Senate
9 June 1915

6th Parliament · 1st Session



Press Censorship. 3745

Senate

Wednesday, 9 June 1915

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

. PRESS CENSORSHIP.

Senator MILLEN. - is the Minister of Defence yet in a position to inform the Senate of the result of his inquiries . as to the conflict between the report he made here on the authority of the censor regarding a censored statement and the contradiction given in the Argus f

Senator PEARCE. - It will be remembered that a question arose as to a statement made by myself that the first statement of Senator Millen, which appeared in the Argus, had not been referred to the censor. The day after I made that statement the Argus said that it was incorrect. ‘ I made the statement, as I said at the time, on the authority of the deputy chief censor, who informed me that the statement of Senator Millen had not been submitted to the censor. On making inquiries1 regarding the contradiction by the Argus, I found that I was quite right, and that the statement made by the deputy chief censor was quite correct. I may say that in its issue of the 4th June, the Argus published the following explanation: -

We regret that through misapprehension we . added on Friday an incorrect footnote to a speech by Senator Pearce in the Senate.

We stated that the passages objected to in a statement by Senator Millen had been passed by the censor, and we confidently believed that such was the case. We have since found that only one of the two passages referred to had been so passed, and we offer an apology to

Senator Pearce for having said that he had not been accurately informed in the matter. What actually happened was that Senator Millen sent a copy of his statement to the Sydney press, and I understand that he also sent a copy to the Melbourne press. The statement which appeared in the Sydney press was referred to the censor, and a certain paragraph was struck out by him. The Sydney Morning Herald, acting as the’ correspondent for the Melbourne Argus, telegraphed, I understand, that statement to the Argus, but the statement that the Argus published was the one which it received direct from Senator Millen, and that statement was not submitted to the censor. That, I believe, is the explanation of the whole matter.

page 3746

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Camp fob Troops: Medical Examination of Volunteers : Food Ration, Western Australia - Casualty Lists - Allocation of Pat - Railway Travelling: Transmission op Comforts - Dental Efficency

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister of Defence been called to the statement in the Age of this morning that the camp at Seymour has been discovered to be just as bad as the camp at Broadmeadows, and if such is the case, what steps does he intend to take with the view to securing some place which will not have the defects alleged to have existed at Broadmeadows and to exist at Seymour?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not propose to start on a search for a place which will be free from defect - the defect referred to being mud. Wherever you have rain you will have mud. The conditions after the heavy rain at the Broadmeadows Camp were certainly not good, and to alter them whilst the camp was in occupation was practically impossible, because the traffic would have to be carried on. The health of the men also had not been so good as we would have wished after that heavy rain. Therefore, it was decided to shift the camp to Seymour, where the soil was said to be better, and that action was. taken. I then appointed a committee of engineer officers to go into the question of what steps could be taken to make the Broadmeadows Camp habitable,, and they have submitted a report in which they recommend an expenditure of £6,000 for the purpose of putting in roads and draining and grading the ground. As it would cost about £4,500 to remove the buildings of various kinds which have been erected there to Seymour, and the engineers say that by the expenditure of the £6,000 the Broadmeadows Camp can be made perfectly habitable, I have approved of the expenditure being incurred, and when that has been done, the troops will be brought back from. Seymour to Broadmeadows. But I want it to be understood that it is not because of the appearance of the paragraph to which the honorable member has referred that I have taken that action.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– May I ask the Minister, in consequence of his statement, whether the Government have acquired the Broadmeadows Camp on which it is proposed to expend the money ?

Senator PEARCE:

– No.

Senator MILLEN:

– Is it proposed to spend the money without a tenure at all?

Senator PEARCE:

– We have a tenure for the time the camp is required for the purposes of the war. It is a tenure similar to that which we have in respect to most camps. There is practically only one State where we have a training area which is used as a camp, and that is New South Wales. In other States we have had to acquire or lease land from private persons. In the case of the Broadmeadows Camp, the land was placed it our disposal free of rent for the use of the Department as long as it requires the camp for the purposes of the war. The money which is being spent there will not be lost. All the buildings are of a temporary character, and they have been so erected in order that they may be taken to pieces and re-erected, wherever we hold our annual camp. It is the intention of the Department in the future, instead of using tents for the annual training of the troops, to use ‘the .huts erected at Broadmeadows. It is believed that that will result in a considerable saving, .because the wastage with tents is very large. The only expenditure which will not be recoverable will be the money spent on roads.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In view of the Minister’s reply to my first question, is it the intention of the Department l» continue the transfer of the troops from Broadmeadows to Seymour ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Most certainly; practically all the troops have gone to Seymour, and the work I have referred, to will take some considerable time to carry out.

Senator WATSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister of Defence aware that volunteers for active service are obliged to stand for hours on a cold stone ground in a nude state whilst awaiting examination in the Paddington Barracks, New South Wales, and will he cause inquiry to be made with the view of preventing such inhumane treatment?

Senator PEARCE:

– I certainly have not heard of any such thing, but I will have inquiries made into the statement supplied to the honorable senator.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make known the nature and quantity of the food which is supplied to the troops in training in Western Australia, by showing what they receive for breakfast, dinner, and tea, respectively?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not know that I shall be able to obtain a reply to that question in the form in which it has been put by the honorable senator. As a matter o’f fact, the ration issued is a daily one, and the troops divide it up in the way that they deem best. I will supply the honorable senator with a statement of the daily ration issued.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I would prefer an answer to the question in the form in which I have put it. The complaint to hand ia>-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The -honorable senator must not argue the question.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The complaint against the Department is that the troops are not supplied with sufficient food for tea. I am putting this question to the Minister in order that he may have an opportunity of inquiring into it. Perhaps he may not be aware of the food scale. Do the Government provide these meals, or are they supplied under contract?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Government provide a daily ration, in accordance with the scale laid down by regulation. The supplies are issued to the troops by departmental officers. I will obtain the desired information for the honorable senator.

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence if he is aware that, in some cases, Victorian newspapers have received information of the wounded soldiers with our Expeditionary Forces before this information has been received by relatives of the wounded soldiers from the Defence Department; and, if so, will he try to remedy this state of affairs?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes; I am aware that, in a few cases, the casualty lists were received by the newspapers prior to information being given by the Defence Department.

Senator Blakey:

– I am referring to a recent case.

Senator PEARCE:

– If the honorable senator has information of a recent case, I would like to have the particulars, so that I may take steps to overcome the possibility of this occurring in the future.

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I refer to the case of Signaller T. Skeyill, of Hamilton.

Senator PEARCE:

– If the honorable senator will give me particulars, I will make inquiries, and see if steps can be taken to provide against this happening again.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I desire to ask the Minister of Defence if he has observed that the total of casualties in the - 4 rous list differs from that published in the Age, and I would like to know if the Minister can say which is the official list.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am not responsible for what appears in the press. The same list is supplied to each newspaper.

Senator McKISSOCK:
for Senator Barnes

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. If a boy aged 19 years enlists, and is serving at the front, can ‘his father draw his pay, or any part of it, without the consent of the boy?
  2. In the event of the v>p.in<! killed, is the father entitled to any benefits whether the boy has named his father f-r ““n or not?
Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are -

  1. No.
  2. Not unless he comes within the definition of “ dependant “ in the War Pensions Act, which is as follows: - “ Dependants “ means such cf the members of the family of a member of tin- Forces, whose death or incapacity results from li is employment in connexion with warlike operations, as were wholly or in part dependent upon his earnings at the time of his den tit, or who would, but for such incapacity, have been so dependent, and includes parents who, though not dependent upon the earnings of the member at the time of his death are. at any time within five years after such death, without adequate means of support; and where the member -

    1. being the parent or grandparent of. an ex-nuptial child, leaves thechild so dependent upon his earnings, or
    2. being an ex-nuptial child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings. includes such an ex-nuptial child and parent or grandparent respectively.
Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Have any members of the Australian Expeditionary Forces died while in a camp of training ?
  2. If so, how many?
  3. What were the onuses of death ?
  4. In whichcamp or camps of training did the deaths occur?
  5. How many in each camp?
Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are-

  1. Yes.
  2. The total number of deaths which have actually occurred in the camps is thirty.
  3. Accident, nine; disease, twenty-one. 4 and 5. Deaths have occurred in camps as under : -

Enoggera, Brisbane. - Two. As follows: - One, myelitis; one, sunstroke. Average number of men in camp, about 2,500.

Liverpool, Sydney. - Two, accident; eight, disease; total, ten. Four, pneumonia; two, broncho-pneumonia; one, cerebrospinal meningitis; one, sunstroke; two from drowning. Average number in camp, about 8,500.

Broadmeadows, Melbourne. - Three, accident; eight, disease. Total eleven. Two, pneumonia; four, bronchopneumonia; two, heart disease. Three the result of accident. Average number in camp, about 8,000.

Morphettville, South Australia. - Three. (accide nt three, disease. Total, six. Two, pneumonia; one, appendicitis; three killed byaccident Average number in camp, about 2,500.

Camp, Perth. - One, accident. No deaths in camp. One drowned. Average number in camp, about 2,000.

Camp, Hobart. - No deaths in camp. Average number in camp small. Number has not been given.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. The extent and terms of the provision for rail-free travelling between Broadmeadows and Melbourne for men at the Broadmeadows Camp ?
  2. Whether similar provision will apply in the case of the proposed encampment at Seymour ?
  3. If not, will he have arrangements to that end made with the Victorian Railway authorities ?
Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are -

  1. No special provision exists for free railway travelling of troops between Broadmeadows and Melbourne. Each man is, however, entitled to one free journey within the limits of his State to enable him to visit his relatives before embarkation. 2 and 3. In view of the distance of Seymour from Melbourne, the Premier of Victoria has been approached with a view to some concession in rail fares being granted to men on leave travelling by rail between Seymour and Melbourne.
Senator McKISSOCK:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

If, seeing that parcels, packages, &c., are allowed to be sent free of charge from the front to relatives at home, he will take into consideration the advisability of similar action regarding the sending of clothing and other comforts from relatives to soldiers at the front ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer is -

The Department is not aware that parcels, &c., are allowed to be sent free of charge from the front to relatives in Australia. The PostmasterGeneral’s Department have recently arranged for parcels addressed to members of the Australian Imperial Force to be forwarded to Egypt at the following reduced rates : - Up to 3 lbs.,1s.; over 3, up to 7 lbs., 2s.; over 7, up to 11 lbs., 3s.

Senator BLAKEY:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many sound teeth must a volunteer have before he can be accepted for service, provided he is otherwise physically and medically fit?
  2. How, and by whom, is the question of dental efficiency decided ?
Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are -

  1. No specified number of sound teeth is laid down except the general rule that the candidate for enlistment must have sufficient sound natural teeth to masticate his food.
  2. The acceptance or rejection of a recruit on account of loss or decay of teeth rests with the inspecting medical officer, who takes into consideration the relative position of the sound teeth with the physical condition of the recruit, thus the loss of many teeth in a man of indifferent constitution would point to rejection, whilst a robust recruit who has lost an equal number might be accepted.

page 3748

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs whether he is yet in a position to reply to the statements contained in a leading article published in the West Australian, Perth, to which I directed attention on the motion for adjournment last Friday, and which relates to constructional work at the western end of the transcontinental line?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– I have been incommunication with the Department, and? it is hopeful that it will be in a position to supply the desired information at a later hour to-day.

page 3749

QUESTION

UNIFORM RAILWAY GAUGE

Senator KEATING:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, in pursuance of a question which I put to him a few weeks ago relative to the proposed devices for overcoming the break of gauge in Australia, and the exhibition of them within the precincts of Parliament, whether any action has been taken; and, if so, what?

Senator RUSSELL:
ALP

– In reply to the honorable senator’s question, I have received the following memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs : -

With reference to the request of Senator Keating that steps be taken to have models of the break of railway gauge devices exhibited in the House, I desire to inform you, by direction of the Minister, that as the break of gauge question is one of great importance and a large number of inventions have already been investigated, it cannot be too strongly urged that before any experimental work is undertaken the advice of a properly-constituted Board of Railway Expert Engineers be obtained. It is considered preferable to refer the inventions to such a Board rather than have models of each brought forward to be exhibited at Parliament House. If the Board deems any of the inventions worthy of consideration, models maythen be exhibited. So far forty (40) different proposals have been considered by the Engineer-in-Chief for Commonwealth Railways.

page 3749

QUESTION

POSTAL EMPLOYEES

Dismissal of Linesmen

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether he has obtained any answers to the question which I submitted to him the week before last?

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have received the following further answer to the honorable senator’s question: -

  1. Reports received show that the services of fifteen temporary linesmen have been dispensed with and their places filled by others who have qualified for permanent appointment by passing the examination prescribed by law.

With two exceptions none of the men concerned had been employed for more than nine months.

Eight are married men and three of those who have qualified for permanent appointment are also married. The services of three other men (two married and one single) were also dispensed with, but they were not replaced by other temporary men.

  1. Only three out of 82 candidates were disqualified through failure to pass the simple educational test. In accordance with the prescribed practice and for insuring the efficiency of the service, preference for temporary employment must be given those who have demonstratd their efficiency, and who will eventually fill the permanent positions.
  2. The law governing temporary employment directs that such employment be limited to a term of nine months, and this term is not exceeded unless in exceptional circumstances, and not when qualified candidates for permanent employment are available, as in this case.

page 3749

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Contracts

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Defence to the following statement, which is published in to-day’s Age: -

At the meeting of the Council of the South Australian Chamber of Manufactures, Adelaide, Mr. J. McGregor said a committee should be appointed to consider the terms on which they would join the associated body. The best contractors in New South Wales were being shut out of Federal contracts, and no manufacturer having self-respect would sign a contract embodying the clause. The scum of the earth was carrying out the Federal contracts. 1 ask the Minister whether that statement - if it be untrue - is not a reflection on the Department, and whether he will take steps to repudiate it?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Of my own knowledge, the statement is grossly inaccurate. In fact, I am rather inclined to think that Mr. McGregor himself is a contractor with the Department, and I think he would resent being referred to as “the scum of the earth.” If he is the Mr. McGregor who is associated! with the Woollen Mills, he is a contractor with the Department. I would like the honorable senator to hand me the extract in question, so that I may have inquiries made regarding it.

page 3749

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act 1901-1912.- Regulation.- Statutory Rules 1015, No.78.

Census and Statistics Act 1905. - Regulation. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 48.

Lands Acquisition Act 1906. - Land acquired under, at -

Ashfield, New South Wales - For Postal purposes.

Bunbury, Western Australia - For Quarantine purposes.

Carlton, Victoria - For Postal purposes.

Lismore. New South Wales - For Defence purposes.

Port Holland, Western Australia - For Postal purposes.

St. Kilda, Victoria. - For Defence purposes.

Norfolk Island. - Ordinance of 1915 -

No. 1. - Importation of Animals.

No. 2. - Interpretation.

Papua :

Memorandum by Lieutenant-Governor re Offence by Natives.

British Dominions : Methods of Trial adopted in places in like circumstances to Papua, in relation to indictable offences.

Public Service Act 1902-1913. - PostmasterGeneral’s Department. - Promotion of W. Layton as Postmaster, Grade IV., Class 3, Bourke, New South Wales.

War, European -

Correspondence relating to the Military Operations in Togoland, West Africa

Notes exchanged with the Chilian Minister respecting the sinking of the German cruiser Dresden in Chilian Territorial waters.

Correspondence between His Majesty’s Government and the United States Ambassador respecting the Release of Interned Civilians; and the Exchange of Diplomatic and Consular Officers, and of certain classes of Naval and Military Officers, Prisoners of War, in the United Kingdom and Germany respectively.

Report on the Netherlands East Indies: The Federal Policy, Local Government, Civil Service, Native Government, and Economic Development, by the Hon. Staniforth Smith, Director of Agriculture, &c, Territory of Papua.

War Precautions Act 1914-1915. - Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1914, No. 77.

page 3750

QUESTION

FUEL OIL FOR NAVY

Senator MILLEN:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. What are the terms, conditions, and prices of the latest contract given for the supply of fuel oil to the Naval Department?
  2. To whom were the contracts given ?
  3. How many tenders or offers were received ?
Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. Tenders closed on 9th April, 1913, for supplies of liquid fuel. The principal conditions Of contract were that the liquid fuel must Comply with the Admiralty requirements as regards flash point, fluidity at low temperatures, percentage of sulphur, presence of water, acidity, and freedom from impurities. For contract prices see 2.
  2. The following tenders were accepted on 20th April, 1913:-

    1. British Imperial Oil Company Limited, Melbourne - Supply of 10,000 tons liquid fuel during the period 10th April, 1913, to 9th April, 1915, at following rates: -

Delivered, ex tanks at Sydney, 85s. per ton, exclusive of duty.

Delivered, ex tanks at Melbourne, 90s. per ton, exclusive of duty.

Delivered, ex tanks, Adelaide, 85s. per ton, exclusive of duty.

  1. Commonwealth Oil Corporation Limited, Sydney - Supply of 1,000 tons before end of 1913, at the rate of 80s. per ton, delivered at Sydney.

    1. Three. The other tenderer was the British -Australian Oil Company for delivery at Newcastle.

page 3750

QUESTION

RATES OF WAGES

Electricians : Aviation Mechanics and Tradesmen : Armourers’ Assistants

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What is the rate of wages paid to Postal electricians in the various States of Australia?

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

– The answer is -

The rates paid are those prescribed by the Commonwealth Arbitration Award in the Postal Electricians’ case.

Senator McKISSOCK:
for Senator Barnes

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

  1. Are mechanics and tradesmen at Werribee Aviation School paid rates of wages in accordance with those paid outside?
  2. If not, why?
Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are - 1 and 2. Aircraft construction is a separate branch of industry, and cannot adequately be compared with any other craft.

Third class air mechanics are paid £132 per annum for a probationary period of three months, when they arc appointed, if satisfactory, to the second class, at a, minimum of £160 per annum, advancing by annual increments to £178 per annum. If not satisfactory at the end of their probationary term they are discharged. The first class consists of a limited number of air mechanics, and vacancies are filled from the second class. Pay commences at £190 per annum, and rises to £285 per annum.

Fitters and turners arc, under the VictorianEngineering Award, paid £3 6s. per week as against £3 Is. 6d., the minimum of the second class.

As already pointed out, the mechanics will eventually receive better wages than are provided by the Wages Board. They also receive free medical attendance, £10 towards cost of working uniform, and the usual holiday privileges.

