Senate
28 July 1915

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIA DAY
PAPERS
QUESTION
- CASE OF SOLLY BURVILL
QUESTION
- CRUISER BRISBANE
QUESTION
- EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
QUESTION
- HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2) (UNITED KINGDOM)
- Second Reading
LOAN (KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY) BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Conduct of Business : Appropriation Bill - Nurses’ Outfit - Broadmeadows : Casual Labourers - Expeditionary Forces : Supply of Information to Relatives

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

page 5352

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Alleged Treachery - Percentage of Recruits in States and to Eligible Population - Wounded Soldiers - Rejected Volunteers - Increased Training Staff and Camp Accommodation - Non-Delivery of Letters.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– Relative to the allegation in the press some time ago as to the sniping of officers by soldiers who had left here, can the Minister of Defence say whether any further inquiries have been made, and if so, there has been any result from them?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In a message transmitted to the Melbourne press from Reuter’s correspondent, Cairo, dated 7th June, an allegation was made that an Australian captain, born in Australia, of German parentage, had been discovered sniping our officers, and also that whilst the troops were in Cairo several menwere placed under suspicion as spies. Inquiries were at once instituted in the matter, and the following reply was received a few days ago from the Officer Commanding the Intermediate Base Depot, Cairo: -

Head-quarters, Egypt, states -

Nothing knownof any men placed under suspicion as spies while troops in Cairo.

A further telegram has now come to hand, reading as follows: -

Head-quarters, Australian, New Zealand Army Corps, reports there is no foundation for report that Australian captain, born in Australia, of German parentage, found sniping our officers.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Has the Minister of Defence received any information in regard to the delay in the transmission of correspondence and its non-receipt by soldiers in camps in the various States - a matter to which I drew attention some time ago?

Senator PEARCE:

– I have received no reports on the subject, but shall endeavour to expedite them. The matter had to be referred to another Department.

page 5354

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA DAY

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Have the Government taken into consideration the advisableness of adjourning the Senate on Thursday so that honorable senators may attend Australia Day functions in the various States?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– I had a conversation with the Prime Minister to-day on the subject. We are endeavouring to* arrange that what the honorable senator suggests shall be done. I shall make a further statement later in the sitting.

Senator KEATING:

– Does the Minister know whether the various State authorities are making Australia Day a holiday in the public schools; and if it is not too late, will he consider the advisableness of submitting a respectful suggestion to them to that effect?

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall have inquiries made during the course of the day, and bring the honorable senator’s suggestion under the notice of the Prime Minister.

Senator McKISSOCK:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister of Defence see that the necessary leave of absence is given to any soldiers desirous of returning to their respective towns to take part in Australia Day festivities ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall instruct the Commandants that, wherever possible, such leave be granted.

page 5354

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Defence : Expeditionary Camps, Queensland. - Expenditure for forage to 30th June, 1915.

Report on the Administration of the British National Relief Fund to 31st March, 1915.

Report of Royal Commission on Mail Services and Trade Development between Australia and the New Hebrides.

Public Service Act 1902-1013. - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1915, Nos. 127, 128, 129.

Norfolk Island - Ordinances of 1915 -

No. 4 - Executive Council. No. 5 - Executive Council (No. 2).

Post and Telegraph Act 1901-1913. - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1915, Nos. 42, 56, 57, 58, 79, 80, 93, 106.

War Precautions Act 1914-1915. - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 119.

page 5354

QUESTION

CASE OF SOLLY BURVILL

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

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

Is it the intention of the Attorney-General to order a fourth trial in the case of Solly Burvill?
If so, is it intended to procure a conviction by a process of exhaustion ?
Does the Attorney-General consider this method to be in accordance with the principle’s of justice as known to the British people?

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

– The answers are : -

No. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

page 5355

QUESTION

CRUISER BRISBANE

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Will he inform the Senate when the cruiser Brisbane is expected to be launched ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– About 15th September.

page 5355

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Nurses’ Uniforms - Bonus on Recruits - Earnings by Transports - Conveyance of Wounded Soldiers - Supply of Fodder.

Senator MILLEN:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

If nurses going abroad with the Expeditionary Forces are obliged to purchase their uniforms from one firm, and, if so, what arrangement exists between the firm and the Department ?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– No. Sealed patterns are availablein all States, and nurses are at liberty to purchase their uniforms from any firm they wish. It is understood that many have made their own uniforms.

Senator MILLEN:

– Is the Minister aware that a circular has been sent out to nurses, advising them that they are to obtain their uniforms from this one firm?

Senator PEARCE:

– No. I should be glad if the honorable senator could let me have a copy of that circular, which has been issued without authority, and in direct contravention of orders from head-quarters.

Senator Keating:

– I am informed that nurses have been verbally instructed to go to certain firms.

Senator BAKHAP:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it correct that members of the Police Force in New South Wales have been paid, and are being paid by the Government of that State, or any State authority, 10s. for each man they can induce to enlist in the Expeditionary Forces?

Senator PEARCE:

– It is understood that the New South Wales Government allow members of the police force a capitation fee for extra duties performed in connexion with securing recruits. This action was taken voluntarily by the New South Wales Government.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Is the Minister in a position to say whether the sum paid by the New South Wales Government for each recruit obtained is 10s. ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I understand that is so.

Senator MILLEN:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Will he give an explanation of the discrepancy between his statement that the earnings by the transports were about £230,000, and that of the Minister for the Navy that they were about £1,000,000?

Senator PEARCE:

What amount has been expended upon fodder for horses in Expeditionary Force camps in the State of Queensland from the commencement of the war to the 30th June, 1915?
What are the names of the firms supplying the fodder, and the amount paid to each?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answers are -

£26,013 15s. 4d.
See statement laid on table of the Senate. E.173/3/28/92.

page 5356

QUESTION

HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

United Labourers Union

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a statement by the secretary of the United Labourers Union (Mr. D. Culliney), as published in the press, with reference to friction alleged to have existed for some time between his organization and the Home Affairs Department?
Has the Minister any statement to make in reference to the matter?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Home Affairs states that the Secretary of the United Labourers Union has made various charges and requests to the Department, which have been dealt with. The Minister found that his officers were not employing non-unionists, and although he was not able to grant all that was asked, he approved of an extra1s. per diem being paid to certain labourers employed by the Department at Broadmeadows.

page 5356

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2) (UNITED KINGDOM)

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:
Assist ant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

In dealing with the first War Loan Bill, I referred in some detail to this measure. The object of the measure is to authorize the borrowing of £6,500,000 from the Government of the United Kingdom. I direct attention to the fact that Government in connexion with this loan have anticipated the authorization of Parliament. Shortly after the borrowing of the loan of £18,000,000 from the Imperial Government, they cabled out to ask what would be the war requirements of the Government of the Commonwealth, and also their requirements in regard to certain public works. This Government at the time, in January last, replied that they could do with £6,500,000 for war expenditure, and £3,500,000 for expenditure on public works and railways. A little later the Imperial Government cabled that they were prepared to lend the amount of £6,500,000 for war expenditure, but struck out the amount of £3,500,000 for railways and public works. The Commonwealth Government accepted the offer of the Imperial Government without the authority of Parliament, and it is necessary to pass the Bill to authorize their action.

Senator Turley:

– This is really an indemnity Bill?

Senator RUSSELL:

– That is so. The amount covered by this Bill is being borrowed on the same terms and conditions as the £18,000,000 loan. That is to say, the Government of the Old Country included the amount required by the Commonwealth in their own Loan Bill, and will charge us for the money we obtain the rates they have to pay for their own loan. We are not able so far to say exactly what this money will cost. Of the total amount we have received in monthly instalments £3,600,000, so that £2,900,000 has yet to be received. I do not purpose to deal at greater length with the measure, in view of the fact that the terms and conditions are similar to those of the previous loan.

Senator STEWART (Queensland) £3.27]. - I expected that the Leader of the Opposition would get up in his place and give his blessing to this measure, because it is quite contrary to the policy of the party with which he is connected to oppose any proposal for the borrowing of money.

Senator Millen:

– - The honorable senator’s party is pretty good at it.

Senator STEWART:

– Yes, I must admit that there is not much doubt about that. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this loan, because I know perfectly well that in the present circumstances of Australia we must get money from somewhere. The country is in extremity, and our whole national existence is practically in the melting-pot. If there is money to be found, we must get it for the prosecution of the war. Honorable senators must not overlook the fact that money is as essential as men to the conduct of the war. We hear a great deal about the unwillingness of the young men of Australia, and also of Great Britain, to come forward and take part in the prosecution of this great campaign. They are called “slackers” and “ shirkers,” are presented with white feathers, and dismissed from their employment with the intimation that, while they are not needed in their present position, there is plenty of room for “them at the front.

Senator Needham:

– They are not slow in Australia about going to the front.

Senator STEWART:

Having carried out the democratic theories which we believe to be both sound and practical, we recognise that we have now to appeal for outside assistance if we are to successfully conduct the war. Therefore, whatever difference there may be between Senator Stewart and the Government in these matters, it is not fair or just for the Government to be now termed plutocratic by one of its own supporters. We have been able to estimate from unofficial reports that the loan will cost us about £4 3s. per cent., but we are not prepared to make an official statement to that effect until the information is confirmed by the. British Government. That has not been done up to date.

Senator Mullan:

– As this is part of the loan raised last year by the British Government are they not pretty slow?

Senator RUSSELL:

– We are not running the British Government. In view of all the circumstances, the total of the note issue, and the good use made of it, the Government acted wisely and well in accepting the offer of the British Government in this case.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

The rate of interest, the date of repayment, and the form of security issued, in respect of borrowings under this Act, may be such as are approved by the Governor-General.

Amendment (by Senator Stewart) proposed -

Thatall the words after “ interest “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ shall be three per centum, and no interest shall be paid or payable during the war or for a period of five years thereafter.”

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I agree that Senator Stewart had not the opportunity that he wanted to speak on that Bill, and that, if he could have .done so, we should no doubt have had the benefit of his knowledge and experience. But the honorable senator proposes to give effect to his ideas to-day when we are dealing with a Bill in connexion with which it is impossible to do so. Senator Ferricks knows very well that the question of the Welsh coal strike, and the financial robbers and magnates who are exploiting the coal miners, has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

Senator Ferricks:

– Ob, yes, it has.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

Senator FERRICKS:

– I say that it is better that this protest should come late than that it should never come. When we suspect that the Labour Government and this Parliament are placing too much reliance on the advice of the very per sons whose interests will be served by the flotation of these loans in Australia, we are justified in protesting. I wish to disabuse the minds of honorable senators of any misapprehension they may have concerning my attitude towards the amendment. I support it whole-heartedly, because I regard it as an emphatic protest against the system which now obtains in respect to financial matters.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.47]. - I understand that Senator Stewart has submitted this amendment, and that it is being supported by some other honorable senators by way of a protest. I am perfectly satisfied that a gentleman of Senator Stewart’s acumen and financial knowledge cannot expect that amendment to be regarded seriously. What does it mean? This £6,500,000 has been borrowed by the Imperial authorities, and is now being passed on to the Commonwealth . Probably it was borrowed at 4J per cent. Senator Stewart now wishes us to take the money from the British Government, and to pay only 3 per cent, for it. In other words, we are to “rook” the Imperial authorities for 1£ per cent. If we were to adopt the amendment, we should not get the money at all.

Senator Stewart:

– Then we should go in for a wealth tax.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment provides that no interest shall be paid during the war or for a period of five years thereafter.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.According to Senator Stewart, the Imperial authorities should make us a present of the money until after the termination of the war. If we agreed to his proposal, we would not get the money we require, and, in addition, it would be despicable conduct on our part to accept assistance on the terms he has outlined. He asks us to go to our poor old Mother and obtain money from her for seven years for nothing. Thereafter we are to pay her 3 per cent, interest, notwithstanding that she has to pay 4 per cent, or 4£ per cent, interest on the same money. When Parnell was agitating in regard to land in Ireland, he said that there were only two ways of securing it - either by paying for it, or by fighting for it. Similarly there are only two ways of obtain ing money. We must either pay its commercial value for it, or we must steal or confiscate it. The time may yet come when we shall have to levy upon the wealth of this country in order to carry on the war. But we are not yet iu £Fat dilemma, and we ought not to consider such a proposal just now. I do not desire to pay to the capitalist a single penny more than is necessary to assure the successful flotation of our loans. But it would be fatal to risk the chance of failure by doing what Senator Stewart suggests. There are plenty of enterprises in which a man can secure 5 and 6 per cent, interest upon his money. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, and that Senator Stewart will not’ make the Committee look ridiculous by attempting to make it appear that we. are prepared to take money from our dear old Mother for seven years as a gift, and afterwards to pay her 1 per cent, less for it than she has been obliged to pay for it herself.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I cannot see my way to support the amendment. We are told that it is simply to be a protest, but I presume that the honorable senator who moved, and those who support it, want to see it carried. If they do not, it is only so much humbug and hypocrisy. Let us examine the position. The Senate instructed the Government to borrow £18,000,000 from the Imperial Government last year, and on account of that we were able to advance to the various States £18,000,000, which the States badly required at the time, and with which they were able to keep their public works going. Without that money there would not have been any chance of carrying on, and the result would have been wholesale unemployment from one end of Australia to the other. Then, after Parliament adjourned last year, the British Government asked the Commonwealth Government if they required any more money on the same terms, and the Commonwealth Government replied, “Yes; we would like to get another £10,000,000; £6,500,000 for prosecuting the war, and £3,500,000 for public works in Australia.” The Imperial authorities intimated, however, that they were not raising money in Great Britain for public works, and they could not undertake to find money for such works in any other part of the Empire.

Senator Needham:

– New public works ?

Senator TURLEY:

– No; public works of any description. The result was that the Imperial Government agreed to advance the money required for war purposes, and the Commonwealth Government accepted this £6,500,000. Senator Mullan said that we had not received it yet, but I would point out that these are two separate transactions. The Imperial Government arranged to pay the Commonwealth Government so much per month on account of the £18,000,000, and so much per month on account of this £6,500,000, after the Commonwealth Government had notified their acceptance of the proposal. Therefore, if we turn down this proposition, I venture to say that the Imperial Government will still send us the amounts agreed upon regularly in connexion with the £18,000,000 loan, and if the amendment is carried, it will really affect just £2,900,000 of the £6,500,000, because, as we have been told, the Commonwealth Government have already received £3,600,000 on that account. Would any honorable senator like the Commonwealth Government to stand in the position of saying, “ We have been glad to get £3,900,000, but we do not know that we cannot get along without the balance, so you had better keep it; and although the rate of interest which the Government decided to pay was something like £4 3s. per cent., we are only going to pay 3 per cent. We have had the money, but we are going to fix the rate of interest, and no interest will be paid during the currency of the war, or for five years afterwards.” I can only say that that would be a most convenient financial arrangement for anybody to put to his creditors.

Senator Ferricks:

– It is a convenient arrangement to get men to fight in the trenches for these people.

Senator TURLEY:

– I know what that means as well as does the honorable senator, but I repeat that this is a most convenient financial arrangement for any one to place before his creditors. If Senator Stewart required accommodation, and received from a bank £500 at 4 per cent. , I wonder if he would afterwards say, “ Yes, I agreed to pay you so much per cent. I have only received 18s. in the £1 out of that advance, and I propose to alter the rate of interest; and, further, as things are not too good with me just now, I will not pay you any interest for five or six years.” I wonder, also, what Senator Stewart would say if, after lending a portion of those financial resources of which he is supposed to stand possessed, a borrower came up against him with a proposition of that description. As a protest the amendment has no use whatever. It seems to me that any amendment should be moved with the object of having it carried, but honorable senators know that this amendment could not be carried in this way, and they would not like to see it carried, seeing that we have already taken £3,600,000 of the money which the Government agreed to borrow. We are told that Mr. Fisher did so-and-so, consulted somebody, and that somebody advised him to do a certain thing. I call the attention of honorable senators to the fact that the Labour party indorsed the action of the Prime Minister practically before he brought the Bill into Parliament. In my opinion the arrangement made should be given effect to. I am just as anxious as Senator Stewart, or Senator Ferricks, or anybody else, to see that those who possess the wealth of this country should contribute towards the cost of the war, and in that direction there is nothing which they are prepared to propose in this Chamber that I am not prepared to support.

Senator Ferricks:

– The honorable senator should never have supported the War Loan Bill, exempting contractors from income tax.

Senator TURLEY:

– The honorable senator himself supported it, and yet he tells me now that I should not have voted for it. Neither Senator Ferricks nor Senator Stewart, nor any one else, raised the slightest objection to that Bill by way of amendment.

Senator Ferricks:

– I will never seek to defend it in the country.

Senator TURLEY:

– That is another matter altogether. Why does the honorable senator tell me that I did not object, when he did not object himself, despite all the protestation that he is now making against this Bill ?

Senator Ferricks:

– Because the prospectus was in the papers, and the Bill had to go through.

Senator de Largie:

– That was no reason for not speaking.

Senator TURLEY:

– It is all nonsense for the honorable senator to say that. If in this Chamber there had been a number of senators who objected to the passage of that Bill, it would not have gone through, because we are not bound hand and foot, and there was no arrange ment, so far as honorable senators individually were concerned, regarding that measure at all. An honorable senator has at any time a perfect right, no matter whether it is 2, 3, or 4 o’clock in the morning, to express his opinions on any measure, and I think it is advisable that he should do so. It is no use now for an honorable senator to shelter himself behind that excuse. Regarding the amendment under consideration, we know perfectly well that the agreement which the Commonwealth entered into has to be carried out, and I, for one, will vote for the Bill as it stands.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I appeal to Senator Stewart to withdraw his amendment. The reason - if I may state it - that Senator Stewart did not have an opportunity to discuss the previous Bill was because, at my request, he gave way.

Senator Mullan:

– A good many honorable senators suppressed themselves.

Senator Stewart:

– I wish to say that we did not have an opportunity to discuss it.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I agree that Senator Stewart was very good to me in that regard and enabled me to get the Bill through. But I would put it to him now that this Bill, whether we like it or not, has reached the stage when it has become a contract.

Senator Ferricks:

– The other Bill had reached the stage of a contract before it was through this Senate, because the prospectus was in the papers.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I do not desire to discuss that matter, except to say that every Government are expected to be up to date in their conduct of business, and we were in a position to issue a prospectus as soon as the Bill was indorsed by Parliament. No prospectus was issued prior to the Bill being carried. I want to point out that of this amount of £6,500,000 agreed to be advanced by the British Government, we have already received £3,600,000.

Senator Lynch:

– It was a bargain?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes ; and this question only affects the balance of £2,900,000 still to be received. We cannot very well interfere with a contract in which the goods have practically been delivered. It appears to be insinuated that the Commonwealth Government are fond of borrowing at a high rate of interest; but I know of no Government in this or any other country that has carried on twelve months of war and paid less interest than the present Government. What is the position ? We have received £15,000,000 from the British Government, upon which interest was to be paid, and we advanced over £12,000,000 to the States, and therefore we will pay no interest on that amount. On the other hand, we have advanced £12,000,000 out of the note issue, upon which we receive interest, quite apart from the £5,000,000 of gold received from the banks, so that upon the whole of the money borrowed we are paying less than 2 per cent. If we put the interest that we earn on our note issue against the interest we are paying on the loans, we are not only not paying interest, but are actually receiving interest. If honorable senators want to deal with the merits of the Bill, do not let them make inaccurate statements as to the rate of interest the Government are paying.

Senator Turley:

– You are only paying interest on the amount which you have borrowed under this Bill.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Practically speaking, we are only obliging a friend, and making him pay all the costs. A Government with a record like ours must, necessarily, feel jealous when they hear hard phrases thrown about as to their action in a particular matter. I appeal to Senator Stewart to withdraw his amendment, because no Government could go back on a contract which has been made with another Government. As a matter of fact, the Government believed that they were correctly interpreting the mind of Parliament and of the people when they entered into the contract, and I still hold that belief. There would have been no war to-day if certain Governments had honoured their contracts, and I trust that the Government of young Australia will not repudiate a contract. I appeal to Senator Stewart to allow the Bill to go through seeing that we have already had a good discussion on its provisions.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I regret very much that I cannot see my way to withdraw my amendment. I, and those who agree with me, have been met with a storm of opposition from various quarters of the Chamber, because we have endeavoured on this occasion to introduce quite a new idea with regard to war loans. I want honorable senators, more especially Senator Turley, to always keep their minds fixed on this point, that I do not wish to introduce this system of financing into the general business of the country. I simply want to apply it to war loans, war being itself of a special character. Honorable senators may talk about repudiation, and all that sort of thing. I do not desire to repudiate anything, but to try to introduce a fresh idea into the financing of our country. Senator Turley and others have chided me for not bringing this matter forward on Friday, when the £20,000,000 war loan was before the Senate. I quite admit that that was the proper occasion, but I abandoned my right to speak, because I was told it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be passed on that day. The Minister in charge told me that himself. He had communicated with me previously through the Whip. The latter said that an arrangement had been entered into that at 3 o’clock, Senator Gould, Senator de Largie, and myself would get twenty minutes each. At 4 o’clock Senator de Largie was still speaking, I think.

Senator de Largie:

– No; the Senate was up at 4 o’clock. We had finished the business by that hour.

Senator STEWART:

– I abandoned my right to speak. The Prime Minister himself came into the chamber. I was told that he was particularly anxious that the Bill should go through, because the Governor-General’s assent was required that afternoon, and he was leaving Melbourne for somewhere, and, foolishly - I admit it now when I see the spirit prevailing here this afternoon - I gave way. I realize that that was the proper time for bringing forward the amendment I have now proposed, but I submit that it is quite permissible for us to present an idea to the Imperial Government, the idea being that capital should be called upon to bear its fair cost of the war as well as labour.

Senator Turley:

– Do you want to see your amendment carried ?

Senator STEWART:

– -I do; and what will the effect be if it is carried through both Houses? The decision of the Commonwealth Parliament will be forwarded to the Imperial Government. It will be promulgated in all the newspapers of the United Kingdom, and the people of that country will be informed of the attitude- of the people of Australia towards war loans. I am quite sure that, in Great Britain and Ireland, there are millions of persons who would agree with the attitude taken up by Australia, and the result - I do not say the immediate result, but the ultimate result - of such an action might be that the people of the Empire - I say “the Empire” now, because we are all in itr- would be placed in a much better position with regard to war loans than they are, unfortunately, at the present moment. That was the whole object of my amendment, and I am particularly anxious to see it carried. I think that every member of the Senate, at least every member of one particular party, ought to support it. There is no repudiation in connexion with the proposal. To revert for a moment to the £20,000,000 Loan Bill, it does not contain a word about the rate of interest.

Senator Mullan:

– Nor does the £18,000,000 Loan Bill.

Senator STEWART:

– There is not a syllable about the rate of interest. We have no information on the face of that Bill as to the terms and conditions of the loan. The prospectus was printed, and, I believe, if not published, was ready for publication. It had been given to the press before the Bill had been submitted to Parliament, before it had received the assent of either the Senate or the other House. That is a most improper method of conducting the government of the country, and one to which I strongly object. I do not think that any measure, more especially an important measure of that character, should be made public, or that even preparations for making it public should be entered into until it has had the assent of the Parliament. But, stripped of all the side issues, the question before us now is: Are we satisfied with the present system of raising loan money ? I invite honorable senators to throw aside every other issue, and on that one central issue I ask every member of the Labour party to fix his eye. We all know that at present the people who will subscribe to this loan are making money out of the misfortunes of the people, are making money out of the war. We know that that is quite a common thing in connexion with capitalism. Those of us who have studied history know perfectly well that capitalists have promoted wars and prevented them. They have promoted wars to fill their own pockets, and they have prevented them with the same object. Will . any man holding the principles which are usually advocated by the Labour party, say that the people of Australia are getting the money which is now being offered to them on fair terms? As I pointed out before, the man who goes to the front loses every time because he has volunteered to go out and defend his country, but the capitalists win every time. Look at this investment. Take the Australian 5 per cent. loan. Senator de Largie said 5^ per cent. I do not want to exaggerate, but the rate is very nearly 5 per cent. - 4-J per cent. It is absolutely the best investment in Australia to-day. A person cannot get anything like it with the same security, and an exemption from income tax. Why, sir, the thing is absurd. The lenders of the money are to be exempt from income tax, while the remaining portion of the population, more especially the poorer people, are to be ground down to the dust, not only by taxation, but, as I believe, within a comparatively short period through lack of employment, because, undoubtedly, we shall have a commercial crisis here. There is nothing which can prevent that crisis, and that will mean a great deal pf poverty and suffering so far as the great mass of the community is concerned. What I, and those who agree with me, wish to do is to push this idea. This may not be the most suitable occasion, but surely every opportunity of trying to put these matters on their proper footing should be seized upon by every honorable senator who desires this particular reform to be brought about. I cannot think that there is a single member of this Committee who does not entertain that idea. The capitalist, I repeat, is simply getting the best investment he can possibly find for his money through these war loans. The worker is called upon to suffer every time. Seeing that most wars - indeed this war as well as other wars - are mainly waged for the defence of property and capita!., it is only fair that the capita-list should be asked to contribute a fair share towards the cost of running the country. I think that the demand I am making is a most moderate one, namely, interest at 3 per cent., and no payment of interest during the currency of the war, or for a period of five years thereafter. Senator Turley, I think, tried to make it appear as if I wished to introduce this system of financing generally.

Senator Turley:

– I said that it would be a very convenient thing to people who borrowed money.

Senator STEWART:

– I am doing nothing of the kind. The money which is being raised now is for the purpose of war. and the whole of my argument is directed to the question of war. When a country is at war it is in a most exceptional condition.

Senator Blakey:

– Can the honorable senator tell me how we can repudiate an arrangement entered into with the Imperial Government?

Senator STEWART:

– I do not propose to repudiate anything. The interest on the money which has been received will have to be paid.

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– There is a bigger balance than £6,500,000 due yet.

Senator STEWART:

– As the honorable senator interjects, the bigger proportion of the £6,500,000 has not yet been received by the Commonwealth.

Senator Turley:

– Oh, yes; £3,900,000 out of the £6,500,000 has been received.

Senator Mullan:

– No, there is a bigger balance to come.

Senator STEWART:

– There is the statement of Senator Mullan. What I desire is to try to bring about a new way of looking at war loans. Hitherto they have been regarded by persons in the possession of capital as being the best possible investments they could get, and they have invariably demanded the highest rate of interest, and got it, because so far the Governments of various countries have been wholly capitalistic, but here the Government represents, not the capital, but the labour of the country, and I expected that new ideas would rule, labour getting a show and capital being compelled to do its duty. I find, to my disappointment, that it is “ business as usual,” so far as the capitalist is concerned.

Senator Ferricks:

– Better than usual.

Senator STEWART:

– I thank the honorable senator - much better than usual. I protest against that kind of thing, and even if this is not the proper occasion, surely we are justified in the circumstances in expressing our opinion of the present system. That is all I ask the Committee to do.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I flatly and emphatically deny Senator Ferricks’ suggestion that I prevented Senator Stewart from speaking on Friday last. I did not exceed twentyfive or thirty minutes.

Senator Ferricks:

– I beg the honorable senator’s pardon. I thought he spoke for two terms of about twenty minutes, and so broke the arrangement for twenty minutes each.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Even if there was such an arrangement, I was no party to it, and did not prevent Senator Stewart from speaking. If Senator Stewart had an important matter of this kind in his mind on Friday last, he should have let the Government know about it on the £20,000,000 Loan Bill, and the Government would have had to wait a little longer for their Bill to pass.

Senator Ferricks:

– The honorable senator forgets that the Governor-General had to get away to Sydney by 5 o’clock on Friday!

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The GovernorGeneral could have stayed in Melbourne, and gone to Sydney on some other occasion.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We do not know his business, and should not criticise him here.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am not presuming to know his business. All I know is my own. We ought not to curtail the proper consideration of any measure here simply because the Governor-General is going to Sydney. I would not curtail my remarks even by five minutes to suit the Governor-General if I felt it to be my duty to bring such an important question as this before the Senate. It will be of no use to carry the amendment, because we cannot expect the Government to go back on an arrangement that has already been accepted by Senator Stewart and others. The facts of the transaction have been known for months.

Senator Stewart:

– Is it not better late than never?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Not if no good purpose is served.

Senator Turley:

– If you stop the money coming from the British Government, will not the Commonwealth have to stop the money going to the States?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Undoubtedly. The various Governments are so interdependent that it is foolish to raise this question in the way that Senator Stewart has raised it. Far-reaching proposals of this kind, representing a departure from the principles of the Labour party, should be brought forward, not in Committee, but where they can be discussed and decided by the whole party.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

.- It is the duty of every honorable senator to express his view on this question, which is much more farreaching than it appears on the’ surface. If Senator Stewart desires that the wealth of Australia shall bear its equal share of the war - and he is not alone in that view - there are means in the hands of Parliament to bring it about. Our proper course is to use those means, and not to make the Commonwealth Parliament look foolish in the eyes of the world. We were quite willing to receive the first £12,000,000 from the Imperial Government, and no objection was raised when the £6,500,000 was offered. Of that sum £3,600,000 has already been received, and yet, at this late stage, Senator Stewart proposes that we should repudiate the agreement. I am sure Parliament will refuse to entertain such a suggestion. I am intensely, surprised, knowing his commercial honesty, that he should seek to inveigle the Committee into such a repudiation. Surely the honorable senator does not want the Senate to act dishonorably? If he does, I shall be no party to it. If the honorable senator believes that wealth should bear its share, that can be done by means of a war tax. All that he has said on this occasion could have been said on a proposal for a war tax. He «ould have shown the necessity for such a tax, and he would have found us quite ready to assist him. It would simply be a case of asking the capitalists to contribute money to help the cause of the Empire instead of going to the front. It will not require the whole of the wealth of Australia to win the war, and even when the capitalists have contributed all that will be required of them, they will not have done nearly as much as those who have made the supreme sacrifice. If Senator Stewart’s amendment was adopted, it would be proclaimed at once throughout the length and breadth of the land by our opponents that the Labour party was going in for repudiation. I am certain that the consensus of opinion in this Chamber, leaving out the mover and seconder of the amendment, is that we have honestly accepted the offer of the Imperial Government, and must honour the engagement. We are faced with a time of stress and unemployment, and the repudiation of the loan would shorten our cash and increase distress.

Senator Stewart:

– It is a war loan. You cannot shelter yourself behind that hedge.

Senator SENIOR:

– If the money is not received it cannot be disbursed.

Senator Turley:

– If we had had to finance the war without assistance from the British Government, what assistance could we have given to the States?

Senator SENIOR:

– None; and Senator Stewart knows it. This loan is to enable us, not only to prosecute the war, but also to keep the people in Australia in employment. To repudiate it would be to dishonour the Commonwealth by refusing to carry out a transaction which has enabled us so far to keep our own people in employment.

Senator Blakey:

– If we had not been borrowers of this money, we could not have been lenders to the States.

Senator SENIOR:

– That is the position in a nutshell. I express my conviction that we are bound to honour the engagement that we have entered into, and should do so without any attempt of this kind to alter its terms. What Senator Stewart proposes is that after we have received the loan, we should not only determine the rate of interest, but insert a condition in the contract that for five years we shall pay no interest at all. The honorable senator thinks that that is a proposal which will be received by the general public with gusto. How many persons would be prepared to take up a war loan on such terms ? The honorable senator prides himself upon having given expression to a glorious idea, but what would have been the response to the Commonwealth Government if they had issued a prospectus asking for a loan on such conditions as the honorable senator proposes? The honorable senator admits by interjection that we cannot get money for defence unless we pay a high price for it.

Senator Stewart:

– No; that is what Senator Senior says.

Senator SENIOR:

– After making such an admission, the honorable senator suggests terms upon which we could not raise any money.

Senator Stewart:

– The honorable senator is slandering the capitalists of this country. I believe they would rush a loan on the terms I have suggested.

Senator SENIOR:

– We know that capitalists are keen on getting gilt-edged securities for any money they lend, and if they are offered 4^ per cent, they will not subscribe to a loan offered at 3 per cent., or to a loan offered on the condition that they are not to receive any interest for five years. Senator Stewart would have us offer our £20,000,000 loan on such terms that we should not have the slightest chance of getting a penny subscribed to it. That is the great idea of this honorable senator, who is prepared to ‘solve all our financial difficulties. He has shown that he has no confidence whatever in the amendment he has submitted. He does not expect that it will be carried. It would only hold the Senate and the honorable senator up to ridicule before the* whole world to carry such a preposterous amendment.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I hope that at this last moment of the eleventh hour Senator Stewart will reconsider his position.

Senator Stewart:

– No, never. No death-bed repentance for me!

Senator LYNCH:

– The honorable senator should give way to the request made to him by other honorable senators. If he is not yet prepared to do so, I ask him to consider that the reputation of the Senate is at stake, and that there is such a thing as the reputation of the party with which he is associated, and that that also is at stake. Whilst I am but a humble member of the Labour party, I feel that its reputation will be injured to an infinitely greater degree by Senator Stewart’s action on this occasion than it will be injured by mine. Stripped of all casuistry, I am here to support the bargain entered into by the Commonwealth Labour Government with the Imperial Government. If Senator Stewart and those who support him are. prepared to depart from the terms of that bargain I am not, be the consequences what they may. We have borrowed £18,000,000, which has been the subject of a measure which has been passed by this Parliament. An additional amount of £6,500,000 is being lent to us by the Imperial Government on the same terms. The Government, supported by the party of which Senator Stewart is a member, have been all along cognizant of the fact that this additional sum is being lent on the understanding that the con ditions appertaining to the previous loan will not be departed from. Now that we are about to ratify the contract entered into by the Labour Government of the Commonwealth, it is not for members of this party or for the Senate to repudiate that bargain. I do not intend to do so, and I feel that perhaps I am in a stronger position to protest against any attempt to do so than is any other honorable member of the Senate. I feel that it is by trifles that we are sometimes judged. It was by a trifle that this Parliament was judged in the past in the “ Six Hatters “ case. That incident was discussed and magnified throughout Australia and everywhere else for the purpose of blackening the Commonwealth Parliament in the eyes of the world. This amendment may be considered a comparatively small matter, but it is still enough for the enemies of our party and our Parliament to use in their efforts to blacken our reputation. I appeal most earnestly to Senator Stewart and those who are supporting him to reconsider their position. We are down to plain words, and I ask them to consider the seriousness and import of the amendment. This Parliament is being asked to repudiate a bargain entered into by the Commonwealth Labour Government. That is what the amendment means, no matter how it is looked at. Those who have so far spoken in favour of the amendment may have forgotten the fact for a time, but they know that the bargain which has been entered into is merely Complementary to the bargain entered into in connexion with the £18,000,000 loan. It is too much to ask that we should at this time try to evade the terms of that bargain. T”o agree to the amendment would be to attach a stigma to the Labour party and this Parliament, which could not easily be effaced by anything which might be done afterwards. The enemies of this country and the enemies of the Labour party in particular will freeze on to this proposal for all time, and will point to it as a suggestion seriously made on the floor of the Senate chamber by a member of the Labour party. I am aware that Senator Stewart is a man of strong convictions, but he must concede that possibly other men may be nearly as strong in their convictions. I appeal most earnestly to the honorable senator to recognise the general consensus of opinion in the Committee, and to take stock of the fact that his amendment involves the reputation of the party to which he belongs, and the good name of this Parliament and this country. I ask him, in all earnestness, to withdraw his amendment. He has no intention that it shall be carried, but if it is carried I point out that it means that we shall be asking the British Government and British taxpayers, including the coal miners of the North of England, and the peasantry of the West of Ireland, to pay a portion of the interest due on this loan, which, according to Senator Stewart, the comparatively richer people of this Commonwealth are not prepared to pay.

Senator Mullan:

– Quite untrue.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then who will pay it?

Senator Mullan:

– I shall tell the honorable senator directly.

Senator LYNCH:

– I repeat that the amendment means calling upon the working classes of the Old Country to pay something which the comparatively rich people of the Commonwealth are not willing to pay. That is wrong, inequitable, and outrageous, and the proposal should not be tolerated for a moment, especially by a party such as the Labour party, which has some pretence to high-mindedness, and a desire for equality and equity. I again appeal to Senator Stewart not to press his amendment to a division. He should keep in reserve the power which we know he has, and on a more fitting opportunity press his ideas for the taxation of rich people here. I appeal to him for heaven’s sake not to repudiate a bargain entered into by the Commonwealth Labour Government.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

Senator Turley:

– I said that somebody might borrow from him. That is a different thing.

Senator FERRICKS:

– That makes the illustration still better. Assuming that position, and Senator Stewart to be one of the parties to the contract, it would not be so anomalous as the position that exists to-day, when we have the workers going into the trenches and fighting to protect wealth, and the wealth-owners paying nothing, comparatively, towards the cost of the war. In addition, they are not only taking cheaper money, as Senator Stewart would do under the illustration advanced by Senator Turley, but they are extracting increased profits out of the pockets of the wives and children of the men who are doing the fighting for them at the front; because, after all, this is a fight for the wealth producers and wealth owners. I wish to emphasize the opinion that this discussion, abstract though it may be considered by some persons, will have a good effect. It will show to the people, to members of the Government, I hope, and to the Labour party as a whole, that some definite steps must be taken in the direction of making those who are best able pay their share of the expenses of the war. It is the almost universal opinion amongst the masses to-day that that is not being done. I hold that the first action of a Labour Government should have been to bring in a wealth tax to finance the conduct of the war. Their second act ought to have been an increase in the land tax, and their third act the imposition of an income tax, because I have no doubt in my mind that all three will be needed before the war has been brought to a successful termination. I sincerely trust that honorable senators will, at any rate, acquit us of trying to, as it were, thrust a dagger of opposition at them. We believe that discussions of this nature are good, and give an impetus to the movements of the Labour Government. Our supporters outside - the workers and the great mass on whom the taxes are operating for the payment of. the interest on our debts - feel the position most keenly, and naturally expect a Government professing Labour principles to start at the top of the tree, and give wealth-owners the opportunity of contributing their part towards the defence of Australia and Great Britain.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator FERRICKS:

– The Bill being for war purposes, I am justified in pointing out that the inequality of sacrifice as between wealth-owners and workers demanded so far by the Fisher Government appears likely to continue. I received today from a prominent business man a letter running as follows -

The new war taxes are interesting us. I think either an income or wealth tax is good, with a preference for the latter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Neither of those questions is before the Committee. Senator FERRICKS. - The writer points out that the rich people who have comparatively small incomes are not paying commensurately with the wealth they possess, and he instances the case of a man living in a mansion at Toorak, which cost £20,000 to build, and drawing as income only £500 or £600 a year, as compared with that of a civil servant with a salary of a like amount, but with no corresponding wealth. We hold that the proper course for the Government is to bring in a wealth tax, and the Assistant Minister might give the Committee an assurance that such a tax will be introduced without delay. Conscription of men has been advocated in this Chamber, and we might with greater justification advocate the conscription of wealth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Neither of those questions is under our discussion.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Both are in separable from the question of the war, for which part of this loan is being used. The Government are not right in postponing either wealth taxation or increased land taxation. If they brought in a wealth tax to begin with, there would perhaps be no necessity for us to raise war loans, at any rate, outside of Australia, although we may, in addition to a wealth tax, an income tax, and an increased land tax have to float loans in Australia for the prosecution of the war. If any more loans are floated, I trust that subscribers to them will not be regarded as making great sacrifices in taking up stock, and that the services of stockbrokers will be dispensed with. As we are not allowed to discuss the fundamental purpose for which the money is needed, I shall conclude by entering my protest against the attitude of the Labour Government in not going in for more direct and heavier taxation on those best able to bear it

Question - That the wordsproposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5382

LOAN (KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia · ALP

.- I move -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the passage of the Bill through all its stages without delay.

It is intended that Senator Russell shall move the first, and subsequently the second, reading. If, then, any honorable senator desires that the debate be adjourned, we shall have no objection.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I wish once more to enter my protest against the suspension of the Standing Orders when we are dealing with matters of the gravest importance to the country. We had examples this afternoon and on Friday of the disabilities imposed upon honorable senators by the haste with which the Government endeavour to pass their measures. If sitting in opposition, I should have a great deal more to say on the subject than I have, supporting them as I do. It is extremely desirable that more time than the Government afford should be given to the Senate to consider these matters. The members of the Government have them under consideration for weeks, ultimately arrive at a conclusion, and at once spring them on us. After the first reading of this measure to borrow £1,500,000 is carried, the second reading will be moved and nut through.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Minister of Defence definitely stated that he would agree to an adjournment of the debate.

Senator STEWART:

– I did not hear the Minister say so. He speaks in a nice whispering voice, as if addressing a meeting of ladies. If what the honorable senator says is the case, I am satisfied.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

Senator STEWART:

– If they wish to travel comfortably they will shun the railway as they would shun a place which I need not mention more specifically here. In regard to the cost of the line, I find that although over a little more than half of the rails have been laid, a great deal of ballasting still requires to be done. The statement in reference to it reads -

The length of the line will be about 1,053- miles, and the rails have been laid 579 miles - or half way - although the line cannot be said to be complete for that distance, as it has not been ballasted a great way. That practically means that the line has still to be ballasted throughout its entire length. Now we have been given to understand that the trains upon this railway will be run at a high speed. If that be so, it necessarily follows that the line must be soundly ballasted.

He goes on to deal with some of the specific lines which have been constructed and are in course of construction in all that north-western part of Africa which is south of Morocco and comes down to the great bend in Africa which goes into the Bight of Benin. I believe that a perusal of the book on the part of people will convey what is absolutely astounding information to over 90 per cent. of them. He says -

To-day, one can travel on an admirablyballasted road-bed, in an electric-lighted sleeping car, with hot and cold water running in your compartment-

Senator Stewart:

– This is not Western Australia, is it?

Senator KEATING:

Senator Bakhap:

– By negro tribes, and by Mohammedan negro kingdoms.

Senator KEATING:

– The author continues -

In Dahomey, within the memory of all of us a notorious cannibal kingdom, a railway is under construction to Nikki, 400 miles into the steaming jungle.

He deals with French Guinea, Madagascar, and Abyssinia. He says -

From Djibouti, the capital of the French Somali coast, another railway has been pushed as far up-country as Dire-Dawah.

Senator Stewart:

– Tell us something about the country traversed by the transcontinental line.

Senator KEATING:

– I am referring to this portion of the world because it has been regarded from time immemorial, and is to-day regarded by ninety-nine persons out of every hundred, as utterly hopeless - as absolutely incapable, so to speak, of maintaining a white population. Let us now take the United States. This book was written by an American, who was an American representative in

Egypt for some time in the consular service. At page 22 he says - and this is very informative -

It should be borne in mind, in any discussion of North Africa, that until the early eighties the Great American Desert was asprimitive, waterless, and sparsely-settled a. region as the Sahara. Its scattered inhabitants practised irrigation and agriculture very much as the people of Southern Algeria and Tunisia do to-day, and, like them, they constructed buildings of unburnt brick and stone.

Senator Stewart:

– Where did they get. the water 1

Senator KEATING:

– I was not there. I am reading what is in the book.

Senator Stewart:

– There is not any water in Western Australia.

Senator KEATING:

– This statement follows : -

Though the Indian was able to find a meagre sustenance upon the American Desert, just asthe Arab does upon the African, it was of a kind upon which the white man could not well exist. The unconquered Apaches plundered waggon-trains and mail-coaches just as the Tuareg occasionally plunders the Sahara tradecaravans to-day, and the only white men were the soldiers at scattered and. lonely posts, or desperadoes flying from the law. There isindeed, a striking similarity between the conditions which prevail to-day along France’s African borders and those which existed within the memories of most of us upon our own frontier.

When it came to the period of constructing railways in America, voices were raised in protest and in criticism in just the same tune as Senator Stewart has. been responsible for this evening. Mr. Powell continues -

Then the railways came to the American West, just as they are coming to North Africa to-day, and the desert was awakened from its lethargy of centuries by the shriek of the locomotive.

Senator Stewart:

– But they had water there.

Senator KEATING:

– Honorable senators can see in the Library comparatively recent maps of the United States, showing whole tracts of what are now States, marked as “ Desert “ -

The first railroads to be constructed were designed primarily as highways between the Atlantic and the Pacific sea-boards, with hardly a thought of revenue from the desert itself. But hard on the heels of the railway builders followed the miners and the cattlemen, bo that to-day the iron railway across the desert is bordered by prosperous cities andvillages, by mines and oil-derricks and ranches and white farmhouses with green blinds, thisonetime arid region, which the wiseheads of thirty years ago pronounced worthless, now yielding a wealth twice as much per capita asthat of any other portion of the United States.-

There we have a parallel in the case of the United States. Thirty years ago the wise heads, as Mr. Powell says, held that the country through which those lines are now going was absolutely and utterly worthless.

From Dakar to Pernambuco, in Brazil, is less than 1,500 miles, which could he covered by a’ fast steamer in three days. There are already regular sailings between these ports, but with the completion of this trans-African system (and, believe me, it is far from being as chimerical as it sounds, for the French do not let the grass grow under their feet when they once get a clear right of way for railway building), ocean greyhounds will be placed in service betwen Dakar and the South American ports, it being estimated that the traveller who purchases his ticket vi& Madrid, Gibraltar, and then over the Moroccan-Saharan system, can journey from Paris to Rio de Janeiro in twelve days.

So, too, with regard to a line of this kind. The distances between Australians and South Africa will be lessened; the distances between Australians and India and Ceylon will be lessened; and the distance between the eastern portion of Australia and the Home Country will be considerably lessened. These are all factors. It was factors of that kind that influenced the construction of the lines which have been made in Africa. It was factors of that kind, as this American gentleman clearly makes apparent, that influenced the construction of the transcontinental lines of the United States - not a consideration of the intervening country, but of the terminal points. I rose mainly to deal with these factors, because I think that, since this Parliament has committed itself to this policy, the information I have had the honour of quoting has been collected, and it was not previously in a concise form for the consideration of its members. It is information which we all should have, and which we all should assimilate whenever we come to the consideration of one of the large railway problems which must confront us in Australia. We .should see what has been done elsewhere, what is being done elsewhere, the motives which have prompted that action, and the measure of success which is attending the action. I believe that the effect will be to inspire us with hope, confidence, energy, and determination to prosecute our necessary works rather than to encourage in our minds any such distressful feelings as those to which Senator Stewart has given utterance.

– We must have an Australian Fleet sufficient to deal with possible enemies by water before an expeditionary force can be landed in Australia.

Senator de Largie:

– Where are we to get the money for that purpose ?

Senator Bakhap:

– By saving our money, and not spending it on unprofitable railways.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Honorable senators will remember that a few years ago many, even of the public men in Australia, deprecated the idea of building an Australian Navy. They said that we did not want a Navy, because the British Navy would protect Australia for all time. Now they thank God that we have an Australian Navy. Whilst it is not easy to build a Navy, it is a comparatively easy matter to construct railways in Australia, and this is only one of the first of the great railways which I believe the Commonwealth will have to undertake in the near future. I hope we shall not have many more of the pessimists “who are always complaining of the spending of money in barren wastes. The experience in Queensland, in Western Australia, and in every State of the Commonwealth that has gone in for an extensive railway system has been that it has led to progress by leaps and bounds. I have no doubt that the same result will follow the construction of this railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– There are two points to which I wish to refer briefly before the question is put. In the first place, the discussion of the Bill has revived the old-time grievance of Senator Stewart. He was from the first, root and branch, against the proposal for the construction of this line. His opposition to the project still survives. He still adheres to his libel upon the character of the country through which the line goes. It is not even an ingenious lie, but one of those barefaced, clumsy lies, concerning the character of the country, which can be refuted by any one who chooses to read the reports which have been submitted to this Parliament. This railway has been called a “desert railway,” and I say that before any newspaper or public man describes 1,000 miles of the inland country of Australia as a desert, they should consider carefully whether it would not be fair that they should be dealt with as they would be dealt with for an ordinary libel. What are the facts ? We know from the reports that, so far as this railway is concerned, there is less than 100 miles of it on the South Australian border running through country of a light quality of soil, whilst the remaining 900 miles goes through country that is from very good to excellent pastoral country. Yet, in the face of the reports, which are available to honorable senators, we hear this lie and this libel persistently circulated by members of the Senate, as well as by the so-called organs of public opinion in this little corner of Australia. It is about time attention was called to this matter, and we considered whether it is not desirable to amend our libel law so as to protect the country from the aspersions cast upon it by people living here. There is little essential difference between libelling a man’s character and libelling his country, and I hold that something should be done to those who libel the country in this glaring fashion, to make them more guarded in the expression of their opinions.

In connexion with one of the main purposes of this railway, which is the defence of the Commonwealth, let me say that any one who looks at the map of Australia and contemplates the progress of the present war must come to the conclusion that from the point of view of defence we have not nearly a sufficient number of trunk lines of railway in Australia. If there has been one thing which more than another has enabled Germany to successfully prosecute the war by concentrating her forces at the points where they have been most needed, it is the perfected railway system of the country. The railway map of Germany to-day resembles nothing so much as a spider’s web. There are railways connecting with each other from every point of her frontier, and because of the perfection of her well-planned railway system Germany has been able to make a better use of her fighting forces than any other country in the worldSenator Stewart and others who oppose this Bill demand that our railway systems should be on a cash basis. I hope that this country will never be invaded, but we cannot expect that it will be the only country in the world upon which other people will have no designs. There maybe those who would like to establish themselves here and overthrow our institutions. If this Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway were not built, and the people of the Western State were endeavouring to hold the country against an invading force, there would be no means of bringing reinforcements to their aid to resist the invading force. What consolation would it then be to the General in command of the Forces of the Western State to have handed to him a copy of the balancesheets of the railway systems in the eastern part of Australia, showing that they were constructed on a cash basis 1 It would be no consolation to him at all, and it would be no safeguard for the country. We know, therefore, that, from a defence point of view, it was highly necessary that this railway should be built. What has conduced more than anything else to the success of Germany in resisting attack on both her frontiers has been her railway system, which permits her to concentrate troops within the shortest possible period at any point where they may be most urgently required.

Those who declare that the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway will traverse only desert country affirm something which is opposed to fact, and are “doing the work of those at a distance who wish ill to Australia. This country has had enemies - enemies who have made their fortunes in it. When honorable senators say that the inland portion of Australia is worthless, they say that which its enemies have been saying for years. It is about time that we discouraged the practice of crying stinking fish. We can well leave, that to our opponents. It is not the function of any public man to draw attention to allegations which the facts of the case will not sustain. We require to be optimistic and courageous, and we require to encourage the spirit of enterprise wherever we may see it. The erection of poppet heads at Broken Hill, in the Gulf country, and in the far north of Western Australia, has been entirely due to the enterprising spirit exhibited by individuals. The Government are asked to lag behind, notwithstanding that individuals have gone forward and made the continent what it is to-day - a veritable witness to the enterprise of 4,000,000 people. We need to keep pace with the individual. We are lagging behind, and there are those in our midst who would have us continue to lag behind still more; but, fortunately, those who are of an optimistic and courageous spirit comprise the majority, and their enterprise nas been reflected in the carrying out of this great work. I support the Bill. I believe that the expenditure of £1 ,500,000 will complete the last link of this line binding the western State with the eastern States of the Federation. It will make the Union, so far as Western Australia is concerned, not a sham, but a reality. At present that State occupies a position very similar to that originally occupied by California in relation to the United States, and by British Columbia in relation to Canada. I have no desire to labour this question. I believe that the expenditure of £1,500,000 will prove ample to complete this great national highway. In the matter of cost, I do not regard the amount which will be spent upon the undertaking as an unreasonable one. When the line has been completed, its construction -will have cost a little less than £5,500 per mile, which, in my opinion, is not an unduly high cost. I do not wish to see a single pound wastefully expended, but I do desire to see the line substantially constructed, so that a high rate of speed may be maintained between the capitals of the States. I intend to vote for the Bill in the belief that the money which will be raised under it will be carefully husbanded and wisely expended, and that it will provide a fair wage to those engaged upon the construction of the line.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– Considering the amount which has already been expended upon this undertaking, I am sure that no honorable senator would dream of hanging up the work at this stage. I wish, however, to say a few words in regard to the expenditure that has been incurred in excess of the original estimate. We all know that in the initial stages of the undertaking we had to depend upon the estimate of a gentleman who delighted in the title of “ Engineer-in-Chief,” a very high-sounding title indeed. It is wonderful how some men achieve reputations, and upon how slender a foundation those reputations are built. I am sorry to say that in the selection of ite first Engineer-in-Chief the Commonwealth was very unfortunate. In my capacity as Chairman of a Committee which inquired into a matter connected with this line, I was afforded an opportunity of gaining inside information, as to his capabilities. Consequently 1 am not surprised to learn that the line is costing a good deal more than his estimate.

Senator Russell:

– It is not costing more on the basis of the material that he specified.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If the survey which he recommended had been followed it would have cost a good deal more than it has. Not only was the route shortened in defiance of his wish, but, as a matter of fact, he expressed an opinion upon a line which was to traverse a portion of the country that he had never inspected. Anybody reading his report would naturally conclude that he had travelled over that country and had inspected the surveyed route; but when the matter was inquired into, it was discovered that he had only inspected a short distance of the proposed route from either end of the line. He never saw some 600 or 700 miles of country which the line will traverse towards its centre, and yet he did not hes: tate to give an estimate of its cost. It is through his blunder that the estimate was considerably less than the amount that is actually being spent; it is not the fault of the present engineers, who are carrying out their work to the satisfaction of the Government, and doing it well. We should saddle the responsibility on the right horse. The blunderer was Mr. Henry Deane, the first EngineerinChief. From reports that we have seen, and from press articles that we have read, we know that the men now in charge are doing their work in a workmanlike way, and that we are getting full value for the money we are spending. Any attempt to hang up the railway after so much money has been spent upon it, and in view of the necessity for such agreat undertaking, would be tie height of folly. Once the country through which the railway runs is settled, it will probably prove much better than even the most optimistic of us hope at the present time. What is generally referred to as desert country in Australia is gradually becoming less and less every year; as we begin to know it and settle upon it, its desert aspect disappears; and so what has been considered for so many years to be desert country through which this railway line passes, will prove probably to be very fair pastoral country. I have not seen the eastern end of the line except at Port Augusta, but I have seen the western portion at the Kalgoorlie end, and at the border near Eucla, and so far as I have been able to judge it is very fair pastoral country. But whether it is fair country or indifferent country, we know that there is another purpose for which this railway is being built, and that is the defence purpose; and seeing the great part that railways play for strategic purposes the construction of this line on defence grounds will be very easily justified.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I regret that during the debate upon this Bill there has been just a slight strain of apology from quite a number of honorable senators. The fact that the estimate had been wrongly based appeared to be regarded as something for which regret should be expressed, or for which apology should be made, but had the line been built as originally designed by those who prepared the estimate the cost would not have been exceeded by one penny. It is only fair to those who framed the original estimateto say that the present Engineer-in-Chief decided to increase the number of sleepers per mile, thereby making a superior line and the weight of the rails has beenin creased from 70 lbs. to 80 lbs., thus adding to the asset the people possess. On the assumption that half the line was completed at a cost of £3,700,000, Senator Stewart built up a strong case against the cost of construction. In the same way I could argue that with half the line costing £2,600,000, £5,200,000 would not be a very bad estimate of the total cost, considering that the weight of rails has been increased and a greater number of sleepers has been put into the road. As a matter of fact, however, more than half the line has been completed. We have finished 526 miles, leaving only 474 mile yet to be constructed, and not only have we paid for all the sleepers and rails and rolling-stock for the portion completed, but we also have additional sleepers for another 321 miles, and rails and fastenings for another 221 miles, and we have rolling-stock in hand to the value of £500,000. In other words in addition to completing 52 miles beyond half the total mileage to be constructed, we have £1,100,000 worth of plant in stock. One honorable senator becoming wildly excited, made a lightning calculation that the line would cost £7,000,000, but if the railway is completed for that amount we can shake hands with the engineers, and congratulate them, because this will be the cheapest job of its class in Australia.

Senator Bakhap:

– Then provision will need to be made other than that made in the Bill.

Senator RUSSELL:

– I mean at the present rate. I do not think any one in Australia will question the qualification of the present Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Bell. He has had considerably more ex perience than other engineers in regard to construction of railways similar to this. He says -

I have been occupied continuously for thirtyfive years on the construction and management of railways. For the last fifteen years I have had control of hundreds of miles of line built by day labour. I may therefore presume to have acquired some knowledge of the subject, and from what I know of the conduct of the work and its cost, and from what I saw during my recent visit to the West, I can assure you that the men are working honestly and conscientiously; that they are working equally as well, if not better, than they would work for a private employer; that the supervising staff is probably as hardworking and efficient a staff as has ever been got together in Australia on railway construction work; and that there is no doubt that the final result will compare most favorably with any similar work done under contract.

After making allowance for the stock In hand, and for the completed portion of the work, I do not think that the original estimate will be exceeded by £1, except by reason of the fact that we have improved our asset by using superior or heavier material. I trust that we shall hear no further apologies for the cost of construction. The line will be a credit, not only to the people of Australia, but also to the engineers associated with its construction, and the employees working upon it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Treasurer may borrow £1,500,000).

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– In the small hours of Friday morning last, when another Bill was going through, I took exception to a certain matter, which I notice recurs in this Bill. I refer to the fact that the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-15 is mentioned. I was ruled out of order on that occasion; but I want to point out that it is a pernicious principle to ask us to pass a clause which is dependent on another Bill to be passed, the nature of which we know nothing. For instance, I might be agreeable to the passage of this clause if there were not an alteration in the Inscribed Stock Act to be considered. The alteration of that Act might be of such a nature as to cause me to oppose the passage of this clause. This matter should be approached from a commonsense stand-point. Why should the amendment of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act be hung up ? I want to know from the Minister what is the nature of those amendments, to see whether they will affect my vote on this clause?

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I think we had the position with regard to almost a similar question decided last week. The constitutionality or otherwise of the Inscribed Stock Act is not a question which can be decided here ; but I might point out that the amendment proposed is merely a technical one, and necessary to enable the amount of interest to be increased from 3$ to 4£ per cent., and in order that the

– May I call the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that this clause makes provision only for a railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Quite so; and I took the opportunity of speaking on this clause as the one on which I could, with greater propriety, hang my remarks. I want to make it clear that I intended to make no reflection on the ability of the man responsible for the estimates. I hope that, in connexion with any works of a similar kind, the professional men will be instructed to make an exact examination of the territory to be traversed, in order to give an estimate which will approximate to accuracy.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5399

ADJOURNMENT

Conduct of Business : Appropriation Bill - Nurses’ Outfit - Broadmeadows : Casual Labourers - Expeditionary Forces : Supply of Information to Relatives

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

It is proposed not to sit on Friday, and Ministers would like to be able to move the adjournment to-morrow afternoon sufficiently early to allow honorable senators from the neighbouring States to catch the trains to Sydney and to Adelaide. The only business before us is the Appropriation Bill of last year, and I appeal to honorable senators to allow the Bill to be passed during to-morrow’s sitting. Until it has been finally dealt with, a large quantity of type must be kept locked up at the Government Printing Office. It will save much labour and money to release that type, so that the printing of the Estimates and Appropriation Bill for the current year may be commenced. There will be opportunities later to deal with departmental grievances in connexion with the consideration of the Supply Bills that will have to be introduced.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Can the Minister inform the Senate whether we are likely to have an opportunity to deal with the Budget and Estimates for the present year before Parliament closes?

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I have on the notice-paper a question which, at the request of the Minister, I postponed on Thursday and Friday of last week and again to-day, and I am afraid that if it is not answered tomorrow, my correspondence on the subject with which it deals will get entirely out of hand, because it is flowing in in an ever-increasing stream. The sum of £15 is allowed to each nurse who is chosen to accompany our Expeditionary Forces, to pay for her outfit, and I wish to ascertain how that sum was arrived at, and to get from the officers primarily responsible a statement of the requirements which they think can be bought for it. I have it from some of the nurses who have gone to the front that £15 falls far short of the amount required to provide the necessary outfit. We should give our nurses everything that they require for the performance of their duty. The acceptance of their offer to nurse our men at the front involves travelling preparations, as well as the provision of a nursing outfit, and £15 is far too little to meet all the expenses to which these nurses are put. I hope that the Government will take into consideration the desirableness of increasing the allowance. A nurse, to qualify for the practice of her profession must undergo an arduous training extending over a number of years, at the end of which time she has little or no spare cash. We need for the service of the wounded nurses who are young, and whose experience is thoroughly up to date; but many such nurses are now practically debarred from volunteering. From information which I have no reason to doubt, I understand that some of the nurses who have left for the front had to go into debt to obtain the necessary outfit, and that the present arrangement virtually allows only those who are in a good financial position to volunteer for nursing service abroad. This is contrary to the democratic principle which should underlie our defence system; and I think that the matter has only to be brought under the notice of Ministers to obtain some alteration. I believe that the sum of £15 was fixed as sufficient for an outfit under the impression that our nurses would go direct to England, and from there to the Continent. But some of the nurses who have gone away have written to say that many of the things with which they were compelled to provide themselves are useless in Egypt. A circular is issued to each nurse chosen to serve abroad, in which, under the heading “ Australian Imperial Force,” “ Nurses’ Outfit,” it is set forth that -

In addition to the regulation articles on list to be obtained by each member of the A.A.N.S., I would strongly advise all to take a good supply of their nursing clothes (dresses, aprons, caps, cuffs, collars, &c), which they have been using at their work in civil life. These will be required, and permission is given to wear them at discretion of officer commanding ship or unit.

With these clothes an armband, white linen, 4 inches wide, could be provided with Geneva red cross, 3 inches each way, bar 1 inch wide.

Nurses should always wear a red cross arm band or brassard on ship, and when with their units. A simple cotton washing hat or sunshade, as well as a warm cap for outdoor work are advisable (quite plain and simple).

Ordinary civilian clothes must not be worn on ship or when with corps, but may be taken for wearing when away from hospitals. These can be packed and placed in hold of ship, and should not be valuable, as they may be lost.

Nursing staff have to provide most of their own mess furniture. As it is not possible for them to meet and purchase mess kit before embarkation (it may be possible to do it at the last port of call in Australia), it will be safer if each nurse brings with her a small kit for herself, consisting of knives, forks, spoons, enamel plates and cups, and table napkins and rings, &c. Nurses should also bring plenty of personal linen.

Through the next paragraph in this copy I notice that a pencil line is run; but in other copies which I have the paragraph is not marked. I take it that this copy has been marked by the person to whom it was sent for some reason -

Tent Equipment. - Each nurse is required to bring her own bed or stretcher.

I think that the writer of one of the letters I have says that certain nurses were informed that they would not be required to fulfil that .condition, but that others had been required to do so.

Tent Equipment. - Each nurse is required to bring her own bed or stretcher, which should be strong as well as light, and pillow, rugs, &c. Three blankets are provided by the Department. Stretchers are not essential, as the regulation military valise may, if preferred, be used. I would not advise it for nurses. Camp stools or deck chairs, or both, are extremely useful.’

Undoubtedly they are, and I notice that, many of them include in their accounts a deck chair, but they are merely told that it is extremely useful, which it undoubtedly is.

Every article should be marked in large letters, with nurse’s name.

Iron boxes or trunks should have name of nurse and unit to which she is attached painted plainly thereon in white letters, as well as a red cross.

Luggage for Ship. - Take for cabin articles likely to be wanted on voyage, and no more. The rest be placed in hold.

Sea kit bags will bc placed on ship for all ranks, and can be drawn after embarkation.

A.s far as possible, nurses from each military district will be accommodated together on ship. They will be advised to arrange their own cabin companions after embarkation.

-.- There is, and there are things that they have to provide themselves with, as anybody voyaging abroad would have to do, which otherwise they would not think of purchasing. I notice that the writer of one letter says -

In my humble opinion, and judging from what I have heard from Egypt, out of the £14 15s.-

That is only part of her account - spent at Ball and Welch’s, about one-third would be wearable in that climate. Of course, if we are going to England, that would be a different matter.

Of the excessive cost of some of the goods on the account there can be no two opinions. The items are quoted, as follows : -

– From the letters I have received, it seems that the experience of one is only a repetition of that of others. I hone that the Minister will recognise that this complaint, which is so widespread amongst the nurses, has a foundation in fact, and that he will realize that it is desirable at this juncture that the whole position with regard to providing outfits should be dispassionately reviewed. I speak without any idea of raising any feeling on this subject, except the desire to go into the matter thoroughly, and see what is a fair and proper allowance to make, so that we may leave it open to all nurses in the community, irrespective of their financial means, provided that they have the ability and the skill to offer their services. That is all that I desire, and I earnestly hope that the Minister will give the fullest consideration to the position, and realize that this amount was probably fixed at the time when the present conditions of the war, and the services of our soldiers in the Gallipoli Peninsula, and their residence in Egypt, were not in contemplation. I hope what I have said will have the effect of causing the Minister to give the matter further and earnest consideration, and that, if the Minister finds in the course of that consideration that these complaints are well founded and properly voiced, he will take the earliest possible steps to redress what will be a recognised grievance, and that a sum equal to the requirements they are asked to provide themselves with for these services for us shall be provided in all cases.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [10.36].- I had intended to bring before the attention of the Minister the question which Senator Keating has dealt with, and I wish to indorse the honorable senator’s remarks, and to quote briefly from some of the correspondence I have received on that subject. We all agree that, after the care and attention to be devoted to the men fighting in the trenches, our next consideration should be the care and comfort of those devoted women whose duty it is to attend to the wounded soldiers. The complaints which Senator Keating has voiced are general in all the States. In Adelaide I have heard the same grievance expressed. I have been told that the allowance of £15 is utterly inadequate to provide the uniform and equipment which the nurses are expected to take with them to the front. I wish to quote some remarks made by a member of the Legislative Council in South Australia, to whose statements I attach particular importance, because he has two sons at the front and also a daughter who is a nurse, so that he is well in touch with these matters, and is naturally made the recipient of various complaints regarding the position of Bed Cross nurses. His remarks supplement the inquiries I have made and correspondence which I have received. Mr. D. J. Gordon, M.L.C., with whom I had some conversation before I left Adelaide, has written to me as follows: -

Referring to our conversation, I am informed that the practice of the Department in respect to nurses accepted for service outside of Australia is to supply them with a list of all uniforms, clothes, bedding, &c, required by them, and to make a grant or £15 in each case. As the requirements, however, invariably cost between £40 and £50 (according to any little variation in quality), each nurse who goes away to serve bor country in a professional capacity is immediately out of pocket to the extent of from £25 to £35. I have checked these figures in respect to several nurses, and I believe they are accurate.

I have also been informed that no nurse should go away unless she has £50 or £60 of her own money available, as the pay allowed - half that of a private - is not sufficient to keep her in little et ceteras. I know now of a fully qualified nurse, ready and willing to go abroad, but who is unable to do so because she cannot afford to supply herself with compulsory necessaries over and above the departmental allowance.

I think it is a terrible thing that these women, after many years of training, who can command good salaries here in private nursing, and who are just as patriotic and keen as the soldiers, should not get better treatment.

I can assure you I have no personal interest in the matter, and merely appeal to you because I feel that justice is not being done to a most important part of the service.

I hope that the Minister, in addition to considering the utterly inadequate allowance made to the nurses for the purchase of equipment, will also reconsider the pay which these devoted sisters are receiving, having regard to the arduous nature of their duties and the hardships they have to endure.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I am informed that at Broadmeadows at this juncture a number of casual labourers are employed by the Home Affairs Department, and that the method of engaging them is not in accordance with that adopted by other Departments to give effect to the policy of preference to unionists. The Defence and Postal Departments, when requiring casual labour, send a notification to the union office. There a register of the men out of work is kept, and they, in their turn, are sent to the place where their services are required. The Home Affairs Department is responsible for the employment of casual labour at Broadmeadows, and requires the men to report themselves at Broadmeadows, which is a considerable distance from the localities where most of the men live. I desire to bring under the notice of the Department the fact that the officers of the United Labourers are prepared to render the same service to the Home Affairs Department as to the Defence and Postal Departments by supplying the casual labour required at Broadmeadows on an intimation being sent to the union office. The grievance U that the men are expected tip report themselves at Broadmeadows before they are actually engaged. Everybody knows that at a time like the present if ten men are required 100 men will apply for the job. It would be more just if the Department Bent a notification to the union office that so many men were required.

Senator Russell:

– Are you sure that no notice is sent to the secretary of the union ?

Senator BARNES:

– I am informed that no notice is sent to the union governing the casual labourers. I am sorry that I did not mention this matter to the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs this afternoon, so that he could have been in a position to put the facts before the Senate this evening, but he can reply to my statements at a later date. I hope that he will see that the men are not handicapped by being required to apply at Broadmeadows, when the labour required can be sent there without inconvenience to anybody.

Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I suppose that other honorable senators, like myself, have a number of unfortunate women, the relatives of men wounded or killed in the trenches, calling upon them, and I have found that the facilities for giving information to those women are not what they ought to be, and could easily be improved. Women have complained to me of the manner in which they are treated when they make inquiries about their lost relatives. I have no desire to make any complaint; I wish merely to point out a possible remedy. I saw Mr. DeWitt, the paymaster at the Victoria Barracks, Sydney, and he agreed with me that the Department was not in a position to give the satisfaction to inquirers that he would like to give. In one case a lady, whose son was killed on the landing of the troops at Gallipoli, went to the barracks to ascertain what pay was due to her. She was advised to write to Melbourne, and on doing so received a reply that the Defence Department had decided to pay relatives for two months, so that during that time they would be able to apply for the pension. Unfortunately, this lady is not entitled to draw a pension, because she was not a dependant. There are a number of weeping women trying to find out these things, and men are not so fitted as women to deal with the inquiries. In the Old Country women are appointed to attend to these duties, and 1 suggest the adoption of the same system here. Many business women would be able and willing to do the work in an honorary capacity. When I told the lady I have referred to that she was entitled to nothing, and had to explain all the circumstances, I confess I did not like it. A suitable place should be provided for inquiries to be made, because there is no waiting room for women at the Victoria Barracks, Sydney. It took me a quarter of an hour to reach Mr. De- Witt. Some improvements in the direction I have indicated are desirable to give relief to inquirers.

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– One or two aspects of the matter referred to by Senator Barnes have surprised me. I shall give the matter my personal attention tomorrow, and let the honorable senator have an answer later.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- There is no intention that Parliament shall rise for a considerable time, hut there will be a brief adjournment, and I would inform .Senator O’Keefe that there is no possibility of the Budget being presented before that adjournment. I understand the Treasurer proposes to make a tentative financial statement some time nest week. There is not a great deal of business for next week, but some of it is important, including the War Pensions Amendment Bill, Inscribed Stock Bill, and Compulsory Voting Bill, and there is a probability of the introduction of a Bill dealing with war taxation. Complaints have been rife recently in regard to nurses’ uniforms. I have not had time to look into them vet, but intend to do so. It is a very difficult question to settle. No doubt if it was left to the nurses to say how much they would like to spend it would run to a large sum, and I felt inclined to gasp when Senator O’Loghlin mentioned £40 or £50 as an outfit allowance. Many of the things mentioned in the. list alluded to by Senator Keating are already in the possession of women following the profession of nurse, but the list is given, not as that of things which have to be purchased, but really as an indication of what they are to leave behind. We ought not to act meanly, but rather should act generously to the nurses, and I will look into the question. As regards what Senator McDougall said, Sydney Head-quarters are in possession of the full information possessed by Head-quarters here. If any district head-quarters are sheltering themselves behind the claim that they have no information, I should like it made clear to me. because they know as much as is known hern about what relatives are entitled to. If any officer in Sydney says he is not able to give these people information, he is saying what is not true. The position is made absolutely clear in every district, so that questions on the subject may be answered properly, and at the proper time. Something may be said for the suggestion to appoint women to deal with these cases, but, after all, we must have somebody responsible to make statements, because they commit the Department. Persons rendering honorary service might not correctly interpret what was told them,’ and might commit the Department to all sorts of liabilities. It is far better to have unequivocal statements made by an officer, who can be held responsible for them. The systems here and in the United Kingdom are not comparable. There they do not even notify the relatives of persons killed or wounded , and the scenes caused there are due to the fact that the first intimation people get is the list posted on the wall. The Commonwealth system is far more merciful. There is no need for relatives to go to public places to find out the casualties, or even to ascertain their rights regarding payment, because a letter to the district paymaster will elicit the information. He knows exactly what he is entitled to tell the people on the facts submitted to him. He has the records as to next of kin, and knows whether claimants are dependants or not. We are doing all we can in the most merciful way to assist people, but, at the same time, I am always ready to welcome suggestions for improvements.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 July 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150728_senate_6_78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 July 1915

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:

Senator BLAKEY:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator READY:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA DAY

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator KEATING:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator McKISSOCK:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:

PAPERS

QUESTION

CASE OF SOLLY BURVILL

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

CRUISER BRISBANE

Senator MAUGHAN:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Keating:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MAUGHAN:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MAUGHAN:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

WAR LOAN BILL (No. 2) (UNITED KINGDOM)

Second Reading

Senator RUSSELL:Assist ant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator Turley:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator Millen:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Needham:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie:

Senator STEWART:

Senator Millen:

Senate
28 July 1915

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator READY:
TASMANIA

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McKISSOCK:
VICTORIA

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator RUSSELL:
Assist ant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator RUSSELL:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917