Senate
29 April 1920

8th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 8th Parliament
  3. 1920

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Gi vens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1575

WAR GRATUITY BILL

The PRESIDENT announced the re ceipt of a message intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill.

page 1575

QUESTION

VISIT OF PRINCE OF WALES

Amnesty to Military and Naval Prisoners

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

In view of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, will the Minister submit to Cabinet a proposal for the release of all members of the Australian Imperial Force or. Naval Forces who served during the war, who are at present serving time either in Australia or abroad?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– It is not proposed to extend any further clemency to prisoners. All sentences awarded prior to18th July, 1919, in respect of purely military offences only, have been remitted, and ace stillbeing remitted on the disembarkation of the military prisoners in their districts in Australia. Also, in regard to sentences awarded before that date for offences ordinarily punishable by civil law, an automatic remission of three weeks for every three months (not exceeding twelve months in all) is granted. In addition, all such cases are subsequently reviewed, and very substantial further remissions have been made. All sentences awarded after 18th July, 1919, are reviewed by a Sentences Revisory Committee, and many remissions have been granted. The greater proportion of sentences which have not been altogether remitted under the amnesty have been awarded for very grave criminal offences, such as manslaughter, stealing, robbery with violence, wounding with intent, forgery, &c.

page 1576

QUESTION

WATERSIDE WORKERS

Inquiry into Conditions of Employment.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. The nature and scope of the proposed inquiry into the conditions of employment of waterside workers in Sydney?
  2. Is it intended that such inquiry shall supersede, supplement, or in any way affect judicial action in respect of any proceeding or proceedings ‘pending in the Arbitration Court?
  3. Will the findings and evidence upon such inquiry be published or be made available for any such judicial action?
  4. Will the findings and evidence upon a similar Melbourne inquiry last year by the Royal Commission (Mr. Dethridge) be published, and when?
  5. If not, why not?
Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answers are -

  1. It is proposed to appoint a tribunal to inquire into the conditions of the Sydney waterside workers, with a view to effecting a settlement of matters in dispute on similar lines to those adopted in the case of the Melbourne wharf workers, including provision for - (a) Preference for original loyalists; (b) preference for returned soldiers; (c) equality of opportunity for employment for all others. It is proposed that the tribunalshall consist of one representative of the ship-owners, one representative of the Waterside Workers Federation, and an independent chairman, to be selected by the parties by mutual agreement, or, in the event of disagreement, to be nominated by the Commonwealth Government. 2 and 3. The findings of the tribunal will not have legal sanction. The tribunal is, in effect, a conference called by the Government to settle a long-standing dispute arising out of the seamen’s strike, for which there appears to be no legal remedy. The parties will be asked to accept the findings of the tribunal when made, and abide by them.
  2. No evidence is available. There is no objection to publication of the findings.
  3. See No. 4.

page 1576

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

asked the Min ister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that there are three departments engaged in the work of building soldiers’ homes in South Australia, viz., the State Bank, the War Service Homes Commissioner (through the Commonwealth Bank), and the Soldiers’ band Settlement Committee?
  2. Is it a fact that it is now proposed to establish a separate branch of the War Service Homes Commission for the purpose of erecting homes for returned soldiers?
  3. Is it a fact that the annual cost of such branch will be in the neighbourhood of £6,000 yearly for salaries alone?
  4. Have there been any complaints made regarding the work done, or on account of any delays with regard to the work undertaken by the State Bank in South Australia?
  5. How many homes have been built by the State Bank and Land Settlement Committee of South Australia?
  6. How many by the Commonwealth Department through the Commonwealth Bank?

  7. What is the rate of interest charged in connexion with soldiers’ homes by -

    1. the South Australian State Bank;
    2. the Commonwealth Department.

What is the maximum period allowed for repayment by -

  1. the South Australian State Bank;

  2. the Commonwealth Department?

    1. Does the Minister think that a further duplication of State and Federal Departments is necessary or advisable?
Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The War Service Homes Commissioner supplies the following answers -

  1. The War Service Homes Commission has been created to build homes exclusively for returned soldiers and their dependants. The State Bank builds for any person, and the Soldiers’ Land Settlement Committee controls the expenditure for improvements on blocks allotted to soldier settlers.
  2. At the present time the Commonwealth Bank, under an agreement with the War Service Homes Commissioner, administers certain portions of the War Service Homes Act, but in the near future all construction work will be carried out by the Commission itself. It is to provide machinery for this work that a separate branch of the Commission, in substitution for the construction branch of the Commonwealth Bank, is being created. No duplication will therefore result.
  3. No. 4 and 5. I cannot say.
  4. In addition twenty-six houses are in course of erection, whilst tenders have been invited for seventy-three others .
  5. (a)4½ per cent, where the applicant received a salary not exceeding £300 per year, 5 per cent, where the applicant receives over £300 per year in salary and a deposit of at least 40 per cent, of the value of the property; (b) 5 per cent.; no deposit is required; (c) I understand the period is 42 years; (d) thirtyseven years.
  6. See answer to 2. It is an obligation on the War Service Homes Commissioner to provide homes for discharged members of the Australian Imperial Force, irrespective of the salary they may be receiving or of whether they are possessed of the requisite deposit required under the State Housing Scheme.

page 1577

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1917, the following senators be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, viz., Senator Henderson, Senator Needham, and Senator Newland.

page 1577

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Committee of Public Accounts Act 1913- 1917, the following senators be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, viz., Senator Crawford, Senator Earle, and Senator McDougall.

page 1577

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ amendments):

Clause 8 -

The Commission shall consist of three members, who shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral.

A duly authenticated organization, recognised or acknowledged by the Minister as being a body representing returned soldiers throughout the Commonwealth, may submit to the Minister a list containing the names of not less than three persons from which the organization recommends that a selection be made of a person to be appointed as one of the Commissioners, and the Governor-General may appoint a person selected from that list to be one of the Commissioners.

House of Representatives’ Amendments. -

Omit “ A duly authenticated “ and insert “Any”; omit “recognised or acknowledged by the Minister as being a body”; omit “that list” and insert “any list so submitted.”

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– In dealing with the amendments made by the House of Representatives in this Bill as it left the Senate, I should like first of all to intimate that most of them are non-controversial, inasmuch as they pro- vide merely for greater clarity of language, a little liberalization in respect to one or two classes of dependants, and generally are such as I feel sure the Senate will accept as improvements in the Bill. There are only two amendments in respect of which I propose to ask the Senate to disagree with what has been proposed by the other branch of the Legislature. I shall indicate those as we proceed. The House of Representatives has struck out the words “A duly authenticated “ and inserted the word “ Any “. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The House of Representatives has also struck out the words “ recognised or acknowledged by the Minister as being a body ‘ ‘ . That is practically a consequential amendment upon the first. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

– I did not hear the Minister very well, and thought he was asking the Committee to disagree with these amendments. I sincerely hope that they will not be agreed to, because if we provide for any organization at all to submit names for membership of the Commission we shall immediately open the door to log-rolling in its very worst form.

Senator Gardiner:

– You think logrolling should be confined to the organization to which you belong ?

Senator FOLL:

– I hold no brief for any particular organization. I belong to two, one of which is political and the other non-political. We have hadin Queensland such an experience of logrolling that I ask the Committee to consider seriously before opening the door to any organization, political or non-political, to submit names for a seat on the Commission. If I had heard the Minister clearly I should have asked him to reconsider the matter and to agree to insert the words “ any non -political organization,” because if we once open the door for a political organization to submit names, we immediately give the Government then in power an opportunity to make a political appointment. Suppose, for instance, that the party of which Senator Gardiner is a member occupied the Treasury bench. What would be the position then ?

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Perhaps that is what you are afraid of.

SenatorFOLL. - We have every reason to be afraid of it. If there is a Labour Government in power, and a body of men form themselves into what they call a Soldiers’ Labour party - and they have as much right to do so as others have to form a Soldiers’ National party - what will happen ? We know that our opponents are experts at log-rolling.

Senator Gardiner:

– You surely do not mean that?

Senator FOLL:

– I do mean it, because of our recent experiences in Queensland. My colleagues from that State can bear out what I say. A few men could form themselves into an organization and claim to be a soldiers’ organization, for thepurpose of submitting a name to the Labour Government, and the Labour Government could accept the nomination, with the result that the appointment would immediately become a political appointment. I am not advocating that the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League should be the only body with the right to submit names. Let any soldiers’ organizations submit names, so long as they are non-political organizations; but if once we allow political organizations to submit names, we immediately open the door for the making of political appointments by whatever Government happens to be on the Treasury bench at the time.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I dissent from Senator Foil’s suggestion that the party which happens to be in charge of the Treasury bench for the time being should decline to pass legislation which would be regarded as acceptable as long as that party remained in power, simply for fear of something that a future Government may do. We ought to pass the thing if we think it right, irrespective of what any future Government may elect to do with it. The honorable senator wishes the right of nomination to be limited to non-political parties. Frankly, I do not know such a thing. I hear all sorts of parties calling themselves non- political, but in the last resort it is found that they drift into politics sooner or later. Even the principal Soldiers League calls itself non-political, but if you read its manifesto you find that half the items are debatable subjects which enter into the realm of politics.

Senator Foll:

– They are not affiliated with any present party.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– They are not so affiliated to-day, but it is clear that they are endeavouring to form a party themselves, or, alternatively, that they will support whatever political party tries to achieve the objects for which they stand. It is largely a matter of camouflage to talk of non-political parties to-day. Any number of instances could be quoted of organizations, formed for quite desirable objects, that started out with the declaration that they were non-political, but before long took an active part at elections in backing those candidates who promised to support the things they desired to achieve. If they are loyal to their objects, they must use all the tools which come to their hand, in order to attain them. Senator Foll need not be alarmed about this matter. The ordinary citizen walking in the streets has the right to nominate anybody. He can write to the Minister enclosing the nomination of somebody else, or even of himself, as a member of the Commission, bub the responsibility of making the selection falls on the Minister. Whether the nomination is made by one or twenty organizations does not impair the two facts’: first, that the right exists to-day, and, secondly, that upon the Minister ultimately falls the responsibility of saying which of the persons nominated he deems best for the position. I am unable to share Senator Foll’s fears, and therefore ask the Committee to agree to the amendment made by another place.

Motion agreed to.

Further verbal amendment agreed to

Clause 10 -

  1. Subject to this Act, the members of the Commission first appointed under this Act shall hold office for the term of five years, and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ five “ and insert “ three “.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– This is one of the amendments with which I propose to ask the Committee to disagree. I move, accordingly -

That the amendment be disagreed to.

