Senate
14 March 1917

6th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 11313

QUESTION

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is it the inten tion of the Government, as desired by the vote of the Senate yesterday, to appoint a Royal Commission to . inquire into the charges made by Senator Watson against the . Prime Minister, the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Senator Ready from the Senate, and the appearance of Senator Earle in his placet?

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

– I have not yet bad. an opportunity of placing the report of the proceedings in this Chamber yesterday before the Government, but I am taking steps now to do so.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask Senator Watson, seeing that he is in the Senate now, as he was last night when I asked the same question, whether he is prepared to stand up and charge the Prime Minister with attempting to bribe and corrupt him?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Standing Orders distinctly provide that a question to a private senator can only be asked with regard to some business which he has on the notice-paper. Senator Watson has no such business on the notice-paper, so far as I can discover, as would justify this question being put to him.

Senator Lynch:

– I asked the honorable senator the same question last night when he was present, but he refused to answer me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That matter cannot be referred to.

Senator Lynch:

– How can I get ‘an answer from the honorable senator!

page 11314

PAPERS

The following , papers were presented : -

Audit Act 1901-1912- Regulations amended, &c- Statutory Bales 1917, No. 45.

Defence : Statement regarding proposed Federal Arsenal.

Public Service Act 1902-1916- Promotions of C. B. Cantwell and H. A. Birrell, Department of Trade and Customs.

page 11314

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I rise to ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question with regard to the following telegram from Perth, dated the 13th March, which I received last night: -

Article by me on Australian war finance prohibited. - W. Sommerville.

Is the Minister aware of the article on Australian war finance written by Mr. W. Sommerville? Is he aware that it is prohibited, and, if bo, by whom ? If it is prohibited, will all other articles on the subject, whether written in Australia or appearing in magazines or newspapers from overseas, be prohibited also?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– It must be obvious to the honorable senator that I cannot possibly possess the information which he seeks. I therefore ask him to give notice of a question.

page 11314

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTION

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– Has any infor mation yet been received from the Imperial Government in regard to the question I asked some time ago, namely, whether the Imperial Government deemed it practicable and expedient to take the votes of the Australian soldiers at the front if a general election should transpire in Australia during the ‘next few months ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I do not want to commit myself, but I have a doubt in my mind on this matter. I believe that a reply has been received. 1 will endeavour to ascertain whether that is so, and also the nature of the reply.

page 11314

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ WIVES AND CHILDREN

Senator WATSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister for Defence a question in connexion with the money paid to the soldiers at the front, and to their wivesand children. Does he consider that 4½d.per day per child is sufficient for the maintenance of those families who are deprived of their breadwinner; and, if not, will he take into consideration at the earliest possible moment the question of raising the amount to something which will be adequate to meet the necessities of those who are dependent, upon that means of income?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It is not correct to say that only 4½d. per day is allowed for the upkeep of a child. In addition to that amount, there is the soldiers’ pay and separation allowance, and the soldier is compelled to allow a certain portion of his pay, which increases according to the number of the children in the family. It can ‘go up to 10s. per day for seven days in the week, according to the number of the children, which is higher than the average wage, considering that there is no lost time the whole year round, as in the case of a labourer in Australia.

page 11314

QUESTION

CASE OF MR. BARDOLPH

Senator STORY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Leader of the

Senate in a position to reply to the question I put yesterday regarding one Bardolph?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The reply furnished to me by the Department reads as follows : -

The draughtsman referred to is not employed by this Department, but by Mr. Griffin, Federal Capital Director of Design and Construction. I am not aware of the arsenal work thiB draughtsman is engaged upon, but Mr. Griffin is seeing to the arsenal village. The arsenal proper is being dealt with in this Department. I understand Mr. Bardolph is British or Australian born of British parents.

Senator STORY:

– Arising out of the reply, would not the’ salary of this young man be paid by the Commonwealth Government, although he is employed by Mr. Griffin?

Senator MILLEN:

– Obviously, “it would, and the portion of the reply dealing with Mr. Griffin was merely to make lt clear that it was not possible to immediately get all the details of the case. The main purpose of the question, I think, was to deal with the man’s nationality, and the reply is definite on that point, namely, that he is British or Australian born of British parents.

page 11315

QUESTION

ENLISTMENTS IN AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator GARDINER:

– Is there any reason why the members of the Senate should not be supplied with the monthly enlistments for the Australian Imperial Force; and, if not, will the Minister for Defence supply us with the numbers and with permission to use the information publicly?.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– There is no reason why the monthly lists from the beginning of the year should not be supplied. They have been supplied to those honorable senators who asked for them. The honorable senator applied for the .whole of the enlistments from the beginning of the war. This information has; not been supplied. The reason why was made known to a secret meeting of the members of both Houses which was held dome time ago. If the honorable senator] has forgotten the reason I will refresh his memory by telling him what it was

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Arising out of’ the answer given to Senator Gardnier, I ask the Minister for Defence whether he is in a position to supply the Senate with a statement showing the total number of enlistments in the Australian . Imperial Force up to 30th September, 1915 1

Senator PEARCE:

– No; for the reason I gave in my answer to Senator Gardiner. There are reasons why that information should not be made public.

Senator GARDINER:

– Arising out of the answer just given, to Senator Grant, can the Minister for Defence say why, if he at a public meeting states that 292,000 men have left Australia for tha front, there should be any secrecy about the dates on which they left this country!

Senator PEARCE:

– It is obvious that I cannot reply to the honorable senator’s question without disclosing the reason.

page 11315

QUESTION

WHEAT POOL

Senator LYNCH:

– I ask the Minister in charge of the wheat scheme when the further instalment is going to be paid? “Will he state whether it will be paid sufficiently early to enable the wheat-growers of this country to regard it as a help in putting in a larger area? I may remind the Minister that if action is not taken soon-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is debating the question.

Senator LYNCH:

– All that I wish to ask is that a definite pronouncement be made as to when the further instalment will be paid to the wheat-growers who have delivered the goods and are living on half wages?

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

– This matter is under consideration, and I hope that it will be possible to pay another dividend at an early date.

page 11315

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND STOCK EMBARGO

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I have obtained the following answer to the question which Senator Gould previously submitted on this matter: -

A number of applications to remove stock from Queensland to other States have been received, and permits under the War Precautions Regulations 1917 have been issued subject to compliance with existing State laws relating to diseases of stock. Advice has now been received from holders of permits that their stock has been allowed to cross.

page 11316

QUESTION

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Casualties

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago I asked the Minister for Defence if he would furnish the Senate with a statement showing the net casualties in the Australian Imperial Force each month since the commencement of the war. I understood the Minister to say that he would do so if practicable. I should like to ask him now if it is practicable, and what steps have been taken to furnish the information?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– I am under the impression that the information has already been supplied.

Senator Mullan:

– The total number of casualties has been supplied, but not the number each’ month.

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall make inquiries, and see if the information which the honorable senator requires can be supplied.

page 11316

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION TO UNITED STATES

Senator NEEDHAM:

– A few days ago I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it was the intention of the present Government to appoint a Trades Commission to visit the United States. The reply I received was that the Government had not considered the matter, but would do so later. I now ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether the present Government intend to consider the matter, or whether he will give me a straight-out reply, and say that no such Trades Commission will be appointed ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I think I am entitled to take some exception to the latter portion of the honorable senator’s question. I am not aware that I have ever refrained from giving what he terms a straight-out reply. I did give the Senate the assurance that the present Government has not considered the matter, but intends to do so. That is exactly the position now. Matters in these times move at a very rapid rate, and it is not always possible to secure Cabinet consideration for every matter presented for settlement.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Arising out of the answer to my question, may I ask .the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the present Government will give consideration to the appointment of this Commission f

Senator MILLEN:

– That will depend very much on the course of public business, including operations in this Chamber.

Senator Needham:

– I take that to mean that the Government have no intention to appoint the Commission.

page 11316

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTION

Censorship

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in view of the fact that we shall soon be engaged in a general election-

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator said the other day that there would not be an election.

Senator GARDINER:

– We know that there must be an election shortly.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator was speaking previously only in a Pickwickian sense.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was not, and Senator Bakhap must know that the members of the Government are wondering how my information on the subject came to me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator should proceed with his question.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was interrupted when proceeding to ask my question. In view of the fact that the Government have foreshadowed a general election, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate give us an assurance that as press articles must be signed no censorship will be placed on’ political articles in the press.

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I should like to know just what the honorable senator means by the terms of his question. If he means to ask whether the censorship will be used to protect the Government from political attacks, the answer to his question is “ No.” But that censorship is necessary in time of war must be obvious to every honorable senator.

Senator GARDINER:

– May I assume from the’ honorable senator’s answer ..that he gives the Senate and the country an assurance that the Government will not use the censorship of the press for political purposes?

Senator MILLEN:

– I can put the position in a few words. There will be full and . free opportunities for political discussion, and for all discussion subject only to military necessities.

Senator GARDINER:

– Does the assurance of the Vice-President of the Executive Council carry with it the assurance that newspaper proprietors will not he subjected to the necessity of having to submit their articles to the censor before publishing them?

Senator MILLEN:

– No. That would be impossible. That would mean that the articles would first be published, and there would be no censorship of them until after they had done their work. I repeat again that the Government have no intention or desire that the censorship should be exercised for any purpose other than for which it was established in respect of the military necessities of the present position.

Senator GARDINER:

– Will the Government consider the difficult position in which country newspapers published in towns in which there are no ‘representatives of the Censor’s office will be placed through having to send their articles a considerable distance to the Censor, and await his reply before publishing them ? Will the Government consider that aspect of the question before deciding to conduct the censorship in the way indicated 1

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government have considered the point referred to, and will continue to do so. I may state for the information of Senator Gardiner that the only country newspapers that are under any necessity to send their articles to the Censor are those that have shown a tendency to disobey the instructions of the Censor. It is only such news. papers that will be invited to submit themselves to the inconvenience complained of.

Senator GARDINER:

– Arising out of the answer to my last question. I ask whether the’ War Precautions Act does not give the Government sufficient powers to prosecute and punish any person who offends against it? Will the Government take care that the proprietor of any newspaper guilty of an offence against the Act will be prosecuted according to the regulations, and penalized according to the decision of the Court, and will they cease to put a continuous penalty upon the proprietors of such newspapers for some previous breach of the regulations?

Senator MILLEN:

– I could not give a definite answer to the honorable senator’s last question. The continuity or otherwise of punishment must largely depend upon the nature of the offence.

Of course, if one newspaper exhibits a disposition to continually ignore authority, it is obvious that the punishment in its case must be more continuous than it would be in the case of a journal which had inadvertently committed its first error.

Senator GARDINER:

– le it a fact that the only newspapers which are considered to have offended under the regulations are the Labour newspapers of Australia ?

Senator MILLEN:

– That statement is altogether contrary to facts which are well known to myself. When the honorable senator speaks of penalties levied in the case of Labour newspapers, may I remind him that it has been his continual boast that the Labour party is the one party which does not possess a press?

Senator LYNCH:

– In view of the approach of a general election, will the Government consider the advisableness of amending the Electoral Act in the direction of punishing by six months’ imprisonment those persons who make extravagant and outrageous statements, and who do not rise to the required level in such contests ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I have given a great deal of painful and personal consideration to the subject-matter embraced in the first portion of the honorable senator’s question. As for the rest, I would remind him that there is not much prospect of an amendment of the kind foreshadowed by him being dealt with this session. If such an amendment were adopted, we should possibly be faced here after the elections with empty banches on the Opposition side of the Chamber.

Senator GRANT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister if the Government will take into consideration in connexion with any amendment of the Electoral Act the advisableness of dealing with those persons who wander about the country slandering and maligning members of the Opposition by imposing on them six months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine?

page 11317

QUESTION

SALE OF SUGAR

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is the statement of the arrangement between the Commonwealth Government and the grocers of Australia with reference to the sale of sugar to the public, which appeared in the Age yesterday, correct; and, if not, will he lay a copy of the agreement on the matter on the table of the Senate?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– Before the Commonwealth Government took over the distribution of refined sugar, retailers obtained a profit of £2 3s. per ton. Under present arrangements, retailers’ profits on sugar are £4 3s. per ton.

page 11318

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER

New Business

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That standing order No. 68 be suspended up to and including the 23rd March, 1917, for the purpose of enabling new business to be commenced after half-past 10 o’clock at night.

page 11318

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– It appears to me that notice of motion No. 1, Private Business, in the name of Senator Gardiner, comes within the category of business of the Senate, which has always been accorded priority and precedence in this Chamber. I therefore propose, unless otherwise directed by the Senate itself, to give priority and precedence to that motion.

page 11318

APPOINTMENT OF SENATOR EARLE

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I move-

That as Mr. John Earle had not resigned his seat in the Tasmanian State Parliament fourteen days prior to his appointment as a member of this Senate, the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee be instructed to inquire and report whether he is qualified to sit as a member of this Senate.

It will not require many words from me to show the ground upon which I base my case. The Constitution empowers this Parliament to deal with the qualifications of senators, and Parliament has dealt with the matter in our Electoral Act, which provides in section 94 -

No person shall be capable of being elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives unless duly nominated.

Then section -95 reads -

To entitle a person to be nominated as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives he must be qualified under the Constitution to be elected as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Then section 96 lays it down -

No person who is, at the date of nomination, or who was at any time within fourteen days prior to the date of nomination, a member of the Parliament of a State, shall be capable of being nominated as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is the latter part of section 96 to which I desire to direct special attention. In doing so I need only say that Senator Earle himself has intimated that he will support me in having this matter referred to the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee. It is quite clear under section 96 that no member of any State Parliament who had not severed his connexion ‘with that Parliament . fourteen days prior to the date of nomination could be chosen by the electors of any State as a senator. It is equally clear that the whole of our parliamentary institutions, and the whole of the freedom that we enjoy under those institutions, have been gained as the result of the> people securing from the Crown powers which heretofore they had not exercised. It never was the intention of the Constitution to give to the Governor of Tasmania, or the Governor of any other State, or the Governor-General in Council, more power under our free institutions than has been given to the people themselves. Therefore, if the people had not the . power to make a senator of Senator Earle, seeing that he had retained his seat in the Tasmanian Parliament up to within twenty-four hours of his appointment, the Crown, I claim, had not the power to do that. I think this makes out a sufficiently good case for the matter to be referred to the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee. I have nothing further to say on the matter. I recognise that Government business is urgent and insistent. I bring this matter before the Senate, firmly believing that Senator Earle is sitting here as a representative of the Crown and under conditions which do not entitle him to occupy his seat.

Senator de Largie:

– You have no right to prejudge the case in asking it to be referred to the Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course, the wise man on the other side generally interjects in such a way as to be intelligent only to himself, but to no one else. I am putting this case without any desire for party criticism at all. It is a serious matter, and probably, with the exception of Senator de Largie, every other honorable senator will recognise that it is worthy of serious consideration. My point is that our parliamentary institutions are a negation of the powers of the Crown, and I move, therefore, that this question be referred to the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion haying been submitted, it now comes within my province to say whether it is a matter that can properly be submitted to the Senate. The motion reads as follows : -

That as Mr. John Earle had not resigned his seat in the Tasmanian State Parliament fourteen days prior to his appointment as a member of this Senate, the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee be instructed to inquire and report whether he is qualified to sit as a member of this Senate.

Senator Gardiner is labouring under a misapprehension in stating that Senator Earle was appointed or required to be appointed under the provisions of our Electoral Act. Section 15 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides for such appointment, either by the Governor of the State or by the two Houses of the Parliament, if sitting when a vacancy occurs, In the Constitution there is no such disqualification as mentioned in the motion. Only in cases where any doubt exists, or where some malpractice is alleged, is it proper to send the case on to the Committee of Disputed Returns. Our Standing Orders are also clear on the point as to how a case may be sent on to the Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee. Standing order 324, dealing with disputed returns, provides -

Any question against the choice or appointment of a Senator which can not, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be brought before the Court of Disputed Returns, may be brought before the Senate by petition.

It is quite evident from that, therefore, that, whether a man is elected in the ordinary course, or appointed by the Governor of a State, his appointment is a proper subject to be remitted to the election tribunal, that is, to our Disputed Returns and Qualifications Committee. That standing order, I point out, provides the proper method of doing that, for it says that a case - may be brought before the Senate by petition.

That is the one and only way in which it may be brought before the Senate. Standing order 325 provides -

Every such petition shall be lodged with the Clerk of the Senate within forty days after the President has laid on the table the certificate of the Governor of the State for which the Senator has been chosen or appointed.

Section 326 states -

The sum of £50 shall be paid to the Clerk of the Senate at the time the petition is lodged with him as surety for the payment of costs by the petitioners in case the Senate decides that the petitioners shall pay costs to the respondent.

Section 327 goes on to say -

If the above-mentioned conditions have been complied with, the Clerk shall so certify on the petition, and the President shall lay the petition on the table, and shall forthwith refer thesame to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications.

The method is clearly set out in these provisions of the Standing Orders. I am bound by them, and the Senate is also bound by them. I am not responsible for them. My duty is to see that they are carried, out. Fortunately for me, and fortunately also for the Senate, we have had a previous case - that of Senator Lieutenant-Colonel O’Loghlin, whose election was referred to the Committee of Disputed Returns, as far back, I think, as 1907. That case was referred to the Committee in exactly the way I have mentioned, namely, by petition. As I have already pointed out, standing order 324 provides -

Any question against the choice or appointment of a Senator which can not, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, be brought before the Court of Disputed Returns may be brought before the Senate by petition.

Again, fortunately for me, this provision contains a legal point which lam not called upon to decide, namely, as to whether this could or could not be brought before the Court of Disputed Returns. But the Electoral Act which Senator Gardiner quoted from provides that if it is so desired this Senate has the right, by resolution, to refer a case to the Court of Disputed Returns. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902-11, in section 206aa, states -

Any question respecting the qualification of a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, may be referred by resolution to the Court of Disputed Returns by .the House in which the question arises and the Court of Disputed Returns shall thereupon have jurisdiction to hear and determine the question.

The previous case was referred back to the Senate from the High Court ; and the Committee recommended that legislation be brought in under our Electoral Act empowering the Court ta hear a case without referring it hack again to the Committee. The Commonwealth Parliament took action, and framed our law in accordance with that recommendation. Taking all these facts into consideration, and taking into account also that the Senate, in conjunction with the other branch of the Legislature, has made special provisions to deal with such matters as have arisen, I am reluctantly compelled to rule the motion out of order, because it does not deal with the matter in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders or the practice of the Senate.

Senator Gardiner:

– Would I be in order in speaking on your ruling, Mr. President?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, not .after I have given my ruling.

Senator Gardiner:

– All I wish to say is that I thank you for the information you have given, and for your ruling on this matter. I have good reason to remember the old saying, “ Beware of the Greeks when they bring you gifts.” I might have known when I had an opportunity of bringing this matter on first that there was some other means of preventing the motion being discussed. I thank you for your information. The methods you have outlined are too cumbersome to provide the remedy against this senator, who comes into this Senate by an illegal way, as we shall soon have an election upon us.

Senator Earle:
By leave

– I shall be very brief in the personal explanation I desire to offer. I regret that the Standing Orders have prevented Senator Gardiner from proceeding with his motion, because I courted the fullest inquiry into the validity of my position in the Senate. I did not intend to say anything on the merits or demerits of the case if it had been referred to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications. But, as it cannot be referred to that body, I must express my surprise at the interpretation placed upon the Constitution Act and the Electoral Act by the Leader of the Opposition. The position under which I was appointed to the Senate was of an extraordinary character. Honorable senators on the other side, by their usual malignant tactics, succeeded in driving one of their number out of the Senate.

Senator Needham:

– I rise to order. I have no objection to the honorable senator making a personal explanation, but when he accuses this side of malignant tactics, I want to know if it is a personal explanation ? Is he in order in accusing us of malignant tactics?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Earle is not entitled, under cover of a personal explanation, to make an attack on individual or Collective members of the Senate.

Senator Earle:

– Then I withdraw the statement, sir, and say that a member of the Opposition party suddenly decided to leave the Senate. In the case of an extraordinary vacancy in the Senate, the Governor in Council of the State, failing the State Parliament being in session, has power, under section 15 of the Constitution, to appoint a successor until the State Parliament is in session, when the matter can be again dealt with, and in the event of the State Parliament indorsing the action of the Governor in Council, then the senator is appointed for the unexpired portion of the resigned senator’s term, or until a general election, whichever first happens.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– If the retired senator had another three years to run, the new senator could not sit for that term.

Senator Earle:

– Certainly not. He would have to contest an election at the first opportunity. The Constitution Act was passed in 1900, while the Electoral Act, dealing with elections only, was passed by this Parliament in 1902. The only question which could possibly arise as to the validity of my position would be in regard to my qualification. The qualification of a senator is, as honorable senators know, that he shall have been a resident in the Commonwealth for three years!

Senator Gardiner:

– And not a member of a State Parliament.

Senator Earle:

– I have been in the Commonwealth for fifty-one and a half years. I am supposed to be an elector. I have been an elector ever since I was qualified, and so my qualification as a member of the Senate is absolutely unquestionable.

Senator Millen:

– Is your nationality all right?

Senator Earle:

– I am a natural-born subject of the King, so that there is no doubt about that qualification. The only possible doubt in Senator Gardiner’s mind as to my qualification to be here is based on section 96 of the Electoral Act, which provides that no person who has been a member of a State Parliament within fourteen days of the date of nomination is qualified to become a candidate for election. I was not a candidate for an election; I was not nominated; I was appointed by the Executive Council of Tasmania for a period - either until the general election, or until the members of the State Parliament indorsed their action. That is my position, and I court the fullest inquiry. I am not likely to stultify wy political career by rushing into an illegal transaction. I know exactly where I am.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The position which the honorable senator takes -up is that the provision in the Electoral Act cannot override section 15 of the Constitution?

Senator Earle:

– Absolutely, no.

Senator Keating:

– All our legislation is subject to the Constitution..

Senator Earle:

– Of course, it is. The position is quite different. I have no more to say than to express my sorrow that the Standing Orders prevent honorable senators on the other side from seeking that satisfaction which they desire by an inquiry held by a constitutional authority.

page 11321

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1916-17

General Election: Proportional Voting - The Government and the Senate: Proposed Royal Commission - The Right Honorable W. M. Hughes - Split in Labour Party - Labour Movement - Compulsory Military Service : Referendum : Soldiers’ Votes - Imperial Conference : Australian Delegation - Coalition Government - Prosecution of the War - Prolongation of Parliament - The Tariff: Protection - National Defence and National Development: Population - Land Values Taxation - Home Rule for Ireland - Enlistments and Casualties - Imperial Federation Repatriation - Abandonment of Wealth Tax - Destitution of Returned Soldiers - Remission of Taxation - Censorship - Party Funds - Domination of Trade Unions - Industrial Workers of the World Influence - Day Labour System - Labour Tyranny - Pairs - Constitution Alteration Referenda - War Loans - War Legislation - Senator Russell and Enlistment - The War and Monarchy - Land Monopoly.

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– My reason for, in the first instance, calling for a division on the question of suspending the Standing Orders was not to delay the Supply Bill, but because yesterday there was so much objection taken to the breaking down or the overriding of the Standing Orders that I did intend to say a few words on the subject. It is a strange thing that, after having at the request of members of my party allowed the motion to go as I did, I should be subjected to jeers from the other side. In answer to the jeers, I wish to let the public know that we on this side can be generous, that had we gone to a division the Ministerial party had not enough senators here to carry a motion to suspend the Standing Orders, because they need the support of nineteen senators for the purpose.

Senator Pearce:

– Not to carry a motion on notice; only a bare majority is required then.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am under the impression that the Standing Orders cannot be suspended unless there is an absolute majority in favour of the suspension.

Senator Pearce:

– That is’ in the case of a motion submitted without notice.

Senator GARDINER:

– Let that point be clearly understood. On this occasion we were quite prepared to allow the motion to go through in order to expedite the Government’s business, to give them an opportunity to close this session at the earliest possible moment, and get to the country.

Senator Earle:

– Your intentions were all right, but the fact that notice of the motion had been given removed your power ‘to object.

Senator GARDINER:

– The fact is not altered; the fact is there. I take it that this will be the last Supply Bill which the present Government will introduce.

Senator Millen:

– In this session.

Senator GARDINER:

– There are one or two matters which I wish to bring before the Senate, and I desire to do so in such a way that the Government and their supporters will realize that as regards the questions on which we shall face the electors in the near future nothing must be. left unsaid before we go to the country. That isi the attitude which I will adopt.

Senator Pearce:

– On what questions are we to face them ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I take it that we are to face the electors on the question of the suitability of this Government to manage the affairs of the country. I take it that we are to face the electors on the questions of attempted bribery which have been raised here, and which the ‘Government have not yet agreed to inquire into by means of a Royal Commission. There is no mistaking the issues at the elections. In my opinion, the Government have not the courage to appoint a Royal Commission. I see the wild-eyed representative from “Western Australia, Senator Lynch, glaring at me.

Senator Lynch:

– I have my eye on you-

Senator GARDINER:

– Perhaps this is .the only opportunity which the Standing Orders have given me of throwing back in the teeth of the honorable senator the taunt which he hurled at me and my country the other day when he made his infamous allusion to Botany Bay. Let Botany Bay and its early history be as black as it likes. The country which he comes from, a glorious country, Ireland,’ with a long list of martyrs for liberty - has also produced the perfidious Castlereagh, Carey, and Senator Patrick Lynch. Let him make no mistake about that.

Senator Lynch:

– This is a bit belated.

Senator GARDINER:

– The man who,’ in his place in Parliament, taunt’s me about Australia, has three years yet to wait before he has to appeal to insulted Australians for their suffrages. But let him carry back to his Western State the fact that he used the position which Australians had given him-

Senator Lynch:

– I will be here when you are gathering bottles.

Senator GARDINER:

– I would rather be an honest bottle man than be here as the honorable senator is. There is no dishonour in the manner in which a man earns his living. I know that the honorable senator holds in contempt an honest man who earns his living by gathering bottles. If a man is honest God be with him and help him in his occupation. A bottle gatherer may be following a humble occupation. Senator Lynch holds a high position in this Commonwealth, and he degrades it by every utterance which he makes here.

Senator Watson:

– It is a case of putting a beggar on horseback, and of nim riding to the devil.

Senator Lynch:

– This informer here has got speech at last.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator GARDINER:

– For weeks we have been amused by the outbreaks of Senator Lynch. When he starts, no one can say where he will end. But there has been one thing running through all that he has had to say, and that is his contempt for Australia and Australians. That has run through all his utterances in this chamber during the last three weeks.

Senator Lynch:

– Where does the honorable senator expect to go when he dies ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I expect to go where Senator Lynch is sure that he is going.

Senator Lynch:

– This is too thin. The honorable senator was as mild as mother’s milk when he was in Western Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, I was very mild in Western Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Because the honorable senator had to meet there the men who sent me into the -Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is true that I went to Western Australia, and met the men who sent Senator Lynch into the Senate, and I am glad to be able to tell honorable senators the impression I gained during my visit. It is that the great heart of the Labour movement in Western Australia is as true to Labour as it ever was, and holds in contempt the rats and renegades who have left our movement.

Senator Shannon:

– The Kalgoorlie vote last night showed it.

Senator GARDINER:

– We shall see what is shown by the Kalgoorlie votes when they are finally counted. We will not need to depend upon newspaper reports.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How is it any worse to refer to “Botany Bay,” in speaking of honorable senators on -the other side than it is for the honorable senator to speak of “ rats and renegades “ when referring to honorable senators on this side?

Senator GARDINER:

– I say that it is infinitely worse for a man holding a position dependent on the votes of Australians to make contemptuous references to the early days of Australia. That is the most contemptible thing any member of this Parliament could be guilty of. If Senator Newland is behind Senator Lynch in making a reference of that kind, let him say so to the decent electors of South Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is more contemptuous that the honorable senator should call men as good as himself “ rats and renegades.” I throw that back in his teeth. I am as good a Labour man as he is.

Senator GARDINER:

– For my part, the man who signs the pledge of a party, and breaks that pledge, can claim to be as good as he pleases.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is not’ true.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is only too true, and it is known to the whole of the electors of the State from which Senator Newland comes.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is known to the electors that it is distinctly contrary to fact.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order !

Senator Watson:

– How is it that Senator Newland finds himself outside the Labour party?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– 1 would sooner be outside of it than in it with Senator “Watson.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Lynch has taunted me with my mildness when in Western Australia, just as I have taunted him with his wildness in this chamber. I had but one object in view in visiting the Western State, and that was, if possible, to hold the Labour party together there. I say that the followers of Labour in Western Australia desire to hold the party together, and to give every opportunity to their representatives in this Parliament, who have left the party, to come back to it and stand loyally by the Labour movement. But, unfortunately, the representatives of Western Australia in this Parliament are being led by a man who, in my opinion, has set out with the deliberate intention of dividing and wrecking the Labour movement. I refer to Mr. William Morris Hughes, and I have been confirmed in my opinion by watching his actions during the last three months.

Senator Bakhap:

– He thought too much of keeping the Labour party to gether. He had two objectives instead of one, and was able to give effect to neither. He wished to bring m conscription, and to keep the Labour party together at the same time.

Senator GARDINER:

– So far as conscription is concerned, we know that Mr. Hughes never attempted to bring in conscription by an Act of Parliament. So far as I know - and I know a good deal - I do not think he ever mentioned conscription anywhere.

Senator Bakhap:

– He thought too much of keeping the Labour party together.

Senator GARDINER:

– He thought of keeping the party together until he could gather a sufficient following to cripple and injure the Labour movement. If honorable senators require any proof of that, they have only to consider the part Mr. Hughes has played in taking our majority from us in the last few days of this session. That should convince the last- man hanging on to the coat tails of this leader.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Gardiner hung on to his coat tails until he could not hang on to them any longer.

Senator GARDINER:

– When Senator Guthrie charges me with hanging on to the coat tails of Mr. Hughes I have only to say that fortunately for me my public career has been of longer duration than that of Mr. Hughes. I received no favour at his hands. He did not assist me by speeches, or otherwise to obtain a seat in Parliament. I was the selected and elected Labour candidate for a seat in the New South Wales Parliament three years before Mr. Hughes entered a Parliament in this country. I entered Parliament in 1891, and Mr. Hughes did not enter Parliament until 1894. When I entered the New South Wales Parliament in 1891 Mr. Hughes was one of the brilliant red-raggers of the Socialist party, and was not connected with the Labour movement. I am* not sure that it would not be advisable for me to keep this debate going until half-past six o’clock in order that I might produce copies of Justice and The New Order inorder that honorable senators might be convinced that the red-ragger in politics in those days is the man who to-day is trying to divide trade unionists, and is insulting the Labour movement by connecting our respectable trade unions with undesirable elements of Society. When tha true history of Australia comes to be written the trade unionists of the country will loom largely as an important factor in its development. They are the persons who first organized to make the conditions of life for the workers in Australia bearable, to secure proper sanitary conditions in warehouses and workshops, and to let a little sunlight into the dark places to which the workers were confined by their masters before the trade unions came into existence.

Senator Bakhap:

– The Liberals were doing all that before the habour party was born.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Bakhaps says that the Liberals were doing this work. Were they doing it in 1890 ‘ They had had the government of this country in their hands for over 100 years at that time, and how much had they done in this direction ?

Senator Bakhap:

– They had done everything that was of value.

Senator GARDINER:

– These honorable senators opposite say that it was the Liberals who made the conditions of the workers better. Let them go and tell that to the operatives in the factories and warehouses, and the men in the mines and workshops. Let them refer to the conditions that existed in 1890, and then tell the workers that it was the Liberals who did that for them. Why they paid a girl the magnificent wage of 2s. 6d. per week after she had served for six months for nothing. They gave women workers in the warehouses and factories about 10s. per week after they had served for six years. They gave them scarcely enough wages to pay tram fares. That is what the Liberals did for the workers. If we go to the Western State, which Senator Lynch comes here to represent, and consider what Liberal legislation had then done to make the lot of the miner more bearable we shall find that they had done very little. They permitted rich mining companies to take millions of money from the mines of Australia, and pay it into the pockets of shareholders over the’ water, who. never risked their lives beneath the surface of the ground.

Senator Bakhap:

– Why, the old-time mining director was a man who had been a miner himself.

Senator GARDINER:

– What had they done to improve the underground workings, and to cope with the awful diseases from which miners were compelled ‘ to suffer ? It was the miners and the workers’ organizations that compelled the use of the water system to lay the dust arising in the mines. We know that none of these things was due to the Liberals.

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– All the dust has not been laid yet.

Senator GARDINER:

– We know that the workers’ organizations have done all that has been done to make the conditions of labour better, and it makes me angry to think that so many honorable senators opposite have left us, and will not continue the fight which we are waging.

Senator Guthrie:

– Who is not continuing the fight? I am doing more for trade unionists to-day than the honorable senator is doing.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Guthrie, of South Australia, has just woke up:

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I was awake before the honorable senator was born.

Senator GARDINER:

– Shall I say that the honorable senator is not now talking in his sleep ? He knows, perhaps, better than does any other member of the Senate, how good the Liberals were to the shipping men.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am not saying anything about that.

Senator GARDINER:

– He knows the splendid accommodation which was provided for seamen because of the legislation of the Liberal party, and the magnificent wages which seamen received under the old Liberal régime

Senator GUTHRIE:

– How much did the honorable senator do to help me when the Navigation Bill was going through ?

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Guthrie knows more than does any other member of the Senate the forces that had to be used to secure a little more comfort for the men who go down to the sea in ships.

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Gardiner was not amongst them.

Senator GARDINER:

– I take no individual credit for anything. The men who can take credit for having improved the conditions of seamen are the members of the Labour organizations of the Commonwealth.

Senator Guthrie:

- Senator Gardiner was not with them.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have said that I take no credit to myself for anything.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator is a most modest man.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is so, but I am spurred on by honorable senators opposite to say these things. I find Senator Guthrie sitting silent whilst the credit for the good work done for the seamen is given to the Liberals. I say that it was the work of the organization of which the honorable senator was so long a very distinguished member and of which he was president and secretary.

Senator Guthrie:

– And is still.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator listens without protest whilst the credit due to the organization with which he has been so long associated is denied to it by an honorable senator on his own side. The old-time champion of the seamen of this country is found agreeing with the statement that it was the Liberals who made the conditions of our seamen better. The honorable senator is now sitting with the Liberals, and assisting them to drive the wedge which has divided the Labour movement. His past experience should have taught him that it is by solidarity alone-

Senator Millen:

– The solidarity of the Empire.

Senator GARDINER:

– We know what Senator Millen’s view of the solidarity of the Empire was when he was haggling with Mr. Joseph Cook to see whether seven or six portfolios should be given to the Liberals in the new Ministry. We know that the honorable senator thought that the Empire could wait until Liberal greed was satisfied with the number of portfolios allotted to the party in the new Government. After the honorable senator and those associated with him secured a majority in die Cabinet, and made the Hughes Cabinet a Liberal Cabinet, we know what they proposed to do in order to help the Empire.

Senator Millen:

– What has the honorable senator and his party allowed us to do?

Senator GARDINER:

– They_ were going to save the Empire by sending Sir William Irvine, Sir John Forrest, and Mr. Hughes as a delegation to the Imperial War Conference. That was their idea of winning the war. What else have they done?

Senator Millen:

– What has the honorable senator allowed us to do?

Senator Senior:

– What did Senator Gardiner do yesterday to win the war?

Senator GARDINER:

– I should not care to set down all that I have done to win the war, but I should like to say that what we did yesterday was to convey to the men who are fighting our battles, and to the people whom they have left behind them here, that if there is any circumstance adversely affecting the character of this Parliament, we are prepared to let the light of day into it. In doing that we were opposed by Senator Senior, who would not vote for an inquiry.

Senator Senior:

– I showed the honorable senator an open door, but he had not the courage to go through it.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator says that he showed us, an open door, and that we were not game to go through it. We were to go through it at the risk of our little earnings, and the risk of the position of our wives and children.

Senator Millen:

– Where is the risk if honorable senators opposite are right in their contention?

Senator GARDINER:

– The risk is in facing the Law Courts of the country and being carried from Court to Court, and facing the organized wealth of the country that is now behind honorable senators on the Government side. I suppose that I was a coward because I was not prepared to fight the Beef Trust if it is behind honorable senators opposite, and fight the sugar industry if it is behind you. I may be a coward for doing that, but centuries ago the British people determined that there should be one place in the Kingdom of Britain where the truth could be spoken by a man, and nobody could make him afraid.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– By free men.

Senator GARDINER:

– What of the taunt of these men who say, “ Tear up the Bill of Rights. Sacrifice the privileges which free men fought to win for us, and if you are brave go out and fight the Beef Trust, which will carry you from one Court to another until yon are ruined.” That Trust could employ the services of the most eminent counsel, which a man of more modest means could not possibly hope to engage. I am prepared to accept the taunts of small minded men when I am standing up for rights which’ Britishers have- enjoyed for centuries. Honorable senators opposite wish to tear up the Bill of Rights, and to rob this country of a place where the elect of the people may speak the truth without any fear of the consequences.

Senator Senior:

– Why does the honorable senator select a Judge if . he has no confidence in the Judges of our Courts?

Senator GARDINER:

– No man has ever heard me express any want of confidence in the fairness of our Judges. But I speak of the power of capital, the power of companies which own honorable senators opposite body and soul. They talk about our party being governed by an outside machine. I say that they are the property of organized capital in this country. They have to vote as they are told.

Senator Senior:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in saying that organized capital owns me? I repudiate the statement. I say that it is not true, and I ask that it (be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- If Senator Gardiner has made any statement which is offensive to the honorable senator he must withdraw it. But I would remind honorable senators that interjections are entirely disorderly, and that if they will persist in making them I cannot control the replies to them.

Senator GARDINER:

– I withdraw unreservedly the statement which I made. I recognise that during the heat of debate, when I attempt to do a generous thing, I have to submit to sneers from honorable senators opposite, and I want to teach them that it would be just as well for them to adopt apolicy of give and take. When I am willing to give it would be just as well for them not to attempt to take undue advantage of me. At every election for the past ten years the Liberals have faced Australia under a new name. Now they have named themselves the “ National party.” Sometimes they want” to steal the recruiting commanders’ title - the title of the “ Win-the-War “ party. But what have they done to win the war? This party have sunk to the level of purloining that title from the Recruiting Committee. They wish to tack it on to their own, to save their own miserable hides. They may talk about winning the war, but the public of this country want deeds, not words.

Senator Guthrie:

– Here is a telegram from the front saying that a boy of mine has been killed.

Senator GARDINER:

– Nobody sympathizes with the honorable senator more than I do.

Senator Guthrie:

– I do not want the honorable senator’s sympathy.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course Senator Guthrie may refuse it, but -it is heartfelt and real.

Senator Guthrie:

– Yet the honorable senator has just said that we have done something “ to save our own miserable hides.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I say again that my heart goes out to any man who has lost his son fighting at the front. But what is the treatment which we receive? We all heard Senator Pearce acknowledge that he told Senator Watson that the latter, had no chance of winning his election while he was associated with such men as Peter Bowling and Arthur Rae. No chance of winning an election associated with such man? What was Mr. President’s statement? He used fair persuasion to Senator Watson, and asked, “ What hope have you in such a contest associated with Peter Bowling and Arthur Rae? “ Peter Bowling has five sons and Arthur Rae three sons fighting at the front. Is it fair play for a public man like the Minister for Defenceto ask, “ What chance haveyou of winning your election associated with such men as Peter Bowling and Arthur Rae? “ “Surely they cannot be branded as disloyal. Peter Bowling has five sons at the front, Arthur Rae three sons, Senator Watson one son, Senator Mullan two sons, and Senator Maughan three sons. Does the Minister for Defence mean to tell me that men who are prepared to give their best are disloyal ? Why does he want to divide this country by making it appear that a section of Australia is not as anxious to win the war as is his own party ?

Senator Pearce:

– What I said was that Senator Watson had not a million to one chance of winning his election associated with those men.

Senator GARDINER:

– There we have it. Not a million to one chance of winning his election associated with such men as Peter Bowling and Arthur Rae!

Senator Pearce:

– I did not say that they were disloyal.

Senator GARDINER:

– Just prior to the last election a document was issued which was signed by Mr. Archdale Parkhill headed, “ Pull down the British flag and hoist the German,” “ Disloyalty,” and attacking these men.

Senator Pearce:

– I did not know it, and I do not believe that either Peter Bowling or Arthur Rae is disloyal.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad fo tear that. There is no body of disloyal people in Australia. If anybody can find . 3 man in this country who does not want tb win the war, he ought to exhibit him. IE we put the matter on no Higher a level than that of “‘Who is to pay for the War? “ what is the result? If the Allies win, the Australian people and their children’s children will be paying the debt which will fall upon them, but if the Allies lose they will pay not only Britain’s debt but a proportion of the German cost of the war as well. Therefore, only an idiot would not desire to win the war. Those who endeavour to make it appear that we do not wish to win it, have, as Senator Lynch remarked on a former occasion, “ the truth in their hearts, but a lie on their lips.” Let me here refer to Mr. Holman, .Mr. Hall, and Mr. Beeby, who, in New South Wales, are joining forces with Senator Pearce, and with the Leader of the- Liberal party in this chamber, Senator Millen. I admit that I have not in my possession any wild statements by Senator Millen accusing those who thought differently from him of being in the pay of Germany.

Senator Senior:

– Has the honorable senator any from me?

Senator GARDINER:

– I will quote a few after half -past 6 o’clock, when I get my notes. Just now, I want to refer to the men in New South Wales who have formed themselves into a “ National “ party. Before .the 28th October last, honorable senators opposite were screeching about the shirkers and the slackers, and about the party that is driven by the “outside organizations” - that cant phrase which is so frequently used here by Senator Lynch. Need I remind honorable senators that those “ outside organizations “ are the organizations which have lifted up all the workers of Australia

Senator Story:

– And which are now pulling them down.

Senator GARDINER:

– They are the organizations which are now in the hands of the same men who gave Senator Story his chance in politics. ‘ Those organizations have the game platform and the same pledges. But some honorable senators have outgrown their position. They forget that to these organizations which they are continually attacking belongs the sole credit for many of the reforms which, for twenty-five years, have graced the statute-books of this country.

Senator de Largie:

– The junta only came into existence since this Parliament was created.

Senator GARDINER:

-I could, if necessary, go back to the old Liberal attacks upon Labour, and show that honorable senators opposite have not even sufficient originality to think out new phrases. Twenty years ago we were called anarchists, and the term “ junta “ was frequently applied to the executives of the Labour movement. When a great man was shot down in some other part of the world, the newspapers would relate the occurrence side by side with attacks on the Labour movement. Senator Lynch, and Senator de Largie at that time were members of the Labour party. Now, they are employing the worn-out, bloodstained weapons which the capitalists employed twenty years ago.

Senator de Largie:

– More .heroics.

Senator Lynch:

– Suppose that the honorable senator has a word to say on the war before he finishes?

Senator GARDINER:

– I will. If the electors of Australia return a Labour Government to power, that Government will’ conduct the present war to a finish with as much earnestness and energy as Mr, Fisher would have ‘employed. We are in the war to win. Make no mistake, about that.

Senator Story:

– You said that last time, and yet you went back on your promise.

Senator GARDINER:

– As far as that promise was concerned, I have only to say that, during the two years of war, the Labour Government organized ‘and equipped a force of 300,000 men. -

Senator Story:

– Australia could have done more had you not prevented her.

Senator GARDINER:

– All I have to say is that, if Australia could have done more, the . fault is not with the Labour Government any way. It was no small achievement to organize and equip 300,000 men, and - to quote Senator Pearce himself - to send 292,000 men away from our shores. Indeed, I think it was the greatest achievement to be expected of any country in the world to send these men 12,000 miles over the water, and with scarcely a casualty until they got to the front. That is Labour’s work. That is how the Labour Government carried out their promise. What has been done may be taken as an earnest of what will be done in the future should the people of. this country, in their wisdom, return- to Parliament a Labour Government charged with conducting this war.

Senator Senior:

– Did we not help you all that time?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes. You are entitled to your full measure of credit.I do not desire to take away credit from anybody, and I might just as well say that Senator Millen, Senator Gould,, and others helped in that great achievement. Personally, I may. have- done very little, but-

Senator Senior:

– I thought there was nobody but yourself in it.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the honorable senator thinks that I was speaking merely for myself, he never made a greater mistake. I was speaking merely . of my position.

Senator Pearce:

– A very good position, too.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank the honorable senator for that interjection. He knows very well that if I was not able to do so much, it was not because of unwillingness on my part to help in that matter. I . can. say, however, that this war will be conducted by. the new Labour Government . after the 5th May as it was conducted by the Fisher Government, after 5th September, 1914. Make no mistake about that. This is a declaration of war policy.

Senator Story:

– Is that . prophecy ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Perhaps the spirit was upon me, but it might be wiser to wait until after the event. We have sent, as I have said, 292,000 men across the seas ; but I venture to say that there is another way in which the Empire can be assisted other than by the exploitation of man power in Australia to its fullest extent. There is the organization of production in this Commonwealth, and the organization of the means of sending that produce to Great Britain. This work may be developed to an extent undreamed of at present.

Senator Story:

– And yet you refused to join the Government in order to do this.

Senator GARDINER:

– Do not try to drag me down to this, petty quibble about our refusals to join the Government. As a party, we refused because we would not have -strengthened the Government by joining in the grab for portfolios. Has the new Government introduced anything in the nature of a war policy, they would have had from me support as generous is was accorded to the late Government by Senator Millen and his party. But the first thing the Government did was to. state that they intended to send unrepresentative men to the Imperial Conference at which matters affecting the vital interests of Australia, for perhaps a century, would he determined. They intended to send to that Conference men with whom they had been in political antagonism all their lives. Sir William Irvine was to go as the representative of Democracy in Australia 1 Sir John Forrest was also to go. The other was William Morris Hughes, whose policy was disowned by the electors on . the 28th October; the man who had used all manner of means to belittle the people of Australia; who had reviled the mothers!, wives, and daughters of soldiers if they did not vote as he thought fit. For the time being, he cast aside all tolerance because he thought he could carry the country with him. These men, we know, will now go to the country with the statement that we were not anxious and willing to join them.

Senator Senior:

– And you will go to the country and call us “ rats,” and “ renegades.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I do regret, sometimes, that I have a habit of telling the truth bluntly and plainly. It is an unfortunate habit that I have cultivated during a great many years of political life.

Senator de Largie:

– Seeing that you yourself “ratted” not many years ago, you ought to be a very good authority on that subject.

Senator GARDINER:

– Well, you have remained one to this day.

Senator de Largie:

– I have never “ratted.”

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator, in his own particular method, goes back about twenty-three years in my political career, and brings ‘ up a garbled statement which he. asked the Senate to accept as the truth, but which no member of this Senate is prepared to accept.

Senator de Largie:

– Apparently, I got under your thick hide anyhow.

Senator GARDINER:

– Not a bit. it has been my practice that, no matter how insignificant may be the man who utters a falsehood against me, to answer him, because I know that a falsehood, like a snowball, grows as it rolls along. The honorable senator has used his position times out of number, to tell falsehoods about me in the Senate, and I invariably reply to him.

Senator de Largie:

Mr. Deputy President, I rise to a point of order, and ask that the statement be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator must withdraw the statement.

Senator GARDINER:

– I withdraw what is unparliamentary, and in doing so I want to say that Senator de Largie the other day quoted figures from the division lists to try and show that I had voted against the Government thirteen times during- one session. I have looked into the figures myself, and I find that the honorable senator only made a mistake of six. The actual figures in Committee were seven times against the Government. The honorable senator used those figures to try and buttress a falsehood which he had previously given utterance to, namely, that I had not loyally supported the Fisher Government.

Senator de Largie:

– You must have been “ doped “ when you went through those figures, because I had the assistance of another gentleman when I made the investigation .

Senator GARDINER:

– In misrepresentation I claim to have nothing like the capacity of the honorable senator, who has proved himself a past-master of it in his own little pettifogging way during the last few years.

Senator Lynch:

– We are getting on.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and I notice that the Liberals in Western Australia are asking that Senator de Largie should get off.’ They are saying, “We can stand Georgie Henderson, and put up with Dick Buzacott, but Hugh de Largie is more than we can swallow.” I was about to point out that Mr. Holman, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Beeby have changed the attitude which they took up before the 28th October. Up to that time they were saying practically the same as . Mr. Hughes, and, adopting the same tactics as the Minister for Defence and Senator Lynch, were carrying their audiences with them by abuse of the other side. ‘ What has happened to these people 1 They are facing their constituencies now.

Senator Needham:

– On a’ point of order, Mr. President, I object to an in terjection from Senator Lynch, who said that I had run away from a meeting in Western Australia. I ask Senator Lynch to name the meeting that I ran away from, or withdraw the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear the interjection referred to, but if the honorable senator- made any remark that was considered offensive, I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Lynch:

– I withdraw it, Mr. President, and also the next interjection I am going to make.

Senator GARDINER:

– It seems that I am fated, because of interruptions, not to be able to place on record the attitude of Mr. Holman, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Beeby, who before the 28th October were proclaiming that if the men of Australia would not volunteer they must be driven to the front ; that they must be taken and forced into the ranks, because the fate of the Empire and Australia depended upon it, and all the dictates of civilization and ‘ humanity demanded it. But what has happened ? There is an election on now in New South Wales, and notwithstanding that the fate of the Empire and Australia depend upon conscription, according to their argument before 28th October, they have published a statement that they will do nothing to enforce conscription.

Senator Turley:

– And do nothing to assist in raising that question.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes. They now say that they will do nothing to assist in raising the question. The fate of the Empire and Australia, and all considerations of humanity and civilization, are thrown aside, and we now have these noble patriots down on their knees waving the white flag to the advancing army of electors and crying “ Kamerad, kamerad, spare us!” Yes, they will be spared. They will be spared to attend to their private business and not the business of the country, as well as, mark you, those men who, though they may have years of service in the Labour Parliament, are now saying, as Senator Story has said, that the leaders of the movement are not now worth following. Senator Story, I know, was reported to have said that the movement was not worth following, but he corrected that.

Senator Story:

– I said that the present Labour party was not worth following.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly ; and that was the taunt of the Liberals twenty years ago, and these are the people with whom the honorable senator and others who formerly belonged to our party are now associated. It is the same old “National” Association, the same old “ Democratic “ party. At every election they change their name in the hope of getting votes. The honorable senator knows, as I do, that early in his political career he was fought by the men with whom he is now associated, who classed him with anarchists and everything that the anarchists did. These are the men who said that the country would be ruined if the Labour party got into power. A few days ago Senator Ferricks gave us a list of all their old catch-cries, among them being the charge that the Labour partywould desecrate the home life, break up the marriage-tie, and do everything that was infamous. Honorable senators on the other side are now associated with their former political opponents, and are joining in the cry, long since worn threadbare by the Liberals. I suppose they think that by doing so they will have an assurance that the Liberals will not drop them from their selection.

Senator Ferricks:

Senator Story is not too sure about it.

Senator GARDINER:

– Nor is Senator de Largie.

Senator Story:

– I would rather be associated with the Liberals than the Industrial Workers of the World.

Senator GARDINER:

– So would I; but, after all, I do not know whether I would or not, because, to my mind, the Liberals are the Industrial Workers of the World of politics. I am glad to know that the honorable senator would rather be associated with the Liberals than the Industrial Workers of the World, because we know that he is now following the Liberals. He is supporting the Liberals with a leader in the Senate and a halfleader in the other House. He is going to the country under these conditions. It looks as if two of the sitting senators for South Australia have a chance to go, and that one will have to stand down to make room for a Liberal. He is now a supporter of a Government with a majority of Liberals in the party.

Senator Story:

– With the object of winning the war.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator says that he is with the Liberals only to win the war. I suppose that when the war is over - and please God it will be won in a few months - he will sever his connexion with the Liberals, and will be fighting again side by side with the old Labour party. It will be interesting to know if Senator de Largie will take up the same attitude and say that he is only following Senator Millen here to win the war, and that when the war is over he will be the same old Labour man battling against the big combines.

Senator de Largie:

– Hear, hear!

Senator GARDINER:

– I am very glad to have that information.

Senator de Largie:

– Why not? I do not change my principles as often .as you do.

Senator GARDINER:

– Will the honorable senator name one occasion when I changed my principles?

Senator de Largie:

Senator Pearce cited an instance.’

Senator GARDINER:

– What instance f .

Senator de Largie:

– When he proved by a quotation that you were a bogus Labour man at one time.

Senator GARDINER:

– That interjection is well worth a passing reference. Senator Pearce has said that at one time I was associated with a bogus Labour party. Let me give in tabloid form my political history. In 1891 I was working at the Hasleworth Battery, in Parkes. A selection of a Labour candidate was made in the town of Parkes to run in association with the Labour candidate selected from Forbes for the Forbes constituency. The Labour organization of the town of Parkes selected me as the candidate. I was then under twenty-four years of age. In the contest which followed, Mr. Hutchinson and myself, the two Labour candidates, were returned to Parliament. We signed a pledge to vote as the majority of the Labour party in Parliament decided to vote. I remained in the Parliament for three years, and never broke that pledge. During the term the party split on the pledge. There came up the question of Free Trade or Protection, and honorable senators know that in- those days it was an issue to divide parties. In the Caucus there was a division, in which fifteen members voted to support Reid and twelve members to support Dibbs. I was one of the .twelve members. I immediately walked across and voted with the party who were supporting a man whose principles I did not believe in. But I did that in the interests of solidarity. Then there came into the Labour movement a junta - the men who had been Socialists and had fought us. Holman and Hughes came into the Labour movement, and framed a pledge so drastic that I declined to sign it. I will now compare my action with that of Senator de Largie.

Senator de Largie:

– That was done by the Conference of New South Wales, and not by Hughes and Holman.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator was a member of the conference, so that he ought to know how it was done. Joseph Cook, too, was a member, and so were Arthur Rae and a whole lot of us. But let me get on to the point, because Senator de Largie has tried to impute to me disloyalty to my party. When they drafted a pledge which I could not accept, Mr. Hughes went to organize the electorate I represented. I suppose that his line of reasoning was this, “ If this young fellow could win the electorate, it would be a soft snap for me,” and after he had organized the Forbes electorate, he went to organize the neighbouring electorate of Cowra, and got the selection as the Labour candidate. After organizing the Ashburnham electorate, which I held, Mr. Holman went to the Leichhardt electorate, and secured selection. What happened then ? Let me tell the men who taunt me with being a bogus Labour man that I went into the selection which Mr. Hughes and Mr. Holman had organized, and said to them, “ We cannot win this seat for Labour if both of us fight for it. I am prepared to sign the pledge which I signed in 1891. Let your candidate sign the new pledge; let the leagues make a selection, and let whoever wins be the Labour candidate.” They unanimously accepted that proposal. We went to a vote. I fought in the leagues organized by Mr. Holman and Mr. Hughes, and won the selection by 400 votes to two. I was returned to Parliament as a Labour candidate. Not only that, but Mr. Cook was in the Parliament, with the Liberals. Let Senator de Largie go and ask Mr. Cook before he speaks again whether I ever sat inside a room in which Mr. Cook sat. Let him put the question, too, to Senator Millen, who sat in that Parliament. Yet he taunts me with not having been a Labour man always. In 1895 the Assembly only lasted for twelve months. I went back to my constituency again with the united support of all parties in the electorate and outside, and then I was beaten. I did not, however, go and do what Senator de Largie threatens to do. I did not go running for a seat and splitting Labour votes.

Senator Mcdougall:

– If you had ratted you would have got in that time.

Senator GARDINER:

– Quite easily.

Several honorable senators interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask Senator de Largie and Senator Barnes to refrain from a cross-fire of argument while Senator Gardiner is speaking.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank you, sir, for giving me an opportunity to speak without these interruptions. In my early political days I had to visit places where Labour was not popular. Sometimes when certain people found that I was putting a different complexion on things, I discovered that they had a pretty good fighting dodge - they would start to fight alongside where I was speaking, in order to attract the attention of the crowd. Senator de Largie is evidently following the same tactics, When I am answering a charge he wants to have an argument with another honorable senator to throw me off the track. William Hughes and William Holman and other men drafted a pledge so drastic that I would not sign it. I went to the Labour leagues and told them that I would not sign the pledge, but would contest the Labour ballot with the man who did sign it. I did contest the ballot. The pledge lasted less than twelve months. Hughes had found a seat at Lang, in Sydney, and that was all the “ junta “ in that day wanted. They prepared a pledge known as the cast-iron pledge. It was so drastic, so far-reaching, that no honest man with parliamentary experience would accept it. I did not accept the pledge, but I told the Labour leagues which selected me that if they put in a man who would accept the pledge, and he should beat me in the ballot, they not only had my promise to support him but my promise to go round the electorate with him. To the men who have recently left the Labour movement, I say, “ Treat our organizations in that way.” They say that there is something wrong with the outside organizations. Does Senator de Largie say that the western organizations have treated him unfairly? He knows that they did not. He knows that they gave him a free hand. Even when it came to a question of the honorable senator deserting his party here they gave him an opportunity, and I believe they are now giving him an opportunity to go back and make the Labour movement solid.

Senator de Largie:

– That is impossible with men like you in the party; I could not go back there.

Senator GARDINER:

– You got on pretty well with me for a good many years.

Senator de Largie:

– It got to the limit.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have been in the Senate for nearly seven years, and until the unfortunate split in the party I do not know that you ever went very much out of your way to oppose me, except when I was a Minister, and then I took your opposition to be directed more to the Government than to me personally.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator will please address the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– -The honorable senator accused me of being a traitor to my party as he is now a traitor to his party; he accused me of being a “ rat “ to ‘ my party as he is now a “ rat “ to his party; and I am answering the accusation by saying that I would not accept before the elections the pledge which I thought it was impossible to keep. I went to my league - a solidarity league which was organized by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Holman - and told them that I would not accept it. I also said to them, “ We cannot win the election if we fight each other. Take a ballot, settle the matter by some means mutually agreeable to both sides, and if your candidate wins the selection I will help him to win the seat.” Let those who complain now of having been unfairly driven out of the Labour organizations go and do likewise.

Senator Russell:

– How did the honorable senator fare?

Senator GARDINER:

– No one knows better than does the honorable senator that I did not hold my position at any time by backing down on principles which I held dear. During the four weeks that the ballot was being taken I stopped there saying nothing but holding the Govern ment together, and in the hope that I would hold the Labour party together.

Senator Lynch:

– As a member of the Government you upheld the principles of the Labour movement?

Senator GARDINER:

– I upheld the principles of the Labour movement, and until the. Prime Minister made it impossible for me to remain in his Government I stopped there.

Senaor Lynch. - Right you are.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator knows that I am right. Just imagine the Prime Minister of this country drafting a regulation which was to interfere with voters in the polling booth! Lest there should be some - mistake made by the readers of Hansard as to what Mr. Hughes and other brilliant men have said about the Labour . movement, here are one or two quotations which I think it is worth while to read. The first is an extract from the Argus of the 7th October, 1916. Speaking in Sydney on conscription, the Prime Minister said -

As the days pass the great, import of this great issue is becoming more and more apparent, despite that web of vile slander and malicious misrepresentation that is being spun by the enemies of Australia and of Britain. Every day brings forth its new swarm of lies. By gross misrepresentation the women of Australia are sought to be duped.

That is how . he attacked those who were on the “ No “ side. Here is an extract from the Argus of the 10th October, 1916. Speaking at Ballarat, the Prime Minister said -

These men have nothing in common save a common hatred of Britain. There is in this country a number of wild irreconcilables, whose number is insignificant, but whose influence is out of proportion to their number. Many of these are in an organization called the Industrial Workers of the World. . . . It is such men as these who are responsible for such vile slanders as are circulated. … Every German in Australia, with a few negligible exceptions, is against these proposals. Will Australians take a stand on the same line as the Germans?

These were the utterances of William Morris Hughes against his old-time colleagues who were fighting for a principle which they believed in. He said that they were side by side with the Germans.

Senator Turley:

– He said worse at the Lord Mayor’s banquet.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly ; and it seems to be the irony of fate that he is to get the seat of Boothby as the gift of a German.

Senator Lynch:

– That is very highminded, is it not?

Senator GARDINER:

– It may not be high-minded, but it appears to me to be a fact. Mr. Dankel has said that if Mr. Hughes is willing to accept the seat, he will not contest it against him, but that if any one else contests the seat, he will fight to a finish.

Senator Barnes:

Mr. Dankel has also said that he would never contest the seat against a solid Labour man.

Senator Lynch:

– When you were in a Government, you accepted, and received with thanks, the vote ‘ of the same German whom you now throw a slight upon.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have not said anything offensive against Mr. Dankel. I have simply said that it seems to be the irony of fate that the man who abused these men so much has to desert his own State in order to find a constituency - they know him there too well.

Senator de Largie:

– He has been offered more seats than has any other man in Parliament.

Senator GARDINER:

– I believe that.

Senator Barnes:

– Who offered him seats ?

Senator de Largie:

– He has been offered three seats. I can vouch for one offer.

Senator GARDINER:

– I remember somewhere the quotation -

I can call spirits from the vasty deep, . .

But will they come……

Any number of seats may be offered to Mr. Hughes, but it does not follow that he would be elected. Will honorable senators, tell me any of the seats that have been offered to him.

Senator de Largie:

– Kalgoorlie for one.

Senator Needham:

– I hope he will take up the offer of Kalgoorlie.

Senator GARDINER:

– I addressed the electors of Kalgoorlie quite recently, and I say that there is about as much hope of Mr. Hughes winning the Kalgoorlie seat as there is that he would win the seat for Broken Hill, or the seat for West Sydney, which he now represents. What a great leader of a party we have in Mr. Hughes. On the eve of the battle, when the one thing necessary in the interests of the party is that its leader should possess the quality of courage which we all admire, the right honorable gentleman is running about looking for the safest seat. If he were half the leader that honorable senators opposite claim that he is, he would trust the people of West Sydney, and go and fight the issue of the election in that constituency.

Senator de Largie:

– No other Labour leader ever received the compliments Mr. Hughes has received in this regard.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry to have to think that the compliments have caused his head to swell, and that something else has caused him to split the Labour movement. Let us have a look at the seats’ which the party opposite are going for. When the Prime Minister started out to organize the new National movement, what was the place selected for the delivery of his first address. It was the quiet, peaceful, and respectful city of Geelong. Why was Geelong selected? It was because Mr. Ozanne, the member for the electorate in which Geelong is situated, is away fighting this country’s battles.

Senator de Largie:

– Did the honorable senator say “fighting?”

Senator GARDINER:

– I did say fighting, because every man who enlists in the Australian Imperial Force does so without any right to choose the unit in which he shall serve. That is a matter for the Defence Department. If Mr. Ozanne is not fighting, that is not his fault. “ Winthewar “ is the cry of this National party. They say that Australians must be encouraged <to enlist, and the encouragement given to them by William Morris Hughes, the great leader of the great National party, is, in the absence of a soldier fighting for his country, to organize’ a special party to defeat him at the polls.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator cannot point to one word which Mr. Hughes said to that effect

Senator GARDINER:

– Will Senator de Largie deny the fact that Mr. Hughes made his opening address in connexion with the National party at Geelong? If he does deny it, I will be able to confront him with the newspaper reports of the meeting.

Senator de Largie:

– That was not necessarily against Mr. Ozanne.

Senator GARDINER:

– Perhaps the honorable senator will deny that Mr. Hughes’ next great speech on behalf of the National party was made at Ballarat. Why did he go to Ballarat? It was because Mr. Charles McGrath, who has a son at the front, and is old enough to have refrained upon reasonable grounds from enlisting, threw his lot into the balance, and is fighting in the service of the Empire. Mr. William Morris Hughes and the National party are out to try to drive him from his seat while he is away fighting the nation’s battles.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Unless he joins the National party.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator O’Keefe reminds me that the authorities of the National party have certain stipulations in connexion with their programme, and they have sent Mr. McGrath a cablegram to discover where he stands. If he is with them, they will not fight him ; but if he is against them, they will fight him. This is the party that wants to win the war, and to give encouragement to Australians to help to win it. This is the party that boasts that their places should be kept for all the men who have gone to the front.. They say that soldiers who have gone to the front must not be kept out of their positions when they come back ; but they take care to make no legislative enactment to give effect to that. We know what the party has proposed to do in Corio and Ballarat. Mr. Ozanne is a sergeant-major, or something of the kind.

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

-Colonel O’loghlin, - He is a warrant officer.

Senator Mcdougall:

– He should have been a commissioned officer before now.

Senator GARDINER:

– I believe that he should have been made a commissioned officer before he left Australia. His military experience was very considerable, and his military knowledge much more extensive than that of many of the men who went through hurried schools of training. I do not say this to disparage any of those men, because they have all done splendid work, but because Mr. Ozanne was a trained soldier in our Military Forces for many years, and held a non-commissioned officer’s position in them.

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

-Colonel O ‘Loghlin. - He passed his examination in the officers’ school with great credit. Senator Bakhap. - Is he not a little too old to stand the pressure?

Senator GARDINER:

– Very likely. We all imagine that we are young men until we are tested. I know that Senator Bakhap would be prepared to accompany myself to the front if he thought he could stand the pressure.

Senator Bakhap:

– Willingly. I will go to-morrow if they will take me.

Senator GARDINER:

– The point I want to make is that it has remained for the party that claims to be a National party to treat men who have volunteered’ in the way I have stated. This is worth remembering. It cannot be repeated too frequently that, when the gentlemen to whom I have referred volunteered, they could make no stipulations as to the service which they would be called upon to perform. They volunteered to serve their country, and their positions in the Australian Imperial Force were found for them by the military authorities. They had no voice in the matter. That must not be forgotten, because I have heard that mean-souled men have said, “ They are not fighting. Any one could do their job.” I say that their volunteering was unconditional. There is only one system upon which men volunteer for the Australian Imperial Force. If they pass the necessary medical tests, they are signed on and the military authorities do the rest. So far as the two gentlemen to whom I have referred are concerned, it is not only bad taste and ingratitude, but worse than both, for a political party whose policy is to win the war to try to drive them out of their seats at the present time. The National party have been organizing with a view to deciding whether Mr. Plain or Mr. Hughes shall fight these men for their seats in this Parliament. I venture to say that the Democracy of these constituencies will gladly meet the men who want to win the war by winning the seats of men who are at the front fighting to win the war. These things require to be made public before the Senate rises. Hansard will give them some circulation, but we know that the national press of the country will not put up a fight for the men who are being treated in this way. When Mr. Catts said the other day that if we did not oppose Colonel Ryrie or Mr. Abbott, we expected that, in return, Mr. Ozanne and Mr. McGrath would not be opposed, the Argus put forward a very brilliant explanation of the position. It said that there was a difference in the position of the members referred to, because Mr. Abbott had won his seat by 3,300 votes whilst Mr. Ozanne had won his seat by only 2,700 votes. The Argus gave that as a national reason why a distinction should be made between officers at the front who are members of the Liberal party and officers who are members of the Labour party. There are one or two expressions of people who addressed meetings during the recent conscription campaign which should, I think, be brought under the notice of the electors during the election campaign that is about to ensue. I intend to put them into the pages of Mansard, and honorable senators opposite will have the opportunity to disprove them if they can. I find that in the Argus of 10th October, 1916, Sir William Irvine is reported to have said -

There were many who had not yet entirely made up their minds which way to vote, but before 28th October it would be found that on the one side were all who had the honour, the dignity, and the safety of Australia at heart. These would vote “Yes.” On the other side there would be the miserable collection of pro- Germans, disloyalists, and shirkers.

Senator McDougall:

– That is a nice thing to say of the men in the trenches.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should like to know how the men in the trenches voted, and at one time I thought that Senator Bakhap would give me a majority to enable me to get the information.

Senator Bakhap:

– I say that I heard, but I cannot speak with authority, that the majority for “Yes” recorded at the front was from 16,000 to 20,000.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have heard from a hundred sources that at the front the majority was three to one in favour of “No.”

Senator Bakhap:

– Nonsense !

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course the honorable senator says “Nonsense,” but the Government, who have it in their power to settle all arguments on the question, keep the information a close secret. Sir William Irvine said that these men were a miserable selection of pro-Germans, disloyalists, and shirkers, and Senator Bakhap at least will agree that the men in the trenches should not be subjected to abuse of that kind.

Senator Bakhap:

Senator Bakhap, in his political campaigns, never uses language of that kind. He uses arguments which cannot be refuted.

Senator GARDINER:

– According to the Argus, Sir William Irvine, at Dandenong, on 12th October, 1916, said -

He who votes “No” will strike a deadly blow at the honour and safety of the country. (Voices: Never!) !

Senator Guthrie:

– What is there wrong about that ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not saying that there is anything wrong about it, but the honorable senator should let me finish the quotation. This is the opinion of the honorable senator’s party and of the man he follows.

Senator Guthrie:

– No, Sir William Irvine is following us.

Senator GARDINER:

– I find that he said -

He who votes “ No “ will strike a deadly blow at the honour and safety of his country. (Voices: “Never!”) Were there any present who were willing on 28th October to have their names enrolled in the ragged, sickly regiment of pro-Germans, disloyalists, and the Industrial Workers of the World?

Will Senator Guthrie say that there is nothing wrong in that?

Senator Guthrie:

Sir William Irvine asked whether there were any such.

Senator GARDINER:

– Does Senator Guthrie indorse that sentiment?

Senator Guthrie:

– There is no sentiment in it. He merely asked a question.

Senator GARDINER:

– There is the wedge that the Liberals have so effectively driven through the Labour movement. Honorable senators opposite invite those who voted “No” as well as those who voted “Yes” to follow this distinguished gentleman, who always expresses himself in such nice language. The 474,000 people who voted “No” in the State from which I come must accept the words I have quoted as Sir William Irvine’s description of it. In his opinion they are enrolled - in the ragged, sickly regiment of pro-German disloyalists and the Industrial Workers of the World.

Still, they are loyal people, who have given their very best in this fight. If h onorable senators watch the recent enlistment figures they will find that they are still doing so. The States that voted “ No “ are still keeping up their fine reputation for enlistment.

Senator Guthrie:

– But not the men who voted “ No.”

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Guthrie may not be aware that about one man and one woman out of every two voted “ No “ in New South Wales, and yet up to the present time from New South Wales, the 2nd Military District, no less than 110,000 men have gone to the front. We must add’ to that number the men of

Broken Hill, who have been included in the South Australian Military District, the men of the Tweed River who have been included in the Queensland Military District, and the men from Southern Riverina who have been included in the Victorian Military District. I have said” that 474^00 of the electors of New South Wales voted “ No “ at the conscription referendum, and most .of them were the relatives of men who had gone to the front, or were men who had since gone to the front themselves. Yet Sir William Irvine would have us believe that they should be enrolled in the “ ragged, sickly regiment of pro-Germans.” We are often asked why we are angry, and it is no’ wonder that we are angry when such language is. applied to these men, and when we know that our opponents did not fight the conscription campaign as it should have been fought. The Prime Minister said at Launceston -

There was a very real and intimate connexion between some of those who were now the chief opponents of the Government and the Industrial Workers of the World, whose crimes were now being displayed before the eyes of the country.

So William Morris Hughes connected our party with the Industrial Workers of the World because our party was bearing the whole, brunt of the “ No “ battle.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Did not the Industrial Workers of the World vote “ No “ ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know whether they did or not. I understand that they are exponents of direct action, and believe in the destruction of wealth. I understand that they believe in using all their powers to prevent wealth being produced; and, therefore, if true to their principles, they would vote to keep- men fighting because, when men are fighting they are not producing wealth. The Prime Minister and others, for political purposes, have been trying to connect our great, peaceful, constructive movement - that for twenty years in the public life of this country has been working to produce wealth, and not to destroy it, to build up and not to break down, and to make this a better place to live in - with the Industrial Workers of the World men, who would make it a worse place to live in.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– You do not know the first thing about the Industrial Workers of the World. I do. I have had my back up against them for years.

Senator GARDINER:

– I may not know much about them; but what can the honorable senator think of a gentleman who, after playing a distinguished part in the Labour organizations for twenty years, tells the people of Launceston that we are the associates of the Industrial Workers of the World ? Why, the organization of these industrial bodies is the very antithesis of the Industrial Workers of the World organization.

Senator Bakhap:

– If that is the way you talk about yourselves, I think we, as good Liberals, will have to get away from the lot of you.

Senator GARDINER:

– I hope the electors of Tasmania will think the same and remove the honorable senator from temptation. That is the way we talk about each other. I have quoted what Mr. Hughes said in Tasmania against the men who, until that campaign started, were his loyal and trusted friends. The chief opponents oE the Government in that campaign were men like Mr. Frank Tudor, Mr: Anstey, Senator Grant, Senator Watson, Senator Turley, Senator Stewart, Senator Blakey, and Senator Barnes. Was it a fair thing for the leader of the conscription party to think he could go to a neighbouring State and dare, with impunity, not only to attack any of his opponents for whom he had a particular hatred, but also to link up Senator O’Keefe, Senator Long, Senator Ready, and other members of his party as associates of the Industrial Workers of the World ?’

Senator O’Keefe:

– And the Premier of Tasmania was put up to ask him a question connecting Anstey with Barker and the Industrial Workers of the World, in order to make the link stronger.

Senator Guthrie:

– How do you know he was put up?

Senator GARDINER:

– No matter whether he was put up or not, all of us who know Mr. Anstey as a big-hearted, impulsive man, know that he has no connexion with organizations which have as part of their programme the destruction of wealth or machinery. What do honorable senators think of a leader of a party who, for political purposes, can charge one of his comrades and loyal followers with sympathy with conduct of that kind ? Perhaps Senator Guthrie will say that language of that kind did not justify us in removing Mr. Hughes from leadership. I assert that there was more than justification for our action. The Prime Minister said, at Bendigo-

Some of the opponents, the anticonscriptionists, now are largely the men who opposed training for home defence when I advocated it some years ago. They are the men largely who did their best to make my appeal for voluntary recruits in November last fail. The revelations as to some of these men have shocked the country. I said before I left England that they were men without honour, principle, religion, and country, and I say_ it again. These men defile and spoil everything they touch. They are a curse to the country and to unionism.

The Industrial Workers of the World, this fang of criminals, this disloyal band of men, as forced the Labour party into the “ fight against conscription. It is these fire-raisers and murderers who have done this. I give the anti-conscriptionists joy of their new companions.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is it not a fact that there is a large and growing party within the Labour ranks actually opposed to compulsory service for home defence within the boundaries of Australia?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not aware of it.

Senator Pearce:

– It was nearly carried at the Inter-State Conference.

Senator Bakhap:

– It was only defeated by two votes at the Tasmanian Conference.

Senator GARDINER:

– I appeal to honorable senators to ‘say whether a campaign conducted in that way could result in the man who so conducted it remaining leader of a party, two-thirds of whose members were out fighting against conscription. It is well that these .things should be placed on the records of Hansard, although with my usual indolence I had no intention of- quoting them had not the jeers of Senator de Largie and Senator Senior compelled me to speak. According to the Argus the Prime Minister said at Prahran -

These leaders of the anti-conscriptionists had established a reign of tyranny. If a man or woman dared to say that they favoured conscription, they were called “ scabs “ and “ blacklegs.” What were the men who scabbed and blacklegged against their country? What had they done for unionism and Labour? He was proud of the company in which he had found himself. He would rather cut his throat than stand with criminals and rebels, with whom his . opponents were standing. To-day, besides members of the Industrial Workers of the World, and anarchists, there were rebels in this country who were opposed to Great Britain, and who hoped to stab her under the fifth rib.

That was the man that the senators from Western Australia say our party had not the undoubted right, at our meeting, to remove from leadership, after he had described the leaders of the anti-conscription movement in our ranks as the associates of criminals and murderers. That is the man they are taunting us .with hunting down with vindictiveness and a hymn of hate. It is not vindictiveness. It is the long-held-back answer to the man who has deliberately, for some purpose I know not what, and for some reason I know not what, entered upon a campaign to break the Labour movement. If Mr. Hughes had the ability of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Asquith, Earl Grey, and all the other British statesmen roiled into one, he would not have the ability or the strength to break the Labour party.

Senator Guthrie:

– No man has done more to maintain the Labour party - not even you.

Senator McDougall:

– Hundreds have done more. What did he ever do ? He organized the wharf labourers for a committee in his own electorate, and turned, the secretary down after eleven years’ service.

Senator GARDINER:

– Leaving the Prime Minister’s quotations, let me quote Sir William Irvine, who said in Melbourne -

That organization - the Black Hand of the industrial movement - had taken command of the situation, and those who were working against the policy of the Government, and who were endeavouring to get the people to vote “ No,” were deliberately allying themselves to that organization.

He certainly believed that it would be carried by an overwhelming majority; but if, by any evil chance, a negative vote were recorded, he, for one, said that he was not prepared to accept that decision as final.

That is worth marking.

Senator Guthrie:

– Did you ever take anything as final ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I have taken my dismissal from several State seats as final and gone elsewhere.

Senator Pearce:

– Exactly. You have bobbed up again.

Senator GARDINER:

– May I take it from the Minister for Defence that conscription will “ bob” up again? Will the Minister state, for the benefit of the electors, whether conscription will or will not bob up again if the Government come back with a majority.

Senator Blakey:

Mr. Jensen said so.

Senator GARDINER:

– I take it that Mr. Jensen’s voice was the voice of the

Government. On 13th October, 1916, the Prime Minister said at Hobart -

Those speakers who opposed conscription spoke- with forked tongues. The opponents of the Government’s proposals were recruited from a section of people who had nothing in common except hatred of Great Britain. They were recruited from the section that made war on society; whose vile and detestable creed had been translated into action.

They were working in conspiracy to dishonour and destroy Australia.

I put Australia before any other country in the world, but if I love Australia more it is not because I love Great Britain less. Why should the men who dared to express an opinion on a big question that divided a great people be depicted as being joined in a common hatred of Great Britain? Will any man of ordinary common sense, not a man of extraordinary keenness like William Morris Hughes, assert that any large section of ‘the people of Australia have a hatred of Great Britain ? Does any section entertain that feeling? Let the response to the call to the colours answer .that question. You will find the names enrolled on that imperishable banner from every section of the British Empire of men who came at the Empire’s call to shed their life’s blood for Britain. Why had we not sufficiently wise statesmanship to avoid ‘the awful division in our ranks, which must have caused anxiety to the British Government, and joy in the hearts of the Germans, because responsible men like Senator Pearce and Mr. Hughes said the section who voted “ No “ were the friends of Germany ? Those who voted “ No “ were just as true and loyalhearted to the cause for whose success we are all so anxious as the men who tried to gain votes by vindictive abuse of our party.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– There was no abuse on your side, was there ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Unfortunately there was. I am not fool enough to say that all the vindictivenes was on one side of the campaign, but do not the Prime Minister’s utterances show .that abuse was justified in return ? It is a common thing to answer abuse with abuse.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Tell us what Ferricks said.

Senator O’Keefe:

– He was not the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– He was leading your party in Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the honorable senator stays here long enough, I have no doubt he will see Senator Ferricks leading this party. Here again the Prime Minister said -

How were the Germans in Australia going to vote.. (Cries of “They will vote ‘No.’”) Were Australians going to vote with them? Any prominent men in the Labour party who were denouncing the Government’s proposals were in close touch with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Senator McDougall:

– A lie.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The honorable senator was in England.

Senator McDougall:

– I was not. I was here.

Senator GARDINER:

– Let us. have that sentence over again.

Any prominent men in the Labour party who were denouncing the Government’s proposals were in close touch with the Industrial Workers of the World.

That is the utterance of the Prime Minister at Hobart which is reported in an extract from the Age of 13th October, 1916. I will say no more on that aspect of the question; but when honorable senators opposite think that we get unduly excited when referring to the Prime Minister, I ask them whether there is not ample cause for our doing so ? A perusal of the extraordinary statements which the right honorable gentleman made during that campaign will reveal the real reason which led up to the division of the Labour party. I was slow to be convinced, slow to believe that a deliberate attempt was being made to divide our party, but very reluctantly I was compelled to conclude that, for some purpose, I know not what, William Morris Hughes had deliberately set out with that object in view.

Senator Guthrie:

– It was the honorable senator, “Bill” Higgs, and O’Malley who did it. Was O’Malley a unionist? It was the black-footed brigade.

Senator GARDINER:

-These utterances will serve to show how, step by step, Mr. Hughes attempted to completely and effectively divide the organization which had successfully withstood the attacks of Liberals for twenty-five years.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– He said that he would divide the chaff from the wheat, and the chaff has gone; but the wheat is here.

Senator GARDINER:

– All I have to say as to the wheat is, “Take care that it does not get between - the mill-stones of capitalism, and that it is not ground to powder and blown away.” Perhaps it will go out as smut through the hole which gets rid of the refuse. I say to honorable senators opposite, Prove by your actions that there is some nourishment in you.’ Between the mill-stone of the old Liberal party and the netherstone of the party which Mr. Hughes has called into existence, 1 say that the socalled wheat will be ground into powder.

Senator Bakhap:

– It will make good, wholesome flour.

Senator GARDINER:

– And if sufficient yeast be added to it, it will probably rise1. Probably the brewers’ organization will supply the yeast. Perhaps there may be other ingredients added - a little sugar from the sugar company to sweeten it, and a little hops brought over by the Premier of Tasmania when answering a hurried telegram to fix up the retirement of Senator Ready and to install Senator Earle in his place.

Senator Guthrie:

– When Tasmania wanted assistance the honorable senator was not here to give it.

Senator GARDINER:

– No representative of Tasmania has ever looked to me in vain for the support of its interests.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator was not here when the assistance was wanted. He was present only twenty-seven days out of sixty-eight days which the Senate sat.

Senator GARDINER:

– If Senator Guthrie is referring to the time that I took a trip to England as one of the selected representatives of this country, accompanied by himself, well and good.

Senator Guthrie:

– I am not. I am talking of a year later.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the honorable senator is speaking of the occasion when for thirty weeks I lay on my bed smitten down with sciatica, his reference is more contemptible still. When I am in good health, I venture to say that few honorable senators are more regular in their attendance than I am. We are all familiar with the historic occasion when one great traitor betrayed his Master, but had, as Mr. Hughes himself put it, “the decency to go out and hang himself.” Certain gentlemen of my acquaintance have not yet exhibited the same decency.

Senator Russell:

– The honorable senator did not object to his utterances then.

Senator GARDINER:

– No, I revelled in them when he was putting them over the “ other fellow,” but I squirm under them when he puts them over me. Nobody used to chuckle more gleefully over the quips and cuts of William Morris Hughes when he was dealing with my political opponents than I did, but I do not relish them when they are applied to myself or to the party with which I am associated. But if I have not his rapierlike wit I can still handle a bludgeon and deal out “ stouch “ to him in my own rough way, and I hope I am doing that. I did not intend to speak upon the motion for the first, reading of this Bill.

Senator Pearce:

– How long would the honorable senator have spoken if he had intended to do so ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know. When I called for a division, and then withdrew the call at the request of my friends, I had walked along the Opposition benches to tell my associates not to think that I looked for the call to speak. But when honorable senators opposite jeered at me for withdrawing the call I thought I would give them as good a reply as I could.

Senator Pearce:

– If the honorable senator’s speech is extempore Heaven spare us from having a prepared speech inflicted upon us.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I would advise the Minister for Defence to go for the other follow, and to hold the “ grey wolf “ in the leash. I have shown by quotations that from one end of the country to the other Mr. Hughes reviled the members of his party, and that he could find no words too strong to apply to the prominent members of that party who were opposed to conscription. Surely on such a great issue, especially when it was a shortsighted policy to allow the question to be remitted to the electors–

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator voted for the referendum!

Senator GARDINER:

– I did so because I regarded it as the lesser o? two evils.

Senator Guthrie:

– Nine men voted against it, and the honorable senator did not follow them.

Senator GARDINER:

– Two evils were offered to us - one the breaking up of the Government in September of last year, with the consequent formation of a National Government which would give us conscription either by Act of Parliament or under the War Precautions Act. That is what we feared. There may have been no grounds- for our fear, but still we entertained it. When that break-up came I did my best to prevent Mr. Hughes being permitted to submit this question to the people. I make no attempt to conceal my opinions. They were well known to all the members of our party. Then, it may be asked, “ What sort of a man were you to remain in the Government?” I say again that I remained in the Government to hold it together. If I had not remained there Mr. Jensen was such a red-hot anti-conscriptipnist that he would not have remained there a single day. He was thus whole-heartedly against the proposal until the last’ week of the campaign. Then he became overwhelmed with the magnitude of the work of the Navy. He was Australia’s head of that great fighting department - the Navy - and during the very last week of the campaign he decided that his previous attitude must be changed. Then suddenly, and for the first time, he became a conscriptionist, and issued a statement to the press. I suppose that he issued that statement after burning much midnight oil, because it was a splendid declaration of his principles, and a valuable contribution to the conscriptionist cause.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Does the honorable senator think that he wrote it himself ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sure that he did, because it bore his signature. What more proof does the honorable senator want? The head of the . great fighting department of the Navy was capable of writing that statement, and of writing even better things, because if he could write so well in favour of conscription he could have written even better against it, seeing that he had been such a strong opponent of it. He went over to the majority.

Senator McDougall:

– A big majority !

Senator GARDINER:

– He thought that he was going over to the majority. If in the early stages of the development of the breach in our party I had not remained where I did remain, I would have felt that I was assisting to break up the Government at a most unfortunate time. Consequently I determined to remain in the Ministry on the understanding that during the campaign I would not speak on the subject of conscription either for or against it. Until the 28th October arrived I did not open , my lips upon it. Of course it may be said that I was looking round to ascertain which way the vote was going. I resigned my seat in the Government, not on the question of conscription, but because the Leader of the Government was endeavouring to use the polling booths in a way that they should not have been used. The Prime Minister had informed the public that “the surprise of their lives “ was in store for” some of the young men of this country.

Senator Guthrie:

– For the Germans.

Senator GARDINER:

– No. Make no mistake about that. He had in mind the young men between the ages of twentyone and thirty-five who may not have answered the proclamation. He had made up his mind to give them the surprise of their lives when they went, to the polling booth, for he drafted a regulation giving the right to returning officers to question these men, and if their questions were not satisfactory-

Senator Pearce:

– What were the questions?

Senator GARDINER:

– Under the proclamation.

Senator Guthrie:

– If they had broken the law.

Senator GARDINER:

– The regulation gave authority to the returning officers to put certain questions to young men, and if their replies were not satisfactory their votes were to be marked.

Senator Pearce:

– If they had broken the law.

Senator GARDINER:

– I intend to read the regulation before I have finished.

Senator Pearce:

– Did it not say something about, those men being termed disloyal ?

Senator GARDINER:

– It did. The last phrase of the regulation - indicated that they might be deemed disloyalists.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Anyhow, Mr. Hughes was afraid of the regulation, and ran away from it at the last minute.

Senator GARDINER:

– As I have already pointed out, the regulation gave power to returning officers to put certain questions -to young men as to whether they had answered the proclamation or not. At that time there was no reason to believe that any one had not answered the proclamation, because, according to the figures supplied by the Statistician, it was anticipated that 176,000 people would answer it, and, when the regulation was drafted, no less than 179,000 had responded. The regulation referred to empowered the returning officers if they considered the answer unsatisfactory, to place the ballot-paper in a separate envelope, stamped “ Proclamation,” as certain other votes were treated under section 9. This was the regulation that Mr. Hughes proposed to issue, but when the Executive Council in Melbourne turned it down - Mr. Jensen, Senator Russell, Mr. Higgs, and I refused to allow it - Mr. Hughes called an Executive in Sydney, consisting, I believe, of the Governor-General, Mr. Jensen, and the Prime Minister, and the regulation was passed there. In view of the fact that it had been disallowed in Melbourne, no man could have remained in the Cabinet a moment longer, and so we resigned. Our resignations had nothing whatever to do with the conscription issue. As a matter of fact, I could have taken the platform in Melbourne that night had I wished to do so, and perhaps I could have made some political capital out of the evidence, and got a little applause for having got out of the Cabinet at the last minute. The regulation to which we took exception was as follows : -

War Precautions (Referendum) Regulations.

  1. At the polling at the referendum under the Military Service Referendum Act 1916, to be held on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1016, the presiding officer may put to any male person claiming to vote, who, in his opinion, is under thirty-five years of age, the following question, in addition to any or all of the questions prescribed by the Military Service Referendum Act 1916: -

Arc you a person to whom the proclamation of 29th September, 1916, calling upon single men under thirty-five to present themselves for enlistment, applies?

  1. If the answer of the person claiming to vote is in the affirmative, the presiding officer shall put to him the following question: -

Have you presented yourself for enlistment accordingly,or been exempted?

  1. If the answer to the question specified in the last preceding sub-regulation is in the negative, or if the presiding officerhas reason to believe that the person claiming to vote is a person to whom the proclamation applies, and that he has failed to obey it, the presiding officer, before permitting him to vote, shall mark the ballot-paper with the word “ proclamation,” or the abbreviation “ proc.”
  2. Any ballot-paper so indorsed shall, when completed by the elector,’ be folded by him and handed to the presiding officer, who, without nnfolding.it, shall, in the presence of the elector, place it in the prescribed envelope, fasten the envelope, and place it in the ballot-box.
  3. If the elector places the ballot-paper in the ballot-box without having it inclosed by the presiding officer in the envelope, the ballotpaper shall be disallowed at the scrutiny.
  4. Ballot-papers inclosed in envelopes in pursuance of this regulation shall not be opened by an assistant returning officer, but shall be forwarded by the assistant returning officer by registered post to the Divisional Returning Officer.
  5. All such ballot-papers shall, subject to these regulations, be dealt with in the same, manner as ballot-papers indorsed with the words “ section 9.”

Provided that, for the purpose of this regulation -

  1. “the prescribed envelope” means an envelope similar to that prescribed for the purpose of section 9 of the Military Service Referendum Act 1916, but with the word “ proclamation,” or the abbreviation “ proc.” written or stamped thereon, and if the vote has not been challenged under section 9 of that Act, the words “section 9” shall be struck out ; and
  2. the tribunal shall have jurisdiction to determine, in the case of an envelope bearing the word “ proclamation,” or the abbreviation “ proc”, whether the elector has wilfully failed to comply with the proclamation. (Any such wilful failure shall be deemed disloyalty.)
Senator Russell:

– It is only fair to say that Mr. Hughes promised to strike out the word “ disloyalty.”

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, that may be said in fairness to the Prime Minister. The last paragraph of the proclamation read as follows: -

Any person who refuses or fails to answer any question put ‘ to him under these regulations, or who makes an untrue statement in any answer to any such question, shall be guilty of an offence against the War Precautions Act 1914-1916.

That is the regulation which brought about our resignations from the Cabinet. I do not wish to again tell a twice-told story, but I do want to say that, as Mr. Hughes was prepared to use the regulation to win on the conscription issue, this Parliament will have to be careful of the power it may intrust to him in the coming election. If a man is prepared to use our polling booths in the way proposed by Mr. Hughes, and do it in defiance of his own Cabinet and Executive, he will not hesitate to use any power he possesses if surrounded by men who will not oppose him. This is well worth thinking about. I can well imagine that those who are on his side now will welcome an election, because they have with them the strong man who will win anyhow if there is no one to oppose him. What happened to this regulation ? It was passed by the Executive in Sydney, and the Electoral Office was told to act upon it, so instructions were issued to returning officers throughout the country. In many polling booths those instructions were carried out. Questions were put to electors, and their votes were enclosed in envelopes. If this matter is investigated, I am prepared to prove what I say.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is- a pity that the regulation was not enforced and was not generally acted upon.

Senator GARDINER:

– Do you believe in questioning men in polling booths?

Senator Bakhap:

– - If necessary. Did you not put on the statute-book an Act providing that questions may be asked of Australian-born citizens in regard to their nationality ?

Senator GARDINER:

– If I did that it is one of the sins I have since repented. Never would I do such a thing again. I never thought that the Act would be used in that way. Our polling booths must be kept absolutely free from interference by returning officers.

Senator Bakhap:

– But you were in the Ministry when this Act was placed on the statute-book.

Senator GARDINER:

– As soon as I saw the word “proclamation” in the regulation submitted to the Executive, I took very good care that, so far as I was concerned, I would have nothing to do with it.

Senator Bakhap:

– But you are evading my question. You are dealing with the regulation, and I am asking about an Act which was placed on the statute-book.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know the honorable senator would like me to get on to something else, because he thinks he would be on a better wicket there. I am dealing with the regulation under the War Precautions Act, and on that occasion my objection was shared by such a great mind as Mr. Jensen’s, who is now, however, a conscriptionist, as we learn from his speech in Tasmania on Monday night. I have stated my objection to the regulation, which, I venture to say, would have been quite as repugnant to Senator Bakhap. Mr. Jensen, however, went to Sydney, and reversed his decision on this matter, no doubt under the hypnotic influence of the Prime Minister, who now has the allegiance of even such a great mind as that possessed by Senator Millen.

Senator Bakhap:

– I do not think there are many men whose minds are as strong as Senator Millen’s.

Senator GARDINER:

– -Well, I feel inclined to agree with the honorable senator to some extent.

Senator Millen:

– No man in this Government would have kept me on these benches if I disagreed with his policy.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know I remained in office for some weeks while I was in antagonism to the known policy of my leader, but I remained there in the belief that, in the interests of my country, and during the time of its greatest crisis, I could do something to hold the party together. I know it was inconsistent and unconstitutional on my part to remain there in opposition to the leader of the party. I never had any doubt as to the inconsistency and the impropriety of that course, and I never had any doubt that the correct and constitutional procedure was to get out. But I took all the circumstances into account. There was a ballot close upon the people; the Government were likely to disrupt; the country was engaged in a poll with all the local evils arising from that event, and though during those weeks I brought down upon my head the contumely of those who disagreed with my view, I accepted that condemnation in the belief that I was doing something to hold the Government and the party together.

Senator Turley:

– Have you ever known a leader who carried on wi,th a big majority of his Cabinet against him ?

Senator GARDINER:

– That is something, also, that might be said. The interjection is a very good reminder 1o me. At the outset of this business, the Leader of the Government had a majority of the Cabinet against him, and also a majority of his party, and he knew that he had. It is unfortunate, but there were all these surrounding circumstances. I take my full share of the blame. I take my full share of responsibility for my apparent inconsistency. But side by side, as’ a set-off to that, I say that I knew what, under normal conditions, was the correct course to pursue; but under the existing conditions I freely explained the correct course, and yet, in spite of that, I hung on to office in the hope that the Government and the party could be. held together. I have nearly come to the end of my tether on this occasion. I had practically finished what I wished to say two or three times, but as Senator Guthrie has accused me of voting against Tasmania, my honorable’ friends have been good enough to turn up the division in the Journals, 30th October, 1912. :Senator O’Keefe moved that the House of Representatives be requested to amend clause 2 of the Tasmanian Grant Bill by leaving out “ five “ in line 9, with a view to insert “ nine “ in lieu thereof. I find that the amendment meant a difference of £100,000 to Tasmania. The point is that the man who accused me of voting against Tasmania gave his vote on the side of the “ Noes,” and I am where I said I was; because next to my own State, perhaps before it, little Tasmania has a very warm place in my heart. It was the birthplace of my father. That may be a sentimental reason, but Tasmania never wanted a supporter here when its interests were at stake. Provided that its interests were just and right, I have always been ready to give my vote to the little State to which I owe something.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I understand that there is an overwhelming desire on the part of various civilians to get into the Senate. It may be that the Senate has attractions, but it certainly is not Paradise. During the last few days I could not help contrasting what the Senate actually is, or seemed to be during the heated discussions taking place, and what the sacred book of the Mahommedans, the Koran, tells us Paradise is. It says, “ Therein there shall not be any vain discourse, nor any charge of sin, but only the salutation - Peace, Peace.’ “ Paradise, then, is exactly the antipodes of what the Senate has disclosed itself to be during the last ten or eleven days, and what it would be if we had many orations like that which has fallen from the lips of Senator Gardiner during the last couple of hours. I am not going to indulge in any vulgar recrimination about recent happenings, about the virtues and demerits of dif- fferent political and party policies, for party is a very small matter at this juncture. The national interests should be paramount. I hope to deal with one or two very important matters on a fairly high national plane, but before doing that I wish to make a reference to the eulogium which Senator Gardiner pronounced on the virtues of Labour in politics. I was. elected to the

Senate by the Liberals of my State. I was elected after war was declared, and I was given a free hand as a Liberal to do whatever I thought was right in the best interests of the Empire and the nation during that critical period which every far-seeing man could tell was before us, and could tell at the time of the general election in 1914. For the benefit of Senator Gardiner I will institute, hot in any vicious spirit, a comparison between that Labour party’s philosophy in action, which he so extolled, and the tenets of Liberalism. The political situation has been brought about by a split in the Labour party; that is beyond all doubt. The Liberal party found itself as a consequence of the result of the war election in a minority in the other House, and in a minority in the Senate. It at once girded up its loins, accepted the situation, and threw itself whole-souledly into the work of supporting a Labour administration in connexion with Australia’s measures of assistance in the war. Even the Minister for Defence., before the disruption took place in the Labour ranks, was generous enough - and I thank him for his utterances - to acknowledge the measure of assistance which Liberals in both Houses gave to the Administration in connexion with its war policy. The disruption in the ranks of the Labour party was occasioned by its peculiar constitution, by the fact that its representatives in Parliament are hardly ever free agents. They must condition their parliamentary action by the opinions of organizations outside. I, as a Liberal, espoused Liberalism solely because I believe that it is synonymous with liberty - liberty of political and personal action. And, singular to say, I have been under the necessity of denouncing, without anything like a voluminous vocabulary of epithets, the Labour school of political philosophy because I honestly believe that it did not have within it anything like an atmosphere favorable to personal political liberty. A great protagonist of Labour, the Right Honorable William Hughes, has discovered what I have always seen to be the truth. Directly he, and those who thought with him, ventured to act independently, the avalanche fell upon them - the avalanche of that organization which does not believe in personal political liberty or its exercise on the part of its representatives in Parliament. Why ?

Senator Needham:

– That statement is not correct.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Why is the Right Honorable William Hughes now separated from the Labour political organizations! It is solely because inside that temple the lamp of personal liberty is extinguished. But he finds, as he will always find, as the nation will always find, that in the temple of Liberalism the sacred fire of liberty is eternally burning.

Senator Needham:

– Is that why he has gone into that temple?

Senator BAKHAP:

– At the presentmoment Mr. Hughes is, so to speak, testifying to the fact that in the temple of Liberalism the lamp of liberty burns, and he is metaphorically throwing incense on our altars.

Senator Needham:

– And he is adoring at that shrine?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Moreover, Liberalism is not only synonymous with liberty, but is always the very incarnation of loyalty and patriotism. Do not make any mistake about that. The Right Honorable William Hughes and those who followed him came out from the ranks of the Labour organizations because, as I have said, they could not find any longer therein any trace or vestige of what is always present in the ranks of Liberalism and its organizations.

Senator O’Keefe:

– You have no Caucus.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Honorable senators know that I have taken a certain course of action in the Senate because of reasons which appeal to me. I, who was elected as an opponent of the Labour Administration, decided that in the interests of the nation we should respond to the invitation of Mr. Hughes to have a formal alliance in connexion with war measures. Was there a single voice of protest from the Liberal organizations of Tasmania? Did they say, “ We did not elect you to be an assistant and a follower of Mr. Hughes. Explain your action.” No explanation was demanded of me, nor will any be forthcoming.

Senator Blakey:

– Because your party has a majority of seats in the Cabinet.

Senator BAKHAP:

– We have, but I venture to say that if we had not there would not be one Liberal publication, not one Liberal organization, not one Liberal league, so insensible to the principles of Liberalism as to dare to take me to task.

Senator O’Keefe:

– They will take you to task.

Senator Needham:

– .Did not the Argus, which is a Liberal organ, demand a majority of seats in the Coalition Cabinet?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not know what the Argus did. I venture to say that while we all have respect for the Argus as an influential publication, the ranks of Liberal members are not arranged or filed in the Argus office. We do what we think fit, and in the very best spirit of British parliamentary institutions. Every Liberal who comes here claims the right to mould his political action as he thinks best in the interests of the Empire and his country. I was not challenged to at any time effect a formal alliance with any Labour Administration. Yet I took the responsibility, and am prepared to justify myself, and will never at any time be called in question. The action I took the other day was not conditioned by any actual knowledge of what the opinions of people in my State were. I took the action because of my own conception of the situation. And has there been a single voice of protest ? Has there been anything published to the effect that I have done something which I should not have done, and will have to plead at the bar of some organization in justification of my action? Not so.’ Therefore the people of Australia, and honorable senators, had better understand at once, when they are extolling Labourism, the cardinal and vital difference between the political principles of Liberalism and those of Official Labourism. That is all I am going to say about the differing opinions regarding party politics. Party politics have very little to do with me at this juncture. I am going to speak with the knowledge that electoral opinion is very often as confused as what Shakespeare calls the “still vexed Bermoothes.” I do not know what my fate will be at the coming election, nor do I, without posing as a demi-god, greatly care. I have done what I thought was my duty here, and I will continue to do it if I am returned. I will at all -times repudiate any attempt on the part of people outside to shackle me in regard to my expression of political opinion or my political actions.

Senator Lynch:

– Do you say that yon are not secure of the next election ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not like elections any more than other politicians do, but I am going to speak this evening in view of the fact that no man, when he goes before the electors, can deem himself safe. I may be returned ; I may not be returned; and it is in view of the contingency, which must be ever present to a candidate, of. not being returned, that I am going to make a few observations in regard to matters which I think of the first degree of importance to the Commonwealth and the Empire. In the first place the present situation has been created because of a motion which, if carried, would have necessitated our applying to the Imperial Government for an Act to amend our Constitution. It is at once evident to honorable senators, if they care to closely study the Constitution, that while it is an admirable instrument, and deserves to a very large extent many encomiums which have been uttered on its excellences, still it has shortcomings. Its shortcomings are particularly noticeable in regard to this fact, that Australia is a country of great and wide spaces, and that electoral operations through one of the world’s continents are slow in producing results. The other day we had the final results of the conscription referendum tabled four months after the taking of the poll. Small bunches of votes had to come along camel pads from the arid interior. Weeks elapse sometimes before returning officers ascertain the results of the voting at far-back polling booths. Great and magnificent as our continent is, when polls have to be taken over the Australian States and Territories, and when it is necessary to ascertain the opinion of the electors upon a matter that is closely contested, it is a long time before we can learn whether the majority is one way or the other. That being so, the “omission from our Constitution of a provision to admit of a sudden emergency being faced is a very grave one indeed. We have been brought face to face with” the difficulty by the situation we have been considering lately. It should be clear to honorable senators that, in respect of a great national emergency, the Commonwealth Constitution is not sufficiently selfadjusting. It is because of this that I have asked Ministers to take into consideration the rapid passing, even before we go to the country, of a measure in perfect consonance with the Australian constitutional machinery known to the electors, to enable the opinion of the people to be ascertained as to whether it is not desirable to insert some provision in the Constitution which would enable us to grapple with a situation due to a sudden war emergency. We might obtain the opinion of the people as to the advisability of adopting such an amendment of the Constitution during the ensuing elections/ and so have the matter dealt with promptly and decisively. The Australian Parliament should have power, by virtue of the Australian Constitution, to prolong its life when confronted with a, grave national emergency, which would not justify the holding of a general election’ at the same time. If the Administration properly grasps the situation, and members of this still alive Parliament understand what they are about, they will concede the desirability of saving the expense of submitting this question to the electors in the future- for it must be submitted to them - by having it decided at the next general election.

Senator Ferricks:

– If any Parliament should have the power, it should be this Parliament, but it is a question whether it would not be a dangerous power to give, even to this Parliament.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator need have no hesitation on that point. Apart from the merits of the Commonwealth Constitution, I am free to ad- ‘ mit that there is a great disinclination on the part of Australian-born citizens of the Commonwealth to give away the privilege which the Imperial Parliament, in its generosity, conferred upon us of altering our Constitution without reference to any outside authority.

Senator Ferricks:

– I think the question arises whether the power would not be a dangerous one to give, even to this Parliament.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Not at all. Suppose that Australia’s territory were invaded at a time when we were about to hold a general election, will Senator Ferricks contend that we should hold the election in the face of the invasion of our country ? Does he not know that it would be practically impossible to do so, and certainly undesirable, even if it were remotely practicable?

Senator Ferricks:

– I admit that.

Senator BAKHAP:

– If the honorable senator admits that, he grants the necessity for a revision of the Constitution, and the insertion in it of some machinery which will make it completely selfadjusting to meet any such emergency.

Senator Lynch:

– Why does the honorable senator refer especially to “Australianborn” citizens?

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Lynch, whom I greatly respect, must understand that, in the matter of loyalty to Australian national interests and broad Imperialism, I make no discrimination between Australian-born citizens and Australian citizens born in other parts of the Empire. I referred really to a natural tendency on the part of people born on Australian soil to avoid if possible the necessity of asking for an amendment of Australia’s Constitution through an outside authority, in view of the fact that we have been given by the Imperial Parliament the power to completely adjust our Constitution for ourselves.

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator not think that there might be some danger in placing in the hands of this Parliament the power to determine whether, in certain circumstances, it would be justified in prolonging its own life?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I confess I do not appreciate the danger suggested. That is a power which the Imperial Parliament possesses.

Senator Keating:

– Every State Parliament in Australia possesses it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Why shodld wo not possess it?

Senator Ferricks:

– The ‘Government of the day would be the judges to decide whether the circumstances warranted it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Decidedly, and the members of both Houses of this Parliament would be the jury.

Senator Ferricks:

– That is dangerous.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not consider it dangerous at all. It is not considered dangerous in the case of the Imperial Parliament, which is the mother of all our Parliaments. I venture to say that our Constitution is at present too cumbersome to enable us to deal with a national emergency such as an invasion suddenly arising. I have no doubt whatever that, were such a provision as I suggest included in our Constitution at the present time, the public opposition to the proposal for prolonging the life of this Parliament would have been very largely disarmed.

Senator Pearce:

– Was there much public opposition as things are ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not believe that there was very much public opposi tion to the proposal. I should like now to deal shortly with the Tariff. I am a Protectionist, and, as I said in the course of the debate on the Ministerial statement, I believe that Australia has been given practically independent powers by the generosity of the Imperial Parliament. The exercise of those powers is not conditioned by any consideration of the desires of foreign nationalities in connexion with our fiscal system. If Australia thinks it judicious at any time to effect an amendment of its Tariff - be that time war time or peace time - I say that I do not acknowledge for one moment that any foreign Power has any right to make any representations to us regarding the desirability of any action we may think it well to take in that regard.

Senator Lynch:

– Then we should not be a party to the resolutions of the Paris Conference.

Senator BAKHAP:

– That does not follow. The situation is not as the honorable senator seems to indicate by his interjection. We cannot rip open our Tariff at the present moment; but after the elections, when I hope we shall have a stable Parliament with a life of three years for the House of Representatives, and a continuous life for this Upper Chamber of review, we should take the Tariff into careful consideration. The lessons of the war surely have made us feel more and more the justice of the contention that in all vital matters of production and manufacture Australia needs to be made as self-contained as possible. I hope the Administration will adhere to the intention expressed in the press to-day of checking the importation of articles which are in the highest degree luxurious. This is no time for luxury. It is a time for national economy. It is a time when we should plant our heels deep in the sand and set our teeth for the death-grip, because the Empire is to-day at grips with a foe that has planned its complete destruction. If that destruction is to be averted, and the efforts of the people of the United Kingdom, with the assistance of the people of the overseas Dominions, are happily to be successful, then we ought to go down on our national bended knees and thank the Providence which, so far as human eyes can observe, watches over the destinies of the British Empire. Let us at the present time recognise that we must economise. The importation of articles that are not necessary in the daily life of the people should be prohibited. That is all I wish to say about the Tariff. I am going to the electors as a Protectionist, and if again returned by them I will urge upon the Administration, immediately after the elections, the desirability of going in for a systematic, careful, and intelligent Tariff revision.

Senator Lynch:

– After the war.

Senator BAKHAP:

– No, not after the war. That would be too late. Let us immediately do what we think is right and proper to do. This talk of “ after the war ‘ ‘ implies that we may condition our Tariff by the intentions and desires of outside nations. I do not admit for a moment that the, Australian people should at any time condition their Customs policy by the desires of outside nations which happen to have trading relations with us. We are masters in our own house, and we should do what we think right in the interests of our own people. I am sorry that we are not going to have a system of proportional representation in operation at the coming elections. I can conceive in the present mixed state of the public mind candidates representing many parties standing for election to the House of Representatives. I can also conceive candidates representing many shades of opinion standing for election for the Senate. It would be pitiable if a large number of seats in this Legislature were to be filled by men who clearly represented only a minority of public opinion. It seems to me to have been a gross oversight on the part of this National Legislature that it did not during the years it has been in existence provide for a system of proportional representation. I will admit that the policy of the present Administration to appeal for support for its general war1 policy, and to secure a majority in favour of that policy in the Senate, wovjld very probably be prejudiced by the adoption at the ensuing elections of proportional representation; because under that system I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Governmentto secure a majority in this Chamber. I -am only in a very few things an expedientist. Though that might be the result of the operation of proportional representation at the next elections, I venture to say that, in the long run, the adoption of the system would be found satisfactory. I have no doubt that if proportional repre: sentation were tried, fresh evidence would be forthcoming of its great utility in the election of members to such a National Parliament as this. I wish to say a little now on what I might call the philosophy of national progress. We have here a continent, and we are the only people in the world who own a continent. I am afraid that recently there have been evidences that a false philosophy is being preached, to the effect that after the present war we shall have a position of things approximating to the millennium. We are told that there will be no more wars. I do not subscribe to that view at all. I say that nations grow in response to, and because of, the operation of certain things that are as truly laws as is the law of gravity. You can no more prevent certain races, at certain periods of their history, rising to national prominence than you can by telling a boy to remain a boy, and that it is undesirable that he should get out of knickerbockers - prevent his reaching manhood. It would be foolish to say to a youth, “ Remain in knickerbockers; it is inadvisable for you to grow into manhood,” because the youth is growing in obedience to a law which he cannot control. Nations grow in much the same fashion. The sap rises in the national tree every now and then, and what was before only a small shrub, representing the national virility of a small sparse people, blossoms in a night into a great tree, and in the course of a few decades or a century or two, you behold one of the mighty peoples of the earth, which before had been regarded as a small power, of no significance and no weight in the world’s affairs. Australia, I say, with very clear, almost prophetic, vision, is going to be brought into contact with peoples in whose national trees the sap is rising, who are going to be great peoples, numerically, scientifically, and in everything that virile peoples judge to be greatness. The natural law will prevail. Therefore, I say, “ Australian people, hug not to yourselves the delusion that you are within a few years of the millennium, that it will he unnecessary to have compulsory service to defend your own territories. Emerson says, ‘ Immortality comes to those who are fit for it,’ and national greatness, national endurance and persistence on your part as a free people, will come to you and remain with you only if you are fit. Therefore, gird your loins, realize your national destinies, realize that there are people who look upon Australia very much as the average Labour man looks upon a large squatter’s holding.” He says, “ This is a land monopolist holding land which should belong to us, and to which we should have access.” The land-owner very often answers, and properly, “ I am putting the land to the best use - the use for which it is. naturally fitted.” But that is not regarded by the Labour member as a sufficient answer. He says, “ We have in our ranks people who desire elbow-room, and want some of that land of yours. How do you make good your title? We have a better title than you, and require the land, which is essential to our well-being.” Several nations, although not articulate in that way at present, entertain the same ideas in regard to the present attitude of the Australian people. They say, “ Can you 5,000,000 people own a continent ? You are an arrogant people. You will not permit us to have access to it. “

Senator Grant:

– Five millions do not hold it.

Senator BAKHAP:

– In a national sense they do. It is at our disposal, as their Legislature, to tax it as we think fit, and, therefore, by virtue of the might of the British Empire, we occupy it. Now, let us see if we are prepared to make good our title. It is not by teaching ourselves easy-going philosophies, by easy hopes or lies, that we are going to reach the goal of national safety. It is by a proper girding up of the national loins, a realization of the possibilities of our destiny, and a determination to make national sacrifices of the most intense kind, that. Australia is going to remain the property of the Australian people.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I have compared Australia with a land monopolist whose occupation of large territories, withheld from intense public use, arouses opprobrium. Australia, a community of 5,000,000 souls, owns one of the world’s continents, an island, it is true, but nevertheless a continent, and by the very fact of its insularity other great contingencies will have to be considered in the near future by the Australian people. The people inhabiting this continent have, to a very large extent, warned off the people of other nations. They have adopted the policy known , as the White Australia policy, of restricting the entry of alien populations into their country. I do not impugn that policy, but a nation of people determined to adopt that attitude must demean themselves like a race of scientific Spartans, ready to fight with “ a licence which the hand of death alone can stay,” for the security and integrity of their country and the retention of those ideals of which the White Australia policy is one. In this connexion the Australian people will probably have to show a greater spirit of self-sacrifice than has ever been exhibited by any people on the earth’s surface, or at least by any people known to history. They must at all times be prepared to put their blood, their treasure, their all, into the balance. During the referendum campaign young men, who would no doubt hold up both hands to sustain the White Australia policy, in frequent conversations with me spoke as peace-at-any-price advocates. They were men belonging to the school of Senator Ferricks. They said that if they had to be taken to any scene of warlike operations, they would have to be bound with ropes and carried there. Can a nation of people of that temper maintain the policy of a White Australia? Can they maintain the integrity of this country inviolate? They cannot.

Senator Gardiner:

– Have not 2,000 years of Christianity taught us that we must not hit back ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Do we not find in the Scriptures the injunction, “If you have no sword, sell your coat, and buy one”? I have said that a fair destiny awaits the people of Australia only if they are fit for it. I am not going to preach about the necessities of the situation without offering some key, some solution, to the great problem that awaits this nation of ours, one of the most important of the King’s oversea Dominions. We shall have to maintain a great military force here. We shall have to do our best in regard to all those adaptations of modern > naval science, which will enable us to keep our shores inviolate. A great opportunity will present itself when this war is over, when we shall have, I hope, hundreds of thousands of veterans, the pride of our race, returning to our continent. From their ranks must be selected the very pride of manhood remaining, and they must be made a per- manent’ force, in order to stiffen that Army Reserve, the outlines of -which have been given by the Minister for Defence. Above all. there is another truth which I must enunciate here, a truth -

That stays the Tolling Ixionian wheel,

That numbs the Fury’s ringlet-snake - a truth which alone can prevent any national doom that may be impending from overtaking us. That is racial fecundity. Our people must be fecund. They must spawn; and no religion, no philosophy, nothing in the shape of a school of politics, can be any good to them which does not inculcate in their minds ever and unceasingly this great fact. Look at those tremendous empty spaces of ours, those hundreds and hundreds of leagues which spread . from the interior of our continent to our northern, north-eastern, and north-western shores, great spaces empty of men, not a man to hundreds of leagues. If you want this country to be peopled by a white race, the very best way to do It is by an unexampled fecundity on the part of those who are in Australian territory at present.

Senator Mullan:

– China gives you -one of the greatest examples of fecundity, and yet, politically, it is one of the most helpless nations that you can imagine.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I shall disabuse the honorable senator’s mind of that idea, which is often held and expressed by others. Other nations may conquer China, but it is always the Chinaman who survives and smiles over the grave of hi3 one-time conqueror. It is the fecundity of the Chinese that can make them too proud to fight if they like. Other nations come, and, for a century or two, obtain a kind of nominal mastery over them. Do they interfere with Chinese institutions? Do they overturn Chinese family habits? Do they take away Chinese liberty or make any impression on the Chinese language? No. In a national sense, nobody has ever conquered China, because of the fecundity of the Chinese race. Let that be a lesson to the world. The Tartar may conquer the Chinaman for a while. The Chinaman, with a sort of supercilious contempt for the barbarian, may even allow him nominally to rule over him, if he. does not interfere with Chinese institutions. Inside a century or two the language of the Tartar or the Manchu conqueror is as dead as Sanscrit. It ceases to be spoken. The conqueror speaks Chinese, adopts Chinese institutions, follows Chinese practices - becomes, in fact, a Chinaman, and that only because of the unexampled fecundity of the Chinese race. To the Chinaman the getting of men is a passion. They follow the Scriptural injunction to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. If our men and women fail to regard this divine injunction, they will, in the words of Homer Lee, “ presently awake to find themselves on a savage dawn, stripped and desolate,” stripped of this continent, which ought to be their eternal heritage, their eternal possession -

Tis awful odds against the gods

When they will match with myrmidons,

We spawning, spawning myrmidons.

Our turn to-day; we take command;

Jove gives the globe into the hand

Of myrmidons, of myrmidons.

It is the fruitful -races of the world that will inherit it. Let Australians remember this. I make this deliverance here now, because I know that, in the vacillations of public opinion, I may not have the opportunity to return to this Chamber and give the people of Australia what I believe is the benefit of my knowledge. This is a deliverance which I think I should make to the Australian people in the highest Chamber of the Australian Legislature. Nations do not advance to their doom; they retreat to it. That is axiomatic. If the people of Australia are not sensible of their high destinies, they will retreat to their inevitable doom. Not like an insane King Lear, but as a man whose mind is quite made up on the subject, and who has some kind of prophetic insight into the matter, I say, as King Lear said, feeling the spirit of Australia’s future behind me, with no desire to hint that I would even disturb or abuse the great matrimonial relation -

To it; we lack soldiers.

We lack soldiers, we lack population. With population we shall have soldiers; but we shall not be able to hold or defend this continent if that large and rising section of the Official Labour Opposition is allowed to nurture itself as a political party which is not only opposed to conscription for overseas service in the interests of the Empire, but is opposed to compulsory service for the purpose- of defending Australia within her own shores.

Senator Mullan:

– That is not correct.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The honorable senator knows that I -would not malign his party by making a false charge. I do not attack the Labour party on lines which will enable” its members to come here and quote against me what they designate as malicious statements. But the fact is that in Labour Conferences, motions in opposition to compulsory service, and not .merely to compulsory service overseas, have been promulgated, debated, and put to the vote. These motions have had for their object the abolition of the principle of compulsory service, which is on our statute-book, and for which the Labour party has been wrongly taking the whole credit.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– In every Labour Conference held since the referendum was taken, that proposition has been put.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The Minister for Defence, with’ a better knowledge of the inside working of Labour organizations than I possess, says that at every Labour Conference held since the taking of. the referendum, that proposition has been discussed. I know that it has .been debated in my own State, and put to a vote, and if the talk of the man in the street is correct, it was defeated by only the very narrowest majority.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I happened to be a member of that Conference, and I tell the honorable senator that he is wrong.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Does Senator O’Keefe deny that the proposal was debated?

Senator O’Keefe:

– Of course it was.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Does the honorable senator say that it did not have considerable support?

Senator O’Keefe:

– The honorable senator said that the man in the street affirmed that it was defeated by only the narrowest majority.

Senator Story:

– The South. Australian delegates to the next Labour Conference have been instructed to secure the deletion of the principle of compulsory service from our statute-book.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I thank the hon- orable senator for that information. There is the situation. I leave it to the people of Australia, who I implore to regard the retention of this great continent as their primary national duty. We have in the ranks of our political opponents a powerful and growing party which is actually opposed to the principle of compulsory service for the defence of our own country.

Senator Mullan:

– Is the honorable; senator aware that a citizen soldiery would have been impossible in Australia, but for the support which was accorded, to the proposal by the Labour party?

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes; but there isin the honorable senator’s party a growing and powerful section which is attempting to secure the abolition of the effects of its one-time resolution.

Senator Mullan:

– Never mind a section.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I leave the factsto the people of Australia. They will be the jury at the coming election. But. I tell honorable senators opposite, honestly and frankly, that I shall makefull use of what I believe to be the facts on the public platform - during the approaching campaign. This is a point which I shall stress, and which I shall make quite evident to the people of Tasmania.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The honorablesenator knows that there are a few anticonscriptionists in the Liberal party.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Who are they?’ Where are they? I say to the honorable senator that so solid was the Liberal party on this question that I defy him to point to one member, either of the* State or the Federal Liberal party, who. took the platform in opposition to conscription.

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

-Colonel O.’Loghlin.- All the South Australian Conservative districts voted “ No.”

Senator BAKHAP:

– That does not overcome the fact that all the Liberal parliamentarians endeavoured to secure a “ Yes “ vote. Posterity will be the jury in regard to this matter, and I venture to say that one hundred, nay, fifty, or,, perhaps, ten years hence, it will fully acquit those who took the platform in favour .of conscription at this great crisis in the Empire’s fortunes, of having done anything wrong or prejudicial to the national interests.

Senator Turley:

– They will be dead.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It is not for the sake of those who will be dead that I am speaking, but for the sake of those who will be alive. In regard to the question of compulsory service, I wish to point out how essential it is that a nation should come to a decision at an auspiciousmoment, for the auspicious moment some- times passes- away never to return. There is very rarely a renaissance in the life of a nation. The same soil may produce greatness, but it does not produce greatness in the same nation twice. The Italian nation is not quite the same people as the ancient Romans. It speaks a language somewhat different from that of the ancient Latins; and is certainly considerably different from the Roman and Latin peoples who dwelt in the peninsula of Italy 2,000 years ago. We shall find Saracen blood now where Cicero was born. We shall find people there who are very different from those who inhabited the land at the time of Julius Cæsar. It is essential that the people of Australia should remember that, even if they adopted conscription at the present time, the auspicious moment for securing the full advantage of that policy may have passed away. Had it been adopted when I advocated conscription, at the inception of the war - and when my efforts were gallantly seconded by my friend Senator Lynch - we would have secured the full fruits of a Democratic levy for our armies.

Senator Pearce:

– And our pension bill would not have been nearly as large as it is.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Exactly. I venture to say that there were a good many Australian men and women who did not properly sense the situation. I advocated tie adoption of compulsory service, not only for Australia, but for the United Kingdom, long before it was adopted there. But had the referendum on the 28th October been carried by a majority large .enough to justify the enforcement of the principle, the men who would have gone into our camps would hardly have been sufficiently trained by the present time. In addition to that, we know that it would be particularly difficult to take them out of Australia just now. But had we adopted the principle of conscription even then, we would have conferred a great morn! advantage on Great Britain and her Allies. Yet our national strength might not have been seriously impaired, “because the men who would have been’ called for service, subsequent to an affirmative vote on the 28th October last, would probably still have been in our camps undergoing their training. It is manifest, therefore, that promptitude in matters of this kind is essential. It is of no use being wise after the event. We need to be wise before it. That is the reason why I am urging honorable senators, and the Australian people, to consider the position of Australia in the near future. We shall have a greater burden to bear, because of our pretensions, than any people who have previously trodden the stage of the world. We have aspirations such as no other people ever had. We have ideals such as no other people ever entertained. We have a country situated as no civilized country has been geographically situated.

Senator McKissock:

– If these are reasons, why did the people turn down conscription ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– To strengthen our youthful national aspirations it was essential that we should throw our whole strength into the Imperial scales. I know what I am talking about, and Ministers and ex-Ministers alike are thoroughly familiar with my opinions on these matters. They know very well that any views which I have communicated to them have been based on a patriotic conception of the true national interests. Let us beware. Let the Australian people remember that if British Imperialism perishes, Australian nationalism perishes. There will be no chance whatever of its retention or preservation. Therefore, even at this late hour, I am going to take the responsibility of telling the Australian people that they ought to throw every other consideration aside, and do the best that in them lies to secure the triumph of that civilization which is identical with that which we are developing - that Imperial civilization from which ours is descended - and that they must secure the retention of those Imperial liberties of which our own are a portion. If Australia heeds not my words, if she chooses the easy course, if she decides to revel in what of luxury remains to us, well, after that, the deluge. Great Britain is in a unique position. The. British Empire differs altogether from any other Empire that the world has seen. It differs completely from “ any other modern Empire. In any other great modern Empire the ruling race is the most numerous. In Japan it is the most numerous, in Russia, also in Germany.

Senator Pearce:

– It is the first Empire that is really not an Empire.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The British Empire is the only modern Empire in which the ruling race is in a minority, and the Australian people, who are absolutely a microcosm of the people of the United Kingdom, must recognise that on them devolves a full percentage of the responsibility of maintaining the prestige of the governing race. If they do not recognise that, to use the language of the Koran, “ Over them the fire closeth.” The submarine campaign, which I also foresaw, would be likely to prove a very menacing one, if the war continued, is seriously interfering with Imperial activities, and to show how a little prevision is necessary in connexion with these matters, I stated two years ago .that the adoption of conscription was imperative, in order that we might be able to throw our whole weight into the Imperial scale at the earliest possible moment. I believed this course was necessary to bring the war to a triumphant conclusion before the submarine campaign could be so developed as to make approach to the shores of the United Kingdom by merchant vessels a great hazard. I pointed that out in the columns -of the Tasmanian Labour paper two years ago, and urged that the successful termination of the war could only be secured, not by putting forth the national strength in driblets, but in such powerful waves of reinforcements as would enable us to sweep on the crest of an irrepressible tide to victory. I wish to emphasize my position already declared. I notice that a member of the Administration has been in Tasmania .lately talking about conscription. He is a somewhat late convert.

Senator Mullan:

– Do you indorse his action ?

Senator BAKHAP:

– My attitude on this subject has been made perfectly clear. The official recruiting campaign - the final one, I believe, on the voluntary basis - has been inaugurated, and is now in progress, and I will not disturb it until a full and complete trial has unmistakably disclosed that its results are insufficient for the national’ needs. When that position has been so disclosed, I will turn down the page in my history and resume my advocacy of the principle of conscription, even at this late hour, for although a great deal of the merit may have departed from it, because of the circum stances which I have detailed, it is encumbent upon us to provide for all contingencies and to prepare for a full exhibition of the national strength on the Empire’s behalf. In other words, if the present campaign on the voluntary system demonstrates that the results are insufficient, I will once more advocate conscription. The other evening, as I was walking through that magnificent pleasance, the Botanical Gardens, in Melbourne, in the purple sunset, I could see the glittering waters of the Bay, and as I looked upon this magnificent city, with its shimmering domes, I reflected on what was to be the future of this people; this people of whom I am a unit, and amongst whom my daughters, and I hope my daughters’ children will live; this people who are my people. And I came to the conclusion that we were in very perilous places ; that we were in the shadows of the dim waterways, that our future was very dark and doubtful, because hundreds and thousands of the manhood of the nation still in Australia will have nothing to do with war. They want to put down the gun. They will not exert themselves on the nation’s behalf; they are not ashamed tosay that they will not fight; not ashamed to say that they will not go to the field of battle unless they are roped down and carried there. And yet these men would raise a chorus of indignation if two or three coloured men, or if a ship load of marooned coloured men came along to« partake in the development of the riches of this great continent. The two attitudes are absolutely incompatible. It is open to any man to say that his door shall be barred against the intruder, but. he must stand as a strong man armed, and I tell the people of Australia that if the young men of this country are not prepared, in view of our national pretentions to stand like a strong man armed, woe will be upon them. After the war every nation will endeavour to add to its population, so it is absolutely idle to expect that we shall get a great influx of population from other European countries. In Australia, we shall have a war debt of, probably, £200,000,000. At the time when I was speaking of the submarine campaign, about two years ago, I said that if the war lasted for a couple of years Australia would have a war debt of at least £130,000,000. We have a war debt greater than that at the present time, and it is patent that, in the future the Australian people will have to bear a considerable ‘ load of taxation. Moreover, Australia will not be so attractive a country as we, in Australia, fancy, it is likely to become. The Australian people, therefore, must increase their, population by their own efforts. Motherhood must be exalted. Childhood must be exalted. We must do everything we can to encourage - but always within proper and moral bounds - an increase of the Australian population. We must make provision for widows, for motherless bairns, and ‘for women who, through no fault of their own, are left with the responsibility of maintaining their families. Though I may differ from my friends opposite, as I do on many important matters, I tell them that, in all their efforts directed to this end, they will have my hearty support if I continue in my present position as a member of this Legislature. Fecundity is going to be Australia’s salvation. Fecundity, education, and national courage. I put fecundity in the first, second, third, and last place. By no other means can we save our country and retain possession of one of the world’s continents. I am going to conclude by referring to a small matter, but one which I think it necessary I should mention. As all honorable senators know, I took a certain course of action a few days ago in what I thought was the best interests of the nation. At that time events seemed to be very mysterious”, although they do not seem to be so mysterious to-day. But on a certain Friday following disclosures in this Chamber, I made up my mind that I would vote in a certain way on a motion whch had yet to be submitted to the Senate for debate. Now, I am responsible for my action to those who sent me here, and I am not one of those who seek to evade any responsibility ; but I fancy that in some quarters there is a sort of undercurrent of complaint that I did not disclose my intentions after I had arrived at a decision. All I have to say is that while I invert the proverb, and say, Silence is silvern and speech is golden, there are times when silence is necessary. We seemed then to bo in a peculiar situation. We were, politically, in the “ misty mid-region of Weir.” I wished to keep my own counsel, because, although I had arrived at a certain decision, that decision might have been conditioned by any kind of happening. For instance, when the Senate met on the Monday morning the honorable senator who made the charges might have withdrawn them. As a matter of fact, he did “weigh in” with another statement, which perhaps he thought added weight to the one he had made. I do not think it did ; but the fact remains that he came in with another statement. Now, we know that anything is possible in the vicissitudes of political life, and if this honorable gentleman had withdrawn the statement that he made on the Friday, by getting up in his place and stating that he had misconstrued what had taken place between him and another honorable gentleman, would not an act of that sort have conditioned my previously formed decision? Undoubtedly it would. On the other hand, what if the honorable gentleman who some .time ago was ;a senator here had in the interim made some confession of improper action or wrong-doing ? We can easily see what a remarkable set of circumstances might have been created. Therefore, although I had arrived at a definite decision, and communicated it in private to some very near and dear friends of mine, I nevertheless held my peace, and awaited the possibilities of any development. I deemed it necessary to preserve silence, which, on the whole, is rather unusual with me. That is a clear statement of my position, and seeing that we shall not have any more Supply Bills, all I have to say is, that so far as my platform .campaign is concerned, I will conduct my election without introducing any personalities, and will endeavour to weigh carefully the merits of all those great issues which divide the people of Australia into two political parties. I believe my ‘ political opponents hold wrong ideals, and that some of them, have a wrong conception of what is best to be done in the national interests. I believe, however,- that there is perfect unanimity of opinion so far as our soldiers in the field are concerned and as to what is best to be done to defeat the German foe. Believing this, I do not entertain the idea that there is any substantial feeling of disloyalty among the Australian people, and I feel sure that we’ shall all hail with glad acclaim the triumph of our Empire and race. . I believe that triumph will not be too long delayed, and that it will be accelerated if, by putting all other considerations aside, we determine to. throw the whole of Australia’s strength into the national balance,

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

. -I wish to bring before the Senate what Australia has done in connexion with the war-. During the recent conscription campaign - and even since that time - a continuous effort has been made to belittle Australia’s part in this great conflict. Grossly untrue statements have been made which would lead any outsider to believe that Australia had quitted ‘ ‘ the war, and was having nothing more to do with it. There is only one way in which such a statement as that can be controverted, and that is by stating- the number of enlistments - not for one month, or for a series of months, but over- the longer period. I find from official sources that for the past seventeen months the enlistments in Australia have been as follows: -

The return for February is incomplete, as one of the States only furnished a return up to the 19th. It will be noticed that, for the three months in which the Fusion Government have occupied the Treasury bench, the enlistments have been the lowest on record. No doubt that is due to the fact that the public of this country have naturally a diminished amount of confidence in the Administration, because for that period’ the average per month has been less than 4,000. To recapitulate, the total enlistments for seventeen months has been 164,088, and the total casualties since the beginning of the war to date have been about 5,0,000. I am not quite sure of the exactfigures for the period, but they approximate to that number, showing that theenlistments for the period under review were 114,088 more than the total casualties since the war began in August, 1914. To spread statements broadcast to theeffect that Australia has quitted the war isgrossly unfair ; and to charge the party on. this side with any other desire than to winthe war is also a most unfair statement to* make. It is only since the present Government came, into office that the averageenlistments have dropped to below 4,000 per month. During the whole period under review the average enlistmentsexceeded 9,000 per month. Up to dateAustralia has taken a very creditable partin the war, and I have no doubt that,, when the irritation to which the manhoodof this country were subjected by the illadvised action of the Hughes Administration in endeavouring to foist conscriptionon the country- has died away, the enlistments will again go up to and exceed 5,000’ per month. Therefore there is no justification for the statements made by Ministerialists to the effect that the party on this side is opposed to’ winning the war. On the contrary, if honorable senators examine the figures quoted by me, they will see that they, and they alone, are responsible for the diminished number of enlistments during the past three months.

Senator Senior:

– That is as far as youcan see.

Senator GRANT:

– That is as far asI can see.

Senator Shannon:

– That is very ingenious and very true.

Senator GRANT:

– That is a true statement of the position, which it is quite impossible to gainsay.

Senator Senior:

– The deduction is not a fair one.

Senator GRANT:

– It is a perfectly correct deduction to make. It is all very well for some honorable senators to. make wild statements in out-of-the-way corners, where they may or may not be reported, and where some of the public may believe them. But here, where honorable senators are confronted with facts obtained, from: official sources, they cannot deny, the accuracy of the statement made, nor can they deny the accuracy of the deduction drawn.

Senator Senior:

– Yes,, they can-.

Senator GRANT:

– Of course, my honorable friends may deny the statement, but denial will go for nothing.

Senator Senior:

– You have not proved your deduction. You have simply stated the figures.

Senator GRANT:

– I have stated the figures, and shown that during the last three months in which the Fusion party have occupied the Treasury bench-

Senator Senior:

– During the last three months, in which the harvest has been gathered, many persons have been engaged in that work’.

Senator GRANT:

– The statement made by Senator Senior that the reduced enlistments are due to the fact that the harvest was being gathered would be all right did ‘ we not have the figures for a similar period of last year. In that period, the enlistments in December were 9,307; in January, 22,688; and in February, 18,665; whereas, during the last three months, instead of there being 9,307 enlistments in December, there were only 2,617. I presume that the harvest this year was gathered in much the same way as it was gathered last year. The figures for January, 1916, were 22,688.

Senator Senior:

– I was only attacking the argument which the anticonscriptionists so often advanced.

Senator GRANT:

– The enlistments in January of this year were only 4,575. This year the Fusion party were on the Treasury bench, whereas twelve months ago the Labour party were in office. No doubt that accounts to a very large extent for the refusal of the manhood of this country to offer their services.

Senator Shannon:

– That is a clever deduction.

Senator Senior:

– Is it not due to the absence of the land tax?’

Senator GRANT:

– I intend to make a few remarks on that question presently. In February of last year the enlistments were 18,665, whereas this year they were only 4,764. These figures prove beyond the possibility of doubt that, while the Labour party held the reins of office, the men of this country were prepared to freely offer their services in its defence.

Senator Senior:

– In South Australia we were told that it was the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second of the eleventh hour of the war.

Senator Shannon:

– What were you telling us here - that the war was over?

Senator GRANT:

– There is no one who believes that the war is over; it is still there. As I said before, the manhood of this country have shown that they are not prepared to offer their services so freely while the Fusion Government are in possession of the Treasury bench as they were when the Labour party held office.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Do you realize that by making that statement you are grossly libelling the men of this country ?

Senator GRANT:

– I do not. I am stating what is an unquestionable fact.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is a gross libel on the young men of this country.

Senator GRANT:

– The facts are that when the Labour party held the Treasury bench the enlistments for December, 1915, were 9,307, and that for December last, when the Labour party did not hold the Treasury bench, only 2,617 men enlisted.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– So that the young men of this country are more interested in the fact that there is a Fusion Government on the Treasury bench’ than in the defence of the Empire. Is that what you want the young men of this country to believe ?

Senator GRANT:

– - I am merely quoting the figures to show that since the Fusion Government took office the enlistments declined.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– You are doing much more than that. You are libelling our young men.

Senator GRANT:

– I am not libelling any young men of this country. It is no libel, but merely a recital of facts which may be very unpleasant reading to honorable senators opposite, but which nevertheless ought to be disclosed in the interests of truth and justice. It is a pity in one way that the total figures since the commencement of the war to date have not been disclosed. But as honorable senators are aware, there are good and sufficient reasons why that’ ought not to be done. I for one am not going to trespass in that regard. I have quoted all the figures I have been able t’o obtain from official sources to show what has been done, and to give the lie for ever to those who say that the enlistments today are not sufficient to more than fill up the gaps which are being made.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– You have simply quoted the casualties without making any allowance for relief in the field, or anywhere else.-

Senator GRANT:

– I am making an allowance for those who are dead, those who are wounded, those who are sick, those who are prisoners of war, and the unspecified cases. These are figures which hurt honorable senators. During the coming campaign they will not be able to tell the electors of Australia-

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

-Col. Sir ALBERT Gould. - That no provision has been made to give the men a rest!

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am delighted with the action the honorable senator is taking.

Senator GRANT:

– The statements originally made were that sufficient men were not being secured to fill the gaps in the ranks. Senator Newland knows that perfectly well. I have shown him that for the past seventeen months, not going further back than that, we had effective enlistments to the extent of 114,088 more than our total casualties since the war began. I quite realize that honorable senators opposite do not like these figures. I shall take very good care that the figures get a wide circulation during the campaign, and that the public shall know exactly what, has been done. Some honorable senators on the other side do not seem to realize-

Senator Senior:

– Some honorable senators do not seem to realize that the men are living practically in mud, and want a rest.

Senator GRANT:

– I quite realize that the men want a rest.

Senator Senior:

– You. have not been allowing for it.

Senator GRANT:

– But, as I said before, these figures disclose something which is very unpleasant to honorable senators -opposite.

Senator SENIOR:

– It is very unpleasant to feel that you will not give the men reinforcements to the extent which they need.

Senator GRANT:

– At the present moment it might not be judicious to go into details, but as I remarked before, we have enlisted during the past seventeen months 114,088 more than our total casualties since the war began.

Senator Shannon:

– Including the wounded.

Senator GRANT:

– Including the wounded, the sick, the prisoners of war, and the missing.

Notwithstanding the many promises made to deal with taxation I find that, nothing so far has been done in that direction by the present Government. It is estimated that we will thisyear receive about £16,600,000 revenue* from Customs and Excise. This Parliament was returned as a Parliament in. favour of Protection, whatever that may mean. Nothing has been done, and apparently nothing is to be done in connexion with this question, excepting tocontinue what the Government are pleased to term a Protectionist policy. It is really a high revenue Tariff policy, which wasnever designed or intended to- prohibit the» introduction of foreign-made goods. The idea underlying the Protectionist policy isreally to obtain as much revenue as possible from the importation of goods in order that the imposition of taxation in. other directions may be avoided.

Senator STEWART:

– That is not Protection. That is revenue tariffism. Protection means a low revenue.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Stewart mayhave ideas about Protection to which I would not subscribe. Victoria, from the Australian view-point, may be regarded asthe home of Protection, but Victoria has- _ always secured the bulk of her revenue through the Customs House. The samepolicy is continued to-day by the Federal Government, not in order to encourage, foster, and build up local industries, but solely With a view to keeping the Treasury full. That is the objective behind all Protectionist policies, not only here but elsewhere.

Senator STEWART:

– No; that is revenuetariffism.

Senator GRANT:

– Revenue tariffism, either high or low, is the proper name for Protection. Practical Protection and high revenue tariffism are synonymous and interchangable terms in these modern times. We have only to look at the returns of revenue through the CustomsHouse year by year to recognise that. The revenue derived in +.his way hasranged from £10,000,000 per annum, at the time of the establishment of Federation, up to £16,600,000 per annum, which is the estimate of Customs revenue for this; year.

Senator STEWART:

– Have we a Protectionist Tariff?

Senator GRANT:

– That is practical Protection as understood by the Australian Parliament.

Senator Stewart:

– A Tariff which doesnot protect.

Senator GRANT:

– Our Tariff admits foreign goods, from -which a revenue is derived. The intention of our Tariff is to produce revenue, and not to exclude foreign goods. It will be apparent to Senator Stewart and other honorable senators that if our Tariff were sufficiently high to exclude all foreign-made goods it would be necessary for us to make those goods in Australia. “With the exception of a few theoretical Protectionists who do not count, I have never known of a Protectionist in this country who was prepared to contend that our Tariff should be sufficiently high to entirely. exclude goods made in foreign countries. The enactment of such a Tariff would create and maintain more employment for the people of Australia, but the effect of its operation would be that the revenue now derived through the Customs House would

Senator Bakhap:

– How does the honorable senator suggest that we should obtain the revenue of which we would be deprived by the operation of Protection along the lines he has mentioned ?

Senator GRANT:

– That is a very important question, and I shall come to it in a moment. I wish to make it quite clear to the Age newspaper, for instance, to that Liberal organ, the Argus, to the Sydney Standard, and a number of other important Australian publications, that our Tariff, to be satisfactory to a number of persons, would require to be so high that it would be impossible for foreign manufacturers to dump their goods on our shores, and further, that if that took place the £16,500,000 which we now derive through the Customs would have to be looked for elsewhere.

Senator Bakhap:

– That is what we are after.

Senator GRANT:

– No; the honorable senator only pretends to be after that. I never heard him or any other honorable senator on the other side pronounce in favour of the exclusion of all foreignmade goods by the enactment of a Tariff sufficiently high to produce that effect.

Senator Bakhap:

– I assure the honorable senator that I am in favour of it.

Senator GRANT:

– Then Senator Bakhap is the first person on the other’ side who has stated that he is in favour of a Tariff sufficiently high to entirely exclude foreign-made goods from Australia.

Senator Bakhap:

– Foreign-made goods such as we have the natural resources to enable us to produce for ourselves.

Senator GRANT:

– Just so; but I think we have natural resources in Australia to enable us to manufacture here all the commodities we require.

Senator Lynch:

– Talking of taxation, what are the honorable senator’s views on the latest Official Labour proposal to impose a tax on male cats?

Senator GRANT:

– It might be a very . good thing to do, and it might be a verygood thing also to impose a tax upon rats. I believe that quite a number of people in this country would support a heavy tax upon cats.

Senator Lynch:

– The executive of the Australian Workers Union have proposed a tax on male cats. What is the honorable senator’s opinion on that proposal?

Senator GRANT:

– I understand that they have proposed a tax of 5s. per head on male cats, and the taxation of female cats at a lower rate. The matter is not of very much importance, but I would not seriously oppose a proposal of the kind. If we are to adopt a Protectionist policy that will suit Senator Bakhap we must look elsewhere for the £16,500,000 of revenue which we now derive from Customs and Excise.

Senator Bakhap:

– What is the matter with an income tax?

Senator GRANT:

– We have an income tax at the present time. A proposal to tax wealth, and other taxation proposals, have been suggested, but the Government have so far made no proposal to tax the most important revenue-producing asset available. I refer, of course, as I have done before, to the refusal of the Government to propose an increased land tax. I find that while the revenue from the. land tax for 1915-16 was £2,040,436, it is estimated that this year it will amount to only £1,900,000.

Senator Stewart:

– What do the Government expect to get from the amusements tax ?

Senator GRANT:

– They do not anticipate to get more than £350,000 from the entertainments tax. I listened this afternoon while Senator Bakhap made a very ridiculous and absurd statement. T interjected in an unparliamentary way that his statement was untrue, but I withdraw that now. What I meant to say was that it was quite inaccurate. The honorable senator said, in effect, that the lands of this country belong to the people who are living here. That statement is quite inaccurate. This country does not belong to the Australians. The more frequently that statement is pressed home the better. We are told by the Chief Electoral Officer that there are in Australia 2,750,000 electors, whilst the Commonwealth Statistician informs us that the total number of land-owners in the Commonwealth is only about 750,000. It is therefore clear that Senator Bakhap in saying that the people of this country own Australia makes a statement that is very wide of the mark. It is clear that there are at least 2,000,000 adults in Australia who do not own any land at all.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does the honorable senator deny that this National Parliament has full powers of taxation over every acre, of land alienated in Australia ?

Senator GRANT:

– The National Parliament of Australia is too cowardly to tax land values.

Senator Bakhap:

– The question is: Has it the power?

Senator GRANT:

Senator Bakhap says that he is prepared to stand up for a Tariff so high that it will entirely exclude foreign-made goods, but no party or Parliament in this country would ever dare to propose Customs taxation sufficiently high to keep out all foreign-made goods.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does the honorable senator not believe in Protection at all?

Senator GRANT:

– I have made no pronouncement.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator should not talk in riddles here.

Senator GRANT:

– When the honorable senator tells us that the people of this country own Australia I am reminded of the story of a land-owner who was going towards his estate in the company of a man who owned no land at all. The land-owner said, “You and I own all this area over here.” The other man said, “ You are quite right, you own it all, and I own no pant of it.” I again remind Senator Bakhap that the people of Australia do not own the lands of Australia, and that there are more than 2,000,000 adults in Australia who own no land at all.

Senator Bakhap:

– How much land would each adult in Australia own if the continent were divided amongst them ?

Senator GRANT:

– I am not prepared to answer the question. Senator Bakhap can easily figure it out for himself. Apart altogether from the 2,000,000 adults in Australia who own no land, all the young people who are growing up into manhood and womanhood, and all those coming to this country, may require land. No matter how Senator Bakhap may try to smother up the position, the people of this country do not own Australia1. Only a very limited number do.

Senator Bakhap:

– They own it in a national sense.

Senator GRANT:

– But not in an actual sense. After a terrific struggle, lasting over twelve months, both Houses agreed, shortly after the war began, to the issue of a war census card, requiring each person to fill in a return showing the value of the land held by him in Australia. The progress return furnished here a few days ago showed the total unimproved value of land in the Commonwealth, as returned by the owners, to be £446,000,000. The number of people holding estates of a less value than £200 was about 647,000, so that the balance of the £446,000,000 worth was held by a comparatively limited number of people. The Government have given no indication of their intention to bring down a tax on this enormous amount of wealth. Any Government that proposes an amusement tax, or a war-time profits tax, or a cat tax, is not worthy of much consideration when the whole of the lands of Australia are’ let off annually with a paltry payment of £1,900,000. The time is ripe for courageous men, like Senator Bakhap, to tell the people of the Commonwealth that he is in favour of a land tax sufficiently heavy to force into proper use estates like those held by the Van Diemen’s Land Company, mostly held, I understand, by absentee Scotchmen.

Senator Bakhap:

– Plenty of the Van Diemen’s Land Company’s land, if offered to him, the honorable senator would not cafe (o attempt to make a living on.

Senator GRANT:

– I was there a little while ago, and endeavoured to ascertain the value of some portions of the Van Diemen’s Land Company’s estates. I learnt that not far from Burnie, the company refused to permit any Australian to settle on any part of their land sufficiently large for a suburban homestead unless he was prepared to pay a licence of from £150 to £200. The company are typical of all the land-owners of Australia, who, more than anything else, are preventing the development ofthis continent. The only thing that will compel the ‘ owners of large estates to make satisfactory use of them, or dispose of them at reasonable prices to those who will’, is the imposition of a sufficiently heavy,, straightout land-values tax. The Protectionist policy, so vigorously and persistently advocated is diametrically opposed to any taxation whatever upon land values.

Senator Stewart:

– Nothing of the kind. The two things go together. Senator GRANT. - In theory, but not in practice.

Senator Stewart:

– They ought to go together in practice.

Senator GRANT:

– What concerns me is that they do not go together, never have gone together, and never will go together. In the United States of America, which may he termed the home of high Protection, the National Government imposes no land tax for revenue purposes.

Senator Bakhap:

– The United States of - America is also the home of high cultivation and intense agriculture.

Senator GRANT:

– It is the land of high Protection, or high revenue, which means the same thing.

Senator Bakhap:

-Is. there not a considerable rural population in the United States of America?

Senator GRANT:

– I believe there is. Senator Bakhap. - Then, a land tax has not been necessary to develop a rural population there.

Senator GRANT:

– A land tax would develop an even greater rural, population. The imposition of a reasonably heavy land tax would have a most beneficial effect on Australia.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is easier to make a living keeping a shop in the city than a farm in the country.

Senator GRANT:

– I am not so sure. A good number of farmers and graziers leave behind them a substantial number of thousands, but I do not notice many small suburban shopkeepers leaving fortunes. England is supposed to be a Free Trade country, but is really a Protectionist country in, the sense that Senator Stewart means it. It is a high revenue Tariff country.

Senator Stewart:

– Do not put words into my mouth, and go back to school before you. discuss that question again. You would give a fellow the “ pip “ to listen to you.

Senator GRANT:

– I quite understand that the practical aspect of the question is unsatisfactory; but I want to pull aside the veil which hides these Protectionists-, and show them up in their true colours. I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that the professed Protectionists are really anti-land-taxers; . because they are the friends of the land monopolists and the land sharks, and the enemies of the landless workers. They are determined to make it as costly as they can, to those who do not own any land, to get possession of a piece.

Senator Lynch:

– Are you in favour of a tax on all land!

Senator GRANT:

– I am in favour of taxing all land values.

Senator Lynch:

– Including Crown lands?

Senator GRANT:

– Lessees of lands leased from the Crown pay, or ought to pay, the full rental value to the Crown.

Senator Senior:

– Are you aware that the civil servants will be waiting for their pay to-morrow ?

Senator GRANT:

– I am surprised to hear it. I do not think it will inconvenience them very much so long as they get it before noon. Many working people in this country who are out of employment may not get any pay at all this week.

Senator Millen:

– I should like to be quite clear whether the honorable senator is arguing for or against . Protection.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Millen understands the question of land-value taxation thoroughly, no man in the Coremonwealth better. If he would only come forth from that party which is smothering his views on this question, and advocate a straight-out land-value tax, with Senator Stewart and myself, ha would do more good in one week to the people of this country than he has done all his life. I feel the loss of Senator Millen’s advocacy on this question more than anything else. He, Senator Stewart, myself, and a few others,, if we stood on the platform together, could impress on the people of. Australia that the £446,000,000 worth of land in the Commonwealth’ should no longer be permitted to escape taxation year after year as it has done. Estates of less value than £5,000 total in value more than £256,000,000. It is most anomalous than other commodities should be taxed while land to that extent escapes scot-free.

Senator Bakhap:

– Your policy would fill the pockets of the importer and impose terrible burdens on the land cultivator.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator and others who advocate a high revenue Tariff, do so knowing full well that so. long as they can keep the Treasury full no Government will impose further taxation. I remember the late Sir John See, one of the friends of the working man in New South Wales, and one of our ardent Protectionists, stating that if we only got a 10 per cent, ad valorem duty, we should hear no more of a’ land tax. He knew what he was talking about, and was not afraid to express his opinions. The time has come when the people should ask the Senate; which is more representativeof the working men of the Commonwealth than any other Parliament in Australia, to make those who own Australia contribute to the national revenue in . proportion to the value of country they possess. I hope I have said enough to show that there is nothing behind this Protectionist cry except the raising of high revenue with the object of keeping the Treasury coffers full, and thereby avoiding the necessity of compelling the owners of Australia to pay taxation in proportion to their stake therein.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [9.25]. - Having been away for six months, I have been out of a considerable amount of the hurly-burly and contention which arose from the conscription movement. It is due to myself and my party that I should put my position on the developments that have taken place during my absence - so far as I have been able to master them - at the earliest possible moment I am sorry that I have come into an atmosphere of contention, and feel that I should like to go to the war again, for the sake of peace. In this- connexion I am reminded of the story of two men in the trenches who were discussing the question of why they enlisted. One of them, a single man, said that he always liked war, and had, therefore, enlisted. His companion, a married man, said that he was always in favour of peace, and that was the reason he had enlisted. It seems to rae that there is more war here in Australia than there is at the front, and that it is being conducted more bitterly. I do not know how the statement got abroad, but I ..learned that during the referendum campaign I was classified as a conscriptionist. Now, I made my position on this question perfectly clear before I left Adelaide. Indeed, I was told . that as an old parliamentary hand I was rather premature in making my views known, and that there was no need for me to have committed myself in the way that I did. The fact is that, as far back as July of last year, a circular was sent out by the Trades and Labour Council of South Australia, asking members of Parliament to declare themselves on that question. Now, the Trades and Labour Council is not the supreme body in Labour matters - it is the United Labour party. Consequently there was no obligation on my part to give a definite reply to that circular. As a matter of fact, most of the South Australian representatives in the State ‘Labour party sent a joint reply to it, stating that the matter was a Federal one, and wouldbe dealt with by the Federal party. But Iput my position quite clearly at that time, and I propose to read the statement that I then made. It is as follows: -

Hawthorn, S.A., 3rd August, 1916. Mr. T. B. Merry,

Secretary, United Trades and Labour. Council, Adelaide.

Dear Sir,

To yours of 5th July,’ enclosing copy of resolution of your council against conscription.

I am not in favour of conscription, except as already provided in the Defence Act, at’ the instance of a Labour Government. ThiB is in case of invasion, or danger of invasion. I see no immediate prospect of either contingency at present.

I am always pleased to be posted as to the views of the United Trades and Labour Council on any public matter, or those of any other association affiliated with the party,’ but would point out that the policy of the Labour party is not dictated by any organization, or council, or organizations, but by the Conference of the United Labour party, on which all affiliated bodies are represented. ‘The Federal Conference is supreme on Federal matters. This is well known to your council, which is bound by decisions of Conference, as all members are, whether in or out of Parliament.

Ab a candidate I Bigned a pledge to do my. best to carry out the policy of the Labour party, and to abide by its decisions.

I shall be leaving again at the end of this month to bring help to those who are so gallantly fighting our battles at the front.

Yours fraternally,

v. o’loghlin.

Honorable senators will see that that is a complete and straight-out expression of my views on conscription. At the same time I recognise that the question is one on which there is room for a difference of opinion, and I am not prepared to brand as undemocratic or disloyal to the Labour party those who hold a different view from myself upon it. When I left Australia the Parliamentary Labour party was a united one. We had differences of opinion, as all the country knows, upon the question of conscription. But the majority of the party had decided that that question was a proper one to refer to the people for their decision, and that was the policy which the Government were adopting when I left Australia - a policy with which I was iri complete accord. Before leaving these shores I wrote to Senator Pearce, telling him that he could pair me on that question on all divisions on the Referenda Bill. Nobody else had any authority to pair with me, except that I had agreed to pair with Senator Shannon upon any matter in respect of which the Labour party as ‘ a body was concerned.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator favoured the referendum?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– Undoubtedly. I left authority with Senator Pearce to pair me on that question. The referendum is part of the Labour platform. It is a Democratic measure. The people are our masters, and have a right to decide the policy that we shall carry out. That was the position when I left Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Was the honorablesenator present when the Caucus came to a decision on the referendum?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– That was my position.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Since the split in the Labour party there has. been no authority for the other side to pair the honorable senator?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.None whatever. That is the only authority which I gave to Senator Pearce.

Senator Lynch:

– Was the honorable senator present when the Caucus arrived at a decision in regard to the referendum ? I ask the question because his statement has been disputed.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I want to say nothing about what took place in Caucus.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator’s statement has been disputed again and again.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

The majority of the party were in favour of the course which 1 have outlined being adopted. It ‘was understood then, and the Government gave us their assurance on the matter that during the conscription campaign both sides would be given a fair field.

Senator GRANT:

– A promise which they did not carry out.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I understand that the censorship was not exercised in the way that we had a right to expect. I come now to the Prime Minister, about whom I am going to say, more in sorrow than in anger, some very straight things, because he is a man whose abilities I admire, and who, with pen and tongue, has done as much for the Labour party and the Labour cause as any man in it. When 1 returned to Australia, the first thing I did was to interview Senator Pearce, who was the leader of my party in the Senate when I left here. I have since had a talk with Senator Gardiner, who represents the other division of the Labour party in this Chamber. I have , also seen the Prime Minister ; and had a conversation with him. It was my duty to take counsel with the leaders of the movement on both sides. I want to say this) - and I speak as an old (parliamentary hand, and a man with Cabinet experience - that in the crisis before the referendum was taken, the Prime’ Minister acted in such a way as to recall the saying that “ those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” I can find absolutely no justification for his action in regard to the electoral questions which he proposed to put at the referendum, and upon which, as far as I can learn from Hansard, he decided without consulting his party or his Cabinet in any way. Now, the Prime Minister is not a Kaiser, who can put a rescript before his Cabinet and say, “Sign that,” without consulting its members. Certainly an important departure such as he proposed should have been placed before his colleagues prior to being embodied in a regulation. That proposal struck at one of the most sacred of our institutions-1- the freedom of the ballot. It seems to me that the conduct of the Prime Minister at that crisis was pure Kaiserism, and I am opposed to Kaiserism, whether that Kaiserism comes from William Morris Hughes or William Hohenzollern. The next development was that after the disruption of the Labour party, Mr. Hughes and his followers formed a new Ministry, and took on themselves the responsibility of government without having a majority in either House of the Legislature. That is a. position which cannot be justified. There may be examples of it having been done before. I remember that at a crisis in South Australia not long after the death of our Labour leader, Tom Price, as he was popularly called, a Coalition Ministry was formed, in which Labour had a deciding force. Mr. Peake, the present Leader of the Liberal party, subsequently jumped the claim of Labour to the leadership, and, having been Acting Premier while Mr. Price was on his death-bed, was sent for by the Governor and formed a Ministry. With only nine members of his own party in the House of Assembly, he formed and carried on the government of that State with the support of the Opposition. I remember how my colleagues from South Australia denounced and ridiculed the idea of such a position being taken up under constitutional government, and I do not know how they can justify the present position in this Parliament, except on the familiar ground that when things are different they are not the same. To-day with a Labour majority in both Houses of this Parliament I find a Government in power in .which Labour is in a minority. It is not a Labour Government, it is not a Hughes Government, and it is not a Hughes-Cook Government. But it is a Cook-Hughes Government. As a pledged Labour man, I am concerned with the Labour policy, but I want to know if that policy is secure, with a Ministry constituted as is the present one? I am told that it is a War Ministry. Now I place the vigorous prosecution of the war before all other questions. I believe that both political parties are agreed upon that matter. The fact that we have been able to carry on the war as well as we have done is due to effect having been given to the Labour policy. It was du© to that policy that, at the outbreak of war. we had a large number of men already trained in military duties. We must also be fair, and admit that no man has done more than the present Prime Minister to develop that policy. With regard to the war, I say that is our first consideration. No party, and no

Ministry, will have my support unless their are prepared to carry on vigorously until” we have attained what we are looking for - a victorious conclusion of this conflict. It is impossible, however, to divide public policy into watertight compartments. Both parties may be agreed as to the wisdom of conducting the war vigorously, but it isimpossible to prevent other questions from: obtruding. In order to carry on the war,, we must have means, and that brings in. the question of taxation, upon which theLabour party and the Liberal party areas widely separated as the poles. We believe in making the wealthy people bear their full share of the burden. We say that, as the working men are giving theirlives in the cause, that the wealthier sections of the community should provide thefunds, and on this question, of course, wehave always been divided from the Liberal, party.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Have not the wealthy people also provided men to fight at the front 1

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I hope my honorable friend will not think, from what I have said, that. I suggested that all classes have not done their share; but the fact remains that the working classes representa big majority of the men at the front. I suppose 80 or 90 per cent, of the men in the trenches are wage-earners. I freely admit, of course, that the wealthy classeshave sent their share of men, but they are,, and must necessarily be, in the minority.. As I have already said, it is impossible,, in carrying on a war, to prevent other questions from cropping up. For instance,, industrial problems may arise at any moment, and upon this question theLiberal and the Labour parties have always been divided. Other questions must also arise. Commodities are rising in price, and, although wages have been increased to a certain extent, the cost of ‘ living has gone up tremendously. Then there is the question of combinations, trusts, and profit mongering. The Labour party have .been up against these matters for years, and in all their struggles they have had very little help from the Liberal party. I want to know how these matters are to be dealt with by this Fusion » Ministry.

Senator Grant:

– They will not touch-! them at all.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I do not know how a Ministry constructed as the present Government is can dea’ satisfactorily with the policy of the Labour party, which I was elected to uphold. With regard to the development which has taken place since I left Australia, and particularly in my own State, I must say that I do not agree with many of the actions taken by those who now call themselves the Official Labour party. They have been “ over the odds “ in many cases.

Senator Lynch:

– What is your opinion of the expulsion of members, including myself ?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I think that was a hasty and ill-considered action.

Senator Ferricks:

– I would point out to Senator O’Loghlin that we do not call ourselves the Official Labour party. We are the Australian Labour party, and there is only one Labour party.

Senator -Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.Personally, I have very little faith in Coalition Governments, and very little time for hyphenated parties. The Labour party is good enough for me, without any addition to its title. What I want no know is whether the policy upon which I was elected is safe in the hands of the present Government?

Senator O’Keefe:

– You have only to look at the personnel of the Government, to arrive at a conclusion.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.I want to be assured of that point. With regard to my old friend, Senator Pearce, I think he is one of the soundest, ablest, and most consistent Labour men we have ever had. I have had some experience of military matters, and I think he is the best Minister for Defence we have ever had. I have no faith in Coalition Governments, but, apparently, I do not feel quite so strongly on this matter as the Eight Honorable William Morris Hughes, because I notice in his Case for Labour he stated -

In my opinion, such combinations are generally immoral, rarely expedient, and always subversive of representative government.

Among the Liberals very much the same opinion is held, for Sir William Irvine is reported to have said -

Coalitions usually carry with them, at first sight, an impression of being political devices for a merely political object.

From these opinions one may gather that there does not seem to be any one on either side with a firm belief in Coalition Governments; but one has to consider carefully the whole situation to see what is best to be done in the circumstances. I desire now to repeat a statement which I gave to the press on my arrival in Adelaide -

I may say that I find the air full of rumours of sinister and corrupt practices, which go to the foundation of our political life. These matters should, in my opinion, be probed to the bottom. Australia’s public life should be above all suspicion of graft.

I am entirely with Senator Gardiner in the motion which he submitted to the Senate yesterday. My vote will always be given in the direction of letting light into dark places. I express no opinion as to who is right or wrong, but because the honour of Parliament has been touched, it is the duty of members to see that the fullest investigation is made. I trust, therefore, that the Government will respect the verdict of the Senate, and will not attempt to burke an inquiry. This device of referring the matter to the Law Courts is not, in my opinion, entitled to any consideration, because it is not a question between Mr. Watson and Mr. Hughes. It is a question between the Right Honorable the Prime Minister of Australia and Senator Watson, and it affects the honour and integrity of Parliament in both Houses. In the present state of party feeling, this is, perhaps, hardly a matter which Parliament should deal with. It should be referred to some impartial tribunal.

Senator Gardiner:

– This will insure us the Commission. The Government cannot refuse it after that statement.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.The present situation is a very sad one for those who have the cause of Labour at heart. It seems to me that as a divided party we must go down, and that after twenty years in the wilderness, and when we had come into our own, and had the country at our back, with indorsement of our policy in both Federal and State Parliaments, because of divisions in our ranks we are to be thrown back and will have to spend another time in the wilderness before we come into our own again. I have no fear for the Labour cause, ultimately. After we have learned the lessons from our divisions we will come back to power, for our policy is the true policy for Australia, and is bound to triumph in the end. I wish now to refer to the question, of conscription and some statements which have been made concerning the vote of soldiers at the front. I am anti-conscriptionist, and it might be said that possibly my judgment is warped by that fact; but I have come in contact with officers and men who have been at the front. I had several officers on board coming” back with me. They were strong, and I might also say, violent conscriptionists. They had been amongst the soldiers at the front and on Salisbury Plain, and some of them said, with disgust, that they found the majority of soldiers everywhere were against conscription. That is my experience, and I must say that I was surprised at it, because I thought that men at the front would probably take the view, “ I am doing my little bit, and I want the other fellow to come and do his share.”

Senator Blakey:

– That statement will be censored.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is the honorable senator aware that the Prime Minister said there was a substantial majority in the soldiers’ vote in favour of conscription ?

Senator McKissock:

– He did not say that.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– It is hard to account for the opinion amongst the men. I met Australian ladies who were devoting their time to war work in London. They were strong conscriptionists, and they told me that they were astonished to find that the men they spoke to in the hospitals and elsewhere were against conscription. I heard most extraordinary statements concerning the votes of our soldiers in France. This matter was in the hands of the military authorities, and there were no scrutineers on behalf of the anti-conscriptionists.

Senator Lynch:

– Then there would be no scrutineers for the conscriptionists either ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– The whole business was in the hands of the military authorities. “We were told that a lot of the votes were never counted. Another statement I heard was that copies of the manifesto issued by the Government on behalf of conscription were distributed

Senator Millen:

– Do I understand the honorable senator to say that there were ballot-papers uncounted, or that he merely heard a rumour to that effect?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I heard a rumour.

Senator Millen:

– You had no firsthand information ?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.Absolutely none. There is another statement which, perhaps, the Minister may be able to confirm, and that is that while copies of the manifesto issued by the Government were made available to the troops - and it was very proper that the men should receive all the information possible - the Premier of Queensland was asked as an anticonscriptionist to draft a manifesto or document, to be sent over, giving the other side of the question, and it was censored and was not allowed to be sent on. Does the honorable senator know whether that statement is true or not ?

Senator Mullan:

– It ne.ver left the Brisbane post office.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
Senator Bakhap:

– Within your experience what do you think of the scheme for taking the votes of the soldiers at the front in connexion with a referendum or an election ? Is it really a practical and sensible appeal while military operations are proceeding?

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
Senator Keating:

– Were not the Canadian soldiers at the front allowed to vote in August or September last?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I understand that a vote of the Canadian troops was taken.

Senator Bakhap:

– Do you believe that a vote can be fully and speedily taken?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I have not had sufficient experience to say.

Senator Lt Col SirAlbert Gould:

– Were you at the front when the vote was being taken?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.No, I was at sea. A vote was taken on my boat. I held the position of Electoral Officer, and took particular care not to know anything about the men’s opinions regarding conscription.

Senator Pearce:

– That is very interesting, because we were told that it was not a secret vote. We are very glad to have that testimony.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I will tell the Senate exactly what I did. All the particulars and papers were sent to me on board the vessel. I had seven officers, and only four, I think, commanding units had to do with the taking of the vote. Each officer was Returning Officer for his own particular unit. As a man who had some knowledge of electoral papers, I explained the papers to the officers, and told them exactly what they had to do. I pointed out how they had to initial’ the papers, and so on. I just went round to see that the thing was working fairly. I interfered in no other way. I had to sign the final papers and send them on.

Senator Ferricks:

– Will Senator Pearce say who made the statement he referred to just now?

Senator Pearce:

– I do not remember.

Senator Ferricks:

– It is like all your dirty innuendoes-.

Senator Needham:

– You might mention the name of the man who made the statement.

Senator Millen:

– Why do you not do that when you make charges?

Senator Needham:

– I have made no charge. I say to Senator Millen that it is a lie if he says that I have made a charge.

Senator Millen:

– I can stand a good deal, sir, but I wish to call for that expression to be withdrawn.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator will please withdraw the expression.

Senator Needham:

– I said this, sir-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! The . honorable senator is called upon to withdraw the words which have been regarded as offensive.

Senator Needham:

– What are the words ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The expression was “it is a lie.”

Senator Needham:

– I said nothing of the sort. I want to know the words which I have to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I heard the word “ lie “ used, but I did not hear the context.

Senator Millen:

– I take this point, sir, that whenever an honorable senator complains of any words being objectionable and offensive to him, the rule is that the words shall be withdrawn. The remark of Senator Needham is offensive to me, and I am asking only for what has been extended freely to honorable senators on both sides from time immemorial, and that is that the words shall be withdrawn.

Senator Needham:

– If Senator Millen will state what was objectionable I am prepared to withdraw the remark. Until he tells me what I did say, I have nothing to withdraw.

Senator Millen:

– I have said that the words used by the honorable senator are objectionable to “me.

Senator Needham:

– What are the words ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - I heard the honorable senator use the word “ lie “ very distinctly. That is an offensive word to use in this Chamber, and I ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Needham:

– I do not want to come into conflict with you, sir, but I want to say this-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! I again repeat that I heard the honorable senator use a certain word which is offensive, and I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Needham:

– What I said was this-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order ! I only want the honorable senator to withdraw the word “ lie.”

Senator Needham:

– Will you give me a chance?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! The honorable senator must understand that he has to obey the Chair. I heard no word used other than the word “ lie,” which I heard very distinctly, and I ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Needham:

– I desire to conform with the rules of the Senate, but I want to put my position clearly before I withdraw any word. I want your permission to do that. Will you give me that permission, or will you not?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Let me hear what the honorable senator did say.

Senator Needham:

Senator Millen used the words, “ That is not the position where you make a charge.” I said, “ I have made no’ charge against Senator Millen or Senator Pearce. If Senator Millen says that I made a charge, that is a lie.” That is what I said. If Hansard is called up it will be found that I am right, and I have nothing to withdraw.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The honorable senator must withdraw the word “ lie.” It is an offensive word used in any form in the Senate.

Senator Needham:

– I have committed tlo offence.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order 1

Senator Needham:

– I refuse to withdraw any statement I have made.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Order ! I ask the honorable - senator to obey the Chair.

Senator Needham:

– I have- nothing to withdraw.

Senator Bakhap:

– Withdraw the statement! You inferentially used the word.

Senator Needham:

– Will Senator Millen make a statement now? He accused me of making a charge against him, and I said that I had not. Let him be fair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The word itself is offensive when it is used in the Senate, and I again ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator Needham:

– Let Senator Millen put the position.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - If the honorable senator has no intention to withdraw the word I must appeal to the Leader of the Senate.

Senator Shannon:

– Is the Chair defied again ?

Senator Needham:

– In order to allow the debate to be continued, I will withdraw the word “lie.”

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I suppose that I can proceed now with my speech. When I looked at my instructions for taking the referendum on the transport, I found that the votes had to be delivered to Brigadier-General McC. Anderson, in London, on a certain date. On consultation with the captain I found it was very improbable that we would reach London on that date, and, consequently, if it was essential that the votes should be in by that time, they would have been lost. I wired back from Adelaide to the Returning Officer, pointing out this difficulty and suggesting that I would get the vote completed before we reached Fremantle, and that if he would arrange for an electoral officer to meet me and take the ballot-boxes they could deal with the votes here or send them to London by a mail steamer, which would arrive there in time. When I got to Fremantle the Returning Officer, or his deputy, was waiting. I had the voting completed, the ballot-boxes sealed, and everything ready. I handed them over to the officer. Whether they went to London or not I do not know, but they were taken off my hands.

Senator Ferricks:

– Do you say that it was reported to you by officers that in parts of France the vote was not taken at the front?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I am- not going to- say that. I said *that I heard rumours- to that effect. I did not want to give particular force to them. I only referred to them because there is a proposal in connexion with the forthcoming election that the votes of the soldiers should be taken. I made the reference in order to show the need for taking care that there is no possibility of a suggestion being- made that there nas been any underhand work.

Senator Millen:

– Do- you believe that there is any substance in the rumours’!

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

.- I would be very loath indeed to think that anything of the sort did occur.

Senator Millen:

– If you do. not believe it, do you not think that you took a responsibility in giving: currency to the rumours ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– Remembering what I had heard from officers and others, I was. astonished at the statement being made that the vote was ia the affirmative. This has drawn me off the- track a little more. Honorable senators, because of their interjections, have themselves to blame if I make my speech longer than I intended. Tlie position of Canada has been referred to; and in this connexion I may say that when I was in South Africa I was interviewed by the press, with regard, to military matters in Australia, and so on. While I was there, a recruiting meeting -was held, at which a colonel made a certain statement in order to encourage the men of South Africa to enlist. So far as assistance at the Front is concerned, South Africa has not done a great deal ; but we have to bear in mind that she had a very big job. on hand to clear- out the Germans who were at her own door; and she has performed that task very thoroughly. The colonel to whom I refer, without, I am sure, any idea of reflecting- upon the good work done by Australia, said in the course of his recruiting speech, “ Australia has sent her thousands, and Canada has sent her hundreds of thousands.” I took exception to this through the press, and, so far as. the figures in m.y possession would allow, compared what was done byAustralia with what had been done, by Canada. I say that none of the overseas Dominions, of the Empire has done anything like so well, as Australia, has done in this great struggle in which we areengaged. Whilst I was in London, a. statement was made- of the number of men registered and enrolled in Canada, up to the end of November, and the number was fixed at 385,000. I reckoned, that at that time Australia had enrolled quite 300,000 men, though I do not say that that number had been sent to . the* Front. I pointed out that the population of Canada was at least 50 per cent, more than that of Australia, and om these figures alone it is clear that the. assistance Australia has rendered is greater- than that rendered bv Canada in propor- tion to. population.

Senator Blakey:

– The honorable senator should not overlook the shorter distance from Canada.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:

– I included all those points in my comparison. I explained that we had sent, out. soldiers four times as far, and atconsiderably greater expense; and I added that, in addition to the Military Forces we had supplied!, account must be» taken- of our Fleet,, which, though a.. small one, represents, a very expensiveitem to Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Should the case rest, upon a comparison of effort?

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN.No. Senator Lynch should understand;, that I was commenting upon a statement made which would lead to the impression that Canada had done a great deal morethan Australia. I must say that I havebeen astonished, to find, since I have returned, that a great many Australians seem to be of the opinion that Australia has disgraced herself. I think that it isfair to compare what we have done with what “has been done by other parts of the Empire; and. though I should be glad if we had done more-, I contend, that wehave done a great deal, and quite as much as has been done ‘by any other part of the Empire. What I am concerned1 about now is that while the election cam- ‘paign is going on, recruiting must practically come to a stand-still. We cannotbe fighting two battles at the same time. It is important to remember that the reservoir from which we draw our recruits’ is gradually becoming- less, and. we. cannot expect to secure recruits now in thesame numbers as we did at the beginningof the. war. I have put my position- frankly, as I understand it.. I think: that honorable senators generally will recognise that it is a difficult position, and that I can say no more than I have done, in view of the developments which have taken place up to the present time. The course I shall follow in the future must be a matter for further consideration.

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Before the Bill goes through, I wish to make a few remarks, and I shall begin by some passing references to the speech just delivered by Senator Lieut.ColonelO’Loghlin. The honorable senator has stated that no party has a right to claim him; but honorable senators are well aware that the party opposite did claim him, and that the Whip of that party offered to pair him with Senator Long. That was a mean and unfair thing to do. In these days of suspicion, and worse, it is strange that the Whip of the Government party should have claimed the vote of Senator O’Loghlin when that honorable senator has made it quite clear that no party in the Senate had any right to claim his vote.

Senator O’Keefe:

– When Senator de Largie offered the Whip of the party on this side to pair Senator O’Loghlin with Senator Long Senator Ready, who was then Whip for this side, refused to accept such a pair on the ground that he was not sure that Senator O’Loghlin would vote with the Government.

Senator MULLAN:

– That is the position which I have taken up all along. I have never counted Senator O’Loghlin with the other side, and it certainly was grossly unfair for Senator de Largie to have done so in the absence of Senator O’Loghlin. It shows the tactics to which our opponents are willing to stoop when they try to kidnap the vote of a man at the front doing his duty to the country by endeavouring to pair him with an honorable senator on this side. Could anything be lower, meaner, or more contemptible than that?

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– I do not indorse that.

Senator MULLAN:

– I do not ask for any indorsement by the honorable senator. It is sufficient for me that he has made it perfectly clear that no party in the Senate had a right to claim his vote, and pair him with any other honorable senator.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Has any party a right to pair Senator Long?

Senator MULLAN:

– Undoubtedly, the party on this side has a right to claim Senator Long as a member of it.

Senator de Largie:

– I challenge the honorable senator to produce proof of that.

Senator MULLAN:

– That can be done easily enough. Senator de Largie is aware that Senator Long is absent through illness, and may at the present time be beyond even the reach of a cable from members of the party on this side. It is a mean thing to malign a sick senator from this side in his absence by imputing to him the possibility that he would vote against his party. I refuse to believe that he would until I have evidence to the contrary. When the party on this side joined issue with the party opposite on the question of conscription Senator Long made it abundantly clear where he stood, and I shall continue to count him as a member of this party until he says something to the contrary.

Senator Guthrie:

– He had plenty of time to make arrangements.

Senator MULLAN:

– That does not exonerate the Whip of the party opposite from attempting to pair Senator O’Loghlin with Senator Long. If we suppose, for the sake of argument, that Senator Long was believed to be on the other side, why should Senator de Largie try to pair Senator O’Loughlin with him?

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– It is of no use growling about it now. The thing is over.

Senator MULLAN:

– I listened to the honorable senator’s statement to-night with the greatest interest. I desire that every man should be given fair play, and we as a party were not given fair play when honorable senators opposite tried to kidnap Senator O’Loghlin’s vote.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

n-. - I can assure the honorable senator that I do not feel like a martyr in the matter.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am not asking for Senator O’Loghlin’s opinion at all. I am expressing my own opinion in view of the statement the honorable senator has made. He has said that there were rumours that a vote had not been taken in the conscription campaign in some parts of France. That justifies the action of the party on this side in tabling a motion, which the Government have carefully placed very low down on the business- paper, for the appointment of a select committee to fully inquire into the Anzac vote. Whatever opinion may have been held as to the advisability of publishing the Anzac vote, I considered that the Government, in view of the statement made by Senator O’Loghlin to-night-

Senator Pearce:

– What statement?

Senator Ferricks:

– That the soldiers by three to one voted “ No.’.’

Senator MULLAN:

– The Government are in honour bound, if they have any honour, to publish the Anzac vote. I regard Senator Pearce as merely a cypher in the debate, and I decline to give him a cheap advertisement by taking notice of his interjections. I am dealing now with a matter that is too serious to be interfered with by the frivolous interjections of a frivolous Minister.

Senator Pearce:

– What did Senator O’Loghlin say ? Is the honorable senator afraid to mention what he said ?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am not concerned with the stupid interjections of the Minister for Defence. Any one who reads his speech will know that Senator O’Loghlin made it abundantly clear that there are reasons which make the demand more imperative than ever for a close investigation into everything’ surrounding the taking of the Anzac vote. All along members of this party have had grave suspicions that they did not get a fair deal at the Front. I believe that they did not, arid if the Minister for Defence thinks otherwise the means to settle the matter are in his own hands.

Senator Pearce:

Senator O’Loghlin did not say what the honorable senator has attributed to him.

Senator MULLAN:

– The Minister for Defence knows that what Senator O’Loghlin said was a deadly indictment of himself, and he is trying to tone down the statement that has been’ made. He will not be able to do so, because it will remain in Hansard.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– I said there were rumours to that effect. I did not father them in any way.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am building my Case on the fact that there were rumours. There should be no suspicion in this matter, and the Government can remove all the suspicion attaching to it by giving us a close inquiry into the Anzac vote. Senator O’Loghlin has also made it clear that the general impression at the front Was that the Anzac vote was by about three to one against ‘conscription, yet Mr. Hughes in another place said that the majority of votes at the front were in favour of conscription.

Senator Pearce:

Mr. Hughes had the details, and Senator O’Loghlin had to be guided by rumours.

Senator MULLAN:

Mr. Hughes had the totals, and something else, too. We know that, although figures cannot lie, liars can figure.

Senator Pearce:

– That is. how the honorable senator has been so successful.

Senator MULLAN:

– That, perhaps, is how Senator Pearce has climbed along so easily in his time. The fact that there is a conflict of testimony between a military authority who has been .to the front, and Mr. Hughes, who was too much interested in the matter to be reliable, entitles us to an inquiry into the Anzac vote.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– It may be that those who voted ‘ ‘ No ‘ ‘ were more free in the expression of their opinions.

Senator MULLAN:

– That may be as the honorable senator previously stated, but it also may have been the other way about. Whatever may be the case the people of Australia have a right to know before the elections, and if they do not get the information now, they will be given the information after the elections by a Labour Government. There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and which I should not have mentioned if it had not been referred to by Senator O’Loghlin. It was rumoured at the Front-

Senator Pearce:

– More rumours?

Senator MULLAN:

– It was more than a rumour in this case. It was a plain statement that whilst the manifestos issued by the Government in favour of conscription had the freest circulation we had little or- no opportunity to put our case before the men.

Senator Turley:

– Was not your cable stuck up, too?

Senator MULLAN:

– A cable was lodged in the General Post Office, Brisbane, for which £25 was paid, endeavouring to put before the men at the front the case against conscription. Up to a fortnight ago, according to the information in my possession, neither had the cable reached the front, nor had the £25 been refunded. That is a scandalous position, which shows the despicable tactics to which the Government will stoop, and when we remember this case we are not surprised to hear the recent rumours of scandal. A party could foe subjected to no . greater injustice than that its case should be denied access to the men, while the case of the Government had the freest access to them. There were at the front Liberals and Labour men, conscriptionists, and anticonsciptionists, and it was most unfair that theGovernment should deny to those sons of Australia who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the Empire, the right to have a fair case put before them by their countrymen.

Senator Turley:

– And the cable was sent through a State Government.

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes, in order to make certain that it would reach the men, it was sent through a State Government, and intended to go through its Agent-General. Yet it was held up by the censor in Brisbane. Can Senator Pearce go before the Anzacs and justify that action? Can Mr. Hughes do so? Can any man with a spark of manhood, in him do so ? Can even Senator Lynch, the ramping, raging conscriptionist, with whom conscription is an obsession, justify the action of his Government in suppressing that cable, which was intended to put the view of the biggest party in Australia at that time before the biggest body of men at the front?

Senator Lynch:

– Perhaps the cable was doped.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator ought to be a good judge of doping. It was certainly doped by “the minions of Senator Pearce and Mr. Hughes. I defy Senator Pearce to deny that that cable was never sent.

Senator Lynch:

– If you push that inquiry I will support you.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator will support a lot. He is supporting the Government who did it. On the last six occasions on which Senator Lynch has spoken in the Senate, he has challenged some one to answer his question, but when I ask him a fair question he is not game to answer me. I ask him, “ Are you prepared to continue your support of a Government that is so mean and despicable as to deny the Anzacs at the front the right to hear from their friends at home the real position on the question -of conscription?”

Senator Lynch:

– You substantiate your charge, and I will support you.

Senator MULLAN:

– I will prove it. Will the honorable senator desert the Government if I bring him the proofs?

Senator Lynch:

– I am not a member of a chain-gang.

Senator Keating:

– About what date was that cable lodged ?

Senator MULLAN:

– Prior to the date of taking the poll, and in ample time to reach the men.

Senator Keating:

– This Government was only formed within the last month or so.

Senator MULLAN:

– But Mr. Hughes was Prime Minister, and still is. Senator Pearce was Minister for Defence, and still is, so that the honorable senator cannot get out of it with a quibble of that sort. I now come to a topic, the most degrading in the public life of Australia, with which I propose to deal briefly.

Senator Pearce:

– To slow music.

Senator MULLAN:

– It ought to be slow for the honorable senator. He ought to be ashamed to be here while the question is being discussed. Yesterday the Senate, by a vote of eighteen to thirteen resolved-

Senator Lynch:

– After tearing up the Standing Orders.

Senator MULLAN:

– We will tear the honorable senator up if necessary to accomplish what is right in the interests of the people and the honour of Australia. The Senate resolved -

That a Royal Commission be appointed immediately to investigate and report -

On the charges made by Senator Watson against the Prime Minister, the Eight Honorable W. M. Hughes.

The circumstances surrounding the resignation of SenatorR. K.Ready, and the appointment of John Earle to the Senate.

That a Justice of the High Court be com missioned to conduct the inquiry.

Senator Pearce:

– And you were not game to accept the amendment.

Senator MULLAN:

– We want no help from the honorable gentleman. We put and carried our case in our own way, and now throw on the Government, if they have the courage, tEe responsibility of giving effect to a vote carried in this assembly by eighteen to thirteen. Everybody knows that this is an unsavoury subject, perhaps the most disgusting that a public man could have to discuss, and I regret that it should ever have happened in my time to have to discuss such an odious reproach upon the. honour of Parliament, and of Australia..

Senator Pearce:

– That is why it is. so popular on that side.

Senator MULLAN:

– This party is jealous of the honour of Parliament and of its own honour, and will endeavour to conserve it- Yesterday it did the only thing possible to conserve it. There are several characters in this awful drama.

Senator Barnes:

– All villains!

Senator MULLAN:

– One at least was a hero.

Senator Pearce:

– And one a. comedian !’

Senator MULLAN:

– If the honorable senator were in it he would be the clown. I hope the honorable senator by his frivolous interjections will not detract from the importance of the most serious question that can be. discussed in this Parliament.

Senator Pearce:

– Not to spoil the tragedy.

Senator MULLAN:

– The tragedy hurts the honorable senator, and for decency’s sake he should allow me to proceed’. He is one of the parties named in the count, but I am not condemning him. The Labour- party had1 a- majority in the Senate, and that, majority mysteriously disappeared1. There arose in its place quite as mysteriously a Liberal majority. It is difficult to say how that occurred.. The people of Australia want to know how it was- managed, and1 therefore we should have an inquiry. What are the facts?’ Ex-S’enator Ready-

Senator Pearce:

– Read Ex-Senator Ready’s statement.

Senator MULLAN:

– I know it hurts the honorable senator. He is squirming. His mind is in an awful state, and I can well imagine the fever from which he is suffering, but the more he kicks and twists and squirms the worse it will be for him. The quieter he keeps the easier it will be to extract the cause of the trouble. Ex-Senator Ready was a Labour man. On the 23rd February, Mr. Lee, the Premier of Tasmania, received a telegram from, the Prime Minister to meet him in Sydney. Mr. Lee, who was then, I believe, at a picnic, broke off his engagement there and hurried, at a breakneck pace, to catch the train and boat, and met Mr. Hughes in Sydney on the Monday. It is said that Mr. Hughes was in< the most affable frame of mind’, and quite prepared to discuss the ques tions of wheat and hops, particularly hops. They discussed those matters, hut the remarkable thing is that Mr. Hughes, in his statement in another place, made it clear that on that day, Monday, 26th February, he knew that a certain senator would resign. He also knew that that senator was likely to be a Tasmanian, and, to use, his own phraseology, he made his arrangements accordingly. The people of this continent will want to know on the 5th May next how it was that Mr. Hughes knew on Monday, 26th February, that Senator Ready would resign his seat on the 1st March, as a result of an illness which seized him on the 28th February. That is a proposition which nobody but Senator Pearce or Mr. Hughes will be able to solve. Senator Ready became ill here onthe 28th February, and resigned on the following day, the 1st March. The fact remains that on Monday, 26th February, Mr. Hughes seemed to know that Senator Ready would get very ill on Wednesday, 2.8th February, and would resign his position on the following day. I do. not know how he managed to become aware of that fact. Anyhow, it remains for the Prime Minister and Senator Pearce to solve this problem to the satisfaction of the people of Australia before the 5th- May.. Until they answer the question satisfactorily, it will be very difficult for them to hold their own. That case by itself might, perhaps, have been passed over. We might have been simple enough . to have forgotten it but for the incident which succeeded it - the most awful disclosures made by ‘Senator Watson here on the Friday morning, which might, well be called “ Black Friday.” The mysterious disappearance of’ Senator

Ready-

Senator Pearce:

– What about the doping ?

Senator MULLAN:

– The Minister for Defence is’ pretty good at doping. He doped that cable at Brisbane.

Senator Pearce:

– What about Mr. Tudor’s statement?’

Senator MULLAN:

– I will deal with that in the next act. At present I am dealing with the Watson phase of this subject.

Senator Pearce:

– Skip Tudor; no reference to him.

S enator MULLAN . - If Senator Pearce were on the field’ of battle, he would shame the army, because most of our men stand up to their duty, and do not squirm. Senator Pearce should keep cool and set a good example to the men at the front. We might, perhaps, have overlooked

Senator Pearce:

– Tudor.

Senator MULLAN:

– We might, perhaps, have overlooked the disappearance of ex-Senator Ready and the equally mysterious appearance of a ready-made Earl here, bub when Senator Watson’s charge came along, that was the limit. I propose to quote one statement from his charge

Senator Pearce:

– Second edition, or the first?

Senator MULLAN:

– My honorable friend should keep quiet. Here is what Senator Watson says in a portion of his statement -

He- meaning the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes - asked rae “ did money stand in my way,” as I would lose nothing by coming over to them, and stated that he had never deserted any man who had stood to him. I replied that I had too much regard for the movement to act in any way in opposition to its interests or betray its confidence- I said, “ What would the men of Newcastle think of me were T to do anything contrary to the wishes of the party to which I belonged T” He said, “ If you do not like to live in Newcastle, we can find you another place.”

Senator Watson alleged that in order to induce him to vote with the Ministerial party on the motion for the prolongation of the life of this Parliament, the Prime Minister asked him if money stood in his way. What inference can be drawn from that, other than that the right honorable gentleman was willing to pay him for hi3 vote ? What inference can be drawn from his statement that if Senator Watson did not like to live in Newcastle he could be found another place, other than that if lie was prepared to vote with the Government they would provide him with a nice soft billet in the Commonwealth Service, where he would not have had to meet his friends from Newcastle, together with some other consideration? I do not say that my mere statement of the case proves it; but I do say that, a serious charge such as this is entitled to the most serious treatment by this deliberative assembly.

Senator Pearce:

– It will receive serious treatment in a few days in the Law Courts.

Senator MULLAN:

– What does one of the highest authorities on parliamentary procedure say on the question of offering a bribe? What does May say in his latest edition ? He says -

On the 2nd May, 1695, the House of Com. mons resolved -

That is the mother of Parliaments, whose example we are supposed to follow - that the offer of money or other advantage to a member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, pending or to be transacted in- Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and in the spirit o£ this resolution the offer of a bribe in order to influence a member in any proceedings of the House or of a Committee has been treated as a breach of privilege, being an insult not only to the member himself but to the House.

That is the opinion of May, who is conceded to be the greatest authority on parliamentary procedure.

Senator Pearce:

– What Senator Watson would like to know is what is the law on criminal libel?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am going to deal with that, and I propose to tell the Minister for Defence where he stands in relation to that matter, and where Mr. Hughes stands. There is the charge of Senator Watson. It is the most odious charge that has ever been made against a public man in Australia - a charge which, if it means anything, means that the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes attempted to pollute the public life of this country. If the statement of Senator Watson can be believed-

Senator Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator believe it?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am eager to have the matter investigated. I am not going to condemn any man until it has been inquired into. I am standing here in defence of the honour of this Parliament and of this country. This grave charge has been made, and it is for the Government to rebut it. How do they propose to rebut it ? The Prime Minister has issued a writ against Senator Watson. Does that meet the case? Does any sensible man think that that will lead to a satisfactory investigation of the charge ? Nobody who knows anything about the law will say for a moment, when he recalls the technicalities that are involved in the taking of evidence in a Court of Law, that in a suit of that sort any testimony would be admitted but what was strictly relevant to the case.

Senator Turley:

– But it would help to tide the Government over the elections.

Senator MULLAN:

– Exactly. But we want the whole case investigated, and not an isolated part of it. Therefore the fact that Mr. Hughes has issued a writ against Senator Watson is mere bluff, because it will not serve the purpose which we seek, namely, the holding of a searching inquiry into all the circumstances surrounding the most discreditable scandal that has ever occurred in the political life of Australia. Even if the writ issued by Mr. Hughes meant a complete investigation, what does it involve? Senator Watson, in order Lo have a trial at all, would have to go outside this Chamber and renounce its privileges’. I do not know what he is going to do in the matter, but I have no doubt as to’ what I should do in similar circumstances. If I were so charged I say unreservedly that I would avail myself of all the privileges and immunities which this Parliament grants to me. I will tell honorable senators why. The very existence of this Parliament ae a Parliament, and of the mother of Parliaments, rests upon the fact .that members of Parliament have privileges and immunities. In the Bill of Rights itself, from which Parliament takes its liberties, section 9 declares -

That the freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in the Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament.

That passage is to be found on page 515 of the Restoration of the Bill of Rights, English Constitutional History, Taswell and Langley. It serves to show upon what we base our claim when we object to abandon our right to plead privilege. What would an abandonment of that right mean? It would mean that as a party we should cease to exist within twelve months. We should be subject to wholesale blackmail at the hands of combines and monopolies, with the result that in a short time there would be no Labour party at all. Had there been no privilege in the Parliaments, the Labour party, either State or Federal, could not have been brought into existence, because every man in public life is called upon to make statements concerning public matters, and no man would have been able to do his duty if he had been subjected to actions at law. Our political opponents have tried, by the spending of their unlimited cash, to crush us at the ballot. How much easier would it be for them to spend that cash in libel actions? We know that, no matter how wealthy an individual might be, he would have no hope in a campaign of this sort. Take a case in point: Suppose a writ were issued against me for libel to-morrow, and, thinking I had a good case, I said, “ Yes, I will defend it.” Suppose I refused to plead privilege, that my case went to the Law Courts, and .that I Had secured a verdict, as perhaps I ought to on the merits of my case. That would be all right, but I would not have won then, because my opponent would probably appeal to the Supreme Court. Perhaps 1 could beat him there, but still I would not have won, as he might then take the case to the High Court of Australia. Suppose I beat him again. I still would not have won, because he might appeal to the Privy Council. Being a poor man, what, in the name of God, sort of chance would I have of following him through all the ramifications of our Courts of. law? He could persecute and crucify me, as every man in this party would be crucified if the trusts, combines, and monopolies could get at them outside the privileges and immunities of Parliament. Our opponents, therefore, when they say to us, “ Come outside,” know what they are talking about. Money talks. They know that money is behind them.

Senator Barnes:

– Secret service money, too.

Senator MULLAN:

– Well, I am not saying that, but I say that it would be worth millions to trusts and combines if they could get control of this Senate for one year. They could spend £100,000 or £500,000 to wipe us out and crucify us. Who are the men who are inviting us to go outside and refuse to take advantage of the privileges and immunities of Parliament? And who was the man to take advantage of these privileges? William Morris Hughes climbed to the leadership of his Government, backed up by his party, but he could never have built up his party if he had not enjoyed the privileges and immunities of Parliament.

Senator Pearce:

– I will make the honorable senator a sporting offer.

Senator MULLAN:

– Your offer would be worth about as much as your pledge. You signed the Labour platform, and broke it. Who would take your word ?

Senator Pearce:

– My offer is this: If you make those charges outside against me I guarantee that I will not take you past the first Court.

Senator MULLAN:

– My answer to the honorable senator is that I would not take the word of a man who violated his sacred pledges, who climbed to fame and fortune, and refused to honour his cheque to the men who placed him in power. His signature to the platform was his pledge, and he broke it.

Senator Ferricks:

– Like the Kaiser, he tore up that scrap of paper.

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes, he tore up that scrap of paper, so what guarantee have I that he would not tear up another ?

Senator Pearce:

– You know that is not true.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am not in the habit of stating anything that is not true, so far as I conceive the truth. Anyhow, I say that no man who has been sent to maintain the liberty of Parliament and, by medium of Parliament, the liberties of the people, should dare to- advocate in this Senate that any member of the Senate should refuse to plead privilege.

Senator de Largie:

– A coward’s castle.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator, I should imagine, is a pretty good judge of cowardice.

Senator de Largie:

– I am.

Senator MULLAN:

– If this were a charge made by a public man against a private individual, it might be different. Never in my public career, in the State or Federal Parliaments, have I taken advantage of privilege to malign the character of any man who had “not the opportunity of defending himself. But this is a totally different matter. It involves the honour of every member here, and we ought to be jealous of the honour of Parliament. The Government that refuses to probe this matter to the bottom deserves to be sent to obscurity, and I hope to God they will be sent there.

Senator Lynch:

– A good finish.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator is a bit too previous. All this trouble arose out of the despicable tactics employed by the Government to save their political skins. The Government, knowing that they had violated all the canons of politics, and that they had flouted the expressed will of the people, dared not face their masters, so they resorted to every despicable method they could em-, ploy to prolong the life of this Parlia ment, and thus save themselves from the fury of the electors and judgment upon their treachery and cowardice. The attempt made by the Government to prolong the life of this Parliament until October, 1918-

Senator Lynch:

– Which your executives approved of.

Senator MULLAN:

– They did not approve of it. I say this attempt to prolong the life of Parliament was immoral and cowardly- It was taken in order that the Government might shelter behind the privileges of Parliament. They said, “ We must not have an election now, because it would involve party strife during the war.” Anybody who knows anything about this matter must realize that no party has done more to create party strife during this war than the men opposite. What are the facts? In 1914 a double dissolution was precipitated. After that decision was arrived- at the Empire became involved in war, so an offer was made on behalf of the Labour party to the then Liberal party to cease party strife, to call off the elections, and prosecute the war. Did they do that ? No. They thought that, by a monopoly of patriotism and judicious flag-flapping, they would be able to wipe the Australian Labour party out at the polls, so they determined to go on with the elections regardless of the consequences to the nation.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– They could not help themselves; the. Constitution would not. allow them to dothat.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator knows better than that.- The men who wanted recently to invoke the aid of the Imperial Parliament to prolong the life of this Parliament till October, 1918, could have invoked the Imperial Parliament on that occasion. The honorable senator cannot get away from the fact that the Government could have called off the elections.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Not without authority from the Imperial Parliament.

Senator MULLAN:

– But if it was good enough to do recently, it was good enough to do in 1914, because at that time the war was at a more critical stage than it is now. Our valiant Army was then making its immortal retreat from Mons, the German guns were thundering outside Paris, and the enemy warships had not been driven off the Pacific. We were in a more desperate plight then than we are now, and although we asked the Liberal Government then to cease party strife and allow the two parties to proceed with the prosecution of the war, they rejected the offer, and went on with the elections. Since 1914 also we find that on every conceivable occasion the Liberal party have pursued our party with the ferocity of tigers, in their attempt to capture our seats. We had a notable example of this when they fought for the seat of the late Hon. John Arthur, a member of the late Labour Ministry, but that seat is now in the possession of Mr. Hampson. The Liberals also fought for the seat held by the late Mr. Jolley, a member of this party, and they succeeded in capturing it; They fought also for the seat of our then leader, Mr. Andrew Fisher. If any seat was entitled to be held by the Labour party, surely it was that seat. Worse than that, the men who are now talking about ceasing party strife were the men who involved this country in the bitterest, the fiercest, and the most deplorable struggle that has ever taken place in Australia. I refer to the conscription campaign of October last. Surely these men can no longer charge the Labour party with being responsible for party strife, because, if any men have taken advantage of their position to create party feeling those gentlemen are members of the present Coalition Government.

Senator Shannon:

– Who were responsible for taking the conscription referendum last year?

Senator Gardiner:

– The Liberal press.

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

-Col. Sir Albert Gould. - The Caucus agreed to it.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable gentleman will have an opportunity of compressing all his interjections into a speech when I have finished.

Senator Turley:

– We voted against the referendum in this Senate.

Senator MULLAN:

– Of course we did. I voted against it, and I would vote against it a thousand times. When I was speaking on the Military Service Referendum Bill I pointed out that every man who was then following Mr. Hughes in that unholy alliance would soon be found in a Coalition party. I said that they were burning their boats as far as the Labour movement was concerned, and .that they would find themselves in a political no man’s land, exposed to the onslaughts df both sides, or be forced behind the ram parts of Liberalism for protection. That prophecy has come to pass much quicker than I expected it would, for we now have the deplorable spectacle of 29 members of this Parliament, men who were returned upon a definite Labour pledge, sheltering themselves in the trenches of the Liberal party.

Senator GARDINER:

– In the dug-outs.

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes, that is the position of those who are in this immoral - I might almost call it putrid - Coalition. We find that the old Tory party are in an overwhelming majority. It is axiomatic that the policy of every Government must be dictated by the majority of the men behind them. Once a man goes into a Coalition in which the majority is a Tory majority, it does not matter what he says or tries to explain, he cannot get away from the fact that he is bound by a policy which must inevitably be coloured by the majority. That means that the present Coalition and the members of it who seceded from our party are going to support the trampling of Labour principles underfoot, and the resurrection of the old anti-Labour and anti-Australian policy. That is the position we find to-day. I am not overstating the case when I say that the majority of the men in the Ministerial party are anti-Australian and antiLabour.Everybody knows it quite well. What have the gang forming the Coalition done that they should- be entitled to get in by the “ early door “ to place, power, and pay. Everybody knows that the majority behind the Government to-day would, if they had their way, have made it impossible to have a White Australia. We would have the kanakas back to-morrow if the majority behind the Government could have their way. We would have cheap labour, and Australians brought down to the standard of the kanakas and the chows. If they get an indorsement of their policy I question, if that programme will not be inaugurated. Do we owe anything to a majority of the men on the other side in the matter of possessing the freest franchise in the world ? These men opposite fought with all their might against the right of the adult population to a vote. Yet these are the men who are in power to-day. We know very well that the old-age and invalid pensions would not be in force if men like Sir William Irvine and -Sir John Forrest, who are the bulwarks of the present Government, had had their way in the past. We know very well that they bitterly opposed the maternity allowance, and that it was men on the other side who described as profligates the women who received it. We know very well that they howled liked dancing dervishes against the creation oi a Commonwealth Bank, and the inauguration of an Australian note issue. All these things are still fresh in the memories of the people, and they are not likely to be obliterated before the 5th May. Here is the position: At the election in 1914 the people of this country gave the Labour party the right to control its destinies till the following election. They handed over the keys of office and the safe custody of Democracy to the Labour party. But, through the treachery of one man, the keys of the citadel of Democracy have been handed over to the enemy. What would be said of one pf our generals at the front if in an hour of distress he handed over his position or his men to the enemy ? Do you think that he could come back and justify his action by saying that he had quarrelled with his men or his officers? No; nothing like that could justify treachery. His undoubted duty would be to come back and hand over the keys of his position to the man from whom he received them. What is true of a general is equally true of William Morris Hughes. In 1914, the Labour party received from the people of this country the keys of the citadel of Democracy. They were transmitted from Mr. Fisher to Mr. Hughes! Because of a quarrel with his party, Mr. Hughes has absolutely betrayed us, and treacherously handed over the keys of the citadel of Democracy into the hands of our enemies. If by any chance vote on the 5th May the control of this Parliament should fall into the possession, even temporarily, of the traditional enemies of Labour, and through that means these men may be able to undo the great work which the Labour party has done, generations yet unborn will live to curse the odious memory of Mr. Hughes and the men who follow him. We are told that this Ministry is the Win-the-War party. In 1914 we, as a party, pledged ourselves to our leader that we would do everything in our power for the successful prosecution of the war.

Senator Lynch:

– That policy was “the last man and the last shilling.”

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes. I am not going to budge an inch from the position taken up then by the leader.

Senator Lynch:

– “ The last man and the last shilling.”

Senator MULLAN:

– I hope that my honorable friend will not get obsessed. I do not want to be personal. I am dealing with too serious a phase of this question to be drawn off the track, and I hone that my honorable friend will allow me to proceed.

Senator Lynch:

Mr. Fisher’s statement was ‘ ‘ the last man and the last shilling.”

Senator MULLAN:

– Speaking for myself - and, I believe, for my party - we have done everything humanly possible to fulfil the pledges made by Mr. Fisher. Despite the statements of our opponents to the contrary, we have not only done our part, and done it well, in the successful prosecution of the war, but, by our pre-war policy, ‘we made it possible to do so much. It was because this party, through its foresight, organized a Citizen Army.

Senator Lynch:

-“ We?”

Senator MULLAN:

– If my honorable friend has left the party so much the worse for him. It can never be denied that the Australian Labour party was mainly responsible for the organization of a Citizen Army. Without its cooperation and concurrence an organized citizen soldiery would have been impossible. Therefore it is mainly due to this party that we had the citizen soldiery as a basis for our operations when the war began. It was the Australian Labour party, too, which was responsible for the building of an Australian Naval unit - a unit that was described by a man whom Senator Lynch is now supporting as the “ Mosquito Fleet.’’ The Labour party, too, was responsible for the creation of the Commonwealth Bank and the Australian note issue - reforms which proved financial fortresses in the fighting’ of this war. Men and ships are very good, but you must have money as well. The party not only provided the men and the ships, but by their financial policy-

Senator Lynch:

– What party ?

Senator MULLAN:

– The Labour party, which I belong to, and which the honorable senator has left.

Senator Lynch:

– Do you claim to be a Labour man?

Senator MULLAN:

– I would not put the honorable senator up as a judge. As I said before, I do not want to digress on personal matters when I am dealing with an important subject. I do not want to come into conflict with, the honorable senator.

Senator Lynch:

– I will take you on your own ground.

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable senator cannot take me on any ground. Take my public or private career, and I defy him to put his finger on a spot.

Senator Lynch:

– You glory in the prospect of a scab Labour man succeeding against the ex-Premier of . Western Australia.

SenatorMULL AN. - The honorable senator does not know what lie is talking about. Mr. Scaddan, the man whom he is referring to, was a scab on the Labour party. He cannot bluff me.

Senator Lynch:

– A Labour man you call yourself?

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable senator, who says he is a Labour man, is defending a scab.

Senator Lynch:

– You are a halfboiled Labour man.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am not going to be drawn off my track by the idiotic interjections of the honorable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I know that he cannot say anything against my character.

Senator Lynch:

– I can. I say that you scabbed on the Labour movement.

Senator MULLAN:

– What do you say?

Senator Lynch:

– You scabbed on the Labour movement.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Lynch will have to withdraw that offensive expression as applied to Senator Mullan. I ask him; further, to refrain from interjections’.

Senator Lynch:

-If I am asked to withdraw the words-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must withdraw . the words unreservedly and without an explanation.

Senator Lynch:

– I withdraw the words unreservedly. I will have mytime later. He will not shut me down.

Senator MULLAN:

– Whether the honorable senator withdraws the words or not the people of Queensland know him too well. They know very well that if he had his due he ought not to be here at all.

I question whether, before the election is concluded, he will be capable of coming here. The people of Queensland know his measure. They know that he is not responsible for his actions, and in all seriousness I say that, before this election is over, if he does not take a pull, he will find himself inside the walls of some place which, perhaps, decency prevents me from mentioning.

Senator Lynch:

– Labour, labour, labour!

Senator MULLAN:

– Any man who knows me in Queensland will’ laugh at the interjections of the honorable senator. My troubles about his interjections. They do not hurt me.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What union did you belong to?

Senator MULLAN:

– I have always been a unionist, and the’ honorable sena- tor knows it. I know that he is sufficiently industrious that if be could throw a ray of scandal on my life, public or private, he would not be above doing it. I have said repeatedly that- I do not want to’ indulge in personalities. I wish to proceed with my speech.

Senator Lynch:

– Speech ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order I I ask Senator Lynch to refrain from interruptions.

Senator Lynch:

– Very well, sir, I will obey your ruling.

Senator MULLAN:

– As a proof of my bona fides-

Senator Lynch:

– I will roast him later. I want to roast all these hypocrites on your left-hand side.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Lynch must not refer to honorable senators in that manner. I ask him to withdraw the expression, and refrain from in- . terjecting.

Senator Ferricks:

– It is all right, sir, let it go.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must obey my ruling.

Senator Lynch:

– I will obey your ruling, sir, and I hope to have an opportunity later.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Lynch:

– All right, sir; I will obey your ruling. I will prove to these human shapes what I- have said:

Senator MULLAN:

– So far as I am personally concerned, Senator Lynch may make any interjection he pleases, andI shall not officially hear it.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I -wish- tha honorable senator would tell i us what union he belonged to, and how long- he was a member of it

Senator MULLAN:

– If. Senator de Largie will inquire into my record he will find, that it was good enough to bring me here, . and I believe it will bring me here again after the election. As a guarantee of the 6071a fides of this party in claiming that they desire to successfully prosecute the war, let me. remind honorable senators that when the war began the Liberal party, then in power, offered to send 20,000 men. to the assistance of the Empire. That was claimed as a wonderful achievement, and was applauded throughout Australia. When the Labour party came into power, a. month or so later, they offered to send men in division after division, until now they have sent oversea over .290,000 men. They have’ sent them over a distance of 14,000 miles and. that is the greatest military exploit in the annals of history.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

.– That is so. Such a thing was never done before.

Senator MULLAN:

– That is an achievement of this party. Not only did we send these men’ to the front, but, in’ the opinion of experts, we equipped them equal to the best equipped troops in the. world.

Senator Ferricks:

– From factories established by the Labour party.

Senator MULLAN:

– And, as Senator Ferricks properly reminds me, from factories established by the Labour party. I go further, and say that through the influence .of this party, our men are now being paid the highest wages paid to any soldiers in the- world, and those entitled to them under our legislation receive the highest soldiers’ pension paid in any part of the world: But for the influence exercised by this party these- things could never have taken place. Further, the Labour party, as a party, unreservedly placed at the disposal of the Mother Country our Australian Naval unit after it had established a splendid record bv demolishing: the Emden in the- waters of the Pacific.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Both divisions of the Labour party helped to do that.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am. saying that the Australian Labour- party- did these things:

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– The United Labour party.

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes, it was a very united Labour party. in those days, when it did this excellent work. Surely on that record, if any party is entitled to be called the “ Win-the-War “ party, we are entitled to that name. But we do not claim the name- I do not believe that any man or any party should claim a monopoly of that name. The mere fact of a particular party arrogating to itself the right to be called the “ Win-the War “ party creates- jealousy which must hamper us in the prosecution of the war. What we should do if we- want to successfully prosecute the war, is that every man and every party should give the fullest mode of praise to others for what they have done and propose to do.

Senator Lynch:

– According to the honorable senator we should keep our men here.

Senator MULLAN:

– No matter what I say I shall not please Senator Lynch, and I am not going to try to please him. If he will keep quiet he will have an opportunity to reply much earlier than otherwise; Honorable senators opposite told ns that there must be a coalition Government in order to win the war. A coalition Government seldom accomplishes much. 1 do not know of any coalition Government that was ever worth twopence. The very absence of criticism which a coalition involves proves the undoing of most coalition Governments. When Mr. Fisher led the Labour party after the 1914 elections some people proposed a coalition Government, and some of our friends on the other side were eager for it. Mr. Fisher said that he would not have a coalition. He would not touch the Liberals with a forty-foot pole. No one will deny the fact that with the support of his party Mr. Fisher conducted the war ably and well. He was able to do so without a coalition. He was succeeded by Mr.. Hughes, and no one will deny that, when supported’ by the Labour party, Mr. Hughes carried on the war quite well for the succeeding twelve months. Both Mr. Fisher and Mr. Hughes conducted the war well without a coalition. It was not until Mr. Hughes left hie party in connexion with the question of conscription, -and found that he was likely to lose his position as Leaderof a party and Leader of the Government, that lie suddenly discovered that, in order to successfully prosecute the war there must be a coalition Government.

Senator Story:

– When the party opposite refused to carry out their election pledges.

Senator MULLAN:

– Never mind about our pledges. Mr. Hughes, while he worked with us, found that he could win the war without a coalition Government, but the moment our party had a quarrel with him he discovered the expediency of forming a coalition Government in order to win the war. The point I want to make is that if the Labour party as a party were entitled to the credit of successfully prosecuting the war from 1915 up to October last, they are equally entitled to the same credit now. I put my honorable friends opposite to the test by asking them this question : What are the present Government doing for the successful, prosecution of the war that was not being done by bur party when we were in power? Can the Minister for Defence or any other member of the party opposite point to one tiling which the present Government are doing for the successful prosecution of .the war that we were not doing before ! Honorable senators opposite advocated conscription. They said it was absolutely essential for the successful prosecution of the war, but short of a policy of conscription, which they have not the courage to openly advocate’, is there anything they have done for the successful prosecution of the war. The present Government party are quite prepared to exploit >’ patriotism, and make political capital out of the military situation. Instead of being called the “ win- the- war party “ they should be called, as they are rightly called in the country, the “winthe -election party.” That is what they are after all the time. Only a fortnight ago these people who are now being dragged before. their masters were doing all in their power to prevent the electors passing judgment’ on their treachery to the people. But be it said to the honour of some members of this Parliament, a majority was found here to kill that -plot. I have a word to say on the conscription policy of_the present Government. I believe tEat another scheme is being hatched by the Government to foist conscription on the people of Australia as soon as ever they get Hie. opportunity to do so. If. any honorable senator is in doubt about that, let him listen, not to my words, but to the policy of the Government as disclosed’ in the statement made to this” Parliament and to tho country. Here are the words of the statement: -

In regard to conscription, the policy of the Government is clear and definite. It intends to accept the verdict of the people delivered on the 28th October, 1916. [ ask honorable senators to mark .particularly this paragraph, which is generally overlooked by Liberals when referring to the policy of the Government. .-.

It is, of course, impossible to say what the future may have in store, but it iB clear that the electors of Australia alone can reverse their previous decision.

It iB cunningly worded; and gives the Government a way out if they win the election. If they so desire, it will enable them to foist .directly on the people this odious conscription which was rejected by them on the 28th October. I know that, the promises of the Prime Minister go for .naught. The people of Australia will accept no more of his promises after the promise that he made in the House of Representatives on 15th July, 1916, when . he said, “In no circumstances would I agree to send men out of thiB country to fight against their will.”

Senator de Largie:

– That was said by way of interjection, and not during a speech.

Senator MULLAN:

– Yesterday the honorable senator quoted what was said . by Mr. Tudor in another place by way of interjection, and tried to flog this party with it.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It was quite true.

Senator MULLAN:

– So is this true. That is why I use it. William Morris Hughes cannot deny that on 15th July he said that in no circumstances would he force any man to go out of the country to fight against his will; and the man who broke that solemn promise given on the 15th July, 1915, may be expected to break any promise in the policy which lie. has given to tie electors.

Senator Lynch:

– Did he force any man to go out of this country to fight f

Senator MULLAN:

– He has violated his sacred pledge. If the quotation which I have made from the policy of the Government is not enough to prove the intention to foist conscription on. the people, let us see what Sir William Irvine said at Dandenong. He said that he could not support any alliance that had not in the forefront of its policy the determination to enforce conscription. That statement does not look much like respecting the . opinion of the people. Sir William Irvine, since making that statement, has been exalted by the present Government to one of the highest positions in the land. He has been chosen as a delegate to the Imperial Conference. This shows that his opinions fully harmonize with those of the present Government. Also, the fact that he is supporting the present Coalition that he said he would not support if it did . not have conscription in the forefront of ite programme is further proof that the Government are indorsing his policy of outandout conscription. If there is still any doubt upon the point, let me show what Senator Lynch has said. Speaking at Adelaide, he said that if voluntarism proved a . failure, compulsion in some ‘ form would have to be resorted to. He said that he heartily approved of any appeal to the people on that issue.

Senator Lynch:

– I did not know that I was so definite as that.

Senator MULLAN:

– Thus we have three responsible statements in the policy of the Government, in the . words of Sir William Irvine at Dandenong and in the words of Senator Lynch at Adelaide, showing unmistakably that ‘ if the Government had the power and the opportunity they would not think twice about enforcing conscription.

Senator Turley:

– There is also the latest expressed opinions of the Minister for Trade and Customs.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am pleased that the honorable senator has reminded me of that. The Minister for . Trade and Customs, speaking at a meeting of the National Federation- - whatever that issaid that it had been a condition of the National Government before the double dissolution was arranged for that, no matter what happened, the verdict of the people given on the 28th October should be respected by the Government until that verdict was altered by the people; but, speaking for himself, he thought that one of the first things that should be done when the present Government returned to office after the elections would be to ask the people the same question again, and get an overwhelming vote of “ Yes.” I do not think that the Government would take the trouble to hold a referendum on the matter if they had the power to enforce conscription; but even . if they do, how will it be conducted? Seeing that on the last occasion they manipulated the ‘ censorship, suppressed articles in Labour journals, prevented public speakers from getting a fair deal, and issued secret regulations in order to secure the necessary vote, what, in the name of Heaven, will they do on this occasion? I know of nothing that the Government are not capable of doing if they have another opportunity in order to carry a referendum; and if the people of Australia are foolish enough to intrust, them again’ with power, God pity them. In order to show that the. question of conscription is not dead, I wish to quote the remarks of a deputation of a women’s recruiting committee that waited on Mr. Hunter, the Acting Premier of Queensland, and besought him to embark on a policy of compulsion by first combing out the Public Service.

Senator Lynch:

– Is that the same Mr. Hunter who said that there were 2,000 Maltese employed on the transcontinental railway?

Senator MULLAN:

– I hope that Mr. President will make the honorable senator cease his idiotic interjections. The honorable senator is simply prating like a parrot. An old lady had a parrot) which escaped from the cage one day during her absence, and was foolish enough to jump on the back of a sleeping dog. The dog, resenting the intrusion on his slumbers, jumped up, and deprived the bird of all its feathers before, it could escape and retreat once more to its cage. When the old lady returned and saw her pet deprived of all its feathers, she exclaimed, “ Hello -cookie ! What is up?” The parrot replied, “ Too much talk, Missus.” It is ‘the same with Senator Lynch. With him it was a case of “ Too much talk.” .

Senator Millen:

– Has the honorable senator plucked all the feathers out of you?

Senator Lynch:

– My question was quite fair. Honorable senators opposite are dodgers and shufflers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator MULLAN:

– Some people have the habit of interjecting in order to secure an advertisement. I appeal to Mr. President to compel the honorable senator to cease his interjections, so that they may not spoil my remarks. The Daily Standard, Brisbane, records the following report of a deputation from the Ladies’ Recruiting Committee, of Brisbane, which waited on the Acting Prime Minister. Mrs. Jackson, a member of that recruiting committee, said -

You know, Mr. Hunter, if the eligible single men in the Public Service were released, that would stimulate recruiting.

Mr. Hunter. ; You mean dismissed?

Mrs Jackson. ; Yes, dismissed. That would be putting them out of employment. It would be setting an example to private employers, and the men in question would then nave to get some other means of support, and many of them, I feel convinced, would enlist. That is not coercing them, but merely putting the position before them in a very forcible manner.

That is the position which, certain ladies of Queensland take up on the question, and it shows that compulsion is not dead. It shows that the present Government are quite prepared, if they get the power, to resurrect and enforce it. It shows, further, that the people should be on their guard on the 5th May. I feel sick when I hear the supporters of the Government talk about respecting the verdict of the people. In 1914 the Labour party was returned to power with an overwhelming majority and ordered by the people to rule the destinies of Australia. In 1916 the people again gave a verdict, saying that there should be no military tyranny, no compulsion or conscription in Australia. Despite those two verdicts, given within the last two years, we have in power today a Government every member of which is either a Liberal or a conscriptionist. Thus the verdict of the people of Australia, when they said in the first place, “ We shall not have the Liberals in power at any price,” and secondly, “We do not want conscription,” is being violated in a double sense. How can we expect such a Government to respect the opinions of the people of Australia. This is ample evidence, if the electors desire any. that these people are not prepared to respect the opinions of any one. Those who, like myself, are prepared to fight to the last gasp against military compulsion must be up and watching. Eternal vigilance is as much the price of liberty as it was in the days of yore. We have indeed to be more vigilant than ever with these men in power. I would warn the electors of Australia, and those of my own State in particular, against the machina tions of a Government who are prepared to rob the people of the verdict which they so ably won on the 28th October last. That verdict is the most glorious in the history of Australia - a victory equal to some of those won by the Australians when they gained imperishable fame on the battlefields of Europe. When the history of this country comes to be written, no chapter will illuminate its pages more brightly or better than that in which it is told how the people of Australia, even in war time, said they were not going to be subjected to the iron heel of a military despotism.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator needs an inspiration.

Senator MULLAN:

– I shall not look to my old friend for an inspiration when I require one. I propose now to deal with what is perhaps one of the most important phases of the policy of the Government, and one that must receive full consideration at the coming elections. I refer to the attitude which the Government have taken up on the question of the representation of Australia at the Imperial Conference. We were told that the matters to be dealt with at that Conference were urgent and extremely important, and that it would be necessary for Australia to have representation there. I believe that the matters to be dealt with at the Imperial Conference are urgent and extremely important, and that Australia should be properly represented there. Seeing that Mr. Hughes said it was urgently necessary that Australia should be represented at the Conference, why did he- carry about in his pocket for days the invitation to the Conference without acquainting any of his supporters, or even his Cabinet, of the fact ? Why did he carry it about with him while he was trying to gain a political advantage over his opponents ? ‘

Senator de Largie:

– How does the honorable senator, know that he did not acquaint any of his supporters of the . receipt of the invitation?

Senator MULLAN:

– I do know, and I have the press of this country to support me. The Age, the Argus, and other newspapers in this ‘ State were denied the right to publish the fact that they had received information, through Reuter’s Agency, that the invitation had been sent to the Prime Minister of Australia.

Senator Turley:

– The statement was made by Mr. Sinclair in an interview at Brisbane.

Senator MULLAN:

– That makes it more definite still, and nails down Senator de Largie’s interjection. Here we have an urgent and important Imperial Conference, and find the Prime Minister of Australia hiding from the public, and denying to the press of Australia the right of publishing, the receipt of the invitation to attend it. If this Conference is important, and I believe it is, the greater the publicity given to it the better. The Prime Minister received this invitation in December last, but two months elapsed before he did anything in connexion with it. He was bargaining and huckstering, and haggling with the Liberals as to which party should have a majority in the Cabinet, in order that he might form a coalition before he went Home. He told us that matters involving the fate of the Empire were to be discussed at the Conference. Yet, while the Empire Conference was waiting to meet to deal with matters involving the Empire’s fate, he was huckstering and bargaining with Mr. Cook about portfolios. While tens of thousands of brave Australians were fighting for their lives, Cook, Hughes, and party were fighting for political spoils. That is the way in which the war is being conducted; that is how the Government intend to win the war. When they did decide to appoint representatives to the Conference, whom did they propose to send ? Who were the chosen of Australia to attend the Imperial War Conference - Sir William Irvine Sir John Forrest, and Mr. Hughes. Is there a man in this Chamber who, on the eve of a general election, will say that Sir William Irvine is a fair representative of Australia to attend that Conference? Will the VicePresident of the Executive Council justify the sending of him ? There is silence on the part of my honorable friends opposite. Will the Assistant Minister justify the appointment of Sir William Irvine as a delegate to the Imperial Conference? Here is a man who fought unionism in Australia with the ferocity of a tiger, who did everything that he could to frustrate the ends of Democracy and to block the path of reform, who disfranchised the public servants of Victoria, drove them from their homes and families, and did all that he could to kill the platform of the Labour party. Can it be urged that he is a fit representative of a democratic community like Australia? Then there is Sir John Forrest. Will Senator Patrick Lynch justify his appointment to the Imperial Conference? Will he support Sir John Forrest as an able exponent of the principles of Democracy ? I have not much to say against him, except that he is an old political fossil.

SenatorLynch!. - I twill support Sir’ John Forrest. Having answered the honorable senator’s question, may I now ask him a question ?

Senator MULLAN:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– When Senator Lynch is on his feet he may ask what he likes. But I will not be interrupted now, because I want to finish my remarks. Sir John Forrest has been appointed a delegate to the Imperial War Conference, and Senator de Largie, who will presently go before the Democracy of Western Australia, says “ Hear, hear !” Yet Sir John Forrest was one of the few men who, only a few months ago, guaranteed to subscribe £100 a year for three years to fight the war taxation proposals of the late Government. Is that the kind of man we want to represent the interests of this great Commonwealth ? Now I come to William Morris Hughes. All I have to say against him is that Australia turned down conscription, and yet he is still a confirmed conscriptionist, and, consequently, would misrepresent Australia on the question of compulsory military service overseas. Upon that ground alone he has no right to attend the Imperial War Conference as one of our delegates.

Sitting suspended from 12 p.m. to 1 a.m. (Thursday).

Senator MULLAN:

– When we adjourned for supper I was pointing out that the three men who had been appointed by the present Government to attend theImperial Conference were totally unrepresentative of Australia as I . know it. If any further evidence is required, we have the fact that three of them advocated conscription, which was rejected by the electors on the 28th October last, and that two of them, Sir John Forrest and Sir William Irvine are members of a party which was defeated at the polls by the Labour party in 1914. It will be seen that all the selected men are political rejects; and if there was one reason more- than another why the life of Parliament should not be prolonged, it was that we should have men fresh from the polls to represent the people of Australia in the councils of the Empire. This Con7ference, which is even now being held, is the most far-reaching in character. Everybody admits - Mr. Hughes himself admits - that the fate of the Empire may depend on the solution of some of the questions to be discussed; and it is all the more necessary to see that our representatives are men who reflect the opinions, whatever they may be, of the majority of the people of this country. I claim that the three selected representatives do not come up to specification in this regard; and, therefore, it is most fortunate for Australia that there is to be an election before the departure of the delegates, whoever they may be, for the heart of the Empire. Any one who, for the last twelve months, or since the outbreak of the war, has followed the development of public opinion at Home, must recognise that there is a growing tendency towards Imperial federation. This, I am sure, must have been observed by visitors from Australia, such as Senator de Largie and Senator Keating, who had special opportunities for observation. I do not know why such an opinion has sa rapidly developed since the war began, but it is a fact. There is much involved in the adoption of such a policy, and we have to be very careful about entering into a federation which may make it impossible for us in the future to preserve our freedom, or develop this country in the way we think best. Ours is a peculiar Empire, made up, roughly speaking, of some 433,000,000 people, of whom -60,000,000 are white and 373,000,000 coloured; and in the Imperial Conference the question of a White Australia must ;arise. Australia contains only 5,000,000 white people, and we can see how we should stand in an Imperial Conference of About twenty delegates- on the basis of population. With 373,000,000 coloured people .as compared with 60,000,000 white people, the latter would be overwhelmed, and the White Australia policy would be in jeopardy. In addition to the White Australia policy there must, also, inevitably arise the fiscal policy of Australia; indeed, the whole economic policy of the Commonwealth and the Empire would be in the melting pot. This is a dangerous position for Australia, and, therefore, we ought to be represented by the very best men we have. That is why I am so anxious that there should be an election before we send our representatives, so that they may go straight from the ballot-box. If we have such men, I shall electors to London, reflecting the most recent public opinion as expressed at the not be afraid for the White Australia policy, feeling convinced that they will do their duty to this country. Nor shall I be afraid in regard to the fiscal problem if we have men there who are truly representative of Australian Democracy. In my opinion, the economic position of Australia would have been jeopardized had the three men I have mentioned been sent, but we shall have true representatives of Australian Democracy, provided the people of Australia have the good sense to return a Government fitted to make a proper selection. I am no advocate for a cast-iron Imperial Constitution, for I believe that the silken bonds of kinship are stronger, and will endure longer than any rigid Constitution. At the outbreak of the war the Dominions leaped like hounds to the aid of the Mother Country, and have nobly played their part; and the question is whether, under a rigid Constitution, they would have been equally prepared. We are doing very well as we stand; and the looser the scheme, and the more freedom we have, the more eager we shall be, in case of necessity, to go to the assistance of the Old Land. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that at an Imperial Conference Australia should be represented by men who will take care that we are not unnecessarily or unduly fettered or shackled, and that we shall be allowed the same freedom as in. the past. There is just one other phase of the question to which I desire to refer before I conclude, and that is the necessity for making ample and adequate provision for our returned soldiers. I do not think there is a dissentient voice to the proposal that the men from the front are entitled to every consideration. My own opinion is that nothing it too good for the men who sacrificed their all by going to the front and risking their lives; and, therefore, when those of our boys who are spared return, we ought to be prepared to make suitable provision for them in their homeland. Before Mr. Hughes, and those who followed him left the Labour party, we had decided on a policy of repatriation of soldiers, which meant the raising of £10,000,000 by means of a wealth tax. The party were unanimous in regard to this - there was not a dissentient voice.

Senator Grant:

– I dissented.

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable senator -was overlooked in the- calculation.

Senator Grant:

– I desired a land tax, not a tax on industry.

Senator MULLAN:

– However, the party, as a party, agreed on this wealth tax ; and what has caused the change of policy ? Mr. Hughes ‘and those who followed him found themselves helpless and hopeless in their efforts to carry on the government of the country, and they coalesced with the Liberal party. Part of the price. for the support of the Liberal party was the abandonment of the wealth tax. It is said by the Liberals that such a tax is not necessary now, be- cause there is no urgency for repatriation, and, therefore, the raising ot £10,000,000 may be postponed. That I regard as a deliberate side-tracking of the question, because I think it is most urgent that we should now do something to ameliorate the position of the soldiers who have returned, and prepare for the soldiers who are returning. The Labour party last year announced to Parliament that it was proposed to raise £10,000,000 by means of a wealth tax; but the proposal has now been abandoned as the price to be paid by Australia for the Coalition.

Senator Bakhap:

– I do not think that the wealth tax has been abandoned, but, instead of the whole being raised immediately, only a portion is to be raised.

Senator MULLAN:

– No provision is being made for any portion to be raised immediately.

Senator Bakhap:

– I think the idea is to raise only that portion likely to be immediately required.

Senator MULLAN:

– It is required now, but the Government are not proposing to raise a penny.

Senator Bakhap:

– They will raise what is required.

Senator MULLAN:

– They are not raising what is required; although our soldiers are here, the Government are doing nothing. We who have read the

Sydney newspapers, and have seen what occurred about Christmas time, must feel heartily ashamed to think that our soldiers were walking about the streets in hunger and want. If there be any doubt as to the fact, I am prepared to read a short extract in proof.

Senator Grant:

– And it must continue until we put on a land tax.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am prepared for a wealth tax, a land tax, or any other tax, so long as our soldiers receive the first and fullest consideration. Here we have proof that, at any rate, some tax is needed, and has been needed for some time.

Senator Grant:

– Do you propose to use the wealth levy to purchase land for returned soldiers?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am not responsible for the policy of the party. The Labour party agreed to raise £10,000,000 by means of a wealth tax, but this has now ‘ been abandoned, because, so it is said, it is not urgently required. This action shows a total disregard for the men who are returning from the front. The true position was disclosed in the following article published in the Age on 1st January, 1917: -

page 11384

RETURNED SOLDIERS

State of Affairs in Sydney. hundreds living on charity.

Sydney. - Six hundred returned soldiers - one-tenth of the men who have been permanently invalided home from the battle front - are walking the streets, practically destitute, desperately but hopelessly seeking employment. To the dozen or- more war funds to which a generous public has subscribed since the outbreak of hostilities a total of over £2,500,000, the penurious soldier looks in vain for succour; he does not come, he is told, within their scope. To the newly-formed State National Government he has appealed fruitlessly for an opportunity to present, by means of a special deputation, the story of his sufferings. Despite the promises made him when he enlisted, the Federal Government has not in operation repatriation machinery which can deal effectively with his case. It is a blot on the national honour that men who at Gallipoli fought and bled to gain imperishable fame for their countryare to-day, through sheer necessity, driven to assemble in pitiable queues to receive alms collected by public appeal by the Returned Soldiers’ Association. To get among these men and listen to their stories is heartbreaking. One can understand their bitterness; the supreme shame to which they are being subjected. It is a tribute to the community that it has marked its disgust at legislative indifference by subscribing in little over a week £2,000 for their relief. But practically every penny of this has been distributed, and public charity, with the many calls it has on it, cannot be expected to maintain the burden indefinitely. Nor can the mere daily doles public charity makes available provide the unfortunate soldiers with the necessaries of life. That the men are legitimate sufferers cannot be denied, for the executive of the Returned Soldiers has made the fullest of inquiries into the bona fides of each case, and the Dean of Sydney, who is president of that body, has personally aided in the investigations, the appeal to -the public, and the dispensation of assistance from the funds subscribed. Here are a few typical cases taken haphazard from the hundreds of appeal papers signed by the applicants. They graphically outline the situation -

I am a married man; I have no pension, and have no money.

I am a single man supporting my mother. No pension granted. Last payment from the amelioration fund four months. ago. Out of work for seven months.

I have been sick for four months, and am expecting to go into hospital shortly. I have been under the doctor for some time, and had to borrow money to pay him. I am hoping to get some assistance, so that I might pay the money back, as I am unable to work through illness.

Destitute; in need of money.

I was discharged on 19th August, and have only done three weeks’ work since, and I am in very poor circumstances.

Am unable to get employment, and have a wife and four children to support.

I have no money, and urgently need financial help. All my allotment was paid to my mother, who was partially dependent on me, and so there is none of that left. I drew ls. a day on active service. My health will not permit me to engage in my former trade, and I am too weak for almost any work, as I am suffering from neurasthenia.

My wife is in bad health, and is to go under an operation.

I have a little baby, seven weeks old, and have no money.

I am broke. I am drawing a- pension, but my sister is ill, and I am sticking to her.

Have lost my left eye; fragments of bullets still in the head. Can’t work. Still suffering from head troubles and a continuously discharging wound.

Have not got a penny.

Have a wife and three children. Have no money, and am in debt.

Am married. Have no children, but am out of work, and should like to have a few shillings to tide me over Christmas. I have no other plea but this. As Christmas comes only once a year, I would like to treat my wife as others do.

I could read at much greater length a description of the deplorable scenes witnessed amongst our returned soldiers in Sydney last Christmas, showing how urgent it is that those men should have assistance and protection from the Commonwealth Government which sent them to the front.- Portion of the money intended to be raised under the repatriation scheme is needed now; but, despite this urgency, the Government have not taken a single step towards raising a penny. All this proves that the “ Win-the-war “ party are not doing what they should to protect the men who are really helping to win the war.

Senator BARNES:

– They could not win an argument.

Senator MULLAN:

– The Government, since they came into power, have also abandoned other .taxation proposals, and are going to lessen the taxation on certain classes of the community to the exent of about £4,000,000;

Senator Russell:

– Prom what are you quoting ?

Senator MULLAN:

– I am quoting from the Treasurer’s most recent figures. If the honorable gentleman wants them in detail I can give them to him. He knows quite well that as the result of modifications under the 1915-16 war-time profits tax, it is now estimated that the Government will collect £400,000 less than originally was expected; and that, under the 1916-17 war-time profits tax, there will be a further probable reduction of £1,700,000 as well as a reduction in the sinking fund, because the Government intend to extend the redemption of the debt over a longer period than formerly. They also exempt the war bonds of the very wealthy from taxation. These exemptions amount to about £4,000,000, and there is in addition the £10,000,000 wealth tax, which is not to be levied, making the cost of this Coalition Government to the community about £14,000,000.

We are about to have an election, and I hope that, for the honour of the Commonwealth, the Government will not revert to the practices indulged induring the campaign in October last. Everybody knows of the methods then adopted in connexion with the censorship. AH we ask for now is a fair deal, the right to put our case before the people of Australia, and the right of the people of Australia to hear our case. No law should stand between the electors and the men who desire to represent them in this Parliament.

Senator Russell:

– Your own leader had charge of the censorship for the greater part of the campaign.

Senator MULLAN:

– I do not wish to be drawn off the track by Senator Russell’s interjections, and I do not want to put a special paragraph in Hansard dealing with the Minister.

Senator Russell:

– Go on !

Senator MULLAN:

– The honorable gentleman knows we did not get a fair deal during the conscription campaign. In this Senate last September we fought for a relaxation of the censorship, but everybody knows we did not have the opportunity to put our case before the people as fully as we desired. We ask, therefore, that on this occasion those abuses may’ not be repeated. We ask the Government to use the censorship judiciously, and not to abuse their executive power. No Government ever so flagrantly abused its executive power as did the Hughes Government during the referendum campaign. Senator Russell is a living testimony of what I say. So incensed was he, as well as Senator Gardiner and Mr. Higgs, the then Treasurer, that he and they resigned in a body from the Cabinet rather than be parties to an abuse of executive power in regard to a regulation concerning the voting.

Senator de Largie:

– Your party did the same thing.

Senator MULLAN:

– My party did nothing of the kind.

Senator de Largie:

– Yes, they did.

Senator Russell:

– I would act . in the same way to-morrow.

Senator MULLAN:

– I am glad to hear the Minister say he would act in the same way to-morrow if the necessity arose. I hope it will not arise. I am asking no favours from the Government, and, indeed, I would take no favours from them. All I ask for our party is that we may receive fair play. If the Government grant us this, we shall be satisfied with the verdict of the people, whatever it may be. I hope that no secret service money will be expended during the coming election campaign. Let the Government and their supporters raise their funds as the Labour party does. If we have a fair fight, there will be nothing to complain about. I know, however, that the press supporting the other party will indulge in a campaign of calumny, as they always’ have done: but, in spite of their unscrupulous opposition to our party in the past, we have survived all their attacks, and we shall survive them again. We will have the trusts, combines, ‘ and monopolies of Australia against us, but we will stand all that, so long as we can get a fair deal. I have my doubts, however, on that point whether we will get it or not. The mysterious disappearance of a senator under our very eyes, and the equally mysterious appearance of another senator, suggest the doubt whether we are likely to get a fair deal from the present Government. To give the Senate an idea of the forces that will be opposed to the Labour party in the coming campaign, I shall read a statement made by Mr. Tom Mutch, the Labour candidate for Botany, a few days ago.

Senator Lynch:

– He is the gentleman who wanted the secretaryship of the American Commission.

Senator MULLAN:

– And I suppose he would have beeu considered good enough for the position. That gentleman said publicly -

Last year Messrs. Cann and Hall had called the Political Labour League Executive into the Ministerial room, and told them that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, the Meat Trust, and the Employers Federation had raised a fund of £100,000 to fight the Labour movement, and urged that as a reason why the executive should not press Mr. Holman to carry out his promise to the Conference. But the executive preferred to fight rather than compromise.

That statement shows how little is our chance of getting a fair deal.

In conclusion, I regret that men who have climbed to fame and fortune on the backs of . the Labour party should be now amongst the chief traducers of a movement founded, as every great movement is, on self-sacrifice and nurtured in adversity. The Labour movement has gone through the purifying fires of adversity during the last twelve months, particularly during the last few months, and it has emerged from that trying ordeal minus the dross, and, therefore, stronger and better for the experience. Nothing in the- happenings of the last few weeks should dismay or discourage the Labour party. It is true that we have lost control of this Chamber through the treachery of one of our own men, but the Labour movement is not to blame for that. Treachery is as old as man himself. Even Christ was betrayed by one of his apostles, but the betrayal of Christ did not injure Christianity, and the betrayal of the Labour party will not injure the great movement which it represents.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– Several speakers on the Opposition side, particularly Senator Gardiner, have heaped abuse on members on this side of the Chamber. We are accused of having betrayed and disrupted the Labour party. All the evil that has befallen the so-called Official Labour party is attributed to the fact that Mr. Hughes, the Leader of the party, refused to allow the conspirators who sought to take the reins of government out of his hands, to have their own way. Senator Gardiner spoke to-day, as he has done on many occasions, of the magnificent work done by the Labour party. I readily admit that during the last fifteen years the Labour party has done wonderful work throughout Australia. Senator Gardiner mentioned that I had stated in the Senate that the Labour movement was not worth following, but he admitted that I afterwards corrected my statement by explaining that it was the Labour party which I considered was not worth following. The honorable senator outlined the history of his association with the Labour movement. I was privileged to be in that movement for some years before even Senator Gardiner was associated with it. I do not claim any great credit for that, because it is probably accounted for by the fact that I am several years older than Senator Gardiner. I do wish to point out, however, to those members of the Opposition who claim that they are true merino Labour men, that in the early days of the Labour movement self-sacrifice was known amongst its followers. I and other men saw that the movement had much to recommend it. We realized that something might be done to give effect to the aspirations of the men who in those days were putting forth efforts for the benefit of humanity. I assisted in the formation of the present Labour party, because at that time the majority of people in Australia were not receiving a fair deal. Men were underpaid and forced to work long hours. The employers took advantage of the necessities of men, and refused to grant them fair conditions, and the redress of the workers’ grievances was the objective of the pioneers of the Labour movement. In those days there was no grabbing for office. There was no desire on the part of members of unions to take the places of members already in Parliament. When the Labour party was first started in South Australia I remember distinctly several cases in which a man who had been selected by plebiscite to contest a Labour seat withdrew in favour of another man who was considered to have a better chance of winning the seat. As a matter of fact, it was through an action of that character that the late Premier of South Australia, Mr. Tom Price, one of the grandest Premiers that the State ever had, won his first seat in Parliament. One of the pioneers of the movement, Mr. Pat Stokes, had been selected to contest a certain seat. It was represented to him that Tom Price had a better chance of winning it, and to his lasting honour Pat Stokes cheerfully withdrew and allowed Tom Price to win the seat, and to commence that parliamentary career which lifted, to an enormous extent, the Labour party in South Australia. I and other members of this side did not join the Labour party for the sake of getting a seat in Parliament or any other personal advantage. To be known as a member of the Labour party in those days was to be made a target for abuse from all members of so-called respectable society. A member of a trade union was frequently boycotted. Any sympathizer with the Labour party, if he were a trader or small contractor, was either boycotted or refused work. We had a long struggle against apparently overwhelming odds, but the men who led the movement at that time were of the true mettle, and they are responsible for the solid foundation upon which the Labour party was reared, and to a considerable extent for the success which attended its efforts in later years.

Senator McKissock:

– Now we find some of them trying to wreck the party.

Senator STORY:

– The honorable senator is right. There are in this Parliament several men, of whom Senator McKissock is one, who are not only trying, but are succeeding in their endeavour, to wreck the Labour party. Probably Senator McKissock is not one of the original criminals, but he is one of the accessories after the fact.

Senator McKissock:

– I consider that statement offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator STORY:

– If Senator McKissock objects to the statement I certainly withdraw it. I have no wish to say anything personally offensive of him or anybody else, but I am here to tell the truth, and I am just referring to the fact that Senator McKissock and other members of this Chamber have succeeded in wrecking the Labour party. He and other senators opposite did not originate that idea, but their action in meekly yielding to the pressure of outside bodies has caused the wreck of the party. I was one of the original founders of the Labour movement, and worked for it before the present Labour party in South Australia came into existence. For ten years after the establishment of the Labour party I was actively engaged in returning Labour men to the State Parliament. I never sought a seat, although I could have had one. I was nominated in every plebiscite from the first to that taken in 1903 for the election of members of the Federal Parliament, and I never consented to submit myself to even a selection ballot until then. Because my desire was - and it was the desire of thousands of persons who never look for personal benefit - to secure the return of men to Parliament who could be relied upon to use their efforts to improve the conditions of the working classes, and make things better for the whole of the community. That was the object of the Labour party, and they have been successful to a considerable extent. But a change has come over the scene. Within the last few years a body of men came to a certain decision. I think that I am safe in saying that the idea originated with the Australian Workers Union. It was resolved by men in the union that, in order to get the power they wanted, they would amalgamate the whole of the unions of Australia, as far as it could be done, into one big union, to control the whole of Australia industrially, and to nominate all the Labour members to go into Parliament. The scheme worked successfully, up to a certain step. In the Sydney Sun of Sunday last there appeared an article which certainly was written by a person who thoroughly understands the Labour movement, and the constitution of not only the State Labour parties, but also the Federal Labour party. The article is headed “Labour’s Scrap of Paper.” The writer describes the constitution of the State Labour party in New South Wales, and of the Federal Labour party.’ He points out the limitations of the State Labour party in relation to Federal affairs, and he leads up to the position when the indus- trialists in the State thought that they were strong enough to gain possession of the Labour machine to, as far as it could be done, displace the sitting members of Parliament in order that the officials of the Political Labour Council, the officials of the Australian Workers Union, and the officials of the other unions and political organizations, should take their places. In this article, which I do not propose to read, the writer points out how the men who got possession of the political machine deliberately broke the rules which were laid down for the guidance of the Conference - the rules which fixed the power between conferences in the hands of a certain executive. He points out how the men got a majority, by packing meetings, by having an inner conference composed of a certain number of industrialists only, who would lay out their plan of campaign, and nominate the whole of the candidates for executive and other offices, so that, when they got into the larger conference, there would be a block vote for the members whom they had decided to select and support. This scheme worked out entirely to the satisfaction of its engineers.

Senator McKissock:

– Who is this scab authority who has written for this newspaper ?

Senator STORY:

– I am quite willing to give the honorable senator the date of the newspaper, and he will then have an opportunity to purchase a copy. If he will carefully read the article, he will be convinced, as I am endeavouring to show the Senate, that the writer is an authority on this subject.

Senator McKissock:

– Why should you not quote from a Labour newspaper? A Tory newspaper cannot be an authority on Labour.

Senator STORY:

– I ask the honorable senator has there been, since October last, a Labour newspaper in Australia which has attempted to place before the country an impartial statement of the existing condition of affairs as regards the Labour party ? The whole of the Labour press of Australia are as one-eyed as the honorable senator is. They refuse to listen to reason. Those who were forced out of the Labour party, and compelled to come on to this side of the Senate, are not allowed to have an opportunity of explaining why they took that course.

Senator McKissock:

– They thought that they were going forward on the crest of a wave of popularity.

Senator STORY:

– They are not supposed to have a single legitimate reason for having left honorable senators on the other side, but they are called rats and renegades, because they had too much manliness and independence of character to submit to dictation from outside individuals, who had no right or authority to instruct them how they should conduct themselves, or how they should vote on any political questions which might crop up in Parliament. In this article, which possibly Senator McKissock will read with some advantage to himself, it is pointed out that when the Federal Labour party was formed it was found impossible to allow the State Conferences to deal with Federal affairs. The writer goes on “to point out that it would be impossible for one State to instruct delegates from that State to vote on any Federal matter, because the Executive of the Labour party in another State might direct its Federal members, to vote in a different direction, and consequently iti was necessary to have a Federal Executive in order to carry on the work between conferences. It took them a long time to find that out, because it was not until 1915 that the first Interstate Executive was created at the Adelaide Conference. Possibly Senator McKissock will agree with me that that Interstate Conference was formed there to deal with all questions arising out of the Federal Labour platform between conferences. The Federal Executive, of course, was given the same power in Federal affairs as the State Executives are given in State affairs. What do we find in connexion with the subject which caused the split in the Labour party ? We find that the Executive of Victoria instructed its Federal members to oppose conscription. We find that the Executive of New South Wales instructed the State representatives in both Houses of the Federal Parliament to oppose conscription, and many of them were informed that unless they voted against the referendum too, they would not be indorsed by the Labour party, afterwards; taking the work absolutely out of the hands of the Federal Executive. As Senator Senior has reminded me, the referendum was a plank of the Federal platform. Exactly the same thing was done in South Australia. A conference was due to be held there in September last. Prior to that conference being held, Mr. Frank Lundie, who was the Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, and his officers were busy for weeks in finding out the name of every little organization throughout the State which had the right to send delegates to the September Conference. As many of them were located in distant parts of the State they could not afford to pay the expenses of a delegate to Adelaide. Mr. Lundie very kindly offered, on behalf of the Australian Workers Union, to furnish a delegate to represent a local committee, or a branch of a local committee or a trade union, or whatever it might happen to be which had the right to send one or more delegates. The result might have been foreseen. Every member appointed by the Australian Workers Union to represent a distant branch of the Labour party represented in the conference, not that branch of the party, but the Australian Workers Union. The conference was composed of a very large number of representatives, but exactly, the same tactics were adopted there as were adopted in New South Wales. Prior to the conference being held, Mr. Lundie sent a circular to the secretaries of all the trade unions in and about Adelaide, inviting them to meet at the office of the Australian Workers Union a day or two before the conference was to open. Many of them accepted the invitation, and at the pre-conference they fixed up the fate of every important question which had to be dealt with at the larger conference. They decided the names of the officers who should be elected. That is to say they decided on what they termed the industrial ticket, and secured the promise of every one who attended the pre-conference that they would vote as one man for the nominees of the industrial conference, whoever they might be. They agreed to vote in a certain way, predetermined at the preliminary conference, on all questions’ discussed at the conference. That is what led to the split in the Labour party. The industrial section of the party has endeavoured to dominate every other interest in it. Those belonging to the industrial section claim that the trade unions alone’ represent the Labour movement, and that they should have all the power, not only in conference and councils, but in Parliament as well, and that no one who is not a member of a trade union is fit to be a Labour mem ber of Parliament. To-day Senator Gardiner addressed some of the most scornful epithets to honorable senators on this side because we are supporting a Government composed largely of Liberals. I interjected at the time that I preferred to be associated with Liberals rather than with members of the Industrial Workers of the World. Senator Gardiner and other honorable senators opposite repudiate any connexion with the Industrial Workers of the World, and, when it suits them, they condemn that organization. But they cannot escape the fact that it is the influence of the Industrial Workers of the World in the various State political leagues that brought about the condition of affairs which led to the split in the Labour party.

Senator McDougall:

– Nothing of the sort. They were against us at the last election, and voted for the Liberal candidates.

Senator STORY:

– I propose, in proof -of what I have said, to quote from the official report of the Thirtieth Annual Convention of the Australian Workers Union, held in January, 1916. That is not very long ago. The report shows that A. J. McNaught, an acknowledged member of the Industrial Workers of the World, received nearly 10,000 votes from members of the Australian Workers Union. Does not that prove some connexion between the two organizations ? Mr. McNaught ran for the presidency against Mr. W. G. Spence. McNaught polled 9,484 votes and Spence 13,102 votes. That is taken from page 8 of the report of the annual convention. On page 9 of the same report I find that, in returning thanks, Mr. McNaught said -

Although he belonged to the Industrial Workers of the World, he was not out to “ burst up “ the union, nor was it the aim of any Industrial Workers of the World man outside or inside the Australian Workers Union. The Industrial Workers of the World were endeavouring to point out the fallacy of craft unionism.

This is the statement of a man who secured nearly 10,000 votes from members of the Australian Workers Union, and ran Mr. Spence very close for the position of President of that organization. Mr. McNaught supported a resolution, but it was defeated. The division list is given at page 52 of this report. It discloses the remarkable fact that amongst those who voted for the Industrial

Workers of the World proposal was Mr. P. W. Lundie, the present President of the Australian Workers Union. The Industrial Workers of the World is noted for its hostility to arbitration methods. It opposes bitterly anything that tends to bring about good feeling between employer and employee. At page 48 of the Annual Convention of the Australian Workers Union I find that the following resolution- from Breeza, inNew South Wales, was discussed -

That arbitration be abolished, and direct action be enforced.

On that resolution Mr. McNaught moved -

That the Australian Workers Union make direct negotiations with employers and refuse to accept arbitration.

Senator Barnes:

– Will the honorable member say how many voted for the resolution he has referred to?

Senator STORY:

– I have said that it was rejected, but I have also said that the present President of the Australian Workers Union voted for it. This man, in whom the members of the Australian Workers Union have so much confidence that they have selected him as their President, is in favour of direct action, and against arbitration. In the early days of the Labour movement we who were then seeking for justice for the workers believed that if we could only get Arbitration Courts every man would secure fair play. We were opposed by the Conservative politicians of those days, who objected to Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts, and believed in freedom of contract. Every member of the Labour party at that time believed in the principle of arbitration, and we fondly hoped that if we secured Arbitration Courts we should have fair dealing and contentment among the workers of the country. Has that hope been realized? Although! arbitration has brought about an immense improvement in the condition- of the working people of Australia, to-day we find the president of the largest union in Australia, that is endeavouring to swallow up every other union, advocating direct action, and proposing to do away with arbitration. He is in favour of brute force. Another of our fond delusions in the early days of the Labour movement was that, if we could only do away with piece-work, and induce the Governments of the various States to carry out their undertakings by the day- labour system, the result would be for . the’ benefit, not only of the workers, but also of the taxpayers of the different States. We hoped that men who would be employed by the different State Governments would honestly endeavour to make the daylabour system a success. Has it been a success? I do not believe there is any honorable member of the Senate who today claims to be a Labour man who will contend that the day-labour system in the carrying out of Government work has been a success. There are just as many strikes and disturbances, and just as many unfair demands on the part of the men when employed by a Government, as occurred when they were employed by ‘ private employers. When the Labour party was formed, its aim was to do away with the injustices perpetrated by the employing class. It has been successful . but I am afraid its success has. in some intances, at any rate, made it possible ior the workers, who were thesufferers in the past, to become the tyrants. There are many instances which I need not enumerate of most unreasonable demands made by the workers. I do not refer to demands for higher wages, but to silly disputes, such as some of those which occurred at Cockatoo Island, where, in one instance, because a man did a class of work which another claimed to be his particular work, a whole body of men went on strike, and suspended the operations of the whole establishment. If that kind of thing is to be countenanced on the part of men whose conditions have been so much improved by the work of the Labour party, it will become a tyranny quite as great and injurious as the tyranny of the employers in the early days. Such a tyranny will be more injurious to the country than was the tyranny of the employers from which the Labour party rescued the workers in the early days. I have’ had placed in my hands a copy of the publication known as Direct Action, and I quote from it the following paragraph: -

The Australian Workers Union has worn the Arbitration coat for best, and lately it has become so threadbare and shabby that it has been patched and patched until it resembles, the coat of many colours. It no longer protects the worker from the cold blast of capitalism. Why not throw it away and put on this new coat offered free gratis by the Industrial Unionist - Direct Action - with all the One Big Union tactics for beating the boss. .

Does not that paragraph indicate that if there is not direct action there is direct co-operation between the. Industrial Workers of the World, the Australian Workers Union, and the Political Labour party as at present constituted in the various States ? In South Australia, with one exception, the men who built up the Labour party, in Parliament and outside of it have been driven out of the party by the tactics of the industrial section that believes in direct action. Yet honorable senators opposite say that they repudiate the. Industrial Workers of the World, that they have nothing to do with it, and that the organization opposes them at elections. At Senator Lynch’s request, I shall read this further extract from the same article in Direct Action of the 29th January, 1916.

Senator Barnes:

– Get it all in. Let the honorable senator get all the dirt he can in.

Senator STORY:

– I quite agree with Senator Barnes that itis desirable to get allthese things in, because if the Industrial Workers of the World, -the Official Labour party, and the Australian Workers Union are all practically one organization, the people of Australia should be made acquainted with the fact. If it is not the case, then Senator Barnes will have the opportunity of disproving it.

Senator Barnes:

– Does the honorable senator say that it is true?

Senator STORY:

– I am merely furnishing evidence which goes to show that it is suspiciously like the truth. These are the words used by Mr. McNaught, who gained nearly 10,000 votes from the members of the Australian Workers Union, which has no connexion with the Industrial Workers of the World, and of which Senator Barnes is a distinguished officer -

There is only one way to bring the capitalist of Australia to his knees’. . Stop his profits. Stop them where they are made - on the job. Do not come out on strike. Go in on strike. Go slow and help, to solve the unemployed problem. The reason your mate is out of a iob is because you work too long and too hard. Do you still think you can beat the master in the Arbitration Court, brother? If so, sleep on; sleep on.

Honorable senators opposite declare that the Australian Workers Union has no connexion with the Industrial Workers of the World, yet this Mr. McNaught is one of the big officials in this big union that is endeavouring to swamp every other union, . and has not only set out to control the industrial life of the whole of Australia, but also has as one of its objects the controlling of the political life of Australia by stipulating that it shall be the only body which may nominate candidates for Parliament. Senator Gardiner said to-day that the party behind him were just as earnest in the. desire to win the war as any other party in Australia, and that they had carried out the pledges which they gave to the electors at the election’s over two years ago. Every member of . the Labour party subscribed to the- manifesto which was- issued by Mr. Fisher, and signed by him as Leader of the Labour party, and by Mr. David Watson as secretary of the party. That manifesto declared that if the electors returned the Labour party to power they could thoroughly rely on the party doing everything possible to win the war; and Mr. Fisher further explained that he meant “ everything possible “ when he said that Australia was in the fight to the last man and the last shilling. I do not wish to go over the whole fight again. We had it on the referendum campaign, during which Senator ‘Barnes, Senator McKissock, and others referred in glowing terms to what Australia had done by Bending . nearly 300,000 men to the front; but not one of those gentlemen has ever dared to say that Australia has done as much as she could do. I challenge any honorable senator opposite to say that he has carried out the pledge that he gave to the electors at the last election, that if elected he would do” everything possible “ to win the war.

Senator Barnes:

– The honorable senator is speaking for himself, I presume.

Senator STORY:

– I am challenging my friends opposite to say that they have done everything they could do. On the contrary, I charge them with having prevented those members of the party who desired to carry out their pledges from doing so. They have prevented Mr. Fisher’s successor, Mr. Hughes, from carrying out his part of the obligation. Although Mr. Hughes held similar views to those of some honorable senators opposite, regarding conscription as a bad thing for Australia, he came back to this country after his visit to the front, where he had seen the necessity for a tremendous effort, fully convinced that the only way in which Australia could do her best was by compelling men, who were able but unwilling to fight; to- do so. He told the members of his party that, inhis opinion, it was the duty of Australia, tocompel men, who would not otherwise go, to take part in the fight for Australia on the soil of France. We have had several’ versions of what occurred, but I do not know whether it has even been directly stated that some members of Mr. Hughes’ Government deliberately conspired to depose him from the leadership. I know that Mr. Higgs, who was the Treasurer in the Hughes Government, sent telegrams all over Australia inviting Federal members to come to Melbourne, not to a meeting of the Labour party, but to a sort of preliminary Labour party meeting, just, such a meeting as the industrialists hold before an Inter-State Conference, in order to fir up matters beforehand, and arrange the programme to be carried out at the first meeting of the party. We know that, prior to the eventful meeting when Mr. Hughes is said to have left the party, a majority of the Labour members in this Parliament met in some part of the building, and decided that they would depose. Mr. Hughes from the leadership. I was not at the meeting, so that I am not in a position to say exactly what did take place, but it is fair to assume that the meeting decided on Mr. Hughes’ successor and, in all probability, on those who were to have the portfolios in the Government. I am fortified in my belief that all these things were arranged by the brevity of the speech of the honorable member for Brisbane, Mr. Finlayson, who moved the motion at the subsequent meeting of the full party. That gentleman, when he rose, said something to this effect: “I propose that this party has no longer any confidence in Mr. Hughes as leader. We have all made up our minds as to what we are going to do; therefore there is no necessity to talk about it.” And, having said these words, he sat down.

Senator Buzacott:

– That is practically a correct statement of what Mr. Finlayson said.

Senator STORY:

– It is a true, statement, of what led to the breach in the Labour party in this Parliament. Mr. Hughes was not the lamb that some of his followers thought he was. Had he been silly enough to fall into such a trap, he would not have made the impression that he did in Great Britain and other countries. It was because he knew too much for these gentlemen, because he left the meeting, because he declined to be thrown aside like an old boot, and because he exercised the right he undoubtedly possessed as Prime Minister to form a Government to carry on the administration of the Commonwealth, that there is such a bitter feeling against him on the part of every honorable senator opposite, and he is the most abused man in Australia today, and is not able to represent Australia at the Imperial Conference. He is not representing us at that Conference, not because he is deficient in any of the attributes that a man representing the Commonwealth should have, but simply because he refused to allow himself to be deposed from the leadership of the Labour party, and because he refused to let another man be chosen as leader whom he was to meekly follow.

Senator Senior:

– Is it not a fair inference that the party opposite have not a man fit to send to the Imperial Conference when we find that they decline to send one ?

Senator STORY:

– That is another question. The reason why the Official Labour party did not enter into the Coalition has been so often threshed out that I do not ‘propose to deal with it again, but there is no doubt that the forthcoming elections are actually due, not to the fact that the Labour party in Parliament are unwilling to form a National Government, but to the fact that the bodies outside, which control every senator opposite, would not permit them to take any part in one. For that reason the Government during the last few weeks have been subjected in this chamber to the most unfair opposition that I have ever witnessed since I have been a member of the Senate.

Senator McDougall:

– Has the honorable senator never had any occasion to hold that there should be no Coalition between his party and any other party ?

Senator STORY:

– I admit there was a time when I did not believe in Coalition, and to-day I am not a supporter of a Coalition for any political reasons, or in order that I may retain my seat in the Senate. I am supporting the present Coalition because it seemed to me that the only possible way in which the Government of the Commonwealth could be carried on was by amalgamating the two parties who were anxious to carry on the

Government, and to do everything possible to win the war, and who believed that it was most inconvenient, and possibly unsafe, to have a general election for both Houses of Parliament at a time when perhaps the most tremendous events might be happening on the other side of the world, and something might have to be decided of immense moment to Australia. If no Parliament were in existence here at such a critical time, it might lead to very great loss to the whole of the people of Australia. It was because I believed that it was most improper to hold an election at the present time, and that the Government of Australia should continue in firm, reliable hands, that I, as a follower of Mr. Hughes, consented to join a Coalition with the Liberal party in this Parliament. That, in my opinion, is the only possible excuse for a coalition of political parties. The Labour party as I knew it when I” was returned to this House, over two years ago, no longer exists. The freedom which members of the Labour party always possessed has been entirely taken from them. Members of the Official Labour party in the Federal Parliament, as well as in the Parliaments . of the States, have conceded to the councils and the leagues outside the right to dictate to them what actions they should take in Parliament. I could not remain a member of any party in which that state of affairs prevailed. I should prefer to belong to a coalition party or a Liberal party, which was truly Liberal, rather than remain a member of a party in which I was absolutely robbed of my independence.

In foreshadowing the policy of the Official Labour party, Senator Gardiner pointed to what Labour had accomplished. The Labour party has certainly a noble record’ jui building up, which Senator Gardiner and I, as well as other members of the party, have assisted. But the honorable senator, as the Leader of the Official Labour party in this House, when asked what its policy is to be, merely points to the records of Labour, and says, “ Simply trust us ; we shall do something quite as good as we have done, but we shall not tell you what it will be.” The Official Labour party has already commenced to demolish the good work done by the Labour party of old. In addition to objecting to compulsory service outside Australia, a very important section of the Labour party outside Parliament has decided that compulsory service even -within Australia is also undesirable.

The result of the annual Labour conference held in South Australia in September last was so unsatisfactory that a special Labour conference was called in February last. At that conference a great deal of work was done. Every member of the Labour party who had advocated, and honestly advocated, conscription, or who had advised the people to vote “ Yes “ at the military service referendum was branded as disloyal to the Labour movement, as a traitor and a betrayer of the Labour cause. I hold that the real traitors to the cause of Labour are those who at present control the Official Labour party. The special conference held in Adelaide last February was packed justas the previous one had been by the industrialists who met before the conference to decide what their attitude should be on a number of important questions. They proposed to remove from the Statutes of the Commonwealth a measure with which, I believe, every member of the Federal Parliament has been proud to be associated. There are in the Senate to-day some who attended with me the Brisbane Labour conference of 1907, at which the plank of compulsory military service was first placed in the Labour platform. Every member of the old Labour party, I believe, assisted to give legislative effect to that plank. We have all been proud of our association with the passing of the Bill which provides for compulsory training in Australia. When the Liberals have claimed the honour of having brought about compulsory service in Australia, Labour men have waxed indignant, and have declared that Labour alone was responsible for the passing of so beneficent a measure. At the Adelaide Conference, in February, however, it was resolved, on the motion of Mr. Greely -

That it be an instruction to the delegates to the Perth Conference this year to move for the deletion of compulsory military and naval training from the Australian Labour party’s platform.

The South Australian delegates to the conference, therefore, will be directed and compelled to vote for the abolition of compulsory military and naval service in Australia. And this is the attitude of the Labour party which Senator Gardiner says is the same party to which I have belonged practically all my life. I have proved that it is not the same party - that it is something totally different. I have always been proud to call myself a Labour man. Long before I entered Parliament I advocated Labour principles, and have assisted to some extent to place upon the statute-book of this country those beneficent measures to which Senator Gardiner referred with so much pride last night as the work of the Labour party. Pointing to those measures the honorable senator says to the electors of Australia, ‘ ‘ You ask for the policy of the Official Labour party; look what we have done.” I am as proud as he is of what the Labour party has ac- complished. but I am so satisfied that the Labour .party, as at present constituted, is incapable of continuing to do such work - that it- will not be allowed to do it - that I am found on this side of the Senate to-day. During the whole thirteen years that I have had the honour to represent Labour in Parliament I have not cast a vote against a Labour measure. What is more, I have never shirked the responsibility of voting. I have always had the courage to vote “Yes” or “No.” During the whole of that period I have had full liberty to vote as my conscience and my intelligence have dictated upon all measures outside our platform. At the Adelaide Conference in February last, however, a resolution was moved by the same Mr. Greely -

That all resolutions carried at conference shall be binding on Labour members of Parliament.

In other words, a Labour man who is elected on a certain platform, who gives certain promises to his constituents, and who in Parliament possibly adopts a certain attitude in regard to measures outside the Labour platform is to be bound by resolutions carried at Conference. If, before a measure outside the party platform is disposed of, a Conference in the State which elects him to this House decides upon a course the apposite of that which his intelligence has led him to follow, then the Official Labour party as it now exists will compel him to go back on his own actions, and, so to speak, to eat his own words. Were I a member of a party which demanded from its members such a sacrifice I should be ashamed to hold up my head and to claim that I was a member of Parliament.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I propose to make a brief reply to the observations made by Senator Mullan regarding an incident that has been referred to more than once in connexion with the pairing of senators. Since I have acted as Whip for the present Government I have never asked for a pair, but have frequently been requested by the Opposition to grant pairs. As the members of our party were here ready to attend to the business of the Senate, we did not feel inclined to grant pairs, and so to bring about the defeat of Government business. So persistent, however, was the request for pairs by the other side that I was constrained at last to offer to pair Senator O’Loghlin with a member of their party. Before taking the liberty of pairing Senator O’Loghlin, who was outside Australia when the present Government was formed, and from whom therefore I had no direct authority, I took the opportunity of consulting his colleagues on the subject. I pointed out to them the urgent and persistent request for pairs coming from the Opposition, and asked for their guidance as to how Senator O’Loghlin would desire to be paired, and as to the side of the Senate in which he would sit if he were here. From the South Australian members of the party to which he belonged when he left here I learned that to the best of their knowledge he would support the Government.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– When I left we were all in the same party.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Quite so. The honorable senator had expressed himself as being with his colleagues at the last meeting which he attended before leaving Australia, and it was natural therefore to assume he would still be with them.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– A lot of things have happened since then.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is so. Senator O’Loghlin has travelled many miles since then, and we have also covered many political miles. His colleagues advised me as to what would probably be his attitude towards the present Opposition. They were anxious to assist me by giving me any information in their possession as to the probable attitude of Senator O’Loghlin towards the political parties which now exist. They told me that, just before the question of conscription arose, the Federal South Australian Labour members had met the executive of their organization, and discussed that matter, with the result that they had left that gathering with an understanding that on the conscription issue they would stand together.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Oh, no. As I showed in the letter which I read to the Senate this evening, I made my attitude on the question of conscription quite clear.

Senator DE LARGIE:

-Unfortunately I did not hear the honorable senator’s statement. At any rate, I am putting the position as between myself and his colleagues. They quite candidly intimated that they could not say what the honorable senator’s attitude on the question would be now. They could only tell me what it had been. Knowing that the honorable senator’s position had not been defined by himself, I was reluctant to pair him. Had I not been repeatedly approached by the other side, I would not have ventured to do so.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– I could not define my attitude on a position which arose months after I had left Australia.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The pairs were asked for, and I had reason to believe that the other side had no authority for pairing Senator Long on this question. I asked for their authority to pair him, but I never received proof that they possessed any.

Senator Gardiner:

– Had the honorable senator any reason to doubt it?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Having received no proof, I had every reason to doubt it.

Senator Gardiner:

– Did not the honorable senator offer, upon the floor of this chamber, to pair him with Senator O’Loghlin ? The honorable senator pretended to be in communication with Senator O’Loghlin.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I did nothing of the kind. That statement is as inaccurate as it is possible to be. I never gave the slightest hint that I was in communication with Senator O’Loghlin, and Senator Gardiner knows that. How could I communicate with him? How did I know where he was to be found ?

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– And I knew nothing of the position here, and consequently could not have given an answer if the honorable senator had communicated with me.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I have given an impartial statement of the position in regard to pairs. It will be seen, from what I have, said, that the charge made so recklessly by Senator Mullan this afternoon was quite unwarranted. I am sorry that, during this debate, statements have been made which have been contradicted time and again. It would be a mere waste of words on my part to repeat that contradiction. The National Labour party have made it quite clear what is their attitude, and why they were forced to take up that attitude. I am quite sure that every one of its members regretted the step which they were obliged to take, and took it reluctantly.. When the Caucus meeting was held which brought the position to a climax, I entered the Caucus room without the slightest feeling one way or the other. I do not say that I. am not as susceptible to political excitement as is anybody else. But, fortunately, I happened to be absent from Australia during the referendum campaign, and consequently I was able to enter the Caucus room free from the bitter feelings which that campaign had engendered. When we entered that room, we found that one of the greatest political outrages ever perpetrated in Australia was about to be inflicted upon the Prime Minister. I can claim as long an association with the Labour party as can any honorable senator opposite. Even before there was an organized Labour party I was associated with the election of the man who subsequently was responsible for the creation of the Labour party in Queensland. I refer to Mr. Glassey, the first Labour leader of the Queensland Labour party - that was in 1888. Coming down to the maritime strike, which most honorable senators will admit represented the starting point of the Labour movement in New South Wales, I was again actively associated, as an officer, in securing the return to parliament of a Labour man at the first election following that strike, being secretary of the Wallsend Labour League. I had been taking a very active’ part in that industrial trouble in a southern mining district of New South Wales. Probably there is no honorable senator present who took a more active part in it. . I was delegate for the Mount Kembla miners, from the start to the close of that great strike. So that my connexion with the Labour movement dates back nearly thirty years. During the whole of that period I do not hesitate to say there was never a greater outrage perpetrated on any member of the Labour party than the expulsion of Mr. Hughes by honorable senators opposite, for doing what he had a perfect right to do.

Senator Senior:

– Was he tried at all?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– He was never given the opportunity to defend himself in any shape or form. He was expelled for being a conscriptionist, which he had been for many years. Consequently, when he left the Caucus that day we resented the treatment which had been meted out to him.

Senator Gardiner:

– Why did not the honorable senator and his friends wait to hear the decision of the meeting.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I think that we did the proper thing.

Senator Millen:

– Had the honorable senators waited they would have given somebody the opportunity of kicking them out.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We left the meeting before we were kicked out. The foot was raised to kick us, and we thought it was about time to move.

Senator Gardiner:

– You deserved the kick.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– We deserved the kick for what ?

Senator Gardiner:

– We all knew that certain honorable senators were going to play the traitor.

Senator DE LARGIE:

Senator Gardiner says they all knew that we were going to play the traitor to the party. Surely he has a greater regard for the true use of words than that ! We left the room because of the outrage which was about to be perpetrated on the Leader of the Labour party. Every one of those who quitted the Caucus meeting was equally guilty with Mr. Hughes of the crime for which he was about to be expelled. , As a matter of fact, Senator Pearce rose and told the meeting that if there was any justification for expelling the Prime Minister, he himself was equally guilty.

Senator Gardiner:

– Was there any proposal to expel Mr. Hughes ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– There was a proposal to expel him from the leadership. He had already been expelled from the movement by the Labour organizations of New South Wales. Is not that the absolute truth? He had already been removed from the movement, so far as the organizations of New South Wales could remove him, and the final touches were about to be put to their . unscrupulous action by honorable senators opposite, although they knew that he had a perfect right to do what he had done. Had I permitted that outrage to be inflicted on the Prime Minister I would have been inviting the same treatment myself.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the party has a perfect right to change its chairman ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do, but the party should have a proper reason for so doing, and I hold that the Labour party had not sufficient justification for doing what it intended to do that day. There is no precedent, so far as I know, in connexion with any policy, past or present, of the Labour party that could give justification for what Mr. Finlayson’s motion proposed on that occasion. Those present were so indifferent to the interests of Mr. Hughes and the rest of us, that they would not waste any words on the motion. In the most brutal and callous way I have ever known this motion was moved, and in the briefest of terms Mr. Finlayson, sitting down, said, “ We have come here with our minds made up, and there is no use saying anything in support of it ; let us get to business.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Is it not a fact that Senator O’Keefe and Mr. Charlton moved separate amendments’?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– They suggested amendments, certainly.

Senator Gardiner:

– Were their minds made up?

Senator DE LARGIE:

-I do not think that those gentlemen had their minds made up, but they were in a most insignificant minority.

Senator Gardiner:

– How do you know ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– By the manner in which their propositions were received - it was “ as plain as a pikestaff.”

Senator Pearce:

– They got no support.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– They got no support worthy of the name. The whole thing, just as Mr. Finlayson said, was cut and dried; all had come with their minds made up. Yet we have gentlemen here trying to wriggle and twist out of their responsibilities. Is that honorable of those gentlemen? If they thought it the right and proper thing to do, why do they not take the responsibility in a straightforward way? If I proposed the expulsion of Senator Gardiner, or anybody else, from an organization, I should be honest enough to afterwards take the full responsibility, and say that I believed that what I had proposed was right.

Senator Gardiner:

– If Mr. Hughes had waited I would have taken the responsibility; but it was a fixed plan to break up our party.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– There were many dumb members of the Caucus on that occasion. Honorable senators opposite will admit that when an important question is discussed, in Caucus, there is great difficulty, owing to the large number of members present, in getting an opportunity to speak. On that occasion, however, the fathers of the proposal sat away at the far end of the room, and no expressions could be dragged from them. I do not know whether that was due to the fact that they wanted the business done quickly, whether they were ashamed of what they were about to do, or whether they desired to remove themselves as far as they could from responsibility, but never, in all my experience in the Caucus in the last sixteen years, have I seen so many dumb members.

Senator Gardiner:

– Was that not an indication that they were waiting to see what Mr. Hughes would do?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It was not until no other member attempted to speak that Mr. Hughes himself was obliged to address himself to the motion.

Senator Gardiner:

– A few minutes ago you said he was not allowed to speak.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That was in reply to an interjection by Senator Senior, who asked whetherthe New South Wales organization had given him a trial before he was expelled. It was only when apparently none of those who were prepared to act the part of executioners would say a word on behalf of their attitude, that Mr. Hughes, who was naturally anxious to see what was behind this thing-

Senator Gardiner:

– Do you not think that, as Mr. Hughes was Leader of the party, the other members were perhaps waiting for a lead from him to bring about a reconciliation?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– What “ lead “ was it possible for Mr. Hughes to give under such circumstances? He was being tried for being a conscriptionist, as if that were a crime, and he was being condemned because he had taken a certain attitude in regard to that policy. It is true that other matters were dragged in. It was said that during the campaign he had spoken of members of the Labour organization as he should nob have spoken; but will any one say that Mr. Hughes was expelled by the Labour organization of New South Wales for such utterances? Certainly not, because his expulsion by the organization occurred before the campaign began; and he could not be expelled then for what occurred afterwards.

Senator Gardiner:

– He was expelled for going against the decision of the executive in a duly organized conference in regard to conscription.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It was for the heinous offence of being a conscriptionist. Is it urged that he had no right to be a conscriptionist? If honorable senators will candidly say so, then we have a clearcut issue, bub they shirk the responsibility. They further venture to say that Mr. Hughes had nob a perfect right to propose a referendum, although that is a very old-established principle of the Labour party. How could he be expelled from the organization for saying things in the general sense in which they were said ? I have read as many of his utterances as possible, and, so far as I can understand them, they have to be twisted and tortured in order to give them the meaning attached to them by gentlemen opposite. I have yet to learn why references on the public platform to bribery, the Industrial Workers of the World, and other matters should be taken by honorable senators as references to themselves, especially as these references were made by a member of their own party.

Senator Gardiner:

– Did I not quote him as saying that leading members of the Labour party were associated with the Industrial Workers of the World?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Will Senator Gardiner say that Mr. Hughes ever attempted to say that he or any other gentlemen on the Labour side in this chamber or elsewhere was connected with the Industrial Workers of the World?

Senator Gardiner:

– He made speech after speech, in which he mentioned leading members of tie Labour party in that connexion.

Senator Needham:

– He said that members of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party, who were opposed to him, were associated with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I should like to hear Mr. Hughes before I would believe that.

Senator Needham:

– You were present when I faced Mr. Hughes with the charge.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– You did nothing of the kind in my presence.

Senator O’Keefe:

– If you had been in Tasmania, and were an anticonscription.ist, and had heard what Mr. Hughes said, you would have taken the same attitude that I and others took because of his reference to members of the Labour party.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am satisfied that he did not say what has been suggested about gentlemen sitting here or in another place. He may have referred in general terms to men who are in or associated with the Labour party. To-night Senator Story has shown that men connected with the Industrial Workers of the World occupy prominent positions in the Labour organization.

Senator O’Keefe:

– You were not here.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am not talking about what happened when I was not here, but of what has been mentioned by Senator Story. Will Senator O’Keefe say that, at the present time in New South Wales, there are not men selected as Labour candidates who a few years ago were identified with the Industrial Workers of the World?

Senator O’Keefe:

– I know nothing about them.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Well, I do; and I challenge any man to contradict me.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I say that you are talking about things that happened when you were not here, and know nothing about.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I am talking about tilings that I do know something about. Mr. Hughes’ remarks were applicable to certain individuals that I have in mind.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– On the platform in Tasmania he deliberately associated Frank Anstey with the Industrial Workers of the World.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The whole of this trouble in the party is due to the fact that honorable senators allowed the executives to dictate to members of Parliament, after their election, how they should vote in this Parliament, or elsewhere. That was a fatal step. No outside body should have been allowed to dictate to the elected representatives how they should vote on questions before Parliament. Members should have had perfect freedom to vote as their conscience dictated. This assertion of authority by the executive marks the starting point in the most disastrous split that the Labour party has ever experienced. Members gave way when they should have stood their ground firmly and declared that the executives in Sydney, Melbourne, or elsewhere, had no right to dictate to them how they should vote on this question of conscription, or on the referendum. ‘ The referendum is a plank in the Labour platform, and, therefore, every member who voted against that plank must necessarily have violated one of the principles of the party. If there has been any violation of principle, it must be charged against the members who now sit opposite. They should have stood to their guns on the occasion referred to. Certainly, they would have had to face the executives, and no doubt would have had great difficulty in getting selection; but, even if they had gone down, they should have remained true to the principles upon which they had been elected, rather than allow any interference by the juntas or executives. Honorable members opposite now talk about their bravery in standing by the Labour party movement, and so forth; but if any honorable members can claim credit for courage in this respect, it is those on this side who dared to face their powerful organizations, and to vote as their conscience dictated, even when faced with expulsion for their actions.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Do you agree with the action of the Prime Minister in refusing to. allow the case against conscription to be put before the soldiers at the front? In other words, do you agree that the cable sent from Brisbane should have been censored ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– If what the honorable senator says is correct, then I do not agree with that action.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Well, the statement was made to-night, and Senator Pearce did not deny it. Do you approve of that action?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No; I do not. I hold that both sides had a perfect right to the same privileges in that referendum ‘ campaign.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I am glad we have got so much as that from you.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What right, any way, had the Premier of Queensland to send a cable?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The two sides to this question were represented by the Federal members and the Federal organizations, and they should have taken the responsibility of communicating with the soldiers at the front.

Senator Needham:

– The Premier of Queensland had just as much right as the Prime Minister to address a communication to the soldiers.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– But the Premier of Queensland had no right to interfere in Federal politics. The Labour party, by allowing this interference by the executives with members, are travelling the road that will surely lead to destruction. Democracy is threatened the moment a third party comes between the representatives of the electors and the platform upon which they were pledged before the electors. We cannot have a pure Democracy if we allow a third party to come between us and the people who returned us to Parliament. Who compose these executives or juntas ? No doubt there are amongst them many worthy, honest, and upright men. But who, in the name of common sense, gave them power to step between the elected and their duties to the electors? A Democracy cannot possibly live if we allow an executive - call it what we will - to interfere in that way. I would sooner be in the hands of the greatest despot in the world than in the hands of a junta, the members of which nobody knows. If we were under a despot, were he Kaiser or Emperor, there would be somebody to be held responsible. But the giving to a junta, two-thirds of the members of which are men who never go on the public platform, are unknown to the public, and have no responsibility, such power as honorable senators opposite have surrendered, was a deplorable exhibition of lack of backbone. I cannot believe that men who are well read and experienced in politics have not thought out the consequences. They have not acted through ignorance. They must have realized whither their actions were leading them, but they have not the courage to stand up and do the right thing at the right moment. If the seventy Labour members of this Parliament had presented a united front to the executive, and said, “ We have a perfect right to take whatever side we choose, and we shall not tolerate your interference in any shape or form,” we should have been acting properly, and the Labour party would have been solid to-day. There might have been a scrimmage in connexion with the forthcoming selection ballots, but it would have been far better to meet that trouble straight away than to surrender the rights of members of Parliament, as honorable senators opposite have done. I wish to touch briefly upon another aspect of the position to-day, and that is the lack of proper appreciation of the times in which we are living, and the responsibilities that rest upon a political party. It is obvious that honorable senators opposite fail to appreciate what a great war is, and the danger which surrounds their country. They fail to understand the necessity for a united Parliament, such as has been found necessary in every other country engaged in this war. In every Parliament of the Allies there is a National Government. We cannot believe that those nations formed National Governments without good and sufficient reasons. In the French and British Parliaments party differences are just as keen as in the Commonwealth Parliament, but conflicting party interests were reconciled or forgotten because of the paramount importance of the war above every other consideration. Almost from the beginning of this Parliament we had ample proof of the necessity for a National Government. The Labour party returned from the elections with an overwhelming majority in both Chambers, and we could have done almost anything we liked. Why, then, did we drop party legislation and shelve the six referenda questions which we were about to submit to the people!

Senator O’Keefe:

– Because the Premiers of all the States, including an honorable senator on the Government side, pledged themselves to induce their Parliaments to give the Federal Parliament the powers sought in those referenda proposals.

Senator EARLE:

– That is not a fact.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Will Senator Earle deny that he promised to do his best to get such a transfer of powers passed by the State Parliament?

Senator Earle:

– That is a different thing. Why did you not put it that way ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

-Whatever the arrangement made with the State Premiers, the old united Labour party assented to it, and its acceptance was undoubtedly the first step in the shelving of the Constitution Alteration Bills. We all know that there was a very good reason for taking that step. Many, if not the majority, of us recognised that there was nothing to be gained by submitting those questions to the people. We . admitted that it was a dangerous experiment, and that in war time it would be advisable to avoid a referendum if possible. But even if we did make a mistake by accepting the promise of the State Premiers, five out of six of whom were of the same political hue as the Federal Labour party ; even if those gentlemen did promise more than they were able to fulfil, there was no reason why the Federal Labour party, if we had thought the time opportune for party politics, should not afterwards have accepted its responsibilities, and proceeded with the submission of the questions to the people, instead of sheltering behind the State Premiers.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Federal party could not proceed with the referenda afterwards, because it had not the statutory majority in another place to carry them through.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The Labour, party had the necessary majority, but the submission of the questions to the people after the State Parliaments had failed to make the promised transfer of powers was never urged at any of our meetings.

Senator O’Keefe:

Mr. Hughes was Prime Minister, and we could not do any- ‘ thing without him.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Any excuse is good enough. As soon as I resume my seat and get a copy of Hansard, I am sure that I ‘will be able to convince Senator O’Keefe that he is wrong when he says that we had not the majority necessary to carry .the proposed constitutional amendments. He knows that even if we had not a statutory majority in another place, we had a statutory majority here. He knows that if the Constitution Amendment Bills had been put through the Senate twice it would not have been necessary for us to have a majority in the other place.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Will you believe me if I say that at a meeting of the Federal Labour Executive, at which two gentlemen in this Chamber were present, Mr. Hughes refused to proceed with the Bills? I proposed then to go on with them, and that was in January, after they had been dropped. Mr. Hughes then gave as his reason for refusing to go on with the Bills that we could riot get a statutory majority, and that statement was made in a room behind this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! It appears that my room is again being mentioned in debate. I thought that the meeting to which Senator O’Keefe has alluded was a confidential meeting. When he says that two members of the Senate were present, I say that I, as one of them, am not prepared to vouch for the accuracy of his statement.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– No matter what took place in any room in this building, or in the Caucus, or elsewhere, . Senator O’Keefe knows that we had a statutory majority here. He knows that if the Caucus party had decided that it should be done, we could have put the Bills through the Senate, because no provision in the Constitution, or want of numbers, could have prevented us.

Senator O’Keefe:

Mr. Hughes was the Prime Minister, and we could not do anything without his approval. If he had refused to advise the GovernorGeneral to refer the Bills to the people, we could not have done it.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The honorable senator is wrong again. I hold that any private member of the Senate could have introduced the Bills and carried them, provided that there was a statutory majority in favour of them. It was not necessary for the Prime Minister or any other member of the Cabinet to take any active part in putting them through the Senate.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Would not the Governor-General have had to accept the Prime Minister’s advice as he had done on a previous . occasion ? You know full well that he would.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Does the honorable senator say that the Prime Minister in any way indicated that he would show any hostility if we took that action ?

Senator O’Keefe:

– He refused to do what I wanted him to do at that Executive meeting.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Did the party allow such an outrage on its constitution and methods of doing business ? Did they tolerate that sort of thing ?

Senator O’Keefe:

– They had to tolerate it from that man.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It is simply ridiculous for the honorable senator to advance an argument of that kind. I know perfectly well the position which obtained before the Prime Minister went to England. The honorable senator knows that at one stage it was proposed to couple a seventh question with the referenda proposals, and that it met with considerable opposition for fear that it would be defeated with the other questions. There was far more concern shown about the defeat of the seventh question than about the fate of the six other questions.

Senator Bakhap:

– What was the seventh question?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not like to tell tales out of school.

Senator Bakhap:

– Let us have it. It is a national matter.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not like to give away a secret.

Senator GARDINER:

– The seventh question was a proposal to amend the Constitution so that the two Houses could go out simultaneously.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– As Senator Gardiner has made that statement, I will say that the seventh question related to a prolongation of the life of this Parliament, to which we have had a storm of opposition from honorable senators on the other side. Regarding Mr. T. J. Ryan’s interference with the referendum, I ask honorable senators to listen to this quotation from Hansard of the 19th December, 1916.

page 11401

QUESTION

REFERENDUM : ANZAC VOTE

Mr. FINLAYSON asked the Assistant Minister, representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Is it correct that a cablegram sent by the Honorable T. J. Ryan, Premier of Queensland, to the Agent-General for that State in London, conveying a message from the Anti- Conscription Campaign Committee to the Anzacs in Europe regarding the Military Service Referendum polling, was not allowed to be delivered ?
  2. By whose instructions was the cablegram withheld ?
  3. For what reason was the cablegram withheld ?
  4. Will the cost of the cablegram (?13 19s. 6d.) be refunded to the Anti-Conscription Campaign Committee ?

Mr. LAIRD SMITH. The following replies have been received from the Minister for Defence : -

  1. This evidently refers to a cablegram sent by P. j. McDermott, for Chief Secretary, Brisbane, addressed to the Agent-General for Queensland in London.
  2. The Deputy Chief Censor.
  3. Because it contained misleading and inaccurate statements, the publication of which would be an offence under War Precautions Regulation No. 28 (1), (a) and (b).
  4. The cable was indorsed “ Government Charge Account.” An arrangement is in existence whereby the unexpended cost of messages held by the Censorship may be refunded to the sender of such message.
Senator DE LARGIE:

– Evidently it was not Mr. Ryan who sent it. Honorable senators sitting opposite know that in connexion with any previous referendum the case for each side was presented by its leader. I do pot know exactly who could claim the leadership of the anti-conscriptionist side in Parliament; but surely the anti-conscriptionists could have made a representation to the Government, and asked that the precedent established on previous occasions should be followed ?

Senator O’Keefe:

– You do not- know the methods which were adopted through the censorship to stop our side of the case from being put.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I was not here at the time, and therefore I may be at a disadvantage. The Prime Minister of England said that the members’ of the Australian delegation to the Old Country had had opportunities in France and Britain to see and know things which no member of his Ministry had enjoyed. When I returned to Melbourne, and addressed myself to these matters, I was told by wiseacres, some of whom have never been’ out of the Commonwealth,’ that I did not know anything about what I was discussing. Let me say that the fate of the referenda questions proves that since the beginning of the war it has been utterly impossible for this Parliament to deal with anything in the nature of a party programme. Honorable senators opposite are aware that the Labour party had a majority in both Houses, and that if we desired to give effect to our party programme we could have done so. Why did we not do so? Will honorable senators contend that it was because we were untrue to our pledges, or for any reason of that kind? That will not be admitted, and honorable senators opposite must agree that the reason why we did not give effect to our party programme was that we were at war, and that party policies and programmes were entirely foreign to the circumstances of the times. To admit that is only to admit what has been the experience of every Parliament amongst the allied nations. It is to be regretted that honorable senators opposite did not take that lesson to heart. When they were invited to take their full share in the responsibilities of Government by the formation of a united party they refused the invitation. It was then necessary that two parties should combine to carry on the Government of the Commonwealth, because no one party in this Parliament possesses a majority in both Houses. By refusing the invitation to join in the formation of a National Government, I believe that my old colleagues in the Labour party lost a splendid opportunity to heal the breach between them and u’s. Had they accepted the invitation the proposal of the united Caucus for the prolongation of the life of the Parliament could have been carried, and by the time to which the life of the Parliament would have been extended, or by the time the war came to an end, the breach between honorable senators opposite and ourselves would have been healed. They have, however, decided to keep the wound open, and to go to the country and to fight for our scalps. If they think there is anything creditable in that they are welcome to any honour they may derive from it. I am personally prepared to take all the risks involved. I would sooner lose 100 seats than accept a seat here under the condition that I should cease to be master of my own conscience. That is the position as it presents itself to me. I make bold to venture into the realm of prophesy, and I say that the time will come when honorable senators opposite will recognise the great blunder they made in not standing by their colleagues on ‘this side at the time the split occurred. They will yet realize that they played the part of weaklings when courage was required to enable them to stand to their duty. I do not need any appeals from honorable senators opposite to fight the battle of the election fairly. I have never done otherwise. I hit as hard as I can in a political contest, but I never hit below the belt. Had the Labour party in Australia followed the splendid example of the Labour party of Great Britain, or of the Labour and Socialist parties of France, they . would have assisted to form a National Government, the split would never have occurred, and there would have been no occasion for the regrets which we have heard so much of to-night.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I wish to refer to an incident which occurred last night, in which the Deputy President, Senator Millen, and myself were concerned. My desire is to make it perfectly clear through the columns of Hansard t.hat I was not guilty of the charge levelled against me, and for which I was about to be suspended when, following parliamentary practice, and in deference to a request from the Chair, I withdrew a certain word I had used. The incident arose while Senator O’Loghlin was speaking about the soldiers’ vote taken on board the ship which he was in charge of. Senator Pearce interjected that some one on this side had said that the soldiers’ ballot was not secret. I interjected, in reply, “ Why does not the honorable senator name the man who said it? “ Senator Millen then said, “ Why are you not definite when you make a charge ? “ I then said to Senator Millen, “ If you say that I made a charge against yourself or Senator Pearce, it is a lie.” Senator Millen objected to what he regarded as an offensive statement, and the Deputy President, Senator Henderson, said that, he had heard me say, “ He is a liar.” On that he called upon me to withdraw my statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am afraid that the honorable senator is not in order in proceeding on these* lines. The Standing Orders provide that if any exeception is taken to a ruling of the President or Chairman, it must be taken at the time that the ruling is delivered, and, if exception is not then taken to it, an honorable Senator is not in order in referring to the ruling later. I was not present in the chamber when the incident to which Sena tor Needham refers occurred, so I have no personal knowledge of what took place. The standing order is explicit that, if exception is taken to a ruling of the President, Deputy President, or Chairman, it must be taken at the time, and is not open to discussion afterwards. Whilst the honorable member is entitled to make a personal explanation in the matter, he is not entitled to debate the ruling to which he objects.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no wish to debate the ruling at all. It is really a personal explanation that I am making. I informed the Deputy President at ten minutes to 12 o’clock last night that I intended to make the statement which I was proceeding to make when you interrupted me. I was about to say that I had not used the word “ liar “ which the Deputy President accused me of using. He afterwards qualified his statement somewhat by saying that I had used the word “lie.” It was because it was suggested by the Deputy President that I had used the word “liar,” and that would appear in Hansard, that I challenged his statement. I withdrew the words I had used for the time being, and asked Senator Millen to state his’ case. He did not do it. I eventually withdrew the word “ lie,” which I did use in the sense I have described. I told the Deputy, President the sense in which I used the word. He ought not to have said that I used the words, “ He is a liar,” and I ask you, Mr. President, to see that the words he used, and which he afterwards qualified, are expunged from the records of Hansard.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I take this opportunity of referring to a matter that arose a few minutes ago, when Senator de Largie was speaking. He was referring to the fact that the proposal to take a referendum of the people on the several alterations of the Constitution had been abandoned or postponed by the Labour party because the leaders of all the State Governments had agreed at a Conference, held in Melbourne towards the end of 1915, to submit to their respective Parliaments proposals to hand over to the Federal Parliament voluntarily the powers which we proposed to ask the people to give to us by alterations of the Constitution. Practically all the members of the Labour party, as it was then constituted, agreed t”hat this would he .far the better course to pursue than to have a referendum on such a matter at that particular time. In a little while, however, it was found that some of the State Parliaments refused to honour the promises made by their leaders, and at a meeting of the Federal Executive of the Labour party, held in January, 1916, a short time prior to the departure of Mr. Hughes for England, the question cropped up. That Executive, which was appointed by the InterState Labour Conference held in Adelaide in the previous year, consists of two representatives from each State. At the meeting referred to it was stated that the Labour party had been sold by the State Parliaments, and the Executive had to consider whether the Labour party should again submit the proposed alterations of the Constitution to the people at another referendum. I suggested that the party should go on with their proproposals to hold a referendum, seeing that they had merely been postponed for the time being, but Mr. Hughes, who was on the Executive, plainly stated that it was impossible for us to take that course, because Bills for the alteration of the Constitution would require to be passed in both Houses by statutory majorities.

Senator de Largie:

– Not in both Houses.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator is probably talking about a different matter, upon which I shall touch a little later. Before any such Bill could pass the House of Representatives it must be agreed to by more than half the total number of honorable members in that Chamber, but we did not have that number of honorable members of the Labour party available in another place. Two honorable members of the party had gone to the front, and though they were paired on ordinary business with two honorable members of the Liberal party, that fact was ineffective in this particular case, seeing that thirty-eight honorable members were needed to cast their votes in favour of a Bill proposing to alter the Constitution to give it the statutory majority required. In addition to these two honorable members, we knew that ‘Mr. Wise would not vote for these Bills if they were brought forward again. Mr. Hughes showed clearly that it would be impossible to get the. necessary Bills through the House of Representatives, even if Parlia ment had been called together hurriedly for the purpose, or even if Parliament were to sit. during his absence from the Commonwealth. Of course, we realized that we had more than a statutory majority in the Senate which would agree to the Bills, but the measures would have to’ go through both Houses to become law.

Senator de Largie:

– No.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am aware that there was an alternative. If one House passed the Bills and the other House did not, the Governor-General, on the advice of his Ministers, could submit them to the people, but Mr. Hughes was Prime Minister, and if he refused to advise the Governor-General to take that step, who else could advise him to do sol

Senator de Largie:

– Is the honorable senator insinuating that Mr. Hughes would refuse to advise the GovernorGeneral in the way that the party desired ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I am not insinuating anything, I am making a clear, straightout statement as to what took place at that meeting of the Federal Executive. Parliament was not sitting at the time, and no Caucus meetings were being held. Mr. Hughes deliberately stated that it was impossible to get these Bills through, because we could not secure a statutory majority in both Houses. He was going to England, and he was not in favour of taking this course. That being so, it was impossible to submit the Bill to the people in the way suggested. Senator de Largie has said that there was an alternative course - that the Bills could have been passed by the one House, and then submitted to the people by the GovernorGeneral at the request of the Prime Minister.

Senator de Largie:

– Was the honorable senator in favour of their submission to the people ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Yes.

Senator de Largie:

– Then why did hot the honorable senator bring the proposal before our party ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– As I have explained, the Parliament was not then in session, and we were* not holding Caucus meetings.

Senator de Largie:

– I heard the report of the Western Australian delegation, and it contained no reference to the statement just made by the honorable senator.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– It may not have dealt with the whole of the business. I give the honorable senator my assurance, and I am sure he will not accuse me of telling a lie.

Senator de Largie:

– Hear, hear.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The President will bear out my statement that the matter was discussed at the meeting of the Federal Labour Executive to which I have referred, and that Mr. Hughes was not in favour of submitting the questions to the people- he did not think it would be wise to submit them at that time. Had our Leader been agreeable, we could have submitted them to the people notwithstanding that we had not a statutory majority in both Houses. We could have passed the Bills through the Senate, where we had a majority, and they could then have been submitted by the Governor-General to a referendum of the people. The GovernorGeneral, however, could have adopted that course only on the advice of his Ministers. Mr, Hughes was at the head of Hie Excellency’s advisers, and no other man was entitled to advise him on the subject. Seeing that Mr. Hughes considered it would be unwise to submit the Bills to the people at that time, we were therefore absolutely powerless to take the alternative course which the honorable senator has suggested. Senator de Largie asked why the party had not insisted on the submission of the proposed amendments of the Constitution to the people when it was found that the State Governments had broken the promises made by their leaders. My answer to that inquiry is that for the reasons I have just mentioned, it was impossible to submit them. Mr. Hughes was not favorable to the alternative course which the honorable senator has suggested. As a matter of fact, he was going to London, and, I dare say, did not desire the . referendum fight to occur in his absence. This, then, was ohe of the reasons why the proposed referenda was not proceeded with, and it was a very good reason. Senator de Largie was under a misapprehension in stating that we had a statutory majority in both Houses. He had, perhaps, forgotten for the moment that our statutory majority in the House of Representatives had disappeared at the time in question. When ‘ the Bills ‘were first passed, we had such a majority, but at this particular time we had not, because one, if not two, of our party were not in their places.

Senator Russell:

– And. the remaining one who represented our constitutional majority handed in his resignation; yet there was no charge of corruption.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That is so. I am glad of the honorable senator’s interjection. It supports my statement that our statutory majority in the House of Representatives has disappeared so that, although but a few months before we had a big majority in both Houses, it was absolutely impossible to pass the Bills through both branches of the Legislature. I should not have intervened, but for the desire to make this statement, which I felt was necessary as the result of the exchanges which passed between Senator de Largie and myself. I had no intention of revealing anything that ought not to have been disclosed. After all, it is really a matter of no concern to-day since we have a new Federal Executive, and practically everything that happened at the Caucus meetings since then has been revealed.

Senator de Largie:

– Will the honorable senator explain why the Labour’ Government did not proceed with the other planks of the platform which they put before the electors?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator invites me to open up a very big question with which I could not deal in less than an hour. It would serve no useful purpose, and I do not feel inclined to enter into the whole subject at this stage. Senator de Largie will have to place his views before the electors of his State, and I shall be putting my views as well as I can before the electors of my State. We shall then have ample opportunity to deal with the whole subject, and as I am anxious that the Supply Bill should be carried as soon as possible, I shall not further detain the Senate.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– While reclining on this rather comfortable seat, thinking of the gleams of morning sunshine coming over the hilltops to gladden the dull hours, I was reflecting whether we, as a duly elected body, the highest council of the nation, were fully seized of the importance and the far-reaching effects attaching to the present situation. We here in Australia are still enjoying a security that no other warring nation possesses today. There are a number of our men who are not comfortably situated as we are this morning, and whose conditions are quite the reverse of ours. They do not possess, as we do, well-cared-for bodies, and at this very hour of- the morning they are probably coming out of rainsoaked or frozen trenches. They are a part of the family of our nation, and I am afraid that many persons are altogether too forgetful of the position of these men, and of what they are fighting for. It is because I believe that too many persons in our midst are entirely oblivious of the fact that Australia is at war, and of what our men at the front are doing, that I seek to arouse them from their slumber, and to make them realize that Australia is at war, and should therefore act as a warring nation. Because I recognised the situation from the inception, and because I shaped a course, not this year or last year, but from the very beginning of action which would lead to Australia -being placed in a right position, I have made myself unpopular, have become the victim of very bitter feeling, and have made myself an outcast from the party to which I have belonged for twenty-five years. My own opinion is that I am more staunch to the principles of that party than is any other man in the Senate or outside of it. But I have long since flung all party issues behind me, because I recognise that the safety and security of this country transcend everything which can fall within the compass of party politics. Why did I adopt that course? May I put it this way for the moment. This country would still be very much in my debt if my services, since I landed here thirty years ago, were assessed on a truly cash basis. But I am not going to put the matter on that sordid basis. I have to remember that I am living in Australia, which was the dream of my youth, a place which I longed to reach because I did not then enjoy the liberty which I am enjoying to-day. I landed here without any pretentions other than to earn my livelihood as a unit of society. But without any effort on my part to get a place in the councils of the nation, I suddenly found myself being pushed to the front by my comrades in Western Australia. The result was that I became the elect ot the people there in the State Legislature, and later on, for what I am worth, in this Parliament. I repeat that the position was not one of my own seeking, but was the outcome of the manifest desire of those who knew me best. I would have to be less than grateful, less than a rational being if I did not properly assess the opportunities which obtain here in Australia, and if I were not duly thankful for those opportunities, notwithstanding that if my services were appraised on a strictly cash basis, this country would still owe me something. But the very fact that one is able to rise, as I and scores like me have risen, fills me with a just appreciation of this glorious, free, and unexampled Australia. That is why I am prompted to place the safety of this country above all minor and internal domestic considerations.

There is only one party for me,’ one policy, and one plank in that policy, namely, to win the war. After I had announced that in the most public way to the electors of my State, the miners of North Coolgardie chose me as their duly-accredited mouthpiece, and sent me to the Labour Conference in Melbourne to represent the’ cause of Labour. I entered that Conference, and, by all the rules of its constitution, I was entitled to stop there till the close of its deliberations. But the party which comprised a majority of that gathering took it upon themselves in the most unconstitutional way to expel me. I told them that, although I was duly accredited to that gathering, I could serve no useful purpose by remaining, and consequently I retired. Nevertheless I am still a member of the Labour party, and a member of that section of it in Western Australia which has counted for something in the past. I represent the miners of North Coolgardie, who, after I was expelled, still desired to’ retain me as their trusted nominee.

So much by way of a brief summary of how I came to put national concerns above all petty, paltry concerns, and to persist in that course of action until I was, in the words of these newfound prophets of freedom and Democracy “ expelled.” What I was expelled for has not yet been clearly defined. According to the logic of the party which met in conference’ at the Trades Hall I was expelled because I had violated a principle of the Labour party. Senator Pearce has since been expelled, as have all the senators who stand with me, excepting Senator Needham. Mr. Spence, Mr. Hughes, and others met the same fate, and have also been expelled on the ground that they have violated a principle of the Labour platform. Now a principle, if it be a principle, should obtain, not in one particular arc of the compass, but all round.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will you give the full resolution on which you were expelled, and not quibble with words?

Senator Millen:

– If they are not expelled are they free to go back?

Senator GARDINER:

– They were expelled for setting up a new party as against the old one. There is another part of the resolution, and Senator Lynch is referring only to that.

Senator LYNCH:

– I was expelled because I supported Mr. Hughes, who, in turn, had been expelled because he’ advocated conscription; and I contend that I was expelled on unconstitutional grounds. If there is a Labour principle, it ought to prevail as such throughout the whole world of Labour; but this alleged principle is sacred in some of the States, semisacred in others, and no principle at all elsewhere. I was not expelled on account of my advocacy of conscription, because in Western Australia we were given a free hand by the highest council of labour, namely, the Labour Congress at Kalgoorlie. In the eastern States, however, men were expelled from the party on the very question on which I was given a free hand; and I again submit that if there is a clear and well-defined principle of labour it ought to prevail all over, and not partly through the Commonwealth. The least we expected from our late colleagues was that they should show some tolerance; but it was their intolerance, their tyranny, their unwillingness to allow me and mine to hold opinions we are entitled to hold as members of a free Democracy that has caused the unbridgable gulf that exists to-day, and will continue to the bitter end.

To-day Senator Gardiner said, in reply to myself, that he had upheld the principles of the Labour movement as a member of the Government. Now, Senator Gardiner was a member of the Government when the Military Service Referendum Bill was being put through, and he remained so until and after the Bill had been passed, and had become law. Apparently he thinks that his membership of the Government, and his advocacy of the measure, did not violate a Labour principle. I ask Senator Gardiner whether that is not so ? The honorable senator refuses to answer ; and, although he acted as I have said, as he admits, he claims that he never violated a Labour principle. What, then, becomes of those men in other States who, because they voted for the same measure, were regarded as violating a principle, and others who were told that if they dared to vote for it they would not be indorsed for election? The honorable member claims to be the best Labour man in the country.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have never made any such claim. I have never spoken of myself at all in regard to my qualifications as a Labour man.

Senator LYNCH:

– Perhaps it is just as well for the honorable senator to. put in a humble claim, and not a bold claim, as a Labour man.

Senator GARDINER:

– Put in correct records, and do not insinuate where .you cannot prove.

Senator LYNCH:

– While the honorable senator claims to be justified in the action he took as a member of the late Government, other men in Victoria and Queensland were being branded as “ rats “ and “ renegades “‘if they dared to vote for the same measure that he supported. This shows the position that has been created; and, in the place of that sweet reasonableness, which we have a right to expect, we have the ancient persecuting spirit still actuating men who masquerade in the name of Labour and Democracy. I have been branded, or an attempt has been made to brand me, as a traitor. Now, a traitor, in the common acceptance of the term, is a man who accepts or enjoys some office in return for turning on his principles.

Senator Gardiner:

– That was the immediate reward of your turning back !

Senator LYNCH:

– Let me remind the honorable senator that when I left the safety of the machine, which he was not game enough to leave, I faced risks, even to the extent of political extinction. Traitors are not made of such stuff ; while, in contrast, there are those who remain behind shivering, afraid to leave the machine on which their bread and butter depends. The Government of which I was a member, could have remained in office until September next, but we felt that if we did we should not be able to do the justice we desired to the country, to which we owe so much. We placed national interests above party and personal interests, and shaped our conduct accordingly; and for that we have been branded as traitors. No Democracy can ever stand such conditions in public life ; a Democracy that does tolerate such conditions deserves to be wiped out of existence. A Democracy that will penalize and persecute, as I and mine have been penalized and persecuted, is no Democracy, but a sham, a delusion, a snare, and unspeakable hypocrisy. As I have said, all we wanted was some manifestation of tolerance when there was such a wide diversion of opinion on a vexed and thorny question. It ought to have been recognised that what was right in the West could not be wrong in the East, and vice versa. But we found that what was right in New South Wales was wrong in Queensland and Victoria ; and in the face of this conflict as between State and State we had a persecution of those who dared to allow the voice of conscience to prevail. No Democracy, from the time of Plato, has ever tolerated such conditions, and if Democracy could tolerate them, I would say, “Away with Democracy, and let us have an Autocracy!” Anything in preference to a false Democracy where Democrats cannot live. Plato has wisely said that every Democracy has within itself the seeds of its own decay, and the. seed of decay in our Democracy is, I venture to say, that change which has lately made itself apparent in this country, and which is masquerading in the name of freedom. These men, of course, think otherwise, but I would point out again that the essence of Democracy is the right of the citizen units composing it to be free at all times, and especially in war time, to say and think what they . believe to be in the nation’s interest. That is what I conceive Democracy to be. Without that freedom we will have only a diluted form of Democracy or a variegated form of despotism; and despotism, as we know, is a state of society in which the people have to obey a single man acting in conjunction with a small privileged element of the community. A true Democracy, on the other hand, is, as the name implies, a rule of the people by the people, but how can we have this if some people are to be branded as traitors for expressing their opinion?

We, on this side, have expressed our opinion. We claimed that inalienable right as Democrats, and now we are branded as traitors, and are set up before our fellow men as “ rats “ and “ renegades.” It is a sad and a melancholy condition of affairs. Now, may I remind Senator Gardiner that it is just as well that, in his association with the Labour party, he does not claim to be a prominent Labourite. I do not want to make a comparison of what I have done for the Labour party, with what he has done, but I tell the Senate that I have spent months and months in every year away from my wife and family, and have spent many sleepless nights during the last twentyfive years in endeavouring to further the cause I have had at heart. I have spent months on strike, and if Senator Guthrie were here he would bear me out when I say that I never drew any strike pay. I was organizing labour in the western State, I Was in the firing line, and I got sacked over and over again for my association with the movement. That is unmistakable evidence of my sincerity for the cause with which I am still associated. Yet I am now to be labelled as a traitor. I say again it is just as well for Senator Gardiner not to claim to be a prominent Labourite of long standing, and I remind him that in the past he also has been called the names which he applies to us to-day. I have a high authority for my statement.

Senator Gardiner:

– Give us your authority.

Senator LYNCH:

– Those that have sinned need to be merciful because they mav fall again. I remind him that in 1914 a debate took place in this Senate in which he and ex-Senator Rae figured. The report of that debate will be found on page 1729 of Hansard of the 3rd June, 1914. Senator Oakes is my authority.

Senator Gardiner:

– The chief slanderer for the Liberal party.

Senator LYNCH:

– But I am not quoting his opinion. Senator Oakes was quoting the Daily Telegraph report of the 24th June, 1894, in which Senator Gardiner was reported to have made use of these words: -

He (Mr. Gardiner) denounced the pledge, saying that it had been drawn by traitors to the cause of Labour.

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear. Senator LYNCH. - Apparently there was some truth in it.

He denounced the pledge, saying that it bad been drawn by traitors to the cause of Labour, and declared that as soon as a representative pledged his responsibility to the Caucus, it cut the bond binding him tohis constituents. He condemned some members of the local Labour League-

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear.

Senator LYNCH:

– Evidently the re port was correct - who in obedience to the dictation of a Sydney clique had refused to recognise his candidature as a Labour candidate.

The report, I presume, was correct, and it proceeded to state-

Senator Gardiner:

– Do not read anything that might put the matter truthfully before theSenate.

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not want to lumber up Hansard.

Senator Gardiner:

– It might injure your case.

Senator LYNCH:

– If I cannot com plete my case by fair means I am not in the field.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am only asking you to read the quotation straight on. I stand by anything 1 have said.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is time, I think, that there was recognition in this Senate that members on this side have some sense of honour, and that we are here to play the game fairly. I will read the statement that appeared in the Forbes and Parkes Gazette, which reported Senator Gardiner as saying - tie had foreseen’ what was likely to be brought about by the solidarity pledge and at the risk of losing his seat and being branded as a traitor to the cause, he had fought determinedly against any attempt to shackle a representative and bind him down as to the manner in which he should record his vote. The speaker went on to refer in very severe terms to the so-called solidarity Labour party. The pledge had cost the Labour party sixteen seats. When they had men coming here and branding as traitors those who opposed the pledge it was a very bad state of things. A Mr. Kohn from the Central Labour Electoral League spoke for Mr. Hanney, the central Labour Electoral Candidate, and Mr. Gardiner, speaking of him, said, “ He had not intended to refer to him, but when he (Mr. Kohn) showed Mb hand so plainly it was time for the workers to consider whether they were going to. place their affairs in the bands of a clique of that description in Sydney.

Senator Gardiner, it seems, objected to be ruled by a clique ill Sydney.

Senator Gardiner:

– Hear, hear.

Senator LYNCH:

– And he refused to sign the pledge.

Senator Gardiner:

– I would never sign that pledge. You read it. Be fair.

Senator LYNCH:

– Well, this is the pledge Senator Gardiner refused to sign: -

  1. That a Parliamentary party to be of any weight must give a solid vote in. the House upon all questions affecting the Labour party, the fate of the Ministry or calculated to establish a monopoly, or confer further privilege’s on the already privileged class as they arise.
  2. Thataccordingly every candidate who runs in the Labour interest should be required to pledge himself not only to the fighting platform and the Labour platform but also to vote on every occasion specified in clauseAasa majority of the Labour party in caucus decide.
Senator Gardiner:

– If they introduced that pledge to-morrow I would refuse to sign it.

Senator Pearce:

– But you are bound by it.

Senator Gardiner:

– We are elected on the platform.

Senator Pearce:

– Instead of being bound by the Caucus, you are bound by the State executives.

Senator Gardiner:

– We are bound by the platform only.

Senator Millen:

– Where is anticonscription on your platform?

Senator Gardiner:

– It was carried at the New South Wales Conference in 1916.

Senator LYNCH:

– Here is the pledge by which members are bound in its present form–

I hereby pledge myself not to oppose the candidate selected by the recognised political organization, and, if elected, to do my utmost to carry out the principles embodied in the Australian Labour platform, and on all questions affecting the platform to vote as a majority of the Parliamentary party may decide at a duly constituted caucus meeting. I further . pledge myself not to retire ‘ from the contest without the consent of the Executive of the Political Labour League of New South Wales.

What is the essential difference between the pledge which Senator Gardiner refused to sign and that which he now signs?

Senator Gardiner:

– The one which I now sign pledges me to the platform only.

Senator LYNCH:

– At the time to which I refer the Labour party stood for a policy that compelled its adherents to sign a pledge. Senator Gardiner refused to sign that pledge, and, therefore, was found in open rebellion against the party.

Senator Gardiner:

–In open rebellion against the clique that tried to enforce the pledge.

Senator LYNCH:

– The manifesto issued by the Central Labour League on that occasion’ stated -

The Central Executive takes this opportunity of putting you on your guard against bogus Labour candidates. All the genuine men who are selected by the Labour League and running in the interests of Labour are enumerated below.

Senator Gardiner:

– Who issued that? Senator LYNCH. - The manifesto was issued over the signature of J. C. Watson, the president of the Central Labour League at that date, and it described as traitors Senator Gardiner and the men who stood by him. That was the finding of the Labour party of the day. The manifesto continued -

Vote against the treacherous miscreants who at this critical hour are attempting to ruin the Labour cause by masquerading in the guise of its friends.

During the course of the debate from which I have already quoted, Senator Oakes said -

That manifesto was issued over the signature of Mr.’ J. C. Watson, president of the Central Labour League . of that day. I think I have conclusively proved, in reply . to Senator Needham’s challenge; that both Senator Gardiner and Senator Bae at the time of which I speak were supporters of Mr. Joseph Cook.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– He was a Labourite at the time.

Apparently Senator Bae was in the chamber, and heard Senator Oakes say that neither he nor Senator Gardiner was in the certified list of duly accredited Labour men, but both were in the list of traitors and miscreants who wished to bring about the downfall of the Labour party in New South Wales. For ex-Senator Rae I have respect still, but as a -Labourite he was not- spotless in his early political career, according to the manifesto of the Labour party of the day, signed by Mr. J. C. Watson, against whom not much has been said, although he, too, is under suspicion. These extracts should remind Senator Gardiner that those who live in glass houses and sin should be merciful. I will not allow them, to taunt me and the men who stand with me, and try to -lower me in the eyes of my fellow-men, who still confide in me. They must not expect me to turn - my cheeks alternatively without taking the opportunity to . hit back as severely as I can. My disposition is not of that kind. I am not envious or bitter, and to-morrow I will meet’ my accusers in open converse’ outside the chamber and forget all about our differences. But when a systematic effort is made to blacken the characters of men on this side, the fact is worth recalling, even at this date, that the reputations of our accusers have been already blackened by the Labour party of New South Wales.

I had some intention of Bpeaking further on the situation of the day by way of showing that all this hostility, bitterness, and bad blood can be traced to more than one source. In one State the bad feeling has one cause, in another State a different cause. In the western State we were given a free hand in regard to this vital issue of conscription. We have a free hand still. Had the Labour representatives of the other States insisted. on the same freedom, and taken their place in the van of the Labour movement in their respective States, we should have a wholesome Labour opinion to-day. This reminds me that Senator Barnes was characteristically candid enough to admit that the Labourites on this side have not violated a principle of the Labour platform.

Senator Barnes:

– I did not say that.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Leader of the Senate called attention to the statement immediately, and Senator Barnes did not object when he was quoted as having said that the Labourites on this side had not violated a principle of the- Labour platform, but rather had violated the spirit of the movement.

Senator Barnes:

– I did not say that, nor did Senator Millen say that I had.

Senator LYNCH:

– If the honorable senator disavows that statement I will allow it to pass. What was the genesis of the evil with which we are confronted to-day, and how many roots has it? In Western Australia the evil has had no origin, or, if it has, theroots have been transplanted there only very recently, because Western Australia is a tolerant State.Whilst we who believed in conscription had charge of the State Executive, and could pass any resolutions we chose, we had as president Mr. Doland, and as secretary Mr. Clemenson, both of whom were strong anti-oonscriptionists. There was no attempt on our part to expel them. We never dreamt of taking such a course, although we were strong enough to force them out of the movement if we had so desired. That shows that Western Australia stands on a higher altitude than any other State so far as the treatment of opponents on this issue is concerned. Did the same thing happen in Victoria, Queensland, or New South Wales? No. What happened there, and what is on record is that we soon saw the last of any prominent man who dared to advocate conscription. These people put anti-conscription before Labour principles, as I propose to prove. These men, who say that they cherish Labour principles most warmly, thought more of anti-conscription than of any vital or sacred Labour principle that they heard, knew, or understood. So far as the State of Queensland is concerned,

I am going to prove that the origin of this hostility is traceable not so much to a firm adhesion to Labour principles as to a bitter opposition to any man who advocated conscription. They elevated anti-conscription again far higher than Labour principles. Here is my proof taken from the Brisbane Daily Standard of the 7th December, 1915 ; that is, before the Wide Bay election took place. This newspaper, I understand,, circulates as the official mouth-piece of the Labour party, and here let me enter a protest against ; the gross unfairness of Labour journalism -towards Labour men, including myself. I ask honorable senators to listen to the report which appeared in the Daily Standard on the date namedThere was no hesitancy of opinion displayed by the delegates of the Brisbane Industrial Council at the special meeting held last night to consider what action the unionists of Brisbane, should take in regard to the attitude of thePrime Minister (Mr. Hughes) towards recruiting.

There was a good attendance of delegates, and the council was unanimous in condemning the insidious scheme of semi-compulsory recruiting as promulgated by the Federal Government.

The president (Mr. A. Skirving), on opening the meeting, stated that the executive of the council had endeavoured to arrange an interview with Mr. Hughes last week on his passing through Brisbane; en route to Maryborough, -but the Prime Minister did not stop in Brisbane, and so rendered that impossible. He was, however, in receipt of a wire- from Mr. W. Finlavson, M.H.R., notifying the council that Mr. Hughes would meet a deputation of three, representing the Industrial Council, on his return next Wednesday from Wide Bay.

Insult to Workers

Mr. Hansen (Plumbers) considered that immediate and drastic action should be taken by the council in order to prevent this unautho rized system of so-called recruiting being used to coerce the workers. It was an insult to the workers to give local governing bodies the power that was given to them under this scheme to obtain soldiers. These* same local governing bodies opposed the suffrage for the workers, and always fought most strenuously against all efforts to bring about that reform, but they were prepared to use their power and machinery in order to force men, whom they denied votes, into the army - and the Government was helping them. Unless Mr. Hughes repudiated the objectionable clauses in the recruiting scheme, he thought that the unionists of the Wide Bay electorate should be advised not to vote for the Labour candidate nextSaturday.

Towards Conscription

Mr. Axelsen (Baking Trade) said that the scheme was. a strong move towards conscription. The Federal Government would not openly advocate conscription, because it knew that the workers throughout Australia would then, disown it. Mr. Hughes was to a great extent engaged in a game of bluff, but if that bluff was successful he would go still further. He (the speaker) considered that they should go back to their various unions and recommend to them the course they should take. They must take drastic action, and be on the alert. It seemed to him that there was only one possible course to pursue. The Prime Minister was speaking for himself, not for the party, and it was high time the workers understood that.

Progressive Carpenters

Mr. Anzelark (Progressive Carpenters) said it was time for the workers to act. Already employers and Governments alike were discharging single men, which was a most cowardly form of conscription. Despite the frantic efforts of the war-mongers to smother the news all over the world there was a big demand on the part of the workers that this insensate strife should stop, and the workers of Australia, in common with the workers . of all other, countries, should stand up and determine to kill the militarism of the conscriptionist.

Wide Bay at Stake.

It was also resolved unanimously : - “ That, in the event of Mr. Hughes’ replies to the deputation not being deemed satisfactory by the council, wires be immediately despatched to the various centres and press of the Wide Bay electorate, recommending that all workers abstain from supporting the Labour candidate.”

The three principal speakers declared that unless they got a special pledge from Mr. Hughes on one issue Labour principles and the Wide Bay electorate would go overboard. Such are the Labourites of the latter day. ‘ The Leader of the Opposition has, on more than one occasion, twitted Labour members on this side of the Senate with having left the Labour party because they refused to abide by the decision of a dulyconstituted meeting of the party, the meeting he alluded to being one at which a motion had been rigged up to depose Mr. Hughes from the leadership. Senator Gardiner should have told the whole truth on this matter, because the beginning of the movement which caused the disruption of the Australian Labour party goes much farther back than that. It goes back as long ago as the latter part of the year 1915, at the time when an election contest was taking place in the Wide Bay electorate, following on the resignation of Mr. Fisher from that seat. While that contest was being waged a resolution was passed by the Brisbane Industrial Council to the effect that if Mr. Hughes, who was then Prime Minister, did not pledge himself against conscription that council would advise the electors of Maryborough to vote against the Labour candidate for the Wide Bay seat - thus early showing that that council was prepared to scab on the Australian Labour movement if it did not get its own way in that particular matter. The report of the proceedings of the Brisbane Industrial Council published in the Brisbane Labour papers at that time showed that the moving spirits, in getting that resolution passed by the council, were three men named Anzelark, Axelsen, and Hansen. The mere recitation of these three names is a sufficient indication of the kind of influence that was behind the genesis of the anti-conscription movement.

Senator LYNCH:

– The report I quoted is taken from the Brisbane Daily Standard, the Labour party’s own newspaper. I do not know whether any anticonscriptionist in this building is a true Labourite in the proper sense of the term. I will say no more about this matter than that the three spokesmen, with the remarkable names I have quoted, were influential in getting the resolution passed long before the Government wedded themselves to the Military Service Referendum Bill. These three men said that the price of their support of Mr. Hughes was that he shouldgive certain pledges, and if he did not, away would go the Wide Bay seat, and everything in the shape of a Labour principle. It is important to remember that Mr. Hughes was at that time the trusted leader of Senator Gardiner.

Senator Grant:

– And the Wide Bay seat did go.

Senator Millen:

– Then, presumably, these men carried out their threat.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Labour leagues of Victoria demanded that every member of the party pledged to Labour principles in the Federal Parliament should vote against conscription. Senator Russell has a pile of correspondence which he received on the subject, and he has already quoted from some of the letters here. The same may be said of honorable senators from Queensland. The Queensland members of the Labour party in this Parliament received the command on pain of decapitation not to dare vote for that cherished plank of the Labour platform, the referendum.

Senator Pearce:

– Not at that stage.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so. In the meantime the party in Victoria sent the same instructions to Victorian representatives of Labour.

Senator Russell:

– They went further than that here, because they ordered Ministers out of the Government.

Senator LYNCH:

– The question of conscription was one which either affected the . platform of the party or it did not. If it did not, then no one. had the right to claim any pledge from any Labour member on the matter. If, as the Leagues claimed, it was a question vitally affecting the Labour movement, then the fact of the Victorian leagues and council demanding and receiving such a pledge from their representatives prevented these representatives keeping the pledge which they had given to the Australian Labour party, and had signed their names to, that they would abide by the decision arrived at by a majority vote at a duly constituted Caucus meeting of the party. The fact that they had given such a pledge to the local leagues and council effectively prevented them from being free to keep the pledge common to all Australian Labour members, to be bound by a Caucus . decision. Thus the Political labour leagues and council of Victoria, and later of Queensland and New South Wales, which adopted pretty much the same attitude, amounted in effect to scabbing on the Australian Labour Constitution, and had the effect of inducing their members - to use a good Labour vernacular - to “ scab “ on the movement also.

Senator Needham:

– From what newspaper is the honorable senator quoting now?

Senator LYNCH:

– From my own statement, drawn up for the honorable senator’s edification. This is the information which Senator Gardiner did not give to the Senate, which shows that the people who really burst up the Labour movement were those who had taken action which effectively prevented solidarity in that movement, and which also had the effect of allowing the representatives of one State to take one particular course and remain good, loyal, and faithful members of the party, while members from another State who took an exactly similar course were to be branded and hounded out of the party as traitors and rats. That substantiates what I have said about the differences of opinion in different States. What was a rule, last determination, and do-or-die decision in one State was not so regarded in a neighbouring State. Then these decisions in the various States cut across the constitution which these men were pledged to uphold. They came here pledged to obey majority rule in the Caucus”, but they have signed their freedom away to leagues in Queensland and in Victoria. To that extent they have blacklegged and scabbed on the Labour movement, and for that reason they stand condemned. They cannot have things both ways, and so long as I am in the fight they will not be allowed to have things both ways because I shall state the other side of the case, and have it included in the records of the Senate.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Has the honorable senator heard whether the three gentlemen who advised the electors to vote against the Labour candidate for Wide Bay have been expelled from the Labour movement ?

Senator LYNCH:

– No; nor have I heard of the expulsion of Senator Mullan, who openly exulted in this Chamber at the prospect of the victory of one of John Norton’s anti-Labour editors in the contest for a constituency in Western Australia. I have not heard that anything is to be done’ to the honorable senator on the further ground that he indulged in a lot of merriment at the prospect of the late

Labour Premier of Western Australia, Mr. Scaddan, being defeated. I heard the honorable senator to-night say something about Mr. Hunter, who is, or was, a member of the Queensland Labour Ministry. It would seem that this gentleman was as ready as were some other persons in inventing fictions with which to delude the people of this country during the conscription campaign. We expected something different from men holding responsible positions, and really when such men did not observe the ordinary rules of fair play and good conduct, it is hard to expect that the rank and file, without the information they have, would observe them. Mr. Hunter had something to say about the employment of Maltese on the trans-Australian railway, and I quote the following telegram from Mr. Hughes in reply to what he said -

Statement made by Mr. Hunter (Minister for Lands), at Roma, that 2,000 men on transcontinental railway already discharged, and 2,000 Maltese put on in their places is without shadow of foundation. You have my authority to deny it in unqualified terms, and to say that it is one of a swarm of deliberate falsehoods and gross misrepresentations emanating from men who have no case, and whose motives for opposing the Government proposals are obvious.

When Senator Mullan made his reference to Mr. Hunter, it occurred to me that it would be well to put the other side of the case in order that honorable senators might know what manner of man Mr. Hunter is. I have shown that he endeavoured to poison tEe minds of the electors of Queensland by telling them that 2,000 Maltese were to be employed on the transAustralian railway.

Senator Ferricks:

Senator Lynch said that he would not mind Chinese coming here temporarily.

Senator LYNCH:

– I did say so, and I will say it again, that rather than lose our independence we should do here what gallant France is doing to-day in that matter. I do not say one thing in Western Australia, and another thing at the Guild Hall, as Senator Ferricks does. In one place the honorable senator praised the British Fleet and the Australian Fleet, but at the Guild Hall he did not want any war. I have here a sample of the treatment extended to Labour mem - bers by the Labour press to show how they behaved at a time when we might have expected something very much better from them. I quote from the Australian

Worker of Sydney a reference to myself in these terms -

Senator Lynch:

– Conscription - Hansard, 22nd September, 1916, page 8901-“ Certainly, married men will be drawn upon.”

Now let me refer honorable senators to page 8901 of Hansard of the 22nd September, 1916, where they will find the full statement I made. I said -

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, have gone to the front.

So we see that the fair Australian Worker wrenched off the top part of my sentence, and tore away all that indicated my meaning.

Senator Gardiner:

– The statement was quite fair. Mr. Hughes was saying that the married men would not be called upon and the honorable senator was saying that they would be called upon.

Senator LYNCH:

– If the Leader of the Opposition says that this was fair conduct on the paper’s part, I leave the matter, except to say that it would be just as fair to grab the ‘ ‘ nots ‘ ‘ out of the ten commandments, and allow a reign of licence in the world. Would the Leader of the Opposition agree to that ?

I wrote a letter to the Daily Herald of Adelaide, outlining the position of Australia, and what I thought should be done. The letter ran to a column and a half, and I made special preparations with the Adelaide newspapers with regard to it. The Advertiser and the Register got the matter from me on the pledge that it would be passed ‘ on to the Herald, but not a word of it appeared in that publication. On the other hand, what did appear was against me. Again, when I spoke at Northcote, and there was a howling number of persons who would not allow me to be heard, the Sydney Worker quoted the strong language that I used, but made no mention of the provocation that I received. This was only another example of the so-called fairness of the Labour press. If they expect that public opinion in this country will uphold them, I have a very poor opinion of it.

Senator Ferricks:

– Is it a fact that the military trainees at Broadmeadows howled the honorable senator down, as the Argus reported ?

Senator LYNCH:

– It is not a fact; and I said all that I desired to say. Senator Ferricks, this afternoon, speaking in an undertone, as he usually does when he wishes to insult another senator, said that I was lacking in courage.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator insulted me this afternoon by saying that I ran away from meetings in Western Australia.

Senator LYNCH:

– My statement was loud enough for the honorable member to hear it, and ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator had to withdraw it because the statement was not true.

Senator LYNCH:

– What about the meeting at which the furniture was broken, and you were asked to put up £35?

Senator Needham:

– I did not run away from any meeting.

Senator Pearce:

– I am informed that the honorable senator made a strategic retreat at Albany.

Senator Needham:

– That was because the Minister’s conscript soldiers prevented me from speaking.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Lynch is entitled to be heard.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Mullan was making some pointed references to myself in reference to a cable said to have been sent by the Premier of Queensland, and I said that if the honorable senator pushed for an inquiry I would support him. Senator Ferricks was not satisfied. Immediately afterwards I sa:a that if the honorable senator could substantiate his accusation, and would move a vote of censure against’ the Government in thematter I would support him. Senator Ferricks was again not satisfied. On two occasions he has charged me with want of courage. All I have to say is that I occupy my seat in this chamber, not as a man who has lost his courage, or as one who has been found to be wanting a due amount of it. The only test in regard to courage is for Senator Ferricks to put himself on the same plane as’ myself. I am prepared to test my courage with him any day. I will not allow him, or any person, to attempt to lower me in the eyes of the men and women who have sent me to this Parliament without enabling him, or whoever does so, to test his courage and mettle with mine.

If Senator Ferricks will resign his seat, I will resign mine, conditionally on the vacancies created in our respective States being filled by an appeal to the people at the forthcoming election. I challenge the honorable senator here and now to do it, and I pledge myself to go to Queensland and tight his seat if he will come to Western Australia and fight mine. If Senator Ferricks will prove ‘his courage in this way, let him step up to Mr. President and tender his resignation under the conditions that I have mentioned and I am his man.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does the honorable senator regard what he proposes as a test of courage or a test of stupidity?

Senator LYNCH:

Senator . Ferricks masquerades in a most courageous rOk: but always in an undertone. If he will step forward with me now I will fight an election with him under the conditions that I have named. It is no laughing matter with me. I understand the hollow barmaid laughter of the Leader of the Opposition. It means nothing at any time, and is merely intended, to shield a hollow interior. My challenge stands, and Senator Ferricks can test his courage by stepping forward and handing in his resignation. Is he prepared to do so?

Senator Ferricks:

– No. I think that one lunatic at a time is enough.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am in the habit of flinging challenges which no one will accept. I wish to ask Senator Watson, by way of a final reference to that, dear, saintlike gentleman, whether he will accept the offer that I made to assist him ? Senator O’Loghlin, speaking to-night, has said that he is very jealous of the honour of the Senate. We all are jealous of the honour of the Senate, though some of us have very different methods of manifesting that jealousy. However, for the benefit of Senator O’Loghlin I say that this is about the fifth or sixth time that I have made this offer to Senator Watson and those members of the Official Labour party who stand by him.

Senator Watson:

– It is on a par with the honorable senator’s challenge to Senator Ferricks.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am pleased to see that the honorable senator is awake. I have told him that if he agrees to loose from confidences those persons with whom he has ‘ had conversations as a member of the Official Labour party - we know they hold these things in a mighty secret way - if he releases them from their pledges, I am prepared to assist him in connexion with a Royal Commission.

Senator Turley:

– The Senate has carried a motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission. Of what use, then, is the honorable senator’s vote?

Senator McKissock:

– This is mere piffle.

Senator LYNCH:

– This is the sort of thing that we have had to endure for some years. Into such hands has Labour intrusted its sacred cause that these jeering, gibing members of the Official Labour party would not give me a chance to speak if it were not for the Standing Orders. I know, Mr. President, that you will see that I am not denied my right of free speech in this Chamber, and that I shall be allowed to give expression to my thoughts provided that these honorable senators opposite have not- a majority to enable them to tear up the Standing Orders and to throw them in my very face. I repeat again that if Senator Watson will release from the pledge of secrecy those men inside and outside Parliament with whom he has engaged in conversation as to his position in the Official Labour party, then I will support a motion of censure against the Government if they do not appoint the Royal Commission for which a request has been made.

Senator Watson:

– If there is any one bound by anything I have said to him in secret he is relieved at this moment.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then move a motion of censure.

Senator Watson:

– If you are a fool I am not.

Senator LYNCH:

– I invite the honorable senator to stand up and solemnly declare that he releases these people now and hereafter from any bond of secrecy.

Senator Ferricks:

– And give Senator Lynch time to rake up something more.

Senator LYNCH:

– The character of honest men, who have been before the people for years, is assailed by these people. They would besmirch and blight our characters; they would brand us as worthless, low-down, and ill-bred. Is it not time that some one with an honest thought in his breast should give it fling ? I ask Senator Watson to declare that he will release from the bonds of confidence those to whom he has spoken regarding his position in the Official Labour party. If he will do that, I will support a motion of censure on the Government should they refuse to appoint a Royal Commission. Let him rise and make his charge. He has only to say these words, “ I charge the Prime Minister, Mr. . Hughes, with having attempted to corrupt and bribe me.” If he will do that now, and Senator Gardiner will submit a motion of censure, I shall support that motion. More than that I cannot do. Honorable senators opposite, however, are not prepared to do what I suggest. They will stand idly by, and see my character blasted. They will not, they dare not - cowards and black in their hearts as they are - come out into the open.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– As ex-Senator Ready has said, for the purpose of currying favour with the public - with the object of catching votes here and there, and making their position sure in their electorates - they would blast the reputation of you, Mr. President, Senator Pearce, Mr. Hughes, and myself. They would blast the reputations of men of stainless character, who have been for many years trusted followers of the Labour cause, and upon whose word the welfare of tens of thousands of working men and working women has rested. A. word from us would have betrayed them’, and ruined their welfare. These honorable senators of the Official Labour party sling mud, and try to besmirch the reputations of such men as you, sir, the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister, and myself. Nemesis will yet overtake them. They have not a vestige of evidence, not a witness to support their allegations, but on the ex parte statement of this one man, Senator “Watson, they are endeavouring to tear to pieces the character of honorable men. “William Morris Hughes for twenty-five years worked unceasingly in the cause of Labour which he loved so well. He was surrounded by men whom he regarded as friends and comrades, but they have proved to be but brigands on the highway. He has come through the wood - he has passed through the dark and stormy way - and when at length on one issue he sought to have a free hand these alleged friends and champions of his, these comrades of twenty-five years’ standing, rent him asunder. A black and vile and abominable injustice has been done Mr. Hughes by these men. May it never be meted out to them. That is my charitable prayer, and I hope it may be granted. We have the Prime Minister on the one hand, and on the other we have Senator Watson, who sits therewith condemnation written on his face. He looks condemned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must not reflect on any other honorable senator.

Senator LYNCH:

– We have nothing but the ex parte statement of Senator Watson. Let me repeat an argument that I advanced a few evenings ago, and which Senator Ferricks may re-state, and add to as he has been doing.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not hesitate to say that Senator Watson’s mind and heart are on this side while his carcase is on that. His better understanding and judgment are on this side, but he sits in opposition. If he will only release from the bond of secrecy the men to whom I have referred, I shall be prepared tomorrow, to place in the witness-box two men who will prove that his heart and mind and conscience are with us on this side of the chamber, while his carcase remains over there. I have reasoned thi? thing out, and I invite honorable senators to consider for a moment the effect of the statement which Senator Watson alleges was made to him by Mr. Hughes. If his better judgment and his convictions were such as to draw him to this side of the House, and if Mr. Hughes, knowing this, had induced him to cross over, with the result that he and his wife and family were victimized in Newcastle, then I say that if Mr. Hughes had paid money to keep him from being so victimized that would not be bribery. Senator Ferricks jeers, but it was only the other day that his napkins in the Labour movement were removed. I have been through much during my association with Labour, and on many occasions have made efforts to bring blacklegs over to our cause. I and others have brought them into the Labour fold, and made them feel that they had a conscience, just as I am endeavouring now to make Senator Watson feel that even he has a conscience. After bringing over these blacklegs we’ looked after them, and took care to prevent them from being victimized because of their association with us. Was that bribery? Would Senator Gardiner say that it was ? Will’ he say that there is any essential difference between what we did in order to bring blacklegs into the fold of Labour - blacklegs whom we paid and bribed as an inducement ‘to join our unions, by finding the wherewithal for them and their families in many cases - that there is any essential t difference between what Mr. Hughes is said to have done, and what we have done over and over again, and have gloried in doing.

Sitting suspended from 5.30 to 6.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I was not anxious to take part in this debate, but seeing that Senator Lynch has gone through his usual performance of making all sorts of charges against honorable senators on this side of the chamber, I feel that it is necessary to say a few words in reply. I am not going to blow about my long connexion with the Labour movement. My record stands without that. It has been known amongst the people with whom I come into close contact for many years. I have always found that those who have gone back on the Labour movement during the time that I have been associated with it never stop squealing about the treatment which they have received. They are never tired of declaring that they Were driven out of the movement; that a junta had been formed, and that, while they were the only loyal persons connected with the Labour party, those who remained in it were driving it to destruction. My experience teaches me that those who have deserted the Labour cause, notwithstanding that they have loudly complained how badly they were treated, have disappeared from public life -within a comparatively brief period. In Queensland we have had members going buck upon the movement every few years. As far back as 1896 some of them went back upon it. Then the Labour party once more built themselves up into a majority. Again, others went back upon that party. But where are they to-day? There is not one of them in the public life of that State. Consequently, I do not take much notice of the erstwhile members of our party in this Chamber who have recently gone out of the movement. They joined the movement, and they were selected and put into positions here by the men with whom they were associated. In many cases they were placed in those positions without cost to themselves. When they leave the movement, those who remain behind in it do not complain, except that they feel that the men who have taken their comrades out of the workshop o.r the mine, and put them into positions in the public life of Australia, have been harshly treated. It seems to me that the organizations with which I have been connected for many years are quite justified in feeling resentment when they find members whom they have placed in responsible positions recreant to their trust. If they put a man into the office of secretary of one of their unions, and he clears out with the funds, the position simply is that they have placed their confidence in him and he has sold them. That is exactly the case of the man whom they place in the public life of this country, and who afterwards deserts them. No wonder that they feel aggrieved. But the workers soon regain what they have lost by putting other men into those positions. That is the’ reason why I do not feel bitter about this business. Those members of our party whose careers are pretty clean need not take the slightest notice of the charges which have been levelled against us. Only the other evening Senator Lynch, addressing me, said, “ If you do not be quiet I shall tell something about you.” This is the right place for him to tell it. I do not wish him to hide anything so far as I am concerned, nor does any other honorable senator on this side of the chamber. Senator Lynch has said that Australia is in his debt. That may be so, but I hardly understand how it can be. Australia is not in my debt. I have lived in this country longer than has Senator Lynch, I have worked as hard as he, and I have been connected with Labour organizations longer than he has. ‘ I believe that I have as good a record in my own State as Senator Lynch has in any part of Australia. Yet I stand here and say that Australia owes me nothing, but that I owe a good deal to Australia. Not only do I owe a good deal to this country, but I owe more to the organizations, which are composed of the men who have given of their time and money to build up the movement to which I belong. While Senator Lynch thinks that he has conferred a benefit on Australia by coming here, I know that I am considerably indebted to this country. Would Senator Lynch have become a member of Parliament if he had remained in his own country? I do not think .so. I am perfectly satisfied that I would not. In my walk of life it would not have been possible for me to have attained to the position which I now occupy. Then Senator Lynch said that he was pushed into the business. My experience is that a little while ago most men were pushed into the business, because it was very hard then to get men who were prepared to take on the responsibility of a seat in Parliament. It was not a question of men looking for seats, but of seats looking for Labour men to contest them. For that reason there were quite a number who, when approached, replied, “ I do not think that I am the right man to contest this seat. There is So-and-so, who is better fitted for the task.” In that way many a man has been pushed into public life, and has made good when he has got there. The honorable senator informs us that he himself has a win-the-war policy as the one plank in his platform; and the position in this regard is certainly most peculiar. It often reminds one of old Dr. Johnson’s definition of “ patriotism.” We see people going around flag-wagging, and declaring from the housetops that they are the only crowd who wish to win the war, though I -undertake to say that in Australia there is hardly a person who has not the same desire. Those people, however, have assumed the name which the Director of Recruiting specially asked should be reserved for the Recruiting Committee, which was practically brought into existence by the Government, and on which are serving persons of all political colours and parties. But the Government and Senator Lynch step in with the declaration, “We are the Win-the-war party !” However, I do not suppose that this will do them much good, for we all know how they have been trying to win the war. I shall not go into that question; because it has been dealt with by Senator Mullan, who has shown us how bargaining and haggling has occupied their minds much more than has the war. Senator Lynch talks about the hard treatment meted out to him - how he was “expelled “ from the Labour movement.

Nothing of the sort. No one knows that better than himself. What happened has been told here a dozen times. The fact is that Senator Lynch thought fit to follow Mr. Hughes, and to dissociate himself from the Labour movement. Of that I do not complain, because he had a perfect right to do as he chose; but why does he squeal and howl and pose as a martyr? We had no power, as I have said before, to expel any of the members referred to. They know that they never would have been in Parliament without the assistance of the associations and organizations which have been built up in the various States, and which have the right to refuse to indorse selection, or to say nothing and allow those who like to go for selection. It simply means that an organization which is not satisfied with a member has the power to say that they will not select him as a candidate. No man in the Labour movement has any pre-emptive right to his seat in Parliament. This is a fact well known; and I have stood up for the principle, I suppose, as much, if not more, than any of those members who are now squealing about their treatment. Senator Lynch asks why the Labour principles should not ob- tain all over Australia, and undoubtedly they should be general. But the Labour movement was organized as a State movement, and, as yet, there is no central organization representing the whole of Australia. If a man be chosen, for instance, to contest a seat in Queensland, it would not be of any use to ask the people of Western Australia to indorse the selection. I admit that it is a pity that our organization does not, as yet, extend to united action so far as the Federal Parliament is concerned, though I believe that eventually we shall have centralization to such an extent that the same principles will apply to the Commonwealth Labour party as to the Labour parties in the various States. All this means that the Labour movement is not, as yet, sufficiently organized, but in the many years since we started we have, of course, made quite a number of mistakes, and probably will make more. At the same time, we have always rectified our mistakes as soon as they were discovered ; and I am sure there is sufficient initiative in the movement to remove the objection of which Senator Lynch complains so bitterly. The honor- able senator, as I say, poses as a victim, and I certainly have no objection to his posing as such. He has informed us that years ago he landed in Queensland and worked in various parts of that State ; and I can assure him that we should welcome him there again, in order that he might find out the kind of reception he would get from the men he left long ago. Should he come to Queensland again, he will find himself appealing to people who have gone ‘through the industrial and political fire a great deal more than those with whom he has been associated in the western State. The honorable senator complains that he has been called a traitor and other names. I have not applied these epithets to the honorable senator, though I admit I have heard them applied to him. He complains that he and those associated with him left the party at the risk of facing political oblivion, while those who remained have done so in order to secure their positions. That is rather good news for most of us, but I do not think that Senator Lynch really believes that statement. He told us, at the same time, that we on this side are going to be wiped out - that it is this party which is going into oblivion, and will not again see the inside of the legislative halls of the country. He evidently believes that all the kudos is going to those who have practically thrown the Labour movement over and sunk what, in my mind, is one of its principles. It is not only to-day that I have come to the conclusion that the principle I refer to is one of the Labour movement, because I spoke to that effect from my seat here when the Military Service Referendum Bill was before the Chamber. I asked honorable senators then whether they thought that if any one of them had gone on the public platform during the election in 1914, and advocated compulsory service outside Australia, he would have seen the inside of Parliament House. Honorable senators know perfectly well that, under such circumstances, they would not have been elected, and that this was, at any rate, an unwritten law in the Labour movement. I am satisfied that if any member from Mr. Hughes downwards had. gone to West Sydney, and told the people he was advocating compulsory service outside Australia, he would not have got back to the Federal

Parliament. But having got back, it was then a different matter. Apparently they could then feel free to alter their opinions. I agree, however, with the views expressed by Mr. Hughes when he wrote and published his Case for Labour, that, while a man may have a perfect right to change his opinions, it is then his duty to resign his seat, and go back to the people who had elected him. That is the only honest course. Our friends on the other side do not want to do that at all, but I’ feel sure their policy would not be endorsed by a majority of the people of this country. I am not going into that matter now because it has been repeated half-a-dozen times already in Hansard. I shall take the opportunity of dealing with it on the platform in my own State.’ Evidently there is a desire to embarrass Senator Gardiner as the Leader of the Labour party in the Senate. It, appears that there is in Hansard of a few years back a manifesto iri which he is concerned. I have forgotten all about it, and I think now it would be a very good thing for our side to dig up that manifesto, which, I understand, was published over the name of J. C. “Watson.

Senator Earle:

– No; David Watson.

Senator TURLEY:

– No; David Watson had nothing to do with the Labour movement at that time. It was published over the name of J. C. Watson, and if the statement as read by Senator Lynch is correct it should be rather a good manifesto for the Labour party to republish, because it will enable the people to see how the men they used to trust as far back as 1894 regarded those who went back on the Labour movement. That is all we are asking now. We want the people to understand where those who were concerned in the little juntas at that time stand to-day, and we want the’ people to understand also where we are to-day.

Senator Needham:

– Also where J. C. Watson stands to-day.

Senator TURLEY:

-Yes. I have no quarrel with Mr. Watson. He stepped out of the party, as he was certainly entitled to do, and after working outside in the interests of the party for a long time, he took it into his head to go back upon the principles of the party so that to-day the party does not want him at all. I believe he is fairly well situated. Personally I do not wish for the downfall of any man from an industrial point of view, but I think it is the bounden duty of Labour throughout Australia to strain every nerve to put men who go back on their principles back into the position from which they were taken. Senator Lynch had a lot to say about some action that was taken in Brisbane, and the treatment meted out to him and others by a section of the Labour press. I can quite understand that, for I sometimes see in the Labour press opinions that I would not endorse for a moment. But Labour must have a press to make itself articulate throughout the length and breadth df this country, and as we cannot get a perfect press any more than we can get perfect politicians, we have to take the press as we find it. Before we had a press of our own, Labour men were not always reported correctly in the capitalistic papers. If, however, there was something which would tell from their point of view against the Labour movement, we could be sure of publicity through garbled reports and condemnation. At first, we used to complain, but at last we reached the stage when we said it did not matter very much because our reputations were known to the people, and no one would believe that we gave utterance to sentiments ‘ such as were sometimes attributed to us. Senator Lynch does not get that treatment now from the capitalistic press of Australia, because he is in the limelight, and papers like the Argus, the Sydney . Morning Herald, the Brisbane Courier, and the West Australian are careful to guard hia interests and the interests’ of other men of his party whom they bitterly opposed at one time - not much more than three months ago.

Senator Needham:

– Did not Senator Lynch want to have the representative of the Argus expelled from the Senate because that paper said he made a rambling speech ?

Senator TURLEY:

- Senator Lynch does some stupid things at times, and I suppose that was one of them. We cannot deal with a newspaper in that way. I think it is better for the public to know the standing of the newspapers. Sometimes when those who are opposed to me in politics receive particular notice in a leading paper like the Brisbane Courier, I say to them, “that paper is boosting you,” and they turn round complaining that it is doing them more harm than good. That is how the power of this, archimedean lever, as it is called, is sometimes employed”. It does not do us any particular harm; and when it speaks kindly of ns» as ifc does to-day of our friends on the other side, it is time for the people of the country to ask whether it is not necessary to make some inquiry regarding our action, or what we are likely to do. ‘Therefore I have no particular anxiety or trouble about this sort of thing. The pressmen do their work just as other people. If a newspaper is issued in a particular interest, it is going to do better work for that interest than for any opposing interest. Newspapers everywhere go on the settled policy that they have been established to do the best they can for those to whom they belong, and they do so. Senator Lynch also spoke about the action of the industrial council in regard to the Wide Bay election, and I want to say that a large number of people in Queensland do not agree with what was done in that case But they say, “ Now we see how you lost the Wide Bay seat.” They do not see anything of the kind. The trouble with the Wide Bay seat was that, because Mr. Fisher had been representing it for a considerable time, and was favorably known from one end of the constituency to the other, many Labour people became careless, and the organization was allowed to become slack. When- Mr. Fisher went along votes were recorded for him here, there, and everywhere> and they were able to win the seat time after time. But when the personality of Mr. Andrew Fisher was removed, the organization having become weak, the Labour candidate suffered defeat, and, as Labour has always had to do after a set-back, it must do in the Wide Bay electorate a lot of pick-and-shovel work in order to recover the seat. When Senator Lynch referred to the men whose names are printed as being associated with the Brisbane industrial council, he made a mistake. I have known Edwin Hansen since he was a boy, and I knew his father nearly forty years ago. Hansen senior was a man who, with little opportunity, did as much work for the Labour movement as Senator Lynch ever did. He was unassuming, always at his post, and dependable. After doing his day’s work he devoted a considerable amount of time to the Labour movement, because he realized the unfavorable conditions under which we worked, and was resolved to make those conditions better for his fellow men. I respected him, and he was always welcome at my home. Neither

Senator Lynch nor any other man can afford to throw stones at men of his kind. Edward Hansen is a native of this country; Senator Lynch is not, and neither am I. That fact may not make much difference, but those of us who came from overseas cannot afford to cast aspersions on lads who were born in the country before we originally arrived here as immigrants. I cannot say anything of Mr. Axelsen. It is the name that has attracted the notice of Senator Pearce - the man who complained and almost cried because some one had insulted the members of his family by saying that his wife was a German. I believe that Mr. Axelsen was born in this country, and his parents have been in Australia for very many years. Mr. Anzelark has been connected with the Labour movement for some time. He is even more progressive and extreme than I am. His people were employed in the early years of last century by the Governor of New South Wales, and generation after generation of the family has been born in Australia. It is at men such as these that honorable senators opposite sneer because of their names, and because they are sticking to a party which those honorable gentlemen have deserted. I do not think the sneers will do any harm. Those men will continue building up the Labour movement, which sooner or later will shift out of public life those who have been unfaithful to it. Mention was made of the action of this organization, and Senator Pearce said that that action was taken because the Government made a census of the wealth of Australia. It was not the wealth census that caused those men to take action when the acting Prime Minister was in Queensland. An agitation was in progress that no man should be allowed to obtain employment who could be considered eligible to go to the front. Because of. that agitation those men feel bitter to-day. The Ladies’ Recruiting Committee in Brisbane broke up the other day because a deputation asked the Acting Prime Minister to comb out from the Public Service all men who could be considered eligible to go to the front. It was thought that by taking action of that, kind, private employers would be induced to follow the same course, and all those who might be considered eligible to go to the front would be thrown out of employment and compelled to go into camp. That is the sort of coercion against which the Labour party fought, and our attitude was indorsed by a majority of 70,000 of the people of the Commonwealth. We shall not be ashamed or afraid to fight the same issue again, and I believe we shall be just as successful in our appeal to the people at the forthcoming elections as we were on the 28th October. I shall not say much about the attacks upon Senator Gardiner. He is a bigger man than I am and well able to defend himself. But I do think the manly statement he made regarding his political career will be believed by the people. It is not necessary for him to tell the people of New South Wales what his record is, because they know it, and have returned him time after time to the State and Federal Parliaments. They know the action he took, and the electors have indorsed it every time he has appealed to them. The statements made concerning him are put forth in the belief ‘that there will be a number of people who will be induced to doubt the bona fides of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Those who arein public life and have no hard things said about them are not worth much. Up to the time I first contested a seat for Parliament I had never done anything but heavy work. I was strong and could tackle any job. Because of my physique . I was fairly successful in getting employment. In my first campaign a man who never in the whole course of his life had lifted anything heavier than his own portmanteau, and whose working implement was a pen, came to the district and made a statement from the public platform that I had never done an honest day’s work He sought to show that I was a shirker and a loafer, and that the electors could have no confidence in me. His attack was meant to injure me, but the publication of such statements in the Conservative press circulating in the electorate did me a lot of good. I was well known in the district, and people saw me going to and returning from work. I always had a fair reputation, and these attacks only recoiled on the head of the candidate in whose interest my traducer was speaking. I am reminded of Mark Twain’s story that he never knew what a wretched villain he was until he stood for a public position, and only when he withdrew from the elections was he allowed to realize again the virtues which he possessed. So it is with most men in public life. Speaking to an old friend whom I met to-night I told him of the statements that had been made concerning me. He laughed and said, “ I have known you for many years, and I am well a’ware of the work you have done in the Labour movement. Why do not the people who make these statements come to Queensland and repeat them so that the people may take them at their own valuation.” Senator Lynch was much perturbed because Senator Mullan was supposed to be overjoyed at the possible defeat of Mr. Scaddan. I met Mr. Scaddan, but I do not know very much about him. He may be all right. But it is reported that during his election campaign he said very little about conscription. He allowed it to be generally understood that he was opposed to compulsion, but as soon as he had won his seat he became a solid worker for conscription. He also sent a telegram to the Premier of South Australia repudiating that State for its vote on the conscription issue unless Wallaroo did something to save it. This incident reminds me of the condition of Sodom. Are there five righteous men in South Australia ? We have heard the judgment of Mr. Scaddan on South Australia. I thought he was renouncing his own State because it has not come up to his expectations since he left it. When I came here I met a man from Bendigo, and when I told him that Mr. Scaddan repudiated South Australia, his own State, he informed me that Mr. Scaddan came from Eaglehawk, and only went over to Moonta or Wallaroo because he could not get a job in Victoria. Although he has repudiated South Australia, I do not anticipate that his action will reduce the yield of wheat, will affect the growth of grapes, the production of wine, the flow of the Murray, or the mineral possibilities of the State. Though Senator Lynch was greatly offended at Senator Mullan’s merriment, I have only to say that I am glad that we have not many Scaddans in Queensland. We have dad challenges of all kinds thrown out recently in the Senate. Senator Lynch has challenged Senator Ferricks to throw tip Ms seat and go out with him and play the game, as he calls it. I should call it playing the goat. In the first place, the seat is not Senator Ferricks’ seat, and no one knows that better than does Senator Ferricks. It was won by the honorable senator, but only with all the assistance that could be given him by the Labour movement of Queensland. I deny the right of any man who has been put into a seat in Parliament by the Labour movement to give it up because some one challenges him to fight for it. It would be just as bad from the point of view of Labour for Senator Ferricks to throw up his seat in order to take up Senator Lynch’s challenge as it was for Senator Lynch to go back upon the party who made it possible for him to obtain a seat in this chamber.

Senator Ferricks:

– There might be another man from Queensland on the doorstep.

Senator TURLEY:

– There may be something in that. The first I heard of this kind of caper was when Mr. Andrew Fisher and Mr. Smythe were representing Gympie in the Legislative Assembly of Queensland. They sat on different sides of the House, and used to throw bouquets at one another across the floor of the chamber. One evening Mr. Smythe ruffled Mr. Fisher’s feathers, and, losing his temper, Mr. Fisher offered there and then to resign his seat if Mr. Smythe would do the same. He thought that there might then be an opportunity to have two Labour members returned for Gympie. I was at the time as young a man politically as was Mr. Fisher, because we entered the Queensland Parliament together, but I went to him and told him that he had no right to make such a challenge, because, if Mr. Smythe took it up, he would learn that he had no right to play fast and loose with a seat which had been won for him by the hard work and sacrifice of the miners of Gympie. In the circumstances, I say that Senator Ferricks may sit back and laugh at the heroics of Senator Lynch. I may say, however, that if Senator Lynch came to Queensland to contest a seat for the Senate, he would go away an older, sadder, and wiser man. He would find that his “coo-ee” and monkey tricks would not go down in Queensland. I do not believe that they will go down for any length of time in Western Australia. The honorable senator has also challenged Senator Watson that if he. will do something Senator Lynch will at once undertake to vote for a Royal Commission. It is very good pf the honorable senator, but his vote is not wanted. By a majority of eighteen to thirteen the Senate has carried a motion for the appointment of a Royal Commission, and the responsibility for its appointment now rests with the Government. Senator Lynch has said that if Senator Watson will do a certain thing, and the Government do not appoint a Royal Commission, he will assist him if he moves a vote of want of confidence in the Government. We are not play-acting here. Senator Lynch does all the acting, and we are merely spectators of his performance. We are going presently to ask the people to carry a vote of want of confidence in the Government, and why, in the circumstances, need we bother about the opinions of Senator Lynch on these matters. The honorable senator has used the language of vituperation, and has threatened to go outside and say harsh things about us. I shall not trouble to say harsh things about himo r about any other of the honorable senators who have left the Labour party. I shall, however, tell the truth, and if I come back to the Senate it will be because I will have continued, to advocate and maintain the principles of the Labour movement. I must admit that I often enjoy a speech from Senator Bakhap. In very flowery language the honorable senator quoted the Koran, Confucius, and the works of oldtime writers who laid down the principles which to-day guide the peoples of the countries in which they lived.

Senator Bakhap:

– Immutable principles.

Senator TURLEY:

– I agree with the honorable senator. He tells us that he was. returned to this Parliament as a Liberal. I have no quarrel with him on that account. But he ought not to make statements about his principles with which we can scarcely agree. He said that Liberalism is synonymous with liberty and freedom. Let us consider how far it has been synonymous with freedom. Twenty-seven years ago we fought, we starved, we slaved in this country to burst up that old principle of Liberalism known as freedom of contract. That was the principle which’ led to the maritime strike ‘ in . 1890. There are frends of mine who have scarcely yet recovered from the shock which they suffered at that time. Senator Lynch told us’ tonight that he went through that strike; but in those days he was a young man, having no one dependent upon him. Many of those with whom I was acquainted had wives and families dependent upon them, and as a result of the strike they lost nearly everything they had in the world. I knew men to come out of their ships and walk the streets of Brisbane and other centres’ of Queensland for weeks and months. The little homes and furniture they had tried to get together had to be sacrificed in the fight they made against that principle of Liberalism - freedom of contract. The Liberals attempted to enforce the same principle in every industry in Australia, and it was only by the sacrifices of those engaged in the Labour movement that it was possible to scotch, if not to kill altogether, thatprinciple of freedom for which Liberalism stood at that time. There were no Conservatives in tne Parliament of Australia at that time. The ideas of the men then in Parliament were those of people who had lived a hundred years before, but thev called themselves Liberals all the same, and they were animated by the principles which Senator Bakhap says animates Liberalism throughout Australia. I can remember the time when work girls in Brisbane used to startwork at half -past 8 o’clock in the morning and knock off at half-past 10 at night for five nights a week, and they started work at half-past 8 o’clock in the morning and knocked, off at half -past 11 at night on the sixth day of the week. Although they had to work these long hours they were very badly paid. Those who were his supporters were the strong pillars of Liberalism.

Senator Bakhap:

– Has not Liberalism been trying for many years past to ameliorate the conditions of the workers ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Never until they were competed - nothing was done until they saw that it was a question of doing something or getting out.

Senator Needham:

– It was done not through love, but through fear.

Senator TURLEY:

– It was fear which compelled most of them to carry the legislation, which, I admit, they put on the statute-book, but only because there was opposed to them a party which would have put it there if they had not done so.

Senator Bakhap:

– Who put such measures on the Imperial statute-book?

Senator TURLEY:

– No one knows the history of the movement in Britain better than I do, and I give every credit to men like Shaftesbury, Toynbee, and others.

Senator Bakhap:

– These men were aristocrats !

Senator TURLEY:

– I know, and they got these measures placed on the statutebook in face of the strong opposition of what was termed Liberalism in England at the time; it was the antagonism between the hereditary land-owner on the one side and the trader on the other.

Senator Bakhap:

– You first identify Liberalism with Conservatism, and then grant that Conservatism has effected certain things.

Senator TURLEY:

– I say that Conservatism very many years ago, did effect a good deal, when men like Shaftesbury, Toynbee, and others, went throughout the country and drilled into the workers the necessity of themselves taking action, because all depended on themselves. In this country to-day we cannot find any Conservatives.

Senator Bakhap:

– But you accuse the Liberals of being Conservatives.

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not say so for a moment. They may be called Liberals, for what difference does the name make? It is their actions we are, interested in. We were interested in the action that Senator Bakhap took the other day, when, after a great deal of energy and back-door sort of business had been expended by members of the Government to obtain a majority, the action of Senator Bakhap and his friend caused the majority to disappear. We on this side did not say anything, because it wau those honorable senators’ own business; and if it was the action of Liberalism, it only shows that there is some freedom in it. We who have had experience of industrial life in Australia realize that all that has been granted or obtained by the workers has been granted or obtained because of the fear of the growth of the Labour movement.

Senator Bakhap:

– There has practically never been a Labour Government in power in Victoria, and yet, in that State, more industrial reforms have been effected than, perhaps, in any other State.

Senator TURLEY:

– I think there are other States in which a great deal more has been done. In Queensland, for instance, where there is the only State Labour Government in existence to-day, reforms are being carried out in a way never tried before. In the Western State the. socialistic experiments of Mr. Scaddan and his friends are on ‘the scrap heap; and the Liberal Government, said to stand for freedom and everything that is good, are inviting their friends to buy the bargains, which are the result of the expenditure df public money.

Senator Bakhap:

– I am glad you are emphasizing the spending of public money.

Senator TURLEY:

– Every public work or utility involves the spending of public money, as witness the Post Office.

Senator Bakhap:

– How long can a course of action such as that in Western Australia last?

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not know, for I have not sufficient information to express an opinion. I do say, however, that, if so-called Labour Governments are going into experiments that are only failures, the sooner we start to put on our thinkingcaps the better it will be for the people of this country.

Senator Bakhap:

– I strongly advise you to put on your thinking-cap !

Senator TURLEY:

– It would be a wise course for many of us. The incursions of the late Western Australian Government into industrial enterprises has only succeeded in extracting money out of the pockets of the people; and for this I am sorry, because I should like to see those experiments made such a success as would induce other States to follow the example. It has been said that there is no liberty of action in the Labour movement, but I submit that there is no movement in Australia where the same liberty of action has always been enjoyed.

Senator Guthrie:

– Until now!

Senator TURLEY:

-“ Until now,” as the honorable senator says. But when men are prepared to go back on the principles of the party they ought to be dealt with; and they did go back on a principle, if ever there was a principle in the movement.

Senator Pearce:

– What ! Anticonscription ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes.

Senator Pearce:

– Where do you find that principle?

Senator TURLEY:

– If Senator Pearce had gone on the platform in Western Australia in 1914 and said that he intended to come East and defend conscription for service abroad, I do not think he would have seen the inside of this Chamber. But he and others were sent here because the people understood that anti-conscription was the policy of the party, and that their representatives would advocate it.

Senator Pearce:

– That does not demonstrate that it is a principle of the Labour party.

Senator TURLEY:

– Do I understand the honorable senator to say that if a thing is not in black and white we have not to take any notice of it? Anti-slavery, for instance, does not appear on the Labour platform, but is the honorable member in favour of slavery? I think that he will say, as I do, that anti-slavery is a principle of the Labour movement; and if there were an attempt to introduce slavery into Australia I would oppose it as earnestly asI do conscription. I contend that those who go back on the principles of a party should no longer belong to the party.

Senator Pearce:

– Is it not a fact that if there was a principle at all in the platform of theparty it was conscription, because there is compulsion already?

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, for service inside Australia.

Senator de Largie:

– It does not say so.

Senator Guthrie:

– What about the Navy? Is service in the Navy for inside the country?

Senator TURLEY:

– That is a different matter altogether, and I am not going to discuss conscription now, because I intend to deal with it on the platform, as I did in September and October. I shall ask the people whether they have changed their mind, and point out that the same conditions exist now as then, except that there are certain other matters which have to be taken into consideration. I shall tell the public exactly the position I occupy in this regard. In Queensland there was a very nice majority against conscription, and I believe we shall have a larger majority on the 5th May, especially when the people are acquainted with the tactics adopted by the Government to prolong the life of Parliament - to refer to the Imperial authorities the question whether it should or should not be prolonged. I am prepared to meet the supporters of the Government on the Imperialistic question, because I think that if ever there is a curse in this country it will be in consequence of the action of those people who attempt to shackle us more strongly . than we are now in what they term “ Imperalism.” We hear a great deal about abuse that the members of the Labour party are heaping on Mr. Hughes. Personally, I very rarely mention Mr. Hughes’ name, and, as a rule, do not refer to him at all, always preferring to avoid personalities. As to what I did, honorable senators know that, in the first place, I was opposed to Mr. Hughes going to Europe at all, because I did not believe that he had an invitation. I do not believe now that he had an invitation, but that he simply humbugged the Labour party and Parliament when he went away on his trip. I believe there was an invitation, but that the invitation came a considerable time before, and was to the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Fisher. In my opinion, that was the position, and that is my opinion now ; and it is the reason why personally I would oppose Mr. Hughes leaving the country when I think he can do better work here.

Senator Guthrie:

– He can do good work?

Senator TURLEY:

– I am not saying he cannot. While he was away a number of people assailed Mr. Hughes, and nrophesied what he was going to do when he returned; and at an Eight-hour celebration in Brisbane I defended him. I appeared before all the secretaries of the organization, and pointed out that I did not think he would sell the movement.

Senator de Largie:

– Did you defend him in the same way as you defended the delegates that went to England ?

Senator TURLEY:

– What delegates?

Senator Pearce:

– The parliamentary delegates.

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes. I was opposed to that delegation. When I was asked’ if I would be a candidate for the trip, I said “ No,” and that I would not vote for it or have anything to do with it, becauseI believed it was the duty of every man elected to this Parliament to remain in Australia and look after his work here.

Senator de Largie:

– And that public money should not be spent.

Senator TURLEY:

– I never said such a thing. The honorable senator can make that statement if he likes, as he has made a large number of other statements on the floor of this Chamber; but, as Senator Gardiner has said, nobody but himself will take any notice of him. I am always prepared to stand up to anything that I say. I have been connected with the Labour movement all my life, even before Senator de Largie saw this country at all. That, however, does not necessarily mean that I have done more than any other man for the movement. It simply means that I am getting older, and have gone down the hill a little further, than some of my friends. At all events, my reputation in my own State is sufficient for me. I invite the honorable senator to go there - to the place where he used to work at one time - and ask the people about my reputation.

Senator de Largie:

– You were not known in my day.

Senator TURLEY:

– I was known long before the honorable senator came to Queensland and worked for blackfellows’ wages down in the pit at Bundamba. A year or two after the honorable senator left the district, an organization I was connected with sent ‘down two organizers to try and get the men to join the union, so that w3 could assist in the maritime strike. An old friend of mine, who knew nothing practically about coal-mining, was sent up there, in company with a man who did know about the district. They went down to the mine to try and improve the conditions of the men. who, as I have said, at that time were working for blackfellows’ wages.

Senator de LARGIE:

– And you were president of a union the members of which worked for the smallest wages paid to wharf labourers in any part of Australia.

Senator TURLEY:

– I know the conditions that existed then, because I was on the council of the Labour party.

Senator de LARGIE:

– And it was Mr. Hughes who brought your wages up.

Senator TURLEY:

– The man who went there to do that work was Gilbert Casey, now in Paraguay. He was one of the best organizers Australia ever saw. ‘ He went down into the p-it at Bundamba to’ induce the men’ to take some action, so that “we could help the men who at that time were involved in the maritime strike.

Senator Lynch:

– What were you getting on the old Governor Blackall?

Senator TURLEY:

– I was never on that vessel.

Senator Bakhap:

– Did they’ pay you blackfellows’ wages on the Governor Blackall?

Senator TURLEY:

– The honorable senator had better ask Senator Lynch, for

I imagine he might have been a shovel engineer or something of that sort on the ship. Many a time I have seen the Governor Blackall,- which at that time was one of the best ships on the coast.

Senator Lynch:

– Are you aware that Senator de Largie got sacked for sticking up for Labour principles long before you took any part in the movement?

Senator TURLEY:

– Where was that? I cannot help feeling amused at the statement, because I was taking an active part in the Labour movement of Queensland before the honorable senator came to the country.

Senator Lynch:

– Give us some definite information - place and dates.

Senator TURLEY:

– Well, I could tell the honorable senator. The other day he was talking about his twenty-seven long years in the movement. Perhaps it will be information to him if I say I joined the Seamen’s Union a long time before he did.

Senator Lynch:

– How long?

Senator TURLEY:

– It does not matter much, but it was some considerable time before he did. I could give him the date, because I have kept the book which I used to carry at that time. But as I have already remarked, that does not imply that I claim to have done any more than Senator Lynch, who has gone back on the Labour movement; or any other men, but, at all events, I have not gone back on it. I am still connected with it, as I was long before Senator de Largie landed on these shores. Now with regard to all these allegations about the hatred of Mr. Hughes, it appears to me that some people have the impression that if the Right Honorable William Morris Hughes had not come to Australia, we would have been wandering about in a half -clothed and half -fed condition. But if we look round the world,, we find that Labourism is growing everywhere in all civilized . countries, and without the influence of .our Prime Minister. In many places they have never heard of him, and do not know what sort of man he is, but still the movement is growing, because the economic pressure is driving the people along whether they like it or not, and somebody is bound to rise out of the ranks of labour, and take the place of leaders everywhere. I am prepared to give all the credit that is due to the men who have done so much’ for’ labour, for I realize that many of them took an active part in the Labour move- ment at a time when it was not quite so respectable as it is to-day, and when it required brave men to stand up and make sacrifices in order to attain their objective. When the secretaries, and many of the organizers of the Labour movement of Queensland said they were afraid Mr. Hughes was going back on the Labour movement, I told them that I did not believe he would, but that even if he did, it would not make much difference, so long as those who were returned to the Federal Parliament remained solid, as they were expected to. That was the attitude I took up. 1 did not think then that five and twenty other men were also likely to sell the movement. That contingency never crossed my mind. However, a fair number of men supported Mr. Hughes, and he smashed, to the utmost of his power, the Labour movement to which he belonged. Then he formed another Government, and smashed it in seven or eight weeks, and still another one, which he smashed in a fortnight. That is pretty quick work. Much was said during the conscription campaign about the light which Mr. Hughes saw when he returned from England. I said that what he saw was the light of the wrecker, and so it proved; he has been doing little else but use that light ever since. When I go before the electors I shall not abuse Mr. Hughes. We have to deal with other matters more important than William Morris Hughes, or Senator de Largie, or Senator Pearce. They are merely passing incidents in the Labour movement. I have seen many come into the movement and rise like rockets. They have been full of energy and sparks for a little while, and then have come down like sticks. Pome of my bitterest antagonists in Queensland to-day are men who entered the movement and served on various councils ,with me. They are some of the most bitter opponents the Labour movement has.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is the class of men who are in charge of the Labour movement to-day.

Senator TURLEY:

– That is not correct. I regard the defection of so many of our former supporters as a tragedy. I am sorry to see Senator Guthrie in his present situation.

Senator Guthrie:

– I am not sorry to be here.

Senator TURLEY:

– When a man burns his boats behind him it is of no use to be sorry, but there is a number of us in the Labour movement who are genuinely sorry to see men who did such good work for Labour throwing over the movement because it did not conform to their wishes. Many men have tried to change the course of the movement, and have dropped out of it. The movement itself is more virile than when they left it.

Senator Guthrie:

– It was very virile before 1890.

Senator TURLEY:

– The movement was progressing nicely before 1890. I was representing Townsville on the Waterside Council for the state of Queensland. No pay, but plenty of hard work attached to the position. I could not afford bus fares at the. time, and I had to walk from my home to the hall and back again after doing a hard day’s work that not many men cared to tackle.

Senator Guthrie:

– Thousands of men were doing that work.

Senator TURLEY:

– That is not so. It was work of this character - wheat humping - which commenced the decline in the health of Alf. Roberts, culminating in his death in the Queen’s Hall. If Alf. Roberts were alive to-day he would be a Labour man, and supporting the Australian Labour party.

Senator Guthrie:

– He would be sitting on the Government side.

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not think so. His photograph hangs with mine in the Trades Hall at Ballarat, where he was the youngest delegate to a Conference held in the early nineties.

Senator Guthrie:

– Roberts advocated conscription for the Boer war, and personally served in South Africa.

Senator TURLEY:

– I admit that, but honorable senators opposite would not have a hope of getting Alf. Roberts on their side if he were alive to-day. We are charged with having opposed the legislation proposed by the Government which we were supposed to be supporting. To that accusation I plead guilty. It proves that, although our party was in power, every member was free to do as he liked in connexion with any measure that was not portion of the party’s policy. The most important opposition some of us offered to the Labour Government was in connexion with’ the War Loan, and if there is anything of which .1 feel proud to-day it is that action. I intend to ask the people of Queensland whether -they believe that the people who control probably a quarter of the wealth of the Commonwealth shall be free of taxation. I was opposed to such a proposal, and to the Labour Government, which said it was necessary. I am opposed to it now. Looking through the late Treasurer’s speech, I find that he, too, is beginning to realize the impropriety of such an exemption. Is it to be said that the great Labour party which entered Parliament in order to place all people on a reasonably equal footing is prepared to exempt from taxation those who control from one-tenth to one-quarter of the wealth of the Commonwealth 1 I shall always be opposed to a proposal of that kind, and I shall ask .the people of Queensland to indorse my action in advocating that no special class in the community shall be exempt from taxation. I also opposed the Labour Government on the question of conscription.

Senator Lynch:

– Since when ?

Senator TURLEY:

– Always. I am not one who, like the honorable senator, defames other men. A few days ago, he stated that Mr. Page was one of the men who had changed their opinions upon conscription. The honorable senator must know very well that Mr. Page was never in favour of conscription. On the contrary, he nearly surrendered his seat before the matter came before Parliament. I was with him in the Brisbane Trades Hall on one occasion when he delivered a speech in which he declared himself ready to fight conscription all along the line, and even to resign his seat, if necessary. Senator Lynch must have known of those views when he defamed Mr. Page in the Senate.

Senator McDougall:

– He would not make that statement outside Parliament.

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not indulge in such childish talk as “ come outside and make this statement, and we shall have those behind us who will make you sit up. We have friends who will find the money to drag you through the Courts, and we know the position you will occupy. If we cannot ruin you our friends and supporters will.” We understand what is behind threats of that kind, and I do not use them to Senator Lynch. He knew when he made his statement that he was besmirching the character of an old associate.

Senator Lynch:

– Yours is the party of lost manhood.

Senator TURLEY:

– We hear a lot of that talk when the honorable senator gets on the rampage and screeches about the treatment which he has received from the party which he left in the lurch. He, like all others who have left the Labour movement, poses as a martyr. These men talk about juntas, but unless they appoint themselves to a job, as some have done after leaving the movement, they have not much hope of keeping their heads above water. Really, the only thing that can be said against us is that we did not oppose the Labour Government enough. That, I think, is the only fault that the electors will have to find with us. We shall be reminded that we are responsible for the War Precautions Act. We knew that it was being passed at the instance of the Imperial authorities, but we did not think that its provisions would be abused as they have been. I have no doubt that we shall also be blamed for supporting the provisions controlling the manner in which the voting was carried out at the military service ‘ referendum. I know that in Queensland, under those provisions, insults were heaped upon scores of people, natives of this country, and as loyal as the Minister for Defence himself. If I had dreamt for a moment that that legislation would be administered as it has been, I should have stood in my place here for any length of time to defeat it.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator will do anything but face the junta.

Senator TURLEY:

– We know what Senator Lynch will do. He has been prepared to defend the Government in connexion with every matter, even including the mysterious disappearance that took place. He has issued his challenge to Senator Watson that if he will do something he will support the appointment of a Royal Commission, when we do not require his support.

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Lynch did not say anything of the sort.

Senator TURLEY:

– I sat here and listened to the honorable senator while he said it, and my statement will be confirmed by honorable senators sitting here with me.

Senator Guthrie:

– He said that he. would support honorable senators opposite in a vote of want of confidence in the Government.

Senator TURLEY:

Senator Lynch said that also, but I am referring to what he said before that. We have been told to-night that we missed a splendid chance of reconciliation with honorable senators on the other side when we refused to assist them to form a National Government. Reconciliation with honorable senators on the Ministerial side is not worrying me. I do not propose to go round asking them to come back to the fold. They say that they are still members of unions, and are still taking part in the Labour movement. I am perfectly satisfied with their position. It is not for the Labour party to seek reconciliation with them. It is not the business of honorable senators on this side to sell themselves in order to make easy a path by which honorable senators opposite may escape from the morass in which they find themselves. It is our business to endeavour to build up the Labour movement again, and make it stronger and more efficient than it was when our friends opposite were associated with it. Our course is straight ahead, with no branching to either side of the straight path, to consider reconciliation proposals. If honorable senators opposite desire to remain connected with the Labour movement, well and good. I should like them to do so.

Senator Guthrie:

– Yet the honorable senator supported their expulsion from the movement.

Senator TURLEY:

– I have heard many statements made to that effect, but I know of no expulsions from the Parliamentary Labour party. If honorable senators opposite do not care about joining the movement again at once, that will not trouble me. There are thousands of people who stood out of the Labour movement for years, and then discovered that it was advisable to join it, and many such men are doing good work in the movement to-day. We did not seek the breach with honorable senators. They took it upon themselves to leave us. They said they would go out from amongst us. I am reminded by what they did of the story of the pied piper of Hamelin. A little note was sounded by William Morris Hughes, and honorable senators opposite all trotted out after him. Why should we complain about that? They came into the movement, did a certain amount of work in connexion with it, and were elected to positions which they could never have at tained by any other agency. They had a perfect right to walk out of the movement if they were satisfied they had done all they could. Why should we complain of that?

Senator Millen:

– Why does the honorable senator complain?

Senator TURLEY:

– I do not complain of it. I may inform Senator Millen that when Mr. Hughes was outside this country I took it upon myself to defend him against something that was said at a banquet by union secretaries. It is not difficult to remember the occasion, because banquets do not often come our way.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator has been long enough on that point. Let him say something about the war.

Senator TURLEY:

– I am quite prepared to say something about what we have done in connexion with the war. The Minister for Defence says that we have sent 292,000 men out of Australia. 1 suppose that that number does not include munition workers, navvies, members of bridging trains, and so on.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, it includes all.

Senator TURLEY:

– In addition to sending away that number of men we have quite a respectable number still offering their services. I understand that more applications than the Government can deal with are being received from men as munition workers and to join the railway unit.

Senator Pearce:

– I should not like that statement to go out, because it is not correct.

Senator TURLEY:

– I think that a similar statement was made in the newspapers only last week. I understood that four different units were being provided for, and that the applications were so numerous that it was decided to provide for a fifth unit.

Senator Pearce:

– No. None of the units of munition workers are yet completely filled.

Senator TURLEY:

– What else have we done in connexion with the war? We have equipped all our men and sent them away as fast as we could. I am aware that we cannot send any more at present until we -get information which will release the ships from the Imperial authorities. The Imperial Government wanted steel, and the Government of the Commonwealth said that they might have a considerable quantity of the steel manufactured here. The manufacture of steel is a comparatively new industry in Australia, though it has been carried on to a small extent at Lithgow for some years. The Newcastle works were established only quite recently. Yet, when an application is made for steel rails manufactured in Australia, there was no voice raised in this Chamber against giving the Old Country what she could take away of that commodity.

Senator Pearce:

– Yes, there was. We had a deputation on the subject.

Senator TURLEY:

– I am speaking of what happened here.

Senator Pearce:

– A protest was raised in another place..

Senator TURLEY:

– That may be so, but there was no protest raised in this Chamber. So far as the supply of metals is concerned, we are supplying the largest quantities of wolfram and molybdenite that are being received by Great Britain to-day. We are exporting from Australia large quantities of coke that are required by the smelters of North Queensland in the production of copper from the ore that is being mined there. The wheat-growers of the Commonwealth were asked to put in as extensive an area as possible, and the Imperial authorities said that they would take all the wheat we could raise. I realize that this is a question of ship- ping, and that the same thing applies to the Australian wool clip, to meat, and to other things sent from this country. The fact remains that Australia is, to a great extent, the storehouse for commodities that are at present required by Great Britain. We are doing everything that it is possible for us to do to supply the demands of the Old Country. What else is there that we can do? We went in for the manufacture of munitions, and those engaged in their manufacture here were offered £1 per shell case. The manufacture of shells was started in another part of the oversea Dominions, and they were produced for 13s. 4d., and are now being satisfactorily produced in that part of the Empire for about 6s. per shell case. In another part of the Empire they are producing at 3s. 6d. munitions such as we offered at£1. It was found that we could not help in connexion with the matter, and we have been told that our efforts were, at any rate, not successful. Then, again, can Australia supply the necessary shipping? I only wish we were taking the minerals out of the ground, turning them into metal, and employing large numbers of men in the building of ships. Up to the present we have not been able to do anything in that direction, and for the ships we have built here we have had to fetch most of the material from the other side of the world. Altogether we find that we can do very little beyond what we are doing already.’ It is said there is any amount of work to which people can turn their hands in the way of helping to win the war; but there are thousands of men out of employment, in spite of the large numbers that have left the country. What is required is that some scheme shall be placed before Parliament with a view to enable such work to be done. The Government ought to tell us in what direction the energies of the people can be directed to assist in bringing the war to a speedy conclusion. There is just one other matter , I wish to refer to, and it is in connexion with Queensland. When Federation was inaugurated I believed, and, I think, the people believed, that there was to be Free Trade between the various States. We find now that, on a judgment of the High Court, the States Governments have more power than we thought had been left to them. The War Precautions Act, which was never intended to submerge the Constitution, has been brought in to render nugatory the decision of the High Court. One might have imagined that this was only an afterthought, but I now find that that is not because Mr. Cook, on the 8th December last year, made these remarks- -

While the Commonwealth was setting an example, he hoped that it ‘would force economy upon the States.

I want honorable senators to understand, what that means - that they are to force economy on the States - .

He said that deliberately, for it was high time that that was done. The nonsense that was going on in Queensland, where money that should be devoted to the war was being squandered in butchers’ shops and other socialistic enterprises, should be stopped at once. It was not beyond the power of the Commonwealth to control the expenditure of the States.

Here we have Mr. Cook declaring that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to force economy on the States whether the

States think it is necessary or not, and that the “ nonsense “ of carrying out socialistic enterprises as in Queensland must be stopped at once. Then came the coalition, or collusion - the conglomeration and mix-up. After the pronouncement of Mr. Cook, the War Precautions Act was brought into force to carry out the policy which that gentleman had outlined in December. People said with astonishment that it was a wonder it had not been thought of before if it was a measure of relief, and there were those who could not believe that the Act could Be used to render nugatory the decision of the High Court. That decision of the Government stands to-day, and we find that it was in accordance, at any rate, with the policy laid down by Mr. Cook before an arrangement was arrived at.

Senator Lynch:

– Would you express an opinion on the action of the Labour party in expelling so many good old Labourites ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I have expressed an opinion quite a number of times. I have said that those members of the Labour party thought that they had done enough, and they followed the ‘ will0the.wisp, and thus separated themselves from the movement of which they talk so much. I do not find fault with them, because theLabour movement will go on the same as before. It may take some little time before the party gets into its stride again ; but it will get into its stride, and those who have left it will be in no better position than others who left it years ago. None were more bitter against the Labour movement than those who then left it, though we were not bitter against them; the only thing was that the organizations, built up as they were, took particular care, and have always since done so, that those who once went out should not come back into the movement and prostitute it.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– I desire briefly to refer to a remark made by Senator O’Loghlin lastnight, a remark which confirms an opinion which I have expressed inside and outside this Chamber, and which has been received with some measure of derision. I have stated that, on the question of conscription and Imperialism, I do not regard Mr. Hughes as being altogether rational, but as appearing semi-demented. Last night Senator O’Loghlin told us that, from what he had gathered from intercourse with people on the other side, it is a case of “ those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” I do not wish to indulge in any tirade of abuse against Mr. Hughes. I am prepared to let him repose in the lap of the Liberals for the rest of his life.

Senator de Largie:

– I suppose you have nearly exhausted yourself on that subject ?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I do not think that I ever indulged in any abuse of Mr. Hughes.

Senator Earle:

– You called him a criminal !

Senator FERRICKS:

Mr . Hughes is courting abuse and the thrusts that are directed towards him. We might reasonably expect a gentleman, holding the highest, and what should be a responsible, position of Prime Minister, to announce some policy in consonance with the change in the personnel of his Cabinet. This he has not done, but has indulged in bitter invective against his old associates and the organizations outside. In any case, I am prepared to let Mr. Hughes, and those who went with him, see the matter out with their new allies - the CookIrvineForrest Watt combination. But there is one phase of the question as to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the charges made by Senator Watson, to which I feel called upon to make some, reference. Senator Pearce and others have liberally thrown out challenges to Senator Watson, or somebody on his behalf, to go outside, and make accusations, when the case could come into open Court, aud the parties, it is said, could be placed on an equality. With that idea I disagree, for- 1 take the view that, if any man foolishly gave up the right of privilege, and went into Court on such a question, the investigation would at once resolve itself into a political battle, and the Court of law would not be a Court of justice. I think our friends opposite are confusing the issue when they say that a Court of law on such a question is a Court of justice.

Senator Millen:

– You do not want justice, then?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I am afraid we would not get justice. I should say that 90 per cent, of the Judges are anti-Labour in their views, but, however that may be, a special jury, ‘arid not the Judge, is the deciding factor in such a case- as this.

Senator Pearce:

– We said that the case might be heard with or without a jury.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I ask Senator Millen, who is versed in commercialism, of what class of individual that special jury is generally composed.

Senator Pearce:

– You can have it without a jury.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I do not want a jury the case has nothing to do with me. To take a case of the kind before a special jury is to be condemned beforehand, because such juries are selected from a class, which, in ordinary course, is under the thumb of vested interests, and has to do the bidding of those interests. I do not think, therefore, that the boastful challenge to go into a Law Court “ cuts much ice.” The charges have been made, and if they are not probed to the bottom and the fullest publicity given, I think it is safe to say, uo matter how the people may vote at the elections, nine out of ten will at least be’ suspicious about the present situation. When I interjected the other evening something about the use of secret service money in this connexion, Senator Pearce said he would use only his own money in the Law Courts. The honorable senator is evidently now in the happy position of being able to swing his money bags about, and offer to spend the money in law costs. I interjected that after he had left the carpenter’s bench and was carried into Parliament on the back of Labour, apparently he had no money then to flaunt about.

Senator Pearce:

– If you or any one else had made a charge at that time I would have taken the same course as I am prepared to take now. My honour was just as dear to me then as now.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I am quite willing to believe that Senator Pearce has now become a little bit purse-proud because he is talking of throwing his money about by threatening writs against opponents. I do not like to hear any man boasting of his wealth by challenging opponents to go outside the House and repeat their statements. If that had always been done there would have been no Democracy in Australia. There would have been no Labour movement enabling Senator Pearce to get into his present position, because a Labour Government would have been impossible in this country.

Senator Pearce:

– I have been fifteen years in the Labour party and in Parlia ment, and I have never yet found it necessay to shelter myself behind privilege during the whole of that time.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I know the honorable gentleman has always been pretty oily, and not pugnaciously inclined.

Senator Pearce:

– It is not that. It is a question of honour.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I can quite understand how the honorable senator’s sinuous methods got him into Ministries, and that, in the opinion of certain, honorable senators, he has now come to be regarded as the best Minister for Defence Australia has ever had.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– So he is.

Senator FERRICKS:

– No doubt that is the opinion of the military authorities, because he has been as putty in their hands ever since he became Minister for Defence.

Senator Pearce:

– Did you say that about me when you went up for election ?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I have never said anything either for or against the Minister for Defence in connexion with my election because I regarded him as a minor consideration. It is quite possible that the Minister for Defence from the point of view of those responsible for the military machine, is an excellent Minister, and it is quite likely that it is from men such as those that Senator Pearce has got his reputation. I now want to refer to the proposal to prolong the life of Parliament, but which was afterwards dropped.

Senator Pearce:

– Your taunt about my administration was one the Liberals used against Labour Ministers.

Senator FERRICKS:

– The honorable senator has been using’ the Liberals’ cry lately, so evidently he recognises them. I did not know that was a Liberal taunt concerning Labour Ministers. It was original so far as I was concerned.

Senator Pearce:

– We used to say it was not justified.

Senator Gardiner:

Senator Pearce did not think it was justified when he got into the libel court.

Senator PEARCE:

-No, that was the fault of the jury.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I do not know what has been the experience of the Minister for Defence, but I have been there and I know what justice is meted out by a special jury. I do not want to go back again, as I am not out of the coils yet, although in my case the experience is four years old. It is an empty challenge to taunt opponents to make the statements outside. Now, with regard to the prolongation of the life of Parliament, I believe that Senator Millen was speaking the truth when, as Leader of the Senate, he said he had no idea, until Senators Bakhap and Keating made their statements, how they were going to vote on that proposal. But I have formed the opinion, from the unexpected developments of the last few days, that a power behind Senator Millen, Mr. Cook, Mr. Hughes, and Senator Pearce brought about the collapse of the Government proposals like a house of cards. That power in my opinion, is Sir John Forrest. From the beginning Sir John Forrest has been consistent in his opposition to the proposal to prolong the life of Parliament. In the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 29th January he was reported as being the guest of Mr. Bruce Smith in Sydney, and was then emphatically opposed to the proposal.

Senator de Largie:

– You have given the Senate a good joke.

Senator FERRICKS:

– The honorable senator may hold that opinion if he chooses, but I intend to get my expression of views into Hansard in order that the people may be able to judge of their value’. Sir John Forrest, when interviewed by a reporter of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, said -

Why should we patch it up i

I point out that this was before the Coalition Government was formed. “ Why should we patch it up ?” he said, in the course of an interview last night. “ The present position has arisen through a series of unconstitutional acts. We Liberals have always believed in and preached’ responsible government. Then why not let us go straight to the people and ask them to decide ? The situation is complicated, not on account of the war. Both the Hughes and Cook parties are unanimous ‘ win-the-war parties,’ and Mr. Tudor and many of his party, similarly declare themselves. The present political situation is caused by the taking of a referendum on compulsory service in time of war, which every one is now agreed was not a subject to be submitted to referendum, but should have been decided by Parliament itself.”

Sir John Forrest said that every one admits that conscription was an issue which should never have been submitted to a referendum. Evidently he overlooked the fact that 1,300,000 people voted “ No “ to that question. Continuing, Sir John Forrest said -

Discussing the question of the prolongation of the life of the Federal Parliament, Sir John Forrest said that he would hesitate seriously to supplicate the Imperial Parliament to do this with respect to either House, while Mr. Tudor’s party, which represented a very large number of electors, was opposed to it. In any case, he could not see how an extension of the Senate term till October would be of advantage over the alternative suggestion to cut four months off the life of the House of Representatives. He did not favour the holding of two separate elections, which would cost £100,000 each. He deplored as much as anybody the holding of any election at all while the flower of the Australian manhood was at the front; but the Tudor party must bear the blame.

That was on 29th January. Unmistakably Sir John Forrest, in that interview, expressed his opposition to the prolongation of the life of Parliament, and also to any coalition. He was then desirous of going to the country. When the bombshell was lodged in this Senate on Monday of last week by Senator Millen, Sir John Forrest was reported in the Argus of the following day, 6th March, as follows: -

When seen yesterday the Federal Treasurer (Sir John Forrest) expressed great satisfaction at its having been decided to go to the country. He intends leaving at a later date for Western Australia, where he will conduct the election campaign on behalf of the Ministry. Meanwhile, he added, he will be busy with departmental business.

Sir John Forrest was not prepared to prolong the life of Parliament, and, in view of the allegations which have been made in this Chamber by Senator Watson, my assumption is that he went behind Mr. Hughes’ back to bring about a collapse of that project. I recall the fact that the Melbourne Herald of Monday, 5 th March, chronicled an announcement by Senator Millen in this Chamber that there would be a general election. That issue also contained a telegram from Sydney stating that Mr. Claude McKay, publicity manager for J. C. Williamson’s Theatrical Company Limited, had been engaged to accompany the delegates to London as publicity agent on Mr. Hughes’ secretarial staff. Mr. Hughes evidently had made all arrangements for a repetition of the boom which he enjoyed on his previous visit. A theatrical advance agent had been appointed in order that He might transmit to Australia the movements of the Prime Minister,” as was done on the occasion of his last visit. This accounted for his reputation, and his “ dominating personality,” about which we have heard so much.

Senator de Largie:

– You are a most ridiculous bletherskite

Senator FERRICKS:

– Well, the electors of Queensland will be the best judge as to whether there is anything in my belief. I believe that the Prime Minister was desirous of going to Great Britain. I do not know that Senator Millen was. Perhaps Senator Millen was as ready then to go to the country as at any other time. It appears to me that the change which came about was in the interests of Australia, and in the interests of the nation as a whole. The idea of prolonging the life of Parliament by securing the intervention of the Imperial authorities was an iniquitous proposal. I said the other day when I was speaking on the press censorship - and when you, Mr. President, called me to order because I was outside the scope of the particular proposal before the Senate - that in the conscription issue the Government had sought to put back the hands- of the clock in Australia a hundred years. I was pointing out that in 1815. as described in the latest volume of the Historical Records of Australia, two military officers had brutally done to death a man - a husband who had interposed between them and his wife. I pointed out then that Governor Macquarie had to put up fi fight against military despotism in Australia, and that by the introduction of conscription by means of the referendum we would also have to face the military menace, which had become so pronounced in Australia before we defeated the referendum. I will not go so far as to say that the military officers of this country had reached the stage of the Prussian officers who swagger along the footpath and brush civilians into the gutter; but they were approaching that stage. We had seen officers with their gold-headed- canes, flicking their gloves, occupying considerable room on the footpaths. A walk down Collins-street on any afternoon was almost a sight for the gods.

Senator Pearce:

– That is a libel on the Australian officers.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Perhaps some of the Australian officers richly deserved to be libelled. I say that numbers of these officers could have been seen with their gold-headed canes and flicking their gloves in the streets of our cities. They have no intention of going to the front at all. I regard the proposal for conscription as putting back the hands of the clock a hundred years, and this more recent proposal to prolong the life of Parliament as a straight-out attempt to put back the clock fifty years.

Sitting suspended from 9 to 10 a.m. (Thursday).

Senator FERRICKS:

– I was led to. assume the line of argument I had reached by a remembrance of the early political history of Victoria. I have looked up the Victorian Hansard of the time of the late Mr. Higinbotham, subsequently Chief Justice of Victoria, than whom Australia has never boasted any greater advocate of freedom and Democracy. In Victorian Hansard, volume 9, page 2123, in the report of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on the 2nd November, 1869, Mr. Higinbotham moved a series of five resolutions, the chief and outstanding of which was No. 3, which read - “That this House protests against any interference, by legislation of the Imperial Parliament, with the internal affairs of Victoria, except at the instance or with the express consent of the people of the colony.

On page 2129, Mr. Higinbotham is reported as having said -

We possess the right of legislation subject to a very anomalous condition, not accepted by ourselves, but imposed upon us by the English Government and the English Parliament, which enables an English Minister - a foreign Minister, I will say, for this purpose - to advise the Crown to accept or reject any of our legislative measures.

These colonies have been given the power to make laws in all cases whatsoever in and for the colonies. Now, what does that mean? I do not dispute the mere power of the British Parliament to pass any law it pleases. It has power to do it. It may pass a law abrogating our Constitution - it has the power; but I deny its right to pass any law affecting the internal affairs of these colonies without the consent of the colonies themselves, simply because the English Parliament has already surrendered that power to the representatives of the people in these colonies.

Senator de Largie:

– I rise to a point of order. I notice that Senator Ferricks is reading his speech. I have never known that to be done in the Senate before, and I- think it is forbidden by, the Standing Orders. I do not see any necessity for such a course unless it be for electioneering purposes. I take exception to his action, and I ask for your ruling, Mr. President.-

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Ferricks has not been reading his speech, but he is reading extracts to illustrate his speech. There is,- however, another point which has not been raised by Senator de Largie. That is that whilst on the motion for the first reading of a Supply Bill any matter may be discussed, whether relevant or irrelevant, another standing order provides that a discussion may not be anticipated. There is a motion on the businesspaper in the name of the Vice-President of the Executive Council regarding the prolongation of Parliament, and while it remains there it will be out of order for any honorable senator to anticipate the discussion of it.

Senator Needham:

– That is stretching the standing order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I call on Senator Needham to withdraw that remark.

Senator Needham:

– I withdraw.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Whatever my other sins may be, I have never been guilty of reading a line of a speech, but I think I am justified in reading an extract. If Senator de Largie had shown brighter intellectual perception he would have noticed that I was quoting an extract from the Victorian Hansard of forty-eight years ago. The statement bv Mr. Higinbotham confirms my contention that the pernicious proposal to prolong the life of the National Parliament without the consent of the people of Australia was doubly loaded. We can imagine what William Charles Wentworth, Dr. J”. D. Lang, and even Sir Henry Parkes, before he became Conservatized, would have thought of such a proposal. What would have been thought of it by latter-day statesmen, such as the late Sir William Lyne and the late C. C. Kingston? They would not have had such a proposal on their .minds for a moment.

Senator Bakhap:

– Bear in mind that those gentlemen never had to consider such a grave emergency as the present.

Senator FERRICKS:

– It appears to me that the emergency is similar to the one that has been operating in New South Wales. There the Government prolonged the life of the State Parliament until they thought they saw a fitting opportunity to go to the country.

Senator Russell:

– We can all indorse the quotations from the speech of Mr.

Higinbotham, but how are we to ascertain the will of the people ?

Senator FERRICKS:

– There is only one way of appealing to them, and that is by means of a referendum.

Senator Russell:

– I think he meant to ascertain the opinion of the people through Parliament. He. makes no reference to a referendum.

Senator FERRICKS:

– He uses the. words “ Except at the instance or with the express consent of the people of the colony.”

Senator Bakhap:

– He probably means the consent of the people as expressed in the Parliament.

Senator FERRICKS:

– In my opinion, such a proposition would be seriously loaded, and I would not agree to it. Generally, when I rise to make a few remarks in the Senate, I am asked to say something about the war. My remarks on that subject will be very brief. In anything I say regarding the war, I speak my own personal views only. Senator Pearce stated a few days ago that when the Labour Government was endeavouring to pass legislation connected with the war through this Chamber, it was opposed by some honorable senators on this side. Senator Turley aptly referred this morning to the opposition offered by. himself, Senator Mullan, Senator Stewart, and myself to the conditions governing the War Loan. I took the very first opportunity that presented itself of indicating my attitude publicly, during the byelection for Wide Bay following upon the resignation of Mr. Fisher. I spoke during that campaign in support of the Labour candidate, and at every meeting I addressed I took exception to the conditions which the Labour party had granted in connexion with the War Loan. Although I was supporting the Government; I criticised them severely for what I considered their wrong action iri giving the wealthy people of Australia such alluring terms for a War Loan investment. Apart from the War Loan conditions, there was not a single item of war legislation which was opposed, or even severely criticised, by any honorable senator on this side. When Senator Pearce said that we had opposed measures reating to the war he might have specified them. For the greater part of the time since the outbreak of war, Parliament has been shut up. With Senator Turley ! opposed the closing of Parliament for five months in order to allow Mr. Hughes to go to London on a self-imposed mission. I regret having reposed in a Labour or any other Government such power as is contained in the War Precautions Act, which we have seen put into operation against only one section of the community. A few days ago I read an extract from the Western Champion, the semi-official organ of the Pastoralists’ Association in Queensland, pointing out that Australia did not belong to the Australian people, but to the people of Great Britain, who had loaned money to Australia, and that if Australian Workmen continued their vandalism, by which was meant the industrial troubles and demands for higher wages, Great Britain might offer Australia to Japan, and leave it to that country to deal with the vandalism. I have not read that the War Precautions Act was put into operation against the Western Champion. Such a statement would serve to prejudice recruiting far more than any speech at a street corner, or in a park, on a Sunday afternoon. Further than that, the Pastoralists’ Association issued a blackened map showing the portions of Australia which could be worked by black labour, preferably coolies. That map was circulated throughout Australia, and was sent to honorable members of this Chamber, but no action was taken under the War Precautions Act. Will the Minister say that such a publication assisted recruiting? Will he deny that it would retard recruiting? What shall be said of those men who go on public platforms, and urge others to fight for their country, whilst their official organs tell the people that they have no country. If consistently administered, the War Precautions Act would have been put into operation against these plutocratic publications. It has been enforced, however, against only one section of the community, and that is why I object to giving such extensive powers to any Government. . Apart from that Act and the War Loan, what other war legislation has the late Government to its credit? The list of the Government’s achievements since the defection of Mr. Hughes, Senator Pearce, and their colleagues from the Labour party is not a long one. First came the daylight saving foolishness, introduced as a war measure. No thinking person will say after our experience of it that it has had one iota to do with the war one way or the other. No one in either House objected to it, because we were assured that it was necessary. Achievement number .two was the marriage by proxy joke, another war measure introduced by the Hughes Government and not opposed in this Chamber. That stands to the limited credit of the Government. We were assured that it was required in the interest of the people who had gone abroad. The third farce was the “Unlawful Associations Suppression Act. This, we were told, was necessary because there was an institution in Australia known as the Industrial Workers of the World. It is reasonable to assume, if that body does exist here, that the powers conferred by us on the Government have suppressed it. Have the Government done so? If not, why not? It is idle for them to complain of any such unlawful association when Parliament gave them full power to deal with it. Outside those three jokes, none of which has borne any result, the year’s list of achievements was barren. Will Senator Pearce point to any item introduced by the present Government, the preceding Government, or the late Labour Government, which was opposed by any member on this side, except the conditions surrounding the war loan, which I would oppose again? I have been repeatedly gibed about my attitude towards recruiting, and have scarcely ever risen in this Chamber during the past six months, except this morning, without having some taunt thrown at me on that subject. I am not going to retreat from the attitude I announced regarding recruiting: but personally I have never made a public statement that I would enlist. Senator Pearce and Senator Millen, however, are sitting cheek by jowl in the Cabinet meetings with two members of the Ministry who made public declaration « that they would enlist.

Senator Russell:

– Give the full statement.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I cannot carry a full file of papers round with me, but I think Senator Russell made a statement to the public that he intended to enlist

Senator Russell:

– I made a contract on paper which still stands.

Senator FERRICKS:

– That is between the honorable senator and his con- science.’ His public statement was that he intended to enlist. The honorable senator may explain this, but the impression on the minds of 99 per cent, of the people is what I have stated. There can be no explanation regarding Mr. Watt. I refer to his public declaration in the Armadale Theatre that he intended to enlist. He subsequently gave a reason why he would not enlist then. This was that if he enlisted “his wife and children would be insufficiently provided for. I do not want to go into his personal position, but he had been Premier of Victoria, and for several years a Minister, and is a business man in addition. If his few children would’ not be sufficiently well provided for to enable him to go to the front, what about the five or six children of John Smith, working for 9s. or 10s. per day ? Mr. Watt said he would enlist before he was forty-five years of age. I believe he was forty-five towards the end of last year, but he has not enlisted. Therefore, before Senator Millen or Senator Pearce attempts to throw any gibes across ;the Chamber they should look a little nearer home to their two colleagues. There has been so much reference to myself that I am going to volunteer an assertion that there are more Ferricks gone from Australia among the soldiers than there are Millens or Pearces. I am not claiming any credit for that. I do not believe in any man saying, “I sent my son.” ~No father has a right to send his son I do not entreat, or ask, or’ tell anv’one to go. Let every man judge for himself ; but the taunts and gibes have been manifestly unfair, and I think have mostly Been made when I have been speaking in the hope that I would say something which they could circulate at election time to help what, at .present, is their very much weakened cause.

Senator Millen:

– Should you not ascertain before you make a statement whether a man lias relatives capable of going to the war?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I simply made the assertion believing it to be correct.

Senator Millen:

– Thank God, I have no relative who would say that he would not go, and would not ask anybody else to go.

Senator FERRICKS:

- Senator Turley put the true position in regard to any Labour man’s seat. It is not to be juggled with, and doubly so in my case, because not only did the Labour movement assist the campaign of myself and my two colleagues in 1913, and of the six of us in 1914, but when I met trouble in the Law Courts the three unions in Brisbane in twenty-four hours guaranteed £1,400 to lodge an appeal to the Full Court, and, if necessary, to the High Court, so that I have an added debt to the Labour movement in Queensland.

Senator Millen:

– Then will not the unions stand by Senator Watson as they stood by you?

Senator FERRICKS:

– That is for them to say. If Senator Lynch is so anxious to come to Queensland, I tender him a very cordial invitation next time I am a candidate. I am going to stick to Queensland, which is good enough for me. If Senator Lynch wants to desert his State, as he deserted his party, he is welcome to do it. I do not think he has any great justification for throwing challenges and gibes around, because he occupies a very undignified position. We heard a great deal in the recent campaign about the honorable senator’s lifeboat. He wrote an article depicting a lifeboat picking up stragglers in the water, every one of whom when rescued took an oar, and did his share. I understand that that lifeboat has been sailing about rescuing people from the vasty political deep, and came upon Sir John Forrest struggling in the water. The honorable senator helped Sir John into the boat, and Sir John certainly took an oar, but as soon as he got his hands on it, he hit Senator Lynch over the head with it, and knocked him into the water, -and the honorable senator is now struggling about in a whirlpool of unknown political quantity. Whoever is responsible for the hideous collection of monstrosities in. the Queen’s Hall, you, sir, as their guardian, might add two exhibits to them - Senator Lynch’s lifeboat and a stuffed specimen of Mr. Hughes’ Bengal tiger. Mr. Hughes has made a number of references to the ferocity with which he was going to attack the Labour party as the ferocity of the Bengal tiger. We have not heard so much about it latelyWe have heard, “by Gods,” and “by heavens,” and “ The Labour party can have a Royal Commission,” but the poor old Bengal tiger has not been drawn out of his lair for some time past. After the strenuous six months we have had, if I were a candidate this time, I would have no compunction about facing the electors of Queensland, and repeating to them everything I have said since I have been here, in effect, if not in words. I am sure the people will prefer our policy, which is always built on the Labour platform, to the absence of policy on the other side. If they are given a fair deal at the coming election, which they were not given at the referendum campaign, and if Mr. Hughes does not arrogate to himself that licence with which he so freely ran amok prior to the referendum campaign, the people will have an opportunity of recording a fair and intelligent vote. If they do, I shall be satisfied whichever way the verdict goes, but I shall not be satisfied if the Prime Minister seeks to impose on the people the restrictions with which they were burdened in .the recent referendum campaign.

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · NAT

– I made no’ public statement in regard to enlisting. As a member of the Government, I had to go out and ask people to recruit to go to the war. I realized that it was not fair for me, a man of fighting years, to go on the platform for that purpose unless I was prepared to take the risk myself. Whenthe war census card reached me, I filled it in as follows : - “ I do not feel justified in volunteering for the war for the following reasons: that since the outbreak of the war I have been elected by the people of this country to Parliament. On two occasions I have been elected by my party to the Ministry, which I take to be an invitation by my supporters in this country to participate in the management of the war.” I concluded by saying that, if relieved of my Ministerial responsibilities, I would take my chance with the rest of Australia. I was explaining this to a friend when I had announced that I was going to resign from the Hughes Ministry after the referendum. The press got hold of it, and asked me if it was true. I said, “ Yes, I am going to honour my word.” T resigned from the Ministry, and placed myself according to my word in the hands of the Minister. It was then expected that I was going to camp, but, unfortunately, at the time I had my elbow out of joint, and had to postpone this for a few weeks.” Mr. Hughes then asked me to return to the Ministry-. There was no shirking, and no desire to shirk. So far as was humanely possible I placed -my services at the disposal of the Minister.

I have to say further that the contract still stands, and if Senator Ferricks thinks that I am failing in my duty, and desires to send me to the war, all he has to do is to beat the Government at the next elections, and I will be there within a month.

Senator STEWART (Queensland) [10.31 a.m. J - This Parliament is on the eve of dissolution. It may be said that never hitherto has an* Australian Parliament existed under such a dark shadow. The outlook, so far as Australia is concerned, is extremely bad, whether viewed from- here or in the light of what is taking place abroad. We know what is tak- ‘ ing place in Europe. We know that the British Empire was being pushed to the edge of the precipice, and but a little more pressure would have sent it rightover, and would have reduced it from the position of, perhaps, the foremost Power in the world to one of third or fourth rate significance. We are not quite out of the wood yet, but we are all living in the earnest hope that the British Empire will emerge triumphant from the struggle, and that the forces that have caused the present conflagration in Europe will, at the close of the war, be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. There is one aspect of the struggle to which I desire to direct attention. I believe that one man is responsible for the conditions now prevailing’ in Europe. I refer’ to the Emperor of Germany. If Germany had been a republic -Europe would not to-day be deluged with blood, as it is. I have on many occasions objected to monarchy, whether despotic, Or governing in a constitutional fashion. My feeling against personal rule is to-day stronger than ever it’ was before. In my opinion one of the first duties of the Allied communities after the war is over, and the Emperor of Germany is defeated and degraded, as I hope he will be, must be to see that every crowned head, including that of our own Empire, is dethroned. The position must always be unsatisfactory while men are sitting in places of power with opportunities of pursuing their policy for decades, and of exerting influence over every man who comes near them.

Senator Earle:

– ‘.The honorable senator must know that under the British Constitution there is no such power.

Senator STEWART:

– If we insist on the degradation of the- Emperor of Germany, and that Germany snail hereafter be a republic, we cannot with any decency continue to live under a system of limited monarchy ourselves. 1 set out with the assertion that monarchy is responsible for all the desolation and bloodshed of the present war. Believing that, in my inmost soul, I believe in the abolition of monarchy .

Senator Millen:

– May I ask the honorable senator how, in view of that statement, he came to take the oath of allegiance to the King.

Senator STEWART:

– I took the oath of allegiance to the King because it was necessary under the system under which we live, but I reserved to myself the right which the British Constitution gives me to criticise that system.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is proposing to abolish it.

Senator STEWART:

– The - King is merely a wheel in the scheme of government, and as a citizen of the Empire I have a right to criticise the scheme, and to exercise that right with respect to that particular part of it.

Senator de Largie:

– It is the old family feud of the Stewarts over again.

Senator STEWART:

Senator de Largie has got into bad company. We ought to be able to discuss these matters seriously. Senator Millen taunts me with having taken the oath of allegiance. I merely obeyed the law as a good citizen, and reserved to myself the right to endeavour to alter the law wherever I think it is wrong. The King is a mere wheel of the coach, and neither he nor his office is any more secure from attack than is the office of Parliament. Some people go the length of saying that we should abolish Parliament, and that is a quite arguable proposition. A great many reasons might be suggested in its favour, whilst no doubt some could be stated against it. I claim the right as a citizen of the Empire, having signed the oath of allegiance because I have been compelled to do so, since the law of the country makes it necessary-

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator need not have done so. He need not have come into this Chamber. There was no law to compel him to do so.

Senator STEWART:

– It does not matter whether I took the oath of allegiance or not, I could not live in the country without obeying its laws. I have done so, but reserve to myself the right to say that I think we might have a better system of government than that which is known as a limited monarchy. The people of Europe will, iri my view, be well advised if they dethrone every monarch on that portion of the earth’s surface-: - the Czar of Russia, the Emperor of ‘Germany, the King of England, and every other King from one end of Europe to the other. If they do so there will be ‘at least some guarantee that no single- individual or family group will again have the opportunity of sitting like a spider in a web for a quarter of a century devoting every energy to the one fiendish end, and that is the end which the German Emperor had in view, namely, to place his own individual carcass on a level with some of the great figures of history. That is, in my opinion, one of the chief forces which operated to bring about the present terrible cataclysm, and if- anything can be done to avoid such a thing in the future it should be done. We are all anxious that the Allies should win the war. I believe that they are on the side of freedom. I believe in the people of every country possessing a full and unfettered voice in the government of that country. If Germany wins in the war the people of Europe will be helots and slaves under the iron heel of Prussian despotism, and the people of Australia will be reduced to a similar condition. Therefore, every lover of liberty should favour the prosecution of the war by the Allies with the utmost energy. Australia has done her share in this great struggle well and nobly. When we consider the population of Australia, the distance we are from the scene of action, and the cost of sending our men to the battle front, and weigh all these circumstances, as we are entitled to do, I say that Australia has not “ quitted,” to use an American phrase, but has done her share with remarkable zeal.

Senator Shannon:

– Does the honorable senator not think that we should go on doing our share ?

Senator STEWART:

– I do, undoubtedly. Has any member of this Parliament suggested that we should not continue to do our share?

Senator Shannon:

– I thought the honorable senator said that we had done our share, and, therefore, we need do no more.

Senator STEWART:

– I did not say anything of the kind’. Some people say that Australia has been a “quitter” in this war, and I contend that we have done nobly.

Senator Millen:

– Those who have volunteered have done nobly.

Senator STEWART:

– Very well. The same thing might be said of Great Britain until very recently, because until a very short time ago every man who went to the front from Great Britain was a volunteer. The combination of discordant voices which we now find in power seems to think that it possesses a monopoly of all virtues and credit connected with the prosecution of the war. Up till two or three months ago the undivided Labour party was in power, and had the opportunity to direct the course of the country with regard to the war. Did the Labour Government ever slacken in the prosecution of the war ? Can Senator Pearce, or any other member of the old Labour party who is no longer in it, say that the undivided Labour party ever did anything to put a break upon Australia’s efforts in connexion with the war, or that any single individual of that party did so ? I venture to say that no such assertion can truthfully be made by any one. The Labour party has always been enthusiastically in favour of prosecuting the war with the utmost energy. ‘ The only difference between the party now on the Treasury bench and the Labour party with regard to the war is that the former believes, or did believe until a short time ago, in conscription ; that is to say, it believes in compelling men to go anywhere outside Australia.

Senator Earle:

– To defend Australia.

Senator STEWART:

– That is quite right. The party on this side, however, does not believe in sending men outside of Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– What!

Senator STEWART:

– It does not believe in compelling men to leave the shores of Australia for the purpose of defence.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– Even to keep an enemy out of Australia ?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not going to enter into a general discussion of the question; all I wish to. do is to state as clearly as I can the lines which divide the two parties on this question. If I were to say anything in regard to the matter, I would say that, if it can be shown to me that Australia is in danger, so far as I am personally concerned I would vote to send our men anywhere to defend her. That is my personal and particular view on the question. But we are not discus.sing that matter at the present moment. A short time ago a referendum of the people of Australia was taken regarding conscription. On a matter of public policy the people of Australia ought to govern, and seeing that every man and woman in the country of twenty-one years and upwards has a voice in the management of affairs, it was only right and proper that they should be consulted on a question of such momentous importance. They were consulted, and their verdict was “ No.” The Government now say that they acquiesce in that verdict, and I believe they are perfectly sincere. I do not think that the Government, even if they were inclined to force conscription, would, after the tremendous vote given against it, dare to do so. That being the position - honorable senators on the Government side having abandoned conscription as part of their policy, and honorable members on this side being opposed to conscription, and conscription not being at all likely or possible, unless some extraordinary development takes place - both parties are agreed so far as the war is concerned, and there can be no virtue on one side which is not also on the other. Honorable senators on the Government side are eager to prosecute the war to the last man and the last shilling, metaphorically speaking.

Senator EARLE:

– An honorable senator opposite has said that he would not ask a man to go to the war.

Senator STEWART:

– There may be individuals here and there, but I am speaking of the two parties as a whole. Honorable senators on this side are just as eager that the war shall be prosecuted vigorously and effectively as are honorable senators opposite. The idea which is being promulgated by the Prime Minister and by supporters of the Government, that they are the party which the people ought to place in power if they desire to see the war prosecuted to a successful issue, is nothing but the merest moonshine, pretence, and humbug.

Senator PEARCE:

– Do I understand the honorable senator to say that he thought conscription was a proper question to put to a referendum?

Senator STEWART:

– I did say so.

Senator PEARCE:

– Then, why did the honorable senator vote against the question ‘being put to the people!

Senator STEWART:

– I shall give the honorable senator my reason. I take the position that I am a soldier in the army of labour, and, like many other soldiers, I have, occasionally, to obey orders with which I may not agree; neither an army, a government, nor a country can be run on any other lines. If I had elected to disobey the order I received from my superiors-

Senator Earle:

-Youwould have been over here !

Senator STEWART:

– If I had elected to disobey the order of my superiors, I do not know that I should have been over there, but, in all probability, that would have been the result.

Senator Russell:

– At all events, you would not have been on the side that you are now?

Senator STEWART:

– That is so. I took a frank survey of the situation. I found things on this side that did not completely satisfy me, and things on the other side that were very much more unsatisfactory, and I made up my mind, seeing that the organizations had decided to act in a particular way, and that this was probably the only great question in connexion with which I disagreed with them, that it was my duty and my interest to stay where I was. If I had adopted the heroic course taken by some honorable gentlemen, I should have found myself where they find themselves to-day - I should have found myself sitting on the same benches with men between whom and myself there is not a scintilla of political sympathy.

Senator Pearce:

– No sympathy with them in regard to the war ?

Senator STEWART:

– Does Senator Pearce mean to tell me that there is nothing before Parliament or the country to-day- but the war ? Of course, the war is the biggest subject; it is the one that looms largest in our minds; but on that question we are united. There are, however, dozens of other questions.

Senator Pearce:

– At the time the referendum was taken there was no ‘ ‘ this side “ or “ that side “ as now. Each party was on its own side, and the referendum was on the Labour platform. There was no question of going to another party.

Senator STEWART:

– I am well aware of all that. As I have pointed out, the war is here, and the war must be fought to a finish. Whether we succeed or not there are a number of other questions, the settling of which, when the war is over, and even now, is more urgent than ever before in the history of Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– And if we fail?

Senator STEWART:

– If we fail, then, of course, somebody else will have the settling of these questions. What I desire to insist on is that it does not necessarily follow that we shall fail unless the present Government is returned to power. So far as my opinion is worth anything I express it, -and I do not think it matters very much, so far as the prosecution of . the war is concerned, whether the present Coalition Government or the Labour Government be returned. But there are other questions which are related, not only to the prosecution of the war, but to the “ cleaning up “ which must inevitably take place when the war is over. That brings me to another aspect of this great question. When the war is over, even if we win it, Australia, if not exactly in a ruined condition) will be practically an exhausted community. Any man who takes an unprejudiced, unbiased, and clear view of the present situation can come to no other conclusion. The war, whether we win or lose it, will place us in a position such as the people of Australia have never hitherto occupied. What have we been doing, or what are we doing, to meet such an extraordinary position? What is the Government in power doing, and what is a Government composed of such discordant elements as the present one likely to do in the best interests of Australia during’ the war and after the war ? There are hundreds and thousands of men away fighting at the front, and these men will have to be provided for when they come back to civil life. We hear of repatriation schemes here, there, and everywhere. Everything we can do for the returned soldiers must be and will be done; that is the one cry which resounds from end to end of the Continent. But I have lived long enough to have heard that kind of cry before. I have seen men who had fought and bled for the British Empire begging bread on the streets of Great Britain, and I have seen them treated in the most mean and despicable fashion. And I have no doubt that, unless something is done, no symptom of which we have yet seen, and no sound of which we have yet heard in Australia, the lot of a great number of these men, who have gone forth so bravely, and who are fighting so manfully - even those who are . not wounded are suffering severely and sorely - will not be what it ought to be. We hear a great deal about settling these men on the land, but where is the land to settle them on ?

Senator Pearce:

– You wereMinister for Lands in Queensland, and you: ought to know.

Senator STEWART:

– There are millions and millions of acres of land in Australia, and’ yet we find everywhere throughout the Continent that people are rushing into the cities, leaving the country practically desolate. Why are they doing so ? There are a number of reasons, but one of the principal is the difficulty of obtaining good land’ at a decent price. That is a difficulty which is driving the country people into the city, and which is preventing city people, who may have some idea of settling on the land, from going into the country. I have dealt with the question of land monopoly many a time before in the Senate, but I think that never before in the history of the country has the full force of this evil presented itself’ so powerfully to the public imagination, as now, when we find ourselves in the grip of a tremendous struggle. I have asked the Senate times almost without number to take such action as will break up land monopoly, as will destroy it for ever and give the people of Australia access to the lands of. this Commonwealth. And mark you I did not ask a party to do something which it had not the power to do. I asked a party that could have done this thing if it had agreed to do it, but it either had not the courage or there were a hundred and one other reasons whereby action was not taken, with the result that to-day Australia stands on the threshold, of this great struggle with her lands still undisturbed in the hands of the monopolists. What hope is there if. the country returns the present occupiers of the Treasury bench, to power. I have no- doubt that Senator Pearce and every other ex-member of the Labour party now sitting in this chamber would vote for a swinging land tax., but there are other members of the party opposite who would absolutely refuse to pass taxation that would have the result which I have indicated, is desirable,, namely, the breaking, up of the land monopoly. I am absolutely safe in making, that statement. Senator Pearce and Senator Russell, would support this policy, but would Senator Millen ?

Senator Grant:

– I think he would.

Senator STEWART:

– I am. not so sure of that.

Senator Grant:

– He was a pretty good land-taxer at one time-.

Senator STEWART:

– Yes, I am aware that he was- a land-taxer but that was in his green and callow days, and. before- he found that there was perhaps an. easier way for political promotion than by advocating something which strikes at the very root of monopoly, and at the power of the monopolists. In the other Chamber we have Sir John Forrest and. Mr. Joseph Cook. Would they vote for such a policy? Mr. Hughes would, I believe, because he is a. man of. strong and; clear intellect, and knows what is best to be done in the interests of the country.But. unhappily at the present moment, if he attempted to carry out that policy it would be immediately vetoed by the members of his- Cabinet. If the people of Australia desired that the lands of. Australia should be thrown open, to settlement and occupation there would be no hope from the party which now occupies the Treasury bench.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There was no hope from the party who occupied the Trear sury bench before.

Senator STEWART:

– I think these was some hope.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Very, little. You never madea convert here..

Senator STEWART:

– I was always under the impression that every member of the Labour- party was pledged to- the imposition of a land values tax which would destroy land monopoly. That is the pledge given by every member of the party before he entered the Senate, but, unfortunately,, it wasnot given effect to by the men when they came here.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is what 1 am complaining about.

Senator STEWART:

– But that was nob my fault. The only thing a man in my position can. do is to live in the hope that some day the people will have the sense to put into Parliament men who will carry out what they have promised to do-. Everybody makes mistakes. We choose the wrong men. A man goes to the Eaces and picks a “crock “ instead of a winner. We all do that politically, and in every other walk of life, but surely in the course of timewe shall have in power a party which, will break up this evil of land monopoly. That political party which is not prepared to do this is of no earthly value to the people of Australia, for this is the one paramount question. It stands above everything else apart from the prosecution of the war itself. Australia can never be safe without a very much larger population. How is she going to keep this country if her lands are locked up in the hands of the monopolists, and can only be secured for use by those who desire to cultivate them on the payment of a ransom - for that is practically what it means. Will people come here under such conditions? Nothing of the kind. I wish to see an inducement to people to come to Australia in the near future. I listened with very great admiration to the speech delivered by Senator Bakhap yesterday. No better advice was ever given to our people than was contained in that speech delivered by that honorable gentleman yesterday. If we desire to maintain a White Australia, to keep our freedom, and .establish in this island continent such conditions as will be an example to the other countries of the world, we must be ready to defend ourselves against any possible form of attack. We cannot do -that without population, and we cannot get .people to come here unless we are prepared to offer them conditions and material advantages in the form of cheap and good land in the best position. Do we offer them that now? When those hard-headed Scottish Commissioners returned to England from their survey of the situation in Australia, they issued a report in which they stated plainly that all the land in the Commonwealth which was of any use for practical settlement had already been mopped up by the monopolist, and could not be obtained without the payment of excessive prices. That is the condition to-day.

Senator Millen:

– Are you sure they used the term ‘ ‘ excessive prices ‘ ‘ ?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not sure that that was the term .used, but I know that was the meaning.

Senator Millen:

– Which you attached to it.

Senator STEWART:

– And I say fearlessly, that we cannot expect men to pay what I .term excessive prices for land in a country such as this, and make a comfortable living on it with ease to themselves. That is the reason why large numbers of men and women, instead of staying in the’ country, taking up selections for them selves, and becoming producers of food and other products, are deserting the land, and coming into the towns. That is the kind of thing which the people of Australia, if they are wise, will attempt to stop. We have here a position almost without parallel in the world because we have actually more of our population living in the cities than in the rural districts. Take Victoria for an illustration. According to the Commonwealth Statistician the population is 13 and a fraction per square mile, but if the figures are analyzed it will be found that more than half the population is living in the cities.

Senator Millen:

– Are they doing well in the cities?

Senator STEWART:

– More than half the population is living in the cities, and the actual rural population - the settlers on the land- actually represent not more than 6 or 7 per cent, of the total. The honorable gentleman asks me if the people are doing well in the cities. I say that they are not. We know that in the towns high wages are paid and shorter hours of labour are worked, and if we take only a surface view of the matter, the condition of the town worker appears to be much better than the position of the man who lives in the country. But, again, if we analyze the position, we find that -exactly the opposite is the case. Take Melbourne, as an illustration. Do we not find .thousands of unemployed clamouring to the Government for relief, and asking the Government to borrow money for public works to give them -employment? This is a most unfortunate state of affairs, and for which I say the Government of Australia are responsible.

Senator Guthrie:

– And you, too.

Senator STEWART:

– I say that the Governments are responsible because this condition has been brought about by a wrong system of national management, and it can be cured by a proper system of national management. The honorable gentleman says that I .am responsible. Well, he has been in the Senate a very long time, and he has heard me lift my voice against this state of affairs time and again. How he can say that I am responsible, seeing that I have done everything possible a single human being can do to change this system, is more than I can discover. The facts are there. In Melbourne, Sydney, and every one of the

Australian capitals there are thousands of men out of employment, and I suppose every man knows what it means in the home of a working-class family when the head or any member of the family is out of work. The wage paid to the average workman is no more than sufficient to maintain him for the time being, and the moment that wage stops the wolf of poverty enters into the home. It has been said that large numbers of people in the cities will not go into the country. I admit that. It is an unfortunate circumstance -that so many of our people seem wedded to city life. But we must ask ourselves how it happens that they absolutely refuse to’ leave the cities and go out to the bush, and that so many people leave the bush to come into the cities. There must be a reason for that. I have stated in this chamber dozens of times that it is because the best lands of the Commonwealth are denied to those men and women. Until we unlock the lands and throw them open to settlement and occupation, until we give our people not the worst lands and those which have not been good enough for the capitalist to work, but the very best areas; until we cut up the land so as to settle people on small holdings and give them a chance of earning an honest livelihood in producing food for themselves, the consumers in the cities, and for export, instead of depending on doles of loan money, we shall never have in Australia any thing but rotten and unsound conditions.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Are you not proposing to interfere with State rights?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not thinking of State rights or anything so unimportant. There is only one right in a community, and that is the right of human beings to live. While millions of acres of the best lands in the Commonwealth are held up by men who do not use them, an injury is being done to every man, woman, and child in Australia, an injury which, while it seems to affect only those who are more immediately concerned by it, will in the end, if not remedied, kill the community itself. What hope have we of any reform in this direction from the party at present in power? The Government tell us that they will prosecute the war with energy and vigour, and that we, on this side, are slackers and shirkers so far as the war is concerned. There is not a scintilla of ruth in that statement, but these other problems which are now important, and which will be still more important when the war is over and its burden has to be shouldered by the people of Australia, must be dealt with. Will the party in power deal with them? Will this party, which, in a few days, will go to the country and proclaim itself the Simon Pure of politics and the “ Win-the-War party,” do anything to break up this evil of land monopoly ?

Senator Millen:

– It is much more important to know if we are to be denied the right to legislate for Australia.

Senator STEWART:

– That is all very fine and beautifully sophistical. If a man said to me, “ Look here, old chap, you propose to do so-and-so next week, but how the deuce do you know you will be alive next week? “ I should say, “ I do not know anything about it, but hitherto in my life I have acted to-day on the assumption that, in all probability, I shall be alive to-morrow.” We ought to map out a course tor the future on the assumption that the Allies will emerge victorious from the war. While we bend all our energies .to fighting the enemy at the gate we must never forget the other problems which, the moment the war is over, will become insistent, and, indeed, are insistent now.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is the honorable senator aware of the fact that in Tasmania any estate worth, say, £8,000 can be forcibly resumed for purposes of settlement ?

Senator STEWART:

– That may be very true, but have any estates been forcibly resumed ?

Senator Millen:

Senator Stewart does not wish to resume at market values; he wishes to confiscate.

Senator STEWART:

– I have not yet dealt with land values taxation. What I am insisting on is that we have in Australia conditions of land monopoly which are blighting the progress of the community. Some feeble attempts have been made to deal with this problem, but they have been unsuccessful. For instance, we find that there is an exemption of £5,000, under which no Commonwealth land tax can be levied. If we are entitled to the community-created increment at all, we are entitled to get every farthing of it. I know honorable senators opposite will say, when I advocate the abolition of the exemption, that I am in favour of the. taxation of the smaller holdings and injuring the occupiers. But I say, and my contention is capable of proof, if -we had an effective land tax no class in this community would benefit more by its application than the men who occupy small holdings. We find in Victoria that if a man desires to buy a small holding for himself he has to pay from £20 to £100 per acre for the land. If we had such a land tax in operation as would effectively break up land monopoly, those men would be able to get land at a very much cheaper rate. I think that contention is unassailable.

Senator Earle:

– We will provide them with good land at a very much cheaper rate than that in Tasmania.

Senator STEWART:

– I have not very much knowledge of Tasmania, and that which I do ‘ possess does not give me a particularly high opinion of the wisdom of those who have had the management of its affairs for some time.- I admit that the honorable senator did not have a decent chance to put the policy of the Labour party into operation, because his tenure of office was cut short. I find in regard to Tasmania that her young men are leaving her, and are going to the mainland, New Zealand, and America. Young women are coming across to the mainland. I investigated the statistics of Tasmania’s population some years ago, and I found the position absolutely shocking. There was actually a smaller increase of population in the “ tight little island “ from which Senator Bakhap, the apostle of fecundity, comes, than in any country of the civilized world, with the exception of Ireland. There must be something radically wrong with Tasmania, as well as with every other portion of the Commonwealth, when we find not only that its population increase is so small, but that there is a continual drift from the bush into the city, and that the number of people in the cities is altogether out of proportion to the total. There must be something radically wrong with the management of our affairs when we have that result. If we wish to hold this country against possible enemies - and there is more than one of them - we have to get a bigger population as fast as we can. We must do that, or some day see the invader land, take our country from us, and make slaves of ourselves, .our wives, and our children. Are we to knuckle down to the land monopolist, and allow the foreigner to come in and take possession, or shall we deal with the land monopolist now, and give the people an opportunity of settling on their country and placing the community in a position for effective defence ? The alternative before the Parliament and people of the country is that if they do not awaken to the importance, difficulties, and dangers of the situation, they will inevitably pay the penalty of their neglect. There is another matter which I think is possibly of more consequence to-day than it has ever been in the history of Australia. If the history of the war teaches us anything - if it will teach posterity anything - it will be this one lesson over and above all others: that it is to the supreme advantage’ of every community to be as nearly self-contained as possible. England to-day is feeling the effects of what seemed to her, and to many onlookers, a wise and intelligent policy, but which was condemned on many occasions by people whose vision was clearer and better. England now finds that she is the prey of a submarine attack, that her ships laden with food and raw commodities are sunk almost within reach of her ports, and that her people are in danger of starvation. I have pointed out here the trouble which Britain was brewing for herself by her policy, and, as can easily be seen, under a criminal policy of Free Trade huge areas in the country from which I came - Scotland - instead of being devoted to the production of food, have been let out as deer parks, rabbit warrens, and pheasantries for American millionaires. About six years ago I paid a visit - to a place I knew in my youth, where forty .families existed in comfort, making a living from the soil. There was not a single house, not a stone upon the whole place, not a living being except a gillie or two. The whole place was occupied - by what ? By a rabbit warren. Rabbits were bred there for the profit and amusement of an American millionaire, who had leased the whole countryside. That applies almost everywhere throughout Great Britain and Ireland. In England we find that the parks and the manors of the rich occupy hundreds of thousands of acres, that the area under cultivation and producing food has been continually going down year after year for decades, while Britain has been depending for her food supply upon almost every other country on the face of the globe. The people of Great Britain are waking upto the . stupidity ofa policy of that kind. They are beginning to turn theparksand manors into potato fields; they should basedone itlong ago. They are beginning to tarn therabbit warrens, the deer parks, and other places of that character into sheep walks land ‘.cattle runs. I . am afraid that it is too late in the day for that kind of thing. Probably Britain may emerge from this struggle with a few very severe scars, but if -she had been wise enough and carefulenough, and her -Government not so much in ‘the hands of a selfish -and -unpatriotic aristocracy, then -she would -not be in the serious position which she now occupies. If there is one lesson which we ought to learn from the war, it is that every community should be as nearly self-supporting as possible. What is our condition in Australia? There is not a thing that the heart of man or woman can desire which could not be produced here. There is wool to make clothing; there is meat to eat; there is every kind of food produced either under the temperate or under the tropical climes. We have coal, iron, tin, copper, diamonds, and sapphires - we have a hundred -other products, every one of which is useful for the purposes of man, and every one of which ought to be employed by us in connexion with our own industries if we only had any sense or wisdom to do so. We have heard a great dealabout the Tariff , as well as about land monopoly. I am one of those who have been continually telling the people of Australia that, in addition to breaking up land monopoly, which would ‘ give people employment in the country, we ought to have, not a revenue Tariff such as was referred to by Senator Grant yesterday, but a Tariff which would practically prohibit the importation of such goods as we could produce and manufacture. I dare say that there are some things which we could not commercially produce at the present time., but there is a very wide range -of commodities which we could produce, and which we ought to produce. In the last financial year, I gather from statistics, we imported about £.70,000,000 worth of goods. One authority . says that we could easily have produced . at least one-half of those goods- here, but we did not do it. Why ? For ‘this reason and for no other, that sufficient protection was not given tothe local manufacturer, therefore, the markethas beenoverrun by the cheap goods from foreign countries.

SenatorGuthrie. - Whatil Germany.?

Senator STEWART:

– Germany is not the only pebbleon the beach.

Senator Guthrie:

– Where . are the goods coming from ? Do you know that the ships . are . coming here in ballast ?

Senator STEWART:

– It does not matter to me where the goods . ate coming from. All that troubles me is . that we are importing -from other countries the goods when we ought to be manufacturing them. There is another aspect of the question. While we hire the workers of other countries to produce these commodities for us, large numbers of our own people are going about idle or clamouring’ for the expenditure of loan money so that they may be able to live. Would it not be very much . better for us as a community, instead of importing these commodities, to be manufacturing them ? I do not believe that we shall ever have any effective remedy for this kind of thing until we establish an enlightened system of Socialism. Let me take one commodity. In Australia we have everything necessary for the production of hats. We have the wool, fur, labour, and machinery. But what is the fact? The fact is that the Italian hat, notwithstanding a very high duty, is almost chasing the Australian hat out of the market.

The- PRESIDENT.- Does not the honorable senator think that this portion of his discourse would be much more appropriate to the discussion of the Tariff Bill which is on its way to the Senate ?

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Perhaps. I will not go into any details. It seems to me to be utterly foolish on the part of this community to be spending such huge sums in paying wages to the foreigner when the commodities could be made for us by our own people. Will the party which is now in power give usany relief ? I know that a number of the leading men in the present Government are ‘Free Traders. Senator Millen is a Free Trader. I do not know whatSenator Pearce is now ; he used to be a Free Trader; there was a temporary conversion to Protection, but perhaps he has again lapsed. I know that Mr. Joseph Cook is a Free Trader, and so is Mr. Hughes.Influential members of the present Government are men who, if not Free Traders, are strongly imbued with that fiscal poison. What hope have we from them ? If the Tariff is made a really protective’ one, instead of obtaining a revenue of abou,ti£16,000.000 a year from- it, we would riot get more than perhaps £6,000,000/, so that a radical alteration would mean a loss of probably £10,000,000 a year to the Consolidated Revenue: Fund. Members, of the Government are not prepared to give away such a huge sum as that for the simple reason that they would have to find a substitute for it somewhere else’, and they are not prepared to take the steps; necessary to bring that about. Australia will find, herself in practically a new position after the war is over - a position which, will entail a complete review of. her social and economic system. When it was established in 1901 the Commonwealth as a Government was practically free of debt- The State Governments no doubt were largely indebted^ but if they were, a very considerable proportion of that indebtedness had been spent in constructing- reproductive works-. The State Governments owned the railways1,, and a large number of buildings; of various’- kinds, and in one way; or another the money which had been borrowed’ and spent on works was to- a great extent re? productive-,, though not quite so- largely as ought to have been the- case-. How, do we stand now?’ The Commonwealth, inr stead of being able- to put “nothing” against the- item “ national indebted:ness,” will,, if the war continues to the end of this year, have to count upon a debt of considerably over £200,000,000-. I wonder whether that stupendous fact has burnt itself into the minds of members of the- Senate. If. it has not, it ought to do so, because it is a fact of so much importance that whether we will or not we cannot escape examining it and dealing with it. There it is. We have a debt of over £200,000,000 upon which interest at the rate of 4^ per cent, has to be paid - an annual interest burden of £9,000,000. Where is that money to come from? Have the Government any policy in regard to it?

Senator GRANT:

– It should come from the Customs.

Senator STEWART:

- Senator Grant says that it should come from- the Customs, but I would remind him that we are already raising-‘ £16,000,000’ annually from that source. This- £9,000,000 is- an amount additional to ‘ what we have hitherto- required! - a sum for- interest only, and one which consequently will not. be reproductive-. All this money, will be simply wasted, blown into the air, perhaps, or sunk in. the seas. Not only will this annual tribute of £9,000,000 require to’ be paid, but some day the total debt itself will have to be discharged by the people of- the Commonwealth-. That is a fact of sufficient, moment to compel every honorable senator’s attention, though we have heard very little of it during this debate. But if politicians regard it as a matter of so little consequence as not to demand consideration, the unfortunate people of the Commonwealth, in the years to come will have to carry it on their backs, and to ‘pay it out of their blood, and bone-, and sinews. The sooner we take, a square look at where we stand, and endeavour to discover a way out of the difficulty, the better. Where are we going to get these £9,000,000? There will be money required for repatriation,, for pensions,, and for a dozen other things. In fact, there will be so much required, according to the exTreasurer, Mr.; Poynton-, that, in the year 1918,. and from thence onwards, we shall have, to, collect .£18,5.00,000 a yean by way of additional taxation.. Where is that money to. be obtained.? Honorable senators must, have some intelligent idea on the subject,, and, if so, it ought to be made public. Have the Government any policy in connexion with the matter? So far as I have been able to discover, they have not.. But the Labour party policy is quite clear and definite… We intend to go for the community-created land values. I have previously pointed out that there is a sum of between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000 of community-created land values annually passing into the pockets of private land-owners. Not a single farthing of that money belongs by moral right to the people who get it. It belongs to the community which has created it, and instead of finding its way into the pockets of private individuals it ought to be paid into the public Treasury. Now the time has arrived when the people- of Australia will have” to choose one of two ways, of raising that money.

Senator Millen:

– When the honorable senator is speaking of moral rights I would remind him’ that it is the moraland legal right of public servants to be paid to-day.

Senator STEWART:

– It is not my fault if they are- not paid, and I anr. riot going to allow any moral right on the part of any public servant, or of anybody else, to interfere witu my right to say a few words on the present occasion. If the Government were so anxious for the welfare of our public servants they could have brought forward this measure at such a time as would have afforded us ample opportunity to’ discuss it.

Senator Millen:

– It was brought forward in time, but the honorable senator’s party occupied a whole day in debating something else.

Senator STEWART:

– The Bill required more than one day for its consideration j as the Vice-President of the Executive Council knew. The people of Australia will have to- choose one way or the other. Either they will pay this £18,000,000 annually out of their own earnings, in addition to the other taxation to which they so largely contribute, or they will order the Government to see that the communitycreated land values are paid into the public Treasury, instead of finding their way into the pockets of private land-owners. Here is a sum aggregating anything between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. I know that Senator Senior impugns the accuracy of my figures. I do not say they are absolutely right, but I do not think they are very far from the truth. This immense sum is annually being paid to the private owners of land. Let it be diverted into the public Treasury, and not only will the benefit to the people of Australia be immense, but the stimulus which will result from such an operation will, I am sure, be remarkable. Another mistake to which I referred when the War Loan Bill was under consideration is that ‘moneys advanced for war purposes are exempted from taxation. Now, if our war debt on the termination of this terrible struggle aggregates something between £200,000,000 and £300,000,000, it is manifest that we shall be practically exempting from taxation an income of £10,000,000 annually. Is not that folly? Why, we ought to be getting anything from £500,000 to £1.000,000 a year in taxation upon it. As I pointed out yesterday, the Imperial. Government is paying 1 per cent, less interest than we are to those people who have elected to be exempt from income taxation in this connexion. Why could not our own Government do something on similar lines? It is not the poor people who are being benefited by the exemption, because 90 per cent, of the War- Loan funds contributed in Australia has been subscribed by the rich individuals and the banking and other corporations. Yet these people are exempted from taxation on the income derived from interest upon those loans. That kind of thing is stupidity itself.

Senator Senior:

– Is it not obvious that if we did not make the exemption, we should have to pay a higher rate of interest?

Senator STEWART:

– The honorable senator knows that I am opposed to the payment of any interest on money raised for the purpose of defence. I gave my reasons for adopting that attitude some time ago, and they are so sound as to be practically unassailable. Here we are burdened with a debt which is beyond parallel for such a small community, and yet we are exempting from taxation £10,000,000 annually, 90 per cent, of which is paid to the very richest people in the Commonwealth. I am almost certain that very soon the necessity for the Government bringing this huge income within the reach of taxation will become so apparent that there will be no escape from it. There is another matter to which I would like to refer very briefly. For some time past we have been spending money very freely and living on a very high plane, so to speak. It seems to me that if we do not voluntarily accept the policy of economy, hardship will force it upon us. Therefore I would urge upon the Government, as I urged upon the last Government, the necessity for exercising very great care ‘in the expenditure of public money. The people of Australia will have a sufficient burden to bear without being obliged to carry the additional load of an extremely expensive system of government. The pruning knife ought to be applied very freely. I do not wish to make suggestions in this connexion, although I could do so if I cared to. I have no doubt that if the Labour party are returned to power they will know how to face the situation. But in any case the need for the strictest economy is imperative. Many works which are now in progress might very well be discontinued till other days dawn upon us. We are spending money upon projects which in our life time will yield very little by way of a return. If we must spend money to keep people employed, why not spend it upon clearing and cultivating farms upon which we can settle returned soldiers immediately the war is over? Why not spend money in that direction instead of wasting it on a Capital site which will be of no earthly value to any person now living? Why not do what I have indicated, instead of taking the unfortunate men who have fought and bled for their country and dumping them down on uncleared lands, thus compelling- them to do all the hard pioneering work ? Why not put the whole machinery in working order and thus give them a chance?

Senator de Largie:

– What wages would the honorable senator pay for clearing the farms?

Senator STEWART:

– That is a detail which could be settled by my honorable friend who interjects and by others.

Senator de Largie:

– Would you charge the farmer the cost of clearing ?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not going into these details. These men coming back every day must be provided for. There is great talk of settling them on the land. Cannot we, the people of Australia, do what private railway companies are doing in America ? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company sends out its gangs, clears farms, cultivates them, builds houses, gets the stock and puts it on the farm, and says to the man when he comes along, “ Here is a farm ready made for you to enter.” That is the kind of policy I suggest to the Government to adopt, instead of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds upon projects which, however useful they may be some day in the future, are of no practical value to us at present.

Question, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Bill read -a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short Title)

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I wish to make an explanation. Senator Lynch, in the debate on the first reading, made on me the same personal attack ‘ that, during this brief session, has already been made by his two colleagues from Western Australia - Senator Pearce and Senator de Largie. What reason those three Western Australian senators have for bringing up a matter twenty-three years old, and trying to put a wrong construction on it, I do not know. Senator Lynch quoted an attack made on me by Senator Oakes in this Chamber in 1914. Within three months of that attack being made, Senator Oakes and myself went before the electors. I returned ; he was defeated. All these honorable senators have tried to make out that twenty-three years ago I did not run as a Labour member. I have twice before answered the statement, and will answer it whenever it is reiterated. In 1891, I signed the pledge of the . Labour party. In 1894, when a new pledge was introduced by Mr. Watson, Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Holman, I went to the Labour leagues of my district, and said, “ I am not going to sign this pledge; it is an impossible working pledge, but I am willing to sign the pledge I signed in 1891 “ - which was the pledge of the Political Labour Party, brought into existence by the Trades and Labour Council in New’ South Wales. The leagues there accepted my proposal that I should run against the solidarity candidate. I won the preelection poll against Bowman, the solidarity candidate, by 400 to 200. When the election came on, one of the candidates in the early stages of the pre-election ballot, stood against me, and called himself a Labour candidate. I believe he got eighty votes, but, at any rate, I won the election. I remained in that Parliament for twelve months, and I challenge Senator Millen or Mr. Joseph Cook, who were sitting with the Liberal party in that Parliament, to say whether once during that period I set foot in their party room. Each time I have been elected to Parliament - State or Federal - I have been elected as the selected Labour candidate. The only purpose which the three Western Australian senators can have in raking up this matter is to discredit me before the people of Western Australia, and I am determined that no Hansard will go out with their story in it that does not also carry my contradiction.

Senator de Largie:

– Were you elected on the solidarity pledge ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course I was elected by the solidarity leagues on the pledge I signed in 1891.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Workmen’s Homes,Canberra - Bitter Pit - Letter Carriers’ Uniforms - Port Adelaide PostOffice.

Schedule

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Have the plans and specifications of the proposed working men’s cottages and homes at Canberrabeen laid on the table of the Library ?

SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria - Assistant Minister.)[12 . 10]. - Ishall have inquiries made, and ifthe Minister in chargeofthe Department . has no objection the papers will be laid on the table.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– No amount is set down for the bitter pit investigation, which Ibelieve is still proceeding. It is veryessential to complete the work.Is it to be continued?

Senator Russell:

– The inquiry is to be continued for the present.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

.- I have received the following complaint regarding the PostmasterGeneral’s Department from the Australian Letter Carriers Association -

Brisbane, 5th March, 1917

Dear Sir and Comrade,

I have been instructed by my association to bring under your notice the fact that the postmen in Queensland have not yet received their summer uniforms, whilst the postmen in other parts of the Commonwealth have received theirs some time before Christinas. We would like some of the Queensland members of the party to take up this matter. We would also like a protest made against the new system that has been adopted by the PostmasterGeneral with regard to our supply of uniforms. They are . going to supply us with one (1) suit of serge every year, and every two (2) years with two (2)- pairs of cotton oord (khaki) suits. However they expect us to be able to keep these suits for two years beats us. Of course this will only be for summer wear, but any one that knows anything about the Queensland summer will know these two suits would only last through one summer, if they . got that far. The Department, in their regulations, expect us to keep clean and respectable, and this_is the way they are (not) going to help us to carry out their wishes.

The summer in Queensland begins in October, and will be over by the time the men get their summer suits. That is not fair to them, especially as men in the Southern States, where the matter is:not so urgent, havebeen getting theirs. If the men are . expectedto keep their uniforms neat and tidy it will be impossible for them to do it if the supply of those uniforms is cut down as is indicated in : this letter.Iask the Minister representing tthePostmaster-General to bring this matter under the notice of thePostmasterGeneral and request ihim to take steps to rectify what appears to be a serious grievance.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I understand that negotiations which were entered into with theSouth Australian Government in regard to a site for a new post-officeat Port Adelaide have been held up for a time. Iwould liketo know how the matter is progressing.

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · NAT

– All honorable senators are in sympathy with the representations made in the letter that has been read by Senator Mullan. There seems to have been some unexpected delay in the Department. I shall bring the matter under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral and see whether anything can be done. I hope to be able to bring the whole of the contents of the letter read under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral. If Senator Senior will submit a question at a later hour in the day I shall be pleased to supply him with the information that he desires.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without request, and report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 11450

SUPPLY (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL (No. 4) 1916-17,

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The amount of the Supply asked for is £988,245. The total amount of previous Supply Bills passed during the financial year is £4,282,845, making, with the amount in theBill now before us, a total supply for works and buildingsof £5,271,090, and covering a period of eleven months. Taking eleven-twelfths of the 1915-16 Estimates, namely, £3,005,291,this total exceeds the proportion; of the 1915-16 Estimates by £2,265,799, the greater part of which is accounted for by the following works, which are now being paid for out of revenue, but last year were provided for out of loan : - Commonwealth railways, £1,327,700; erection of buildings in London, £155,000; purchase of sites, £411,800; construction of conduits and laying wires underground, £144,500; and machine shops, machinery and wharfs at Cockatoo Island, £30,000. These items total £2,069,000’. The difference is also partly accounted for by increases in other items, such as Trade, and Customs, New Works, New South Wales, £22,000- the new Customs House at Sydney accounts for the major part of this amount - Northern Territory £24,900- this is the extra amount required in order to carry out the agreement with Vestey’s Meat Works, by which agreement £10,000. has to be expended on dredging a pier at Port Darwin, and £20,000 ‘has to be expended on- a water supply for the freezing works, though the latter amount has to be recovered later- - and Naval Works,. £19,000. representing the purchase of new barges and plant required for naval bases.. These three items account for a further £65,900; and the difference is further accounted for by excess amounts granted in previous Supply Bills on items, which are not in- cluded in the Bill before us.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee .

Clauses 1 to 4agreed to.

Schedule.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

.- I notice that £240,000 is set apart for the purchase of sites. Will the Minister for Defence give some explanation in regard to that item ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– In connexion with the administration of the Postal and Defence Departments it has been the practice for some time past to set aside a certain sum each year for the purpose of purchasing post-office sites, rifle ranges, and sites for drill halls. The item in the schedule represents three months’ proportion of the amount that is set apart- for the- year for this purpose.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported’ without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 11451

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1914-15

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This measure covers expenditure out of the Treasurer’s Advance Account on amounts that have- been voted in Supply Bills. The rroney has been spent, but the expenditure has- to be ratified by Parliament, and it has always beeu the practice, to do so by Bills such as- this.

Senator Mullan:

– Will the passage of this Bill replenish the fund?

Senator PEARCE:

– No. The- amounts covered by the Bill have . already been voted in Supply Bills, but not in any Appropriation Bill. This Bill merely accounts to Parliament for sums that have already been voted. There is a schedule attached which honorable senatorshave before them, and I direct attention to some of the main items, so that it. will pe seen how the larger items come to be included. -There are items, such as Victuallingstores for Permanent Forces(seagoing), £33,225 ; Citizen Naval Forces called up for duty in consequence of the war, £17,952; expenses of detained enemy vessels used as’ cargo carriers, -the revenue from these ‘ vessels in 1914-15 was £145,503- £153,973 ; expenses in connexion with detained enemy subjects, and other “ war services,” £13,939; purchase of foodstuffs for Governments of. India and South- Africa, £50,368. Of this amount £27,000, owing by the Government of India, has been re- covered, and of the balance, £23,000. owing by the Government of South Africa, is now in course qf settlement. Then we have an item £2,333 representing duty on presents sent by members of Australian Forces abroad, and an item of £21,063 in respect of prize- courts. That item covers the wages of detained enemy vessels and all other expenses in connexion with such vessels whilst under the jurisdiction of prize courts. These are practically all war services. Apart from war services the vote for the Defence Department is £24,423. There is also an item of £13,517 in respect of the search for the steamer Endeavourwhich was lost in the Southern Ocean, and an item of £30,809 in respect of working expenses on the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway. The revenue from this railway in 1914-15 was £147,889. It will be seen that there are no large items in this Bill ; the major portion of them represents expenditure in connexion with the war which was unforeseen, and, suddenly arising, had to be met out of the Treasurer’s Advance Account.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- In regard to the Supply Bill, with which we have just dealt, I ask the Minister to state when replying why the Government asked for Supply for only three months instead of in respect of the balance of the current financial year. The fact that they have asked for only three months’ Supply means either that after the elections some senators’ who have, lost their seats may be called here to legislate, or that the Government will have to carry on without Supply for a considerable time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

.- The Government has no forebodings in respect to the future-

The PRESIDENT:

– The question raised by Senator Gardiner does not really arise under this Bill, which is only in respect of expenditure for the year ended 30th June, 1915; but if the Minister can make a short reply I presume there will be no objection, to . his doing so.

Senator PEARCE:

– I was about to say that I was as much to blame as any one for Senator Gardiner’s inquiry, since I should have explained that the expenditure provided for in this Bill relates to very much belated accounts.

Senator Gardiner:

– And that, therefore, my question is belated.

Senator PEARCE:

– No. In the ordinary course of events the Estimates and Budget-papers would have been submitted before the close of the financial year. I am informed that it was thought advisable for Treasury purposes not to ask for Supply covering the remainder of the financial year in the hope that the Department might be able to put forward a complete balance-sheet in respect of the whole year. If we were now to take Supply up to the 30th June, the Treasury would not be able at this stage to bring in a complete balance. The whole matter is left open, so that a complete balance may be brought in.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages.

page 11452

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1914-1915

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– In moving -

That this Bill be now read a second time,

I desire to inform the Senate that it provides for a total expenditure of £42,630, and that it is really complementary to that with which we have just dealt in that it relates to expenditure on works; and buildings for the year ended 30th June, 1915. Of this total of £42,630, £18,129 is provided for a special war reserve of raw material for the manufacture of cordite and the erection of the wireless station at Woodlark Island, while there is also an item of £9,823 for the Naval College. The balance of the provision is made up of various small amounts,’ the majority of which are to supplement short provision for specific works on the main Estimates for the year. It carries us only up to the 30th June, 1915, the Estimates for which have already been passed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 11452

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Repretatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

On the 3rd December, 1914, in the House of Representatives, certain resolutions were submitted embodying a Tariff schedule. Honorable senators, of course, are aware that the moment the Tariff schedule was laid on the table of that House the duties became operative. The imposition of the duties, however, is not complete until a measure for that purpose has been passed through Parliament. Seeing that the duties have been, and are, in operation, it is not proposed by the Government to alter any item, except in regard to one or two small things, so as to remove a legal doubt. Otherwise, it is not intended to increase or decrease any portion of the Tariff by a halfpenny. The only purpose of this Bill is, in view of the approaching dissolution of the other House, to legalize the collection of the duties under cover of the resolutions of the 3rd December, 1914. The amount which has been collected is between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. If this Bill were not carried it would be necessary to refund that sum to those persons who have paid duty in excess of the rate in the old schedule. That is really the only principle with which the Bill deals. I think that everybody is seized of the necessity for the Commonwealth to retain possession of this money.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I thought that when the Government got the various Supply Bills put through the Senate they would be willing to adjourn. On that understanding I have been allowing them to suspend the Standing Orders this morning from time to time.

Senator Pearce:

– If we were to adjourn now, to meet again this afternoon, there would be no opportunity to get out another notice-paper.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is said that this is a Bill to validate the collection of money under the new Tariff schedule which was introduced a little more than two years ago. But some very startling proposals have been put before the country by the Government. I understand, for instance, that there is a proposal to hand back certain money by a complicated arrangement which I cannot explain at this moment, because I have only a slight grasp of it. I refer to the money which has been collected on the importation of cornsacks.

Senator Russell:

– I think that what is proposed will be done by direct handling, through the medium of the Wheat Board.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is too serious a matter to be merely the subject of a statement made on the Bill in the other House. Where is the Board or body of men who would be capable of finding the persons who paid the duty on the cornsacks? The farmers who purchased twenty or thirty bags would get no money handed back to them, because they made their purchases at the retail stores. I submit that the Government, having announced their intention to appeal to the country, should have asked Parliament to appropriate the money necessary for the elections, and done nothing else. I, of course, recognise that the validation of the collection of money under the new Tariff was a necessity. I’ do not think that I am a very suspicious man, but if the intention of the Government is that the money paid on the importation of cornsacks is to be refunded through the Wheat Board, it will have to be taken out of the funds derived . from the sale of wheat. First, the farmer has paid a high price for his cornsacks; and, secondly, the amount of the duty is to be handed back to the importer of the cornsacks, and the Wheat Board will refund the money out of the Wheat Pool. It is not a small sum which is involved. . I have only hurriedly looked into the matter, but I am informed that the refund will amount to about £140,000. This is a very serious proposal. It ought not to have been made on the eve of a general election. It ought not to be carried any further here until we have the frankest statement as to how the operation is to he given effect, and every detail has been thoroughly threshed out. Senator Lynch poses here as a representative of the farmers in his State, I believe that he is a farming man, too.

Senator Lynch:

– Poses?

Senator GARDINER:

– Well, I will say that the honorable senator is here representing the farmers of Western Australia, and is a farming man himself. I venture to say that he is not prepared to accept this proposal without the fullest explanation. I am prepared to validate the collection of the new Tariff, but as regards the proposal .to hand back the money paid on an item to any one, I require a fuller statement to be made. I do not want the farmers in my constituency to have an opportunity to say to me, “ You agreed to a certain sum of money being paid back to the importers of cornsacks, and to that money being taken out of the Wheat Pool.” I do not suggest that the- Government are going “to take that course. I have only heard a statement that it is to be done by the Wheat Board. All the money which that Board handles is, of course, derived from the wheat which it has sold. It will be easy to- find the men who imported the cornsacks, but” I do not think that any person will say that, in this country,, there are any philanthropic importers who did not- add the amount of the duty paid on the cornsacks to their wholesale price.

Senator Russell:

– None of this money will be refunded to anybody in any shape or form.

Senator GARDINER:

– What is the statement about refunding the money?

Senator Russell:

– There is none of this duty to be refunded.

Senator GARDINER:

– What is thesum to be refunded?

Senator McDougall:

– They are going to get the- sacks free.

Senator Russell:

– There is a proposal before the Wheat Board to handle the bags directly, and to sell them at a little more than half-price.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not impute any motives to the Government.

Senator Russell:

– I have no objection to a suspension of the sitting.

Senator Lynch:

– Are you referring to the sacks used last year for the wheat now delivered ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am referring to two principles. One proposal, I understand, is that the Government, of their own volition, shall refund the duty paid on cornsacks.

Sitting, suspended from 12.55 to 2.30 p.m. ^Thursday),

Senator GARDINER:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I had intimated my desire to know how the Government propose to deal with cornsacks. Speaking in another place yesterday, Mr. Tudor is thus reported -

The Prime Minister made the statement yesterday that it was the intention of the Government not to charge the duty on cornsacks to the farmers. I ask him now whether it would not he a better course to do as I suggested, last week, namely, to wipe out the duty altogether, instead of adopting this circuitous method?

In reply, Mr. Hughes, said -

No. doubt, it would be better to. do so.. There are many things that could be done in that way if the House’ would agree, but once the portals of the1 Tariff are opened where are’ we going to stop? How can we draw the line between cornsacks and woolpacks ?. The honorable member for Maranoa has already made the suggestion that the duty on woolpacks should1 be remitted.

I have no desire to prolong this debate, but I think that if I read the newspaper report of what took place yesterday in. the other branch of the Legislature, the Honorary Minister will get a better grip of what I desire. Under the headings of “ Wheat Pool,” “ Duty on Cornsacks,” and “Farmer Relieved of Payment,”’ the Argus, publishes the following : -

An. important, statement, regarding relief which the Federal Ministry intends to grant to farmers in purchasing imported cornsacks was made by the’ Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) in the. House of Representatives, yesterday.

Replying to a question by Mr. Sampson (Min., V.), Mr. Hughes said that for all practical purposes all sacks used by farmers for wheat were imported. The Ministry had considered the question of supplying the farmers with new sacks for the 1917-18 crop. It had been found that the use of old sacks was attended with very serious inconvenience and much loss. It was, therefore, considered desirable that, new sacks should be used.. The Ministry intended, through the Wheat Board, or otherwise, to relieve the farmer of the payment of duty on the bags. (Ministerial cheers’.) Probably provision would also- be made for an adequate supply of bags.,

Mr. Page (Opp., Q.) asked whether wool bales and packs would come- under the same provision, as cornsacks, and be allowed in free.

Mr. Hughes’. I did not say they would come in free. I said that the farmer would not have to pay the duty. ,

Mr. Page. Will you pass along the same bouquet to the pastoral industry?

Mr. Hughes. I must confess to a certain amount of surprise that this suggestion should come from such a quarter. (Laughter..) I thought that the great pastoralists of this country found other mouth-pieces. (Laughter.) However, if the squatter, like the humble “ cockey,” when he finds himself in difficulties, comes to the fountain without money and. without price, we shall take him in, too. (Loud laughter.)

This is a serious question. To my mind, it is desirable that the farmers should have their wheat sacks admitted free, and I think that the pastoralists also should have their woolpacks and their wool bales , admitted free. But I am not prepared to remit to the Wheat Board the determination of the question of whether or not the existing duties shall be abolished.

Senator Russell:

– There is no such intention.

Senator GARDINER:

– I want the position made perfectly plain. At a later stage.’ I shall move- that the House of Representatives, be- requested to remit the; duty on these articles from to-day. I regret exceedingly that we have to deal with the Tariff in the way that we are dealing with it, but I recognise that no matter what Government ‘happened to be in office it could not be dealt with in any other way. Before Parliament is dissolved it is absolutely essential that the collection of the duties levied under our Customs schedule during the past two years or more shall be validated, in order that no question may arise as to the legality of that collection.

Senator Turley:

– The Government would never refund duties.

Senator GARDINER:

– But if Parliament were dissolved, and the opportunity offered, I venture to say that the liquor industry, for example, which has been called upon to pay much heavier duties since the enactment of this Tariff, would endeavour to secure a remission of those duties. I recognise, therefore, that the Bill is necessary. To my mind, the most satisfactory settlement of the matter would be that which I have already foreshadowed. Under it, the duties hitherto levied would be collected up till to-day, but, henceforth, cornsacks, woolpacks, and wool bales would be admitted free. I am just as - anxious as is anybody that the farmers should be given a square deal, but I am, nevertheless, quite conservative in saying that the determination of whether or not the. existing duties should be abolished ought not to be remitted to the Wheat Board.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I was rather pleased to hear Senator Gardiner speak in the way that lie has done, particularly of the wheatgrowing industry of Australia. At the same time, I cannot support his suggestion that the treatment which is extended to that industry should also be extended to the pastoral industry.

Senator Russell:

– The principle is the same.

Senator LYNCH:

– The principle is the same, it is true. ‘ But the farmers’ have had to contend with adverse seasons, and the price of wheat to-day is practically the price that it has been for a number of years. War has brought no advantage to the wheat-growers of this country, who are getting only 4d. or 5d. per bushel more than the average price of their product over a series of years,

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– What about the cost of their bags ?

Senator LYNCH:

– Their bags cost much more to-day than they did previously, in addition to which they are smaller. Their bags are more than 100 per cent, dearer now than they were eight or nine years ago. On the other band the price of wool and sheep to-day is very much higher than it used to be. The drought conditions have affected both industries, but if we are going to grant any concession to either of them, we ought to recognise that the bad seasons have injuriously affected the farming industry more acutely than any other industry. Senator Grant talks about land values taxation. Why, he could go to Western Australia to-day, and get 500 or 600 farms if he chose. Why do not such men get their necks in the collar and do a bit of cultivation? Why do they not take an axe in their hands and go out into the forest? Then they would realize the risk that is incurred by a man who seeks to make the wilderness productive. When Senator Grant has done something like that he will be entitled to falk, but not before. The men on our wheat-growing areas to-day are living like blackfellows in lean-to shanties. - It is utterly impossible for them to provide decent conditions for their women. The latter are true heroines - the women who dwell on the frontiers of civilization to-day. What chance do the children of such settlers get?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I do nob think that the question of land settlement can properly be debated under this Bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so, sir, but I have been led to contrast the position of our wheat-growers to-day with the position of persons in other branches of industry. City workers, who receive 10s. or l2s. per day are living in a paradise as compared with our wheat-growers. Those who make ite idle lands productive are the salt of the population of this country. Such persons should be encouraged. Under the old Tariff a duty of 15 per cent, was charged on bags used by the farming community. That is not a very serious impost, and under normal conditions I am prepared to call upon the agricultural industry to make an equitable sacrifice with a view to securing the enactment of a permanent and scientific Protective Tariff in this country. The duty on bags, that is to say, the manufactured article, has been 15 per cent., and, as I have stated, the price of bags has risen to over 100 per cent, more than it was eight -or ten years ago. “We have to take into consideration the fact that there is a duty of 10 peT cent, on woven jute imported for the manufacture of bags, so that the total duty on the industry amounts to 25 per cent., and that is a pretty stiff duty upon the farmer. I am not asking for special favours for the unfortunate wheat-growers. Perhaps it would be more correct to speak of them as wheat-sowers, for very often after they sow their wheat it does not grow”. The wool-raisers of the country have had a pretty fair time. Mutton and wool are to-day selling at higher prices than ever before in the history of sheep-farming in this country. Though the war is supposed to be advantageous to the wheat farmer, the price of his product has only increased by a few pence per bushel. Honorable senators should bear in mind that the’ wheat-growers delivered the goods last year, and have not been paid for them yet.

Senator Stewart:

– The goods have not got to the market yet.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is quite true, but so far as the farmer is concerned, his goods have been in the custody of the Government since last February or December twelve . months. This year’s crop has been delivered from December to February.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order 1 I cannot allow the honorable senator to discuss wheat, wool, and other matters in detail under cover of the motion before the Senate.

Senator Lynch:

– I thought I might explain how the farmers stood.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will have other opportunities to do so, but on the motion before the Senate I must ask him to confine himself to Tariff items. .

Senator LYNCH:

– I am satisfied that the Government in remitting the duty on cornsacks will adopt’ a wise policy. If the present duties up to 25 per cent, are continued, the effect will be to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It will mean that men in the new wheat-growing areas will be unable to support their families, and will have to borrow money to pay the duty. It will be agreed that that would be a wrong policy. When the wheatgrowers get fairly on their feet I shall not object to ‘ calling upon them to meet their full share of the sacrifice necessary to establish a scientific system of Protection, but in the present state of their industry they cannot stand the duty.

Senator Lt.-Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD (New South Wales) [2.52]. - I am very pleased to hear that the Government intend to remit the duty on cornsacks and woolpacks. Wheat-growing and sheepgrowing are primary industries of the Commonwealth which deserve all the assistance we can give them. I rose merely to say that I approve of what I understand to. bo the intention of the Government in this matter, and to add that I think it would be a mistake to make any distinction, so far as the remission of duty is concerned, between the two industries referred to.

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · NAT

– The debate has been a somewhat wide one, and, in reply, I can scarcely confine myself to the bare question of tie duty. The position with which we are confronted is due to the operation of the Wheat Pool, and the difficulties in connexion with freight and shipping. Last year we had a record wheat crop in Australia, but it followed upon a year of drought. The result of the drought was that the wheat crop suffered little or no damage from pests.- The plentiful rains of the. present season have put us up against the. difficulty of coping with plagues of mice and other pests that are attacking the wheat. Our expert advice is that the spread of pests is sometimes due to the use of second-hand bags. The shipping difficulty has been increasing from time to time, and although we have sold practically all of last year’s wheat, and this year’s wheat as well, we have no guarantee as to when we are going to get the next shipment of. wheat away. I hope we shall be able to do so at an early date. In the circumstances, we. do not desire to take any unnecessary risks in- connexion with the storage of wheat, and have consequently decided not to permit the use of second-hand bags for the purpose. I have to say further that there is no bag at present made in Australia that is considered suitable for the storing, of wheat for any considerable length of time. There is no difficulty in connexion with the supply of 90 per cent, of the bags required by the wheat farmers. What happens is this : A farmer who wants 1,000 bags cannot afford to lay out his money, and let it remain practically idle for twelve months, and so he orders only 900. The whole of the difficulty in dealing with the matter arises in connexion with the supply of the last 10 per cent, of bags required. I have given personal attention to the matter, and I have found that sometimes as much as 12s. 6d. and 13s. per dozen is charged for the last 10 per cent. We have a well organized Wheat Pool, and are able to handle the wheat crop in the interest both of the farmer and the country. We think, therefore, that we may be considered equally capable of handling the bag problem. But the course that is to be adopted has not yet been finally decided. If the Commonwealth Government imported the jute bags a saving could be effected for the farmer, because no duty would be charged upon the Government importations. It should be mentioned that the present duty is a purely revenue duty.

Senator Lynch:

– But there are some baes made in the Commonwealth.

Senator RUSSELL:

– That is so, but for the reason I have already referred to, it is not considered that they are suitable for this purpose. Senator Gardiner r- ,;”es that if we were to open a discussion of the Tariff on one item honorable senators would feel entitled to bring along their pet theories with regard to any particular industry.

Senator Needham:

– Not pet theories, but absolute necessities, if time would permit of the proper consideration of duties.

Senator RUSSELL:

– -We do not want to open the door to a general revision of the Tariff, and we have determined that by some means - whether by regulation through agents or directly by the Government - the farmers will be supplied with the bags they require at the lowest possible cost. In the circumstances, I ask honorable senators to refrain from moving any amendment, as we are” all animated by the same feeling towards the farming community in this matter.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

.- Mr. President-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Honorary Minister having spoken in reply, it is not competent for Senator Stewart to continue the debate.

Senator STEWART:

– Will you, sir, mention the standing order under which you give that ruling?

The- PRESIDENT.- Standing order No. 412 deals with the matter, and is short and distinct. It provides that -

In all cases the reply .of the mover to the original question closes the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 (Short Title).

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– On this clause I. should like to say that I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to deal withthe Tariff in a more comprehensive fashion than they propose to do at this time. Protection has been the declared policy of the country for a long time, and we have had Parliament after Parliament elected to place that policy upon the statute-book, but it has not been done. It seems to me that members of the various Parliaments have been somewhat in the position of the unjust steward of whom we read in holy writ, with this difference : that whereas he was discharged ignominiously, members of the Senate have not been treated in that fashion.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Not yet.

Senator STEWART:

– I hope that every Free Trader sitting in this Senate will receive his dismissal at the hands of his electors at the coming election. That we have not a Protective Tariff on our statute-book is due wholly to the fact that we have a number of confessed Free Traders in this Parliament.

Senator Russell:

– It seems to me that the honorable senator’s remarks would have been more appropriate if made on the second reading of the Bill.

Senator STEWART:

– Unfortunately, I was prevented from expressing my views at that stage.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that the honorable senator would be more in order, if he addressed himself to clause 2 of the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definition).

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Perhaps I may be able, under this clause, to put on record what I desire to say. I regret very much that Protection, which is the declared policy of the people of Australia, has not been given effect to by this Parliament, and I trust that every known Free Trader in this Parliament - I do not care who he is, or to what party he belongs - will be dismissed at -the coming elections. Seeing that the people, by great majorities, have on different occasions declared for high Protection, and not merely for revenue tariffism, members ought to be prepared either to give effect to the policy or resign their seats. Revenue tariffism is not my creed. I believe in Protection, and the present Tariff is ; a revenue Tariff, pure and simple. I do not say that ithas been constructed with the . object of relieving the rich from taxation, but it certainly has that result. I believe in . trying to developthe industries of Australia, and not in keeping Australia in perpetuity as a hewer of wood and a . drawer of water - as ahod-carrier to the brick builders of other nations. Let me take the case of wool. How much do we manufacture in this . country? And can we manufacture it here?

Senator Shannon:

– Yes.

Senator STEWART:

– Why do we not manufacture more of it? We have a great number of mills here, but, unfortunately, with the exception of one or two, their machinery is not up to . date. If we had a really effective Tariff an inducement would be given to companies from other countries to come here with their capital and machinery and manufacture our wool into clothing. In that case a number of companies would undoubtedly be snuffed out, and only those equipped with the most modern machinery would be able to survive competition. If such a policy were adopted it. would be bad for some of the existing companies, but it would be extremely beneficial for Australia. So much for wool. Let me now take the hat industry. We have the wool and the fur, as well as operatives “capable of making hats. I am not going to say where the trouble lies - whether with thehat manufacturers or with the wholesalers or retailers - but it is patent that, notwithstanding the high duty which ought to be ‘protective, but which “apparently is not, the Italian hat manufacturers are pouring their hats into Australia by the thousand.

Senatorde Largie. -i rise to a point of order.The honorable senator’s remarks are merely a repetition -of what we had on the second reading of the Bill. Senator

Stewart is rambling all over the gamut of this extensive Tariff question, and consequently, in my opinion, is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I can assure the honorable senator that this question has been perplexing me from the moment that Senator Stewart commenced his remarks. The Bill -appears to be a validating measure, but it validates several hundred matters, and consequently I am in a -quandary myself when asked to decide if Senator Stewart is in order. Our Standing Orders are not particularly clear on this point, so I would ask the honorable senator to confine himself as closely as possible ‘to the subject-matter of the Bill, namely, whether the Tariff should be validated or not.

Senator STEWART:

– I thank you, Mr Chairman, for your ruling. This measure, . as you have pointed out, is a Bill to validate certain duties. Now I am opposed to validating duties which do not give effect to the Protective policy which the people -of Australia desire, and which it was the object of this Parliament to secure when the Tariff was made law. Surely I am entitled to use arguments in connexion with the various items to make out my case ? Now, in the matter of hats, I took the opportunity a few years ago to interview . the Denton Halt Factory people to ascertain what they got from the wholesaler for their bats. I was told that they were paid from 48s. to 54s. per dozen, or from 4s. to 4s. 6d. for each hat. The retailer of these hats, which had been sold by the factory to the wholesaler at 4s. 6d., passed them on to the public at anything from 10s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. each. There appears to be something wrong there. It seems to me to be useless to give high Protection to an industry unless the public are to benefit from that Protection in some way or another. With the wool and fur obtainable in Australia, surely it should be possible for a hat costing the wholesaler 4s. 6d. to be retailed at a lower price than 10s. 6d., and still leave a sufficient margin of profit for the wholesaler and retailer. It seems to me that Protection, after all, does not wholly fill the bill. We shall have to go in for Socialism instead of allowing the manufacture of our hats to remain in the hands of private companies. If we are wise, when the people give us the power we will establish Commonwealth hat and other factories, when we shall be in such a position that we can pass on the whole benefit to the consumer. So much, for wool for hats. There is a number of’ other industries which it is absolutely essential should be developed in Australia. Take, for instance, the iron industry, which is the basis of every other industry. What have we done in the direction of its development? Have we done anything of any importance or consequence ? Do we nob stand just where we did a few years ago ? Have the directions given by the people of the Commonwealth to this Parliament had any effect whatever ?

Senator Senior:

– We are manufacturing our own steel rails mostly.

Senator STEWART:

– Yes, but we are not manufacturing steel rails in anything like the quantity which we should be doing. There is not a single industry I can think of in which a vast development is not possible. The only means by which that development can be brought about is by shutting out the products of other countries, and thus giving encouragement to the local manufacture of those commodities. We import large quantities of boots from other countries, though not nearly so much as was done at one time. I see no reason why we should import a single pair of boots. Our people can make boots as effectively as the bootmakers of any country. We have the hides, and ought to be able to manufacture leather of as good quality as the leather from any other part of the world. We are sending away ever year a vast number of hides which ought to be manufactured into leather here. We have, the raw material of nearly every industry. Why do we import so much? During the last financial year why did we import £70,000,000 worth of other commodities ? One half of those commodities could have been, made on Australian soil by Australian hands. Why was it not done’? Simply because our duties, nominally protective but really only revenue producing, did not permit of it.

Senator Grant:

– Hear, hear!

Senator STEWART:

- Senator Grant seems to think that no country in the world has attempted to carry out a really Protectionist policy. If he looks up the Tariff of the United States of America, he will find that it produces, per head of the population, only 25s., as compared with, the 75s. which the Australian Tariff produces.

Senator Grant:

– They get the whole of the revenue from the Customs, though.

Senator STEWART:

– That is one instance of a really Protectionist Tariff. What has been the result in the United States of America so far as the organization of, not only industries, but industrialism, is concerned? That country stands in a class by itself. There- is no other community under the sun where the dealing with the products of Nature is so highly developed and organized as. in theUnited States. That is one. of the direct results of the policy of high Protection which was inaugurated there many years, ago. If it was done there, surely it could be done here ! The people of Australia want it to be done,, but the- politicians^ apparently,, for some reason or another,, will not do it. If the people have any wisdom they will take the Free Trade politicians by the scruff of the neck at the. coming election and bundle them out of Parliament into private life.

Senator Senior:

– There is one thing which they cannot use in the United States of America, and that is the squeal, of the pig they kill.

Senator STEWART:

– They can use nearly everything else, whereas we use nothing: We have any quantity of raw material suitable for every conceivable industry. We have the most boundless possibilities, with regard to the development of industries’, and- we fail to take- advantage of them. A double duty devolves upon the Parliament of the Commonwealth. We are bound, as men having a little common sense, to utilize if we can the various products of Nature which have been placed at our disposal. If we have iron, why do we not use it? If we have wool, why do we not use it? If we have hides, why do we not use them? And so on. But we have another duty to perform. We have the young men and women of the Commonwealth to consider. We have to provide careers for them. We have to open to them the gateways of industrialism and science and the application of science to various industries. Upon us lies the responsibility of giving the young men and women an opportunity of developing the talents with which Nature has endowed them. Are we doing that? No. The policy of Australia has made of us a community of hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Australian brain is as quick and askeen as the brain of the people of any other community I know of; in fact, I believe that it is quicker aud keener in many ways. Yet what opportunity do we give our people ? Why not follow the example of the United States of America and establish industries by the means which they adopt 1

Senator Senior:

– Why should we not be leaders instead of followers?

Senator STEWART:

– We cannot be leaders where others have already blazed the track. It is a most excellent thing to be a good leader, but it is also a very good thing to be a careful follower. If we follow in’ the footsteps of the United States, without tumbling into some of the pitfalls which awaited them, I think that we shall be doing a very good thing for the people of the Commonwealth; but if we continue to go on with a revenue Tariff, what will be the result? We will not establish industries; as a matter of fact, we will do the very opposite. We will place a direct obstruction in the path of Australia’s development. Suppose that we had no Customs duty, and that everything was allowed to come in free, we would lose £16,000,000 of revenue: but we would have to get that revenue from some other source, and the source I would vote to obtain it from would be landvalues taxation. If that were done, the resources of the Commonwealth would be made available to its people, and the land monopolist would be taxed ; but while this revenue Tariff remains in force, he will be saved from the necessary taxation, and the resources of the Commonwealth will remain undeveloped.

Senator GRANT:

– Do you propose to vote for the validation of the Tariff?

Senator STEWART:

– I will leave that to the honorable senator. I do not think that the Tariff ought to be validated.

Senator Grant:

– Vote against it; you always have some excuse.

Senator STEWART:

– I have no excuse. I do not want to make any excuse.

Senator Grant:

– Then you ought to vote against this Tariff.

Senator STEWART:

– My position is quite clear, to myself, at any rate. I may not, perhaps, have been able to get the whole thing into Senator Grant’s head; but that is not my fault. What I am pleading for is a Tariff which will protect, which will create industries instead of giving us revenue. The Tariff which it is proposed to validate is a mere revenueproducing machine. It does not create a single industry. It actually prevents industries from being established. If we had a really Protective Tariff, the consequences would be the very opposite. We would get comparatively little revenue, but the hum of “ industry would be heard all over the Commonwealth. Persons from Great Britain and Europe, and perhaps from America, would be coming here with their money, their plant, ‘ their experience, and their trained men and women, and would be establishing industries on the soil of the Commonwealth which would not only add to its population and its wealth, but also to its strength and its security. Let me give one instance. When the present Tariff was going through this Parliament, there was some discussion on the question of condensed milk. That is not a very important matter, but the principle I am seeking to enunciate applies to it, and applies to every other industry which could be established here. At that time the duty on condensed milk was so low that the great bulk of that commodity used in the Commonwealth came from Nestle’s factory, in Switzerland, I think. When the duty on condensed milk was being discussed here, we had letters from butter and cheese factories in various portions of the Commonwealth asking us not to vote for any increase in the duty. Why? Because these persons knew perfectly well that if we made the duty a protective one, Nestles and Company would establish themselves on Australian soil, and would mop up a very large share of the trade in milk and cream, and thus deprive them, in a measure, of the business that they were doing. These arguments did not weigh with some honorable senators. We persisted in our action, and the duty was made a protective one. What was the result? Nestles and Company came here, brought their plant, their experts and their capital, so that Australia is now one of the great condensed milk-producing countries of the world, supplying not merely the requirements of our own people, but actually exporting to other countries. What has been done in that industry could be done in a score of other industries, to the great advantage of this community. I have said enough to show honorable senators that what I desire is a highly Protective Tariff. I do not care how high we put the duties,

I do not mind how many feet we build the Tariff wall, so long as we make it so high that the foreigner cannot jump over it.

Senator de Largie:

– Give us a few words about Free Trade now.

Senator STEWART:

– Free Trade has become discredited in its very home. Great Britain has discovered some of the fallacies connected with it. It is dying a natural death. It is dying of senile decay. I have said all that I desire to say, and I hope that the next Parliament will be so crammed with really loyal Protectionists that we shall get upon our statutebook the kind of Tariff that we. want.

Senator BLAKEY:
Victoria

– I desire to say a very few words in connexion with this Bill. I shall vote to validate the collection of duties under our existing Tariff, for the simple reason that no alternative is presented to me. At the same time, that Tariff does not by any means meet with my approval. I would like to see the duties levied under it much higher than they are; but, of course, I recognise that if this measure be not passed, it will be absolutely impossible to return to those who have paid them the duties which have been collected since December, 1914. All the money thus raised has already been expended, and, consequently, I am obliged to vote for the Bill. At the same time, the existing Tariff does not meet with my approval in many directions, and I hope that the Government which is in power after the elections will bring forward a more effective schedule. from a Protectionist stand-point. I agree in the main with the remarks of Senator Stewart, and I think it would be wise if we started to build up a high Tariff wall, even in the midst of the present calamitous war. Truly the people of Australia are long-suffering. Upon nearly every occasion . they have been gulled on the fiscal question. They have been promised a large measure of Protection at the first opportunity. Now they are told that the promise has not been redeemed on account of the war.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would call the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that he had a full opportunity to discuss the principles of the Bill on the motion for its second reading.

Senator de Largie:

– He must square the Age.

Senator BLAKEY:

– The Age and the Argus, as well as the people of this State, are fully seized of my attitude on the fiscal question. I shall vote for the measure much against my will, and because no alternative is open to me.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to add the following clause to the Bill: -

Item No. . 129 of the Tariff proposal introduced into the House of Representatives on the 3rd December, 1914, is amended by inserting . after the word “ cent.” the words “ and on and after the 15th March, 1917, free.”

My object is to’ make the articles mentioned in item 129 of the existing Tariff free as from to-day. I desire to assist the infant industries of Australia. At . the present time the manufacturers of jute goods who require raw material are obliged to pay a duty on that material. The request which I have submitted is similar to the motion which was moved by Mr. Tudor in another place. We recognise that our staple industries are our primary products, and that the more prosperous we can make them the better it will be for ourselves. Of course, it may be argued that my proposal will have the effect of opening up the whole Tariff. But I would remind honorable senators that in another place the Government themselves moved several amendments. So far from desiring to open up the entire Tariff, I have no other proposal to submit. My sole object is to insure that bags and woolpacks shall be admitted free of duty from to-day. Obviously, it is impossible to refund the duties that have already been collected under the Tariff schedule.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [3.43]. - I hope that the honorable senator will not press his request. Everybody sympathizes with the object he wishes to attain. He has intimated to us that he has no other request to make. But if his proposal be carried, a number of other honorable senators may wish to take advantage of the opportunity to prefer requests for an alteration of existing duties. If once we open the Tariff to any amendment, I fear that we shall open the flood-gates of talk. Regarding the proposal itself, I need scarcely point” out that we have already intrusted the Government with the disposition of the whole of our wheat crop, and are we now going to haggle over a comparatively small matter such as the control of the duty on cornsacks?

Senator Russell:

– I wish to raise a point of order as to the relevance of the request. I maintain’ that it is not relevant to the Bill, and that, in addition, it is in contradiction of something which the Committee has already done. The Committee has, by passing clause 2, practically validated the collection of certain duties on goods that have been imported. Now Senator Gardiner proposes a request for the insertion of a clause to grant a concession in respect of particular goods.

Senator Gardiner:

– I had very grave doubts as to where it would be right for- me to move my request, and I consulted the- authorities provided for the. assistance of honorable senators to have those doubts ‘set at rest. I have, in consequence submitted the request for the insertion of a new clause.

Senator Russell:

– We shall not stand on that point.

Senator GARDINER:

– As to the right of the Senate to move requests on such a Bill,, the point has already been decided, and the right is one which I am sure the Senate will not lightly give up. I admit the force of the contention that if my request may be submitted, other honorable senators may propose to deal with other items of the Tariff.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

Senator Stewart might open up the whole Tariff.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. The honorable senator would have a perfect right to do so. But I point out that merely to say that to permit the moving of my request would prolong the discussion on the measure, is not a good reason for refusing to allow the request to be submitted. I repeat that the right of the Senate to make requests in connexion with a Bill such as this is undoubted.

Senator Millen:

– I point out that the purpose of the proposed request, as I understand it, is to introduce an entirely new item in the Tariff.

Senator Gardiner:

– No; to deal with item 129 of the Tariff .

Senator Millen:

– I direct: attention to the fact that the Bill provides for ne, validation of the collection of Customsduties, and has nothing whatever to do with the rates of duties or the levying of duties. The object is merely to validate ‘the acts of Customs officials in collecting money without parliamentaryauthority. The request is no more relevant to this Bill than it would be to a Bill introduced to validate the collection of railway fares on the South Australianrailways. The purpose of the Bill is to give legislative sanction to the act of collecting money which has already taken place-. If Senator Gardiner may submit a request with respect to one item of the Tariff other honorable senators may propose to deal in- a similar way with every item in the Tariff, and the request,, therefore, becomes- an effort on the part of. the honorable senator to create a Tariff. If this were a Tariff Bill it has been settled that the- Senate has a right to submit requests covering as many items as honorable senators please, but I again repeat that this is merely a measure for validating the collection, of money.

Senator Gardiner:

– In answer to Senator Millen, let me say that the purpose of the Bill is to validate the collection of Customs duties on imported goods up to to-day. My request deals with item 129, and the revenue collected under that item is important. It runs into about £140,000 a year. The collection of the duty under the item for the last tw0’ years would be legalized by this measure, but the intention of my request is to provide that from and after this date no further money shall be collected on goods imported of the description covered by item 129.

Senator Shannon:

– The action of Senator Gardiner in this matter is somewhat belated, but it is never too late to do -the right’ thing. This is the first opportunity which honorable senators have had to deal with this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I call the attention of Senator Shannon to the fact that a point of order has been raised as to the relevance of the proposed request, and that must be settled before the discussion of the request is resumed. I have already announced that, in my opinion, this is purely a validating Bill intended to legalize action that has already been taken. The request submitted by Senator Gardiner does appear to me to be en- tirely new matter, and irrelevant tothe Bill. I rule, therefore, that it is not in order.

Senator Gardiner:

– As this matter is of so much -importance, you, sir, will take no exception to my dissenting from your ruling. I submit my dissent in this form -

That the ruling of the Chairman of . Committees be dissented from, on the ground that it is within the right of the Senate to make a request on every item in the Tariff that this Bill validates.

In the. Senate,

The Chairman of Committees. - I have to report to you, sir, that . the Committee has been considering a Bill for an Act to provide for the validation of collections of duties . of Customs under Tariff proposals and for other purposes. The -Committee went through the Bill clause by . clause . to the end. SenatorGardiner then moved a request for the insertionof a new clause. I take it that -the purpose of the Bill is purely to legalize something that has already beendone. In the request submitted by Senator Gardiner there appears to me to be something entirely irrelevant to the provisions of the Bill, and I consequently ruled that the request was not in order. Senator Gardiner has dissented from my ruling, and the matter has been referred to you for decision.

Senator Gardiner:

– May I speak to the -ruling ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Honorable senators are aware that I was present when the Bill was under consideration in Committee, and listened to the discussion. The point raised is a very important one, involving, as it does, the right of the Committee and the right of the Senate to make requests. I do not think that the point is one upon which I should be asked to give a hurried ruling. I should be given sufficient time to look up authorities and precedents, and in order to enable me to do so I shall . suspend the sitting of the Senate until 50 minutes past 4 o’clock, at which hour I shall resume the chair.

Sitting suspended from 3.57 to 4.20 p.m.. (Thursday).

page 11463

PRIVILEGE

Telegramfrom Trade Union Secretary

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to acquaint the Senate that, since suspending the sitting for the consideration of the point of order raised in connexion with the -Customs Tariff Validation Bill, a communication, which amounts to a gross breach of privilege, andwhich, as a matter of fact, conveys . a threat to the Senate, reached me in the form of a telegram, which I received . at six minutes past 4 o’clock. It reads as follows : -

Haymarket, Sydney

  1. . 3/2, 2.27 p.m.

President of Senate, Melbourne

Myunion require to know when salaries of members will be paid. This repeated action’ of delay on part of Senate will not be tolerated. If persisted in will cause strike. Please reply.

McCarthy.,

Secretary, Trades Hall, Sydney

From inquiries I have caused to be made I understand that Mr. McCarthy, in whose name the telegram was sent, is the secretary of the Linesmen’s Union, in Sydney. Itappears probable ‘that he has unwittingly committed abreach of the privileges of the Senate, because, perhaps, of the fact that the men of his union may be smarting under what they consider to be an injustice in ‘having to suffer a little delay in the payment of their salaries. My duty has been to report this matter to the Senate, and it will now be for the Senate to take what action may ‘be considered proper in the circumstances. There is no doubt whatever that the telegram is a breach of privilege, because it conveys an insulting message to the Senate. In fact, it conveys a threat that a certain event will happen if the Senate does not do something which the writer demands shall be done. Parliament must be left entirely free, from any outside influence in the conduct of its deliberations, and certainly in this case an improper influence is sought to be exercised by the sending of this telegram. No improper influence must be used or threat made at any time to members of Parliament, either . collectively or individually. As I have said , it is probable that this action has been taken unwittingly by Mr. McCarthy, and because the men of his union are smarting under a sense of grievance at having their pay slightly delayed. Consequently, Mr. McCarthy, no doubt, acted in ignorance of the gross breach of privilege which he has committed by sending the telegram. I now leave the matter in -the hands of the Senate.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– The point raised by you, Mr. President, is an entirely novel one, and I hesitate to suggest what action the Senate should take at this juncture. I am disposed to take the view you have, namely, that the telegram was sent to the Senate in ignorance of the knowledge that an offence was being committed. Seeing that my mind is quite, nebulous as to the action to be taken, I would like to know from you, sir, if it is possible to leave this matter over till a later hour of the sitting, or whether it is the duty of the Senate to deal with it at once.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not necessary that the Senate should deal with the matter at once. My duty ended in reporting the matter, and it is now for the Senate to decide in what way it shall be dealt with. It may be dealt with forthwith, at a later hour of the sitting, or held over till a later day.

Senator MILLEN:

– May I move a motion that it be considered at the next day of sitting?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator MILLEN:

– Then I move-

That the consideration of the breach of privilege caused by the sending of the foregoing telegram be an Order of the Day for the next meeting of the Senate.

Senator Gardiner:

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– If I may be permitted to make a suggestion at this stage, I would- like to say that any serious threats to this Parliament should be dealt with promptly and firmly. If I am in order, I would suggest that Mr. McCarthy be brought to the bar of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– It will be quite competent for the Senate to take any action deemed advisable, but there can be no further debate on the matter at this stage, the Senate having decided that it shall be held over till the next day of sitting.

page 11464

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have considered the point of order raised in Committee, and reported to me by the Chairman of Committees. The point of order was that Senator Gardiner was not in order in moving a request in connexion with the Customs Tariff Bill. I have looked up all the available authorities on the matter, and I have not been able to find one to guide me, so far as our procedure is concerned. The procedure in the Senate with regard to making requests in money or taxation Bills received from another place is unique in the history of constitutional government, and so far as I am aware is without precedent in any other Parliament. We are compelled, therefore, to build up our own practice and to create our own precedents. There are only two questions which govern the matter. One is the question of relevancy, and the other is whether a validating Bill is capable of being amended with regard to any of the details proposed to be validated. There is no doubt that the amendment requested is relevant to the Bill. With regard to the other point, I hold the opinion very strongly that exceptions may be made in any validating Bill. That being so, in my opinion, it is quite within the competence of Parliament, in considering a validating Bill, to make exceptions to what it was proposed to validate; in other words, that Parliament should not be compelled to validate in globo, but that it should have the right to limit the matters proposed to be validated. This view is borne out by clause 4 of the Bill, because the Government themselves in that clause propose to make several amendments. Therefore, if the Government have the right to do that, a private member ought also to have that right. In addition, I hold that any action which limits the rights of the Senate in a matter of this kind is not a desirable precedent to have built up in this new practice. Taking all aspects of the subject into consideration, I hold that Senator Gardiner has a right to move the request mentioned, and, further, I point out to the Senate that as this is a validating Bill it could only be taken in globo by the general consent of members, and that it is not any part of my duty to compel members to give that consent. I rule, therefore, that the point of order cannot be sustained, and that Senator Gardiner has a perfect right to move his request.

In Committee:

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) further considered -

That the House of Representatives be requested to add the following clause to the Bill:-

  1. Item No. 129 of the Tariff proposal introduced into the House of Representatives on the 3rd December, 1914, is amended by inserting after the word “ cent.” the words “ and on and after the 15th March, 1917, free.”
Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · Victoria · NAT

– The Government, long before this request was put forward, considered all aspects of the question of providing the farmers with cheap bags, and their plan - to remit the duty to the farmers - is the best. There are nearly 4,000 items in the Tariff, and if this one is opened up every member of the Senate will have a perfect right to move requests in any direction. This is therefore likely to create a big debate, when time is most pressing. For instance, a Victorian senator might move for various increases of duty which many of us as individuals would be inclined to support. If that were done there would be no hope of getting the Bill through before the elections. I urge Senator Gardiner, although we do not differ so greatly in spirit with him, to regard this merely as a question of finding the best business method of doing what he wants, and therefore to refrain from pressing the request. If he does, it will prevent others from exercising the same freedom, and avoid a general debate on the whole schedule. If it is pressed, I would urgethe Committee not to pass it because we believe our method is the best for all concerned.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– My pressing or not pressing the amendment will not prevent other senators from exercising their rights under the President’s ruling.

Senator Pearce:

– You will be setting a good example.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have been doing that ever since I came into the Senate, but have not received much reward for it. I am anxious that no contentious matter should be introduced on this Bill, and am just as desirous as Senator Russell to get the business of the Senate finished. No doubt the Government have generous intentions towards the farmers, but the way to the 5th May is paved with good intentions. What will happen if on that day the Government are not returned to power ? No promise given by the Government can definitely extend beyond the date of the general election. The simple carrying of the request will give the farmers their bags cheaper, saving them from the payment of a great part of a duty amounting to £139,000 or £140,000 per annum, while at the same time those engaged in industries of which these things form the raw material, will be able to extend their businesses, because the present duty on the raw material is rather a handicap than a help to them. If the majority want to turn the request down, let them do so in a proper way, but it must not be turned down as a mere expedient. I approach this question free from all party feeling or opposition to the Government. To turn the request down, for fear of opening up a general discussion would be more likely to lead to a long debate than otherwise, because some one might t’ak’e a fiendish pleasure, in a purely party spirit, in making certain senators vote to turn down requests of which they are really in favour. I urge the Committee to pass the request on the voices, so that “ everything in the home may be happy.”

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

Senator Gardiner is quite correct in saying that the withdrawal of the request would still leave the door open to the presentation of innumerable others. The point is that until 5th May next the carrying of the request will not alter the position in the slightest. Whether the duty is collected or not, the farmer will not pay it, because the Government have undertaken that’ it shall be a charge on the public Treasury. That promise was made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday. The Government’ took that course because they recognised that if they began to alter items in the schedule they could not reasonably object if members in another place wanted to rip up the whole Tariff.

Senator Gardiner:

– They cannot rip it up now; they can deal only with our requests.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator forgets the ripping-up capacity of this Chamber. Whether the request is carried, defeated, or withdrawn makes no difference to the actual fact that the farmer is free up to 5th May from any liability to pay the duty.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does’ the honorable senator indorse the Prime Minister’s promise?

Senator MILLEN:

– I am repeating it here-.

Senator Gardiner:

– How will it be done ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I. presume, by refunds from the Treasury. I have ample confidence in the Government and its officials finding means- to give effect to the promise. After 5th May the farmers can only be threatened with the collection of the duty by a new and hostile Government taking our places. Senator Gardiner evidently fears that if by any strange chance his party came into power his feelings might have undergone a change on the matter, and he, therefore, asks us to take steps now to prevent any such change of opinion on his part operating prejudicially to the farmers. .

Senator Gardiner:

– May not the Bashi-bazouks of your party take control ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I think we may dismiss from serious consideration’ in this regard what may happen after 5th May. It makes no difference to the farmer whether the request goes into the’ Bill or not, but if it goes in it makes a great difference bo us all by causing delay between the two Chambers: Is it worth, while to consume time passing the Bill backwards and forwards to secure, after- all, no different result ?

Senator SHANNON:
South Australia

– When the point of order was raised., I said to Senator Gardiner that it was rather late to propo.se a remission of duty on bags now, when the farmers had suffered for the last two years under the duty imposed by the Ministry to which he belonged. It is never too late to do the right thing, and I should vote for his request if it were not for the assurance of the Government that they are going to achieve the same object in another way. It is not desirable to open up the whole Tariff.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am surprised at Senator Shannon’s attitude-. He knows that during the years of war the alteration, of the Tariff was an impossibility..

Senator Shannon:

– Your Government put on this duty.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, but as soon as it was discovered to be- an anomaly we intended to- take it off . The honorable member for Yarra, who was Minister for Customs in that Government, has already stated, in another place that that was his intention. Senator Shannon is willing to take the vague assurance of the present Government, because ‘ they have not told me, although I asked a question before lunch, exactly what they intend to do. Let me- put the matter to the honorable senator as a commercial man. He is prepared to take the promissory note of the- Government rather than the hard cash of this Parliament. I venture to say that in Australia there is no farmer who is prepared to do that. What the request offers to the farmers now is that, no matter what may happen at the general election, from the 15th March no duty will be collected on their bags. What Senator Shannon is going to accept from the Government is a, promissory note for some unknown arrangement. Now, if the arrangement is to be made, with the Wheat Board, it must be remembered that the only money which it can handle is; the farmers’ money.

Senator Russell:

– The Wheat Board will’ not handle any money in any shape or form.

Senator GARDINER:

– A statement was made by the honorable senator some time ago that this matter was tobe arranged by the Wheat Board. What I fear is that- the- farmers will- get their bags, the duty will be paid and the Wheat Board- will reimburse- the- money, which will amount to £140,000;. and will be taken from the profits of the farmers-‘ wheat which the Government have sold. We are really up against a serious proposition. There is one course for the Senate to pursue, and that is either to- relieve the farmers from this burdensome duty or- to- take, as- Senator Shannon is prepared to take, the vague- promise of the Government that the farmers will be relieved in another- way. Neither in the other’ House, nor- here by Senator Russell and Senator- Millen, has the other way been attempted’ to- be made clear.

Senator Russell:

– I told the honorable senator distinctly that if we imported the bags ourselves we would not pay any duty, but that if we do pay the duty it will; be refunded. There will be no other alternative;

Senator GARDINER:

– Surely we all understand the difficulty of getting back from the Government the hard earnings of the farmers. Senator Russell says that the money will be collected from the farmers, and that the Government, in some beneficent way, will hand it back to them. -But there is no statement made yet as to how that operation is to be carried out. I do not wish to make political capital out of this matter. There is no injury -done to the Government by saying . that no duty shall be paid on bags. It is, of course, understood that the Go-, vemment do not propose to give back the money which has been collected on the importation of bags during the last two years. If this Bill is passed, the money collected on ‘this item at the Customs Mouse is to be given back by a . secret method. Government by secrecy we are getting accustomed to in the Senate. To Senators Shannon, Newland, Buzacott, Millen, and Gould, who each represent a wheat-growing State, I point out that I am not pressing this request to gain a party advantage. I am quite willing that it should be dealt with on the voices, so that there shall be no division,, and then the other House will accept the request, in view of the urgency in this matter, for I am sure that it does not want to precipitate a fight on this issue.

Senator Bakhap:

– If I cannot take a Ministerial assurance, what assurance can I take.?

Senator GARDINER:

– I venture to say that the farmers in Tasmania are as clear-bnained and as hard-headed as are the farmers in New South Wales. Even under the WheatPool their ‘great complaint has ‘been, not that the ‘Government have not made promises, ‘but that they have not parted withhard cash. If there is one cause of complaint more rampant than another in the farmingdistrictsof this country, it is with regard to the redtape which surrounds the operations of the Wheat Board. I,as a Minister., am responsible- for . the proceedings of the Wheat Board while I was -in office, . but if Iam to take any share of responsibility for all the ills which accrue from the Board, I must claim credit for the fact that it is the best thing whichhas lever been rdone for the farming interests.

Senator Russell:

– Give us an illustration of red-tape.

Senator -GARDINER. -Forsix months in the Senate, when Isat side by side with the Honorary Minister, some honorable senator representing farmers would stand up -and ask when a certain extra 6d. per bushel would be paid, and during that period the honorable senator would give them the stereotyped red-tape answer, “ The matter is being considered by the Wheat Board.”

Senator Pearce:

– You know the reason why the money could not be paid ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

Senator Pearce:

– You know . that the money could not be paid ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am pointing out the red-tape which is associated with the business.

Senator Earle:

– That, surely, is not a case of red-tape.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, because of the slowness with which the money was found. During the last six months the farmers have been agitating to have, a representative on the Wheat Board ; in fact, they have been quite angry over this matter. I do not pretend that there are no. real difficulties in the way of acceding to their wish. But will there not be some real difficulties when the time comes to hand back the money paid on the importation -of cornsacks ? Take the case of a man who in October next buys 1,000 bags., and pays the duty of 10 per cent. Does Senator Russell think that that man will like to wait until the Government say, “ Having collected a duty of 10 per cent.’ from you, -we are going to pay it back to you “ ?

Senator Russell:

– Is that your . conceptionof business - that thefarmer is going to get the duty handed back . to him ?

Senator Millen:

– The -farmer will not pay the duty.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am told by the Minister that the men who use the bags will not pay the duity. I contend that they will.

Senator Millen:

– They would if the duty were levied.

Senator GARDINER:

– The duty will still be collected, and the importer who pays it will eventually get it back. He certainlywill chargethe farmer with the duty. Is this a socialistic enterprise?

Senator Russell:

– It is.

Senator GARDINER:

– Have the claws of the socialistic tiger grown so long that it controls the combination Government ? I suppose that the Minister has counted heads, and knows that he has the numbers. One of the taunts to which I have had to submit for the last three weeks has been that the party machine makes me vote as it desires. My request will give the farmers an opportunity of seeing how the machine on the other side makes honorable senators vote. I appeal to honorable senators who seem to be willing to follow Ministers in a division on a proposal like this when the very interests of the hardest working classes in Australia are at stake.

Senator Shannon:

– Have you just found that out?

Senator GARDINER:

– I venture to say that the Wheat Pool is an indication that the Government of which I was a member realized that fact more than two years ago, and I can claim some of the credit for what was done. We strained the credit of the country to help the farmers, and I venture to think that the farmers, recognising that fact, will show some gratitude to our party. Honorable senators on the other side apparently prefer to accept the promise of the Government in preference to the cash down offered by this request.

Senator Millen:

– We do not ask any cash.

Senator GARDINER:

– Are the representatives of the farmers here prepared to throw away the advantage which this request offers, and to take the prospect of what may happen hereafter?

Senator Bakhap:

– If your party is sent here with a majority, the inference is that the Ministerial promise will not be indorsed by you.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator is quite mistaken. Here is a distinct opportunity offered to every member of the Senate to do the farmers of this country a legitimate turn by giving them their bags free of duty.

Senator Russell:

– You know that the farmers very seldom pay cash for their bags ; they generally pay for the bags with the first lot of wheat.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know, perhaps better than does the honorable senator the difficulty which the farmer has with regard to his bags. If I thought that this request would prevent the Government from carrying out the splendid scheme of checking the .speculators, I would not press it as I am doing. I hope that nothing we can do will prevent the Government from protecting the farmers. I am even prepared to go so far as to apologize to the Minister for Defence for detaining him so long, in view of the arduous nature of this sitting.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– The honorable senator has expressed the opinion that this duty will be drawn from the Wheat Pool. Nothing is farther from the fact.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then tell us from where it will be drawn. Do not be so vague.

Senator MILLEN:

– I thought I had made it abundantly clear that the farmers will not be called upon to pay the duty. The honorable senator charges me with being vague, but I say that the policy of the Government is ‘quite clear. That policy is that the duty will not be chargeable to the farmers who use the bags. The honorable senator has also suggested that the importer will collect the refund after the farmer has paid the duty. May I point out to him that that is not possible, because the Government will control the prices of these bags.

Senator GARDINER:

– How long will it be before the Government will control them?

Senator MILLEN:

– The Government will control them from the moment the bags begin to come in. It is obvious that they do not come in uniformly all the year round. Had there been any foundation for the suggestion that this duty would be taken out of the Wheat Pool, in view of my- previous statement, I should have considered myself guilty of an attempt to. deceive this Committee.

Senator SHANNON:
South Australia

Senator Gardiner has accused me of being ready to accept a promissory note in preference to spot cash. In reply, I merely wish to say that it is a good deal better to accept a short-dated promissory note of ‘ good paper than spot cash at a big discount.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Under this measure it is proposed to continue the collection of £13,500,000 through the Customs House annually. The goods manufactured in low-wage sweated foreign protectionist countries are to be permitted to come to Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– Including the goods of Germany.

Senator GRANT:

– The goods made elsewhere will continue to come here, and probably German goods will be amongst them. Under the operation of this measure, we shall - continue to obtain our revenue as at present. In my judgment, it would be much more sensible to raise revenue . by the means outlined by Senator Stewart to-day than by means of this Bill. It will not have the effect of excluding foreign goods. It was designed by an alleged protectionist Government, but its only effect ‘ will be to increase the cost of commodities without providing any additional employment for the toilers. In short, it will confer no benefit upon anybody, save the landowner, who will be permitted to escape his due share of taxation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 11469

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation - Military Service Referendum : Senator Needham - Senator Lynch and Senator Ferricks - War Pensions : Case of Mrs. Hogg - The Tariff : Cornsacks : Timber - General Election : Censorship - The Government and the ‘ Senate : Proposed Royal Commission - Australians in New Zealand and Military Service.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have learned that a remark which I made during the course of my speech in the early hours of this morning has given pain to Senator McKissock. Although I have not yet seen the Hansard proof of what I then said, I am convinced the honorable senator is quite in error in thinking that I suggested that he was a criminal. So far as my memory serves me, I said in reply to an interjection - and I merely used the term as a figure of speech - that if Senator McKissock was not the criminal he was an accessory after the fact. I merely wish to make the position quite clear to the honorable senator, for whom I entertain a high personal regard, and to assure him that I had not the slightest intention of suggesting, either that he was a criminal or had criminal instincts. I exceedingly regret that he should have thought that I did.

Senator McKISSOCK:
Victoria

– I am pleased to have this explanation from Senator Story, intimating his regret in connexion with a little incident which occurred at an early hour this morning. I am glad to know that the honorable senator has had the courtesy and common decency to withdraw the very heinous charge he made against me, and which could never be substantiated. I accept his withdrawal of the statement, even at this hour.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western . Australia

– Ido not wish . to detain honorable senators after the very long sitting we have had, but I think it right to reply to some interjections made by Senators Lynch and Pearce to the effect that I ran away from meetings in Western Australia during the referendum campaign. I asked Senator Lynch, at the time he made his interjection, to mention the meetings I ran away from. He did not do that, and, at your request, sir, he withdrew his statement.

Senator Lynch:

– What more does the honorable senator want?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I want much more, because, at about 11.30 last night, the honorable senator repeated his statement, and spoke of £25 worth of furniture that might have been broken. I shall challenge Senator Pearce also with respect to his interjection. Let me briefly and truly state the facts. My first meeting in the referendum campaign was held in the Trades Hall, Fremantle. I had applied for the use of the Victoria Hall for the same night.

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator is going through the history of the campaign, I should like to suggest to him a shorter course.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not desire a short course. I wish to protect myself from the base insinuationof Senators Pearce and Lynch that I ran away from meetings.

Senator Pearce:

– I did not say that the honorable senator ran away from meetings, but that he made a strategic retreat.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I shall prove that I made no retreat, strategic or otherwise. I asked for ‘the -use of the Victoria Hall for my meeting at Fremantle, and it was arranged that I should speak there on the Saturday night. ‘The reverend gentleman connected with the church that owns and controls the Victoria Hall, after ray advertisement had been sent to the press, and all arrangements for the meeting had been made, said that he would not allow the hall to be used by me, because I was an anti-conscriptionist.

Senator Bakhap:

– What are we on now ?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate ; but I am sure that Senator Bakhap, as a lover of fair play, will allow me this opportunity

Senator Lynch:

– After twenty-seven hours of a sitting I

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It does not matter a . damn to me if it was after twentynine hours !

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw that expression.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I shall withdraw if Senator Lynch will get up on his feet-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must obey my order without any condition.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Very well, I withdraw. I was told by the reverend gentleman controlling the Victoria Hall that I would not be allowed to speak in it unless I gave a guarantee of £25. He further imposed a toll upon me of £5 for the rent of the hall, which had hitherto been let to Senators Pearce and Lynch, and all my Western Australian colleagues, for 30s. or £2. I asked why this toll should be demanded from ane, and the reverend gentleman said - and his statement appears in the press, and is known to Senators Pearce and Lynch - “ It is because you are going to address a meeting advocating anti-conscription.”

Senator Lynch:

– What was the £25 guarantee for?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The guarantee of £25 was asked for because the reverend gentleman ‘thought that the friends of Senators Lynch and Pearce, who were conscriptionists, would break up the hall and smash ‘the furniture because I was speaking there against conscription. I am seriously referring to a matter affecting my . own conduct when in Western Australia, as the only senator representing, that State who fought the anticonscription campaign. Surely to God it will not be expected that I should allow the innuendoes, insinuations, or . assertions of Senators Pearce and Lynch to . go without a reply, when I have the . facts to prove that they are incorrect. Some time yesterday evening Senator Pearce interjected -

You . beat a strategic retreat from Albany.

I was . due to speak in Albany on Thursday, 26th October. I was assured that the Acting Mayor of Albany was agreeable that the Town Hall should be at my disposal free of any charge for rent. I . accepted that assurance, but I was later informed by the Acting Mayor that I could not have the use of the Town Hall, which he had guaranteed me free of expense, because a. transport had arrived in port wilh 1,000 or more New Zealand soldiers, and he thought that, if I addressed a meeting against conscription., the Town Hall would be broken up. He demanded that I should pay £25 before. I spoke- there. I told the Acting Mayor of Albany that I would not guarantee £25 for the hall. At five minutes to 8 o’clock I was due to speak there. I did not beat a strategical retreat at all, as Senator Pearce has sneeringly suggested, but I went across to the town hall, and, standing on the steps, I said to New Zealand soldiers who- were’ there - “ I am here to address the meeting, but because you men have threatened to wreck the hall, and because I am not prepared to guarantee £25 for the use of it, I am refused admittance.” I then invited them to the Rotunda., where I attempted to address them, but I did not succeed, because the New Zealand -conscript soldiers attempted to assault me. They pushed me from the box on which I was standing, but I defied them to go any further. I tried for 25 minutes to speak, but was prevented, not by the citizens, of Albany, but because of the conduct of the conscript soldiers from New Zealand who were let loose that evening. I might mention, also, that this was the first time for fifteen months that any transport was allowed to land troops at Albany. The next morning I- went down, to Denmark and addressed, a hostile meeting. I left Albany at- 7.30 a.m., arrived at Denmark at 10.15, addressed the meeting, and reached Albany again in the afternoon. Included in my audience at Albany was the Hon. John Scaddan, who was due to address a meeting himself in that town on 27th October. An offer was made to him that Tie and I” should address the same meeting from the same platform, and I was prepared to speak either first or last. Mr. Scaddan declined the offer.

Senator Pearce:

– He missed the chance of his life-time-.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Well, the honorable senator has never missed any chances in his life-time, and has- never lost any opportunity to. assail me. When Senator Pearce arrived- in Western Aus?tralia, his speeches, as well as- those of Senators Lynch, Henderson, and. Buzacott, were.- freely reported,, whilst only one of my speeches, was reported throughout the- whole- campaign. All the papers in Australia, however, reported the fact that I was attacked by the New Zealand soldiers on Friday night, 27th October. Mr. Scaddan elected to address his audience in the Albany town hall, whilst I addressed mine from the Rotunda. On the following morning Mr. Scaddan got a column report of his speech in. the Albany press-, whilst I, because I was advocating anti-conscription, did not get a solitary word. I would not have transgressed upon the time of the Senate after the long sitting, but I have come to the conclusion that, in order to protect myself from Senator Pearce’s sneering remarks, I should place the facts before the Senate. I challenge Senator Pearce or Senator Lynch to mention any meeting that I ran away from. I challenge them also to say that I beat a strategic retreat from Albany. I could not get the Town’ Hall in Perth, because there was a picture show on that night. I arranged for the Victoria Hall, Fremantle, intending, to make that my opening meeting; but I was denied it by the reverend gentleman who controlled the- hall. Hie demanded £5 rental, and a £25 guarantee1 against damage of furniture. I got the Trades Hall in Fremantle for nothing, and addressed a- gathering there that could not be got within its four walls. The- reverend gentleman referred to- said I. could not have- the- hall because- I was- an- a.nticon.scriptionist. He admitted that he had. a conscriptionist meeting in it a week, before,, and charged nothing for. it because the speakers advocated conscription.. I beat no retreat from the Albany meeting; strategic or otherwise.

Senator Pearce:

– Will you agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire whether the retreat was strategic or otherwise?’

Senator NEEDHAM:

– These things can be put off laughingly, but Senator Pearce and Senator Lynch will not put them off in that way with me. Neither senator can mention one meeting that I ran away from-, or failed, to attend. I am not speaking- vindictively ; all I want is fair play. Never, on any platform, or in, this chamber,, have I said, anything disrespectful, from a personal point of view, about either Senator Pearce or Senator Lynch,, yet Senator Pearce h; s taken pains- to- jeer at me. M’y record is clean, and will remain clean; and. I hope the day will never arrive when any man, whether Cabinet Minister or peasant,, can suggest that I was cowardly, or ran away from anything.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– Last night I interjected that I was informed that Senator Needham made a strategic retreat. I do not regard that as any reflection on him, because during the campaign I made several. On one occasion I came dangerously near to being routed. The honorable senator must not take my laughing just now as any reflection on himself.I laughed because I saw a ludicrous resemblance between the subject the honorable senator was discussing and the following cablegram from Amsterdam, dealing with the German retreat, which I was reading in the evening paper: -

We are shortening our western front -

This incident happened in Western Australia - in order to concentrate for the main decision. The elections are imminent -

Continuing, Major Moraht reminds the puzzled German public of Field-Marshal von Hindenburg’s strategy in the days of Tannenberg, and adds, “ Surely it is not necessary to point out he is now acting on the west, and is shortening the front strategically in order to leave a wilderness for the advancing enemy.”

Senator Needham:

– I thank you for your sympathy.

Senator PEARCE:

– After hearing the explanation of what happened at Albany I can quite believe that what I took to be a strategic retreat was really a victorious advance on the part of Senator Need; ham.

Senator Needham:

– The usual George Pearce!

Senator PEARCE:

– If I offended the honorable senator by referring to the act as a strategic retreat I ask him to accept a humble apology.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I wish to make a brief reply to my old colleague and present friend, and I hope, future friend as well. All that I have to say in respect to Senator Needham’s speech on this motion, is that when he reached the Western State he was heralded as the leader of the anticonscription, movement. In due course, as he has already stated, effective arrangements were made for the leader of that movement to address meetings in the State. A hall was about to be engaged at Fremantle

Senator Needham:

– The hall was engaged, and the money was paid.

Senator LYNCH:

– The terms of the engagement were that Senator Needham was to pay £5 for the use of the hall, and to give a guarantee of £25 that no furniture would be broken.

Senator Needham:

– Pardon me. The money for the use of the hall was paid without any guarantee, and afterwards a guarantee was demanded.

Senator LYNCH:

– The meeting did not take place. That is all I have to say on the honorable senator’s own statement here. Apart altogether from other things which I might say, that particular meeting which he was to hold on his own dunghill in Fremantle was never held from that day to the present time.

Senator Needham:

– I held a meeting at Fremantle on the same night in the Trades Hall, because I would not be allowed to speak in the Victoria Hall.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am sorry that anything I may have said unwittingly should have ruffled the honorable senator’s feelings, but I am only taking his own words that the meeting which was to be held in Victoria Hall, Fremantle, was arranged for, and was never held by him.

Senator Needham:

– It was held.

Senator LYNCH:

– You never spoke there.

Senator Needham:

– It was held in the Trades Hall at Fremantle, because I would not pay the £25.

Senator LYNCH:

– On the senator’s own statement he comes as an unwilling witness to prove my assertion that he ran away from that meeting.

Senator Needham:

– The meeting was held.

Senator Pearce:

– I think that Senator Lynch is wrong; it was apparently the landlord who ran away.

Senator LYNCH:

– The serious part of the business is that when it was announced that Senator Needham, as leader of the anti-conscription movement in Western Australia, was about to arrive and to set the Swan River on fire, there was a very great shortage of furniture in the State. Those who had limited stocks started, according to the report, to corner it, and those who had charge of the available halls where the leader of that movement was about to speak, saw the prospect staring them in the face that they might not be able to re-stock their furniture if Senator Needham were to speak there. Being isolated, as we were, with a prospect of sitting on jam or milk boxes, we did not wish to have our public halls used by. the leader of the anti-conscriptionist movement, unless he entered into a guarantee as business arrangement that no furniture would be broken.

Senator Needham:

– You are in favour of free speech, and the other hall in which you spoke was free-

Senator LYNCH:

– The sum of £25 was asked from the honorable senator.

Senator Needham:

– Had you to pay £25 for the rent of every hall you spoke in?

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe that the anti-conscriptionist movement had unlimited cash at its disposal..

Senator Needham:

– Did’ you pay £25 for every hallyou spoke in?

Senator LYNCH:

– Apart from, the question of furniture-

Senator Needham:

– Will the honorable senator answer my question?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator was very insistent a little while ago that he should be allowed to speak . without interruption, and I protected him against interruptions. I ask him not to interject now.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator is adding insult to injury. I paid my way. Every penny was paid out of my own pocket.

Senator LYNCH:

– Apart from the question of the furniture, what we were all troubled at was that the leader of the anti-conscriptionist movement, instead of sticking to populous centres in the metropolitan area and the goldfields, should go down to remote corner of the State, and there virtually prosecute, the campaign in places in which he would get only twenty-five or thirty persons to listen to him.

Senator Needham:

– What a cowardly statement to make ! Senator Lynch knows that it is a cowardly statement, and it is a lie.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask Senator Needham to withdraw that statement.

Senator Needham:

– I will withdraw the word, and Senator Lynch’ knows perfectly well

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Needham:

-I withdraw the word “ lie.”

Senator Ferricks:

-. - He isacting, with courage again.

Senator LYNCH:

– This cadaver Senator Ferricks has found his. second -breath.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. I ask Senator Lynch to withdraw the offensive expression which he has made use of in regard to Senator Ferricks, and to withdraw it unreservedly.

Senator LYNCH:

– I withdraw the remark, sir, but you did not hear what Senator Ferricks said. He failed to accept my challenge this -morning when I challenged him to resign his seat in Queensland. Now the honorable senator has got his second breath, he - who is like what any man is never like - comes and dares to taunt me with lack of courage. When I asked him this morning to resign his seat, and said that I would resign my seat, and we could test our courage in our respective States, he . was silent. He is silent now.

Senator Ferricks:

– I invite you to come to Queensland with me.

Senator LYNCH:

-I am going to repeat this offer because I want it published.

Senator Needham:

– You are very courageous in telling lies about myself.

Senator LYNCH:

– Oh, Senator Needham !

Senator Needham:

– You delight in telling lies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order I If I have heard correctly, Senator Needham has said to Senator Lynch that he is very; courageous in telling lies.

Senator Needham:

– I said so.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must know that that is a distinct defiance of my ruling. I ask him to withdraw the remark and to pay. more respect to the ruling of the Chair in the future.

Senator Needham:

– I withdraw the word “lies.”

Senator LYNCH:

– I apologize to Senator Needham for anything I may. have said., unwittingly, which wounded his feelings.

Senator Needham:

– Thank you.

Senator Ferricks:

– Will you come to Queensland with me!

Senator LYNCH:

– I wish to repeat the challenge I issuedto Senator Ferricks this morning, when he taunted me with lack of courage, now that he has found his voice. I . will reign my seat in Western Australia, and test -my. popularity there, if he is prepared to resign his seat in Queensland, and test- his popularity there. . ,

Senator McKissock:

– That is a. school’ boy’s challenge……

Senator LYNCH:

– I am engaged on serious business. I ask Senator Ferricks, for the Bake of playing the man, will he walk forward to the Chair now and tender his resignation ? If he does, I will do it now. Come on, be a man.

Senator Ferricks:

– Have you got another senator ready ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator LYNCH:

– I am engaged in serious business, sir. I am not here, and never will be, so far as I know, to. stand being taunted as a coward. I ask Senator Ferricks, again, to walk forward with me to your side. I will tender my resignation, provided that he tenders his resignation ; and we will appeal to our respective States at the coming election to test our popularity there, just to see who has the more courage.

Senator Ferricks:

– Have you another senator ready?

Senator LYNCH:

– Pursuant to my challenge to Senator Ferricks, this human shape here who has dared to taunt me with lack, of courage-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator LYNCH:

– Well, sir, I call the honorable senator a human shape.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be careful not to transgress my ruling, or I will be compelled to take drastic action.

Senator LYNCH:

– Am I not in order, sir, in calling the honorable senator a human shape?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in referring to any honorable senator in disrespectful terms.

Senator Needham:

– Withdraw it, too.

Senator Mckissock:

-Heis always doing it. He gets more latitude in this chamber than does any other man.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I ask Senator McKissock to withdraw that statement, which is a reflection on the Chair.

Senator Mckissock:

– It appears to me to be so, sir; but, since you order me. to withdraw the statement-

The PRESIDENT:

– Will the honorable senator obey my ruling ?

Senator McKissock:

– When you retire, sir, I will do it. It appears to me to be so.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not make a speech. He must either withdraw the remark, or refuse to withdraw it.

Senator Mckissock:

– There is no speech, sir, but only my’ opinion concerning the matter. Seeing that you take it as a reflection upon you, I withdraw the remark.

Senator LYNCH:

– To complete what I have to say in a few sentences-

Senator Ferricks:

– You are lacking in courage.

Senator LYNCH:

– The honorable senator speaks in an undertone, as usual, the coward that he is.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– Did you hear’ the remark, sir, “Lacking in courage?”

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I appeal again to honorable senators to refrain from making these interjections, which can have no result But one. Unless they obey my ruling I shall be compelled to take drastic action.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have no business here, sir, unless I obey unstintedly and unreservedly your ruling on all occasions. Again let me offer the challenge which I issued this morning to Senator Ferricks, that I am prepared to resign my seat on the condition that he resigns his seat, and - we will test our mettle in our respective States.

Senator Ferricks:

– I challenge you to come to Queensland with me.

Senator LYNCH:

– In furtherance of that challenge I will go to Queensland, and test the honorable senator’s seat if he will come to Western Australia and test my seat. -

Senator Ferricks:

– Come to Queensland with me.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is my challenge, sir. I am ready to walk to your table and sign my resignation if the honorable senator will resign his. I am finished.

Senator Ferricks:

– Come to Queensland and see how you will get on.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– Come on; be a man now.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– There is one matter which I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister for Defence, and it is in regard to the proposal I placed before the Pensions Commissioner some time ago in connexion with the death of a soldier at Enoggera Camp. He duly enlisted as a volunteer. On one night he was absent from camp without leave, and while away he met with an accident which resulted in his death. He left a widow and some children to whom pension rights have been denied on the ground that the soldier was absent without leave. It appears to be pretty hard, if a technical offence was committed by the man, that punishment should be visited on his widow and children. I think that Senator Pearce will agree with me that in the early stages of enlistments in Queensland and other States absences from camp were pretty frequent. I do not think it was a very heinous offence for a man to have committed. Certainly the punishment meted out for it was not very- drastic, because I understand that this offence was pretty common throughout the military camps of Australia. I have not had an opportunity of inspecting the camps adjacent to the various State capitals, but I have inspected the Enoggera camp, and, as one who is not a jingo, I must say that I have no fault to find with it. But I have been informed by colleagues on both sides of this chamber that the Enoggera camp is the star camp of the Commonwealth. Now, a soldier absenting himself without leave is guilty of a military offence. But, seeing that this particular young man, while he was thus absent from camp, met with a railway accident which terminated fatally, I do not think that the penalty of his misdeed should be visited upon his widow and children. Some time ago I wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions in Brisbane, setting out the facts of this case, and stating that the widow and children were in pretty straitened circumstances. After the lapse of some time I received a reply, not from the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions, Brisbane, but from the head office in Melbourne. Before that reply reached “me I had placed thewhole of the facts before the Minister for Defence, and had informed him that I had been approached by the Honorable John Huxham, of Queensland, who occupies the position of Home Secretary - aman who would not have intervened had the merits of the case not warranted it. I gave the Defence Department full particulars-

Senator Pearce:

– The Defence Department does not administer pensions.

Senator FERRICKS:

– But it had something to do with this case, as will be seen from the following letter which was addressed to me : -

Defence Department,

Melbourne, 5th March, 1917

Dear sir,

With further reference to your representations on behalf of the Hon. J. Huxham, M.L.A., relative to the claim of Mrs. Catherine Hogg, of 182 Main-street, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane, Queensland, for a war pension consequent on the death of her husband, No. 2249, Private Hugh Dickson Hogg, 5th Reinforcements, 47th Battalion, A.I.F., I desire to inform you that the matter was referred to the Commandant, 1st Military District, Brisbane, Queensland, for a report as to the circumstances under which this soldier died, and a reply has been received to the effect that death took place on the 1st September, 1916, as the result of an accident received whilst absent without leave. The Court of Inquiry which sat in this case find-

  1. That Hugh Dickson Hogs was a member of the Australian Imperial Force on the morning of 1st September, 1916.
  2. That he was struck by a train on the railway line near Enoggera railway station on the night of the 31st August- 1st September, 1916, and received injuries from which he died.
  3. That ho was admitted to the 13th A.G.H. on the morning of the 1st September, 1916.
  4. That he died at about . 10.50 a.m. on the morning of the 1st September, 1916, from the injuries received by him when struck by the train.
  5. That the occurrence was purely accidental, and that nobody is to blame.
  6. That Hugh Dickson Hogg was absent without leave from the Australian Imperial Force when he received the injuries which caused his death.

The following is an extract from the evidence furnished by the orderly sergeant attached to the 5th Reinforcements, 47th Battalion: - “ I know and was acquainted with No. 2249, Private Hugh Dickson Hogg, of the 5th Reinforcements, 47th Battalion. I was orderly sergeant to the 5th Reinforcements, 47th Battalion, on the 31st August to 1st September inclusive, 1916, and as such called the tattoo roll-call at about 10 p.m. on the night of the 31st August, 1916. Private Hugh Dickson Hogg did not answer his name. He had not leave to be absent from such roll-call. At that time Hugh Dickson Hogg was under open arrest for attempting to break camp previously on that evening.”

It is regretted that nothing further can be done by this Department in the matter, but Mrs. Hogg’s claim has been referred to the Commonwealth Commissioner of Pensions, for attention and reply direct, as this Department does not administer the War Pension Act.

Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) T. Trumble,

Acting Secretary

Following -upon that I received a communication from the Pensions Department which reads - 7th March, 1917.

Senator M. A. Ferricks,

Parliament House

Dear sir,

With reference to the case of Mrs. Catherine Hogg, 182 Main-street, Kangaroo Point, Brisbane, Queensland, which ‘ you brought under the notice of the Defence Department, I have to say that the war pension claims lodged by Mrs. Hogg on behalf of herself and her children were rejected because the death of her husband was not due to his employment in connexion with the present warlike operations. A Court of Inquiry has found that he was struck by a train on the railway line near Enoggera while absent without leave.

Yours faithfully, ‘ (Sgd.) T. Ross,

Assistant Commissioner of Pensions

Senator FERRICKS:

– The claim of the Defence Department is that Private Hogg broke camp.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator want to come back here after 8 o’clock to-night?

Senator FERRICKS:

– Ido not think that the Minister for Defence will turn down this case after he is cognisant of the facts.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator has now given us all the facts, and I have promised to have the matter investigated.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I accept the Minister’s assurance, and shall forward him the Hansard proof of my remarks on this -question, which I hope he will decide upon its merits.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Thursday).

Senator FERRICKS:

– I intended to say a word in reply to the challenge that has been thrown down to me in this chamber by Senator Lynch to contest a seat for the Senate in Western Australia if he would contest a seat in Queensland. I saw the honorable senator during the dinner adjournment, and told him that I desired his presence in the chamber after dinner, as I intended to refer to what he had said. He told me ‘that he regretted that he would be unable to . attend, as it was necessary for him to fulfil a prior engagement elsewhere, I think in connexion with a recruiting meeting. Seeing that in the early hours of the morning, when he desired to say something about me, the honorable senator was good enough to send the Whip of this party, Senator Needham, to find me, it is my intention to play the game, and to reserve my remarks in reply to Senator Lynch for some other occasion when he will be able to be present in this chamber. We have been sitting continuously for thirty hours, and I have had enough; but I wish . to say that I was wholeheartedly in favour of the request moved by Senator Gardiner for the remission of duties on cornsacks. My idea was that that would lead to the re-opening of the Tariff for discussion, and honorable senators representing Queensland, including. I believe, the President, were in receipt of representations with respect to the dire necessity for increased protection in the interests of the timber industry.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator cannot refer to what took place in Committee.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I regret that I am unable to deal with the matter on this motion. The vote taken on the request submitted by Senator Gardiner indicated that it was not the desire of honorable senators to re-open the Tariff, and I have only to say that I regret that that decision should have been come to. I have one more small complaint to make. I have good grounds for fearing that the assurance, given by Senator Millen with respect to the freedom from censorship of political aspects of the impending elections is not likely to be realized.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator is a very fearful man.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I have good grounds for believing that already censorship is being applied, politically, in connexion with the campaign now being conducted in New South Wales. . Senator Millen. may not be . aware of that, and I do not say that he is. Mr. Cook may not be aware of it. But I feel sure that Mr. Hughes is aware of it. This is what leads me to believe that my fears that we may in this way be placed at a disadvantage during the election campaign are not ill-founded. I know that the censorship is being applied to political aspects of the campaign in, New South Wales. I ask Senator Millen whether it is with. his knowledge, or with the knowledge of Mr. Cook, that a purely political censorship is now being exercised in that State.

Senator Millen:

– I wish the honorable senator would supply some proofs of his statement.

Senator FERRICKS:

-r-My information is confidential, and I am sure it is not without foundation. I ask the honorable senator to make the necessary inquiry at the earliest moment.

Senator Millen:

– Unless the honorable senator .can give me some information from which to start I hardly see how I can make an inquiry.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I regret that I am not in a position, to give the honorable senator, the information supplied to me.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I wish to convey to Senator Millen the fact that I have reliable information that the censorship in New South Wales is being used in connexion with the State electoral contest, and against the Labour party.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator not give us some particulars?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am asking Senator Millen to inquire into this matter, but if it is the Minister for Defence who is in charge of the censorship I ask him to inquire into it. I take full responsibility for the statement I make, and if it is shown not to be correct, my reputation must suffer accordingly.

Senator Pearce:

– I am not doubting the honorable senator; but I ask him for some particular lines along which to direct an inquiry.

Senator GARDINER:

– The lines along which the honorable senator may direct his inquiry are whether dodgers and publications of the Labour party in New South Wales are being unduly hampered by the censorship, and whether the censorship generally is used to the disadvantage of Labour men engaged in the contest referred . to. My information is supplied by an urgent telegram, which, naturally, does not go very fully into the matter, but I have such confidence in the source from which the information is derived that I feel justified in insisting upon some inquiry by the Government. The censorship of political matter is an injustice which cannot be .tolerated in this country. When this sitting commenced, very many hours ago, I asked Senator Millen whether it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission, and preferably a High Court Judge, to inquire into the charges made. here by Senator Watson against the Prime Minis ter, and also into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the disappearance of ex-Senator Ready from this side, and the appearance of Senator Earle on the other side.

Senator Earle:

– What is the honorable senator’s suspicion concerning Senator Earle ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Although the honorable senator does not appear to be conscious of it, it does appear to me that the very fact that he comes up as ex-Senator Ready goes down, and the extraordinary manner in which he made his appearance in this chamber, suggests that he should be interested in securing some inquiry into the matter. In view of the ruling by which a motion I intended to propose for referring the matter to the Elections and Qualifications Committee has disappeared from the paper, the necessity for a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole affair should, I think, appeal to the honorable senator.

Senator EARLE:

-Simply for the honorable senator’s satisfaction-

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not desire that the honorable senator should do anything for’ my satisfaction.

Senator Earle:

– I am satisfied.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator might’ do many things with the object of satisfying me, and might find that the more he did the less satisfied I would be. I want him, in this matter, to do what he thinks should be done in the interests of the country, of himself, and particularly of the Senate.

Senator Earle:

– I am doing that.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was inquiring from Senator Millen whether the Government had as yet had an opportunity of considering the matter, and whether anything has been done with a view to the appointment of a Royal Commission. I should like before the Senate rises to have some announcement made as to the intentions of the Government in regard to this very grave matter.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I desire to say a word or two with regard to the censorship which is being exercised at the present time over the press of this country. I am in the habit of seeing a very considerable number of Home newspapers every week, and I find that there is a freedom pf ex precision permitted in them which for SOL* time, at any rate, has been -wholly absent from our Australian newspapers.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– How does the honorable senator know that that is due to the censorship 1

Senator STEWART:

– Well, I have my suspicions. Comparing British newspapers with Australian newspapers one is at once brought face to face with the fact that the discussion of great Imperial questions is being carried on very much more freely and openly in Great Britain than here. I have read statements in Scotch newspapers which would not be permitted to appear in the Australian press. If there were any difference between Great Britain and Australia in this respect one would expect that the advantage, so far as freedom of discussion is concerned, would be with Australia.

Senator PEARCE:

– We have absolutely the same rules of censorship here that they have in Great Britain.

Senator STEWART:

– Then they must be very differently applied. The men who direct the censorship in Great Britain must possess some share of what may be termed the Imperial mind, whilst the men who direct it here have the local mind, and keep their particular advantage, and the advantage of their party, always to the front, whilst the welfare of the community is ‘left to sink into the background. The great bulwarks of British freedom have always been free speech and a free press. To achieve these two great things the people of Great Britain subjected themselves to a great many indignities. After decades of struggle they at last succeeded in securing what should exist in every Democracy, and that is absolute freedom of discussion so far as matters pertaining to the government of the country are concerned. I do not for a moment suggest that matters, the publication of which might play into the hands of the enemy, should not be subjected to censorship but what is there about a local political campaign such as that now going on in New South Wales that demands the interference of the censor ?

Senator Millen:

– Has Senator Stewart any evidence of the existence of that of which he complained ?

Senator STEWART:

– If Senator Millen will excuse me I must say that he is a .whale on evidence. The Leader of the- Opposition has told the honorable senator that this censorship is being exercised. What has been the reply of Senators Millen and Pearce? They ask whether the honorable senator can give them any evidence. But -the fact that the censorship is being exercised must be within the knowledge of these honorable senators.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not know that it is being exercised in the way suggested, and I ask for some evidence that it is being wrongly exercised.

Senator STEWART:

– Does Senator Millen mean to tell me that there is in this country a censorship which operates without direction or suggestion from the Government, and checks publication at its own option ? Senator Ferricks has received a telegram from Sydney complaining of the same thing, but he says that his information is confidential, and therefore he is unable to disclose it.

Senator Needham:

– I had a telegram on the same subject from Western Australia but I was unable to deal with it here, because there was a similar question on the notice-»paper.

Senator STEWART:

– I gather from various newspapers - their utterances on the question are guarded - that they have been prohibited by the Government from discussing subjects of public importance, but which have no direct reference to the war whatever. The conviction is borne in on my mind that we are suffering from what I might , call an abominable tyranny. Why did we establish a Democracy in Australia ? Was it to stifle free speech and muzzle the press? Is that the kind of thing the people of Australia desired ?

Senator Earle:

– No one desires that.

Senator STEWART:

– Yet that is the kind of thing that has been going on for months.

Senator Millen:

– If it has, then surely you can give some evidence of it.

Senator STEWART:

– I was loath to believe the statement, but was convinced at last after I had perused complaints of a more or less veiled character with regard to the operation of the censorship in various influential journals.

Senator PEARCE:

– Notably the Bulletin.

Senator STEWART:

– Yes, that was one.

Senator Pearce:

– And thereby hangs a tale.

Senator Needham:

– All the Melbourne newspapers complain.

Senator STEWART:

– Some of the Melbourne newspapers I know have complained. Why all this secrecy and this attempt to stifle the expression of public opinion 1 It ought to be an axiom in the government of a country like Australia “that every man and every newspaper which cares to express an opinion of any subject of public importance should have the fullest opportunity of doing so. We have heard a great deal about playing into the hands of the enemy. It strikes me that the enemy knows a great deal more about what is going on in Australia and on the water between Australia and Britain as well as at the front than we do. Why should not the people of Australia be permitted to discuss their own affairs in their own way ! I gather that the Prime Minister seems to be playing the part of a petty despot in this matter.

Senator SENIOR:

– Another verse of the same hymn?

Senator STEWART:

– Why does that gentleman give us cause? The honorable senator has never heard me utter a word against the Prime Minister.

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– If the Prime Minister were an angel from heaven he could not remove the cause for complaint.

Senator STEWART:

– I was associated with the Prime Minister for a very much longer period than Senator Millen, and., like other men of superior talent, I always found the Prime Minister to be very fond of getting his own way. I found also that occasionally he was not too scrupulous about achieving his ends, and I have not the slightest doubt he is just the same kind of man to-day as he was then. The Prime Minister, a man with great intellectual qualities, has all the elements of a despot in his composition, and it is to this that I attribute this unwarranted and unforgivable attempt to muzzle the Australian press. I hope that honorable senators who sit behind the Ministry will bring ‘ pressure to bear upon the head of the Government to do away with this miserable pretence of carrying on the business of a country under what may be termed a despotic regime. Speech must be free, and the press must be free, othewise our guarantees for anything like good government and freedom will disappear. I trust that our friends on the Government benches will inquire into this matter, and without asking Senator Gardiner or Senator Ferricks to disclose the sources of their information, will find out for themselves whether this iniquitous thing is going on, and, if so, that they will put an end to it.

Senator McKISSOCK:
Victoria

– I wish to bring before the Senate a matter to which I directed the attention of the Minister for Defence a little while ago in relation to the rights of Australians resident in New Zealand under the operation of the Compulsory Military Service Act of that country. When I approached the Minister for Defence some time ago I informed him that Australians in New Zealand - people who ‘ had no desire or were not in a position to go to the front - came under the- new ukase of the Dominion Government. I. have received letters from several Australians, resident in the Dominion for the time being, claiming the protection of the Australian flag, and- asking to be allowed to return from New Zealand rather than be driven compulsorily to service abroad. The Minister courteously said that he would make inquiries, and he was as good as his word. He tried his best to interest the Dominion Government, and to endeavour to free Australians in New Zealand from the operation of the conscription law of that country. British-born people- - I am excluding Ireland - who are resident in the Commonwealth of Australia have not been called upon for service under the conscription edict of the Mother Country, and that being so, surely we in Australia should have some control in regard to Australians resident in New Zealand for the time being, and who have no desire to be sent to the front against their own free will.

Senator Earle:

– Are they permanent residents of New Zealand ?

Senator McKISSOCK:

– Not necessarily. I have received several communications’ on the subject. One letter that came to hand was forwarded on to the Prime Minister’s Department, and in reply thereto I received the following from the Secretary to the Prime Minister under date Melbourne, 10th March, 1917: -

With reference to your letter of the 24th February, addressed to the Minister for Defence, relative to the desire of Mr. George Hughes, of Globe .Mine, vi& Reefton, West Coast, New Zealand, to be permitted to leave New Zealand, I am directed to inform you that, in reply to representations already made in the matter, the Kew Zealand Government advised that it was regretted that the grant; ing of a permit to Mr. Hughes would be a departure from that Government’s policy .in such matters.

According to the letter which I forwarded bo the Minister for Defence - I am speaking from memory - the writer had been in the Dominion for six months.

Senator Millen:

– Had he been there long enough to be placed on the electoral roll ?

Senator McKISSOCK:

– I cannot say, but a census may have been taken since his arrival in the Dominion. Another letter I have received is from Mr. JnoRedpath, of Avoca, Victoria, a gentleman known personally to me. Mr Redpath stated -

Dear Sir, - I notice on page 10556 of Ilansard, dated 24th February, that you asked Senator Pearce, Minister for Defence, had the Commonwealth Government taken steps to conserve the rights of Australian citizens residing in New Zealand re compulsory service. The reply by the Minister for Defence was that he had not had any case reported to him where Australian citizens have been interfered with in any way in New Zealand.

After the reply by the Minister for Defence referred to in the above extract from the letter, I endeavoured with the letters I had in my possession at the time to show that there was some reason for the question, and some necessity for action by the Government to conserve the interests of Australian residents who are in danger of being shackled under the conscription ukase as passed by the New Zealand Government. The letter goes on to state -

I beg to state that I have a brother in New Zealand who went there for six months about two years ago, but has been locked up within the confines of the island ever since. He has made application to the authorities over there for .permission to come back home to Victoria, but they have flatly refused him a passport. Some three months ago his mother was seriously ill, and the doctor attending her had little hope of her recovery at the time. He was written for then, and the case placed before the authorities over there, but still they refused his application.. Mother is over seventy years of age, and my single sister, who lives home with her, is almost a cripple. There is about 100 acres of land overflowing with feed, and only about four head of cattle are running on it, owing to the fact that mother is too infirm, and my sister not being able to look after them. 1 think this is a case where ah Australian’s rights have been interfered with to the detriment of his family and the State. I will now ‘ ask you _ if anything can be done in the matter. My brother does riot wish to get out of New Zealand to dodge conscription, as he would have volunteered when the war broke out, only mother strongly objected to the farm going to rack and ruin. My mother now has eleven grandchildren lighting for their King and country.

This case may be typical of those of many’ Australians resident in New Zealand who should not be drag-netted under the Act. We knew in theory what compulsion would mean. We know from actual New Zealand experience what it does mean. Not only single, but married men, are being compulsorily called up, with a view of sending them to the front. Already clergyman of all denominations and others have been notified that they must go into camp by a certain date. Even a bishop has been lassoed and dragged along. By next November married men of forty-seven years and under will be in the camps. Many married Australians who went to New Zealand to follow their usual avocations, and were there when this iniquitous thing called conscription was fastened on that country, have been roped in, instead of being allowed to remain or come back to their homes and friends in Australia. They have been torn from their families and thrown compulsorily into the firing line, whether they liked it or not, and irrespective of whether their wives and families can be maintained in decency and comfort during their absence. When such a thing can happen close to our shores in a country that probably at one time formed part of our mainland, and which should now be joined with us in one big political Dominion> the Government of- Australia should take action, because Australians showed, by their vote on 28th October, that the system was repulsive to them. Our Government should represent to the Dominion Government that Australian citizens must not be enslaved against their will.

Senator Millen:

– Would you. claim the right of residence in New Zealand also’?

Senator MCKISSOCK:

– I claim the protection of the Australian Government for every Australian citizen at present resident in the Dominion. No Australian Government worthy of the name should allow them to be lassoed and dragged to the front like bullocks to the pens. Then should be allowed to claim the protection of the Australian flag, of which ‘ the Government of the Commonwealth are for the time being the custodians. We look to the Government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This letter speaks eloquently of wrongs done to Australians in New Zealand, and when one is out on a recruiting campaign, in the laudable endeavour to get more men voluntarily to help in the fighting line in this titanic struggle, it is discouraging to find obstacles placed in the way through the obstinacy and stupidity of our Government, which refuses to look after the interests of its children abroad, as a paternal Government should do, and stupidly says, “Let things go; let them go. We are trying to do the same thing to Australians in Australia.” What has happened to Australians in New Zealand should be an object lesson to the people here, apart altogether from that furnished by the action of the Dominion Government in imposing conscription upon its own citizens, without giving them a chance to say whether they would have it or not. Nothing could be a greater deterrent to successful recruiting than this sort of case. An aged mother and crippled daughter hold a farm, with a boy in New Zealand prevented from coming to his mother’s help - a mother already represented by a number of grandchildren at the front. I hope the Government will take timely warning from what has happened in the sister Dominion under a Government gone conscription mad, and that the Australian people, by repeating the timely check given to the last Government on the 28th October, will prevent any future Government attempting to fasten conscription on this country in time to come.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I want those honorable senators who have brought up complaints about the exercise of the powers of censorship to look closely into the statements they have made. They have not given us any indication of where to look for the wrongdoing which they allege. Not even a city or paper is mentioned.

Senator GARDINER:

– I mentioned the city of Sydney, and referred you to your own censor’s office there, to see if the statement that they are interfering with the State election campaign is correct.

Senator MILLEN:

– Every censor must necessarily interfere with a publication somewhere. If the honorable senator knows of any instance where a censor has exercised his powers wrongly, I ask him now to bring us evidence of it. If he wishes any matter to be regarded as confidential, the Minister for Defence will so treat it. Senator Stewart went so far as to say that he’ “ feels something is wrong.” If I told a policeman in Bourkestreet that I had a -sort of feeling that murder was being committed in the neighbourhood, and implored him to do something, he would probably run me in. That -is exactly the position my honorable friends are placing me in, except that I have no power to run them in. If honorable senators genuinely believe that real grievances exist, let them help us to remove the trouble, ‘instead of by making vague statements, creating an impression that something is wrong of which we know as well as they, and which we are unwilling to remedy.

Senator Needham:

– I will help you tomorrow by producing evidence. I have received a telegram to-night which I cannot use.

Senator MILLEN:

– I have had many complaints from newspapers, and some of them indicated that occasionally a censor had not exercised his powers as I individually would have done. That is bound to happen where there are a number of censors. But honorable senators seem to think there is some general system or series of regulations under which the censorship is approaching the condition of being unfair, and even tyrannical.

Senator GARDINER:

– I could show you portions of an article cut right out.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is no proof that the censorship is wrong.

Senator GARDINER:

– We want no censorship over political contests.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Pearce, who cannot speak again on this motion, has authorized me to state that any honorable senator who cares, for his own private information, to see the regulations and instructions issued to the censors, is free to do so. The censorship is carried out in this way : Press matter is prepared, or a cartoon drawn and submitted to the censor before publication. He marks out with his blue pencil the portions that he -does not think should go in; the proofs are returned to the paper, and, as there is nothing, confidential about it, there need be no difficulty in obtaining those proofs from the newspaper proprietors and submitting them for our consideration.

Senator Ferricks:

– Reams of such proofs were sent to us after the referendum campaign,, and we are afraid1 that the same thing will occur again.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not pretend that the censorship is without mistakes. As the censors are only human, an occasional mistake is bound to occur, as they themselves would be the first to admit. As Senator Gardiner suggests to me by interjection, I myself have produced censored articles in this chamber, and on one occasion at least the Minister told me frankly that he did not approve of what the censor had done. When he disowned it, I was quite satisfied that it was not a mistake which I could charge against the Administration.

Senator McKissock:

– Are not the mistakes too frequent to be accidental?

Senator MILLEN:

– If they are, it- lis all the easier for the honorable senator to furnish the proof. In what direction, I ask, is the censorship going wrong ? My honorable friends know dozens of newspaper proprietors. Why not ask them to furnish them with the censored proof”, with the portions the censor desired to have struck out marked in blue pencil ?

Senator Needham:

– Will you take the statement of an- individual who has written an article to a newspaper which has been prohibited ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; because we want to see the- article.

Senator Needham:

– You will get it.

Senator MILLEN:

– Let the honorable senator send along the article which has been censored. I do not desire to labour this matter further. I come now to the question raised by Senator Gardiner as to whether I have had an opportunity to confer with my colleagues as to the motion passed by the Senate the other day. If he should by any chance have forgotten the fact, I would remind him that, with him, I entered this chamber yesterday morning at 11 o’clock; and I think he will agree with me that neither of us has had too much spare time on our hands since then.

Senator Gardiner:

– I thought that the Prime Minister might have had a Cabinet meeting by himself in a corner, and informed you.

Senator MILLEN:

– If the Prime Minister had a Cabinet meeting by himself, obviously, I could not be aware of it. I do not want my honorable friends to assume, sir, that because you ruled a certain motion out of order yesterday, they are debarred from proceeding in connexion with that matter. If they still think that the question as to whether Senator Earle is rightly here or not should be inquired into, it is competent for them to proceed by the regular way which you pointed out, and that is to present a petition to the Senate praying to have the matter inquired into. So that your decision does not in any way bar the door to them if they still wish an inquiry to be held. I come. next to the matter which was raised by Senator McKissock with so much vigour and force, and, may I say, eloquence. When he was speaking with all that vehemence, I was wondering what sort of a speech we should get from him if an Englishman came out- here, and, after having lived here for two years, objected to obey some law we had passed on the ground that he was an Englishman - if he came here and said, “ I came out here. I am a British subject. I claim all the rights and privileges of your citizenship. I enrolled myself as a voter and helped to elect Senator McKissock,” and we then passed a law which required him to do something, and he turned round and said, “ This is coming it too strongly. I am a Britisher.” That is the position of my honorable friend’s New Zealander. Can any one imagine the eloquence ‘ and the thunder which would proceed from him if such a proposition were put to him ?

Senator Ferricks:

– Australia is a part of the British Empire, and New Zealand is not a part of Australia. That is the difference.

Senator MILLEN:

– We are all parts of the one Empire.

Senator Ferricks:

– New Zealand is not a part of Australia.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is only Senator Ferricks who can discriminate in this way. That is exactly the position.

Senator Gardiner:

– Surely you will not permit a citizen of Australia to lose his citizen rights because he visits another country.

Senator MILLEN:

– If an Australian goes away and resides in another part of the British Empire, he has to obey ite laws.

Senator McKissock:

– This Australian visited New Zealand, and for two years the Government have prevented him from coming back to Australia.

Senator MILLEN:

– If I travel to New Zealand, and am only a visitor to that country, the Government will .treat me as such. But if I go to England and take up my domicile there, the Government will say, and rightly so, “ Coming here and becoming one of us, and sharing the privileges of our citizenship, you must share its obligations and burdens.”

Senator Pearce:

– If an Australian goes to New Zealand as a visitor, he takes a passport, which gives him the right to return.

Senator McKissock:

– Why did you not tell me that before !

Senator MILLEN:

– We know that that is what happens in regard to New Zealand. A very considerable number of our people are in the habit of going over to that country, not with any intention of becoming residents, but in connexion with shearing and other occupations. They are very keen and active politicians, and the first thing they do at the earliest possible moment is to get enrolled. I am glad to see my honorable friends opposite laughing, because they know that what I am saying is the truth. These Australians take a very keen- interest in Politics. They have sat at the feet of my honorable friends on the other side, and imbibed a keen political appetite. They bo over to New Zealand, and at the earliest possible moment they manage to 9et enrolled, and they suddenly find that they have become citizens of the country. But when the obligations of citizenship are raised, they say, “We are Australians- We are only visitors here.” I want to tell these persons through my honorable friends - and they know it, too - that they cannot have it both ways.

Senator Needham:

– You are very clever.

Senator MILLEN:

– These are the facts; it is an honest interpretation of the case. I have had no opportunity of conferring with the Prime Minister or my colleague; but I do know what is the usual practice, and one might almost say the international law. If any Australian has gone to New Zealand, and is being intercepted in the course of what is, obviously, a visit, there is no difficulty in getting him away from the country. No country to-day will attempt to treat as one of its citizens a mere passer-through. Even when a man went into Germany he was not compelled to obey its laws of conscription. The Government never attempted to apply the laws to a visitor; but when a visitor became a citizen of the country, then whatever . obligation the conscription laws imposed upon’ other citizens, he had to share them. I suggest to my honorable friends opposite that they should make themselves a little better acquainted with the details of the case. One gentleman, it appears, has been in’ New Zealand two years. Senator McKissock almost brought tears to my eyes when I heard him plead that the man had an aged mother, and ought to be allowed to return to her. This lady, he said, is between seventy and eighty years of age. We had the pathetic picture of an elderly lady longing for her son. But I remind the honorable senator that the man was young when he went away, and that he has been away two years.

Senator McKissock:

– The daughter and other members of the family were helping the mother at that time, but the daughter has become infirm,, and the boys have gone away.

Senator MILLEN:

– These are all matters which the young man should have thought of before he went from Australia and assumed citizenship in. another country. I am quite certain that if there is a bond fide case of an Australian visitor, and a representation is made, the New Zealand Government will not attempt to exercise powers of control over him.

Senator McKissock:

– I do not know whether they will, or not. You cannot even speak against the Government there without, being gaoled for twelve months.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is a happy country to live in, then.

Senator McKissock:

– You would have things all your own way here if that is so.

Senator MILLEN:

– If I am missing in the morning, honorable senators will know that I am on the way to that delightful island.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 8.53 p.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 March 1917, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1917/19170314_senate_6_81/>.