Senate
20 October 1911

4th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1666

QUESTION

DR. BASEDOW

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in answer to a question, promised to lay on the table of the Library the documents relating to the appointment and resignation of Dr. Basedow, in connexion with the Northern Territory. That has not yet been done, and I should like to know when it will be done.

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall remind the Minister of External Affairs that my promise has not yet been kept, and ask him to hurry up the production of the papers.

page 1666

QUESTION

PORT DARWIN FARES

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister of External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Hashe noticed a paragraph in the Age of 17th October, 1911, referring to the prospective increase of passenger faresbetween other Australian ports andPort Darwin?
  2. Ifso, what practical steps will the Government take to increase the facilities far persons to proceed to Port Darwin, and thus assist’ in attracting population to the Northern Territory?
Senator McGREGOR:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Inquiries in regard to the matter are being made, but the Minister is not yet in a position to indicate what form action will take. The importance of the question is fully recognised.
Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister seen a further paragraph, dealing with the same subject, but giving fuller information? And, if not, will he take steps to bring under the notice of his colleague the paragraph to which I refer, and which appears under the head of.” Telegrams from Sydney “ in to-day’s newspaper?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I shall call the attention of my honorable colleague to the paragraph.

page 1666

QUESTION

OFFICE CLEANERS: HOLIDAYS

Senator KEATING:
for Senator Ready

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is he aware that the female office-cleaners at the General Post Office, Hobart, Tasmania, only receive 251. per week, and that they are only allowed one week’s holiday every year, whereas other postal employes are allowed three weeks ?
  2. Does not the provision that all postal employes over the age of twenty-one should receive £110 per annum apply to these cleaners, one of whom has four years’ service?
  3. Considering the nature of the work of these employe’s, will the Minister recommend an improvement in their conditions?
Senator FINDLEY:
Minister (without portfolio) · VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Yes; the rate having been increased from 20s. per week in November last. Some are allowed one week’s leave and some two weeks’ leave per annum, according to the length of time they have been employed. They are not permanent officials, and therefore the provisions of the Public Service Act do not apply to them.
  2. No. These employes do not come under the provisions of the Public Service Act, and do not work as many hours as permanent employes.
  3. In view of all the circumstances, the con ditions are considered reasonable.

page 1666

QUESTION

TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster- General, upon notice -

  1. Has he received a petition and several communications from the people of Collarenebri in the north-west portion of New South Wales, asking for a telephone exchange?
  2. Has the Postal Department received many requests to establish telegraphic or telephonic communication between the town of Collarenebri and the nearest railway station at Collarenebri East, some ten or twelve miles distant?
Senator FINDLEY:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes; and the terms under which the erection of the line could be proceeded with have been communicated to all concerned.

page 1666

NAVAL AND MILITARY DECORATIONS BILL

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The . Senate divided.

Ayes … … … 16

Noes … … … 7

Majority . … 9

Question so resolved in theaffimative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1667

TRADE UNIONS

Motion (by Senator St. Ledger) agreed to-

That there be laid on the table of the Senate a return showing -

(a) The number of trade unions registered under the State laws in the respective States. (b) The number of individuals coming within the jurisdiction of such legislation, (c) The occupations or industries in connexion with which such registration is made.

The number of registered industrial or ganizations(a) of employers, (b) of employes registered under the State Industrial Arbitration and Conciliation Acts, and (c) the industries in connexion with which such registration is made.

The number of organizations (a) of employers, (b) of employes registered in pursuance of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904 and Acts amending the same, and (c) the industries in connexion with which such registration is made.

page 1667

POST AND TELEGRAPH RATES BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Findley). read a first time.

page 1667

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister of Defence · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I experience a special pleasure in introducing to the Senate this very important Bill, from the fact that I am a representative of Western Australia, and that, as an Australian, I am associated with one of the biggest works which thisParliament has yet been asked to approach, and one which, I venture to say, will inaugurate a vigorous policy of development of our vast interior, which is at present lying idle and unpopulated. When one looks at a map of our vast continent and realizes that, unlike most continents, it is not bisected with waterways which will allow vessels to carry commerce, one is forced to the conclusion that the only means of developing that country and mak ing it available is by a vigorous policy of railway development. I have recently had an opportunity of crossing the vast continent of Asia. The portion whichI crossed resembles very much our continent, except in one important particular, and that is that, every 50 or 100 miles, one crosses a river capable of carrying ships and rafts of timber, and therefore capable of being used in the development of the country. Even in Asia, bisected as it is with vast rivers, railways have been found a necessity, and the Government of Russia have planned and carried out that vast work, the trans-Siberian railway. Not content with a single track, they are duplicating the railway from one end to the other. It is reported that the railway has so far justified itself ; it has opened up country which previously lay idle, and which was thought to be unusable, to such an extent that a duplication of the line was called for, and the work is now proceeding.

Senator Walker:

– What is the gauge?

Senator PEARCE:

– The gauge is 5 feet.

Senator Millen:

– Do you say that the development of the country rendered necessary a duplication of the railway, or is it undertaken in aid of the defence scheme ?

Senator PEARCE:

– For both reasons. Undoubtedly defence had. a good deal to do with the construction ofthe railway in the first place, and also with the decision to duplicate the track. Both for development and defence, a duplication of the line became necessary, and the work is being carried out. The great continent of America, blessed as it is with vast water supplies, has found the same necessity, and has not been content with a single track. In Canada, although it is comparatively narrow north and south, they have seen the necessity of constructing not one, but three transcontinental lines, and a branch is now being constructed of such length and character as to be almost worthy of being called a fourth transcontinental line. When one contrasts the comparatively restricted area of Canada, that is, north and south, with our vast continent, one can see how modest, after all, is the start which we propose to make. When we compare Australia with other lands, and notice our lack of navigable waters, it must be obvious that we need more railways for developmental purposes than does any other country. At the end of 1910 Canada had 24,731 miles of railway mostly transcontinental lines, while Australia, counting in private and Government lines, possessed only ;i7,43i miles.

Senator Walker:

– Do the railways in Canada belong to a private company, or to the Government?

Senator PEARCE:

– They belong to a private company, although they have been paid for by the people of Canada. When we remember that, side by side with a vast railway system in Canada is the finest river system in the world, a chain of lakes which allows navigation for thousands of miles ; when we remember the noble St. Lawrence and all the other rivers, and add these conveniences to the railways, we see how far behind Australia lags. Surely it is time that we started to show that we have some faith in the continent which we have inherited. The railway which is the subject of this Bill is one which, I venture to say, can only be carried out by the National Parliament. It is too huge a task for the comparatively small communities of Western Australia and South Australia to take up on their own responsibility. When we think of that vast area of Western Australia, peopled by just about 300,000 inhabitants, and remember that they have the responsibility of developing and opening up their own territory, we must realize what a huge task they have in hand already. When we turn to South Austraia, the case is very little better. There we certainly have a somewhat larger community, but one which is heavily burdened with the task of developing the country under its control. If we consider the aspect of defence - a Federal matter - we must realize that unless we have this railway, Federation means nothing from a defensive point of view to the Western Australian people. For what, after all. can the Commonwealth give to Western Australia in the matter of defence unless this railway be built? Western Australia has a right to look to the Commonwealth to make available for her defence the forces of the other portions of this continent, just as the whole Commonwealth has a right to expect that the forces of Western Australia shall be made available for the defence of the other portions of he continent if they are threatened. The movement for the construction of this line has had a somewhat long career. I venture to say that few railways in Australia have’ been so much discussed, so much inquired into, so much thought over, as this particular line ; all the advantages, and the disadvantages, all the benefit,, and all the evil, that can flow from its construction, are thoroughly well known, and have been thoroughly well canvassed and investigated. So far as public action is concerned, the first move was set on foot in 1901 by the late Mr. C. Y. O’Connor, engineer-in-chief of Western Australian railways, who prepared a report on the proposed line, and who estimated the cost of construction at £4,400,000. In 1903, as the result of Federal action, the engineers-in-chief of the various State railways met in Melbourne. After going into the subject very fully, they recommended the construction of a line on a 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge, and estimated the cost at .£4,559,000. In 1907, after a Bill had been previously introduced on two occasions - it was once defeated, and once talked out in the Senate; - a measure to provide for a survey was finally passed, appropriating £20,000 for the purpose.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who was Prime Minister then?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister at the time the Bill was introduced was Mr. Watson, and I think that Mr. Fisher was Prime Minister at the time the Bill was passed.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Labour party again !

Senator PEARCE:

– Several Ministries were associated with the question at various times in its history - because it has had a very protracted history. In 1.909, the survey having been completed, a report upon it was drawn up and submitted to the engineers-in-chief of South Australia and Western Australia, in conjunction with Mr. Deane, the consulting engineer of the Commonwealth. As the result of the data collected, and the consideration of the reports submitted, the estimate of cost was reduced by the engineers to £3,988,000. I may mention that the only previous survey was that by Mr. Muir, the Government surveyor of Western Australia.

Senator Walker:

– Can the honorable senator remember the cost of that flying survey ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The cost was borne by the State Government, and I do not know what it amounted to. It was comparatively inexpensive, and, of course, was not of very much value for the purpose of estimating the cost of the railway. After the engineers-in-chief had reduced the estimate, in consequence of the detailed examination of the country, the taking of levels, and other necessary investigations, working drawings were ordered to be prepared. A vote of ^5,000 was passed on the Estimates last year for the payment of a staff to work up the details collected by the survey party. That material has been to a large extent worked through, and the task almost completed. A plan of the line has been plotted to a scale of 4 chains to the inch, and the longitudinal section to the horizontal of 4 chains to the inch, and vertical scale of 20 feet to an inch. The sharpest curves are of a 20-chain radius, and the steepest grade is one in eighty. As to the route of the line, I wish to quote from a report of the railway construction branch of the Department of Home Affairs, founded upon the surveyors’ report. On page 4, it is stated -

Commencing at Kalgoorlie the line follows the existing railway to Kanowna as far as Kurramia Siding, a little over 6 miles from Kalgoorlie; but as the grades of the existing line are steeper than that decided upon as a ruling grade for the transcontinental railway, some cutting down will have to be undertaken. After leaving the Kalgoorlie-Kanowna railway the line follows practically for a distance of some 40 miles the Westralia Timber Company’s tramway, bearing generally south-easterly for that length, and passing through the township of Bulong, about 23 miles from Kalgoorlie ; thence the line runs almost due east, adjacent to the 31st parallel of latitude to about 357 miles; thence it runs on a bearing of north 7g degrees east until the South Australian border is reached, at a mileage of 461 miles 77 chains $9 links in latitude 30 degrees 45 minutes south - boundary to Tarcoola. From the end of the Western Australian division, in latitude 30.45 degrees south the line runs in the direction of 10 degrees north of east across the Nullabor “Plain, cutting Cornish’s line in latitude 30 degrees 28 minutes south, and strikes the sandhill country about 170 miles east of the Western Australian border, passing 3$ miles south of Ooldea well.

I draw attention to the fact that from Nullabor Plain absolutely no sand hills exist at all. It is all good loam country.

Through the sandhills, about 100 miles, the general direction is easterly, and the line passes about a quarter of a mile south of Wynbring rock, 63 miles west of Tarcoola, and from there runs in a fairly direct course to Kychering, 23 miles west of Tarcoola, passing along the north side of Kychering hills, and continuing in a straight line to the western boundary of the Wylgena station, which is crossed at a point 3^ miles north of finding rock hole. After crossing the vermin-proof fence the line runs in an easterly direction to Tarcoola, S02 miles from Kalgoorlie, skirting the southern slope of the range on which the gold mines are situated. From Tarcoola to Port Augusta, about 263 miles by railway survey, the line runs through occupied pastoral country, including the Wilgena, Coondambo, Wirraminna, Pines, Oakden Hills, and

Yudnapinna stations. The line starting from Tarcoola runs easterly to near Wilgena ‘Hill, and continuing in a south-easterly direction over easy country, passes about r mile north of the Wilgena head station, 12 miles from Tarcoola. Running easterly from Wilgena the line skirts the south-west end of Lake Moolkra, and passing along the north side of the hill near Earea dam, where some gold mining has been done, leaving Kingoonya head station 1 mile to the north at 850^ miles, traverses easy country to 885 miles, half a mile south of Coondambo head station. After leaving Coondambo the line runs south of Lake Boomerang and north of Wirraminna head station to the south end of Lake Hart, with easy earthworks and light grades. From there to Eucolo Creek the line goes through country, including some swamps, sand rises, and gypsum banks.

I draw attention to the fact that that is the only point along the route where the sand is drifting sand. There is a mile and a half of it.

At Eucolo Creek it is ‘subject to a sand drift for about r£ miles between 931^ miles and 933 miles. From Eucolo Creek to Lake Windabout the line crosses an open stony tableland.

The report on this point concludes -

The line runs through sand which is light and mostly free from drift.

I wish now to direct especial attention to this question from the defence point of view. That is a very important phase of it. There is no doubt that a country like Australia is subject to attacks from sea. We have no land frontier. Therefore, we have to be in a position to direct our troops to any point in Australia that may be threatened from the sea. With the advent of wireless telegraphy, and with the increased speed of steam-ships, it is quite possible that we shall receive a very much longer warning of a .threatened attack than was hitherto possible. As honorable senators are aware, one of the proposals agreed upon at the recent Imperial Conference related to the extension of wireless telegraphy throughout the Pacific, and by means of a chain of stations lying to the north and north-west. By such means any movements of foreign ships coming to Australia would almost certainly be known to us by warnings communicated from elsewhere, and we should have information as to the point of our coast for which they were making. It is very essential that by means of internal lines we should be able to concentrate our forces at any point that might be threatened, to prevent a landing. The report from which I. have been quoting, dealing with this aspect of the matter, says- - It has more than once been- suggested that the” line opposite Eucla, at the head of the Bight, is too near the coast. The actual distance is about 60 miles, through country which, although carrying sufficient vegetation for stock, is of an unhospitable character, because there is no water to be obtained until the line is reached.

