8th Parliament · 1st Session
ThePresident (Senator theHon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3174
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he is aware that certain firms in New South Wales, of many years standing, have been practically unable to secure sugar during re- . centweeks, If the fact is brought before the Minister, will he take steps to see that a reasonable quantity of sugar is supplied to such firms to enable them to carry on their business?
– I cannot undertake to say that immediate step’s will be taken to supply the firms referred to with all the sugar they require, but immediate steps will be taken to discover the reason why they are not being supplied with what theyrequire, and, if possible to remedy the matter.
page 3174
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senatewhether, in view ofthe fact that sugar, even at prices nearly double those ruling a few years ago, is scarcely obtainable in quantities that might be weighed on gold scales; and, in view also of the fact that in some of the big cities of the Commonwealth butter is obtainable only in quarter-pounds, at regulated prices, whilst cow farms on the country side cannot get a buyer, the Government will take into consideration the necessity for so shaping their industrial and economic ‘ policy as to sot the tide of population towards the country, rather than towards the cities of the Commonwealth? I wish to ask, further, whether the Government will consider the advisability of causing the arrest of members of the Millions Club’ in Sydney, whose intention would appear to be to intensify the congestion of population in our cities?
– The characteristic questionsubmitted by the honorable senator opens a wide field for reply, but perhaps it will sufficiently meet his purpose in asking it if I say that the Government have already proclaimed that it is part of their policy to assist in the development of the country resources of Australia, and it is their desire to give effect to that policy. The suggestion contained in the second part of the honorable senator’s question I regard as an example of the humour characteristic of the race to which my honorable friend does so much honour.
page 3175
The following papers were presented : -
Electoral Act and Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1920, No. 126.
Public Service Act. - Appointment ofE. J. Dowling, Home and Territories Department.
Shale Oil Bounty Act. - Particulars of Bounty paid, &c, Financial Year 1919-20.
page 3175
SenatorWILSON asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers are - 1, 2, and 3. On and prior to 21st November, 1919, certain mills in Queensland, and also the Governments of the States of Tasmania and New South Wales, made application to the Australian Wheat Board for supplies of wheat for flour for local consumption; and, in the case of New South Wales, for certain limited export. The Board decided that the application should, on certain conditions, be acceded to, and that the Government constituents of the Board should . be invited to reserve the necessary supplies at the price for the time being determined as the price ‘ for local consumption. Later, on the 29th January, 1920, the Government constituents agreed that the Board effect the sales proposed at the rate of 7s. 8d. per bushel on rails at port of shipment. This applies to those States which are this season importing wheat, viz., New
South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania, as well as to those States with an exportable surplus, viz., Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. It has. been agreed to supply New South Wales with its local consumption requirements, not exceeding 10,000,000 bushels, and similarly Tasmania with 1,250,000 bushels. The mills of Queens: land will be supplied similarly with 2,329,000 bushels. As North Queensland’s flour is supplied this year by Victorian and South Australian millers, it is not practicable to allot a definite quantity to the whole of the State.
page 3175
Sale to Colonial Combing and Spinning Company
asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -
Will he lay on the table of the Senate - 1.The contract for the sale of 10,600 bales of woolto the Colonial Combing and Spinning Company, of Sydney?
The report of the Central Wool Committee dealing with the contract?
– The answers are -
page 3175
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 3176
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Will he inform the Senate what has been the cost of the Institute of Science and Industry Department up to 30th June last?
– The cost up to the 30th June, 1920, was £37,317.
page 3176
Uniform Railway Gauge - Commonwealth Railways : Loss on Working: Freights and Fares - Transcontinental Railway Routes : Port Augusta to Brisbane - Parliamentary Representation of Northern Territory - Federal Capital: Transfer of Seat of Government - State of Finances : Commonwealth Credit :
War Debts - Defence Expenditure - Sugar and Butter Shortage and Prices - War Gratuity Bonds - Case of Father Jerger: Statement by Senator Pearce - Mr. Watt’s Return - Accommodation for Ministers on Warships : Visit to Islands-Nauru Island Agreement: Ocean Island - Sale of Government-manufactured Cloth - Labour Conditions and Production : Decentralization : Industrial Commission - Labour Party - Sectarianism and Disloyalty - Overlapping of Federal and State Departments - Unlawful Assemblies Bill - Government of Ireland - Australia and Bolshevism - Repatriation and Land Settlement : Advances by Queensland Agricultural Bank.
