Senate
4 November 1909

3rd Parliament · 4th Session

  1. Senate
  2. 3rd Parliament
  3. 1909

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5287

PETITIONS

Senator STORY presented a petition from three persons, being the executive officers of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, South Australia, praying the Senate to eliminate from the Defence Bill the words making the military training and service of the boys and young men of the Common wealth compulsory.

Senator PULSFORD presented a petition from ten persons, being officers and members of the Women’s Liberal League of New South Wales, praying that the Old-age Pensions Act may be amended so as to provide that a naturalized subject of the King shall not, in consequence of colour, be disqualified from receiving a pension.

Petitions received and read.

Senator PULSFORD presented a similar petition from eighteen . persons, being officers and members of the Wagga branch of the Women’s Liberal League.

Petition received.

page 5287

CONDUCT OF BUSINESS

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to know whether the Vice-President of the Executive Council has any explanation to offer concerning theaction of the Government last night in suddenly moving the adjournment of the Senate three or four hours before the usual time, whilst there was business on the notice-paper.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade

– As no objection or protest was raised at the time, I think that it is rather late for my honorable friend to raise the question now.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator took good care- to take action when there was no one here to raise the question.

Senator Needham:

– He took a very mean advantage of the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is the duty of honorable senators to be present.

Senator PEARCE:

– Are we to understand from the Minister’s answer that in future. the adjournment of the Senate will be moved at an unusual time without the customary notice being given to the Opposition ?

Senator MILLEN:

– So far as I am concerned, it is the intention of the Government to carry on their business in the way provided by the Standing Orders. I understand that thereunder the Government have the full right to decide the methods which they will adopt in carrying on their business. But of course it is always open to the Senate to object to the course proposed by the Government. As I stated just now, no objection was raised yesterday afternoon when the motion referred to was sub- mitted.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable Minister knows that there has been, in all such . cases, an understanding in the past between Ministers and the Opposition.

page 5287

QUESTION

HOLIDAY ALLOWANCE OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICERS

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that Tuesday last, being Melbourne Cup Day, was a recognised public holiday, and was so observed throughout the metropolitan area of Victoria, I should like to know, sir, if those officers of the Senate, which was notsitting on that day, who were constrained to be in attendance received any extra payment or any consideration whatever comparable with that which would be received by a public officer who worked on a recognised holiday?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not in a position at present to afford any information to the honorable senator, but if he will repeat the question to-morrow,I shall be able to do so.

page 5287

QUESTION

HIGH COMMISSIONER

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– I beg to ask the

Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, in accordance with the suggestion

I made when the High Commissioner Bill was before the Senate, the Prime Minister has communicated with the various States to ascertain - first, what functions they are willing to transfer to the High Commissioner when he is appointed ; and, secondly, whether they are willing that their representatives should be housed in the Commonwealth offices in London, if obtained ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I took the honorable senator to mean by his suggestion that communication might advantageously be opened up with the State Governments after the Bill had become law. It has not vet found a place on the statute-book. I brought the suggestion under the notice of the Prime Minister.

Senator Dobson:

– When the Bill has become law, is it proposed by the Prime Minister to make the suggested communication to the States?

Senator MILLEN:

– The question is rather hypothetical, but if the honorable senator will repeat it to-morrow I hope to be able to give him) an answer.

page 5288

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHISTS : TYPEWRITING MACHINES

Senator KEATING:

– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is in possession of the information sought for in the question I put to him on Thursday last regarding the use of typewriting machines by telegraphists and the allowance made to them in each of the States ?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I am not in possession of the information, but I understand that it is on the way, and if the honorable senator will repeat his question to-morrowI shall no doubt be able to supply him with it.

page 5288

QUESTION

FATALITY AT KARAKATTA RIFLE RANGE

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. Hashis attention been called to the fatality which occurred at the Karakatta Rifle Range, Western Australia, when Francis Perara, a cadet, was accidentally shot while one of his comrades was trying to extract a jammed cartridge from bis rifle?
  2. Has his attention been called to the statement that when the boy’s comrades’ were firing a volley over his grave. “ several rifles refused to act owing to ill-fitting cartridges”?
  3. Will the Vice-President of the Executive

Council make representations to the Minister for Defence with a view to having inquiries made about the unfortunate occurrence, and the further allegation of defective rifles, so as to obviate as far as possible a recurrence of such a fatality ?

  1. Will he make further representation so as to insure that the mechanism of all rifles issued to the Military Forces is in perfect order?
Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1,2, and 3. Yes. A thorough inquiry is being made into the whole matter.

  1. Yes.

page 5288

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF IMMORAL LITERATURE

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been drawn to the statement reported as having been made at Perth by the Rev. H. F. Mercer, of Melbourne, to the effect that there was “being brought in from abroad a vast flood of filthy literature”? If so-

Is the statement in accordance with fact?

Does he propose to use the powers of his Department to prevent such literature coming through the post?

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

  1. My attention has not been previously drawn to the statement referred to, and I am not aware whether it is in accordance with fact.
  2. I will be very glad to deal, so far as it is possible to do so, with any case brought under notice in which the Post Office is being used for the transmission of immoral literature. It must be obvious, however, that with the millions of articles sent through the post it is impossible for the authorities to exercise such close supervision as to prevent all matter which may be considered objectionable being transmitted.

page 5288

QUESTION

SHORTHAND WRITERS’ PAY

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has the Government noticed that the Institute of Journalists at Adelaide on Friday passed a resolution protesting against the rates paid for shorthand work by the Commonwealth, and is there any truth in the statement that the payment is only one-fifth of that made for similar work by the South Australian Government?

Senator MILLEN:
Free Trade

– I shall be glad if the honorable senator will postpone his question until next week. As there is no information on the subject available here, inquiries are being made from Adelaide.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal).

Postal Commission.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a notice from Senator Sayers, in the following words : -

I beg to notify you that I propose to move the adjournment of the Senate to-day to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the prolonged labours of the Royal Commission on the Post and Telegraph Department, and the expense to which the country is put thereby.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places ,

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

. -I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 6 a.m.

In rising to move the adjournment of the Senate-

Senator Pearce:

– And to assist the Government in delaying business.

Senator SAYERS:

– I take that interjection for what it is worth ; and I may tell the acting Leader of the Opposition that I do not consult him or the Government when I wish to move the adjournment of the Senate. On the 21st July last . I asked questions of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral in the Senate, to which the following replies were given : -

  1. No report has been received from the Commission. Two individual reports were presented by former members of the Commission on their retirement.

2.£3,392.

  1. Action seems unnecessary since it is understood that the Commission will close before long.

Although those answers were given on the 21st July last, we have, up to the present date, received no further information concerning the proceedings of the Commission. I have seen a statement reported in the press to the effect that over , £5,000 has been expended in connexion with their inquiry, and that shows that about £2,000 has been spent since the replies to which I have referred were given to me. I have received several communications, asking me whether I could give any definite information as to when the Postal Commission is likely to finish itslabours. I think the Senate and the country should know why a Royal Commission, originally constituted of seven members, should have dwindled down to four, and why its expenditure should still be going on. It is rumoured in Melbourne, whether correctly or not I am unable to say, that members of the Commission who reside in this city are drawing expenses for Sundays. If that is so, it is a public scandal. I think the Government should give us the information for which we ask concerning the proceedings of this Commission. I blame the last Government, that continued in office for six months, equally with the present Deakin Government, for not supplying information concerning the Commission to Parliament. Senator Pearce talks about delaying the business of the country, but he was a member of a Government for six months during the time the Postal Commission has been conducting its inquiry, and I should like to know from him whether members of the Commission, who are residents of Melbourne, drew allowances in respect of Sunday while he was in office, as it is rumoured they are doing now?

Senator Story:

– Does the honorable senator not draw pay for Sundays?

Senator SAYERS:

– I do not draw extra pay for Sundays. Members of the Postal Commission who are residing in Melbourne do not do any work for the 25s. which it is rumoured they receive for Sundays. I do not say that the statement is correct, but I wish the Government to tell honorable senators whether the rumour is right or wrong.

Senator Story:

– The honorable senator should not listen to rumours.

Senator SAYERS:

– Senator Story listens to rumours whenever it suits him. If vouchers for Sunday pay are sent in by members of the Commission who reside in Melbourne the Government must know of it.

Senator Story:

– They should get double pay for Sundays.

Senator SAYERS:

– If they work on Sundays it is a disgrace to the Commonwealth, and if they send in vouchers for pay for days on which they do not work, I leave honorable senators to draw their own conclusions as to such conduct. We ought also to know why three members of the Commission appointed by the Deakin Government that was supported by honorable senators opposite, resigned.

Senator Henderson:

– They ought to tell the honorable senator.

Senator SAYERS:

– I wish the Government to give us the information. Perhaps Senator Henderson, who was at the time one of the leading supporters of the Deakin Government, may be able to tell us why those members of the Commission resigned.

Senator Henderson:

– I am afraid the honorable senator is wool-gathering.

Senator SAYERS:

– The honorable senator may draw his own conclusion. I draw mine. I believe that he knows the reason, and later on he may say why he is not disposed to give the information. In the earlypart of the year the Postal Commission visited Queensland, and at that time it consisted of seven members. We have had no report from the Commission as to the state of affairs in the Post and Telegraph Department in that State. I think it must have been about February last that the Commission visited Queensland, and now that we are approaching the end of the session we should be told whether we are to have any report from the Commission before we go into recess. Members of the Commission who are residents of Melbourne should not be allowed to continue to draw 25s. per day for Sundays, and we should have some report from the Commission. I do not say that the rumour to which I have referred is correct. I hope that it is not. Several honorable senators have tried to get information from the Government by asking questions, but they have been baffled in every instance. I hope, now that I have brought the matter formally under the notice of the Senate, the Government will be in a position to give us some information. I want the rumour to which I have referred either confirmed or denied. If the report is correct, the Government should say so. That is all I wish to know.

Senator Needham:

– What is the rumour ?

Senator SAYERS:

– It is that members of the Postal Commission who reside in Melbourne are sending in vouchers for Sunday pay.

Senator Story:

– That rumour originated in the honorable senator’s own imagination.

Senator SAYERS:

– It did not originate with me in any shape or form. I have heard it repeatedly, and I say that when a rumour of that sort is being broadcasted - a rumour imputing motives to the members of a Royal Commission - it is the duty of the Government either to affirm or deny its accuracy. I have no desire to take a mean advantage of any member of the Commission.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– T. did not hear it at Oodnadatta.

Senator SAYERS:

– Because there was nobody there from whom the honorable senator could hear it. I should like any member of the Senate who is a member of the Postal Commission to deny the accuracy of the rumour to which I have alluded.

Senator Vardon:

– Of how many members is the Commission composed?

Senator SAYERS:

– Originally, there were seven, but at present there are only four. There is a suspicion in the mind of the public that there is something radically wrong with the Commission, seeing that three of its members resigned from it.. One of those who resigned is the present Speaker of the House of Representatives, another is a member of the Senate, and the third is the Government Whip in the other Chamber. A good many persons would like to know whether the resignations of these gentlemen were not forced upon them by the remaining members of the Commission. That statement has been made again and again by certain newspapers, lt is alleged that things were made so unpleasant for them that they had no option but to resign. We have a right to know whether that is so.

Senator Givens:

– Why does not the honorable senator ask Senator Mulcahy?

Senator SAYERS:

- Senator Mulcahy nan answer foi himself.

Senator Givens:

– But the honorable senator can get the information from him.

Senator SAYERS:

– Perhaps Senator Givens might do so. The information should be supplied, not merely for my benefit, but for the benefit of every honorable senator, ana of the people of the Commonwealth’, who have to bear the expenses of the Commission. Surely it is not suggested that I, as a member of the Senate, should be obliged to fossick for information amongst the members of the Commission? This is the place in which I should seek it. To my mind, something has been concealed in connexion with the Commission which ought to be explained. There must be some reason why three of the original members of that body resigned their seats upon it, an3 why the remaining four have been permitted to continue their labours over such a prolonged period. I venture to say that, ultimately, they will present a report which will be absolutely valueless. If anything has been concealed, the various Governments which have held office since the appointment of the Commission are equally blamable.

Senator Givens:

– Who is the dark horse?

Senator SAYERS:

– I do not know. I have heard rumours which do not redound to the credit of the Commission, and which I hope are incorrect. I trust that the Government will be able to satisfy me upon that point. It will be a great slap in the face for members of this Parliament if such Tumours are allowed to be broadcasted without contradiction.

Senator Lynch:

– What is the use of making a round-about charge like that? Why does not the honorable senator state the nature of the rumours which he has heard ?

Senator SAYERS:

– Senator Lynch is not going to dictate to me what I shall do, or how I shall do it. When he rises in this chamber to ventilate a grievance, he does not consult me as to the way in which he shall proceed, and I do not propose to consult him.

Senator Givens:

– The Chairman of the Commission is a member of the honorable senator’s own party.

Senator SAYERS:

– That circumstance docs not trouble me one iota. I do not bring this question forward as a party one. I have brought it under the notice of honorable senators in the interests of good government, and of the members of this Parliament as a whole. I repeat that a rumour is in circulation that members of the Commission who reside in Melbourne are drawing pay for Sunday work. If they are working on Sunday for the sake of earning 25s., it is positively a disgrace to the Commonwealth.

Senator Needham:

– That very reference kills the statement made by the honorable senator in regard to the non-party complexion of this matter.

Senator SAYERS:

– I intend to ignore the interjection of Senator Needham, and to pursue the even tenor of my way. In common with honorable members in another Chamber, I have endeavoured, by every means in my power, to elicit information in regard to the work of this Commission, but I have always received evasive answers, which leave me absolutely in the dark.

Senator Story:

– The honorable senator should move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into what the Commission is doing.

Senator SAYERS:

– I may do that later. In the meantime, I wish to know whether the Government cannot clear up this matter.

I am not a great believer in Royal Commissions, ‘but at a later stage I may be obliged to move for the appointment of a Royal Commission to search for a report by the Postal Commission. I hope that the Government will be in a position to answer the statements which I have made, and to refute the allegations which have been spread broadcast. I also trust that before the end of the session we shall have an authoritative statement as to whether the life of the Commission is to be prolonged till next year. It has been rumoured that we are to receive no report before the session closes. I have put a question on the subject to a member of the Commission, and he told me that it would be a long time before a report would be presented. Evidently, if it took a little over a year to produce a progress report, a considerable period may he expected to elapse before afinal report i? produced. At any rate, I trust that the Government will be able to furnish us with some information; and those honorable senators who have frequently interjected during my speech may also be able to submit to the Ministry questions as pertinent as those which I have asked.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Senator Sayers is to be complimented on drawing the attention of the Government to a matter which it is, perhaps, using not too harsh an expression to say, is causing public anxiety and much concern within the precincts of both Chambers of the Legislature. If there is any substance in the rumours which have been scattered abroad, the procedure of the Commission amounts to little less than a scandal. Day by day complaints are made relative to the inefficiency of the administration of the Post and Telegraph Department. It is asserted, directly and indirectly, that a large number of the officers are being sweated and otherwise unfairly treated. Parliament cannot effectively deal with those matters, because the Commission is, to use a phrase of Pope, dragging “ its slow length along.” Though the.com- plaints regarding the administration and the service are piling up, we cannot deal with them while the Commission blocks the way. Surely it is time for the Government to consider this question seriously, and determine whether, through the power of the purse, it cannot control the Com- : mission and force its members to submit their report to Parliament. It is absolutely necessary when Parliament is dissolved that we should be in a position to say something to our constituents concerning the administration of the Department. Let me point to an aspect of the question affecting the financial policy, not merely of the present Government, but of any Government which may succeed them. I refer to the question of capitalizing the works of the Department - one of the most important financial problems which we have to consider.

Senator Trenwith:

– What does the honorable senator mean by capitalizing the works ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I will not insult the honorable senator’s intelligence by assuming that he does not know the meaning of the term. Applications are frequently made for extensions of the telegraph and telephone services in the remote districts of Australia. We cannot determine whether provision shall be made to meet those applications until we determine whether the works shall be paid for out of current revenue, or whether we shall capitalize the expenditure. That question, I say, is apparently interminably blocked by the Commission, which seems to defy the indirectly expressed wish of this Chamber that we shall have from the Government direct information as to their policy and the best means of improving the working of the Department.My honorable friend, Senator Sayers, was quite right in saying that some mystery attaches to this Commission. It was appointed in consesequence of clamours from the public regarding many deficiencies in the Department, and in order that inquiry might be made into repeated allegations from employes - allegations which, if true in substance, were a reflection on the administration. Moreover, the appointment of the Commission almost led to a political crisis. The fate of the Government of the day was involved. The Prime Minister at last yielded to the great body of complaints, and a commission was issued for the purpose’ of ascertaining whether or not there was any foundation for the allegations. Subsequently, a dilemma arose. Three members of the Commission resigned. I take it that they furnished the Government with reasons for their resignation. If they did not, it was surely the duty of the Government for the time being to ask them for their reasons.

Senator Macfarlane:

– What Government was in office then?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I believe that the three members resigned during the term of the former Deakin Government. My honorable friend knows the circumstances which almost led to a political crisis.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is such remote history that we have almost forgotten it.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I, myself, had almost forgotten the important crisis which, about eighteen months ago, resulted in the appointment of the Commission. So serious was the position of the Department deemed to be that seven commissioners were appointed. But, after four or five months - I. am not certain as to the time - three members, as I have said, resigned, leaving four to carry on the work. It may be that the present members of the Commission will make a defence, or that some one will speak on their behalf. The Government are, to some extent, the inheritors of the mistakes of previous Governments, but they are confronted with the necessity of answering this question. If originally seven men were required to carry on the investigation, I should take it that seven men were required all along. Either too many were appointed in the first instance, or too few are engaged on the work at present. Senator Sayers is but doing his duty, not to this tribunal, but to a higher one - one that is above us all. One might almost say that a child could make out a case against the Commission. As the Government are the custodians of the public purse, they are certainly called upon to give an explanation of this apparentlyinterminable delay. We are evidently no nearer light on this important matter to-day than we were eighteen months ago, when the Commission was appointed. If it be true, or if there is any substance in the allegation, that fees are paid for Sunday work, the Commission is in a very awkward dilemma. I notice that Senator de Largie, who is a member of that body, is present. Perhaps he will furnish the Senate with some information on the various points which have been raised.

Senator de Largie:

– The Government ought to be able to. give all that information to the Senate.

Senator ST LEDGER:

- Senator Sayers is asking for an explanation from the members of the Commission or the Government, and if one is not forthcoming, then they will not be doing their duty either to the Senate or to the country.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– It will be recollected that yesterday Senator Pearce moved that a Committee which had only just been appointed should bring up its report on the 24th inst. He expects that a Committee on a matter of first-class importance will be able to report within a period of four weeks. Yet on another matteroffirstclass importance - I do not know that it is of greater importance - the whole country is awaiting a report after an inquiry extending over eighteen months. Month follows month, and the end is not in sight. From time to time we hear of the cost of the inquiry being increased by another £1,000. No doubt in futurit) the report will be put in print, and it will make a series of volumes which will cost a very great deal, but which, I presume, no one will ever read. Perhaps the report will be published after the Parliament has gone to its masters, and we shall be none the wiser for its production. How is this investigation going to end? No doubt there will be a satisf actorsreply on the point of personal expenditure.’ Until to-day I have not had the ill-luck to be ona Select Committee. I have some sympathy with those who have had frequently to attend upon such bodies. I am surprised that a Royal Commission which has been reduced in number from seven to four should not, by reason of the smaller number to cross-examine witnesses, have been able to bring their inquiry to an end more quickly. Instead of the end being in sight, it seems to be further off than ever. Surely the time has come when we may look to the Government for some expression of a determination to bring to a close a Commission which, by reason of its lengthened sitting, has become a public scandal.

Senator Pearce:

– Is not the Minister going to speak ?

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I do not think that any one can blame Senator Sayers for bringing forward this matter. Some time ago I asked a question on the subject, and was informed by a member of the Commission that if I wanted information it would be a very good thing to move the adjournment of the Senate. I did not take that step, because I had no wish to cast any reflection on the Commission, but we ought to be furnished with some information with regard to its proceedings. It is now about eighteen months since it was appointed, and I am wondering what is to be the outcome. I am anxious to see the inquiry brought to a close. Before the end of this Parliament we ought to be furnished with some report, if not a -final one. It is said that the inquiry has been exceedingly costly. I do not know whether the Government is in a position to tell us what the cost to date has been.

Senator Millen:

– It has been £5,000.

Senator Pearce:

– Hear, hear. The. Government has spoken at last.

Senator VARDON:

– I am very pleased that we have elicited that piece of information for the benefit of the honorable senator. I wonder what we are likely to get for the money. It is a very serious thing that, three members of the Commission having resigned, no notice was taken of that fact.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why did not the Government appoint others in place of them?

Senator VARDON:

– I think that Mr. Fisher was in power at the time.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator Sayers:

– He came into power shortly afterwards.

Senator VARDON:

– Whichever Government was in power at the time should, I think, have considered the question as to whether a Commission which originally consisted of seven members should be carried on by four members. When nearly one-half of the Commission resigned either other men should have been appointed, or we should have had a clear assurance that the remaining members would be able to carry on the work and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. I notice that the taking of evidence has not yet closed. Some evidence was given only yesterday on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, and there is no indication as to where the Commission is likely to travel to, what further evidence it is going to take, or when it is likely to make a report.

Senator Henderson:

– It is rumoured that the Commission is going to London.

Senator Trenwith:

– Then it ought to be enlarged.

Senator VARDON:

– Rumour may be wrong in this case, as it lies very often. I hope that the Commission has no intention of incurring the expense of a trip to London, but that very soon the taking of evidence will be closed. I think that, before the close of this session, the Government has a right to demand to be informed what work has been done by the Commission, how much remains to be done, and when it is likely to finish its labours.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– Judging from some interjections, Senator Pearce seems to entertain the idea that I ought to have risen earlier, but I should like to point out that when a matter affecting Departmental administration and Ministerial action is concerned, it is not evidence of want of courtesy on the part of a Minister if he waits until the debate has been fairly developed before he takes advantage of the one and only opportunity available to him to make a statement. It was for that reason that I waited until the debate had been fairly developed, and I was able to gather up the principal points advanced by various speakers. I desire to remind honorable senators of what has transpired here in this connexion. Unfortunately, this is not a new matter. So far back as July last questions were asked. In September Senator Macfarlane submitted a question, I think on notice, and when it was repeated I was not able to give a definite answer. The answer which I gave on the last day of that month was as follows -

The Chairman of the Postal Commission advises that it expects to close the taking of evidence within about three -weeks. Afterwards the preparation of the report will be proceeded with ; but there is no possibility of presenting the report during this session.

We can only assume that, as the Commission is still taking evidence, the anticipation of the Chairman has not been borne out. I would point out that when honorable senators ask the Government to interpose between the Commission and the discharge of its work, a position of some delicacy arises. When a body of men has been intrusted with a commission to discharge a public duty, it is a very questionable thing indeed for a Government to, without the strongest possible justification, interpose between the Commissioners and the discharge of their duty.

Senator Sayers:

– But the inquiry is being conducted by only a portion of the original Commission.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so. To my mind, it would be an extremely wrong thing for a Government to, without ample justification, interpose between a Royal Commission, which had been appointed for a certain purpose, and the discharge of that duty.

Senator Sayers:

– When nearly half the members of the Commission have resigned the position is altered.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not dealing with the resignations. I believe that two of the members of the Commission who resigned have submitted reports which, I understand, were published through the medium of the press.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Only one of the members who resigned submitted a report.

Senator MILLEN:

– I was. speaking from memory only. “ Although Senator Sayers sent me notice of his intention to move in this matter this afternoon, I was absent from my office this morning, and the notice reached me only just before I entered the chamber. I have therefore been unable to obtain all the information I should like to have obtained. Referring again to the extreme care which a Government should take in interfering in such a matter, I may say that the Government have conveyed to the Postal Commission an indication of what is in their minds in making an inquiry as to when the labours of the Commission are likely to terminate. That may be regarded as a strong hint of the view taken by the Government as to the length of time occupied in the investigation. I mentioned, by way of interjection, that the cost of the Commission to date was £51000. I find that the actual amount is £5,039, and of that amount, something over £1,200 represents fees paid to the members of the Commission.

Senator Sayers:

– I want to know if the statement about vouchers having been sent in for Sunday pay is true?

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator mentioned the matter as a rumour. There is no rumour about it. It is already on the records of this Parliament that payment has been made for Sunday to members of the Commission.

Senator Needham:

– How much?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not at liberty to quote from a debate of this session in another place ; but the fact is that three members of the Commission, as it is now constituted, have drawn payment for Sundays.

Senator Needham:

– Can the honorable senator say how much each of those members has received ?

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out that the Minister will not be in order in naming individual members of the Commission.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not wish to do so. 1 did not intend to mention the names. I say that three of the four members of the Commission, as at present constituted, have received the payment referred to. The information comes to me, not as the result of an application to the Treasury, but because it was supplied elsewhere in reply to a question ; and it is therefore public property. It is only fair to say that the members of the Commission who have received payment for Sundays have drawn ‘ this payment under a regulation which, so far as I know, has been in force for a very considerable time.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is not made for a sitting of the Commission, but for expenses.

Senator Mulcahy:

– It is not a fee at all. .

Senator MILLEN:

– It is an allowance for expenses, and is claimed under a regulation, which provides that when the members of a Commission sit in a place in which they are not domiciled, they are paid expenses for the time they are there. When the Postal Commission sits in Melbourne on the Saturday and the Monday, vouchers have been submitted and paid for expenses for the intervening Sunday.

Senator Sayers:

– That is pretty stiff, when men cannot get away from here.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– It is like “a week-end holiday.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have stated the regulation.

Senator Sayers:

– It is a very bad regulation.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have stated the regulation, and what has transpired under it. I do not propose, nor do I think it is necessary, to express any opinion as to the practice which has grown up. I wish to say, in conclusion, that the Government have given a further intimation to the Commission as to the length of time occupied in its labours in this way : They have made provision in the Estimates for payment only to the end of the present year. That must convey to the members of the Commission some indication of what is in the mind of the Government. Whilst that is a proof that the Government has not passed the matter over without consideration, I shall consider it my duty, in view of what has transpired here to-day, to bring the whole of the circumstances up again for further Cabinet review.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Did the honorable senator say that provision has been, made in the Estimates for payment to the end of the current financial year?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; to the end of the present calendar year. Provision has been made in the Estimates for an amount which it is estimated will be expended in the first six months of the current financial year, which terminates on the 31st December next.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– - I think no one can find fault with the dispassionate manner in which the “Vice-President of the Executive Council has put the view of the Government on the question brought before the Senate to-day. But I think exception can justly be taken to certain statements made by Senator Sayers in submitting the motion. I may say, at once, that I hold no brief for the Postal Commission, and am not interested in the matter in any way. 1 view it as one of the many Commissions that have done useful work, and probably will do still more useful work. But I think exception should be taken to the statements made with regard to rumours. If Senator Sayers was aware of certain facts, it was his duty to state them, and if he was not sure of the truth of the statements he proposed to make, it was his duty to make sure of their accuracy before he made them here.

Senator Sayers:

– The Minister has confirmed my statements.

Senator PEARCE:

– Senator Sayers is supporting the Government, and if he had gone to the Treasurer, that right honorable gentleman could have informed him that there is a certain regulation in force; and for that regulation the present Government are responsible, so long as they continue it 111 force.

Senator Sayers:

– What about the men who take advantage of such a regulation?

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator might have learned that under the regulation members of a Commission who do not reside in Melbourne are entitled when the Commission, is sitting in Melbourne, to draw an allowance for seven days in the week. That is not a rumour : it is a. fact. Senator Sayers has referred to the matter in connexion with the proceedings of the Postal Commission, as if the members of that Commission were the first to avail themselves of the regulation. As a matter of fact, it was availed of by members of the Tariff Commission throughout their inquiry. Honorable senators who have made such a noise to-day took no exception to it then. It has been the practice for years, ‘ and the complaint made today is therefore somewhat belated. It is strange that this question should be raised just on the eve of an election, and raised in such a way as to give the impression that some awful secret has been disclosed, and has been dragged from the darkness into the light by the two sleuth hounds who have referred to the matter. It is said that the Postal Commission has taken an extraordinarily long time in carrying out their investigation. But let me remind honorable senators supporting the present Government, and also the Vice-President of the Executive Council, that when the Government were confronted with a difficulty, in ‘ connexion with the fixing of telephone rates, they appointed a Committee of experts outside the Government service to investigate one phase of the operations of the telephone branch of the Post and Telegraph Department. These three experts were appointed to consider only the financial aspect of the management of the Telephone Department, and after three months they have asked for an extension of time for another three months within which to complete their inquiries. It will be six months before their report will be presented, although they were asked to investigate only the financial aspect of the telephone branch of the Department. But because a Commission constituted of politicians has occupied some time in an investigation, not merely into one phase of the work of the telephone branch of the Department, but into the whole of the work of the Post and Telegraph Department and its ramifications throughout the whole of the States, certain politicians endeavour to make political capital out of the matter, and to score off political opponents, by bringing the proceedings of the Postal Commission under notice as though they constituted a scandal.

Senator Chataway:

– Is not the report of the Committee of experts, to which the honorable senator has referred, promised within four or five days?

Senator PEARCE:

– In the first instance a report from the Committee was promised within three or four weeks at the outside. Sir John Quick said it was not necessary to postpone the matter, because a report would be received from these experts within a very few weeks. They were given twelve weeks, and having found that time insufficient, have asked for an extension foi another three months. There is too great a tendency on the part of the public and of the press to throw mud at politicians, and it is a little too bad when politicians begin throwing mud at one another. The example I have quoted shows what a gigantic task has been intrusted to the Postal Commission.

Senator Fraser:

– That does not excuse an investigation lasting over eighteen months.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not say whether the Commission has taken too long or not long enough, but I do say that a Committee of experts find that they require six months in which to conduct an investigation in connexion with one little branch of the work which is under the consideration of the Postal Commission. Senator de Largie reminds me that these experts sit during the whole of the week, that they have been taken away from their ordinary business, and devote the whole of their time to the investigation, whilst the members of the Postal Commission only sit occasionally.

Senator Millen:

– I am under the impression that that is not so.

Senator PEARCE:

– I understand that the three accountants have been engaged to devote the whole of their time to a thorough investigation of the financial aspect of the management of the telephone branch. It was hardly fair to talk about rumours and scandals when Senator Sayers ought to have known, if he did not know, that the payments of which he complained were made under a regulation that has been in force for a considerable time, and is being continued in force by the Government which he helps to keep in power. The present Government could rescind that regulation tomorrow if they thought it was wrong in principle.

Senator Sayers:

– I hope they will have the courage to do so.

Senator PEARCE:

– If there is any scandal or anything being done in the dark the Government are parties to it. They know that these payments are not being made surreptitiously, but in accordance with an ordinary regulation which they have continued in force.

Senator Sayers:

– The public do not understand that.

Senator PEARCE:

– I deprecate the attempt which has been made to throw mud simply because the members of the Postal Commission are politicians, and in the hope that it may be possible in this way to score off political opponents. Senator Sayers, and the party to which he belongs, used similar matter to the fullest extent against a Labour candidate at the last Federal election in Queensland. We know that they placarded the State with a statement of the money paid to ex-Senator Higgs as a member of the Tariff Commission. They endeavoured to score off the fact that the ex-senator was paid certain allowances as a member of, the Tariff Commission. Having found that method of fighting successful at the last election, they, no doubt, hope that they will be able again to succeed by adopting a similar method. If that is their idea of politics, and the way in which they conduct a political fight, I can only say that I regard it as very unworthy fighting, and a method which I should not think of adopting.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I do not intend to take any part-

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Did the honorable senator draw fees for Sundays?

Senator MULCAHY:

– The honorable senator will learn if he listens, and will give me time to express myself in my own way. I do not wish to take any part in any criticism of the Postal Commission at this stage. I retired from that Commission, and published my reasons for doing so at the time. Those reasons still hold good. I shall not say whether the Commission have been unduly long in carrying out their work, or refer to the manner in which they are doing it. I shall probably deal with that at some future time. But I should like to clear the atmosphere with regard to one or two points which have been mentioned, and with which I feel at liberty to deal. What has been called the fee in connexion with the Commission is not a fee at all. It is merely an allowance for travelling expenses. It goes without saying that when members of a Commission have to travel all over Australia, they must incur considerable expense. The law forbids the granting of fees to members of Parliament, and members of Parliament who are members of a Commission receive allowances purely and simply for travelling expenses. An understanding was arrived at - based upon information received from the present Prime

Minister - that members of the Commission would draw fees only when legitimate travelling expenses were incurred by them by reason of their absence from their domiciles for the time being. The question thus arose as to where they were domiciled. Now I take it that a member’s domicile is the place in which he ordinarily resides. It was understood that when members of the Commission were absent from their domiciles they would each draw an allowance of 25s. per day. Whilst I was associated with the Commission no member of it drew any allowance except for such time as he was absent from his home and was therefore incurring expense. If any departure has since been made from that rule, I know nothing of it. Of course the books of theCommission are available to honorable senators, and an inspection of them would at once disclose whether any member of it has been drawing fees while enjoying the comfort of his own home. If any member of the Commission has done that - I believe that none has - it will be for him to answer for his action.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I am very glad that I brought this matter before the Senate, because it has resulted in the acquisition of information. I was not previously aware that members of the Postal Commission who reside in Melbourne were drawing fees for Sunday. However, I know it now, and I am glad that the public also know it. During the course of this debate, Senator Pearce interjected that when three of the original members of the Commission resigned from it, the former Deakin Government were in office. I have since looked up the records, and I find that Mr. Hume Cook and Dr. Carty Salmon resigned their positions on the Commission on the 24th December last year, and that the Fisher Government assumed office on the 13th November of that year, and continued in power until May of the present year. How Senator Pearce could make the statement which he did passes my comprehension.

Senator Pearce:

– I stated that the Labour Government did not appoint the Commission.

Senator SAYERS:

– -On the 24th December of last year two members of the Commission tendered their resignations, and yet the Labour Government which was then in office did not see fit either to dissolve it or to bring it up to its original strength by making fresh appointments. They certainly ought to have done either one thing or the other.

Senator Stewart:

– Who appointed the Commission ? 1

Senator SAYERS:

– The Government of which the honorable senator was at the time a supporter. The former Deakin Government appointed it under pressure. . But the Fisher Government allowed the Commission to continue in existence, notwithstanding that its original strength had. been reduced from seven members to four. It is very nice that the members of the Commission who are resident in Melbourne week after week, should, as the result of sitting on Saturday, be permitted to draw, a travelling allowance for Sunday.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I do not think that that statement is correct.

Senator SAYERS:

– During the course of his remarks the honorable senator stated that the allowance to members of the Commission was one for travelling expenses only. But if he were resident in Melbourne from Saturday till Monday, I should like to know whether he thinks he would be entitled to draw an allowance for Sunday ?

Senator Trenwith:

– If as a member of a Commission he was not required to sit on Saturday he would go home on Friday.

Senator SAYERS:

– He would not. There are some members of the Commission who could not possibly return to their homes on Saturday or Monday. The contention of Senator Mulcahy that members do not accept a fee, but merely a travelling allowance for Sunday, is a monstrous one.The Government are to blame, for tolerating the practice which now obtains. They are culpable for having connived at it. I am glad that I brought this matter forward, because I ant sure that the debate will have the effect of enlightening the public as to the way in which Royal Commissions are conducted. I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Senator Mulcahy:

– By way of personal explanation, I wish to say that in my previous remarks I should have stated that the domicile of members of the Postal Commission was settled at the outset of its inquiry. It was then arranged that a member residing in Sydney, Hobart, Melbourne, Brisbane, or Perth, for example, should receive no fees during the time that the Commission was sitting in that place.

The author of that agreement was the present Prime Minister. It was understood that a member’s domicile was the place in which he personally resided.

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out that the honorable senator is now going beyond a personal explanation, and is attempting to argue the matter.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I am simply stating a fact. If a member of the Commission were compelled to reside-

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out that the debate has really been closed. I was under the impression that Senator Mulcahy wished to make an explanation of something personal to himself. He is not in order in attempting to explain something which, in his opinion, was not fully explained during the debate.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 5298

MAKINE INSURANCE BILL

Report adopted.

page 5298

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I should like to preface my remarks with something in the nature of a confession to the “Senate. Although I am aware of the standing order which declares that we must take no notice of what transpires beyond these walls, it has always seemed to me a little difficult to discuss here a measure which has been dealt with elsewhere on the assumption _ that every honorable senator is in blissful ignorance of what is contained within the four corners of that measure. I am unable to seriously consider such a position, and I shall, therefore, ask the Senate to permit me, in dealing with this measure, to proceed on the assumption that, generally speaking, honorable senators are fairly familiar with the propositions which it contains. For that reason I shall avoid any very lengthyreference to its details, leaving them to be considered in -Committee, because I assume that honorable senators are already fairly familiar with its major principles.

Senator Givens:

– Will net the VicePresident of the Executive Council tell us when, he became converted to the principle of compulsory training?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have never been converted to it, and therefore I have nothing to tell the honorable senator. This Bill provides for’ the creation of a fighting machine. It must be obvious to everybody that an army established for that purpose will be absolutely useless unless it is sufficiently strong and effective for the task which it may some day have to discharge. That circumstance at once raises the question of “ What task is likely to confront the Australian army?” This again suggests that the main purpose of an’ army in Australia will be for defence only. Australia cherishes no dream of the accession of territory, and can have no desire other than to be permitted to peacefully develop this great continent.

Senator Dobson:

– And the Empire.

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall not forget the Empire, either now or at any time. What we have to do is to make sure that, in attempting to develop this continent, we are able to protect and defend that which we are creating. This again raises the question, “ Against what have we to protect Australia? Upon this matter experts can offer us very little assistance. Not long ago there was a generally accepted theory that the form of attack against which Australia would have to defend itself was limited to a raid by three or four cruisers, capable of landing possibly a few hundred men. That at one time was the generally accepted theory of the method of attack which would be adopted against this country. But events move rapidly in the twentieth1 century, and they do so in regard to defence not less than they do in regard to other matters. It was not long ago that the theory which I have outlined was rudely brushed aside by Major-General Hutton, when he was resident in Australia. In his report of 1904, that officer gravely contemplated the possibility of an enemy landing in Australia a force of from 20,000 to 50,000 men, who were described by him as likely to be “ well trained, well organized, and well equipped.” I cannot say whether that is the accepted theory of probable attack to-day, nor do I think that experts can help us very much in determining it, even if they agreed amongst themselves, and, as. Ave all know, it is not fashionable for experts to agree upon many matters. If we were about to establish an attacking force, it would be easier for us to say what we wanted, because we should then know whom we desired to attack, and should be able to make our arrangements accordingly. But unless some one can tell us who is going to attack us, and in what force we are likely to be attacked, we are necessarily dealing with unknown quantities.

Senator Givens:

– We should provide for all contingencies.

Senator MILLEN:

– So far as our resources will permit, we should. Not long since Mr. Haldane, the Minister for War in Great Britain, informed the House of Commons that after some years of consultation with his military advisers, he was unable to satisfy himself as to what precisely were the strategical necessities of the Empire. And that absolutely describes the position so far as Australia is concerned. We are unable to determine with any mathematical accuracy what dangers may arise to us from events happening outside our own shores. But nevertheless any one who cares to think about the subject will agree with me that the whole question of Imperial defence, including Australian defence, is one of urgency, magnitude, and gravity. There have hitherto been two great factors which have stood for the safety of Australia, and which perhaps have caused us to relegate this defence question somewhat to the background. These were - first, the unquestionable supremacy of the British Navy ; and, secondly, the geographical position of Australia itself. Until recently the British Navy was always regarded as not only unchallenged, but unchallengeable. I believe it to be so to-day. But it would be idle for us to shut our eyes to the fact that a great European nation has evidently given itself over to the ambition of becoming, not merely a great military, but also a great naval, power, and is setting herself with feverish impatience to accomplish that ambition. The result is that Great Britain has been obliged to bend her energies in the direction of an extraordinary effort to strengthen her navy and to concentrate that navy in her own waters. Simultaneously with that result we have seen events rapidly crowding upon one another in the Pacific - events which are fraught with menacing possibilities. We can never forget - we ought never to forget, at any rate - that Australia is within three weeks steam of the great Japanese nation, which has only recently emerged victorious from a conflict with one of the great military nations of Europe. It is quite true that Japan is to-day the ally of Great Britain ; and we may venture to express the hope that the friendship of the two nations will continue long after the date set out in the mere formal document has expired. But it would be a foolish policy to assume that the friend of to-day will be a friend for all time. We must realize, therefore, that events which have occurred within . recent years have thrown a greater responsibility upon us. In the first place Great Britain has been impelled to concentrate her fleets in home waters; and at the same time we have seen springing up comparatively close to our own shores with marvellous rapidity a great and growing foreign power - a friendly power, it is true, but nevertheless a foreign one. All these considerations - although we do not know the extent of the danger from which we may have to defend ourselves - make it abundantly clear that we must address ourselves without further loss of time, and with all the energy and all the thought of which we are capable, to the task of seriously grappling with this great defence problem. It is in accordance with that belief that this Bill has been introduced. It is a measure which, if it does not absolutely solve the problem, will at least lay soundly and surely the foundations of a defence policy which will be capable of expansion ; and in that sense it merits the consideration of the Senate. I have spoken of one of the factors in relation to the security of Australia in the past being its geographical position. But I may observe that while Australia until a few )’ears ago was isolated, to-day she is becoming comparatively close to the great nations of the world. The very intimation given to us by the recent visit of the great American Fleet and its successful circumnavigation of the globe was in itself a reminder that the protection which comes from isolation is rapidly disappearing. It must be obvious to all that the distance is lessening which has hitherto protected Australia from her possible or probable enemies. Let me also point out that the very sparseness of the population of Australia is in itself an element of weakness. First of all it renders us weak through lack of numbers, and, secondly, it leaves Australia a more attractive object to those overcrowded nations which are looking for elbow room, for opportunities for the disposal of their surplus population.

Senator Givens:

– Surely over-sea nations would not come here to confiscate the property of the landlords?

Senator MILLEN:

– Surely my honorable friend can address himself seriously to this question? I have referred very briefly to elements of the question which are peculiar in themselves, and which, I think, are peculiar to us. I have touched upon them only briefly, because other honorable senators have observed them, and can draw their own deductions from them. The deduction that I draw is that it would be criminal for us to continue those Fabian tactics which we have followed in the past. It will be noticed that in. this Bill there are two wide departures from anything previously attempted in connexion with the defence of Australia. They are so wide that no Government would be justified in inviting Parliament to take them except for the serious considerations to which I have already referred. Those wide departures are, first of all, the introduction of the element of compulsion ; and, next, the very considerable increase of expenditure which the policy of this Bill imposes upon the taxpayer. It is a very wide departure indeed when a nation which has been nurtured, so to speak, upon the principle of voluntary enlistment, suddenly feels compelled to resort to the expedient of compulsion. That, I say, is one wide departure. It certainly mav also be regarded as a wide departure when a proposal is submitted to Parliament which will entail an immediate increase of the military expenditure by no less than 80 per cent., and which, in the course of a few years,, will involve an increase to the extent of 110 per cent.

Senator Dobson:

– Does the honorable senator include the naval expenditure?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am dealing with the military expenditure only at the present moment. The present expenditure for military purposes may be said to be £800,000. It is proposed to carry that expenditure up to £1,750,000. Either of those propositions - that is, the adoption of the principle of compulsion and the large expansion of our expenditure - is a sufficiently serious one in itself. Taken together, they require considerable justification. That justification, I say again, is to be found in that’ world-wide movement of events of which I. have spoken - events which have followed each other so rapidly across the international theatre within recent years, and some of which must have given to many of my honorable friends, as they have given to me, grounds for anxious reflection. Senator Dobson has asked the question whether these figures touch the naval side of our defence question. I should like to say at once that I do not propose to deal with the naval aspect at all, except in so far as this Bill lays down an element of compulsion in providing for the training of members of the Naval Forces. It is obvious that in providing for the training of young men, and also for trainees for the Navy, the Bill cannot avoid reference to the question. To that extent, therefore, the measure touches that side of the matter. But, speaking generally, I do not intend to deal with the question of naval defence, trusting that on the return of our representative from the Imperial Conference next week I shall be in a position to place before the Senate those details which are still wanting to complete the report already submitted to Parliament concerning the results of the Conference.

Senator Pearce:

– One would think that there was no such thing as a mail service.

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend may think so: I do not. Australia in the past has been practically dependent upon the predominance of the British Navy. I believe that she must continue for many years to come to be so dependent to a very large degree, lt is quite evident, however, that public sentiment desires that Australia should accept a larger share of responsibility, not merely for defending herself, but, if occasion arises, for placing at the disposal of the Imperial authorities forces available for the defence of the Empire as well. It may, perhaps, assist honorable senators to grip the meaning of this Bill if I first supply to them details concerning the existing forces, and then compare them with the forces which will be created when the Bill becomes law. At present, we have on our establishment of garrison troops, some 10,000 men. That is the peace establishment. I shall give the particulars in round figures, as being easier to quote, and perhaps easier for honorable senators to grasp. Our field forces number 15,000 ; making, with the garrison troops, a total of 25,000. To that number we may add the members of the rifle clubs - over 60,000. In the event of our requiring to call upon our troops for active service the garrison forces would require to be augmented and reinforced by 6.000 men to place them on a proper footing. Temporarily, at least, those 6.000 men would bc borrowed from the field forces and added to the garrison troops, making 16,000 which would then be available for the defence of our fortresses and fortified ports. They would be established at six separate centres, separated by distances of from 300 to 2,000 miles from each other. The field forces, having provided 6,000 troops to strengthen the garrison troops, ir. would be necessary to make up their effective strength, and that would be done by . drafts from the rifle clubs. When that was done, the total number of troops - 31,000 - would be stationed in six different centres, scattered over 6,000 miles of country. The experts state that it would probably take from three to four weeks to put that field force in a position to move ; and time would necessarily be occupied in allotting the members of the rifle clubs to their various places in the several units, in issuing arms, munitions, and equipment, and in collecting the vehicles, horses, and harness. That time might be all-important to Australia. The results of having to wait, as we should clearly have to do, three or four weeks before we had an effective force, would be so serious that the position has only to be stated for the gravity of it to be grasped. The important point to remember in this connexion is that, while we may have to amend this Bill, it does, at all events, provide the organization ; and in regard to equipment I may point out that the Estimates now before Parliament provide for an additional sum, which will be sufficient to supply all the equipment required for our present troops on a peace establishment, and that it is the intention of the Government to make provision upon the next year’s Estimates for further supplies of equipment which will be necessary for placing our present forces upon a war establishment. That work spread over two years would . bring) our present forces to a state of efficiency so far as equipment is concerned. It would wipe off all arrears, and give the new scheme an absolutely fair start, unhampered bv the fact that there was. still a portion of that scheme without guns, or, as might happen, an ill-balanced arrangement and organization as to the several branches of the Army.

Senator Pearce:

– Two years from the passing of the present Estimates ?

Senator MILLEN:

– >No. This year’s Estimates make provision for the purchase of equipment to put the present Forces on a peace basis; but next year’s Estimates will provide for the purchase of equipment necessary to put our present etablishment on a complete war footing.

Senator Pearce:

– Still, that will not be sufficient for the new force provided for in the Bill.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have not stated that that is all which the Estimates provide for. lt is intended to provide an equipment for the new Forces to be called into existence.

Senator Dobson:

– Is this equipment included in the £1^750,000?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes ; everything is included in that sum for military purposes. When that equipment is obtained, there will be no arrears so fair as the equipment is concerned. The existing Forces, even on a war footing, will have all the equipment which they require. It is part of the present scheme that the equipment shall keep pace with the number of men enrolled ; that for every man who enters the Force there shall be his personal equipment; that for every new unit which is formed, there shall be the general equipment to enable that unit to move. It is intended that that principle shall operate, not merely when the cadet or trainee is attached to his regiment, but even after he ceases at twenty years of age to be actively under the control of his officers, and passes into the Reserve. It is still intended that his equipment shall go with him, and shall be available if in any time of emergency he is called upon to take the field.

Senator Pearce:

– Where will his equipment go then?

Senator MILLEN:

– It will be placed in the Departmental Stores, or will be under the control of the Department. There mav be some regulation which would enable the soldier, if he thought fit, to keep his own rifle. But that is a matter which can be determined, and is not affected by the Bill. At present, the intention is, I understand, that the equipment shall be stored in places under the control of the Department. I have endeavoured to show, although I have been drawn off the track a little, what our present Force is like, and what the Government contemplate doing with regard to it. I shall now turn to the scheme proposed by the Bill, and probably 1 shall study the convenience of honorable senators if I pass over, at this juncture, the steps taken for passing from one system to the other, and endeavour to outline the scheme as it will be when it is in full operation. One factor which will arrest the attention of honorable senators is that the principle of compulsion is not at first to be universal. The reason for that will, I think, be obvious. Australia is a country of magnificent distances, and naturally with a good deal of scattered population. To provide, therefore, that every lad or young man shall serve would involve an expenditure very much greater than the benefit which we should derive therefrom. It is proposed at first to limit the compulsory training to centres where there are 3,000 persons within a radius of 5 miles. That, it is thought, will embrace about 60 per cent, of the population ; arid it will represent districts which can be conveniently and economically worked. The lads and young men within these districts will be subjected to training. First of all, they will be trained as junior cadets from twelve to fourteen years of age. Their training will be limited to physical training, simple marching, and miniature rifle shooting.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Will »there be a conscience clause?

Senator MILLEN:

– I know the difficulty which is confronting my honorable friend, and the Government is not oblivious of it ; but may I remind him that it is a good thing for a man to take his fence when he comes to it ? If any persons have conscientious objections to this training, I feel certain that a satisfactory way out of the difficulty will be found.

Senator Vardon:

– We must provide for the Quakers.

Senator MILLEN:

– Let me describe the scheme provided for in the Bill. The exemptions can surely be left to a later period. It is not proposed that there shall be any military organization for the Junior Cadets. At present, the Bill does not contemplate the supply of a uniform ; but I may inform the Senate that the question of whether or not it is possible or desirable to supply an inexpensive uniform is undergoing Ministerial consideration. It is believed, and hoped, with every justification, that we can look to the existing schools for the training of the Junior Cadets. A great deal has been and is being done in that direction. Judging from the way in which the effort to bring together a conference was responded to some time ago, there is no reason to doubt that our public and other schools will warmly take up this work, and co-operate with the Commonwealth authorities in not only making facilities, but in the majority of cases themselves providing for this physical training.

Senator Vardon:

– Will the Commonwealth have any control over it?

Senator MILLEN:

– The Bill does give the military authorities a control in the matter, so that if there is any remissness or failure on the part of either teacher or schoolmaster, the power will be in the hands of the military authorities to step in and see that the young boy is not deprived of the opportunity of obtaining the physical training which the Bill contemplates.

Senator Vardon:

– Will there be any medical examination for the lads?

Senator MILLEN:

– Not for the Junior Cadets.

Senator Pearce:

– Will there not be a medical inspection?

Senator MILLEN:

– Not for the Junior Cadets. The boy as a scholar is undergoing physical training to-day, presumably with the approval of his parents.

Senator Pearce:

– That emphasizes the necessity for providing for a medical inspection. Some lads are not fit to undergo physical training.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so, but the lads are already undergoing physical training.

Senator Pearce:

– It does them more harm than good when they are not fit.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so.

Senator Vardon:

– Will the Commonwealth provide a medical inspection if parents think it is necessary ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - The Bill provides for exemptions.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not think that that provision, applies to junior cadets. There could be no desire on the part of anybody to compel a lad to undergo any sort of training for which he was not fitted. T have not the slightest doubt that when the time comes for framing regulations every precaution will be taken to see that the training does not result in injury to the lad, but shall be what it is intended to be, a benefit to him individually, and, through him, to the community at large. Another conference on the question of physical training is contemplated, and the Minister is quite confident that it will be found possible to work out a scheme which will provide that a boy shall have ample training to satisfy the Department, and that it can be done by and through1 the schools, as it is to-day, with, of course, Departmental supervision, and an effort made, which there is no doubt will be successful, to standardize the work which is being carried on. The period of training which a junior cadet will be required to undergo is 120 hours per year, or, roughly speaking, about half-an-hour on each day he attends school. Having served for two years as a junior cadet, and received that training, the boy will pass into the Senior Cadets, in which he will remain from fourteen to eighteen years of age.

Senator Dobson:

– Suppose that there are not enough schoolmasters fit to train the boys. Presumably the State Government will come down upon the Commonwealth to provide proper drill instructors?

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend will see that, as the Commonwealth is asking for power to compel physical training, obviously it must either provide the instructors or make such arrangements as will insure that the training is given. In the last resort the responsibility will rest with the Commonwealth Government. No difficulty is anticipated in getting schoolmasters to undertake the work. What the teachers seem willing to do is to acquire the desired instruction in order to qualify themselves for the task of teaching the lads. When the lads enroll as senior cadets the first thing to be done will be to allot a portion of them to the naval forces as naval cadets; the balance will become available for military purposes. These will be organized uniformly in battalions with officers and non-commissioned officers on exactly the same footing and in exactly the same organization as the older troops. They will become duplicates. That will tend to the efficiency of the lad when later on he passes from a senior cadet battalion into a battalion of the active citizen forces. The training which he will receive as a senior cadet will be general military training in whatever branch of the service he may ultimately elect to join. It will include practical musketry and open ranges up to 500 yards. The service required of a senior cadet will be equal to sixteen whole days per annum, and will include four complete days, making a total of sixty-four days for the course of four years. This will, it is believed, provide a thorough recruiting groundwork for the lads before they are asked to join the defence force at eighteen years of age. To the Senior

Cadets arms and equipment will be supplied. These will be kept in battalion and company offices in convenient centres available for use when the cadets require them for the purpose of training. A simple uniform will also be supplied. After a boy has spent six years under some form of training and discipline - two years as a junior cadet and four as a senior cadet - he will pass into the citizen force at the age of eighteen years, and remain there until he is twenty.

Senator Lynch:

– Will any uniform be supplied to junior cadets?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have already stated that the Bill does not provide for a uniform for junior cadets.

Senator Vardon:

– Is provision made for their equipment in the way of clubs, dumbbells, and that kind of thing?