It will be seen from the map hanging upon the wall that the nearest approach of the line to the coast is 60 to 80 miles.

It would probably take a boat’s crew three days from the coast to reach the line. It is very doubtful whether there is the slightest danger of attack being made in the neighbourhood of Eucla. The character of the coast does not permit of ships lying close in in all weathers. Consequently, if heavy weather set in they would have to head right out into the Bight for safety, so that a boat’s crew which had landed might be cut off completely without doing damage of any consequence. It seems, therefore, extremely unlikely that an enemy would make any attempt to land.

One of the chief objections that has been raised to this line from a defence point of view is that at one point it comes so close to the coast that it might be possible for an enemy to cut the connexion.

Senator Millen:

– Does that objection come from professional military men?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have not heard the objection voiced by military men.

Senator Millen:

– It would add to the importance of the point if it were so.

Senator PEARCE:

– I have never heard any opinion to that effect expressed in my Department; in fact, I have not heard an opinion about it one way or the other. But when one looks at the map one is forced to remember that the great bulk of the population of Western Australia is concentrated in the south-west corner, of which the line from Kalgoorlie towards the coast would form the northern boundary. On the South Australian side, a line from the head of Spencer’s Gulf constitutes the country which carries the bulk of the population of the State. As we have to join up those two points, it follows that the result of the construction of the railway from a defence point of view will be to form: a link between these two populations. If we are to take the line further away from the coast we should have to make a tremendous detour, thereby adding immensely to the cost of construction and maintenance. Still considering this question from the point of view of defence, I may remind the Senate that we recently had a visit from a great military strategist, Lord Kitchener, and I am going to quote from a speech which he delivered in Western Australia on the 24th January, 19 10.

Senator Givens:

– An after-dinner speech ?

Senator PEARCE:

– It was, but I can assure the honorable senator that the dinner did not prompt the speech. This speech was delivered after Lord Kitchener had had the opportunity of travelling all round Australia. It was made at the conclusion of his tour during which his mind had been concentrated for the whole time on the problems of Australian defence. Therefore, I should say he was never in a better position to deliver an opinion on the subject than he was when he uttered these words. He said -

In order to reach Western Australia we have just had a four days’ sea voyage. I only wish we could have come here by train, for your present isolation must be not only a great commercial and political disadvantage, but also might at any time become a serious source of military weakness. Your distinguished fellow citizen, Sir John Forrest, has, I know, often pointed this out, and he has advocated the construction of a trunk line on the 4-ft.8½-in. gauge to join Western Australia with the eastern States. I understand that this project is shortly to be taken seriously in hand, and I only wish to say how thoroughly I indorse Sir John’s opinion on the subject. It seems to me, gentlemen, that one of the greatest needs of Australia is , systematic, statesmanlike, and comprehensive railway extension.

Senator Givens:

– Is Sir John Forrest to get all the honour and glory in connexion with the whole thing?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not care who gets the honour and glory so long as the line is constructed. I am satisfied that the people of Western Australia sufficiently showed recently that they possess an extraordinary amount of discrimination. Lord Kitchener went on to say -

Trunk lines opening up communication and developing the fertile districts in the interior of this vast country would undoubtedly stimulate more than anything else the growth of your population, as well as foster trade, and considerably increase your means of defence. At present Australia’s expenditure on railway construction appears to be often spasmodic as well as unduly influenced by purely local conditions, instead of being guided by a steady policy based on national requirements, organized and directed under a central controlling authority.

That sounds almost like heresy in view of the referenda results.

While your efforts are naturally and quite rightly in the first place directed towards obtaining communication with the east, I hope that the possibilities of extension to the north, as well as the development of the rich hinterlands of Queensland and New South Wales will not be overlooked whenever comprehensive schemes of railway development, dealing with the country as a whole, are under consideration.

Senator O’Keefe:

– All that can only follow from the federalization of the railways.

Senator PEARCE:

– Whether it follows or precedes the federalization of the railways, there is a splendid national policy mapped out in those remarks.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Hear, hear; it will come.

Senator PEARCE:

– While I think that we should consider in the light of these reports the character of the country to be served by the railway, I shall show that there is sufficient to justify the construction of the line even if there were no country worthy of development at all in the space intervening between the two terminal points. A railway can be justified in crossing a desert provided you have at each end sufficient reasons why two populated centres should be linked up. It is an undoubted fact that one of the great American overland lines crosses 400 miles of absolutely sterile desert which is of no use, and apparently will never be of any use to anybody-

Senator Barker:

– We already have lines running through vast areas of unoccupied country.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so; it can be said of the line to Broken Hill. On the question of the character of the country, Mr. Deane’s report, from which I am quoting, says -

The first 70 miles of the railway traverses the main auriferous green-stone belt in which the gold-fields of Kalgoorlie is situated. From this point on for about 100 miles the country is granite, mostly covered with alluvial gravels and loam. At 175 miles from Kalgoorlie limestone is met with, and this continues to about 640 miles, where the sand-hills of South Australia are encountered.

Honorable senators will see that 810 miles of the country has absolutely no sand.

The sand-hill region is traversed for about roo miles. This consists of sand ridges with flats of varying widths lying between, and the soil on these Anls is generally excellent, and carries grass and saltbush, and other useful vegetation. The sandhills themselves, which seem to have, in all cases, a solid core, and are not mere sanddunes, are mostly covered with mallee and acacia scrub, with spinifex. Near Wynbring, 740 miles from Kalgoorlie, granite is again reached, and there is here an area of bare rock, from which water can be collected.

I may say that these bare rocks are an important feature of the interior of Western Australia. Before the Kalgoorlie water scheme was constructed, the whole of the water supply was collected from these bare rocks.

Senator Givens:

– They were the origin of the soaks.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is so; the Government made dams at the foot of the rocks, and the rocks acted as a roof and a catchment area for filling the dams. It would seem that, prior to the construction of the Kalgoorlie water supply, the drought experienced in Western Australia was practically the same as that which at the sam? time was being experienced in the east, because since the water was taken to Kalgoorlie the rainfall has never been so low as it was in those years. Since then there has been on the eastern gold-fields a rainfall of 16 inches, and the dams have never been empty, though many of them have been used for railway purposes. I mention this as indicating the importance of these rocks in providing a water supply for the railway.

Senator Millen:

– They indicate also a very shallow soil.

Senator PEARCE:

– They outcrop above the soil, but in the gold-fields districts of Western Australia, at a little distance from outcrops of rock, there is to be found from 30 to 40 feet of rich alluvial soil. The report continues -

At Kychering, 20 miles further on, there is a large extent of bare- rock, amounting to abou! 40 acres. At about 802 miles from Kalgoorlie Tarcoola is reached. Here the quartzite bands contain gold, and gold mining is becoming fairly prosperous. To the east of this, at Glenloth, some distance south of the railway, there is another promising gold-field. From a point west of Tarcoola to Port Augusta the country is occupied, having been taken up for sheep runs. The character of it generally is pastoral and of good quality. Around the salt lake beds which are encountered in this district there are low sandhills, which, however, after wet weather become covered with vegetation. Tablelands rising 200 or 300 feet above the rest of the country are also met with. On the top and sides of these nutritious herbage, chiefly saltbush, grows. The tablelands consist of a sandstone formation, more or less denuded, the surface of the land being covered with very hard sandstone fragments.

I omit a technical paragraph referring to various elevations, and the report goes on to say -

The soil of the country, extending from Kalgoorlie to Spencer’s Gulf, is for the most par good, and covered with vegetation consisting of various saltbushes, bluebush, grass, and other shrubs mostly edible, and trees of various kinds, such as mulga, blackoak, myall, mallee, and myoporum, with frequent bushes of sandalwood and quandong. The great drawback is the low average rainfall, which, except in a certain portion of the country to the east -of Kalgoorlie, extending from about 40 miles to 105 miles, which evidently is more abundantly provided, does not exceed 7 inches, or at most 8 inches.

Where water, however] is obtainable by boring or can be stored up in depressions or behind dams, and provided the country is not afterwards overstocked, its permanent suitability for occupation is undoubted.

Between Kalgoorlie and the edge of theNullarbor plain shallow bores have been put downs but in all cases the bed rock has been reached without sign of water. Over this area, . catchment dams ban bebuilt, or artificial catchments prepared. AtCardunia, 82 miles, and the granite ridge at 107 miles east of Kalgoorlie, there are good rock catches.

On the Nullarbor plain the State Government of Western Australia have carried out boring operations with success. At No. 3 bore, on the railway route, 344 miles from Kalgoorlie, water Was struck between 1,270 and1,344 feet in beds of fine and coarse sand with hard bands and granite boulders, with hard granite at the bottom. Thewater stands in the bore about 420 feet from the surface;there is a large supply, and it is of good quality, no salt, a little hard, but it is considered that it would be good water for boiler purposes.

Senator Millen:

– The statement is made that there is a good supply. Has there ever been a pump on it to test it?

Senator PEARCE:

– The fact that the water rises 700 feet seems to indicate that this bore is within the artesian basin. It is well known that the basin extends in that direction, and the south-eastern edge of it has never yet been definitely located. As this water rises, it is ah indicationof pressure, and probably the pressure is due to the water rising to the level of the artesian basin which extends over a great part of Australia.If this be so, this bore should supply a great deal of water before it is exhausted. There is evidence that the artesian basin receives a permanent supply from somewhere, but where it comes from is yet a matter of debate amongst geologists. The report continues -

No. 4 bore, at 419 miles 73 chains, was bottomed ongranite at a depth of 907 feet. After drawing 30,000 gallons, water stands at 402 feet from the surface; quality slightly brackish.

Among the sandhills artificial catchments alone seem possible; but beyond this area the rock catchments of Wynbring and Kychering offer opportunities - the latter isvery extensive, and the former is capable of great improvement by stripping. From Tarcoola east there seems little difficulty of conserving water. Where well water cannotbe obtained sites for damscanbe found.

BetweenKalgoorlie and Tarcoola the country isremarkablefortheabsenseofdefined watercourses, and it isevident that therain rarely comes , in heavy falls. On the Other hand,from Tarcoola eastwardwater frequentlyrunsinwell- marked channels, and although thereare no very largewater-courses, yetthey are sufficiently defined in many cases to require bridges consisting oftwo or more 10-ft. openings.

Whilst that is a description of the water supply, and the qualityofthecountry, the following from the same report is an indication of what might be possible in the way of agricultural and horticultural development : -

Between Bulong and the Western boundary of Wilgena run, which is11 miles west of Tarcoola, the country is unoccupied. The Only operations that are taking place are the collection of sandalwood forexport andsalmon-gum timber for the Kalgoorlie mines. These extend to about 40 to 50 miles along the line.

I think that refers to the wood line running from Kalgoorlie.

If water can be stored or otherwise provided, there is no doubt, about the suitability of the country betweenKalgoorlie and Tarcoola for carrying stock.

At this point I should like to say that if honorable senators will consult the map, they will notice a line running north of Kalgoorlie towards Leonora. A remarkable feature of the country through which that line goes is that whilst at Kalgoorlie bores have been put down for a. thousand feet without tapping any fresh water, before Leonora is readied, and in the country near the elbow formed where the line going north turns to the east,fresh water can be Obtained in ample supply in some places at a depth of only 20 feet. The country is flat, with a gradual rise towards Leonora. In apparently the same class of country as that line, to the north of Leonora, and running away up to the Murchison, there is splendid underground supply of water. Geologists have not yet been able to say where that Watercomes from, but the district has a lesser rainfall than the Kalgoorlie goldfield, sothat it is not a local supply. However, there it is in a vast area to the north of Kalgoorlie.I mention this here because ofthe existence of that water supply, although the country and grass is poorer than the Kalgoorlie country it has beentaken up for pastoral purposes, and to-day isstocked. It follows that if the country lying south of Kalgoorlie, which is better grass country, could be furnished witha water supply, it would undoubtedly be settled for pastoral purposes:

Senator Millen:

– Surely the Leonorarainfall does wot drop to . 7 inches ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes; it has a lesser rainfall than Kalgoorlie.

Senator Millen:

– I did not think it was as low as 7 inches.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes ; the Murchison rainfall is lower than the Kalgoorlie rainfall. The rainfall decreases as one goes north from Kalgoorlie. The country and grass are poorer, and the timber is poorer; so much poorer, in fact, that on the Murchison gold-fields considerable difficulty is experienced in obtaining a supply of timber for mining purposes, whereas round Kalgoorlie there is plenty of timber. The report continues -

Dams can be made at selected spots, while in the centre of the Nullarbor or limestone plain sub-artesian water has been obtained by boring. Hitherto one great objection lo occupation has been the impossibility of getting stock away when feed becomes scarce and water gone.

The Nullarbor plains are of vast extent. They extend for about 200 miles in Western Australia right into South Australia for 100 miles, and from the coast to about 80 miles north of the railway. All the Nullarbor plain country is splendidly grassed. It is on the Nullarbor plains that the bore to which I have referred has been sunk, and it may well be urged that, in view of such a water supply,, it is probable, if not certain, that this area could be thrown open for pastoral purposes. But, as the report goes on to say, if it were ‘thrown open for pastoral purposes, some means would have to be provided to get the stock and produce to market, and this, railway would provide that means.

This condition will be entirely changed by the construction of the railway, as stock fattened in the winter, spring, and early summer can be taken lo market, and the reduced flocks could’ then easily be kept in condition over the summer.

Between Tarcoola and Port Augusta conditions will also very much improve by the construction of the line, and the pastoral industry already established will grow, and become much mare profitable. It would be a wise provision if leaseholders were compelled to limit the number of stock, as otherwise the tendency will be to eat out the country.