The Bill provided a term of five years for the Commission. Another place has reduced that term to three years. We are giving the Commission very wide powers. Having largely of our own volition passed those powers into the hands of the Commission, we ought to give the Commission such security of tenure as will insure its exercise of those powers in a free and independent way. We recognise that principle in appointing Judges for life, in order that they may perform their duties without the necessity of shaping their course so as to secure re-appointment. Most Commissions are appointed for seven years, but I do not suggest that term in this case. In view of the work to be accomplished, seven years would be too long; but five years is a reasonable period. I ask the Committee to disagree with the amendment in order to secure the placing of the Commissioners in a position of independence.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [3.20].- I think it would be .just as well to retain the three years’ period, although I have no very great interest in the matter. We ought to remember that the members of the other branch of the .Legislature are elected for three years, and as they make and unmake Ministries, why should not our legislation conform to that period? To my mind the principle is a most excellent one*

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The members of this Chamber are elected for six years. According to the honorable senator’s argument^ therefore, we ought to make the term for which the commissioners are appointed six years.

Senator GARDINER:

– But the Senate does not make and unmake Governments. We fixed the period for which the commissioners are to be appointed at five years, and the other branch of the Legislature has deliberately altered it to three years. Is it worth while disagreeing with the amendment? What is the value of the difference between the views of the two Houses ?

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator is in a very amiable mood to-day.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am, and I hope that I shall remain so. I trust, therefore, that Senator de Largie will not interject too often. I would reserve our disagreements with the amendments of another place to amendments involving matters of substance. The fact that the

Bill has been returned with” a sheaf of amendments covering four pages suggests that not very much consideration was given to it here.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria.

– If we accepted the suggestion of Senator Gardiner and “agreed’ to a term of three years we should be following the practice of the- United States, where the majority of civil servants merely hold office during the period that their political party remains in power. It will be generally recognised that that would be a very bad principle to adopt. These commissioners should be quite independent of politics- indeed, their positions should be somewhat analogous to those occupied by our Judges. They will be called upon ‘ to undertake a vast work,and in three years they will only just about have mastered their jobs. It would be a pity, therefore, if we did not disagree with the amendment of the other House. Personally, I hope that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) will stick to his guns.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– If it were seriously contended that the work of the Repatriation Commission would terminate within three years, there might be some justification for adopting the amendment of the other branch of the Legislature. But if the work of this body is to extend over an indefinite period and we could effect a compromise with another place by making the term of their appointment seven years, I think it would be wise for us to do so. Senator Gardiner’s arguments were not so much in favour of the amendment which has been made in the Bill as they were condemnatory of it. We all know that the election of a new House of Representatives may mean the formation of a new Government. That .might conceivably result in the appointment of fresh commissioners if the term of their appointment were limited to three years.

Senator Foll:

– And they might be political appointments.

Senator KEATING:

– The practice suggested would certainly tend to make such appointments of a purely political character. Had the other House amended the Bill to provide for a seven years’ period I would have supported it. In the circumstances, however, I hope that the Minister will adhere to the term of five years, which I regard’ as the most satisfactory.

SenatorGARDINER (New South Wales) [3.27]. - I would remind honorable senators that this amendment emanates from a party which has a majority in the other House. I have no desire to discuss the question of partyappointments, but I do not think there is any warrant for the charge of log rolling which was mentioned by Senator Foll. In most Government appointments the fitness of men for the position has ever been the chief concern of Ministers. I make that statement as the result of a long and active association with party politics.

Senator Keating:

– Why, the honorable senator’s party in New South Wales is recalling an Agent-General.

Senator GARDINER:

– The gentleman who is being recalled was appointed six days after the then Government had been defeated at. the polls. I do not think that even Senator Keating will approve of an appointment to an important office in such circumstances.

Senator Earle:

– Would not the appointment of three commissioners for a shorter term militate against securing the services of the best men?

Senator GARDINER:

– I think that it would be an advantage to everybody. At the end of three months it may be discovered that a bad appointment has been made. No officer who discharges his duties efficiently for three years is likely to be displaced by any Government. But if we insist upon fixing the term for which these commissioners are to be appointed at five years it may possibly be found that it would have been convenient at the end of three years to remove one of them because of the perfunctory manner in which he was performing his duties.

Senator Foll:

– Cannot that be done at any time by Parliament?

Senator GARDINER:

– No, because there must be ample reason for the removal of any public official from his office. If there is no charge against him he cannot be removed before the expiration of his term, though I could quite understand that it would be a convenience for the Government to have power to remove him at an earlier period. The difference between three years and five years is not very great, and I take it that at the end of three years the principal business of the Commission will have been completed. If there is any fear in the minds of honorable senators that any party will make political appointments, all I can say is that that fear is not justified by my experience in State and Federal politics over a great many years.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I am more concerned with the selection of a suitable man for this position than the term of his appointment. Two years have elapsed since we passed the first Repatriation Bill, though it seems as if it were but yesterday, and if Senator Gardiner were right there would be no need for a reappointment of the Commissioners. We cannot, however, anticipate that we are near the end of our repatriation work. During the first three years of his term a Commissioner will necessarily acquire a great deal of knowledge, which will be of value to him in his future work, but if the appointment is for only three years, a Commissioner at the end of that term might be looking for a job. He may or may not be reappointed. If a man is not efficient enough for an appointment of five years, he is not worthy of appointment for three years. There is no force in Senator Gardiner’s argument that we ought to accept the amendment made by the House of Representatives because it is the opinon of the majority of the other Houseand the same party has a majority in the Senate. The five years’ term is preferable on all grounds, because a Commissioner will get to know his work and be able to perform it more efficiently.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 11 -

  1. Upon the commencement of this Act, all property vested in the Minister, or in a State Repatriation Board, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, shall become vested in the Commission.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit sub-clause (3), and insert the following sub-clauses: - “ (3) All real and personal property, securities and funds, and all rights of action in respect of any such property, securities and funds, vested, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, in the Minister or in a State Repatriation Board, or in any person on behalf of or in trust for the Minister or any such Board, shall, upon the commencement of this Act, become vested in the Commission, subject to the trusts upon which the same are held by the Minister or by that Board or person. “ (4) All the rights of State War Councils in respect of advances made by them under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund Act 1916, shall, upon the commencement of this Act, become vested in, and exercisable by, the Commission.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

There is no alteration in the purpose of the clause, but the authorities have recommended the amendment with the object of expressing the position with greater clarity. It amplifies the provisions whereby property vested in the Minister or State Repatriation Boards is vested in the Commission, and gives the Commission the right to recover moneys due to the old State War Councils under the Australian Repatriation Fund. Some money is still due to those now defunct bodies, and it is proposed to give the Commission legal power to collect it.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 14 -

  1. A duly authenticated organization, recognised or acknowledged by the Minister as being a body representing returned soldiers throughout the Commonwealth, may in respect of each State submit to the Commission a list….. and the Governor-General may appoint a person selected from that list by the Commission, to be a member of that Board.

House of Representatives’ Amendments. - Omit “ A duly authenticated “, and insert “Any”; omit “recognised or acknowledged by the Minister as. being a body”; omit “that list “ and insert “ any list so submitted “.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Senate has already agreed to an amendment made by the other House to give any organization the right to submit a nomination for the central Commission, and the object of those amendments is to give any organization the same right of nomination for membership of the State Boards.

Motion agreed to.

Further verbal amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 -

  1. A Commissioner, or an Acting Commissioner, shall be deemed to have vacated his office if he engages, during his term of office, in any employment outside the duties of his office.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - After “ any “ insert “ paid “.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This will make it clear that the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner shall only be deemed to have vacated his office if he engages in any paid employment. As the measure left the Senate the provision stated that his office would be vacated if he engaged in any employment.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 17-

  1. A Commissioner, an Acting Commis sioner, or a member of a Board shall be deemed to have vacated his office if -

    1. he becomes in any way concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Commission; or in any way participates or claims to be entitled to participate in the profit thereof, orin any benefit or emolument arising therefrom.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit paragraph (c) and insert the following paragraph: - “ (c) he, in any way, otherwise than as a member, and in common with the other members, of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons -

  1. becomes concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Commission; or
  2. participates, or claims to be entitled to participate, in the profit of any such contract or agreement or in any benefit or emolument arising therefrom.”
Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Honorable senators will remember that when this clause was before us there was some discussion as to the limit to be placed upon the Commissioner. An amendment was drafted at the time which met with the wishes of the Committee, but which the law officers thought was couched in somewhat ambiguous language. The purpose of the new paragraph is, very rightly, to prevent a Commissioner or Acting Commissioner from being interested in any undertaking or company deriving profits from transactions with the Commission.

Senator Senior:

– That makesthe amendment quite clear, and it is really the same as what passed this Chamber.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Yes; and it is in keeping with the language adopted in other Commonwealth Acts.

Motion agreed to.

Consequential amendment agreed to.

Clause 23-

Upon the death or incapacity of any person ….. the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act, be liable to pay to the member or his dependants, or both, as the case may be, pensions in accordance with this Act:

Provided that -

in case of the incapacity of a member of the Forces-by the member or a dependant not more than six months after the termination of the appointment or discharge of the member……

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit “ termination of the appointment or “.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales-

Minister for Repatriation) [3.43]. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

As the word “ discharge “ is already defined, the words “ termination of the appointment “ are unnecessary.

Motion agreed to.

Amendment in clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 32 (Payment of lump sum may be substituted in certain cases).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit “ pensioner “, insert “ member of the Forces.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The clause has for its object the payment in certain cases of the pension in a lump sum. If the amendment is agreed to, the payment will be granted upon the application of a member of the Forces.

Motion agreed to.

Consequential amendments agreed to.

Clause 37 -

A Board may reject a claim for a pen sion by a dependant of a member of the Forces, or may terminate any pension granted to such a dependant, if the Commission is satisfied that the grant or continuance of the pension is undesirable.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit “ Commission and insert “ Board.”