Senator MILLEN:

– I see no provision for that in the Bill; but that would, of course, largely depend on the course of training prescribed, which has yet to be decided. It is for the purpose of determining what course of training could most advantageously be adopted, that a further conference has been arranged between representatives of schools, and, I believe, also experts in physical culture. At eighteen years of age, then, the lad passes into the Citizen Forces. Here he will be given a place in the higher formations. He will be taken into field and camp, and thoroughly trained in the soldier’s work under actual service conditions. The service required of him will be sixteen days in each year, eight of which will be spent in camp. In the first year, these young men will be trained in battalions and batteries, and in the second year in brigades and larger bodies.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the trainee go into the fighting force at eighteen years of age?

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not quite understand the meaning of the honorable senator’s interjection. He goes into the Citizen Forces at eighteen years of age, and with respect to the fighting force, I shall later deal with what will be done with him should war break out.

Senator Pearce:

– What is the organization; that is what I wish to know?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall say what will be done in the event of war. At eighteen, the trainee would not go immediately into the first line, if that is what (he honorable senator means; but from nineteen to twenty years of age he would.

Senator Pearce:

– Then he is really only one year in the fighting force.

Senator MILLEN:

– Plus four years as a senior cadet. What does my honorable friend say should be done with him?

Senator Pearce:

– I am not bringing in a Bill.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am quite aware of that ; and I am aware also that, though the honorable senator may propose to do a certain thing one day, that does not prevent him becoming a critic of the same proposition the next day. ‘

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator should not anticipate.

Senator Vardon:

– Will these young men all be in camp at the same time?

Senator MILLEN:

– That, again, is a matter entirely of convenience, and to be dealt with by regulation. It is highly probable that, so far as the younger trainees are concerned, efforts will be made to make the training continuous. We shall have an Instructional Staff, and it seems to me obvious that we should endeavour to keep it continuously occupied the whole year round, which, at all events, so far as the junior branches of the service are concerned, would mean that the cadets would not all be brought together at one time.

Senator Chataway:

– Climatic conditions in Australia would prevent it.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is another factor which must be considered. When we come to the third section, the Citizen. Forces, who have to spend eight days each year in camp, it is obvious that within certain geographical limitations they must, where possible, be brought together in camp.

Senator Vardon:

– That would involve great inconvenience in business.

Senator MILLEN:

– It probably would ; but a war, and particularly an unsuccessful war, would involve very much greater inconvenience to business.

Senator Pearce:

– Will the honorable senator say how officers are to -be provided ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall deal with that later. When the trainee has arrived at twenty years of age, three courses will be open to him. He can pass into the Militia, which it is proposed to continue ; or he can join a rifle club ; or pass automatically into the general Reserve. I may say that, even if he joins a rifle club, he will still be a member of the general Reserve. Having passed through eight years’ compulsory training, the trainee passes into the Reserve, and it is optional with him to join a rifle club or a militia regiment, so far as vacancies in the Militia Force will permit. When he is in the Reserve, he will be required to appear at an annual muster parade, or to effect an annual registration. That is for the purpose of enabling the Department to keep in touch with him, and to know where he is-‘ It must be understood that his organization is to continue. There is to be a place for him in the regular Army. If it be necessary to call out the Army, the Department will know where the trainee is to be found, and there will be a place in the Army for him to fill. The organization and equipment will be continued ; and, if I may so express it, the Reserve will be a force of men who are cut on leave, but available when required. There will be a place for each to step into; the individual into a squad, the squad into a company, the company into a battalion, and so on. Even when the soldier passes the age of twenty-six, this organization will continue. It is true that after that age the Department will lose trace of him as an individual, but it will have knowledge of the number of men available, and will continue an organization to receive them if, as a last resource, it should be necessary to call out men who, having passed through their training, are over twenty-six years of age.

Senator DobsON:

– Is provision made for compulsory drill for trainees twenty years of age who have joined rifle clubs?

Senator MILLEN:

– No, but provision is made under which something more will be required of members of rifle clubs than has hitherto been the case. We hope to give rifle clubs a more effective place in the Defence Force in future than they have occupied in the past.

Senator Dobson:

– Will the trainee twenty years, of age, who has joined a rifle club, be able to lay down his rifle, and never take it up again until war is declared ?

Senator Pearce:

– Under this Bill he will.

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend must take the Bill plus the intentions of the Bill and the regulations which will be framed to carry it into effect.

Senator Pearce:

– The Bill plus good intentions.

Senator MILLEN:

– When completely organized, our new force will stand as follows. We shall first of all have a Militia Force. The present Militia Force consists of 18,000 men, and we have 6,000 volunteers. It is proposed to convert the volunteers into militia. The men are quite agreeable ; their officers cordially support the proposal, and it has been decided to make that conversion ; and, in addition, to enroll 4,000 new militia. This will give a total Militia Force of 28,000. To these we have to add 1,000 permanent troops, making a force of 29,000 militia and permanent troops. From this force of 29,000 it will be necessary to take 2,000 as officers and instructors for the nineteen and twenty-year-old trainees. That will reduce the Militia Force again to 27,000.

Senator Chataway:

– Will those 2,000 be transferred to the Permanent Force?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; their status and pay will be that of militiamen, but they will be utilized to officer and instruct the trainees of nineteen and twenty years of age. There is not the slightest doubt that the best men in the Militia will look forward to selection amongst this force of 2,000. They will be graded and paid as militiamen, they will be taken from the Militia Forces, arid their duty will be to act as officers and instructors of the nineteen and twenty-year-old trainees.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - They will not be permanent officers, but will be partialis trained militia officers, whose duty it will be to train the young men nineteen and twenty years of age?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so. But the honorable senator will see that the Bill provides for superior training for these men.

Senator Pearce:

– Where will the Government get the 4,000 additional militia?

Senator MILLEN:

– The trouble will be not to get additional men, but to find vacancies for them.

Senator Pearce:

– Then why not complete the existing establishment?

Senator MILLEN:

– Because Parliament hithertohas not voted sufficient money for the purpose. The present Government have been bold enough in their Estimates to ask Parliament to enable that to be done.

Senator Needham:

– Was Parliament ever asked before to grant sufficient money for the purpose?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - I should like to be clear about the 2,000 men who are to be withdrawn from the Militia Force as officers and instructors. Are they to be in excess of the establishment of officers and non-commissioned officers responsible for the discipline and drill of the existing Militia Force?

Senator MILLEN:

– The existing Militia Force will have its full complement of officers. We are making a start with a new scheme, and we must get the best material available. These 2,000 men will be drawn from the Militia, but that will not leave the Militia Force without officers.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - They will be in excess of the requirements of the present regiments of militia?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, they will be militiamen with militia standing and pay; but they will not be necessary for the working of the Militia Forces, and will devote their time to filling similar positions in the battalions of trainees.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

-Colonel Cameron. - That is to say that, roughly speaking, we shall have from 800 to 1,000 officers in charge of the Militia, and 2,000 will be selected from the Militia for the purpose of training these raw lads and making them into soldiers?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is so: with the exception that I differ from my honorable friend, and do not” describe young men who have undergone four or five years’ military training as senior cadets as “ raw lads.” The 27,000 militia will form our first line, with the addition of the secondyear trainees. These will be young men from nineteen to twenty years of age. who will have been for five years under military discipline and training. There will be 18,500 of these. That is estimated as about the annual draft that will be coming in as junior cadets in the first instance, and passing out as nineteen and twentyyearold trainees, allowing for rejects on account of physical infirmities and for other reasons.

Senator Lynch:

– How long will it be before these 18,500 men will be available each year?

Senator MILLEN:

– The whole, scheme will be in operation in about eight years from now.

Senator Pearce:

– It will be six years from now before we get the first draft of 18,500 trainees.

Senator MILLEN:

– After the Act comes into force, we shall commence the training of these eighteen-year-old lads in 1912; they will then have two years to go, so that in tq 14- t 5 we shall have the first draft of 48,500 men of twenty years of age, who will have passed through their military course, and be available to pass into the Militia Forces. It is contemplated under the Bill that our first line will consist of 27,000 militia, plus the second-year trainees, 18,500, and also 3,000 from the first-year trainees, young men of from eighteen to nineteen years of age, who ‘will be available for garrison duty only. This will give a force of 48,500. Of these 27,000 will have had six years’ training, 18,500 will have had five years, and 3,000 will have had four years and over. This force of 48,500 will be ready for immediate mobilization, as a fighting force which can be moved, and which can undertake any task expected of it.

Senator St Ledger:

– Within what period ?

Senator MILLEN:

– That is a question which I cannot quite answer. All I know is that when the organization is complete it is anticipated that it will occupy very much less time than would be occupied to-day when we are minus that organization.

Senator Dobson:

– Could we not begin to train those youths who are now eighteen or nineteen years of age before 191 2?

Senator MILLEN:

– We propose to do so.

Senator Dobson:

– Under this scheme the Government do not propose to begin to drill youths who are eighteen or nineteen years of age until i9i’2. Why could we not begin to drill them next year?

Senator MILLEN:

– In the first place we have to provide equipment for them, and the orders for that have already been sent home. We cannot commence to drill them until that equipment has arrived, and until the organization has been fairly developed.

Senator Dobson:

– But the Government do not propose to drill lads who are now eighteen or nineteen years of age, and who are rendering no military service whatever.

Senator MILLEN:

– We could if we chose commence training those who are now twenty years of age next year. But my honorable friend must recognise that this scheme involves a great deal of preparatory work. If he wishes to adopt a more radical proposition than is contained in the Bill, it is not unreasonable for me to say to him, “ Let us first get this scheme into working order, and then see how far we’ can expand it.”

Senator MILLEN:

– I have been endeavouring to make a speech, but practically the whole of my time has been absorbed in answering a series of questions.

Senator de Largie:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council is very illmannered to talk in that way.

Senator MILLEN:

– I recognise that Senator de Largie is an authority upon good manners.

Senator de Largie:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council was discourteous in replying to my very first interjection, in which I asked for information.

Senator MILLEN:

– I know that honorable senators have not interjected with a view to harassing me, but I would point out that it is impossible for me to explain a Bill of this description if every moment I am to be dra.wn off the particular point which I am discussing by questions which, though they may be prompted by a bona fide desire to obtain information, render it impossible for me to make headway.

Senator Pearce:

– I will hear the VicePresident of the Executive Council in silence.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not care whether the honorable senator hears me or not.

Senator de Largie:

– We want civility from the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator would not recognise it if he met it. I was dealing just now with the question of our first’ line of defence, which, as I have pointed out, would, with the militia and the second year trainees, total 48,500 men. We should also have a second line consisting of younger men of from eighteen to nineteen years of age, who would number17, 500. These added to the first line would represent a total of 66,000 men. The second line of 17,500 would be organized in battalions of half strength, but with full equipment, and with a full number of officers, could be filled up to war strength from the Reserves at a moment’s notice. When this scheme has been in operation for about eight years - when we are getting our regular drafts by reason of the number of men at twenty years of age who are passing out into the Citizen Forces, equalling the number of boys who are passing in at twelve years of age,we shall have 66,000 men available in time of national emergency. We shall also have 60,000 men in the rifle clubs, excluding those who are from twenty to twenty-six years of age, and who are included in the regular Reserves, in addition to 80,000 trained men who will have completed their military course and who will be in the Reserves. In other words, we shall have 140,000 men available for service from these sources, besides the 66,000 men who are included in our first and second lines of defence, thus making a total force of 206,000. Of course, it will take us some years to reach that point. But every scheme must have a beginning. We cannot develop an army in a day. The task is one which requires time, patience, and money. But it is something to make abeginning with the consciousness that in the course of a few years we shall have standing between Australia and national disaster a trained body of men numbering 206,000. I come now to another aspect of this question, namely, the pay which it is proposed to grant under this Bill. This will be limited to those persons who are eighteen years of age and over. It is expected that the trainees, so far as evening drills and half-day drills are concerned, will give their services gratuitously. But when they pass into camp for eight days’ continuous training it is proposed to pay the young men who are between eighteen andtwenty years of age 3s. per day in the first year of service - that is to say, those who are between eighteen and nineteen years of age, will receive that amount - and 4s. per day in the second year of service - in other words, that is the rate of pay which will be granted to them when they are between nineteen and twenty years of age. I have already mentioned the service which is required from these trainees, but I omitted to state that, for the scientific and technical course of instruction, the period of training will be twenty-five days, as against sixteen days in the case of those who are in the ordinary Military Forces. It is, perhaps, well to explain that the age of the boys and young men who are to be trained will . be calculated in this way : Any one whose birthday occurs at any time during the calendar year will be assumed to have reached the age which he has attained as on the 1st July of that year. That is to say, if a lad becomes twelve years of age in January, and another lad reaches that age in December of the same year, for military purposes they will both be regarded as having attained that age on the 1st July of thatyear. Of course, a lad whose training as a. junior cadet commences a few months earlier than does that of another will pass out into the active reserves a few months earlier, but otherwise they will all be trained for the same period. It is impossible to adopt any other system without the lads becoming liable to be trained in dribs and drabs every day. Under the Bill, it will be possible for them to come up for registration and enrolment on one day each year, and we shall thus be enabled to handle large bodies with more economy and efficiency, and to see that the training staff is adequate. A few moments ago, Senator Dobson asked what we proposed to do in the immediate future. The Bill does not contemplate the training of lads other than those who will be from’ twelve to seventeen years of age when it becomes operative. It will become operative in January, 191 1, and the first training of the juniors will commence in July of that year. Those who are seventeen years of age will therefore pass into the active citizen forces after they have had only one year’s training as senior cadets. But it must be recognised that we have to make a start somewhere. This deficiency in the. period of training can occur only in the case of the first’ draft into the active forces. The next draft to pass into those forces will have had two years’ training, and the following draft will have ‘ served even a longer period as cadets. Unless we train only the lads who are now twelve years of age, we must pass into the active forces those who in the first year of the operation of the scheme will have missed the full advantages which the Bill will provide, and which will be given to others as time goes on. Now, as to the officers and the instruction which it is proposed to impart. Honorable senators will recognise at once that, no matter how fine a body of troops we may have, their efficiency will be very doubtful in the absence of proper officers. Under this Bill, it is proposed to provide for the establishment of a Military College. The clauses dealing with that subject are set out in Part XV. of the measure. In view of the disabilities which are represented by great distances, and of the impossibility of bringing men from various parts of Australia to that college, it is proposed that the institution shall be of a peripatetic character, and that it shall carry instruction to various centres. A school of instruction is also covered by the same portion of the Bill, and, upon reference to the Estimates, honorable senators wi’l find that provision has been made for enlarging the instruction which is already being imparted. I fancy that the amount provided for that purpose is either £3,000 or £5,000. I stated a short time ago that the Bill contemplates a full equipment for each military unit as it is organized. But there is one portion of the equipment which it is not proposed to supply in that way. It is intended to provide all the personal and general equipment necessary for the forces, including technical vehicles, but it is not thought proper to provide vehicles for the ordinary transport service. It is believed that it will be possible to obtain these from the ordinary sources of supply in the country. At present, a scheme is being devised under which a sufficient number of horses, vehicles, and drivers will be obtainable in various localities. These will be registered, so that their whereabouts will be known to the military authorities whenever they may require them, either for the purposes of manoeuvring or for actual warfare. The sum of £3,000 has been placed upon the Estimates, so that during the next’ manoeuvres the scheme may be thoroughly tested. We shall thus ascertain whether these vehicles, with their horses, harness, and drivers, are available to the military authorities whenever they may need them’. It will be recognised that if this scheme is workable, a large saving may be effected to the Commonwealth. In its absence, a large sum would require to be expended upon vehicles, which would remain idle during a large portion of the year.

Senator Dobson:

– Only 60 per cent, of our male population will come within the scope of this Bill. Is nothing to be done in reference to the other 40 per cent. ?

Senator MILLEN:

– My honorable friend will see that nothing is proposed to be done. The whole question is one which presents difficulties that can be seen at a glance. How is it possible for us, except at an enormous cost, to bring isolated prospectors, remote settlers, and others under any sort of military organization?

Senator Dobson:

– Ought we not to compel them to join rifle clubs?

Senator MILLEN:

– But there is no compulsion exercised in connexion with rifle clubs.

Senator Dobson:

– There ought to be.

Senator MILLEN:

– Where would my honorable friend stop? Would he compel a boundary rider, who lives 50 miles from nowhere, to join a rifle club? It is practically impossible to apply the element of compulsion universally throughout Australia at any reasonable cost. In spite of the liberal provision which is made by New South Wales in the matter of imparting education to children - in spite of the fact that travelling schoolmasters visit isolated places in that State - there are still spots which they do not visit for the purpose of imparting instruction. Similarly, it is impossible for us at any reasonable cost to apply the compulsory provisions of this Bill to isolated individuals.

Senator Lt Colonel Cameron:

– The Government will apply it wherever they can?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes. As soon as a district commences to show a sufficiency of population it is competent under this Bill simply by the issue of a proclamation to extend the compulsory principle to it, and in this way we shall finally reach practically the whole of Australia.

Senator St Ledger:

– The honorable senator has made no reference to the mounted infantry.

Senator MILLEN:

– The whole of the young men of the country on coming in, will, as far as possible, and as far as the requirements of the service permit,, select their own particular branches. if it be found that more men are anxious to join a particular branch of the service than are required, it will be necessary to allot them compulsorily ; but as far as is possible the wishes of the individual young soldier will be complied with.

Senator Chataway:

– I presume that those who join the mounted infantry will have to provide their own horses?

Senator MILLEN:

– Such is the proposition, and that consideration will undoubtedly tend to prevent the ranks of the mounted infantry becoming unduly inflated.

Senator Dobson:

– Do the proposals of the Government regarding equipment cover the field artillery?