Those who have any knowledge of pastoral occupations in Australia will know that there is a tendency in good seasons to overstock our pastoral country. The report goes on to say -

Whether anything can be done in the way of agriculture remains to be seen. It has not yet been shown how small a rainfall will suffice for the nourishment of wheat and other crops. More rainfall observations are imperative, and it is of vital importance to determine al what time of the year the rainfall occurs. It would appear that falls amounting in the aggregate to seven inches while the crops are growing arc sufficient lo insure success, and if, as Mr. Hunt, the Commonwealth Meteorologist, tells me, there are parts of Western Australia where 90 per cent, of the year’s rainfall occurs in the months from April to October, there is considerable hope that some districts, with an extremely scanty rainfall, mav prove quite suitable for agriculture.

The mineral producing area is not extensive. From Kalgoorlie the gold-bearing area extends about 60 miles in an easterly direction. 1 refer honorable senators again to the map, and, if they will look at the line running east from Kalgoorlie, they will notice a short line running north to a place called Bullfinch. Most honorable senators have heard of it, and, perhaps, some of them may have heard of it to their sorrow. Within a few miles from Southern Cross, farming its to-day being carried on. If honorable senators will look at the transcontinental line, they will see that it runs very much nearer to the southern coast than Southern Cross is to the western coast, and if they refer to Mr. Hunt’s rainfall maps, they will notice that, although the rainfall does not go as far inland from the southern coast as from the western coast, it does extend sufficiently inland from the southern coast to warrant the assumption that agriculture will be possible on the Nullarbor plains. I know it will be urged that no data has been collected, and that is true a* regards the Nullarbor plains; but, if honorable senators will look to the west of the Nullarbor plains,, where some salt lakes are shown near Norseman, I may inform them that rainfall records have been taken for twelve years for that district j and a little to the east of south of Norseman a station owned by a Mr. Dempster has been occupied for forty or fifty years. Mr. Dempster has kept records during that time, and they show that in that country lying a little to the east and south of Norseman, there has been an average rainfall of over 12 inches per annum. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the country lying along the Great Australian Bight has a rainfall equal to. that which Mr. Dempster has proved in the country lying north of Norseman, and directly to the south of Kalgoorlie.

Senator Millen:

– - That must be qualified by a consideration of the direction from which the rain clouds come.

Senator PEARCE:

– There are many things which would qualify the statement, but I am saying that it is a reasonable assumption. Farming is carried on immediately south of Kalgoorlie, and within 60 miles south of Kalgoorlie. One of the arguments put forward for the construction of a railway from Esperance to Norseman is that it would throw open 140,000 acres of agricultural land with a proved rainfall, and capable of carrying farms. And, for the information of Senator Givens, I may state, that the Labour Government of Western Australia have announced their intention of constructing a railway from Kalgoorlie to Esperance. So much for the agricultural and pastoral possibilities. The report continues-

The mineral producing area is not extensive. From Kalgoorlie the gold-bearing area extends about 60 miles in an easterly direction.

After this the country, as far as minerals are concerned, is barren until the neighbourhood of Tarcoola is reached. Here, and at Glenloth, it is possible that considerable development will take place when the railway is there to encourage it. Al Mount Gunsen copper ores are found, but there has not been much progress so far.

I believe that there is an immense body of low grade ore at that point. The water

Supply is a very important feature, and, as the result of a survey, Mr. Deane reported on that subject in the following terms : -

In the Estimate of Cost furnished with the Report of the nth October, 1909, the sum of £609,000 was quoted for water supply. This was figured out on the assumption that steam locomotives would be used for hauling trains over the line. This item of the estimate has been further looked into, and I have found it possible to make a considerable reduction, partly owing to the fact that water of good quality has been proved by boring to exist below the surface at a point 344 miles from Kalgoorlie, as mentioned previously in this Report, and partly by adopting a cheaper method of conveying water to distances along the line, namely, by using wooden stave pipes instead of steel. I may call attention to a fact that is probably well known, namely, that the Mundaring water has in the past acted in a most prejudicial manner on the steel mains conveying it to the gold-fields. Not only has the asphalt coating of the inner surface of the pipes been penetrated, but the metal of the pipes has been attacked, causing so much corrosion and growth as to enormously reduce the sectional area, and consequently the carrying capacity.

I may mention that the State Government brought out two scientists, from Germany I think, to report on the best method to overcome this difficulty, and that, by some chemical properties which are now put in the water, they can overcome the corrosion.

Senator Millen:

– Was it corrosion or a growth inside?

Senator PEARCE:

– Both corrosion and growth, caused apparently by some chemical properties collected in the water in the hills at Mundaring. Mr. Deane continues -

The wooden stave pipes as now manufactured bv the Australian Wood Pipe Company, in Sydney, are not liable to this deleterious action, and the cost per foot run is besides much cheaper than that for steel pipes of the same diameter. The economy thus works in a double way. In estimating the size required for steel pipes an allowance was originally made for the lessening of capacity through corrosion - that is to say, larger pipes than actually required when in their original clean condition had to be provided - but when timber is the material selected this extra size is not necessary, as the wooden pipe retains its carrying capacity through its life - and then there is the lower cost of the material.

The scheme now proposed is to take water from the Mount Charlotte tank at Kalgoorlie, convey it along the line in pipes of suitable size, delivering it for the use of the steam locomotives in water tanks about 50 miles apart, till the tank at about 257 miles from Kalgoorlie is reached. Then making use of the water at No. 3 bore at 344 miles, pump and deliver this back towards Kalgoorlie as far as 295 miles, where a tank would be placed, and sending it along the line in the direction of Port Augusta as far as the end of the limestone plain where the sandhills are entered at about 632 miles from Kalgoorlie, which is the lowest point on this part of the line, viz., about 327 feet above sea-level. Between No. 3 bore and this point tanks erected at intervals of about 50 miles would be supplied from the same main.

From the commencement of the sandhills to Port Augusta water would have to be conserved as originally proposed, that is, by making artificial catchments, by utilizing rock catchments where available, and storing in reservoirs or where water-courses with sufficient catchment area occur, by building dams, and impounding the water which occasionally runs in large volume.

By the above scheme sufficient water for engine purposes can be secured, at a total estimated cost of £456,000, thus showing a saving of £155,000 on the estimate of October, 1909.

If the Internal Combustion principle can be applied to the locomotives used on the railway, the provision for water can be much reduced, and it might be safe to reckon on bringing the cost down to, say, £250,000, as the water requirements would then be confined to station purposes and household use.

The question of using the internal combustion engine is being closely inquired into by Mr. Deane, who believes that at present the outlook is very promising, and that he will be able to recommend the use of the engine on this railway. If that is so, there will be very important developments in railway construction, in the dry areas of Australia. I confess that, until recently, I knew little or nothing about the internal combustion engine, but possibly what I have learned may be of information to some honorable senators. It seems that it is an engine which uses oil, and the explosion caused by the ignition of the oil supplies the driving force. It does not use water for steam power as in the case of an ordinary locomotive. It only requires water for the cooling of the cylinder in which the explosion takes place. It is really an oil engine applied to a locomotive, and as the water for cooling the cylinder can be used over and over again, a locomotive will have to carry only a small quantity, and therefore the question of water supply will be a very simple proposition. Previously the difficulty has been that they have never been able to get in one engine more than 200 horse-power. On an ordinary train that would not be sufficient, because some of our trains require 1,400 horse-power. But in America they are carrying out an experiment; they attach an internal combustion engine to each truck or carriage, and therefore get a multiplication of 200 horse-power. By employing five vehicles you would therefore get 1,000 horse-power, and by using ten vehicles you would obtain 2,000 horse-power, and so on.

Senator Rae:

– Would not that multiplication of engines be much more expensive ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, it would be much more expensive than ordinary rollingstock, but not much more expensive than locomotives of similar power. I am speaking of trains, and not of locomotives. This, of course, will be a line primarily for the conveyance of passengers, mails, and at certain times freight. If the experiments in progress are successful, as the reports lead us to expect, it is quite possible that, by the time the railway is constructed, the use of the internal combustion engine will be adopted, and then the question of water supply will be a very simple problem indeed.

Senator Walker:

– Has Mr. Deane said anything about the mono-rail ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, I have had conversations with Mr. Deane about the mono-rail, but . the difficulty is that it is in the experimental stage. I think honorable senators will agree with me that we would not be justified in constructing this as an experimental line. In the Commonwealth there are plenty of places where railways are needed, and where it might pay to make experiments.

Senator Barker:

– Yes, a line, for instance, to the Government House in the new Territory.

Senator PEARCE:

– There is plenty of room for making an experiment there. I wish now to refer to the estimates of revenue and expenditure. In his report Mr. Deane says that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give an estimate of the revenue and expenditure which can be seriously backed up. In developing a new country an estimate of revenue and expenditure must be problematical. In an official report on the proposed transcontinental railway, which was laid before the Senatein 1903, the State Engineers-in-Chief say -

I have quoted the deliberate statement of the six Engineers-in-Chief, but I am inclined to agree with Mr. Deane that it is very difficult to forecast the revenue and expenditure in Connexion with such a line. I ask honorable senators to accept the quotation in the spirit in which it is submitted. I hold, however, that, even if the line should be run at a loss for some years, the indirect benefits which will accrue to Australia will justify that loss. Since this proposition was first put forward certain things have happened which make it more justifiable to-day than ever it was before. In the first place, the importance of Western Australia as a State of the Commonwealth has increased enormously.

Senator Gardiner:

– Especially since the last State elections.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, in our eyes. The population of the State is now nearly 300,000, having increased by over 100,000 persons in the last ten years. ‘The number of horses has increased from 74,000 to 134,000, whilst the number of cattle has increased from 400,000 to 800,000. The number of sheep has doubled. The number at the end of 1910 was given in the monthly statistical abstract as 5,157,699. The production of wool has consequently doubled since 1900, and at the end of 1910 the State exported 26,197,212 lbs. The greatest development has taken place in agriculture. The area under wheat has increased from 94,709 acres to 581,482 acres in 191 1. The area under oats has increased from 9,751 acres to 61,918 acres, and the area under orchards from 6,076 acres to 16,721 acres. The total area under crop has increased from 2^,441 acres to 854,837 acres. It is, I am sure, a source of satisfaction to every honorable senator, no matter on which side he sits, that the State is making such splendid progress. The argument that that part of the Commonwealth’ has a right to be linked up with the eastern States is now more powerful than it was in the years gone by. Whilst we may not make any arbitrary statements as to what the revenue will be, I think it is only right to state what those sources of revenue may be. On page 19 of his report, Mr. Deane says -

It appears from the returns that the passengers to and fro between east and west amount to about 55,000 per annum. This shows the extent of the passenger traffic between these two parts of Australia. There can be little doubt that were land communication established a great many people who now have a horror of the sea voyage would take advantage of the railway, and that many more who do business between the east and the west would actually make the journey themselves rather than trust to letter-writing. The time of the journey between Melbourne and Perth would be reduced from nearly five days to practically two and a-half days; the same proportionate saving of time would certainly be effected between Sydney and Brisbane and Perth when proper routes have been established.

The example of the United States of America shows how enormously traffic increases with the means of communication. Practically the eastern States are independent of the States on the Pacific Slope, just the same as the States on the Pacific Slope are independent of the eastern States, but an enormous traffic goes on between them, and when Canada is reckoned in, it is worthy of note that there are seven lines of railway crossing the continent between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and it can only be concluded that when the east and west of Australia are linked up a similar traffic in proportion to its population will result. With regard lo what has been said as to the uncomfortable travelling over the hot interior of Australia, it may be pointed out that very great improvements have been made in the fitting up of railway carriages. A journey in the interior of Australia is certainly not worse than one over the Arizona Desert, and yet I can testify that travelling is quite comfortable even in summer. Carriages are fitted up with double windows, which are closed to keep the dust out, ventilation being secured by the fanlights in the roof ; a minimum of dust comes in to distress the traveller, and the intense heat is also kept out.

I propose to relate my experience in travelling across Siberia. I used to be considerably impressed with the argument that, if we had a railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie, persons would be deterred from using it by the fact that they would be in the same train two and a-half days. Recently I have travelled across a country where I was continuously in trains for ten days; that is, I was in one train for six days, and then I ‘only walked across the platform into another train, in which 1” travelled for four days. From the time I left Moscow until I landed at Vladivostock, I was not out of a train at any one time for twenty minutes. Yet I was never wearied of the train journey.

Senator Millen:

– Perhaps you were in a hurry to get out of the country ?

Senator Long:

– What were you playing?

Senator PEARCE:

– I bought a pack of cards at Moscow,- but it was not opened.

Senator Walker:

– Could you walk from one end of the train to the other ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. There was a continuous train journey of ten days, and each train was full of passengers. A berth has to be booked a month beforehand. We were told that we would have to book a long time beforehand in order to get a berth on the train, because it is what is called an international express. An ordinary express takes fourteen days to do the same journey. We passed three ordinary expresses on our journey. One of them we passed during the night, and so I did not see it, but the other two I did see, and they were also crammed full of passengers. In addition, a large goods traffic is going on, and immigrant trains, some of which, I was told, take twenty days to do the journey, are run.

Senator Millen:

– How often do they run ?

Sentor PEARCE. - I do not know, but we passed trains. At almost every station we passed either an immigrant or a goods train waiting for us to go through.

Senator Walker:

– Have you any idea of the through fare in British money?

Senator PEARCE:

– As I was booked right through, I cannot say.

Senator Walker:

– What did they charge for booking you right through ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I will tell my honorable friend privately.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What distance did you travel?

Senator PEARCE:

– Six thousand miles. Whilst Siberia is a cold country in winter, it is a very hot country in the middle of summer. It has the extremes of heat and cold. After Manchuria is passed, one has to cross 350 miles of desert as bad as the Sahara - rolling sand plains without a vestige of tree or shrub of any kind on them. Although we passed through the Gobi Desert in the middle of summer, yet we experienced no more than the ordinary discomfort of a hot day when travelling in any part of Australia, because the train is well fitted up, having been built specially to combat the discomfort of heat and dust. It is made up of large carriages, which are well ventilated in the roofs. All the appointments are good, and are well carried out. I experienced less discomfort on that train journey of ten clays than I have done on many a journey 1 have made by steamer across the Great Australian Bight. As to the estimated cost, this report, on page 20, says -

AM the items of the estimate have been under revision. Most of them remain approximately the same, except that the rates of labour having been increased, it is necessary to allow for this fact. The item water supply can now be reduced from ,£609,000 to £456,000, steam locomotives being used, or say to £350,000 if internal combustion engines are used instead.

The price of rails has risen since the last estimate was made, but as import duty is not now to be included, there will be very little difference - only about £7,000 extra.

Details are given, amounting to a total of £4,045,000, or, if internal combustion engines are used, £3,839,000.

These figures include 5 per cent, contingencies except in the case of rails and fastenings, and the estimate is based as before on the understanding that the best modern methods and mechanical appliances are to be used in carrying out all parts of the work.

Senator Millen:

– Does that include the cost of rolling-stock?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, it includes clearing, fencing, earthworks, bridges and culverts, rails and fastenings, sleepers and ballast, plate-laying, water supply, station yards, including telegraph equipment, terminal accommodation at both ends, and work-shops and machinery, maintenance for twelve months, rolling-stock, land purchase and engineering and supervision.

Senator Walker:

– How long will it take to complete the railway?

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot say offhand, but I think the estimate is about two years. Now I come to the question ot gauge. The opinion of the Government on the matter is that we should have in Australia a uniform gauge, at all events as far as Commonwealth lines are concerned ; and we have no doubt that, whatever gauge is adopted for this railway, the States will, sooner or later, follow our example. The policy of developing the Northern Territory will mean that another railway will have to be constructed there. The Government had to face this question of gauge and settle it j and, after giving full consideration, to the various reports and to the experience of other countries, we de cided on the adoption of the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government made a mistake.

Senator PEARCE:

– I hope the honorable senator has an open mind, and will be prepared to consider the evidence. One great advantage from having a uniform gauge railway running through all the Capital cities of Australia, would be this : that one set of rolling-stock would serve for all parts of Australia. That would be an enormous advantage in the event of war, and also in the event of drought or famine for the purpose of conveying stock, food, and material from one part of Australia to another. Uniformity of gauge would enable rolling-stock to be concentrated in any district where it was most required. It could be brought from any part of Australia where there was not so much need for it to any other part where there was an urgent need, at the shortest possible notice. At present, one State cannot come to the assistance of another State with surplus rolling-stock.

Senator Millen:

– Is there not unanimity of opinion as to the desirableness of uniformity of gauge?

Senator PEARCE:

– I believe there is; but I am now dealing with the reasons which induced the Government to adopt the 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge for this railway. On this subject, Lord Kitchener says -

I would also mention that railway construction has, while developing the country, resulted in lines that would appear to be more favorable to an enemy invading Australia than to the defence of the country. Different gauges in most of the States isolate each system, and the want of systematic interior connexion makes the present lines running inland of little use for defence, though, possibly, of considerable value to an enemy, who would have temporary command of the sea.

We have been accused of not having taken the necessary action to induce the States to adopt uniformity of gauge.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think that is correct.

Senator PEARCE:

-The honorable senator might hear me before passing judgment. I tabled yesterday papers containing the correspondence which the Government have had with the States on this question. Before the honorable senator speaks next week, I trust that he will peruse these papers. He will then be able to see whether the Government have not taken prompt action in the matter.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We might have had those papers a month ago.

Senator PEARCE:

– That was not possible, because some of the States had not replied a month ago.

Senator Rae:

– I see from the documents that no reasons in favour of the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge are given.

Senator PEARCE:

– I will give the reasons presently. On the 24th June, 191 1, the Acting Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of the various States suggesting a Conference of Engineers-in-Chief relating to the unification of railway gauges. Victoria did not concur for the reason that -

The question will be listed for consideration at the next Conference of the State Premiers and Ministers.

On that communication I have to make only this comment. Is this a question for Premiers to consider? Surely it is a question for engineers. It seems to me to be a strange method of dealing with a proposal with regard to unification of gauge, to notify that it will be dealt with at a Conference of Premiers ! Surely it ought to be settled apart from any political considerations. It ought to be determined by the technical knowledge of men qualified to discuss it and given a free hand to determine according to the merits. However, the Victorian Government said that they would not send their Engineer-in-Chief of Railways to a Conference of experts, but would send their Premier to a Conference of Ministers.

Senator Millen:

– The answer is - is the Commonwealth to wait and tie up legislation until the Conference of Premiers meet?

Senator Barker:

– The present Premier may not be Premier after the next election.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is quite possible. The States of South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia, however, agreed. Tasmania did not concur, as, of course, was quite reasonable, because she is not affected. The following is the letter which the Acting Prime Minister sent to the various State Premiers in June : -

At the instance of my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, who has been giving special consideration to the important question of the unification of the railway gauge throughout Australia, I desire to point out that the present seems to be an opportune time for proceeding further with the matter, especially as there appears to be unanimity of opinion in favour of the adoption of the standard gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in.

I shall be glad if you will be so good as to concur in the suggestion that there should be an early Conference of Engineers-in-Chief for Railways, under the presidency of Mr. Henry Deane, M.Inst.C.E., acting asthe Consulting Railway Engineer for the Commonwealth, to consider and report as to the probable expense involved in the conversion of the trunk lines to the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge, the time which will probably be occupied in carrying the proposal into effect with the least possible disturbance of existing arrangements and traffic, and generally.

If this Conference can be arranged within a month from date, it is expected that at least a preliminary report on this important subject will be available for presentation to Parliament in September.

Owing to the action of Victoria we have not been able to arrange for the Conference of experts which we desired. I wish to point out, however - and I especially direct Senator W. Russell’s attention to these facts - that prior to Federation in 1897 a Conference of State Railways Commissioners, representing New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, declared in favour of the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge as the uniform gauge for the country. They pointed out that that gauge would be less costly than any other. Again, after Federation, in 1903, the Engineers-in-Chief of five States - Tasmania standing out - under the presidency of Mr. Deane, once more considered the question. They unanimously recommended the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge for this particular railway. At that Conference Victoria was represented by her EngineerinChief, South Australia was represented by Mr. Moncrieff, and all the other States, with the exception of Tasmania, were represented by their Engineers-in-Chief, all of whom signed the report.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr. Montcrieff condemns the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge now.

Senator PEARCE:

– He did not condemn it then. In February, 191 1, a War Railway Council was constituted, which consisted of, amongst others, all the Chief Commissioners of Railways, presided over by Mr. Deane, representing the Commonwealth. They discussed the question of uniform gauge and also that of the gauge for the railway under consideration. They passed two resolutions - one that the Government should adopt as the uniform gauge on railways between capitals a gauge of 4 ft. 8½ in., and also that in constructing the railway to Western Australia the Commonwealth should adopt the same gauge. The Railways Commissioner for South Australia was a member of that Council, as was also the Commissioner for

Victoria. Both of them signed those recommendations.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Were they unanimous recommendations?

Senator PEARCE:

– They were. Let me point out some of the reasons why we should adopt the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge in preference to the 5-ft. 3-in. In the first place, to alter the 5-tt. 3-in. gauge to 4-ft. 8-in. would involve no alteration of tunnels, embankments, bridges, and stations. But, on the other hand, to alter a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge railway to 5 ft. 3 in. would necessitate enlarging every tunnel, every bridge, and, later on, every station, leaving out of consideration for the moment the rollingstock.

Senator Rae:

– With the exception of the stations, I do not think that the statement is a fact, because many of the tunnels and embankments are wide enough to allow of the alteration.

Senator PEARCE:

– -But in every one of these tunnels a recognised engineering margin of safety is allowed. That margin is the same whether the gauge be 4 ft. 8$ in or 5 ft. 3 in… If you put wider rollingstock on a railway constructed on a narrower gauge you reduce the margin of safety of tunnels and embankments ; and no railway engineer will recommend you to run 5-ft. 3-in. rolling-stock through a 4-ft. 8-in. tunnel. Let us see what these alterations of tunnels would mean. Do honorable senators realize that it would involve either the complete cessation of traffic on certain lines while tunnels were being altered, or the diversion of traffic h building other lines temporarily? Y<“>u cannot have traffic going through a tunnel which is in course of structural alteration. That is absolutely impossible. Either you must build another line while you are altering the tunnels or you must stop the traffic altogether until the alterations are completed. On the railway, between Melbourne and Adelaide there are sixteen tunnels. I ask honorable senators to think of the dislocation that would be involved on that line if the width of the tunnels had to be extended. But by converting a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge railway to 4 ft. 8£ in. there need be no such dislocation. There are railways in Australia where tunnels have been constructed on the 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge. There are such tunnels on the Hawkesbury line in New South Wales.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– -Is that the reason why the honorable senator has the support of die Opposition ?

Senator PEARCE:

– This is not a partyquestion, and there is no need to appeal to party considerations. I want to adopt the method which will be cheapest, most efficient, and most expeditious. There is another point which honorable senators may not have considered. You can put a third rail on a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge line to bring it to a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge, because you can put it conveniently inside the existing rails. But you cannot put a third rail on to a 4-ft. 8£-in. gauge line to bring it up to 5 ft. 3 in., for the simple and obvious reason that by so doing you would get too near to the end of the sleepers. While the sleepers on a 5-ft. 3-in. track could possibly be used for a 4-ft. 84-in. track, you would have to take up both rails and sleepers to convert a 4-ft. 8j-in. gauge line to 5 ft. 3 in. When you come to take ail these elements into consideration, it must be admitted that they materially affect one’s judgment on the question. We have at our back with reference to the adoption of the 4-ft. 8^-in. gauge all the EngineersinChief, and the Railway Commissioners, of Australia, so far as they have committed themselves as to public recommendations. We have at our back also the experience of the great transcontinental railways of Canada and the United States. In Canada, the first great transcontinental railway was built on the 4-ft. 8i-in. gauge. The railways there are private companies conducting their business purely for the sike of gain, not troubling about defence considerations or national considerations. Profit was their one idea in entering upon their construction policy. If their experence has proved to them that they could work with a better profit with a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, or even with a 6-ft. or 7-ft. gauge, do honorable senators think that they would not have adopted it? They had complete knowledge as to what had been done in other parts of the world, in addition to their own railway experience. Yet they have built a second and a third line on the 4-ft. 8-in. gauge. ‘ In the United States there are four, and in Canada there are three. . transcontinental railways, all of them on the 4-ft. 8r-in. gauge.

Senator Rae:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the first gauge adopted influenced to a great extent the remainder?

Senator PEARCE:

– Not in the slightest degree, because the lines in America are independent. In many cases they were built hy opposing companies, not running over each other’s lines, and not junctioning with the other lines in any way. I think that with all that experience of these private companies, and with the expert advice obtainable in Australia, behind us, had we refused to adopt the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge we should have been branded as unworthy to deal with this great project. We came to the conclusion that the evidence was overwhelming in favour of the gauge which we have adopted. I do not propose to say any more on this subject. I have already taken up more time than I had intended. But the subject is of such importance that it warranted a full explanation. I unhesitatingly commend the Bill to the Senate, and trust that whatever criticism may be directed towards it will be of a national character. I earnestly hope that we shall have no parochialism introduced, but that the proposal will be judged upon its merits. I have no doubt that if that be clone, honorable senators will resolve that we ought to be prepared to shoulder the responsibility of doing something to develop the vast unpopulated interior of Australia.

Senator Walker:

– Will the Minister tell us whether any proposal has been made with regard to land grants?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is rather a question for Committee, but I will say this : The Government do not propose to ask either Western Australia or South Australia to give us any grants of land beyond the area that is necessary for railway purposes. We do not think that we should approach this question in the same way as a private company would do. If the States concerned had cared to construct a railway on the land-grant system, it could have been constricted years ago.

Senator Rae:

– When an offer is made to the Commonwealth.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think that offers were actually made.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I thought an offer was made by Western Australia to hand over an area of land on each side of the railway to the Commonwealth.

Senator PEARCE:

– A statement was, I think, made by Sir Walter James, the former Premier of Western Australia, that the Government of that State would sustain any loss that might accrue on Western Australia’s part of the line. But no such offer was formally communicated to the Federal Government. It was a statement made in a public speech, and was not conveyed to us officially.

SenatorO’Keefe. - Has the Federal Government asked the Governments of

Western Australia and South Australia tomake up any loss on the line ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No, they have not, because they didnot think that a fair proposition to make. But I can tell the honorablesenator what the State of Western Australia has undertaken to do. The late Premier of the State indorsed it, and I have no doubt the present Premier alsoindorses it. The State Parliament passed an Act providing that as soon as the transcontinental railway is commenced, Western Australia will undertake to construct the railway from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie on the 4-ft. 8½-in. gauge at her own expense. That is an undertaking embodied in an Act of Parliament, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be honored by the present Government of Western Australia. On the question of a land grant, I contend that that is not a fair proposition to make to the State Governments. The land is owned by the States, and I have no doubt that, with a Labour Government in each of those States, we can rely that whatever unearned increment may attach to the land from the construction of this line will be preserved by them for the people rather than for private individuals.

Senator Millen:

– Not the people, but a section of the people.

Senator PEARCE:

– I ask honorable senators further to consider whether, if such a condition is to be attached to the construction of this railway, it will not be fair to attach a similar condition to the construction of all railways which the Commonwealth may build. If the Commonwealth isto be given 25 miles of country on each side of this line by the States of Western Australia and South Australia, a similar demand for 25 miles on each side of the line may be made when it is proposed to construct a railway from the Federal Capital to Jervis Bay, 1 am disposed to think that if such a demand were made in that case, some of those who are enthusiastically in favour of the principle to-day would be found to have altered their tune.

Senator Walker:

– Is it intended, in the event of a unification of gauge, that the cost involved shall be borne by the Federal Government ?

Senator PEARCE:

– That is a question for future arrangement. The Prime Minister has made a public statement on the matter. He has said that in this connexion the Federal Government have an open mind, and will be prepared to favorably consider any proposition which the State Premiers have to make in that regard.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

page 1681

ELECTORAL BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19th October(vide page 1603), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I desire at the outset to say that I heartily indorse the action of the Government in introducing this measure for the amendment of the electoral machinery of the Commonwealth.I go further, and complimentthem on some of the provisions submitted for that purpose. Every one will, I think, agree that it is the first duty of the Parliament and the people to secure that parliamentary elections shall be as pure as possible. I, personally, regard this measure as the only effort made up to the present time in that direction. I think there have hitherto been greater efforts made to prevent the exercise of a pure franchise than to encourage it. There is strong evidence of that in the history of past elections in Australia. Time and again we know that efforts have been made to place on our electoral rolls the names of people qualified to vote, and those who have been led to believe that they were enrolled have subsequntly found that, by political engineering, they have been prevented from the exercise of their right of citizenship. I do not intend to follow Senator Millen, in going through this amending Bill from A to Z, but I shall give my candid opinion on three or four of the most important amendments of the existing Act proposed with the object of securing something like purity of elections.

Senator St Ledger:

– Does the honorable senator not think that we have it at present ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am positively certain that we have not. I am satisfied that up to the introduction of this Bill every effort possible has been made to prevent it.

Senator St Ledger:

– By whom?

Senator HENDERSON:

– If the honorable senator will restrain his impetuosity, I shall relieve his great anxiety in this matter. The first attempt to really secure purity of elections is made in this Bill by the introduction of a system of compulsory enrolment. This proposal should be sup ported by every fair-minded man, because it should be agreed that it is the duty of every citizen of the Commonwealth to recognise his responsibilities to the State. In my opinion the greatest responsibility resting on the shoulders of any citizen is to have his name placed on the electoral roll in order that he may be able to exercise the right to select the men who will be called upon to make the laws of the country.

Senator St Ledger:

– Is not that futile unless electors are compelled to record their votes?

Senator HENDERSON:

– There is a great deal of difference between compelling men to record their votes and compelling them to shoulder the responsibility of seeing that they are enrolled. I have asserted that hitherto purity of elections has apparently been the very last thing considered or attempted, and, on the contrary, every effort has been made to prevent the proper exercise of citizen rights rather than to compel it. I invite honorable senators to consider what took place at the last Federal elections. Before those elections took place, although the roils were said to have been made up with the greatest care, it was discovered in the State of Western Australia that the names of a very considerable percentage of the qualified electors of the State were left off the rolls.

Senator St Ledger:

– Was not that their own fault?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am not saying whose fault it was.

Senator St Ledger:

– Then it is not a question of the purity of elections.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Perhaps the honorable senator will permit me to make my point. The result was that a supplementary roll had to be prepared to place those whose names had been left off the rolls in a position to record their votes. A number of men and women were then found running all over the State of Western Australia collecting the names of those who were not on the original rolls, ostensibly for the purpose of having them placed on the supplementary rolls. Numberless application forms were filled in, and these people who were collecting the names carried these applications away. I cannot directly charge any one, but it is very strange that when the supplementary rolls came out, a considerable number of names that had been collected by these canvassers were not to be found upon them.

Senator Chataway:

– We lost a lot of votes in that way.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am sure the honorable senator’s party did, but I am also sure that they profited more than they lost by the proceedings to which I refer. This is why I think every one should recognise the honest attempt made by the Government in this measure to render that kind of thing impossible in the future. That can only be done by adopting a system of compulsory enrolment, making each and every individual recognise his own responsibility to be enrolled. Men and women have for years past been canvassing the country, not with a view to getting names on the rolls, but with a view to sorting out the names of those who would be likely to vote against their cause, and carefully leaving them off the rolls. This has been an experience common to all the States of the Commonwealth, and the Government are very wise in adopting a system of compulsory enrolment. Once the people are enrolled, we need have no fear about their exercising their votes. Yesterday afternoon Senator McColl was crying out for purity of elections. He wants a big vote every time. That is exactly what I want. I am sure that on the day when that big vote is recorded, and when we find 80 per cent, of the electors on the rolls exercising their right to vote, we shall see the last shreds of the weakly Fusion-Liberal party wiped entirely out of the political life of Australia.

Senator St Ledger:

– The honorable senator is charging past Administrations with actual corruption.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am simply stating facts. Let honorable senators consider the election which recently took place in Western Australia. It is one of the brightest examples of the truth of what 1 say. The State roll had been very carefully looked after, and at the election the percentage of votes polled was the highest ever recorded at an election in that State. The result has been that there are only a few shreds of so-called Liberalism and an impossible Opposition left as a sort of relic of bygone days.

Senator Walker:

– Was not Western Australia the only State that accepted the referenda ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– Western Australia is the only State that takes an independent and sensible view on all national matters. I am, therefore, not surprised that it should have decided in favour of the referenda.

Senator Findley:

– Western Australians are pioneers in the path of political progress.

Senator HENDERSON:

– That is so. I wish now to refer to another matter in connexion with which Senators Millen and McColl expressed feelings -of soreness.

Senator Needham:

– Where are they now ?

Senator Findley:

– They have laid their eggs and gone away.

Senator HENDERSON:

– They are not here now. Those honorable senators evidently feel very sore about the proposed abolition of postal voting. Ever since I entered the Senate I have battled against postal voting, and have consistently and strongly opposed it whenever the question came up for discussion. On the first opportunity afforded me here to raise my voice in opposition to the postal voting system, when I found I was beaten, I tried to make the Senate realize the ridiculous nature of the system by suggesting provisions to enable any member of the general public to witness applications for postal ballot-papers. However, that was not done. The Government now recognise the absurdity of the postal voting system, and propose its abolition. In very sympathetic tones Senator McColl tried to make out a great case for the poor sick woman who will not be able to record her vote by any means when postal voting is abolished. That, to my mind, is a hypocritical form of argument, and I have no hesitation in emphasizing the fact.

Senator Needham:

– Is Senator McColl a hypocrite?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I do not know what he is, but the argument which he used was undoubtedly hypocritical.

Senator St Ledger:

– That is not the point. You said that some of the women who used the postal vote were hypocrites.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I said nothing of the kind. I said that the man who opposed the Bill on the assumption that it would prevent a sick woman from registering her vote was using knowingly an intensely hypocritical argument. Senator McColl vouchsafed some information which he had gathered showing the number of men and also of women who voted by post at the last election in Victoria. He did not go beyond the confines of his own State, but he fell into a sad error in merely stating the total in each case. If he had wanted to prove clearly his point, which I am satisfied he did not desire to do, he would have stated the percentage of sick women who were included in the total of postal voters. I venture to say that the experience of most persons in this respect is similar to mine, and that is that the postal vote has never been used very largely in the interest of sick persons. On the contrary, it has been used by the healthy, the strong, and the vigorous, at the instigation of the agents who travelled the country to try to prevent persons from having their names placed on the rolls.

Senator St Ledger:

– You are letting a number of cats out of the bag.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am letting the honorable senator know what I have seen and what I think. I rejoice that we now have an opportunity to remove from our law a provision which is useless for any purpose other than that of corrupting the elections from time to time. There is no honorable senator on this side who would be wanting in sympathy for sick women or sick men. I regret that afflictions do come to prevent either men or women from exercising the suffrage. The abolition of the postal vote will compel a good many persons, whatever else they may do, to vote cleanly and not corruptly.

Senator St Ledger:

– What provision does the Bill make for enabling a man or a woman who is sick to vote?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I do not know that it makes any provision, but I think that the percentage in that respect is very low indeed. Even if no provision is made, it is much better to prevent a small percentage from doing a thing which they ought to have the right to do than to leave a licence to those who are continually Studying how they may effect wrongdoing. The Bill makes another amendment of the Electoral Act, and that is in respect to newspapers. I do not know that my honorable friends on the other side need be very sorry about this amendment. It is one which ought to meet with the’ direct approval of every member of the Senate. We should all rejoice at the opportunity to enact an amendment of this character. It will render a very great service to my honorable friends on the other side, as well as to our party. It will prevent injustices from being perpetrated at the eleventh hour, or probably on the very morning of polling day.

Senator St Ledger:

– Will you kindly indicate the injustices which it will prevent ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– It will, for instance, prevent a lot of misrepresentations, and, in this respect, it may affect the honorable senator. It will prevent misrepresentations from being laid before the public gaze on the morning of an election.

Senator St Ledger:

– It does not touch that at all.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It touches not only that, but several other things. It deals, for instance, with the question of expenses. The provision on that subject will probably save the honorable senator a few pounds, and consequently, to that extent, he ought to be very glad that the Bill has been introduced. I also heartily compliment the Government on their attempt, in proposed new section 181 c, to prevent the possibility of paid canvassers being sent out. It ought to save the friends of Senator St. Ledger a considerable amount of money, because, at previous elections, the country has been flooded with paid canvassers. The alteration, if adopted, will prevent my honorable friends from sending men round - and women too - for five or six weeks prior to an election, with a pocket full of money in order to do the best they can in the interest of the candidate by whom they are employed.

Senator McGregor:

– What about addressing the Women’s National League?

Senator HENDERSON:

– I have no objection to an honorable senator addressing the Women’s National League, in fact, I have no objection to any legitimate organization. Let our opponents do all they possible can by honest organization. I have no complaint to make in that respect, but I do object to the persons whom they have sent out for weeks and weeks together, and who, in many instances, told the most audacious untruths. I believe that many women belonging to the Women’s National League have gone so far that, on Resurrection Day, God Almighty will deny that ever he had a place in His house for them. In that respect Ananias and Sapphira were gentle folks in comparison with some of these women. The suppression of these canvassers will have a wonderful moral ininfluence upon the community. It will prevent persons from going to such excesses as have been resorted to. To that extent, I think we can safely claim that the Government are proposing a change which every one ought to applaud. If we wish to secure purity of elections we shall have to shut out those influences for evil which have been so rampant hitherto. Last night a great deal of trouble was occasioned to Senators Millen and McColl by the proposed amendment, which will practically compel the retention of the ballotpapers used at an election for a period of three years, that is, from election to election. They suggested that, if the provision were enacted, a man might hold over the head of a member of Parliament for three years a threat to bring a case before the Court - which might lead to the loss of his seat - and, on the eve of an election, pounce down upon him. Can any honorable senator say for a moment that there is any strength in a statement of that kind? It is the most ridiculous stuff to which I think a man could listen. It may be taken for granted that, if a candidate were elected on grounds which were questionable, the man who wanted him put out would not wait for three years, but would try to have him put out in three days if he could.

Senator St Ledger:

– If that is sufficient, why adopt the period of three years ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– Because, at times it takes a little longer than the prescribed time to collect the evidence which is required. In the case of a member of this Parliament, for instance, there was a very strong suspicion that something was wrong. In fact, the events of the subsequent election showed clearly that something was wrong. There was strong evidence that, indictable offences might have been charged against several persons. What happened when an inquiry was made in another place? When the question was asked whether the ballot-papers used at the election, and so forth, would be forthcoming, the answer was that they had been destroyed. The evidence which might have been used to punish severely those who had been guilty of very questionable practices had been destroyed, and therefore the perpetrators of the offences went scot free.

Senator St Ledger:

– This Bill will prevent that evidence from being produced in time.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It is only right that the evidence should be preserved from one election to another, so that those who sin may always be liable to suffer a just penalty. I do not desire to debate the

Bill at greater length. I am pleased that it has been submitted, and I hope that it will have a speedy and safe passage.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– f think that most honorable senators will admit that a Bill of this kind especially should be above party. Its framers should consider the whole ‘ community, and not that section which is supposed to be on their side.

Senator O’Keefe:

– That is exactly what they did.

Senator WALKER:

– I am afraid that the Bill will introduce, if that has not already been done, the policy of “Spoils to the victors.” The first clause to which I wish to refer is that dealing with voting by post. Senator Millen commented yesterday upon the very large number of persons who will lose their opportunities for voting if this provision be carried. It will press very hardly on men and women who are in delicate health, and who are unable to leave their homes. It will especially affect women. Since yesterday, I have looked into the figures relating to the population of Australia, and I find that, roughly speaking, there are 120,000 Births in this country annually. We may say that, on an average, a mother is compelled to keep to her house about oneeighth of the year preceding and following the birth of a child. Consequently, one-eighth of the mothers of this country would be disfranchised by the abolition of the right to vote by post. In other words, out of 120,000 mothers 15,000 will be disfranchised under this Bill. Senator Henderson kindly drew my attention to a newspaper entitled the Labour Call. I propose to read a short extract from it headed “ A tribute to woman.” When I have finished, I shall ask honorable senators opposite whether they are paying a proper tribute to women “by depriving 15,000 women, at every election, of the right to vote by post. The passage, which I comm’end to my honorable friends opposite, reads as follows -

It takes a hundred men to make an encampment, but one woman can make a home. I not only admire woman as the most beautiful creature that was ever created, but I reverence her as the most redeeming glory of humanity, the sanctuary of all virtues, the pledge of all perfect qualities of heart and head. It is not just nor right to lay sins of men at the feet of women. It is because women are so much better than men, that their faults are considered greater. A man’s desire is the foundation of love, but a woman’s desire is bom of her love. The one thing in this world that is constant, the one peak that arises above all Clouds, the one window in which the light forever burns, the one star that darkness cannot quench, is woman’s love. It rises to the greatest height, it sinks to the lowest depths, it forgives the worst injuries. It is perennial of life and grows in every climate. Neither coldness nor neglect, harshness nor cruelty, can extinguish it. A woman’s love is the perfume of the heart. This is the real love that subdues the earth; the love that has wrought all miracles of art, that gives us music all the way from the cradle song to the grand closing symphony that bears the soul away on wings of fire. A love that is greater than power, sweeter than life, and stronger than death.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I must ask the honorable senator what the extract which he has quoted has to do with the question before the Senate ?

Senator WALKER:

– It has a great deal to do with the question, sir. This Bill is going to disfranchise 15,000 women at every election. They will be deprived of their right to vote by post, a right which they have hitherto enjoyed. _ Honorable senators opposite profess to believe these fine things about women, and yet they think they are unworthy to be afforded an opportunity “to vote. The next clause to which I wish to direct attention is that with relation to fixing Saturdays for election purposes, and closing the poll at 8 o’clock. The Sabbath of our Hebrew fellowcountrymen ends at sunset on Saturdays. The sunset in some parts of Australia is as late as a quarter past 7. The hour mentioned in the Bill is 8 o’clock. I suggest that if elections are to take place on Saturdays, the time be extended to 9 o’clock. Another section of the community which should be considered is that of the Seventh Day Baptists, who also observe Saturday as their Sabbath. That denomination has increased extensively in New South Wales. For their sake, too, I think we should make some allowance. In fact, I cannot see that it is altogether wise to choose Saturday as election day on all occasions. The next matter which I propose to mention has regard to canvassers. Senator Millen proved pretty clearly last night that the large industrial unions of this country have organizers who are practically paid political canvassers. I hope the Government will see their way to introduce a definition clause by which an organizer, whether of an industrial association or otherwise, shall be considered at the time of an election to be a paid canvasser. Otherwise, a great advantage will be conferred upon one section of the community over another.

Senator McGregor:

– Would it not be better to say that the canvasser of an organization shall not be considered an election canvasser?

Senator WALKER:

– The last remark that I have to make is that there is a broad distinction between a politician and a statesman. By the time this Bill gets through Parliament, people will be able to make up their minds whether the authors of it are statesmen or mere politicians. I propose to quote definitions of “ Statesman “ and “Politician” from Webster’s and Chambers’ dictionaries. Chambers’ definition of a statesman is -

A man acquainted with the affairs of government ; one skilled in government.

Webster gives the following definition -

A man versed in the principles and art of government; especially one who shows unusual wisdom in treating Or directing great public matters; also, a man actually occupied with the affairs of Government and influential in shaping its policy.

Chambers’ defines a politician as -

One versed in or devoted to politics; a man of artifice and cunning.

Webster defines a politician as follows -

A politic person; a schemer; an intriguer. One versed or experienced in the science of government ; one devoted to politics ; a statesman. One addicted to, or actively engaged in, politics as managed by parties; often more or less disparagingly, one primarily interested in political offices or their profits; as, a mere politician. In modern usage politician commonly implies activity in party politics, especially with a suggestion of artifice or intrigue ; statesman now usually suggests broad-minded and far-seeing sagacity in affairs of State ; as, “ What makes Burke stand out so splendidly among politicians is that he treats politics with his thought and imagination.” “ He has . . . a loose, shifty expression of face, and one which gives you the impression of a thorough politician in the bad sense of the word.” “ Theideas which began the new Germany were due to this quiet, strong, faithful, persistent, selfrespecting statesman.”

When this Bill becomes law, the public of Australia will be able to judge whether it is. the work of politicians or of statesmen.:

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator WALKER:

– I was saying before the suspension of the sitting that the people of Australia will be able to judge shortly whether this measure is one of a statesmanlike character or rather one tinged - not to say honeycombed - with party bias. If the Bill proves to be of the latter character, it will be the bounden duty of the successors of the present Government in office to amend such provisions as display an absence of statesmanship, and to place a more liberal measure upon the statute-book. I think- I have proved pretty clearly that, with the birthrate at present prevailing in Australia, about 15,000 women will be disfranchised by the abolition of voting by post.

Senator Givens:

– 15,000 in one week !

Senator WALKER:

– Certainly. I maintain that the mother of a new-born child ought to remain in her house at least a fortnight before, and a month or six weeks after, the event takes place. A great many women are ill from other causes. I calculate that at least 15,000 women are ill at any one time in Australia. I, therefore, believe I am within the mark in saying that at least that number will be deprived of the exercise of the franchise in consequence of the abolition of postal voting.

Senator Givens:

– If the honorable senator’s crowd had not so shamefully misused the practice in the past it would not have been taken away.

Senator WALKER:

– The question arises in my mind as to whether it would not be well to reconsider the advisableness of issuing electors’ rights.

Senator Rae:

– No New South Wales representative would agree to reinstate the elector’s right system.

Senator WALKER:

– I understand that the principal objection to it is that people often lost their elector’s right. Nevertheless the system has much to be said for it. It is all very well to say that irregularities have occurred under the postal voting system, but then there . will always be some irregularities whatever system is in operation. I stand for the principle of every adult person being entitled to vote, and being given the opportunity to do so, whether he or she be ill or well. As to the woman’s vote, I have always supported the extension of the franchise to that sex, my opinion being that persons who pay taxes have the right to be represented in the Parliament that imposes them. My leader, Senator Millen, so ably and exhaustively criticised this Bill in detail last night that I need say no more than that I cordially coincide in the views which he expressed.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– There are only three points in the measure before the Senate which appeal to me as being of very great importance. Senator Millen, who launched an exceed ingly severe criticism of the measure yesterday, has dealt with the question of compulsory voting. Other honorable senators opposite have shown, by interjection, that they have the idea that compulsory enrolment is of no use without compulsory voting. I cannot understand why that objection should be urged. If there is the slightest chance of compulsory enrolment conducing to a larger percentage of votes being recorded at an election, it will certainly have a beneficial effect j and I am convinced that the proposed amendment of the law will tend in that direction. I should like to think that we could, by legislation, make compulsory voting effective. But I do- not think for a moment that any measure passed with that object in view would be effective. There is an old saying that you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. In the same way you might, by law, compel people to go to the polling booth, even against their inclinations, but many who were so compelled might, out of a sheer spirit of obstinacy, spoil their ballotpapers. The question of compulsory enrolment, however, rests upon an entirely different basis. There are hundreds of men and women in the large centres of Australia who, at election time, find that their names have been left off the roll. Many will admit that they are themselves to blame, and they express regret for their negligence. Others are omitted through some dereliction of duty on the part of officials responsible for the compilation of the roll. If we institute compulsory enrolment, we shall do away with a great deal of that kind of thing. Therefore, this is a step in the right direction. I cannot understand my honorable friends opposite objecting if there is the slightest chance of bringing about, by this means, the casting of a larger percentage of votes at Federal elections.

Senator St Ledger:

– Who made that objection ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– After every , election, the newspapers which support my honorable friends opposite contain letters complaining that people have been left off the rolls, and the journals themselves claim that a result adverse to them is due to the fact that a large number of electors have not voted.

Senator Millen:

– That is what Mr. Hughes said in connexion with the referenda.

Senator Sayers:

– Is any one on this side against compulsory enrolment?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have not said so, but a number of honorable senators opposite have said, by interjection, “What is the use of compulsory enrolment without compulsory voting?” I am trying to show that compulsory enrolment will probably tend to a greater percentage of votes being cast, whereas compulsory voting would probably be ineffective, because many persons who were driven to the pollingbooth, against their inclinations, would spoil their votes. At one time I thought that compulsory voting could be made effective, and if I could be satisfied on that point now, I should vote for such a proposal with both hands up.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator think that compulsory enrolment can be made effective?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I think compulsory enrolment can be made effective.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator would have a policeman going after every elector to see that he was enrolled.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am satisfied that it would tend to a larger percentage of votes being cast at elections in the future. Honorable senators are aware that all the powerful daily journals of Australia supporting the party opposite have invariably claimed, after every political contest, that if 75 or 80 instead of 50 per cent, of the electors enrolled had recorded their votes the party opposite would have won.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator never heard me make that statement, because I have always contended, as I did yesterday, that the rolls are inflated, and the percentage of votes polled is much greater than appears from the figures.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have always urged the same contention. I am satisfied that, because of the neglect in making transfers of names from one roll to another, when people have moved from one electoral district to another, there are many names on every roll which ought not to be there. It is difficult to believe that the people of Australia, who are so keenly interested in politics, do not, to a greater extent than 50 per cent, of those enrolled, exercise the right to record their votes. That does not affect my argument, and, if honorable senators opposite really believe that the greater proportion of the big unpolled vote would be cast in their favour, they should welcome the adoption of a system which would tend to increase the percentage of votes polled.

Senator Millen:

– But the Government do not propose to do anything to make the electors go to the poll.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– They propose to introduce compulsory enrolment in the belief that that will tend to bring a larger number of electors to the poll. It is obvious that that will be the effect when we consider that at every election there are thousands of people who complain that they have been unable to vote because their names have not appeared on the rolls. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was apparently more concerned about another proposal in this Bill than about the whole of the rest of the measure. In his destructive speech yesterday afternoon, he denounced the proposal to abolish postal voting. The honorable senator did not hide his belief that it has been introduced from a party point of view.

Senator Millen:

– One could not hide it if he tried.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator is entitled to his own opinion on the subject, but if postal voting has been honestly carried out in the past, how will its abolition affect one party in politics more than another? The system was introduced largely for the convenience of invalids, but experience has shown that it lends itself to corruption.

Senator Vardon:

– Surely the real point is as to the justice of the matter?

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Millen, and also Senator McColl, in dealing with the matter made the charge that the Government propose to abolish postal voting because they believe that the greater number of postal votes polled are recorded for their opponents.

Senator Millen:

– The point is, are honorable senators opposite prepared to disfranchise 29,000 electors?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It is absurd to say that the Government propose to abolish postal voting in order to disfranchise 29,000 electors. Why does Senator Millen say 29,000?

Senator Millen:

– Because it is shown that 29,000 electors used the postal vote.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Is my honorable friend so innocent as to believe that 29,000- electors were, at the last elections, too ill to go to the poll?

Senator Millen:

– It is not merely a question of illness. It is a question also of remoteness from a polling place.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have every sympathy for those who may be at some distance from a polling place.

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

-Colonel Cameron. - The electors do not want the honorable senator’s sympathy; they want their rights.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– They will get their rights. There is nothing in this Bill which will take away any of the electoral rights of any person in Australia. It will always be more convenient for some people to exercise their right to vote than for others, and there never was an Act of Parliament passed which placed every one on the same footing. Senator Cameron will recollect the rumours prevalent in Tasmania at the time of the last Federal election, and, doubtless, he will know that the postal voting provisions of the existing Act were largely taken advantage of by those who were able to run motor cars to remote portions of the State, carrying with them persons authorized to witness postal vote certificates, and so to secure votes that otherwise would not have been recorded. The facts about postal voting could hardly be stated without doing some persons great injury, but, without mentioning names, I can refer to cases that came under my own observation. I know of instances occurring in Tasmania where the postal voting provisions were availed of by domestic servants, who could easily have gone to a polling booth had they been allowed to do so. I will not say that they were absolutely prevented from doing so, but they were given a pretty broad hint that they might much more easily vote by post, and certain people came round and collected their postal votes, and these were nearly always cast on one side of the fence in politics.

Senator Sayers:

– The same old yarn, without any proof.

Senator O’KEEFE:

- Senator Sayers comes from a State which has had a very significant experience of postal voting. Perhaps the honorable senator will be able to explain how it was that after a trial of a system which extended, I think, over only one election in Queensland, the Government that introduced the system subsequently abolished it.

Senator Rae:

– And not a Labour Government either.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I understand that it was not a Labour Government.

Senator Sayers:

– If the honorable senator will mention the Government to whom he refers, we shall know what we have to deal with.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator should make a candid admission that he knows of the matter only from Senator Rae’s interjection.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I beg Senator Millen’s pardon. The matter is one which has been frequently discussed in the Senate between representatives of Queensland and of the other States. There must have been some good reason why the Government that introduced the system in Queensland subsequently did away with it. We have heard all sorts of rumours on the subject, and, doubtless, some honorable senator from Queensland will be able to tell us how much truth there is in these rumours. The postal voting provisions were inserted in the Commonwealth Electoral Act as an experiment. Many members of this Parliament agreed to the proposal as an experiment.

Senator Sayers:

– Did not Senator O’Keefe support it? I have been looking up Hansard.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I believe I did, and the honorable senator will probably find that if I spoke upon the matter at all I supported the proposal because I believed it would extend the facilities for voting. I did not believe at the time that it would increase the opportunities for corruption, but, so far as I can gather, it has operated in that direction. It has been contended that the majority of the postal votes have hitherto been cast against the present Government party, and that that is the reason why the Government are proposing to abolish the system.

Senator St Ledger:

– That must be mere conjecture.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am glad to have that admission from Senator St. Ledger. He will, no doubt, remember that Senator Millen made the charge more than once. He said that the proposal to abolish the system was a party move, and Senator McColl went further and described it as politically dishonest and corrupt, because the majority of the postal votes were recorded against the party now in power.

Senator St Ledger:

– I think they were myself.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Has it struck honorable senators who take that view that it is a trifle suspicious that at the last Federal election, when, for all- practical purposes, there were only two parties beforethe country, one party should get a substantial majority of the votes personally recorded, and the other such a large majority of the votes recorded by post?

Senator Sayers:

– It is all coming out now.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am using the argument which was used by my honorable friends opposite.

Senator St Ledger:

– What is the honorable senator’s inference from it?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– My inference is that there must have been some peculiar work going on in connexion with the postal voting, because, in the case of votes personally recorded, there are no opportunities for corruption.

Senator Sayers:

– Yes, there are.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– No, there are too many safeguards provided under the Act to permit of corruption in the case of personal voting. Our friends opposite do not like the proposal to abolish postal voting, because, in their view, the majority of postal votes has hitherto been cast against the Labour party. I say that this appears strange in view of the fact that a very big majority of the personal votes were cast for that party.

Senator Vardon:

– A very large majority.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Yes, a considerable majority. A considerable majority of Labour members were returned for another place, and at the last Senate election there was, apparently, no room in the Senate for a single honorable senator representing the other side. Out of eighteen seats contested, not one honorable senator representing the party opposite was returned. It would be interesting if we could find out how many of the postal votes recorded were due to sickness or remoteness from the nearest polling place. I have many friends in the backblocks of Tasmania, who reside miles from a polling booth, but I say it is not too much to ask people who are interested in the government of the country to travel 7 or 8 miles to a polling booth once in three years to record their votes.

Senator Sayers:

– They may have to travel 50 or 60 miles in Queensland to do so.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The pioneers, for whom Senator Millen expressed so much sympathy yesterday, are usually men who will not let the loss of a day’s work or the travel of a few miles prevent them from recording their votes. Many of my friends have walked 15 miles in bad weather to record their votes for myself and other candidates on the same side. Whether their views on politics be right or wrong, it is clear that they value their political rights so highly that they are prepared, if necessary, to make a little sacrifice once in three years in order that they may record their votes. If it could be shown that more than half of the postal votes were recorded because of sickness, or because people could not get to the nearest polling booth, I am satisfied that the Government would not have introduced a proposal to abolish postal voting. The experience of honorable senators on this side has been the same in every instance, though honorable senators opposite appear not to have had a similar experience. Our experience of the operation of the postal voting provisions of the present Act is that very many of the 29,000 referred to by Senator Millen could have gone to a polling booth, and those who were employed in canvassing for such votes might have been saved some little trouble, and, perhaps, expense. The Electoral Act was not framed to suit these people, but to suit those who place some value upon their political privileges and rights. The system was introduced as an experiment, and it is because its tendency has been to corruption that it is now proposed to abolish it. I do not think that my honorable friends on the other side would make such a great song about the postal voting system if they were not satisfied in their minds that it has been of service to them. They will find that, in the future, it will not assist either party. I am sure that they want the elections to be conducted cleanly, and free from anything which might conduce towards corruption. That being so, they ought to welcome, as we do, the proposal to abolish postal voting.

Senator St Ledger:

– We do not want to disfranchise anybody.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It is not a question of disfranchising any person. Every man or woman in Australia who is above the age of twenty-one years, and outside the walls of a gaol or lunatic asylum, can get enfranchised.

Senator St Ledger:

– Yes, but they cannot vote.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Every adult person who is qualified for enrolment can be enrolled ; but, for various reasons, some persons are not able to record their votes on polling-day.

Senator St Ledger:

– What are you going to do for them?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– We can do nothing for these persons, except by opening the door to corruption such as was practised at the last election.

Senator Vardon:

– Why do you not prove that charge?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator must know of cases where some women have had postal votes taken away by a bit of chicanery or smart electioneering practice, when they might easily have gone to the polling-booth. Would he attempt to bring up these persons, although he knows them, and got votes from them, and make them prove a case at the expense of losing their billets? He knows that their positions would not be worth an hour’s purchase if they came and gave evidence.

Senator St Ledger:

– An invalided woman to come here and give evidence 1

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am not speaking of an invalided woman, but of probably more than one-half of the 29,000 persons who obtained postal votes at the last election. I am referring to those who used ‘the system when they had no need to do so. That is why it is to be abolished. When our honorable friends on the other side get into power, probably they will revive the system ; but I am very pleased to think that, in the meantime, the old system will be tried again. I honestly believe that the abolition of the postal vote will do away with corruption. I do not believe in corrupt practices at elections. I do not claim for a moment that the corrupt practices come from one side only. I know that some supporters of myself and the party I belong to are not above resorting to corrupt practices. It would be absurd for any one to claim that political corruption is only practised on one side at an election. I know that the provision for the postal vote has been used corruptly by both parties, and certainly in a way which was not intended when it was enacted. The system was introduced in order to assist two classes only, viz., the invalid and the elector who would be too far away on election day to go to the pollingbooth except at great loss and trouble. The postal vote has been abused to such an extent that its abolition is now proposed, and I think it is a good proposal, too. The only other provision of the Bill in which I take any great interest is the one curtailing the licence of the press in printing or publishing political matter. I do not believe in trying to muzzle the press too much, because, after all, unfairness on the part of a newspaper will, in the end, react against the party which it is attempting to assist. In Melbourne, for instance, we have had instances of the grossest unfairness in politics, and I do not” believe that any of my honorable friendswho are most bitterly opposed to theLabour party will indorse the actions or the tactics of the Melbourne newspapers onthose occasions. Will they, for instance, indorse the action of a big journal here which, a few years ago, tried its hardest to keep a certain man out of the Senate? To use an every-day expression, it had the knife into this gentleman for a long time,, politically speaking. Amongst other causes, perhaps, was a very big lawsuit which he had with the newspaper. It went to this unfair length that, although this gentleman addressed some thousands of persons in Melbourne on the night before the election, there was not one line about his address in its columns next morning, whilst opposing candidates, who only addressed a few hundred persons, received long notices. That is party warfare.

Senator Sayers:

– No, it is personal warfare.

Senator St Ledger:

– What has that to do with the franchise?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It has not anything to do with the franchise, but it certainly has something to do with a clause of this Bill which seeks to control to some extent the unfair tactics which big newspapers have been guilty of. I have cited that case merely as an illustration of the extreme lengths to which big journals are prepared to go, and I suppose will continue to go, in support of their party.

Senator Sayers:

– You admit that it was a personal affair?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It was perhaps more personal than political. My honorable friends know that this journal is most unscrupulous in its methods. It does not care what kind of methods it uses to kill a party or a candidate, and to advance the interest of the candidate whom it is supporting. It is a case of party warfare, which, in the end, I believe, reacts in favour of the person whom it tries to hit.

Senator St Ledger:

– It was helping the Labour party not long ago.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It had a very short spell of political sanity, and then it dropped back into a state of political aberration. It must not be forgotten that, in past ‘elections, State and Commonwealth, the Labour party have suffered to a greater extent from press unfairness than has the other side in politics. But a time may come - and I believe that it will come within a very few. years - when the other side may be subjected to the same kind of unfair treatment by newspapers which are engaged in fighting the battles of this side. The time has gone by in Australia, I think, when there will be only one class of newspaper literature. In both Hobart and Adelaide we have a daily newspaper which is a recognised and straight-out supporter of the Labour party, and I hope that, within the space of about a year, we. shall have a Labour newspaper in Sydney, and that it will be followed quickly by the establishment of a Labour newspaper in Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth.

Senator Walker:

– Do not forget that you have a very strong weekly advocate - the Bulletin.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– My honorable friend knows that, in electioneering, a weekly advocate is not of any use compared with a daily advocate, because the daily liar can get in six lies to the weekly liar’s one lie. In the very near future I believe we shall have, on each side of politics, powerful journals, largely supported, and with an immense circulation, instead of, as at present, the newspapers being mostly on one side. Will not a provision of the kind I am discussing act fairly to both sides in politics? If honorable senators opposite are not going to openly champion the cause of unfair criticism or unfair tactics by newspapers, what objection have they to our trying to make the newspapers a little fairer than they have been?

Senator St Ledger:

– Because the provision does not cut both ways.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Undoubtedly it does. Will it not cover any newspaper which may happen to be supporting our side? Will it not, for instance, cover the Daily Post, in Hobart, or the Herald, in Adelaide - two straight-out supporters of the Labour party - just the same as it will cover the Age and the Argus, in Melbourne, or the Herald and the Telegraph, in Sydney, or the Register and the Advertiser, in Adelaide?

Senator St Ledger:

– No.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Why not?

Senator St Ledger:

– Oh, you know why.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– There is no word in the provision which relates to a particular newspaper. At present there are some newspapers on the Labour side, and many newspapers on the anti-Labour side; very probably in the near future, there will be more newspapers on the Labour side. But even now this provision covers all news papers alike. Do my honorable friends intend to openly support anything in the shape of unfair tactics such as we charge against the newspapers which have been fighting us so bitterly but ineffectively, as the results have shown, during the last quarter of a century ? We have thriven on this kind of abuse.

SenatorSayers. - And you will fall on it, too.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– We may fall some day ; but, so far, all this fighting has only helped us. The Labour party has not attained its present prominence in Commonwealth and State politics by reason of the assistance of daily newspapers. It has progressed in the teeth of their opposition, and that fact is perfectly well known. When, in the course of a few years, we have large daily journals supporting the Labour party in the big cities of Australia, as well as in the State capitals, this provision will be a very useful safeguard for my honorable friends. At all events, it aims at only one thing, and that is to keep unfairness out of newspaper control or tactics or policy as much as possible.

Senator St Ledger:

– How will it keep unfairness out of newspapers?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It will curb, as far as we can, the power which newspapers have used in an unscrupulous way, not for any particular party, but for all parties. My honorable friends opposite ought to welcome these proposals, as we do. I have occupied quite enough time. I welcome this amending Bill, and, most particularly, the three provisions which I think are, after all, its crux.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I do not intend to occupy the attention of the Senate very long after the very able and’ exhaustive speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday - a speech to which the Ministry, so far, have not thought fit to make a reply, probably because there is really no reply to be made to his criticisms. I wish to emphasize one or two points, and to suggest an amendment which I think will do away with a good deal of the necessity for some of the amendments which are proposed in the measure. On looking round, I found out the origin of this Bill. It seems to me to have emanated largely from the Electoral Department. The final paragraph of the report on the measure, signed by Mr. Oldham, reads -

A scheme of compulsory enrolment associated with a card index system for the prevention of duplication of enrolment and fraud would not only be of enormous advantage from an electoral point of view, both in relation to representation and administration, but would be of considerable value for purposes of public administration generally, and in particular might be expected to greatly assist the postal, defence, statistical, police, and other public systems having direct relations with the public. lt is claimed that the wonderful cardindex system is a. help. I hear of the system day by day in all sorts of directions. T admit that, up to a certain point, it is a very good system, but I am rather inclined to think that we are running mad on index systems, and probably will find them in the end more burdensome and troublesome than some of the old-fashioned ways of doing business. It recalls some lines which I read a little while ago by a writer who is troubled very much in the same way-

Oh, isn’t it great to be “ up to date ! “

And live in this year of grace,

With a system and place for everything,

Though nobody knows the place !

We’ve an index card for each thing we do

And everything under the sun :

It takes so long to fill out the cards

We never get anything done.

We’ve loose-leaf ledgers for saving time,

The Lord knows what they cost !

When half our time is spent each day

Hunting for leaves that are lost.

Stenographers who spell like h-

And make us swear and cuss,

When we are not dictating to them,

Why, they are dictating to us.

And sectional this and sectional that, (We’ll soon have sectional legs) ;

I dreamt last night that I made a meal

Of sectional ham and eggs.

T dreamt I lived in a sectional house,

And rode a sectional “hoss,”

And drew my pay in sections from

A sectional “ section-boss.”

Oh, isn’t it great to be “ up to date,”

And live in this year of grace,

With a system and place for everything,

Though nobody knows the place !

There is a good deal of truth, I think, in these lines on the idea of running every mortal thing by a card-index system. The system may be all right, and I think it is up to a certain point; but we are inclined at present to go a great deal too far, and will eventually find that it is a great nuisance. I only want to refer, as I said, to two or three points in connexion with the Bill. The first is that dealt with by Senator O’Keefe with reference to voting by post. The memorandum to which I have referred says that, “ in consequence of the abolition of postal voting, provision has been made for the extension of absent voting.” I had no idea, that postal voting had been abolished. I do not think that it has been. A provision for it is still on the statutebook of the Commonwealth, and is a part of our electoral system.

Senator McGregor:

– Who said the system had been abolished ?

Senator VARDON:

– This memorandum says, “ In consequence of the abolition of postal voting.”

Senator Long:

– That refers to the amending Bill.

Senator VARDON:

– But no Bill has yet been passed abolishing postal voting.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Bill proposes to do so.

Senator VARDON:

– Here is a definite statement: “In consequence of the abolition of postal voting.”

Senator Long:

– By this amending Bill.

Senator VARDON:

– No reference is made to the amending Bill.

Senator Needham:

– We are discussing the Bill, not the memorandum.

Senator VARDON:

– Here is a definite statement of fact-

Senator McGregor:

– Is it the honorable senator’s connexion with the Critic that makes him so critical ?

Senator VARDON:

– One has a right to be critical when statements of this kind, which ought not to be made, are contained in an official memorandum. The author of the memorandum had no right to assume that a certain thing was going to be done. It is for this Parliament to say whether postal voting shall be abolished or not.

Senator Long:

– Will the honorable senator read the heading of the memorandum?

Senator VARDON:

– I have read the whole of it, and know all that is in it,

Senator Long:

– It simply deals with the proposed amendments.

Senator VARDON:

– It starts off by saying that postal voting has been abolished. I say that it has not.

Senator McGregor:

– All right; we will let the honorable senator have his way.

Senator VARDON:

– It may have been decided, in a certain way, that postal voting should be abolished.

Senator Chataway:

– By the Caucus.

Senator VARDON:

– If this Bill is ma chinemade, and if the Caucus have decided upon it, the language of the memorandum should have been different. It should have read, “ In consequence of the decision, of the Caucus to abolish postal voting.” Then, I suppose, it would have been absolutely correct.

Senator Givens:

– When the honorable senator’s party decide to do anything, who decides it?

Senator VARDON:

– The intelligence of the people, of course.

Senator Givens:

– Stupidity sometimes.

Senator VARDON:

– I can quite understand Senator Givens laughing; but it is useless to try to laugh away proof. It is worth noticing what the provision of the Act with reference to this matter is. Section 109 provides -

An elector who (a) has reason to believe that he will not during the hours of polling on polling day be within five miles of any polling place for the division for which he is enrolled ; or (i) being a woman will on account of illhealth be unable to attend the polling place on polling day to vote; or (c) will be prevented by serious illness or infirmity from attending the polling place on polling day to vote may make application for a postal vote certificate and postal ballot-paper.

There are there three classes of people for whom special provision is made in the existing law. I am astonished that the Minister of Defence, in introducing this Bill, gave not a single reason of any kind as to why this provision should be abolished. When an important measure like this is introduced, under which it is proposed to take out of (he existing law a provision of great importance, I think that, in common courtesy to the Senate, the Minister should tell us why it is proposed to make a drastic alteration ; but the Minister made positively no reference to the subject. All he did was to say that the Government intended to abolish postal voting, and introduce in place of it a more comprehensive system of absent voting. Now, what is this comprehensive system which is to be substituted ? It is provided in proposed new section 139 a that -

On polling day an elector shall be entitled to vote at the polling place for which he Is enrolled or at any prescribed polling place for the subdivision for which he is enrolled, or he shall be permitted to vote at any other polling place within the Commonwealth under and subject to the regulations relating to absent voting.

It, therefore, appears that every elector within the Commonwealth will have to go tq a polling place to record his vote. Only two classes of people can be affected by proposed new section 139A, namely’, sailors and passengers at sea. And this is described by the Minister as being “ a more comprehensive system of absent voting.”

The memorandum sets out that electors who are within the Commonwealth on polling day will be able to vote at any polling place ; but, apparently, they will be unable to vote anywhere else. Therefore, the new provision applies only to those who will be at sea. Apparently, any one else who wishes to vote on polling day must go to a polling place somewhere within the Commonwealth. If that be a “ more comprehensive system,” I must confess that I am unable to recognise that quality as pertaining to it. Because, while the two classes of people that I have mentioned are provided for, all the others mentioned in section 109 of the principal Act have their privileges absolutely wiped out. There will be no chance for them to vote at all. On polling day a destitute asylum and a home for incurables may be declared a polling place. I make no complaint about that. I do not wish to disfranchise any poor incurables or derelicts in any way. But, while provision is made for such people, no provision is made for others who will be unable to go to a polling place: A man may be a cripple and unable to walk 5 miles ; or he may be poor and unable to forfeit a day’s pay to go and record his vote. Senator O’ Keefe would say in such a case, “ I am sorry for you, but I cannot do anything more; you cannot vote unless you walk to a polling place.” A woman in a certain state of health ought to be the subject of veneration and respect from every man. She ought to be shielded in every possible way. But such a woman cannot exercise the franchise unless she can drag herself to a polling place.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Will not that affect the one side in politics as much as the other ?

Senator VARDON:

– I do not care whether people belong to the Labour party or any other party. I say that a woman in the state of health to which I have alluded has as good a right to vote as any other person I know of.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The honorable senator’s party in South Australia, in both Houses, voted against the enfranchisement of women.

Senator VARDON:

– I am dealing with this as a great matter of principle.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The honorable senator will admit that women would never have had the franchise at all if the party with which he is associated had had their way.

Senator VARDON:

– Let us come down to tacts.

Senator O’Keefe:

– That is a fact.

Senator VARDON:

– In which State in Australia did women first obtain the right to vote?

Senator O’Keefe:

– In South Australia.

Senator VARDON:

– Who introduced and succeeded in passing women’s franchise there ?

Senator O’Keefe:

– I do not know.

Senator VARDON:

– Exactly; not the Labour party.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Did the honorable senator’s party support the proposal?

Senator VARDON:

– Yes, they did.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Not a man of them.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I know that they opposed it in other States.

Senator VARDON:

– Nonsense. And, after all, that does not touch the point. Suppose that the proposal was opposed by my party, or by the Labour party, or by any other party. If the Legislature has recognised the right of a woman to vote, that right ought not to be taken away. But I say decidedly that this Bill does take away from a woman in a certain condition the opportunity of recording her vote. It also deprives of opportunities of voting those who are old andinfirm and those who are so seriously ill as to be unable to go to the poll. They have the sympathy of honorable senators opposite ; but their sympathy does not take practical effect.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Every opponent of women’s franchise in the Senate was an anti-Labourite.

Senator VARDON:

– I am not now discussing who supported or who opposed women’s franchise. The position now is that, under the law of the Commonwealth, a woman has a right to vote. The party opposite are going to take that right away from some women.

Senator O’Keefe:

– We are not.

Senator VARDON:

– They are going to say to a woman, if she is not in a condition to go to a poll - if she is so situated that she ought to receive the utmost consideration, respect, and veneration from every man - “ Unless you can drag yourself to the polling booth you cannot vote.”

Senator O’Keefe:

– That is stretching it a bit.

Senator VARDON:

-I look upon the wiping out of these privileges as being cruel, heartless, and vindictive. I want the people of this Commonwealth to know what party it is which is taking away from those who cannot go to the poll the right to vote. It is the Labour party. I want the public generally to be able to sheet home that charge.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But it is not a fact.

Senator Millen:

– Which party is taking the right away, if it is not the Labour party ?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who gave the vote to the women?

Senator VARDON:

– May I be allowed to make an interjection occasionally?I say that the party in power to-day are robbing these people of their rights.

Senator Needham:

– They have not done anything of the sort, and do not intend to do so.

Senator VARDON:

– Will the honorable senator tell me, then, how it is proposed to give these three classes of people the opportunity of voting? It is said that the right has been abused. If that be so, why has not evidence been brought before us in clear and specific terms?

Senator de Largie:

– The facts are quite evident to any one who wants to see.

Senator VARDON:

– I take it to be a fact that if honorable senators opposite had positive evidence of abuse, they would be the first to bring out the facts. But, when asked for his evidence, Senator O’Keefe simply said that he did not intend to mention names. I do not care which party is going to lose votes by this amendment of the law.

Senator de Largie:

– That is the sore point.

Senator VARDON:

-My point is that this privilege has been largely availed of. At the last election 29,000 electors availed themselves of the provisions of section 109. Those figures amply prove the usefulness of the existing law. Why should this privilege be taken away?

Senator Needham:

– The figures prove more than that.

Senator VARDON:

– I await the production of proof.

Senator de Largie:

– The servant girls will now have an opportunity of exercising their votes without the intervention of the mistresses.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator who is addressing the Chair has complained of interjections, and I trust honorable senators will allow him to proceed without further interruption.

Senator VARDON:

– I am only asking to be allowed to get in a sentence here and there.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator has been asking questions all the time.

Senator VARDON:

– I did so only when interjections provoked questions. I have asked for evidence of corruption in connexion with the postal voting provisions. I do not believe that there has been such an amount of abuse as to warrant the taking away of this privilege. Under proposed new section 139A, to which I have just referred, it is provided that a man may vote at any polling place within the Commonwealth. If a man cannot sign his name, I suppose he can make his mark. I do not know how a mark could be proved to be a forgery, and I do not see how this is going to prevent fraud. I do not see how it will apply in the case of a by-election. There is one coming off in the district of Boothby presently. Under the existing Act, electors will be allowed to avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the postal -voting provisions, but, if this Bill were in operation, how would any elector of Boothby at present outside the electorate be able to record a vote ? There will be no polling places open except those in the district, and what are our honorable friends opposite going to do with the absent elector? Are they going to appoint polling places throughout the Commonwealth at every by-election, so that electors absent from the electorate can record their votes?

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has not to complain of interjections now.

Senator de Largie:

– It is not impossible to provide for that. There are plenty of post-offices throughout the Commonwealth which might be appointed polling booths for the occasion.

Senator VARDON:

– Does this Bill provide for that? The Government Whip ought to know what is in the Bill.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator can amend it.

Senator VARDON:

– Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council accept an amendment to that effect?

Senator McGregor:

– We shall see.

Senator VARDON:

– Then it is admitted that, as the Bill stands, there is no provision for any voting at a by-election except by people resident in the district.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator knows that it is proposed to abolish postal voting. That ought to be enough.

Senator VARDON:

– If that is enough, there is no use saying any more about it. If the machine has decided to abolish postal voting, it will be abolished ; but one would have thought that in an intelligent assembly like the Senate, if a man could advance reasons why that should not be done, they would receive some consideration and reply.

Senator de Largie:

– What is the use of arguing with a machine?

Senator VARDON:

– None, I admit. However good a machine may be, one cannot argue with it. Then, I suppose, I had better say that the machine, having made this Bill, and having decided that this particular piece of mechanism is to be cut out, and that no other piece of mechanism is to be provided for doing the same work in a better way, there is nothing more to be said on the question.

Senator Millen:

– Some persons outside of this Chamber will probably have something to say.

Senator VARDON:

– I have said that I wish the people outside to know who is responsible for this Bill, and especially for the proposal to abolish postal voting.

Senator Needham:

– The press that supports the honorable senator will give them the information.

Senator VARDON:

– If I had a press, 1 might get them to do it. As the decision has been made, I need not discuss this matter any further.

I come now to the next important proposal, that of compulsory enrolment. I am not going to say anything against compulsory enrolment. It is a very good thing so far as it goes, but we ought to be told why the Government do not propose its corollary, which is compulsory voting.

Senator Barker:

– That will come.

Senator VARDON:

– I am glad to hear that. I take it that that is authoritative, that the honorable senator has the authority of the machine to say that it will come?

Senator Barker:

– It will pass the machine.

Senator VARDON:

– This is one step, but, if we are going to carry compulsory enrolment in this Bill, why should we not also include in it provision for compulsory voting ?

Senator Barker:

– The machine cannot go just as fast as the honorable senator would like.

Senator VARDON:

– -Probably the bearings require oiling. Evidently the machine does not run fast enough for Senator Barker, who tells me that compulsory voting will come. I do not know why we should compel men to enrol, or why we should compel men to vote, but, if we are going to have compulsory enrolment, its concomitant is the compulsory vote.

Senator McGregor:

– Better compel them to enrol than to compel them to work.

Senator- VARDON. - It would be hard on the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he were compelled to work.

Senator Findley:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council has done as much work in his time as has the honorable senator.

Senator VARDON:

– The Honorary Minister evidently knows all about it, and is a very hard worker himself, I dare say.

Senator Findley:

– I have known the work done by the Vice-President, of the Executive Council for the last twenty-five years.

Senator Millen:

– That is the one thing which Senator Findley is not a judge of.

Senator VARDON:

– If we are going to compel men to enrol, and if, later on, as Senator Barker says, we are going to follow that up by compelling them to vote, we ought to assure them of representation when they record their votes. I know that there are people who have conscientious objections to voting. The members of a very considerable sect in my State never enrol their names, and never go to a polling booth. They have told me that they do not think it right that they should take any part whatever in either political or municipal affairs. They have a religious belief that they ought not to do so. The Government intend to compel those people to enrol their names. 1 suppose they could not compel them to vote. They might be’ compelled to go to a polling booth and to take ballot-papers, but they could not be compelled to mark them, or to refrain from putting so many marks on them as to make their votes informal. What is the use of this proposal unless it can be actually carried into effect? I wish to know how compulsory enrolment is going to be enforced? If I remember rightly, the Minister, in introducing the Bill, told us that 20 per cent, of the population are continually moving about from one district to another. They have not enrolled their names, or have neglected to have their names transferred from one roll to another. How are we to find out these people in order to enforce compulsory enrolment? If one-fifth of the 20 per cent, of the population referred to by the Minister have neglected to enroll their names, or to secure transfers, do the Government intend to send the police after them?

Senator McGregor:

– No, to send the military after them.

Senator VARDON:

– I am glad that we know now what is going to be done. In the event of people failing to comply with the provisions for compulsory enrolment, the military are to be sent to hunt them out. I am glad to know that the military are going to be made some use of.

Senator Millen:

– We have no other force numerically strong enough for the work.

Senator VARDON:

– It will be a nice occupation for the military to be sent round to hunt up these defaulters.

Senator de Largie:

– The Minister administering the Act will be the Minister of Defence.

Senator VARDON:

– Will this part of the Act be handed over to the Minister of Defence to see that it is carried out ? Will he send out a squad of men to scour a certain district to find out those who are not enrolled or have neglected to have their names transferred from one roll to another? When they have found them out, will they serve them with informations, hale them before a Court, and have them fined under this measure? Unless the Government are prepared to do that, what will be the value of this proposal after all ? I understand that Ministers have some business to do before the usual hour for the adjournment of the Senate, and I therefore ask leave to continue my remarks when this debate is resumed.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1696

PAPERS

Senator PEARCE laid upon the table the following papers : -

Lands Acquisition Act 1906 - Dunedoo, New South Wales : Commonwealth purposes. - Notification of the acquisition of land.

The Gauges of Australia and their Unification : Review. - Memorandum by Mr. H. Deane, Consulting Railway Engineer, dated 17th October, 1911.

page 1697

ADJOURNMENT

Resignation of Dr. Basedow. - Order of Business

Senator McGREGOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I desire to inform honorable senators, and particularly Senator Vardon, that the correspondence relating to the resignation of Dr. Basedow as Chief Protector of Aborigines for the Northern Territory has been laid on the table of the Library, and is available for their inspection.

Senator Millen:

– Perhaps the VicePresident of the Executive Council will say whether it is proposed, when we meet on Wednesday, to proceed with, and complete, the second reading of the Electoral Bill, or to proceed with the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Construction Bill?

Senator McGREGOR:

– In reply to the honorable senator, I may say that we intend to go on with the Electoral Bill, and its consideration will be followed by the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Construction Bill. Honorable senators will recognise that, the Electoral Bill has yet to be considered by the House of Representatives, and it is advisable that measures which have to go before the House of Representatives after being considered here should be given precedence. Other work can be proceeded with here while those measures are being dealt with in another place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 October 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1911/19111020_senate_4_61/>.