Senate
17 July 1919

7th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. 1. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 10797

QUESTION

H.M.A.S. AUSTRALIA

Sentences for Breaches of Discipline

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if the Government will make inquiries as to whether severe and savage sentences-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is not entitled to ask his question in that way.

Senator Gardiner:

– I understood that I was, but if you, sir, rule in that way–

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must obey my ruling.

Senator Gardiner:

– I will obey it.

page 10797

QUESTION

COU NT OUT

Senator GARDINER:

– I desire to ask another question 61 the Leader of the Senate. I ask the honorable senator whether he personally arranged to be absent from the chamber when the adjournment of the Senate was moved last evening, knowing that that was the first occasion on which I wouldhave an opportunity of replying to a statement made in the Senate with regard tothe shipping trouble; and that he also arranged for honorable senators to walk out if that matter were referred to,so that the Senate might be counted out, and, I might be deprived of an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I certainly made no arrangement of the kind. Speaking for myself, I had very urgent departmental business to transact, and I deemed that I would be better employed in dealing with that business than in listening to the honorable senator. I presume that other honorable senators were moved bythe same feeling.

page 10797

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF DEBATES

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I desire as a matter of privilege to call attention to a certain report of the proceedings of the Senate. Is it necessary that I should ask permission to do so?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– An honorable senator has a right at any time to call attention to a breach of the privileges of the Senate.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is not a very serious matter, but still it is one which affects members of the Senate. I wish to refer to a report appearing in the Argus of this morning of what occurred when Senator Millen made his statement of policy here yesterday. As honorable senators are ‘aware, it was made in such way that it was not open to discussion. I am not complaining of that, but the Argus gives a version of what occurred which, to my mind, is most misleading and unfair. It goes without saying that that is usual for the Argus.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not a breach of privilege. The Argus may make any comment it pleases so long as it does not interfere with the rights and privileges of honorable senators, or is not guilty of any action which would bring it intocontempt of Parliament.

Senator Gardiner:

– I complain of not comments, hut bad reports.

The PRESIDENT:

– That would not be a breach of privilege if it were not an interference with the rights of Parliament. Scanty reports, or very condensed reports, or no reports at all, cannot he construed into a breach of privilege.

Senator Gardiner:

– Do you, sir, hold that misreporting of honorable senators is not a breach of privilege!

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may deal with the matter by way of a personal explanation. He has not raised a question of privilege. The newspapers are free to criticise Parliament without any breach of its privileges. There must be some interference with the rights of Parliament or of members of Parliament to constitute a breach of privilege.

Senator Gardiner:

– Are you, sir, not; drawing any distinction between criticism and deliberate misreporting ?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not an interference with the rights of Parliament. No newspaper by doing that can interfere with the rights of Parliament. Those rights and the rights of every member of the Senate remain, whatever a newspaper may do in the matter of reporting. Unless a newspaper does something to coerce, or impede members, or bring Parliament into contempt, it is not a breach ofprivilege.

Senator Gardiner:

– I differ from you, sir, again, and am afraid that I must again contest your ruling. I differfrom you for the reason that the Senate has the right to prevent, if need be, the reporters of a newspaper from reporting its proceedings.

Senator Millen:

– There is a definite procedure to follow, if that is what the honorable senator is aiming at.

SenatorGardiner. - The Senate can actually prevent reporters from reporting itsprocedings, if that is done in such a way asto discredit Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– I sympathize with every honorable senator who is misreported. The honorable senator will see that there is a way to deal with the matterto which he refers. If a newspaper is, in his opinion, acting improperly he can proceed by way of a motion that the reporters of that newspaper be excluded from the chamber until such time as the proprietors of the newspaper make’ an apology or promise good behaviour for the future. The matter he raises is not. a question of privilege. It would be beneath the dignity of the Senate to say that any criticism by a newspaper, or misreporting, which did not go beyond the limits I have already specified, would be a deprivation of the liberties of ‘the Senate, or of any member of it. The honorable senator would be in order in dealing with the matter by way of a personal explanation.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then, if I may, I shall proceed by making a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the pleasure of the Senate that Senator Gardiner have leave to make a personal explanation?

Senatorde Largie. - No, certainly not. There has been too much of this kind of thing lately.

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Gardiner cannot proceed by personal explanation if there is any objection.

Senator Gardiner:

– Would I be inorder in moving the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable me to discuss the reporting of the proceedings of the Senate by the Melbourne newspapers?

The PRESIDENT:

– A motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders to be carried must be supported by an absolute majority of the Senate.

Senator Gardiner:

– I wish merely to move the suspension of the Standing Orders, and will give my reasons.

The PRESIDENT:

– That will be in order.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That so much of the Standing Orders ;.be suspended as would enable me to discuss the report in the Argusinregard to yesterday’s proceedings in the Senate.

I shall make a verybrief reference to the Hansard report of the proceedings, in order that honorable senators may understand why I desire the suspension of the Standing Orders. I commence the quotation from the Hansard report at the point at which the Senate gave me leave to speak.

Leave granted.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Government have brought clown a most carefully-prepared and strongly-worded document bearing on one side only of the present strike, and in presenting it withoutmoving that it be printed so as it might be open for full discussion is, to my mind, a most unfair way of dealing with business of this character.

Senator Keating:

– And you are the only senator to have the right of discussing it.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes ; and I regard that as most unfair.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must not proceed to discuss the matter. The Senate has granted leave to make a statement to put the other side of the case.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not want to take up the time of the Senate unnecessarily by getting into an argument with you, Mr. President, concerning your ruling. Will I be in order in discussing the statement?

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept your ruling, sir,and, as I do not wish to enjoy privileges not extended to other honorable senators, I shall not continue.

That is the Hansard report of what occurred. Here is the way in which what occurred is reported in this morning’s

Argus -

Leave having been granted him to make a statement Senator Gardiner said that Senator Millen had made a most carefully-prepared document setting out one side of an industrial dispute.

Senator Keating:
Nat., Tas.

That way of describing the honorable senator needs interpretation. Does it mean, “, Not always there?” The report continues -

Senator Keating (Nat., Tas.). - And you are the only senator with the right to discuss it.

Senator Gardiner said that if that was the position he would not take advantage of his privilege. He did not wish to exercise privileges which other members could not enjoy.

Honorable senators will see now why I desire to discuss this matter. Here is a paragraph in whichI am reported as hav- ing, out of a sort of desire to be fair to

Senator Keating, and other members of the Senate, refused to discuss the matter.

Senator Keating:

– Was not that the position?

Senator GARDINER:

– That was one point, but the reason why I did not proceed with the discussion was that the President ruled that I would not be in order in doing so. I asked the point- blank question, “ Will I be in order in discussing the statement? “ and the President said, “ No.” I then said that I accepted the President’s ruling. It was that ruling which prevented me from discussing the matter, and compelled me to resume my seat.

Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator had the right to make a statement, and no other senator had the same right-.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not wish at this stage to enter into an argument of that kind.

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no argument on the matter at this stage. Senator Gardiner is moving the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable Trim to discuss the matter. Until they are suspended he will not be in order in discussing it. He can only indicate the reasons for which he asks the suspension of the Standing Orders.

Senator GARDINER:

– On that part of the report I have said all that I wish to say. That is the reason I had for desiring to discuss the press method of reporting our proceedings. I now come to another aspect of the report. I have said that Senator Keating in the Argus report is described as “ Nat., Tas.” I find that earlier in the report Senator Bakhap is “Nat., Tas.” I find also that Senator Gardiner is “ Cau., N.S.W.” .

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’Loghlin. - Those are distinctions.

Senator GARDINER:

– If one knew what they meant they might be so regarded. If the reference to me is to indicate that I am a member of the Labour Caucus, I have only to say that I. am proud of it. Coming to the serious aspect of the matter, I say that the proceedings of Parliament are too serious to permit this branding of honorable senators by any name that the reporters of newspapers care to put upon them.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Is that the only breach of privilege of which the honorable senator complains ?

Senator Bakhap:

– When the honorable senator uses the word ‘ ‘ serious ‘ ‘ I think his tongue must be in his cheek.

Senator Grant:

– It is like the impertinence of the Melbourne newspapers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was waiting for the interjections to die down, as I cannot reply to them or discuss the matter at this stage as I shouldlike to discuss it. I am giving reasons why the Standing Orders should be suspended. I say that the reports of Parliament should be reports of the proceedings in Parliament, and comments on Parliament should appear as such. To mix up reports and comments upon honorable senators in this way is to my mind an interference with their rights. It is an undignified way of reporting the proceedings of Parliament, and I ask honorable senators to permit the Standing Orders to be suspended, when I think I can make out a good case to show that action should be taken in the matter by the Senate.

Senator Keating:

– Did not the honorable senator waive his privilege to speak yesterday, when he realized that no other honorable senator could answer him?

Senator GARDINER:

– Under the ruling of the President I am not allowed to discuss that matter, but I resumed my seat yesterday on the definite understanding that it was notpermissible for me to debate the statement, although Senator Keating evidently thought that I could do so,because he interjected -

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator yesterday had precisely the same privilege as was accorded to me - the privilege of asking the Senate for leave to make a statement.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Millen mistakes the point at which I am aiming. I repeat that while I was on my feet yesterday Senator Keating interjected’ -

And you are the only senator who will have a right to discuss it.

Immediately -that statement was made the President intervened with -

Order ! The honorable senator must not proceed to discuss the matter. The Senate has granted leave to him to put the other side of the case.

Thereupon I asked -

Shall I be in order in discussing the statement?

The answer to that question was “No.”

The PRESIDENT:

– The remarks of the honorable senator do not relate to the subject which is now under discussion at ail. That question is the reporting by the Argus.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Keating asked a point-blank question, and you, sir, did not rule him out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– All interjections are disorderly.

Senator GARDINER:

– I can quite see that unless I succeed in having our Standing Orders suspended I shall not be able to reply, even to a question put by Senator Keating. I shall therefore content myself with submitting the motion.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesMinister for Repatriation · NAT

– I appeal to the Senate to negative this motion. I direct the attention of honorable senators to one or two aspects of it, and I hope that I may do so without rousing any feeling. It must be borne in mind that the proceedings of this Chamber of recent date threaten to bring it into contempt.

Senator Gardiner:

– I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether Senator Millen is in order in reflecting upon you, sir, as President of thisChamber, and also upon other honorable senators, by affirming that the proceedings of the Senate are calculated to bring it into contempt?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– All reflections upon Parliament are not in accordance with the proper practice. Senator Millen, however, did not make an actual reflection upon Parliament. He said that the proceedings of the Senate were “calculated “ to bring it into contempt. I admit, however, that the distinction is a very fine one.

Senator MILLEN:

– Seeing that exception has been taken to it, I will withdraw that form of expressing what is in my mind and in the minds of other honorable senators and, instead, I will say that the proceedings of this Chamber are not calculated to increase thehold which theSenateshould have on the minds of the people outside.

Senator Gardiner:

– I rise to a point of order. When the Minister has been ruled out of order for making a certain statement, is he in order in making an explanation regarding his form of expression, or is it the correct procedure for him to withdraw unreservedly?

The PRESIDENT:

– The correct procedure is to withdraw, and Senator Millen complied with that procedure. He withdrew his disorderly expression, and until he is guilty of using another I have no power to intervene.

Senator MILLEN:

– I shall leave that aspect of the matter, because I feel con- fident that the good sense of this Chamber is with me in the view which I have expressed. May I point out that assent to the specific motion which is now before us would reduce our proceedings to the level of a farce? But the Senate has not yet assented to the motion, and, therefore, I hope I have not given Senator Gardiner an occasion for a further effort to prolong these proceedings. The suspension of our Standing Orders is only intended to meet cases of urgency - cases for which they do not make other provision. Upon neither of these grounds can Senator Gardiner claim to have made out a case. The suspension of the Standing Orders to-day is not urgent, because the practice to which he refers has been in vogue for a long -while, and because it will not make any difference whether we arrive at a decision upon it to-day or tomorrow. Moreover, it was open to the honorable senator to move the adjournment of the Senate if he wished to bring this question forward. When our Standing Orders indicate that a certain course should be followed when an honorable senator desires to deal with a particular matter, it is obviously absurd to suspend those Standing Orders to enable him to deal with it. There are half-a-dozen ways in which Senator Gardiner could have brought this question before the Senate. I do not propose to tell him what they are, although it is manifest that he does need a little instruction.It is a misuse of our Standing Orders to ask for their suspension when they clearly provide a means by which the honoable senator may attain his objective.

Senator Needham:

– Better suspend them.

Senator MILLEN:

– The only persons I feel desirous of suspending are those honorable senators who are not anxious to get on with Government business.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I support the motion submitted by Senator Gardiner. Perhaps two of the most disreputable newspapers in the Commonwealth are the Age and the Argus.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not entitled to refer to the Age.

Senator GRANT:

– Then I shall refer to the Argus. It is one of the alleged leading journals in Victoria.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I would point out that thequestion of whether the Argus is a reputable or disreputable newspaper is not involved here. The honorable senator must confine his remarks to advancing reasons why the Standing Orders should ‘be suspended.

Senator GRANT:

– I have long since discontinued reading the Argus.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Senate is not interested in that statement, and for the honorable senator to announce that he has ceased to read a certain newspaper is not a reason whyour Standing Orders should be suspended. I ask him to confine himself to assigning reasons for the suspension of our Standing Orders.

Senator GRANT:

-Our Standing Orders should be suspended in order to give Senator Gardiner an opportunity to deal with the Argus in the way that it ought to be dealt with. It is all very well for. honorable senators opposite, who have their inane remarks circulated throughout the length and breadth of Victoria, and also across the New South Wales border-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! That matter has nothing whatever to do with this motion.

Senator GRANT:

– Honorable senators upon this side of theChamber, except when theyare misrepresented or slandered by the Argus, aire not noticed by that journal ait all.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not a reason why our Standing Orders should be suspended.

Senator GRANT:

– I thought ‘that I was advancing some very excellent reasons why they should be suspended. Senator Gardiner should ibe . given ian opportunity of placing his case before the Senate. He has made a request which it . is the almost invariable practice to grant. What is the Arg’us anyhow? I suppose that it is run fay only one or two men.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! That matter has nothing whatever to do with the motion ftefore the Chair.

Senator GRANT:

– We- may be sure that we shall never see the Argus giving amy reasons-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I am compelled to direct -the honorable senator to discontinue his speech, on the ground that his remarks are merely tedious repetitions, and irrelevant to the motion before the Chair.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I desire fo say a few word’s in reply to. the statement of Senator Millen., that it is the wish of the Opposition to impede the transaction of public business. After tihe disgraceful episode of last night-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I am . -not talking about the Argus. But I have a perfect right to reply to the caustic remarks of the Leader of the Senate in rer gawd ‘to honorable senators upon this side of the ehamibeT. Am I not in order in doing that?

The PRESIDENT:

– Not altogether. The only question before the Senate is whether or not our Standinig Orders shall be suspended.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I bow to your ruling, sir. You say that I am not altogether in order. Then what part of me as in order- “the ‘.upper or the lower part - because I can deal with either.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator’s feet aire all right.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– The closing: remarks of Senator Millen were impudent and uncalled for, especially in view of his conduct in this chamber since theresumpbion of business after our six months’ holiday. His observations >were entirely out of place, and I hope that hewill withdraw them. Nobody is moreready to get on with the public business, than are honorable senators upon this side of the oharaiber. Episodes such as occurred last evening -are a perfect Godsend to the Government, because the latter ‘have no business to go on with.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator’s remarks hiave nothing whatever to do- with the proposed suspension of our Standing Orders.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Then I shaJE discontinue my speech.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I have very little to. reply to. I have moved the suspensioni of our Standing Orders to enable me tod’isculss a specific matter. In reply, Senator Millen has made quite an indecent; charge against memibers of the Opposition. He has said that he only desire* to suspend the Opposition.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator knows that tihiat remark iwas made byway of banlter, in reply to an inter jection>. made by Senator Needham.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept the honorable gentleman’s statement. Hemust forgive me if. I sometimes mistake his grim humour for earnestness. I am very (pleased to hear him say that hi* remark was (made in the spirit of ‘banter; because I realize that, at the very beginning of the strenuous session which lies ahead of us, the Opposition should not be . ‘seriously charged . with an endeavour to waste public time.

Senator Millen:

– Do not justify the charge.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Opposition h ave no desire , to waste time, and in submitting this motion, I took steps to avoid any waste of time: In the hrst place, as a matter of privilege, I called’ attention to the manner in which our proceedings are reported iby the newspapers. If the Senate had agreed with me, the matter would have- ended there. Then you, sir, pointed out that I had another means of achievingmy purpose, namely, by way ofa personal explanation. In passing, I wish to say that I am not concerned with the personal aspect of. this matter. It is the parliamentary aspect of it with which I am concerned -the placing of brands upon honorable senators, brands which are uncalled for and unwarranted. The Minister, in his reply, charges us with wasting time. I followed your advice, sir, and asked for the right to make a personal explanation, which would not have been lengthy, nor would it have involved debate ; but, owing to the action of the Government Whip, who in these matters is as -responsible as the Government, I was prevented from taking that course, although the Government Whip, I admit, was quite within his rights in objecting.

Senatorde Largie. - The Government have nothing to do with my action in objecting to your request for leave to make a personal explanation.

Senator GARDINER:

– As an officer of the Government, the Whip, within this Chamber, is as responsible for the despatch of business as any member of the Ministry; and they must take their share of the responsibility’ for preventing me from adopting the shortest method of dealing with the matter I had in mind. A personal explanation would have presented me from making a general complaint, which I desire to lay, against the press. I claim that if the Senate is seizedwith the proper sense of its own dignity, it will nip in the bud this offensive method of reporting the debates of this Chamber. I do not mind the freest criticism and the fullest publicity in the form of comments or leading articles being given to any remarks which I may make; but I maintain that the press are infringing the privileges extended to them by publishing, as they have been doing of late, what purports to be a report of the proceedings of the Senate. I ask honorable senators to permit me to deal with this matter now. It can be gone into fully, and if the discussion has no other effect than to bring the newspapers - whichshouldbe dignified organs of pub lie opinion - to a senseofthefitness of things, I shall be satisfied. I think some good will be the outcome of a discussion. The state of the notice-paper indicates that no urgent business will be interfered with, and, as far as the Senate is con- cerned, action may be taken to check this pernicious practice. I can promise honorable senators that, if permission be granted to me, I shall handle the subject in such a way as to insure their unanimous support in preventing newspapers from misrepresenting what is being done in the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 10803

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Public Service Act 1902-1918. - Promotions, Prime Minister’s Department -

H.I. Kelly

  1. C. Lewis, I. JR. Alexander, A. C.Smith,
  2. S. Laws, A. S. Mills, E. Eye, and J.F. Hannan.

page 10803

QUESTION

STRIKE RELIEF IN COUNTRY DISTRICTS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– Is the Leader of the Senate yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the extension of strike relief to such centres as Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, and other places ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I am not able, owing to the Senate meeting early to-day, to give the honorable senator a definite assurance as to what steps will be taken; but he may rest assured that the benefits being made available will be extended, if necessary, to country centres.

page 10803

QUESTION

PRIVATE MEMBER: QUESTION

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Shall I be in order, Mr. President, in asking a question, through you, of an honorable senator on the Government side in regard to a public utterance?

The PRESIDENT:

– Only concerning a matter which such honorable senator may have on the notice-paper.

page 10803

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to -

That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Crawford on account of urgent public business.

page 10804

WENTWORTH PARK WOOL STORES

SenatorMcDOUGALL asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is the Wool Board responsible for the rubbish that is at present being deposited alongside their woolsheds at Wentworth Park, Sydney?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The Central Wool Committee have no knowledge of the rubbish referred to, but are making inquiries of the New South Wales State Wool Committee.

page 10804

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Administrator: Representation: . Council of Advice

Senator KEATING:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Has a successor been appointed to Dr. Gilruth as Administrator of the Northern Territory in that office or in any office to be substituted therefor?
  2. Were applications for appointment to the position invited?
  3. If not, were there any, and what, reasons for not inviting such applications?
Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– The answers are -

  1. An informal arrangement, with a view to appointment, has been made. It is intended to finalize the matter within the next fortnight.
  2. No.
  3. Careful consideration was given before deciding on the new Northern Territory appointment without inviting applications. Conditions of the Territory are at the present time such that it is regarded as essential that the man selected to take local charge of affairs should have, from the outset, an intimate knowledge of all conditions of the Territory, and particularly of the circumstances of its history during the past few years, so as to insure, from the beginning, the smooth working of the new machinery which is being established.
Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

  1. Are there any Constitutionaldisabilities which would debar Parliament giving direct representation to the residents of the Northern Territory in the Federal Parliament?
  2. If not, will the Government at once make provision for such representation?
Senator RUSSELL:

– The Commonwealth Parliament may provide for direct representation in either House, subject to any limitation it may prescribe. The question of representation has been considered by Cabinet, which was of opinion that the stage of development which would justify direct representation has not yet been reached.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice-:

  1. Has Ordinance No. 8, of 1919, gazetted on 27th June, 1919, “ To provide for a Council of Advice for the Northern Territory,” been . laid on the table of the Senate?
  2. If hot, when is it likely to be laid on the table?
Senator RUSSELL:

– The Ordinance was laid on the table of the Senate yesterday.

page 10804

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Female Medical Officers

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to accept a certificate from a female doctor for female applicants for positions in the Commonwealth Public Service?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– It is assumed the question refers to the State of Western Australia. If so, it is not the intention to appoint a female Commonwealth Medical Officer in thatState.

page 10804

QUESTION

WOOL APPRAISING CENTRE

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to retain Geraldton as a wool appraising centre?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The Central Wool Committee, at its meeting on 14th inst., decided to retain Geraldton as a wool appraising centre. This information was telegraphed to the Western Australian State Wool Committee on the 15th idem.

page 10805

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH STEAMER BETHANGA

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Referring to the paragraph in the Age of 16th inst., relating to the steamer Bethanga, one of the Commonwealth Government vessels, which has just reached Newcastle from Seattle: -

Is it a fact that the maximum speed of this steamer is 9 knots, and the average for the voyage was about 5 knots?

Upon whose recommendation was this vessel procured, and what did it cost ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are : -

  1. No.
  2. The vessel was built under contract for the Commonwealth Government by Patterson MacDonald Shipbuilding Company, United States of America. The actual cost of each vessel is not yet available, but the original contract price for the ten vessels included in the contract was £5,300,000.

page 10805

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTORS

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to follow the advice of Mr. Justice Powers, in his award on the claim of the Meat Inspectors Association, to appoint a number of these inspectors as permanent officers of the Department?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The matter is at present under consideration.

page 10805

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 10805

LIGHTHOUSES BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 16th July, vide page 10729) : Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

After section nineteen of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - “ 19a. Any person who, or the master, owner, agents, and. charterers of any ship which damages or destroys any lighthouse or marine mark shall be liable to’ pay the Commonwealth the cost of repairing, replacing, or reinstating the lighthouse or marine mark. “ 19b. Any person who, or the master of any ship which damages any lighthouse or marine mark shall in the following manner report the damage : -

Where the damage has been caused by a ship the master of the ship shall report the damage to the Collector at the ship’s first port of call in Australia after the occurrence of the damage, and within twenty-four hours of the arrival of the ship at such port;

Where the damage has been caused otherwise than by a ship the person responsible for the damage shall report it, within forty-eight hours after its occurrence, to the Collector at the port nearest to the place where the damage occurred.

Penalty for any breach of this section: One hundred pounds.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– In view of the remarks of the Minister yesterday, is it proposed in any way to modify this clause? I allude to the exclusive and unqualified liability intended to be placed upon ships.

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– This clause is’ taken practically from the Imperial Navigation Act. The point was raised, however, whether the owner of a boat which was alleged to have damaged a buoy would be able to prove that he was not guilty. I understand that he would have the right to resist any application for damages on the part of the Commonwealth authorities; he would be able to put his case practically without limitation.

Senator Keating:

– It would then rest in the discretion of the Administration. If the authorities chose to inforce the claim, they could succeed.

Senator RUSSELL:

– That is so. The . words “deliberate and wilful,” originally contained in the British Act, have been omitted from this clause, for the reason that there are no witnesses of damage where buoys are isolated. In the northern waters of Australia it is quite a common practice to make use of buoys for anchoring. That should be prevented wherever possible. The Bill is intended practically to apply the Imperial Statute in our territorial waters, subject to the slight amendment which I have indicated.

Another point raised was in regard to damage done to a buoy, after which the ship proceeded to a foreign port. If it is a British vessel it must report to the Board of Trade, and its log must be produced if requested, after which, Court proceedings might follow in the ordinary course. But if the ship were a foreigner, and did not return to Australia, it would be beyond our reach, and we could take no action. If the vessel ever returned to Australia, however, there would be full power to collect any damages which might be awarded.

Senator Keating:

– The clause also refers to agents. What will be their position?

Senator RUSSELL:

– The common practice is that agents take care not to render themselves liable. Under their insurance they cover themselves right back to the owner.

Senator Keating:

– What about the case of a foreign tramp coming here,’ and having an agent only to conduct its business while it is in port?

Senator RUSSELL:

– In the event of a contract terminating with the departure of a ship from port, I understand that we would have to wait for her return. Quite likely, of course, she might never do so.

Senator Keating:

– But the agent has been included within the scope of this measure. If he were sued he would be able to say that his contract had been concluded, and that he had disbursed all moneys in connexion with the vessel, and was in no wise concerned with her after she had left port.

Senator RUSSELL:

– It is necessary that we should take precautions to cover ourselves against damage by any vessels, big and little, British or foreign. Surely we are not going to say that foreign ships may come here and do what damage they like, and that their agents shall be held in no wise responsible ? The alternative would be to admit that nobody should be liable; which would be absurd.

Senator Keating:

– Underthis Statute Commonwealth officials, no doubt, will be literal in administering the law ; they will insist upon their pound of flesh through the agent.

Senator RUSSELL:

– It would be for the Minister to approve of a prosecution; and the law, I feel sure, would be ad ministered mercifully. If reference to the agent isincluded in the Act there may be cases of individual hardship, but it would be exceedingly unwise to delete all reference to the agent. If we make the owner alone responsible, how can we hope to secure damages from such an individual when he is resident in a foreign country? Some one in Australia must be responsible. Who else can be but the agent for the vessel?

Senator GUTHRIE:
South Australia

– I intend to move for the omission of the word “agents.” If it is permitted to remain in the clause it will permit an absolute injustice.

Senator Gardiner:

– What about charterers ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

-That is another matter. The charterer has an interest in a ship after she has left port. An agent is appointed to transact the business of a ship while she is in port, and not while she is at sea. The agent completes his business prior to the sailing of the vessel, and presents’ all accounts and documents at the Customs House, whereupon the Customs authorities give him an absolute clearance to permit the ship to go to sea.

Senator Russell:

– The agent is liable to the Customs. He is responsible for duties upon goods’ contained in the vessel.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Of course he is responsible, until the moment when the Customs gives him clearance, and not one minute thereafter.

Senator Russell:

– Does not a boat come under the control of the agent so soon as he can get into touch with her by wireless, before she has even reached our territorial waters?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– That is not the point at all. Not 50 per cent. of the ships trading with Australia are equipped with wireless. Why does the Minister imagine that a sailing ship may have wireless telegraphic apparatus installed on board? The only way to make such an installation would be practically to turn her into a steamer. What does the Minister consider the cost would amount to in such a case ? I am not prepared to admit that the day of the sailing ship is over yet by a. long way. The agent is in only the same position as a lumper. A lumper goes on board a ship and does his duty there while the ship is in port, and as soon as he has finished his work the stevedoring company by whom he is employed have completed their contract.

Senator Russell:

– Would the honorable senator permit an owner to contract himself out of his liability? The honorable senator is advocating a. most dangerous principle. He would enable an owner, instead of accepting his responsibility, to contract himself out of it and transfer it to an agent.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I know what it amounts to. A man takes responsibility as an agent for a ship while she is in port.

Senator Russell:

– What does the honorable senator suggest that we should do - strike out the word ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Yes, I intend to propose that the word “agents “ be struck out.

Senator Russell:

– Who would be responsible then ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The owner.

Senator Russell:

– How would the honorable senator deal with the owner if he were a foreigner ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– That is for the Minister to find out.

Senator Russell:

– I tell the honorable senator frankly that I do not know how it is to be done.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The agent is in the same position as a ship chandler or a stevedore, who contracts to do work for a ship while she is in port. The agent is responsible only until the ship is loaded.

Senator Russell:

– He is a lucky man if he gets 5 per cent. on the average shipment for doing that.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– When the ship has cleared she is out of the hands of the agent, and she may then knock down a lighthouse worth £20,000. The thing is absolutely ridiculous. I move -

That the word “ agents,” line 4, be left out.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I refrained from addressing the Committee when Senator Guthrie arose, because I recognised that he has a special knowledge of this matter which I cannot claim to possess. Strange to say, however, I had marked an amend ment on my copy of the Bill to strike out the words “ agents and charterers.” I. proposed to do that for the purpose of allowing the responsibility, if any, to rest upon the owner or captain.

Senator Guthrie:

– The charterer has still an interest in the ship after she has left port, while the agent has not.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not want to set my opinion against that of the honorable senator in view of the information he possesses on shipping matters. Suppose I charter a vessel to bring goods from America to Australia. The vessel delivers the goods, and the captain is taking her back to America. In my view my obligation ceases the moment my chartering ceases. It ceases when the goods are delivered and all payments made.

Senator Russell:

– Hundreds of ships are chartered on a contract for a time which may extend to two years.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am assuming a case in which a boat is chartered on a contract to terminate on the delivery of a consignment of goods.

Senator Russell:

– Most boats are chartered for a period of time.

Senator GARDINER:

– Suppose a charter terminates on the delivery of goods, the question arises as to who is to. be responsible under this Bill for damage occurring after the vessel leaves port. The Minister says that he cannot collect from foreign owners, and therefore some one else must be held responsible. We should not leave such a matter to the tender mercies of those administering the law. It is not a question of generous or ungenerous administration, but of a strict interpretation of the letter of the law.

Senator Keating:

– The easiest administration would be just an insistence upon the law.

Senator GARDINER:

– The easiest administration would be to charge the owner, the agent, the charterer, or the person from whom, in the opinion of the authorities, it would be easiest to recover the damages claimed. The clause leaves the matter very doubtful, and would permit the Government to claim damages from the owner, the captain, the charterer, or the agent.It makes the owner, agent, and charterer responsible for damage, even though it may not have been wilfully done.

Senator Keating:

– Even though . it may not have been negligently or unskilfully done.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is an after consideration.

Senator GARDINER:

– We cannot permit the responsibility to be placed upon different people. There should be a definite provision in the Bill fixing the person responsible. The Minister has shown no desire to meet the Committee in this matter. I assume that if the clause goes through as it stands, owners, agents, charterers, and masters will all be responsible for damage.

Senator Russell:

– I am prepared to consider any suggestion which willput the foreigner in the same position as a British ship-owner.

Senator GARDINER:

– I hope that the Minister will reply to the arguments which are used without trying to get away from the position stated.

Senator Russell:

– I have consulted the Law authorities, and I say candidly that I do not see any way out ofthe difficulty.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is the duty of the Committee to find a way out of the difficulty. I intend to suggest an amendment later on in the Bill dealing with the question whether damage is done wilfully or negligently.

Senator Guthrie:

– No agent could cause damage in that way.

Senator GARDINER:

– The clause makes an agent or charterer responsible for damage, no matter how it is done. A man may charter a vessel to bring one line of goods. The goods are landed, and when the vessel is leaving port ah accident occurs for which the charterer is in no way responsible, but under the clause he might be held liable for the damage done. I want some assurance from the Minister” that he will accept amendments. I think it is a fair thing to ask the honorable senator to draft an amendment which will make the matter clear. The responsibility under the clause is spread over four different persons, and the person first to be held re sponsible is not defined.There may be a case in which an owner, a master, an agent, and a charterer will all be interested in a vessel which causes damage to a marine light, and we should know against which of these persons the Department will proceed.

Senator Keating:

– That is all right. Let them settle it amongst themselves. Let the Government look for damages from the one who is sure to pay.

Senator Russell:

– The one we have the best chance of collecting from. Suppose the owner and charterer were out of Australia, and had never been here?

Senator GARDINER:

– Let me suggest, the mistake which I think the Minister is making. It is a mistake which is frequently made. I venture to say that it will be a very exceptional case in which a foreign-owned vessel will be the cause of damage to our buoys or lighthouses. In the circumstances, why should we try by our legislation to deal with ‘ extraordinary and exceptional cases? To do so is a fundamental mistake. According to the Minister, we have no redress in the case of foreign owners and charterers. I am not at all sure of that, but that is no reason why we should throw the responsibility for damage done upon persons who are in no way responsible.

Senator Russell:

– Suppose that in a mine owned by a foreign mining company an accident occurred, would not the honorable senator hold the agents resident in Australia responsible?

Senator Guthrie:

– The cases are not analogous. We have the mine to levy on, but the ship would have left Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is clear that the Minister is trying to make provision for something that is causing annoyance. We have no means at present of getting redress in these circumstances from foreign owners or shipmasters, and the Minister in this legislation practically says, “ That being so, we shall get damages from some one.” The person to whom the authorities may look for damages may not be responsible in any way. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the destruction of a buoy is due to accident or design.

The master of the ship may have wilfully destroyed a buoy.

Senator Colonel ROWELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– He may be criminally prosecuted if he wilfully destroys it.

Senator GARDINER:

– The criminal prosecution of a foreign ship-owner or master is a very difficult matter. “Would the honorable senator make a law that, failing to criminally prosecute a foreign ship-owner or master, we might criminally prosecute the agent or the charterer in Australia?

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– He would be in the same position as a man. who drives a trap along the street and accidentally damages something. Such a man has to pay for the damage he causes.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator would make an agent or a charterer criminally responsible for the wilful act of a foreign shipmaster, though their interest in the vessel would have ceased when she left port. Either the Minister has given scant consideration to the arguments used by Senator Keating and others, or he is determined to press the Bill through without amendment. The clause exhibits very loose draftsmanship, and there is a real danger to be apprehended in agreeing to it in its present form, merely upon the assumption that it will be rightly administered. After the amendment by Senator Guthrie has been disposed of, I intend to move the omission of the word “ charterers,” because I hold that if we make the master,’ owner, and agent of a vessel responsible for any damage which she may inflict upon our lighthouses or buoys, we shall be going far enough. I object to straining after the impossible.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

– I do not like the draftsmanship of this clause, which appears to me to deal with two things which should be kept entirely separate. In its present form the provision is exceedingly involved, and, with a view to securing some degree of clarity, I move -

That all the words after “ who “, first occurring, down to and including the word “ which”, line 5, be loft out.

If my proposal be carried, I shall subsequently move that proposed new section 19b be altered to read - “ The master, owner, agents, and charterers of any ship which damages any lighthouse, &c.” The position will then be perfectly clear.

page 10809

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

(Senator Bakhap). - The honorable senator cannot move his amendment unless Senator Guthrie temporarily withdraws his proposal.

Amendment (by Senator Guthrie), by leave, temporarily withdrawn.

Amendment (by Senator Fairbairn) proposed -

That all the words after” who “, first occurring, line 3, down to and including the word which “, line 5, be loft out.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I hope that the Committee will not consent to the omission of all the words proposed by Senator Fairbairn.

Senator Keating:

– He intends to insert those very words in a later paragraph.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– It would be simpler if we substituted the word “ is “ for “ or “ in line 1 of proposed new section 19a.

Senator Fairbairn:

– That would’ not meet the position at all, because we desire to make the clause include persons who areneither the masters, owners, agents, or charterers of vessels.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– I trust that the Acting Minister for Defence will recognise the wisdom of accepting the amendment ‘submitted by Senator Fairbairn. In its present form the clause is very involved, and it is altogether out of harmony with the draftsmanship of our earlier Commonwealth enactments. It seeks to impose liabilities upon two distinct classes of persons. For instance, a man may be out yachting, and, from sheer wantonness, may destroy a light by means of firearms. Obviously, he would not be the ‘ ‘ master, owner, agent, or charterer of a vessel.” Yet it is manifestly desirable that he should be made liable for the damage which he has done. Why not keep such cases entirely separate from the other cases which are provided for in the clause. The Minister will certainly lose nothing by accepting the amendment.

Senator Russell:

– I want evidence that I shall gain something.

Senator KEATING:

– The clause will gain in clarity. We shall be placing in two separate paragraphs two unrelated classes of cases now embodied in one, and that will make for clearness. If the amendment be carried it will be much easier for the Committee to discuss the important matter that has been foreshadowed by Senator Gardiner, and to which I referred last night. If we wish to exempt persons who, through no fault of their own, damage our lighthouses or buoys, we might make the clause read -

Any person who, unless without negligence or malice (the proof of which shall lie upon him), shall be liable, &c.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I should prefer to use the simple word “wilfully.”

Senator KEATING:

– In that case the Commonwealth would have to prove wilfulness. In the case which I have stated, nobody wouldresist the claim of the Commonwealth unless he could prove that the damage he occasioned was the result of an accident. At, any rate, it is in the interest of clearness that Senator Fairbairn’s amendment should be adopted.

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

.- The criticism in which honorable senators have indulged is evidently actuated by a sincere desire to improve the Bill. I quite appreciate that fact. But after the measure has run the gauntlet of the Crown Law authorities I cannot agree to its amendment in’ the direction suggested without first consulting them. If the Committee will permit me to do so, I shall be glad, therefore, to postpone the further consideration of the clause.

Progress reported.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– The Committee upon the Bill have reported progress owing to a statement by the Acting Minister for Defence (Senator Russell) to the effect that he proposes to revise tie clause which we have been considering.

Senator Russell:

– To consult the framers of the Bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I desire to know whether I shall be in order in suggesting to the Minister that, when considering the re-drafting of clause 2 in accordance with the amendment submitted by Senator Fairbairn, he should also con- sider the expediency of making the master, owner, and charterer of any vessel liable for any damage done to our lighthouses as the result of wilful negligence?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be out of order in attempting to do that at this stage. He must have had ample opportunity to make that suggestion in Committee.

page 10810

TRADE MARKS BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 16th July, vide page 10741) :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section 113 of the principal Act is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead : - “ 113. ( 1 ) No person shall, without the authority of the King or of some member of the Royal Family, or of the Governor-General, or of the Governor of a State, or of some Department of the Government of the Commonwealth or of a- State (proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused), assume or use in connexion with any trade, business, calling, or profession the’ Royal Arms or Arms so nearly resembling the Royal Arms as to be likely to deceive. “ (2) No person shall, without the authority of the King, or of some member of the Royal Family, or of the Governor-General, or of some Department of the Government of the Commonwealth (proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused), assume or use in connexion with any trade, business, calling, or profession the Arms of the Commonwealth or Arms so nearly resembling the Arms of the Commonwealth as to be likely to deceive.

Penalty:Twenty pounds.”

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I direct attention to the wording of the clause, and I suggest that all the words be struck out except those which will leave the authority for permission to use theRoyalCoat-of-Arms with the Commonwealth Government alone. I have no idea of reflecting upon members of the Royal Family, merely because there may be some shallow suggestion for their having any such authority. I think that, as reasonable, sensible people, living in this twentieth century, the time has long since gone by when, in the drafting of - legislation, members of the Royal Family should be presumed to possess rights equal to those of the Government. But I want to make it clear, at the same time, that in seeking to have the words struck out, I have no desire to cast any slight on the dignity or the importance of the Royal Family. My contention is x that authority to use! the Royal CoatofArms should be granted by the Government alone. If His Majesty the King desired that some firm or company should use the Royal Coat-of-Arms, he could communicate his wish to the Government, and the permission would, of course, be granted. My chief objection to the clause -is that it follows too closely the antiquated and old-fashioned wording of earlier legislation in Great Britain, when the occupant of the Throne ‘ exercised a power which has not been invested in him for a great many years. This limita- tion of power has . been an advantage, because the occupant of the Throne has thus been removed from criticism which might have brought the. Throne under ridicule. The real power is in the Parliament in Great Britain, and, whenever’- there has been a test between the two Houses, it has been established that authority rests finally with the House of Commons, as representing the will of the people. Bagehot, a well-known authority on constitutional history, writing about fifty years ago, said that the Government of Great Britain is a republic, disguised as a monarchy. He was not reflecting then on the Royal House of Great Britain, but was merely stating what, to every clear thinker, is an actual fact. Every one realizes that our limited monarchical system is ‘really a republic disguised as u monarchy, under which the Sovereign is safeguarded from that interference which, in the case of other powerful monarchs who sought to impress their will on the laws of their country, often led to the extinction of the Royal Households. But all this is bv the way. I merely want to show how absurd it is to retain antiquated phraseology in legislation in this distant Dominion, where the ideas of the people are all in the direction of absolute legislative independence. The authority. to use the Royal Coat-of-Arms should rest with the Government.

Senator Reid:

– But it is the King’s Coat-of-Arms, is it not?

Senator GARDINER:

– It is the King’s Coat-of-Arms because the Parliament of England have permitted him to rule. If to-morrow, by resolution of both Houses, the present King were removed from office, the same coat-of-arms would be used by his successor, and, therefore, it is the property of the nation. We have to look at the facts, and I say that, as far as the Commonwealth Government are concerned, they should exercise this judicial power in regard to the use of the coat-of-arms. If State ‘ Governments heretofore have been exercising this authority, I would not take that right from them, but I maintain that in future they should be required to make application to the Commonwealth Government. In a democratic community, the will of the people must prevail; but it may reasonably be argued that something more is required to constitute safe and continuous government, and quite a number of people reason that, the monarchical system, which appeals to the imagination of certain classes, makes for safe, continuous;, and dignified government. I regret that my imagination will not permit me to indorse that view. I prefer to get down to the practical point at issue, and in this case I maintain that authority for the use of the Royal Coat-of-Arms should be exercised only by the Government. Those ancient phrases appearing in so many British Acts of Parliament have long since lost their meaning.

Senator Russell:

– The intention here is to omit certain words, and not to include them. The words to which the honorable senator refers are contained in the Act already.

Senator GARDINER:

– My desire is to make the clause clear. All this verbiage is unnecessary. Phrases which may be necessary for employment in a British Act are possibly neither useful nor ornamental as applied to Australian conditions. They are apt to be grotesque as well as antiquated. It should be our purpose to so frame our legislative enactments that they bear the impression of absolute simplicity. I move -

That the words “or of some member of the Royal Family, or of the Governor-General, or of the Governor of a State, or of some Department of the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State”, sub-clause 1, be left out, with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the words “ or of the Commonwealth Government.”

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I prefer the clause as it has been drafted. A few years ago I brought under the notice of the Senate a publication known as Wise’s Post Office Directory. That was being issued with the coat-of-arms printed upon it, and it was, to all appearances, an official publication. Little information of a definite character could be secured regarding this directory, and no one seemed to know what authority, if any, had been given the compiler to use the Royal CoatofArms. No one should be allowed to make use of the Royal Coat-of-Arms, or of any official mark the employment of which might be calculated to confer a privilege upon the person so using it.

Senator Russell:

– The use of such marks and symbols should not be granted to any trader.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That is so. With regard to the publication just mentioned, the Government of the day could not see their way clear to withdraw the privilege from the compiler of that directory, but his publication was no more official than any other similar work. I assume that the clause has been drafted with the strict object of preventing any further misuse in similar directions.

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– There appears to be some misapprehension regarding the objects of this measure. It has no bearing upon the use of the Royal Coat-of-Arms in the sense in which Senator Gardiner thinks.

Sitting suspended from 1to2.30 p.m.

Senator RUSSELL:

– All that has been said by Senator Gardiner was . very interesting, but it was hardly applicable to the clause under consideration. This is purely a Trade Marks Bill. There is a Royal crown, and although its use has not been very much abused, some traders are in the habit of using imitations of the Royal crown which very nearly resemble it, and the use of which is intended deliberately to deceive purchasers of their goods, and to lead them to believe that the traders have some Royal warrant. That kind of deception is undesirable. The following is the existing provision dealing with the subject : -

No person shall, without the authority of the King, or of some member of the Royal Family or of the Governor-General, or of the Governor of the State, or of some Department of the Government of the Commonwealth or a State (proof whereof shall lie upon the person accused ) assume ‘or use in. connexion with any trade, business, calling, or profession, the Royal Arms, or arms so nearly resembling them as to be likely to deceive, in such a manner as to be likely to lead other persons to believe that he is carrying on his trade, business, calling, or profession by or under such authority.

That provision is useless, because it is impossible to prove what people believe. Apart from the question of the Royal Arms, it is most unfair that people should be permitted to make use of an imitation for the purpose of deceiving consumers. The use of the Royal Arms was never intended for the sale of a bag of potatoes, a suit of clothes, or a piece of jewellery. Honorable senators are aware that under the letters ‘‘“A.N.A.” articles are sold in this country which are manufactured in enemy countries, and the letters are used to lead consumers to believe that the article sold is of local manufacture. I have said that the matter dealt with by Senator Gardiner, however interesting, is not applicable to this Trade Marks Bill. It has reference to another question, which may be dealt with when the occasion arises.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– The Minister has missed the point which Senator Gardiner made. The intention of the clause is to prevent any trader deceiving the community. Senator Gardiner stressed the point that it is unnecessary to provide that so many authorities should have the right to permit the use of the Royal Arms by traders. He suggested that the right should be vested in the Governor-General in Council. I do not see that there would be anything wrong in simplifying the clause in that way. Why should the right be vested in a member of the Royal Family, the Governor of a State, or some Department of the Government of the Commonwealth? In the preamble to Bills introduced in this Parliament, the words are used -

Be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows: -

Every piece of legislation of this Parliament is under that authority. We should adopt modern ideas and use language of a simple rather than of an antiquated character. Senator Gardiner’s desire is that the authority to give permission for the use by traders of the Royal Arms should be concentrated and vested in the Governor-General in Council. That would be in conformity with the preamble of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 10813

ADJOURNMENT

War Service Homes Act: Dismissal of Major Evans : Bexley Land Contract : Lithgow Land Offer: Delay in Erecting Houses - Senator de Largie and Land Selection - Remission of Naval and Military Sentences - Housing Conditions : Price of Timber: Government Brickworks - Conduct of Opposition: Delaying of Public Business - Artificial Limbs for Soldiers - Australians in Imperial Forces.

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to give the Senate some information regarding comparatively recent happenings in New South Wales under the Housing Commission. I should not have ventured to occupy the time of honorable senators over a matter which, in a sense, is unimportant, except that there appears to be a prevailing tendency now, the moment any statement is published in the press reflecting upon a public Department, to accept it at its face value without investigation. A good deal of publicity was given to what has been called the resignation of Major Evans, the Deputy Commissioner for New South Wales under the Housing Commission. I wish to place before the Senate facts which will enable honorable senators to decide whether Major Evans’ statement on the subject was correct, and whether that gentleman was, or was not, dismissed from his office. I wish also to give honorable senators some particulars regarding a matter which excited some comment in relation to a contract for the purchase of a certain area of land.

The facts are simply these: Major Evans announced in the press on the 25th of last month that he had resigned his position as Deputy Commissioner because of disgust with the methods under which the War Service Homes Act was being administered, and because of his strong and pronounced determination that the interests of the returned soldiers should not be jeopardized by the administration of his chief. I wish to say, first of all, that no such letter of resignation from Major Evans has ever been received. But what the papers do disclose, supporting the facts I propose to give, is that on the 20th June, five days before Major Evans made any announcement to the press, the Housing Commissioner wrote a letter to him terminating his services.

Senator Grant:

– What is the date of that letter?

Senator MILLEN:

– The 20th June. As Senator Grant has a copy of a letter, I understand, from Major Evans, these dates will be of interest to him. This letter by the Housing Commissioner was written and dated on the 20th June. Colonel Walker told me then of his intention to dispense with the. services of Major Evans, and stated that he proposed to go over to Sydney and personally deliver his letter to Major Evans and install his successor in his place. He did so, and delivered the letter to Major Evans on the 24th June, a day, honorable senators will notice, before Major Evans intimated to the press the fact of his supposed resignation.

Colonel Walker having delivered his letter to Major Evans, the next step was that on the 24th June, the same day as that on which Colonel Walker gave his notice of dismissal to Major Evans’, the latter wrote to Colonel Walker acknowledging the receipt of the letter, and in his letter of acknowledgment appears the following sentence -

The decision to relieve me of my duties as Deputy Commissioner of this State suggests some ‘serious omission or commission in connexion with my administration in New South Wales.

Another sentence used in the letter iS- r now ask, in the face of the grave injustice which I ,have been subjected to, to he supplied with the reasons for your summary action in peremptorily dismissing me from office.

I submit to honorable senators that for a gentleman who received a notice of dismissal, which he acknowledges in these terms, to next day pretend that he resigned because of disgust with’ the methods of administration, is to- make a demand upon their credulity which is not likely to be responded to. I owe an apology to the Senate for bringing these matters up here; but those who read the Sydney press - and, necessarily, as a New South Welshman, I study it somewhat carefully - will have seen that a good dea’l of publicity has’ been given to Major Evans’ statements and claims.

I feel it necessary also to make reference to a land transaction, because that, likewise, is not only occupying some of the time of those who discuss public matters over there, but has within it the possible germs of litigation. Major Evans, like all deputies, was empowered under a power of delegation- to purchase land ‘for the War Service Homes Act up to’ £1,000 in value, without reference to any one. If he thought it desirable to purchase land an’ excess of that sunn, he had to remit the matter, with his recommendation, to the Commissioner. The Commissioner himself, by the terms of the Act, can purchase only up to £5,000 worth. If he wishes to purchase in excess of that value, he must seek Ministerial authority. That power of delegation to Major Evans, which was given to him in common with all other deputies, was in these terms, ‘” To make, sign, and execute contracts for the acqui- sition of lands ,and dwelling houses, to be limited to £1,000 for each transaction.” I stress, also, the point that the Commissioner himself has no authority to complete a single contract in excess of £5,000, because it has a bearing on the question. Without any previous communication with this office, Major Evans entered into a contract, duly signed by him, for the purchase of a parcel of land at Bexley, known as Mr .Bardwell, for £25,000. That in itself was greatly in excess of the authority, not only of the deputy, but also of has chief, and it was done without reference to the Commissioner. The first the Commissioner knew of it -was when he received a letter from the ‘vending firm, asking him to name the solicitor who would complete the transaction. The Commissioner had not even seen the contract at that time, and it was only on putting the matter into the hands of the Grown Solicitor that we obtained from the vendor a copy, and the full details of the whale transaction were known. Acting on the Grown Solicitor’s advice, we are refusing to acknowledge that contract. It is because we are declining to recognise the document as a contract, it having been made by an agent in excess of his authority, and because the vendors still suggest the possibility of .their invoking the aid of the law, that I referred just now to the possibility of litigation. When the Commissioner was made aware that the contract had been signed, he naturally looked into it, and caused certain valuations to he made. One of these ‘ was “by the gentleman .who has been for nine years the valuer of the municipality in which the land is situated, and who is also . retained !by the Railways Commissioners for valuations in that district. It may, therefore, be assumed that he is a gentleman of both knowledge and reputation. He. values the land at £7,750, and, in addition, affirms .that in no circumstances ought this land to be purchased, because of its unsuitability for the purpose for which the Housing Commissioner would want it. In addition, the Department of -the Valuer-General was applied to. New South Wales has created a Department, the purpose of which is to value all the lands of the’ State, and those valuations, becoming a public record, are .available for municipal, State, or other purposes, and would also form the basis of resumption should the State at (any time desire to acquire any parcel of land. That Department puts the value of this land at £6,225. In . view of the publicity ‘given to the matter, the Commissioner also directed his officers in Sydney ‘to invite representatives of *he Returned Soldiers’ League’, and the secretary of the Soldiers and Citizens’ Political party, to accompany the. Deputy on a visit of inspection to the land. One of those gentlemen, Mr. Cortis, happened to be a licensed surveyor.

Senator Grant:

– Is that the secretary of ‘the association?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes. But I am stressing more particularly the fact that he is a licensed surveyor. In tie report that he has been good enough to furnish, he says -

The Bexley Estate is totally unsuited for war-service homes’.

I do not know any more sweeping condemnation than that, but he goes into details -

About two-thirds of the allotments, as designed and marked out on the ground, are projected upon the rough, precipitous sandstone slopes of the plateau. The land is so precipitous that it is entirely .unsuitable for building purposes of a .nature required for soldier settlement. I am of the opinion that at least £3 a foot would be required to make any of the allotments ready for building purposes.

The whole subdivision is a courageous, and almost impertinent, attempt to make hope triumph oyer experience. The area is about one mile and a half from railway or tramway communication, and the intervening country is very rough and ‘badly provided with road access.

I consider that the value of the whole subdivision is about 5s. per foot frontage of allotments.

The price at which Major Evans agreed to purchase worked out at about 16s. a. foot, as against Mr. Cortis’ valuation of 5s.-

The hest road of access to the plateau is, I learn, to. .have a grade of about 1 in 12. The road approaching the subdivision from the east is so steeply graded that it would constitute a permanent danger to the community.

As one sincerely interested in the cause of the soldiers, I desire herewith to enter an emphatic protest against any suggestion that such unsuitable land should be made available for the soldiers.

Senator Gardiner:

– What are the dates of those valuations?

Senator MILLEN:

– They are all since Major Evans’ resignation. I am not bringing up valuations of many years ago. The one from the Valuer-General’s Office is dated 10th July. I have not the date of Mr. Cortis’ report, but I can assure the Senate that it was the result of a visit made within the last fortnight.

I feel that I am under some obligation to go a little further in this matter. When an officer exceeds his duty in entering into negotiations, and shows himself willing to pay £25,000 for a property which is valued by independent and noninterested parties at from £6,225 to £7,750, I am entitled to say that he has to answer the charge of being either a fool or a rogue. I shall leave the Senate and the country to make their own selection, but I am not prepared to believe that any competent officer actuated by bond fide motives could ever have made that deal. I have gone into the matter a little more thoroughly, because of the tendency, to which I have referred, On the part of many to assume at once,, when some one makes a complaint against the Department, that the Department is animated by foolish or worse motives. I felt justified, therefore, in investigating this matter thoroughly, and ascertaining who composed the firm with whom this transaction was made. It is the firm of Myers and Company. That, in itself, was merely an indication, and we looked then to see who composed the firm itself. My information, which comes from authoritative sources, is that one of the members of the firm- and here, no doubt, Senator McDougall will be interested - is a gentleman known as Earle Hermann, who has obtained a reputation of some kind or other as a company promoter.

Senator Gardiner:

– Would Sir Albert Gould know anything about the same gentleman?

Senator MILLEN:

– ‘Very possibly. I merely mentioned Senator McDougall because he made a statement the otherday concerning him, and to that extent I am assured of his “ opinion of this transaction. Another ‘ member of the firm is an individual who- was struck off the rolls two or three years ago as a solicitor, and was convicted and served a sentence for fraudulent conversion. It is with great reluctance that I make these facts known. If a man has broken the law, and is trying by honest means to restore himself, I am the last to throw any obstacle in his way.

Senator Grant:

– Did you get a valuation from the Federal Land Tax Commissioner ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; but I thought the valuation of the State Valuer-General would be sufficiently indicative of the value of the land, taken in conjunction with the estimate of the municipal valuer. If Senator Grant desires to know the Federal land tax valuation, I shall be only too glad to get it.

Senator Grant:

– I should like to know what tax they are paying on it.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am surethe valuation will rather confirm the two others I have mentioned than the price which Major Evans agreed to pay. Having put these facts before the Senate, I am confident that the decision will be that, in this case, it was not the local officer - Major Evans - who was right, but the central authority - Colonel Walker - who was justified in declining to proceed with the transaction. A great deal has been said on the other side about that action having been taken because of the “pernicious Melbourne influence.” I have gibed a bit myself at the tendency to centralize, but in this case the centralization justified itself. If it had not been for the central authority having the right to veto that transaction, certain soldiers would have been saddled with a debt of £25,000 for land which is worth about £6,000 to them; because under the terms of the War Service Homes Act the money which the Commissioner spends in buying land or erecting houses does not ultimately come out of the Consolidated Revenue, but is charged to the soldier. If the Commissioner pays an unduly high price for any parcel of land, he cannot leave portion of that excess at the Treasury door, but must charge it to the soldier who occupies the land. The effect would have been, but for the interposition of the central authority, that a soldier would have been called upon to pay three times the value of the land if ever he desired to occupy a holding thereon.

Senator Bakhap:

– The land would have been thrown back on the Commonwealth.

Senator MILLEN:

– That would have happened in a case of this kind. If such a deal had been completed, the only thing to do would have been to ask Parliament to give an indemnity and allow the debt to be charged against the community, although under the terms of the Act the soldiers would have been asked to pay for it.

An effort has also been made in regard to the transaction at Lithgow to assume that the tendency to centralize everything in Melbourne is at fault. There is not the slightest objection to taking all the help that the Sydney Town Planning Association or any other body is willing to render. Not long ago the Commissioner sent out circular directions to his deputies specially stressing the fact that they were to court and seek that cooperation. But the moment this offer was suspended from Melbourne it was stupidly assumed that it was because of some Melbourne prejudice against the utilization of the services of a body existing in New South Wales. The facts are simply these: The Commissioner is bound to charge to the soldiers any cost to which he is put in preparing land for their settlement. When a block of land is offered to him, he is bound before he’ accepts it, or any obligation in regard to it, to see that the soldiers will ultimately get a square deal out of the transaction In this case 35 acres was offered by a gentleman at Lithgow, with the.’ stipulation that the Town Planning Association of New South Wales should have the task of laying it out. Colonel Walker and myself have shared a good measure of abuse because that offer was not immediately and blindly accepted. Before it can be accepted the simple duty rests on the Commissioner of seeing that he gets something which will represent value, because the soldiers will ultimately have to pay for it. It may be said, “ Well, the land is costing you nothing, and, therefore, you need not look a gift horse in the month.” But, in this case, we have to see what the gift carries with it. There are 35 acres there, and I do not pretend to know what it will cost to put that land in the condition in which the municipality will he prepared to take it over. I have had experience of cases in which it has cost as much as £400 an acre. Assuming that the cost in this case would be much less than that, the Commissioner has to consider whether, when that expenditure has been incurred, the land will be cheap or dear. I do not presume to say what it will be. But I do say that the Commissioner ought not to accept it until he has satisfied himself on these points. Then there are questions relating to light, sewerage, and water facilities.

Senator Henderson:

-Where is this particular land situated ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Not very far from the railway station. It is very low -lying land - so low-lying that not long since the owner obtained £1,500 compensation from the municipality because its sewerage works had flooded the area. It is even now liable to inundation after heavy rain. It is necessary, therefore, that the Housing Commissioner should ascertain what it will cost to put ordinary town facilities there - facilities such as those of water, gas, and sewerage - and also to determine whether the authorities who control these public utilities are willing to extend them to this area. The Commissioner is also acting wisely in seeking to learn whether the municipality will be prepared to take over the land when all these facilities have been provided. It is possible that inquiries may show that the gift is an excellent one. But the Commissioner would have been criminally foolish had he taken over the land before making these inquiries, and before ascertaining that he would be in a position to offer land to the soldiers on that block upon quite as advantageous terms as he could acquire it elsewhere. I need scarcely remind honorable senators that the Commissioner is not given power to solve the housing problem of this country. Many persons appear to think that his job is to build houses anywhere. But the authority which is conferred upon him under the Act is to build homes for soldiers. It necessarily follows that he is not entitled to build more houses than they will require, or more than they are likely to require, in a particular locality. ‘ The 35 acres in question will cut up into about 250 homes. The Commissioner, therefore, before incurring the expenditure that will be inevitable in preparing this land for soldiers, is bound to ask himself, ‘ How many applications am I likely to receive for homes in this locality?” At the present time, there are only two applications in from Lithgow. I have no doubt that we shall get many more. But even if we receive a large number of applications from Lithgow, it does not follow that every soldier will be content to have his home established on this particular block.For various reasons many will desire to select other localities near the township. Consequently, the difficulty of determining what area the Commissioner shall prepare for the settlement of soldiers in this particular locality is no light one. If he took over the 35 acres and spent the money necessary to prepare it for 250 homes and it subsequently transpired that there were only 100 applicants for it, the entire cost or the lay-out would be charged to those applicants. In this connexion it must be remembered that what might be a fair charge in the case of 250 applicants would be an excessive charge in the case of 100 applicants. It would, therefore, be entirely wrong for the Commissioner to allow himself to be stampeded by popular clamour into accepting the gift of a block of land without first knowing what all these conditions will be. In the present case he is taking the necessary steps to ascertain how far the land will suit his purpose, and to what extent the expenditure attendant upon the acceptance of it would prove advantageous to ‘the soldiers who might be settled upon it. Should his inquiries show that the cost will be a moderate one, undoubtedly Mr. Brown’s offer will be accepted, and the New South Wales Town Planning Organization may have the business of directing the lay-out.

Senator Gardiner:

– Then the Minister has turned down the offer?

Senator MILLEN:

– No.We have merely said that we have turned it down with that condition. When the Commissioner knows what the cost to the

Commonwealth will be, he will he able to say whether or not We shall accept the gift.

Senator Gardiner:

– Can the Minister leave it open to Mr. Brown to discuss conditions with him ?

Senator MILLEN:

– It is open to anybody. I have never shut my door to anybody who comes on departmental business. Of course, I do not deal with individual cases; but, in matters of- this sort. I have always endeavoured to give an interview to the principals. I have put these matters before the Senate so that honorable senators may understand that the Department has not acted withtout forethought - and in this case, I think, with commendable forethought. I trust that the public will .understand that neither I nor Colonel Walker can possibly have any wish to obtain for our soldiers anything save the best that is going. But we should be inflicting a hardship upon them if we did not look before we leaped, and, if by not doing so, we placed upon their’ shoulders a burden which it was unnecessary for them to carry. I submit that I have made out a clear case in answer to the criticisms of those who are so ready to believe every statement which is made outside, and I hope that in future they will at least hold their peace until they have ascertained whether the Department has anything to say in reply to such statements.

Senator Bakhap:

– Has legal publicity been given to the limitation imposed upon Major Evans in regard to his authority to purchase land under the housing scheme?

Senator MILLEN:

– No publicity was given,” but a legal document was issued by the Commissioner under the authority which confers upon him the power to delegate certain of his powers. This delegated power was given to Major Evans in common with all other deputies.

Senator Bakhap:

– So that he was well aware of it?

Senator MILLEN:

– His initials are on the document to prove that he received it. In addition to that, the vending agents evidently knew enough of this business- they had a gentleman well versed in legal methods to advise them - . to- induce them to make a demand to see the power of delegation before they completed the transaction.

Senator Fairbairn:

– They would always do that if they were sensible men.

Senator MILLEN:

– They did it. They have now asked us to go on with the Contract, and through the Solicitor-General we have intimated that we do not intend to do anything of the kind.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have listened carefully to the statement just made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator. Millen). I am surprised beyond imagination at the attitude which he has adopted. His statement justifying the dismissal of a certain officer bristles with direct attacks, not only upon that officer, but upon other gentlemen whom I do not know. I am always suspicious of statements which depend for their justification upon the abuse of individuals. In this chamber I had occasion to refer a little while ago to the refusal of the Government to accept this gift of 35 acres at Lithgow. When I did, so, I had in my mind the fact that a handsome gift had been offered bv Mr.’ Brown, of Lithgow, in the form of a valuable town property there. I am even satisfied now that, so far as the Government are concerned, they have no intention of accepting Mr. Brown’s offer.

Senator Fairbairn:

– Because it is unsuitable land.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think that the Minister has said that it is unsuitable.

Senator Millen:

– I say that I do not know whether it is suitable or not.

Senator GARDINER:

– Is the Minister going to inquire?

Senator Millen:

– Inquiries are now on foot. I have given the honorable senator one result qf those inquiries - the fact that not long ago the council paid £1 ,500 by way of compensation to the owner of this land because it was flooded.

Senator GARDINER:

– In a township situated between mountains, as Lithgow is, the flooding of a property, especially in view of the open-drainage system which’ is followed by the municipality, may. mean a very great deal, or it may mean nothing. It may be quite easy to provide adequate drainage for the land.

Senator Millen:

– That is what we want to find out.

Senator GARDINER:

– If, when the inquiries are complete, the’ Government are. prepared to consider theacceptance of this gift, I do not desire to debate it.

Senator Millen:

– That is the position. If, after inquiry, it seems a suitable property to take over in the interests of the soldiers, the gift will be accepted.

Senator GARDINER:

– My view of this matter has been largely influenced by the statement of a gentleman with whom Senator Millen is very well acquainted - I refer to Mr. Ryan. He is a gentleman whose ability to put a good case neither Senator Millen nor myself can question. I can also join with Senator Millen in saying that Mr. Ryan’s honesty is beyond challenge. This gentleman has made out a very good case for the acceptance of Mr. Brown’s offer. The impression created upon my mind by what I have read of the matter is so strong that I almost feel impelled to go and look at the land myself.

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator chooses I will show him a copy of the letter which has been sent to Mr. Brown.

Senator GARDINER:

– In view of the serious allegation’s which the Minister has made against Major Evans - a gentleman whom I have never seen–

Senator Millen:

-i do not know him.

Senator GARDINER:

– It would be only fair to that gentleman to lay the whole of the correspondence relating to the Lithgow and Bexley businesses on the table of the Library.

Senator Millen:

– We have had no correspondence with Major Evans about the Bexley business.

Senator GARDINER:

– Surely there is something to go on.

Senator Millen:

– Nothing from Major Evans. The contract signed by him is there.

Senator GARDINER:

– If there is little to go on, it will be all the easier for the Government to do what I suggest.

Senator Millen:

– I am quite willing that the papers should be laid on the table of the Library, if the honorable senator desires to stress that point.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do. I think it is only common justice, seeing that statements affecting this man’s character have been made in this chamber. When

I hear such statements uttered for the purpose of buttressing the position of the Government, I naturally view them with suspicion. The deliverance of the Minister this afternoon was of such a character that I do not hope to hear it repeated.

Senator Millen:

– I am not going to turn the cheek to the smiter any longer. For weeks I have been torn to pieces by the Sydney press over this transaction. I am now going to show why I acted.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not complaining of the Minister acting promptly and decisively, but I am complaining of the manner in which he acted. So far as nipping in the ‘bud questionable land transactions is concerned, the honorable gentleman will receive cordial support from me. He knows that the very moment the War Service (Homes) Bill was submitted to this Chamber, I emphasized the desirableness of appointing to administer it men who would be well paid for their services. What I am complaining of is that the Minister turned the Ministerial statement into an attack upon others, and that, to my mind, does not do the Minister justice.

Senator Senior:

– He justified himself against those attacking him.

Senator Bakhap:

– Everybody mentioned was a party to the transaction, so why should they not be referred to?

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister made his statement on facts in the possession only of himself and his officers. Other honorable senators here know nothing about them. This method of attack is not calculated to strengthen the Minister’s position.

Senator Bakhap:

– It was excellent, I thought, and right to the point.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not mind other honorable senators having their opinion about this matter. The Minister attacked those in his own office, who were appointed by him.

Senator Millen:

– You are wrong there . The Housing Act gives the Commissioner an independent hand in the creation and control of his staff.

Senator GARDINER:

– With final responsibility resting upon the Minister.

Senator Millen:

– No. I declineto accept responsibility placed on any other man’s shoulders. I find it bad enough to carry my own responsibilities.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister may attempt to repudiate responsibility for the Commissioner’s actions, but I maintain that he cannot be entirely absolved from responsibility. I am not claiming that he should be held personally responsible for anything that any of his officers may do that is not within the law or honorable; but, as head of the Repatriation Department, he cannot shift his responsibility, and hehas no right to attempt to do so.

Let us deal with this matter coldly, and without any feeling. If a wrong has been done by an officer of his Department, does it make the Minister’s case any stronger merely to show that an officer made a bad bargain with a company the members of which are not known too favorably because oftheir company-promoting proclivities? What sort of a bargain was it?

Senator Millen:

– It was a legally signed document.

Senator GARDINER:

– By which the Commissioner undertook to purchase some land. For the first time I now speak of the Bexley estate transaction. I am under the impression that possibly Major Evans made a mistake in his position, but I am reluctant to accept a mere statement as proof of his culpability. His side should be presented.

Senator Bakhap:

– What would you do with a man who contracted to buy £8,000 or £10,000 worth of any commodity if you had given him authority to buy only £1,000 worth?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am glad to have an opportunity to resume, Mr. President. Inotice that honorable senators opposite are so anxious to hear what I have to. say that frequently they interrupt me before I have an opportunity of giving utterance to my thoughts.

Senator Mulcahy:

– We all want to know what you are driving at.

Senator GARDINER:

– I say that the Minister has made a statement which, whether honorable senators realize it or not, is a direct charge against Major Evans.

Senator Millen:

– What charge?

Senator GARDINER:

– A charge, as the Minister put it, of being either a rogue or a fool. I do not want to misunderstand what the Minister said, but my impression is that he regarded it as a very shady transaction.

Senator Fairbairn:

– Undoubtedly.

Senator Mulcahy:

– And does it not look like that?

Senator GARDINER:

– I take the attitude that even Major Evans ought not to be condemned without a full inquiry, at which he may have an opportunity of putting his case on oath.

Senator Millen:

– I wish you had put that view before the people who, during the past two or three weeks, have been attacking me.

Senator GARDINER:

– My duty as Leader of the Opposition makes it incumbent upon me, on occasions, to attack the administrative acts of the Minister. But I have not spoken of anything but the Lithgow proposition, so the Minister will clearly relieve me of any such insinuation.

Senator de Largie:

– Isit your duty to defend fools or rogues outside?

Senator GARDINER:

– No. And let me talk plainly to Senator de Largie. There is no possible means by which he can connect myname with any syndicates that have been engineering to make money out of land, whether on the Western railway or anywhere else, though I spent nearly the whole of my time, at one election, answering charges that were published throughout the length and breadth of Australia about his landboodling tactics.

Senator de Largie:

– It was an absolute lie.

Senator GARDINER:

-I am glad to have Senator de Largie’s assurance, though for the first time.

Senator de Largie:

– It is not the first time by any means.

Senator GARDINER:

– I repeat that I spent nearly the whole of my time at one election defending Senator de Largie from charges made against him. Whether he has characterized my statement, or the. charges, as a lie I do not know; but I know that the party which the honorable senator is now supporting flooded his State at that time with imputations that he was dealing dishonestly in public lands.

Senator de Largie:

– There was not the slightest truth in the suggestion that I had any connexion with the matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– And, knowing Senator de Largie’s reputation for honesty, I spent night after night, during that election, answering those accusations and insinuations. I was then defending some one I knew, and in the present case I am defending some one I do not know, and I ask that judgment be suspended until both sides are heard. It is not becoming the dignity of the Minister to present only his side ofthe case, bristling, as it is, with accusations and imputations, when possibly a different complexion might be put on the position if both sides were heard.

Senator Millen:

– I have, told the Senate all I know . I do not know of any other side.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister’s statement bristles with charges of wrong practices, and the inference is, of course, - we want to speakplainly - that this officer of the Repatriation Department was entering into a disastrous agreement to purchase land at a price altogether beyond its value. The Minister has protested too much. He has made his case too strong.

Senator Senior:

– I do not think so.

Senator GARDINER:

-He has allowed himself to believe that there is only one side, and that the blackest side, of the case; notwithstanding the wholesome principle that even a criminal is presumed to be innocent until found guilty. As far as Major Evans is concerned, it was the clear duty of the Government, before discharging him, togive him a chance to defend himself. The Minister’s action was a straining of the privileges of Parliament. I should like to know if the Minister is prepared to say outside of the Senate what he has said here with regard to this man. The privileges of Parliament were intended -

Senator Millen:

– To enable honorable senators to discharge their public duties. I consider that I have done mine.

Senator GARDINER:

– If these grave charges were an themind of the Commissioner, fair play demanded that Major Evans should have an opportunity of defending himself before he was discharged from the Public Service, and branded throughout the Commonwealth as unfit for his position. Was this opportunity given ?

Senator Millen:

Major Evans was warned some few weeks before he was dismissed, and, at his request, he was given a further opportunity.It is no useassuming that he had been badly dealt with. He had a second chance.

Senator GARDINER:

– Was he called upon for a report concerning this transaction?

Senator Millen:

– I do not know.

Senator GARDINER:

– I want to be perfectly fair. Major Evans is unknown to me.

Senator Millen:

– I do notknow Major Evans myself. I have never seen him.

Senator GARDINER:

– The charge against Major Evans was that he was entering into an arrangement to purchase land at a price very much in excess of its value, and was unfit for his position; and, I repeat, it was distinctly unfair to remove a high public officer on such grounds without inquiry, and without an opportunity of defence, except on the floor of the Senate, where nobody is sufficiently acquainted with the facts to present them properly.

Senator Bakhap:

– Go and get his case, and then take as long as you like. We do not care how much time you occupy on the matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have what, perhaps, the honorable senator lacks, namely, a sense of fair play; and I do not think it a waste of time to speak on this subject, particularly as there is no other business before the Senate.

Senator Mulcahy:

– But it might happen that some other honorable senator would like a chance to say something. You take very good care he does not.

Senator GARDINER:

– I would conclude my remarks much more rapidly but for interjections. As a matter of fact, I get very little chance of saying what I want to say in this chamber, I am so fully occupied answering interjections. The Government would have done better if they had laid these charges against Major Evans before he was discharged from the Public Service, because, no matter how complete an accusation may appear to be, when looked at from on© side only, there is usually another side. In this business the Government have acted in a manner calculated to bring them into disrepute. If the Minister’s statements regarding the value of the land are right, well and good; but the Minister appeared to have been quoting opinions which are contrary to fact.

Senator Millen:

– I gave the Senate the opinions of men who may be regarded as men of knowledge.

Senator GARDINER:

– I consider the Minister to be a man of knowledge. Let him take a harbor trip across to Mosman and view the places constructed there upon such unlikely looking ground for building purposes.

Senator Millen:

– Yes; but that land was not cheap for building purposes.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is so; and I cite Mosman only to show that inequalities of surface may present not insurmountable building difficulties.

Senator Bakhap:

– How far is this estate from Sydney?

Senator GARDINER:

– About 10 miles.

Senator Bakhap:

– What is the use of comparing it with Mosman, then?

Senator Millen:

– The whole point is, what would it cost to overcome the building difficulties?

Senator GARDINER:

– I referred to Mosman because that is a place where expensive houses have been built upon what might have been regarded as almost impossible sites. With regard to land values at Bexley, I do not know how many acres are involved, but the Minister appears to have exaggerated the whole position–

Senator Millen:

-I was not speaking either of Bexley or of Lithgow, but of instances where the cost of preparing the land had amounted to the sums which I stated.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have seen subdivisions made in New South Wales where a road could be put through 10 acres, in a manner conforming with the strictest possible authority, for £600 or £700. The same conditions may hold good at Bexley, or the cost may be more; but the Minister has made a grave mistake in the viciousness with which he stated his case. Smarting under press and other attacks, he is not only trying to make good his own case, but to make that of those whom he is fighting bad.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Aus tralia

.- We should be glad that this exposure has followed so promptly upon the great outcry arising from the discharge of Major Evans. Senator Gardiner, however, instead of complimenting the Minister, has criticised Senator Millen and the whole subject, and he has admitted knowing nothing about it. It is becoming his constant practice to talk and talk, without knowing anything about the business he is endeavouring to discuss. Evidently, too, he is prepared to do the same outside this chamber. He states that he defended me against a charge for which there was no foundation. He tried to justify something which I did not do - of which I was not guilty - and he did so in the name of friendship, or so he says. Rather, it was in order to talk. We are getting so “ full up “ of his talking here that it is surprising that we should put up with it. His voice is the first we hear when the Senate meets, and the last we hear before we adjourn.