Senator MILLEN:

– The proposed equipment is based on the assumption that the scheme when completed will provide for an army, each branch of which will be present in its due proportions. I was about to turn to the question of expenditure involved, and the figures which I shall quote are worthy of attention, both as showing the rapid strides being made under the present proposals in the direction of running up our defence bill, and also as offering some little reason why those who wish for a more ambitious scheme should pause and think before they put forward proposals which would add still further to the great expenditure involved. Before Federation the cost of military defence in Australia was a shade over £824,000. It varied from year to year, going down in one year as low as £584,000. During the last few years the expenditure has been rising again, until last year it stood at £791,000. The estimates which are now. before Parliament provide for an expenditure of £1,306,000 - an increase of, roughly, half a million pounds. The following particulars will be of interest to honorable senators : -

It is contemplated, if the scheme is carried but also that portion of the scheme which out, and by that I mean, not merely *the* contemplates making provision for equipapplication of the principle of compulsion, ment, that the bill will stand as follows, during the next few years: - In 1910-11, £1,407,000; in 1911-12, .£1,529,000; in 1912-13, £1,627,000; in 1913-14, £1,720,000; in 1914-15, £1,742,000. Those figures represent an advance of no per cent, on the amount we are spending to-day, and while, in my opinion, that amount is a burden not too big for Australia to shoulder, and not too big. for the requirements of the position, still it is an amount sufficiently large to cause us to think twice before we propose to go beyond the limits of the present Bill. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Has the Minister any details as to the expenditure that would be incurred upon the daily pay of the troops in training? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- I cannot supply that detail at the present moment, but it will not be difficult for the honorable senator to work out the result. There are to be eight days in each year, and there will be 37,000 men in camp. I have spoken only of the military expenditure. In addition, the naval expenditure, on the basis of the Imperial Conference arrangement, is likely to add something like £700,000 to our total defence expenditure, making our total bill £2,500,000. There is nothing in those figures to frighten us, but still they are sufficiently large, in my opinion, to cause us to come to the conclusion that they are ample for the present, at any rate. We may reasonably come- to the conclusion that, until this scheme is in full working order, we have done as much as it is wise for us to do at one step. I desire, in completing my remarks upon this Bill, to say that, all through the preparation of this scheme, the anxiety of those responsible, and of the Minister in charge, has been that the keynote of the whole should be efficiency. We desire that there "shall not be what there has been in the past, men without guns, or stores and material without men, together with a disproportion between one arm of the service and another. We desire that everything shall be so completely harmonized that there will be a place for every man, and a man for every place; that there will be the man for the gun,- and the gun for the man as the man steps into his allotted place. The whole army would thus be able to move together. It should be ready for the work to be expected of it when mobilization takes place. If we can secure so much, we shall do well, whatever minor defects there may be in the Bill. It is obvious that the great sheetanchor of any military system must be complete and satisfactory organization. It is believed that under this Bill it is possible to secure that organization in such a way that, although our forces will be comparatively small in numbers, and although they may not be quite so efficient in some respects as are troops which have been> trained as permanent soldiers, still they will be the best force obtainable - one capable, as far as we can judge, of becoming an effective striking force in any emergency that is likely to occur. I feel that this Bill contains within itself matters which are big enough to attract our best mental efforts. It is one which will certainly appeal to our patriotism, and perhaps also, in a lesser degree, to the instinct of self-preservation. It seems to me to be idle for us to struggle to attain social and industrial reforms in this country unless we are satisfied that our defence is adequate to maintain for our people the benefits for which we have struggled. We must endeavour, above all things, to insure that this Australia of ours shall be free for all time from the polluting touch of hostile feet. It is because I desire to make secure pur own solution of those social and industrial reforms to which we are all more or less committed, that I regard defence as of paramount concern. I therefore cordially invite the co-operation of the Senate in dealing with the Bill, with the object of making it, at least, a sound and solid foundation upon which we shall be able to build, a basis upon which we shall be able to establish, not merely an effective system for the defence of Australia, but a means by which we can, in case of need, lend a hand to assist in the preservation of the Empire. Debate (on motion by **Senator Pearce)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 5310 {:#debate-10} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-10-0} #### POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS Motion (by **Senator Sir Robert** Best) proposed - >That Government business, orders of the day Nos. 3, 4, and 5, be postponed till after the consideration of private business, orders of the day Nos. 1 and 4. {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia -- This is rather a startling proposition. The Government propose to set aside the Inter-State Commission Bill and the Bureau of Agriculture Bill, in order to allow **Senator Trenwith** to proceed with his Constitution Alteration (Industrial Conditions) Bill. Why is this? No explanation has been furnished. **Senator Trenwith's** Bill is hostile to a Government measure. Yet the Government propose to allow him special facilities for proceeding with it. Why cannot the Inter-State Commission Bill be proceeded with? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- We are waiting until certain of the States move in the matter before we go on with that Bill. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE: -- This is the first time that that explanation has been made. It is, at all events, clear that the arguments of the Opposition have sunk in. For my own part, however, I can see no reason why the Inter-State Commission Bill should not be proceeded with to-night. I think the Senate should divide on the proposition to postpone Government business. {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia -- I also hope that the Senate will insist on dividing on the Minister's proposition. It is evident that the Government are playing with business. They are muddling up the legislative work of the session. It would be better to shut up the Senate, and give us an opportunity of going to our homes, than to waste time in this way. We are not dealing with practical legislation at all. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- Does the honorable senator say that of the Defence Bill? {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- I do not suppose that the Government have any more intention of passing the Defence Bill than they have of trying to pass the Inter-State Commission Bill, {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Give them a chance. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- They have had ample chance. . In fact, they have had so much chance that I believe that if they had been in earnest the Defence Bill could have been put through the Senate long ago. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- No. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: **- Senator Pearce** had a perfect right to move the adjournment of the debate on its second reading. Sorely no one will be regarded as offering the slightest obstruction because he moved the adjournment of the debate on one of the most important questions with which this Parliament has to deal. If the Government Whip wants to find fault, let him ask his superiors why they did not bring forward this important legislation long ago. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Because it had not passed the other House. {: #subdebate-10-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I point out to **Senator Henderson** that he cannot debate the Defence Bill on this motion. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator HENDERSON: -- With **Senator Pearce,** I shall call for a division on the ground that, in my opinion, the Government are merely muddling matters, and playing skittles with the measures which they have on the notice-paper. Here they are asking **Senator Trenwith** to come along and help them. " We have finished," they say to him, " Come along and help us with a Bill which is in opposition to our own scheme. Trot out your Bill, and help us out of this muddle until half -past 6 o'clock." {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- That is most unfair to **Senator Trenwith.** {: #subdebate-10-0-s3 .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I do not wish for a moment to cast a reflection on **Senator Trenwith.** The Government are not fair to honorable senators who have come from distant States, particularly to those who visited Oodnadatta during last week-end, and had to make a special effort to be here on Wednesday in order to deal with important Bills on the noticepaper. How were we treated last night? How was the Government business played with then, and how is it being played with now? If the Government are in earnest, let them proceed with their measures. If they are not in earnest, let them state the fact, but do not let them put up dummies merely to waste the time of the Senate, and at the same time to attribute the blame to the Labour party. It is cruel in the extreme to treat us in that way. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- It is robbing the widows and orphans. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Government Whip has, of course, a duty to perform. Whether it is agreeable or not, he has to carry out his instructions, but I protest against this waste of time. I have always taken this stand, no matter what Government has been in power. When there is work to be done, let it be done straight away, and with a will. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- The honorable senator did not say that last Thursday, when we were wanting to go to Oodnadatta. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Like myself, the honorable senator had to make a special effort to be here on Wednesday to do his duty to his country. If the Senate were being played with by a Labour Government, he would denounce them in a manner which can scarcely be surpassed by any one. But the circumstances are different. The end of the session is drawing near, and if the Government are in earnest, let them get to work, and cease to fool the Senate and the country as they are doing. {: #subdebate-10-0-s4 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia . -A little time ago we heard from our friends on the Ministerial benches the statement that the Labour Opposition here, as well as elsewhere, were guilty of obstructing public business, and of deliberately wasting time. To-day we have had another exhibition of the weakness of the Fusion Government. Last night they asked the Senate to adjourn, not because they had not business on the notice-paper, but simply because they had been beaten on a Government measure. That was one reason for their action. The other reason was that the next business on the notice-paper was another Government measure, which they know will never pass the Senate as at present constituted. They were absolutely afraid to face the situation, and so they moved the adjournment of the Senate. The Bureau of Agriculture Bill is one of the Government measures which Ministers propose to postpone until after private business has been disposed of to-day, although they know perfectly well that that measure was practically killed last night. If they had a method of resurrecting it, why did they not ask the Senate to proceed with it? They know, however, that it cannot be done. Following that measure on the notice-paper comes the Inter-State Commission Bill. Knowing the hole in which they are, and out of which they cannot get, their only method was to ask the Senate to postpone the consideration of public business-. For what purpose? In order to convenience a private senator. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- He has been waiting a long time for the opportunity. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Other senators have had to wait for a longer period than have those who have private business on the notice-paper for to-night. But this suspension of the consideration of important public business was not proposed in order to afford to them an opportunity to proceed. It is a remarkable state of affairs with which we are faced. The famous policy statement which **Senator Millen** read to the Senate a few weeks ago included an InterState Commission Bill. This measure has been brought before the. Senate and debated, but no one knows better than does **Senator Best** that it will never reach finality this session. He does not wish to run the risk of a defeat; he wants to try to save his face. I want to know who is responsible for the waste of public time. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The honorable senator is. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- No . honorable senator . has assisted more ardently to keep public business going than I have done, and if any honorable senator has tried to block all kinds of public business it has been the Government Whip. I hope that honorable senators who have private business on the notice-paper for to-night do not think that I am opposed to them getting an opportunity of proceeding. It would be only fair that **Senator Trenwith** should have an opportunity to proceed with his Bill ; and if **Senator Neild** were here I should certainly give him every possible chance to get a hearing while he was explaining the provisions of his Bill, and of course I should express my opinions on both Bills. If there were no Government Bills on the notice-paper, I should welcome private business at this stage. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- Let us get to work. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- During this week we have had two exhibitions of a desire to shirk work or a desire to save the face of the Government. The more honest way to face the situation would have been either for the Government to move the adjournment of the Senate for a fortnight, or for the Senate to adjourn until the day of prorogation - that is, until the death of this Parliament. This morning's *Argus* contained an article occupying about three-fourths of a column, probably inspired, and headed " Labour Tactics." It alleged that the Labour party were outwitted because the Senate suddenly adjourned last night. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- That is not true. They knew what was going on and agreed to it. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Agreed to what? {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- They agreed to the adjournment last night ; they were all here. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Who were here ? SenatorChataway. - Three of them. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- When thisinspired paragraph appeared in the press - {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- That is a most improper and incorrect statement for the honorable senator to make. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- What statement is incorrect? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- That it was an inspired paragraph. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- Does the cap fit the Minister? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- I have pointed out that it was an improper and unfair statement for the honorable senator to make. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- I do not object to the use of the word "unfair" or the word " incorrect," but I object to the use of the word " improper," and I ask the Minister to withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I would point out that I cannot call upon the Minister to withdraw the word " improper." {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The honorable senator may consider the statement I have made improper; but I say that it is true, and what reply has the honorable .senator to make to that ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- I say that it is totally incorrect. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- The usual lawyer's answer. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- What more does the honorable senator want ? I will tell him something else outside, if he likes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM: -- When **Senator Best** gets into a better frame of mind, I may be given an opportunity to proceed with my remarks. The motion is an utter degradation of the Senate. It would be "more honest and straightforward for the Government to ask for an adjournment for a fortnight, because we have no business to go on with, than it is for them to play with the business as they are doing now. Honorable senators come here, only to find that they are fooled day after day. I do not intend to permit this farce to go further without an emphatic protest. The Government are fooling members of the Senate, and, through them, the public. I shall record my vote against any postpone- ment of public business ; while I am ready when the proper time comes to assist honorable senators who have private business to bring before the Chamber. **Senator LYNCH** (Western Australia) (5.28]. - If a division is called for, I shall certainly vote against this extraordinary proposal of the Government. We axe asked to postpone the consideration of three very important items of Government business which have already been discussed at somelength, in order to give an honorable senator an opportunity to bring on private business. In the circumstances, I have a special grievance against the Government in connexion with what happened yesterday. I gave notice of a motion yesterday, which I considered simple and useful, in order to obtain certain information ; but I found the Minister- {: #subdebate-10-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I point out to the honorable senator that, on the motion now before the Chair, he will not be in order in alluding to the matter to which he has just referred. The motion is merely to postpone the consideration of certain Orders of the Day until other orders are dealt with. On that motion, it is not competent for the honorable senator to discuss the conduct of the Government in opposing a motion which he believes should have been allowed to pass without opposition. {: #subdebate-10-0-s6 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- I propose merely to contrast what the Government did yesterday with what they, are proposing to do today. They are now asking for the postponement of three items of Government business, in order to make way for a private member. I think I am perfectly in order in directing attention to the course which the Government followed only yesterday in carrying an adjournment over the whole of the evening, when I might hav* been given an opportunity to discuss my motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- That is not pertinent to the question now before the Chair. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- I wi-shed only to say that that item of private business with which I desired to deal might have been discussed yesterday if the Government had been as considerate to me as they are to-day to **Senator Trenwith.** The motion now moved establishes the hollowness of the statement made by the Government and their supporters that the Opposition are responsible for wasting time. Yesterday, we were called upon to hang up business through lack of a desire on the part of the Government to proceed with it, and to-day we are asked to postpone public business in order that a. private member of the Senate may proceed with a Bill which runs counter to the expressed intention of the Government. The Government are going out of their way to enable **Senator Trenwith** to do something which, as a Government, they must oppose tooth and nail. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator Pulsford: -- Is not that very generous ? {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- It is not fair to other members of the Senate that Orders of the Day, covering business which has already been considered, to some extent, by the Senate, should be set aside in order to permit a supporter of the Government to bring on a measure which cannot be supported by the Government, and which must end in failure.- Taking into consideration the treatment meted out to me yesterday, I think it is distinctly unfair that today the Government should be prepared to act in a spirit of partisanship in the interests of the honorable senator for whom they are now making way. {: #subdebate-10-0-s7 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- Honorable senators who have had any experience of trying to put private 'business through the Senate, should be very pleased that an opportunity is proposed to be given to a private member to proceed with the business he has on the paper. I must say that' I have experienced considerable difficulty in the effort to get a private Bill through the Senate; and I am very pleased that the Government in this instance are giving a private member an opportunity to have the matter in which he is concerned discussed. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- What about the treatment accorded to **Senator Lynch** yesterday ? {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER: -- I am not responsible for the action of the Government in that matter. I am glad that to-day a private member of the Senate is being given a chance which has not hitherto during this session, so far as I know, been afforded to private members. {: #subdebate-10-0-s8 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- - I think there is good ground for complaining of the action of the Government at the present time. In view of the motion proposed to-day, I think their treatment of **Senator Lynch** yesterday was a downright shame. Is **Senator Lynch** to be denied a right which is conceded to private members of the Senate on the other side? When the Government have an opportunity to go on with their own business, they should certainly consider it. If time is to be given to enable private members' business to be proceeded with, then every member of the Senate should be given a fair deal. We all know that the Bill which **Senator Trenwith** has in hand is neither more nor less than an electioneering placard, and it can come to nothing. Is the Senate going to lend itself to this sort of thing ? Day after day the business is being played with. Last week we adjourned for one purpose. Yesterday afternoon we adjourned for another ; and now Government business is being postponed for another purpose. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- The honorable senator did not object last night. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- No; but when honorable senators like myself do not object to the adoption of a certain course in order to permit honorable senators like **Senator Gray** to attend meetings, they are given no credit for being fair to their political opponents. When we object to public businessbeing carried on in the manner now proposed, we are asked why we did not object on some other occasion. That may be slick tactics on the part of honorable senatorslike **Senator Gray,** but that kind of thing: cannot be admired by fair-minded politicians. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The honorable senator never gave any one an opportunity togo away, so far as he is concerned. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Honorable senators on this side made no objection to theearly adjournment yesterday. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- I said so far as thehonorable senator is concerned. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I certainly did, as the honorable senator would know if heknew anything at all about it, but apparently he is not in a frame of mind to know what is going on while he is in this Chamber. The honorable senator ought to keephis head clear. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask **Senator Chataway** not to interject, and I ask **Senator de** Largie to confine himself to the question before the Chair. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Yes ; but if an. honorable senator at the table will persistently interject- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I did not object to the honorable senator replying to **Senator Chataway** 's interjection, but I ask him not" to continue to refer to the matter after I' have requested **Senator Chataway** to discontinue his interjections. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I shall reply to interjections so long as honorable senators continue to interject, and I shall reply to them effectively, too. When a man corr.es- here in a muddled frame of mind- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I cannot allow the honorable senator to make a statement of that kind with reference to another member of this Chamber. It must be perfectly plain to honorable senators that they have no right to make charges against othermembers of the Senate, unless upon a specific motion. I ask **Senator de** Largie to withdraw the expression he has used. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- Well, **Mr. President** {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Is the honorable senator going to withdraw his charge? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! I ask **Senator de** Largie to withdraw the expression he has used. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I withdraw it. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
VICTORIA · PROT -- A most ungracious withdrawal. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Most ungracious. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have said that **Senator Chataway** was not in order in interjecting, and I called upon him to cease his interjections. I also called upon **Senator de** Largie to withdraw the remark he made. The honorable senator has withdrawn it ; and honorable senators should not continue to interject in a way which can only tend to promote further unpleasantness. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- **Senator Mulcahy** has interjected that **Senator de** Largie's withdrawal was made very reluctantly. SenatorMulcahy. - So it was. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- I ask that **Senator Mulcahy** should be called upon to withdraw the expression he has used. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have said that honorable senators were not in order in interjecting, but I cannot ask **Senator Mulcahy** to withdraw the word " reluctantly " if he used it in an interjection. I asked **Senator de** Largie to withdraw the remark he made, the honorable senator did so at the request of the Chair, and honorable senators should accept the withdrawal without comment. {: .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator Needham: -- Why should not **Senator Mulcahy** withdraw the word he used ? {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- I shall not withdraw it. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I ask that **Senator Mulcahy** should be called upon to withdraw the remark he made with reference to me. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- What remark? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- That I withdrew very " reluctantly." {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- My attention was drawn to that by **Senator Needham,** and I told that honorable senator that I could not call upon **Senator Mulcahy** to withdraw his interjection, and I said that **Senator de** Largie's withdrawal should be accepted without comment. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I wish **Senator Mulcahy** to be called upon to withdraw his remark. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I decline to ask the honorable senator to withdraw it. I cannot ask him to do so. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- If you, sir, cannot ask **Senator Mulcahy** to withdraw his remark, then I shall take very good care what remarks I withdraw in the future. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Does the honorable member intend to proceed with hisspeech or does he desire to carry on a discussion with the Chair? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I am going to proceed with what I got up to say, but I shall keep my withdrawals in the future, and will see whether fair play is to be given- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order. Will the honorable member take his seat ? I have endeavoured as well as I could to have the proceedings of the Senate conducted properly. The honorable senator must admit, if he will consider the matter for a moment, that his last remark is a' reflection upon the Chair. No member of the Senate has a right to reflect on the Chair. I ask the honorable senator to withdraw his reflection. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I am not going to withdraw anything. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I again ask the honorable senator to withdraw his reflection on the Chair. It is necessary that certain steps should be taken in order that the business of the Senate may be conducted properly. I am willing to give the honorable senator every opportunity to withdraw his remark. I again ask him to withdraw it. In the meantime I shall put the question. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- I wish to speak. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- I want to know what is to be done about the withdrawal **Senator De** Largie has refused to make. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator de** Largie has discontinued his speech, and I shall not allow him to resume it until he withdraws his reflection on the Chair. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I do notwish to proceed with my speech. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I asked the honorable senator to withdraw a reflection which he made on the Chair, and I expect him to do so. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- When I feel that I am getting justice I shall do so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask the honorable senator to withdraw that expression also. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I will withdraw nothing. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Then I must direct the Usher of the Black' Rod to remove the honorable senator. That is the step which I shall be obliged to take. I again ask the honorable senator to withdraw his remark. I have no desire to treat him unfairly, but I am determined that the business of the Senate shall be conducted in an orderly manner. Will the honorable senator withdraw what he said? {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I will withdraw nothing. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Then the Usher of the Black Rod will remove the honorable senator. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Is that the course of procedure which is contemplated by the Standing Orders? I understand that the Minister who is in charge of the Senate should submit a motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There is a practice included in the procedure of the House of Commons under which the Chair would have power to order an honorable senator's removal. But our Standing Orders provide that an honorable senator may be named by the Chair, and that thereupon a motion may be submitted by the Minister who is leading the Senate. If honorable senators think it is more desirable that I should proceed in that way I have no objection to doing so. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- I think it would be preferable. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Then I have to report that **Senator de** Largie has committed an offence by persistently and wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. {: #subdebate-10-0-s9 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South. WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade -- I have a duty to perform which honorable senators will understand is to me, personally and otherwise, extremely unpleasant. But before proceeding further I should like to make an appeal to **Senator de** Largie to relieve the Senate from the embarrassing position in which it finds itself. I am sure honorable senators will not think that he has sacrificed anything in dignity if he complies with the general wish of the Chamber, and by so doing he will relieve me of the necessity of proceeding further in a direction from which, otherwise, I cannot escape. For his own credit's sake, for the sake of the reputation of the Senate, and in order to terminate a position which is unpleasant to the great ma- . jority of honorable senators, I ask him to withdraw the remark to which the President has taken exception. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I will withdraw the remark. I objected to do so in the first instance because I did not think that I was being fairly dealt with. I withdrew my previous observation the moment that you, sir, asked me to do so, but another honorable senator who was sitting at the table made a remark at the time which he ought also to have been compelled to withdraw, and yet he was not even asked to withdraw it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I would point out. that it is not desirable that there should be any discord in regard to the action of the Chair. If honorable senators feel at times that I am a little more strict with them than I ought to be, I can assure them that it is not from a desire to treat one honorable senator differently from another. I am always sorry when trouble occurs with any honorable senator. In view of **Senator de** Largie's statement, I think that we may proceed with business. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- You, sir, have not called upon me to withdraw the remark which I made, but j have pleasure in doing so. {: #subdebate-10-0-s10 .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART:
Queensland -- In asking the Senate to postpone Orders of the Day Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the Government should have given some intimation of what they intend to do with the Inter-State Commission Bill. Are we to regard the happenings of this afternoon as an indication that they intend to abandon that measure ? We are entitled to information upon that point. For my own part, I shall be very glad if the Government have decided to abandon it. But I think that it would be in the public interest if we were told that such is the case. We all know that very recently the Government publicly declared that it was opposed to placing upon our statute-book any measure of the character that we are about to discuss. But now they have apparently decided to abandon the Inter-State Commission Bill, and to accept the measure relating to the new Protection which was introduced by **Senator Trenwith.** If that be so, the Senate should be given some intimation of the fact. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- If the Government will tell us that, we shall be prepared to sit all night to help them put the measure through. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator STEWART: -- I should be very glad to assist the Government to pass the Bill which has been introduced by **Senator Trenwith.** It is of more importance to the public than is any Bill which the Ministry have upon the business-paper. {: #subdebate-10-0-s11 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I join with others in protesting against this motion. To my mind, the farce has already, proceeded far enough. It is about time that .we had a straightforward statement from the Minister in charge of the Inter- State Commission Bill as to what are the intentions of the Government in reference to it. Only a few days ago the Minister of Trade and Customs delivered a forceful speech, in which he expressed the desire of the Government to place upon the statute-book some form of new Protection-- {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- Will theorable senator help us to pass the .InterState Commission Bill ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I have prepared a speech upon it, the delivery of which will occupy about two hours. I arn not prepared to assist the Government ' to pass that measure. Only the other day the Minister of Trade and Customs stated that it would accomplish all that was required by the workers, and that if was a perfect piece of machinery. Yet he is not now prepared to proceed with it, or to permit other honorable senators to speak upon it. Are the Government deliberately abandoning it for the purpose of allowing **Senator Trenwith** to proceed with the measure which he has introduced? If he honestly thinks that the Inter-State Commission Bill would provide an effective form of new Protection, what does he mean by desiring to postpone its consideration in order to allow an alternative scheme to be discussed by another member of his own party ? The object evidently is to permit **Senator Trenwith** to make an electioneering speech. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Is it fair to say that ? I gave public notice of my intention to introduce this Bill some twelve months ago. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I have no intention of reflecting upon the honorable senator. I intend to support his Bill ; but I say that the Government are not prepared to support it, or to permit a vote to be taken upon it. If the Minister who has so kindly obliged the honorable senator by postponing the consideration of the Inter-State Commission Bill will give us an undertaking that a vote will be taken upon **Senator** Trenwith's Bill to-night, I am sure that nobody upon this side of the chamber will object. **Senator Trenwith** has been most graciously permitted to proceed with his Bill. But the representative of the Government will adopt the good old expedient of moving the adjournment of the debate. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- I hope not. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- And I hope not. Will the Minister of Trade and Customs give the Senate an' undertaking that the Government will place no obstacle in the way of a vote being taken upon the measure this evening ? I desire emphatically to protest against the honorable gentleman playing with the policy of new Protection, of which originally he was a. stalwart upholder. He it was who introduced the Tariff into this Chamber, on the distinct promise of the Government with which he was then associated, that the workers would receive a fair share of the benefits which have been granted to manufacturers by way of Protective duties. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The honorable senator is getting a long way from the question under consideration. I do not object to him alluding to the business which it is proposed to postpone, but on a motion of this kind he cannot enter into a disquisition upon its merits. {: #subdebate-10-0-s12 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I understood that the motion before the Chair was one to postpone the consideration of the Inter-State Commission Bill, in order to permit of the Bill which has been introduced by **Senator Trenwith** being proceeded with. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The motion before the Chair is that Orders of the Day Nos. 3, 4, and 5, be postponed until after the consideration of Orders of the Day, private business. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- I regret having transgressed, but I was wrongly informed as to the text of the motion. I am quite ready to devote a couple of hours to criticising. the Inter-State Commission Bill, the consideration of which it is proposed to postpone. But evidently I am to, be denied an opportunity of destroying the case which has been made out in favour of that measure, and of showing what I think is required to give the workers the benefit of an effective policy of new Protection. As " the numbers are up " I shall conclude by wishing all success to **Senator Trenwith;** and I trust that **Senator Best,** .who has been such a champion of the new Protection policy, will take the responsibility of seeing that no member of his party' moves the adjournment of the debate until a vote has been taken on the Bill. {: #subdebate-10-0-s13 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist [5.56]. - I believe that a good deal of sham indignation has been expressed by honorable senators opposite in connexion with the motion now before the Chair. My honorable friend, **Senator Pearce,** has not been too gracious about it. It is usual to allow the Government to conduct its own business in its own way, and there are reasons why the Government found it necessary to ask, at this juncture, for a postponement of the measures on the notice- paper. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- The Government did not move for their postponement out of consideration for me. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- We certaintly did not take this course out of consideration for the honorable senator and his measure, which it will be my duty to oppose. Honorable senators opposite have, in a light and airy way, reproached the Government for fooling them. No more unjust or unfair charge could be made. We have during the present session introduced and carried through most important measures. We have, I venture to say, almost established a record in that respect, and because there is a hiatus of two hours which the Government desire to fill up by taking private business, we have been subjected to unworthy reproaches. There has been no session in which so few adjournments have been asked for. But for obvious reasons the Government cannot be fully prepared with business for every hour of the session. We cannot hope to have sufficient business to keep pace with the other House, considering that the Senate consists only of half as many members. We have already sent down this session about twelve measures, many of which are of a most important character. What is the position of affairs regarding the Defence Bill? Of course, **Senator Pearce** asked for an adjournment of the debate. But that was the Government business for the day. An adjournment was fair, but seeing that it was assented to for the honorable senator's accommodation he ought to recognise that fact. ' {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Surely the Government did not expect **Senator Pearce** to be ready to go on with his speech upon the Defence Bill immediately. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- He has given special attention to the subject, and moreover the Defence Bill has been before the public for the last five or six weeks. Every feature of it has been discussed. Consequently, it would not have been unreasonable to expect that the honorable senator would be ready to proceed with his second-reading speech. It is quite true that there are other Government Bills upon the paper. Concerning the Inter-State Commission Bill we are waiting for a movement on the part of the States. We were, invited by the Opposition to permit the States to proceed with their legislation. We have seen fit to delay the Bill for the present, but. that does not imply that we have abandoned one solitary principle involved in it. Nor does it mean that we have abandoned the principle of new Protection, for which we shall always be found fighting. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Has not the Government abandoned the principle announced in the memorandum which they published ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- We have not abandoned the principle, as my honorable friend will have an opportunity of realizing later on. The Defence Bill will be proceeded with as the first business to-morrow, and I have reason to expect that next week the great financial measure of the session will be before us. These Bills are of the most momentous character. Any session that added to its record the passage of either of them or both would be one to be proud of. It has been suggested that the motion has been moved to enable **Senator Trenwith** to bring on his Bill. Such is not the case. Having a couple of hours to spare, we wished to allow private business to be proceeded with, and **Senator Trenwith's** Bill happened to be the first item of private business on the paper. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Why did not the honorable senator give me a chance with my motion yesterday? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- When the honorable senator's motion was called on yesterday, we could not permit it to be taken as formal for reasons at which I can only hint just now. I believe that it would be altogether impossible to secure the information which my honorable friend desires to have furnished. Having regard to the explanation that I have made, I trust that the Acting Leader of the Opposition will withdraw his objection to the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 5319 {:#debate-11} ### CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS) BILL {:#subdebate-11-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-11-0-s0 .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria -- I move - >That this Bill be now read a second time. I' am rather unfortunate in securing my opportunity to move the second reading of this Bill - an opportunity for which, however, I am very glad - at the expense of being mixed up with charges of favoritism on the part of the Government. I made no effort to secure consideration for the Bill. The Minister- of Trade and Customs has properly pointed out that what occurred was simply a matter of public convenience. My action in introducing the Bill has been referred to as having been prompted by a desire to> deliver an election address to the Senate. In answer to that I have simply to point out that the Bill is the result of a public promise made more than twelve months ago. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable senator has rather misrepresented what I said. I said that the Government had driven the honorable senator into that position. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- In any case, I have no wish to deliver an electioneering address. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Such a Bill could only be introduced in the last session of a Parliament. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- That is so. I have been a member of Parliament for twenty years, and have never made an electioneering address on the floor of the House. When I made the promise I had every reason to suppose that such a. Bill would be introduced by the Government. I did not think that I should have had to introduce it myself. However, circumstances have altered. I do 'not propose to occupy the attention of the Senate very long, for the reason that if there is any chance of the Bill becoming law, that can only be by honorable senators exercising self-restraint. It is a Bill which, from the nature of it, could not be introduced until the last session of a Parliament, and then only in the last few weeks of the session, because of the fact that it has to be presented to the people within six months from the time of its passage. Tt is improbable that we could get a special referendum, and therefore a referendum could only be taken when a general election was being held. I am necessarily forced to wait until the end of the session before I can proceed. The principle which the Bill affirms has been emphatically accepted throughout Australia, and that is the legislative regulation of the circumstances under which industries are conducted. I think that I, as an Australian, may proudly say that the application of that principle by legislative means may be said to be, so far as the world is concerned, of Australian origin. It has been expressed in the concrete recently from the Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. The Minister of Trade and Customs spoke of that utterance as " a passing circumstance." The reduction of a principle that permeates the public spirit of Australia to the terms of a judgment from the Bench is a circumstance which ought not to be admitted to pass. Not in one, but in all the States, there is in the minds of the people a strong feeling, first of all, that the conditions of industry should be regulated by legislative enactment. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Not bv the High Court. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- And by judicial decree, though I do not say by what judicial body. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- No. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Those who say " No " have only to look to the fact that,' notwithstanding the imperfect Constitution which all the States have for giving expression to the will of the people, five States out of six have, in some form or other, embodied this idea in legislation. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Why does the honorable senator want to go further? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I shall endeavour, as briefly as I can, to show why. I venture to say that in each of the five States which have enacted this principle the bulk of the people are dissatisfied, or insufficiently satisfied, with .the results. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- How do they show that? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- By repeated efforts to extend and liberalize the provisions of their laws. The history of the movement briefly is, that in Australasia the first legislative enactment of this principle took place in New Zealand. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Where it has broken down. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- It has broken down in part. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- It has not broken down. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- In New Zealand, they have two principles, namely, conciliation and arbitration ; but there is also an appeal from the Conciliation Court to the Arbitration Court. Experience teaches us that in all litigation, no matter what its form may be, one party to a suit is always dissatisfied with the decision, and that where there is an opportunity for appeal, and the means exist for prosecuting it, there is usually an appeal to the final tribunal. In New Zealand, the Court of Conciliation has broken down to this extent, that it very rarely settles a case, and now the people have found from experience that it is better to go straight over that. Court to the Court of Arbitration, but beyond that the legislation has been a most marked and distinguished success. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Its decisions cannot be enforced. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Victoria was, I think, the next State in Australasia to adopt the principle. It was adopted obviously and unmistakably in a very much, more limited sense than the people desired. It was not the measure which they thought desirable. It was not even the measure which the Legislative Assembly thought desirable, but it was the measure which that House thought that the Legislative Council would pass. That controlling factor has affected every legislative measure of this kind in Australia. And, while we have legislation of this kind in five of the States, I venture to say that in each of them the most liberal and farreaching legislation is far short of what the people of the State will be pleased to have. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- How far has it satisfied the people of New Zealand? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Some years ago, **Senator Best** and myself were made a Commission to inquire into that matter. We discovered and reported that in New Zealand the system had succeeded admirably, and that it had the singular result of receiving approval, not merely from the employes, but also from the employers. The largest employer of labour in Australasia was quoted as speaking most approvingly of it, and looking upon it as a national boon. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- One of the employes came to Sydney a little while ago, and told a different tale. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- There was never a judicial decision which gave absolute satisfaction to both sides. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Especially if it is one that cannot be enforced. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- There will be complaints of inadequacy; and possibly complaints of unfairness ; but,, generally speaking, in New Zealand the legislation has succeeded, and so far as it has been extended to these States, it has succeeded in giving satisfaction generally to both parties interested. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- The Wages Boards of Victoria give more satisfaction than does the Arbitration Court of New Zealand. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- If the Wages Boards of Victoria have given satisfaction to my honorable friend, that is a strong argument in favour of my position, because that principle has not been adopted to the same degree in any of the other States. It has been adopted partially in South Australia. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- It is being extended there nearly every day. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- When **Senator Best** was addressing the Senate the other evening, **Senator Symon** interjected that in South Australia the law in this regard is practically a dead letter. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- He knows nothing at all about the matter. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Perhaps he does not. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- How many Wages Boards are there in South Australia? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I cannot say. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- According to the latest returns, only 2 5 per cent, of those employed in manufactories there are under Wages Boards. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- We have a motion, for establishing forty more Wages Boards. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I hope that the Wages Boards will be very materially extended ; but even with them, the necessity for this Bill will not be obviated. The Constitution under which we live hands over to this Parliament practically the control and guidance of industry. We are given, for example, control of the Tariff which, according to Protectionists, is a leading factor in creating and developing industries. We are given the power, some persons tell us, to subsidize manufactures. That is not, I think, a fair or proper term to use. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- By bounties. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I am coming to that. We are given the power, they tell us to, in effect, subsidize manufactures by Protective duties.' I do not think that they are a subsidy ; but I do believe that they are of very great assistance to persons engaged in manufacturing ventures, as the duties give them a control of trade which otherwise they would not have. Now, the object of legislation should be to secure the greatest possible good for the largest number. It cannot be said that the persons with a commercial interest in manufacturing industries are the largest number connected therewith. While extending benefits to the capitalists, the employers, the speculators in manufacturing industries, we should aim in carrying those benefits to the furthest possible limit in connexion with all who are engaged therein, and we can only do that by means of industrial legislation. I am relieved in some measure of the necessity to prove the benefit of industrial legislation. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- I do not think that the honorable senator is. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- My honorable friend has just given me an argument. He says that there has been extended to South Australia industrial legislation of a character which he approves, in Victoria, and that it is being still more extended. He is satisfied with it. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- With one phase of it. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: **- Senator Vardon** is satisfied with the beneficence of one kind of industrial legislation. What I have been trying to prove so far is that the legislative regulation of the conditions of persons engaged in industry is an advantage to the community. If that point is proved, then all I have to do is to show that there is a need for that kind of legislation emanating from the central authority. If I want any special proof that this Parliament thinks that it should emanate from the central authority, I have it in the fact that it passed legislation to that effect. Three years ago, it approved of the legislative control of industrial conditions by the Commonwealth. Some of us at thattime thought that we were exceeding our powers in passing that kind of legislation; but, even those who said that the Bill was unconstitutional, and would, if carried, be declared *ultra vires,* felt that what it sought to achieve was extremely desirable. Some of them voted most heartily for the principle, though declaring that, in their opinion, the means taken to' achieve our aim would be inadequate. We have first the admission that this is useful legislation when it is initiated by the States, and next, the great statutory declaration by the Federal Parliament that it is a matter which ought to be under the control of the central authority; Honorable senators cannot reasonably vote against this proposal to alter the Constitution in such a way as to give us power to do the thing that they hastened to do themselves, even when they had not the power. I have said that the Commonwealth Parliament has been given control of industrial matters in the exercise of the industry creating influence of the Tariff. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- The honorable senator is mixing up two things. We have control of the Tariff, but we have not yet control of industrial matters. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I am dealing with a principle, and **Senator St.** Ledger brings me down to a detail of accomplished fact. I say that the Constitution gives us control of industrial matters, inasmuch as we have the power to take legislative action to increase or decrease industrial activity. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Through the Tariff. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Yes, and also in another way. The Federal Parliament is the only authority in Australia that has the power to grant bounties. That is another industry creating power. Whilst we can grant bounties out of public money to persons in order to initiate industries, primarily in the interests of the community, and incidentally in their personal interest, we have not the power to dictate the conditions under which they shall utilize the money granted to them in connexion with the labour they employ. We cannot get that power unless by the adoption of a measure of this character. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- We have managed to do that. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- We did pass some resolutions in connexion with our bounty proposals, but they have not yet been tested, and T hope they will not be. Because I believe that if they are tested they will be found to be *ultra vires,* as was our Excise Tariff (Agricultural Machinery) Act. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- What is the honorable senator referring to? {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- To the iron and sugar bounties. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I dp not wish to discuss them. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- We are regulating to some extent the wages in the sugar industry. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- And in the iron industry, too. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I admit that we are. As the Constitution declares that there shall 'be absolute freedom of trade between the States, so there, should be no barriers or restrictions producing undue preferences in Inter-State commerce. It is absolutely necessary that the legislative conditions of industry should be decided by a central authority and be uniform in principle. Their effect upon commerce should be as nearly as may be uniform in each State, so that we should ' not have legislative restrictions in connexion with industry which would create the preferences and barriers which we have declared by the Constitution shall not exist. The only way in which to avoid that is to have these matters dealt with by a Federal authority. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7-45 t-m-* {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I referred to **Senator Vardon's** interjection to the effect that the State Parliaments are doing the work which I suggest this alteration of the Constitution to enable the Federal Parliament to do. I would point out, in reply, that we have complaints from the existing tribunals that they are hampered in the performance of their work, because of considerations of what is being done in other States. Quite recently **Mr. Justice** Higgins complained of this influence, and Judge Heydon, not long ago, in making an award in New South Wales, in connexion with the boot industry, said that he regretted that he was unable, in view of the conditions in a neighbouring State, to do what he thought ought to be done in the matter then under consideration. His view was that 9s. per day was a reasonable wage to fix, but unfortunately in Victoria, which had a very large influence in the boot industry, a lower rate of wages was being paid. He was, therefore, compelled to fix the wage in New South Wales at 8s. per day. He gave a sort of dual decision, and made a proviso that, in the event of Victorian manufacturers bringing up their scale of wages, the wages in New South Wales should be 9s. per day. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Does the honorable senator not think that the wages in Victoria will soon be brought up to that amount ? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I think it is very possible that they may. But if **Senator Dobson** admits that they ought to be increased, . he admits my whole case ; because if a thing should be done, the sooner it is done the better, and if the decision in this case had been left to one tribunal, the wage considered fair would have been fixed at once. The honorable senator must see that, although the wages in Victoria might soon be brought up to what Judge Heydon considered a fair wage in New South Wales, it would be better still if the matter had been dealt with by an authority that could at once have fixed the proper rate of wages over the whole industrial area of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- I do not express any opinion as to what is the proper rate of wages, but I think that the Victorian rate will soon be increased. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- The legislation we have on this head in the States is inefficient because of the lack of complete control over the whole area that influences decisions. That is the main ground for the demand for Federal legislation to deal with the matter. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- The honorable senator, wishes to put all industries under one control. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- No, I do not. The interjection recalls to my mind another frequently made by **Senator Best.** The honorable senator has said that I am anxious to wrest industrial control from the States. This Bill if carried would not wrest anything from the States. As I understand the expression, to wrest something from any person is to take it by violence - against the will of the person from whom you take it. We cannot take anything from the States by violence. We are appealing to the States. If this Bill is carried we shall say to the people of the States that we are of opinion that the Federal Parliament should control this matter in some degree. If the proposal is carried at a referendum we shall not be taking from the States any power that they now possess. We shall be merely creating another power. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- A superior power. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Yes, a superior power in a double sense. It will be a superior power in the sense that it would possess the machinery necessary to cover the whole industrial area. If, as some of my honorable friends seem to think, the State Parliaments will do all that is required, this power need not and would not be exercised by the Federal Parliament.' {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- That does not follow at all. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- My honorable friends are paying a very poor compliment to the Federation and to the Federal Parliament. They will permit me to say that the people of the States have admitted that the Constitutions under which they are able to legislate on this head are inadequate. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- They have not said so in New South Wales. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- They said so all over Australia by adopting the Federal Constitution. The State Constitutions were thrust upon them. They were fairly advanced Constitutions at the time they were passed, but they were passed shortly after the passing of the' Reform Bill in Great Britain, when the legislation of that country was not of a very forward character, as viewed from the stand-point of the present. All the State Constitutions are hampering and restrictive in their character. They include a restrictive franchise for the second Chamber of the State Parliaments, and that renders it impossible for the people to achieve what they desire in connexion with legislation of this character. I know it will be urged that the people of the States can alter their Constitutions if they are not satisfied with them, but that is just what they cannot do. The attempt has been made in nearly all of the States. In Victoria the people have tried for many years, but they have not been successful, because any proposed alteration of the Constitution of the State must receive the assent of the privileged section from whom it is desired to take the privilege which they enjoy. It may be said, that from that point of view the State Constitutions are unalterable. There is another important reason why in this' Federal Parliament we should have the power to legislate in connexion with industrial matters. This is a continent of immense natural potentialities. It is of enormous area, and possesses a marvellous variety of resources in minerals, timber, and agricultural production. Australia is a very much richer country than the United States of America, and it may hone, I think, to occupy in the not very distant future a position in the markets of the world similar to that now occupied by the United States. If it is to do so, we must give very close attention to technical education and proper industrial control. We have no legislation which enables us to deal with that very important question, the apprentice question. We have no power under our Constitution to legislate in respect to it, and there is no doubt that the future of Australia as an industrial nation must depend to an enormous extent upon the skill of its workers, and therefore upon the expert teaching that they receive. The passage of a Bill like this would give us the opportunity to enact a complete apprentice law. It would insure to our young people when they go to work at a calling that they will be taught to prosecute it up to the highest point of skill. {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- The honorable senator believes in apprentices. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I do. What happens in the State which I have the honor to represent? There is practically no apprentice law at all in Victoria. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- But notice has been given in the State Parliament of a Bill to deal with the question. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- That is quite true. But the Bill is not yet carried, and our knowledge of the Constitution teaches us that it will have to be of a tolerably Conservative character if it is to get through both Chambers of the Victorian Legislature. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- Would the honorable senator describe a law limiting the employment of apprentices as Conservatism? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I am not now discussing any particular phase of apprentice law. I am merely laying down what I conceive to be a sound doctrine. I say that, upon the industrial teaching of our young people will largely depend the way in which our nation is developed. Therefore, the Commonwealth ought to possess adequate power to enact proper apprentice laws. This is not the place in which to discuss the character of the laws in that connexion which obtain in the different States. New South Wales has one law in regard to industrial apprentices, South Australia has another, Queensland has another, and Victoria has an absence of law in that respect. In short, upon this important issue, there is no possibility of widespread progress because of the conflicting character of existing legislation. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- There need be no injury as the result of differing laws. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- It will be sufficient for me if I obtain **Senator Dobson's** vote upon the present occasion. {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable senator will not get that, though I hope that he may. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I hope and expect to get it. **Senator Dobson** has always evinced an extremely kind and sympathetic disposition. He has always been anxious to do his best for those who are poor and unable to help themselves. In my opinion, he has often been wrong in regard to the methods which he has adopted, but I always felt confidence in his kindly, earnest disposition. If I can convince him that this Bill is likely to conduce to a beneficent end- {: .speaker-K6L} ##### Senator Chataway: -- Does not the honorable senator think that he is - >The mildest mannered man > >That ever scuttled ship or cut a throat. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I think that he is a very good man. **Senator Vardon** has argued that the Victorian Wages Board system is the best form of industrial legislation to be found in Australia. I am inclined to agree with him. But, after all, that is merely saying that it is the best of an extremely inadequate set of legislative provisions. I suppose that **Senator Vardon** will agree that, if wages are to be legally fixed, they ought to be fixed on such a basis as will permit a man to maintain a wife and family comfortably upon his earnings? {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- I have always stood for good wages. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- Any wages which will not permit a man and his wife and family to enjoy a comfortable, wholesome living are not good wages. Now the Victorian Wages Board lately made a decree in the artificial manures trade which, in my opinion, was fair and reasonable. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- What ! 6s. a day ? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- The Board fixed a wage which was more than 6s. a day. They fixed a wage which was the best that they could award under the circumstances. But the Victorian law provides for an appeal from the determination of a Wages Board, and in this case an appeal was lodged. In giving his decision, the Judge admitted that the wages fixed by the Board were not "more than sufficient - if they were sufficient - to permit of a man and his wife and family living in reasonable comfort. But he added that that point was not one for him to consider. What he had to consider was, not what was a living wage for a man and his wife and family, but: what was a living wage for the man himself. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- Does the honorable senator think that he was right? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I do not. But another Judge indorsed his decision. {: .speaker-K9T} ##### Senator Vardon: -- I do not think that he was properly interpreting the law. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- That is the difficulty. Assuming, however, that this law is good enough in some places, it is not good enough in others. Therefore, we require, some central authority which will make it adequate for the whole area over which we have control. I promised honorable senators that I would not occupy much time in discussing this matter. I realize that nothing which I can say will make much difference in the vote, which, I hope, will be taken without delay. I appeal to the Minister of Trade and Customs not to adopt the course which is sometimes followed, of securing the adjournment of the debate immediately I have concluded my speech. There are reasons why that course should frequently be followed. But this is not one of those occasions. If the measure were of a novel and complicated character, and the Minister desired time to consider its provisions, he would be justified in asking for an adjournment of the debate. But this Bill is neither novel nor complicated, and the Minister has already declared that he has made up his mind to oppose it. Further, it has been before the Senate several months, and its principles, though important, are of the simplest description. Therefore, the Minister must be prepared to say now what he desires to say in reference to it. He will, doubtless, recollect that earlier in the day he said that the acting Leader of the Opposition might reasonably be .expected to proceed with the discussion upon the second reading of the Defence Bill, because it was a subject to which he had devoted a great deal of attention, and with which he was very conversant, in addition to which the measure had been before the Parliament and the public for a considerable time. I am urging that as a reason why this Bill, which can only become law if it be passed quickly, should be proceeded with at once. Any delay in its passing, for which those who believe in it may be responsible, must lead to its defeat, and any unnecessary delay to which it may be subjected by those who do not believe in it will be an abuse of the forms of Parliamentary procedure. I therefore urge honorable senators to endeavour to come to a decision in this important issue- {: .speaker-K3G} ##### Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- To-night? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I see no reason why a decision should not be arrived at to-night. {: .speaker-KMT} ##### Senator Gray: -- Without consideration? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- My honorable friend cannot say that. He has known for three months that this Bill would come on for discussion, and, although its provisions are very important, they are so simple that they do not require any lengthy consideration. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St Ledger: -- Are only two honorable senators to speak upon it? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I do not suggest that. I am merely urging that the Bill is important, and that it deserves special treatment on account of its special character. I should like to have brought it forward earlier in the session, but had I done so it would now have been dead, because it would not then have been possible to submit it to the electors for their approval within six months of its passing, as is prescribed by the Constitution. {: #subdebate-11-0-s1 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia -- I have been asked by honorable senators upon this side of the Chamber to say that we unanimously support the second reading of the Bill. {: #subdebate-11-0-s2 .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist [8.8]. - My honorable friend, **Senator Trenwith,** has urged that I should not adopt the usual course of asking for an adjournment of the debate upon this measure. I would point out to him that that would be a perfectly fair and reasonable course for me to follow under the circumstances, having regard to the fact that a Minister has great responsibility in regard to private members' business. He has to advise the Senate upon it, and he is at least entitled to be afforded an opportunity to study the remarks made by an honorable senator in introducing a Bill. But it is quite true that, so far as the Government are concerned, there is but one attitude which they can assume towards this proposal, and that is one of opposition, for reasons which I shall presently give. Before proceeding further, I may be permitted to refer to a statement which was made by **Senator Trenwith** in reference to a remark made by me on a former occasion - a remark to which reference has alsobeen made by two or three honorable senators opposite. At the time, I was referring to the attitude taken up by the Labour party towards the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. I stated that their extraordinary admiration for that tribunal at that juncture could only be accounted for by a passing circumstance. The passing circumstance to which I referred was that a certain Judge happened to be President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and that he had given a judgment with which I had little cause to quarrel. But I went on to point out that if by any chance another Judge had occupied that same position, and had awarded something less than the rates awarded by the Wages Boards of any of the States, my honorable friends would not have exhibited such an extraordinary admiration for the arbitration tribunal, but, on the contrary, the Wages Boards would then have been in full favour. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- This Bill does not commit any one to arbitration. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I am explaining what was clearly and obviously intended by the " passing circumstance," a phrase which has been most wrongly misconstrued. To come to the Bill immediately before the Senate, I must in the first place confess that it is somewhat ambiguous in form. It proposes to amend section 51 of the Constitution by adding to it the following paragraph - >The adjustment of industrial conditions in the various States. What is meant by the " adjustment of industrial conditions," I do not know. Under section 51 the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws " for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth as to various subjects which are set out in the paragraphs which follow. But honorable senators will observe that they are subjects upon which it is possible to legislate. I could understand my honorable friend **Senator Trenwith** proposing to add to the section the words " industrial conditions in the various States," but I can assure him that the words " adjustment of industrial conditions" are ambiguous. I do not know whether the words mean adjustment as between State and State, or between Board and Board, or between individual and individual. What is to be " adjusted " and how far is the " adjustment ' ' to extend ? When is a piece of legislation an " adjustment," and where does it cease to be an " adjustment?" I say that by way of preliminary objection to the Bill. But the real object and intention obviously is to transfer industrial authority from the States to the Commonwealth. It is from that stand-point that we have to view the proposal. It means that power in regard to primary industries, all agricultural and pastoral industries, all mining industries, all manufacturing industries, all carrying industries - in fact, every industry, is to be handed over to the central body, the Commonwealth Parliament. {: .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator Walker: -- It means unification. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Clearly it means the unification of industrial control. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- Australia is one' industrial area. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Of course Australia is one industrial area; but when the States solemnly surrendered certain subjects to the jurisdiction of the' Commonwealth, they reserved the regulation and control of industries to themselves. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- Power was also reserved for the people to alter the Constitution if they liked. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- The people have power to alter the Constitution; but I have no hesitation in saying that what is now proposed means direct and open conflict' with the States. They have through their official sources clearly indicated that they will not surrender the power of industrial control. They say, and very properly, that the control of industry was reserved to them, and that they have a right to exercise it. Yet within ten years of the passing of the Constitution we are asked to make this momentous change. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- The " Braddon blot " is being altered within ten years. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- My honorable friend knows that the Braddon section terminates at a fixed period. Power was expressly given to the Commonwealth to regulate the finances after the expiration of that period as this Parliament thought proper. That is the difference between the positions of the two matters. This Bill necessarily means the transfer of industrial authority throughout "the Commonwealth from the State to the * Federal authority. So far as we have had any expression of opinion on the subject from the representatives of the people of the States in the Parliaments of the States, there have been the strongest protests against anything of the kind. At the recent Inter-State Conference a practical scheme was evolved whereby the States will carry out their own industrial obligations towards each other and secure, by their own action, the object desired by Senator/ Trenwith. It must be admitted that in Australia- .with the exception of one State which, however, has already given notice of its intention to legislate- we have the most advanced industrial legislation, and the most effective industrial tribunals in the whole world. That industrial legislation is founded on the immediate industrial circumstances of the several States. Having regard to the vast area of Australia, wit'h its 3,000,000 square miles, its differing climates, and its varying physical conditions, it was thought by the framers of the Constitution, that none could better understand the immediate local circumstances than the State authorities ; and, therefore, it was left to the State Parliaments to set up their own industrial tribunals. At the recent Conference, it was resolved - >That it is desirable that each State should establish tribunals for regulating the conditions of labour in that State. That had special reference to Tasmania. It was also resolved - >That the jurisdiction and power of each. State Industrial Tribunal should be uniform as far as practicable. It is admitted that Victoria has a splendid system of Wages Boards. I presume that the idea is to adept a similar system throughout the States. It was felt at the Conference that the present system of industrial Boards, confined, as they are, to their several States, was incomplete. Attention has been drawn by M.r. Justice Higgins and by Judge Heydon to the unfair competition existing between several States in this respect. It was felt,' therefore, that there should be some industrial tribunal having for its object the coordination of industrial conditions, and the adjustment of them. It was realized that throughout Australia there should be the utmost trading freedom and that it is inconsistent with that idea that one State should have an advantage over another in industrial affairs. Therefore, the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the Premiers of the States, devised a scheme for the purpose of meeting that difficulty. The scheme which they devised was that contained in the Inter-State Commission Bill, which is now before the Senate. It is proposed to create an adjusting tribunal - not an industrial' Court, mind - a regulative body, having power to declare, in certain circumstances, that certain industrial rules shall exist as to the industries affected. Here, therefore, we have a common ground of agreement between the central body and the States. Is it desirable that we should place ourselves in open conflict with the States, when we have an opportunity of securing the consummation of a practical scheme of this character ? Is it not reasonable that we should give that scheme a trial? If it fail, there will be an opportunity for revision and for substituting something better. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- It will never work. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- What is the use of saying that the scheme will never work? It has not had a trial. {: .speaker-K7D} ##### Senator Stewart: -- I hope that it will never have a trial. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- It is a scheme that has been well thought out, and which is approved of by the States. I appeal to my honorable friends on this side to state whether it is the policy of the Commonwealth Parliament to place itself in conflict with the States? Is it our desire that our attitude should be that of constantly creating differences? Friction should certainly be avoided when we can achieve that which we seek to achieve in a peaceful and, at the same time, practical way. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Where can the friction come in if a majority of the people in a majority of the States agree to the proposal ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- First of all it will revive the old anti-Federal feeling. The States would unquestionably fight this proposal most bitterly at the coming election. In my judgment there is not the slightest possibility of the measure passing, and, therefore, its consideration means a great waste of time. We are not justified in committing ourselves to the proposal, particularly when we have a practicable scheme in view. Moreover, this proposal is impracticable from another stand-point. The very essence of our Wages Board system is that employers and employes act together, and, knowing the immediate conditions of the trade, they are able to determine exactly what wages can be fairly granted. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -Cannot the Commonwealth legislate as the States do? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Why should the Federal Parliament do so when the work is already done by the States? Let me point out the effect of this proposal if adopted. Victoria has about fifty-eight Wages Boards on which something like 500 experts are engaged in fixing the wages in connexion with various industries. The Boards are able to adjust the conditions from time to time, having regard to various alterations in the industries. The work which is being done by the Boards in this regard has been pre-eminently successful. When we have this network of splendid legislation, why should honorable members seek an alteration?' A prevalent idea with a number of my honorable friends is to substitute an Arbitration Court. Senators Guthrie and Trenwith. - No. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I have heard the view expressed times without number, that what they want is an arbitration tribunal in substitution for the existing local tribunals. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- An arbitration tribunal would be stuck up in a fortnight. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Exactly, and consequently it would be an impracticable body. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Does not the Minister think that his sense of fairness ought to lead him to accept our contradiction? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I shall accept my. honorable friend's contradiction if he likes. At the same time I must say that that view has been expressed times without number. {: .speaker-KNB} ##### Senator Guthrie: -- Where ? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- In this Chamber. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Can the Minister cite a definite instance? {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I think that it would be interesting if I were toread the Vice-Regal speech of the last Government in this connexion. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- That is a mere assertion. Let the Minister read the speech. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: -- My honorable friend is simply aiming at the impracticable, and losing the valuable and the practicable, which is immediately to our hands. I do urge that industrially we are very well served, and that we have simply to complete the system in the manner which the Government have proposed. In these circumstances, I urge that it is desirable that the Bill should be rejected, and that the Government's proposals, which are plain and definite, should be accepted. {: #subdebate-11-0-s3 .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria -- I cannot understand the Minister's frame of mind when he states that my' proposal involves antagonism with the States. The Bill cannot become law unless a majority of voters in four out of the six States agree to it. How can it involve antagonism with the States when it is necessary to obtain the consent of four States out of six to the proposed alteration of the Constitution. That, it seems to me, is a complete answer to any declaration of antagonism with the States. There may be antagonism with the State Parliaments, but, after all, our Constitution was framed on lines which secure that the people - not a section, but the whole people - shall decide issues of this kind. Therefore, if the Bill were carried bv a majority of the people in a majority of the States, it would not matter that we should be in antagonism with some persons who happened to be in the State Parlia-ments. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Does the honorable senator remember how eloquent **Senator Best** was in reminding us how easy it was to amend the Constitution? {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- I am discussing this measure. I do not want to say that there is anything inconsistent in another honorable senator's attitude. But I would remind **Senator Best,** who complained that within the short period of ten 3'ears we propose to alter the Constitution, that within a far shorter period we did take that step, and I am not sure that it was not taken at his instance. We found that the Constitution, good as it is, was irksome in one particular. We thought that it injured the people, and that it would be well to have it altered. We therefore made a proposal, and the people adopted it almost unanimously, showing that the people, that is, the States, with whom we are said to be in antagonism, think it is a good thing to alter the Constitution quickly when it proves to be irksome. I admit the efficacy of our Wages Boards legislation. 1 1 am proud to think that it is in advance of any legislation on that head in the world. But the Boards are not nearly so .good as the people of Australia desire that they should be. That is my point. : **Senator Gray.** - We shall never get per- ffection {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- No. Every man aims at the nearest possible approach to perfection, and when we discover that there are blemishes even in our splendid system of Wages Boards, we ought to seek to amend it. **Senator Best** admitted, and he said that the Premiers' Conference admitted, that the tribunals are not adequate for all the purposes of proper adjustment, and that because they were inadequate the Premiers passed resolutions declaring their inadequacy, .and proposing a method for making them fulfil requirements. **Senator Best** has introduced the Inter-State Commission Bill into this discussion. I purposely refrained from referring to that measure, because I felt that it would be out of order. I did not mean to say anything regarding another proposal to the same end. But, as it has been referred to, I am bound to say, in reply to my honorable friend, that I shall vote for his Bill, and shall be glad to see it carried. I shall also be delighted, as well as surprised, if ever the proposed system is consummated in the various State Parliaments. If we do not carry this Bill now, we shall lose our opportunity to secure the end which we have in view by the only certain means that we have for a period of, at least, three years. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Senator Sir Robert Best: -- No. {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator TRENWITH: -- If my honorable friend wishes me to understand - and I hope that he does - that if within the next week or two the States do not indorse his proposal, the Government will come down with a proposal in order to achieve an alteration of the Constitution at the next election, I shall be delighted. But that is the only means that we should have, except the one I hold in my hand. Certainly, if the State Parliaments do not indorse the model Bill, we shall lose for a period of three years our chance of accomplishing our end by the other and, as I think, most effective way. Therefore, I urge **Senator Best,** and those who believe that existing legislation is beneficent in character, though inadequate, to pass this Bill, and not to be frightened by the allengation that it will wrest something from the States. How can we wrest anything from them by making a request? Does anybody ever hear of a man's watch or purse being wrested from him by making a request? To wrest, if it means anything, means to take a thing by violence, and against the will of a person. We cannot assume this power, except by the very deliberate consent of the people of the States. Question - That the Bill be now read asecond time - put. The Senate divided. AYES: 14 NOES: 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 5329 {:#debate-12} ### ELECTORAL BILL (No. 2) {:#subdebate-12-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales -- I move - >That this Bill be now read a second time. Honorable senators will remember that when the Government introduced their Bill to amend the Electoral Act, I desired to move an amendment with regard to election deposits. As that amendment was considered to be beyond the scope of the Government Bill, I have been obliged to introduce this second amending Bill, in order that I may have an opportunity to bring the matter under the attention of the Senate. Honorable senators are, I suppose, aware of the present position. Under our- Electoral Act every candidate for the Senate or for the House of Representatives is obliged to deposit a sum of .£25 with a returning officer. This deposit is forfeited by every candidate who does not obtain at least onefifth of the number of votes polled by the successful candidate at the election. I think honorable senators will admit that under our Constitution, and in all Democratic legislation, all electors are supposed to be equal. There is supposed to be no bar raised to the candidature of any one. The law in regard to the payment of a deposit by a candidate is, in my judgment, such a bar, and it is not one which ought to be continued in a Democratic community such as Australia is supposed to be. I shall direct attention to the usage in this respect in the various portions of the British Empire, and it seems to be very diversified. It is singular that the highest deposit is demanded in connexion with the body which formerly assembled in the Chamber in which we are now met. The deposit required from a candidate for election to the Legislative Council of Victoria is £100, and for the Legislative Assembly of that State the deposit required from a candidate is £50, subject to the condition of forfeit, should the candidate not obtain one-fifth of the votes polled for the successful candidate. The next highest deposit is required in Canada. The amount there is fixed at $200 or £40, and, strange to say, it is subject to the condition of forfeit, in the case of a candidate who does not secure one-half of the votes polled by the successful candidate. In Western Australia, and in Tasmania, the deposit required is *£25,* subject in both cases to forfeiture unless one-fifth of the votes polled for- the successful candidate are obtained. In Queensland the amount of the deposit required is ^20, with the one-fifth condition. In New Zealand the deposit required is only £10, and an unsuccessful candidate in order to get back his money is required to poll no more than one-tenth of the votes polled by the successful candidate. In New South Wales the election deposit has been abolished altogether. In South Australia also it has been abolished. In the United Kingdom it has never existed. {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- Does .the honorable member really think that the deposit is any bar in a Democratic sense to a man standing for Parliament? {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- I do think it is. Of course, 1 may be told that candidates can beg, borrow, or steal the £25 required as a deposit in the case of a Federal election, but I do not think that we ought to impose such a restriction upon candidature! {: .speaker-K8T} ##### Senator Trenwith: -- We should have some guarantee of *bona fides.* {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- I am considering in this matter what I deem to be the electoral rights of the people. Honorable senators should ask themselves what they think the people desire. Is it right that they should consider their own positions, and the inadvisability of taking steps which might have the effect of increasing electoral opposition to them? I take the view that we should consider this matter purely and solely from the point of view of the rights of electors. When the first Commonwealth Electoral Bill was before us, a clause was proposed to provide that no member of a State Parliament should be eligible as a candidate for the Federal Parliament. I spoke and voted against that clause, on the same ground as that on which I advocate this measure, namely, that any barrier to the freedom of choice of the electors is antagonistic to the welfare of the public. I am told by a great many people that to abolish the candidate's deposit would be to open the door to all sorts of abuses, and that, for instance, in connexion with elections for the Senate particularly, we should be confronted with a plethora of candidates. I am reminded that at the first Federal election in New South Wales, when we had no Commonwealth electoral law, we had no fewer than fifty candidates for the Senate. I am not frightened by that spectre, because I do not assume that anything of the kind will ever happen again. A Federal election at that time was of course a great novelty. We should not hesitate to perform an act of simple justice because of the fear that any dangers of that kind may arise. It is impossible, by any law, to confer a freedom which will not be abused. We have freedom of speech, and we all know that it is abused. We have freedom of religion, and there is abuse in connexion with it. In all directions in which liberty is granted there is sure to be more or less abuse. I am quite certain that if we give this electoral freedom for which I ask,- it will be accompanied by <. certain amount of abuse. But I say that it is better to run that risk than to inflict injustice. I should like to put before honorable senators a statement which has been made only within the last few days on behalf of a political body in Sydney. The General Secretary of the Socialist Labour party has written a letter, very strongly condemning the existing law requiring a deposit from all candidates for election to the Federal Parliament. He says - >Our circular asks for the abolition of the deposit, on the grounds of its being undemocratic, reactionary, and restrictive, aiming at making parliamentary nomination a close preserve for politicians and for men with' money and .1 means of keeping o(f " undesirable " competition. " The Federal law gives every adult in Australia the citizens' right to vote, free from monetary or class distinction; we therefore contend and claim that every citizen should have the right to seek the votes of the electorate free from financial restriction. We are aware of the fact that the day of the so-called "independent" candidate is passed; no one pretends nowadays that an individual can accomplish much in politics or has any show unless carrying a caucus party label. Hence the Socialistic Labour party acts logically in nominating its full ticket for the Senate, thereby giving every working class man and woman who believes in Socialism and the principles we hold the opportunity to record his or her convictions. In spite of the big battalions against us, and the sneers and ridicule of those who take no chances or risks themselves, we have contested every election for the Senate in this State, so that we could stand up and be counted and exercise our citizen rights. The last two elections we had the pleasure of paying in' to the Federal Treasury the sum of ^150 for the crime of nominating candidates anc! the luxury of voting. " I think it is to be regretted that we have legislation upon our statute-book which justifies any person in writing such a letter as that, or which affords such a solid ground for complaint as that letter discloses. -These people have had to part with ^£150 in contesting two elections; and it seems to me that that exaction requires a great deal of justification. I think we are called upon now to follow in this matter the course which has already been adopted in New South Wales and in South Australia, and to follow the practice which I believe has always existed in the United Kingdom. When the amending Electoral Bill was before the Senate I had drafted an amendment under which the lowest candidate on the poll would have been required to receive only one-tenth instead of one-fifth of the votes registered in favour of the successful candidate. If honorable senators think it is desirable that candidates should be compelled to lodge a deposit, by all means let us follow the course which has been adopted in New Zealand. Let us reduce the amount now required, and also decrease the percentage of votes which require to be recorded in favour of a candidate to permit of his deposit being returned to him. That is a course which it will be open to honorable senators to propose in Committee if they are not prepared to adopt the Bill in its entirety, and to abolish1 the provision relating to the lodging of a deposit. {: .speaker-JVC} ##### Senator Dobson: -- The. honorable senator may reduce the percentage of votes if he chooses, but he ought to leave the ,£25 deposit alone. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- I trust that for the reasons which I have stated we should do this simple act of justice. {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade -- I freely admit that **Senator Pulsford** has brought forward this Bill from a sincere desire to remove what he regards as an unfair disability. But I take exception to one line of argument which he adopted. He assumed that the deposit required of candidates under our electoral law was required- in the interests of sitting members. I say that his statement is absolutely wrong. To insert such a provision in our law for that reason would have been a most immoral thing, and it would be equally immoral to retain it for that reason. But, as a matter of fact, it was inserted for quite a different purpose, viz., the interests of the country itself. It is all very well to. say that every man has a right to offer himself as a candidate for Parliamentary honours, but we must pay some regard to the way in which an individual might penalize the rest of our citizens by bringing about a frivolous election. In these days of large electorates we know that the holding of an election is a costly matter. Consequently **Senator Pulsford** would require to make out a very strong case before we ought to consent to the removal of the restriction in the form of a cash deposit which is at present imposed by the law upon Parliamentary candidates. Otherwise we should leave it open to candidates to contest elections for a wager - as has been done in New South Wales - thus penalizing the country and allowing the individual to escape. Under existing circumstances we must be a little practical. As was pointed out in the letter which was quoted by **Senator Pulsford,'** every candidate to-day is run by some organization. If any organization has a reasonable prospect of commanding a fair measure of support amongst the electors, no difficulty will be experienced in raising this small deposit. But if we abolish it, it may possibly lead' to an election where otherwise a certain candidate would have enjoyed a walkover. The country may thus be put to the expense of thousands of pounds in order , to gratify the vanity of one man who wished to become a candidate. It might possibly happen that a Senate election was not being held concurrently with an election for the House of Representatives, and it might be quite obvious to any unbiased person that three particu lar candidates were bound to be returned. But under the proposal of **Senator Pulsford,** another gentleman might come forward and say, "I am out for a political airing, and I intend to nominate," As a result, all our electoral machinery would be set at work in order that he might gratify his sense of humour or his vanity. {: .speaker-K78} ##### Senator St LEDGER:
QUEENSLAND · ANTI-SOC -- Sometimes a candidate comes forward in order that he may be bought off. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator MILLEN: -- I have never beettroubled in that way, because everybody who has opposed me knew perfectly well that I had no money with which to buy off any candidate. I repeat that the small deposit which is required of candidates under the existing law does not impose any hardship upon any person who hasa right to expect a reasonable measure of political support. It is impossible to view with equanimity the possibility of a man contesting an election for the purpose of registering one or two votes. It will be recollected that at the first Senate election in New South Wales over fifty candidates nominated. Of course, the electors had little difficulty in selecting the best of the bunch. But it was known at the time that at least two of those candidates had nominated as the result of a wager. One of them who knew a little bit more than did his competitor won that wager. - His name happened to be similar to that of one of the best known men in New South Wales, and that fact doubtless secured him a certain amount of support. I do not know that there is any particular virtue in declaring that an unsuccessful candidate must secure a certain percentage of votes to avoid the forfeiture of his deposit, but certainly there ought to be some provision in that connexion. As no hardship has been inflicted upon candidates, I submit that **Senator Pulsford,** having ventilated a principle which is evidently dear to him, should withdraw the Bill. . {: #subdebate-12-0-s2 .speaker-KAH} ##### Senator WALKER:
New South Wales -- An incident came under my notice in connexion with the Senate election in' ' New South Wales a few years ago whicli I think is worth while relating. A few minutes before the nominations closed a rather seedy individual came up to me and said " **Mr. Walker,** I want you to do me a good turn. I have a nomination paper here which is duly signed, and my only difficulty is in regard to the ^25 deposit that is required. Will you kindly lend- me that deposit?" I replied that I had not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman, and that I thought the friends who had nominated him ought to supply the money. Irrespective of that incident, I can readily recognise that the lodging of a deposit by candidates serves a useful purpose. I join with the Vice-President of the Executive Council in urging **Senator Pulsford** to withdraw the Bill. {: #subdebate-12-0-s3 .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales -- The Vice-President of the Executive Council opened his remarks by affirming that I had asserted that what had been done in our electoral law in the way of requiring candidates to lodge a deposit of *£25* had been done in the interests of sitting members. I made no such statement. I read a statement to that effect which appeared in the press, and I said that it was very much to be regretted that we should have upon our statute-book an electoral law under which it was possible for such an assertion to be made. There are tens of thousands of persons in Australia to-day who believe that the law which requires candidates to lodge a deposit of *£25,* and which permits honorable senators to travel free upon the State railways, is an obstacle to that freedom to contest elections which every man believes is his birthright. It is to be regretted that such' opinions should be held, even if they are wrong. The VicePresident of the Executive Council spoke of the possibility of the country being penalized if this Bill became law, and of thousands of pounds being expended in an unnecessary election. I am afraid that he was drawing much more than usual upon his imagination. When are we going to have a Senate election as the result of a contest between the two Houses? {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator Millen: -- I did not say that. I said that there might be a time when an election of the Senate would not take place coincidently with an election for the House of Representatives. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- Is it probable that such a condition of. affairs will arise once in a century ? {: .speaker-KVD} ##### Senator Mulcahy: -- It is possible. {: .speaker-K1U} ##### Senator PULSFORD: -- All sorts of things are possible. Are we to allow this law to remain operative merely becauseat some future period in the century then may be an. election of the Senate under the conditions which have been outlinedby the Vice-President of the ExecutiveCoun cil? I recognise that Australia to-day is dominated by machine politics. Personally I do not like machine politics, but I cannot see any escape from them. Nevertheless it is our duty to extend to the electors, every scrap of freedom that we can. I submit this Bill to the Senate in the absolute conviction that I am asking only for what is just. In CommitteeI shall be prepared to accept any amendment which may meet the wishes of honorable senators, and which will permit of the continuance of the system of requiring candidates to lodge a deposit, so long as the conditions under which it will be returned to them are made wider. Therefore I trust that the second reading of the measure will be agreed to. Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate. divided. Ayes ... ... ...10 Noes ... ... ... 16 Majority *... 6* Question so resolved in the negative. Senate adjourned at9.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 November 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091104_senate_3_53/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant