Senate
16 April 1920

8th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1264

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

CENTRAL Administration.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether his attention has been called to the utterances of an ex-member of another place with regard to the condition of affairs in the Defence Department. Mr.’ Kelly, who, at the outbreak of the war, was a Commonwealth Minister, is reported in the following way : -

Mr. Kelly, proceeding, said that it was time a determined effort was made to break the small military clique that was preventing the utilization of the best brains produced by the war. Dug-outs were a feature of the fighting fronts, he said, but they did not want another sort of dug-out just now in the Central Defence administration. There had always been cliques at Head-Quarters directed against ability. When the war broke out General Bridges was the man marked out by ability and office for the command of the Australian Army, “ Yet” went on Mr. Kelly, “ I found him accidentally in Brisbane on the Saturday before war broke out, under orders to proceed to Fort Darwin on a trivial mission. I took it on myself to order him to return to Melbourne, and acquainted my colleague, the Minister for Defence, of my action. But for that accidental meeting,” concluded Mr. Kelly4 “ the man who afterwards organized our glorious First Division, which set the standard that enabled the five to make Australia famous would have been side-tracked at the very outset of the war.

The question I base on that is this’: Is it a fact that there was then, and there still is in the central Defence Office, a clique, the members of which are evidently out to prevent ability being utilized by the Department? If so, what steps will the Minister take to have the members of that clique’ rooted out from their dugouts?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The clique referred to, if there is a clique, must be the Military Board, and under the new appointments recently made ©very member of it wa,s”‘ou active service during the war. The Government charged with the direction of affairs connected with the war and the appointment of officers at the commencement of the war waa one of which Mr. Kelly was a member. General Bridges, of whom he speaks, was a member of the Military Board, and had been sent to Brisbane on business connected with the Military Board by the Minister for Defence of that time. The statement quoted by Senator Gardiner is one of those loose, inaccurate statements which wore common during the war, and made by those who desired to earn a little cheap popularity by flinging gibes of that kind at the Department, which was then carrying the heaviest burden of any Department of the Commonwealth service.

page 1264

QUESTION

RAINMAKING EXPERIMENTS

Senator BUZACOTT:
for Senator Fairbairn

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer -

  1. Is he aware whether experiments identical with those being conducted by Mr. Balsillie at Hopetoun have been in progress in England, the United States, and South Africa for twenty years with negative results?
  2. Is he aware whether there aro official, records available at the Meteorological Department which entirely disprove that the rainfall in the Hopetoun district has been increased by these experiments?
  3. If so, will he take immediate steps to terminate further useless expense in this direction?
Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers supplied are -

  1. No. I understand such is not the case, and would be glad if the honorable senator would furnish the dates and localities of such experiments. It may be, the honorable senator is associating these experiments with investigation by means of kites of the pressure, temperature, and moisture of the upper atmosphere.

The fact that patents have been granted in most civilized countries to Mr. Balsillie is evidence that ‘his process iB not similar to those referred to. 2 and 3. No; but further inquiry will be made. Any rainfall data mentioned by Mr. Balsillie in his reports is taken from the official rainfall bulletins supplied to him by the Meteorological Bureau, and at no time has he submitted any rainfall figures based on observations at his ow;i stations. The operation of a rainfall stimulation station in a district has apparently, in every instance, coincided with a more than average amount of rainfall in that district for the period of working. Increased rainfall is of such vital importance in Australia generally that it has been decided to continue for a time the operation of the two existing stations.

page 1265

QUESTION

CONTROL OF PARLIAMENTARY OFFICERS

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the Government has yet received a communication from the President of the Senate advocating that the officers and messengers of the Senate should be placed under the control of the Public Service Commissioner?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answer is “ No.”

page 1265

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (bySenator Gardiner) agreed to-

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator McDougall, on the ground of illhealth.

page 1265

WAR GRATUITY BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 15th April, vide page 1215) :

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause3 -

Subject to this Act, the Minister may pay a war gratuity to -

a member of the Naval Forces (other than a member of the Auxiliary Service), who, as a member of the Naval Forces, served in a sea-going ship after the fourth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and before the eleventh day of November, One thousand nine hundred and eighteen.

a member of the Naval Forces (other than a member of the Auxiliary Service)., who did not serve in a sea-going ship between the fourth clay of August, One thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and the eleventh clay of November, One thousand nine Hundred and eighteen ;

a member of the Military Forces who -

embarked from Australia on or before the tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and eighteen, for service oversea, or

did not embark from Australia for service oversea, or embarked from Australia after the tenth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and eighteen, for that service;

Senator GARDINER (New South Wales [11.8]. - This is one of the clauses on which I wish to test the opinion of the Committee. Inorder that the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) may understand that Ihave no wish to delay the passage of the Bill I may inform him that, in submitting amendments, I shall do. so by stating clearly what I desire should be done, and then, as we had a fairly good second-reading debate, I shall not unnecessarily prolong my remarks in Committee. Imove -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out the words (“other than a member of the Auxiliary Service”), lines 3-5.

It had been my intention to submit an amendment with a similar purpose on clause 2. If the amendment is agreed to the effect will be to include in the payment of the gratuity a number of persons who were engaged in such work as mine-sweeping and other services, and will bring within the scope of the Bill the members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade. I want to put before the Committee as a distinct issue the inclusion in this Bill of the members of that brigade. My claim is that those men volunteered and enlisted, so far as the Government was concerned, because they were called up for service, and wereavailable for service, and are therefore as justly entitled to the gratuity as are men who enlisted, went into camp, and never left camp. It is true that the Government have drawn a line leaving out the members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade, but this is the first opportunity honorable senators have had of considering the matter, and I want them to draw such a line as will include these men. When men who went into camp for two months, and never left camp are to get a gratuity of1s. per day, how in the name of justice can we leave out men who were called up and used for local service, who were at the disposal of the Government throughout the war, and who not only volunteered, but clamoured to be sent abroad? I ask that the Committee shall draw the line in such a way that these men will be placed in the same position as others who are included, but who are less deserving, because they rendered less service. If’ any good reason can be given why the members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade should be omitted from this Bill, whilst men who went into camp and never left it, are included, I . shall be willing to withdraw my amendment. I submit it purely with a desire to do justice to a not very numerous section of men. I amcredibly informed that the additional amount of expenditure that would be involved by their inclusion in the measure would not amount to more than £150,000.

SenatorFoll - The honorable senator desires that they should be brought under the1s. per day rate.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I welcome Senator Gardiner’s assurance that he does not intend to submit any amendment except for the purpose of testing the feeling of the Committee, and that he will do all that he can to facilitate the passing of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to be . as brief as possible in replying to his remarks. In the first place I would point out that there is a very great difficulty in the way of adopting his proposal. The honorable senator maintains that we can include in the Bill members of the Naval Brigade who were engaged upon home service, and stop there. I contend that we cannot logically do so. It is true there was a. statutory obligation under which these men could have been sent upon active service overseas. But the Government did not send them.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Government prevented them from going.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. That is the only point of similarity between them and the members of the Australian Imperial Force who were in camp. Every man in the Australian Imperial Force enlisted with the intention of offering his life, if necessary, in defence of his country, overseas.

Senator Buzacott:

– So did members of the Naval Brigade.

Senator PEARCE:

– So also did thousands of other persons who were not allowed to proceed to the Front ‘because of their medical unfitness. But the members of the Australian Imperial Force not only offered themselves for service abroad bub were accepted by the Government.

Senator Buzacott:

– Some of the members of the Naval Brigade were also accepted for service abroad.

Senator PEARCE:

– If they were accepted and passed into the Australian Imperial Force they will get the gratuity. But if we adopt Senator Gardiner’s proposal we cannot logically stop at the Naval Brigade. We must also include our garrison soldiers. When permission was given the latter to offer their services, practically every one of them volunteered. Having been granted permission to volunteer their names were put down upon a list from which men were subsequently drawn as the occasion demanded. But as the opportunities for the service of these men were very small, only a few of them were accepted from time to time. It is nevertheless a fact that from the time their names were listed there was an obligationupon them to serve overseas. They were thus placed in actually the same position as were the members of the Naval Brigade. When once their names had been registered, the Government had a right to send them overseas ifthey wished to do so. Consequently, if the amendment be carried we shall not be able, logically, to stop at the members of the Naval Brigade. We shall have to include the whole of our garrison forces. I doubt very much whether we shall be able to stop there, because there are thousands of persons who offered to enlist, and who were turned down either because they were an inch too short in height or because they could not pass the medical test;

Senator Bakhap:

– Nobody has contended that they are entitled to the gratuity.

Senator PEARCE:

– According to Senator Gardiner’s reasoning they would have an equal claim to it.

Senator Bakhap:

– Could not naval men be sent abroad without actually enlisting, as members of the Naval Expeditionary Forces?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. Thousands of persons placed themselves in that position. The members of the Garrison Artillery did so. They wiped out the restriction that no member of the Defence Forces should be sent overseas.

Senator Barnes:

– Would a member of the Garrison Artillery who had enlisted three times, and who had been accepted for service abroad, be entitled to the gratuity?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.

Senator Barnes:

– “Acceptance” means swearing in, I suppose?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.I repeat that if we adopt Senator Gardiner’s line of reasoning, we must include in the Bill members of the Garrison Artillery. I doubt very much whether we could even stop there. We should, I think, be obliged to include the men employed in our merchant service and also munition workers. I ask the Committee not to agree to the amendment.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I cannot congratulate Senator Gardiner upon having elucidated the situation that he has conjured up in regard to the Naval Brigade. Whilst as a Government supporter I am anxious to draw the line which inevitably must be drawn, it seems to me that the naval men’s claim should be placed before the Committee in such a way that at least we can thoroughly understand it. Despite Senator Gardiner’s disclaimer that he does not read the newspapers, I am of opinion that he is not so short of information as he would have us believe. Perhaps he does not read some newspapers which are inimical to the political party of which he is one of the leaders. But despite what is said in condemnation of our newspapers, there are perhaps some thirty lines in the Age of this morning in which the claims of the naval men are put in such a way that they should receive consideration at the hands of this Committee. The paragraph to which I desire to direct attention reads -

Representatives of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade waited upon Senator Gardiner at Parliament House yesterday morning for the purpose of bringing under his notice certain amendments desired by members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade in connexion with the payment of the war gratuity. It was contended that in so far as it affected the Naval men the words “ from date of embarking in a seagoing ship “ should be deleted from the Gratuity Bill. It was claimed that it was “ unfair and absolutely indefensible “ that one man should receive, say, £130 because he performed his sea service in 1914, while a man who was not drafted to sea until, say, 1917, should receive only about £30, notwithstanding the fact that he was on active servicefor the preceding years. The exclusion of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade from the operations of the Bill was vigorously protested against, because of the fact that the men had been called up by proclamation and their services availed of for every conceivable branch of naval work They had been on duty as guards, signalmen, stokers, and as gunlayers on armed merchantmen in the war zone. Some of them had been torpedoed. They were prevented by the authorities from enlisting in the Australian Imperial Force. It was considered they should at least be paid the home service rate of1s. a day from the date they were actually called up.

That is a very terse and able presentation of the claims of our naval men, and it is for this Committee to take the responsibility of determining whether their case is one which should be ruled out. There is, I think, a material distinction in favour of the Naval Brigade who actually went into the war zone on armed merchant vessels, for example, as against the Garrison Artillery.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– Now the honorable senator is talking.

Senator BAKHAP:

– The members of our Garrison Artillery were called up for the purpose of manning our Australian forts in order to resist any attack which might be made by raiding enemy cruisers upon our principal harbors and port entrances. Although I admit that the distinction is a very fine one, I do not think that the two cases can be regarded as being on the same basis. I understand that the members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade could, under the provisions of our Defence Act, be called upon to perform naval service in any war zone.

Senator Pearce:

– Any member of that body who went on board a sea-going ship, including gunlayers on merchant vessels, will get the gratuity.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Quite so. I thoroughly understand the distinction which the Minister has drawn so very ably. His contention is that unless these men were called up for service - I presume on a warship - they will be excluded.

Senator Pearce:

– Not necessarily a warship. If they were called up for service on a sea-going ship, they will be included.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Even an armed merchantman ?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes. Members of the Naval Brigade who were placed on a sea-going ship for service outside our waters are entitled to the gratuity, and gun-layers are included.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then the contention is that members of the Naval Brigade who performed only land service are to be placed on a different footing, and will get only ls. a day.

Senator Pearce:

– No; they do not. Those who served on sea-going ships get the gratuity.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then those who have performed service in Australia are in the same position as the Garrison Artillery, is that so?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then this is a question for the. Committee to decide. I may say that I am called’ upon to think on my feet, and I have come to the conclusion that members of the Naval Brigade who were called up to perform land service are in no better position than were members of the Garrison Artillery; and so I shall have to leave the matter standing as it is.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– This is a question that demands the fullest consideration, and I want to put the case of men known to me personally. When war was declared, members of the Naval Brigade were called up. Some had to leave their employment, and for four and a half years they served their country, in the meantime losing promotion which they otherwise would have gained in private employment. In the case I have in mind, the man applied three times for permission to go to the Front, but was told that his services were required in Australia. That being so, why should he, and others in his position, be shut out from the gratuity while men who went into the military Camps towards the end of the war are included? Some of the Naval Brigade, employed in the Intelligence Department, were sent into German districts, and upon their report a great number of Germans were interned. These Germans will never forget, and the men who were responsible for their internment will stand in danger as long as they live.

Senator Pearce:

– Most of the interned Germans have been returned to Germany.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– They have not. I know quite a number who are still in this country. Those who interned them will be marked men for the rest of their lives, and so they ought to be included in the gratuity.

Senator Pearce:

– On those grounds, I ought to get a substantial gratuity myself, because I authorized the internment of the whole of them.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I intend to support the amendment for the inclusion of the Naval Brigade, members of which served during the war, but were prevented from going to the Eront by the Minister, on the ground that their services were required in this country.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.- I want to make my position upon this vexed question quite clear, and if I do so now, I may not have to encroach further upon thetime of the Committee. In the debate on a Bill like this, it is very popular to move to widen its scope, because while this invites no condemnation from anybody, on the other hand, it brings considerable approbation from those who are likely to benefit by an amendment.

Senator Gardiner:

– Isthat the standard you judge others by?

Senator EARLE:

– From the interjection which the honorable senator has made, I am inclined to think that it is a standard he has set up for himself. I always endeavour to do what is right for all sections of the community, and onthis subject I find myself in the position of being obliged to support a proposal which, undoubtedly, will inflict a certain amount of injustice upon a very considerable number of people. I have had interviews with other men who performed war service, and whose claims for inclusion are equal to those of the Naval Brigade. I refer to the home service men, who were anxious, and asked repeatedly to be allowed to go to the Front. They did not want to go to the Front to gratify their own ambitions - I do not think anybody desires to go. to war for its sake alone - but they wanted to be able to say that they did not shirk their duty when their country demanded their services. ‘Now, these men are excluded, and I say that if the amendment is carried and we include members of the Naval Brigade, we shall have to bring in thousands of others. Yesterday, by interjection, I asked Senator Gardiner if he would restrict payment of the gratuity to those who actually went into the firing line. That may be an unpopular thing to do, but I believe that there would be a greater element of justice in it.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I intend to test the Committee on that point.

Senator EARLE:

– I shall support the honorable senator, although the amendment may be unpopular; but it would be better than the anomaly of paying the gratuity to some members of the Australian Imperial Force who, after all, had rather a good time. They had a trip to London, and faced no greater hardships than were endured by those who served in Australia. If the operation of the measure were restricted so as to provide for the payment of the gratuity only to those who actually served in France, Egypt, Gallipoli, or other danger zones, then I say that while a great number would be shut out it would be much fairer. If I support theamendment I shall have to. support a proposal to include munition. workers, members of the mercantile marine, and I am not sure that I should not be obliged to include even coal miners, who provided the wherewithal to conduct the war. I might, indeed, have to go right on until everybody received the gratuity, and I do not know whether I should not have to agree to pay the gratuity to a large number of private citizens, who worked practically night and day during the five years of war in order to strengthen the position of our boys at the Front. I have come to the conclusion that I must support the Government, but if an endeavour is made to restrict the operation of the Bill to those men who actually served in the danger zones, it will have my support..

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator Gardiner asks for reasons for drawing the line where it has been drawn. I am glad he has, because only by reasoning can we hope to convince him that his amendment will actually mean the opening of the flood-gates, as the deletion of the words proposed will let in not only the Royal Australian Naval Brigade, but also the Naval Brigade staff. Does he think they should be included? And how can we exclude the radio men, who, in many cases, were subjected to dangers as great as those which confronted the men in the firing line ?

Senator Gardiner:

– My intention is to test the feeling of the Committee in regard to the naval men.

Senator SENIOR:

– If that is the intention of the honorable senator, why does ho not move that all the words after “Naval Brigade” be left out? If those words are deleted are we to stop there?

Senator Gardiner:

– If the Naval men are included I will accept the Government proposal in regard to others.

Senator SENIOR:

– The honorable senator does not seem to realize that the moment his request is granted the door is opened, and another senator will have every right to move an amendment to include others.

Senator Gardiner:

– I will put my shoulder against the door.

Senator SENIOR:

– And others may do the same, but it cannot be denied that it leaves the position very indefinite.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will the honorable senator give reasons why the men of the Naval Reserve should not receive the gratuity ?

Senator SENIOR:

– The line must be drawn somewhere, and I am inclined to think that the gratuity should be paid only to those who have been on service oversea in a war zone.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What about those who were protecting the Commonwealth ?

Senator SENIOR:

Senator Guthrie’s suggestion carries the same force as that of Senator Gardiner. If we agree to the inclusion of the Naval Reserve men we must also consider those who were engaged in mine-sweeping on. the Australian coast. It may be said by some that their occupation was a comparatively easy and safe one. By carrying Senator Gardiner’s amendment we would be opening the floodgates, not only for the first rush of water, but for that . volume which would necessarily follow. It would be much fairer to include only those who had gone overseas and rendered service in a war zone than those mentioned by Senator Gardiner. I understood from the Minister’s secondreading speech that the payment to be made is in the nature of a gratuity only, and. therefore, no one would be robbed if the gift were made to only a few.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– There are men who - have served twenty years in protecting this country, and who were refused permission to go abroad. Why should they not receive it ?

Senator SENIOR:

– Men who were so engaged for that period did not serve only in this war, and therefore they do not come within the scope of the Bill. If we desire to draw a clear line of demarcation, and one that will absolutely prevent any further claims being made, we should include only those who have rendered service oversea, in a war zone.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– What . about the men who were prevented from going ?

Senator SENIOR:

– I think I have laid it down clearly that as such men were prevented from rendering service in a war zone they are not entitled to it. If we make a concession to such ‘men who were prevented from going, we would also have to consider every other citizen who was equally desirous of rendering service. Senator Pratten’s suggestion is a very definite and logical one, and will leave less room for it to be said that some were favoured whilst others were overlooked. By adopting the basis I have advocated we should be acting fairly to all concerned .

Senator Bakhap:

– Would it not be acceptable if we included the men of the

Naval and Military Forces who might have been called out .if occasion arose?

Senator SENIOR:

– It would have been necessary to call them out only in extreme circumstances. I have studied the whole position carefully, and I cannot see that any widening of the scheme will improve the Bill in any way. I would rather vote for « restriction than an extension,

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– It has been argued that if the members of the Royal Australian Naval Brigade were included the coal miners, wheatgrowers, and others, would have to be similarly treated. That is a rather exaggerated idea, as those people were carrying on their ordinary employment under peaceful conditions, and were not called up for service. The members of the Naval Brigade were called up, and would have had to fight if necessary. A man hewing coal or growing wheat is not in the same category as one who had to hold himself in readiness for active service. I am not speaking in any way disparagingly of the work performed by the coal miners and the wheat-growers, as I know the former very often have to incur considerable risk. But this gratuity has been promised by the Government to certain men in the Naval and Military Forces, and those Senator Gardiner seeks to include were members of such Forces. The members of the Australian Garrison Artillery have also a strong ‘ claim for consideration, and if the line is to be drawn there the Naval Brigade staff and the Permanent Guard should also be included. I have some information in regard to the work of the men of the Australian Garrison Artillery. I understand that these men at different times experienced a good deal of unpleasantness, and were twitted with being “ stay at homes.” In this connexion I wish to quote a letter sent by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) on 11th March, 1915. It reads -

I have received your letter of 17th February, bringing under my notice the fact that the men on garrison duty at Newcastle arc being continually twitted for not going to the Front. I am glad that you drew my attention to this matter, as it affords me an opportunity of acquainting you, and through you, those irresponsible people who in ignorance are meting out such treatment to our men on the Permanent and Militia Garrison Artillery.

I can imagine the uproar there would be if a proposal were made to abandon the forts at Newcastle, and leave this important centre of coal mining and other activities wholly unprotected. Yet, if we allow the man behind the gun to enlist, we would, be doing exactly the same thing; for what use are guns without gunners to train them? I wonder if these people would have urged the gunners to go away from the forts during the first phase of the war, when the. German cruisers were on top of the water? It is true that they are at the bottom of the water now, but can these people foresee events in the Pacific ? Can they assure the Government that the Pacific will always be as free as -it is now? Le’t these people bear in mind that defence is a matter for the Commonwealth Government, and that the Government, in considering military interests, have decided that these men shall not be allowed to go out of Australia, The nien themselves, in staying hero, are as truly defending the Empire as if they were in the trenches. Very possibly the people who are dealing out such treatment are doing much less.

Senator Pearce points out in Lis letter that, during the early stages of the war, when the German cruisers were in Australian waters, these men played a very important part in the defence of the Empire. Men who went into camp a few months after these ships had been sunk are to receive the gratuity, but those who were assisting in defending the coast when the cruisers were within shelling distance of Australia are not to receive anything. This is an anomaly that should be removed, as the Minister has shown in the letter I have read that they were performing a very necessary service.

Senator Reid:

– Where would the honorable senator draw the line?

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I have already stated that I would be in favour of including the men of the Naval Brigade, the Garrison Artillery, and the Permanent Guard.

Senator Rowell:

– Would the honorable senator not include those on transports ?

Senator FOLL:

– Every man who served on a transport received either increased pay or a bonus. I think Senator Guthrie can support that statement.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is correct.

Senator FOLL:

– The men on the transports received some consideration.

Senator Reid:

– So did the soldiers. They received fifteen days in every six months, which is as good as a bonus.

Senator FOLL:

– The honorable senator is referring to the allowance in lieu of leave, and that is a very small concession when compared with the additional pay received by men on transports. In the Herald of the 12th March, 1915, the following statement concerning the men on garrison duty appeared : -

Men on garrison duty, says the Minister for Defence, are as truly defending the Empire as if they were in the trenches. Unquestionably they are, and the people who make cheap sneers would be giving themselves a little moral education by letting the truth sink home. Expressions of public opinion fluctuate from extreme to extreme, much under influence, and very little, indeed, under that of thought. The courage and intelligence of men who are too ready to attribute timorousness to others are always very doubtful. It was the characteristic trick of the duelling bully of older days to suggest timidity as the only motive for a reluctance, real or supposed, to “ come out.”

I understand .that towards the end of the war the older hands comprising the Permanent Guard at Port Darwin were replaced by returned soldiers. The members of the Permanent Guard at Port Darwin were under active service conditions the whole time . It was once rumoured that an enemy cruiser had landed forces on an island adjacent to Port Darwin, and the members of the Permanent Guard, on being sent out to investigate, ascertained that a skiff, manned by a few niggers, had gone ashore. That demonstrates that these men were undergoing active service conditions the whole of the time. They were accepted for the permanent guard only if they were not ‘fit for service overseas. In view of all these circumstances, and of the Minister’s own acknowledgment of the position of the Royal Australian Garrison Artillery, it is not unreasonable to ask that these men be included at the rate of ls. a day.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I find that my promise to be brief brings me untold trouble. I acknowledge that there is much iri what Senator Bakhap says, but T rather stated my case in this fashion : After close investigation it appeared to me that there was no good reason why the naval men should be excluded, and I invited the Committee to give me one good reason why they should be. Senator Bakhap gave some good reasons why they should be included, but wound up by saying that he was going to vote against them.

Senator Bakhap:

– I said that no line could be drawn between them and the Garrison Artillery.

Senator GARDINER:

– This is the first time that the Senate has had an opportunity of dealing with this matter, and it. is: our duty to draw for ourselves any lines that we think ought to be drawn. We have no right to excuse ourselves by saying that other people have drawn the line, and that all we have to do is to follow them. Senator Earle insinuated that I was popularity hunting. If I had been I could have started on a way that would have won me some popularity, but no such thought ever entered my mind. If, in dealing with all these amendments, it is to be suggested that the movers are seeking popularity, it will be of no use to move amendments at all. Apart from popularity hunting, I deliberately worded this amendment in such a way that we could have a definite test on the question of the naval men. I shall have no objection, if the amendment is carried, to the Government so re-drafting the clause that it will deal only with those men. On the question of where the line is to be drawn, I believe Senator Pratten intends to test the question of the men who served in the danger zone. Senator Earle is also, inclined to test it. If so, I do not mind withdrawing my amendment, and asking the Minister to go right to that question. I say emphatically that if the Government are not prepared to deal out even-handed justice all round, I am ready to risk popularity by supporting any amendment that will prevent a, gratuity being paid to anybody except those who served in the danger zone. I want absolute justice. I ask foi justice for the naval men. Men were called up and served four years, and get no gratuity, while others who served for one month are to get it. They went to Rabaul and came back, and then went about their ordinary business, but they are -paid1 the gratuity from the day they went-, although for the greater part of the time they were outside the service altogether. Honorable senators talk about the in justice done to men who wanted to go to Rabaul, and were prevented by the Government from going. I am- speaking of those who went ita ships after a certain date- and gave a month’s service, and yet will draw the gratuity money up to the date, fixed by the Bill, probably over £100, white another man with two years’ service draws only £30. I recognise that there is some justice in what Senator Bakhap says-, but I am sorry he took seriously my flippant remark that I never read the newspapers. That was merely an echo of a remark that was made by somebody else years ago, which I thought so amusing asio be worth repeating. My idea was toput a clear-cut issue before the Committee.. To honorable senators who say that I am popularity hunting, I reply, “ Move thatno gratuity be granted, and see whether’ I will stand by you.” If it comes to that,. I will hunt for popularity the same asother honorable senators do, and no further. The justice of the claim of the naval ‘men has impressed itself on my mind, but I took the fair attitude that if the Committee could give me one good reason why they should be excluded, I would withdraw my amendment. That reason has not ‘been furnished, and even the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) recognised that the men had a claim. He added that if their claim was granted,, other bodies would come forward with claims.

Senator Bakhap:

– The whole matter seems to be of a telescopic character. As you draw out one length you find that another length is involved.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is the position; and the reason is that the thing has been done and” the line drawn so hurriedly that men who should be on the right side of it are left on the wrong side,, while there are men on the right side who’ should be, to some extent, put back. I understand that the Bill applies also to officers. Take the case of an officer who went to London in the early days of the war, set his watch by the clock at Westminster, and then came back.

Senator Pearce:

– They did not go to> London in the early stages of the war.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then toEgypt. Such an officer never had one day of inconvenience or heard a shot fired. He drew increased pay from the day hecame back, and will enjoy it for the rest of -his life because of his pleasure trip. He will also get the gratuity. The mert on whose behalf I am speaking were called up from their ordinary avocations. Every day they served they sacrificed at least as much money as they were getting. Let me take Senator Foll as a personal illustration - if’ he will pardon me, as I mean nothing offensive. He went to the Front, was wounded, and won distinction on Gallipoli. He comes black, and is rewarded by a position in the Senate, and for every day that he sat here up to the date named in the Bill, drawing as much, if not more, remuneration than he was getting before he went to the war, he will be paid the gratuity at the rate of ls. 6d. per day. Other men who never had the opportunity to do as he did - although they were just as willing - were kept in the naval employ, and served there for four years, with no chance of distinction or of extra remuneration, and are shut out from the gift.

Senator Foll:

– I sympathize with you.

Senator GARDINER:

– I sympathize with them, and will vote toinclude every man whom I regard as justly entitled to inclusion. I trust that on this occasion I shall be able to say that for once the Senate has decreed that the Navy is to receive as good treatment as the Army.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– There is no need to stress the fact that we are all anxious to do justice, while recognising the difficulties of the task before us. The whole thing is telescopic. When you bring out a new section of deserving people, you find that that does not end the matter, but involves the appearance of another section who have some claim approximating to that of the previous class. Can the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) state, roughly, how many men belonging to the ordinary Citizen Forces were called out, but all of whom, perhaps, did not volunteer for the war, although they were all compelled to do war service in Australia, and would have had to fight had Australia been invaded? In a sense they have an equal claim, although I would not say quite equal, to those of the Naval Brigade who were called out and did duty, not in an outside war zone, but in Australian waters.

Senator Pearce:

– The number varied at different times, but it was upwards of 10,000 in all.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Members of the Citizen Forces?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; but they were not all called out at the one time.

Senator BAKHAP:

– No matter how long they served, they get no gratuity.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How many were called out in the Navy?