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales-

Minister for Repatriation) [3.47]. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This is clearly a mistake in either typing, printing, or drafting, and it is proposed to correct the error that has occurred.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 45 -

The provisions of this Act shallextend to the case of any soldier of the Imperial Reserve Forces called up for active service who at the commencement of the present state of war was bona fide resident in Australia, as if that soldier were a member of the Forces as defined in this Act……

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit all the words after “this” (line 1) up to and including “ Act” (line 7), and insert - “ Part shall extend to-

  1. any soldier of the Imperial Reserve Forces called up for active service during the present war; and
  2. any person who is serving or has served during the present war in the Naval or Military Forces of any part of the King’s Dominions other than the Commonwealth, on active service outside that Dominion, on proof to the satisfaction of the Commission that he was, immediately before being called up or before his enlistment, as the case may be, domiciled in the Commonwealth.”’

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales-

Minister for Repatriation) [3.48]. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The effect of this amendment is to include in the benefits of the Act those Australians who served in other units of the King’s Forces. A similar provision is in the original Repatriation Act, but it was not included in the benefits as regards pensions. The insertion of this amendment provides that the difference between the pension received from the Imperial authorities and that to which they would be entitled if enrolled in the Australian Forces will be paid.

Motion agreed to.

Amendments in clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 (Commission shall make recommendations as to regulations).

House of Representatives’ Amendment. - Omit “ in the nature of “ ; insert “ payments or allowances in the nature of, or supplementary to “.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales-

Minister for Repatriation) [3.49]. - I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

The clause as originally presented is not disturbed, but has been made less ambiguous by the language now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment . -

After “ mothers “ insert “ or stepmothers “.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– As this clause left the Senate there were included amongst the beneficiaries under this part of the Act -

The mothers of deceased or incapacitated soldiers.

The House of Representatives has amended the Bill by inserting after the word “ mothers “ the words “ or stepmothers.” I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit “ widows and were, prior to the enlistment of those soldiers, dependent upon them “, insert “ either widowed, divorced, or deserted.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The next amendment made by the House of Representatives is contained in a subclause which originally provided that -

The Commission may make recommendations to the Governor-General for regulations for the granting of assistance and benefits, not being in the nature of pensions, as provided for in Part III of this Act.

Where by reason of. special circumstances the Commission considers that assistance and benefit should be granted to-

The mothers of deceased or incapacitated Australian soldiers - (a) who are widows and were prior to the enlistment of those soldiers dependent upon them.

The House of Representatives have amended this paragraph by omitting the words “ widows, and” were prior to the enlistment of those soldiers dependent upon them” and inserting the words “either widowed, divorced, or deserted.” The effect of the amendment is to include divorced and deserted wives as beneficiaries under the Act.

Senator Rowell:

– If divorced on the petition of the wife?

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I presume that it is intended to include the divorced woman whether she obtained the divorce herself or otherwise. I hope that honorable senators will not try to make the Repatriation Department a judge of morals in these matters. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

Omit “and” (paragraph (d) iv).

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– As the Bill left the Senate paragraph d, subparagraph iv, read -

The incapacitated fathers of deceased or incapacitated Australian soldiers who were, prior to the enlistment of those soldiers, dependent upon them, and.

The House of Representatives proposes that the word “ and “ be left out, and that is necessary, because additional paragraphs have been added, and the word “ and “ should follow the penultimate paragraph. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ ‘Amendment. -

Omit “ or stepmothers “ (paragraph (d) (v).

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Subparagraph 5 of paragraph d originally read-

The mothers or stepmothers, being either widowed, divorced or unmarried, of Australian soldiers who were born out of wedlock.

Stepmothers havingbeen provided for by a previous amendment agreed to, it is proposed that the word should be left out of this paragraph. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to. .

Remaining amendment agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

After clause 47, insert the following clause: - “ 47a. The Commission shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, have power to assist soldiers in establishing industries on a cooperative basis, such industries to include the manufacture of boots, woollen goods, and clothing, tanning, wool-scouring, fellmongering (and kindred industries), saw-milling, and other enterprises.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– This is one of the two amendments which I have intimated I intended to ask the Senate to disagree with. I am well aware that there have been put forward various suggestions for the repatriation of soldiers by establishing them in businesses, cooperative and otherwise. But I ask the Committee to consider some of the difficulties, and even evils, which might arise if this proposed new clause were agreed to. I assume from the remarks made in another place that what was in the mind of the honorable member who moved this amendment was that it was a proposal by means of which it would be possible to place in businesses a number of men now awaiting employment, and on the unemployed register of the Repatriation Department. I do not want -what I arn about to say to be in any way misinterpreted, or to appear to cast the slightest reflection on our returned soldiers as a whole. I have already referred to the fact that their readiness to go back to civil life is the highest testimony to their character that could be given. Still, I do ask the Committee to recognise that there must necessarily be amongst the men who remain with us towards the end of repatriation a very considerable percentage of those who, for some reason or another, are very difficult to place. Many of these may not have been noted for steadiness before they went to the war-

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Or were men who had no permanent employment.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That is so. Amongst the men -on our books, there is a considerable percentage of those who, in my view, would represent, perhaps, the least satisfactory persons to start businesses on their own account. This provision I point out could not be limited to nien now on the unemployed register of the Department. If the Government, as a part of their repatriation policy, are to find money, to establish in business men who have not yet returned to civil life, they cannot deny the same privilege to those who have already returned to civil life. The benefit of this clause cannot be restricted to men who are awaiting employment to-day. If this clause is agreed to, any returned Australian soldier, no matter when he was discharged, must have a right to the benefits of the provision. I have not the exact figures with me, but I think that upwards of 200,000 men have passed through the Department, or have gone direct themselves to their niche in civil life. If this clause is agreed .to, not merely the men who are unemployed today, but thousands of those who axe already satisfactorily employed, but animated by the ambition of most young Australians to start business on their own account, rather than continue in employment, will seek assistance under this provision.

Senator Rowell:

– They could start /businesses with their gratuity money.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– As Senator Rowell points out, if there is any desire on the part of many of these men to engage in these enterprises, the majority of them will be able to give effect to that desire by means of the gratuity recently passed by Parliament. If the Committee approves of the proposition to advance money to the returned soldiers generally to start business on their own account, it seems to me they will be throwing upon the Repatriation Department an obligation for which it is not intended.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Is not the principle of co-operation involved in this amendment?

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is; but if we advance money to half-a-dozen soldiers to enable them to go into a co-operative business, we cannot logically refuse to make a proportionate advance to an individual soldier who wishes to go into business on his own account. In the last analysis, therefore, the proposed new clause is a proposition to advance money to every soldier to make a start on his own account, and, in my view, it would be, not only unnecessary, but dangerous to approve of such a proposal.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If 100,000 soldiers agreed to co-operate in a ‘business, would the Minister object to money being’ advanced to them for that purpose ?

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It would be a most dangerous experiment for the Commonwealth to find the money to start 100,000 men in a co-operative enterprise. I cannot dissociate from this amendment very many applications made to me to start returned soldiers in business enterprises in the country towns, and chiefly in the State of Victoria. I think I am safe in saying that three out of every four of these cases submitted to me have been proposals to take up some defunct or bankrupt business. In one town, at no great distance from Melbourne, there is a wilderness of machinery started some years ago under a high-sounding name as a saw-milling plant. Leading townsmen, who are hardheaded business men, came along and described the magnificent opportunity which was here afforded to establish several soldiers in business. My answer was to suggest- that they were business men, and although this opportunity had stared them in the face, they allowed the machinery to lie idle for years, and I preferred that the experiment should be tried with the stay-at-homes rather than with men who had gone to the Front. Other leading townsmen proposed that returned soldiers should be assisted to develop a defunct mine in their neighbourhood. Another proposal submitted was that returned soldiers should be assisted to take over a bankrupt engineering shop which was to be sold. It was pleaded that this would be a magnificent business in which to start returned soldiers. I felt that it would certainly not be a good thing for the soldiers if it had failed in the hands of other people. I have felt, also, that underlying these proposals there has ‘been one word for the soldier and six for the residents of certain towns, who would like to have some public money spent in their midst. I should be more disposed to approve of this proposition if those responsible for it said that they were willing to find a percentage of the money required to give it effect. If some of the gentlemen who have been so ardent in their desire to have industries started by the returned soldiers showed their faith in the proposition by agreeing to subsidize the proposals, or to advance £1 for every £1 advanced by the country, for this purpose. I should have greater faith in the value of the proposals they make. If the proposed new clause were agreed to, I believe that its effect would be to unsettle a large number of returned men who have satisfactorily found some niche in civil life, and would also start in business a large number of men who can make no possible claim to sufficient experience to warrant their success. It may be said that the responsibility is thrown on the Minister for Repatriation of saying yes or no to any proposition under this clause. I should like to say, as the Minister for the time being, that if it is desired to start an Industries Promotion Board, for that is involved, it should be apart from the Repatriation Department. I do not feel competent to say whether a particular enterprise may be good, bad, or indifferent. Quite different machinery from that which I have created for carrying on the Repatriation Department must be called into being to handle such proposals. The work of the Repatriation Department has gone along not without its jolts and jars, but still for the most part satisfactorily.

But if a new element such as this is to be introduced it will involve starting the work of repatriation de novo, and men long since settled again in civil life will come along and claim that advances should be made to them under this clause to start business on their own account. I move -

That the amendment be disagreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have listened to all that the Minister .for Repatriation (Senator Millen) has said, and again I remind the Committee that this amendment could not have been carried in the House of Representatives if the Government had a ‘ majority opposed to it. I hope that the Senate is not to be made a convenience of to enable the Government to correct what has been done in another place if they disapprove of it. The House of Representatives has in this case deliberately inserted a clause which, in my opinion, might be made of material benefit to the soldiers. The one or two cases mentioned by the Minister for Repatriation of proposals for advances in support of doubtful enterprises prove nothing. If we take the saw-milling industry I venture to say that amongst our returned soldiers we should find men who would make a success of that business where, perhaps, private enterprise has so far failed. The returned soldiers have had a wider experience than most of us, and they have done things abroad. I believe that it would be in the interests not only of the returned soldiers, but of the community as a whole, to invest -money in the establishment of returned men in business on their own account under the new clause inserted by the House of Representatives. What could be better than to have a body of ten men joined in a co-operative saw-milling business at Rabaul, which is subject to our control under the mandate to supply the timber necessary for the construction of soldiers’ homes. At the rate at which the work is proceeding at present we shall probably be constructing these homes for the next ten years. I am credibly informed that there is very valuable timber in the new territory to which I have referred, which should be utilized in the construction of soldiers’ homes.

Senator Rowell:

– Tha returned, soldiers could invest their war gratuity money in that business.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is so. The Government could advance part of that money for these co-operative enterprises. . .