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) proposed -
That this Bill be now read a first time.
Senator THOMAS (New South Wales) in any particular subject, he naturally considers it the most important matter that could he brought before the Senate. Although the unification of our Australian railways is a matter of great importance, I do not suggest that it is the most pressing question that has to be dealt with by the Senate at the present time. I understandthat, at a recent Conference of Premiers, the question of a uniform gauge for Australia was fully discussed, and I would like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen), when replying, to be good enough to inform the Senate what was accomplished at that Conference. I know that, without the full support and concurrence of the State Governments, it will be quite impossible to have a uniform gauge throughout the Commonwealth. It is, however, a question of such importance that the Federal Government should insist on some action being taken to ultimately bring about unification.
– The time has passed for discussing that aspect of the question. But it is desirable that we should spend some time in discussing the position that exists on our own railways. We have a considerable mileage under our control, on which, up to the present, we are losing in interest and working expenses £500,000 a year; and, if anything can be done to reduce the whole, or portion, of that loss, it will be of great benefit, not only to the Treasurer, but to the general taxpayers of the Commonwealth. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts has presented a very interesting and informative report on Commonwealth railways, but the Committee does not give Parliament any information as to how the present loss of £500,000 per annum can be reduced. The Committee has given us an interesting history of the railways under our control, including information as to when they were commenced, the Acts of Parliament authorizing their construction, the number of locomotives, &c, but it has not dealt with the important aspect of the question to whichI have referred. We have been informed by the Committee that, at the time the report was submitted, a contract had been entered into between the Federal. Government and the South Australian
Government in connexionwith, the Port Augusta to Oodnadatta line, under which the Federal Government were prevented from increasing the rates on that particular line. The conditions under which the Federal Government took over the railway from the South Australian Government were apparently on these lines. There was a provision in the agreement that practically for all time the rates on the Oodnadatta Railway were not to be raised, but shortly afterwards the South Australian Government raised freight rates on other portions of the South Australian system.
– I think rates can be raised on that section of the line now.
– That is so. I understand that the consent of the South’ Australian Government has been obtained, and that since the beginning of this year rates on the Oodnadatta section have been, raised with the result that a little additional revenue has been received, and this will go towards reducing the deficit of £500,000 to which I have referred.
– South Australia is not the only country that benefits from traffic on the line. Queensland is affected also.
– I understand that is so. The report of the Public Accounts Committee suggests that the freights on the Darwin-Katherine River section are not quite so high as Queensland rates over similar distances.
– Queensland rates have been raised very much since that report was published.
– The chief loss is incurred on the east-west line. One reason for the heavy deficit is, of course, the number of gauges. The trancontinental line is the finest railway in Australia, but if a traveller wants “to go from Adelaide to Perth or Fremantle he is obliged to travel over several different gauges. The Commonwealth Parliament has not been well treated by the Western) Australian Government in this matter. I was in the House of Representatives when the Bill for the construction of the transcontinental line was under consideration, and I remember the Government receiving an assurance that if the overland line were constructed the Western;. Australian Government would put down a 4-ft. 81/2in. railway from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle so as to obviate at least one break of gauge!.:
– But the Commonwealth railway was not carried out within the time specified.
– This undertaking by the Western Australian Government influenced the Federal Parliament in sanctioning the construction of the line. The Western Australian members in the House of Representatives and the senators from that State were very insistent in demanding the construction of this railway. If the New South Wales representatives in this Parliament had the same pertinacity with regard to Canberra it would not be long before the Commonwealth Parliament would be meeting in the Federal Territory.
– But you are not all agreed about Canberra. Some want the capital in Sydney.
– I have not heard of that proposal.
– An Act passed by the Western Australian) Parliament fixed the time limit with reference to the undertaking to construct the KalgoorlieFremantle section.
– All I know is that Western Australian people wanted the transcontinental railway, and they got it, though it has cost us over £9,000,000. The late Lord Forrest, as well as all his colleagues in the House of Representatives and all the senators from that State, put up a strong fight for the transcontinental line, and surely it is merely a quibble now to say that because its construction was delayed there is no obligation on thepart of the State Government to build the section from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle on the 4-ft. 81/2in gauge.
– The work was commenced eight years afterwards.
– And it did not cost anything like £9,000,000.
– How much did it cost, then?
– £6,000,000.
– I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister, but I remember looking at some figures the other day. Perhaps some honorable senator can recallthe statement of the Public Accounts Committee as to its cost.
– I think they said it cost about £7,000,000.
– Well, there is anothermillion.
– But that estimate included rolling-stock.
– If honorable senatorsprefer, we will agree that the line cost £6,000,000. The Western Australian’ Government went so far as to pass a loan Bill for £300,000 to carry out their part of the contract. I understand that the reason why the West Australian Government did not carry out the arrangement to which it had subscribed was that it had not the necessary money, and therefore could not go on with the undertaking. But I now learn that that State is not even prepared to proceed with the conversion of the line from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie to a 4-ft 81/2in. gauge, even if the Commonwealth will loan it the money, unless the Commonwealth will also guarantee it against all loss. In these circumstances it is. up to the representatives of Western Australia, who by their eloquence induced us to vote for the con-‘ struction of the transcontinental line on the understanding that that State would convert the Perth to Kalgoorlie section of it to a 4-ft. 81/2in. gauge, to help the Commonwealth by influencing the Government of Western Australia to carry out its undertaking. At the present time passengers on the transcontinental line are obliged to change trains at Kalgoorlie and to remain there for a considerable time. Now, Kalgoorlie is a very delightful place when the dust is not blowing, when it is not too hot, and when one can obtain cool drinks there. But the long wait there necessarily adds to the cost of the trip. All these disadvantages tend to make the journey by the transcontinental line an unnecessarily long and unpopular one. It is unfortunate, too, that immediately one arrives at Port Augusta he has again to change into another train. Indeed, there are two breaks of gauge between Port Augusta and Adelaide.
– Two, or three?
– There are two, if not three.
– Has the honorable senator overlooked the fact that the adoption of a standard gauge for Australia is still an open question?
– I have not. Something should be done to solve the problem of a uniform gauge as early as practicable.
– The honorable senator wishes to go on with this work before a decision has been arrived at as to what will be the gauge?
– The West Australian Government undertook, if the transcontinental railway were constructed upon a 4-ft. 81/2in. gauge, to convert the line from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie to that gauge.
– They agreed to extend the 4-ft. 81/2in. gauge.
– Exactly. The gauge was agreed upon, and it is obvious that Western Australia will not countenance the adoption of a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge.
– The offer of Western Australia was conditional upon the transcontinental line being completed by a certain date.
– That point has beenemphasized here. However, I presume that the transcontinental line was built as soon as it was possible to build it. Certainly its main advocates were West Australians.
– A greater mileage of it traverses South Australian territory than traverses West Australian territory.
– But the South Australian representatives were not so keen on it as were those of Western Australia. We were told that a, definite arrangement had been arrived at by. the Premiers in conference assembled, prior to. Federation, and that a definite promise had been given to Lord Forrest, then Sir John. I voted for the construction of the transcontinental line, and I am glad that it is an established fact. But those who pleaded for it most energetically were “unquestionably West Australians, and justifiably so.
– They pleaded successfully anyway.
SenatorTHOMAS. - I quite recognise that there is a difference of opinion as to what the uniform gauge should be throughout Australia. The difficulty is mainly one as between South Australia and Victoria on the one hand andNew South Wales and Queensland on the other, as to whether it shall be a 4-ft. 81/2in. or a 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. Those States are chiefly interested in the latter gauge.
– What about New South Wales?
– New South Wales has adopted the 4-ft. 81/2in. gauge.
I contend that, without waiting for Victoria and South Australiatocome to decision upon this matter, we would be justified in linking up, the east-west line, with Sydney and Brisbane on the 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge. This can easily be done, as there are two routes available. The first route is from Port Augusta to Sydney, via Hawker and Broken Hill, a distance of about 960 miles. The adoption of that route would involve the conversion of the existing 3-ft. 6-in. line between Port Augusta and Hawker, a distance of 65 miles, to a 4-ft: 81/2-in. gauge, and the. construction of a new 4-ft. 81/2-in. line’ between Hawker and Broken Hill, a distance of 197 miles. As, presumably, the South Australian authorities will not be anxious to see such a line constructed, lest it should take away a certain amount of the trade which at present finds its way to Adelaide, it is only right that the Commonwealth should foot the bill. In the event of the Commonwealth agreeing to carry out the work I have suggested, in view of the misunderstanding which has arisen: with the West Australian Government, we should certainly require from New South Wales a very definite undertaking that she would bring the line from Condobolin right down to the border. . I do not anticipate that there would be any difficulty experienced in arriving at such an arrangement.
– What would be the advantages of the railway?
– I shall deal with that aspect of the matter. At present I am discussing the route to be traversed.
– ‘Such a line would confer a verybig advantage upon Sydney.
– Is it not about time that the Commonwealth spent a few million pounds in the north of Australia?
– I have no objection to the honorable senator presenting the case for the north. But here is a
Railway upon which the Commonwealth is at present losing £500,000 annually.
– And the honorable senator wishes us to spend more money, in order that we may lose more.
– What I have said does not complete the proposal which I desire to bring before the Senate, because, in order to complete theline to Brisbane, another gap would have to be filled up,, necessitating the New South Wales Government linking, from Kyogle right on to. Brisbane, with the4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge. I understand that the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland are not opposed to this.
– The portion from Kyogle to Brisbane was arranged many years ago.
– The construction, of such a line has been favorably reported upon by both Governments. It would reduce the distance from Sydney, to Brisbane; and travellers would be able, to go by an absolutely direct route from Perth right to Brisbane without any break of gauge.
Another . route suggested, instead of that via Broken Hill, is to go to Sydney. via Crystal Brook, Morgan, Wentworth, and Hay. This would entail the construction of a new line on the 4-ft. 81/2-in, gauge from Port Augusta to Hay, a distance of 490 miles. The proposal, I am informed,, would enable numerous connexions to be made with the railway system of Victoria, whereas the route via Broken Hill would not permit of them., Of the two proposals, it seems to me, on the faceof it, that the second is rather better than the first, although, for sentimental reasons, I should like to see the route go through Broken Hill.
– They are both bad.
– For the reason, I suppose, that they do not go through Melbourne. From a developmental point of view, the route via Hay is in close touch for portion of the way with the irrigation developments along the River Murray, and has been, I understand, recommended from a defence stand-point as a good railway. The distance from Port Augusta to Brisbane is practically’ the same by either route - 960 miles. The distance between Brisbane and Perth by the existing route is 3,475 miles; but, if the foregoing proposals were carried out, it would be reduced to 3,006. miles; or a. saving of about 470 miles of travelling. Through trains with passengers from Brisbane to Perth would complete, the journey in four days instead of six. the time at present taken, and this would. be.agreat advantage. I take it that, if business men, like, Senator J. F. Guthrie, could make the trip from Perth to Brisbane in four days instead of six, they would consider it an advantage to do
– That would not help the Victorian and South Australian passengers. They would have to put up with the break of gauge just the same.
– It would help somebody. It would be an advantage to the people of Western Australia, Queensland, and New South Wales. It is fair and legitimate to take advantage of an opportunity to get to a place in two days’ less time than you could by a roundabout way.
– What is all this going to cost?
– It would cost something.
– Millions!
– Very likely; but millions spent in proper railway develops ment open up the country. Any number of millions have already been spent on railways in Australia. We are face to face with the fact that we are now losing half a million a year. Unless there is a miracle, we cannot possibly decrease the loss on the transcontinental railway. When I refer to a miracle, I mean that if very large mining fields were to be discovered, or another Johannesburg were to spring up about half way between Kalgoorlie and Port Augusta, the possibility is that that railway would pay, but outside of a miracle of that sort we have to go on losing £500,000 every year.
– Do you suggest that to build those new railways would help to wipe that loss out?
– I do, because I think the transcontinental railway would then become more popular. People would go over it instead of travelling by boat. Other portions of the suggested new lines would pay, especially that part going through Morgan, Wentworth, and Hay, and opening up country all along. It would pay as well as any railways are paying now, and it would certainly tend to make the transcontinental railway more popular than it is at present. The time saved, especially in the delivery of mails, would be a consideration. Business men are anxious to have their letters as soon as possible.
– They will all go by aeroplane in a year of two.
– I hope the time will come when we shall get letters by aeroplane, but that time has not come yet. We want letters delivered in the least possible time, and this proposal would save close on a day and a half from Perth to Sydney, and two days on the trip from Perth to Brisbane.