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Min- . ister of Defence, upon notice -

What is the rate of wages paid to Armourers’’ Assistants Turner. Maynard, Smith, and Glen, employed at Military Head-quarters, Perth,. Western Australia?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer is-

The above-mentioned assistant armourers are at present drawing the following rates of pay: - Turner, £162 per annum; Maynard. £156 per annum; Smith, £156 per annum;

Glen, £144 per annum. A district allowance of 5 per cent, of the amount of salary is paid in addition to the above rates. Annual increments of £6 arc also granted as they become due up to a maximum salary of £168.

page 3751

SUPPLY BILL (No. 7)

Expeditionary Forces : Broadmeadows Camp»: Cost, of Improvements’ - Enlistment : Medical Examinations : Chest Measurement - Dental Corps - Clothing and Equipment - Conduct of the War : Conscription - Proposed National Government - Manufacture of Small Arms and Munitions - Military Trial : Case of Non-commissioned Officer - Defence Department : Employment of Alien Enemies - Pat of ARMOURERS’ Assistants - Inter-State Trade in Wheat : Amendment of Constitution - Advertising of Commonwealth : Land Settlement : Unemployment - Internment of Alien Enemies - Land Tax Department: Temporary Employees - Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway : Day Labour System - Commonwealth Bank, Western Australia.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a first time. It is right that I should draw attention to the fact that this ia the last Supply Bill for the present financial year, because honorable senators are entitled to certain privileges in discussing it. It provides for, approximately, one twentyfourth of the annual appropriation. It covers a fortnight’s Supply, and there is nothing new or original in it. It covers merely the ordinary salaries, plus the usual contingencies for the Departments. The total amount asked for under it is £2,013,020.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I do not propose to discuss this Bill, because to do so would be quite superfluous. I do, however, propose to take advantage of the opportunity presented to direct attention to one or two matters which I think it advisable to bring under the notice of the Government, and more particularly of the Minister of Defence. First of all, I wish to say a word or two concerning the expenditure of a considerable sum of money at the Broad- meadows Camp.. When, a little time ago, the Minister of Defence announced the intention to spend something like £6,000 at Broadmeadows, I asked what appeared to me to be a very pertinent question. I wished to know whether we had any title to the land used as a military camp at Broadmeadows on which it was proposed to expend money upon improvements of a permanent character which might be rendered useless if we had to hand the land back again to the owners. I understand that no title to the land has been acquired by the Government, and I suggest that the Minister of Defence should immediately look into this aspect of the matter. I do not wish to delay for a moment the work that is going on at the camp, but as money must be spent, amongst other things, upon roads, in view of the deluge which occurred there a little while ago, we may find, when we come to hand the land back to the owner, that we may have to pull up the roads, and possibly to pay some compensation for damage done to the land.

Senator Turley:

– That does not necessarily follow.

Senator MILLEN:

– It does not necessarily follow, but I venture to say that most people having a road constructed through their paddocks for the purpose of a military encampment would, when the land was being handed back to them, see in the road a substantial justification for a claim for compensation. I am putting this as an ordinary business matter. I believe that the Department has for some time been considering the question of securing a permanent site for a military camp within a reasonable distance of Melbourne. I am speaking from memory, but I am under the impression that they had some scheme for the acquisition of the land at Broadmeadows for the purpose. I refer to the matter with a view of suggesting to the Minister that if he is going to spend money there on improvements which may later on be rendered useless, the whole question of the tenure on which we hold the land should be considered. There is no permanent military camp for Victoria such as we have in New South Wales, and sooner or later we must face the problem of getting one. It is a simple business proposition that, as we are now spending money on the land at Broadmeadows, our title to the land should pass under review.

Senator Turley:

– Is Langwarrin only a temporary camp ‘/

Senator MILLEN:

– For the moment I cannot say whether it is or not, but I know that it is not regarded by the military authorities as a satisfactory one. There was a desire in the Department a few months ago to acquire a permanent camp for Victoria such as the Liverpool Camp is for New South Wales. If Broadmeadows is not suitable for the purpose, my suggestion may be viewed in another light, but if it can be improved to meet requirements, I suggest that as a business precaution a title to the land should be secured before we spend a lot of money, the expenditure of which may be rendered useless a ‘ little later on. There is another matter to which I should like to direct attention. Quite a number of volunteers offering their services in Sydney - and I believe the same thing has occurred here - are told that their ‘ chest measurement is not quite sufficient, but that if they go to a physical culture school for two or three weeks experts in physical culture will be able to bring them up to the required measurement. Many are doing so, and doing it successfully. I suggest to the Minister of Defence that if it is clear to the enlisting officers that with two or three weeks’ training at a physical culture school a volunteer for service can come up to the required chest measurement, those men ought not to be sent away from the recruiting office, but should be taken into camp straight away, and be given their physical training there. At present many of these men are paying £5 or £10 to physical culture experts, and they might be given the physical training they require at the camp, and at the same time become familiar with necessary military training. The adoption of this suggestion would prevent a good deal of disappointment and heartburning on the part of men anxious to serve the Empire, and it would save many of them money which they can ill afford to spend. It would expedite the business of enrolment, and give us the very element we want - the willing man.

Senator Maughan:

– Would not the honorable senator’s proposal interfere with private enterprise ?

Senator MILLEN:

– These gentlemen who come back tanned with the suns of Queensland to take part in our national deliberations may be pardoned a little frivolity, but I do not care what it interferes with at the present juncture. I am putting forward the suggestion, I believe, with the approval of the Senate, in connexion with one of the little annoyances to intending recruits which I think might be easily remedied. Recently it was decided to establish a Dental Corps in connexion with the Expeditionary Forces. I should like to know from the Minister of Defence whether it is a fact that appointments to that corps have been made without applications being invited or without any consultation with the authorities representing the dental profession. I am informed that it is a fact, and, if so, it is a very serious departure from a very healthy and well-established practice in this country. The matter was not so desperately urgent that these appointments should not have been made public by an intimation, through the press or otherwise, requesting intending applicants to communicate with the Department. I believe that my information is reliable, and I should like to know whether the Minister is in a position to contradict it or to offer any explanation of what has been done. These are the three matters I wished to bring under the attention of the Senate. The Bill itself does not require a moment’s consideration at our hands.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [3.40].- I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to say a few words regarding the present position, particularly regarding Defence matters. There has been some strong feeling exhibited concerning the employment of aliens . in connexion with not only the Defence Department, but other Departments throughout the Commonwealth. I am credibly informed that there are several gentlemen of alien birth - really of enemy nationhood - now employed in the Defence Department at clerical work, and work in connexion with the accounts. At a time like the present it behoves the Government to set a good example to the public generally in the matter of employing alien enemies. Of course, we know that there are many here who have been in Australia for a great number of years with whom we have been able to get on quietly and comfortably - the same thing has taken place in Great Britain - but we realize now that the time has arrived when we must look at this ques- tion from an altogether different standpoint. We know that in Great Britain the position has gradually come to be regarded as more and more serious. People in whom it was thought absolute trust and confidence could be placed, owing to their long residence in Great Britain, and long association with British subjects, have been found to be in communication with the enemy, and disposing of important secrets that may have come “within their knowledge ; and what has happened in Great Britain may happen here. We may have in our midst persons who will do the same thing. Possibly the men to whom I refer particularly may not do it, but just now we cannot afford to tamper with matters of that sort. It is better to make a mistake on the right side than on the wrong side. Therefore, it would be wiser for the Minister to turn his attention to this object, and ascertain who are the men employed in the Defence Department in the way that I have indicated, than to run the risk of having persons there whose work, to say the least of it, may be unsatisfactory from a defence point of view. It may be urged that Australia is far removed from the seat of war, and is not likely to be attacked ; but as Australians are endeavouring to do their share in connexion with the defence of the Empire, an acquaintance with any matters connected with that defence may be of value and importance to the enemy.

Senator Russell:

– Do you include other than enemy aliens ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I refer to enemy aliens.- It has recently been made apparent to us that naturalization does not interfere with the nationality of men who emigrate from Germany or Austria.

Senator Senior:

– Many of them have sons fighting for us.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - No doubt some of their descendents have. Questions have been put to the Minister as to whether medical officers have not received instructions as a result of which the numbers of those accepted as recruits have recently been very materially lessened, and he has explained why this has come about; but I wish honorable senators to realize that, although we have sent large numbers of men to the front, and have many recruits now in training, our assistance to the Empire in the shape of soldiers from Australia is very small when it is compared with that given by other portions of the British Dominions. Let us see what is being done by the Canadians.

Senator Pearce:

– In proportion to population, we have sent to the front more soldiers than Canada, or any other portion of the British Empire.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I presume that the Minister has the correct figures before him; but the information one sees in the newspapers leads one to conclude that Australia is not doing the same, in regard to numbers, as Canada is doing. Australia has a population of 5,000,000. Canada’s population is about 8,000,000.

Senator Bakhap:

– The fact that a large number of the Canadian population is of French extraction has to be taken into consideration.

Senator de Largie:

– The French are in the war as much as the British.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The Canadians of French extraction are defending both France and Great Britain. A report published in the Melbourne Age shows that Canada is determined to raise a much larger number of volunteers in order to do a much greater share of the work of defending the Empire.. I think that she contemplates increasing her troops from 350,000 to 500,000.

Senator Pearce:

– The. Canadian figures have always included the numbers mobilized for local defence, and even then they exceed ours by very little.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The Minister possibly has the exact number of men sent by Canada to the front, as against our number, but I am afraid that when the war is over it will be found that Canada has been much more strongly represented than Australia. I do not. belittle the efforts of the Australian people. I believe that they are prepared to send double or treble the number of men to the front; but the difficulty lies in the disinclination, or inability, of the military authorities to take all the men fit and capable of bearing arms who are now offering their services.

Senator Henderson:

– That inability arises from the unwillingness of the members of the honorable senator’s party to do things in the past.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - Throwing blame on one side or the other does not answer the question. The question is what is the position today?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Can the honorable senator give the name of one efficient man who has been rejected?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I believe that any number of men who have been rejected can be found. There is- the question of chest measurement. I know of men who have submitted themselves for examination whose chest measurement has been given as 2 inches less than their actual chest measurement. That is done by a peculiar method of measurement, which gives the minimum as actually less than the man’s true minimum. I know of one man with a chest measurement of 41 inches whose services have been accepted and who has gone into camp. He was returned with a chest measurement of 39 inches. In another case a man with a chest measurement of 35 inches was told that his measurement did not come up to the requirement of 33 inches, and that he should go to a physical instructor and pet instruction for a week or so, then offer himself again.

Senator Pearce:

– Can you give me the names of those persons? I shall be glad to have them.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I think that I can. The man of whom I have spoken has been undergoing this physical instruction and it has been stated to me that his chest measurement is something like 35 inches. There is another difficulty which exists, and it is a discouragement to men. This afternoon Senator Watson asked a question with regard to men being kept waiting in a nude state for hours awaiting medical examination. I can understand that necessarily there is a certain amount of delay. I have been told by a man who was instructed to attend at about a quarter-past 9 o’clock in the morning that the doctor will only examine men between the hoars of 11 and 12. The man stripped to the waist, and was required to stand for nearly two hours before the examination ras held. If honorable senators will make the trouble to read some of the let.ers in the press to-day, they will see a letter in which a mother complains that er son was required to stand stripped for a considerable length of time before ‘ie could be examined, with the result that he hr.3 an attack of broncho-pneumonia from time to time, and has really been broken up by the treatment he received. That is only one of many instances that are alleged to have occurred. I do not say that all the complaints are well founded, but once an allegation is made it is well to institute an inquiry.

Senator Lynch:

– Why do not the men put on their clothes?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The men are told to strip and await the attendance of the doctor. £ do not say that the complaint applies to everybody. It may apply to a man who comes a little earlier than other men attend, and who has to wait until a squad is assembled.

Senator Pearce:

– The men are called up four at a time, and they are not called upon to strip until that number is present. Surely it does not take a doctor two hours to examine four men.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- -The man who told me that he had to stand for nearly two hours stripped to the waist is a man whom 1 know well, and whose credence I have no reason to doubt.

Senator Guy:

– How long is it since this incident occurred ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Quite recently. When such complaints are made it is well to see if there is any ground for them. The Minister, of course, cannot be held responsible for such occurrences. . He gives his instructions and believes that they are being carried out effectively, but when complaints are made to the contrary, it is only fair that he should have the opportunity of ascertaining how much credence he can attach to the reports, and, at any rate, the opportunity of refuting them. We should do all in our power to encourage men to enlist, and not allow them to think that it is a matter of favour for the authorities to accept them and send them away to the front. Let it be understood throughout the Commonwealth that it is a case of mutual obligation and mutual benefit. It may be urged that we are not prepared to take all the men who are willing to go, because of a shortage of equipment. Truest is. that we may be unable to send the men into camp and get them away within a couple of months or so; but instead of turning them down absolutely, why not place their names on a list and call upon them as soon as there is an opportunity to get them into camp ? I think that this sort of thing has been going on for some time. Many a man has been . turned down, but if it were fully realized that it was most important that every able-bodied man should be accepted, another course of procedure would be adopted.

Senator de Largie:

– You cannot give one case.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– In the early days there were complaints in the Sydney press that the men were not being taken as they were offering themselves, and the reply of Colonel Wallack was that more men were offering themselves for service than were required. If that was the case, why was not a list made of the men who were suitable to go to the front, so that they could be called up at any moment ?

Senator Pearce:

– That statement was absolutely unauthorized. Every time I have spoken in public I have said that every man who was fit and well would be accepted, and that we wanted them to go- Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD. - I have no desire to make an attack on the Minister.

Senator Pearce:

– If Colonel Wallack made that statement, he made it in flagrant disobedience of what I said.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– To-day we saw in the newspapers an appeal for recruits, giving the chest measurement, the height, and rates of pay. That indicates a desire to get men to enlist, but to-day the Empire is in such a grave position that we need the help of every able-bodied man we can get. One of the great troubles we have had to contend with is that we have been fed up with the belief that our people were doing well, that there had been no reverses. Unfavorable news has been carefully suppressed, and that has caused people not only here, but in the Old Country, to fail to realize fully the grave position in which the nation stands. If the nation does not wake up, and work a bit harder and more energetically, it may find that, instead of coming out of the struggle with the Allies as supreme victor, the war will result in practically a draw. We may not be able to drive the enemy out of Belgium, Northern France, and Poland, unless we get every man who is available to go to the front, and assist in vindicating the position taken up by the Allied Armies.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Our political leaders want to wake up. That is what we need.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– In Great Britain, public men are waking up, and there has been an amalgamation of all parties. The Government, the Opposition, and the> Labour party have combined to form aNational Government to deal with on© thing only, and that is the supreme safety of the nation. No question can be compared in importance with the safety of the nation. The freedom we enjoy today is very great. But let us assume the possibility of a hostile power being able to rob us of our freedom. What, then, would be the good of any laws we might pass? Suppose that Germany was in possession of this country. Where would be our freedom and liberty ? We would come under the iron heel of a despotism which would grind us down to the earth.

Senator Stewart:

– They had the same social difficulties in Germany as we have had here.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Is Germany a nation which the honorable senator wants to see imitated ?

Senator Senior:

– In some things, absolutely yes.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Then I ask the honorable senator to read in the press of Tuesday the statement of Lord Bryce in regard to the German system. He points out that, “ to the German the State is a tremendous abstraction, far above the persons composing it; with the singular attribute of being exempt from all moral conscience and moral sanction.” Do we not see every day the effect of the operation of that principle? We read of great atrocities committed by Germans in Belgium, and the north of France. We know that it is only too true that atrocities are perpetrated by officers and soldiers. But I believe that, individually, they would never dream of doing such cruel and disgraceful acts. It is pleaded that the State finds it necessary to do these things in order to vindicate its own position. We in Australia, I am glad to believe, regard the State not as a supreme body that can do things which we as individuals would consider dishonest or wrong; we look to .the Government of the day to administer fair and equal justice to all classes. It is absurd for us to talk about minor differences of opinion. The. safety of the State is the supreme matter which we have to regard, and every effort of honorable senators, wherever they may sit, should be directed to maintain the supremacy of our great Empire. It can only be maintained, unfortunately, by the. sacrifice of thousands of the lives of our own people - lives which are valuable and can ill be spared, but which have to be sacrificed just as the lives of our predecessors were sacrificed in order to obtain the degree of political and religious freedom which we ourselves enjoy. I do not desire to say more on this question at present, except to appeal to honorable senators to do what they believe in their hearts to be best, and as far as possible to allow smaller matters to remain in abeyance whilst we are dealing with great issues. There is not a man in this Parliament, there is not a person in Australia, I hope, but realizes the great gravity of the struggle which is going on. There were certain matters in connexion with the camps which I proposed to refer to, but I will not delay the Senate now, because I believe, from what the Minister has said, that he .is taking measures to make the camps as sanitary and as efficient as possible. That is another matter which comes in pretty prominently with regard to the encouragement of enlistment. Let men understand that they are not going to a place impregnated with the germs of disease, but to a place which, by hygienic methods, has been made as healthful as ‘possible.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– It is very interesting indeed to note the comparison between the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the Deputy Leader. Senator Millen, addressing himself to. the firstreading of the Bill, contented himself with a reference to the question of the chest measurement of those who arc anxious to serve the Empire on the battlefields of Europe. No honorable senator could help being struck by the practical nature of his suggestion, that if certain men were gaining a livelihood by charging some of our volunteers a fee to expand their chests, that work could very we1’ be done by the Department itself, seeing that it has. a staff for that purpose.

I see no reason why men who are told by the recruiting officers that if they were a little broader in the chest they would be accepted, should not be at once enlisted and placed in the respective camps, and undergo there a physical training which would bring them up to the required standard. That is about the only criticism which Senator Millen offered. But Senator Gould worked himself almost into a fury, and made a charge against the Government that they were not realizing their duty to the Empire in the present crisis. Qualify his statement as he may, and apologize to the Minister of Defence as he did, ‘he undoubtedly attacked the Minister, the Department”, and the Government in saying that they were not realizing the crisis, that they were not enrolling all the men they could enrol, and that they were not sending sufficient men to the front. When the Minister asked Senator Gould to give the name of a solitary fit man who: had been rejected by an officer in the Commonwealth, he did not take up the challenge.

Senator Bakhap:

– He promised to supply the Minister with the names.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I am not going to supply names during the course of a debate in the Chamber. It would not be fair to do so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator criticised the actions of the Government, but failed to suggest a remedy.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is satisfied that no fit man has been turned down - then everything is all right.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I merely ask for the proof of Senator Gould’s statements.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is satisfied that everything is all right ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Am I making this speech, or is Senator Millen? He usually takes up a considerable amount of the time of this Chamber, - though I must compliment him upon the brevity which he has exhibited this afternoon.

Senator Millen:

– I hope the honorable senator will copy my example.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am usually brief in my utterances. If I have any complaint to make, I either voice it in this Chamber, or communicate it by letter to the responsible Minister. But when I do so, I usually suggest a way in which the defects of which complaint is made may be removed. This afternoon Senator Gould indulged in a tirade against the Government, but did not suggest any means by which the number of recruits being enrolled may be increased.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– I can make a good many suggestions in that direction.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is all very well for the honorable senator to attack the Government, but the fact remains that he resumed his seat without offering ally suggestions as to the . way in which existing conditions may be improved.

Senator Millen:

– The remedy is obvious.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Of course, it is obvious, because Senator Gould mentioned it.

Senator Millen:

– He said that men were being rejected because of the medical examination. If that is so, the remedy is obvious.

Senator Pearce:

– We should have no medical examination ?

Senator Millen:

– Have the same examination as that to which recruits were subjected three months ago.

Senator NEEDHAM:

- Senator Gould went further than that. He said that the Government were not taking any steps to insure sufficient men being sent to the front*

Senator Bakhap:

– Why not say “this Parliament “ ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– He compared the efforts of the Commonwealth with those of Canada. He said that figures would prove that Canada was doing more to help the Empire than was Australia. I venture to say that events have demonstrated that Australia has assisted the Empire more than has any other Dominion. Perhaps we have not sent as many men to the front as has Canada, but in proportion to our population we have sent more, and our troops have acquitted themselves exceedingly well.