Senator Gardiner:

– Expel me! You have the power.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I will give honorable senators information which, if Senator Gardiner had asked for, he would have been given long ago. I never had a single foot or acre of land along the transcontinental railway.

Senator McDougall:

– That is why Senator Gardiner defended you. It was because he knew thatyou had not.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– The honorable senator gave us to understand that he had defended me while he was under the impression that I had land there - that he had defended me for having done something which would have been a perfectly proper thing to do. ‘ The facts are, if honorable senators care to hear them, that I have a son on the land, who had been there for years. “While seeking land in Western “Australia he applied in the usual way through the Lands Office, and secured land on the transcontinental line. He is not the only Federal member’s son who has done so; nor am I the only Federal member whose name has been connected with land along that railway. When my sou was seeking land he had not a single acre, although he has been on the land ever since, and is now making a success as the outcome of his efforts. He secured that land along the line, and subsequently examined it, but be found it unsuitable for his purposes, and, therefore, abandoned it. So general was that abandonment that every one who applied and took up territory there abandoned the whole area. It was found quite unsuitable for agriculture, and not nearly so good as had been supposed. My son had simply applied for land on which to make a living, and when he ascertained that it was not .suitable, he bought land elsewhere, and is living on it to-day. Even if I had taken up land along the railway I would have been quite entitled to do so. It was competent for me to apply in the usual way. One fault which X have to find with honorable senators opposite is that they are not sufficiently plucky to go and try the same thing. If they did so they would learn a great deal more about the hardships of the man on the land than they evidently know to-day. They would also be able to put their money into an honest endeavour to help to develop Australia. Such a course would give .them sense; they would not continue to indulge, in nonsense about land taxation. They would know how hard is the lot of the man who goes right out hack, as did my son.- When he and his partner - two young lads straight from Dookie Agricultural College - had obtained a team of horses, they loaded all they possibly could on to their vehicle, and took up an agricultural area , 80 miles from the railway. They played the manly part, and endured the hard life of the pioneer. More adverse comment could not have been made had I secured him a parasitical and easy billet in the .Public Service. I regret that I should be obliged to give particulars of this private business, but I had no option except to defend myself. It is disgraceful that such matters should have been brought into the light at all.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is dragging Parliament pretty low down.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Yes ; and if I had allowed Senator Gardiner’s insinuations to pass, people naturally would have said, “ de Largie is in the swim, too.”

Senator Gardiner:

– On. a point of order, I call attention to the fact that Senator de Largie is insinuating that I said something against him and his son. It is fair that I should state that the honorable senator asked me why I was taking up a certain attitude in defending some one; and I replied that previously I had defended him against charges levelled by the same party. The charges to which I referred had to do with maps which the Liberal party had issued, charging him with having taken up land under conditions which suggested that he possessed foreknowledge regarding where the transcontinental railway was to be laid. I defended Senator de Largie, and I certainly did not insinuate anything against him. I object, therefore, to his saying now that I have said anything of such anature regarding him.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I withdraw any insinuation of the kind in relation to Senator Gardiner’s remarks, but I want to emphasize that the date on which my son’s land .was taken up along the transcontinental line was about two years after the survey had been made. At that stage any one ‘ could easily have ascertained the projected route of the railway. Indeed, years before that there was a general knowledge concerning the route. It was no secret. That land had been lying- unusued for countless generations, and is still ‘ waiting for some one to take it up and use it. I do not say that Senator Gardiner was not correct in his remarks regarding .what the newspapers stated -about the matter.

Reverting to the subject originally under discussion, the Senate ought to be well satisfied, considering that Australia is just setting out upon a very big scheme for housing her. returned soldiers. It was, in fact, most fortunate that’ at such an early stage the Minister for Repatriation should have dropped upon what was apparently a “job “ or a blunder. But who is going to pay for such blunders ? Who but the very soldiers for whom we want to do everything possible. Instead of Senator Gardiner disputing with the Minister and talking generally as he has done against Senator Millen, he. should have been the first to compliment him.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I listened carefully to Senator Millen in regard to the Bexley Estate transaction, in which Major Evans has been involved. I hold no brief for that gentleman, but I have known him for fifteen years, and I cannot agree with the remarks of the Minister that Major Evans is either a rogue or a fool. T know that he is no fool. I have never known him to do a dishonest action, nor have I ever known him to do anything calculated to harm anybody. It is only right that I should make such a statement, when this man has been attacked in his absence. I am not taking the stand that he should not be dismissed if he has done something in opposition to the terms of the Act under which he was working; but the Minister has made a statement by which, if. Major Evans does not get a chance to reply, his future will be damned. Not only that, but the reputation of his wife and family will be damaged. I agree with Senator Gardiner, that, when Major Evans was called upon to explain, the whole situation should have been placed before him in just as strong language as the Minister has used to-day, so that he could have put before the public his side of the question. I have never heard a stronger statement made against any citizen than that which has been uttered by the Minister “to-day. In reply to Senator Gardiner’s statement, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) said that he had discharged his duty to the members of the Senate. The honorable senator has another duty to discharge, and that is to at once give Major Evans a chance before an impartial tribunal to put his side of the transaction. Surely we cannot, in this Senate, constitute ourselves judge, jury, and executioner of any man. I do not know whether or not Major Evans signed the document agreeing to pay so many thousands of pounds for land which the Minister has stated, on the evidence of other people, is worth so much less.

Senator Henderson:

– Will the honorable senator not accept the Minister’s word that he did sign it?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am prepared to accept the official statement by the Minister that this man did wrong, but the honorable senator did not stop at that. He has said that this man is either a fool or a rogue, and has left honorable senators and the general public to put their own interpretation upon that remark.

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator Needham says that Major Evans is not a fool.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– And I am not aware that he was a rogue during my fifteen years’ knowledge of him.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The honorable senator said some little time ago that he was not a fool.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I know of nothing that he did foolishly. I do not indulge in the cynical remarks which Senator Mulcahy is guilty of, and has been guilty of many a time before, in this chamber. I am appealing now for ordinary justice for a man. No member of the Senate would .like to be accused without having a chance to reply to his accusers, ‘ and put his side of the matter. Are we, because we are elected members of the Senate, to put ourselves in the position of judge, jury, and executioner in one? I say that we are not. I know nothing of this transaction, but I do’ know Major Evans, and I appeal to the Minister for Repatriation, who has made a statement which is going to damn Major Evans’ future, to give him a chance before an impartial tribunal to put his side of the. case. In asking that, I ask merely for simple justice.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I do not desire to take up the time of the Senate unnecessarily at this hour. I have been anxious during the last two or three days to bring certain matters under the notice of the Government, but so large an amount of the time of the Senate has been occupied during those days by Senator Gardiner that no other honorable senator has been able to get a word in edgeways. In spite of ‘the hour, therefore, I must bring under the notice of the Minister one or two matters which are of importance to the State I represent. I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that there are members of the Senate who represent States other than New South Wales. The honorable senators from that State have monopolized the time of the Senate, and have held the floor in this chamber, during the last four days.

We are adjourning early to-day in order that we may take part in the celebration of the great victory over Germany and her Allies. I had on the notice-paper for to-day a question as to the intentions of the Government with regard to many members of the Australian Imperial Force who are at present undergoing terms of imprisonment for crimes committed during their service with the Forces. If the Leader of the Senate can make some announcement as to the action the Government propose to take in these cases, and that it is their intention either to remit the sentences altogether or to very considerably reduce them, many people in Australia will be able to take part in the Peace celebrations with far lighter hearts than they will otherwise have, We know that in certain circumstances men will commit crimes which under military law are regarded as serious, though they were committed on the spur of the moment and under abnormal conditions, and which they would probably never commit in their ordinary civilian life. Now that the safety of the Empire is set beyond doubt,and that we and our Allies have emerged victorious from the war, the Government might, as a Peace offering, seriously consider the advisability of releasing all the Australian Imperial Force prisoners now undergoing sentences.

Honorable Senators. - And sailors, too.

Senator FOLL:

– I am glad that Senators Keating and Needham have sug gested that I should include sailors. I intended in what I said to do so. I think that I am not asking too much. The whole of Australia and our Allies will be rejoicing in the fact that we have come out of the great struggle triumphant, and I appeal to the Government, in connexion with the celebration of Peace, to see whether something cannot be done which will bring peace into homes in which there is now much suffering because members of the family are undergoing imprisonment for offences committed during the time they were in the Australian. Imperial Force. From my own short experience in the Forces, I know that many men, probably because they were unused to discipline, orbecause they had men over them who in some cases were disposed to treat them like dogs, did things which theywould never have thought of doing in civilian life.

There is one other matter which I should like to bring under the notice of the Minister for Repatriation in connexion with the administration of the War Service Homes Act. When the Bill was under consideration in the Senate, the Minister stated that it was intended to work in co-operation with the State Savings Banks for the advancement of moneys, and with State Departments in connexion with surveying and other matters necessary to be dealt with under the Bill. During the last few weeks we have seen statements in the local press to the effect that the Government do not now intend to co-operate with the State Savings Banks in the way previously suggested, and that the financing of the housing scheme is to be carried out by the Common wealth Bank. During the time the Bill was under consideration, I believe that Senators Guthrie and Crawford joined with me in asking the Minister for Repatriation why the Commonwealth Bank should not undertake this work in the first instance.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator will permit me to say that I propose to lay the agreement on the table of the Senate next week, and to make a statement as to the reasons why the agreement has been finalized with the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator FOLL:

– In view of the Minister’s interjection, I shall not further allude to the matter. I should, however, like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to create fresh departments for carrying out the work of survey and inspection under the War Service Homes Act, or whether the State Departments will be utilized for that purpose, and so prevent unnecessary expenditure? In every State there is an army of public servants whose services might be availed of for this purpose. In Victoria, there are such men employed in connexion with the Credit Foncier, and in Queensland with the workmen’s dwellings grant. Although the negotiations with the State Savings Banks for financial operations under the Bill have fallen through, I hope that the Minister for Repatriation does not intend to allow the negotiations for utilizing the services of other State Departments to fall through in the same way.

I have nothing further to say, but I make one last and earnest appeal for consideration for the Australian Imperial Force prisoners. I sincerely trust that the Government, as a Peace offering, will remit the fines and sentences of imprisonment imposed upon them, and so enable them to rejoice with the Test of the community.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I did not intend to say anything on the motion for the adjournment, but as the Minister for Repatriation has been good enough to mention my name in connexion with one of these speculations, I wish to say that I know nothing whatever about the matter, or about the gentleman referred to. I believe that he is waiting for me with a club. When the War Service Homes Bill was under consideration, I pointed out that trouble would arise through giving the Commissioner too much power in the appointment of his staff. Some honorable senators advocated that appointments should be left in the hands of the Public Service Commissioner, and if that course had been followed we would not have been required to consider, as we have been today, the appointment to an important position of a gentleman who, apparently, was not fitted to fill it.

I wish to make an appeal to the Government on behalf of the mothers and fathers of the boys who were punished for a little indiscretion on board the H.M.A.S. Australia. I asked last week that the Government might do something in the matter. The Minister for Repatriation promised to place the matter before the proper authority. I suppose that he has done so ; but the time is fast approaching when the joy-bells will be ringing in celebration of Peace, and I am anxious to know if anything is to be done on behalf of these people. The boys who have been so severely dealt with were guilty of a simple indiscretion, and it should not be forgotten that theyresponded to the call of dutyin the raid upon Zeebrugge, though they knew that there was only a hundred to one chance that they would ever come back. One of them won distinction for courageous conduct’; and yet, for a little indiscretion at Fremantle, he is in gaol to-day. I appeal on behalf of the fathers and mothersof these boys, who live not far from me, and who are to-day broken-hearted over this affair, for some consideration of their case. I do not suppose there is an honorable senator in this chamber, or a single person in this country, who, if his life’s history were written, would not like to have one or two pages of it gummed down and hidden from the public gaze. I again appeal to the Government that when the joy-bells ring out they should bring joy to the homes of the fathers and mothers of these boys.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know what the Government desire to. do, but I do not think that I should be called upon to forego my opportunity to reply to certain statements that were made here to-day. I must enter my protest against the manner in which the Senate is being treated at the present time. When on Friday afternoon honorable senators from South Australia have to catch a train at 4.30 o’clock, they have sometimes very little consideration shown to them by honorable senators who are remaining in Melbourne. To-day I am in the happy position that it is not necessary for me to catch a train at 4.30 o’clock, and I should like to give some of those honorable senators a taste of their own physic. We should be given an opportunity to reply to some of the statements which were made here to-day. I want to say that I commend the Minister for Repatriation for the statement which he made. It was made in the calmest possible manner, and in a way that Major Evans, had he been here, could not possibly have taken exception to. That statement has been characterized by the Leader of the’ Opposition as a savage statement. There is no man in Australia to-day who makes such savage statements and charges against the Government as does Senator Gardiner. We were told here only last week that he had said at a public meeting that the members of ‘ the Federal Cabinet should be hanged - one each week. If, that is not calculated to arouse feelings of resentment and rebellion in the minds of the people, L do not know what is. He also said last week that members of the Senate, sitting .behind the Government were not fit to be members of the British Empire. This was after he had spent the whole afternoon in defending the traitors who are in internment camps in Australia. Only a few months ago, when the Government, compelled by necessity, undertook to secure land at Leichhardt for the erection of Ordnance Stores, honorable senators opposite called the Government everything. They said the people of Sydney were almost in open rebellion against the acquisition of that land. The Public Works Committee went over there, and I tried my hardest to find one man who had a word to say against it in Sydney, but I could not find one.

Senator McDougall:

– Why did you not come to me? I would have brought hundreds.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator knew we were taking evidence in Sydney, and if he had hundreds to bring along he had a chance to do it. It was no part of the duty of the Works Committee to go around Sydney hunting for evidence.

Senator McDougall:

– I still say it was a robbery of the people’s rights.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We went to the mayor and town clerk of Leichhardt, and they had little to say . about the alleged robbery of the rights of their fellow citizens. The statements made fay the Opposition then are in keeping with those made by them to-day regarding Major Evans.

Something has been said about Lithgow. The Public Works Committee were there also inquiring into the question of workmen’s cottages. We found that there were four married couples living in a fourroomed house and kitchen, and that between fifty and sixty families were living outside the borders of Lithgow in humpies of all descriptions. Senator McDougall went to Port Augusta, and saw a lot to find fault with there. All he had to do was to go to Lithgow to find people living under shocking conditions, not in a warm climate, but in a cold one.

Senator McDougall:

– I brought the Port Augusta incident up here because the people concerned were Commonwealth employees.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator should take the same interest in the re3t of the people as he does in Commonwealth employees. I do. We were told in evidence at Lithgow that single men were living eight and ten in a room, and that that part of the population which could get no accommodation was living on the outskirts of the town in humpies not fit for a blackfellow. Where does Mr. Brown’s generosity come in? That piece of land is lying there, and is, I believe, of very little use. If Mr. Brown were the generous citizen he pretends to be, he should have built cottages on this swamp for the people who cannot find homes in Lithgow. Whatever action the Government take the Opposition find fault. If the Government do not detect a. crime before it is committed they are condemned. If they denounce a crime after it is committed they are condemned. I tell honorable members of the Opposition that their conduct for the last few months is not raising the tone of this Parliament to any extent, and is not making this Parliament popular with the people. No intelligent person can show from the Hansard records of the work of the Senate since we met on this occasion any instance in which the Opposition has done one tap to assist the Government, good, had, or indifferent, in the legislation of this country. It is time that kind of thing was put a stop to. It is time the Government took advantage of their position, and saw that the business was proceeded with in a proper manner.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– A few facts stand out most conspicuously in connexion with the War Service Homes Act. The measure was passed with the almost unanimous consent of both Houses of Parliament nearly seven months ago. The Minister (Senator Millen) was given full authority. No restriction was placed on him. He had the right to engage whomever die desired, in order that at tobe earliest opportunity the homes so urgently required by returned soldiers ‘should be provided. He cannot point to-day to one house anywhere in Australia erected under that Act. That fact alone is the strongest possible condemnation, not of the action, but of the inaction, of Senator Millen. If that measure had been placed under the administration of a competent firm of contractors, and funds made available to them as they have been to the Minister foa- Repatriation, houses would have been up by the thousands throughout the States in far less than six months. I am forced, reluctantly, to the conclusion that the. Government are determined to waste time. and to do nothing in the way of erecting houses. Had they been honest or determined, they have had ample opportunity to have at least some houses under way inside the seven months that have passed since the Bill went through. The conclusion is irresistibly forced upon me that the Government are determined, for some reason of their awn which has not been disclosed, to do nothing whatever in the way of providing accommodation for the returning men. It is quite true that it is not the function of the Commissioner to provide homes for other than returned soldiers. But when the men return, unless these houses are available for them, they must occupy some other premises. To Hie extent to which the Commissioner erects houses for them, other people will be able to secure more accommodation than they now have. The Minister should get a move on, and see that some ‘houses are put up in at least some of the .States. I was speaking recently to Mr. J. Ryan, M.L.C., of Lithgow, who has taken a keen interest in this proposal, and on whose word we can rely. I have not seen the land in question, but it is a short distance past the Lithgow railway station, on the righthand side of the line. This is what Mr. Ryan writes to me -

The land was given free by Mr. J. L. Brown in response to the request of the local repatriation executive, as represented by Mr. Chas. Stewart, honorary secretary. It was unanimously accepted by the executive, and subsequently the Deputy Commissioner, Major Evans. Every one here who knows the land regards the gift as a generous one, and well suited to meet the housing needs of thesoldiers.

The value of the land has been roughly estimated at from £1,500 to £2,000. Personally, I have no doubt that if a speculator got it at the former price, cut it up., and sold by allotments, he would realize anything up to a couple of thousand on his bargain.

The condition attaching to the gift - that the whole lay-out be in charge of the Town Planning Association of New South Wales - seems reasonable to us. It would involve neither expense nor delay; whereas the central authority in Melbourne would not, perhaps, be able to complete the work for throe months.

There are about a thousand returned soldiers in the area controlled by the Local Committee, that is, the Lithgow Municipality and Blaxland Shire. Of these,- it may -be estimated that about GOO live and work in Lithgow.

Up to date, eighty applications have beén received by the local executive from soldiers and others eligible under the Act who desire to secure homes. But the flow of applications has ceased during the last couple of weeks owing to the block interposed by the authority in Melbourne.

No one in Lithgow doubts that the gift was a good one, which should have been promptly accepted. Personally, I regard the action of the Department as a classical example of the evil of centralized administration. Not only has Mr. Brown’s gift been turned down, but also the advice of the local executive, who have no interest except to secure the soldiers’ welfare.

The local executive has invited the Minister to visit Lithgow, believing that he could settle the whole business in an. hour or two. It is inconceivable that any man whose common sense has not deserted him could reject such an offer on the flimsiest of grounds.

We are told by the Minister, who would give us to understand that he is supplied with the latest information on the subject, that up to date only two applications have been received from eligible people for housing accommodation at Lithgow. That may be the Minister’s latest advice on the subject, but I have just read Mr. Ryan’s statement, and every one who knows him can thoroughly rely on him, that up to the time he wrote eighty applications had been received from” eligible people. Not only that, but, through, this gift having been held in abeyance, the flow of applications has ceased during’ the past few weeks. We may safely conclude that if the gift had been- at Once accepted; at least 100 applications would now be in hand. Senator’ Newland has- told of the existing housing conditions at Lithgow, and, from what I know of the land there, an offer of land worth, apparently, about £2,000 ought not to be lightly turned down by the Minister. I agree with him, however, that the gift ought to be made unconditionally, although I am not opposed to the Town Planning Association laying out places. I am further informed that the land on the western and eastern sides of the block is already built on ; that the northern side is bounded by a creek, and the south .by the railway; so that the statement that this block of land is portion of a much larger area can hardly be correct. In view of the acute shortage of houses at Lithgow, this offer ought to have the immediate attention of the Government. If it can be accepted, it should be accepted without delay. I wish, also, to place upon record a statement which I understand has been furnished uy Major Evans to the Sydney Morning Herald, and in which he puts the facts connected with his retirement from the Repatriation Department from his own viewpoint. He has personally assured me that he handed in his resignation to Colonel Walker, and that Colonel Walker afterwards gave him notice of dismissal. If that be sp, it puts quite a different complexion on the position from that suggested by Senator’ Millen. In regard to the valuations placed upon the land at Bexley, while I am inclined to accept the valuations of the- State valuers, and while I am also- disposed’ to give credence to valuations made by the local governing authorities-, I have learned from long experience that the appraisements of land around Sydney are notoriously low.’ It is only when an attempt is made to purchase such lands that one realizes whatthe vendors really ask foc them. Only the- other day a lady whose land had been valued’ year after year at £100 per acre, had- her valuation increased, as the result of a re-appraisement, to £200 per acre, and upon appeal, this amount was reduced to £190 per acre. It is not wise, therefore, to place too much reliance on the valuations made either by’ the local councils or by the valuers appointed under the State Land Valuation. Act.

Senator McDougall:

– I know of one case in which a- property was valued at £120, and it was not worth 2s.

Senator GRANT:

– Then it is time that the municipal council concerned secured a re-valuation of it. I have here a copy of the letter which, Major Evans assures me, was forwarded by him to the Sydney Morning Herald for publication. It reads : -

The- question of the recent purchase of the Mount Bardwell estate, near Bexley, by the War Service Homes Commission has been raised in certain, quarters.-

Let me state; at the outset,, that this matter had neither a direct or indirect bearing, on my retirement from the position of Deputy Commissioner of this State. I court the fullest official scrutiny into the circumstances of this transaction.

The estate in question, situated within the 5-miles radius of the Central Railway Station, about 700 yards distant from the Bexley tram, about three-quarters of a mile from Banksia Railway Station, about 2 miles from BrightonleSands, occupies an elevated plateau,, running, northerly from the Salvation Army Boys’ Home, and contains 31,000 feet of selling frontage. The old Mount Bardwell homestead - a fine stone residence, containing, eleven rooms, outhouses, stables, and orchards, occupied by the owner - forms part of the estate. Official instructions were issued from Melbourne that, in the purchase of estates- for soldiers’ homes, areas containing, approximately 100 acres elevated, capable of- drainage, &c, at valuations, wherever possible, at about 30s. per foot, should govern all land purchases. This estate conforms in- every detail with these requirements. The original offers of the estate were made to Colonel Walker, in Melbourne, on 27th February last and 3rd March, for £31,000. The area in question had been previously inspected by Colonel Walker, and I was urged by the Commissioner, at the end of April, to push the matter through. On 25th March, the vendors were advised by Commissioner Walker that the matter would be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner when appointed. After protracted negotiations, an offer was made by me, on 10th June last, of £25,000 (£6,000 below original offer), being at the rate of 16s. per foot of saleable frontage (with the homestead, valued at £1,500, and four reserves for recreation thrown in). This was accepted, on the 21st, by the vendors - the contract of sale was completed on 24th inst. I might mention en passant that sales on this estate have been actually effected, and this is easily verified, at prices ranging from 35s. to £6 per foot. Good building material - blue and white metal (for road construction and “aggregates”) - are available on the spot; six substantial cottages were recently erected on the estate without any difficulty or additional cost in their construction. They are all tenanted by their respective owners, with water mains on the ground. The Hawkesbury sandstone formation is strongly in evidence at Bexley, Bellevue Hill,’ North “Sydney, Bronte, Vauclusc, Lane Cove, &c, and naturally one must expect to find a certain percentage of precipitous ground included in an area of 125 acres. The difficulties presented from a builders’ stand-point have hitherto been overcome in the popular suburbs referred to. Messrs. Griffin and Harrison, well-known civil engineers, sworn valuers, and licensed surveyors of the city, designed the estate, and possess a high opinion of its value.

Regarding access. - The Salvation Army Home, the various occupiers of residences on the plateau, were evidently not greatly dismayed by the temporary difficulty of access (if it may be regarded as such) when deciding to erect houses. The suggested grades for avenues of access, from an engineering standpoint, offer no serious difficulty. I need only mention that portion of King-street, City, possesses a grade of 1 in 10.

The difficulty in accepting local-authority valuation as a basis for negotiation is universally recognised amongst valuators and real-estate people. One has only to instance the Clontarf lands (owned by the Sydney Ferries Company), valued for taxation purposes at £11,200 - which, after negotiation for its acquisition as park lands had failed, were subsequently put on the market recently - half of the estate only realized something in the neighbourhood of £30,000.

The questions finally investigated and decided by me Before clinching the offer were -

  1. Was the land under offer eminently suitable for a soldiers’ home settlement of a group of 700 or 800 homes, thus facilitating reduced cost of construction?
  2. Was the price, viz., 16s. per foot, a reasonable one for land within 5 miles of the Central Railway Station? . (c). Did the offer provide for immediate, though partial, relieval of the urgent demand for 3,000 homes lodged in this State, in some cases ten weeks old?

I found to the best of my judgment, based also on the urgency of the situation, that the land fulfilled every such requirement.

I admit all land transactions involving a large sum invariably invite suspicion and innuendo. However, as I acted conscientiously and in the interests of the returned soldiers, I fear not criticism from any source.

That is the statement of Major Evans. I have only seen him once, but I think that, in fairness to him, the Minister should grant a complete inquiry into his case.

It must be remembered that in Sydney alone there are applications for about 3,000 homes. But despite that fact, not a single home has so far been erected. Of course, it is obvious that if the Government erect a large number of houses around Sydney, they will seriously interfere with the enormous rents which landlords are extracting from their tenants. That is the reason why the Government are not vigorously pushing forward the housing scheme for soldiers. I ask Ministers to recognise that our returned soldiers must be provided with homes, and to proceed vigorously with that scheme. I am told on very good authority - indeed, the statement has been published broadcast in the press - that only the other day the timber merchants of Sydney held a caucus meeting, at which they resolved that after the following Monday the price of timber should be advanced 3s. per 100 super feet. I am also assured that before Christmas the price is to be still further advanced by 6s. per 100 super. feet. These are matters with which the Government ought to deal. It is not fair to foist upon our returned soldiers houses the purchase of which will subject them to such charges. The Government should obtain all the Oregon that they require for building purposes direct from America. In view of the large number of homes which will be erected within the metropolitan areas under the “War Service Homes Act, Ministers should take steps to erect brickworks of their own, and to equip them with the latest labour-saving appliances. If they do that I am satisfied they will save our soldiers many thousands of pounds.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– “Why not remove the brickworks from Canberra?

Senator GRANT:

– I do not wish to enlarge upon the question of Canberra at the present time, but I say without hesitation that if any private firm owned the lands which we possess there, together with the Commonwealth brickworks which have been established there, thousands of our returned soldiers would have been settled in the locality long ago. The reason they have not been so settled is because the Government are afraid of vested interests.

I enter my protest against the unreasonable delay which has taken place in the Defence Department in the matter of providing some of these returned men with artificial arms. I brought under notice the case of one young man who wanted to be equipped with a Carnes arm, at a cost of about £50. A very great deal of correspondence has passed in connexion with this matter, but so far nothing has been done, so I appeal to the Acting Minister for Defence to see that this young man’s requirements are met. He was one of those lads who heard the call, and went overseas to fight for his country, and he has come back without an arm. It is scandalous that he should be making application month after month in vain.

Senator Russell:

-What is his name ?

Senator GRANT:

– His name is Corporal White, of 83 Paris-street, Petersham. He has been back from the Front now for about eight months, and he wants to get to work.

I am informed that a number of nativeborn Australians who were in Great Britain when war broke out desired at that time to enlist in some Australian corps, but were informed by the authorities in the High Commissioner’s. Office that this course was impracticable. They were advised to join up in a regiment composed of overseas men, but for a long time they declined to do so, and though they could have come back to Australia to join up in this country, the difficulties in securing passports were almost insurmountable, with the result that some of the men joined the British Forces. They feel that, as native-born Australians, they should be entitled to the Australian rate of pay. I ask the Acting Minister for Defence to look into this matter, and see if it is not possible to accede to their request as part of Australia’s Peace offering during the forthcoming celebrations. A number of British reservists who were in Australia when war broke out joined up in the Commonwealth at the Australian rate of pay, and they are being repatriated to Great Britain, still on the Commonwealth pay-rolls. Those native-born Australians who joined up with the British Forces are fully entitled to the Australian rates of pay, and I hope the Minister will give this matter favorable consideration.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

. - I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes, but I want to direct the attention of the Minister to what I think is an unnecessary delay in the prosecution of public business. The Senate has been sitting for four weeks now. The Ministerial statement, giving the policy of the Government for this session, which took the place of the ordinary speech of the Governor-General, has been before the Senate for about four weeks.

Senator Lynch:

– But you know the Minister cannot control the Opposition.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I shall ask the Ministers a little later what they can do in this matter. I know that the Supply Bill intervened, and had to be considered. I know, also, that only one senator - the Leader of the Opposition - had an opportunity of discussing that Bill, which came before the Senate at a late hour, and had to be disposed of.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’Loghlin.Several other honorable senators spoke on it.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Very few. Honorable senators know that it had to be put through in one sitting. The opportunity for debating the Ministerial statement of Government policy has not been afforded to honorable senators ; we are sitting only for a couple of days a week. Does not the Leader of the Senate realize the responsibility of the Government to see that the business of the country is proceeded with ? Very often a free discussion of the various matters indicated in the Governor-General’s Speech, or, as in this case, the Ministerial statement, is regarded’ as a waste of time; but, as a matter of fact, it not infrequently happens that such a debate proves most valuable. I know that frequently the drafting of Bills has been largely influenced by the attitude of speakers in that debate.

Senator Guthrie:

– The debate on Government policy is a really good thing for the Government, because they know then how things are going.

Senator MULCAHY:

– It is also good for the country.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– Opinions may be altered, but votes neves,

Senator MULCAHY:

– Opinions may be altered as the result of such a debate, otherwise what would be the value of discussion?

The Senate is about to adjourn to enable certain members to return to their constituencies in order to take part in the peace celebrations. We do not complain about that; but I, like my other colleagues from Tasmania, am marooned here, and I am likely to be kept here for several months.

Senator Russell:

– You are not making a virtue of necessity, are you ?

Senator MULCAHY:

– We have no alternative, but, as we are here, we desire an opportunity to discuss the business that comes before the Senate, and, in that way, do what we can to advance the interests of the country. It will not be long before the other House will expire by effluxion of time, and some honorable senators will also be required to go before their constituents “next year. But there is still a great programme of measures to be dealt with. We have been told that we are to have a Customs Tariff debate.

Senator McDougall:

– You do not believe that, do you?

Senator MULCAHY:

– I see no reason to doubt the statement.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– You will believe everything the Government tell you.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Not always. I have been a member of a Government myself. I know, however, that a. great many people are expecting tariff revision, and we have been told that the Government intend to submit a measure with this object in view. There are other matters of the utmost importance including a. . measure for a better method of representation in the Senate..

Senator Guthrie:

– So that you may get back ?

Senator MULCAHY:

– If the honorable senator cares to put it that way I have no objection, and, after all, I think it would be a good thing for Australia. I appeal to the Minister to see if some method cannot be devised to expedite business. There should be a little give and take between the Opposition and honorable senators on this side. We ought to have some arrangement by which the sittings will not be monopolized by honorable senators on one side only.

I am sorry I cannot congratulate my honorable friends opposite on their attitude with regard to the statement made by the Minister a little while ago. As a rule, their olfactory organs are sensitive when there is anything smellful about. The Minister’s statement revealed certain facts, which to my mind fully justified his comments. It disclosed the fact that a transaction to the extent of £25,000 had been, so far as a particular individual could commit the Commonwealth, entered into, and that the subject of the transaction was worth, according to one basis, only £6,000 or £7,000, and, according to another, £7,000 or £8,00.0.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– At all events, the statement was a proper matter for debate.

Senator MULCAHY:

– We are not dealing with the question of the appointment of the officer concerned, but with his conduct. Is it a fact that the property was offered at £25,000, and was purchased bythe officer at that figure? It is a fact, according to Senator Grant’s reading of the letter, that the valuation of the property was £7,000 or £8,000. If that is so, why this readiness on the part of honorable senators opposite to stand up and make statements which are absolutely incorrect? This man is not denied the right to defend himself. No Parliament would ever deny that right to any man. The statements made by the Minister may be challenged by him if he cares to do so.

Senator McDougall:

– What did they do to Freeman? They denied him the right of trial. I have no sympathy with him.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I should be sorry if the honorable senator had any sympathy with him. Our officers are well paid by the Commonwealth, and are intrusted, in some cases, with important business missions. We should have an assurance that they are acting honestly, but if they are buying for £25,000 that which, according to competent authorities, is worth only £6,000 or £7,000, how can honorable senators sympathize with this kind of thing?

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– At this stage I do not want to take up much of the time of the Senate. The statements made by honorable senators will receive careful attention. With regard to the remarks made by Senator Mulcahy concerning the progress of business, I am inclined to think that, when we get to the measures to be submitted by the Government, he will be sorry he spoke. The programme outlined for this session has been delayed somewhat by the motion of no-confidence in another place. Before Christmas I think the honorable senator will be crying for mercy, and not looking for work. It is the intention of the Government, at any rate, that that shall be the case. I ask leave to withdraw the motion, which, if it were agreed to, would involve the sitting of this Chamber ‘to-morrow.

Senator McDougall:

– What is the intention of the Government? Is there anything in the suggestion that the Government do not propose that the Senate shall meet next week?

Senator RUSSELL:

– I have consulted the wishes of honorable senators generally. It had been my intention to substitute for the present motion a proposal that the Senate adjourn until Wednesday next.

At the almost unanimous request of honorable senators, however, and with the full concurrence of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), I now propose to move for an adjournment until Wednesday, 30th July. There is no wish on the part of the Government to force this longer adjournment, and, if it is not desired, the Government will not move for it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

page 10833

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

.- I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 30th July, at 3 p.m.

I have just intimated the reason for substituting this motion. It is done at the general request of honorable senators, and because there is no business forthcoming. I hope Senator McDougall will be generous to his fellow senators, even if this motion does not meet with his approval.

Senator McDOUGALL:
NewSouth Wales

– I oppose the motion, especially after having listened to such speeches as those of Senator Newland and Senator Mulcahy. They object to such a long adjournment, and, at the same time, condemn honorable senators on this side for interfering with the business of the country. I had made arrangements to be in Melbourne next week, and I am not going to Sydney to-night. It makes no difference that I am in a position to go home any day next week. I realize, of course, that I am differently placed from honorable senators representing Tasmania. The accusation that we are delaying the business of the country is without foundation. When an honorable senator sees fit to stand with his back against the other side of the door of this chamber, and will not enter the Senate in order to help form a quorum, he ought to be the last to complain about interference with business. I never saw such a disgraceful thing in my life as last night’s occurrence.

Senator Mulcahy:

– On a point of order, may I correct the honorable senator? I did not stand with my back to the door of this chamber on the occasion in question. I was not anywhere near the precincts at the time.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– Then I withdraw. I thought I saw Senator Mulcahy outside the door. But if he was not here he ought to have been. That is what he is paid for.

Senator de Largie:

– He had sufficient provocation to be out there with his back very tight against the door.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I do not know whether that has anything to do with me or with Senator de Largie; but may I never see the day when such a thing will occur again. May I never again see a senator duped by the Government in coming in to call for a quorum while my friends opposite stood outside, which occurred last night. But, following upon such an occurrence, for honorable senators to accuse those on this side of wasting the -time of the country is a scandalous thing.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– You are wasting time.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– And now you want nearly a fortnight’s holiday. The accusations which have been levelled against Senator Gardiner cannot hold good. He followed exactly the same procedure against, his own Government on one occasion. He was the cause of the double dissolution, because he would not knuckle down to his Government. And it is unfair to accuse him now as Senator Newland has done. It is only jealousy on his part, because there are few men who could stand up in Parliament and do what Senator Gardiner has done.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Very few men would do it, thank God!

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I say that the honorable senator could not do so, if he got the world and all in it. However, my own view is that a man who cannot say in an hour what he has got to say ought not to say anything. That is my candid opinion. He ought not to try. But that does not affect my objection to all this sham. I shall be out during the next election campaign to endeavour to abolish the Senate altogether. It is a useless excrescence on the Commonwealth

Constitution. “We can do nothing here. We can initiate no legislation. We have to watch and wait for the scraps and leavings from another place, and, if you please, make requests. The Senate is of no use at all. The sooner it is abolished the better for this country. We have not yet heard any honorable senator opposite appeal to the Government to economize.

Senator Fairbairn:

– We cannot get the chance. I have been waiting for hours to try to get a word in.

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator Fairbairn will bear me out that on a very recent occasion, when I was waiting to speak, I learned that he also desired to address the Senate; I then told him I was willing to let him get up first. He went home, however. He would not do his work.

Senator Needham:

– He went out on strike !

Senator McDOUGALL:

– He went home to his comfortable couch, and I do not blame him. He went home for the pleasures of life, and now he complains that he has not a chance to speak. He has the chance of a life-time at this present moment if he really wishes to do something for the country, and will only speak his mind to the Government. Of course, it is an awful thing for a brilliant young newcomer, such as Senator Mulcahy, that he should have no chance to display his brilliance as a legislator. Senator Newland says we are delaying the country’s business.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– So you are, and have been for the last month, disgracefully.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I may have something more to say, following upon that accusation; hut I shall reserve further remarks until an opportunity which will present itself again in a few minutes.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Seeing that honorable senators on this side have been blamed by Senator Newland and others for delaying the country’s business, and seeing that the business-sheet of the Senate is now exhausted, I would like to have it made clear how business can be delayed when there is none to delay. Before the motion for an adjournment until Wednesday next is carried -

Senator Fairbairn:

– Until Wednesday week !

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If that is so the position is still worse. We are accused of delaying the business of the country when the Government give us a holiday for a fortnight. If the Government had any business to place before us, would they not be here to-morrow and on Tuesday and Wednesday next? The very fact that the Government have asked us to adjourn until the end of this month is an admission that they have no business. There has been nothing for the Senate to do for the past three weeks, and we have done it very well.

Senator Russell:

– If the honorable senator will move for an adjournment until Wednesday next the Government will support him.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If I were to take that action, and the Government supported me, it would find itself in a minority; for, while I would meet with the support of Ministers, they, and I, would find that the supporters of the Government were in opposition to us. I ask the Minister if he will intimate the nature of the business likely to be placed before us when the Senate reassembles, so that, in the meantime, we may have an opportunity to make ourselves acquainted with it. I shall assist the Government in every way to deal with the affairs of the country, but it is about time this present farce was ended. The Government have no business to present, although they furnished a long Ministerial statement announcing what they were going to do.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That was a matter which should have been debated.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The motion dealing with the printing of the Ministerial statement is still upon our noticepaper, and could well have been discussed next week. I characterized that document as a piece of political window dressing. I shall not proceed further along that line, but will content myself by emphasizing that the Government should permit us to settle down to work.

Senator RUSSELL:
Acting Minister for Defence - Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I do not intend to speak at any length. I should be in an ideal position to answer Senator Needham as to the business of the Senate if he could tell me what honorable members an another place propose to do. I am aware that the honorable senator was not present when I made a statement as to the intention to adjourn until Wednesday week. That proposal was made at the general request of honorable senators. The Government were prepared to meet again next Wednesday. I have always endeavoured to be courteous, and to meet the wishes of honorable senators, but when I make an arrangement with the Leader of the Opposition I do not care to be ridiculed for doing so by other members of the Senate on the other side. I do not desire that I should be placed in the position of having to ask the Leader ofthe Opposition, when he gives me his word in connexion with an arrangement proposed, whether he speaks in the name of the party opposite. If honorable senators desire to do so, the Government are prepared to meet next Wednesday, but as an arrangement in connexion with the matter has been made, I think we had better adhere to that arrangement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 10835

ADJOURNMENT

Financial Situation. - Wool Stores at

Wentworth Park - Limitationof Speeches

Motion (by Senator Russell) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

– I wish to refer to a statement made by Senator McDougall. I think I may claim to be one of the most constant attendants in this chamber. I am also one of the quietest members of the Senate, though I often feel inclined to say a good deal. Senator McDougall said that the other night I went to my comfortable home. As a matter of fact, I did not do so, as I had an important matter to attend to after leaving the Senate. During the day to which the honorable senator refers, I was very anxious to make some remarks on the financial position of the country, and, from my experience, to advise the Government in connexion therewith, but I had to sit for three and a half hours listening to Senator Gardiner. The man who, after a trial such as that, is mentally fit to deliver a financial statement must be a stronger man than I am. Senator Gardiner told me that if he had known that I wished to speak, he would have made way for me, but he did not know of my intention. I might have had an opportunity yesterday to say what I desired to say, but I waited here the whole of the day, hoping that we would reach the consideration of the Ministerial statement, when I might make some remarks, which I consider important, on the financial outlook and the need for economy in Commonwealth expenditure. That is the most important matter before us. I trust thatSenator Russell will impress upon the Leader of this Senate (Senator Millen) that a day should be set apart for a proper look into our finances, and that it should not be monopolized by Senator Gardiner.

Senator Russell:

– What about a limitation of speeches ?

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– I think that the limitation of speeches is a very good practice. I agree with a good deal that Senator Gardiner says, but I also disagree with much that he says, and I think that his remarks might be advantageously condensed, so that other members of the Senate might be given a chance to say something. I have had a good deal of business experience, and, as a member of the Senate, I have felt that I might assist by indicating to the Government a way in which a great deal of money might be saved. We shall need every penny wecan save before we get out of our financial troubles. It is of no use for us to have won the war if,’ as a result, we are to fail financially. I repeat my hope that the Government will arrange for one day upon which we may criticise their policy. The Ministerial statement has been referred to as camouflage, but it includes references to financial and other matters which deserve the earnest attention of every member of the Senate.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I am sorry that I should have to speak again; but when I mention the circumstances, I feel sure that the Acting Minister for Defence will be satisfied that I should do so. When 1 had an opportunity before 4 o’clock to refer to certain matters, the honorable senator looked up at the clock, and, forgetting the day of the week, suggested to me that honorable senators wished to get away; and I immediately resumed my seat. Senator Russell will bear me out in that statement.

Senator Russell:

– That is correct.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– That is proof that I had no wishto delay the business of the Government . I wish to offer a few words of advice to my young friend, Senator Mulcahy, who has newly come into the Senate. I am always pleased to advise young men starting in life, and when the honorable senator sets out to blame honorable senators on this side for wasting time, I ask him to look at the business-paper of the Senate. He will find upon it resolutions dealing with very important subjects. There are two in my own name, and 1 have never, so far, had an opportunity to speak to. them. If he will inspect the businesspaper with his piercing little eyes, he will discover that Ihave been waiting for no less than twelve months to debate the Government’s programme of last year. The business-paper shows that I secured the adjournment of the debate on that programme.

Senator Fairbairn:

– The honorable senator must have been in his comfortable home.

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I was not. I was in smoky Melbourne. This newcomer (Senator Mulcahy)blames the Oppositionbecause he cannot get an opportunity to debate the present Ministerial programme, though I have been waiting for twelve months to debate their last year’s programme.

The matter to which I wished specially to refer on the adjournment was the case of the unfortunate boys who were sentenced for breaches of discipline on. H.M.A.S. Australia. I have already made a reference to that matter. I wish to refer now to the alienation of park lands in Sydney, in the suburb in which I live, and in which I have spent most of my life-time. I asked a question the other day inregard to the rubbish that is being tipped close to the wool stores at Wentworth Park. The Central Wool Committee havehad the audacity to steal that park from the people of the district, and have erected unsightly wooden stores upon it. There was no occasion at all for such action, because the Government have plenty of land along the railway line at Liverpool which could have been used for the purpose, or they could have utilized sites at railway stations, where wool is appraised. Instead of adopting thatcourse, they preferred to take the breath of life away from the people of the slums. They took Wentworth Park, which was the only place in which the people of the surrounding district could get a little fresh air, and they have covered it with hideous buildings, in which they store wool. . While the war was on, I would not have said a word if the Government had made use of all the parks’ in. Sydney; but I contend that it is their duty now to remove the buildings erected at Wentworth Park. I find that rubbish is being carried there now for the making of the streets, and that leads me to the conclusion that the intention is to keep the wool stores wherethey are. I appeal to the Government to see that those buildings are removed as soon as possible. There is not one member of the Senate who will not sympathize with such an appeal.Our race in this country will degenerate if something is not done to prevent the race suicide that is going on to-day. Under our laws we fix a living wage as the amount necessary to keep a man with a wife and two children. What is the man with a wife and eight or ten children to do? The fact is that people will not have large families if the living wage is to be fixed at that necessary for a man with a wife and two children. The National Government must look to the future welfare ofthe country and the necessity for building up a superior race. We should not allow the race in Australia to degenerate by failing to provide the conditions of life which should be the heritage of every man in this country.

I regret that any honorable senator should blame me and the others on this side for delaying Government business. The Government can bring on their business as fast as they please, and I shall always be found here ready to do my duty when required.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.12 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 July 1919, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1919/19190717_senate_7_88/>.