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That would be advancing the soldiers’ own money, but that is not the proposal of* the amendment.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the new clause is agreed to, the proposed cooperative concern might easily be financed out of the gratuity money. It would be quite impossible for one or two men to undertake the timber industry in Rabaul, for instance, owing to the distance, the obstacles in the way, the difficulty of getting shipping, and the fact that they would have to fight the Timber Combine and the Shipping Ring: Those considerations would be enough to frighten out men i with a lot of capital, and would certainly frighten out a few soldiers. But let a few soldiers form a co-operative concern with their own. capital, such as their war gratuity money, and be backed up by the Minister, because the Minister’s approval is necessary, with a guarantee from the Government of shipping for the material they produce, and see what will happen. My mind is running particularly on the new Possessions in the Pacific. I can imagine ten men going there with a few thousand pounds worth of machinery and beginning operations with all the native labour available.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– What colour is the native labour?

Senator GARDINER:

– Black. I am not to be bluffed by the Minister’s insinuation that. I am advocating black labour. They are the natives of the Islands. They can be profitably employed there, and to their own advantage, in helping the natives of this island continent. I am using this particular instance of a soldiers’ co-operative sawmilling concern, which the Government could undertake to help by providing ships. Western Australia would not like it, lest it should interfere with its timber trade, such as the wooden boxes, and wooden heads, and other wooden things that come here from that State. The West Australians would certainly see the danger of the new territories being used to coane into competition with their particular timber industry, the profits of which have got into a very few hands. I worked in the ‘building trade, and’ can assure the Committee that the price of Oregon in

Sydney to-day is about ten times what it was about twenty-five years ago.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I never remember

Oregon at less than 12s. or 14s. per 100 superficial feet.

Senator GARDINER:

– At the time 1 speak of it could be purchased in Sydney at about 9s. per 100 super., and it is now about 90s. I recognise that there is now a greater scarcity of timber, and greater cost of material and labour, but the real trouble is the existence of a timber combine which has the whole of the timber business of the world in its hands. The best way to fight that Combine would be with the same men as fought for ail our other industries. I would not confine them to the new territories. They could exploit the forests of Australia. Then let us turn from timber to coal. We know how enormous and far-reaching are the coal deposits of Australia, and with our increased and increasing population there is ample room for taking the Coal Combine out of the hands of a few coal kings who control it now. The soldiers could do that, if permitted by this measure, supported by the Minister, and encouraged by the Government. We could follow cooperation in many other directions, but I know this Government’ has no intention to. do it. They will not even allow a clause to be included in this Bill to permit other Governments to do it.

Senator de Largie:

– Do you know the history of co-operation in coal mining in your own State?

Senator GARDINER:

– I heard one of the shrewdest business men it was ever my lot to listen to, speaking of an enterprise they were trying to persuade him to go into, say to his son, “Don’t go into that, pioneers nearly always go down. It will be successful, but not by those who take it up first.” The failures of the past should never be used as a reason why a thing should not be a success eventually. The failure of cooperation twenty years ago may have been due to the management of that particular concern., . or to the conditions under which it operated, or to its members themselves. So far as co-operation among the soldiers is concerned, even if it costs us money, it would be money admirably spent if we assisted parties of soldiers to erect saw-mills or embark in other desirable undertakings. When the men went away to fight, nobody grumbled about paying them their wages while they were engaged in the work of destruction. The only thing that prevented them being paid a better wage was the fact that the concern was so enormous that it could not.be done. But if they could be maintained, clothed, fed, and equipped for years for that purpose, what is, wrong, now that they are back, with saying to them, “We engaged you to go and fight, and maintained you; you gave us intense satisfaction while you were fighting, and we shall never cease to admire your splendid performances. Now that you are back, and want to form co-operative enterprises, we are not going to stop at a shilling or two.” That would not be an over-generous thing for the people of Australia to say, nor would it be too much to expect the Minister to welcome a claim of that kind.

SenatorRowell. - We do not want to wet-nurse them for ever.

Senator GARDINER:

-I know the distinction that is made on the other side. It is not wet-nursing them when they are employed to fight for other people’s interests, but it is wet-nursing them to help them to fight in their own interests. If it is to the benefit of the people represented opposite, it is the soldier’s duty to do it, but if it is for the soldier’s benefit, we immediately hear the cry, “We cannot wet-nurse them; we cannot support them.” Honorable senators opposite will take very fine care that they would not support the soldiers. The world is moving towards co-operation. Why, then, should we not follow the lead of another place by saying that if the soldiers want to move with the times we will help them instead of retarding them ? I do not claim that it is a generous thing to do. It is merely common-sense and our common duty. If the Minister does not approve of an enterprise, his “ no “ puts an end to any scheme that he thinks unsatisfactory. His “yes” will give effect to any scheme that he thinks will be a success. I am not afraid either of the business capacity of the soldiers or of the failures, because they would he so few. Throughout Australia at the present time there are opportunities simply waiting to be picked up, waiting for organized brains to use the potentialities of this country for making good money out of them. I heard a soldier discussing with a few of his mates a proposal for cooperatively tilling unused lands - that is, to enter into arrangements with the holders of lands to lease them to grow wheat, oats, potatoes, and all those things of which the community is so badly in need. He had an excellent scheme for sending advance agents round to secure land in certain districts. When they secured sufficient land in one district, he proposed to arrange with the manufacturers of machinery to send certain classes of machines there, and then the tilling of the land would go on. They would move from place to place, not looking to purchase land, but merely making arrangements to use the lands lying idle to-day in the rich districts, and used only to graze a few head of stock but capable of producing much more money if put under intense cultivation. A scheme of that kind would be of immensevalue to Australia at this juncture. In these soldiers we have the men who can carry it out. We know what they have done. The men who learned to handle big guns would soon learn to handle big ploughs and harvesting machinery. With all these possibilities for the employment of soldiers in co-operative societies, why jib at this proposal ? I know the Committee will reject it, because the Minister asks them to do so. At the same time we could think of nothing better to benefit the soldiers, and if the Government would adopt it, and take a supervising interest in it, and give the soldiers sufficient encouragement to start cooperative businesses, there is no saying where it would end. I believe that in his heart Senator Millen thinks the same, because he said, “ We cannot do this for the men who have to be repatriated, and refuse it to those who are already back in their employments.” He can see the success that the scheme would be when it started. Men already working at something else would begin to look for something better in the way of cooperative enterprise. It is because I am looking for better times for co-operative enterprises, which would remove many of the grievances that we are suffering under to-day, that I favour accepting the amendment of another place. There is huge scope for splendid effort on behalf of the soldiers, and for that reason I shall vote for the amendment.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

.- I was surprised by Senator Millen’s remarks. It is rather amusing to find that- in one place the Government agree to a clause being put into a Bill, while in another place the Minister representing the same party, with the same views and aspirations, asks that the clause shall be thrown out of the Bill. Senator Millen advanced the reason that it was almost impracticable because of certain ventures brought under his notice, which, in his opinion, were rotten. He said that those who brought them under his notice so urgently were local people with an axe to grind, who wanted to utilize the Government to finance them, but would not put any capital in themselves. A large number of men have been trained, or are being trained, in various technical schools. There are over 600 going through vocational training at the Working Men’s College, with which I have been connected for the last eighteen years.’ Some of them said to me, “ When we have learnt all we can learn we have to seek private employment, or do something else if we cannot get it. Why cannot the Government give us an opportunity to co-operate, for the purpose of establishing industries .with the knowledge we have gained, so that we can sell our goods after making them, instead of working for somebody else.” A very strong case was put before me in which the men had shown their capabilities. There is every safeguard in this provision, because the Minister, upon advice, would himself determine whether an industry should be established or not. There can be no such thing as men not properly fitted for the work undertaking to form a co-operative society and being able to demand assistance from the Government. I am sure that those in another place who agreed to the clause being put in the Bill saw that that was so. Senator Rowell interjected when Senator Gardiner was speaking, “ We do not want, to wet-nurse the soldiers all the time.” That is a thing that should not be said in this Chamber or outside it.

Senator Rowell:

– I am one of them.

Senator BARKER:

– The man who can say it here or elsewhere now dared not say it during war time. He would not have been here to-day. He is unworthy of the position that he holds when he can make such a statement. These men have a right to everything which the Common wealth can give them, because of the magnificent work which they did overseas. We have been told that there is nothing too good for them.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– But I question whether this is good for them.

Senator BARKER:

– The matter is one which the other branch of the Legislature has decided in the light of just as much information as we ourselves possess. We recognise that these men should be afforded every chance of getting back into civil life. I have in my mind the case of some returned soldiers who would have established a new industry here had they possessed the necessary capital. They applied to the Repatriation Department for assistance, but it was refused them. Had they been supported as they should have been, they would to-day have been producing goods and sell.ng them direct to the public. Are not these men entitled to be trusted? A little while ago they were intrusted with a very great deal more than the few paltry pounds that are involved here. They were then intrusted with the preservation of the liberties of the Empire.

Senator SENIOR:

– What changes’ does time bring round !

Senator BARKER:

– The honorable senator can “flapdoodle” now that the war is over. He can approve of the statement that it is not proper to “wet-nurse” our returned soldiers any longer. But here is an amendment which has been sent up to us by another place, and honorable senators opposite intend to knock it out. If it is good enough for the other branch of the Legislature it is good enough for us. I shall vote against the Ministerial proposal.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is rather amusing - and I am sure it puts the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) in a very peculiar position - to hear honorable senators opposite affirm that we ought blindly to. accept whatever amendments the other House may choose to insert in the Bill. This is, indeed, a new role for the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) and Senator Barker to assume. Upon many occasions they have found very serious fault with the Government for agreeing with the legislative proposals which originated in another place. They have repeatedly urged, when Bills come up here, that the Government expect us to slavishly adhere to the decisions of the other Chamber. To-day, however, their attitude is of quite a different character. The very circumstance that honorable senators upon this side of the chamber are opposing the insertion of the proposed new clause shows how absolutely inaccurate is Senator Barker’s statement. The honorable senator posed as the censor of a gentleman who has taken part in more than one war, merely because he remarked that our soldiers should not be wet-nursed.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Honorable senators opposite did not say that he had to be wet-nursed before the armistice.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- Senator Barker now suggests that some influence has been at work in order that we might get behind the Minister in this regard.

Senator BARKER:

– The honorable senator is a martyr.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not pose as a martyr. I am perfectly at liberty to oppose any proposal which may be brought forward by Ministers, and that is a glorious position for any senator to occupy. In assigning reasons why the clause should not be inserted the Minister said that there was a great probability of unworthy enterprises being foisted upon returned soldiers. To vest the Minister with the right of veto in such matters would be to place him in a very unenviable position. He has himself stated that he does not feel competent to decide whether soldiers should be assisted to establish on a co-operative basis such’ industries as saw-milling and the working of a coal mine. No Minister is competent to decide whether a body of men ought to be assisted to engage in such enterprises. It would be necessary to appoint a board of experts to deal with these matters. We all recognise that individually and collectively soldiers have entered into various businesses since their return to Australia. We know, too, that they have not all been successful. If soldiers who enter into co-operative enterprises are to be permitted to draw upon the Government whenever they sustain a loss, it follows that the Government will always be obliged to see them through their undertakings. Otherwise, it will be said that if the Commonwealth had stood behind them they would have succeeded. Only a few days ago we dealt with another Bill which provided that returned soldiers may start cooperative concerns for themselves. The sol diers asked for that consideration, but they have not asked for the proposal which is embodied in this new clause. The War Gratuity Bill provides that the Government will stand behind a returned soldier when he puts his gratuity into a cooperative concern. Parliament has also enacted that nurses, doctors and others may put their allowances for war service homes into co-operative enterprises. I agree with Senator Barker that nothing is too good for our returned soldiers, although he and his friends did not always say that. At the same time, we have a right to see that we do not lead our soldiers into a trap or encourage unscrupulous persons outside to do so. I have no doubt that the Committee will follow the advice of the Minister and reject the clause. From reading the remarks of its author, I know perfectly well what he had in his mind. He had chiefly in view co-operative enterprises associated with primary production. But now it is suggested that these enterprises may cover anything from the purchase of a coal mine to the running of a fleet of ships. Suppose that the Minister had asked for (power to purchase half-a-dozen vessels for the purpose of strike-breaking. Would my honorable friends opposite have applauded that proposal?

Senator Gardiner:

– That is the kind of thing which you applaud.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator’s statement is absolutely untrue, and he has no right to make it.

Senator Gardiner:

– I am in a particularly good humour just now. Come out into the gardens and say that, and I will stuff the lie down your throat.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator has charged- me with assisting strike-breaking. His statement is absolutely contrary to fact. I am as firm a believer in maintaining the rights of the working man as he is, although I do not make so much noise about it. I regret that I have been sidetracked by the interjection of the honorable senator which was offensive to me in the extreme. Today we are experiencing trouble in the building industry. Suppose that our returned’ men were to’ start a co-operative concern for the purpose of building soldiers’ homes. Would my friends opposite like that? I believe that sufficient provision has already been made in our legislation to enable our returned soldiers to embark upon any co-operative scheme into which they may desire to enter.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I was rather amused at the outset of the honorable senator’s remarks. He appeared to expand his chest and strike an independent attitude. But there are forty-four amendments to the Repatriation Bill, and I find he is so independent that up to the present he has followed the Minister in accepting every one. In regard to this amendment he now tells us that ho is opposing its acceptance because he is not bound or shackled to the Minister.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– You leave my statements alone. I exercise my own judgment.

Senator GARDINER:

– The honorable senator got very angry with me because I suggested that he is a strike-breaker, but for the last two years his voice and vote have been against the strikers.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That statement is contrary to fact.

Senator GARDINER:

– If I had time I could turn up Hansard and prove what I am saying. I repeat that in every debate of recent years he has spoken and voted against the strikers. In fact, it has become a habit with him.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the amendment before the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– The amendment aims at the establishment of cooperative concerns, in connexion with which there is very little danger of strikes. Senator Newland said that during the war my attitude and that of Senator Barker was totally different from our attitude of to-day, butour attitude is just the same, though by misrepresentation an endeavour has been made to prove it otherwise. But this misrepresentation will not fool the soldiers on a question like this, which asks that cooperative concerns may be established with the consent of the Minister.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– No; the question is whether the Government shall find the money to enable them to start extensive enterprises such as coal mines and other big ventures.

Senator GARDINER:

– I mentioned coal mines just as an illustration. I understand there is an almost unlimited demand in Victoria for coal which a co operative concern could easily supply. But, of course, the Minister for Repatriation knows the danger of these cooperative concerns.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I do.

Senator GARDINER:

– He knows the danger they constitute to vested interests, to the exploiters and profiteers of this country. The amendment says nothing at all about the Government providing a huge sum of money with which to establish a coal mine or any other enterprise. It merely asks that the Commission shall have power, with the consent of the Minister, to assist soldiers. They may decide to invest some of their gratuity money in these concerns on a cooperative basis, and the Minister, by moving to disagree with the House of Representatives’ amendment, wants to refuse them this assistance. Of course, this is the policy of his party. They won the election on it. It is the policy of the people who were opposed to all co-operative enterprises calculated to injure, in any way, those who are associated with private concerns and Combines that are supporting this Government and members on the Ministerial benches. Naturally they want no cooperative enterprises to interfere with their businesses. Let us, however, imagine the establishment of a co-operative shipping enterprise trading between Tasmania and the mainland. Is it likely that men engaged in such a business would strike against themselves? How many ships would they require to maintain regular communication between Tasmania and the mainland? And then; if they were successful, they could go further afield and establish communication with New Zealand. There is, in fact, almost unlimited scope for a well organized co-operative shipping concern.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– We had a cooperative shipping business in New Zealand once, and it ruined us.

Senator GARDINER:

– But of late years we have gained a lot of experience in co-operation, and we now have an excellent opportunity to encourage our returned soldiers to enter this field. I congratulate honorable members of another place upon having inserted this provision in the Bill, as the amendment is calculated to materially benefit, not only our returned soldiers, but the whole community; though I can quite understand why the Minister should oppose it. He has always been the representative of the big institutions and the big Combines of this country.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– This is a phase of cooperation with Which I have had no experience. All my- life. I have been connected with co-operative enterprises. I can quite understand any body of ‘men advocating Government control of these concerns; but I do not know whether this would be a wise policy. I cannot see how we could justify our action, by voting for the amendment made by the House of Representatives, asking the Government to find money which some other people would have the right to spend as they think fit. The principle of co-operation has been in operation for the better part of a century, and very many such institutions may be numbered as amongst the most successful enterprises in the civilized world. But I point out that the money invested in them belongs to those who are actively associated with such concerns. I am not so sure that they would be as successful if the money provided were spent by somebody else in a haphazard manner, as might happen under this amendment. In my opinion, the Government are doing almost everything that is humanly possible for our returned soldiers, and they should not now be asked to find money for co-operative concerns, as contemplated in the amendment, because ventures of this kind are bound to fail, owing to the absence of that incentive to success, namely, the investment in them of one’s own capital. In this case, the money will be simply doled out by the Government to people who would experiment with it. Co-operation, if it means anything, means the co-operation of the whole. If a man wants to be co-operator, he must be prepared to co-operate with that which he possesses. Unless a man’s interests are definitely associated with these enterprises, he cannot argue very forcibly in favour of them, nor will he be very successful in the business. The cooperative societies established in New South Wales have, for the most part, been very successful. But some have failed. Practically the whole of the co-operative undertakings,- with the exception of those in Western Australia, where the members of certain timber concerns took the opportunity ;. selling out when they had a suitable opportunity, have failed. Those in operation in Western Australia were, however, successful; and if We desire the soldiers to succeed we should allow them to. work out their own salvation under the provision embodied in the War Gratuity Bill. If they are anxious to conduct businesses, all they need do is to co-operate, pool their gratuities, and follow in the footsteps of out successful pioneers. During their . travels abroad many of ‘our soldiers must have had an opportunity of inspecting the industrial undertakings which, in times of peace, were hives of industry, but which, during the war period, unfortunately were at a standstill. Industries of this kind have been, and are . still being, successfully handled by men whose life interests are sunk in them, and whose capital has been the means of building them. up. I therefore intend supporting the Minister, in opposing this amendment, because if the soldiers are prepared, to work on a cooperative basis they have the opportunity of doing so under the provisions of the War Gratuity Bill.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– Honorable senators have apparently overlooked the fact that no machinery is provided in the Bill for giving effect to the proposed new clause. If the amendment is agreed to we shall be enacting something, entirely foreign to the spirit of the measure. This is not a Bill in which such a clause should be inserted, and if we adopt it we shall be making a grave mistake. Provision has already been made in the War Gratuity Bill for something of this character, and the authorities responsible for the administration of that Act will have the opportunity of giving their careful attention, to that portion of the measure. But under a Repatriation Bill it is unreasonable to give the Commissioners power to control, or even direct, a number of undertakings; and if the proposal is adopted it will certainly lead to considerable inconvenience and probably disorganization.

I am sorry Senator Barker is not present, as I would like to remind him that it is now April, 1920. and we can look back and realize that in this month, two years ago, these gentlemen opposite did not then act in the way they are acting to-day. Here in this city, and in the city from which Senator Gardiner comes, action was taken that was entirely antagonistic to the principle now advocated. Do honorable senators opposite recall that it was in April, 1918, when Haig delivered his celebrated message to the effect that our men had their backs to the wall, and that no man should give way? Who was it who then applauded the soldier? Who were the members of organizations that supported resolutions to the effect that there was no possibility of victory for the Allies, and that Great Britain should retire from the conflict?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Shannon:

– Order! The honorable senator is not discussing the clause.

Senator SENIOR:

– I think I am in order in answering some of the charges that have been made against honorable senators on this side.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order at this stage in discussing the attitude of a political party.

Senator SENIOR:

– I am complaining of the statements made by honorable senators opposite; and I wish to place on record the fact that those who now profess to be the friends of the soldiers were not their friends in April, 1918. They are trying to establish the point that if we vote against the proposed new clause we are not the friends of the soldiers; but it must be remembered that in a time of national stress and trial we proved that we were their friends.

Senator GARDINER:

– If sheer humbug will prove anything the honorable senator will do it. ,

Senator SENIOR:

– If I am permitted I shall quote from a report of the proceedings of the Sydney Labour Council in May, 1918, when the members of that body opposed a resolution - 101 votes to 74 _ that had been carried at the GovernorGeneral’s Conference, in favour of uniting in a recruiting campaign.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not discussing the question before the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– I suppose Senator Senior is quoting from a capitalistic paper, from information prepared and supplied merely for the use of his party.

Senator SENIOR:

– I wish to place it on record, because. we have been charged with not desiring to assist the soldiers. I must reply to that charge.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing recruiting, as that question is not before the Committee.

Senator SENIOR:

– Honorable senators on this side have been charged with acting in an unfriendly way towards the soldiers, because we are not supporting the insertion of the proposed new clause. It has been said that we are devoid of sincerity. Can honorable senators opposite say that they are sincere in their desire to assist the soldiers, when they have refused to assist the recruiting movement, at a time when the Germans were within 40 miles of Paris ? Where were honorable senators then ? It was at that critical stage in our history that they said that victory was impossible. We said that victory was possible, and we stood by the soldiers then and have done so ever since. But, because we do not favour the insertion of the proposed clause, it does not prove that we are not desirous of assisting our exfighting men. We have always been the friend of the soldiers, but I decline to assist in including this clause in the Bill, because I do not think it is its proper place. However, if it is included, no machinery has been provided for giving effect to it. If such a provision is necessary, why not introduce a separate Bill to enable soldiers to start co-operative concerns. Such a provision should not be inserted in a Repatriation Bill, when the money has to be found by the Government and not by the soldier, and there is a vast difference between using public money and money belonging to the soldiers. If a separate Bill were submitted, there would be more strength in Senator Gardiner’s arguments in asking the Government to assist. This is not a question of assisting, but of doing everything, which is quite a different proposition. We are charged with being fettered-

Senator GARDINER:

– You told us, quite recently, that your speeches were based on a publication entitled Weekly Notes.

Senator SENIOR:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the quotation I read was untruthful ? Does he say that the records of the Labour Council are untrue? Surely there cannot be anything wrong in quoting from a truthful record !

The CHAIRMAN:

– Conversations of this character across the chamber are distinctly out of order.

Senator SENIOR:

– Senator Gardiner is responsible for this discussion, and it is grossly unfair and incorrect to say that honorable senators on this side are unfriendly towards the soldier. Honorable senators opposite and their supporters deserted our men in the darkest hour of our history. As there is no provision in the Bill for giving effect to the proposed clause, it is my intention to oppose the amendment.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I feel it is my duty to reply to the attack that has been made on my party by Senator Senior. So far as words go, I do not think I have ever accused the honorable senator of being unfriendly towards the soldier. He has been continually repeating the fact that he is the soldiers’ friend for three years, but when an opportunity comes for him to do anything he always shirks his responsibility. The honorable senator has been endeavouring to prove, ‘by reading quotations, that the record of our party is altogether unfavorable,’ but he must remember that we were responsible for passing legislation that has been of great advantage to our soldiers. We are now asking the Government to go further and do something in the interests of a few soldiers. This clause merely provides that assistance shall be given in certain directions, if the Minister approves, and these so-called friends of the soldiers are opposing it. If the Minister is willing to approve of assistance being given in this direction, why should the Committee object?

Senator Henderson:

– Who finds the money ?

Senator GARDINER:

– There are hundreds of ways of assisting without finding money. For the last two years more money has been wasted - I use the term advisedly - in repatriation work than would have been required to finance a dozen co-operative concerns. It runs into thousands of pounds sterling per week.

Senator de Largie:

– Ask the men if the money has been wasted.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is remarkable how honorable senators opposite disregard past occurrences and how they carefully endeavour to prevent things happening in the future. The way the Repatriation Department has been conducted has been costing the country thousands of pounds per week.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Co-operation would not have affected that. a

Senator GARDINER:

– If they established co-operative concerns they would be so profitable that the men would get away from the Repatriation Department altogether.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the co-operative concerns would be profitable at once?

Senator GARDINER:

– They would become profitable almost as soon as they were started, and would ;give employment.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Could they be started at once?

Senator GARDINER:

– They could be started without any delay. Halfadozen men would soon start a co-operative business if they could be assured that they would be assisted - I do not say with moneys of the Repatriation Department, but with their own moneys - and once they got together they could go on with their 00-operative concern. Honorable senators will say that they could do this without this clause, and while that is true, they could do it very much better with the advantage of this clause. They could do it so much better that honorable members in another place said that the provision should be inserted in this Bill, and they gave the Minister for Repatriation the right to refuse or to accept any proposal made under it. I am satisfied that if any proposition was submitted in connexion with which returned soldiers were likely to lose money the Minister would not agree to it. If any particular proposal could not be shown to be on a sound business footing it would be immediately turned down. We are asked to insert a provision which can be taken advantage of only on the initiative of the soldiers themselves.

Honorable senators opposite refuse to agree to the amendment of the House of Representatives, and yet Senators Senior and Newland stand up and parade their support of the returned soldiers. I say that so far as their professions of support &r© concerned I have to accept them, because I have heard them say a hundred times that they are interested and enthusiastic supporters of the returned soldiers. But I am forced to a different opinion of them when I find them refusing to agree to any nro.posal that would benefit the returned soldiers. I know their professions as to what they dick when the war was on, and what somebody else did not do, and what they thought of persons who spoke in a way that did not please them.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The verdict of the soldiers is a very satisfactory one, I may tell the honorable senator.

Senator GARDINER:

– I hope that Senator Newland is well satisfied with it, and particularly satisfied with the way we were permitted to carry on the war and finish it. We have secured the peace which the party opposite said they fought for, and they have got everything they wanted.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I am afraid not.

Senator GARDINER:

– The party opposite were going to win the war; they were kept in power for the purpose. What, more do they want? And yet Senator Newland says, that he is afraid they have not got what they wanted.

Senator Fairbairn:

– We won the war right enough.

Senator GARDINER:

– Unquestionably; but I am not quite sure whether it was Senator Fairbairn or Senator Senior who won the war.

Senator Fairbairn:

– It was not Senator Gardiner, anyway.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am quite sure it was not, but I do not mind putting my record against that of Senator Newland and taking his judgment upon it. Here we are considering not what honorable senators did in the past, but what they are prepared to do to-day, and we find that honorable senators opposite are not prepared to do anything but live on their record as the old “ has-beens “ who won the war.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator would not call the members of this party the “ has-beens “ after the last elections?

Senator GARDINER:

– No ; honorable senators are the “its,” but still the fact remains that whilst before the elections they had a majority of fifty-four, the Government now lives by the grace of the members of two other parties in Parliament. So far as the party on this side is concerned we increased our numbers in the House that makes and unmakes Governments, whilst the party opposite is dependent for their majority on the Country party or the Labour party, and cannot carry on without that assistance.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Where is the honorable senator’s party in the Senate?

Senator GARDINER:

– The members of our party were cheated out of their positions here by an Act which swindled them out of the right to have the votes recorded for them counted. In the last two elections there was not a difference of 2,000 votes between Senator McDougall and myself, but at the last election, because all the votes counted were not recorded, there was a difference of 100,000 votes between us. Every one knows that that is not a true index of the way in which the people voted. If all the votes recorded for Senator McDougall were counted, it is possible that he would be here instead of myself.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– And a very good thing, too.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize that it would be quite a good thing for the country and for every one else, but honorable senators opposite can take very little credit for having passed a Bill which swindled Senator McDougall out of his job. The House of Representatives has proposed the insertion of the provision which can only be brought into force on the initiative of the soldiers, and which is controlled by the Minister for Repatriation. I shall certainly call for a division on the amendment, and will let the matter go now without further discussion.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 48-

  1. The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Commission, appoint Local Committees within a State or Territory.
  2. The persons to be appointed as members of a Local Committee shall be selected in the prescribed manner.
  3. Subject to the regulations, a Local Committee shall have power to raise and control funds for the district for which they are appointed and to disburse those funds within that district for the granting of assistance and benefits to any of the classes of persons specified in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the last preceding section or to any relative or person not specified in paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of that section who was dependent upon any deceased or discharged Australian soldier prior to his enlistment or for any other purpose prescribed by the regulations.
  4. A Local Committee shall have such other powers as arc prescribed.
  5. Members of a Local Committee shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister.
  6. Any Local Committee appointed under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1917- 1918 shall,” subject to the approval of the Minister, continue as if appointed under this Act.
  7. 7 ) The executive of a Local Committee may exercise such of the powers of the Committee as are prescribed.

House of Representatives’ Amendments. -

Omit “ Minister may on the recommendation of the Commission “, insert “ Commission may “.

After sub-clause 4 insert the following subclauses: - “(4a) The Commission shall appoint, for each Local Committee, an executive consisting of seven members of the Committee. (4b) Five members of the executive of each Local Committee shall be nominated by the Committee, and two members shall be selected by the Commission.”

Omit “ shall hold office during the pleasure of the Minister “, insert “ and of the executive of a Local Committee shall hold office during the pleasure of the Commission “.

Omit “ shall, subject to the approval of the Minister,” insert “ and the executive of any such Local Committee shall “.

Omit “ may exercise such of the powers of the Committee as are prescribed “, insert “ shall have and may exercise -

  1. such of the powers of the Committee as are prescribed, and
  2. such other powers as are prescribed: Provided that, in the exercise of any powers conferred in pursuance of paragraph (b) of this sub-section, the executive shall be responsible only to the Commission.”
Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– All these amendments relate to the same matter. The Bill as it left the Senate left Local Committees, as under the existing law, to be appointed by the Minister. It is proposed by the House of Representatives, in conformity with the general scope of the Bill, to make these dependent upon the Commission. The duties of the executives of the Committees are set out, and makes theirappointment dependent upon the Commission instead of the Minister. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

House of Representatives’ Amendments. -

Insert the following clauses: - “ 56a. The Commission shall furnish to the Minister annually for presentation to the Parliament a report of the administration and operation of this Act. 56b. Where, prior to the passing of this Act, a local fund for the repatriation of Australian soldiers has been raised in any district, the control of that fund shall, subject to the regulations, be vested in the trustees for the time being of the fund.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The House of Representatives have further amended the Bill by inserting new clauses 56a and 56b. A counterpart to these provisions appearsin the existing Act, but by some oversight was not included in the Bill now under consideration when it was introduced. The proposed new provisions are self-explanatory, and I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 57 (Regulations).

House of Representatives’ Amendment.-

After “ mothers “ insert “ or stepmothers.”’ Omit “ widows and were prior to the enlistment of those soldiers dependent upon them “ insert “ either widowed, divorced or deserted “. Omit “ and “. Omit “ or stepmothers “. After sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph (d) insert the following sub-paragraph: - “ and ( vi ) any person who was, prior to the death of an Australian soldier, recognised as his wife although not legally married to him.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– These are amendments in conformity with a series of amendments to which the Committee has already agreed. They provide for the inclusion in these benefits of stepmothers, widowed, divorced, or deserted wives, and of women recognised as wives although not legally married to the deceased soldier. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

First Schedule -

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

After “payable” insert “subject to the provisions of the third schedule.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– In this amendment, the House of Representatives proposes, in the third line of the First Schedule, to insert the words “subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule.” The intention is to connect the First Schedule with the payments provided for in the Third Schedule. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Second Schedule -

House of Representatives’ Amendment. -

After the first paragraph insert the following paragraphs: - “ The Commission may grant a pension not exceeding the special rate of pension to any member of the Forces, who is suffering from tuberculosis, and who has been, for at least six months, an inmate of an establishment for persons so suffering, and has been discharged from that establishment:

Provided that this paragraph shall not authorize the grant of a pension to such member of the Forces unless, upon his discharge from the establishment, the medical officer in charge of that establishment has certified that such discharge is not a menace to public health.”

Senator MILLEN (New South WalesMinister for Repatriation [5.18]. - The Second Schedule provides for the payment of a special pension to blinded and totally and permanently incapacitated men, and it is proposed, by the insertion of these new paragraphs, to include amongst those entitled to the special rate of pension members of the Forces suffering from tuberculosis. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Third Schedule-

House of Representatives’ Amendments. -

After the item “ widowed mother of an unmarried member” insert the following item: - “ Widowed or unmarried mother of an unmarried member who was born out of wedlock, and who was brought up by her : the rate specified in column 2 of the First Schedule, provided that, in the case of a widow, she became a widow, either prior to, or within three years after, the death of the member.”

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– This is consequent upon amendments already adopted, and I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Fourth Schedule -

House of Representatives’ Amendments. -

Omit all the words after “disability” (second occurring) and insert -

For the purposes of this Schedule, a leg, foot, hand arm or eye is deemed to be lost if it is rendered permanently and wholly useless.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Under the Fourth Schedule, itis provided that -

Any member of the Forces who is incapacitated by reason of a disability specified in the first column of this Schedule, shall receive the rate of pension shown in the second column of this Schedule opposite the description of’ the disability.

The amendment made by the House of Representatives does not, in effect, alter the Schedule under the existing law, but sets out the various degrees of disability in greater particularity. The Schedule adopted by the British Parliament deals with a vast number of forms, in which men are maimed, and provides a special rate for each.. The practice adopted here is to group the forms of disability under certain main headings. This is thought desirable, and the soldiers themselves prefer to have the injury set out with the special rate of pension payable in respect thereof. I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Reported that the Committee had agreed to the amendments with the exception of that in clause 10 and the insertion of clause 47 a, to which they disagreed.

Report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That a Committee, consisting of Senators Earle, Newland, and the mover, be appointed to prepare and bring up reasons for disagreeing to certain of. the amendments of the House of Representatives.

page 1597

IMMIGRATION BILL

Report adopted.

page 1597

PASSPORTS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28th April (vide page 1518), on motion by Senator Russell) -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is another piece of that finicky legislation introduced by the Government which exercised under the War Precautions Act powers which the War Precautions Act never conceded to them, but which they assumed to themselves. I look upon this measure as one of the small things that do not matter much. “While a Government like this is in office, it scarcely matters whether it has taken power by legislation or whether it exercises it at its own discretion. The system of passports proposed in this Bill appears to me to be simply an attempt” to interfere with the travelling community, and to harass and annoy people as much as possible by insisting that they shall come to a Government Department before they may have permission to leave this country. There are quite a number of people that I would hurry out of Australia without making them ask for permission to leave. I think we will have a quorum. [Quorum formed.] This is merely part and parcel of the sort of legislation of which the Government seem so fond, costing a good deal to administer, adding considerably to the irritation of the community, and benefiting no one in particular. For years one could leave this country without a passport. If the Government wish to regulate the travelling community by means of passports, they should see that there is no difficulty in getting them. Sydney is the chief city of Australia, easily first in wealth, population and importance, yet a citizen .of Sydney who wants to travel has to wait until Melbourne is communicated with. A Bill which continues such a system is not worthy of the consideration of the Senate. We can get on very well without all this class of legislation. It is not satisfactory, and it stops no one going outside this country who really wants to go. If I desire to get out of Australia without a passport I can do so. “We have had cases where men have gone without passports, and also other cases where passports have been issued very expeditiously, even when the Government did not want them to be issued. The Bill is in accord with the legislation for which the Government are becoming famous or infamous, legislation that aims at interfering with private persons, legislation that wants to bring everything under the control of Departments, and enable the Government to interfere by one means or another where Government interference is of no value and no benefit. As this Bill is part and parcel of that sort of thing, I will not detain honorable senators by discussing it. The Government have introduced it, and can pass it, as I have no doubt they will. I shall call for a division against it.

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice- . President of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Senator Gardiner is evidently under a misapprehension as to the objects of the Bill. He says people can leave Australia without passports. That is quite true, but they cannot get into other countries without passports. This is a Bill to facilitate travelling. All sorts of people are exempt, such”, for instance, as any member of the Naval or Military Forces leaving the Commonwealth on duty, any member of the crew of an oversea vessel, any member of the crew of any vessel who signs on in Australia for an oversea voyage, any person visiting New Zealand, or returning to New Zealand, Papua, Norfolk Island, &c. On other people there is no restriction beyond the securing of a simple passport prior to leaving the Commonwealth.

That document will facilitate travelling in other parts of the world. Senator Gardiner might be able to obtain facilities for travelling when he reached England, but it would be foolish to permit people to leave Australia for other parts of the world, as probably thousands will be doing shortly, to see the graves of their boys or for other purposes, without taking with them from Australia a certificate that they are reputable citizens of Australia.

Senator Gardiner:

– One gentleman who wanted to go from New South “Wales some time ago for health reasons could not get a passport.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– What was his name ?

Senator Gardiner:

– -Georgeson

Senator RUSSELL:

– There is no restriction on anybody’s liberty, but the passport has been made essential not by any action we have taken, but by action taken in practically every other country in the world.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second . time.

In Committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Persons leaving the Commonwealth to have passports bearing proper vise).

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a case that arose some time ago in connexion with the issue of a passport, and to ask him for some assurance that what happened, then is not going to be the practice of the Department. In that case the passport was applied for and granted, and the person who received it travelled as far as Fremantle. Then, on account of certain private circumstances that arose, the Department cancelled the passport, and the holder was pulled off the boat and left at Fremantle. On account of the delicacy of the case I shall not quote any names; but is it the intention of the Government, having once satisfied themselves of the bona fides of an applicant, and issued a passport, if circumstances arise which are altogether outside of

Government concern, to use their powers in that way?

Senator Russell:

– Cannot you give the reasons?

Senator FOLL:

– The person concerned was a lady who was travelling to England in the company of a certain gentleman, as I understand, at his expense. Have the Government determined by means of their power to issue passports to constitute themselves the controller of the morals of everybody who travels overseas ?

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Probably we have heard only part of the story. I have heard of cases of ladies applying for passports under assumed names. Any governmental document secured by fraud or misrepresentation’ ought to be cancelled, and there is power in- this Bill to do so.

Senator Foll:

– Even after they have left the port?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Yes; we have a right to cancel any instrument of government obtained by fraudulent means and intended for use in another country.

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

– This clause imposes on all persons leaving the Commonwealth, with specified exceptions, the obligation to secure passports. Senator Gardiner referred to a matter regarding which I should like to have further information from the Minister. Is it unavoidable that the passport administration should be centralized in Melbourne ? I know instances where people from Tasmania desired to travel beyond the Commonwealth. Their port of embarkation from the Commonwealth was Sydney, as they were going across the- Pacific or northward to ports in Asia. Before they could get their passports they had to be in Sydney. I know cases where they left Tasmania, and were due to arrive in Sydney a little before -the oversea boat was to leave, and the interval between their arrival and proposed departure was a holiday. It is very inconvenient for well-known and reputable inhabitants of Hobart to find themselves unable to get their passport because the office in Sydney is closed. Could not some arrangement be made whereby in the different States those intending to travel could get their passports before they left their regular home ? It will .be most a wkward . if people have to come from Western Australia or

Queensland to Sydney or Melbourne as their port of embarkation overseas, and to find that they have to depend upon eventualities and contingencies in Melbourne or Sydney as to whether they can get their passports or not. Some arrangement might very well be made whereby intending travellers, before leaving their homes, should be given an assurance that they will receive their passports in due course. In one case that I have in my mind, an intending traveller was apprised of the possibility that upon his arrival in Sydney he would be unable to obtain his passport. He communicated with me, and I suggested to the authorities here that the passport might be issued and forwarded to him in Tasmania through certain Commonwealth officers. The authorities found themselves unable to adopt my suggestion, but consented to make special arrangements to meet this particular case. I do not know what would have happened to this traveller had he not taken the precaution to communicate with me prior toleaving his home in Tasmania. If we are going to impose upon the public the obligation to obtain passports we should certainly facilitate the issue of those passports, and we ought not to compel intending travellers to visit a particular centre with no assurance that upon their arrival there they will receive them.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I agree with Senator Keating that the best possible facilities should be available to the travelling public in the matter of obtaining passports. The trouble which has been outlined by the honorable senator was due to special circumstances. During the war period the Intelligence Department was centralized at the Defence Head-quarters in Melbourne. But under this Rill it is intended to vest in the Customs Officers of each State full authority to administer it under a civil Department instead of as part of a military organization.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- Under this Bill a departmental officer will be clothed with altogether too much power. One clause in it seeks to authorize him to cancel a passport which has been issued. I have been called upon quite a number of times to intervene in order to enable intending travellers to get away by; certain oversea vessels. That sort of thing ought not to obtain. The humblest citizen of the Commonwealth is either entitled to a passport or he is not. If a passport will not be issued to him, it is undesirable that a member of Parliament should be called upon to exert his influence to enable him to get it. I have no complaint against the departmental officers as such. I have always found them extremely obliging and willing to assist travellers in every possible way. But I object to the system which the Bill seeks to introduce. The Government are introducing measure after measure in which provision is made to clothe different persons with powers which they ought not to be permitted to exercise. Yet no protest is made. Of course, a Justice of the High Court will protest when he sees the Government attempting to set aside the Arbitration Court in favour of a Commission, which has yet to be constituted; But nobody else protests. This tendency to concentrate power in the hands of individuals is a vicious one, which requires to be checked.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4. and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 -

A passport or permit or pass to leave the Commonwealth, issued by or under the authority of the Government of the Commonwealth, may be cancelled by the permanent head of the Department controlling the issue of passports, or by some person thereto authorized by him, and the passport, permit or pass, as the case may be, shall thereupon be void.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– To my mind this clause goes a long way too far. I object to empowering a Government officer or some person authorized by him to step on board a vessel just as she is about to depart from port, and to say to a passenger, “ You cannot proceed on your voyage because your passport has been cancelled.” Probably, I shall be told by the Minister that this power will be used with very great discretion. Such powers always are. But I am not, disposed to acquiesce in any legislation which will confer such far-reaching power on any Commonwealth officer.

Senator Rowell:

– No officer would use this power without very grave reason.

Senator GARDINER:

– If honorable senators are prepared to accept that explanation, why not appoint officers with power to do anything ? What if the head of the Government issued a passport to a particular individual, and a departmental officer who imagined that he had not received from the intending passenger that degree of respect to which he thought himself entitled took it upon himself to cancel the passport? The whole position is full of danger. I have nothing to urge against departmental officers, but I do object to giving them powers the exercise of which may considerably embarrass the travelling public.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I appreciate the point which has been raised by Senator Gardiner. Under this clause there is nothing to prevent a passport from being cancelled without sufficient reason, with the result that grave loss and inconvenience may be sustained by an. intending traveller. Seeing that a fair time must elapse between the period when a passport is applied for and the departure of the vessel by which the applicant will travel, surely there is ample opportunity for the Department to conduct the necessary inquiries. I am quite in sympathy with the action taken by the Government in the case to which I previously referred, and I merely desired to obtain from the Minister an authoritative statement as to the principle which is followed.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– To me it seems strange that it should be suggested that the Commonwealth should not have power to cancel a passport which has been obtained by means of false representations. Suppose, for example, that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of a man who, under an assumed name, has obtained a passport and is fleeing from the Commonwealth. Ought we not to possess the power to cancel his passport?I admit that if this provision were applied to the ordinary citizen, it would operate harshly. But no honest man has anything to fear from legislation of this kind. The power conferred by the clause is not likely to be abused. Tricks are frequently played by travellers by means of an exchange of passports, and the clause is intended to prevent that sort of thing.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I object to vesting in Government officers powers which should be wielded only by Courts of Justice. This clause seeks to clothe Government officials with power to cancel passports without setting forth the conditions under which the power shall be exercised. If it provided that the passport of a person who had obtained it by means of misrepresentation could be cancelled, I would not object. If any responsible officer exercised the power or cancellation under such circumstances, the individual concerned would have no claim against him. But if an officer compelled a passenger to leave a vessel just as she was about to depart from an Australian port, and thus held him up to public ridicule, that officer could go into Court and plead this clause as a justification for his conduct. I quite agree with the necessity for dealing with persons who have obtained passports by means of fraud or misrepresentation, but I would deal with them by law. Unless there are legal grounds for action, the Government have no right to interfere with them.

Senator Pearce:

– We do not interfere with them. We merely say “We will not issue you a passport, because you have made a false statement.”

Senator GARDINER:

– There is nothing in this clause about passports being obtained under false pretences. It simply provides that a passport may be cancelled by the permanent head of the Department, or by some person authorized by him.

Senator Foll:

– How did they get on before the war with regard to passports?

Senator GARDINER:

– Very well.

Senator Pearce:

– Because other countries did not require them then.

Senator GARDINER:

– Why should any officer be given power to cancel a passport issued under the authority of the Government? Departmental officers, of course, would not use this power indiscriminately, but it may be used unwisely on some occasion. And Senator Foll has instanced one of wrongful identity.

Senator Earle:

– The authorities were quite right in exercising power in the case mentioned by Senator Foll.

Senator GARDINER:

– But Senator Foll quoted a case of mistaken identity, in which a departmental officer would have authority to cancel a permit. Surely the Government are not going to issue permits which may be cancelled by a subordinate! Let me remind honorable senators of what happened in the case of Georgeson, who was ill, and, acting on medical advice, applied for a passport to go to New Zealand, where he could get beneficial treatment for his particular ailment. The Federal Government, in no way concerned with the legal aspects of the case - because there was no charge against the man - declined to issue a permit. That was an outrage. They may claim, of course, that public opinion will be with them; but in certain circumstances I would not caTe very much about public opinion. If a man is at liberty, and has no charges pending against him, it is wrong in principle to interfere with his liberty in any way.

Senator Russell:

– Did not the Judge say that he could not give a verdict until he could get evidence from this man?

Senator GARDINER:

– A Royal Commission was appointed to make the inquiry, and the Commissioner indicated that he could not come to a final decision until he had obtained evidence from Georgeson. But there was no statement about suspicion, nor was there any doubt about the man’s physical condition. . I do not know if the Government were requested to withhold a permit from Georgeson, but he was not able to get one, and, therefore, could not leave Australia. If there was any suspicion against a man I could understand the Government taking thi3 precaution; but I object to power being vested in any one to interfere with the liberty of any person against whom there is no charge. I stand for the liberty of the individual, and regret to notice a gradual invasion of this principle in recent legislation. If action is to be taken against any person, the proper legal course should be followed; and if there is a desire to prevent his departure from the Commonwealth, the necessary bail should be asked for.

Senator Russell:

– Suppose a man. suspected of murder attempted to get away from Australia. He’ could be arrested at Fremantle or any other port on suspicion, and his permit cancelled. This is done every day. Of course, he would have the benefit of a trial eventually.

Senator GARDINER:

– And that is the point which I would like the Minister to look into more closely. When action is taken against any man, a certain amount of hardship is unavoidable; but in the case cited by the Minister, the man concerned would be in the happy position of knowing that he would come before a Court of law for trial. The position under this clause is different. If, for instance, I joined ‘ a vessel in Sydney for Ceylon, and something happened, a departmental officer would have’ authority, in the presence of all the passengers, to take my passport from me, and I would have no redress. I would be practically “ drummed “ off the ship in full view of everybody, and degraded before the whole community. It is an entirely wrong principle to give any person authority to interfere with passports issued by the Government, and. so I shall oppose the clause.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- When the Bill was introduced, honorable senators were assured that its purpose was to facilitate passengers who wished to travel to other countries. In view of that fact, I fail to see the necessity to make inquiries in connexion! with the issue of passports, seeing that they are to be issued merely to enable travellers to enter other countries.

Senator Earle:

– If the honorable senator gave some person a credential, he would not like to know afterwards that it was obtained by forgery.

Senator FOLL:

– That 1 think is a weak argument in support of the clause. In the past, whenever people “ wanted” by the police attempted to get away from this country, they have been stopped at the wharfs, or some other port of the Commonwealth, and, owing to the vigilance of the police authorities, very few have been able to get away.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– I am afraid Senator Foll has not given very close attention to the clause. The authority to cancel is limited to a head of a Department, who is in pretty close touch with the Minister, but action may be taken under instructions by an officer at Fremantle, in North Queensland, or some other distant port of the Commonweal th. The law will always be open to abuse provided people are prepared to take the responsibility of their actions. I. draw attention to the exemption provisions of the measure. It is provided that -

If the Minister notifies, by notice in the Gazette, that an arrangement has been made with the Government of any country under which persons, who are British subjects or are subjects or citizensof that country, are not, when proceeding from the Commonwealth to that country, required to be in possession of passports, the provisions of sub-section (1) of the last preceding section shall, so long as the notice continues in force, not apply to British subjects, or the subjects or citizens of that country, when travelling direct from the Commonwealth to that country.

It is our desire to make mutual arrangements between Australia and Great Britain, and if passengers to Great Britain desire to. visit some other country a passport issued in Australia will be of considerable value. During the next ten years it will be of very little use for a tourist to travel in Europe without a passport. Honorable senators are familiar with cases where persons have endeavoured to leave Australia with other people’s money.

SenatorFoll. - Cannot the police stop such persons?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Not if we permit them to leave on a vessel. If we cancel their passports they will be brought to justice. I can recall twenty or thirty instances where men who were supposed to have had good reputations have left Australiabut were compelled to return from foreign countries to fulfil their obligations in Australia. I have known managers of banking institutions and the principal officers of building societies to abscond with trust moneys, and as they were well-known persons they were always granted a passport.

Senator Foll:

– What if they have left the last port of call ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– We would be helpless in the matter. If they had not reached the last port of call in Australia they could be recalled by wireless. When once an absconding debtor, for instance, is beyond the 3-mile limit, we have no control over him. The provisions of this Bill will not affect the ordinary citizen, and it will be a means of protecting innocent persons. If certain persons propose leaving Australia when they have no right to do so, we have under this Bill the power to withhold or cancel their passports and compel them to submit to a proper trial.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1602

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

. -I now bring up the reasons prepared by the Committee appointed in reference to the action of the Senate in disagreeing to the suggested amendments, Nos. 4 and 30, made by the House of Representatives in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill. They are as follows: -

As to amendment No. 4. - Because the term of three years is calculated to restrict the Government’s choice in the matter of appointments to the Commission, and that, furthermore, it is not sufficiently long to securecontinuity in administration, and a desirable independence of action on the part of the Commissioners.

As to amendment No. 30. -

Because it is not considered equitable to extend to collective bodies ofsoldiers benefits for which individual soldiers might not beeligible.

Because the effect of the granting of the benefits contemplated by the amendment would result in the unsettlement of the large majority of men whose re-establishment in civil life has bees already accomplished.

Because grave financial loss to the Government, and disappointment to bodies of men may result from the starting of enterprises which may not prove successful.

Because if it is desirable to promote enterprises by means of Government advances, the proposals should bethe subject of special legislation in which provision would be made for the creation of the proper machinery to give effect to such policy.

I move -

That the reasons be adopted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am wondering whether we ought to. agree to the reasons submitted by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen). Honorable senators opposite, of course, agree; but objections from those on this side should be recorded. When a Royal Commission submits its report, Commissioners dissenting are permitted to record their objections, and I think honorable senators on this side should be permitted to do so in this instance. Personally, I think the objections are enlarged somewhat unduly, and could have been submitted in a more concise manner. I therefore content myself by protesting against them as being unsound, hurriedly drawn up, ill-considered, and of very little use when submitted to the giants in another place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 6.14.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 April 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200429_senate_8_91/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant