Senate
22 September 1916

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- BENDIGO CAMP
QUESTION
- MILITARY UNIFORMS
PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE
QUESTION
- MILITARY SEARCHES
QUESTION
- MILITARY SERVICE OF ALLIES
MILITARY SERVICE REFERENDUM BILL
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- GRAVE CHARGES
ADJOURNMENT

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and readprayers.

page 8827

QUESTION

BENDIGO CAMP

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Defence in a position to reply to a question I have asked concerning the imposition of fines and penalties on. soldiers in the Bendigo Camp?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator asked-

Will he cause inquiries to be made as regards the number and amount of lines and penalties inflicted on soldiers in the Bendigo Military Camp since and during the appointment of Major Ebeling and Captain Boss as Officer Commanding and Adjutant respectively, and state how this compares with the same camp under previous officers?

The following information has been supplied to me: -

The increase in the number of cases dealt with by Major Ebeling is attributed to the fact that this officer was in charge during a period in which a large number of men had missed embarkation and penalties inflicted covered the offences of avoiding embarkation and subsequent offences by these men.

page 8827

QUESTION

MILITARY UNIFORMS

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday, the Minister for, Defence, replying to a question on notice, said that it is not intended to issue military uniforms except to clerks who are now attested, or to employees subsequently attested. I ask if the reply means that it is intended toissue military uniforms to other employees as well as clerks who are attested, or will subsequently be attested?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The intention is to issue uniforms to those who are attested, whether clerks or not. Only persons attested as soldiers may lawfully wear military uniforms.

page 8827

PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT

(No. 7).

Motion (by Senator Senior) agreed to-

That the report from the Printing Committee, presented to the Senate on 21st September, 1916, be adopted.

page 8827

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

asked -the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

If the task imposed upon Australia by the Prime Minister’s proposals, viz., to raise 32,500 men during the month of September, is still necessary?
Before issuing any proclamation under sections 59 and 60. of the Defence Act, calling up men for service, will he communicate with the Imperial authorities with the view of ascertaining the number of men that have been actually sent to the front as reinforcements from the Australians assembled in England?
If the reply be received in time, will it be made public before any proclamation is issued?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are -

Yes. 2 and 3. It is not seen what purpose would be served by such action. The Army Council, before sending their communication, were fully informed as to the number of reinforcements available, both here and oversea.

page 8828

QUESTION

MILITARY SEARCHES

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Min ister for Defence, upon notice -

Is he aware that two prominent civil servants (Messrs. Kilgour and Beeket), on leave from the Northern Territory, were paraded on board ship at Brisbane, on 29th August, and had their luggage searched by the military authorities there?
Who instigated this procedure?
Under whose instructions was it carried out?
Was anything of an incriminating nature found in their possession?
If not, what action does the Government intend to take regarding those responsible?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made into this matter.

page 8828

QUESTION

MILITARY SERVICE OF ALLIES

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the intention of the Government to call up certain men for active service, the Government intend to call to the colours subjects of allied countries resident in Australia, or,asan alternative, cause such subjects to be repatriated?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The subjects of allied . countries are not liable for active service under the Commonwealth Government, but two at least of the allied nations have advised their nationals to enlist in the Commonwealth Forces, and many have done so.

Senator Buzacott:

– Which two?

Senator PEARCE:

– France and

Russia.

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, ‘upon notice -

Will the Minister inform the Senate whether all Frenchmen, Italians, andRussians of fighting age, and resident in Australia, have been advised by the respective Consuls to report themselves for service?
Will the Minister also inform the Senate the total number of Frenchmen, Italians, and Russians who have left Australia for active service?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The answers are -

It is understood that the Consuls for France and Russia have advised to, this effect, but we have no information with respect to Italy.
It is regretted that this information is not available.

page 8828

MILITARY SERVICE REFERENDUM BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st September (vide page 8826), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

– In addressing myself to this motion, I realize that we have arrived at one of the greatest crises, indeed the greatest crisis, in the history of this Parliament and of the Australian nation.

Senator Shannon:

– And of the British Empire.

Senator READY:

– I speak peculiarly and particularly as a representative of Australia. I say at the outset that I support the proposal for a referendum, because I believe that the people of the whole Continent are those best qualified to decide the question which has been raised, it being they who will have to bear the effects of the decision arrived at. Look at it as I may, I cannot take the view of some of my honorable friends who, because they do not believe in conscription, object to this referendum. They have a right to their view, and I do not question their motives, but, having been a humble student of Democracy, it appears to me that the members of the Labour party, who have advocated the principle of the referendum, and particularly an initiative referendum, whereby the whole people may decide every great question, should not shrink, or pause, or falter when the issue happens to be one which they may wish to have decided in the negative. If the principle of the referendum is sound, it should be made to apply equally to proposals which we favour and to those which we oppose.

In this instance, I shall not vote against the submission to the people of the conscription proposals of the Government, although. I hope that an affirmative answer will not be given to the question to be asked. We have had a good many exhibitions of inconsistency inregard to the principle of the referendum in Tasmania. Honorable senators opposed to us have repeatedly supported the submission of questions to the people when it suited them to do so, and opposed the referendum at other times. I am not going to be. guilty of that inconsistency. At the same time, I am in opposition to the policy of the Government in anticipating the will of the people of Australia regarding military service. I cannot support their action in calling up men for training before the people have said whether the principle of compulsion is to be adopted.

Senator Turley:

– That is not provided for in the Bill.

Senator READY:

– No ; but it is known to every honorable senator that men are being called up, not for home defence, to which I would not object, but for training for service abroad in anticipation of an affirmative vote of the people.

Senator Turley:

– Then the rejection of the Bill now before the Senate would prevent further action of that kind.

Senator READY:

– Were I to vote against the Bill, I should vote against the principle of the referendum, and that I am not prepared to do. In proposing to inaugurate a policy of conscription, the Government have, in my opinion, made a grave mistake. Prior to the introduction of this proposal for conscription, we had in Australia a nation absolutely unanimous as to the conduct of the war; all slight differences of opinion had been dispersed and replaced by a remarkable unanimity of purpose; few persons were actuated by any other motive than that of successfully carrying on the war. What will be the effect of the Government’s proposal ? That splendid singleness of purpose, and that cohesion of all parts of the continent, will disappear, and be replaced by discord, dissatisfaction, strife of the worst possible kind, angry recriminations, and feelings of bitterness induced by a referendum fight. Both sides will exert themselves to do their utmost to secure what they believe to be right, and to the outside world we shall present the spectacle, not of a united Australia, but rather of a warring and disunited continent. The Government’s policy will divide the nation and introduce suspicion - disorder will be avoided, I trust - but from that standpoint Ministers have made a grave mistake.

– The Allies have the men. Twelve months ago, when they were short of men, we were told that the Allies had plenty of men. To-day, when they have the men, we are told that they require more. No. Victory is only a matter of time. Let me read the following cablegram that appeared in our newspapers on the 16th of this month -

Mr. Paul Cravath, a preeminent International lawyer, has returned from a visit to the Somme and Verdun front. In an interview lie said lie was confident Germany’s doom was only a matter of time. “ The German armies which lost at the Marne to greatly inferior forces,” he proceeded, “ cannot hope to win against the superior, highly-organized forces now facing them.”

Here is another paragraph -

The special correspondent of the New York World at the British front on the Somme cables: - “Despite the steady advance, the British command does not look for a quick termination of the war. The British are determined to carry the war on to German soil. The Somme reinforcements are literally thick from the battle front to the sea.

That is the shortage of men about which we are hearing -

The Germans are concentrating against the British. Germany has 2,000,000 troops in France. Of these, 700,000 are against the British.

The allied armies are making steady headway. First they cut the German wire entanglements by shell tire, and then there is a continuous hail of trench bombs. Great Britain’s army is of splendid material. At least 2,000,000 men could be thrown against the Germans at one point without touching the reserves at home. At the present rate of losses, Great Britain could fight to the next summer without new troops; but if the present means continue Germany, by then, will be driven out of France.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does that war correspondent know more about the position than the Imperial War Council?

Senator READY:

– I have not too good an opinion of some of the generals in the Imperial War Council. If the honorable senator would only read What of the Dardanelles, written by Granville Fortescue, a war correspondent of great repute and impartiality, he would see that the Jess said about some of the British generals engaged in that campaign the better.

Senator Pearce:

– There are war correspondents who won the war in the first six months.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– And killed the Kaiser, too. It is wonderful how war correspondents can win a war.

Senator READY:

– Then, does not the honorable senator regard it as a peculiar fact that the British Government have thought fit to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of the Dardanelles campaign ? If the honorable senator had talked with some of the Australian soldiers and officers who have returned from Gallipoli, as I have done, he would wish for an inquiry. I am not afraid of having my words recorded when I say that the Dardanelles campaign was messed by the high command from end to end; and the British Army Council was responsible for that messing. This war correspondent shows that the campaign was badly conceived and badly carried out - not so far as our gallant lads were concerned; they covered themselves with glory, but were hurled into the slaughter. The conception and carrying out of the scheme were in the hands of British generals. This writer says that the initial blunder was the attempt to force the Dardanelles with warships alone, and that every tactician is opposed to such an unreasonable mode of procedure. On page 2i, he says -

A neutral officer who has been with the Turkish armies from the beginning of hostilities assured me that three divisions disembarked on that fatal day in March might have marched triumphantly from the heel to the neck of the Gallipoli Peninsula at Bulair. This statement was based upon the knowledge of the number of Turkish troops in the sector at that time, and their state of preparedness. A German officer confirmed this assertion. He argued that the loss of this opportunity stamped the British staff, or those who planned the coup, as men of mediocre military calibre.

Senator Shannon:

– Written after the event !

Senator READY:

– Later he deals with the question of shifting the blame on to the Greeks, who were to find 20,000 men for the purpose of carrying the Peninsula, and he writes -

Suppose. 20,000 troops were promised to assist the manoeuvres of the Allied Fleets, this fact only emphasizes the error in attempting the attack with battleships alone.

I am not hiding anything. The honorable senator cannot say that I am misquoting. The cable message continues -

His recent visit to the West front has left him even more certain of victory for the Allies.

– I claim the right to voice my opinions on this question, just as I am prepared always to allow others freely and frankly to do so. The Prime Minister and others make light of industrial conscription.’ It is no light matter, however, for those who produce the wealth of this country. For them it fs a matter of very serious concern. It will not affect the members of this Parliament. But what about these men ? It is idle to say it will not or may not affect them. I have here a quotation from a statement made by M.- Merriman, the Secretary of the French Metal Workers Federation, with regard to conscription in France - an Allied country. What does he say -

The toilers in factories are being forced to work for starvation wages, and dare not make a protest. Conscription would mean for your workers-

That is the workers of England - the first step towards industrial slavery and the end of their free action in the economic field, both during and after the war. It would be a terrible weapon in the hands- of your employers, 8s it is actually in the hands of French employers. Already they are demanding the continuance after the war of the arbitrary discipline and general draconian conditions of labour that exist in the factories to-day. Some have passed resolutions demanding the permanent return of a twelve-hour day, mtd even to prolong the hours of labour without the payment of overtime. The workers cannot express their opinions freely; all action on their part is prohibited; and their protests are smothered and repressed by courts martial.

That is clear enough. We could furnish numerous instances of what has happened under conscription in Germany.

Senator Guthrie:

– The difference is that a Labour Government is not in power there.

Senator READY:

– And we have no guarantee that a Labour Government will be in office here six months hence.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why ? Is the honorable senator going to vote against the Government t

Senator READY:

– No. Forces more important than I am support this Government ; but they may not be in power six months hence. Like the honorable senator, I shall vote against the Government if at any time I think they are wrong. In the Outlook of September last, Lieutenant Colonel Maxwell, a prominent military man in England, referring to trade unionism, said, ‘ ‘ Military law will cure it.” Of course it would. That would be the end of trade unionism and organized labour. Then, again, Lloyd George, one of the greatest men of the Empire, is reported to have said in his Manchester speech -

We do not want any more recruits for the army. We are getting more than we can equip. What we want is not compulsion for the army, but compulsion for the workshop.

– You get equality of sacrifice no more under one system than the other. We are bound to incur infinite trouble under any system of exemptions. When the tribunals set to work members of Parliament will be in a most invidious position. We shall be bombarded with letters from our constitutents asking us to use our influence to keep them back. The existence of members of Parliament is bad enough now. lt will be hell under the new system, which will lead not only to suspicion but to conflict. It has been said that any conscientious objector can escape, but the following, reprinted in the Ballarat Evening Echo from the English press, shows what has happened under conscription: -

page 8835

QUESTION

GRAVE CHARGES

London, July 1st

Serious allegations regarding the treatment of conscientious objectors undergoing imprisonment in detention barracks were made yesterday by Private Clarence Henry Norman. Private Norman, who was a member of the No-Conscription Fellowship, now belongs to the Grenadier Guards, and was court-martialed at Chelsea Barracks for disobeying an order to parade at 9.15 a.m. Major du Plat Taylor presided at the court martial, the other members being Captain the Hon. L. Cary and Lieut. Lord Erskine.

Mr. R. C Hawkin, who represented Norman, took objection to the jurisdiction of the Court in view of the Prime Minister’s statement that courts martial on conscientious objectors would he referred to the scrutiny of the War Office. Therefore, he asked to put in evidence that the offence was the result of a conscientious objection. Accused pleaded objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that he was a civilian.

Captain Hewett, Assistant Provost Marshal, called evidence to prove that Norman was lined by a magistrate and handed over to the military.

Mr. Hawkin contended that the law had so changed that he could claim that accused was still a civilian and not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. When tribunals were given power to grant total exemption, Norman had applied to Westminster Tribunal to hear his appeal. The Tribunal had refused on the ground that the application was not in before the appointed day. He had a right to appeal from that decision to the Appeal Tribunal and the Central Tribunal, and as Mb appeal was not finally disposed of the Court had no jurisdiction.

Accused, giving evidence, said that he was not fit to obey the order, as he was suffering from the atrocious treatment of the last week. On two occasions he had been put. in a straightjacket for over twenty hours, and he was in hospital for seven days. He then declined to attend parade, and was put on bread and water diet and went on a hunger, thirst, and sleep strike for forty-eight hours. He was forcibly fed on two occasions, being laid on the bed on a straight- jacket. Food was pumped up his nose on the first occasion for fifteen minutes, and he was afterwards kept in a straight-jacket and the Commandant was abusing and insulting. The next day he declined food, and he was fed for twenty minutes through a tube in the mouth. It occasioned him the utmost agony.

He contended that the treatment accorded him was unnecessary, because he would have taken food if administered in the ordinary way. It was done as a punishment. The Commandant called him a swine, a beast, and a coward, though he never said a discourteous word to any one. He was put in a straightjacket fifteen minutes after he had entered the place, and it was deliberately done to break his health.

Captain Hewitt. - Have you any one to support your evidence; they are serious allegations?

Accused. - So serious that the Commandant has been removed from the War Office.

– That might be necessary at the start; but we found the money and the Navy. I have obtained the latest figures available, and they throw light on the relative positions of Australia and Canada. The population of Canada is 8,400,000, or close on 9,000,000, whereas our population is 5,000,000. In July, 1916, the Canadian recruits numbered 350,655, while the Australian recruits were 282,000. In the home camps in Canada there were 175,000 men - showing that the Dominion is keeping a large home reserve - while in the Australian camps there were 43,000. In England and on the water Canada had 60,000, and Australia 60,000, while on the various fronts Canada had 70,000, and Australia 125,000 men. Wastage, losses, &c, were, in the case of Canada, 40,000, and in the case of Australia 55,000. Based on the Australian enlistments, Canada ought to show 485,000 recruits, and 72,000 men in the home camps; 100,800 men in England and on the water; 210,000 at the various fronts, with a wastage and ‘losses of 92,400. To reverse the process, Australia, on the Canadian enlistments, should show 208,723 recruits; 104,166 in the home camps; 35,700 in England and on the water; 41,100 at the various fronts, with a wastage and losses of 23,810. Thus, on Canada’s figures, we have enlisted 74,000 men above our population percentage basis, have 60,000 less in home camps, have 25,220 more on the water and in English camps, and have 83,500 more on the various fronts, while our wastage and losses, instead of being 55,000, should be under 24,000. The comparison is all in favour of Australia; and yet we are told that we have not done enough. That I regard as a slur and a libel in face of what we have done.

I should her© like to quote speeches made in the Canadian House of Commons in January of this year by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Leader of the Liberal Opposition and ex-Prime Minister, and by Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said - . . he would not discuss to-day the announcement of Sir Robert Borden on New Year’s Day that Canada- would raise halfamillion men. It seemed like a large contract; but if it was essential to carry on the fight, then he would acquiesce. They must repel at once the idea that it was the first step towards conscription. There must be no conscription in Canada. There had been mcn in this House who had said that the naval law was the first step towards conscription. The naval law was still on the statute-book, and there was no conscription in England. He had expected that England would be able to carry on the war under the old system, but the British Government had thought otherwise. Conditions were not the same in Great Britain as in Canada. For one thing, conscription could not be passed here without giving a blow to immigration; already it was affecting immigration from the United States.

These remarks by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on conscription were replied to by Sir Robert Borden as follows: -

In the first few months of the war, I clearly stated that there would not be conscription in Canada. I repeat that statement to-day.

The newspaper report of the speech proceeded : -

He added that he knew that there had been in the American press certain reports of some kind of compulsion, but there was no truth in it.

Regarding the increase in the Canadian force, he said that it must be remembered that this is the greatest struggle the Empire has ever known; but it will be won without doubt if we make the necessary sacrifices.

– As a matter of fact, our soldiers’ pay is altogether insufficient, and, if it were not for the charity of generously disposed citizens, some of them would be wanting in the necessaries of life.

Senator READY:

– I admit that for what our soldiers are doing for us no pay could be too high. Some persons have said openly, and it is believed by others who are not so frank, that the present rate of soldiers’ pay cannot last. Quoting from Hansard for this session, page 2394, I find that Senator Bakhap said -

The wisest policy for Australia is to ascertain the number of men that we should, according to a population basis, supply to the Forces of the Empire, make preparation to enlist them, compulsorily, if necessary, and then pay them certainly not more than the British voluntarily enlisted soldiers are receiving in the trenches.

SenatorReady. - And that is1s. 2d. a day.

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– Yes. The honorable senator may make what use he chooses of the statement.

Senator Bakhap repeated that again and again. There are some persons who will not advocate that now; but, should conscription be adopted, we shall find, after it has been in force for some time that it will be insidiously argued that we cannot afford to maintain the present rate of pay. It will be said that we cannot find the money, and that, in the circumstances, the soldiers must accept less pay. Senator Bakhap’ s utterances in this chamber, as a member of the Liberal party, shows that the fears entertained by soldiers and their relatives are not altogether groundless.

I trust that the people of Australia will reject the Government proposal. I hope that both those who are in favour of conscription and those who are against it will carry on the discussion on the question apart from prejudice, and will not resort to appeals to feelings and emotions and to catch-cries calculated to distract the attention of the people from the facts. It is our solemn duty as legislators and leaders of the people to place the matter so clearly before them that after the vote is taken no elector will be entitled to say, “ We thought so-and-so, but unfortunately we have discovered that we were wrong.” It is our duty to take a stand according to our light on this important question, regardless of considerations concerning our political career, and whether the course we believe to be right be popular or not. We should put the truth as we see it to those whom we represent. I know that the cry in favour of conscription is a popular one.

Senator Senior:

– I do not think that it is.

Senator READY:

Senator LONG:

– I shall be very glad to hear the honorable senator, more particularly if his views on this subject harmonize with my own.

Senator Shannon:

– Probably I will go further than you. I am prepared to go to the last shilling.

– I guarantee that it does. The system has been such a success during the fifteen months it has been in operation in Tasmania, that I am confident its adoption in Victoria and New South Wales would give equally satisfactory results. If in connexion with the large quantity of meat used by the troops on the mainland, £50,000 or £60,000 per annum could be saved, surely the possibility of effecting such an economy should commend the policy to the early consideration of Ministers. If the system has been a success on a comparatively small scale in Tasmania, it should be equally as great a success when operated on a larger scale on the mainland. In my opinion, the Government have not shown the greatest possible discrimination in connexion with the purchase of materials and food for our troops.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Senator LONG:

– I should like the Government to undertake the commandeering of supplies for the maintenance of the troops, paying those from whom they took the supplies a reasonable rate of interest on their outlay. Remembering that, according to the repeated . assertions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence, the very existence of the Commonwealth and of the Empire is at stake, we should not hesitate about any action that may be necessary to conserve the resources of the country, and to insure their best possible use. The policy of the Government in regard to shipping has not been as aggressive as it might have been. Other honorable senators have referred at length to the enormous profits made by shipping companies throughout the Empire, including ship-owners who have found it convenient and profitable to register under neutral flags for the currency of the war, and who will probably, after the war, come again under the protection of the flag which they have so meanly and despicably deserted. Mr. Winston Churchill is of opinion that the British nation has failed to properly marshal its forces for the successful carrying on of the war. On the 23rd of last month he said -

We, as Germany’s most formidable antagonist, should coldly and scientifically arrange our national life to meet the supreme effort. We should place food supplies and prices on a war basis. The Government should charter all shipping at Admiralty rates. The rise in freights is an absolute scandal. We should control fuel distribution, and issue meat and bread tickets, which would be preferable to regulating consumption by high prices.

– That number should provide ample reinforcements for nine months without the enlistments now proceeding under the voluntary system; and if the Allies continue to make the progress they have been making for the last three or four months, by that time we may not need to send many more men to the front. Several honorable senators have referred to the public statements of leading men in the Old Country, who, knowing the position, can speak with some authority regarding the future outlook. Quite recently Mr. Lloyd George, the Minister for War, said -

It is a fact that when the enemy is beginning to become exhausted we are ready to pour into the field troops of such quality as to have engendered the conviction of victory. We are federating the Empire in this struggle for yet greater enterprises on behalf of mankind.

At about the same time Lord Northcliffe, whom we might reasonably expect to be able to speak with some knowledge of the position, in an article in the Times describing the vastness and high efficiency of the British Army establishments in Prance, stated that striking improvements had been made in economy and soldiering, and he drew a pen-picture . of the “ wonderful transport system, also of the railways, endless lines of telephones and factory plants which rival the world’s largest industrial enterprises.” A few days later Mr. Lloyd George said -

The Allies are drawing tighter every day the iron ring which they have put around the enemy….. The day is not far distant when Germany must crumble.

Surely such statements as these justify the belief, and certainly the hope, that the time is not very far distant when the efforts of the Allies will be successful, and Germany will be beaten absolutely to her knees, without any further call upon the resources of Australia. A weakness of the referendum proposal may be said to be the fact that, while all are entitled to a voice as to whether conscription shall be imposed, very few will be penalized by the imposition of it; but I do not agree with the contention. I think that it is very difficult to find any person in Australia who will not be concerned or interested in the decision to be given by the people. It is said” that women, who are not called upon to fight, should not be permitted to vote; but I hold that no section of a community at war suffers more keenly than the women, and to deny them a voice on this issue would be cruel and unfair. I am in entire accord with the proposal to poll the votes of the soldiers at the front, but one flaw in it is its limitation. I think that every soldier on active service, no matter what his age may be, should be entitled to a vote on this question. The lad of eighteen years of age, who is physically and mentally capable of discharging the duties of a soldier, and is doing so, is also physically and mentally capable of exercising a vote on a matter of this kind. I have a boy who will not be twenty years of age until November next, and by that time he will have been two years at the front. It is not an isolated case. These boys - for they, are only boys - should not be denied the right to vote on a question of this character. This referendum is upon a national question, and should be conducted in a reasonable and logical manner. The most appropriate way’ of conducting meetings in any centres or country districts will be by having the platform occupied by persons supporting both sides.

Senator Lynch:

– Would they stand it on the Yarra-bank?

Senator LONG:

– The Yarra-bank is not Australia. I have sufficient confidence in the fair-mindedness of my fellow countrymen to believe that they will be prepared to hear arguments for and against the Government’s proposal submitted to them in a reasonable and logical manner, especially when they realize that it is a national question, and not a party one, and that it is one uponwhich all have an equal say at the ballot-box. One important result has already been achieved by this Bill. The Liberal party have been unequivocally converted to the principle of the referendum. By supporting the Government’s proposal for a referendum on this issue they cannot escape the position that they believe in the principle underlying the referendum. In connexion with the one-sidedness of some people who talk about free speech being a priceless jewel of human right and a palladium of sovereign Democracy when one is with them, but have quite a different sentiment regarding it when one is in opposition to them, let me tell honorable senators of the words of that famous Frenchman, Marshal Murat. He was inspecting a regiment of soldiers after Napoleon Bonaparte had been elevated to the position of First Consul, and he said : “ Soldiers of France, - Remember that under our glorious flag speech is free, as free as the air we breathe. Consequently it is open to every soldier co discuss as freely as he likes the elevation of Napoleon Bonaparte to this position, but I think it only my duty to warn you that any soldier found or heard uttering a word detrimental to the interests of Napoleon Bonaparte will be instantly shot.” We do not want that kind of free speech in Australia. We want the question discussed from every possible standpoint. Every person for or against conscription should have absolute freedom to place his views before the electors. I support this Bill for the taking of a referendum, and on the platform I shall oppose conscription; but if the verdict of the people is that men shall be conscripted for active service overseas, as an Australian Democrat I shall feel bound to give effect to the wishes of the people.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I express my pleasure, and, I believe, the pleasure of the Senate generally, at the moderation which marked the utterances of the last speaker in the views he expressed and the language he employed, more particularly in his references to those who differed from him. It was a speech entirely free from many of those defects which have marked some utterances since the debate commenced. I should like to make reference to one of the closing statements of the honorable senator. He assumes that honorable senators of the Liberal party who are supporting the Bill are necessarily expressing a belief in the principles of the referendum as applied to a matter of this kind. I have already said that I am accepting it as a necessity arising out of the circumstances which confront us. I am in the position of .a man who is in a room when a cry of fire is raised and finds the door locked against him. Because that man finds an exit through the window, is it to be said that he holds the belief that the window is the proper means of leaving or finding access to a room ? I am supporting the referendum because I am in that position. That is the only practical way I see out of the difficulty confronting us. I regard this as a window to escape from a room the door of which is bolted by the known political convictions of members of this Chamber.

I have never listened to such a continuity of self-destructive criticism as that which has been addressed to the Chamber in this debate. Although only four honorable senators have addressed you, I think .hardly a single argument has been advanced by one of them which has not been successfully met by an argument advanced by another, yet they are all on the same side. I propose to refer to some of these pleasing contradictions, more particularly on the part of the small minority that voted against the first reading yesterday. Unlike the last speaker, who is supporting the Bill, although opposed to an affirmative answer to the question to be submitted to the people, they were actually against referring the matter to the people at all, although they are members of a party which has had as one of the main planks of its platform for many years the principle of the initiative and referendum. When an opportunity arises, as it has on this occasion, to submit a referendum, they turn round and say, in effect, “ Whilst we regard it as essential to the proper working of Democracy that the plank should be there as a fixed institution, when there is an opportunity of using it we are absolutely opposed to it.” Let me remind them that if that plank of ‘ their platform had become law, and the initiative and referendum were in existence to-day as part of our political machinery, the people themselves, without consulting Parliament, could have expressed the opinion which we are inviting them to place on record. Yet these stalwart Democrats, these “ true-blue merinoes,” who have, in season and out of season, at convention after convention, and on public platform after public platform, held up the initiative and referendum as the coping-stone of the democratic arch, when they have a chance of utilizing it, are found voting to prevent the people giving expression to their will.

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– Where do you get your “true-blue merinoes” from?

– That section will apply now. If life is so sacred, do my honorable friends opposite, who are opposed to conscription, attempt to determine the degree of sacredness between the life of the conscript and that of the volunteer ? Is not the life of the volunteer as sacred as is that of the conscript? Yet Senator Mullan, and others who think with him, have in this very Chamber helped the volunteer to risk his life. Not one volunteer could have left these shores unless Senator Mullan and others had approved the action of the Government in providing the money to send him. To them apparently the life of the volunteer is not sacred. It is only when we come to conscript the unwilling, the shirker, that there is exhibited by them this tender regard for the sacredness of human life. If there were any degree in the element of sacredness between the life of the conscript and volunteer, I would give it to the man who has not waited to be compelled, but has volunteered, to risk his life on the altar of his country rather than to the man who. knowing he ought to go, hangs back. In dealing with this question of the sacredness of human life, I would like to point out to roy honorable friends that some of those who are fighting their cause are apparently not at all afraid of risking ‘ and losing human life. I am not saying that any one here will indorse the sentiments I am about to read; but they have been published and circulated by those who are fighting shoulder to shoulder with my honorable friends against conscription. A conference was held in the Trades Hall, Melbourne, some time ago, and each delegate was handed a circular - a copy of which was published in the Melbourne evening Herald - in which it was stated that -

Should conscription become law by any means, in spite of the pronounced opposition of organized Labour, the Government will thus challenge organized revolt and have to take the lives of those who will uphold basic workingclass principles at any cost.

No Government is under the necessity of taking the life of any one unless, in the words of this statement, there is “ organized revolt.” And those who organize revolt know perfectly well that you cannot carry a revolution through without loss of life. These people are perfectly willing, then, to risk this sacred human life in defiance of the law. They would risk it in fighting Australians, but they would apply all the names in the dictionary to a demand that they should risk these lives in fighting the enemies of their country.

Senator Ferricks criticised the ideas of Mr. Hughes as set out in his speeches, and as shown by his attitude as a conscriptionist. He took the Labour-class viewpoint of the war, saying that he did not believe in it, and for that reason had never asked any man to go and do what he would not do himself. This was received with applause.

– Were they Socialists who made that declaration?

Senator TURLEY:

– They did not so describe themselves, and I think that many of those who attended the meeting at which the league was formed would have been disposed to sue the honorable senator for slander had he so described them. A branch of the Universal Service League was formed some little time ago in Brisbane, and its objects were explained by Mr. D. F. Denham, the exPremier of that State. The Brisbane Courier of Sth August last stated that he-

Enlarged on the objects of the Universal Service League, which he said were - (1) To advocate the adoption, for the period of the present war, of the principle of universal compulsory service at home or abroad, on the battle-field or elsewhere, and to support the Government in providing at the earliest possible moment such organization as is necessary to secure the wise and just application of this principle; (2) to secure the passage of legislation for the above purposes, and to assure the Federal Government that such legislation will command the loyal support of the people of the Commonwealth; (3) to adopt any other measures calculated to promote the object of the league. Continuing, he said the objects of the league were clear and definite, the one desire being that the Commonwealth Government should take such measures as would make available every male necessary to the successful prosecution of the war, and organize all the resources of material and manhood. He thought it must be admitted that national organization would insure the services of the best men for the post for which they were best fitted.

Senator Millen:

– That was the object of the league itself.

Senator TURLEY:

– I know it will be said that that is not the proposal of the Government in this case; but my experience through life has taught me that it is necessary to be very careful as to the measure of power one places in the hands of the military. The whole life of military men is given up to organization - to the task of seeing that the best can be got out of the material submitted to them. They have no concern for the question of cost, or anything else, as long as they can secure material organization. Take the case of men who have been brought up without any thought of military service - who have not considered military service worth bothering about in times of peace - but who enter it in a crisis like the present. How long is it before they realize that they are merely a small cog on the wheel, and that the sole consideration is the particular unit to which they belong. If some other unit comes along wearing a different style of uniform or a more ornamental belt, they are flying at each other’s throats almost before there has been an opportunity for them to talk with one another. Has that not happened in Australia in connexion with units formed in the various capitals? We know that it has. The very system of military service induces all in it to work with the one object - the object of organizing. Everything that comes in the way of the use of the power intrusted to them must be removed, and it does not matter how. That has been the history of militarism all the world over, and that is the German system - Germany which we are fighting to-day. In order to meet it, must we implant such a system in Australia as that? I do not believe it is necessary to do so. Judging by what we have read in the newspapers, the volunteers who were organized in England and Australia have been able, after a certain amount of training, not only to equal, but, in most cases, to excel their opponents on the battle-field, who have so long been under this system of militarism. I do not think the people of Australia will agree to the establishment of such a system here. They know that if it were established, the time would eventually come when an attempt would be made to apply it to the industry of this country. Certain statements, which appeared last week in a newspaper published in this city, and which is a strong advocate of compulsory service abroad, occasioned me considerable surprise. I shall make two or three quotations from the article in question, which appeared in the Age of 16th instant. I shall not tear them from their context, but I shall read sufficient to enable honorable senators to arrive at the true meaning of the writer. In the first place, he said -

It stands quite certain that we shall not serve the Empire wisely if we suffer our wheat fields to go untitled and our factories and workshops to fall into desuetude. But there need be no fear of that, even if we were to enlist 400,000 men in our Australian army. If a great and spirited people will adopt military conscription rather than see a foreign foe prevail against its liberties, such a people will be just as ready to conscribe the services of industrial workers who are above the war age, and equally prompt to levy a special monetary tax where no other form of sacrifice is available. An old bachelor who can render no other form of service may at least pay, if he have means to pay, something over and above what a family man pays.

Later on he writes -

In Europe women are taking the place of men in all ranks of industry, save those in which brawn and muscle are the chief requisites. In Australia they have done so only in a few of the lighter vocations in offices. They are quite as ready here as in the Old World to do their share in whatever is ready to their hands. Then, again, we have amongst us large numbers of men over the middle age in retired or semi-retired positions. The Government which is about to conscript the young to enlist has just as good a right to conscript all such citizens to help in our industries from which the military conscripts are to be taken.

That is the sort of thing that the industrial population of Australia is afraid of. It fears the use of this power in such a way, if it be placed in the hands of a body of men who are prepared so to employ it. Here is yet another paragraph from the same article -

So far from labour being scarce, it is a common complaint that in every application for workmen there are at least three men seeking one job. This is because boys and girls and women have hitherto taken the places of those who have volunteered for the war. There is still a fairly large body of men and women, some of them beyond middle age, who may be utilized as home conscripts, if necessary, to help domestic industry, on the farm and in the factory, during the period of the war. This is quite within the province of the Government should the need arise.

Senator GUY:

– They were then coming in so fast that we had over 100,000 in the pool. According to Senator Pearce, we had recently 44,000 in Great Britain, 43,000 in Australia, and 15,000 afloat. That does not suggest that volunteers have not been freely offering. But the outlook last year appeared to be very -serious.

Senator Shannon:

– Does it not now?

Senator GUY:

– The chances to-day are forty-nine to one in our favour, and all who are able to speak with authority from the front say the issue is beyond doubt. Everywhere we hear that Germany is beaten. I oppose conscription for a number of reasons. In the first place, I am very doubtful as to the right of any man to send another, perhaps, to his death while he stops at home. I do not know that it is altogether creditable to a number of people, who know that they are quite safe, to vote for the other fellow to go to the front while they remain in comfort at home. I believe, too, that we shall do as well under voluntarism as we should under conscription. I also think that if this effort to secure conscription be successful, it will bring about fierce and bitter strife throughout Australia.

– At any rate, favoritism will be suspected here, as in every other country in the world where conscription has been the law. I have read strong statements about conscription in Continental countries. I have read in historical works that the French lost the war with Prussia in 1870 because the army of France was honeycombed with corruption due to conscription. French officers pocketed money obtained for indemnities, exemptions, and substitutes. That kind of thing must lead to suspicious feelings in those who are called up. Strong suspicion of unfair discrimination must arise under a system of conscription, and I do not know how it is to be prevented. I notice that under the New Zealand Act introduced to establish conscription, and which by the way has not yet, I think, been put into operation, the method proposed to decide who shall go and who shall stay is the drawing of lots. Even that will not satisfy men who are called up. They will believe that the lottery is rigged. Where a man enlists of his own accord, none of that trouble can arise. I know of the case of a young man who, after striving for years, living most frugally, and denying himself everything in the nature of a luxury, and sometimes even necessaries, has just about managed to build up a little business. If he is conscripted, what is to become of his business? I know another young man who went out on his own into the country upon a farm which cost £1,000, and spent another £1,000 in stocking it. He has lived like a hermit in order that he might get fairly started before undertaking the responsibilities of life, and if he is conscripted all his hopes in life will be blasted, andi what will become of his farm and stock? Such men will naturally feel that they have been hardly treated when others are permitted to stay at home. There was a case in Great Britain of two brothers carrying on a tailoring business. One died, and the other continued to carry on the business for the benefit of the two families. The second brother died, and there was a son left who was striving as best he could to carry on the business to maintain his mother and his aunt. That young man was dragged away to the war, and the business was allowed to go. Those people must feel that they have been dealt with very harshly. Scores of such cases might be cited, and it is inevitable that they should create great dissatisfaction and the suspicion of unfair discrimination. Let us now see what happens to men of wealth. I take three cases for illustration. A is a young man who by his skill and intelligence is capable of earning ?1,000 a year. He enlists. He may lose an arm or a leg, or he may be killed; but, unless he returns unscathed, his capacity to earn ?1,000 a year has gone. B is a wealthy man who invests a sum in the war loan sufficient to return him an income of ?1,000 a year, which is exempt from income tax. He continues- his investment, and it continues to return ?1,000 a year to himself and to his children after him. C possesses wealth in the form of houses and land which return him a yearly income of ?1,000. He is not satisfied with that income, and increases his rents, and thus secures a greater income. Can there be any equality of sacrifice in these circumstances ? The man with the wealth in houses and land is made secure, and his position is improved by the action of the man who has invested his money in the war loan, and of the other who has gone to fight for him while he remains at home. I wish to refer now to a matter which, so far, has not been touched upon during the debate. I asked a question the other day about the basis on which it is proposed to make the levy. I wished to know whether it was to be the total population of each State or military district, or the manhood of military age in each district, or State. The Minister was good enough to tell me that the matter was under consideration. I took the last Year-Book giving actual figures - those of the 1911 census - and made a comparison between the two smallest military districts - the States of Western Australia and Tasmania. This is how the comparison worked out. The total population of Western Australia then was 282,114, and the total population of Tasmania 191,211, the relative proportions being, within an infinitesimal fraction, 60 and 40. The total males in Western Australia numbered 165,201, and in Tasmania 100,026, the relative proportions being 62 and 38. Coming to males between the ages of twenty-one and fortyfive, the section to whom we must particularly direct our attention, the number in Western Australia was 72,569, and in Tasmania 32,779, the relative proportions being 69 and 31. Putting these figures in another way, I find that if Tasmania had the same proportion of males of military age of her total population as Western Australia had at that time, instead of their number being 32,779, it would have been 42,13S, or an increase of 9,350. It must be obvious, in view of these figures, that if we are going to make a demand upon any State for men it should not be on the basis of total population, but on the basis of males of military age. It has been said that more is intended by the Government proposal than the conscription of men for military service during the term of the war. It is suggested that there is reason to fear that we shall have something in the nature of industrial conscription. Some honorable senators have made quotations from various sources which seem to justify that fear. I have picked out one or two promiscuously. I find that Benjamin Kidd, the famous author, says -

I have not much hope that once compulsion is introduced we shall get free of it after the war. There are many of the advocates of conscription who press it for purely military reasons, but there are others - some of the chief of them have frankly admitted as much to me - who desire it as the only weapon against the growing power of the trade unions. And it is in that direction that conscription must inevitably tend.

Lt.Colonel Maxwell, referring to England, says ;

The abuse of personal freedom has reached its climax in this country. Trade unionism - that shelter for slinking shirkers - is imperilling our existence, and by its action a rot of our national soul has set in. One remedy, and one alone, can eradicate this state of rot- martial law can cure it. With the knowledge that refusal to assist in the nation’s defence means death to the individual so refusing, the shirkers would soon be brought to their senses, and fall in wherever required . If all who incited to rebellion were shot at once by drumhead court martial, it would have a steadying effect.

John. Bull j a weekly paper, makes this statement -

The miners who refuse to work must be conscripted - put under military control aud made to work at soldiers’ pay. That is the way they do things in Germany, and that is the way we must do them here.

I take another quotation from a speech made by Mr. Cuthbertson, at the South Melbourne Council. He said -

Everywhere the want of conscription was marked, particularly in industrial circles, where employees had wrung concessions from employers, which, under other conditions, would never bo granted.

Here is another quotation, from Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge -

Compulsory service was necessary at this time when the people were getting out of hand.

The following statement is from a British capitalistic paper, the Engineer -

The introduction of female labour might be used so as to lead to a lowering of the rates of payments for services. The fact of the matter is not that women are paid too little, but that men are paid too much for work which can bo done without previous training, lt is only the trade unions which, after the war, will stand in the way of our realizing the anticipation that we might be able to reduce our workshop costs by the employment of women. Much depends on the attitude of the women themselves. If they can be brought to see the economic advantages to the country, to recognise the facts that we have put forward, and agree to accept a lower scale of wages than skilled men, they may, by their preponderance of numbers, be in a position to defy the unions.

But I would like also to read a few words from Dr. Clifford, who is regarded as one of the greatest divines and preachers in Great Britain. He says -

Admit conscription, and a Kaiser will not be far behind. Surrender your free military service, and you are on a downward road. Your free Parliament will follow. Your free press will be in danger; indeed, it is in great danger now; and if I read aright my experience in Germany twenty years ago, your free speech will follow. Hold with Huxley that it is better for a man to do wrong in freedom than to do right in chains.

About the conscription of wealth, the editor of the Economist has the following comment -

It is morally right that the anguish of the soldiers at the front should be associated with some privation at home, and that no nation, least df all a Democracy, should be allowed to enjoy an illusory prosperity during war.

I think Senator Millen quoted Mr. Blatchford this afternoon, and I would like to do the same, for I want to show that Mr. Blatchford said more than was quoted by the honorable senator. Here is something that Mr. Blatchford said since he made the statement referred to by Senator Millen -

There are still tens of thousands of adult women, many of them legally forbidden to leave employment–

It has been the invariable experience of Labour, ever since it came into political existence in the Commonwealth, to find the powerful daily press consistently opposed to every object it had in view, and if one looks backward’s for twenty-five years it is impossible to find amongst the planks on the Labour platform a single one that was supported by the daily press. I do not expect that the anticonscriptionists will have a fair field in the coming fight. We have only to look at the reports already published in the press to know that they will continue their past mode of campaign until October next.

Senator Lynch:

– You have not been at the Yarra-bank yet, or you would know what liberty of speech is.

Senator GRANT:

– I have not, but’ I may get there yet.

Senator Blakey:

– There was no liberty of speech at the Melbourne Town Hall last night.

Senator GRANT:

– I understand that the ordinary citizen could not get admission to the Town Hall, and that there were foot and mounted police about the building to see that law and order were faithfully maintained. To-day is published the speech by the Prime Minister, and that, no doubt, has been circulated throughout the Commonwealth. I expect nothing else from the daily press. There is no doubt that the views of the anti-conscriptionists have been most unfairly suppressed by both the daily press and the censors, acting on instructions from the Commonwealth Government. I am glad to note, however, that the censorship, apparently, has been relaxed to a considerable extent, and, possibly, when it is realized that Labour will win this fight, at least a few of the powerful morning papers will cross over to the right side before the day of reckoning comes. That already appears to be the case with one paper which has a great number of readers. I should like to refer to what I consider a most unfair action on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald. I may be excused for quoting a New South Wales paper occasionally, for it is positively nauseating to hear the Age and Argus quoted in this chamber on every occasion. This is a short extract from a letter I received in regard to the censorship to which the anti-conscriptionists have been subjected -

Anyhow, to fully discuss the referendum the people would need to have the full details of the situation placed before them, .which, of course, lias never been done, and will not be done. To show the awful misrepresentation which is going on with regard to this question, I would direct you to the Sydney Morning Herald of the 20th September. In the summary of this issue a statement is made that at the annual conference of the Local Government Association a resolution in favour of conscription was carried.

I had a good look at the delegates, and, with a few exceptions, they appeared to be fit in every respect to go to the front. The letter continued -

The Herald has also a leader, taking the above statement as its text. In that leader they state - “In our midst this week the Local Government Association of Kew South Wales is holding its annual meeting, and at the opening of its thirty-fifth conference at the Southern Cross Hall yesterday morning, the delegates signalized the occasion by passing a resolution in favour of conscription without a single dissentient.”

Just imagine the impertinence of these gentlemen, after passing that motion, agreeing to the following resolution : -

That this conference expresses its disapproval of the proposal to extend the parliamentary franchise to shire and municipal elections.

– The referendum being a plank of the Labour party, an important question like conscription should be referred to the people. The objection has been raised that men beyond the fighting age, women, and others who will not be called upon to fight, are to vote at the proposed referendum. But, notwithstanding this, I am prepared to refer this matter to the electors as a whole. I am glad that the Government have discovered that it will be easy to provide for the voting of our soldiers. Some think that they will give a block vote for “ Yes,” and others hold a contrary opinion ; but in either case, they should have their “ say.” It has been suggested that, while the workers are opposed to compulsory service, they themselves have not gone to the front, yet nothing could be more untrue. The bulk of those under arms are unionists. We have it on good authority that 30,000 members of the Australian Workers Union, 1,500 members of the Sydney Wharf Labourers

Union, and 500 members of the Coal Lumpers Union have enlisted. On the other hand, you find the ranks of the Pastoralists Association and similar organizations unbroken.

Senator Shannon:

– That is incorrect; but if it were true, the honorable senator should vote for conscription to make them go-

Senator GRANT:

– There is one other question about which I wish to speak. Hitherto we have met the expenses of the war by borrowing from abroad, and, more recently, in Australia. Strong objection was taken to the payment of 4£ per cent, for money borrowed in Australia.

Senator Findley:

– And to the exemption of interest from taxation.

Senator GRANT:

– What a silly thing it would have been to pay a man 4$ per cent, on a loan to the Government, and then to impose a tax on the interest! If the rate of interest is too high, why not pay less ? But I regard as foolish the proposal to pay a man to collect per cent, from the bondholders by way of income tax. The circumlocution is unbusiness-like. The suggestion made in this chamber some time ago that no interest should be paid on our war loans did not meet with my approval. Even in war time I do not think that we can get men to give their money voluntarily free of interest. We have sufficient from the last war loan to meet our requirements for three or four months; but we must look ahead to see how the balance of the expenditure on the war can be met. Unfortunately, the Government cannot propose land values taxation without exemption without violating the platform of the Labour party, which contains the provision that a man who owns £5,000 worth of land shall not contribute to the Commonwealth land tax. Some people would strike a level in every person’s salary and sweep the balance of his earnings into the war pool; but it would be most unfair to fix that level at £300 per annum, and take £700 from the man who earned £1,000 per annum, and allow the nian owning £5,000 worth of land to escape without any payment. That method of taxation does not appeal to me. I hope that the Government will bring down a proposal to deal with the matter in an uptodate way. I have a suggestion which would get over the difficulty of violating the platform of the Labour party. It may be heresy on my part, and a departure from my previously expressed views in regard to land values taxation; but these are war times, and we require an immense amount of money. We need approximately £2,000,000 a week under present circumstances, and if the opponents of Labour succeed in conscripting another 200,000 men before July next, we shall need about £3,000,000 a week. How are we to get the money ? I do not think that this Chamber will consider any proposal to borrow more money at 4£ per cent. The only people from whom we can get money are those who have it. Many persons favour the imposition of the wealth tax. I believe as a means of taxation that it is economically quite unsound; but, as I have said before, these are war times. Mr. Knibbs has assured us that the privately-owned wealth of the Commonwealth is about £1,000,000,000. An annual lew of 10 per cent, on that wealth would produce a revenue of £100,000,000, which would pay the expenses of the war week by week without placing any responsibility on posterity. Some talk of equality of sacrifice, but the risk of losing one’s life is not equalled by the sacrifice of some of the wealth one possesses, and Parliament should have the courage to impose a straight out levy of 10 per cent, on the wealth of the community, enabling the Government to pay handsomely those who go to the front, and those who suffer through the absence of their breadwinners.

Senator Findley:

– There are different forms of wealth ; to what does the honorable senator refer?

Senator GRANT:

– To ships, buildings, script land values, cash, and all similar commodities. If we call it a wealth tax, and allow no exemptions, land values will be called upon to pay 2s. in the £1. I admit that it would be an extraordinary tax, but at a time when we ask the most robust men in the country to sacrifice their lives, the owners of wealth would willingly pay up. I do not know what the proposals of the Government are with regard to the taxation which they consider necessary to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth, but I put forward that suggestion. It is not quite in my line, because I do not like to stray from the straight path of land values taxation. If the Government increase the income tax or bring forward a wealth tax we shall probably support them, but as no person should be exempt from taxation in war time, I hope that they will have the courage to tax all land values without exemption. If they do so they will do more to keep open the avenues of employment than any other scheme they can propose. I realize that no matter what taxation is imposed it will have to be paid by the workers. Only those who can produce can pay. Therefore, I fail to understand the strong opposition that is always offered to the most equitable scheme of land values taxation on which I have spoken so often. I conclude by saying that I regard the question that has been engaging our attention this evening as the most important that has ever been before the Commonwealth Parliament. We want more men and more money. I do not want to get the men by conscription, and I shall fight against it for all I am worth, because I believe that we can get them by voluntary effort. The proper amount of attention has not been given to the matter of recruiting by voluntary effort. It is absolutely wrong to .call any man a shirker. The war has been in progress for over two years, and the work of recruiting had scarcely begun before some people were abusing those who stood back, and calling them shirkers. These men who stood back are now in the firing line, and those who are now standing back will be in the firing line to-morrow. That there are very few shirkers in Australia is proved by the enormous number who have gone freely. I am satisfied that we can get all the men we require by the voluntary system, and all the men we should send to the front.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– We cannot emphasize too much the fact that this is a grave issue, because the more we realize its gravity, the more need we shall see for clearing away the mists of prejudice and applying to its solution all our mental powers and faculties. It is the gravest question that has been dealt with in this country since the time the native race was in undisturbed possession of this spot; and in this country’s future history it is doubtful whether any turning point will equal in importance that which we have now arrived at. Certainly none will ever surpass it. The question being so momentous, I would impress upon every honorable senator the indispensable necessity of casting from his mind every possible trace of prejudice or prepossession, because if he proceeds to discuss the question with an unprepared mind, he is simply trifling with himself and with the future destiny of his country. It is necessary that we should have the utmost freedom of thought and speech in dealing with the question. I believe we shall have it. If we do not get it in this freedomloving Commonwealth, there is no chance of having it in any part of the world. But a strong element of those who clamour so loudly for freedom of speech and thought, that priceless possession which every individual enjoys in an advanced community like ours, is made up, of the very ones who are not conceding it to others. Those who demand freedom of speech should at least set the example by conceding to the members of this Parliament in settling this question the same precious possession that they are claiming for themselves.

I need not tell you, sir, as an old campaigner, what it means to have the right to express your thoughts. You have come through a long, sinuous, and difficult way. You can recall the time when you sacrificed much to obtain for yourself freedom of speech, thought, and action. Many a time men belonging to this party sacrificed a great deal for the sake of being able to speak their thoughts ; and when a tyrannical employer sent some of us on the track towards the western sun, with our bluey on our back, we went because we wanted what all free men want - the precious right to say what we thought. As the result of the efforts made by you and other veterans in the party, we reached a time when freedom of speech was possible; but now, strange to say, a section of the very party, one of whose main credentials to popular favour is the fact that it made real in this country freedom of speech and freedom of thought, is seeking to stifle it. It is indeed strange that a party such as ours, which has risen for the purpose of giving every individual liberty of thought, speech, and action, now that it has come to the zenith of its glory and power, should produce men who are ambitious to usurp the place of the tyrannical employer who sacked you and me and hundreds of other veterans. Is it thinkable?

Is it possible? It has come to this. It is believable.

In the first year of his popularity the pathway of the patriot is “ roses, roses all the way,” as Browning has it; but as the years go on, it becomes more and more difficult, until he meets at length the thorns, the shambles, and the gallows. So it is with those of us who have helped to build up this movement, whose ambition was to gain freedom of thought and speech, and who now find an attempt made to “gag” us, to seal our lips, to stifle our reason, to choke the well springs of thought, and deny us the right in this Parliament to say what we think should be done in order to steer this young nation of ours through the troubled waters she is in to-day. I cannot believe even now that the attempt will succeed. I believe there is still a balance of common sense in the world, that there still exists sufficient sense of fair play and fair dealing to insure that no such attempt to snatch from the individual that precious weapon which the Labour party has been instrumental in obtaining will be tolerated. I hope these words of mine, feeble though they may be, will reach corners that badly need reaching, and that those who have done this thing will see that their position can only be judged rightly by comparison. You can judge the action of any man only by juxtaposition, as the diamond shows its lustre best when the counterfeit is placed alongside it. These patriots think they have expressed the last word. They can be made to feel the untenableness of their position only ‘by reminding them that their true friends are candid men, if I may include myself. That reminder should bring them to a sense of reason. It is a hard, cruel path that they must tread. But when some persons take up a false position they can be made to see their error only by sundering friendships, even if they have lasted for a life-time. Better let friendship perish forever than that truth and wisdom should be submerged. The suppression of what is right is no less heinous when done by a majority than when done by the most besotted tyrant. These men who have so sadly strayed from the correct course of action must be brought back to it, or my friendship with them will be sundered Those of us who have struggled and slaved throughout the country, when we could have enjoyed ourselves if we had taken a more selfish view of life, are not the men to be told, at the instance of a section of our party, that we must get down to the level of poor dog Tray on an issue that has never been definitely before the electors. I am not going to become poor dog Tray yet. I have done some stone-breaking in my time in the Northern State, and would go back and break stones there to the end of my life before I would stoop to obey the orders of this irresponsible body on this greatest of issues. In this debate I shall, I am afraid, have to take up my wonted role of turning the other cheek to the smiter, although it is possible that on occasions, if I am tried too hard, I shall smite back.

I support the measure for the referendum and shall support the carrying of the question in the affirmative, as a true, staunch, and convinced Labourite of 26 years standing, believing that by its passage by an overwhelming majority the best and most permanent interests of the party will- be served. I support it also, because I am an Irish rr an. It is necessary to speak on this point, because I have been criticised by some in a contentious spirit, occasionally bordering on the bitter. They ask why I support this measure of conscription, seeing that, as an Irishman, I should be opposed to it. Some people think the mere mention of conscription to an Irishman should be like a red rag to a bull. I am supporting it because I am an Irishman, in addition to supporting it because I am a firm believer in that political party which has come into existence to work out the social regeneration of the toilers of this country.

A few facts bearing upon my reason for supporting it as an Irishman may be of interest. I support it because the policy now in operation in Australia has been in operation in the Old Country down the weary years. Because of its iniquitous operation in the island of my nativity, I am against it, so long as I have breath left in me. I do not care what my grandfather, or my father, thought about it, much as I cherish their memory. I am not here to glorify the system of voluntarism as it is sought to be perpetuated in this country. . I do -not regard it as a law written in the sky, which I must bow down to and adore. It is no true deity to me. To me it is a false god, and never shall I stoop down and burn incense before this false god. “ Tablet of the old law,” they call it. It is no tablet of the old law to me. If it is, I am here to smash it into atoms with all the force I can command. I shall do so because, wherever it has been tried, with but one or two exceptions, it has proved iniquitous, barbarous, and unsuccessful.

I have said that I support conscription because I am an Irishman. I support it from that point of view because the operation of voluntarism, where I was« born, bred, and reared, was the means of “drawing off the best blood of that country - just as it is doing here to-day - -t; be spilt on foreign battle-fields. While Irish blood has thus been drawn off and spilt by the gallon on foreign battle-fields, the blood of other component parts of the Empire, especially the predominant partner, has been spilt only by the thimbleful. It is because I believe that it is not right to spill the blood of one section of the Empire by the gallon, and to allow the blood of other sections of it to be spilt sparingly, that I, as” an Irishman, support conscription. I support it because I believe that any one who has a regard for the future prosperity of this glorious country in which we live - the best, the brightest, and the freest on God’s earth - must do so if he truly desires to serve it. I object to voluntarism in Australia on the same ground that I object to its application to Ireland. Believing, as I do, that the best blood of Ireland has been drawn off by voluntarism, and made to fertilize the fields of Europe, imparting to the green corn of spring a still greener hue by reason of the sacred element it fed upon, shall I stand idly by and see the best blood of this country taken out of it in the same way? Never ! Never ! To do so would be contrary to all reason. It would be to follow the reasoning of a school girl of the meanest intelligence to assert that the best blood of Australia remains in the country to-day. No one can say that the blood of those who were the first to take their place in the fighting line is not the best that Australia has produced. It is because of the iniquitous draft that it has made on the blood of my native land that I, as an Irishman, object to voluntarism, and it is because I am here as an adopted Australian, prepared to let my bones rest in this, the brightest, the freest, and the best country in the world, that I object to such a system having any further ravaging effect upon the manhood of the Commonwealth.

Let me come now to a few figures showing what Ireland has done in the way of supplying the fighting forces of the Empire. They may open the eyes of a lot of people, for the first time, on the subject. I have gone back to the figures relating to the British Army ii’ the last century, in order to find out in what proportion the component parts of the United Kingdom - England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales - have contributed to the Army. The figures oscillate, so to speak, but it will be found upon examination that they substantially bear out my contention. Unfortunately, the authorities that I have been able to consult are not complete in the information they supply. I begin with the figures of 1804, when the Peninsular war was going on. We find that in that year the population of England and Wales, according to Clode’s Military Forces of the Crown, page 384, was in round numbers 8.892,536; that of Scotland, 1,608,420; and that of Ireland, 5,395,456, and that the recruits obtained under the operation of the Army Reserves Act were 5,7S2 in England and Wales, 1,183 in Scotland, and 4,078 in Ireland. On a population “basis the number of recruits from Ireland was 16 per cent, more than in the case of England and Wales, and 3 per cent, more than in the case of Scotland. I have not been able to ascertain the composition of the British Army at that time. I endeavoured to do so, because it was my desire to have absolute facts to go upon, and to be standing on solid granite in submitting this contention. The next period to which I come is 1830, and in respect of that year I have the figures for the total Army. The population of England and Wales at that time was 13,896,797, Scotland 2,364,386, and Ireland 7,767,401. The contribution of England and “Wales to the infantry section - the main portion - of the British Army -was 40,649, Scotland 11,744, and Ireland 40,979. In other words, Ireland, with a population of 6,000,000 less than that of England and Wales, supplied 300 more soldiers to the infantry section of the British Army. And yet there are honorable senators of my party who tell me that because I am an Irishman I should be opposed to conscription. Taking the figures for the whole of the Forces, we find that in 1830, under voluntarism, Ireland contributed 71 per cent, more than did England and Wales to the infantry of the British Army. I have not had time to work out the percentage in the case of Scotland, but it was very slight. My last reference is to the figures for 1904. In that year the fighting men contributed by England and Wales to the British Army was .6 per cent, of the population. The. percentage in the case of Scotland was .47 per cent., and in the case of Ireland .7 per cent. There is again an increase in the percentage quota, Ireland supplying 16 per aGent. more than England and Wales, and 49 per cent, more than Scotland. So that at those three separate periods of the last century Ireland was far in the van in supplying the fighting men of the Empire. Ireland has always been to the front in fighting for the Empire, but not in the front, unfortunately, so far, in obtaining justice from that Empire. It is because I am here, and because of my name, that I am opposed to this rotten system of voluntarism. The best recruiting authorities always sent the recruiting sergeant to Ireland to fill the ranks of the British Army. Henry Grattan, the Irish patriot, said that of Nelson’s fighting forces, numbering 75,000, one-half were Irishmen, while the Duke of Wellington, when the Catholic Emancipation Bill was being debated in the House of Commons, said that one-half of the army that followed him from Portugal to Waterloo were Roman Catholics. That may not be considered quite conclusive as to the number of Irishmen who followed him, but it substantiates in the main my contention that Ireland, as an integral part of the Empire, has in the past willingly spilt more than a fair share of her blood in winning those battles that have brought fame and power and wealth to the Empire.

Having said so much on this phase of the subject, I leave it with the statement that it is because I am an Irishman that I am opposed to a system that has worked so barbarously in the Old Country, and is working so iniquitously here. I shall deal now with a few favorite illusions. We do not know exactly where we stand in regard to these things. Men hold opinions which they believe to be solid, but which are really illusions masquerading as sound ideas, when they have in reality naught but a substratum of ether for their foundation. If we want to do justice to ourselves, we must stand in this .chamber as thinking men, having knowledge, reason, and experience as our guides, and not as schoolgirls of the meanest intelligence in dealing with questions of this kind. We must have chapter andverse for our beliefs; we must have reasons for the faith that is in us if we have any pretence to sanity or mentality. The first illusion to which I want to refer is the opinion amongst Labourites that voluntarism is right and that conscription is wrong. That is really a delusion and an illusion, based on nothing more substantial than thin air, and it ought not to stand as an unchanged and unchangeable opinion. We are asked, however, to accept it as gospel truth, and those who have the temerity to oppose it in any form, we are told, should be anathema to the Labour party. That is what we shall come to. You, sir, having regard to what has been done in one State, should not be in the chair to-night. That is the pass to which we have come. So eternal has the rightness of this opinion on the question of voluntarism come to be regarded that it dare not be looked at. We must approach it with bowed head and bared feet. But the opinions of the Labour party to-day, like nature itself, are undergoing constant change. There is no phenomena in the physical world, no verity so well marked, as the fact that there is nothing so unchangeable as change. Voluntarism, with its doubtful origin, its bad pedigree, its evil associations and evil work, in this free Democracy, will not stand examination. Let me tell those of our party who say, “Do not dare to differ from tis on this question,” that we have been changing our opinions repeatedly and for excellent reasons. I shall give them, a few homely illustrations, proving that it re- ‘ quires only the test of time to show up the ridiculousness, the hollowness, and the utter falsity of a position that we may once have occupied.

The Labour party in this chamber once thought, in its wisdom, that to secure for it the best prospects and to insure for it the highest destiny, they should vote for the system of plumping. The present Minister for Defence took a leading part amongst those who believed that nothing could save this party unless the electors were given the power to plump. The battle was fought in this Parliament in a way that we all well remember. What has since happened? The position to-day is that instead of our party standing for the principle of plumping, the Opposition, who were once against it, and who struck at its very vitals, are clamouring for its adoption. Time proved that plumping was not to our advantage, although we held some years ago that it was. We believed in it then just as firmly as many in our party to-day hold that voluntarism is the proper system to adopt in raising our forces. Although the Labour movement had not then assumed its regular outlines of to-day, although it was not then the thoroughly highly-organized party that it is to-day, with various methods and devices for ruling itself, it did exist before its formal inauguration. It existed m various ways and forms throughout this continent. There was a time when this party lived, so to speak, in a fledgling state, or, to go still further back, in a germinal state. At a time when the party was advancing from the germ to the fledgling, and gradually to the fully-fledged noble eagle it now is in the aviary of the world’s politics, its members were radically opposed to the opinion which Labour holds to-day on one most vital point. Trade unionism, before the party assumed power in the political history of this country, held the fixed belief that to introduce politics into its ranks would be to destroy it. I remember hearing Mr. Twomey, President of the Seamen’s Union, make the statement in the Protestant Hall, Sydney, shortly before the 1890 strike, that “ The moment you introduced politics into trades unionism you would burst it up. To introduce politics would be worse than to introduce religion into it.” That was the all-pervading opinion on that point then. So that this movement, when it comprised better spirits than exist in its ranks to-day, had the fixed view that politics should be tabooed from all trade unions. We have changed right round from that opinion to-day. We are standing now at the other pole; and the reason we are here, thirty-one out of thirty-five senators, is that we have cast aside the old opinions as no good.

And what was the case in regard to Federation in New South Wales, when the death-warrant to Labour members was signed? They were told that they must not vote for Federation, and even Sleath and Ferguson were expelled, or threatened to be expelled, because of a false belief as to what was in the interests of the Labour movement. Time has proved that Sleath and Ferguson were right, and the Labour movement, good and sound as it was in every way else, absolutely wrong and mistaken, as our presence here to-night testifies. In minor matters what has happened? Let us remember the former attitude of Labour in regard to the borrowing policy. How often have we paraded up and down the country, and declared for no borrowing, except on the most economical and stingy scale? Have we adhered to the policy we then advocated? Have we adhered to our former policy in regard to land nationalization? Do we still believe in the un alienation of Crown lands? There have been Labour Governments in power time and again which have not brought that reform about, simply because their reasoning has been brought to bear on this article of faith. These incidents prove that the Labour movement, in itscentral, germinal ideas, has suffered change; that the grand old touchstone of time has made change inevitable, aye, inescapable. Because we dare to throw doubts on a supposed unalterable principle we are anathema - branded as were the slaves in South Carolina. No advance has ever been made without some sacrifice, and the men who will not make that sacrifice fail to recognise that sense of solemn duty that would right the situation.

But the time is coming when the voice of Labour will again ring true, just as the voice of Labour is ringing in Western Australia to-day. It is recognised there that in the social sphere of action we cannot be governed except by our head. In times like these that head is like the captain of a ship - from the skin-covered craft of median, al times to the modern ship of to-day - who sees the movements of the vessel better than can the man on the quarter-deck or in the stokehold. Both Senator Guthrie and myself have had some experience of sea, and when I was in the stokehold I did not take upon myself to advise the man on top, because 1 trusted him as the one on whose judgment my safety rested. In the opinion of Labour men in Western Australia the leaders have a better chance of sizing up the position from every stand-point, with their wider powers of observation, and, above all, with that absolute confidence we have in them that they will not play false to their trust. They have trusted their leaders in the past, and in this crucial hour they are prepared to trust them still. The people of Western Australia know that the information that is in the mind of the Prime Minister cannot be divulged, any more than oan the information that is in the mind of every leading power of the earth to-day - that years must pass before these secrets can be revealed for the sake of the nation’s safety. I am sorry beyond the power of speech to think that members of this’ Chamber should take advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister cannot give the public all the information that has been placed at his disposal. Every sane man knows that, in the interests of safety, there are things that must be left unsaid in the present situation.

Our history shows that the laws of the Labour party have not been those of the Medes and Persians, but have been in keeping with human progress. Newman said that life was change - that to approach perfection was to change often; but now those who dare to support the present Government are told to sign or resign on an issue that was never before the people, and one that, transcends any issue that ever was or could be before them. Never was an issue so grave presented to us : and yet we have all this fiddling and juggling with figures in order to sustain a position that is in mid-air.

– Yes ; they have boasted of it from a thousand platforms. They stand condemned as hypocrites if they say that conscription for foreign service means wage slavery, the breaking up of unionism, and the conscription -of workers, while at the same time they have allowed this positive agency to bring about the same result - to remain on their platform for the last fourteen or fifteen years. They must admit that, to give the power to conscript men for home service, will not produce wage slavery, or that they have been face to face with an evil instrument all these years, holding over the toilers of Australia the power to menace and destroy their freedom, and have made no attempt to remove it. My friends express their dissent, but I have them in the vice, and they must stop there and squeal as they please. They have to admit that the power to conscript has not this evil influence as applied to home service, or that they have been grossly recreant to their trust in not removing it from their platform, and have been posing as hypocrites for the last fourteen years. I leave them to their choice of these alternatives.

That is another illusion gone.

I come now to deal with a further grand illusion. I have been linked up with Mr. Joseph Cook and Sir William Irvine, and others like them. I was on the platform last night with a few of them. Because I was there doubts have been cast upon my genuineness as a Labour man. According to the reasoning of some of these people, no matter what Mr. Joseph Cook and Senator Millen say, there must be something evil and malign in it. They forget entirely that these men have supported measures for which we have ourselves voted, and that they never then objected to their company. During the last fifteen years in this Parliament members of our party in the Senate have from time to time been found in company with men of the other side; but some of our friends have discovered only now, when honorable senators opposite support this Bill, and are in favour of conscription, that we who are in agreement with them are in the company of something that means red ruin. My honorable friends cannot have the thing both ways. They cannot discover evil design now in association with honorable senators opposite, when on former occasions when it suited their purpose they gladly went wholly into their embrace on many an issue, minor or major though it may have been in character. According to the logic of these men, if Mr. Joseph Cook sent forward a message to the people of Australia that men should love their wives, that would be a reason why every Labourite in the country should turn wife-beater. I do not subscribe to that kind of doctrine. I can conceive circumstances when it may be not only possible, but absolutely necessary, in the interests of the common safety, for men of all shades of differences of opinion, political, religious, or otherwise, to cone together.

I do not know whether any honorable senator present has been shipwrecked. Senator Guthrie, my old seaman colleague, may have escaped, but , I was shipwrecked once, and on another occasion was so close to it as to realize the stern reality of imminent danger to life as a terrible thing. “When the call to clear the life-boat came at 2 o’clock in the morning, in the midst of a terrific South Sea Island hurricane, when I was on the old Birksgate, and the rudder head was broken, I realized what it meant to be face to face with death. I realized, also, that there was no room for differences of opinion when it was a question of the safety of the whole. The imminent prospect was that the tyrannical skipper might be Joseph Cook, but he must pull on the same oar with Lynch, the A..B. There was no room for differences of opinion there.

Senator Millen:

– And no room for the shirker either.

Senator LYNCH:

– No room in the boat for the shirker, but plenty of room outside of it, and that is where he would have to go, quick and lively. Just as happens to a ship’s company when they have to desert a ship under stress of circumstances, sp when the nation is faced with peril we must fling to the winds prejudice, opinions, and preconceived ideas in the interests of national safety, and there is no room then for the man who stands in the way of united effort - there is no room in the lifeboat for the men who will not take a hand at the oars.

I come no w to the illusion about the conscription of married men. We have men in this chamber so tenderly solicitous for the married people of the Commonwealth that they fear for the poor married man who may be conscripted as a result of the passage of this Bill and the carrying of the referendum in the affirmative. Let me remind these men, who would like to safeguard the married men of Australia, that they have not been safeguarded under the voluntary system. There are at least 30,000 fatherless homes in Australia to-day because of our cowardice in hesitating to bring into operation a system of conscription. If it had been adopted those lost fathers would be with their wives and families in Australia to-night. We have honorable senators keenly solicitous because married men are going to be drawn upon under conscription when the available single men have been exhausted. Certainly, married men will be drawn upon, as in every country in the world that means to be free, but they are less likely to be drawn upon here if the 150,000 robust single men who could fight, but up to the present have not toed the scratch, had gone to the front. Rather than allow this country to go down, rather than desert our glorious flag, with its Southern Cross of stars, typical of man’s spiritual redemption, and typical alike of man’s social redemption in this land; rather than suffer it to be replaced by the twoheaded eagle, with cruel beak and claws, the fitting symbol of the soulless, relentless, fiendish spirit of the enemies of our country, the married men of the Commonwealth will rush to our colours for the defence of Australia. We who are supporting the Government proposal are defending the married section of the community more effectively than are those who will vote against this Bill, and will vote “No” to the question to be submitted to the people at the referendum. I will tell honorable senators why I say that.

This Bill is introduced and the referendum is proposed for the purpose of making good the ‘shortages due to the inadequacy of the volunteer system to supply the men we require. If we do not fill the gaps in our ranks and supply the 16,500 men required per month, if this Bill is not passed, and, unfortunately, this country should haul down its fla.<r, the married men will be called upon still. By the passage of this Bill, and the carrying of the referendum in the affirmative, we shall draw upon the single men section of the community, and when they fill the gaps in our ranks to the required number, the married men will be safe. This is a safer policy for the married men of Australia than is the policy of those who are opposed to this Bill. Honorable senators cannot deny that by the passage of this Bill, and the carrying of the referendum in the affirmative, we will do more to safeguard the married men of Australia than will those who oppose the Bill, who vote “ No “ at the referendum. So much for that illusion. It is high and dry on the rocks with its ribs stove. in. I am sorry that it should have been submitted amongst intelligent men in this Chamber as an argument against the Government proposal. This Bill, and an affirmative decision at the referendum, will save the married men of Australia as long as they can be saved. Without the Bill and without an affirmative vote they will be drawn upon still. Do the anti-conscriptionists want that? If they don’t, then they should drop their hollow pretence of sympathy for married men.

I come now to examine the voluntary system. I said that I would have something to say about it. We have to decide whether we will continue the voluntary system or turn over a new leaf and replace it by another system. I can refer honorable senators to the history of the voluntary system in the Old Country. Let me tell them that the voluntary system, a? such, was never yet responsible for the winning of a war worth remembering by the British Empire. However strange that may appear to honorable senators, it is true. Let that soak into their minds. Side by side with the system under which the redcoated recruiting sergeant was sent into the poverty-stricken homes of Ireland, where the people eat seaweed, and to the industrial centres of England and Scotland, amongst -people living upon the most meagre fare and becoming degenerate,

England had to rely upon going abroad to hire man butchers, mercenaries who fought for pay. This was the result of the iniquitous and cowardly policy of voluntarism that has failed in its purpose for so long. I could give honorable senators plenty of proof of what I have said. It is confirmed in brief fashion by a quotation from Clode’s Military Forces of the Crown, vol. 2, page 435, which I find at page 163 of Britain’s First Duty, by George F. Shee, in these terms -

Suffice it to say that foreign troops were largely employed by the British Government at various periods from the Revolution (1688) down to the Crimean War, the last occasion on which such troops were used by us.

I remind honorable senators that 1688 was about the time when the feudal period came to an end and industrial England began. Bight from the start it is clear that the voluntary system has failed to sustain the Empire’s cause in any war. i quote further -

In 1813 nearly 54,000 foreign mercenaries were serving in our Army; and Clode says that the numbers we employed from 1804 to 1813 were small as compared with those engaged by us in earlier wars.

So that 54,000 was a small number as compared with the number of mercenaries employed by Great Britain in earlier wars. These were employed side by side with the voluntary system, which, we are told, has been the salvation of the Empire. Never! The facts of history stand out like Wilson’s Promontory to contradict such a hollow sham every time. Quoting further, Clode says -

Our Continental wars were, I apprehend, usually fought with foreign rather than with native (i.e., British) troops.

– The so-called anticonscriptionists are exposed now, and J shall follow to the last ditch to point out the hollowness and blazing hypocrisy of their pretences, and to show that in reality they are in advance of us, more heartless and bowelless, on the conscription issue. We propose to make the physical conscript toe the line with the other man, the moral conscript, whom they term a volunteer. That I feel to be in perfect keeping with the principles of natural justice. Their spurious reasoning will not disprove the statement that by the most cruel means, by creating martyrs of the mind, they have made a certain class of voluntary soldiers moral conscripts. Principles, we are told, are to some men like high mountains raised to heaven, but when in their road they bore a tunnel through them.

Another interesting phase of the question is the opposition which has come from that extreme section of the Labour party called Socialists. The policy of this Bill is perfectly compatible with Socialism. Its principle, indeed, is ideal Socialism. Voluntarism is opposed to Socialism, repugnant to its very essence and seminal purpose; conscription, on the other hand, is ideal Socialism. Socialism, if it means anything, means that the will of the individual must be subordinated to the common will and to the common weal. To put an individual above society is, accord ing to the doctrines of Socialism, preposterous. In the ideal social state - and I have read as many pictures of it as I could find in works of all kinds, from Plutarch’s Lives and St. Augustine’s City of God to More’s Utopia - even the minor activities of life are governed according to the will of the majority. But it is the roof that covers and protects the building ; it is the roof that gives it security. When a society becomes insecure, it is in danger of perishing. Yet we are told that when the all-important issue of existence is to be settled, society can no longer subordinate the individual will to the common weal. The individual is then to put himself above the society, and it is to be saved, not by those who can and ought to fight for it, but by those who may. That, in truth, is not Socialism, but individualism - individualism rampant and carried to an extreme of dizzy absurdity. According to the canons of Socialism, in society’s minor activities, the individual has no choice, but when the very life of society itself is threatened the individual is told by Socialists that he can please himself about defending it. Voluntarism places the in-, dividual above society, and yet somehonorable senators hold up their handsand call it Socialism. God help Socialism if theirs is a sample of the reasoning of” Socialists, and if it is on wisdom liketheirs that the Socialists appeal to thepeople to elect them to positions of responsibility.

Then, again, Socialists say, “ The world is my country” - tra-la ! “Mankind are my brethren ‘ ‘ - tra-la ! Frontierlines ! What are they? Where are> they? Kick them aside, or rubthem out as though they weremarked with chalk. Those are theglorious doctrines which these gentlemen preach. I only hope that we shall’ so shape our policy in our small spherenf action that there will shortly be brought about that consummation of which Tennyson sang - “When the war drums beat no longer.” But what are Australian Socialists doing to achieve this muchtobedesired end? How is their vanguard acting to-day? Are they doing anything? No. On the contrary, they are preventing action from being taken by Australia. But. whose interests are at stake? Look at the situation of Europe to-day. Who is suffering there ? Is it not our brothers, our “comrades,” as they call them? Inside the German lines we have them fighting under that gallant soul, Dr. Liebknecht. He and his band are fighting our common enemy. The very fact that he is in gaolis a manifestation of the fight. He and his followers stand by the principle of Socialism, and contend against the power that must be humbled in the dust. Who are attacking that power from the front? The Socialists of France, Belgium, Italy, and Great Britain. There is a common effort by these “ comrades “ - to use the word we hear so often on the Yarra-bank - an effort made from within by Dr. Liebknecht, and from outside by the armies of the Allies, to crush, as between the hammer and the anvil, the might of German tyranny. But what are the Australian Socialists doing to help? They are not even decently neutral. As I told my fellow-Labourites at Kalgoorlie, on May Day they send their greetings to the “ comrades “ in France and in Germany, but if I were one of Dr. Liebknecht’s supporters, or one of their so-called “ comrades “ in France, I would say, when these hypocritical messages came to hand, “Damn your greetings; it is men we need to help us in this fight against our enemy and yours. . You are not assisting us in this war, and yet you call us comrades.’ Hypocritical hogwash ! Damn comradeship, if this is a sample of it.” “ Comrades !” Is it not enough to make one’s blood boil to see men content with words when there is this great struggle going on in the world to-day? Why is there not in the breasts of these persons some sleeping instinct that can be aroused, so that there may be a revolt, and an end put to these hollow pretences, these tricks that are being played under high heaven by those who masquerade as Labourites and Socialists, but are neither. They should spring instinctively to arms, as the tiger springs to protect her cubs, and show themselves true comrades, instead of professing to be comrades, and proving themselves real enemies by keeping help from those who need it. What would Dr. Liebknecht, or any French, British, or Italian Socialist say to them? They would say, “We have by our sides gallant men from Australia. They were honest enough not to call us ‘ comrades ‘ in the past, but in the hour of peril they have come to us, and have proved themselves true comrades, while you, cowards, slink in safety - like a dog with his tail between his legs in his hiding-place - 16,000 miles away. Yet you dare to call us comrades! Remember, as you have not made this war of ours your war, when we are fighting as much for your freedom as for our own, do not expect us to make your war, when it comes, any concern of ours. But we will . promise when your war comes to call you ‘ comrades,’ and send ‘ greetings ‘ to help you through.” Language fails me. I cannot adequately express my indignation at the extraordinary hypocrisy manifested by these so-called Socialists, these alleged Australians ! The real Socialists, who are fighting for their lives, and for their liberties and ours, are entitled to say to the Australian Socialists, “ You call us comrades, but you keep help from us!” Jaures and Bebel, if alive today, would say things like those. When, in the present state of affairs, they talk of the world being their country and mankind their brethren, these Australian Socialists are, to use the words of Sydney Smith, “indecently exposing their intellects.” They impugn their manhood by the attitude they are assuming to-day. Plain speaking is a tonic at times, and it is well that it should be indulged in now, so that the true position may be shown. You cannot support yourself in time of trouble, and you will never triumph when you rely on principles that lean this way and that, but are never perpendicular. Although we are at the antipodes, our principles must not be upside down, must not work backwards. True principles are eternal things, and changeless; only such will pull a party through, and when it has gone astray and lost its true guiding star, will help it to recover the right road. I have said these things in the hope that by drawing attention to the unsoundness of their position many of these persons will feel that they have made a mistake.

Let me come now to another matter. It has been said in this chamber that the unionists of Australia have done more than’ their fair share in this war. My impression is that Mr. Doyle, the President of the Sydney Labour party, has stated that 90 per cent. of the men of our

– Before the good news commenced to come through, no less than 120,000 single men, in filling in their census cards, answered “No” to the Minister’s appeal.

Senator WATSON:

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Of course it i3. We are all liable to make mistakes. Mr. Hughes, in speaking last night, made some rather strong allegations against those opposed to him, and he did the same when speaking in Sydney. We have also heard from the Minister for Defence, both in this Chamber and outside, allusions to German money in this country. It is only so much nonsense to talk about German money in this country as having anything to do with the formation of public opinion on the question of conscription. No doubt there is any amount of German. money which would be used, if it were possible to so use it, to win away the allegiance of Australians from their country. But will Mr. Hughes or Senator Pearce contend for a moment that tha great body of objectors to conscription are being influenced by German money? Will they not candidly admit, on the contrary, that their objection to conscription arises from a sincere conviction that Australia has done well under voluntarism, and n desire to prevent the adoption of such a system as conscription in this young country? It would be a bad thing for Australia if we did not give to objectors to conscription the credit of being sincere in their convictions. What nonsense it is to talk about German money and about foreign influence being at work. I am not speaking about a few Industrial Workers of the World, men who have no time for any party, and do not care much for any country. I believe they have said at

Broken Hill that some men there are afraid to meet them in the dark chambers of the mines. When we remember that hundreds of men who have borne a great share of the work of the Labour movement in Australia are honestly opposed to conscription, it does not lay well in the mouths of our leaders to make these innuendoes against them. I believe that when they think calmly on this subject they will be rather sorry for the statements they have made. These innuendoes will not make converts for conscription, nor will some of the statements concerning the Prime Minister, made by those who are opposed to conscription, help the cause on the other side. Are we to suppose that there are no honest, patriotic, anti-conscriptionists in Australia? Surely a man may declare himself against conscription without being charged with a want of loyalty to his country. Surely there are patriots and honest men among the anticonscriptionists as well as .among the conscriptionists. I think there are, and when the vote is taken on the 28th October. I feel sure that the majority in Australia, will prove themselves anti-conscriptionists. Nevertheless, they will be patriotic. I believe that the majority will vote in the negative, not because they are lacking in patriotism, and are not as anxious as any conscriptionist is to see this war brought to a successful termination, but because they think conscription is not the right way to do it. If Australia turns down this question, I anticipate ‘ that the question will be asked, “ What is Australia going to do?” We shall also hear that she has been disgraced because she has refused to succour the men who have gone to the front. Altogether too much nonsense has been talked on that score. One gentleman on the public platform said he dreaded to think how Australia would be regarded by the world if the people of this country did not vote for conscription. I think that probably that gentleman will be sorry he made that remark, because Australia will not be so disgraced. Only statements of that kind can bring any discredit on Australia. If the question is turned down the people will continue to fight this war successfully under voluntarism, and Australia will stand as high, if not higher, in the opinion of the world than she does to-day. Surely there is room for two opinions on this matter of conscription. Let every man give every other man credit for the sincerity and honesty of his convictions. At a time like this, when the country is being torn asunder by the greatest question that ever faced the people, we have a right to expect that the great organs influencing public opinion - the daily newspapers of this country - will tell the truth and put the question fairly before the public, instead of trying to mislead them. If ever there was a time in our history when our newspapers should endeavour to be newspapers in fact as well as in name, that time is now. But are they? Let honorable senators look at the headlines in the Age, referring to the debate in another place on this Bill. “Anticonscriptionists Routed,” or something like that, appeared among the headlines, and then came the division in the House of Representatives, not on the question of conscription, but on the question of referring this issue to the people. I do not know whether it was done deliberately or not, but the effect of the Age headlines was to make the people who do not have time to read the whole of the report believe that the principle of conscription had been agreed to by a large majority in the House of Representatives, when, as a matter of fact, the large majority shown on the division-list was in relation merely to the question of submitting the question to the people. Those who had time to read the report found that honorable member after honorable member was opposed to the principle of conscription, but as a Democrat could not go against his convictions by opposing the Referendum Bill.

Senator Needham:

– Where was the censor .concerning those headlines ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Lynch:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the mother who has sent three sons to the war has a better right to a vote on this issue than the man who has not gone and is not prepared to go?

Senator BARNES:

– There may be something in that point; but certainly the man who has not sent a son, and has no son to send, has no right to vote to send the son of any other man. There are thousands of such people in this country, and that is why I have such a strong objection to the matter being sent to the people. At the same time, I believe it is safer in the hands of the people than anywhere else. I have no fear as to what the people are going to say, because, when the patriots among the ranks of those who have been politically opposed to me find out the bill they will be called upon to pay if the referendum is carried, there will be an end to their patriotism, and they will not give their vote to send any one to the other end of the world. The Argus, that great military authority which can tell us what is happening every day, and which is so enthusiastically in favour of conscription, “because our people need help on the other side of the world,” contained the following statement on Saturday last: -

Great Britain’s army is of splendid material. At least 2,000,000 men could be thrown against the Germans at one point without touching the reserves at home. At the present rate of losses Great Britain could fight through next summer without new troops, but if the present means continue, Germany by then will be driven out of France.

– I have with me a report of some remarks made in Melbourne a few nights ago, and, if I had my way, the author of one statement would not be at large.

Senator Blakey:

– That is right. Freedom of speech !

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The report to which I refer reads as follows: -

Mr. Hughes ho declared to be a traitor and renegade to the Labour movement.If the Prime Minister got his own way Australians would be placed in a worse position than Irishmen during the Irish rebellion. Mr. Hughes had been bribed during his recent visit to England to shackle conscription upon Australia, so that it would be a lever to foist a similar measure upon Canada . and South Africa.

An honorable senator asks, “ Who said that?” It was Dr. Maloney, M.H.R. The report proceeds: -

Mr. Prendergast, M.L.A., declared that Senator Pearce had made a cowardly insinuation that the Trades Hall was in the pay of Germans. Such a lie was unpardonable. Senator Pearce would never again be tolerated in the Labour movement until he had apologized.

Senator BLAKEY:

– I propose only to read certain portions of it which have been censored. Possibly they will be censored out of Hansard. Here is one statement -

Manifesto of the National Executive of the Congress.

Fellow Unionists, - Conscription is the law in Great Britain and in the Republic of the French.

That was not censored. It is a mere statement of fact ; but the following paragraph has been censored : -

In both countries conscription has been used to render null and void all the achievements of trades unionism - to destroy customs, rights, and practices - to dilute and whittle away - to put unskilled in the place of skilled, women in the place of men, children in the place of adults.

Senator BLAKEY:

– Yes; and the other signatories are R. H. Gill, Frank Hyett, A. D. Jones, L. Manning, B. A. Mulvogue, G. F. McGowan. J. McNeill,

P. Russell, W. Smith, D. Stobie, and
J. Holloway.

– If this matter is to be provided for by regulations drawn up by the Defence Department, I see no danger in the Appeal Court, constituted as I suggested, and I see no reason why the first Appeal Court should not be final. I fail to understand the attitude taken up by Senator Blakey. He declares himself opposed to conscription, but is afraid totrust the people of Victoria, because, as he says, old men and old women, and men and women without sons liable to be called up, will have the right to vote on this subject. But in the next breath the honorable senator says, “I am satisfied that so far as Victoria is concerned the referendum will be turned down by a great majority.” If Senator Blakey is satisfied that the referendum will be negatived, why is he afraid to trust the people of Victoria?, In my judgment, the honorable senator is not so sure about the referendum being defeated, but is afraid that it will be carried. So far as I can learn, after moving among the workers, a very great number of them are in favour of conscription. I have met a great many who say that they know it is their duty to go to the front, and they are prepared to go when the “ other fellow” goes, but they fear that the “ other fellow “ is waiting to jump into the jobs which they leave. “ Why should I go,” they ask, “ and allow the other fellow to take my job?” They admit that the fairest method of ali is for the Labour Government to adopt the system of conscription, and I hope that when the referendum is carried, the Minister will be able to have regulations so framed as to deal fairly and justly with all classes of the community.

Sitting suspended from 8.30 a.m. to 10 a.m.. (Saturday).

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– It must be admitted by all who have been present throughout the debate that it has been conducted in the best of good humour. There has been an entire absence of recriminations, and may I be permitted to add that the addresses delivered have been of a high standard ; some of them have been exceptionally good. Not only is this one of the most serious questions we have ever faced, but the position in itself is critical, and it demands, as I think it has received from honorable senators, deen thoughtfulness arid seriousness. It is no trifling matter with which we are dealing, and we are beginning to realize at last that we are at war. Some prophets have told us that the war is over, but I do not think that at any time during the last two years has there been evidence of such depth of feeling as to what the world conflict really means to Australia. Notwithstanding that, there has been during the debate a tendency to cloud the true issue, and to argue in a limp way the real subject that is before us. The argument has been advanced that a submission of this question by referendum to the people is not a just step to take. With that I do not agree. We are appealing to-day, to the people who create Parliaments, upon the most vital question that has ever been before any nation, to give to us who make their laws a direction as to the action we should take, and if it is to be contended that on such a subject as this the referendum shall not be employed, I seriously ask what subjects can be submitted to the people. The argument that some people will vote for conscription who may not be personally affected by it is swept aside by the fact that every man, woman, and child in Australia, from greyheaded old men to little toddlers just escaped from the cradle, i3 affected by this war. It is not a wise judgment which prompts some persons to urge that a question so essential to the nation’s best interests shall be decided by a few people who have not received any mandate from their masters as to the course they shall adopt. How far-reaching the effects of the people’s decision may be we cannot tell, but to say that some will vote on the question who are not directly affected is only to beg the issue. We can scarcely take up a newspaper without finding that nations far distant from the seat of war are embroiled in it. Although they may be beyond sound of the thunder of guns, and although no shells may be bursting on their territories, still they are affected commercially, socially, and almost in every other way; indeed, it seems as if the present war is a world crisis. Few of us would be daring enough to even indicate what we think society will be like after the war. Few of us dare prophesy in what way we shall resume life again, and try to piece together its broken threads. The world will be so changed and modified that we might almost say that on the day peace is declared we shall enter into a new world, with new conditions and new environments, and, as a consequence, new laws will have to be made to meet the altered circumstances. Not only is magazine literature teeming with opinions as to what may occur after the war, but books dealing with all the post-war possibilities are’ being written far more plentifully than they can be read. Therefore, to contend that in regard to such a farreaching question, we, who call ourselves Democrats, are not to take the most democratic weapon we have, and use it to save the people, seems to deny our right to call ourselves Democrats. These arguments are weak in themselves, and weak in the way they are expressed. To-day we are appealing to Caesar, and I must confess that I am “in a quandary as to what to say to Caesar. Am I to go before him as a partisan, and state my case only? Am I to ask Caesar to decide on this question from my view-point alone, or am I to trust to somebody else who may follow after me to state the other side? If Caesar is to judge justly he must know both the pros and cons. It is all very well for the man who does not believe in submitting the referendum to the people to say that he is going forth to persuade everybody to vote “ No.” It is all very well for the man on the other side to say that he will endeavour to persuade the people to vote “Yes” ; but the general public, who have to decide this vital question, should be possessed of all the knowledge it is possible to give to them, so that they may arrive at a right decision. We have realized the seriousness of the issue, and how much depends on the way it is decided, and we have spoken in bated breath of dangers that are possible, dangers that may be immediate or may be distant. Yet we know full well that the final arbiters in this matter cannot be seized of the facts as we are. When we go forth shortly to debate this question before the people much that we know will have to be kept from them; although a decision that will affect the interests of Australia, perhaps for ages, hence, must’ be given on the 28th October. There is no room for hilarity or levity, and no justification for taking a partial view of the question or treating it from a party stand-point. It rises infinitely superior to all parties, and stands forth as a great national issue.

Senator Needham:

– And there is no room for side-tracking.

Senator Shannon:

– Or for personal abuse.

Senator SENIOR:

– There is no room for either of those things. To allow the subject to be clouded or befogged by any such influences would give the public the idea that we do not grasp the position thoroughly. I honestly believe that every senator has conscientiously expressed his view of the question. I give to others just as freely as I take to myself credit for being conscientious in the attitude adopted. The position in regard to conscription seems to me to be this: I am a member of society ; I receive benefits from society; if I am not prepared to pay the price that society demands from me for the enjoyment of those benefits I have no right to be in society. We cannot reap where we have not sown; and if we are to receive protection from society we must prepare to give defence to society. If we shirk that responsibility by any subterfuge or argument, or by any palliation of conscience, we are most unmistakably showing that we have no right to the benefits society confers. Nationhood not merely confers benefits on citizens, but also imposes obligations, and may demand sacrifices. A speaker in this debate has said that it must be left to the individual conscience to determine what sacrifice is called for, but my conception of the duty of citizenship is that, although the individual must be controlled by ais own conscience in regard to actions affecting merely himself, he must be controlled in his actions as a member of a society by the conscience of that society. No member of a society belongs to himself, or is his own master. It has been urged that society ought not to vote away human life, but we know that society takes human life as a penalty for the transgression of its laws. The hangman’s knot proclaims that for the violation of certain laws death is the penalty. The basic principle of all society is that those who receive must be prepared to pay an equivalent. To deny that principle is to ostracize oneself.

Senator Watson:

– The honorable senator admits that the proposed referendum fulfils the obligation.

Senator SENIOR:

– I do. The submission of this question to the people is an absolutely democratic course, and one in harmony with the platform of the Labour party. I could no more refuse to give effect to the referendum plank oi our platform than I could refuse to give effect to any other plank. To do so would be inconsistent with my membership of the Labour party. Some honorable senators have dwelt strongly on the financial responsibilities imposed on the Commonwealth by the war. We were not permitted at the beginning of the war to sit down and count its cost, and we have been obliged to conduct our share of it with only a partial knowledge of the obligations entailed. It cannot rightly be contended that because our participation in the war will involve a greater sacrifice than we have ever before had to make we should draw out. It has been argued thai, the referendum should not be taken because Australia has already done enough. When will Australia have done enough? Only when peace is established throughout the world. There can be no half measures, nor can we enter upon our stupendous task light-heartedly. What honorable business nian, finding himself in a tighter corner than he had -ever been in before, would repudiate his obligations? Any man who would do such a thing would be regarded as untrustworthy and unstable.

We should not like to give the world that opinion of this Commonwealth. We should not like our children’s children to think that we were careless of the honour of the country, and drew out from responsibilities which we had willingly undertaken. There might have been force in much that has been said during the debate about the small population of Australia, and the great cost of me war, if it had been said before we had decided to play any part in it. But having sanctioned the sending away of one division after another, having cheered unit after unit as it left our shores, we cannot now disregard our promises to Great Britain and her Allies. Many of us can remember the period of the bank disasters and commercial failures. At that time Australia was much more thinly populated than it is now, and her financial strength much less, but we cannot forget her magnificent power of recuperation. Because the obligations that we have undertaken in connexion with the war are bigger than we have ever had before, are we going to say to Great Britain, who has so long been our protector and shield - we do not know how completely that shield has covered us on many an occasion - “ We wish to dissolve the partnership and to cut the painter.”

Senator Shannon:

– It would be a sorry day for Australia if she did that.

Senator SENIOR:

– Yes. And I do not think there is a man in this Parliament who, iu sober moments, would say that he desired it to be done. We are now in a position from which we cannot honorably withdraw. It has been suggested that we have over-reached ourselves, but, if we have, I do not blame the Government very much. At times recruits presented themselves so fast, crowding ‘the camps to overflowing, that there seemed no power to stay the enthusiasm of our men for service. No doubt it was that that prompted the Ministry to go a step further. They may have erred in judgment, but for that they will have no blame from me. though I suggest that the division which has been broken into for reinforcements should be used entirely to strengthen the others. Coming now to the question of conscription, we were told some months ago by the Minister for Defence that the introduction of compulsion then would not have secured a larger number of recruits than the voluntary system was yielding. If that be so, does it not seem that by holding to that which we have without extending our line we may be able to honorably fulfil our promise to the Old Land ? Much that has been said about the numbers available is due to the use of rose-tinted glasses. We have been told that the number of single men* over the age of twenty-one years that will be available is 112.800, but let me call attention to these figures which appeared in yesterday’s Age. Of 8,431 men who have offered themselves for enrolment in Victoria during September, only 1,302, or about one in eight, have been accepted. Those figures so astonished me that I thought at first that I must have misread them. I could not believe that out of 8.431 persons who had presented themselves for examination only 1,302 were considered to be medically fit for service. If the same ratio of unfitness obtains throughout the ranks of the 112,800 single men who are supposed to be available, the number of physically fit would be reduced to 14,100. Then, if I were inclined to adopt the reasoning of Senator Mullan, by reducing that number by 30 per cent, for one thing, 10 per cent, for another, and perhaps 25 per cent, for a third, how many would be left? We should require a microscope to discover them. But there must be some explanation for those mysterious figures. I cannot conceive that the doctors have been bribed. Is the explanation to be found in the fact that those men who are really fit to go to the front do not volunteer, whilst those who are physically unfit offer themselves for service ? Is there no way of discriminating between the fit and the unfit before they reach the examining medical officers ? 1 do not know whether the censor will be at work upon our speeches, but if there is any information which the enemy ought not to get, it is that which is contained in these figures.

Senator Guy:

– It is a bad advertisement for us.

Senator SENIOR:

Avar ? Some honorable senators and people outside said that the war was a matter of six months only. I always said that Lord Kitchener had asked for supplies for three years, but had not said the war WOUld be finished in that time. I think it will be a lone-drawn-out struggle, and that we ought to make every provision in our power to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On the financial side of the question, will it not pay us better to go to the expense of sending the extra men if they are going to end the war a month or two earlier ? I am going whole-souled for the referendum, and will advise the people to vote “Yes” to the proposition. It has been said that we are doing better than Canada, and quotations have been read from speeches by the Premier and Leader of the Opposition in that country. They say they will not go in for conscription, but there is a very good reason for that. Even in Australia the Government have had to decree that every individual wanting to leave Australia must first produce a passport, but in Canada it is a mere matter of slipping through a wire fence into America. It is further said that the adoption of conscription would interfere with immigration, but Canada is situated entirely differently from us. South Africa has had its own troubles, and has nobly done great service to the Empire. The freedom and privileges we have enjoyed in this country are worth fighting for, and we ought to do our level best to maintain them.- We should not consider the trifling question of what’ may happen to a little business man if our men go away, and he sells a pair of trousers less than he did before. As the Leader of the Opposition well put it, what if the wool is not shorn, what if the wheat is not reaped ? If we lose the war it will belong to the Germans, and it is just as well that he should get the wool and wheat without it being shorn and reaped. I shall do my level best to see that the proposals of the Government are carried out.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland · President

– It was laid down by the first President of the Senate that the right of the President to a deliberative vote also carried with it the right to take part in the deliberations of this Chamber. That ruling- 1 entirely agree with, although I must candidly say it is a right that ought to be very sparingly used. It is only the importance of the present occasion that induces me to depart from the very sound rule that the President should not take part in the turmoil of debate. I wish to put the question as clearly and plainly as T can. I am speaking now as a senator, and as President of the Senate, and must appeal to the indulgence of honorable senators, who have always treated me with the utmost consideration and kindness, and assisted me in every way, on this occasion to further extend that indulgence and kindness to me, because if there is any disorder when I am speaking I shall immediately have to forego my right to speak, and resume the chair in order to fulfil my functions as President. By indulging, therefore, in any disorder, honorable senators would deprive me of the right to speak. If that obligation is upon them there is an equal obligation upon myself to speak in a very restrained fashion, so that I may not excite animosity, contention, or recrimination. That condition I intend to rigidly impose upon myself, and to address myself to the subject in a far more restrained fashion than I would feel free to do if I occupied a seat as a private member on the floor of the Senate.

The question we are discussing ought to be capable of being reasoned out to a logical conclusion, stripped of all the side issues and cloudy paraphernalia that has been raised around it in various quarters. It should be capable of being reasoned out to a logical conclusion by any intellectual person, and even by any person with the rudiments of an intellect. I do not intend to cloud the issue by any Imperialistic flag-waving, or talking of the glories of the Empire, or the honour and fame to be gained by war. The question before us is, “ Is compulsion a right or wrong thing to resort to in the circumstances?” I propose to discuss that question, and that alone. I have no judgment to pass upon any honorable senator for what he has done here. Probably those who voted against the first reading, and are voting against the referendum, have full justification from their point of view. I am not going to bit in judgment upon them, nor upon those who say they are in favour of the principle of the referendum, and are going to vote for it, although opposed to the principle of conscription. I am responsible for myself. I intend to accept that responsibility, and want to concede the same right to everybody else.

Honorable senators have said, and it has been repeated over and over again outside, that compulsion is undemocratic. I absolutely deny and disagree with that view. All law is compulsion. The ten commandments are compulsion. Most of them begin with the words “ Thou shalt not,” and the punishment is not to be merely to the persons who break the commandments, but for a breach of at least one of them, is to extend to the third and fourth generations. If we break the supreme law - the defence of our country and liberty - the punishment will fall, not merely upon us, but on our children to the twentieth and thirtieth generations.

Democracy is entirely and absolutely different from despotism, and I often shudder to think what is going to be the fate of Democracy if Democracy will not face the facts. Despotism may silently, gradually, for years in advance, prepare to destroy Democracy, and if Democracy will not take adequate and complete steps to protect itself it i9 wiped off the face of the earth. There can be no advance in liberty, there can be nothing, unless Democracy is prepared to face the facts. The great fact to-day is that we are face to face with the most horrible, bloody, blood-curdling, and revolting war the world has ever seen, greater in its horror and repulsiveness than the sum of all the wars that have preceded it. Are we responsible for it? Had Australia any share in bringing it about? Absolutely none. Are we concerned in the war ? No one can deny that we are vitally and absolutely concerned in it. What was the war begun for? The cry of Germany, who forced the war upon the innocent nations of Europe, was for “ a place in the sun “ - for world power. Where has Germany a better opportunity to obtain it than in Australia - a whole continent, the richest and most desirable on the face of the earth ?

If a nation like Germany, with its despotic power, occupied and conquered Australia she would have the most absolute and complete power that the world has ever known any nation to possess. There is no getting away from that fact. It is the bounden duty of us, who possess this splendid heritage, to see that the structure of Democracy we, have built up here does not fall into the hands or despotism. It is our bounden duty to see that the autonomy ana liberty which we possess are handed down in all their integrity, unimpaired and intact, to our children; otherwise we shall ,prove ourselves totally unworthy of having enjoyed them ourselves. We have in this country, under our free constitution, built up a structure of democratic freedom and progress, industrially, socially, and politically, unequalled in the history of the world. What will become of that splendid heritage if we allow ourselves to be attacked and conquered? The structure we have already built up, the heights of democratic freedom that we have already reached, are as a mere nothing compared with the grandeur of the heights which we may reach if our liberty is preserved to us. Are we going to sacrifice them, or even risk their sacrifice? Others may take the responsibility. I will not.

I am not concerned, as some honorable senators seem to have been, about what Mr. Hughes said or did in England, or what he says or does now. I am not supporting this Bill because it is a Government proposition. Those who have been any considerable time in the Senate know I have never been a slavish follower of any Government, whether it was a Labour Government or not. Some of the most strenuous fights ever (put up in this Chamber against a Labour Government were put up by myself, when I did not agree with them, and if I were in the position of some honorable senators, who are so violently opposed to the Bill, and the principle embodied in it, and occupied a seat on the floor of the Chamber, with the same number of men at my back, I- would put up a fight that would make their present efforts look small. I say this to show that it is not because this is the Government proposition that I am supporting it. I support it because I believe in it, and I shall prove that every Democrat must believe in it. Every law is compulsory. If you have no law, and no compulsion, every man becomes a law unto himself, and you have anarchy. Scientific anarchy may come by-and-by, when we are all perfect, and no man will need any law to control him. That is a considerable way off yet. All law is necessarily compulsion for the good of the whole people. Man has had to a certain extent to surrender his own personal liberty in order to attain the full liberty, well-being, and welfare of the whole of the people of the State. That is society as we know.it to-day. Seeing that all law is compulsion, are we, then, to stop short of compulsion when the chief end and the highest function of the State is at stake? Are we to stop short of compulsion there ? To those who say that compulsion is contrary to Labour principles, I would point out that I have been a unionist all my life. I have supported the ideals of unionism when we often had to starve for the faith that was in us, and when some of the men who are now talking so loudly were enjoying the fat of the land. It is absolute compulsion by starvation if you will not allow a man to work unless he joins your union. If he cannot get work he must either beg or starve. We believe in compulsion as applied to unionism, and justifiably so, because it is for the good of every one. It is better far that one should suffer than that the whole should be reduced to sweated and slavish conditions. We apply that compulsion to every walk of life. And yet we are to stop short at the chief end, the supreme function, of our national life, and to say, “ Compulsion is good enough for everything else, but in respect of this, the supreme function of the State, it is not.”

I am in favour of the application of compulsion to this supreme national emergency, because I believe it is the fair way, the democratic way, and, above all, the socialistic way. When I hear men claiming to be Socialists, and. find that they are Socialists in everything but in respect of the supreme national function, which is defence of national life and integrity, I take leave to doubt if they understand what Socialism really is.

All our misunderstanding and recrimination to-day is entirely due to the fact that we in Australia do not realize to the full that we are at war. Ninetenths of our people are going about their daily avocations in exactly the same way as if war were a thing unheard of. Our business people are more prosperous than ever. Our pastoralists, our mineowners, and others are drawing fatter prizes and bigger dividends; and our workers, I think, are as well off as ever they were. They are even better employed than they were in peaceful times. And so the people of Australia do not seem, to realize that we are at war.

I have said that I am in favour of the method proposed by the Government because it is the fair way, the democratic way, and, above all, the socialistic way. I am not now approaching the consideration of this subject from the point of view as to whether more men are or are not necessary. That has absolutely nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the question. The question we have to determine is what is the fair way, the democratic way, and the socialistic way. Dealing first of all with the fairness of the proposed ‘ system, let me say that I have before me a paragraph such as may be read every day in the week in any newspaper that one chances to pick up. This paragraph appeared in the Cairns Times of the 13th inst - the last issue to reach me. The Cairns Times, which is a Labour paper, and is opposed to conscription, published this paragraph, not with any scare headlines calling special attention to it, but as a mere matter of every-day news, and it is only a fair sample of others to be seen in every newspaper -

During the week Mr. J. G. Hoare received word that his younger brother William had been killed in France. Deceased had been wounded in Gallipoli, and had been invalided to England previously. Mr. J. M. Bragg, of Charters Towers, who was recently in Cairns on a conference of the engine-drivers and firemen, received word when he arrived in Townsville from here, that his two sons, William and John, had been killed in France. Mrs. Marett, of Stratford, has received word that her only son has been killed in France.

That is what happens under the beautiful system of voluntarism. The first of these men, after bearing the brunt and heat of the fight at Gallipoli, was wounded and maimed, and then invalided to England. On being convalescent he was sent into the trenches in France and there was killed. He had to go twice to the front, was severely wounded, and finally was killed, while there are others who will not go at all. Then we have the case of the unionist returning from a conference with his brother unionists who receives word that two of his sons have been killed. Two brothers in the one family are killed, while other families, with four or five able-bodied sons, have not sent one to the front. Is there anything fair about that? Then we come to the concluding portion of the paragraph. Mrs. Marett, of ‘Stratford, hears that her only son has been killed in France. The only son of a widowed mother. And yet you talk of the beauties of your socalled voluntary system - a system which allows one man after being wounded at the front to go back again, only to lose his life; a system which allows one family to send two, four, and even five of its sons to the front, while other families, who have an equal right to share that burden, send none. Is there anything in the way of justice or fair play in that? I have travelled over a large part of Australia assisting in the recruiting movement. Wherever I went in Victoria I heard that the workers had volunteered freely. It is our proud boast, and a true one, that the unionist has come up with the most splendid courage, the most magnificent patriotism, and has volunteered for the front. We heard that wherever we went in Victoria. On the other hand, what did we hear of men who had property, who were well off, and, in fact, independent? We heard of welltodo farmers’ sons - of families of four and five able-bodied sons of military age - not one of whom had volunteered.

While at Daylesford I was told of a wealthy farmer with five sons of military age, and so well-to-do that he was able to keep a couple of motor cars. One of his sons was anxious to volunteer, but he was told by his father, “If you go you will never get a penny from me.” This, then, is the beauty of your voluntary system !

I deny absolutely and completely that Australia has sent one man to the front. Australia has found the money - she has found the equipment and the pay - but as to sending a single man to the front, she has not done so. ‘ What has happened is that a great many Australians, to their eternal honour and credit, be it said, have done more than could be expected of them - have maintained the honour of Australia in their own persons, and have done for Australia what Australia has refused to do for herself.

Let me come, now, to the next section of my question as to which is the democratic way. Democracy means, if it means anything, government of the people for the people and by the people. Democracy means that every man shall have equal rights, equal privileges, and equal opportunities. Does that not carry with it the absolute obligation, without question and without doubt, that every man must have equal responsibilities and an equal duty to share in all the burdens of his country? Does Democracy mean that it shall be the duty of only some men to fight for their country, for its liberties, and for the maintenance of its integrity - that it is only those who can be induced to volunteer who have that duty imposed upon them? If Democracy means that, then it is something absolutely contrary to any conception I have ever had of it.

Let us examine for a moment the socialistic way. Socialism, if it means anything at all, means national organization for the carrying out of every national function. It means the Socialization of industry, and the Socialization of production and distribution for the benefit and welfare of the whole. It means organization full and complete in every walk of national life, every function of government, and every function for the welfare of the people. A socialistic State must have an organization thorough and complete, and in it the duty of every citizen must be fully recognised. It cannot be denied that the highest duty of any State is that of protecting itself from aggression. If that be so - and I challenge any one to deny it - must that duty fall only on some of the men of the State, and not upon the remainder ? Must it fall only on those high-minded and public-spirited citizens who will jump into the breach and say “ We will fight,” while other men skulk behind, in the hope of reaping fat profits or of getting comfortable jobs in the absence of the others who are sacrificing themselves ? There is absolutely nothing socialistic in that. Socialism means full and complete organization for this, the highest of all national purposes, just as it means complete organization for every other national purpose. Those persons who say they are Socialists, but oppose conscription, are in the ridiculous position of favoring individual effort and private enterprise for carrying out the highest national duty or function - individualism run mad ! I said a few moments ago, and I say now, that the highest and the supreme duty of a Democracy is that of protecting itself. Any Democracy which fails to do that will be wiped completely out of existence.

We need only turn to the lessons of history for proof of that statement. I suppose most honorable senators have read that classic, Prescott’s Conquest of Peru. Long before the discovery of the American Continent, the Peruvians had a civilization of a very high and complete order. They had a wonderful civilization, the remains of which even to-day astonish the archaeologists and the historians of the world. They had the most complete socialistic State the world has ever seen. They had secured this quite independently of European civilization, with which, as a matter of fact, they had had no connexion whatever. It was under a patriarchal form of government - what might be called a benevolent despotism. In taking care of the welfare of their people they fulfilled every complete function of government, with one exception, and that was that they neglected to provide for the defence of their country. Thus it was that when Pizarro went there with his handful of buccaneers and filibusters he conquered their country, although the people met him with outstretched arms and open hands. That socialistic people not only saw their Democracy destroyed and their socialistic State wiped out of existence, but the people themselves absolutely disappeared. Let me read to honorable senators one short passage, which they will find on pages 56 and 57 of the first volume. It shows the sort of society and people they were. Prescott says-

If no man could become rich in Peru, no man could become poor. No spendthrift could waste his substance in riotous luxury. No adventurous schemer could impoverish his family by the spirit of speculation. The law was constantly directed to enforce a steady industry and a sober management of his affairs. No mendicant was tolerated in Peru. When a man was reduced by poverty or misfortune (it could hardly be by fault), the arm of the law was stretched out to minister relief; not the stinted relief of private charity, nor that which is doled out, drop by drop, as it were, from the frozen reservoirs of “the parish,” but in generous measure, bringing no humiliation to the object of it, and placing him on a level with the rest of his countrymen. No man could be rich, no man could be poor, in Peru; but all might enjoy, and did enjoy, a competence.

Where is that splendid civilization now? Where are the people? They are wiped out, because they would not take precautions to defend their country. I appeal to honorable senators to recognise and face the facts, for if we do not the same fate will overtake this splendid Democracy we have in Australia.

Who is responsible for this war? Is Australia responsible? Is France responsible? Is little Belgium responsible? If we allow Australia to be conquered, those who say that they are opposed to compulsion, and will (have nothing to do with the accursed thing, will have to submit to the compulsion that was exercised over the women and children of France and Belgium, who were herded away in cattle-trucks to do the work of Germany. Will Australia take that risk? Will Democrats and Socialists take that risk? If so, I am not with them. The future of Australia is dearer to me than any consideration whatever. I would die a thousand deaths, suffer any torture - be hacked into a thousand pieces - lose a thousand seats in Parliament, do anything rather than take the risk of the children of Australia, including my own, enjoying one whit less of the advantages and opportunities of liberty than I have.

– I shall come to that, and show the honorable senator the absurdity of his position. Every man has in his blood myriads of white corpuscles, whose work it is to preserve him against attack - to shield him from foreign invasion. Every day in the week, and every hour of the day, whether asleep or awake, we are being constantly assailed by myriads of hostile microbes, and it is the duty of the white corpuscles in the blood to be constantly on the watch and frustrate their efforts. You cannot prick your finger or skin anywhere in the slightest degree but myriads of these white corpuscles, which I maycall the army of the interior, immediately rush to the place to prevent any encroachment by the hostile invaders. Every drop of drink we take and every bit of food we eat contains those hostile microbes; and were it not for the “army of the interior” not one of us could live. If this “ army of the interior,” which exists in the body of the most ardent and fervent anticonscriptionists, were imbued with the same principles, and declared that it would not fight except on the voluntary system, the man who is opposed to all war would not live a single hour. If his descendants, as they probably would, had an army of the interior in their bodies imbued with the same doctrines their children could not live, and so with the nation. We are the army of the interior so far as the nation is concerned. If we will not fight to repel the invader we shall be wiped out as a nation. And our descendants will be degenerate, too. That is an illustration from nature. I defy the most eminent scientist or doctor you can get in Melbourne to deny the truth of it; and it is an absolute and complete answer to those who say that they are opposed to war.

I am opposed to war, but I draw a distinction. I am opposed to all wars of attack, and in favour of all wars of defence, for a war of defence is a sacred war. We are now attacked and endangered; and if those to whom I have referred really believed the doctrines they enunciate, they ought to do exactly as I and others did at the time of the Boer war. I did not believe in that war. There was no question of conscription then, but there was the question of volunteers, and of finding moneys and supplies to maintain them. I was a member of the Queensland Parliament at the time, and on the floor of the House I opposed the voting of money, with the result that I lost my seat. I am prepared to bear the same fate now, but on the other side, for there is a mighty difference in the two cases. The Boer war was a war of attack, while the present war is one of defence; and I should like honorable senators to bear that distinction in mind when discussing the matter.-

It has been said with a great deal of force that Australia has done enough, and that there is the greater necessity to keep men here in order to insure the economic and industrial well-being of Australia. It has been said that we have done as well as or better than Canada, and that all these are reasons why we should not do any more. Adverting to that illustration of mine with regard to how our bodies are preserved by an army we carry about with us, I would point out that if ever these beneficent white cor’puscles in the blood came to the conclusion that they had done enough we would be “ down and out “ in five minutes.

Let me deal with those arguments seriatim. I give honorable senators full credit for being absolutely sincere in all the arguments they put forward. But while sincerity is a good excuse for them and an absolute justification of their attitude, it is no solution of the question. Byron, in speaking of the sincerity of good people, said -

Christians have burnt each other quite persuaded

That the Apostles would have done as they did.

Was it any consolation to the people who were murdered that their murderers were sincere and actuated by the highest and best motives? The sincerity of the murderers was nothing to them. While I am prepared to give credit for sincerity of motive, as every one must do in this chamber, I say, as a reasonable, and reasoning being, that we ought to face the facts squarely, and, having examined them, come to the logical conclusion to which every intellectual man must come when he is faced by a problem so easy of solution.

The danger to Australia from Germany was undeniable, and it was only the prudence and foresight of previous Governments here that protected us from all the horrors of war. At the outbreak of the war we had a hostile German Navy in the Pacific, and it was only the fact that we had one battleship and three or four cruisers, which were sufficiently strong to keep the hostile vessels away from our shores, that averted those horrors. If the Germans had only effected a landing, and had been able to put into the hands of certain people in Australia at the time, a quantity of arms and ammunition, God knows what our fate might have been. Do not forget that in every part of Australia there is a trained military garrison of the enemy only waiting for organization and arms to begin. Never forget that fact, which was boasted about by the Germans, as my honorable friends from Queensland and others know as well as I do.

Senator Mullan:

– It is a good reason for keeping a few men here to watch them.

Senator GIVENS:

– I shall come to that matter directly. There is another argument - that we have something to fear at the hands of other alien enemies. It is very true that there are constant dangers and menaces threatening Australia, and it would be idle to deny the fact. But one way to secure safety and immunity is to win the present war. We could then defy all the dangers and menaces from any direction; whereas if the enemy wins the war, there is nothing we can do, though we resolve to perish to a man, that can save us.

I speak seriously and I speak warmly, because I feel warmly. Australia is everything to me; all I possess and all that is dear to me is here. The country itself is dear to me - dearer than any other country in the world, with the exception of the land of my birth. I am not prepared to, and I will not, take the risk of danger, misfortune, and slavery overtaking this country that I love so well, and in which the future of my children is bound up.

– It does not matter, so far as final victory is concerned. I believe, also, that it does not matter; but is Australia, this manly young nation, of whose honour and glory we are proud to boast, and the manly qualities of whose people we claim to be equal to’ those of any other people in the world, to occupy the position of a loafer, and let other nations make the supreme sacrifice while she makes none? I feel ashamed thai such an argument should be put forward by any manly man.

Again, we are confronted with the comparison with Canada. Must Australian manhood, spirit, daring, and patriotism be measured b)’ the manhood, spirit, daring, and patriotism of any other country in the world ? I deny it. I absolutely decline to take the standard of any other nation for Australia. We have put up a standard of our own in a hundred directions, and we should put up our own standard in this case. We are told that what is good enough for Canada is good enough for Australia. That is the cry of anticonscriptionists all round the country. It might come very well from our Liberal and Conservative friends, but it cannot come with consistency or logic from our Labour friends. Canada has not established old-age pensions. Is what is good enough for Canada in that particular direction good enough for Australia? Canada has none of our splendid industrial laws and legislative machinery for protecting an3 alleviating the condition of the workers, or, at least, she has nothing in that direction in any way comparable with what we have. Is what is good enough for Canada really good enough for Australia? Will any man who subscribes to Labour doctrines for a single moment assert such a belief as that? Australia has standards of her own that are the envy of the whole of the civilized people of the world, and are pointed to with pride by reformers in every section of the earth. Yet in this supreme matter of preserving the splendid structure of Democracy that we have built up in Australia, we are told that we should accept the standards of other countries. Itf Canada had never sent a single man, it would in no way alter my view as to what we in Australia should do. I say that Australia will never have done enough until the war is won. That is the measure of the time when we shall have done enough.

We are asked what is to become oF our economic and industrial life, and of all the splendid industries we have built up? I say that it does not matter a straw to us what becomes of them if Australia is conquered. Apparently, that is a risk which some honorable senators would take, however sincerely patriotic we may admit them to be. I say here again, that I do not care a button about their sincerity. What I am concerned about is the effect of the policy they advise, and their sincerity will be no excuse to Australia if, as the result of their advice, we should lose our liberty, integrity, and independence. So much for that aspect of the argument about Canada.

There is another aspect of it to which I direct the attention of honorable senators, and that is that Canada is not in nearly the same danger as Australia, and is not running anything like the same risk in this war. As compared with the position which Australia occupies, Canada can afford to sit back and smile. She is sheltered by the broad wing of the Monroe doctrine. She is sheltered by the fact that along 3,000 miles of her border line she has a neighbouring nation of 100,000,000 of people. She is sheltered by the fact that the whole broad Atlantic lies between her and any possible enemy, and on the other side by a nation that has said “ Hands off “ to every nation in the world. If England were conquered to-morrow, have we any such protection for Australia? Honorable senators know that we have not. Suppose for a moment that the war should unfortunately go against us, and that England were beaten to her knees. Suppose that the prize, or a portion of the prize, demanded for the settlement of the war was the handing over of Australia to Germany. What could Great Britain do? It would cut her to the heart to give up a possession which is so dear to her, and where her children have been striving to build uo a new nation under the Southern Cross. But is Australia any dearer to Great Britain than Alsace and Lorraine were to Prance at the close of the war of 1870 ? Yet France had to give up those two beloved provinces to satisfy the rapacious maw of Germany at the conclusion of that war. If England were beaten to her knees, and that alternative were put to her, what could she do but accede to the demand. Where would Australia be then ? Where would our anticonscriptionist friends be then ? They would be hiding their diminished heads in the gullies up the bush and in every remote corner of the country they could get to, because when they looked in the face the little children whom they deceived and betrayed, their responsibility and shame would be so great that they would be objects of pity to every one in the world.

I hope that such a fate will never overtake Australia, and I am sure that the most ardent anti-conscriptionist cherishes the same hope. It is for this reason we should be prepared for the national sacrifice which every nation must ultimately be prepared to make to preserve its liberty, or it must go down.

– And the State ought to get better service.

Senator GIVENS:

– Yes; and I am sorry to say that, in certain quarters, the State does not receive that generous recognition it has a right to expect from some people who are employed in the Public Service. The State is entitled to expect good service from its employees.

I do not know that I have a very great deal more to say, but I must not forget to deal, however briefly, with another matter that has occupied public attention lately. It has been frequently stated in this chamber during the course of this debate, and elsewhere, that all the Labour organizations outside are against this projected action. It is said with considerable force and truth that instructions have been issued by the organizations of the different States directing Federal Labour members how they shall vote in connexion with this referendum. I am speaking now, not only as a senator representing Queensland, but also as president of the highest political body in Australia - the Inter-State Executive - and I say that no State organization or executive has the right or authority to issue any such instructions, and that the organizations which fathered the instructions have usurped functions and authority which they do not possess.

Senator McKissock:

– You never called the executive together.

Senator GIVENS:

– The conduct of Labour politics in the Federal arena would be impossible if the present condition of affairs were allowed to continue, and be justified.

Senator Barnes:

– Did not the Federal Conference talk about this matter ? What is the use of you talking like that ?

Senator GIVENS:

– I am going to put the question as I would put it in my judicial position. I do not want to stretch a point in my favour, or in favour of anybody else. This question of conscription was not discussed at the last Inter-State Conference. There was a discussion as to which was the proper body to enforce the binding decisions of that conference, and to interpret the platform or questions affecting the platform, and give a decision thereon. I am going to tell the Senate exactly what occurred, for there is no secret about it. Everybody knows what was done at that Conference, because, although it was confidential at the time it was discussed, the information has since been published. At the Inter-State Conference, there was a suggestion to create an Inter-State Executive to discharge the functions I have referred to, and to decide what the party action should be on them. Against this course, it was pointed out with force that a scheme of that kind would be unworkable; that the proper thing to do was, as has always been done, to leave the interpretation of the Labour platform and policy, as well as all questions of fact, in the hands of the Federal Labour members, who could consult and discuss together the various political questions as they arose. It was further agreed that every Federal Labour member was to be bound by the majority decision of the properly constituted Labour Caucus. In addition an Inter-State Executive was created, whose function was to give effect to the binding decisions of the Conference. At the meeting of the

Inter-State Executive it was unanimously resolved, on the motion of an anticonscriptionist, Mr. McCallum, of Western Australia, and seconded also by an anticonscriptionist in the person of Mr. Lutey -

That each State Executive be informed that the decision of any Conference other than the Inter-State Conference of the Australian Labour party shall not be binding on the Federal Labour party or the Commonwealth Government unless indorsed by such Inter-State Conference.

That motion was carried in pursuance of the power and authority of the InterState Executive to give effect to the binding decisions of the Conference. Where, in that resolution, is the authority giving the various State executives the prerogative to issue instructions to this Parliament, and to expel members because they will not do their bidding? There would be an end to all solidarity in this party if such a state of affairs were allowed to continue. If we are to have a Federal Labour party, the members of which are subject to six warring and contrary instructions from the several State executives, there can be no cohesion, no co-ordination of action, no unity, and no solidarity in the movement, and we can have nothing in the way of effective legislation or reform in this country.

I say, having regard to past experience, that if any branch Labour League in any State were to set itself up as superior to the central State Executive, and as having the right to issue orders to its own particular Labour member for that district without the authority of the executive for the whole State, that branch would be immediately declared bogus and expelled, the only course which could be followed if we are to have solidarity, and to effect any useful purpose! The argument has been dragged into this debate that Labour members and senators are bound. I say they are bound only by the one pledge to carry out the wishes of the supreme Labour authority in Australia when those wishes have been properly ascertained and expressed. They cannot be loyal to two institutions at one and the same time. If that were expected of them, what sort of position would we have in this Senate? A Labour senator from Queensland who voted for the second reading of this Bill would be anathema; he would have committed the unpardonable sin, and probably would be cast out of the State organization; whilst Labour senators from Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia, and, in some instances, from Victoria and New South Wales would be perfectly honest, loyal, faithful, and worthy members of the Labour party. Such a position would be impossible, and it could be advocated only by men who have given no consideration to the subject, because I cannot imagine any intelligent being giving adhesion to anything so absurd.

I thank honorable senators for the courtesy and consideration they have shown me in the very unusual departure I have . made in addressing the Senate while ocupying the position of President. This is the first occasion on which I have trespassed in this fashion, and it was only the supreme gravity of the question that made me depart from that salutary rule that the President, occupying, as he does, a semijudicial position, shall not take part in debate. It has been to me a painful and horrifying thought that Australia might be lightly sacrificed because we failed to be fully seized of our duty. I am prepared to repeat on any platform in Australia that I will never send a man to the front to fight for the existence and the integrity of Australia, » and to run the risk of losing his life, when I am afraid to lose my seat in Parliament. I would lose a thousand seats in Parliament rather than that even a risk should be taken that my child, and the other children whose well-being is all in all to every father and mother, shall enjoy the liberties and benefits of our Democracy one whit less than we enjoy them to-day. What does it matter to me, or any of us who have reached advanced age, what becomes of us for the few remaining years of our lives? We have lived full lives, and we have enjoyed all the advantages that Australia could give us - they have been many and great. We are grateful to the people of Australia, and we should be recreant to our duty if we weighed the remainder of our lives as even the weight of a straw in the balance against the future well-being of Australia and its people. Noble sons of Australia are fighting, suffering, and dying to preserve to us the freedom, happiness, and prosperity which we enjoy. The tree of liberty is being nourished by their blood, and is being watered by the tears of their suffering womenkind. Let us prove worthy of their heroic and supreme sacrifice, and let us pray that we, too, may in this great crisis in the history of our country acquit ourselves as men, so that this loved Australia in which we live may have no reason to be other than proud of the stand we take.

SenatorPEARCE (Western Australia -Minister for Defence) [12.20].- I do not desire to traverse the very excellent speeches that have been made, but 1 wish to extend to those who have taken an opposite view to myself my congratulations upon the tone of their addresses, upon the restraint they have exercised, and upon the absence of recrimination throughout the debate. Naturally I have disagreed from the views they have put forward. I think those honorable senators are on false ground, that they are mistaken; but, at the same time, I wish to say that, although I have been a member of the Senate from its establishment, I have never heard, in the whole of that period, a debate that has approached the level of that on this Bill for the serious and thoughtful way in which honorable senators on both sides of the question have dealt with it, and their restraint. May I add, Sir, that I think your speech was a fitting close tosuch a debate? Every honorable senator has been given full opportunity to express his opinion on the Bill, the principles it contains, and what will follow as the result of the passing of the Bill. It is known that many honorable senators desire to leave this afternoon for other States, and I appeal to the Senate for an opportunity for the Bill to pass before the departure of the trains. It must be recognised that the Bill is of a machinery character, and, if the principle be affirmed on the second reading, it should not take long to pass the measure through all other stages. I wish to thank honorable senators for the way in which the debate has been conducted.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short title and commencement).

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I wish to move to strike out the words “Military Service Referendum Act,” which is the title by which the Act may be cited, with a view to substituting the words “ An Act to save the Hughes Ministry from destruction.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Needham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I must rule the amendment out of order as irrelevant to the provisions of the Bill.

Senator MULLAN:

– There is another matter to which I call attention. The Act is to be deemed to have commenced on the 18th September, 1916, a date that has now passed, and the proclamation for the referendum has been issued. I understand that the referendum will be taken whether this Bill is passed or not. Indeed, when Mr. Cook in another place said to the Prime Minister, “ Suppose the Bill had not been passed by the date mentioned,” the latter replied that he would then be inclined to find a remedy under the War Precautions Act. As the Prime Minister has disregarded Parliament with reference to the issue of the proclamation, I think that we might require him to rely on the War Precautions Act altogether. I ask the Minister for Defence to explain why Parliament has been flouted.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- Parliament has not been flouted. It was necessary to issue the proclamation on the 18th September in order that the referendum might be taken on the 28th

October, and the clause will validate our action.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Issue of writ for referendum).

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– It is provided in the clause that if at the expiration of sixty days from the date of issue of the writ, the Chief Electoral Officer certifies that he is satisfied that not more than 2 per cent. of the total votes polled are still awaiting scrutiny, and that their exclusion cannot affect the result of the referendum, he may return the writ. Why has it been decided not to wait for 2 per cent. of votes which may not have been scrutinized instead of 1 per cent. or 4 per cent. ? On the basis of the polling at the last general election 2 per cent. of the votes polled would number 56,230. It might happen that the exclusion of 4 per cent. of votes would still leave a big enough majority to determine the issue. It seems to me that if the Chief Electoral Officer were in a position to state definitely that there is a majority exclusive of any percentage of votes awaiting scrutiny, he might return the writ.

Senator Pearce:

– Obviously, the larger the percentage, the greater the risk of a mistake by the Electoral Officer. The provision has been inserted to prevent undue delay in connexion with the scrutiny of votes at distant polling places.

– There is a big principle involved in this clause to which I would direct the attention of the Minister. In it there is, in my opinion, a distinct departure from the spirit of the Constitution. I am not going to argue whether the policy of the Government, as expressed in the clause, is good or bad. It is possible that they have done the best they could under the circumstances. But I am inclined to think that if they observe the spirit of the Constitution it is not within their competence to disfranchise any section of the community. Section 41 of the Constitution provides -

No adult person who has or acquires a right to vote at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of a State shall, while the right continues, be prevented by any law of the Commonwealth from voting at elections for either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

I am quite prepared to admit that under this Bill no person will be deprived of his right to vote at an election for either House of this Parliament. But many people will be deprived of their right to vote at a referendum. The spirit of the Constitution undoubtedly is that where a man or woman has the right to vote at an election for members of this Parliament, they impliedly have the right to vote at a referendum. To my mind, that was the intention of the framers of the Constitution. If any authority can deprive these persons of that right it is the State Parliaments, and not the Commonwealth. It may be rather an anomaly that the States should be superior to the Commonwealth, especially in a time of grave crisis. But there is the Constitution on the matter, and while I recognise the position of the Government, I question their power, if they respect the spirit of the Constitution, to do what they propose to do.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Section 41 of the Constitution obviously applies to elections for this Parliament. Now, this Bill does not relate to an election, but to a referendum, and it is not a referendum which is provided for in the Constitution. It is a special referendum. Senator Mullan has argued that if certain persons had not a direct right to vote at the approaching referendum, they have the implied right. But if he is going to rest his case upon an implied right he must have some regard for the military position. The defence of the Commonwealth is something more than an implied right - it is an obligation. Whilst there may be an implied right on the part of these persons to vote, there is an obliga- tion thrown upon the Government to exercise our defence powers, and in the exercise of those powers we have framed this provision.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I recognise the difficulties with which the Government are confronted. But this is a matter involving the exercise of the franchise, and it would be a bad precedent to allow a provision like that under consideration to pass without some such explanation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 -

The Governor-Genera^ or any person authorized by him, may appoint one scrutineer at each polling place, and at each place where the scrutiny is conducted, in the Commonwealth, and the person who in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer is authorized by a majority of those members of both Houses of the Parliament who are not in favour of the prescribed question may appoint one scrutineer at each such polling place and place.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– I think that this clause ia clumsily drafted, inasmuch as it provides that the scrutineers employed must be authorized so to act by a majority of members of both Houses of this Parliament. I think that any person who is authorized so to act by any member of this Parliament should be a scrutineer. At an election for this Parliament any scrutineer’s form signed by any candidate entitles such scrutineer to obtain admission to the polling booth, and to act in that capacity. It is ridiculous to say that a majority of members of both Houses of this Parliament should be required to authorize a scrutineer to act. Why should not any honorable senator be able to authorize a person to act as scrutineer?

Senator Shannon:

– Who is going to pay the scrutineers?

Senator BARNES:

– In my opinion, the Government ought to pay them.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Suppose that every member of Parliament appointed scrutineers?

Senator BARNES:

– The Deputy Returning Officer would allow only such persons to act as were necessary.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– Senator Barnes ia really fighting a shadow. What happens at an election for this Parliament? Any honorable senator has a right to authorize a person to act as a scrutineer, and that is practically what will happen in this case. Any person who, in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, is authorized by a majority of those members of both Houses of Parliament who are not in favour of the question that is being submitted to the people, may appoint one scrutineer at each polling place. In actual practice, any one of the members of Parliament opposed to the question may appoint scrutineers. Who would be likely to object? The Chief Electoral Officer would not object so long as he was satisfied that the member was authorized by a majority of those members of Parliament who are opposed to the question to be submitted to the people.

Senator Barnes:

– The only objection is the trouble attached to securing the consent of a majority of the members of Parliament opposed to the question.

Senator PEARCE:

– At the last election there was no difficulty in regard to the issue of scrutineers’ forms. In that case each candidate was authorized to issue the necessary authority. In this case the only thing necessary will be the approval of the Chief Electoral Officer in regard to the person who is intrusted with the task of issuing these forms by the majority of members of Parliament opposed to the question on which the referendum is to be taken. Any dispute amongst those opposed to the Bill as to who shall be the person empowered to issue the authorities to scrutineers must be settled by the majority of those members of both Houses who are not in favour of the question. Clearly, the Government could not act as the umpire on such a matter, nor could the Chief Electoral Officer. The provision has been carefully thought out with the view to avoiding trouble. Any member who is opposed to the question that is to be submitted to the people may be selected by the majority of the representatives of a State who are opponents of the question for the purpose of issuing; scrutineers’ authorities in his State. if all the representatives of any particular State are supporting the question that is being submitted, then the majority of the representatives of all the States who are opposing the question may appoint some person to issue the forms for that State.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Additional questions to be submitted to electors).

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– Will the Minister explain what procedure is followed in dealing with indorsed ballot-papers which are put into separate envelopes? Is the name of the person who asks for the ballot-paper placed upon the envelope in which the ballot-paper is enclosed ? How can the tribunal which is to be appointed recognise the ballot-paper when the question of the right of the voter has been referred to it?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– There will be an envelope as in the case of the absent vote. The name of the voter will appear on the envelope, but the ballot-paper will not be opened. If questions as to the right of an elector to vote are to be decided as the voting proceeds there will be tremendous delay. Therefore, the ballot-paper is enclosed in an envelope, which is placed in a separate box and afterwards investigated by the prescribed tribunal. The envelope is investigated, but the ballot-paper remains unopened, and if the person is found to be entitled to a vote it is dropped into the box containing the valid ballot-papers.

Senator Turley:

– Who will constitute the tribunals?

Senator PEARCE:

– They are to be provided for by regulation, but it is contemplated that they will be constituted by stipendiary magistrates.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 -

The Governor-General may make …. such regulations as are in his opinion necessary or expedient for the purpose of providing a system or systems whereby -

members of the crew of any Australian transport vessel employed in the conveyance of members of the Forces to or from Australia may vote at the referendum.

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I move as an amendment -

That in paragraph (6) the words “Australian transport vessel employed in the conveyance of members of the Forces “ be struck out and “vessel trading” inserted in lieu thereof.

This will widen the scope of the clause, and not confine the opportunity to vote to crews of transports.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– I hope the honorable senator will not press the amendment. There are two classes bf vessel - the interned enemy vessel not used as a transport but for trading purposes, and those used as transports. We can give this special provision to transports, because they all carry officers under the control of the Commonwealth. The others do not. If we extend it to enemy ships used for mercantile purposes, we ought to extend it to all trading ships. The Government do not see their way to do that. Our own officers can be penalized if they do not regard the conditions we lay down as regards voting ; the others cannot in the same way. The other ships are not entirely left out, as the ordinary Electoral Act provisions apply to them, and there have been no complaints on that ground at previous elections. That Act provides that at .any time within six weeks after the issue of a writ, if any of these ships comes into port and the crew are entitled to vote, they can record an absent vote. This clause applies the provisions of the Electoral Act to the referendum, so that the crews of any ships that are in port, or come here within the six weeks, can record an absent vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– What motive actuated the Government in not giving a vote to all members of the Australian Imperial Force regardless of their age ? Why did they not include those under twenty-one in paragraph a of this clause ? If a young man is good enough to fight for his country, he ought to be good enough to vote on this question. I realize that probably the majority of these men may vote conscription, but, although an anti-conscriptionist, I would give them the right to vote at the referendum.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– My heart goes with the honorable senator, but my reason is against him. If I agreed to do what he says, we should have to give the vote to returned men under twenty-one years old now in Australia. We should also give it to rejected volunteers under twenty-one, and to others who have been prevented as munition workers from enlisting. The alteration would really involve the question whether the voting age should be reduced. It would be better to do that, if it is to be done, in a general measure than piecemeal.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator READY:
Tasmania

– Senator Henderson, Chairman of Committees, was unable, through illness, to be present, and record his vote in favour of this Bill. He desired me particularly to get the fact that his vote would be for the Bill if he were present stated. I wish to state that through no fault of his own his vote was not able to be recorded.

Senator Lynch:

– Why did you not get him a pair?

Senator READY:

– I was unable to secure a pair for him. Senator Long was called away to Tasmania and is supporting the Bill, and Senator O’Loghlin, who also intended to vote for the Bill, writes me that he cannot be present, as he is leaving on active service.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– If Senator Henderson wanted to be carried here on his bed he would get here. Not to grant him a pair so that he could record his vote was not playing the game, and I am certain Senator Henderson will stand up to it when he knows what has happened.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 8969

ADJOURNMENT

Military Service Referendum Bill : Refusal of a Pair.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I desire to complete a. statement that I was proceeding to make on the motion for the third reading of the Military Service Referendum Bill when I was prevailed upon by the Minister for Defence to resume my seat. During the debate on that Bill we heard the statement repeated ad nauseam by those who are opposed to conscription that they object to conscript human life. And yet, when a sick comrade was lying close at hand, too ill to attend to take part in the division, although he would have dearly loved to do so,those very men who talk about the sacredness of human life, and would not have it subjected to any risk, would have had that’ comrade endanger his life by coming here to record his vote. They would not extend to him the courtesy of giving him a pair. They would not play the game. These men, who talk about the sacredness of human life, and say they object to any man being called upon to risk his life, would have allowed a comrade - my comrade, Senator George Henderson - to risk his own life by attending here, rather than give him a pair. On his behalf I enter this my final protest, and say that it is not playing the game.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1.32 p.m. (Saturday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 September 1916, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1916/19160922_senate_6_80/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 September 1916

QUESTION

BENDIGO CAMP

Senator BLAKEY:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

MILITARY UNIFORMS

Senator STORY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE

Senator FERRICKS:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

MILITARY SEARCHES

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

MILITARY SERVICE OF ALLIES

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator Buzacott:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator MAUGHAN:QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:ALP

MILITARY SERVICE REFERENDUM BILL

Second Reading

Senator READY:Tasmania

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator Turley:

Senator READY:

Senator Turley:

Senator READY:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

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

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator READY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator READY:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator READY:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

Senator Lynch:

Senator READY:

Senator Lynch:

Senator READY:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator READY:

Senator Ferricks:

Senator READY:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator Shannon:

Senator READY:

Senator Guy:

Senator READY:

Senate
22 September 1916

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator FERRICKS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator READY:
Tasmania

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

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

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator TURLEY:
QUEENSLAND · ALP