View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
16 March 1917

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
PRIVILEGE
PAPERS
QUESTION
- PRICE OF WHEAT
QUESTION
- THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE
QUESTION
- CASE OF MR POLKINGHORNE
QUESTION
- THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- MURRAY RIVER WATERS COMMISSION
QUESTION
- CANBERRA ARSENAL
QUESTION
- WORKMEN’S DWELLINGS AT CANBERRA
QUESTION
- PERSONNEL OF SELECT COMMITTEES
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP
QUESTION
- BRITISH WAR BONDS
QUESTION
- PRICE OF WHEAT
PRIVILEGE
FLINDERS NAVAL BASE: POWER HOUSE
EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL
PAPERS
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
PRIVILEGE
- President, The Senate, Parliament House, Melbourne
- Edward W. Wilson,
- General President Australian Telegraph Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union. Box 451 G.P.O., Brisbane
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Justinian Oxenham, Secretary

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

page 11597

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills re ported: -

Supply Bill (No. 5) 1916-17.

Supply Bill (Works and Buildings) (No. 4)

1916-17:

Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1914-15.

Supplementary’ Appropriation Bill - (Works and Buildings) 1914-15.

page 11597

PRIVILEGE

Telegram from TradeUnion Secretary.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has your attention been drawn, Mr. President, to a statement published in this morning’s Argus regarding the Senate? Referring to the breach of the’ privileges of this Senate by Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Hughes is reported to have said -

It is surely a very serious thing that men engaged in such arduous and responsible work as theirs cannot get the wages due to them merely because some members of the Senate, in order to serve party purposes, chose to bold up the Supply Bill.

I ask you, sir, as the guardian of the Senate, to protect senators from false and misleading statements of that kind.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have not read the statement, and, therefore, have not given it consideration. Anything that may be regarded as an attempt to unduly influence the Senate, or to threaten it, or to insult senators collectively, is undoubtedly a breach of privilege, but I am not able to say off-hand whether the remarks to which my attention has been drawn come under that head. It is open to Senator Gardiner to move a motion that would give an opportunity for the consideration of the matter.

page 11598

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Imperial Force: Monthly Summary of Net Casualties recorded from August, 1914, to end of February, 1917.

Defence Act 1903-1915. - War Financial Regulations - Statutory Rules 1917, No. 49.

Federal Capital:Royal Commission on Administration - Report,Part I. - Issues relating to Mr. Griffin.

Finance: Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure during year ended 30th June, 1916, accompanied by Report of the Auditor-General.

Public Service Act 1902-1916. - Promotion of N. Buckman, Postmaster-General’s Department.

page 11598

QUESTION

PRICE OF WHEAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister in charge of the wheat scheme whether there is any hope of getting a further instalment of wages for the farmers for the year 1915, two years back ? What are the present prospects? I guarantee that there will be no intimidation of the Houses of Parliament if anything in , the nature of an unfavorable reply is received ?

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

– I am pleased to be able to announce that we have finished with the question of wages, and are now giving attention to the profits that the farmers are to receive. It is the intention of the Wheat Board to make, with the assistance of the Treasury, a uniform advance ‘ throughout Australia, which will make the price paid for wheat 4s. per bushel, less freight and handling charges. The first advance to the farmers was 2s. 6d. a bushel, and the next..6d. The average charge for freight and handling is 5½d., and the proposed advance will give the farmers, on’ the average, 6½d:per bushel net. In some States, of course, the cost of handling is more than in others. ‘

Senator Lynch:

– It. was . 9d. . ‘in Western Australia.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Then the farmers, of Western Australia will get1s., less 9d., per bushel,’ or 3d. per bushel. As Western Australia has had excess payments, no injury will be done. The result of the arrangement made will be that each farmer concerned, throughout Australia, will receive 4s. per bushel, less handling and freight charges. Payment will be made by the middle or towards the end of April.

page 11598

QUESTION

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Proposed Royal Commission

Senator GARDINER:

Senator LYNCH:

– Has the Leader of the Senate received any information publicly or privately from the Leader, of the Opposition or Senator Watson that the latter is prepared to charge the Prime Minister with attempting to bribe and corrupt him ; also whether he has received any information from Senator Watson that he is prepared to release from the bond of’ confidence those persons with whom he has had private conversations as to’ his position as a member of the. Official Labour party? If the Minister has received an intimation of that kind, and the Government fail to appoint a Royal Commission, will he be willing to- do without my Vote when I support the Opposition on a motion of censure?

Senator MILLEN:

– lj have not received any : communication from Senator

Watson, nor, so far as I know, has any other member of the Government.. “

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask Senator Millen whether he did not hear Senator Watson definitely state in the Senate a few evenings ago that he is prepared to do what Senator Lynch now asks him to do ?

Senator MILLEN:

– The’ question asked by Senator Lynch was whether I had received a communication- -from Senator Watson to that effect, and I replied in. the negative. . .

page 11600

QUESTION

CASE OF MR POLKINGHORNE

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask. the Minister for Defence, without notice, if a young, mannamed Polkinghorne. employed in the Ordnance Department,-. Sydney, is the same, . young man who was secretary to the West Sydney Labour Council, and acted as secretary for, the Hughes Committee at the last election’. If so, what qualifications had he for” the position he now occupies?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Obviously I cannot have- any knowledge to enable me to answer, a question of that kind; but I can undertake to, have inquiries made. All that the Defence Department can ascertain is whether, there is , an employee named Polkinghorne in the Ordnance . De- partment, Sydney, , and what qualifications he has for the position he occupies. .

Senator McDougall:

– That, will do.

Senator PEARCE:

– I will have inquiries made.

page 11600

QUESTION

THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT

Prolongation During War-time.

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if the . Government have considered the. machinery, suggested . in my question of a day or two ago, for altering the Commonwealth Constitution in the matter of the extension of the life of Parliament during war-time in such a way as to make it self-adjusting in times of national emergency ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I have. had no opportunity of putting the matter before the Cabinet since the honorable senator’s question was submitted.

page 11600

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Appointment of Administrator

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Home and

Territories whether any announcement can be made in connexion with the appointment of Administrator of the Northern Territory?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I can. only tell, the honorable senator that no decision has yet been arrived at,, but the matter, is . under consideration.

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the importance of. the appointment of an’ Administrator to the; Northern Territory, and in view of the fact that the Government have announced the dissolution of this Parliament, I ask the Minister, representing the. Minister for Home and Territories whether, the Government . will not withhold such, an, appointment until after the elections 1 ,. …

Senator MILLEN:

– That is a question which is now under the consideration of the’ Government.

page 11600

QUESTION

QUESTION

PERSONNEL OF SELECT COMMITTEES

Senator LYNCH:

– Senator Grant has on the business-paper a -notice of motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, consisting of Senators McDougall, Watson, . Stewart,. Blakey, McKissock, Barker, and the mover, to inquire into and report upon the management and administration of the Naval College at Jervis Bay, and the complaints made in regard thereto. . I ask Senator Grant whether, in connexion with this motion,. which indicates such a high standard of broadmindedness, he will receive a petition from honorable senators on the Ministerial side of the Chamber that at least .one member of the Ministerial party be given a seat upon the Committee ?

Senator GRANT:

– ;I should not have the slightest objection to appointing half the ‘members of the Committee from the Ministerial side. My only desire is to ascertain definitely whether the charges made by Mr. Cusack in regard -to the treatment of his son,’ ex-Midshipman L. A. Cusack, are correct of not.- The personnel of the Committee was hurriedly arranged, owing to the limited time at my’ disposal. I shall be glad .to have the nomination of Senator Lynch in place of Senator McDougall, who indicates his willingness to withdraw. ‘

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Millen:

– Then I should like to ask the permission of the Senate . to make it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the pleasure of honorable senators that the VicePresident of the Executive Council have leave to make a statement?

Leave granted.

Senator MILLEN:

– The invitation to myself to become a member of the Committee - and I believe it was the same in the case of other honorable senators - was given to me in the following circumstances: - Senator “Watson showed me a list of the members of the Committee whose appointment was contemplated under the motion. I drew his attention to the fact that in forming such a Committee it was the parliamentary custom to give representation to both political parties in this Chamber. He then asked me if I would accept a position upon it. I told him that I did not feel free to do so. But that invitation was extended to me after the names of the proposed Committee had been set down.

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

– By way of personal explanation, I wish to say that several days before the notice of motion setting out the names of the members of the proposed Select Committee was printed, I, on behalf of Senator Watson, approached Senators Guthrie and Bakhap, and asked them if they were prepared to act on it. Senator Bakhap re fused to do so, on the ground that he was already a member of a Committee, and Senator Guthrie informed me that his official duties in connexion with his party would prevent him from acting.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator did ‘not ask anybody else?

Senator MAUGHAN:

– No, I thought that I had mentioned the matter to Senator Newland, but I was not sure about it. .

page 11602

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Min ister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is he aware whether an article on Australian war finance by Mr. W. Somerville, of Cottesloe Beach, Western Australia, has been prohibited ?
If so, who authorized the prohibition?
Will the prohibition remain?
Is it the intention of the Government to prohibit the publication of all articles dealing with Australian war finance, whether written in Australia or coming from overseas, in newspapers, magazines, &c.

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– This question was submitted to me as ‘ representing the Prime Minister. It relates to what is really a Defence matter, and has., accordingly been sent on to the Defence Department. Hence the delay in obtaining a reply. However, an effort will be made to get the desired information before the Senate rises.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Arising out of the answer to that question, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council take this telegram from me in connexion with the matter, in order that the inquiry may be made complete?

Senator Millen:

– Certainly.

page 11602

QUESTION

BRITISH WAR BONDS

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is the Treasurer aware whether investors in British war bonds are allowed to choose whether they will pay income tax on the interest received therefrom or not?
Is the Treasurer aware whether, in the event of such investors claiming exemption -from the payment of income tax as above, the rate of interest allowed them is 1 per cent, less than that paid to investors who agree to being taxed thereon?
If so, will the Treasurer bring a similar arrangement into force in Australia?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

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

The Treasurer is aware that investors in British War Bonds have the option of taking up bonds the interest from which is subject to income tax, or bonds the interest from which is exempt from liability to assessment for British income tax other than super-tax.
The rate of interest payable on bonds the interest from which is exempt from income tax other than super-tax, is 1 per cent, less than the nominal rate payable on bonds the income from which is subject to income tax; but, as the price of issue of the latter bonds is below par, the difference in the return to the investor is £1 5s. 3d. per cent, without allowing for redemption.
The matter will be considered.

page 11603

QUESTION

PRICE OF WHEAT

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister representing the Government, upon notice -

Whether, in view of the action of the Government in -

fixing the price of sugar at £22 per ton, a price much above the average price of previous years; and
fixing the price of wheat at 3s. f.o.b., a price much below the average price of previous years, the Government consider the interests of the wheat-growers have been commensurately conserved ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I am without an answer to the honorable senator’s question, but I shall endeavour to get one before the motion for the adjournment is moved.

page 11603

PRIVILEGE

Telegram from Trade Union Secretary.

Consideration resumed from 15 th March (vide page 11464) of the question of breach of privilege in connexion with a telegram received by the President of the Senate from “McCarthy, Secretary, Trades Hall, Sydney,” on the subject of delay in the payment of salaries.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– The circumstances which have projected this matter into our procedure will be fresh in the minds of honorable senators. If I may venture the suggestion, it does not seem to me that the consideration of this matter should unduly occupy the time of the Senate. It is a matter much too serious to be allowed to pass unnoticed, but I assume that there will be such unanimity regarding it that it can be disposed of with some brevity. I move -

That, in the opinion of the Senate, one McCarthy, giving the address of Trades Hall, Sydney, in forwarding to Mr. President a telegram insultingly and adversely criticising the conduct of the business of the Senate, and intimating that a strike would ensue unless the conduct of . business were altered, has been guilty of a grave breach of the privileges of Parliament, but, in view of the fact that no such attempt to influence the deliberations of the Senate has occurred before, the Senate is of opinion that the said McCarthy in forwarding the telegram was ignorant of, and did not appreciate, the seriousness of the oifence he was committing, and therefore deems it. sufficient to affirm that the telegram in question, both in its terms and purpose, constitutes an offence, and that, if repeated, other action will be taken.

By this motion, I invite the Senate to clearly express its opinion as to its duties, and at the same time to avoid going to the extreme of unduly magnifying what might, after all, have been the result of ignorance. This question of privilege is not by any means, as some people outside may be disposed to think, a mere matter of personal sensitiveness or vanity on the part of honorable senators themselves. It is essential to the free and proper discharge of the responsibilities resting upon a Parliament. It is not merely a theory that Parliament must be free from improper outside influences of any kind; it is absolutely essential to the proper discharge of a Parliament’s duty that that freedom shall be maintained come what will.- A Parliament can discharge its functions only in that way, and unless it is free to do so, it becomes not the preserver of and an aid to public safety, but a distinct menace to that safety..

Senator de Largie:

– Hear, hear. Where does the junta come in?

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not desire to raise any question that is not actually involved in this matter. I pub forward this motion as a sufficient vindication, and as being at the same time a pronouncement of the view which the Senate takes as to the nature of the telegram received by our President. I pub ib forward as affirming our position, and as making abundantly clear, not only to the sender of the telegram, but to the whole community what that position is. Having done that, we shall have done sufficient at the present juncture without going to the exbreme of unduly magnifying the incident, or attempting in any way to make either a hero or a martyr of this gentleman who, I believe, has erred unwittingly.

Senabor GARDINER (New South Wales [11.44]. -It would have been well for ‘the dignity of the Senate if the Leader of the Government, instead of offering an apology and -excuse for the action of this man whom he is pleased to -speak of as “ one McCarthy “ - had proposed that’ he should be communicated with in .order that we might ascertain whether or not he had erred from ignorance. The Senate might very well withhold its decision until it knows whether or hot this telegram was sent under a misapprehension, or because the - sender of it did not realize the seriousness of his action. We could then deal with it in accordance with Mr. McCarthy’s reply. When this matter cropped up yesterday, you, Mr. President, permitted me to say - I quote from a newspaper report which is pretty well exact - -

Might I offer this suggestion: This is the beginning of a very serious threat to this Parliament, if. not dealt with strongly and firmly. I would suggest that McCarthy be brought to the bar of the Seriate.

– Yes; as the honorable senator reminds me, this is being .done under cover of threats. Any man, of course, Kas a right to use his own influence in fair and reasonable argument to induce other people to take a certain line of action.

Senator de Largie:

– But not to threaten.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– They have no right to do that by means of a threat. W.e find, however, that the outside organizations are taking up the position that they have the right to command members of Parliament re- presenting certain bodies to take a certain course of action. I think we should make some provision against, this, and I would suggest that.it would be very much better if we could define our rights and privileges by an Act, in which we could make provision for the punishment of people who committed any breaches of parliamentary privilege. I would not leave it in the hands of- Parliament, however, to mete out the punishment. Parliament could determine what . .actions were breaches of privilege, and proceedings might then be taken .against the persons concerned .in the Law; Courts, which would, if they found the breach proved, determine the punishment, . That, I think, would be the best way to maintain the dignity of- this Parliament, and free it from insult, and from outside influence. If this course were adopted, it would make people outside realize that Parliament has among its rights and privileges that of pursuing its deliberations without outside intervention. There is no question that the communication from Mr. McCarthy is an insult to Parliament and to you, Mr. President; and that it merits punishment. In view of the circumstances, however; which make it practically impossible for us to do anything more than is proposed by the Leader of the Senate, I intend to” support the ‘ motion, but I hope the Minister will also take into consideration the remarks I have made with regard to passing legislation to protect Parliament from threats, arid members of Parliament from interference in the legitimate discharge of their duties.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I want to put the case on behalf of the organization of which this gentleman is a member. . Yesterday when you, Mr. President, read the telegram from Mr. McCarthy, I happened to be with Mr. George Brown, the General Secretary of the Telegraph and Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union, in this building. He came to see me in connexion with some business, and immediately you read the telegram from Mr. McCarthy, I -saw Mr. Brown, and asked him whether,- as -general secretary, he approved of the action taken by Mr. McCarthy. He said that he had no knowledge -of it, and that he disapproved ‘ of it. I asked him whether., as general secretary of the organization, he would make a statement on behalf of the executive body of his union repudiating Mr. McCarthy’s action; and this is what he has written and handed to me -

As. general secretary of the Australian Telegraph and Telephone Construction “and Maintenance Union, on behalf of my executive, I entirely repudiate the telegram addressed to the President. of the Senate by -Mr. McCarthy, the secretary, of the New South. Wales branch.

G-. A. Brown,

General Secretary. > 15th, March, 1917,

This statement proves that the organization repudiates Mr. McCarthy’s action, but lest the words of Senator Gould might be’ construed as showing ‘that there was intent on the part- of the union to interfere with the privileges of the Senate, I secured from the- President,- at Mr. Brown’s request, a copy of the telegram which I handed to Mr. Brown, who immediately despatched telegrams to the secretaries of the different branches throughout the Commonwealth. No replies have yet been received. 1 presume that they will come to hand later in the day. Mr. McCarthy is not a member of- the organization. Rule 6 of the constitution’ of the union reads as follows: -

Any qualified person applying for full membership shall pay to the branch secretary, organizer, local agent, or other authorized person, the prescribed contribution, and shall receive a ticket entitling such person, during its currency, so long as he. ‘shall remain loyal to the rules and constitution, and so long as he shall remain an employee of the Commonwealth Public -Service, to all rights and privileges of membership, and rendering such person amenable to the rules and constitution of the union.

Mr. McCarthy is not an. employee of the Commonwealth Public .Service..

Senator Lynch:

– Has he lately been a candidate for Parliament?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I understand that he -contested the selection ballot against Mr. -Riley, the member for South Sydney, but that fact has no connexion with the matter that we are now .discussing. Mr. McCarthy is simply the paid secretary of the -New South Wales branch of the union. Each branch has the power to appoint its own paid secretary, but the fact that a person is secretary to a branch of this organization- does not -make him a member of it. . … <

Senator Millen:

– The motion’ deals simply with the man himself.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I understand that, but I was fearful lest it might be in the minds of some people that the organization was behind Mr. McCarthy in the action he has taken.

Senator McDougall:

– At any rate, the organization is responsible for him.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– He is. the paid secretary, of the New South Wales branch of the union, but lie has taken action entirely on his own account, and independently of the organization.

Senator Grant:

– There is no evidence that Mr. McCarthy does not represent the

New South Wales section of the organization.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am endeavouring to make it quite clear that the organization has entirely repudiated his action. That is proved by the statement that Mr. Brown handed to me. I admit that Mr. McCarthy has done something wrong, but I do not think that’ we need go any further than what is indicated in the motion submitted by the Leader of the Senate. Some honorable senator has suggested that Mr. McCarthy is a first offender. He might reasonably be allowed to plead under the First Offenders Act.

Senator Lynch:

– -The junta has no First Offenders Act in its legal code. It is a case of “off with his head ‘ ‘ for the first offence.

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Gardiner:

– Were we responsible for the Ministerial supporters talking all Tuesday afternoon?

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Gardiner now says that, because his party had an accidental majority on Tuesday afternoon, we ought to have held our tongues, and have allowed them to use that majority. I never heard such a proposition propounded before.

The PRESIDENT:

-I allowed the hon.orable senator to proceed after calling him to order., Seeing that honorable senators on the other .side, have had full latitude, I do not feel, inclined, now to limit the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator Gardiner:

– Therefore, there is” one set of Standing Orders for the Leader of the ‘Senate and another for the Leader of the Opposition.

The PRESiDENT.- There- is rio set of Standing Orders which is not applicable to every honorable senator,’ whether he’ is a member ‘of the’ Government or not.Insinuations against the impartiality of the Chair have ‘ frequently been thrown out bv Senator Gardiner. ‘Such’ reflections’ are riot conducive to the good order or conduct of business’ of the Seriate. Senator Gardiner has received as rauch lenity and as much liberty under ‘the Standing Order’s from ‘ me as ‘has any other honorable senator, and on occasion has received a great deal more, for which I plead guilty, and ask the pardon of the Senate. ‘ ‘ ‘ I

Senator MILLEN:

– I am sorry’ if I have said anything to perturb the good feeling which I still occasonally hope maY prevail iri this chamber, but I felt, after the many statements that have been made during the morning, that honorable senators themselves . in a spirit of fair play would see that, as- the Government had been attacked, it was not unreasonable, even in the Senate, to allow a Minister to speak in defence. If Senator Grant believes, as I know he does, that ‘the matter of a land tax is more important than any other, he was quite entitled to interpose it in his speech. After weighing on the one hand the desirableness of paying the public servants promptly, and on the other .the necessity for ventilating again in this chamber the economic question of land values taxation, the honorable senator decided that the latter was more urgent and important. I do not quarrel with him for so forming his opinion, but having made his decision he should not now try to escape from the responsibility for . it by saying that some one else was responsible for the. delay ito which public business was subjected.

Senator Grant:

– What a fine speech you could deliver on land values taxation if you were not chained up !

Senator MILLEN:

– I .believe I could, but I should not interpose it to delay any man who had earned his money getting it, or, if I did, I would be prepared to admit it and . take the. consequences. Senator Gardiner took exception to remarks made by the Prime Minister in a communication to the press. There is nothing in the words used by the Prime Minister with which the Senate has not become quite familiar, in criticisms coming every day from the platform or the press. If the Senate is going to take up the attitude that every adverse criticism is to call for some action here, it will place itself in an absurd and impossible position. .1 ask honorable senators to let me quote side by side with Mr. Hughes’ words a comment by the Age itself , The only comment I would offer regarding Mr.. Hughes’ remarks’ is that I wonder what has happened to him. They are so mild that it looks as if he had. lost his punch. If any note of complaint is called for by the Prime Minister’s . mild statement of the case it is that Mr. Hughes has ventured, to state the case so mildly when we might have expected something much more vigorous from him. His words, to which exception is taken are -

At the same time, I cannot help feeling that Mr. McCarthy, the secretary of the Linesmen’s Union, has reason to complain on behalf of his members. It is surely a very serious thing that men engaged in such arduous and responsible work as theirs cannot get wages due to them merely because some members of the Senate, in order to serve a party purpose, chose to hold up the Supply Bill.

No exception has been taken to the comments of . the Age. ‘ So far as I can see from the copy of the paper which I have here, the comments are entirely favorable to the Government ‘ party. I thought I had marked one or two particular passages, but, unfortunately, I find that I have not.

The PRESIDENT:

– Standing order No. 414 provides -

No senator shall read extracts from newspapers or other documents, except Hansard referring to debates in the Senate during the same session.

It will therefore not be in order for the honorable senator to make the quotation to which he refers.

Senator MILLEN:

– I accept the rebuke, but I would ask honorable senators to compare the comments made by the Age with those made by Mr.. Hughes. If they do they will come to the conclusion that if Mr. Hughes’ comments in any way trespass upon the dignity and privileges of this Chamber, if they are entitled to even passing notice by us, nothing less than the guillotine is fair punishment for the gentleman who wrote the article in the Age.

Senator GARDINER:

– I did not see it.

Senator MILLEN:

– I advise the honorable senator to look at it, because it holds a mirror up to him- The fact is that it is not the words themselves that form the offence with honorable senators opposite; it is not the criticism to which they object, but whenever they think they see an opportunity of venting the feeling which animates them against the Prime Minister they seize it.

Senator O’Keefe:

– We object to the Government trying to make the public servants believe that the Labour party are responsible for delaying the payment of their salaries.

Senator MILLEN:

– But for the action of the Opposition they would have been paid before. If it was the language that was objected to, not one, but a dozen honorable senators would have found fault with the Age comments. If Mr. Hughes opens his mouth he is condemned at once, while others are allowed to indulge in much stronger criticism without complaint. The hostility is not to the thing done or the words used, but to the fact that William Morris Hughes, the Prime Minister, is responsible for them. I desire, by leave of the Senate, to amend the wording of the motion by substituting for “ adversely criticising “ the words “threateningly referring to.” That is a little better wording, and eliminates the reference to “ criticism,” which might be misunderstood.

Question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 11618

FLINDERS NAVAL BASE: POWER HOUSE

Report of the Public Works Committee, relating to the proposed erection of a power house at Flinders Naval Base, presented by Senator 5TORY.

page 11618

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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.

The principle is exactly the same as that of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill dealt with yesterday. It validates the Excise Tariff schedule introduced in the House of Representatives on the 3rd December, 1914. As that, schedule has not been adopted by Parliament, it is necessary in order to make the collections of revenue under it legal, and to enable the Treasury to retain the increased Excise duties which have already been collected under it, to pass this measure, which will continue that scale of duties in force until such time as Parliament otherwise determines. The amount of increased duty involved up to the present is £1,270,000. If Parliament were dissolved without this Bill being passed, it would be necessary to refund that sum to those from whom it was collected. - Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

page 11618

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I beg to move -

That this Bill be’ now read a second time.

I should like briefly to place before the Senate the purposes for which this Bill is designed. It is limited to the period of the war and for six months afterwards, and is intended to meet the special circumstances arising out of the war. We are proud to know that a considerable number of our young men are on the different fighting fronts battling for the Empire in this war, and, obviously, it would be undesirable, as well as unjust, if whilst they are rendering the finest service that men can give to their country, they were denied the opportunity of’ impressing their will on the elections for this. Legislature. The Bill, primarily, is foi- the purpose of enabling our soldiers to exercise their votes at the next election. I do not suppose any one will demur at the. proposition that it is desirable . that our troops should be afforded this opportunity. Practically the only difficulty that might arise will probably centre around the method by which the object is achieved. There are many difficulties even in the way of taking a vote. Senator Bakhap a little time ago asked the Government to communicate with the Imperial authorities as to the practicability of taking a vote at a time when it might be assumed important military operations were in progress. The Government did communicate with the Imperial authorities, and the replies indicate that, while there are many difficulties in the way, the Imperial authorities, understanding well the desire of this Government and of- this Parliament to afford opportunities for our soldiers to vote, will not object to arrangements being made to enable our soldiers to exercise the franchise. Whilst that does not dispose of the difficulties altogether, it is an assurance that the Imperial authorities themselves will not only waive any objection to this procedure, but will also provide every possible facility. I remind honorable senators that we had some experience, as a result of the last Referendum Bill, of taking a vote amongst our soldiers at the front. But there is this difference with regard to the present proposal: that while the referendum was a comparatively simple matter - the men being merely required to put “ Yes “ or “ “No “ opposite the crosses - in the approaching election the difficulties will be multiplied by the fact that our troops will have thrown upon them in their several groups the responsibility of participation in the election of three senators for each of the six States, as well as seventy-five members of the House of Representatives. Under this Bill our soldier voters will be nominally electors for the district to which they belong, but no military grouping will conform to our electoral grouping. We can assume that a unit of, say, 1,000 men belonging nominally to New South Wales will have included in it men, not only from all parts of New South Wales, but, probably, from every other State and district in the Commonwealth. It is clear, therefore, that the’ ordinary voting paper will not be suitable for such a case unless at every polling booth we provide ballot-papers for every division of the’ House of Repre sentatives, and for the whole of the States in regard to the Senate election. In order to overcome this difficulty, the Government have adopted the method employed by the Dominion of Canada by providing that the ballot-papers shall have, in addition to the ordinary headings, the words “ Ministerial “ or “ Opposition “ to indicate the side on which a candidate stands. Outside the polling booth will be provided lists of the candidates named and the parties to which they belong. Every voter, therefore, will know exactly for whom he is voting, although the names will not appear on the ballot-paper. The Prime Minister will indicate which candidate is to be regarded as a Ministerialist, and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tudor, will indicate the names of the candidates which he claims are members of his party.

Senator Senior:

– Suppose there is a third candidate?

Senator MILLEN:

– Provision is also made for candidates unattached either to the Ministerial or Opposition side, for the names of independent candidates will also be set out on the publicity list outside each polling booth. The names are well known to us, but probably there will be some new names. If any voter wants to go a little further into the matter, and is not content to vote for a Ministerialist or Oppositionist, he will consult the list referred to.

Senator Mullan:

– Will there be an ample supply of lists?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– He should be given more information than the man iri Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Millen:

– It is one thing to fight the enemy and another to fight your father.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I quote .this instance to show that the Government might very easily make a mistake by giving votes to’ persons of whose loyalty we have grave doubts. I realize that it is difficult for the Government, or the combined wisdom of the Senate, to frame a measure’ which will be fair to all parties concerned. I am not at all in favour of the schedule. Having regard to the somewhat mixed state of politics in Australia at ‘the present time, I do not think the Government proposal would make clear to ‘the soldier at the front to what party:any candidate belonged. The mat- ter of expense need not be considered in evolving a satisfactory system. If we are to give the men at the front a vote let us do it in such a way as to let. them know how they are voting. The men will vote very largely for the political parties to which they belonged in Australia, or in which they have the greatest confidence. For that reason, I shall favour the issue of a ballot-paper containing the names of the candidates, and also showing the party to which each candidate belongs. I can see no difficulty that should prevent the issue of a ballotpaper with the names of the candidates, and opposite each candidate’s name such descriptions as “ Ministerial Labour,” “ Ministerial Liberal,” “ Opposition Labour,” “ Opposition Liberal,” or “ Opposition Socialist.’,’ For the Senate elections in South Australia there will be in the field three Ministerial candidates and three Opposition Labour candidates, Let there be no doubt that the Ministerial Labour candidates in South Australia are Labour members still.

Senator Watson:

– They are Nationalists.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There may be also in the field Ministerial Liberals; but as the three Labour candidates will also be supporters of the present Government, there will be a likelihood of confusion arising in the minds of the men unless a clear distinction is made between Labour men in opposition to the Government and Labour men supporting the Government.

Senator Millen:

Senator Senior:

– Then that does away with the honorable senator’s objection to the extension of the franchise to soldiers under twenty-one ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I repeat that I do not believe in ‘differentiating in this way between the young, people here and those under twenty-one at the front. Those who have volunteered their services but have been rejected are as much entitled to a vote as are those who were accepted. There should be no change at the present time. When the voting takes place, the ages of these young men who have gone to the front will be winked at. I am not going to say anything against that attitude.

Senator Senior:

– The honorable senator will strongly object to paragraph d of sub-clause 4 of clause 10.

Senator TURLEY:

– In that paragraph it is provided that nothing contained in the section shall be construed as preventing from voting - -

Any person who satisfies the presiding officer that he is a Christian, and either a Syrian or an Armenian.

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. -Would the honorable senator trust one of the Germans who are governing the affairs of that country to-day, when he knows that they have proved themselves liars and traitors ?

Senator TURLEY:

– I quite realize that they have, but I am talking of people to. whom we held out special inducements in order to get them to come to Australia. We sent them missionaries, lecturers, and immigration agents; we reserved land for their settlement in Australia, and we issued naturalization papers to them, which they value, perhaps, more than anything else; and now we say that all this is to be wiped out for the time being. I take the case of two brothers coming to Australia in one shipment of these people. One has a family of sons, and the other has a family of daughters. The sons of one brother grew up, and in the early days of the war offered to enlist, were accepted, and have gone to the front. This brother is entitled under this Bill to all the . rights of Commonwealth citizenship. The other brother, who may be just as loyal, and just as good a citizen, if we are to. be guided by the eulogies of these people which are recorded in the Queensland Hansard and the Queensland press, because he has a family of daughters, and not a family of sons, is regarded as a different animal altogether. He is not loyal to the country, because he has a family of daughters instead of a family of sons. I quote the following statement which bears upon this matter : -

Mr. L. E. Groom, M.H.B., referred to the conference held on the Darling Downs, when this subject was discussed for over an hour. Referring to the Stumm family, he said there had never been in Queensland a more loyal, industrious, and patriotic family.

I have said that I have always been opposed politically to Mr. Stumm and most of the family to which he belongs, and it therefore cannot be said that this is a political question with me. I say that the Stumm family have done xs much, as good, and as loyal and patriotic work in Australia as I, or any other member of the Senate, can claim to have done. Yet under this Bill we are going to say that the one who got into Parliament is an eminently respectable and loyal citizen, whilst his brothers, who did not get into Parliament, are disloyalists and rebels. That is rather over the odds. I confess I do not -like that sort of thing. I came to Australia from a country where such matters never came up. Do they disfranchise people naturalized on English soil ? They have never thought of doing so. The question was never raised. In this country the question is raised, and it gives opportunity for the exercise of every smallness of mind. When a man told me, speaking of another, who was an associate of his for twenty years, “ There is a fellow who, I believe, was born in Germany somewhere,” I knew it was merely an evidence of smallness of mind on the part of a man who wanted to take the other man’s job. This kind of thing gives opportunity for the play of everything that is vile in human nature. I believe that we ought to be just in dealing with this matter. Let us take a case that came before a tribunal in the Old Country. I quote the following report of a debate in the House of Lords from yesterday’s newspaper : -

In the House of Lords to-day the Lord High Chancellor, Lord Finlay, in moving the second reading of a Bill to deprive enemy princes and. peers of their British titles, said that the measure originated in the strong feeling against the unparalleled brutality of the enemy’s conduct.

Lord Courtney moved an amendment, shelving the motion.

Lord Lansdowne said that the measure required more consideration than it had yet received. It applied to the Dukes of Albany and Cumberland, and Prince Albert of Schleswig. It would be absurd to call them traitors, they having become domiciled in enemy country. The punishment it was proposed to inflict was paltry.

Lord Bryce urged that the proposal should not be proceeded with. He would refer it to a select committee.

Lord Curzon said the Government felt it to be its duty to introduce the measure in .view of Mr. Asquith’s pledge. He pointed out that Lord Lansdowne was then a member of the Cabinet, and did not object. Lord Curzon warned the House that the rejection of the measure would be liable to be misunderstood in the country.

Lord Buckmaster, the former Lord Chancellor, said that when the late Government decided to introduce the Bill it was advised that the alien princes were traitors. Now they learned that these princes were not legally traitors.

Lord Curzon said the law should extend to enemy orders. He would be glad to get rid of his.

Lord Middleton said he had asked to be relieved of his orders.

Lord Courtney withdrew his amendment after Lord Curzon had promised to refer the proposal to a select committee for the full elucidation of the facts.

These were men domiciled out of the country, and, although their case was discussed by aristocrats, it was decided that there ought to be proof of circumstances sufficient to justify the taking away of their titles. In my opinion, the decision arrived at was a just one; and I must say that sometimes I feel proud of the position taken up in these and similar cases in the country from which I came; indeed, it seems to me that in that country there is just as much liberty, in matters, of that sort, as in any other part of the world. Turning to another case, T should like to read the following extract from the Brisbane Courier of 27th July, 1916-

The Appeal Court has upheld the decision of the Court of King’s Bench in the case in which Sir Ernest Cassel and Sir Edgar Speyer defended their right to membership of the Privy Council.

A Privy Councillorship is one of the highest compliments that can be paid to a Britisher, and it is an honour that for quite a long time past has been handed out to Colonial statesmen, amongst whom are included Mr. Hughes, Sir John Forrest, and Mr. Fisher -

A cablegram on 17th December last stated: - The Court of King’s Bench to-day gave judgment for Sir Ernest Cassel and Sir Edgar Speyer, whose membership of the Privy Council had been challenged. In June last an order nisi was granted calling upon them to prove that they were entitled to be members of the Privy Council. Sir Edgar Speyer is a son of Gustavus Speyer, of Germany, and his mother was a daughter of Rudolph Rubino, of the family of Count von Stosch. Sir Ernest Cassel is a son of Jacob Cassel, banker, of Cologne. Both have been members of the Privy Council for some years. The Court decided that, as naturalized British subjects, Sir Ernest Cassel and- Sir Edgar Speyer possessed all the rights and privileges of British-born subjects, and were therefore entitled to be members of the Privy Council.

That is a case which speaks to me very clearly and distinctly.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– It was a decision on a. purely legal question.

Senator TURLEY:

– Have these men been interfered with in any way? Are they not still Privy Councillors?

Senator Millen:

– Yes; but .they are not called to the Council.

Senator TURLEY:

– That may be; but who, of all the Privy Councillors, are called to the ‘Council. We all know what the position of Privy Councillor was, and to what it has .degenerated. Membership is . now simply an empty honour which is bestowed on prominent citizens ‘in all parts of the Dominions. In many cases, public men object to the C.M.G. - which has been humorously translated as meaning “ colonial-made gentlemen “ - much _ preferring the P.O., and to many Dominion statesmen, who stood fairly high at the Colonial Office, the distinction has been granted. I was not regarding the matter from the legal aspect, but rather emphasizing the fact that these men in - England had to prove that they were entitled to this particular honour.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir Albert Gould:

– It was purely a decision in law.

Senator TURLEY:

– The only reason I mention these cases is that they seem to me to represent what I regard as fair dealing. I have been friendly with foreign residents in Australia, some of whom left their native country wilh a desire to have nothing more to do with it, and to whom we were only too glad to welcome and give all the rights of citizenship. Travelling, as I do, a good deal throughout Queensland, I often meet them, and when they complain to mc of their treatment, I always tell them, if I had my way, any doubt as to their loyalty would justify their being placed behind barb-wire until the end of. the. war, .but that otherwise they ought to have all citizen rights. Eulogies by the column have been written of these men and women, for what they have done for this country; and my only desire is that they should have a fair deal. Senator Gould has pointed out that the sons of a number of these people went to the front in the early part of the war; and that is quite true. We have to remember, however, that the authorities began toshut down on every applicant with a foreign name they did not understand; and in a few months it became known that no one with a German name had any chance for the Expeditionary Forces. Lately, however, that plan has been altered, and such young men may enlist providing no one in the district from which they come reports adversely regarding them. This I regard as fair, and such reports may, I think, be trusted in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. As to the disability of disfranchisement, I should like to read an extract from the Brisbane Courier; of 29th July, 1916,’ in reference to the attitude of - Sir Alexander Peacock and the Victorian Cabinet - i

Commenting on the decision of the Federal Cabinet to introduce a Bill “providing for the’’’ disfranchisement of naturalized aliens of - enemy origin, the Premier (Sir Alexander Peacock) said to-day that the State . Cabinet did not propose to submit a similar measure to Parliament. He was of opinion that Victorians, as a community, should take no action hurtful to citizens who had been living among them for. years, or any action for which Victorians might have reason to reproach themselves after the war. A German, or any other subject, who gave cause for offence could bo effectually dealt with by the Commonwealth, but he was totally opposed to the disfranchisement of all naturalized subjects.

It seems to me that the attitude of tha National Government is that, while the obligations of citizenship should be enforced, these people should be told to stand aside when it comes to the franchise, which is the right of all citizens. Although my attitude may be misrepresented outside, I must say that this policy does not seem to me just, and, for that reason, I have ventured to enter a protest against this portion of the Bill.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

.- I have listened with interest to the various speeches made, and I think it would probably meet the convenience of honorable senators if, instead of giving anything in the nature of a reply now, I left the comments I desire to make until we reach the particular clauses in Committee. This will confine discussion to the particular point raised at the time, and I hope honorable senators will not consider me wanting in courtesy if I refrain from any. further remarks at present.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

In this’ Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Member of the Forces “ means a person who is or has been a member of the Commonwealth Naval or Military. Forces enlisted or appointed for active service outside Australia or on a ship of war, and includes a person engaged as a munition worker under agreement with the Commonwealth Government, , . ;

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

.- This clause is one that has invited some comment, and I desire to submit an amendment which will possibly meet the intention of the Government and also the desire of many honorable senators.

I move -

That after the word ‘° munition,” line 9, the words “’ or other “ be inserted,

The object is to include, not only those who enlist as soldiers, but also those who have gone from Australia in connexion with other branches of what may be called war work. It would be difficult to do more, because it would not be possible to identify individuals who go on their own account. The amendment will insure that every person who goes away under agreement with the Government will be secured the benefits of the Bill. I think that all such cases are covered by the terms of the clause as it stands, but to make it perfectly clear and’ meet the objections made, I submit the amendment.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I am quite willing to accept the amendment in lieu of the one which I have outlined. I believe that it will meet the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

Subject to thia Act, every member of the Forces who is not under the agc of twenty-one years and -

is enrolled as an elector of the Commonwealth or is eligible to be so enrolled and is serving outside Australia, or

is not enrolled as an elector but is eligible to be so enrolled, and has returned from serving outside Australia and produces to the presiding officer the prescribed certificate shall be entitled to vote at the election as an elector of the division and State in which his place of residence, as shown on the prescribed list, is situate, or, if his place of residence is not so shown, as an elector of the division and State in which ‘ his next of kin, as shown on that list, resides.

Senator MILLEN:

– Our sympathy is entirely with these persons, but that sympathy should not be permitted to come into conflict with other principles which we have adopted. We should pause before agreeing to any amendment which would have the effect of opening up the many difficulties that I have sketched.

– I would offer no serious opposition if the Leader of the Senate sought to amend the clause for the purpose of making the minimum age seventeen and a half years, but there is no occasion to go to extremes. For the present we could safely lower the age by three years, and later on, if we so desire, we can still further lower the minimum to seventeen and a half years of age. There is no doubt that in the near future the young men of Australia will insist on the right to exercise the franchise when they become eighteen years of age. When they leave school, at fourteen years of age, they are well educated, and they commence to earn their living. I move -

That in line 2 the words “ twenty-one “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ eighteen.”

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am glad that I shall have the pleasure of voting with Senator Millen on this matter. It will- be an indication that we are not treating a war measure with the slightest party spirit. I have grave reasons for coming to this decision. Every honorable senator is desirous that our soldiers should have as much reward as they are entitled to,, but I object to any proposal to alter a great principle such as is involved in the fixing of the age at which the franchise is given in order to reward them. All my life I have believed that what entitles one to the franchise is manhood or womanhood, and not merit. If it comes to a question of merit, some of us may merit reelection, while upon services rendered others may have very little claim to re-election. I will go as far as any honorable senator in seeing that the soldiers at the front get everything to which they are entitled, but to go out of our way in order to do something which is altogether apart from the reward that they may expect is too grave a step for us to take. No doubt a young man is rendering splendid service to the country when he enlists to fight for it at such a cruel time as this, but to extend the franchise to him is not a reward. If it comes to a question of giving a reward for our soldiers’ services, I would rather that all parties should confer in order to give our men some permanent and beneficial reward on their return, and I know this will be done. I am reminded of an incident that happened some years, ago in Western Australia. A diver went down into a flooded mine. It was a marvellous feat of bravery. His name was Hughes, and I believe he was a’ Welshman. But if he had been a foreigner, would we have said, ‘ ‘ We will give you the franchise for what you have done “ ? The franchise is a sacred matter, and if it is a question of giving the vote to soldiers who are eighteen years of age we cannot separate them from those who could not come up to the military standard in the matter of height. Many have been rejected because of flat feet. An inch of height might have prevented a young fellow from enlisting and securing a vote at parliamentary elections. I think that all honorable senators are anxious that soldiers should vote, but I do not think that there should be any anxiety to prove that one section is more desirous of showing sympathy to the soldiers than another. The question of altering the minimum age for the exercise of the franchise is a serious one. Senator Grant sees in his proposal a chance of taking a step in the direction of something that he has been advocating for some time past, but this is not the time for such an alteration. Parliament has been promised an appeal to the country. That promise having been given, the only legislation with which Parliament can decently deal is essential measures. We have no right to go into any matter that proposes to alter principles. Certainly the Bill does effect some slight infringement of a principle, but our soldiers are so evidently entitled to exercise their votes at parliamentary elections that all honorable senators are willing to make provision for them to do so. But altering a set of conditions that up to this time we have considered to be right and proper, and to which no great objection has been raised, is a serious matter, even if we were practcally unanimous on the point. This is not the time to deal with such a serious question, and I hope that there will be no division called for. If a division is called for, I shall vote with the Government, because I believe that the only legislation that we should be responsible for, now that an appeal is to be made to the country, is measures that are absolutely necessary and essential.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I support the amendment. When I spoke to the second reading of the Bill I indicated that I held the opinion that something should be done in the direction of giving every man at the front the right to exercise the vote. I quite recognise that all the logic is on the side of those who argue against the proposed alteration. Senator Grant has asked us to do something special and extraordinary, but the men who are fighting” for Australia are doing something special and extraordinary. The proposal is not put forward with the idea of giving our soldiers any cheap reward. It is put forward in a spirit that is right and proper for the purpose of recognising that the men who have taken upon themselves the responsibility of fighting the Empire’s battles should have the opportunity of taking a hand in the election of representatives of the people in Parliament. I am not inclined to the belief that it would be a good thing to give the franchise to all young men under the present minimum, nor do I think that those who have volunteered and have been rejected are entitled to vote equally with those who have gone to the front, but I believe that if we do extend the privilege to young men who are fighting at the front, we shall remove a good deal of disappointment that is now felt by many of them. It is asked that the age limit shall be reduced only to meet special circumstances, and not in a general way.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

.- I support the proposal to allow the vote to men under twenty-one who have gone to the front. We have enlisted these young men of eighteen, and accepted their services at the front, where they are doing everything required of them equally as well as a man of forty-five, even to risking their lives for the Empire. So far we have admitted them to all the rights and privileges of manhood, and there can be no justice in stopping short at this one. Take the case of a young man of twenty years and eleven months in that position. There is no justice, sense, or logic in refusing him a vote. The nation in this time of war desires to secure all those who come within the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and for war purposes makes no distinction between them. I claim the vote for these young men as a right and not as a privilege. It is a very small thing, and all the plausible arguments against it are so much moonshine. We are dealing with new and extraordinary conditions, and should not be afraid to make special provisions to meet them. If you tell me that personal friends and relations of mine under twenty-one who have gone to the front are not fit to vote, you tell me something I cannot understand or accept. Those who say that these young men are not worthy of the vote are saying something that is a disgrace to themselves and unworthy of the times in which we live.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– The argument that if it is right to reduce the age at which people should vote, we should do it generally, still remains to be answered. There must be 10,000 young men in Australia still under age who volunteered for active service and were rejected. Why should they be debarred from voting through no fault of their own ? Take this case : A young man at the front is between eighteen and nineteen when this vote is taken, and is allowed to vote because he is in khaki. A few months afterwards the war ends, and he comes back at the age of nineteen. Another election takes place a little while later, and he is told he is not eligible to vote, although he is twelve months older than when he voted last time. Does Senator Grant propose to give the vote to all those under twenty-one who wanted to go to the war, and were rejected?

Senator Grant:

– No.

Senator TURLEY:

– Why penalize them ] . Why penalize young men under twenty-one whose parents refused ‘their consent? I know some who have volunteered three and four times and have been rejected. Will the honorable senator tell them, “ You are not eligible to vote, but if you had gone to the front you would have been quite competent? “ As the Minister said, some honorable senators seem to treat the granting of the vote as some reward. The only thing that seems to recommend it to some senators in these days of economy is that it is a concession which costs nothing. When the men come back, and we are called on to pay big taxation to give them something that is really a reward, I hope we shall hear from the same honorable senators as earnest arguments in favour of it as we hear now in favour of giving them a vote which, will cost this country nothing.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– We should try to pay a national tribute to the young men who have gone forward to fight our country’s battles. We admit that they are entitled to our praise, and these thousands of young men under twenty-one will have a distinct feeling of unfair treatment by the Government when they see their comrades who are over the statutory age allowed the privilege of voting. There is nothing in the argument that numbers of others under twenty-one volunteered, and were rejected. The fact that an injustice is done to them is no reason to deny justice to the others. If we had had a decent, voluntary system here by which all men of twenty-one and over had to join the camps, this difficulty would not have arisen. These young men of tender years have gone to the front because sufficient men over twenty-one did not offer. The distinction made by the Bill between ‘ soldiers under and over twenty-one is unfair, invidious, and unpatriotic. They are all fighting to preserve our liberties, and even our Constitution, which, if an invader succeeded in planting his foot on these shores, would be torn up. I am not in favour of lowering the franchise in normal times to eighteen, because the average being of that’ age has not arrived at the full use of reason, and one effect would be to make a youth of eighteen eligible to enter this Parliament. These young men who are playing a man’s part at the war are entitled to recognition, and after all this vote is a very cheap form of recognition. We should sweep minor difficulties aside, and grant the major justice. The mere fact of these young men enlisting has placed them before the nation as men who have put on the badge of honour. Senator Turley has drawn a distinction on most paltry grounds. What we are concerned about is that the vote should be given to all those men who are fighting for us in this mighty conflict. I am supporting the proposal.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

Senator Millen:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator’s words conveyed that meaning to me.

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

-Colonel Sir Albert Gould. - Not to any one else.

Senator GRANT:

– I have great respect for any opinion expressed by either Senator Millen or Senator Gould, but I think that purely as an oversight both of them have unwittingly misled the Committee, because the substitution of “ eighteen “ for “twenty-one” will not give the franchise to a returned soldier. If Senator Millen will refer to clause 7 he will see in paragraphb these words -

Is not enrolled as an elector, but is eligible to be so enrolled, and has returned from serving outside Australia, and produces to the presiding officer the prescribed certificate.

Provision is made there for the case of a returned soldier.

Senator Turley:

– The vote is for a returned man who is over twenty-one years of age.

Senator GRANT:

– The substitution of “ eighteen “ for “ twenty-one,” of course, would have to be followed with a consequential amendment. It is quite clear from the clause that it is intended to give the franchise to a returned soldier.

Senator Millen:

– Only so long as he is a soldier, but not after he has been discharged.

Senator GRANT:

– I call the attention of the Minister to the wording of paragraph b .

Senator Millen:

– The man is still a soldier, but the moment he is discharged he ceases to be a soldier.

Senator GRANT:

– If a man has returned from serving outside Australia, and produces to the presiding officer the prescribed certificate he is entitled under paragraph b to vote, irrespective of whether he is enrolled or not, if he is eligible to be enrolled. The amendment will not interfere with that returned soldier, but the man at the front who is eighteen years of age and over, as well as the returned soldier who is eighteen years of age and over, will be entitled to exercise the franchise. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

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

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 -

With respect to the votes of members of the Forces under this Act, the following provisions shall apply : -

The voting papers for the election shall, except in the case of members of the Forces who have returned from service outside- Australia, be in accordance with the form in the Schedule-,

Every vote given, by a member of the Forces in accordance with the form in the Schedule shall be counted as follows : -

in the case of a Senate election, a vote for a party shall be counted as a vote for each of the three candidates who have been recognised in the manner hereinafter prescribed as the three candidates representing that party in the State in respect of which the member is entitled under this Act to vote :

Provided that where the member votes by writing on the ballot-paper the names of three candidates for the State in respect of which he is entitled under this Act to vote, his vote shall be counted as a vote for each of those three candidates;

in the case of a general election for the House of Representatives, a vote for a party shall be counted as a vote for the candidate who has been recognised in the manner hereinafter prescribed as the candidate representing that party ‘ in the Division in respect of. which . the member is entitled under this Act to vote :

Provided that where the member -votes by writing on the ballot-paper the name of any candidate for the Division in respect of which he is entitled under this Aot to vote his vote shall be counted as a vote for that oandidate;

Such recognition shall be made -

in the case of the Ministerial party, by the Prime Minister; and

in the case of the Opposition party, by the Leader of . the Opposition in the House of Representatives ;

Within five days after tbe day of nomination the PrimeMinister and the Leader of the Opposition shall severally notify the Chief Electoral Officer of the names of tbe candidates recognised by them, and such notifications shall forthwith be published in the Gazette;

Senator GRANT:

Senator Ferricks:

– If the ballot-papers do not reach some of the soldiers by the 5th May, will those soldiers be given a subsequent opportunity to vote?

Senator MILLEN:

– This Bill does not give that opportunity, any more than it was given on the occasion of the referendum, for there must be a period beyond which voting cannot take place. From the issue of the writ to the polling day is, I venture to say, a sufficiently long and reasonable period, and on us lies the obligation to have the ballot-papers ready at the earliest possible moment.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority … … 1

AYES

– In a compromise, how can I go further ? The honorable senator can select any member of our party. I picked on Senator Maughan because, being a silent man, I thought he would be more likely to reach an agreement with the Leader of the Senate. I asked that the names of the candidates should be printed, but was told that the extra cost would be too great, and that it would be impracticable! There is no more impracticability about the proposal than by proceeding under the system proposed by the Government. The soldiers are entitled to know the men for whom they are asked to vote. Nobody will dispute1 that position. It cannot be’ said that “Ministerial “ would properly describe candidates standing in the Government interest, or that “ Opposition” would adequately describe members of our party. Ninety out of every hundred soldiers would not be able to recognise our candidates under that description any more than they would be able to recognise followers of the Liberal party or the Hughes party under the designation of “Ministerial.” If the Minister confers with any member of our party and comes to an agreement, I am prepared to accept it.

Senator Millen:

– Make a suggestion for a better name now. I am not going into any secret conference of that kind, because you would still regard me as unreasonable if I could not agree.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Blakey:

– What about calling them the Black Labour party ?

Senator GARDINER:

– They might choose to call themselves the Black Labour party.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I withdraw them. These cleverly and cunningly devised political tricks - -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I do not think that the honorable senator should charge Ministers with having indulged in political tricks.

– Order ! Those words are distinctly out of order.-

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I have heard that phrase used a hundred times in this chamber, and it has not been ruled unparliamentary, but as you, sir, rule that the remark should not be made, I withdraw it. The Government are not acting fairly to the Labour party and the soldiers who may wish to vote for it in proposing to place in their hands a ballotpaper that is distinctly misleading, if not wilfully so. Men who cast their votes for the Ministerial party will believe they are supporting the Labour party which was in power when they left Australia, and if they vote for the Opposition it will be in the belief that they are supporting Senator Millen and Mr. Cook.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have some further arguments to place before the Committee, and I think they should be listened’ to by a quorum. [Quorum formed.”] So far, we have been considering only how the proposed schedule will affect the supporters of the Government and of the Labour party. Clause 8 makes no provision for the other great parties in Australian politics. The Socialist party, for instance, has decided to nominate for New South Wales three candidates, not one of whom is a member of any Aus tralian Parliament. Those men are comparatively unknown to the public. Before they will be allowed to submit their names to the electors, they must deposit £25 each, and if when the vote is taken they have not obtained one-fifth of the number of votes polled by the lowest successful candidate, they will lose their de- posits. Speaking from memory, at least on three occasions that organization, composed chiefly of poor men, has had to forfeit £25 for each of its candidates. The schedule makes provision for only two parties, and if there are Socialist candidates their supporters at the front will not have any Socialist ticket before them, and will have to write in the names of the candidates. Is it fair to ask those men to render themselves liable to forfeit £25 each, and not give them an opportunity of having their names on the ballot-paper ?

Senator Lynch:

– Your amendment will not help them.

Senator GARDINER:

– It will, because it provides that each of the parties shall have a ticket. The Socialist candidates whose deposits have been forfeited in the past have willingly made that sacrifice, because they believed that their hard-won earnings had gone to* .right a just cause. Always men who have been in advance of the times have been penalized, sacrificed, and even martyred, owing to the intolerance of men who did not see eye to eye with them. I -hope we shall find sufficient tolerance amongst members of the Senate to prevent Socialist candidates from having to lose their £25 deposits as a result of the adoption of a ballot-paper which will not give their supporters at the front an opportunity of knowing how they are to vote for them. I have a document here which I propose to quote as indicating how the press will probably deal with this matter. It is as follows : - :

“THE PRESS.”

Here is a True Picture of Melbourne’s Morning Dailies.

The servile, deceptive, cringing and trustowned newspapers shout at every opportunity that Socialism means murder and anarchy; that it would break up the home, destroy religion, incentive, and ambition, and stifle the noble and higher aspirations of life. They publish all this trash, which they well know is false, because they are paid to do it. Editors are compelled by the profit system to cringingly stultify themselves, in order to live. Not an editor in all Christendom would continue to do this slimy work if they owned their own papers, or did not depend on capitalistic advertising for support. To corroborate this statement, I quote the words of a well-known journalist at a New York Press Club banquet, in response to a toast “ The Independent Press.” “There is no such thing in America as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is no one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid 150 dollars a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with - others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things - and any of you who would he so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know this, and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an ‘ Independent Press.’ We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pilli the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We arc intellectual prostitutes.” - John SWINTON

Senator Gardiner:

– I dissent from your ruling that I may not refer to honorable senators personally as one-time Labourites whom an appeal ‘ to their earlier sympathies might induce to vote for the amendment.

In the Senate :

Senator Needham:

– “When addressing himself to the amendment he had moved, Senator Gardiner referred to the attitude, past and present, of honorable senators. I, as Temporary Chairman, told him that that line of argument was irrelevant, and asked him to discontinue it. He continued, and I ruled him out of order. I cannot see how the attitude of any honorable senator now or previously can be regarded as relevant to the amendment.

Senator GARDINER:

– A hasty conclusion on the facts as stated might incline you, Mr. President, to say it is about time the Committee came to a decision, but I believe that your usually judicial mind will realize that something more than ruling me out of order for following the line of argument accurately stated by the Temporary Chairman is involved. I “was trying to induce one-time members of the Labour party, by appealing not only to their reason, but deliberately to their feelings, to vote for the amendment. I thought I might strike an old chord of memory of the days when they were enthusiastic Labourites. Perhaps I put my sentimental appeal in a way that the Temporary Chairman considered rather far-fetched, but I simply pointed out how strange it was that a few years of office, a few years of comfortable positions, a few years away from the mine, the workshop or the factory, so frequently changed men who came into the Labour movement Democratic by environment, into Conservatives by environment. I wanted to say that a short experience of an environment where one does not need to worry where the next meal is to come from brought about a change. I did not put this offensively; rather it was a sad survey of the situation. If honorable senators are to be tied down to a mechanical method of speaking, I am afraid I shall have to look for a seat elsewhere. I find it very difficult to measure out my words like sausages from a machine, chopping each sentence off at a particular place, and afraid that some one will say the machine is out of order if I make them a little longer or shorter. I appeal to you, sir, to consider the privileges of honorable senators. Is it fair for any Chairman to say that a senator must dress every sentence in a way that will fit in with his opinion? You have duties to perform, and have performed them to the general satisfaction of the majority of the party. But. I also have duties to perform, and could perform them much better if it were not for the restrictions which from time to time the Standing Orders place upon me. This is an occasion on which a fair, broad, and wise interpretation of them will make matters better, not only for me, but for every other member of the Chamber.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I listened to the whole of, Senator Gardiner’s speech, and thought that he kept strictly within the standing order relating to relevancy. He endeavoured to show that voters at the front would naturally like to he quite clear as to the politics of the candidates for whom they were asked to vote. He assumed that a great number of them would belong to the school of politics known now, and also when those soldiers left these shores, as the Labour party. When he mentioned the names of several senators, including Senator Earle., who were members of the Labour party in Federal or State arenas when the soldiers left Australia, he appealed to them, in view of that fact, for consideration for his amendment. The Standing Orders are only a few printed lines within the four corners of a little book, framed for the convenience and privilege of the Senate; the convenience of the Senate is not made for the Standing Orders. Our rules of debate are not created to restrict the rights and privileges of honorable senators, but to protect them, and that applies to both sides of the Chamber.

Senator Lynch:

– To be torn up “when you have a majority.

Senator O’Keefe:

– That is an inane interjection. No Standing Orders have been torn up to-night. I urge you to remember’ that if the Temporary Chairman’s narrow and restricted reading of the Standing Orders is upheld, the Senate will be in grave danger of restricting its own rights and privileges.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order referred to me involves the questions of -irrelevancy and repetition. ‘

Senator Gardiner:

– I was not accused of repetition.

The PRESIDENT:

– So I understand. The Temporary Chairman, in stating the point, said the honorable senator was repeating statements with regard to the history of the parties on both sides of the House. If the point of order had been raised on the question of repetition, the Temporary Chairman would judge that issue, and I would not feel disposed to review his decision. I believe the Temporary Chairman did not take that point as his ground for ruling Senator Gardiner out of order, but relied upon the question of irrelevancy. Prom the brief resume of the proceedings given to me, it is difficult to say whether the honorable senator was transgressing the Standing Orders. There is no doubt that Senator Gardiner would be in order in making a passing reference to the history of the party when speaking to his amendment that the name of the Labour party should be printed on the ballotpapers, although in doing so he might have gone a. little beyond the bounds of relevancy. As I do -not know the extent to which he went, I feel inclined to give the honorable senator the benefit of the doubt, and rule that he was in order.

– The honorable senator is transgressing.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry, and as evidence of the earnestness of my apology, I will resume my seat.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) - put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority “… … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I should like to know what the honorable senator means by letting the Bill through.

Senator Gardiner:

– Without any undue delay.

Senator MILLEN:

– Our ideas of what constitutes undue delay may not quite tally, in view of the proceedings to-night. The other House, after waiting needlessly for the completion of the Bill by this Chamber, adjourned till 11. o’clock in the morning. I want the Committee, between now and then, to put me in a position to give another place some intimation as to what time they may expect the Bill to be returned. Honorable senators, no doubt, know their rights, and will exercise their judgment in the way they assert them, but if the Chamber wants the Bill to find a place on the statute-book, it will have to proceed within the next few hours with more expedition than it has done in the last.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That in paragraph o ii. the word “ Opposition “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “Labour.”

A fresh development has occurred since we began to discuss the amendment on which we have just divided. According to the Age this morning, there is every likelihood of another party entering the field. The following telegram is published regarding the South Australian situation : -

Adelaide. - After Mr. Cook, Minister for the Navy, had addressed the council of the Liberal Union on Friday, the following resolution was carried, practically unanimously: - “ That this council agrees, as a final offer, to run one candidate for the Senate in conjunction with two members of the Hughes party.”

It was clearly stated that if that offer were not agreed to, three Liberal candidates would be run. A selection was. made, which resulted in Messrs. E. C. Vardon, Gr. Ritchie, M.H.A., and Ct. F. Jenkins being selected in the order named.

As the Bill provides for only two parties, this complicates the position. The attempt of the Government to dictate to the Australian people that there shall be only two parties in this election - for that is what the Bill amounts to - is evidently being repudiated by a very strong political body in the southern State. If the new party enters the field the Bill will be so much waste paper, so far as it relates to the soldiers’ votes. It provides that the ballot-papers for the Senate shall mention only two parties. Ministerial and Opposition, although there is another provision by which the voter may write in the names of the candidates. The soldiers will have great difficulty in finding out what other candidates, if any, are in the field. With the Socialists, there may” actually be four parties in the field. Some alteration must be made in the Bill later on to allow for other organizations, but if provision is to be made for only two par ties, they must be called by their propernames, as known to the soldiers at the front before they left Australia. It seams useless to appeal to any sense of fair play in the minds of Senators Millen and Pearce. Not a Minister has told us during this discussion why they refuse our most reasonable request. Our party has been treated with a distinct want of courtesy by Ministers in their stubborn silence. In sixteen years in the Senate I have never seen what we have seen tonight. Generally, Ministers vouchsafe some explanation of their attitude, but those two Ministers have sat here to-night hour after hour and absolutely refused to answer our arguments in favour of improving the Bill. Apparently, we cannot have a remnant of the usual courtesies of political life. Will any of the three Ministers present tell us one reason why they object to our amendment? Will Senator de Largie, who has suddenly awakened, do so? We are asking for a fair thing, not for our party, but for the soldiers. We are told that they are to be allowed to vote at great inconvenience and expense to the Electoral Department and the Government, but unless Ministers display a more reasonable attitude these boasted provisions will not be worth the paper they are printed on. I trust that even at this late hour we shall get some reply from Ministers.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I cannot help feeling that the attitude of Ministers is due to the sudden and mysterious resignation of exSenator Ready.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I want to tell the honorable senator at once that the resignation of ex-Senator Ready has nothing whatever to do with this amendment.

Senator GRANT:

– I entertain a different view, but in deference to your ruling I will not say any more on that point. I warn the Government that they are treading on very dangerous ground by forcing this Bill through on their majority of one, because the working people, and the organized unions of this country, feel very strongly on this matter. I suppose that fully 80 per cent, of those men in the firing line belong to the working class, and it is dangerous for the Government so to emasculate the electoral law as to make it almost impossible for those men to know the positions occupied by the candidates for whom they will be asked to vote. The organized workers will not. tolerate this condition of affairs. ‘To-day we were advised for the first time of a sensational event in another country, and I point out that Senator Stewart made a prophecy the other night with regard to the various crowned heads of Europe. Some senators were amused, but we now see that the honorable senator revealed at least one such event that he mentioned a day before the cables gave us the news. I repeat that the organized workers of Australia will not tolerate a measure of this kind, especially designed by men who have deserted our movement and are holding their positions now by the grace of their life-long opponents.

Senator WATSON:
New South Wales

– I protest against the attitude of the Ministry. The ballot-paper, as at present designed, will be confusing to any elector, even within the Commonwealth, much more to those who are actively engaged in the prosecution of the war. It has to be remembered that when the nien left our shores the political situation in Australia was totally different from that which now exists, and it would be utterly impossible for them to know which candidate represented the Opposition party. No one can cavil at the word “ Labour “ as applied to our party, because it is the name by which we have been known for the last twenty-five years. A party may be in Opposition to-day and on the Ministerial benches to-morrow, so it is unreasonable to expect men overseas to understand what is intended by the word “ Ministerial,” and what is intended by the word “ Opposition “ on the ballot-paper. On the Ministerial side today there are three different parties - the’ Liberals, the erstwhile Labourites, and the Independents. And with respect to the Opposition we have the Australian Labour party and anticipate also the nomination of candidates representing the Socialistic party. In addition there may be Independent Labour candidates, who will not ally themselves with the Ministerialists, and will, therefore, constitute another party. It will be impossible to get an intelligent vote in all the divisions of the Commonwealth with the ballot-paper in its present form. There can only be one proper method, namely, to adopt the name “ Labour party “ for candidates representing the present Opposition side. It is despicable in the highest degree that any Ministry holding a little brief authority should try to take- advantage of the situation. By this act the Ministry will light a torch that will illuminate the whole of the coming elections, and perhaps cause a re-action which they do not anticipate. I can quite understand the feelings of those whose sons are at the front when they realize that in all probability the votes of electors overseas will nullify votes given here. This will give rise to such a feeling of indignation that it will re-act on the Ministerial party themselves. The position is, however, of their own creation, and it is one for which we cannot be held responsible. The refusal of .the Government to accept our amendment is a further evidence of their determination to, at all costs, taKe advantage of their majority. We are faced with that unlucky number/ thirteen, but we have a consciousness that we on this side constitute the Twelve Apostles, and I am quite sure that our apostleship will be very high indeed after the election returns are published.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– In view of the special circumstances surrounding the present situation I ask the Minister m charge if he will give this side a pair for Senator Guy, who is ill and unable to be here to-night. Senator Guy has been a member of the Labour party since its inception, and he came into this Senate in 1914. He has always been associated with the Labour party in State and Federal politics, and is very anxious that the name of the party shall not be changed. I am authorized to ask for a pair for him.

Senator Millen:

– When did the honorable senator get that authorization?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Yesterday.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– The honorable senator has had in his pocket a commission from Senator Guy, and after keeping us here for eleven hours over this matter he suddenly comes forward with a request that should never have been made on the floor of the chamber, and which if there had been any sincerity in it, or if it had been at all bond fide, would have been submitted before the debate started. The purpose of the amendment is to secure an alteration on the ballot-papers of the designations by which the parties are to be known. It is exactly the same purpose as that of the previous amendment, and that of the amendment before. These three amendments have been put forward one after another, and the same speeches made on them, occupying eleven hours of the time of the Committee. If any untoward fate overtakes the Bill owing to the conduct that has been displayed by honorable senators the responsibility must rest on those -who are sitting opposite.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– Appeals to the Government Whip for a pair for Senator Guy on other matters have always proved fruitless; but, in view of the particular circumstances of this Bill proposing a change in the name of the Labour party, I made the appeal to Senator Millen on Senator Guy’s behalf, thinking that he would not put any obstacle in the way of a member of his party giving us a pair.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am surprised at the manner and the language of the Leader of the Senate. No doubt we have been here a considerable time, but we put forward an offer that we would accept any designation that would be properly descriptive of our party. I have no particular objection to the use of the term “ Opposition “’ so long as the word “ Labour “ precedes it. Surely we are entitled to ask that something shall be done to prevent soldiers from being deceived. My opinion is that the Government do not intend to allow the soldiers at the front to have. the. vote. Knowing the result of the last vote, they will make any excuse to prevent the purpose aimed at by this Bill being effected. Does Senator Millen think that he can get amendments defeated by threatening to drop the Bill? I venture to say that he will drop the measure. At any rate, if it becomes law, Ministers will find some means of dropping it within a. week or two, because they do not intend to allow the soldiers to. vote. At the same time, they seek to place the responsibility on the Opposition. It is no way to meet the Senate to say, “The Bill, the whole Bill, every comma and colon of the Bill, or no Bill at all.” Yet that is the attitude of Senator Millen. It is an attitude which is as unwise as it is unfair. This is the first occasion in my lone1 experience of deliberative assemblies on which I have seen Ministers resent amendments to their Bills. I point out that I voted with the Government on one division during the night. Had I walked out of the chamber on that occasion Ministers would have been defeated. They cannot claim that I have shown any evidence of intent to wreck the Bill. I regret and resent the ill-tempered manner in which Senator Millen has made his threat. He should always remember that we are not a pack of children who can be bounced and bullied. If he has a scheme already concocted for the purpose of preventing, the passage of the Bill, why is he not manly enough to let us know it? I am prepared to take my share of the responsibility for what has occurred during this sitting.

Question - That the word proposed to be left out be left out (Senator O’Keefe’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I move -

That in paragraph c the following words be inserted: - iii.In the case of any other party, by the General Secretary of such party.

The Government have not made provision to meet the requirements of any party except the Ministerial and Labour parties. It is within the knowledge of senators that in some States other parties will run three candidates for the Senate, and for some of the House of Representatives seats, and it is more than probable that individual persons will offer their services independently of any party. While I realize that those who are outside the Ministerial party or the Labour party must vote either with the Labour party or the antiLabour party, still on the ballot-paper some provision should be made for them in the same way as an effort is being made by the Government to make provision for the two existing parties.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

Subject to this Act every naturalized British subject who was born in an enemy country shall be disqualified from voting at elections.
Nothing contained in sub-section 1 of this section shall be construed as preventing any of the following persons from voting, namely: -
1. Any person who satisfies the presiding officer that he is or has been at any time during the present war a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State;
2. any person who satisfies the presiding officer that he is a Christian, and either a Syrian or an Armenian.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I take exception to the words “during the present war” occurring in paragraph c of sub-clause 4. A man described by sub-clause 1 may have been a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or a State before the war, and there is no reason why discrimination should be made between him and a man who has been elected since -the war.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– It is fairly safe to assume that if the clause is left as it stands it will cover only those persons who have been elected since the war, and the fact of their having been returned to Parliament during the progress of the war may he taken as a fairly good indication that the community which knows them best is offering a guarantee as to their standing or loyalty. But there may be other men of whom we know nothing, and who, at some time or other, have been members of State Parliaments, living under conditions which permit of no inquiry into their nationality or loyalty. It is not long since a German who had been a member of the House of Commons was arrested in America for having acted as a German spy, and brought back to Great Britain. I do not say that there is any such person in Australia, but we ought not, in time of war, to open the doors unnecessarily wide. The clause does give recognition to those who have been elected since the war broke out. It is safe now, but if it is widened we cannot be sure that our interests are secured.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I do not think many people will be affected, but I know of one case in which an injustice will be done. There is in Queensland a Mr. Theodore Unmack, a respected resident, who has been a Minister of the Crown for years in various Administrations, and about whose loyalty there can be no question. This clause disqualifies him for a vote. I admit the force of what the Minister has said, but we have means by which we can discriminate. If there is any question as to a man’s loyalty we can prevent him voting; in fact, we can intern him. I move -

That the words “ during the present war,” in paragraph c of sub-clause 4, be left out.

Amendment negatived.

Senator WATSON:
New South Wales

– What is meant by paragraph d of sub-clause 4? It sounds misleading.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

.- The effect of the paragraph is that the person has to satisfy the presiding officer that he is a Christian and either a Syrian or an Armenian. There are many Armenians who are subjects of Turkey, and who, unless this paragraph is inserted, will be disqualified from voting. The Armenians have been tyrannized over by Turkey for years, and to disqualify them because they are under Turkish rule would be unfair to persons who have been struggling for centuries to free themselves from their oppressors. The paragraph is just, and is amply safeguarded.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland) T5.30 a.m.]. - This clause involves an extraordinary departure from an important principle of our electoral law, which at present provides that no aboriginal native of Asia shall be eligible to become an elector of Australia. Syria and Armenia are parts of Asia, and it does not matter whether people born in those countries are Christians or Mahommedans. If an exception is made in the case of an Assyrian, why not in the case of a Chinaman ; and if in the case of an Armenian, why not in the case of a Persian or a Hindu coolie ? How are the authorities to tell that these men are Christians ? Are they going to smell their breath?

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– Perhaps the honorable senator will allow me to interpose. I am obliged to him for the opportunity to place before the Committee one or two facts which will show that his objections and fears are groundless. The provision to which he takes exception will not confer the vote upon any one. What it does provide for is that Assyrians or Armenians who already have the right to vote under our Constitution shall be allowed to exercise that right.

Senator Turley:

– How did they get the right ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Under the Constitution, which preserves to them the right acquired under State laws.

Senator Turley:

– They acquired the right before Federation ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No ; they acquired the right under the laws of the States, and the Constitution continues it to them under section 41, which reads -

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

It is because of that section that this provision has been inserted. A number of Assyrians and Armenians have the right in their respective States at the present time to vote for candidates for both Houses of this Parliament if they choose to exercise it. But, being subjects of Turkey before they became naturalized here, they would be excluded from the exercise of the right under clause 10, and as there is no reason why they should be excluded this provision is inserted in the Bill. I impress upon the Committee that these people already possess the right to vote, and as they are unwilling subjects of Turkey there is no reason why they should not be allowed to exercise that right.

Senator TURLEY (Queensland) T5.35 a.m.], - I can quite understand from the honorable- senator’s explanation why the right to vote is preserved for these people, but why “ Christian “ ?

Senator Millen:

– Because that is the only means by which we can discover whether an Assyrian or an Armenian is a willing or unwilling subject of Turkey.

Senator TURLEY:

– And he is disfranchised if he does not happen to be a Christian ?

Senator Millen:

– If he is a loyal subject of Turkey he is not entitled to the exemption.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 -

The validity of any election shall not be questioned on the ground of anything done or omitted to be done under this Act, or on the ground of any omission or irregularity in connexion with the administration of this Act, or on the ground that for any reason whatever it is found impracticable for any member of the Forces to record his vote.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I should like to know what this clause involves, because its phraseology is very sweeping. I can well understand that there may be extraordinary difficulties in the way of taking the votes of soldiers. It may be necessary for them to record their votes in exceptional circumstances, where the letter df the law cannot be complied with. But the sweeping character of the clause would enable the Government, if they so desired, to indulge in something more than an irregularity, and have their act justified. I do not say that the Government propose to do anything wrong, and no doubt the administration of the law will be in the hands of the Chief Electoral Officer, but there is danger in the sweeping character of the clause, which is sufficient to legalize wrong-doing if committed by the Government.

Senator MILLEN:
V;,e-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

.- This Bill and the existing Electoral Act will together form the law under which the election will be held. Many of the votes recorded at the election will be taken under quite unusual circumstances, and some of them at places, comparatively speaking, near the front. It may happen that a stray shell will fall in the neighbourhood of a polling booth at a time when the poll could not be legally closed. In such a case the Returning

Officer will collar his box and clear out to a safer place. That would be an irregularity which, if we did not legalize it by this clause, would void the whole election. Imagine Senator Mullan about to be declared elected, and the whole election declared null and void because of such a slight irregularity. The calamity only requires to be stated to insure Senator Million’s hearty co-operation in the passing of the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 -

On the day appointed as polling day for an election of the Senate or a general election of the House of Representatives, no referendum or vote of the electors of any State or part of a State shall be taken under the law of a State.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– I point out that in some of the States there are Acts which make it mandatory upon the State Governments to do certain things on the polling day provided for under this Bill. In Queensland we have a Licensing Act which provides, amongst other things, that on the day of the next Senate election a local option poll shall be taken throughout Queensland on the question of the reduction of licences. That is one matter that would be interfered with by this clause. I know that we have a right to override a State law where it conflicts with ours, but this is a matter to which the States might take strong exception. On former occasions in Queensland we have had the Federal and State authorities taking polls of the electors on the same day.

Senator Millen:

– Has there been a poll for both State and- Commonwealth taken together?

Senator MULLAN:

– Yes; at the last Federal election the Queensland Government submitted the question of the Bible in State schools to a referendum of the people, and, as I have said, the Licensing Act now in force provides for the taking of a local option poll on the question of the reduction of licences on the day of the next Senate election.

Senator Earle:

– That is rather unfair. The State Governments should take those polls at State elections.

Senator MULLAN:

– I admit that there is a good deal to be said in favour of that. There was some debate some time ago on the question of the Government of Queensland submitting a referendum of its own on the question of the abolition of the Queensland Legislative Council at the same time as a Federal election. I see no reason why they should not be permitted to do that kind of thing to meet the convenience of the electors.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New SouthWales · NAT

– I am rather surprised that any member of the Senate should raise this question. The honorable senator has indicated an effort on the part of a State Government to try to unload an awkward question on to the shoulders of unfortunate senators. There is no reason why a State Government should not provide that a referendum should be taken at the next State election. But the Queensland Government apparently looked around for the most inoffensive Legislative Chamber in the Commonwealth, and as the Senate fills the bill they said, “ Let us try it on the Senate.” I hope that that aspect of the matter will not escape the notice of honorable senators. Dealing seriously with the question, the Government take the view that it is not desirable to confuse or complicate big Federal issues by the introduction of State issues. The question of local option excites a great deal of public attention, and if submitted to the people at the same time as a Federal election might divert the minds of the electors from the larger Federal issues placed, before them.

Senator MULLAN:
Queensland

– Notwithstanding all that Senator Millen has said, it is apparent that the Parliament and State Government of Queensland have taken a contrary view. As a member of a Chamber that is supposed to be the States’ House, I thought it my duty to see that the Government were not likely to interfere with some of the arrangements of the Government of Queensland. I have mentioned the matter now, and I leave the Government to take the responsibility for the passing of the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - “ 16a.. Nothing in the War Precautions Act or in any regulation under that Act as at present existing or under any amendment of those regulations shall apply to this Act.”

A similar new clause was moved in another place. Clauses 16 and 17 give ample power to make regulations. My object is to prevent the possibility of anything being done by way of regulation that might be considered unfair, in view of the great amount of dissension caused previously by certain regulations under the War Precautions Act. No such regulations should be allowed to interfere with the proper and fair carrying out of this measure.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– I ask Senator O’Keefe not to press the amendment. It is impossible to say in what direction the powers- of the War Precautions Act may be required. It has already been found necessary to apply them to some of the work carried out’ by practically every Department of the Public Service. I can conceive of no way in which the provisions referred to by the honorable senator could be used injuriously to the purposes of the Bill ; but there is one way in which they are going to be distinctly beneficial, because it may he necessary to obtain power to enable soldiers already in our camps here to vote. I am not sure that the existing Electoral Act gives that power.

Senator Turley:

– You had no other power in 1914.

Senator MILLEN:

– We had no men in camps at that election, except perhaps lads under twenty-one. Any who were in camp and wished to .vote were given, leave of absence. It is not possible to do that on this occasion. Senator O’Keefe can rest assured that these powers are not likely to be used for any sinister purpose. No Government will entirely destroy the purpose of an Act by using unfairly the extraordinary powers that the War Precautions Act gives.

Senator GRANT (New South Wales)

T5.53 a.m.]. - Is it proposed that the men in camp shall be allowed to vote prior to nomination day?

Senator Millen:

– There is no reason to ask the men in camp in Australia to vote according to the form provided in the schedule, except in the case of a unit about to embark.

Senator GRANT:

– Then the Government should not object to the circumscribing of their powers under the War Precautions Act. What is to prevent the men in camp casting absent votes?

Senator Pearce:

– War Precautions regulations prevent any civilians going into certain areas where there are soldiers, and will have to be amended to allow the electoral officer to go to such places as forts.

Senator GRANT:

– I understand that an order from the Minister will admit any civilian to any military area. The Minister therefore has the power to enable the electoral officers to enter the camps and take the vote.

Senator Pearce:

– If you can trust the Minister in that case you can surely trust him to pass an amendment of the War Precautions regulations to make the authority general.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– All the regulations necessary for properly carrying out the Bill can be made under the Bill itself, and there should be no interference with the Bill or its regulations by any regulations issued under the War Precautions Act. Some very hard things have been said during the last few months about certain regulations under that Act, which have caused a good deal of heart-burning, dissension, and acrimonious discussion in both Houses as well as outside. I do not say the Government would have any intention to abuse their powers, but I see no harm in the proposed new clause, while it would remove doubts in the minds of many people.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the . Executive Council” · New South Wales · NAT

– I presume Senator O’Keefe referred to certain regulations issued with regard to the referendum They were not under the War Precautious Act, but under the Referendum Act itself. I dare say similar regulations could be issued under the regulation clause of thi” Bill. Even if the proposed new claude were carried, the War Precautions Act would still be applicable to the principal Electoral Act, under which the enormous majority of votes would be cast. The honorable senator is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Senator Mullan:

– Under -what Act were the proposed secret regulations issued ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Under the Referendum Act itself. If the . Government liked they could have the 2,000,000 votes cast here recorded under the shadow of the War Precautions Act, while only a few thousand men in the camps would be affected by this clause.

Question - That the proposed new clause be inserted - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Schedule and title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 11686

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Northern Territory: Notes by Administrator on Speech delivered in the Senate by Senator Newland.

Ordered to be printed.

The War - United States Peace Note: Translation of Allies’ Reply.

Customs Act 1901-1916. - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1917, No. 61.

page 11686

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · NAT

– Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. President, to intimate that as I understand the other House has suspended its sittings until 11 o’clock, and as the only amendment made in this Bill is quite formal, and I think is certain to be accepted, you will be consulting the convenience of honorable senators if you suspend . the sitting of the Senate till 11.30 o’clock.

The PRESIDENT:

– In view of the state of business, and that the other House is to meet at 11 o’clock to deal with business from the Senate, and in order to meet the convenience of honorable senators, I suspend the sitting until 11.30 o’clock, at which hour I shall resume the chair.

Sitting suspended from 6.10 to 11.30 a.m. (Saturday) .

page 11686

PRIVILEGE

Telegram from Trade Union Secretary.

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to acquaint the Senate that this morning I received a telegram which has relation to the question of privilege recently before the Senate, and which, for its information, I will read -

President, The Senate, Parliament House, Melbourne

In reference McCarthy’s telegram to you kindly permit me to say McCarthy has no executive authority to make such statements or demands,. I absolutely behalf union repudiate any connexion with matter. My general instructed to convey same to Senate through Senator Needham.

Edward W. Wilson,

General President Australian Telegraph Telephone Construction and Maintenance Union. Box 451 G.P.O., Brisbane

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

page 11686

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– There is one matter to which I should like to make a reference, as.it affects two honorable members of the Senate. It is a matter upon which I think that I shall be expressing the feelings of all honorable senators: During the present session two honorable . members of this Chamber - Senators Story and Guthrie - have lost sons at the front. I am sure that .1 am only voicing the opinion of every honorable senator when I say that our deepest sympathy goes out to them, and to Mrs. Story and Mrs. Guthrie, in their sad bereavement. Their only consolation is that their sons died in a noble cause, and that they truly laid’ down their lives for their country; There are a number of departmental matters upon which questions have been asked and information promised before the Senate rises. The Vice-President of .the Executive Council has asked me to reply to a question put by Senator Needham in regard to the censorship of some article on finance in Western Australia. He requests me to say that a wire was immediately despatched to that State asking for a report on the matter, but that so far no report has been received. I have, however, seen a wire which Senator Needham himself has received, and which states that the . article in question has since been published with some deletions. When a reply is forthcoming it will be promptly forwarded to Senator Needham by mail. Then Senator McDougall asked a que*tion as to the employment of P. Polkinghorne in the Ordnance Department, New South Wales. The honorable senator wanted to know when Polkinghorne was employed, what is his rate of pay, and what arc hia qualifications? In reply, I wish to say that he commenced duty on 7th May, 1915, that his rate of pay is 12s. per day, and that he is a temporary examiner of softgoods in the Examiner of Stores Branch. Mr. Harper states that Polkinghorne is capable of examining softgoods comprising such articles as putties, hats, &o. He is generally employed at the mills, where he works under the supervision of the assistant examiner. Some time ago ex-Senator Ready asked me -

Is it a fact that no private is allowed to speak to a nurse in a street in uniform, either in Egypt or in England?

A cable was sent to Great Britain on the matter, and I have now received a reply stating that there is absolutely no foundation for the report. Then Senator Mullan raised a question in regard to the supply of uniforms to postmen in Queensland, and my colleague, Senator Russell, promised to obtain a report on the subject. I have that report here. It states -

With reference to your recent telephonic advice that Senator Mullan had made representations in the Senate that up to the 6th inst. summer uniforms had not been issued to the Queensland postmen, and that the supply to each individual postman in the past waB not in all cases sufficient, I beg to inform you that in December last advice was received from the Deputy Postmaster-General, Brisbane, that owing to delays in delivery due to war conditions, the summer uniforms for 1915-16 were not completed until February, 1916, and that the winter uniforms for 1916 were not completed until the end of September last. In this connexion he has mentioned that the summer and winter uniforms supplied to all -places south of Rockhampton are identical, and that the khaki uniform supplied in the north is suitable for either summer or winter wear.

From inquiries now made it has been ascertained from the Deputy Postmaster-General that the delivery of uniforms has again been delayed owing to war conditions, but that part of next winter’s clothing has been received, and that as soon as the headgear comes to hand uniforms will be issued.
The Deputy Postmaster-General further states that no instance has come under notice in which the supply to each , individual postman has not been sufficient.

Yours truly,

Justinian Oxenham, Secretary

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

– I would like to ask the Minister for Defence whether it is true that sailors’ and soldiers’ wives in England are not receiving separation allowance, and, if so, why it is withheld ?

The PRESIDENT:

– At the outset I would like to remind Senator Barker that the Minister for Defence, having already spoken to this motion, has no right to speak again. Before putting the motion I desire to thank the Leader of the Senate, Senator. Millen, for his kindly references to myself in regard to the length of time that I have occupied the -chair, and the way in which he considers I have discharged the duties of my office. I also wish to thank Senator Gardiner for his candour in speaking on the same matter. I regret exceedingly that he apparently labours under a sense of having been treated somewhat unjustly by me.

SenatorGardiner. - It may be that my manner is responsible for it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I want to say that for most of the period of which Senator Gardiner spoke, he was a Minister of the Crown, and occupied a seat on the Ministerial bench.. During the whole of that time I never heard from him or any one else a complaint that I had treated him unfairly. It is only of late that he appears to have developed the impression that he has been unfairly treated by me. If I have treated him unfairly I have done so quite unconsciously. I have tried to hold the balance equally as between every honorable senator; and to faithfully and impartially administer the Standing Orders and the practice and procedure of the Senate as I found them; It is not my duty to alter or tamper with the Stand ing Orders or the procedure of the Senate in. any way. It is my duty to administer them fairly and impartially, and that I have endeavoured to do. I think the records of the Senate will show that, and that there is a general consensus of opinion on the part of honorable senators on both sides that my efforts in that direction have been satisfactory. If I have been unfair to the honorable senator–

Senator Gardiner:

– I make - no complaint of unfairness; I am complaining of strictness.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have no sense at all of having been more strict with Senator Gardiner than with any other honorable senator. If there has been a tendency on my part to be . strict with him, might it not have been due to the fact that there was a tendency onhis’ part to trespass a little beyond the bounds, as most honorable senators at various times try to do? I have frequently had to call a Minister of the Crown to order as well as other - honorable senators, and have . never hesitated to do so. Quite recently I set aside a Government measure as informal and refused to allow it to be put to the Senate. That was the first time in the history . of the Senate that such an. incident had occurred,’ and it shows. that I have not been subservient to any Government, any more than I have been subservient to any Opposition. During my term of office, which now extends over nearly four years, no ruling of mine had ever been disagreed with, nor had any ruling of mine even been attacked, until Senator Gardiner quite recently ‘ submitted a motion disagreeing with a decision I had given. I am perfectly willing to let my reputation for fairness and impartiality, stand on that one instance alone, and to allow any member of the public who is not an inmate of a lunatic asylum to judge who was fair on that occasion. I regret that, owing to the candour of Senator Gardiner, of which’ I make no complaint, I have felt impelled to make ‘ this short statement so that it may go on record with the honorable senator’s complaint. I desire now to pay my tribute to the assist- . ance that I have received from honorable senators on both sides. ‘My duty as President of the Senate, although sometimes strenuous, has never been hard. Generally I have received the full assistance and co-operation of honorable senators.

They have extended to me every kindness and courtesy, and for that I thank them. I appreciate very deeply their cordial good-will and the co-operation that they have always given. I also express my appreciation of the assistance so freely and courteously extended at all times to honorable senators, as well as to myself, by the officers of the House. I have found their assistance invaluable. The officers of the Hansard staff have ever had my sympathy for the strenuous work they have to do, and every honorable senator will agree with me that they have discharged their duties faithfully and well. The records of the proceedings of this Parliament can be taken exception to by no one. I join with Senator Millen and Senator Gardiner in their expressions of good-will towards honorable senators on both sides. We have passed through a long and strenuous session, a session which, as Senator Gardiner has said, is unique in the annals of parliamentary government. It has extended over some two and a half years and, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, it has seen the coming in of four Governments and the departure of three. That, in itself, constitutes a record. We have had some long and strenuous sittings, and have not had a recess the duration of which could be reckoned on with any certainty. Honorable senators have been liable to be called

Uipon at any time, and since they had to hold themselves in readiness to resume their parliamentary duties at any moment they have been unable to make such arrangements for spending their recesses as in other circumstances would have been possible. I join most sincerely with the Leader of the Senate andthe Leader of the Opposition in the hope that when we come back we shall meet under brighter and happier auspices, and that the Senate next session will continue its labours in more hopeful circumstances than those of the session just closing. The war cloud is still lowering over the world as darkly and as threateningly as ever it has been since the outbreak of hostilities. No man can say what the end may be, but we hope for the best. I give credit to honorable senators on both sides for being unanimous in the desire that the war cloud will speedily pass away, and that the blessings of happiness which can only be brought about by peace may once more extend their beneficence to us and the Empire to which we belong. In conclu sion, I offer my good wishes to honorable senators. in the campaign on which we are now about to start; I hope that the cordial relations which so long have existed between honorable senators on every side will continue, and that good fortune will wait upon all.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.9 p.m. (Saturday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 March 1917, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1917/19170316_senate_6_81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate16 March 1917

ASSENT TO BILLS

PRIVILEGE

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

PAPERS

QUESTION

PRICE OF WHEAT

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Lynch:

Senator RUSSELL:

QUESTION

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SENATE

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator de Largie:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Lynch:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

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

Senator Mullan:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Mullan:

Senator MILLEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator LYNCH:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

CASE OF MR POLKINGHORNE

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator McDougall:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator BLAKEY:VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:

QUESTION

MURRAY RIVER WATERS COMMISSION

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

CANBERRA ARSENAL

Senator GRANT:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

WORKMEN’S DWELLINGS AT CANBERRA

Senator WATSON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

PERSONNEL OF SELECT COMMITTEES

Senator LYNCH:

Senator GRANT:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator WATSON:

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

Senator WATSON:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator WATSON:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Millen:

Senate
16 March 1917

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

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

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BLAKEY:
VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator WATSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

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

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

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

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917