Senator Bakhap:

– We have not yet enlisted the same proportion of men as has been enlisted in the United Kingdom. That is the point.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator is perfectly at liberty to produce figures in that connexion. The fact is that we suddenly found ourselves involved in a world-wide war. We were just as unprepared for the contingency as was the Mother Country herself. She realizes to-day that she was caught napping. The British Government were not prepared for the struggle either in connexion’ with her Naval or Military arm. I venture to say that if the policy suggested by my honorable friends opposite had been adopted by the Commonwealth, we would have been even less prepared, on the outbreak of war, than we were. It is all very well for Senator Gould to say that we should sink party politics at the present juncture. He referred to the resignation of the Asquith Government in order that a National Cabinet, embracing all sections of political thought in Great Britain, might be constituted. Nevertheless, he was very partisan in his utterances this afternoon. I cannot help saying once more that whilst he accused the Government of failure to do sufficient in the way of enlisting men, he carefully abstained from suggesting a remedy. If the policy of his party had been adopted-

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– What was that policy?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– In the first place the honorable senator’s party opposed compulsory training, and in the second it advocated the continuance of the payment of a naval subsidy in preference to the creation of an Australian Navy.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– That is not correct. There were certain men in both political parties who were prepared to adhere to the subsidy.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The pages’ of Hansard teem with utterances by Mr. Deakin, Mr. Cook, Senator Millen, and others, in favour of the continuance of the payment of a naval subsidy in preference to the building of an Australian Fleet Unit. They were also in favour of presenting a Dreadnought to Great Britain.

Senator Millen:

– Where is your Dreadnought to-day?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It is defending the Empire.

Senator Bakhap:

– Yes. In the North Sea, where the other Dreadnought would have been.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Had it not been for the Dreadnought which we possess, I question whether the Emden or some other German warship would not long ago have been bombarding Fremantle and some of our other ports.

Senator Millen:

– What would have saved us if the honorable senator’s party had secured the small boats which they wanted to obtain?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The party with which I am associated desired to have both small vessels and large ones. Had it not been for the policy of that party we would have had to-day neither a small warship nor a large one. Had effect been given to the policy of my honorable friends opposite we would still have been paying £200,000 annually by way of naval subsidy to Great Britain, and we would not have possessed the military force that we have to-day.

Senator Bakhap:

– Why did the minority in another place consist entirely of Labour members?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– One swallow does not make a summer. The fact that some Labour members voted for the subsidy does not mean that that was the policy of the Australian Labour party.

Senator Bakhap:

– There were dozens of thousands of Fusionists who supported the policy of an Australian Navy from the beginning.

Senator Millen:

Mr. Fisher laid it down that £500,000 was quite enough to spend on defence.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– There may have been Fusionists who were in favour of the policy of an Australian Navy. If so, those Fusionists were not members of this Parliament. Our compulsory training system was described by the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Cook, as a “ kiddie army,” and our policy of an Australian Navy as that of a “tin-pot” Navy. These gentlemen do not like their utterances to be resurrected from the tomes of Hansard. Now we are all in favour of an Australian Navy and of compulsory training. Why? Because our very existence demands them.

Senator Bakhap:

– Labour members spoke against the creation of an Australian Fleet in 3933. Since I have been a member of this Chamber I have heard Labour members speak antagonistically of an Australian Navy. Hansard will prove that.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I cannot help it if my honorable friend becomes wild. It is quite evident that he cannot stand fair and honest criticism. There is no division amongst honorable senators to-day as to what we ought to do and as to the best way of doing it. We realize; that we are involved in a world crisis. We know that the present war is not. a territorial struggle. We recognise that, it is a fight for freedom against thedespotic Government of Germany. Wemust not be lulled into a sense of false security merely because German warships are not bombarding Melbourne orFremantle, or because our soldiers are not actively engaged in Australia in repelling an invading force. To-day they are fighting on the battlefields of Europeand of the Gallipoli Peninsula, where., they are endeavouring to maintain theprestige of the Empire and the liberty of the world. It’ is idle for Senator Gould to come here and say that we arenot doing all that we should, unless he. can tell us what we ought to do. If hecan do that I will give him all the assistance I can-

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator will be called upon very soon.

Senator NEEDHAM:

- Senator Gould commenced his speech by a reference tosmall matters, and ended it by addressing himself to large matters. I havebeen dealing with a large issue, and now I propose to direct attention to perhaps a. smaller one. We all know that quite a number of wild statements have been made in regard to the Broadmeadows Camp. We have been told that men were dying therelike flies, and that there had been 25f> cases of sickness within a fortnight.. These statements were backed up by gentlemen in responsible positions. In another place, for example, Mr. Watt declared, upon the authority of a letter which he had received, that a sentry had’ been found dead at his post. I do not know whether the Defence Department is in a position to refute these statements.

Senator Pearce:

– They have already been refuted.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The answers given to the questions which I submitted to the Minister prove conclusively that there was no foundation for these statements. This circumstance ought to suggest to honorable members of this Parliament that they should exercise great care before making such wild assertions. When we come to analyze the number of deaths recorded at the various camps in the six capitals of the States, we see that the conditions obtaining in those camps have not been anything like what they have been represented to be. I wish now to refer to the payment to armourers’ assistants, in connexion with which there is evidently some misunderstanding between the Minister and myself. When speaking on the Ministerial statement, some time ago, 1 referred to the matter, and my remarks are recorded upon page 2375 of Hansard. I also quoted the examination tests that those men had to submit to, and then I went on to read the letter from the secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in Perth, pointing out that at one time these armourers’ assistants were placed on the same basis as the postal electricians. But when the postal electricians approached an independent tribunal, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, they got an increase in their wages. When the Minister of Defence was replying, he said that having regard to the statements I had made he would look up the award of that Court, with a view of seeing whether or not he could review or revise the decision he had come to in connexion with the payment of armourers’ assistants. A little later on the honorable gentleman informed me that he had read the award, and had found that the armourers’ assistants were being paid more than the wages fixed for those men in the award. In connexion with that statement, I have a letter from the Department of Defence, dated 4th June, which reads as follows : -

I am directed by the Honorable the Minister to inform you that the rates paid by this Department to artificers’ labourers are from £146 to £164 5s. per annum, whereas under a recent Arbitration Court award, which takes effect from 1st July next, the rates of pay for labourers in the Post and Telegraph Department are from £132 to £144 per annum. I have also to state that, in addition to their pay artificers’ labourers are paid a uniform allowance of £5 per annum, and receive free medical attendance and medicines.

Yours faithfully,

TRUMBLE, Secretary.

I want now to point out to the Minister that I was not referring to artificers.’ labourers, but to armourers’ assistants, - and I wish now to read a letter which I have received on this subject from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. It is sent from Perth under date 24th May, 1915, and reads as follows: -

Senator Needham.

Dear comrade, - Yours of the 19th to hand re. armourers’ assistants. I was more than surprised to read your account of the statement of the Minister, as it is entirely at vari ance with the truth. The minimum wage of a mechanic (telephone or telegraph) is £168 without allowances. The following is a list of men engaged as assistant armourers at Perth, and their annual rate without allowances :- Turner, £162; Maynard, £156; Smith, £156; Glen, £144.

I might add, in explanation to the Minister, that I received this letter since I put the question on the notice-paper which he answered to-day. Honorable senators will see that his answer corresponds exactly with the statement made by the secretary. The award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in the case of the Postal Electricians “Union distinctly sets out the following rates of pay : -

Mechanics -(Telegraph or Telephone), £168. Senior Mechanics, £198. Foremen Mechanics, including foremen mechanics, electric light and power’, £228.

The other awards provide for wages up to as high as £324. If the award for mechanics (telegraph or telephone), £168, is compared with £162, £156, and £144 paid to armourers’ assistants in Perth, it will be seen that the latter are not receiving the same rate of wages at all.

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– You are comparing armourers’ assistants with mechanics. Why not compare them with the corresponding grade in another award ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am only endeavouring to point out to the Minister that there has been some misunderstanding with regard to my inquiry about armourers’ assistants. I may not have made my question quite clear, but reference to Hansard will show that I was referine to armourers’ assistants, and not to the award given to artificers’ labourers.

Senator Pearce:

– Are they corresponding branches?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not know, but from what I have seen of the work of those men in the armoury I venture to say that it requires greater skill than that expected of postal electricians.

Senator Pearce:

– In the one case the award is for assistant mechanics and the other for postal electricians. ‘Senator NEEDHAM.- I admit that, but at the same time, having seen the work of these men - we will take the four classes of men whose names are on the paper today - I wish to say that, with the knowledge I have of mechanics, their work requires more skilled knowledge than is required of postal electricians. I observe that the Assistant Minister shakes his head, and indicates that he does not agree with me, but if he will put a postal electrician alongside an armourers’ assistant, and require him to temper a bayonet, to work a slot machine, and mill, turn, fit, and drill, he will find that the postal electrician, although he may be a very good man, will not do the work of the armourers’ assistant.

Senator Russell:

– In the Telegraph and Telephone Branches there is always the possibility of a thousand faults to be attended to.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I quite agree with that, but I again’ point out that a postal electrician cannot be expected to do the work of an armourer’s assistant, and, say,, temper a bayonet that is out of temper. If the postal electricians can pass an examination test, and do the work that assistant armourers are called upon to do, I will give way. Any one who has a knowledge of the two industries knows that there is a great deal more skill required for armourers’ assistants than for postal electricians. I want to be clearly understood. I do not say that the postal electricians are paid too much. As a matter of fact, I do not think that they are getting enough. I would like to see them getting more than £168 per annum. If the Minister will go again into the question, I feel sure he will agree that the men I refer to are not receiving a reward commensurate with the skilled nature of their work. I will not labour the matter further. I referred to it to-day in order to clear away any misunderstanding that may have arisen between the Minister and myself as to which men I was referring to, and I hope that the Minister, before this Bill is disposed of, will intimate whether or not he will give the subject further consideration.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I desire to say that I do not agree with Senator Gould in his references to the number of troops that Australia has sent forward in comparison with those sent by Canada. I think the honorable senator was rather unfair :n his statements. Senator Gould did not give us the actual figures, but informed us that Australia had not provided troops, in the same proportion to population us Canada had done. I think, however, if the honorable senator will look more closely into the subject, he will find that

Australia has not lagged behind Canada* in her efforts on behalf of the Empire, but that, on the contrary, she is doing her full share. Even admitting that Senator Gould’s contention is correct, and that Canada has sent forward a largernumber of troops in proportion to population than Australia has, he must bear inmind that Australia had a Navy, which Canada did not possess, and that in anycomparisons that are made, this fact should be borne in mind. There are other considerations also which lead me to believe that Senator Gould had not sufficiently looked into this question beforelie made his remarks. We must remember that Canada, being only about 3.000- miles from the scene of conflict, would find it an easier matter to transport troops over the shorter distance than would Australia, which is over 10,000’ miles away.

Senator Bakhap:

– I think the honorable senator will acknowledge that it hasnever yet been suggested that we could not provide transports.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not desire to speak on that matter, because I donot know that it would be advisable to go minutely into it. We must acknowledge, however, that owing to the greater distance which our contingents had to travel from Australia, it was easier for Canada to send troops, especially at the beginning of the war.

Senator Bakhap:

– The Home authorities have declared that the sea is clear.

Senator Pearce:

– But still a greater effort is required to send the same number of troops from Australia.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Moreover, Canada from her situation has many advantages that Australia does not possess. Canada is adjacent to a large population where there is every opportunity to get equipment, and, as honorable senators know, this is a difficulty in Australia. I am not going to give away State secrets, even if 1 had knowledge of them, but we all know quite well that the one great difficulty in our organization was to provide our troops with arms; that the_ Small Arms Factory was not turning out” arms quickly enough. I agree that there is room for difference of opinion as to whether the Small Arms Factory has been doing all that it might have been expected to do. but I think that something more could have been done in the ten months that have intervened since the outbreak of hostilities up to the present time. Still a great deal has been done in the direction of equipping our troops. I think we have done quite as well as Canada, and if our efforts were counted in pounds sterling, it, would probably be found that Australia has been spending £2 for every £1 spent in Canada.

Senator Guy:

– The London Titties said that of all the Dominions we have done the best.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am not anxious to make comparisons, and to place Canada at a disadvantage, but this is the place for us to air our opinions, and to show that Australia is doing ac least as much as Other portions of the Empire. It is easy to be wise after theevent. Perhaps honorable senators are not aware that only as far back as New Year’s Day of 1914, Mr. Lloyd George, than whom no one in Australia is in a better position to understand international affairs, made a speech in which he declared that that was a favorable moment for considering a reduction of expenditure upon armaments by the nations of the world.

Senator Bakhap:

– What does the honorable senator think of such a statement from an Imperial statesman ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It only shows how easy it is to be exceedingly wise after the event. I think that we can claim that we were not caught napping in Australia. That is proved by the fact that amongst the English-speaking countries of the world we have been the pioneers in the adoption of an exceedingly fine system of military training.

Senator Bakhap:

– It was the foundation.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It was a good foundation ; and if the war had been postponed for another five years, our preparation would have been so advanced that we might have made a much better display, even, than we have done. All things considered, Australia has nothing to apologize for because of her efforts in this connexion when compared with Canada or with any other country.

Senator Bakhap:

– We do not want comparisons. We want to do our best.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is so; but when unfair comparisons have been made, it is our duty to disprove and repudiate them. Senator Gould dealt with another matter which at present is receiving considerable attention in various quarters. The daily press in Australia is taking up the cry for a National Government, in order that the war may be carried to a more successful issue than might otherwise be the case. The advantage of such a National Government is somewhat nebulous. It has not yet been so clearly proved as to induce us to accept the proposal. I am suspicious of the Greeks, even when they bring gifts. Fusion Governments are not looked upon with favour by Australian voters. We have had recent examples of this; and, speaking generally, the people of this country are against such Governments. When the war began, a Federal election was in progress, and during that election, offers were made by the Labour party to their political opponents. There were only .two parties concerned in the electoral contest, which was not complicated by the existence of a third party. There should, therefore, have been no difficult’, in arriving at an understanding. The olive branch was held out by the Labour party. We said to our political opponents “ This is a favorable time for us to sink our party differences.”

Senator Stewart:

– We never said anything of the kind.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Some of our leaders said so.

Senator Stewart:

– They did, but the party never said so.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– A prominent member of the Labour party offered the olive branch to our political opponents, and it was ruthlessly and scornfully thrust on one side.

Senator Stewart:

– Quite right, too.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If it was quite right for our political opponents to thrust that offer aside, it is a little late in the day for them now to say that they are willing to take a share in the government of the country which the electors said they should not have. I believe that the time is not ripe for any such political combination as has been suggested. I am suspicious of the proposal, which I regard as a red herring, intended to put us off the track of the political reforms which it is well known the Labour Government will carry during their term of office. If we were to accept the offer of our political opponents, and ignore the promises we made to the country, it is the Labour party and not our political opponents who would be blamed for refusing to give effect to the pledges made from the election platforms. We said at that time that certain reforms were necessary. The war has but accentuated the necessity of those reforms. We said that the Constitution of Australia requires to be radically altered. Until it is altered, it would be worse than a mistake - it would be treachery on the part of the Labour party - to agree to anything in the nature of a truce because the war is in progress. The elections were fought under war conditions, and the people gave us a mandate to insist upon those constitutional reforms. Again, may I ask, which section of the proposed combination is going to swallow its opinion on the question of preference to unionists? Unless our political opponents are prepared to withdraw their opposition to those reforms, and are prepared to accept the mandate of the electors, and give it effect in the alteration of the Constitution, it is useless for them to dangle before our eyes anything in the nature of a combination Government. I have expressed myself in this way because I can see that an attempt is being made to foist into office certain politicians whom the people only a few months ago refused to have. I have no reason to believe that the people have in the meantime altered their opinion. Until our political opponents say that they are willing to allow the mandate of the people at the last election to be carried into effect, all talk of the establishment of n National Government here is useless.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I do not desire to delay the passage of the Bill, but I wish to make an explanation in connexion with a matter which has been referred to in the Senate concerning the results of trials by military tribunals. I made a statement some time ago complaining about the difference in the punishment meted out by a military court of inquiry to a non-commissioned officer and to a commissioned officer. The Minister of Defence considered that I was not justified in making that statement. I said that the Commandant, in his report, stated that he was loath to have to dismiss the case against the officer. The Minister of Defence, in the endeavour to prove that I had made a misstatement, submitted a report from the Commandant, but, unfortunately, it was a report dealing with another case. I rise now to prove that I was perfectly justified in the statement I made. The report of the case to which I referred, and the evidence, have been sent to me. As the evidence is marked confidential, I shall not refer to it; but the Commandant, in his report, states -

A comparison of the two cases under review will disclose the fact that the treatment meted out in each case was justified. In the case of the captain, R.A’.G.A., a perusal of the evidence will clearly prove that a conviction could not have been brought about by a cm., and though loath to do so, I had no alternative but to dismiss this charge.

That quotation from the Commandant’s report will show that I was perfectly justified in making my statement, though the Minister of Defence tried to induce honorable senators to believe that I had no justification for it. I do not wish to bring the matter up again. I am satisfied to leave it as it stands; but I think that the punishment meted out to the non-commissioned officer in fining him about £20 or £30 a year by the reduction of his pay was altogether unjustified. Many things have been said this afternoon in connexion with the administration of the Defence Department, but at this critical moment I feel that I would not be justified in bringing forward some of the charges of maladministration which I have to make against the Department. This is a time when differences should be sunk, and we should be working together for the common good. I do not think that here in Australia we are taking this war as seriously as we should. I have considered from the start that we have looked upon the matter too lightly.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator is quite right.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– If we read between the lines of the information we get from the seat of war, we should awaken to the fact that it is necessary for us to do something more than we have done. I do not say that Australia has not done a good deal, and I shall not compare what we have done with what has been done by any other country, but I do say that we might have done a great deal more than we have done. Instead of boasting, as some people are doing in their attempts to prove their loyalty, I believe the Government should have instituted some means of arousing a greater feeling of enthusiasm amongst the people of Australia

Senator Bakhap:

– It is quite refreshing to hear the honorable senator.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– In my view, the Empire and Australia are in grave danger, and we should do more than we have done. We should send our troops to the seat of war with the best equipment we can possibly give them, which is a condition of good health. Nothing is too good for the men who are going to the front to shed their blood for the country. The flower of our youth are giving their services voluntarily, whilst those staying behind are not doing as much as they should do. I could find at least half-a-dozen men in one street in Sydney who might themselves contribute as much money as has been subscribed to all the local funds. These people are not doing as much as they should do. We should be able to commandeer a certain amount of the wealth of Australia for the purpose of better equipping our troops for the struggle.

Senator READY:
TASMANIA · ALP

– There are no “Hear, hears” from the other side now.

Senator Bakhap:

– I am prepared to assist the Government in any taxation measure for war purposes that is equitably based. There is nothing equivocal about that.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– In my opinion, something should be done to urge the rich men of Australia to contribute a great deal more than they are contributing at the present time. I do not see why the expense of the war should fall so. largely as it does upon the general community. It should be distributed to a greater extent amongst those who are better able to bear it. The very flower of the country is going to the front. The Minister of Defence told us to-day of the number of deaths that have occurred in our military camps. There is nothing satisfactory about that. We are permitting some of our volunteers to die in camp of certain diseases, which indicates a lack of medical inspection. Men suffering from such diseases should not be allowed to go into camp. Last week when I inspected one camp I noticed that the number of young fellows suffering from severe colds was very large. These young men, who come from soft, warm beds, have to camp on the grass, and though they sleep in their clothes there is not sufficient warm clothing to go round. When we have boys of seventeen years of age, fired with enthusiasm that they have acquired in the course of their training in the ranks of the senior cadets, obtaining the permission of their parents to volunteer and go to the front, we should do a great deal more for their comfort; and it can easily be done. I do not think that sufficient has been done in the matter of securing a greater output of rifles. I hope that the Government are alive to the fact that we need to produce more. There is in Sydney a factory fully equipped with machinery that would make all but one or two parts of a rifle, which could be secured by the Government at a very small outlay.

