign as outlined in the statement made by the Ministry the country will be made aware of the fact. I again ask him to reconsider his decision, and allow three months’ Supply to be granted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the requests be pressed.

The Leader of the Government has stated that he is willing to make a concession by calling Parliament together, on 27th February instead of 28th February, but I point out that the Supply would last until 28th February, so Parliament would only be called together one day earlier.

Senator Millen:

– No; the Supply now proposed will last only until the end of January.

Senator GARDINER:

– If we gave three months’ Supply, it would last over December, January, and February, and the Government would have sufficient to carry them on to the beginning of

March. I want to put the position fairly, as it appears to me. The Government want us to grant them Supply for December, January, and February-, and we propose to give them Supply for December and January. As a matter of fact, the concession proposed by the Government to meet the desires of the “brutal majority “. - for that is the conciliatory term applied to members of this side by the Acting Leader of the Government - is that, instead of meeting Parliament on the 1st of March, they would meet on the 27th February.

Senator Lynch:

– Or an earlier date.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is a splendid offer to make. I have no desire to harass, annoy, or inflict any hardship on the present Government, but I point out that, if the Government, without a majority in either House, had asked for two months’ Supply, they would havegot it without one word from my party or from myself. Honorable senators behind the Government may not care about my statement that they do not constitute a quorum in either House, but that is a fact. I have read the debates in the other House, and Senator Millen, the Leader of the Liberal party in this Chamber, has made it abundantly clear that he is not of the Government party. Neither is Mr. Cook, the Leader of the Liberal party in the other House.

Senator de Largie:

– No one has said that he is.

Senator GARDINER:

– I put it to the Senate that it is a serious matter that a Government without a majority, and without enough members to form a quorum to conduct the business of Parliament, should ask and insist upon getting three months’ Supply. If they are prepared to meet this House in February, we shall be ready to treat them as generously as they could expect to be treated. As far as I can gather from the details of the recruiting scheme, the platform work will not be done by parliamentarians, but will be in the hands of organizations, and it can be organized independently of the meeting of Parliament. But there is another very serious oversight. It must be remembered that honorable senators of the first class will have to be re-elected before the 30th June, and up to the present the Government have not given us any. indication of their intentions inregardto that matter. It is not fair that honorable senators who will have to face their constituents have not received information concerning this important matter, and, in view of this circumstance, the request we make with regard to the meeting of the Parliament is a fair and reasonable one.

Senator Millen:

– Why do you not give this Government the Supply that you gave the Cook Government?

Senator GARDINER:

– Because the Cook Government always had a majority of their own.

Senator Millen:

– Not in this Chamber.

Senator GARDINER:

– But they had in the other House, and I again point out that this Government have not a majority in either House. If the Government had a better sense of their obligations, they would have come down to us with a request for three months’ Supply, and informed us that as soon as the Christmas holidays were over they would appeal to the constituencies. If that had been done Supply would have been given. It is unfortunate that we should have in office a Government without a majority and without power. I can remember that when we were a third party we had ‘the power and no responsibility. That is the position occupied by Senator Millen and the Liberal party in both Houses. They have the power, but the responsibility rests, so far as I can see, upon eleven members behind the Government in this Chamber and thirteen in the other House.

Senator Lynch:

– Do you not see that if you pin us down to two months’ Supply we shall have to reassemble at the end of January to get Supply, whether you like it or not ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think we need quibble about that. . The elections must be over before the end of May, and the return of the writs cannot be delayed beyond June. I appeal to the reason of honorable senators that we are entitled to have these matters placed before us in a practical, business-like way by the Government. For Senate candidates all the constituencies, are exceedingly large, and it is not fair that the Government should allow this matter to go on until, say, March, perhaps, before they give an indication of their intentions. If the advance account will enable the Government to go beyond the term for which Supply is asked, as the press indicates, they will, be able to struggle on a little further. The position is altogether too serious.

The granting of two months’ . Supply will avoid any dissension or trouble on the eve of the Christmas holidays when we ought to cultivate that kindly expression of opinion which honorable members on this side of the chamber desire.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is satire.

Senator GARDINER:

– It appears from the interjection that if we hold out the olive branch we are laughed to scorn by Government supporters.

Senator Lynch:

– Are you not accepting the pledge I gave on behalfof the Government to re-assemble on 27th February, or an earlier date?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have not had much time to consider that aspect of the question, and, as a matter of fact, it is only one day before the day on which the Supply would expire. I can quite understand that the ‘ Government might regard it as a loss of dignity to accept what the majority of the Senate desires them to accept, but I ask them to accept my assurance that our offer has been made, not in any spirit of opposition, but with a desire to meet them in every possible way. Very few Oppositions having the strength of the party I am leading would have been prepared to keep the Government business going all last night.

Senator Ready:

-Listening to speeches from their supporters.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, members of our party sat here and never once asked for the quorum bells, to be rung, and . as far as the discussion was concerned, we, with our majority, took no more part in it than the rest of the members. The records of Hansard will show that, even to men of suspicious minds.

Senator Lynch:

– You talk about suspicious minds, and you are not accepting the assurance that I have given, but suggest that we might meet in March, or later.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not state that. . I merely repeated what the press, has already stated; namely, that if this Supply is granted, there may be sufficient money in the advance account of the Treasury to enable the Government to continue in recess for a longer period.

Senator Lynch:

– Do you indorse that statement ?

Senator GARDINER:

– The Government have never contradicted it.

Senator Russell:

– There is no advance account in the Bill at all.

Senator GARDINER:

– Does the honorable senator contradict the statement which appeared in the press?

Senator Russell:

– Yes. There is no advance account in the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– But there may be in the previous Bill an advance account that was not exhausted, and that may be drawn upon. What advantage is it for the honorable senator to say ‘ that it is not in this Bill. We have assembled here in a friendly way to criticise the Government. They must expect that, but the’ criticism has not been ungenerous.

Senator de Largie:

-i never heard more abuse in an all-night sitting in my life before.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator always brings abuse upon his own head.

Senator de Largie:

– I challenge the honorable senator to produce anything in my speeches in the nature of abuse.

Senator Mullan:

– You were looking for fight at 5 o’clock this morning.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the Governmentchoose to laugh to scorn the friendly sentiments which I have expressed they may do so, but, as far as I arn concerned,’ my shoulders are quite strong enough to bear the responsibility of my statements and of the position which I have taken up in protecting the interests of the people outside. While I am a member of this Senate I shall continue to do that.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– The majority in opposition, of which we have heard so much from Senator Gardiner, though we saw little of its generosity during the past night, is altogether insignificant when we remember the total of the members of this Parliament who have voted on this question. When this view of the matter is taken, it is clear that what is proposed is really that a minority shall push down the throat of Parliament a most unreasonable suggestion. The division in the Senate this morning on the request was eighteen to sixteen. The votes in favour of the request constituted less than an absolute majority of the Senate. The division on the motion, in the. Rouse of Representatives refusing to make the amendment requested by the Senatewas thirty-six to sixteen. A minority, consisting of eighteen in the Senate and sixteen in another place, are trying to force this proposal down the throats of fifty-two other honorable members of this Parliament. If honorable senators opposite had a good case, I would not pay so much attention to the figures disclosed by the divisions, but they have an exceedingly poor case. In sixteen years’ experience in this Chamber, I can remember no instance, when Parliament, sitting so late in the year, was called together so early in the following year as the proposal from the other side would make necessary on this occasion. There should be very good reasons urged for calling Parliament together so early in the new year, and, so far, we have heard none. Honorable senators who may. jump on the train tonight and be at their homes to-morrow should have some consideration for those who have to wait for a fortnight in Melbourne before they can get a boat by which to return to their homes. Apparently, so long as honorable senators who are insisting on granting the Government only two months’ Supply may get easily to their homes, it is immaterial to them whether their proposal meets the requirements of other honorable members of the Senate. If the proposal were accepted, it would be quite impossible for honorable senators who desire to do so to take any , hand in connexion with the recruiting scheme. If honorable senators coming from the western States are to do anything in the matter, they must be given more time than the proposal from the other side would give them. The great majority of the members of this Parliament have accepted the Bill for three months’ Supply, in order that they may take the important work of recruiting in hand. If those who are making this proposal do npt desire to take up the work of recruiting, they, at least, should not prevent those who are willing to do the work from doing it; or, if that is their object in pressing the request, they should be manly enough to avow their intentions. I should like to know what is really behind the proposed request. If the intention is to bring about a dissolution, I will be one to help Senator Gardiner in that direction. We want to know where we stand, and the sooner we know it, the better. I should like to know whether the request is put forward in a spirit of pique, with the object of placing honorable senators who come from Western Australia in a difficult position. If the desire is to embarrass those who wish to take’part in the recruiting scheme, let honorable senators opposite be honest enough to say that that is their object. I have pointed out that the number of members of this Parliament supporting this request represents an insignificant minority, who have no right to try’ to push down the throats of the majority this most unreasonable proposal.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– - Senator de Largie is asking for the reasons which prompted Senator Gardiner and those supporting him to press the request. The honorable senator and those with him seem to think that the Senate has no rights as a branch of the Federal Legislature.

Senator de LARGIE:

– I never said anything of the kind.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– T - The tenor of the honorable senator’s remarks would lead one to think so. I can appeal to Senators Gould and Millen, who have, been members of the Senate since the establishment of the first Federal Parliament, to admit that this is not ‘the first occasion on which the Senate has decided, after full consideration, to press its requests to the House of” Representatives.

Senator Millen:

– This is the first occasion on which the Senate has attempted to deny the Government the Supply they have asked for. .

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I am not referring to Supply Bills, but I say that on questions involving money, such as Tariff questions, the Senate has pressed requests when another place has disagreed with them. We thought that we had good reasons for so doing. The honorable senators to. whom I have referred will agree that there were grave differences of opinion between the two Houses in connexion with which very interesting debates arose, in which recognised constitutional authorities in both Houses took a leading part. After much argument ag to the respective rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives, it was acknowledged in another place that the Senate has almost co-equal rights with that House in money matters!

Senator Bakhap:

– It is not a question of rights, but of their judicious exercise.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I w I wish that this persistent interjector would allow me to put my case in- my own way. From the beginning the Senate has chosen to ecercise ‘ the undoubted rights given to it under the Constitution. Eventually these rights were recognised by another place. This branch of the Federal Legislature, having a majority in favour of pursuing a certain course, propose to take that course. Senator de Largie has said that it is a small majority, but it has been described by the Minister for Works as a “ brutal majority.” We decided to prefer a request to the House of Representatives and that House has sent the Bill back to the Senate with a message intimating that they refuse to make the amendments requested by the Senate. The Senate will be quite within its constitutional rights in pressing its request. I admit that we ought to give good reasons for doing so, and extremely good reasons were given by Senator Gardiner. Senators de Largie and Lynch have based their opposition to the proposal from this side on the ground that it would not give members of this Parliament time in which to take part in the recruiting campaign. They have apparently altogether forgotten the fact mentioned by Senator Gardiner, that in the ordinary course of events one-half of the members of the Senate must go to the country some time prior to 30th June next.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT Gould:

– The election might take place about the middle of June.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– N - No; the writs must be returned before the 30th June. The Government have agreed to undertake that Parliament shall re-assemble on the 27th February. I am quite willing to accept that as a promise that would be kept, if honorable senators on this side chose to give way.- But I say also that it is impossible for us to accept such a suggestion. Every one will agree that candidates for the Senate should have not less than a couple of months in which to canvass their States.

Senator Bakhap:

– The last ordinary Senate election was held on 30th May.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– We We might count back from that date. If the Senate met on the last day of February there would be only one month left for this Parliament to do the work which has to be done.

Senator BARKER:

– What about the Tariff? .

Senator O’KEEFE:

– T - There is important business to be done before the next election. We have to consider the ques-tion of the Tariff. It Was stated in another place to-day that the legislation providing for the iron bonus will expire in a few weeks, and some time must be given Parliament to consider that matter. Senator de Largie. - Let the war go..

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - Interjections referring to the war and to recruiting are. quite beside the question. I am as loyal as is Senator de Largie, and I am equally willing to take a part in the recruiting campaign.

Senator Barnes:

Senator de Largie * has just had six months’ holiday, and now he wants another respite.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I - I am not going to say anything about that. Senator de Largie visited the Old Country with the full concurrence of honorable members of this Parliament. Regarding the recruiting campaign, it is not intended by the Government that honorable members of the Legislature shall hold meetings in different parts of the country. As a matter of fact, we are paid to transact the business of the Commonwealth here, and not to indulge in platform work. I admit that we shall be able to give a reasonable amount of attention to the recruiting campaign whilst fully attending to pur parliamentary duties. In the circumstances, is there anything unreasonable in asking that this Parliament shall meet not later than the early part of February ? If we grant the Government two months’ Supply we shall have to meet only a fortnight earlier than we should have to re-assemble if the proposal of Senator Lynch were adopted. For the sake of a fortnight, why all this trouble? It is idle for my honorable friends opposite to endeavour to throw the responsibility for their action on to the Senate. They have been made a fair offer, and the Minister for Public Works has not advanced any good reason why that offer should not be accepted.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– From the time we assembled yesterday afternoon to the present moment I have not addressed myself to this Bill, and I would not now have risen but for the fact that the Minister for Works mentioned’ my name immediately I vacated the chair upon the return to the chamber of the Chairman of Committees. I should like to know exactly what he said concerning me.

Senator Lynch:

– I said that the honorable senator should have some consideration for his colleagues who have homes in Western Australia.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator could not make that remark whilst I was filling the position of Acting Chairman. But I had scarcely vacated that office when he questioned my vote upon the matter which is immediately under review. 1 do not think that that is extending fair play to an honorable senator who was temporarily relieving a colleague. Let me tell Senator Lynch, and the people who have sent me here, why on two occasions I voted as I did in connexion with this request. My object was not to prevent my colleagues from visiting their own State. I wish Senator Lynch to let that statement burn into his brain. I have registered my vote as a representative of Western Australia, and I think that I have a right to record it without Senator Lynch questioning my motives.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator could do no more.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– 1 care not whether Senator Lynch questions my motives. But it is not characteristic of him to challenge the votes of honorable senators and to attribute motives to them. I voted as I did because I object to the Government being granted too long a recess. I have always adopted a similar attitude, as the pages of -Hansard will prove. I object to placing too much power in the hands of the. Executive of the day. On this occasion I registered my vote much more emphatically than I have previously done, because the present Administration does not possess power in either branch of the Legislature. It has not the confidence of “Parliament or of the people. For that reason the Senate, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, has requested the other Chamber to limit the grant of Supply to two months. It has been said that those of us who persist in pressing the request are desirous of eluding the recruiting campaign. I come from Western Australia, and I am prepared to take my share in that campaign at any time, irrespective of whether Supply be granted for two, three, or six months. The vote which .1 have registered,’ and which’ I am prepared to register again, will not prevent me from participating in that campaign.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator is doing his part all right.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am doing it just as well as is the honorable gentleman. He should at least restrain himself, ‘ and allow every other honorable senator the liberty of expressing his opinions without his motives being called in question. The request preferred by a majority of this Chamber is a reasonable one. If Senator Lynch had met us in a conciliatory spirit, his offer might have been considered. But the offer of the Government merely meant a concession of about four days in the date of the re-assembling of Parliament.

Senator Russell:

– Of practically sixteen days.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is true that the Minister for Works used the words, “or at an earlier date.”

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel SirAlbebt Gould. - The date would be determined by the President.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– What nonsense it is for the honorablesenator to say that.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - That is what has been done hitherto.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No. Whilst that practice has been adopted since the inception of the war, Senator Gould knows perfectly well that the mandate relating to the re-assembling of Parliament comes from the Government. ‘

Senator Millen:

– And the honorable senator , has hitherto given past Governments blank cheques in that regard.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I quite admit that. But I have learned a very salutary lesson.

Senator Keating:

– The honorable senator learned it suddenly.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No. I would remind Senator Keating that, before any disturbance took place in the ranks of the Labour party, I made a similar statement from the seat which is now occupied by Senator Senior.

Senator Keating:

– Last December?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No, last October. The honorable senator was not in the Commonwealth at the time. It will be seen, therefore, that my salutary lesson has not been suddenly learned. It has gradually grown upon me, as the records of Hansard will prove. I intend to aid those honorable senators who propose to press the request to the other branch of the Legislature.

Senator Lynch:

– And to destroy all chance of recruiting.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If that is the construction which the Minister for Works puts on my action, he is welcome to it.

Senator de Largie:

– Does the honorable senator intend to take part in the recruiting campaign?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In answer to the honorable senator’s question, I would refer him to Hansard, from the pages of which he will learn that I have repeatedly made my position clear. If he had been listening attentively to my remarks, he would have heard what I said only a moment or two ago. I have made my position perfectly clear.

Senator de Largie:

– As clear as mud.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Thanks. The honorable senator is usually courteous in his interjections.

Senator de Largie:

– Why does not the honorable senator reply to my question?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Because I have made the statement so often, and have repeated it within the last few minutes. I am at the disposal of the Recruiting Committee of my State at any moment.

Senator Guthrie:

– For how long?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– At any time they like to ask me.

Senator de Largie:

– What time will you get over to the West?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am at their disposal whenever they want me to go.

Senator de Largie:

– Can you get there this year?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I want to impress on Senator de Largie as honestly, courteously, and sincerely as I can, that my action in registering my vote on two occasions, and the fact that I am about to do so again, has nothing to do with the question of recruiting, as imputed to me by the Minister for Works. The whole question, so far as I am concerned, is whether the Government shall come back to meet Parliament when at least some of us think they should do so. From the moment I took. part in these divisions, the question of recruiting never entered my mind, nor is there any desire on my part, by my vote, to prevent recruiting taking place.

Senator de Largie:

– My query was merely as to the time.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I thank the honorable senator for that. I am not actuated by any motive against recruiting or by the question of whether an election shall take place. The Minister for Works said that Senator Gardiner, and those thinking and voting with him, would have to take the responsibility of their action. I am quite prepared to take my responsibility; and if it means facing the electors to-morrow or the next day, I am quite prepared to do so.

Senator Keating:

– It does not matter much now whether we pass Supply this week or not, because the public servants will not be paid till Monday, or later.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Last night the Minister for Defence told Senator Findley that, if he continued to speak, he would deprive the public servants of their pay on 15th December.

Senator Keating:

– All the fellows who have been speaking on your side this week have kept the public servants from getting their pay to-day. I am not speaking of the honorable senator.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– From 3 o’clock yesterday until now, just; as many of the Government party as of this party have spoken; but Senator Pearce did not chide any of them for preventing the civil servants being paid to-day. Yet, at a quarter to 12 o’clock yesterday evening, he chided Senator Findley. Why did he not chide others, who spoke in support of the Government’s proposals ?

Senator Keating:

– Hear, hear ; far too long. I did not speak for a minute.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was not alluding to the honorable senator; but he has interjected, and I have answered him. I should not have risen but for Senator Lynch’s remarks. In justice to my electors, the Committee, and myself, I have made this ° statement, and am prepared to take the full responsibility of my votes.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I ask honorable senators to recollect one or two matters before they finalize their judgment. A great deal has been said about the object of denying Supply to the Government being to insure an early resumption of parliamentary duties. That is not the real reason. Honorable senators, if concerned about that, could have made their views known without attempting to curtail one penny of Supply. They had only to ask the Government, which was quite a proper thing to do, and a proper time to do it, when the Supply Bill came forward, to state for what period they contemplated adjourning Parliament. That request would have been perfectly in order, and quite usual; but they did not make it.’ They were not concerned to see that Parliament met at a certain time. They .were concerned to humiliate the. Government by denying them Supply.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - In the sixteen years of the Federal Parliament has there ever been an occasion, with an election to take place the next June, when Parliament has not been asked to meet’ before the end of February?

Senator MILLEN:

– There has never been a time when the Senate has sought to deny Supply to the Government. Senator Gardiner said he would extend to the Government the same consideration that he gave to other Governments. On’ one occasion he gave the Cook Government more than three months’ Supply.

Senator Gardiner:

– What were the conditions ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am simply saying that he and his party gave that Government Supply, and enabled it to shut up Parliament. ‘ The honorable senator is now denying this Government, of which he was quite recently a member, the consideration which he gave to a Government composed of those whom he would have the country believe to be his political enemies. It is only a subterfuge to say that he is taking this step to insure the early resumption of parliamentary business. The Leader of the unofficial detached Labour party did not ask the Government the time to which they proposed to adjourn. He simply said, “ We will dock ‘ Supply.” At the same time, he contended that he was prepared to treat the Government with consideration

Senator Needham:

– We did not say that we would stop Supply.

Senator MILLEN:

– I said “dock” and not.” stop.” We. have heard a great deal about the Senate election.

Senator O’Keefe:

– S - Surely that is a fair question.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is ah important question, but is this an attempt on the part of the Senate to blackmail the Government by withholding Supply, and so compelling it to extend the life of honorable senators of the first class, who go up for election in the ordinary course in the middle1 of next year ? Is it an attempt to apply pressure to the Government to make it take some action to extend the life of that class ? That point has only now been raised on the second reappearance of the Bill. If it is such an important question as Senator O’Keefe says, surely it was equally serious two or ‘ three hours ago ? It is an afterthought brought up at the present moment.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - The question was raised in another place. It is a case of suspicion haunts the guilty mind with you.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is not a question of suspicion. Only two arguments worthy of the name have been used, today - one that there ought not to be a long adjournment, the other as to the Senate election. I have shown the insincerity of the first, and proved that what the party opposite wanted was an excuse for cutting down Supply. The other argument was equally potent at 9 o’clock this morning, yet no reference was made to it then. This is the first time the Senate has ever attempted to interfere with Supply. Senator O’Keefe referred vaguely and mysteriously to requests for alteration which the Senate made in certain money Bills in. the first session of the Parliament, but there is no parallel between the Senate . requesting the raising of the duty from l¼d. to l½d. on cocoa and the Senate attempting to deny Supply to the Government. The actions of the Senate at that time were perfectly legitimate and successful attempts by this Chamber to assert its rights to an effective part in the shaping of the Tariff.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - Then you say that if the Government ask for eight or nine months’ Supply, the Senate has no right to make a request to reduce it.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have not said so yet.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - That is the logical inference.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is not. The inference is that they gave the Hughes Government six months’ Supply, adjourning the House from November, 1915, to May, 1916. They are not acting to-day on account of any principle, so much as out of a desire to humiliate the Government, with which they have had the misfortune to fall out. ,

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - That Government had a majority in both Houses.

Senator MILLEN:

– If that is a reason, it is a reason for the Senate refusing Supply altogether, instead of reducing it from three to two months.

Senator Keating:

– They will not do that.

Senator MILLEN:

– Of course not.

Senator Stewart:

– Would you like us to cut it off altogether?

Senator MILLEN:

– I should hesitate to recommend so tragic a course when I consider the appalling prospect which would confront us on the 31st ofthis month. But there are people to whom the action of the Senate is already appearing in the shape of domestic tragedy. I have received the following wire in the last half-hour: - “No salary received by any postal employees. Distress resulting. Can you please do anything?”

Senator Gardiner:

– Have you not got one from Birdwood and another from Haig ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Is that one of the honorable senator’s characteristic and contemptible insinuations that it is not a genuine wire ? The suggestion is so dastardly that not another man in the chamber would have ventured, to make it. I produce a wire which I have just received at . the door of this chamber, and I am told that the whole thing is a fake. I ask the Senate and the country to bear in mind that the only . men who would make insinuations of that kind are those who freely practise them themselves.

Senator Watson:

– It shows what a miserable pittance the Government employees are receiving if the telegram is true. Some drastic action by the Government is called for to see that the men get something more than a mere pittance such as the message reveals.

Senator MILLEN:

– If that is so, why has the honorable senator remained there silent on the matter so long?

Senator Watson:

– This is the first time that I have heard since I came here that things are in such a pitiable condition.

Senator MILLEN:

– What nonsense it is for the honorable senator to talk like that! We know perfectly. well that there are thousands of persons, in and out of Government employ, who are under the necessity of utilizing their monthly or fortnightly payments the moment they are received. And what is more, there are members of the Senate who, if for some reason or other the Treasury forgot to do its duty at the end of the month, would be inconvenienced.

Senator Watson:

– It calls for a searching inquiry to be made into the question; at any rate.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am told that some honorable senators did. not hear the telegram. It reads -

No salary received by any postal employees to-day. Distress resulting. Can you do anything ?

Senator Guthrie:

– Is the telegram from Sydney?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes; the official who wrote the telegram is attached to a suburban office. I was trying to bring home to the Senate the position in which it will place itself if it persists in the attitude it has taken up. It is, I repeat, the first occasion on which the Senate has ventured to refuse to a Government the Supply which has been asked for. I am not going to say that there might not be circumstances which would not justify the Senate in taking up that attitude. I do not for a moment place the Senate, with its constitutional standing and rights, upon the level of an ordinary second Chamber. But I do ask honorable senators to remember that, if they elect to come to a conflict with the other Houseit will not be merely a conflict with the Government then - they, as sensible men, must naturally ask themselves what will be the consequences of that’ action. I shall say no more on that point, and ask what is the matter in dispute? It is a question of a month’s Supply. We are in the middle of December, and the public servants of this country are not paid. That cannot be disputed, and no one, I venture to say, will contradict the assumption that a large number of the public servants will be in the position of my telegraphic correspondent in the matter of suffering some inconvenience.’ The next fortnight of December is a period in which no one suggests that we should meet. It is a holiday, to which we are entitled as well as everybody else. My honorable friends, therefore, are wanting to give the Go,vernment one month’s Supply - for January only. If that is the case, weshall meet again possibly in the first week in February. What will happen then? The Government will have to get Supply again up to the 14th February. Assuming that the Supply Bill is brought in, - and the usual discussion takes place in the other House, we shall have the measure brought here probably on the 12th or 13th February, when we shall be in exactly the same position as we always have been in. and that is the position’ of being .unable to give to the question of Supply the reasonable attention which its importance demands.

Senator Needham:

– Whose fault is that?

Senator MILLEN:

– Unless the Labour party want to meet before- then they must give the Government more Supply than they propose to give them to-day. Does any one here wish the Senate to meet in January ? ‘

Senator Mullan:

– There will be no occasion if we give two months’ Supply.

Senator MILLEN:

– If the Government get two months’ Supply only it means that my honorable friends will have to be here early in February.

Senator Gardiner:

– .The Government can carry on until the 14th or 15th February, and you know it.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government cannot, because payments will have to be made on the 14th of the month.

Senator Gardiner:

– No, on the 15th.

Senator MILLEN:

– What is the good of the honorable senator talking like that. The Government brought this Supply Bill into the other House before the 14th of this month, and it is not law yet. When a Government wants to rush a Supply Bill through there is a natural complaint shared in and voiced by my honorable friends opposite. Now let us get down to dates. Does any one here want the Senate to meet in January ? I venture to say not. Even my honorable friends who object to an unduly long adjournment think that we might reasonably be in recess for January, subject to any emergency which might arise.

Senator Needham:

– January is not in question.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am trying to point out that the grant of- two months’ Supply now means that we ought to meet again by the 7th February. Unless we do meet by that date we shall not have a reasonable opportunity of making Supply available by the 14th or 15th February.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - If we meet on the 10th February we shall have it.

Senator MILLEN:

– Those who say that we can meet on the 10th February ought never again to raise their voices here in protest against inadequate time being allowed to deal with a Sunnly Bill.

Senator O’Keefe:

– O - Over and over again Supply Bills have been whipped through in a couple of days.

Senator MILLEN:

– And over and over again honorable senators have complained here that they had not an opportunity to deal with the measures.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - There have been very few complaints made.

Senator MILLEN:

– If honorable senators say that the passing of Supply here is to be a mere formal matter, and that we can meet a day before it is wanted, let us understand the position well. They will no longer be anxious to take an active part in controlling the finances of this country. If there is any substance in the complaints that we are not allowed an adequate time to deal with Supply, the Senate will have to meet by the 7th February. Let us see what is the alternative. The Government say that they are. willing to meet on the 27th February. Tt is a difference of three weeks only. That is not a question on which the two Houses ought to quarrel, for no question of principle is involved when it comes to a matter of three weeks. It is not even a matter of a month about which my honorable friends are quarrelling. I suggest to them whether, if that is the case, they might not find a reasonable solution of the difficulty by doing now what I think they might have better done in the earlier part of this discussion, and that is asking the Government whether they are willing to meet by a certain date. They did not do it, but it is open to them to do it now.

Senator Gardiner:

– We . can fix the date of meeting.

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friends can fix the date of meeting for the Senate, but not for the other House. We cannot say when Parliament . shall meet. We can only adjourn to a certain date. If the honorable senator means to take steps to determine when the Senate shall meet, surely he ought to tell other honorable senators what he proposes to do, because it has a bearing upon this discussion ! And, more than that, unless he is looking for some sort of quarrel with the Government, can he not be frank now and tell them on what date we should meet?

Senator Gardiner:

– Have not the Government put you up to cause a quarrel ? Your speech has been a tirade of abuse.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator charges me now with a tirade of abuse. He charged me a little while ago practically with having a faked tele gram. I wonder that the words did not scald his lips. It is sheer rank hypocrisy for him to talk like that about abuse on my part. A solution of this difficulty seems to be open to honorable senators. Under one proposal we shall meet on the 7th February, and under the other on the 27th February. Surely there is a via media without precipitating either a quarrel between the Houses or without subjecting public servants to one moment’s further inconvenience.’ I know that Senator Gardiner can cross his hands and shrug his shoulders. He is not now in a Ministerial position. Therefore he is not so sympathetic to public servants as he possibly would be if he stood talking to them and soliciting their votes. It is a ridiculous thing to assume that any principle is involved here. There would be a principle involved if my honorable friend said, “ We deny Supply to* the Government altogether, because we cannot trust them.”But no principle is involved in their saying, “ We will give them Supply if they will meet us on the 7th February, but we will . not do so if they want to meet a day later.” That is an adjustable period, and we, as sensible men, ought to be able to arrive at a via media by which we can settle the matter. It is not for me to make a suggestion. It is not going to place the Senate in a favorable light before the eyes of the electors if, with so small a margin, we fail to arrive at an agreement with the other House.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

Senator Keating asked a question of those who he alleges have taken up time by making long speeches. I do not plead guilty to that insinuation, for the simple reason that I speak very, rarely. Since the Senate met, I think that I have’’ spoken twice only, and not at what I consider, and think other senators’ will consider, an unreasonable length. When wo come to deal with this matterof Supply, Senator de Largie, in his usual aggressive style, looks across the chamber and says to honorable senators on this side, “What is it that you want? Do you want a dissolution? If you do, you can have it.” We never said a word about a dissolution. ‘ I remind the honorable senator that we have had nothing but threats of a dissolution from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence ever since this Parliament met. They have hardly been able to address a meeting outside or speak in Parliament without uttering such a threat. We have not attempted to shirk the possibility of a dissolution. We have merely replied to the statements of these honorable gentlemen, “ All right. If you bring along a dissolution we are quite prepared to. meet the position. We are not going to throw any obstacles in your way if you deem it necessary to appeal to the people.” That is the answer to the threat. Senator Millen wants to know if we desire to blackmail the Government. Most decidedly not. I think it was an ill-advised term which he used, and he is not in the habit of using such terms. Why should we want to blackmail the Government? The honorable senator says that we are endeavouring to induce the Government to extend, the term of those members of the Senate who willhave to retire early next year. We are doing nothing of the sort. That matter has been talked over, and I believe it has been mentioned in another place. I presume that the Government are well aware of the conditions set out in the Constitution,’ and are taking whatever steps they deem to be best. We have not proffered any request to them to extend the term. They will have it in their power to hold two elections next year. Whether that will meet with the approval of the people of Australia or not, I do not know. If the Government are going to talk economy, and then say that they have money to burn in holding elections twice in one year, the people will begin to doubt their bona fides. When the Government tell us that they desire to prevent extravagance in the Departments, and intend to cut down all unnecessary expenditure, the public outside will think it strange if, instead of spending only £100,000. on an .election this year, “for both Houses, they intend to spend £200,000, because they think they might get some sort of party advantage out of an election for the Senate. I did not think any honorable senator would wittingly use the term “ blackmail “’ as far as we are concerned, because blackmail usually means that the persons making the demand get consideration in some shape or form’. So far, we have not attempted to do anything, of that sort. Senator Millen says that this is the first time the Senate has refused Supply to a Government, and he taunts members with having once given Supply for a longer term to the Government of which he was a member. Evidently we made ‘a mistake on that occasion, but instead of commending us for having agreed to his request, he is now chiding us. Apparently we made a blunder, and if ever the honorable senator is at the head of another Government in this Chamber, and asks for Supply for a similar period, honorable senators who may be here will surely take into consideration what he said to-day.

Senator Millen:

– I was deeply thankful, but my remarks had reference to Senator Gardiner’s statement that he was prepared to give the same consideration to this Government as to any. other Government.

Senator TURLEY:

– It is true we did give Supply for a longer period to the previous Hughes’ Government, but they represented a homogeneous party in the Parliament, and practically controlled the destinies of this country. Supply for that longer period was granted then because Mr. Hughes was going to the Old Country, and it was believed he would be able to do a great deal of good there. Personally, I voted against Mr. Hughes’ visit to Great Britain. I believed then that I was right, and I believe now that it would have been much better had I secured the assistance of a majority of members of my party. Senator Millen also stated it has been the custom to give Supply for long periods. No one knows better than Senator Millen that that’ is not true. The honorable senator could afford to lay a wager, and give long odds,, that the largest number of Supply Bills granted in this Parliament have been for a period of two months.

Senator Millen:

– But you must remember that we should now have a recess. That ought to be taken into consideration.

Senator TURLEY:

– I am considering the altered circumstances, and considering also a number of incidents in connexion with the present Government that have been already referred to, but which I will not mention again. That is the reason why members of the Labour party desire to have an early meeting of Parliament. Who has complained more bitterly than Senator Millen- about government by regulation? We have had good cause of late to realize the justice of his remarks on many occasions,, when he warned us that government by regulation would eventually lead to the undoing of Parliament. The honorable senator was right, and we were wrong. But is there any reason why we should not mend our ways? Members of the Senate have realized the mistake they made when they neglected the advice so freely tendered to them by Senator Millen, so he should not complain now if they see the error of their ways, and are prepared to accept the advice which he has given on many former occasions. If the honorable senator realizes that we have become repentant, he should commend, and not condemn, us. Complaints have been made by almost every honorable member of the Parliament, even with two months’ Supply, that unless we meet in good time we are not able to give the necessary attention to a discussion of the Estimates. We have had two days on the Estimates’ on the present occasion, following a debate on a motion for the printing of a paper, which enabled honorable senators to talk upon almost every subject under the sun.

Senator Lynch:

– This is the third day that this Bill has been before the Senate.

Senator TURLEY:

– It gave the only opportunity available to honorable senators who had not spoken on the previous debate: and Senator Lynch admits that there was some ground for our complaint and for the motion moved.

Senator Lynch:

– I do not think I said that.

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, the . honorable senator said there was some ground, though it might not be of a substantial nature, for the action taken, and he then went on to say he would compromise by agreeing that Parliament should meet on the 27th February.

Senator Lynch:

-Or an earlier date.

Senator TURLEY:

– The object of the motion ‘ was to insure the meeting of Parliament on an earlier date. We have come to the opinion, as a result of experience, that it would be better for us to get back to the usual custom of granting two months’ Supply, and the offer made by Senator Lynch means, merely, that instead of coming back in the first week in March we shall come back in the last week in February. Even if the Government had three months’ Supply, we would have to come back in the first week in March to enable Parliament to pass Supply by the middle of March for salaries and the ordinary requirements of the Government.

Senator Lynch:

– Or, as suggested by your leader, late in March.

Senator TURLEY:

– I think Senator Gardiner was in error, because further Supply would have to be obtained by the middle of March. I am sure that every honorable senator regrets that Senator Millen was able to produce to the Senate a telegram stating that in his. constituency there was distress in the family of some of his constituents, because they did not receive their pay yesterday. No one wants to prevent the Public Service from obtaining their salaries at the proper time. But whose fault is it? It certainly is not the fault of the Labour party. We cannot be held responsible, because we have said to the Government, “ There is two months’ Supply, you can pay the public servants and provide for all the ordinary needs for the period mentioned.” That could have been voted early this morning, and there need not have been any disorganization in the household of any public servant in Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– In other words, to meet you in a fair spirit of compromise, we would have to yield ?o all you demanded.

Senator TURLEY:

– That does not seem to me to be a fair way of putting it. Another honorable senator reminded us that this is the festive season. Well I should very much like to be able to get to my home for Christmas. I do not see my family except when Parliament is in recess, for my people live in Brisbane, and it will take me two or three days to get there after the Senate rises. But independent of my anxiety to spend Christmas with my family, I owe a duty to the electors who sent me here. Whether . it means that I shall spend Christmas, and even the New Year holiday, in Melbourne or not, I am prepared to fulfil my duty to the electors rather than betray the trust they have reposed in me. That is the way in which I have always regarded the duty of the parliamentarian. Other men have to suffer inconvenience who are not so well circumstanced or so highly remunerated - as are members of this Parliament, and whose families are not so well provided for as are those of most of the members of the

Senate. But they have to do the duty they have undertaken to do for the remuneration they receive. Members of Parliament do not differ from other mem- bers of the community. We are sent here to do certain work, whether its performance involves inconvenience or not. We must do the work for which we are paid. Another matter to which some reference should be made is the question of recruiting. I have already said that I am prepared to do all that I. can in that matter. I made that abundantly plain in my speech on the motion for the printing . of the Ministerial statement. I believe that most members of this Parliament are prepared to take their share of the work of recruiting. The reference which has been made to the subject is but another of the cries which we have so frequently heard in Australia during the last month or two. Men who have been unable to see eye to eye with the Government have been called names which those who have thus referred to them must havebeen ashamed of immediately afterwards. I hold that no one has any right to question the loyalty of members of this Parliament or their willingness to assist in bringing to an end the tragedy that is going on, at the “present time, on the other side of the world. The matter of the election has been referred to, and it should be considered seriously. The Government have offered to call Parliament together at the end of February. The election must take place, in the ordinary course, about the end of May. Every one has recently complained that insufficient time was given for the proper conduct of the referendum campaign. It has been said that if more time had been at the disposal of those taking part in the campaign, there would have been a different result. Seeing that we would come back here at the end of February, if the Government offer were accepted, what time would we have to do the work of legislation which requires to be done? There would be only one month left in which to do all this work. It is impossible to canvass the State I represent in two months or in three months. Candidates must have even a longer time if they wish to do effective work in connexion with an election in that State. I do not think that the Government would be justified in asking members of this Parliament to remain here until probably the end of April, knowing that there must be an election about the end of May.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator not think that all this fuss over three weeks’ time is very paltry?

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not think so when there is an election in the distance. Another aspect of the question deserves consideration. Do the Government propose to allow those engaged in the tragedy on the other side of the world, to which I have referred, .to have a say in the ensuing election ? They are in Egypt, Arabia, Flanders, and in the British Isles, and if the proposal of the Government were accepted, no opportunity would be afforded these men to record their votes - an opportunity which they would have if they had not gone to the front in defence of the Empire. I think that a reasonable offer has been made to the Government.

Senator Lynch:

– What’ is the offer? Honorable senators could not offer less.

Senator TURLEY:

– The Supply Bill ordinarily passed at this time of the year covers only two months’ Supply. The Government say that they want three months’ Supply. We say that there are considerable objections to granting that, and we offer them two months’ Supply. Then we are told of distress and disorganization in the families of public servants. The Government do not think it wise to accept the offer that is made to them, and, if accepted, it would’ give ready relief to the families ,of public servants who may require it.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– It will be admitted that during this session of Parliament, which has now extended for over two years, the adjournments, both in the matter of number and length, have been abnormal. Just prior to this time last year, the Senate was considering a proposal that Parliament should adjourn for six or seven months, to permit the Prime Minister to go upon what I described at the time as his selfinvited trip to Great Britain. I hold the view I then expressed of that trip more firmly to-day. These abnormal adjournments are undesirable at any time, and particularly in time of war. If there is a time when it is necessary that the people’s representatives should keep a tight rein upon the management of the affairs of the country, it is a time of war. Honorable senators will agree with me that the adjournments of the Imperial Parliament have been comparatively very short. Since the outbreak of the war, that Parliament has, to all- intents and purposes, been continuously sitting. The proposal of the Government for a grant of Supply for three months is met by this party with an offer of Supply for two months-. If Senator Lynch is of opinion that some odium will attach to the members of this party for their action, I do not think that any of them will try to escape their responsibility. Almost every member of the Senate who has supported the Government has expressed the opinion that no principle is involved in the matter in dispute1. It is suggested that honorable senators on this aide are merely quibbling about a matter of three weeks’ time, but it appears to me that there is a really very vital principle involved in the attitude we take up. We object to government by regulation. We do npt think it is right that, the National Parliament should give the present Government freedom of action during an extended period to issue regulations which may be objectionable. Let me give a concrete instance, in order to bring home to honorable senators the significance of this reference. It will be remembered that only on Wednesday of last week a majority of the Senate annulled a regulation issued by the Government. It related to restrictions upon the publication of newspapers embodied in the censorship. The censorship at that time, and for some months previously, had been of such a character as to be a public scandal. That is universally admitted from the point of view of the press.

Senator Mullan:

– Even the daily papers admitted that repeatedly.

Senator FERRICKS:

– That is so; and country newspapers had some experience of its operation. Although the regulation was annulled by the Senate, the Government showed no concern about what we had done. In one newspaper, on the following day, a reference to the matter was headed, “Mr. Hughes not Perturbed.” The paragraph in question went on to point out that Mr. Hughes was not concerned about the action of the Senate, because he said he could pass another regulation, and need not have it tabled in Parliament straight away. As soon as it was issued it- would have the force of law, though not .confirmed or reviewed by either House of this Parliament. In the Library a few minutes ago I turned up the Herald of 8th December last. It contained a reference to the action of the Senate in regard to the evils of the censorship, and. went on to point out that that action might not prove very effective. One of its cross-headings was, “ A Way to Circumvent,” and this journal then proceeded to state that the Ministry could circumvent the action of the hostile section in this Chamber by passing regulations which would come into operation forthwith, and bv not hurrying their: submission to Parliament.

Senator O’Keefe:

– T - That was the’ olivebranch which was held out to the Senate.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Yes, that was: the answer of the (Government to the, action taken by this Chamber.

Senator Millen:

– What has all this” to do with the motion before the Chair?

Senator FERRICKS:

– It goes to show the danger of vesting undue powers in the Government, and especially of vesting them in Mr. Hughes. It goes to show that the Government might conceivably issue fresh regulations which would have the effect of aggravating the existing evils. We say that it is not fair that such undue power should be vested in the Government for a longer period than can possibly be avoided. I contend that our party is the only party in this Parliament which has a majority in either House. It has been urged as an alternative to our request that under the Government proposal Parliament may be summoned at the instance of Mr. Speaker and the President, either when Supply for three months has been exhausted, or at an earlier date. But we know that ever since the present session opened, Parliament has been called together only at the very last moment which would admit of the replenishment of Supply. Complaint has been made that our public servants have not received their salaries for the past fortnight. But the Government are entirely to blame in connexion with that matter. There was nothing to prevent them calling Parliament together at an earlier date. The same thing will possibly recur if we do not press our request. Our responsibility is great in this regard. Honorable senators have bad experience of the adaptability of Mr. Hughes in the matter of issuing regulations. I do not think that Senator Millen will justify his action in that regard.

Senator Ready:

– Does the honorable senator know that speeches recently delivered in this Chamber have been censored in Hansard?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I did not. know that. But I waa aware that the particular regulation to which I took exception on a previous occasion had operated in the case of the Queensland Hansard. It was only when I referred to the matter in this Chamber that the embargo was lifted. Probably a similar ventilation of our views here would result in no harm. The times are abnormal. Drastic changes have recently taken place in the personnel of the Cabinet, and the whole system of government is undergoing a great alteration. We must exercise every care to prevent the control of the Government passing out of the hands of the representatives of the people for an unduly long period. Senator Gardiner’s amendment is intended to accomplish this. If the Government proposal had been adopted, the dangers to which I have already referred would have been aggravated instead of being lessened. It is in the interests of the people as a whole that as tight a rein as possible should be kept upon any Government in a time like the present. If there be any odium attaching to such action, I am prepared to accept my share of it. The extent of our constituencies has already been touched upon. Queensland is a State of magnificent distances, and during the approaching electoral campaign I think that candidates for the Senate should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of covering them. I have had some experience in this connexion. During my first Federal campaign I was travelling continuously for seventeen weeks in sugar trains, cattle trains, timber trains, and every other kind of train, and yet there were three large sections of Queensland which I had not time to visit. I submit that the offer which has been made by Senator Gardiner has been made in all sincerity, and should be accepted by the Government.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 till 8 p.m. (Friday).

Senator FERRICKS:

– According to a sub-leader in one of to-day’s papers,, the censorship system costs about £30,000 a year, and the issue of another regulation may add to that useless expense.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western; Australia

– On the 18th December, 1914, a Supply Bill for four months was passed. On the 13th November, 1915, a Supply Bill for six months- was passed.

In the circumstances, therefore, we are “entitled to three months’ Supply at the very least.

Senator Gardiner:

– What about the elections ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– They should not interfere.

Senator O’Keefe:

– P - Parliament could not do the necessary work in one month’s sittings.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I think it could. Party politics will be quite out of the question, and the time we shall have when we come back will be ample to do the work put before us.. We should not forget the important work of recruiting, of which we must make as great a success as possible. For that reason, as much time ought to be devoted to it as can be given. It is most unreasonable to expect us to to do this work in Western Australia, with its immense distances, in the time which will be available if only two months’ Supply is granted. I had bespoken a passage by the boat which leaves Adelaide to-morrow. If I could have got away from Melbourne to-night I could have done a great deal more- than it will be possible for me to do now. All I have now fs the promise of a passage by a steamer leaving Adelaide much later. If there is going to be any recruiting work done in Western Australia, the Western Australian Federal members must take part in it, for it is their work, first and foremost.

Senator Maughan:

Mr. Wilson, the Premier of Western Australia, almost killed recruiting there when he said there were no more men available.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I can hardly believe that statement. Twelve months ago Western Australia had the biggest percentage of enlistments of all the States, but I think recruits can still be got there. It will all take . time, and we canhot get to Western Australia before the first week in January, and will practically have to book our passages back again as soon as we arrive. Good reasons ought to be given for putting us in that predicament. We have no right to ignore the wish of a very big majority in another place. The majority for the requestin this Chamber is only two, and should not dictate to the majority in another place.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I - I have often heard you grumble against a majority of one in another place coercing the majority here.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not see much, difference between a majority of one there and a majorityof two here. . On this occasion we see thirty-two members, trying to dominate fifty-two- members. Is that reasonable?

Senator Gardiner:

– Our vote is half the Senate, and if you would give us a pair for a sick man we would have an absolute majority.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No one can accuse me of not doing the fair thing in connexion with pairs, but the fact remains that Senator Gardiner has not an absolute majority, of the Senate. If he had, his argument would be more sound.

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works · Western Australia · ALP

– Even at. the eleventh hour I appeal to Senator Gardiner and his colleagues to reconsider their position. We require the support of every Federal member to make a success of the voluntary sys tern, which is now the policy of the Government. The ‘arguments of the other side are contradictory. On the one hand we are told that it is not wise to trust the Government for any length of time unless under the closest scrutiny of Parliament. Senator Findley tells us that we are cutting down works unwarrantably, and now Senator Ferricks thinks we may indulge in a wild orgie of expenditure, particularly on the censorship. The two things cannot be reconciled.

Senator Ferricks:

– The items are in two different Supply Bills.

SenatorLYNCH. - My honorable friends cannot have it both ways. The Government expect to receive the hearty support of every honorable member of Parliament in the coming effort to make a success of the voluntary system of recruiting. We have reduced the length of time to a bedrock minimum. We have guaranteed to summon Parliament for the 27th February - I should have said the 28th February - or for an earlier date as the President may think fit. In order to further induce honorable senators to come to their senses, we are prepared to reduce that period by seven days more, and guarantee that Parliament shall meet on the 21st February. If they are not prepared to accept that offer, all I can say is that there is no hope of getting a settlement on the issue. I ask Senator Gardiner to accept this as a final and reasonable offer on the part of the Government to enable this Supply Bill to be passed as was originally intended, and also to convenience honorable members of Parliament who honestly want to see this country put forth its proper strength in the war by means of the voluntary system. If they say, and they have said it over and over again, that we are thrust back on that system, it is quite clear that the duty of every public man in this country is to devote his full time to the purpose of influencing the public mind and those who can come forward to take their place in the battle line. I trust that Senator Gardiner and his followers will recognise the reasonableness of this final proposal, and accept it. It is the irreducible minimum so far as the Government are concerned.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– So far I have not ventured to say a word on this question. I think that it will be admitted that the position is one which we, as men, can meet. We say to honorable senators who supported the request, that’ we are anxious to do the nation’s work by helping on the recruiting movement, and it is for them to say whether we shall do that work or not. I am very anxious to do all that I can to obtain recruits. From the gentleman who has control of recruiting I have received a letter asking. me when I can place my services at the disposal of the Recruiting Committee. I have to hold up the letter until Parliament rises, so that I can tell this gentleman exactly when I can go. From the receipt of my reply, of course, some time must elapse before I can enter into the campaign. If this request is pressed, we shall have very little more than four weeks at our disposal for that purpose. If we are required to canvass the whole of Australia in four weeks, and do our duty in this matter, it will press hard upon us, because the work cannot be done thoroughly unless every place is fully organized. We ask honorable senators to accept the proposal of the Government, because, the nation wants our services in another direction. I do not wish to say one word with the slightest tinge of unkindness. If, however, honorable senators withhold our services from the nation’s work outside, we are in their hands, and the people must be the judges. I do not desire . to enter into a long argument, because it is not a question of principle which is involved. I put it to the Leader of the Labour Opposition that when the Cook Government were in power, and we had a larger majority than we have to-day, he was quite willing, with others, to give that Government a very much longer recess than is asked for by the present Government. And, of course, there was no occasion to use that recess as we desire to use the recess which is now sought. I do not know whether honorable senators feel that this is any argument, but, to my mind, it is a very strong one, because again and again honorable senators put up the plea, when they were in Opposition, that the Cook Ministry had comparatively a very small following here, and we exercised the power we had in a spirit of generosity and a spirit of mercy. Surely it will not be said that to-day my honorable friends refuse to give to their old comrades what they did not fail to give to those to whom they were in direct and violent opposition. If they decline to accept the proposal of the Government, the news will go out to the people of Aus- . tralia, and they will be the judges between us. When.it is not a principle which is at stake, but just a matter of gratifying feeling that they have won, the victory will be worth very little indeed, because some of us will probably have to appeal very shortly to the public. They are very keen judges on public questions, and they can unmistakably see farther than, perhaps, we give them credit for. I have not ventured to put in this plea earlier, that my honorable friends should put aside for the time being, at any rate at this period of the year, the feeling that this would be a victory for us. We belong to one nation; we have a nation’s work to do, and let us take up that work as men should do. We are asking of honorable senators no more than they would have the right to ask of us in similar circumstances. We are not asking for a concession to us individually, but we are asking for time to be used for the nation’s benefit. My honorable - friends pleaded that sufficient volunteers can be obtained to meet the demands. I believe that they were sincere in expressing that view, and if they are sincere, how can they withhold from us the time that is necessary to make the campaign effective? If they fail to give us the necessary time, we -can have nothing more to say, and they must take the responsibility. We shall have done all that we could to secure what we believed to be for the best interests of Australia.

Question - That the requests be pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Public Works · Western Australia · ALP

.- The Government are not quite satisfied with, regard to the prospective work to be done by the Senate, and I would suggest that the sitting be suspended, in order to ascertain the position in the other House.

The PRESIDENT:

– In view of the state of business, and also the request of the Government, and to meet the convenience of honorable senators, I shall suspend the sitting of the Senate till 9.15 p.m., at which hour I shall resume the chair.

Sitting suspended from 8.32 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. (Friday).

page 9898

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1916-17 (No. 2)

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works · Western Australia · ALP

[9.191. - In moving

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I desire to point out that it is a radical alteration from the measure previously discussed, so far as the amount to be voted is concerned. No effort on my part is required to urge on honorable senators the acceptance of the Bill, and, if only its passage will serve to relieve the anxiety existing on the part of Commonwealth employees throughout the country, it will be well to pass the Bill without delay.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I am glad that the Bill has reached us in its present form, and I can assure the Minister that, so far as I am concerned, there will be no difficulty in passing it. I merely want to say that, throughout the sitting, we have endeavoured with all possible speed to meet the wishes of the Government with regard to Supply for the payment of the Commonwealth public servants.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– There appear to be some mysterious illusions about the Bill which I desire to brush away. At an earlier stage we granted this Government two months’ Supply, and we sent on the Bill with a notification to that effect to the other Chamber. There are certain constitutional consequences of an act of that kind, and I should like to know whether you, Mr. President, have received any intimation as to the fate of the previous Bill?

Senator Stewart:

– It was thrown under the table.

Senator MILLEN:

– If that be so, there should be found some record of it in the proceedings of this Chamber. As every honorable senator knows, if’ the matter had been dropped at the point at which it stood before I rose to speak, the records of the Senate would have been absolutely silent as to the fate of that Bill. I want to state what I assume to be the position. The Bill sent from the other House to this Chamber asked for three months’ Supply, and was returned with requests from this Chamber to the other House, which’ has declined to accede to the requests. Have the Government abandoned that Bill, and sent up in lieu of it a Bill for two months’ Supply ? I assume that to be the position, and I have spoken merely that there . shall be a record of what is being done here, because it is undesirable that this should constitute a precedent, and that the incident should be allowed to pass without a permanent record in the proceedings of the Senate.

Senator Grant:

– Can we get an assurance from the Minister for Works as to the fate of the Bill -that left this Chamber!

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not in order in discussing any other Bill.

Senator Mullan:

– It is sufficient to know that it has been put into the wastepaper basket.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without request.

page 9899

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Lynch) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 o’clock a.m. to-morrow.

page 9899

ADJOURNMENT

State of Business - Free Railway Passes - Hours of Sitting - Sentences Under Military Service Proclamation - War Precautions Act

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works · Western Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In doing so, I desire to state, for the information of honorable senators, that I have ascertained from the Leader of the Government in another place that the business to be presented to this Chamber is expected to be ready in the morning, and, if honorable senators apply themselves to their labour, we have every hope that we will bring the work of this sit- “ ting of Parliament to a close to-morrow.

Senator Millen:

– What business have you in contemplation ?

Senator LYNCH:

– The business includes a Bill for daylight saving, a Bill to legalize marriage by proxy, and a further measure dealing- with certain developments in the industrial life of this country. These are non-contentious measures, and there are other items of business of a minor character. It is the earnest hope of the Leader of the Government in another place that we will bring our labours to a close to-morrow, but this, of course, will entirely depend upon the tone, temper, and inclination of honorable senators. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber will endeavour to deal with the measures as expeditiously as possible.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I wish to ask the Minister for Works if, by to-morrow,, when it is hoped that our labours for this year will be concluded, the Government will be in a position to reply to a question which I put onthe notice-paper a day or two ago in connexion with the alleged cancellation of an order by the ex-Minister for Home Affairs granting free railway passes for life to Ministers of the Crown and to exPresidents and ex-Speakers of this Parliament? The reply which I received from Senator Pearce was that the Government had cancelled the order as far as it applied to the granting of such passes to exPresidents and ex-Speakers, but that the order, so far as it applied to gentlemen who had been Ministers of the Crown for twelve months, was still under consideration. I should like to know from the Minister for Works whether he will to-morrow be in a position to state definitely whether it is the intention of the Government to grant to gentlemen who have served for twelve months as Ministers of the Crown free railway passes for life ?

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I should like to be quite clear as to what business is contemplated for tomorrow. The Minister for Works has indicated that there are certain proposals which the Government desire to put through, and that, concurrently with them, thereis a desire, and intense hope, that we shall be able to conclude our labours to-morrow. Our only possible chance of doing sp is for . the Government to adopt a course of action different fromthat which they have adopted during the. present sitting. That is to say, they must make up their minds, before they come to this Chamber, as to what they want. They should not press upon the consideration of the Senate measures which will occupy time, when, after all is said and done, they do not regard it as essential that they should be carried into law this side of Christmas.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator must realize that things were not arranged for us as pleasantly as was expected.

Senator MILLEN:

– There is evidence of that. I do not appreciate having to attend during an all-night sitting to engage in what, after all, appears to have been a piece of Ministerial , bluff. I do not mind supporting the Government, but I am reluctant to be detained in this chamber merely to march up a hill and then march down again. I wish to direct attention to what the Senate is to be asked to do to-morrow. There is the Daylight Saving Bill, and the Bill to deal with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Senator Barnes:

– Is that the “I.W.W.”?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, my honorable friend’s old friends. There is a Bill to make provision for marriage by proxy, and -no less than four taxation Bills have been mentioned.

Mr GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What are they?

Senator MILLEN:

– There is the wealth levy, the war profits tax, the income tax, and the amusement tax.

Mr GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, land tax?

Senator MILLEN:

– So far as the business for to-morow has yet to be announced, there is no land tax. I think that honorable senators would appreciate an intimation from the Minister for Works as to whether it is intended to proceed with the whole four taxation measures.

Senator Lynch:

– We are going to make a bold try to do so.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then all I have to say is that if there be even a pretence of carrying through the four taxation measures, and the other three measures to which I have referred, there is not the slightest hope that we shall be able to close to-morrow. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Senate to ask it to approach the consideration of a programme of that kind in the space of a few hours. The Minister will destroy any chance of getting any of these measures through if he attempts to overload the business-paper bo-morrow to that extent. He must do one of two things: He must tell the Senate frankly which of these measures the Government are content shall remain for consideration till after Christmas, and ask the Senate to address itself to the remainder. If, on the other hand, he desires to put the whole of the business through, he cannot hope that our labours will be concluded to-morrow.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I hope that, in his reply, the Minister for Works will express his willingness to take into consideration the industrial position of honorable members of the Senate. The great concern of people outside Parliament to-day is that they should not be asked to work for more than forty-four hours per week. We have been working here for thirty and a half hours in one shift. Will the Minister take . into consideration the advisability, if we meet to-morrow, of agreeing to knock off at 12 o’clock, so that honorable senators may have the Saturday afternoon at their’ own disposal? I agree with Senator Millen that the programme , of business outlined by Senator Lynch for to-morrow has no chance of being passed. We might just as well make up our minds to that. It would be very much better if the Leader of the Labour party, so-called, had candidly faced the position, and asked the Minister for Works not to call honorable senators together to-morrow. The honorable senator and his party have done their level best to prevent those of us who come from far-distant places arriving at our homes in time to enjoy with our families the Christmas festivities. Instead of looking for his train to-morrow night, he should have advised the Government that he was prepared to forego at least a little of his own liberty and leisure in order that other persons might obtain the relaxation they desire.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

.- I shall not get angry with Senator Henderson after the very lengthysitting through which he has passed. But I cannot allow the publication of a statement which would put upon my shoulders any responsibility for the delay of’ any of the’ business in the Senate. I entirely repudiate any responsibility for that delay. The whole of the remarks I made upon the Supply Bill did not occupy more than about twenty minutes. 1 was in and out the chamber throughout the sitting. I did not seek rest, and shared its inconvenience with other honorable members of the Senate. I tried to do for other honorable members of the Senate’ what, unfortunately, the boat arrangements made it impossible for us to do for Senator Henderson. I knew nothing about the arrangements for the Western ‘ Australian boat when I suggested to the Government that an effort should be made to finish up the business this week. The members of our party had a perfect right to speak upon financial matters, but they did not do so at any greater length than did honorable senators on the other side. In the circumstances, it is not fair of Senator Henderson to try to put upon me an imputation of the kind he has suggested. I resent it, hut I forgive the honorable senator, knowing that he has had a very trying time in the Chair.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- As it appears to be the desire of honorable senators to go on with the work, I would ask the Minister whether we could not sit for six hours this evening, come back here to-morrow morning at 8 o’clock, and go on with the work until about 3 in the afternoon ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - Why should we adjourn at all ?

Senator GRANT:

– Why should wet How many hours’ has the Senate sat during the week, or during the year? We should look at the matter fairly, and admit that we have Bat only for a very limited number of hours. There is no reason why we should not go on with three or four of the Bills that have been mentioned until perhaps 5 o’clock in the morning, and then finish them to-morrow.

Senator Millen:

– How could we proceed with the Bills when they are still in another place?

Senator GRANT:

– I understood that some of them were ready to place before the Senate.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– In view of the probability of the conclusion of our business to-morrow, it is unreasonable to expect the members of the Government to answer questions, unless some indication of their nature is given this evening. I propose to ask a couple of questions to-morrow, and, as I should like . to have them answered if possible, I shall indicate their nature. I propose to ask: Are there any persons now in gaol serving sentences for offences under the Military Service Proclamation? If so, will the Government take into consideration the advisability of liberating them before Christmas? The other question I wish to ask is: Is it the intention of the Government, as stated in the Herald of the 8th inst., to re-enact regulation No. 204, under the War Precautions Act, which was recently disallowed by the Senate I

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [9.44].- I think that the Minister for Works will, find that the quickest way to deal with’ business in the Senate will be to limit it to what the Government consider urgent and absolutely necessary. The honorable senator has said that it is proposed to deal with measures to impose new taxation. Thesemust necessarily give rise to a considerable amount of debate. The measures have not yet been dealt with in’ another place, -and we are told that we shall be asked to d«al to-morrow with the measures providing for the war levy, income tax, war profits tex, and the amusement tax. That is a sufficient programme of work to occupy the Senate ordinarily for a week. It is unreasonable to expect to rush such proposals’ through the: Senate in a few hours. . They will require careful consideration at the hands of honorable senators, who must justify later on the votes they record upon them. I protest against any attempt to rush so many vitally important Bills through this Chamber in the course of a few hours. The members of the Government know the measures which they consider urgent, and they should ask us to deal with nothing more. They have said that it is the desire of the ‘Government to get the measures providing for the income tax and the amusement tax through before we rise. Surely there should be sufficient business to keep the Senate occupied for some hours. Seeing that honorable senators have been sitting continuously for a prolonged period, I hope that the Government will treat them with a reasonable degree of consideration. In my judgment, it would be a fair thing if we met to-morrow, and dealt only with those mat,ters to which adequate consideration could be given, and allowed the remainder of the business to stand over till next week.

Senator LYNCH:
Minister for Works · Western Australia · ALP

.- In reply to Senator Needham ‘s question, I wish to say that the matter of the ‘ issue of free railway passes to certain persons has not yet been finalized. It is quite true that there was a misunderstanding in regard to the issue of these passes, and before the matter is definitely determined it will be debated at the Premiers’ Conference. Senator Needham will understand that this branch of the Legislature has been sitting continuously for thirty hours, and that, therefore, I have had no opportunity of obtaining, the desired information for him. I will, however, endeavour to secure it to-morrow. In answer to. the remarks of Senator Millen, I quite admit that honorable senators are asked to face ‘ a rather formidable bill of fare to-morrow. But Senator Millen must recognise that this Government occupies a unique position. Whilst it proposes,, a section of the Opposition in this chamber disposes - and disposes very effectively. So long as we are faced with such conditions, we cannot be as entirely responsible for the expeditious transaction of business as we otherwise would be. At present the Government are victims of circumstances. We have not a majority in this Chamber, and, therefore, too much cannot be expected’ of us. Regarding the observations of Senator Grant, I believe that I am expressing the feelings of honorable senators when I say that we have had a fairly long’ day. It has not been a question of eight hours from bank to bank. At the same time, I think that honorable senators are in a mood to deal expeditiously with the business which the Government intend to bring forward. Those in the trenches are very much worse off than we are. If we constantly realize that, we shall be assisted to think less severely about our own lot. Those men are very much worse off than we are, and, at the same time, are not getting the sympathy to which they are entitled. I will endeavour to obtain replies to-morrow to the questions outlined by Senator Mullan.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.51 p.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 December 1916, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1916/19161214_SENATE_6_80/>.