Senator Pearce:

– I do not know; but I should say under 2,000 of the Naval Brigade, but of course there were other sections of the Navy.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Could those members of the Naval Brigade who are claiming the gratuity at the rate of1s. per day from the day they were called up have been sent at the volition of the Ministry outside of Australian waters apart from their own free will?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes; and so could so many of the 10,000 members of the Citizen Forces as offered to enlist.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am speaking of such of the 10,000 as did not offer to enlist, but who gave obligatory service in Australia. I have heard Senator Rowell say that if we dealt with the claims of the Naval Brigade men, we should be compelled, almost as a matter of justice, to deal with the claims of members of the Citizen Military Forces who were called up. It appears to me, however, that the claims of the two sections are not upon the same basis. All the members of the Citizen Military Forces called up could not have been forced to go outside Australia; but the Naval Brigade men who served could have been compulsorily constituted as combatants at the volition of the Ministry. I am inclined to think that the claim of the Naval Brigade men to1s. a day from the date they were actually called up is valid. There is no force in Senator Earle’s argument that claims could be made on behalf of the coal miners. For that matter, they could be made on behalf of the metal miners; but I do not think that, in the sense of a war gratuity, there is any validity in claims made on behalf of the non-combatant members of the community, so far as their ordinary occupations are concerned. I ask the Minister whether he has any idea of the amount involved in paying the home service rate of1s. per day to the members of the Naval Brigade who were called up, and who, I think, he said numbered about 2,000?

Senator Pearce:

– No, I have not, but I can see that if we admit them we cannot stop there..

Senator BAKHAP:

– I hope that our discussion is for the purpose of arriving at a basis upon which we may do at least elementary justice to the members of

Forces who were in the position that they might be compelled to become combatants, and I might find it necessary to modify my opinion as the result of information which the Minister may be in a position to give.

Senator Pearce:

– As a matter of fact, they could not be compelled to become combatants.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I am very loath to take up any time whatever in dealing with this question. It should be quite apparent to any one that if we accept the amendment we must go much further. No argument has been adduced in support of the inclusion of the members of the Naval Brigade that could not be used with greater force to support the inclusion of men of the mercantile marine, and in that case the munition workers must be similarly treated. On my trip during the war I saw sufficient to warrant me in saying that the munition workers were really more in the danger zone than were any men connected with the Navy. The munition works in the north of England were the special mark of German aeroplanes. I visited one large works in the north of England, and saw the place where a bomb had been dropped through the roof and had killed every man employed in that part of the works. The men employed in the munition works were, in my opinion, in far greater danger than the men of the Navy, because the enemy very carefully kept as far away from the Navy as they could. To accept the amendment would be to open the floodgates to the admission of all sorts of persons to the benefits of the Bill, and we should not know where to stop.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It seems to me that under clause 3 a very large section of the Naval Forces is already included. All the men who were actually in the danger zone are included. The gratuity is properly intended for men who actually were in the war zone, or were called up or enlisted and liable at any moment to be called upon to face its dangers.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Were not the members of the Naval Brigade in that position?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No member of the Naval Brigade entered the war zone.

The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) has said that they were called up for home service, were purposely retained in Australia, and prevented from going to the war. There is a great distinction between their position and that of men who actually entered the war zone.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Australia was in the war zone. We had mine-sweepers on our coast.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

-Senator Guthrie has said that the men who went around Gabo Island to pick up mines were in great danger, but I remind him that they were sent to a definite spot, were told that there were certain mines floating about at that spot, and they were to pick them up.

Senator Pearce:

– Those mine-sweepers are included in the Bill.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am pointing out that men of the mercantile marine ran far greater risks than did those minesweepers.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator never went fishing.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator Guthrie poses as an authority on this matter, but I ask him whether men who went in an unprotected ship, perhaps in the dead of night, over seas that they did not know were strewn with mines, did not run greater risks than did the men who were sent out to a definite place to fire their rifles at mines which they saw in the ocean. If men of the Naval Brigade and the Garrison Artillery are included, can any one say that the munition workers should not be included ? They went overseas into the danger zone, and in some cases, their transports were torpedoed, and some of them lost everything they had.

SenatorO’Loghlin - Why not include them?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is just the point I am making. The munition workers, when in England, were exposed to the dangers of air raids. Many of them suffered hardships, and their health was broken down. We have heard much of the large earnings of some of them, but we have heard nothing of the small earnings of others, who were on the verge of starvation in England, and in bad health. Many of these men, since their return to Australia, have told me of their sad experience. How could we exclude these men if we included the members of the Naval Brigade? I suppose that other honorable senators, in common with myself, have been supplied with a circular from the Naval Brigade, setting out their claim. In my opinion, there is not a great deal in the circular. I should have thought that, in putting their case before members of this Parliament, they would have been able to state some better reasons in support of it than are contained in their circular. They complain that they are excluded from the benefits of this measure, that they volunteered for active service, but were prevented from going abroad because they were required for home defence, and their work in that connexion was looked upon as of national importance. They say that many of them were prevented from completing their apprenticeships, and that on release, although they are now over twenty-one years of age, they have to complete their apprenticeship at a very low rate of wages. The last objection is due to the fact that they are not eligible for the benefits of the repatriation scheme. Some of us tried to extend those benefits to them in dealing with the Repatriation Bill which was before the Senate recently. (Senator Guthrie. - They could only have their apprenticeship at sea.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That is not so. Many of these men were taken from private occupations to which they were apprenticed on shore. Whilst members of the A.I.F. can obtain sustenance allowance, or an opportunity to finish their apprenticeship at a trade, school, or institution, the Naval Brigade men who were apprentices are not eligible for those benefits. That, in my opinion, is the greatest hardship which the men of the Naval Brigade have to suffer..

Senator Pearce:

– Can we not get to a division ?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know that we are in any particular hurry. We are too prone in the Senate to hurry over legislation upon which honorable members in another place talk as long as they please. I do not greatly care whether this Bill passes this week or next week. I intend by argument, and by listening to the arguments of others, to see that when it leaves the Senate it shall be as perfect a piece of legislative machinery as we can make it. At the same time I have no desire to unduly delay the passage of the measure. I believe that the correct thing has been done, as far as possible, by the persons responsible for the drafting of this Bill. I have no doubt whatever that much time and thought were given to it. Those who framed the measure saw just how far they might go in a certain direction, and that if that line were crossed no limit could be put to the persons who might be brought under its provisions. For that reason they excluded certain men from its operation.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Men who were willing to go to the war, and were prevented.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Tens of thousands of men who were willing to go were prevented for various reasons.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; PROG LAB from 1928

– The men of the Naval Brigade suffered a considerable loss of pay through the Government having them in their employ. Does not the honorable senator consider that aspect of the matter?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The War Gratuity Bill is not intended as a measure to compensate men for losses they incurred because of service during the war, but as a reward for services in connexion with it. If members of the Naval Brigade, the Garrison Artillery, and other persons who were willing but were prevented from going to the war for various reasons are included, honorable senators will be doing a wicked thing in excluding from the operation of the measure other men who took far greater risks than did those whom they wish to have included.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out the words “(other than a member of the Auxiliary Service)” - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Paragraph b of this clause refers to members of the Naval Forces who did not serve in a “ sea-going ship.” Can the Minister define exactly the meaning of the provision?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

.- The answer to the question put by the honorable senator is a very involved one, but I explained the position in my speech upon the second reading of the Bill. The various classes of sea-going personnel are set out in the following table : -

Senator Prattenwill recognise that the provisions of clause 3 need to be read in conjunction with those of clause 4.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

. - I think I am correct in saying that paragraph 6 of this clause includes every person connected with the Naval Service, irrespective of whether he proceeded overseas or performed some sort of civilian or technical naval service in Australian waters. Will the Minister indorse my assumption that unless there is some reservation to the list which he has read, it will be within the competence of the “ prescribed authority “ to give every man in the Navy, from top to bottom, this war gratuity?

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia · NAT

.- If Senator Pratten will look at sub-clause 2 of clause 4 he will see that the rate of gratuity payable in respect of the service of any persons specified in paragraph b shall be1s. per diem. Now, the persons enumerated in paragraph b did not serve in a “ sea-going ship.” I have already explained that some of these men were employed in mine sweeping operations, and these, because of the combined effect of clauses 3 and 4, will receive 1s. per day.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- The Minister has read a list of those in the Naval Service who are covered by paragraph b. It seems to me that under that list every member of the Service is entitled to receive1s. per day.

Senator Pearce:

– Other than the members of the Auxiliary Service. If the honorable member will look at the definition of “ member of the Auxiliary Service “ he will see that itsmembers are excluded.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But the specific question which I asked was as to the meaning of paragraph b of this clause. I want to know what branches of the Naval Service are included in the gratuity,?

Senator Pearce:

– I have read a list of the various branches. These cover all those who are not covered by paragraph a, and who are not included in the auxiliary service. They are entitled to 1s. per day. The whole of the members included in the services which I have read are not entitled to1s. per day, but only some of them.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then the list includes the members of the Auxiliary Service, as well as the members of the Naval Forces?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Are Admiral Clarkson and the members of the headquarters staff in Melbourne included? Will they get a gratuity of1s. per day?

Senator Pearce:

– No.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I desire to submit an amendment, the effect of which will be to lay down a clear line of demarcation in connexion with the payment of the gratuity. It applies to paragraphc, and the effect of it will be to exclude any men who, either in camp or elsewhere in Australia, rendered service in connexion with the war. It will show that only the men who embarked for service overseas are entitled to any gratuity whatever, and it will test the feeling of the Committee with regard to the inclusion in the Bill of munition workers and wireless operators.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have a prior amendment. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by inserting the following new paragraph.: - ” (dd) All members of the Mercantile

Marine who served in the war zone or engaged in the transport of troops, foodstuffs, or munitions, or other commodities for war purposes.”

The term “ borne on the paysheet,” which is used in paragraph d of this clause, is new to me.

Senator Bakhap:

– It means on the pay sheet.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is a very old nautical term.

Senator GARDINER:

– At any rate, it is new to me. I am submitting this amendment because of the very able arguments which have been advanced by Senator Senior and Senator de Largie to the effect that the men specified in it were actually engaged in the war zone. The arguments of those honorable senators and of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) convince me that these men were subjected to more risks than, and rendered services as valuable as, those of the men in the fighting line.

Senator de Largie:

– What about the munition workers?

Senator GARDINER:

– They will come afterwards.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– This is an impracticable amendment.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment, and as my reasons are similar to those I advanced in opposition to the previous amendment, I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee by repeating them. I hope that Senator Gardiner will not accuse me of discourtesy.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I should like to take advantage of the opportunity to place upon record my position in connexion with these amendments. I have no hesitation- in saying that the war gratuity in its incidence, but not in the amount/ errs on the liberal side, and that, in connexion with our Military Forces particularly, many officers and men were never so well off in their lives as when they were on war service. At the same time I freely admit that, with regard to at .least one-half of the men- those who actually endured all the dangers and made the sacrifices of war - nothing we could do for them would be too much. But I cannot see how this Parliament can deal with a problem connected with, say, 250,000 returned men, without inflicting an injustice upon somebody. I heartily support the principle of a flat rate which makes no distinction between officers and men, and I should like to see the British Government follow the same excellent practice because, in my opinion, the Imperial gratuity scheme errs on the side of liberality for officers, and economy for the rank and file. It was aptly said in another place, that this gratuity is really a gracious gift. It was proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) with the acquiescence of the Cabinet, but, with all due respect to him and the Government, I do not regard the proposal as being sacrosanct, at least so far as the details are concerned. The Bill has been pre- sented upon the lines approved by the Nationalist party at the last election, and, therefore, as members of that party we must support it, seeing that it includes all the promises made by the Prime Minister, members of the Government, and Nationalist candidates. But I represent also » large body of taxpayers in New South

Wales, and I remind honorable senators, that it is easy to move to include this or that section of the Forces with the greatest of good faith and belief in ,the justice of the claim. Personally, I would prefer that the operation of the Bill were restricted to members of the Australian Imperial Forces who actually went to the war zone, if this could be done,- An amendment of this nature would, of course, exclude thousands of “dodgers “ who never entered the war zone, and who really had the time of their lives while the war lasted. As, however, I cannot evolve an amendment that will give expression to my views, I must content myself with stating what my desire is. I shall oppose the amendment moved by Senator Gardiner, because I think the door has been opened too widely already. The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) has informed us that . the amount involved in the payment of the gratuity will be about “ £28,000,000. I think it will be more like £35,000,000, because, as one honorable senator has pointed out already, although a member of the Australian Imperial Forces may have spent only one month overseas, he will be entitled to the gratuity from the time he left Australia up to the signing of peace. If honorable senators will examine the figures concerning enlistments, and allow for an average of about three months for camp’ training in Australia, they will find that the amount will be very much nearer the total I have stated. If my approximation is anything like accurate, it will mean that the taxpayers of Australia will be required to find £35,000,000 at 5£ per- cent, free from Federal and State income taxation, and this condition will really represent an addition of. about 21 per cent, in the course of four or five years. Therefore, I shall oppose every amendment to extend the scope of the Bill. There is another point which has not yet been touched upon and that is, that the bonds are absolutely the best investment in the world,- Great Britain can get all the money she wants at 4 per cent., free of income tax, and up to the present our Commonwealth giltedged bonds are only 4^ per cent., so that in respect of the gratuity bonds the taxpayers of Australia will have to bear another f per cent. It is clear, therefore, that the bonds will be sought after by the investing community, and I believe that, if the financial position eases in the not distant future, the Government will probably see their way clear to make them more negotiable than at present. If they do, there is not the shadow of a doubt that every man with spare money will be eager to buy these bonds which, as I repeat, represent one of the very best investments in the world. I am satisfied that the majority of men in the Australian Imperial Forces never expected a gratuity. They were content to do their duty, and I believe that if a poll were to be taken to-morrow, the majority of our returned soldiers, realizing the financial position of the Commonwealth’, would vote to exclude everybody from the gratuity except those who saw service in the war zone. Yesterday, the Minister told honorable senators that up to the present the total of war gratuity paid by the United States of America was £180,000,000, and I find in this morning’s press the Minister’s announcement, that up to 30th June next the taxpayers of the Commonwealth will be responsible for the expenditure, or earmarking, of £60,000,000 for our returned soldiers. I point out that if our expenditure were on the American basis in proportion to population, it would be only £9,000,000.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 8.80 p.m.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator Pratten stressed the point that he is here as a guardian of the taxpayers of the State he represents.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I said that was one of my duties.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly, and I take it it is one of the principal duties of every honorable senator in this Chamber. Senator Pratten seems to be always most alert when he is protecting the taxpayers in a way they appreciate, more so than when he is doing it in a way that they do not appreciate. I thinkI have correctly interpreted Senator Pratten’s original statement that he is here as a guardian of the New South Wales taxpayers.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not think the honorable senator has any right to say that. It is one of my duties to represent the taxpayers.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator doubtless considers it his duty to represent the taxpayers when they are asked to contribute something to a large and deserving section of the community. He has brought this matter before’ the Committee, and I quite agree with his attitude to a certain extent, because the money of the taxpayer has to be very carefully handled. I am anticipating, however, that before very long Senator Pratten will be endeavouring to benefit one section of the community at the expense of the rest of Australia, when we shall be asked to expend some millions in order to give an advantage to a small number of conservative people. When that time arrives Senator Pratten will see that I am also a special guardian of the taxpayer, and I shall take great care that I exercise my right. This proposed amendment is worthy of consideration, although it is not so important as the one on which I divided the Committee. The division on my last amendment has given me an indication of the temper of the Senate, and if other honorable senators are not desirous of speaking I am quite prepared to divide the Committee without delay. Senator de Largie referred to the munition workers employed in factories that were the targets for aeroplanes, and on behalf of those men I may say that for weeks at a time they were subjected to severe and continuous nervous strain. Men on vessels carrying foodstuffs and troops in a war zone never knew when their vessel was to be torpedoed or bombed by aeroplanes, and surely they are entitled to consideration. They were always in peril, and their work is comparable with that of those who, in a moment of extreme enthusiasm, “hopped over the top.” Notwithstanding the splendid service these men rendered, it is, according to Senator Pratten, in the interest of the taxpayers that they are not included in the Bill. This is not a question of protecting the taxpayers, but of considering how the money should be expended. The taxpayers, and particularly those who have large vested interests in the country, are under a debt of gratitude to the men I have enumerated, and the expenditure of a few million pounds in the form of cash to wipe out the debt is fully justified.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the proposed new paragraph - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 14

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move-

That in paragraph e nil the words after “Australia” to the end of the paragraph be left out, and the words “ for service overseas “ be inserted in lieu thereof.

Honorable senators will see at once that this will have the effect of cutting off the gratuity from the men who were in camp when the armistice was signed. It will also clearly define the wishes of the Committee, and provide that only those who embarked for service overseas shall benefit.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– The honorable senator is in favour of paying the gratuity to those who embarked for service overseas.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes. I find it extremely difficult to further contract the gratuity, I think I have already stated that if I could give a reasonable working definition I would be in favour of including only the men who had been in the fighting zone, and I would be prepared to test the feelings of the Committee on that point.. Senator Gardiner expressed some poetic and extremely characteristic views in moving his previous amendment when he referred to the stress and strain experienced by practically everybody who crossed the Equator from the Southern Hemisphere. Out of the kindness of his heart I believe he would, in the words of the interjection of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) include the last man and woman, the last sock knitter, and also Australia’s last shilling. I have had some experience in the war zone, and in travelling in the Mediterranean one of my most thrilling experiences was the sight of small fishing craft, on which 2-inch guns were mounted, searching for submarines. On the next voyage the ship on which I had been travelling was torpedoed.. I also crossed the North Sea with a lifebelt on my back at a time when we did not know when we would encounter submarines or mines. I believe I was then performing a duty that was of some service to the people of New South Wales. But this gratuity is for soldiers and not for civilians. “Nearly every right-thinking man and woman throughout the Empire was proud to render some service or perform some duty in connexion with the war, for which they would scorn payment. I do not know whether Senator Gardiner is in favour of including the munition workers. They of course rendered some service, but I would remind him that their pay was much higher than that of the soldiers.I have seen the pay envelopes of munition workers who went from Australia to Great Britain, which showed that somereceived £6, £8, and £10 a week.

Senator Grant:

-For how many hours?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– They worked very long hours, and in some cases the men had taken up that work because they were ineligible for active service. In moving this amendment, I believe it will be acceptable to a vast majority of the soldiers. It defines clearly what we have to pay. It will have the effect of excluding the men who were in camp at the time the armistice was signed, and will provide that the gratuity shall be payable only to those who went overseas.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator Pratten’s proposal, if agreed to, would seriously curtail the number of people to whom the gratuity would be payable.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– How many were in camp at the signing of the armistice?

Senator GRANT:

– I am not prepared to say, nor can I say how many were afloat on the way to the scene of action.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– (My amendment does not cut them out.

Senator GRANT:

Senator Pratten should remember that whether they embarked or not, the men who enlisted were prepared to go away. Probably many of them had only just come of age, yet he would deprive them of the small amount to which they would otherwise be entitled. It ought to be the aim of honorable senators to increase rather than to limit the number of people entitled to the gratuity.

Senator Earle:

– Thatis the more popular course, naturally.

Senator GRANT:

– And the more just course, too. It would be far more just to include than to exclude the men who were in camp. Many men in Australia were absolutely debarred by the action of the Government from going to the Front. They were at the call of the Government during the whole time, yet because the Government made no provision, and, in effect, prevented them from leaving these shores; the amendment would cut them out of the small amount to which they would otherwise be entitled. I oppose the amendment, and regret that Senator Pratten has moved in this direction.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– The amendment as drafted would include in the gratuity those who embarked after the armistice.. Several hundred men were ready for embarkation when the armistice was signed, and as we could not be sure that the armistice really meant the end of the war they were allowed to embark. Some of them only got as far as New Zealand when it became obvious that there would be no renewal of hostilities, and we then had the ships turned back. The honorable senator would give those men the gratuity, although their fellows, some of whom enlisted at the same time, but who did not actually embark, would be cut out of it. The only point which I would stress is that in the proposition that the Government put before the country all those men whom Senator Pratten would exclude were included. We may take it that the country took that into consideration at the elections as one of the parts of the scheme, and the country indorsed the scheme the Government put forward, because it put into power the Government and party who were behind the scheme. We must assume, therefore, that this formed part of the policy that the country indorsed. The Government could not now go back on the policy which it announced at the elections, andupon which it was elected. I must oppose the amendment..

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– The amendment is both an extension and a limitation. It will include some at least who are not entitled to the gratuity under the Bill as it stands. It will bring in, amongst others, those engaged in the transport service. It would enable me to participate in the gratuity, although at present I am excluded. That also applies to Senator Rowell. Under the definition of “military service” those engaged in transport service “for the voyage only” are excluded. The stand I have taken regarding the Bill right through has been for the extension rather than the limitation of its privileges and benefits. I am going to support several of the amendments to be proposed by Senator Gardiner, but I shall oppose this amendment, although under it I would participate in the benefits of the Bill.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There is a good deal to be said for the attitude taken up by Senator Pearce that paragraph e was one of the details of the proposal made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and endorsed by the Cabinet, upon which we went to the electors; but, as it is a detail, the will of the Government is not the will of the nation until it has passed through Parliament and has stood the test of all the criticisms that we have to make in our individual and collective capacity in representing the many diversified interests that constitute the Commonwealth.I see the force of the. Minister’s contention, and have nothing to say in criticism of that attitude; but, so far as I am concerned, I did not dot every “i” or cross every “t” of the pronouncement made by the Prime Minister when I was speaking to the electors, nor was I before them for election. That pleasure is to come. With the many and persistent attempts that are being made to extend the Bill, I feel I have the same right as any other honorable senator to move a minor amendment that will so contract it that the gratuity may be paid only to those who, I feel, honestly deserve it. Nobody objects to giving the benefits of the splendid repatriation and war service homes proposals to the members of the Australian Imperial Force who enlisted and did not embark. We do not take from them the benefits of Australia’s generosity in those directions, but it is not beyond the bounds of reason to confine this Bill specifically to those men who went overseas, and to cut out all those who were in camp. We should establish the principle that no one but those who went overseas shall participate in what is, after all, a gracious gift. I am stressing to-day not the question of the money so much as the principle.

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

AYES: 3

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GARDINER:
New SouthWales

.- I move-

That the House ofRepresentatives be requested to amend the clause by adding after paragraphf the following new paragraph - “ (g) Those persons who embarked from the Commonwealthforservice abroad between the 4th August, 1014, and the 28th June, 1010, for the manufacture and supply of munitions and war provisions; also persons retained by the Commonwealth Defence Department for war service occupation abroad.”

I claim the vote of Senator de Largie for this motion, because he led me to believe, by his speech against the inclusion of the naval men, that these men were more entitled to inclusion. They were in the danger-zone, doing work as necessary as going “over the top.” They were made the target of bombs dropped from aeroplanes, and at one munition-making branch every man was wiped out. Honorable senators know as well as I do the difficulties and dangers that these men encountered. Although I do not feel much hope of success after the exclusion of the naval men, I desire togive the Committee an opportunity of saying that the munition workers, are entitled to consideration. I wish to answer a statement made by Senator Pratten in the course of the remarks he made in support of his amendment, with respect to the big wages earned by the munition workers.

I have here a letter from a sufferer who returned, from the Old Country in illhealth, and, as a munition worker, finds himself excluded from the benefits of the repatriation scheme, and everything else. I shall hand his letter to the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who, I am sure, will deal justly with him. One passage of the letter written for the purposeof explaining his case to me gives an effective reply to Senator Pratten’s statement as to the money earned by the munition workers. My correspondent writes -

Please bear in mind that munition workers cannot get the slightest assistance in any shape or form from any of those philanthropic societies. All the £5,000,000 subscribed are exclusively for soldiers and sailors. As an invalid inRandwick, I had to buy everything. No repatriation, no pension, and apparently no gratuity; quite ignored on every hand, a sad contrast to England, where it cost millions for munition workers until they secured employment. And as to this tale of the great money we earned - and this is the point I want to stress - the truth is that the utmost paid to the very best men, bonuses included, was1s. 4¼d. per hour. By working eighty to ninety hours per week, we could earn from £5 to £5 10s., and out of this it cost us some 50s. per week for board and lodging (see Colonel Barraclough’s letter in the Sydney Morning Herald) . In short, we were better off here. I was paying men1s. 6d. per hour. Some seventy of us went under, and, sad to say, I can’t find that any allowance is given to their starving wives and children. All my papers are at the Defence Department.

I am asking that the munition workers shall be included in this Bill, and I make theplea also on behalf of their dependants. I have had no means of testing the statements of my correspondent, but as he writes simply and intelligently, I accept what he says as true. He states that some seventy of the munition workers have died, leaving dependants who,Ihope, will be considered by honorable senators in dealing with this Gratuity Bill. I do not know that I could strengthen my case by talking at greater length. I have put the claim of the munition workers briefly before the Committee, and I ask honorable senators to support it. I believe that if honorable senators were themselves drawing the line to decide who should be included in the benefits of this measure, they would certainly include the dependants of men who died at munition work under the conditions of stress and strain depicted by Senator de Largie, because th munition works were the special target of enemy aeroplanes. I cannot claim that these men have a stronger claim than those on whose behalf I have already moved, but their claim is certainly a just one, and it is in the name of justice that I ask for their inclusion in this Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I trust that the Committee will not agree to the request submitted by Senator Gardiner. He proposes the inclusion certainly of a very deserving class of men. I have nothing to say in derogation of the work of the munition workers. I am proud of it, and proud to have been associated with the sending of them oversea. . But I remind honorable senators that, on the whole, these men have been well treated by the Government. The Government paid their passages to and from the Old Country, and Australia and made certain allowances to their wives and families. The Commonwealth was involved iri considerable expenditure in the carrying out of the munition workers’ scheme. Senator Gardiner has suggested that high wages were not earned by the munition workers, and has quoted the rate per hour which was paid to some of them. The fact remains, however, that a great number of these men were engaged on piecework, and it is on record that many of them earned £5, £6, and from £8 to £10 per week on piece work. I do not question that they gave good value for the money they earned, but even if they did not earn what they might have earned in Australia, it is, I submit, foreign to the principle of this Bill to include them in it. With regard to the cases of hardship amongst them, to one of which the honorable senator has referred, I may say that the Government have already taken action to deal with such cases. If. these men are suffering from illness due to’ their services overseas an arrangement has been arrived at between the Treasury and the Defence Department by which they can secure assistance. It is also proposed that they should be given consideration under the Old-age and Invalid Pensions Act. As that Act is worded at present, these men who contracted diseases and disabilities Overseas, and not in Australia, are not covered by its provisions. That is a mat ter which will be remedied, and it seems to me that that is a more equitable and reasonable way in which to deal with their cases than to bring them within the provisions of this Bill.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) seems to have given the whole case away. But he might have gone a good deal further than he has done. He has informed us, that, bcause of the fact that some of these men contracted illness during their service abroad, the Government contemplate amending the Old-age and Invalid Pensions Act to bring them within the scope of its operation. The additional expenditure involved in including the munition workers amongst those to whom the gratuity is to be paid would not amount to very much. That, however, should not be the concern of the Committee. The question for us is whether these men are justly entitled to the same consideration as other men who went oversea to render service during the war. I feel certain that a considerable number of men will receive the gratuity who will not be nearly so much entitled to it as are many of the munition workers. We have been informed that at least seventy of these men have lost their lives through having gone abroad. Some cases have been brought under my notice of munition workers who have not yet returned to Australia, and who have left wives and families here. It seems that, under existing legislation, we have no power to compel the return of these men to their wives and families. They voluntarily terminated their agreements with the authorities abroad, and while, in some cases, they are supporting their wives and families in Australia, they have declined to return to this country after their work in England was completed. That may be somewhat apart from the question under consideration, but I remind those who may be inclined to oppose the amendment that the claim which the munition workers are able to put forward is ‘so strong that already it has been decided to extend to them the benefits of the provisions of the War Service Homes Act. They are entitled to the same advantages under that measure as are the members of the Australian Imperial Force. Certain allowances were made to their wives and families, because of -their service abroad, and it is the intention of the Government to extend to them the benefits of the Old-age and Invalid Pensions Act. What Senator Gardiner proposes is but a trifling extension of the consideration which it is admitted is due tothe munition workers, and I trust that his request will be supported.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the proposed new paragraph (Senator Gardiner’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 - (1.) The rate of war gratuity payable in respect of the service of any person specified in paragraph (a), (c), (d), or (e) (i) of subsection ( 1 ) of the last preceding section shall be One shilling and sixpence per diem. (2.) The rate of war gratuity payable in respect of the service of any person specified in paragraph (b) or (e) (ii) of sub-section (1,) of the last preceding section shall be One shilling per diem. (3.) The rate of war gratuity payable in respect of the service of any person specified in paragraph (f) of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section shall be One shilling and sixpence per diem. (4.) From the total amount payable in respect of the service of any person in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section there shall be deducted the amount of any war gratuity paid or payable by the Imperial Government to or in respect of the service of that person.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I have circulated an amendment dealing with the cases of persons who died in camp, the effect of which would be to give to their dependants a gratuity at the rate of1s. 6d. per day. I find, however, that some difficulty would be created if I pro ceeded with thatproposal, because a somewhat similar amendment was moved in another place and was ruled’ out of order. The Government have no desire to create a constitutional difficulty between the two branches of the Legislature, but they have given an undertaking that the dependants of these particular men will be dealt with. Before the session closes, an amending measure will probably be submitted in order to give effect to our desire in this connexion. Consequently, I do not propose to move the amendment which I have circulated. At the same time I give a definite undertaking on behalf of the Government that the alteration of which I speak will be made. I now move -

That the following words be added to sub-clause 4 “or any bounty paid or payable by that Government upon the reengagement of that person in the Imperial Forces.”

The Imperial Government have paid Imperial reservists, whose original engagement with them expired during the wax, and who re-engaged for active service, a bounty of from £20 to £35. As that is on all-fours with the gratuity which it is proposed to grant to members of the Australian Imperial Force, we think that we should pay to them the difference between that bounty and the amount provided for under this Bill.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I embrace this opportunity to protest against Senator Pearce’s withdrawal of the amendment of which he had given notice. My protest is based upon the reason which he urged for its withdrawal, namely, the fear of creating a constitutional difficulty with the other House. It is surely an unheard-of . thing for a Minister to say that ourpractice must be regulated to suit the convenience of the other Chamber. There may have been a constitutional difficulty in the way of the other branch of the Parliament inserting an amendment which’ would have the effect of increasing a charge or burden on the people; but what of that? If we requested the other Chamber to increase the taxation of the people by the payment of an additional 6d. per day to certain individuals, surely the Government would at once proceed to obtain the authority needed to give effect to our request in the ordinary constitutional way. I would also point out that Senator Pearce has himself admitted that the amendment whichhe has circulated is a most desirable one. I protest against bis attitude and against the Senate being placed in such a position that a necessary amendment has been withdrawn merely to convenience somebody else.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– During the war there were some persons who, at their own request, were transferred from the Australian Imperial Force to the Imperial Forces, and who, of course, have received the Imperial bounty. Consequently, we ought to provide that the gratuity received by such persons from this Government shall be reduced by the amount received by them from the Imperial Government. I therefore move -

That the following new sub-clause be added - “ (5.) From the total amount payable, in pursuance of this section, in respect of the service of any person who has transferred from the Commonwealth Naval or Military Forces to the Imperial Forces or the Indian Army, there shall be deducted the amount of any war gratuity paid or payable by the Imperial Government, or the Indian Government to or in respect of the service of that person.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Qualifying period of war service).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I intend to submit an amendment, but before doing so I ask the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to report progress. I desire to insert in sub-clause 2, after the word “ made,” the word’s “ in cash.” I do not think it will be necessary for me to submit my proposal in the form of a request.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– If the honorable senator will give me his assurance that his proposal will not have the effect of increasing the amount to be expended under the Bill, I will accent it as an amendment.

Senator GARDINER:

– I cheerfully give that assurance. I know that other amendments are to be moved which have for their object the payment in cash of a percentage of the gratuity, and thus the whole question of whether its payment should be in cash or bonds will be opened up. The discussion of that question will certainly occupy us up to the ordinary hour of adjournment, so that nothing will be sacrificed if progress be reported now. I am sure that the Minister must be satisfied with the progress which has been made.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I am sorry that I cannot agree with Senator Gardiner’s statement. I am anything but satisfied with the progress we have made, and, so far from curtailing our ordinary sitting hours, I think that we ought to extend them.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– In view of the remarks of Senator Senior last night, I think I am abundantly warranted in replying to his wilfully and maliciously misleading and untrue statements.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is not in order in using language of that kind.

Senator GARDINER:

– Do you, sir, rule that I am not in order in saying that Senator Senior’s statements were wilfully and maliciously misleading?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is my ruling.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I dissent from your ruling. I submit my dissent in the following form : -

The Chairman having ruled that my statement, that Senator Senior’s statements last evening in reply to me were wilfully and maliciously untrue, is out of order, I formally dissent from his ruling.

In the Senate:

The Chairmanof Committees. - I have to report that whilst in Committee on the War Gratuity Bill Senator Gardiner referred to a statement made by another honorable senator yesterday as being “ wilfully and maliciously untrue.” I ruled him out of order, and called upon him to withdraw the statement. He objects to my ruling.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The Chairman of Committees having submitted to me a report of what took place in Committee, I hold that he was right in ruling the honorable senator out of order. I may also point out that under our Standing Orders, and in conformity with the well-known practice of Parliament, no honorable senator may make statements, either in the Senate or in Committee, reflecting in any way on other honorable senators or calculated to interfere with the conduct of business or to disturb the harmony of the proceedings of the Senate.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am rather surprised, Mr. President, at your decision on the statement from the Chairman of Committees, especially as you did not give me an opportunity of explaining why I refused to withdraw my statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is well aware that under our Standing Orders a matter of this kind can only be discussed ‘before the President rises and gives his decision.

Senator Gardiner:

– You never gave me an opportunity. If that is the way we are to conduct the business in this Senate, what is the use of our going on?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is entirely mistaken. There was ample opportunity for him to state his reasons while I was considering the report from the Chairman of Committees. If he wishes to dissent from my ruling now, he may do so in the manner provided by our Standing Orders.

Senator Gardiner:

– I take it, then, that I shall be in order in submitting a motion of dissent from your ruling on the ground that you gave your decision without affording me an opportunity to explain my position. I made no statement that was likely to disturb the harmony of the Committee. I merely referred casually to >a statement made by an honorable senator on the previous day in the Senate, and not in the Committee, and so the Chairman of Committees could have no knowledge of it, and you, sir, as soon as you received the report of the Chairman of Committees gave your decision without allowing me. an opportunity of being heard. I move -

That the President’s ruling be dissented from.

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion must stand over until the next day of sitting unless the Senate decides to deal with it forthwith. Standing order No- 429 provides -

If any objection is taken to the ruling . of the President, such objection must be taken al once, and in writing, and motion made, which, if seconded, shall be . proposed to the Senate, and debate thereon forthwith adjourned to the next sitting day, unless the Senate decides on motion, without debate, that the question requires immediate determination.

Senator Gardiner:

– I move -

That the question requires immediate determination.

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no debate on the motion.

Question put, and resolved in the affirmative, there being ho senator on the side of the “ Noes.”

Senator Gardiner:

– Apparently the Senate is unanimous, although there were dissentient voices, that this matter should be decided forthwith. I want honorable senators to realize that we are not discussing my offence to the Chairman of Committees, but deciding whether Mr.. President, after receiving the statement from the Chairman of Committees, was right in giving his decision before I had an opportunity of speaking. It is a most important matter, and one which the Senate must not overlook. All the evidence is before us. Mr. President came in and took his seat. The Chairman of Committees immediately read the statement of what had occurred in Committee, and handed it to Mr. President through the Clerk. Mr. President then rose, read the statement to the. Senate, and immediately gave his decision. I was prevented from putting my case. It may be that you will say, Mr. President, that there was only one side to the question; but you, sir, not being present in the Committee, had not any official knowledge of what happened in Committee. I consider it was your duty to give me an opportunity of stating my case. I have pressed the matter at this stage, not with the desire of wasting time, but in the endeavour to settle a most important point. Although some honorable senators may joyfully vote against me, there can be no disputing the fact that I did not have an opportunity of speaking. You,- Mr. President, would doubtless claim that I am misstating the case.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is undoubtedly doing that.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am not misstating the case; and honorable senators will realize that, in accordance with our Standing Orders, and the usual parliamentary practice, an honorable senator is not in order in speaking while Mr. President is on his feet. I maintain that when the Chairman of Committees handed the document to you, sir, you were on your feet, and I did not have an opportunity of saying one word before your decision was given.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– The matter is quite simple, and I do not intend to occupy much time, as there is really nothing to decide. Senator Gardiner has not correctly stated the case. The ruling of the Chairman was handed to me in writing by the Clerk, I remained sitting, and paused for some time to see if any honorable senator desired to speak before I rose. Senator Gardiner or any other honorable senator would not have infringed our Standing Orders by speaking when I was thus seated. Moreover, I was quite within my rights in giving my decision straight away, as the matter was so plain and palpable. My action was in accordance with our usual parliamentary practice, and Senator Gardiner’s statement is not correct..

Senator Gardiner:

– It is correct, and you know it.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is incorrect.. Standing order No. 430 provides -

Upon a question of order being raised, the senator called to order shall resume his seat, and after the question of order has been stated to the President by the senator rising to order, the President may give his decision thereon, or he may first hear further argument thereon, at his discretion.

It was within my discretion, and I merely exercised my right.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is certainly the usual attitude you adopt towards me.

The PRESIDENT:

– I followed the usual practice, and in this case paused some time before I gave my decision. (Senator Shannon. - That is correct.

The PRESIDENT:

– I paused sufficiently long to see that no honorable senator was prepared to offer any remarks or to debate the matter, and I thereupon gave my ruling. It is now for the Senate to decide whether my action was right or otherwise.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– My recollection of what occurred only a few minutes ago coincides with that of Senator Gardiner. I think the receipt of the statement from the Chairman of Committees, the reading of it, and the giving of a decision was one continuous action. I wish to call attention to standing order No. 440, which, I think, has an important bearing on this question. It reads -

When any senator has been reported as having committed an offence, he shall be called upon to stand up in his place and make any explanation or apology hemay think fit, and afterwards a motion may be moved - “ That such senator be suspended from the sitting of the Senate.” No amendment, adjournment, or debate shall be allowed on such motion, which shall bo immediately put by the President.

Whether that is mandatory or not, I do not know; but it appears to be obvious that an ‘honorable senator called on for a breach of the Standing Orders should have the opportunity of stating his case; and I am of the opinion that the attitude adopted by Senator Gardiner is a correct one. I think he was wrong in disputing the Chairman’s ruling, but I consider that his subsequent action was justified.

Senator Shannon:

– I am sorry that Senators Gardiner and O’Loghlin have adopted the attitude they have, because if they reflect for a moment they will realize that it would not be competent for me to address Mr. President while he was standing. Mr. President was seated in the chair when the objection to the Chairman’s ruling was handed to him through the Clerk. It was some time before Mr. President had read the statement, and before he rose Senator Gardiner had every opportunity of addressing the Chair. The standing order quoted by Senator O’Loghlin relates more directly to an apology or a withdrawal, but this is a case of an objection to a ruling.

The PRESIDENT:

– That standing order does not apply in this instance. I think it will be clear to honorable senators that Senator Gardiner had every opportunity to discuss my ruling.

Senator Gardiner:

– There is not much to reply to, as the facts are plain. You, Mr. President, came into the chamber without any official knowledge of what had occurred in Committee. You had received from the Chairman of Committees a statement which was handed to you by the Clerk. You rose in your place, and until you did so there was not anything before the Senate. The Committee had ceased to sit, and we were then in the Senate, and I had no right to address you until there was something before us. Immediately you read the complaint, I fully expected that I would have the right to speak; but apparently you had prejudged the matter, and then gave your decision.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must withdraw that remark, as it is contrary to the Standing Orders for an honorable senator to reflect upon a decision given by the Chair.

Senator Gardiner:

– You, sir, must have prejudged my statement, because you have already said there was really nothing to decide.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must withdraw his reflection on the Chair.

Senator Gardiner:

– You can do what you like.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled that Senator Gardiner’s remark was a reflection on the Chair, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Apart altogether from any personal feeling, it is essential for the proper and harmonious working of any deliberative body that its rules and practices should be honoured by every member of it. It is one of the rules of the Senate - a rule adopted by every deliberative assembly in the world - that the Presiding Officer must not be reflected upon by any member of the Senate. Senator Gardiner’s remark about myself, which, of course, has no effect upon me personally, but affects my position as President, I took to be a distinct reflection upon the Chair. I have asked the honorable senator to withdraw it, and, until he does so I do not think that the Senate should proceed further with the discussion. As it is 4 o’clock, I have now, under the Sessional Order, to put the motion, which must be decided without debate, - That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question - That the Senate do now adjourn - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 12

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question - That the President’s ruling be dissented from - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 13

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. In Committee :

Progress reported.

page 1289

ADJOURNMENT

Conduct of Business - Defence Department: Central Administration

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

In submitting the motion, I desire to enter my protest againstcertain proceedings this afternoon, which, I say, in my judgment, tend to bring Parliament into contempt.

Senator Gardiner:

– Are you, sir, going to permit that statement by the Minister for Defence to pass unchallenged?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Neitherthe Minister nor any other honorable senator is entitled to reflect upon the proceedings of Parliament in any way any more than he is entitled to reflect upon any member of the Parlia ment. I ask the Minister to withdraw his statement.

Senator Pearce:

– I withdraw, but I express my regret that, in my judgment, time which should have been devoted to the passing ‘of a Bill in the interests of the soldiers of this country has been otherwise used.

Senator Gardiner:

– Is the Minister tobe allowed to make a conditional withdrawal ?

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I think the Minister for Defence would have been well advised if yesterday evening he had decided to go on with the consideration of the War Gratuity Bill instead of adjourning at a little after 10 o’clock. There was no reason whatever why we should not have continued the consideration of the measure until much later last night, especially if the Minister was so very anxious, as he suggests, to push it through.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– The statement made by the Minister for Defence was one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard. His withdrawal was, in my opinion, against the Standing Orders and against all the practice and procedure of the Senate. He was called upon to withdraw a statement which honorable senators must admit was a reflection upon the whole of the Senate, and he withdrew it with a condition which I would not have been permitted to attach to a withdrawal.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! That is a reflection on the Chair.

Senator de Largie:

– He half withdrew; is not that sufficient?

Senator GARDINER:

– It is not sufficient for me. I have been bound down to unconditional withdrawals. I want to say that, so far as withdrawals are concerned, if Ministers may make conditional withdrawals, which, in my judgment, constitute as great an offence as the original statement objected to, private members of the Senate must have the same right. The balance must be held evenly, and if Ministers set a bad example, they have themselves and not private members of the Senate to blame if that example is followed. What happened with regard to the War Gratuity Bill? As a matter of fact, we have been actually hurrying through the clauses today. Provisions affording legitimate scope for lengthy debate have been hurried through. When we came to a finance clause, at 3.40 p.m.’, concerning which a good deal could be said-

Senator Pearce:

– No. At 3.25 p.m.

Senator GARDINER:

– Very well, I do not mind a difference of five or ten minutes. When Ave came to that important clause at that time, in view of the fact that I knew there must be a long debate upon it, I asked the Minister for Defence to carry it over until next week. It would not have put us any further ahead to have debated the matter for thirty-five minutes to-day and have to begin its consideration again at our next sitting.

Senator Pearce:

– Because the honorable senator could not get his own way he wasted the whole of the rest of the time.

Senator GARDINER:

– Not at “al]. That is where the Minister constitutes himself a person able to read, what is in other peoples’ minds. I had scarcely commenced to debate the clause in Committee, and when the Minister assumes that because he had refused my request to adjourn it was my intention to delay things, he assumes something which was not correct.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will excuse me for interrupting him, but the whole of this discussion is out of order, since there can be no allusion in the Senate to speeches and proceedings in Committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– I- realize that if there can be no reference to the matter I cannot debate it. But a certain charge and a lopsided withdrawal of it have been made by the Minister for Defence, and you’ must realize the position in which I am placed. I do not wish to prolong the difficulty, but I tell the Minister that if he regarded my antagonism to the Chairman as antagonism to him he was assuming something that he had no right to assume. So far as the War Gratuity Bill is concerned - can I discuss that on the motion for the adjournment?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. The honorable senator in doing so would be anticipating the discussion of a matter which he will have a full opportunity to discuss.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that I will be out of order in discussing what we have done or what we are likely to do in connexion with the War Gratuity Bill next week. If the Minister believes that time has been lost, I may tell him that I have no objection to the Senate” meeting to-morrow if he cares to withdraw his present motion.

Senator Reid:

– Some honorable senators are going home now.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the honorable senator thinks that such a proposal would not secure the support of a majority [ shall be prepared to vote with honorable senators opposite and meet them in the most ample way, but they should not make an excuse that twenty minutes time has been wasted. I hope that the Minister for Defence in connexion with the further consideration of the War Gratuity Bill will not act as he has acted to-day. I trust that he will not jump to hasty conclusions.

I take advantage of the motion for the adjournment of the Senate to mention one or two matters to which I should like to call attention. I referred to-day to a statement made by Mr. Kelly concerning the Defence Department, to the effect that there is, and has been for a considerable time, a clique in the Department opposed to the utilization of ability in that Department. There is in that Department, according to the statement of a gentleman who occupied a Ministerial position at the beginning of the war, a clique opposed to ability - and he says it is still there, and he wants the members of it rooted out of their dugouts, or words to that effect. I should like to know from the Minister for Defence if he is prepared to add to the information he gave me in reply to the question I addressed to him this morning. The Minister seemed to think that bringing the matter before him in the form of a question was merely another method of giving effect to some of the criticism passed on the Government during the war, but there was no occasion for him to make that statement, because the gentleman who had uttered the remarks I brought under “his attention was one who, during the war, was. never niggardly in his support of the Minister or ungenerous in his criticism of the Government. I ‘believe that lie is entitled to be _ regarded as an authority upon the subject upon which he spoke, and if there is in the Defence Departmenta clique so strongly entrenched in their dugouts as to be regarded as an adverse influence against the advancement of men with perhaps more intellect than themselves, the Senate could not use the opportunity for speaking on the motion for the adjournment in a better way than (by discussing the matter. It is a grave charge that on the Head-Quarters Staff, among the men responsible for the future defence of this country, there is a clique so secure in their positions that they can, as it were, prevent any one of superior ability from approaching them or disturbing them in those positions; and instead of the Minister petulantly saying that the matter was merely raised for the purpose of embarrassing Ministers, he should ascertain whether there is any possibility of such a clique in the Defence Department being able to use its powers to the detriment of the defence of Australia. It may happen that there is a social set in the Department which looks upon men who have worked their way up from the ranks as beneath it. It nearly always happens that the man who works his way up from the ranks has the most ability, . and in consequence is marked out for treatment which should not bo meted out to him. When Senator Russell was acting as Minister for Defence, I brought under his notice the treatment of Captain Hayne, whose health, if not his life, was lost in the service of the Defence Department. He had been a sergeant-major, and had passed excellent examinations, and when he left the Department because of the trouble brought about by the hard work he had undertaken, the administration actually cancelled his name from the list which showed the record of those who did service in the organization of the Australian Imperial Force. Senator Russell admitted that it was a mistake, but I could bring forward letters to show that twelve months previously the Department had been informed of the mistake and refused to rectify it. They were anxious to rob this officer of his record, and it was only when the matter was mentioned in Parliament that we got the admission that Captain Hayne’s name had been omitted byerror. When the list of records of service were published, Captain Hayne and others complained that their services had been overlooked. I asked him what the trouble was, and hereplied that it was because he was a Tanker. However, he is now outside the Service, and the administration cannot interfere with him, or hurt him in any way, but there is an impression in the minds of many that there is a clique in the Defence Department who believe that they are “ the salt of the earth “ andconsider that men who have worked their way up from the ranks are to be treated as they see fit to treat them. These are the facts, yet the Minister is petulant when I bring under his attention the statement of a gentleman which I thought honorable gentlemen opposite would take notice of. Mr. Kelly has a very acute mind. Weknow his attitude with regard to General Bridges. When he found that officer on a trip to Darwin on a comparatively trivial matter, he took the responsibility of cancelling the trip and telegraphing his decision to the other Ministers. As a consequence, General Bridges was recalled to Melbourne. All this is evidence of incapacity, or worse, on thepart of the Defence administration. I take it from Mr. Kelly’s statement that General Bridges was to be shifted to Darwin, so that an inferior might take his place in Melbourne. It could not be done in any other way. According to Mr. Kelly’s statement, these men are still at Head-Quarters, and if that is the case, it is not good for the country or the Department. I hope that the Minister will see that there is more reason to look into these things with an earnest desire to improve his Department than to act petulantly and say that charges are hurled at the Government with a view to harassing Ministers. There was no such intention on ourpart. I have no desire to make any declaration of war against the Government or the Minister for Defence, but now that the great war is over, I shall not be sparing in my criticism of the Minister or his Department, in the hope that such criticism will bring about a remedy for any evils that may exist. He may be petulant when a question is asked, but before many months he will find that there is plenty of room for complaint.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 April 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200416_senate_8_91/>.