Senator Pearce:

– Where is it?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– It is at Randwick. Some of the machines in that workshop are more modern and useful and up-to-date than those at Lithgow, and I believe that there are sufficient mechanical engineers in Sydney to equip it. If they are not available, the Government should commandeer men from other workshops. At any rate, they should consider the advisability of securing this factory.

Senator Pearce:

– Is the honorable senator aware that the Government have had that factory inspected and valued?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I have no desire to enter into any controversy about the matter. It would not be well for the Government if I did so. I am merely giving advice, which I have a right to give, and which it is my duty to give, and my advice to the Government is that they should ascertain whether they can secure this factory and equip it with men and thus increase the output of rifles. I merely rose for the purpose of explaining why I had made use of a certain expression concerning a recent military trial, and from the reports which have been made available to me, I must say that I think that I was fully justified in what I said.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I intend to speak at some little length on various matters that occur to me, and which can be most pertinently discussed. I cannot compress my remarks into the space of a few minutes, and I do not intend to emulate Senator Needham, and discuss once more the much-debated question of who is responsible for the establishment of the Australian Navy, and who should claim the credit for installing the very useful unit Australia now possesses. If I could personify and animate the matter I can -conceive it as asking in a *de profundi** manner, somewhat as Samuel asked Saul when invoked by the Witch of Endor “ Why hast thou disquieted me to bring .me up?” We do not wish to hear any .more of this question of who is responsible for the establishment of the Australian .Wavy, because, as a matter of fact, the credit may be fairly apportioned among the members of both parties. I know that .a certain newspaper has claimed the whole of the credit, but, as a matter of fact, in the ranks of both political parties can be found men who advocated the establishment of an Australian Navy, and men who opposed it.

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

– The Liberal policy was further contributions to Great Britain.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The Liberal policy as regards many of the members of the Liberal party right throughout Australia was nothing of the sort; but, at the same time, in order to do justice to those who advocated the policy referred to by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I say that, in effect, the one policy was not greatly different from the other, seeing that, to the open knowledge of most Australians, the Australian Naval Unit is now operating where the Dreadnoughts, that some people suggested should be given to the Imperial Government, would have been in readiness for action.

Senator McKissock:

– What does Lord Denman say?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Lord Denman apportions the credit, as I do, fairly between both political parties.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– And what did Mr. Cook say - that we had no rivers in Australia for the river class of boats?

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator is referring to a matter which might very well be allowed to have the shelter of oblivion at the present juncture. I am willing to suffer the past to be past, but if at this time of national crisis honorable senators do insist on discussing once more the question of where the merit of instituting the Australian Fleet should be apportioned, they must expect me to interject and also refer to certain facts, which show that the Labour party, in respect to its parliamentary representation, was by no means unanimous upon the question of the propriety of establishing the Australian Fleet. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Cook introduced the motion for the establishment of an Australian Navy, the minority - and it was a very considerable minority - consisted entirely of Labour members of the House of Representatives. I discuss the whole war question from a non-party standpoint; party enmity is at an end so far as I am concerned in the prosecution* of the war to a successful conclusion.; and, although the Avar is certainly the mostimportant item that a legislator in any part of the British Dominions to-day can discuss, I leave it for some later time, and address myself to the consideration of a matter which, if not the most important, at least is the nearest question to us nt present. I refer to the Australian Constitution and the Wheat Acquisition case, as it is called. As honorable senators will recollect, I have displayed a certain mild persistence in having this matter pushed to its ultimate judicial conclusion. I have asked what the intentions of the Administration were in regard to appeals; I have asked what their intentions were in regard to other phases of the question disclosed by the action of the Government of South Australia; and so on. I am not forgetful of what I have said on previous occasions. I have pledged my word to support the present Government, or any other Administration, which will attempt to secure such a reform of the Australian Constitution as will enable the ideals and intentions of the Australian people when Federation was consummated to be realized. In other words, the most important question at that time being defence and intercolonial Free Trade, and in the belief that intercolonial Free Trade was intended to be established by the Federal Constitution, I am fully determined to do my humble best in trying to have the Constitution so amended as to preclude the present position, which the High Court has announced to be perfectly right under the Constitution as we find it, from being continued for any length of time. If the decision of the High Court in regard to the Wheat Acquisition case is to stand, I am prepared to support such an amendment of the Federal Constitution as will preclude any State from adopting the selfish monopolistic attitude of New South Wales and also South Australia in the recent crisis occasioned by the shortage in the Australian harvest. I have something to complain of against the Administration in this regard. Surely it is not so puffed up with a sense of security in regard to referendum proposals that it disdains the assistance of even the humblest of individuals ! I venture to say that in the State which I have the honour to assist in representing, if I took the platform in support of any proposed amendment of the Australian Constitution I could do a little in the way of securing the adoption of that proposal by the Tasmanian people.

Senator Gardiner:

– You cannot do that against your own leaders.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator does not understand the spirit of Liberalism, nor the spirit that animates the ranks of Liberals. For instance, before I resume my seat, I intend to criticise severely the action of one of my leaders in regard to his war policy. Often jocularly honorable senators say that they wonder why I am not associated with the Labour party, but when they know me better they will understand that a deeper gulf runs between me and the Labour party than that which exists between any other man and that section of the Australian people -now enrolled in Labour ranks.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator has publicly said that there is no difference between the binding power of either party. I heard him make that statement in the Legislative Assembly of Tasmania.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I challenge the honorable senator to produce any evidence of such a statement on my part. If he can produce it here I shall apologize to him for contradicting the interjection that he has just made.

Senator Guy:

– I shall produce it in print.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Than do so. ‘

Senator Ready:

– Will the honorable senator apologize ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– If the report is in print and was made by any one who was present at any place at which I made that remark I shall apologize.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator said that you made that statement in the Legislative _ Assembly in Tasmania.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I did nothing of” the sort. My complaint against the Administration in regard to the Wheat Acquisition case is that they did not carry the matter to the Privy Council, but announced their intention of accepting the High Court’s decision as final. The people will listen most respectfully tothose who desire to amend the Federal Constitution if they have shown any respect for the machinery embodied in it. The Constitution, although adopted by the Australian people, is in reality a gift from the Imperial Legislature. They, inthe exercise of their Imperial right, bestowed the Constitution on us, and thatConstitution provides that an appeal can. be made to His Majesty the King in-. Council from a decision of even the HighCourt of Australia in regard to any matter. It is true that leave has to beobtained, and I say that the Administration should have obtained thenecessary leave and appealed, in orderto have the question put beyond all possibility of doubt. If ever an appeal tothe Privy Council was justified it was in this case, because the very spirit, andthe most important function, of the Australian Constitution are involved in a. proper judicial determination of thepoints to which I have referred. ‘ Senator Lynch. - The most effectiveappeal is the adoption of the referenda proposals.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorablesenator, with all his knowledge of human nature, fails to properly appreciate the point. If the matter has not been determined by the highest tribunal in the Empire, how can the honorable senator meet the argument that any proposed alteration to the Constitution may be unnecessary, seeing that a final determination may not ha,ve been arrived at, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution provides the necessary machinery 1 If the Administration were sincere in their desire to .amend the Constitution they would not disdain the means provided for securing an absolutely unimpeachable decision. Is there any guarantee that the Privy Council would not reverse the decision of the High Court? The High Court itself reversed the decision of the Inter-State Commission, and with all due respect to the High Court - and I do not think that there is any man of humble attainments more prone to respect great ability in other men than myself - I venture to say that there is a possibility of the decision of the High Court being reversed by the Privy Council.

Senator Gardiner:

– Did you read the evidence?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Most decidedly.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

– And still you say that ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes. The honorable senator has a very poor knowledge of the intricacies and chameleonlike nature of the law if he will not acknowledge that there is a possibility of the decision of the High Court being reversed in this matter as it has been reversed in others.

Senator O’Keefe:

– But it would settle only one point.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It would settle the matter, and we would know the desirability of securing an amendment of the Constitution if we are truly national Liberals and national Labourites. In another place, which has been referred to as the Super-Parliament, there has been a great deal of talk about certain proposals which have been through this Legislature a couple of times,and partially a third time, which have been submitted twice to the Australian people, and twice rejected. If the measures as they were introduced in 1910, and submitted to the electors in 1911, and as they were introduced in 1912, and submitted to the electors in 1913, were passed by a majority of the electors and a majority of the States to-morrow, the constitutional position created by the judicial decision in the Wheat case would not be touched in the slightest degree. I will defer, of course, to the opinion of legal gentlemen. I have not had a legal training, but I have gone as closely as my modest abilities will permit me into this question, and I consider that the adoption of the referenda proposals in their entirety would not affect the constitutional position which has been created by the decision of the High Court.

Senator Millen:

– That is admitted by every lawyer.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Should not this matter be taken into consideration? Is it not important? Does it not concern the very vital principle which helped to bring about the consummation of Australian nationality? The Administration have refused to approach the highest tribunal in the Empire to secure a final and unimpeachable decision. In that matter I have a complaint against the Ministry, but I do not recede in the least from my statement that in regard to any proposal to amend the Constitution to bring about the free circulation of commodities amongst the people the Administration proposing such alteration, if such is satisfactorily worded, will have my humble support. It is necessary, of course - in fact, it is almost unavoidable - for a member of a British Legislature to make some reference to the war. But, before I deal with the matter in a general way, I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister of Defence what seems to me a very practical suggestion in regard to the camp at Broadmeadows. The other day I met a very successful mining engineer - a man who has made a great deal of money out of mining, and who seemed to be absolutely sure of his facts. Although Broadmeadows is admittedly a very good camp from the practical stand-point, being pretty close to a railway, and having many advantages such as commend themselves to men versed in the military art, still the fact remains that it was not satisfactory in the wet wintry weather we had a month or two ago. The nature of the mud and the lack of drainage added very greatly to the discomforts of men who are going to the front later to supplement the noble efforts of our troops already on European fields. This mining engineer told me that in the Chiltern district there are tremendously large heaps of a very small gravel or rubble which has been well washed because of the mining operations. There is an unlimited quantity of the spoil, and it can be obtained for nothing from the mining companies. A railway, I understand, passes the spoil heap, and the stuff could be brought down to Melbourne on Sunday in railway trucks, and taken by a short line to the camp. The material could be spread to a depth of 1 foot, or, if necessary, 2 feet, over the area of the camp. It would do away with the mud; it would make a splendid ground for the men to walk on to conduct military operations, and in the summer it would not produce dust. There are several honorable senators present who have had to mine for their living who will admit that when such material from deep leads has been well washed, everything likely to bring about dust has been eliminated.

Senator Henderson:

– Surely you know better than that’

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am not speaking because of my personal knowledge, but am bringing under the notice of the Minister a suggestion which was made to me by a man-

Senator Henderson:

– Who did not know anything about the matter.

Senator Millen:

– If you propose to cover Broadmeadows Camp with 2 feet of this material, you had better buy up Tasmania for a training ground.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Nonsense!

Senator Gardiner:

– How far away is Chiltern ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– It is in the northeastern district.

Senator Gardiner:

– Nearly 200 miles from Melbourne.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not pin myself to any advocacy of the plan, but it should be investigated.

Senator de Largie:

– Why did not the Department shift the camp from Broadmeadows to a sandy flat in the interior of Victoria.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Some honorable senators lived for years in a morass at Zeehan. How was the area of the township made sound ? By the use of material from the spoil heaps at the mines. In that way a button-grass flat was made decent and habitable.

Senator McKissock:

– Try to get the gravel at Chiltern for nothing, and see what the answer will be.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am told that for this purpose it can be obtained for nothing.

Senator Keating:

– What would the owner of Broadmeadows have to say to the proposal ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I venture to say that before long the question of acquiring in fee-simple a satisfactory training ground for troops in the vicinity of Melbourne will have to be faced. So much for the suggestion which I offer to the Minister for what it is worth. I will now refer to the war, the policy of the Empire in regard to the war, and the policy of the Commonwealth in respect to the whole business. I know that honorable senators kindly bore with me six or seven weeks ago while I addressed myself at considerable length to certain phases of this very important, nay, vital, matter. I must, of course, traverse some of the ground which I then went over, but I hope not to altogether repeat myself, and honorable senators will recognise that great events have happened in Europe since I made my speech. I think I said then that there was a very wide feeling of discontent in the United Kingdom with the Liberal Ministry because of very large sins of omission in regard to war policy. I think I said, to quote my remarks literally, that a terrible indictment was preparing against a Minister, and that some form of political punishment would overtake, if not all, at least some of the members of the Ministry. The Ministry has been reconstituted, and some of the previous Ministers, if not hurled exactly over the Tarpeian rock, have been bidden to escape up the Tiber and hide in the bulrushes till a more convenient political season. They have had to bow before a storm of resentment issuing from the breasts of their countrymen.

Senator Pearce:

– With one exception, the Ministers who have been subjected to criticism have not retired.

Senator BAKHAP:

– No; but they have been relegated, as I have just implied, to very subordinate positions, and one of the politically most culpable has disappeared from the Ministry.

Senator Pearce:

– The two Ministers who were most severely criticised are holding the same positions as they did before.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The one Minister who in the eyes of his countrymen was largely responsible for neglect and unpreparedness on the part of the Empire has ceased to be a member of the Administration. It will be remembered that I very strongly advocated conscription. It is the bounden duty of the white population of this Empire to submit to conscription at the present time.

Senator Ready:

– Is the Government in England to bring in conscription?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am not sure; but I will say, with all due deference to the names of the great men flashed along the cable from time to time, that if they have a proper realization of their Imperial duty, they ought to introduce conscription.

Senator Ready:

– Why?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Because only under conscription can we be sure twelve months ahead of the numbers of men we shall be able to put in the field. Even if the Imperial Force at the disposal of . the Empire now is sufficient to assist our Allies in bringing the war to a successful conclusion, it is none the less incumbent upon Imperial statesmen and upon Australian statesmen to introduce conscription because of the moral effect it would exercise.

Senator Ready:

– Did not Mr. Asquith say in the House of Commons the other day that conscription was not proposed?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I admit that; but I tell the honorable senator, and would tell Mr. Asquith if I had the honour of addressing him, that it is, in my opinion, his duty to introduce conscription.

Senator Needham:

– You had better cable to him.

Senator BAKHAP:

– There are certain men who believe that all that is sufficient to abash a speaker is to dangle before him a great name, and he will at once’ hide his diminished head and shrink into his seat. I am not that kind of man. I see no reason why I should not have just as great and correct appreciation of the requirements of the Empire as even Mr. Asquith. Because, although I am modest enough on occasion, I know that there are other occasions when modesty is only mock modesty.

Senator Ready:

– You are in a better position to judge than Mr. Asquith is?

Senator Millen:

– He did not say that conscription was not proposed. He was asked if it had been decided to have conscription, and he said no.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I would not be justified in criticising the Imperial Administration or the war policy unless I was going to apply the moral to our own people, Legislature, and Administration irrespective of party. The moral effect of the introduction of conscription would be great. At the present moment, every European nation allied with us. even the Asiatic nation allied with us, is carrying the cross of conscription. It is carrying that cross up the National Calvary, up the European Calvary; it is making the supreme sacrifice. Many months ago we heard that the small principality of Montenegro had practically exhausted the whole of its manhood. Servia has conscription, Russia has conscription, and France has conscription. Italy, regarding whose advent into the field of war we were overjoyed a week or two ago, has conscription, and is prepared to exert the whole of its national might. To-day we hear the echoes of a battle which is assuredly greater than that which took place in Asia Minor some hundreds of years ago, when the greatest of Asiatic conquerors overwhelmed his Turkish adversary, and of which the historian writes, “ Two millions of men disputed the Empire of the world.” More than- 2,000,000 of Germans and Aus.trians and Russians are now disput-ing the Empire of the world along the River San and in Galicia. Whilst our Allies are making the supreme sacrifice, what do we find one of our Imperial statesmen saying ? I do not suggest that those statesmen are not possessed of very great ability, but I do say that they lamentably failed in foresight regarding Germany’s attitude towards our Empire, because only a couple of years ago Germany asked them to give a guarantee of Britain’s complete neutrality in the event of a European conflict. Ought not they to have been able to read the signs of the times ? Ought they not to have recollected the telegram which was despatched by the Kaiser during the South African War? As a matter of fact, they were purblind, and a great responsibility must attach to them in this connexion. I do not care to subscribe to the assertion that they are great statesmen, when I know that only the other day Mr. LloydGeorge expressed the hope that we would be able to carry this war to a successful conclusion without resort to conscription in order that we might afterwards be able to boast that we had done our part without having made the last and supreme sacrifice.

Senator GARDINER:

– Would not that be a proud boast?

Senator BAKHAP:

– It would not be a proud boast, because it would indicate that we were prepared to witness every other nation of Europe making the last sacrifice, whilst we refrained from so doing. As a matter of fact, I believe that the British Empire, if all its resources were’ fully disciplined and thoroughly organized, could beat the German Alliance singlehanded. I honestly hold that conviction. I honestly believe, also, that the Allies would be able to clip the wings of Germany, even if the British Empire rendered no assistance whatever. I believe that France, Italy, and Russia would succeed - perhaps over a long course of years - in breaking the power of Germany and Austria. But is it better for us to refrain from conscription in order that we may boast at the end of the war that we had not to resort to that supreme sacrifice, or to assure our Allies that we, like them, intend to make this last sacrifice on the altar of liberty? 1 say unhesitatingly that it would be better to adopt conscription, and thus to evidence that there is meaning in our boast that we are prepared to sacrifice our last man and our last shilling m this fight for liberty.

Senator Watson:

– Why compel men to enlist when they are willing to go ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I say that they are not willing to go. They are unwilling to go, not because they lack courage, but because of the circumstances which environ every individual in the community, as well as the community collectively. Does not Senator Watson remember the case of a certain King in ‘Scripture who wished to celebrate the marriage of his son by holding a feast to which he invited people from the highways and by-ways?

Senator Senior:

– That is only a parable.

Senator BAKHAP:

– And a very good parable, too, although my rendering of it may be a little rusty and mixed. Those who were bidden to the feast made light of it, and went their way, one to his farm and another to his merchandise. Doubtless these individuals would have liked to attend the feast, but they had other interests to engage their attention. The result was that the King, in his wrath, sent out a messenger with orders to bring in people ‘from the highways and the byways. The concluding phrase of the parable has a good deal of point if applied to our efforts at the present critical juncture - “ For many are called, but few are chosen.” I propose now to deal with a question which must arouse the indignation of every well-wisher of his country-

Senator Watson:

– There are many men offering their services at the present moment, but-few are being chosen. Only the other day 150 men offered themselves for the Liverpool camp, but only 60 were accepted.

Senator BAKHAP:

– What has been the net result of our offerings during the past nine or ten months? Although our population is absolutely a British one, and although it equals one-tenth of the population of the United Kingdom - admitting that the Imperial authorities have recruited armies aggregating 2,000,000 men - we have not recruited one-half of our proportionate share.

Senator Watson:

– Our lads are tumbling over each, other to get to the front.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then why all this talk about advertising for recruits at picture shows? Why all this fuss about pictorial displays at newspaper offices and at drapery establishments ? Are these appeals worthy of a great people, making a great effort to preserve the liberty of the world ? I say that they are absolutely unworthy. Only the other day the Minister of Defence said that fresh units will be sent to the front as they offer. Subsequently it transpired that in Victoria there are not sufficient recruits offering to supply the required monthly reinforcements. Is that a fact, or is it not?

Senator Watson:

– I am speaking for New South Wales’.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am speaking for Australia. Australia, on the basis of its population, has not supplied one-half of the troops which she should have supplied .

Senator Pearce:

– It is not correct to say that Australia, as a whole, is not furnishing sufficient recruits for reinforcements.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Is it a fact that Victoria is not doing so?

Senator Pearce:

– It was a fact for a few days, but it is not so now.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Is it not a fact that recruiting has fallen off 50 per cent, as compared with the returns for last January ? But I am not here to indulge in recrimination. My desire is to arouse the people of this country, and parliamentarians, irrespective of party, to what I regard as an obvious duty. Honorable senators opposite may hold their party conferences, they may resolve upon devices such as the referendum and recall, they may allow themselves as politicians to be stripped of every shred of responsibility, they may constitute themselves - and this is apparently their ideal of popular representation - delegates, and delegates only; but the people will hold them responsible for any miscarriage in the national plans. They will say to them, “ Are you not the persons who appealed to us on the hustings, who claimed to be possessed of ability and of some of the attributes of statesmanship*? Did we not, shortly after the outbreak of war, send you into our National Parliament? Are you not the individuals whom we placed so high? Yet you now turn round and tell us that we should have arrived at another decision, that you did not care to initiate alterations in regard to our war policy because you did not think those alterations would be palatable to us.” Nations will always arraign their leaders and not themselves. For this reason, I call upon the politicians of Australia, irrespective of party, to institute a system which will hearten our heroic soldiers who are sanctifying the soil of the Gallipoli Peninsula with their blood, by assuring them that the whole of their comrades in Australia are behind them, that the nation has seized and grappled with this problem, and that, irrespective of what Great Britain and Canada may do, we have determined to do the right and noble thing.

Senator Gardiner:

– What is the “ right and noble thing “ ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– To introduce conscription - to take the men whom I saw at Flemington the other day when I visited the racecourse there. One gentleman remarked to me that three out of every five of the men whom we saw there were of the ideal military age and physique. Yet we are lowering the physical standard and talking of bantam brigades. We are going to appeal for recruits by means of cinematograph films, to send recruiting officers abroad, and to call for men in various ways; but we are going to refrain from asking the people to make the supreme sacrifice because we think the step would be unpalatable to them. I do not deceive myself for one moment. I recognise that if an appeal were made to the people to-morrow they would vote against conscription. But do we imagine that that circumstance will relieve us from the responsibility of instituting a system which in our hearts many of us believe ought to be instituted ? We ought to take occasion by the hand, to recognise that we are not merely parliamentarians, but that we have been elected by the people since the outbreak of the wai, and that, consequently, a very grave responsibility rests upon us - a responsibility which the people, in a few months’ time, will not permit us to shirk, and which neither posterity nor history will pardon us for shirking.

Senator Gardiner:

– If the honorable1 senator would apply conscription to men, and thus take the breadwinner from the family, would he also take the wealth, from the wealthy ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Most decidedly.

Senator Millen:

– Conscription does not mean leaving the women and children to starve.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Are not separation allowances provided in the Old Country? Are there not in Australia. 500,000 men of the ideal military age who are without wives and children ?

Senator Gardiner:

– Have we not a» much right to take a man’s wealth fromhim as to take the breadwinner from a. family ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– The VicePresident of the Executive Council falls intothe mistake of comparing things whichare. not alike. Because castor sugar and castor salt to some extent resemble eachother, they are not by any means the same.

Senator Gardiner:

– Men are more to mo than property.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then send them, where they are most needed. If the Government bring down a taxation proposal equitably based - for we must riot attemptto do justice unjustly - and say boldly that the taxation is for war purposes, they will find me supporting them as I have supported them all through, sincethe outbreak of the war.

Senator Gardiner:

– You opposed our taxation proposal.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes, and I did. so because the Minister, in introducing, the increased land tax, said it was designed to break up big estates, although it is admitted that it has been ineffectivefor that purpose. If the Government will introduce a taxation measure and’ tell us boldly that it is for the purpose of financing the war, they will soon se© where my vote will be.

Senator Grant:

– Would you vote for a land tax without exemption?

Senator BAKHAP:

– If it was for war purposes, yes I would.

Senator Grant:

– How much in the £1 would you stand?

Senator BAKHAP:

– That is a matter of detail. Two of the leaders in another place of the party to which I have the. honour to belong, spoke forcibly, clearly, and most pithily a few days ago in con- nexion with the issues of this war. My leader, Mr. Cook, said he was in favour -of the system of registration, and, with reference to that statement, there are certain phases which I deprecate. When I was speaking some time ago in favour of conscription, my leader here, Senator Millen, made one or two interjections which he, with his foresight and political knowledge, saw would be useful to me; and one of the Ministers opposite immediately endeavoured to trap him into an admission that he was in favour of the policy of conscription which I was advocating Precisely the same thing happened in another place when Mr. Cook was speaking with regard to the system of registration. On that occasion Mr. Cook was asked by the Minister of Customs if he was in favour of conscription. I venture to say that the motive behind .those interjections was not too noble, and that the idea was that, after all, the Empire might muddle through without conscription, and that if Mr. Cook or Senator Millen could, by interjection, be trapped into the admission that they were in favour of conscription, it would prove very good political capital in the not distant future. The suggestion appeared to be that if the Empire got through, and if Australia got through without conscription, the Liberal leaders could be pilloried afterwards because they had, inferentially, told the people, in answer to interjections from the Ministers, that they were in favour of conscription. Now I put it to honorable senators that the time has gone by for political trickery. I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed with Mr. Cook’s reply. He advocated the institution of the system of registration. For what? Not for conscription, so we are led to believe, but for the purpose of tabulating our resources. Of what earthly use will it be to tabulate our resources if we do not get some definite, concrete result? I care very little what the people say, though I admit I like to stand in people’s good graces, and I am human enough not to .say lightly anything that might be disapproved by those who return me to Parliament. But I am always sure of myself and of my duty. When all is said .and done, I am satisfied that conscription is one of the things needful for the Empire in this crisis. I must confess, there fore, that I was somewhat disappointed with the reply given by Mr. Cook at this juncture in the nation’s history. I am disappointed that he did not boldly say that he was in favour of the policy of conscription as a logical sequence to the policy of registration. I have read, as commentaries on Mr. Cook’s and Sir William Irvine’s deliverances, very able leading articles in the two morning newspapers of this city. They applauded what Mr. Cook had said, and they indorsed what Sir William Irvine had said ; but, notwithstanding my admiration for the sentiments contained in the articles, I regretted that, after all, they dealt only in vague generalities and platitudes. They agreed that we must do everything we can to secure victory for the Empire in this crisis. But why did they not particularize ? What are we going to do to-day ? One advocated that recruiting officers, and the other that politicians, should do the “ stump.” Politicians are supposed to be valueless, and their utterances, as a rule, are not supposed to carry much weight, but in connexion with this matter it is fondly hoped that the politician will succeed in charming the recruit from his lair. Are these all the suggestions that are available? Why not give the lead and show the Empire what the people of Australia are determined to do in this crisis? Never mind what they are doing in Canada, South Africa, and elsewhere. They are doing very well in South Africa, where one of the greatest men in British history has appeared lately. Never mind also what they are doing in Trinidad. Let us do the best we can in Australia. I want to know from the Minister of Defence if he can depend upon so many men from Australia twelve months hence without conscription. I know, of course, there is the fear that those responsible for the advocacy of conscription may later on be relegated by the people to the cold shades of Opposition. But we have a great responsibility, and we must discharge it. I make the statement without any qualification that, in order to put victory beyond all possibility of doubt, it is essential for the Commonwealth of Australia and the whole of the British Empire, in regard to its white population, to adopt conscription, to enable the authorities mathematically to know the number of troops that are to be sent forward, say, five, six, or ten months hence. There is something very slipshod in the whole business of the voluntary system. Lloyd George, whose name has often been introduced here, is supposed to have made a revelation in one of his speeches in Liverpool a few days ago, when he told the people that more munitions were required. We have been led to believe that there has been a great awakening, and that the people are now addressing themselves energetically to remedying this state of affairs, which is admitted to be unsatisfactory. This brings to mind an anecdote I once read about an unfortunate Hebrew who was assaulted by a youth. When the latter was asked the reason for the assault, he said it was because he had ascertained the connexion of the Jewish race with the Crucifixion. When he was informed that that had happened over 1,800 years ago, his excuse was, “ Oh, I only heard about it yesterday.” Did it take Lloyd George to tell the people of the Empire that the armies were short of munitions, and that the manufacturing establishments of Great Britain were not doing all that might have been expected ? How many months ago is it since we read in the papers that Sir John French had made the appeal for munitions, munitions, and ever more munitions? He paraphrased the utterance of a great French patriot who advocated in the face of all Europe, “ Audacity, again audacity, and always audacity!” I recommend audacity to the politicians of Australia. The people of Australia would not censure them because of the magnitude of the national effort. If the war ends in five or- six months, any number of men who might then be in training need not then go to the front, but could be discharged, all the better for the training they had received. We owe it to those brave men who are fighting on Gallipoli Peninsula to consolidate and extend the conquest so heroically begun. We are reading in the papers that there are indications that they are looking over their shoulders and asking what the people of Australia are doing to support them in an undertaking which a few months ago would have been regarded as miraculous, namely, that Australian troops should proceed to the conquest of Byzantium. Are we not going to show those men that we intend to stick at nothing to insure that their action shall be crowned with the green laurel of final victory? It is incumbent on our leaders to speak without equivocation and without reserve- to hit out and do something that will nerve the Australian people to prepare for« their great task, the importance of which has not been realized up to the present. If conscription is not indorsed by the Administration - and I promise them that if they indorse it, my humble support shall be given to them, and they shall be held justified in the eyes of the Australian people, so far as my poor efforts to justify them can go - if, in despite of everything I can say, of the trend of events, and of events which ought to appeal to what I may call the almost insuperable stupidity of some politicians in the Old Country, they still adhere to the voluntary system, there is on !v one appeal that Ministers and the Parliament can make to the citizens of the Commonwealth, and that is, “Come! We want you, and if you come not we will take you.” That is the way to talk to them. There is not going to be any -cajoling or lip-service so far as I am concerned. There is to be no bowing and scraping, no tendering of a cigarette to a man to induce him to join the Forces, nor is there going lo be any alluring poster such as will appeal only to the impressionable and the ignorant. There should be a stern-lipped announcement to the people that herring-shoals of men and mountains of munitions are required. After all, it is the men who are going to count, and the men who are most resolute. We should not, however, attach too much importance to the mathematical argument. There are men abroad who say, “ There are 200,000,000 or 250,000,000 of the Allies, and 130,000,000 of Germans and Austrians, with 16,000,000 Turks. We have two to one, and are sure of the advantage.” That is a most dangerous argument to use.. Napoleon said something of the same sort. At that time the population of the United Kingdom was about 15,000,000, and the population of France over 30 000,000. Napoleon said, “ With 30,000,000 of Frenchmen and 15,000.000 of Englishmen the issue cannot be doubtful. History repeats itself . Rome destroys Carthage.” But the modern Rome did not destroy the modern Carthage. The mathematical argument was found to be fallacious. We have to bear in mind that there are diversities of language amongst the Allies, and even amongst the soldiers of our own Empire, whilst we have in the German Empire alone, in addition to the most dangerous and almost fanatical race solidarity, a people numbering 70,000,000 speaking the one language. They are a people the best educated in Europe - although their education has been perverted - particularly in the line of science applied to industry. At the same time they are most fanatically misled in their worship of force, and their endeavour to make their race triumph over the races of every other European country. They are a most tenacious and resolute people. They are materialistic fanatics. I say, therefore, that we should not place too much reliance upon the mere mathematical argument, but we should get our men out and put them through their discipline. We shall find rifles for them later on. I shall not deal with the Small Arms Factory at the present time, because if it were working up to three times its present capacity it would take many years *o fully arm the great Australian Army thatis already in embryo. We can get thu necessary rifles for our men. The seas are open, the ways of commerce are free, and we can get the rifles from America or somewhere else. Our country lads do not require much instruction with the rifle. They shoot with the gun and with the pea-rifle, and I guarantee that any Australian youth with three or .four days’ instruction, even at my hands, will be able to hit the target within any reasonable range at least every other shot. Let us drill the men and teach them all the military evolutions. We can find rifles for them when they are required. Let us get into the ranks the men who at present, owing to reasons that have been spoken of, are hanging back, and we shall then know with mathematical accuracy the number of men we shall be able to send to the front at any given time throughout the currency of the war. I again, in sorrow, and with no regard to political caution, confess that I am speaking for myself, and that I have no warrant to speak thus on behalf of the Liberal party. I am not a leader of the Liberal party. I am only one. of the units in its ranks.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator is one of the intellectual leaders, certainly.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not know that. I speak when occasion requires, with the ‘ full sense and recognition of [138] what I believe to be my duty in a time of national crisis. I am speaking out of the fulness of my heart, not because I seek praise or fear blame, but because I believe that what I have urged should be done is the right thing for us to do. If we give a lead to the Empire, it will supplement in the mind of the world the fame and valour of our soldiers, and we shall put the fear of God into the hearts of any would-be invaders of Australia in the future. Let us be iron men. These are iron times, times for iron opinions and iron sacrifices. Therefore I make an appeal, not only to the Government, not only to my own political leaders, but to the people of Australia, who will in the long run charge us with the responsibility of urging them to make the greatest efforts of which they are capable, to make the most earnest of all sacrifices, to doubt nothing at all, but dare everything, and go on inflexibly to that goal where victory is to be had, and secure a triumph for the benefit of the Commonwealth and for those who, in after years, will be our successors and the representatives of Australian citizenship in this National Chamber.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

, - I notice in the schedule of the Bill an item of £1,000 for contingencies for the High Commissioner’s office. I presume that it is part of a vote appearing on the general Estimates of £25,575 for the same purpose?

The PRESIDENT:

– Does not the honorable senator consider that that is a matter which might be much better discussed in Committee than on the first reading of the Bill? I would point out to the honorable senator that these Supply Bills are the only Bills upon which a discussion is permitted on the first reading. The object is to enable honorable senators to discuss matters which are not relevant to the Bill itself, and which they might have no other opportunity to ventilate. . If the honorable senator wishes to discuss a mere detail of the Bill as to the amount which may be put down for contingencies, I suggest to him that such a matter could be much more effectively dealt with in Committee, when he may receive a reply from the Minister concerned, and will have an opportunity, if necessary, to continue the discussion. It seems to me an abuse of the standing order passed to permit of a discussion on the first reading of these Bills upon matters that are not relevant to the measures themselves to enter upon the dis, cussion of small items appearing in the schedule.

Senator Grant:

– I wish to discuss matters which appear to me to be relevant to the Bill, and to get down to details straight away.

The PRESIDENT:

– I again remind the honorable senator that the object of permitting debate upon the first reading of a Supply. Bill is to enable the discussion of matters that are not relevant to the Bill. I do not propose to rule the honorable senator out of order, because he is no doubt entitled to discuss details of the measure on the motion for the first reading, but I desired to indicate a more convenient course for the honorable senator, and for honorable senators generally.

Senator GRANT:

– I take advantage of the opportunity to make my remarks at this stage. I find that in the general Estimates the sum of £25,575 is put down for contingencies for the High Commissioner’s Office. Included in that sum is an item of £10,000 for advertising, the Commonwealth in Great Britain and Ireland. I have seen a number of the advertisements in the Home newspapers, but I have never seen one yetwhich puts the real conditions of Australia fairly before the British public. At the present juncture I am entirely opposed to any money whatever being expended in this direction.

Senator-RussELL. - The honorable senator is about six months late on this item.

Senator GRANT:

– In my opinion, there is no occasion whatever to advertise the resources of the Commonwealth at the present time. They are sufficiently well known to the British public. My objection is that the advertisements do not put the true position before people con,templating coming to Australia. I understand that most of this money is expended in advertising the resources of the Commonwealth with a view mainly to induce British people to come and settle in Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– And for the extension of trade.

Senator GRANT:

– It ought to be made perfectly clear to British people contem. plating coming to Australia to settle that the opportunities offered to them here are not nearly so rosy as some people would -have them believe.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator has done pretty well.

Senator GRANT:

– That is so; but I wish the British people to be made to clearly understand, even if the VicePresident of the Executive Council does not, what confronts them when they come here. I find, that it is a most difficult matter for any one desiring to settle in this country to secure land. In the State of New South Wales many eligible citizens have been going round, not for one year, but for year after year, vainly trying, owing to the land system in force there, to secure homestead blocks. There are many in Australia who are still looking in vain for an opportunity of that kind. It is not fair that the people of Great Britain should be misled in this matter. We ought to tell them of a case which occurred in New South Wales only a few days ago, where for one block of land there were more than 640 applicants. Only one of these secured the block, and the rest had to go away disappointed.

Senator Millen:

– We should also tell them why.

Senator GRANT:

– It is because a sufficient number of blocks are not made available.

Senator Millen:

– The reason is that the block is worth as many pounds as the State Government ask shillings for it.

Senator GRANT:

– That may be one reason, but the fact remains that 640 eligible persons- applied for the one block. It is also a fact that the State Governments do not make land available for settlement as they ought to do. The facts should be made known far and wide, and intending immigrants should be informed that it is most difficult and most costly to secure land for settlement almost anywhere in the Commonwealth. I have mentioned a case which came under my notice only a few days ago, but it is typical of what is constantly occurring in New South Wales. When we come to consider the position which confronts the artisan and labourer invited to come to Australia, what do we find ? Around the large cities, townships, and villages throughout the Commonwealth the land is held by people who are hanging on to it with a view to obtain a higher price than they gave for it. It is quite impossible for an ordinary worker to secure a piece of land sufficiently large to build a home upon anywhere around the city of Syd- ney, and possibly the same may be said of Melbourne, at less than £2,000 per acre.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator can get any amount of land round about Sydney from £1 per foot upwards.

Senator GRANT:

– I think the honor- ‘ able senator is mistaken.

Senator Millen:

– I have been buying some of it. I will sell some to the honorable senator for 30s. a foot, and as there are 200 feet frontage to the acre, that represents only £300 per acre.

Senator GRANT:

– I know that only recently land was sold in the suburbs -of Sydney at from £5 to £6 per foot. .Senator Millen. - That would not bo £2,000 per acre.

Senator GRANT:

– If you take land with a depth of 100 feet, that will run to £2,000 per acre.

Senator Millen:

– It might if the honorable senator wants a frontage like that.

Senator GRANT:

– I am talking of the depth of the land, and in many cases it is not 100 feet. Land cut up into blocks 100 feet deep, and sold at £5 per foot of frontage, is worth about £2,000 an acre, which is about the general price of land around Sydney to-day. Every time the High Commissioner advertises for immigrants, he should be instructed ‘to proclaim that no workmen will be allowed to settle in or around any metropolis in Australia and purchase land at a less price than £2,000 an acre.

Senator Shannon:

– That statement would not be correct.

Senator Millen:

– Many allotments with 50-ft. frontage can be bought for £40 or £50.

Senator GRANT:

– They must be a * long way from Sydney or Melbourne. Land cannot be bought at a place like Burnie, in Tasmania, at less than from £150 to £200 per building block, and at Hobart it cannot be bought at less than- £5 per foot.

Senator Senior:

– Land can be bought in Adelaide, 3 miles from the General Post-office, at £1 10s. a foot.

Senator GRANT:

– Land cannot be bought within 3 miles of the General Post-office in Sydney at that figure.

Senator Gardiner:

– We do not ask for immigrants to come and live in Sydney. We want them to fill up the country.

Senator GRANT:

– We know that immigrants generally stop in the largo cities. The other day, when speaking at [138]- 2 the Millions Club, of which Mr. Rickards - one of the gentlemen who devotes his attention to purchasing and cutting up estates in Sydney, is a member- -Dr Arthur urged that we should extend the right hand of fellowship to Italians. I offer no objection to any one coming to the Commonwealth, but I think that it would only be fair if Dr. Arthur told the Italians the exact conditions which they would find on arriving here. What opening, is there for Italian immigrants in Sydney except to get into partnership with -those controlling the fruit trade? And that is not a very alluring prospect even for Italians. Paragraphs appear ir the press daily dealing -with the unemployed difficulty in all the States, yet we are urged to vote money for the purpose of enabling the High Commissioner to advertise, inviting more workers to come to Australia. I consider that we should first make provision for the workers who are here, and see that they have employment. We should not spend money inbringing other people .here while we have unemployed in our midst. Let those who are in favour of spending our public funds on bringing people here while re have unemployed on the spot, take the responsibility of doing so. I am not prepared to vote for the expenditure of any further money in this direction. A sum of £20,000 is provided for the internment of enemy subjects. Internment of enemy subjects is the correct course to follow, but it is extraordinary that we cannot find some suitable employment for those that are interned. I do not know how the Germans are treating the British interned in Germany, but I should say that the cost per head of the internment of British subjects in Germany does not approximate the cost per head of the internment of Germans here. I suggest that the Government should have inquiries made in order to see whether it is possible to employ these people at some useful work during the period of their internment. I am nob prepared to say in what direction this employment should be found for them, but I may tell the VicePresident of the Executive Council, who interjects, that while these enemy subjects are idle they have to be supported in idleness by the workmen of Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– These people are working in New South Wales.

Senator GRANT:

– I am glad to. hear that statement. Evidently the Vice-

President of the Executive Council was not aware of it.

Senator Gardiner:

– I was aware of it, but they are not to compete with our workmen.

Senator GRANT:

– The main point is that they should be doing some useful work. I am informed that there are sixty or seventy people employed as military police, pickets, and guards at Liverpool to whom no uniforms have been issued, and that, in consequence of this lack of clothing, eight of these persons are in the hospital. Surely steps should be taken to see that an adequate supply of clothing is issued to the people.

There is an item of £3,000 for the Land Tax office.

Senator Russell:

– What is wrong with that provision ? If the honorable senator calls for more returns we shall have to provide for additional labour.

Senator GRANT:

– I have not called for more than one return. We provide the Land Tax Commissioner with £80,000 ‘ for the control of his office, and this year we anticipate a revenue of £2,700,000 from the land tax. The cost of collecting is something under 3 per cent., which no doubt is very economical. ‘ It has been represented to me that it is the custom of the Department to employ temporary clerks for twelve months, and then discharge them with only nominal notice, such as two days. A case of a married man has been brought under my notice. He was employed for twelve months, and two days prior to the expiration of that period he was informed that his services would be dispensed with, though single men temporarily employed in the Department have been kept on for two or three years. I shall be glad if the Minister will make some inquiries into that matter.

Senator Russell:

– I think that you will admit that in an office such as the Land Tax Commissioner’s office there are clerks and clerks.

Senator GRANT:

– I admit that, but tba work done by the particular gentleman to whom I refer was as valuable and as intricate as that performed by any other officer in the Department.

Senator Russell:

– The usual practice in the matter of discharging temporary hands is to give notice from one pay-day to the next. Two days’ notice is altogether too short.

Senator GRANT:

– I regret that we do not concentrate our attention a great deal more on the war. An effort has been made to show that conscription is necessary in. Australia, but compulsory training being part of the policy of the Government, in a few years we shall find that every .able-bodied man in the ‘ Commonwealth will be trained. Already, as a result of the training our young men have enjoyed, 10,000 or 11,000 of them have gone to the front, so that we have done very well in this respect. To secure and train and equip 100,000 men is not an easy matter. A few months ago neither men nor officers nor equipment - were available, and the Defence Department has done remarkably well to bring about the training and equipment of such a large number of men within a few months. I do not say that there have been no mistakes. We have never yet seen a war conducted without blunders. The Defence Department has done its best, and at this juncture there is not the slightest occasion for the Government to take the advice tendered to them this morning by the Age and the Argus, and the little crowd of anonymous correspondents who fill several columns of those newspapers. It is a pity that the very salutary provision in the Electoral Act, compelling the signing of articles, is not in force, because then it would be seen that the opinion expressed in the Age is only that of one man, and is worthy of no more respect than that of any other citizen. The same may be said in regard to the Argus and all the other newspapers advocating the same line of policy. I am satisfied that the present Government are well able to conduct the affairs of ‘ the Commonwealth, and that they will leave undone nothing Australia can do in order to take its full part in the conflict now raging on the .Continent of Europe.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I appreciate the opportunity that a Supply Bill gives to make reference to subjects which in ordinary circumstances honorable senators are precluded from discussing. I am very glad to say that I appreciated ‘ most highly the speech - in fact, the oration - delivered by Senator Bakhap. I appreciated particularly the note of independence which was sounded by him, and were it not that I had a misgiving as to how he will fare in the future with his colleagues, I should be. inclined to applaud him very heartily. He declared out aud out his independence on some points, and his want of allegiance to his party leaders was most noticeable. 1 am afraid that, in referring as he did to the action of his leaders, he has left himself open to a very serious form of censure later. We can all recall very vividly how a prominent member, Sir William Irvine, had the independence and the audacity to differ widely from his colleagues, especially on the merits of the referenda proposals, and how, at a later stage- I suppose through the exigencies of the situation - he had to retract every word he had uttered so independently. Senator Bakhap, I fear, was forgetful of that incident, and he would seem to rush in where even angels, or Irvines, fear to tread. If he had seriously watched the progress of the party, and observed the strict discipline which has been exercised over each member of it, and recalled how even the foremost among them has been brought to heel on occasions, he would have thought twice before expressing himself so independently. However, I am pleased that he did. I almost felt that he belonged to the party sitting on your right, sir, because, if there is one characteristic more than another which has distinguished our party, it is that freedom of action which every member of it enjoys outside the policy and the platform which we deem essential. I almost thought that Senator Bakhap was one of our party, until I remembered where he was standing, and until, of course, he betrayed other evidences of the unfortunate associates he is found in company with to-day.

What I desire particularly to draw the attention of the Minister to is a rumour which has been circulated in Western Australia concerning what has been called .” the Government stroke “ practised on the trans-Australian railway. There are, of course, two opinions held in regard to that matter, just as they are held in connexion with every other such matter. We are told by the opponents of the present system for constructing the railway that the men are not doing a fair day’s work, that they are enjoying conditions which men similarly situated had never enjoyed before, and that, therefore, they should put forward an extra effort in order to merit the justice which is being meted out to them. In my’ tame, I have had a little practice in that class of work. I know some of the men who are employed on this huge undertaking, especially at the western end. From what I know of the men, and from what I have been able to judge of the way in which they carry out their work, I have come to the conclusion that those who circulated this libel or lie about the men were actuated by nothing but interested motives. We know well enough that the policy of constructing public works by day labour is on its trial today, as it has been for many long years, and those who have an interest in bringing about the unpopularity of the system have only to send along a person with instructions to write down the system at so much per day or per week, and naturally he will do so, because he wants a living, like every other man. When the public are asked to believe that the men engaged on the line are not doing a fair day’s work, they have, of course, to judge by the results. All that we know, so fair, is that the men are laying a mile of rails per day, which, in ordinary conditions, is a very creditable record indeed.

Senator Russell:

– May I mention that the men are laying the rails as fast as has ever been done in Australia ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Assistant Minister, and I believe that similar creditable work is being done on the eastern end of the line. What I wish to emphasize is the systematic - almost the organized - and ceaseless attempt by interested persons to underrate and depreciate the policy of constructing public work by day labour without in- the first place satisfying themselves that they have chapter and verse for their statements. I am acquainted with the men who are working on the line in my State, having moved amongst them in many walks of life, and from the best sources of information I have consulted I am perfectly satisfied that they are putting up a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. I can afford to speak in this strain, because I regarded it as my plain duty, when seeking the suffrages of the electors, not to shirk my responsibility in this regard. In every locality I visited, even in places where, perhaps, the expression of the view or the sentiment might not be most popular, I never refrained from stating that the man who did not put up a fair day’s work when he got a fair day’s pay was no credit to the Labour party, but rather the enemy of it. I have gone further than that: I have said, not only on the gold-fields, but in centres where, perhaps, one is credited with holding very wild opinions, that the man who, when receiving a fair day’s pay, did not put up a ‘fair day’s work, was identical in character with the sweating employer who would endeavour to get the biggest day’s work for the lowest possible reward. The two characters are interchangeable. After having tested my popularity for what it was worth, I feel that I have all the more warrant for expressing the opinion now that the Federal Government are getting a fair measure of work from the men employed on the western end of the transcontinental railway for the wages and conditions which they enjoy. In regard to the Commonwealth ‘Bank - an institution which was brought into being by the Labour party - I feel that Western Australia has been somewhat neglected. I am not thoroughly conversant with the amount of control which the Government exercise over the Governor in regard to the branches which should be established; but I notice that in Western Australia - a State which covers an area equal to a third of this continent, and contains a thriving, virile, and intelligent population - only one branch of the Commonwealth Bank has been established. I do not intend to decry Tasmania, but I understand that in that State at least two branches of the Commonwealth Bank have been established. I can only congratulate the Tasmanians on their good luck, and deplore our own very indifferent luck in having only one branch of that beneficent institution. I use the words “ beneficent institution,” because it is a Bank which is going to stay.

Senator Ready:

– Does the State Government bank with the Commonwealth Bank?

Senator Russell:

– Yes.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Assistant Minister.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m..

Senator LYNCH:

– When the sitting was suspended I was discussing the position of the Commonwealth Bank in Western Australia, and while I am not prone to complain of the treatment extended to that State - because its people are usually very indulgent - -in the present instance there appears to be substantial reason for inquiry into its position. We have established in Australia a Commonwealth Bank, an institution which is conferring far-reaching benefits upon every section of the community. Those who are engaged in commercial pursuits as” well as those who are engaged in primary industries have already derived great advantages from it. But Western Australia possesses only one branch of this institution. whereas other States possess more: The one branch of the institution established in the State .which I represent is to be found in Perth. There are other populous centres in Western Australia which have no branch at all. I believethat these places have equal, if not superior, claims to those of populous centres in other States where branches of the Bank have been set up. In Tasmania, for example, there are at least two branches of this institution.

Senator Guy:

– And both are doing; well.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Commonwealth Bank will do well wherever it may be established. All the dismal prophesies to the effect that this institution contained the germs of disaster have been utterly falsified by time. Launceston contains about 20,000 inhabitants. But Fremantlepossesses a very much larger population. Yet the former place has a branch of theCommonwealth Bank, whereas the latter has not. Then there is no branch of theBank in large centres like the Boulder and Kalgoorlie, which boast a population of 30,000 souls. I mention these facts with a view to securing a readjustment of the ill-balanced disposition of the Bank’s branches up to date. I am quite aware that the relationship between the Commonwealth Bank and the Government is very nicely adjusted. But I believe that when this matter has been brought under the notice of the Government they will, in turn, direct the attention of the Governor of the Bank to it, with a view to insuring to Western Australia a more liberal patronage in the matter of extended accommodation on the part of that institution than it has hitherto enjoyed.

I was very pleased to hear Senator Bakhap refer to the decision of the High Court in respect of the Wheat Acquisition Act in New South

Wales. That decision involves a very serious problem to every State in Australia, not only because it affects a commodity upon which we all depend for our daily sustenance, but because it creates a constitutional position under which, in* due course, an extraordinary power may be placed in the hands of a State Government to the positive detriment of other States. When we entered into Federation, if there was one thing more than another which was clearly understood by the electors, it was that trade and intercourse between the States was to be absolutely free. It never entered the mind of the most suspicious elector that the time would come when through an interpretation of the High Court, a power would be placed in the hands of a State Government which would enable it to hold up a vital commodity of which the other States were in dire need. I recognise that, in acting as they did, the Government of New South Wales were influenced entirely by the interests of their own State. But it must be -remembered that the very essence of the understanding arrived at by the Federating States was that no intervening agency should come between the owner of a commodity in one part of the Commonwealth and its potential purchaser in another part. We have travelled that road for about twelve years.

Senator STEWART:

– Longer than that.

Senator LYNCH:

– To be accurate, we have trodden it for about fourteen years, and the position to-day seems to be that any State may hold up any commodity of which it may possess a monopoly, if it pleases to do so. Such action is distinctly unfederal, and involves an absolute upsetting of the deliberate intention of the electors when they voted for Federation. I feel that the adoption of the referenda proposals will alter this position. I disagree with Senator Bakhap when he says that it will not. By adopting the referenda proposals the Federal authority will be clothed with at least equal power to that possessed by New South Wales or any other State which may be bent upon following in her footsteps. If the illogical position to which I have referred is to stand, we can easily imagine how any State in the future may act. We can readily conceive of the six States being divided in such a manner as to leave within the bounds of any one of them the .exclusive possession of some commodity which might be common to the necessities of all. In such circumstances it would be competent for the State which had a monopoly of a particular product to hold it until the other States were prepared to pay for it any price which might be asked of them. We have had a declaration on this point. The High Court has spoken. But happily, the last word on the subject has not yet been uttered. I am looking forward with eager expectation to seeing Senator Bakkap, and any other advanced Liberal - if it be possible to imagine an advanced . Liberal in the politics of this country - fighting hard to clothe the Commonwealth with a power which will enable it to insist upon the free interchange of commodities throughout Australia

Senator Turley:

– To what fight does the honorable senator refer?

Senator LYNCH:

– To the referenda fight.

Senator TURLEY:

– Will the adoption of the referenda proposals alter the position?

Senator LYNCH:

– I think so. The adoption of those proposals will confer upon the Commonwealth a power at least equal to that enjoyed by the -States. It will make Australia one area over which the Commonwealth will exercise its commerce power to the exclusion of any State which may act as New South Wales has acted.

Senator Shannon:

Senator Bakhap said that the adoption of the referenda proposals would not affect the decision in the wheat case.

Senator LYNCH:

– Happily there, is room for a difference of opinion on that point. When the referenda proposals are carried, the (Federation will be armed with equal, if not superior, power to New South Wales.

Senator SENIOR:

– Does the honorable senator mean that it will have equal or superior power?

Senator LYNCH:

– It will- have superior power. If it had only equal power, when a conflict arose, the Federal law would prevail. I have a very lively recollection of what the action of New South Wales in the case of the wheat seizure meant to persons outside its boundaries. When the edict went forth that no wheat was to be shipped, a bargain had already been made by a person outside that State, under which he was to receive a portion of its surplus wheat.

Senator Turley:

– Waa there any surplus wheat?

Senator LYNCH:

– I have read in the newspapers that New South Wales had a surplus of 1,500,000 bushels.

Senator TURLEY:

– Then why is that State importing now?

Senator LYNCH:

– It may be because its producers have put on an extraordinary spurt with a view to getting under cultivation as large an area as possible. But I am not sure that it is importing.

Senator Turley:

– Oh, yes, it is.

Senator LYNCH:

– At any rate it nas exported wheat to Tasmania. Whether its imports and exports under this heading would balance I do not know. But apart from these considerations, the position is, that while the decision of the High Court stands Free Trade between the States is impossible. The intention of the electors of the federating States has thus been clearly frustrated. I only hope that the carrying of the referenda proposals will clothe the Federal authority with sufficient power to insure that all Australians shall have an equal right to share in any commodity produced within the Commonwealth borders, instead of that right being limited to a privileged few within .a more restricted area. I am hoping that, by carrying the referendum questions, with the assistance of Senator Bakhap and Senator Shannon, the commodities of the future, that are so vital for the people of Australia, will become common property, and not the property of one particular political area, no matter where it is situated.

Senator Stewart:

– Should not production be the property of the people who produce it?

Senator LYNCH:

– When we are advanced sufficiently in our political education, we can discuss that problem.

I was pleased to hear Senator Bakhap make reference to the necessity of bringing in that era of political good-will and peace amongst all mortals here below. It is a laudable sentiment to desire peace, but it all depends on the terms of peace, and who is seeking it. As a Labour party, we are not here as a peaceable organization. We were called into existence for the purpose of disturbing the existing state of affairs. That is the raison d’etre of our party. We have been told by some of those who take it upon themselves to direct public opinion - including the public journals of this country - that we ought to follow the example set by the Imperial Government. I admit that the Imperial Government have provided some good examples on occasions-, and recently they have formed a National Cabinet for the great purpose of bringing this war to a happy conclusion. But I would point out to Senator Bakhap that, while he is asking for peace and good-will, and suggesting that we should set aside all political differences, his party did not do much to give effect to that precept in days gone by. Of course I can quite understand the reason for his advice now. But when his party were in power, before the last election, did they talk of burying the hatchet? Of course they did not. The war was then in progress; the Fusion Government were in power, and they went to the country on a policy which was radically different to ours., We, on the other hand, after asking for a politicaltruce, went to the country on a definite policy, and with clear-cut lines dividing us from the Fusion party. They fought us on every item, and in their programme were some of the most contentious proposals ever included in any reactionary policy. And now they say, “ Let us have a truce.” The Fusion party would not hear of a truce before the elections on 5th September, and we beat them in such a way that there is not a trace of them left on the political horizon. Even later, the State elections have brought more success to the Labour party, with the result that there is now only one State left in the control of our opponents. Victoria now stands out like a gaunt black stump on a landscape that has been swept by a bush fire, and I am confident that, after the next political bush fire, even Victoria will return a Labour Government. Members of this party now call for a political truce. Of course they do, because they are in a dependent position, and a truce is always welcome to a person so situated. They are asking us to say “ Amen “ to everything that is being done in the Old Country; but the party opposite did not do much to preserve that beautiful doctrine of peace and good-will between the two parties. Even when they met their Waterloo on the 5th September they would not bury the hatchet, for, in the by-elections held since then, they have fought the Labour party. We held Bendigo and the Grampians as Labour seats, and the party now seeking to bury the hatchet put men in the field in both constituencies to fight the Labour party. In that way they departed from the example set by the Mother Country, for there seats held by the Ministerialists were not contested; but our opponents in Australia, when they saw the chance of gaining an accession of strength, did not hesitate to put men in the field in Bendigo and at the Grampians. The Labour party were elected upon a distinct set of issues, and the electors will now expect us to give final and full effect to our policy. I am not in favour of any political truce, but, on the contrary, I am in favour of carrying out the policy on which we were elected, and for a very good reason. The electors of Australia have sent us here to do something. They have not sent us here simply to warm our places in Parliament, and leave untouched those reforms for which people have waited so long. We are open and candid breakers of the political peace, for, as I said, we were brought into existence to disturb that peace. Honorable senators opposite know that, so long as they can preserve the existing order of things, even for an hour or a day, or for a month, they are .accomplishing something. Being a party sent here to preserve the status quo, it is to their interest to see that nothing is done; but as we have been returned to disturb the existing order of things, it is cur policy to put reforms into operation.

I am glad that Senator Bakhap is now in the chamber, for I wish to say that he contributed an interesting discourse in his references to conscription. I was pleased to hear him on this subject, and I may also tell him, if it is any encouragement to him, that I am one who, like himself, is not frightened of words. I do not regard words as bogies, and I *m not afraid to adopt measures, wherever or by whom originated, if I think them to be for the general good of the community. I believe that what Senator ‘Bakhap said with regard to conscription ‘has in it very much food for earnest thought for every member of the British Empire, wherever found, for to-day we are engaged in a war the equal of which has never before occurred. We are engaged in a war with enemy countries which need not have gone to war at all. Germany was securing a peaceful, bloodless victory the world over in the matter of trade, and need not have gone to war at all. She could have preserved her good name and retained the respect and good opinion of the civilized world if only she had stood where she was, and had not drawn the sword. But Germany began by breaking her word, and since then has prosecuted the struggle in a way which could never have been anticipated. She is not careful of her weapons. She grasps weapons from any direction. She has violated every moral code, and to-day retains no vestige of respect throughout the civilized world. Having participated in that struggle, we need now to recast our ideas’ radically as to how victory is to be secured. Conscription has no terrors for me.

Senator Bakhap:

– That is the way to talk.

Senator LYNCH:

– I feel convinced that if a vote were taken of those men whose names are emblazoned in our prints every day, those men whose names appear on the roll of honour, they would vote for conscription, and I believe, also, that the soldiers who are behind the trenches would vote for it. . We must not forget that our liberty is at stake. It has been said that the battles of this country are being fought on the field of Flanders just as effectively as if they were fought on the plains of Bourke or in Western Australia. In the event of an attack upon this country, we would have conscription pure and simple, or its equivalent, so why should we hesitate to resort to that policy which we would have- to adopt if the battles were fought here in Australia instead of Europe?

Senator Bakhap:

– That is a very good argument.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am with those who stand behind this Government in insisting upon the adoption of means for the purpose of bringing this war to a successful issue. I see nothing wrong about conscription, which, in the abstract, is eminently fair and just. Where is the country whose freedom, honour, and safety are not equally the concern of every man in it, as well as of those who, braver than their fellows, come forward to fight for it? Where is the country which ought not to be defended, and the defence of which is not equally the duty of every individual unit of its population able to bear arms as well as of those who freely offer their lives in its defence ? We know that if our lives and our country were in jeopardy to-morrow we should have to resort to conscription here. If the independence of this country, our hard-won liberty, our free, institutions, our standards of living, everything we hold near and dear, and the security of our Parliaments, are being fought for to-day on the battlefields of Europe, the policy to which we should have to resort if we were called upon to defend those interests here can logically be resorted to to carry on the struggle in Europe. I have been led to speak of this matter because of what was said by Senator Bakhap on tha subject of conscription, and because of a suggestion in his remarks that honorable senators on this side are somewhat chary of pronouncing their opinions on the subject.

Senator Bakhap:

– I welcome every such expression of opinion as has fallen from the lips of the honorable senator.

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope that the necessity will not arise for a resort to conscription; but I frankly admit that, in my opinion, conscription is honest, .fair, and patriotic in the abstract. It is not the business of any individual, or any political party, to depend upon volunteers coming forward to defend the .country. That is the business of everybody in the country. We should not be influenced by the shibboleth that conscription is of Continental origin, and therefore something to be despised. We should be ready to adopt anything that, in its essence, is fair and just. We should not permit a devotion to the shibboleths of the past to prevent us from adopting the better course. If the Government decide that we should resort to conscription in order to bring the terrible struggle that is being waged in the northern hemisphere to a successful conclusion, they will have no more staunch supporter than myself, in order that we may see the flag we have stood for so long waving over a battlefield of liberty, our free institutions intact, and our independence secured. I hope that our men who are going to the front will be provided with everything necessary. I realize the difficulties attendant upon the sending of a large expeditionary force to another country, and how they must strain the resources of such a small population as we have here. At the same time, we may be compensated by the results of the efforts of Australians in the past, and particularly by their exploits in the Turkish Peninsula, where our soldiers have ful filled to the utmost the highest expectations that were indulged in regarding them. In Western Australia I heard some references to a lack of provision in the matter of equipment. Some persons were loud in complaint on that score. So far as I could form an opinion from what I heard from volunteers there, I was led to the conclusion that, in the matter of clothing particularly, there is something lacking in the equipment provided for volunteers in the western State to-day. Having mentioned the matter, I am sure that the Minister of Defence will see that every reasonable effort is made to encourage those men on the honorable path they have chosen until a final victory for the Allied Nations is reached in the struggle in which they are now engaged.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– A few statements have been made during the debate to which I should like to reply. Senator Millen, in His criticism as to. the expenditure at the Broadmeadows Camp, pointed out that, in view of the large expenditure that must take place there, we ought to acquire a permanent camp. No doubt it would be desirable to have permanent reserves in all the States for camps of training, but it has to be remembered that that would be a very costly matter. These camps must be somewhere near railway lines, and if we are to acquire the large areas which are necessary for military training, they will represent a very big capital sum that will be practically lying idle, because it will be impossible for us to utilize the land for any other purpose. Under existing conditions we can go out into the country districts and obtain land eminently suitable for camps of training on very reasonable terms. The Defence Act gives us authority to take any land for the purpose, and what we do is to select a suitable site for a camp, and notify the owner of our intention to make use of it for that purpose. At the conclusion of the camp, the damage caused by the holding of the camp on the land is assessed by a committee, and the owner is compensated accordingly. Necessary repairs to fences and that kind of thing can be, and are, done by the Department. By the adoption of this course the cost to the Department represents a sum which is very much less than would be the interest on the capital sum which would be lying idle if we bought huge areas of laud for training camp reserves. J. agree that, if we had the money to spare, it might be advisable, despite the cost, to secure such reserves, especially in some of the more populous States. The Government of which I was a member made a start in that direction by acquiring the Liverpool Manoeuvre Area, and that involved a big expenditure. There have been so many matters upon which it has been absolutely necessary to spend money recently that we have had none to -spend upon matters which could be left for a few years, and for which it has been possible to find an effective substitute.

Senator Turley:

– Could the camps be used for no other purpose?

Senator PEARCE:

– Only to a limited extent. When the camp .is at an end, stock may be turned on to the land, and in such circumstances we have used the Liverpool Manoeuvre Area for grazing. The owner of the land on which the camp has been established at Broadmeadows very generously offered us the free use of it, and permitted us to do what we pleased there. He Has been very loyal to the terms of his offer. To acquire that land merely because we are using it at the present time for a camp of training would not be a very wise proceeding. It is close to a very large city, the population around it is increasing, the area is not sufficient for training purposes, and it would be necessary to acquire other vacant land adjoining the site of the present camp. The cost of that land would perhaps be over £20 per acre, and to buy thousands of acres of land at such a price would be a costly proceeding.

Senator Shannon:

– I understand that some of the land on which the camp has been established in South Australia was sold last week for £66 per acre.

Senator PEARCE:

– We have the use of the land at Broadmeadows free of charge. Owing to the wastage of the tents, it was decided to put up temporary huts, which will be available for other camps wherever we like to use them. They will not become the property of the owner of .the land at Broadmeadows. They will represent an asset, and will save the Commonwealth a great deal of money in the wastage of tents in the ‘future, while they will give the men ‘greater comfort. It .may be said that we shall have to remove roads we put down at Broadmeadows, but I am informed that we shall be able to arrange with the local shire council to take up the roads if we let them .have the metal, so that that work will cost us nothing after the camp is closed. Senator Millen dealt with the question of volunteers whose services are rejected because of deficient chest measurement. It is an axiom in military matters that it is necessary to have men who are physically fit: A campaign is the greatest test of physical endurance to which the human body can be put. Medical men have laid down what they believe to be the standards for an examination as to physical fitness.’ All sorts of amateur advice is given us, whether in regard to teeth, chest measurement, or height. In fact, every person rejected for some physical defect can find a champion ready to prove that that particular defect is no defect at all. If we were to give way to all these representations we should reach the position that we must accept every man who offers. One of the things which hampers an army most in its operations is the problem of dealing with the sick and wounded. That is a sufficiently serious problem when we have to deal with those who, being physically fit, become disabled by sickness or wounds; but how much would the seriousness of the problem be increased if we had an army composed of a large number of men who were physically unfit to start with? At the beginning of the recruiting it was decided, not by me, but by my predecessor, to allow recruiting, not only in the large cities, but in the country. I am mentioning this, not by way of criticism, but as a statement of fact. In order to give residents of the country districts an opportunity to enlist, it was decided to permit of recruiting at’ country centres, the mayors of towns and the presidents of shire councils acting practically as recruiting officers, and local medical officers conducting examinations which entitled those who passed to be accepted.

Senator TuRLEY:

– That does not hold to-day.

Senator PEARCE:

– It does’ not, and for a very good reason. When the first .division went to Egypt, they had not been’, there very many months before we found’ a ship coming back with over one hundred men on board who were physically unfit. Upon investigation, it was found that the majority of them had been passed in the country towns of Australia as physically fit, but they had not complied with the standards laid down by .the regulations. There is a serious aspect of the question which must be considered. We have passed a War Pensions Act, by which the country has undertaken the burden of supporting men who are incapacitated after the war. Many of the men who have come back disclosed physical defects which entitle them to make a claim upon the community to be kept for the rest of their lives as permanently or partially incapacitated.. Medical officers who have examined them since they came back have found evidence that their incapacity is of years’ standing. In other words, men were passed into the ranks, and sent on active service, who were never fit for active service, and should never have been passed at all. These men can claim that the country should support, or partially support, them because of their incapacity, unless we can demonstrate by medical evidence that the incapacity existed before the men were accepted. That state of affairs led to a very drastic alteration, and it was decided to regard country examinations for fitness as only tentative, and that when the men reached headquarters they must undergo a second examination by our own permanent medical officers. There has been a tightening up in that respect, and better results are being obtained.

Senator Turley:

– Are the men returned if they do not pass the headquarters’ examination ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes; if they do not pass, they are returned.

Senator McKissock:

– One difficulty is that after men have been accepted, and farewelled in their country towns, when they come down here they are rejected because of a- few defective teeth.

Senator PEARCE:

– They are farewelled because of the impression left by the previous order that acceptance” in the country was not tentative, but final; but I think that people are now beginning to understand that acceptance in the country is not final. Every man is given the opportunity to return and say farewell to his friends before he sails, so that country farewell functions may very well be postponed. Any one who reads the . answer I gave to-day in regard to the ..matter of teeth must regard it as a reasonable explanation of what is done.

Senator Turley:

– Except that you did not mention how many teeth are needed, as the questioner desired.

Senator PEARCE:

– The number is not laid down. A soldier must, have sufficient teeth to enable him to masticate his food, which is a practical and common-sense test, and far better than any technical test as to the number of teeth. A man with twenty teeth may have them so placed that he cannot masticate his food, while another with fifteen teeth may have them so placed that he can masticate his food. That is the common-sense test that is applied in regard to the matter of teeth. Senator Millen spoke of the formation of a Dental Corps. This has been a very much debated question. There was a good deal of departmental opposition to having dentists in any way attached to the Expeditionary Forces; but, having a perfectly impartial mind upon the matter when I went into it, I was satisfied that the policy of having dentists appointed to the Forces at the various bases would be a sound one; and so the policy now being carried out is to have dentists appointed to the bases, not only in Australia, but also in Egypt and wherever the troops move to from Egypt.

Senator McKissock:

– Volunteers with false teeth are rejected.

Senator PEARCE:

– False teeth are not regarded as a substitute for real teeth. A man in the firing line may lose his false teeth, and if he has not sufficient teeth of his own to masticate his food, he at once becomes inefficient. If, in addition to his false teeth, he has sufficient teeth of his own to enable him to properly masticate his food, he can be accepted. Senator Gould, in his criticism, said that “ doctors had received instructions to be more strict, which interfered with recruiting.” I hope that I am not misconstruing the honorable senator, but his remark seemed to inter that instructions had been given to tighten up the medical inspection with the object of limiting recruiting. As a matter of fact, it has not interfered with recruiting. It has interfered with inefficient men being sent to the front, and I have yet to learn that this means interfering with recruiting. Repeatedly, on public platforms, through the press, and in Parliament, the Government have said that every man who is fit and well and willing to volunteer will be welcome in the ranks, and that there is room for him there, and that we shall do our best to train him and equip him and send him to the front. That invitation has been reiterated every time we have touched upon this question. The honorable senator drew a comparison between what Australia has done in connexion with the war and what has been done by other Dominions, particularly Canada. Comparisons are odious; but I make the statement, and challenge successful contradiction of it, that there is no Dominion in the British Empire which has done as much as has Australia. I do not make this statement in any boastful spirit, but I am in a position to know that Australia has done something more than merely contribute her quota to the fighting-line. She has assisted more than one other Dominion. She has not had to ask any other Dominion for assistance in any respect whatever, and she has assisted more than one other Dominion.

Senator Maughan:

– And one Dominion has acknowledged the service rendered.

Senator PEARCE:

– Gratefully.

Senator Bakhap:

– In what sense has Australia assisted any other Dominion - in men or equipment?

Senator PEARCE:

– I cannot give particulars as to the assistance rendered, because, if I did so, it would expose the weakness of that Dominion in a particular direction.

Senator Bakhap:

– A fair percentage of the men who have gone to the front from Australia were born in -the United Kingdom.

Senator PEARCE:

– But Australia was the country of their adoption. The figures quoted by me a few weeks ago show that 70 per cent, of the troops are Australian born. I doubt whether any other Dominion can show the same proportion of native-born.

Senator Bakhap:

– We have a greater proportion of native-born in Australia.

Senator PEARCE:

– Is the honorable senator trying to infer that the majority who have gone from Australia are Englishborn ?

Senator Bakhap:

– No; I simply say that a large percentage of the troops going away as Australian troops are natives of the United Kingdom.

Senator PEARCE:

– It seems to me that the policy of continually decrying what Australia has done, and exalting what the other Dominions h’ave done, is a policy of crying “ stinking fish “ in regard to one’s own country. I give my meed of praise to all the Dominions for what they have done - they have done nobly and well - but I deprecate any attempt to foul our own nest by invidious comparisons with other countries, especially when comparisons are not based on facts. However, as they have been made. I feel that it is mv duty to challenge them. . I say that a larger number of soldiers have gone from Australia in proportion to her population than from any other Dominion of the British Empire. Senator de Largie has pointed out that, apart altogether from the proportion of soldiers despatched to the front, the service which the Australia has rendered in regard to naval defence has also to be considered - a service which has been officially recognised by the British Government as being of a most valuable character. By the organization of the captured German vessels, by the organization of our transport service, and by the co-operation of the Customs Department and the Naval Department, acting with the State Governments in the matter of meat supply, we have been able to render signal service to the Mother Country by providing supplies of food to the British troops in the field. In the same way inversely, we have been able to render assistance to several of the States of Australia by utilizing vessels fitted up to take away our troops for the conveyance of wheat and fodder on their return voyages. The State Governments have expressed their recognition of the service thus rendered to them. Apart from the fighting troops, we have sent to the front a Field General Hospital. It is ‘ not for Australian wounded. We have placed ifc at the disposal of the War Office for the treatment of British wounded. I have not heard of any other Dominion having done the same thing. We have also sent to the Mother Country a large number of nurses, not for Australian wounded, but for British wounded; and the British Government have expressed their appreciation of that act by asking for as many more nurses as we can despatch. I am not saying that we have done’ enough, or all that we ought to have done, but I have mentioned these matters in rebuttal of the pessimistic criticism that we have heard. We are told of men, awaiting medical inspection, having been kept stripped for two hours in the cold. No system on earth is fool-proof, and I suppose that in the Defence Department we have as big a proportion of fools as any other Department has; but is it believable that a medical officer who knows the effect that keeping a man stripped in the cold for two hours would have on the man’s health would do this? To me it is unbelievable. I cannot see the necessity for it. A man submitting himself for medical inspection can strip in less than ten minutes. What could be the object of remaining stripped for two hours ? I have not met Australians who would consent to remain stripped in an inspectionroom for two hours. Fancy, asking Australians to remain stripped for two hours in the cold for some medical officer to inspect them at his convenience I There would be a riot in the inspection-room if such a thing were expected. I have seen medical inspections in progress. There are usually fifty men awaiting inspection. A sergeant-major calls them into a room four at a time. These four strip in. turn and pass, into the room where the medical officers are conducting their inspection, and from that room they pass out and dress, while another four are being examined. It only takes a few minutes to inspect each man, and the tale we have heard seems to me unbelievable. But I know that anything can be said. One has only to read the letters appearing in the press to see that. If I were to believe half of what they say I should be in a lunatic asylum, but there are plenty of good people who really believe that all these things are true. A lady who takes a leading part in a certain organization waited on me. the other day, and the interview lasted for three-quarters of an hour. She gave me case after case of terrible hardship and absolute injustice, and after each case was mentioned, I would say. “ Will you give me the name of the man who suffered this injustice?” She would reply, “ I cannot give the name because I, do not know who he was.” Then J would say, “ Can you give me the name of your informant, so that I can get from him the name of the man who has suffered ?” She would say, “ I do not think that he would like his name mentioned.” And so I went through the whole list. There was only one case in which I could get any name that would enable me to make an inquiry. I said to this lady, “ How on earth do you ex- pect me to find out anything if you come here and make these startling statements but will not tell me the name of a man who has suffered, or the name of a man who has given you information? Where am I to start ? Am I to say to the members of the Military Board, ‘ There is a private somewhere in Australia in one of the camps who was subjected to suchandsuch treatment. I do not know in what company he is, or whether he is in the Light Horse, the Artillery, or the Infantry. I do not even know his Commanding Officer. But I want you to make inquiries and find out whether it is true ‘ ?” This is a sample of some of the criticisms that have appeared in the press It seems to me peculiar that the very people who take up this gossip and this tittle-tattle, and these yarns and tales, will in the next breath assure one that they are anxious to assist recruiting. We have had the spectacle of one man writing to a member of Parliament and telling him that a sentry had been found dead with his face in the mud, and that another had been found dead at his post.

Senator O’Keefe:

– And that member of Parliament repeated the story without inquiring as to its truth.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, and a few days afterwards he attended a meeting to urge the people of Australia to rally to the colours.

Senator Needham:

– That was Mr. Watt.

Senator PEARCE:

– We have investigated that case. There is not a shadow of truth in it. No sentry has been found dead anywhere at his post, and so far as we can find out, every man who has died in the camps has died in his bed. However, that story was mentioned not only in Parliament but also in the press throughout Australia. We expect our young men to read these things, and to believe that a horrible state of affairs exists at Broadmeadows and at other camps, and that recruits are so neglected and so ill-used that healthy men who have just passed a medical examination will fall dead at their posts. We not only invite them to face the bullets, but we also warn them that they will run the risk of suffocation by being smothered in mud. Then we wonder why recruiting is not the success which it ought to be. If those who spread these stories really wish to assist recruiting, they will get at the truth. of them before they give them voice. I may say that I have sent the papers on to the Attorney-General, and if :he says that there is a good case, we will give the writer of the letter an opportunity of discovering where a sentry was found with his face in mud.

Senator Needham:

– What will you do with Mr. Watt?

Senator PEARCE:

– We cannot deal with Mr. Watt, because his statement made on the floor of the ‘other House was privileged.

Senator Shannon:

– The writer of the letter is the man whom you can deal with.

Senator PEARCE:

– We intend, if we can, to deal with him.

Senator O’Keefe:

– That does not relieve Mr. Watt from the onus of having published the statement.

Senator PEARCE:

– An obligation rests upon public men who receive statements to see, before giving them publicity, that there is some truth in them - at any rate, a semblance of truth. Take the campaign in regard to the Broadmeadows Camp. I am prepared to admit, as I did to-day, that after a heavy rain it was anything but a desirable place. There was a tremendous amount of mud, and very disagreeable mud it was. But those of us who have lived in the country know that mud is always prevalent after a heavy rain like that which fell at Broadmeadows. You can find plenty of mud without going outside the boundaries of municipalities where you have roads and footpaths. The grumbling about the mud did not come from the men. They grumbled when they were taken away from Broadmeadows. They grumbled far more at their removal than they grumbled at Broadmeadows itself. The grumbling came from persons, who, perhaps with the best intentions, but with very little experience and knowledge, went out there, and, having been used to comfortable homes, with nice beds, and all that kind of tiling, saw men sleeping on the ground with a waterproof sheet under them, and thought that the men were being very hardly treated. We want to encourage recruiting. We do not wish to make feather-bed soldiers. Our men will have to undergo hardships on the field of battle - far greater hardships than they undergo in camps of training. I am not one of those who believe that we should not give the men any comfort. We should give them every comfort we .can; but it should be the comfort of the camp, not the comfort of the drawing-room. The men are in camp’ being trained for the grimmest test of human endurance. They want comfort, but not coddling ; and they do not expect it either. I believe that in Australia there are still many thousands of fit men who will come forward at the call of the country. Two very interesting speeches have been delivered here to-day on the question as to whether the time has arrived when we should have conscription. Senator Bakhap’s was certainly a very forcible utterance; but I think that I am not making any undue reference to Senator Lynch when I express the .belief that his was even a more forcible utterance, because of one argument which appealed to me very strongly. He pointed out that, having established conscription in the Defence Act for the protection of Australia, it would not ‘be a wide extension of that principle to establish conscription for the defence of Australia on the battlefields in Flanders and at the Dardanelles. That seemed to me a very powerful argument ; but, whilst I admit the force of the arguments put forward, I do not admit that the time has arrived for such action, or that the circumstances would justify Australia in resorting to a system of conscription. As to whether the time has arrived in Great Britain I am not com:petent to say. I have every confidence that the men who are handling its public affairs now will take the step if they think that it has become necessary. My personal opinion, which is formed on, perhaps, somewhat slender ground, is that if conscription were the rule in Great Britain to-morrow, the Government would not be able to send another thousand soldiers into the fighting line. That, I repeat, is ray opinion, though it may be wrong I do not believe that those who are in charge of affairs in the Mother Country would hesitate to bring forward a proposal for conscription if they believed that it would result in putting into the field an increased number of men. If we can judge correctly from what we have read in the press, what is required more than anything else is munitions of war.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does not the Minister think that conscription would have a very greatmoral effect on our Allies, and assure them of our steadfastness and intenseness in the struggle?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think that the Allies need any assurance as to the sincerity of the British people.

Senator Bakhap:

– How is it that it was reported in the evening press recently that Russia considers that Great Britain is not doing enough?

Senator PEARCE:

– I think that the Allies recognise that Great Britain has done a very fair share, and we have not heard of any recrimination on the part of an Ally that the others are not doing their share.

Senator Bakhap:

– What about the statement which appeared in the evening newspaper the other day?

Senator PEARCE:

– In speaking on the subject of defence, I have often said that you cannot make an army by merely clapping your hands. It is not a thing which can be called into existence in a few short days, or weeks, or months, or even years.. It is a thing which has to be planned and organized years ahead, and the position in which the British Government finds itself is the same as that in which we find ourselves, and that is that we are wise after the event.

Senator Shannon:

– It is very easy to be that.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. The time to have prepared for our share in this war of 1915 was 1908, and even earlier than that.

Senator Bakhap:

– And wheri is the time to prepare for our share in 1917?

Senator PEARCE:

– To do what is our duty now.

Senator Shannon:

– And in time of peace to prepare for war.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. I would say to my friends on the Opposition benches that I do not wish to bring a party element into the consideration of this question. It has been introduced, and is being introduced day by day, by the press and in Parliament.

Senator Bakhap:

– Certainly not in this Chamber by anybody sitting on this side.

Senator Guy:

– By yourself, for one.

Senator PEARCE:

– I would say that the speech of Senator Gould this afternoon went very near the border line.

Senator needham:

-It went over the line.

Senator PEARCE:

– There has been an attempt made, both in Parliament and. out of it, to use the criticism of the Defence Department as a lever to turn public opinion against the Labour party, and that is going on still.

Senator Bakhap:

– A metropolitan paper, which is supporting the Labour party, and has supported it for some time, is taking up the attitude of which you complain.

Senator Guy:

– Which newspaper?

Senator Bakhap:

– The Age. You have not got as powerful a Labour newspaper elsewhere in Australia.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Age owes no allegiance to the Labour party, nor does the Labour party owe any allegiance to that newspaper.

Senator Bakhap:

– There is not any of your newspapers doing as good work for the Labour party.

Senator PEARCE:

– That is the honorable senator’s opinion. As one of those whose actions’ are called in question by this criticism, I wish to say that some of the things which have been done in the past, and which are proving of incalculable value to-day, were bitterly opposed by the very men who are now uttering the criticism. Only for the establishment of the Defence factories . we would not have been able to send soldiers away, but some of the very men who are now criticising me and my administration are amongst those who, when the proposals to establish the Defence factories were first brought forward on the Estimates, condemned them, and would have defeated them if they had had the power.

Senator O’keefe:

– Who fought them and criticised them all night.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. Some of the newspapers which are now calling out and asking, ‘ ‘ Why do you not send more men to the front; why do you not provide equipment? “ condemned the factories as Socialistic institutions.

Senator O’Keefe:

– And they were only established in the teeth of criticism.

Senator PEARCE:

– The factories were established by the mere fact that the Labour party had a majority in each House; otherwise they would not have been in operation to-day, and we should not have been able to equip men in the time we have. There has been a considerable amount of criticism in regard to the Small Arms Factory. One Of the first investigations I made after coming into office was in .regard to that factory. I found that up to that time no inquiry had been made as to whether ‘ it could work a double shift or not. I sent for the manager, and told him it was the desire of the Government that the factory should turn out every rifle of which it was capable. I asked him whether it was not possible to turn out more rifles by employing two shifts, and I have the departmental record of his answer in which he said it was impracticable. He stated that it would take a considerable time to work up to a stage when we could employ two shifts, and he gave other reasons, which I cannot mention on the floor of this Chamber.

Senator Bakhap:

– Other members of the Senate who know something of the factory are similarly handicapped. Let the Minister not forget that fact.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course they are handicapped, and naturally so. “We are all handicapped when we are discussing a question of this character. I recognise that the members of the Opposition, if they are loyal to the country, are handicapped in criticising me, and I am handicapped in replying to their criticism. That was not the only time on which I went into the question of a second shift. On several occasions I revived the matter, and later I went to the factory and investigated the question, not merely by taking the manager’s opinion, but by ascertaining the views of the employees, from the manager down to the men, and I came away absolutely convinced that at that stage it was impracticable to put a second shift into operation. At the same time I again impressed on the manager that all his efforts were to be directed at the earliest possible stage to bringing in a second shift. He has been working along that line and, I believe, loyally acting up to my instruction, and now the time is approaching when, even if the question had not been raised, a second shift will be installed, and it is just at the time that this criticism is brought forward. Why? In order that when a double shift is working our critics may be able to say, “ We forced the Minister of Defence to have a double shift.”

Senator Bakhap:

– The Minister is now saying something which is very unworthy of him.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not think so, because I am replying to the criticism of men who ought to know the position.

Senator Bakhap:

– What about the recommendation of two parliamentary Committees? Were they animated by any such unworthy motives?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Committees said that the way to increase the output of the factory was by means of a double shift. They did not say that a double shift can be worked. They believe that it is feasible, and so do I. But I recognise, and have recognised all the time,” that one of the principal objections which obtained up to a certain time was removed before the Committees commenced their investigation, and removed as the result of the action taken by myself.

Senator Bakhap:

– I am very much afraid that one of the obstacles exists still.

Senator PEARCE:

– We took further action. Recognising that the manager might not have been carrying out my instruction to work a double shift at the earliest possible moment, I determined to get independent expert testimony as to what was being done and what ought to be done. We approached the Government of Victoria, and asked that the manager of the Newport workshops, who is a very capable man, should be allowed to go up to the Small Arms Factory to investigate the question. With that gentleman we sent the best expert we had in the Department, Major Harding, the Inspector of Ordnance Machinery, Mr. Davis, the Director-General of Public Works in New South Wales, recommended to us by the State Government, and as chairman of the Committee Colonel Dangar, the Chief of Ordnance. They visited the factory, interrogated the manager, and sifted the matter thoroughly there. What did they say? They stated that Mr. Wright was absolutely justified in the statement he made to me, that at that time a double shift was impracticable. I have only received that report within the past two days.” It contains certain information regarding the output of the Factory, its possible output, and the amount of material available, which I cannot make public; but with the excision of that information I am going to make the report available to Parliament, so that honorable senators may know exactly what this committee of experts have said in regard to the position. As to the time within which a double shift can be worked, the committee point out that several things yet require to be done. They recommend how these things should be done, what steps should be taken to do them, and they also give an estimate of the time within which the double shift can be worked, and of the period which will elapse before we shall get the full benefit accruing from that double shift. I have issued instructions to the manager of the Factory that he is to follow the lines which have been laid down by this committee. 1 venture to say that no person could have done more under the circumstances. The manager of the Factory is not only well qualified for his position, but that he is believed to be qualified by persons who have had previous experience of him is shown by the fact that he has been asked to take charge of big works which are engaged in turning out arms for the Allies. That is the best testimony as to whether or not he is thoroughly competent. “What was the alternative open to me? Here was a man in a responsible position who tendered me certain advice. Was I to turn round and say to him, ‘ ‘ You are the expert, I am the non-expert. But I am also the Minister, and notwithstanding that you say this thing is impracticable, you must do it?” That would have meant that I would have had to give him his walking ticket. I had either to accept his advice or give him his walking ticket. I accepted his advice, because I thought that it was well considered.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-ham. - And time has proved that the Minister was right.

Senator PEARCE:

– The committee to which I have referred have said that Mr. Wright was justified in the- attitude which he took up.

Senator Bakhap:

– When did the Minister appoint that committee?

Senator PEARCE:

– About a week ago - subsequent to the laying on the table of Parliament of the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Public Works Committee. There is another direction in which, I believe, we can render assistance to the Imperial authorities, namely, in the manufacture of shells. Up to the present time, not only has Australia done nothing in this regard, but she has not investigated the question, believing that we should al ways be able to get a sufficient supply of shells from overseas.

Senator McKissock:

– Could not advantage be taken by the Commonwealth of the offer of the use of the State Workshops ?

Senator PEARCE:

– That question is now under consideration. We have a committee inquiring into it. There are reasons why I cannot disclose the names of its members. Obviously, in a Department like that of Defence, at a time like the present, many of our best technical officers are away. Even those technical officers, whilst they may know .all about a shell itself, may have no knowledge of its manufacture. Consequently, we have called to our assistance a wellknown manufacturer in Australia, who is also a thoroughly practical man, together with the manager of one of our steel works, and one of the best technical officers in the Defence Department. These gentlemen are now investigating the question of the manufacture of shells in Australia. Recognising that we could only partly attend to this matter here, some months ago we sent a technical officer to England. He has been pursuing his investigations there, and he is supplying us with the results of those investigations. The question is not without difficulty. The manufacture of the shell itself is a comparatively simple matter; the difficulty is in regard to the production of the fuse. My information is that prior to the outbreak of the war there were a very few works in the Old Country which produced fuse for the modern field gun. That is where the difficulty arises; but I believe that that difficulty can be overcome. I am hoping that the committee will give us such a report as will enable us to take action very shortly.

Senator Bakhap:

– What about machine guns?

Senator PEARCE:

– That matter is being inquired into. We understand that no difficulty will be experienced in manufacturing them at the Small Arms Factory. The particulars in regard to that matter are now being obtained from the War Office. In addition, soon after the present Government assumed office, recognising that our Cordite Factory was only able to manufacture cordite for small arms, we ordered another plant, which will be capable of manufacturing big-gun ammunition. That plant has been under order for some time, and will shortly arrive here. To-day we axe not only manufac- - luring sufficient cordite for our own requirements, but we are supplying it to another Dominion. We hope very soon to be able to produce sufficient cordite not only for Australia, but for two other Dominions, which, we understand, are willing to get their supplies from us. In these matters we have not been asleep, although ib is not ab all times advisable to proclaim what we are doing from the housetops.

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · ALP

– It is necessary, sometimes, to stop the croakers.

Senator PEARCE:

– To-day it is safe for me to. say what I could nob say six months ago. To-day the seas are clear of enemy ships. In the immediate future, there is very little prospect of any attack by hostile vessels on Australia. But only a few short months ago that was a possibility. Thus to-day, while it is possible for me to reveal weaknesses, it would have been madness for me to disclose them six months ago. Of course, the public can always be wise after the event, and can inquire, “Why could not you have said so-and-so six months ago?”

Senator Bakhap:

– The fact remains that the public demand that we shall be wiser than they are themselves, i Senator PEARCE. - Then they must sometimes be disappointed. Senator McDougall, in the course of his remarks, made reference bo ‘the plant at Randwick, near Sydney. The Government have had an inspection made of that plant, and a report has been submitted upon it. That report is now before them. I am not ab liberty to disclose its nature, but I can assure the honorable senator that we have nob overlooked the possibility which he has suggested. Senator Bakhap, I know, will not quarrel with me if’ I say that, whilst we recognise his earnestness, which was evidenced in the speech he delivered this afternoon, there ‘are very practical difficulties in the way of conscription.

Senator Bakhap:

– Do nob speak of “ difficulties.” Ib is a beast of a word.

Senator PEARCE:

– There has been no serious falling off in the stream of recruits throughout Australia. But it is one of the misfortunes of the Common - wealth Parliament that, as a result of sitting in a .State Capital, its members become saturated with the views expressed within that capital. Ab a re-

Bulb of hearing Victorian opinions, and redding Victorian newspapers, we are api to think that Victoria constitutes Australia. But I would remind . honorable senators that although Victoria is a very important State, it is nob Australia. It is a fact that recruiting has nob fallen off in the other States to the same extent that ft has in Victoria. Why? Be, cause there has not been the storm of criticism and misrepresentation in the other States that there has .been in Victoria. Take the State of New South Wales, ‘ for example. Heavier rain has fallen there than has fallen in Victoria. As a result the men were washed out of their beds one night ab the Liverpool Camp. Yet there was no outcry - no demand to shift the camp. The men came OUt of their tents, gob their clothing dry, and went back without grumbling.

Senator Bakhap:

– The actual shifting of the Broadmeadows Camp to Seymour demonstrates either the strength of the arguments used in favour of its removal, or the weakness of the Minister.

Senator PEARCE:

– I have never denied’ that, after wet weather, Broadmeadows was -a highly unsuitable place for the camp, because of the presence of so much mud. Bub I do deny the deductions which, have been drawn from that circumstance, namely, that men were suffering great discomforts, that there was wholesale sickness ‘ amongst them, and that deaths and sudden deaths were occurring on every hand. These are the statements which worked damage bo the camp. The young Australian is nob afraid of getting his feet wet, but he does like bo think that he has a chance, of living, and the criticism and misrepresentation to which the Broadmeadows Camp was subjected created the impression that if he went there he would be facing sudden death.

Senator McDougall:

– How would he geb on if he wore kilts ?

Senator PEARCE:

– He might nob get wet if he wore kilts. Senator Needham has raised the question of £be pay of armourers’ assistants. I can only tell him that ib was nob on my suggestion that a comparison was instituted between the rates paid bo armourers’, assistants, and those’ paid bo similar1- -mechanics under the Postal Electricians’ award. It was his Own suggestion.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was speaking of the award itself. ‘

Senator PEARCE:

– I instructed my officers to make a comparison between the rate of pay in the case of armourers’ assistants, and the rate of pay in the case of similar mechanics under the Postal Electricians’ award. From what Senator Needham has said to-day, I understand that the comparison has not been instituted with the right persons.

Senator Needham:

– You will find that your officers have made a mistake.

Senator PEARCE:

– I will look into the matter. In regard to the question raised by Senator McDougall, it appears that he and I are at cross purposes. He declared that the officer to whom he referred had been exonerated, although the Commandant had expressed the opinion that he ought not to have been.

Senator McDougall:

– Expressed his reluctance.

Senator PEARCE:

– I have here the papers relating to the court of inquiry, and this is what the Commandant said in sending on the report of that tribunal -

With reference to D.C.R. 42/1/30 of 9th ultimo on the above subject, I have to report that the proceedings of court of inquiry have been received, end the result in each case is exoneration from the charges laid. In consequence of the finding of the court the officers concerned have been released from arrest and suspension and returned to duty.

Senator McDougall:

– That is the wrong case.

Senator PEARCE:

– That statement refers to the officer of whom the honorable senator has spoken. If the Commandant had desired to express the opinion that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, that was his opportunity to do so. The document from . which Senator McDougall quoted to-day was a report on Sergeant Yidding’s case, in which the Commandant was answering the question of why that man had been dealt with in. a certain manner, while a particular officer had been allowed to go free. The Commandant, in forwarding his reply, said that, in his opinion, the action taken in each case was justified, but there was not sufficient ground for a court martial ; that a court of inquiry had been held, and had exonerated him. I think he said he regretted-

Senator McDougall:

– No; he said he was loath todischarge him.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator will see what was in the mind of the Commandant. If the Commandant thought that there had been a miscarriage of justice, it was his duty to send on his case to the Military Board, and say so. He should have said, “I am sending forward this board of inquiry’s report, but, in my opinion, the case should be reconsidered.”

Senator McDougall:

– Do you not think that he should have left it alone?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not want to pass an opinion upon the matter. The Commandant did say what Senator McDougall said he did ; but he did not say it when he sent on the report. I do not think his statement is open to the construction which Senator McDougall placed upon it. It seems impossible to reconcile the two things.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I desire to say, in reply to the question raised by Senator Lynch in regard to the extension of the Commonwealth Bank in Australia, that the honorable senator is probably well aware that the Bank is under the control of the Government. I have no doubt that Mr. Miller will be very pleased to hear what Senator Lynch has had to say in commendation of the work already done. I think the best thing to do is to send on the copy of Senator Lynch’s speech to Mr. Miller, who, no doubt, will look into the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Senate adjourned at9.35 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 June 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150609_SENATE_6_77/>.