I should have been glad if South Australia had been prepared in some way to assist the Government in having at least one break of gauge less than at present. If the line on the 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge were constructed from Port Augusta to Adelaide, it would tend to make the transcontinental route a little more popular, but it would per-‘ haps be a little hard on South Australia to ask that State to build it, seeing that it would probably tend to disorganize the rest of its railway system, which has a gauge of 5-ft. 3-in. I notice also that South Australia has recently begun to build another line, which is to go from Adelaide to Port Augusta, via Salisbury, Long Plains, Redhill, and Crystal Brook, on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. It would have been of assistance to the transcontinental line, and would have tended to bring trade and commerce to Adelaide, if that line had been constructed on the 4-ft. 81/2-in. gauge.
– Part of that railway is already constructed.
– Yes, on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. The South Australian Government have a perfect right to choose any gauge they prefer, and, naturally, they are not thinking so much of the transcontinental railway as of their own railway system.
– Part of that line was constructed a good while ago; this is a, continuation of it.
– How long ago was it constructed ? .
– Seven years ago.
– Only a small portion of it was built then, and the South Australian Government are now making the whole line on the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge. The people of South Australia think more of their own railway system than they do of the transcontinental railway.
– What the honorable member suggests would make very little difference. There would still be a break of gauge at Adelaide.
– The honorable member is welcome to that view. Those of us who come by rail from Sydney to Albury every week like to get up in the morning to change trains. It is a pleasure to us to do so. So I suppose it is a pleasure to people to get up in the middle of the night at Port Augusta and wait about there for a train to take them on to Adelaide.
– That is altered now. People get up in the morning at Port Augusta now to catch the Adelaide train.
– Even if it is not a pleasure to travellers by rail to get up in the morning, that is scarcely a good reason for spending millions of Commonwealth money.
– No, but if it is common sense to adopt a uniform railway gauge, we ought to adopt it. There is not a sane man in Australia to-day who will not admit that it would be infinitely better for Australia if our railways were built on a uniform gauge. Honorable senators know that if we were starting railway construction to-day we would adopt a uniform gauge.
– We have no right to spend millions merely to accommodate passenger traffic.
– Perhaps the honorable senator believes that we shall be justified in continuing to lose £500,000 a year on the transcontinental railway, even though by the expenditure of more money we should be able to avoid the loss.
– Stock-owners along the route cannot secure trucks to carry their stock.
– I shall be pleased to hear Senator Wilson discuss that matter in this Chamber. He might be able to prove that by providing stockowners along the route with the accommodation they require we could save some of the £500,000 we are now losing on this line.
– Is it not a fact that freights on the transcontinental railway are very low ?
– I could not say; I have never sent any luggage over the line. In my opinion, unless the transcontinental railway is linked up with all the capital cities of the Commonwealth by a uniform gauge it will continue to be run at a loss to the Commonwealth.
– Does not the honorable senator think that either of the lines he has suggested would have difficulty in paying for its own construction?
– I think that their construction would help us to avoid the loss on the transcontinental railway.
– They would have enough to do to help themselves.
– Very well, I suppose we must continue to lose £500,000 a year on the transcontinental line, and we . ought not to shorten the distance between Perth and .the capital cities of the other States, because if we did so three or four people instead of going to Adelaide .would pass that city by.
I have noticed in the press that the Government contemplate giving a senator to the Northern Territory. I shall not speak at length on that question now, because if a Bill is introduced to provide for the representation of the Northern Territory in that way we shall then be able to discuss the matter fully. I wish, however, to say now that I am personally strongly opposed to any such idea. I shall unhesitatingly vote against any such proposal in existing circumstances. I need not now take up time in giving the reasons for my opposition.
Those of us who come from New South Wales are naturally anxious that the contract with regard to the establishment of the Federal Capital, entered into between the people of New South Wales and those of the other States, when Federation was established, shall be carried out. I know that there are people in Victoria who are very keen about keeping contracts, and we shall be able to appeal to those people for their support when we ask that the contract concerning the establishment of the Federal Capital shall be carried out. In the Bill now before the Senate, the Government are asking only for about one month’s Supply, and I can quite understand that, in such a measure, they are not likely to submit votes which might give rise to contention, but confine themselves to proposals for expenditure which has practically been agreed to before. I do not desire to raise the question of the building of the Federal Capital at Canberra on this Bill; but I do say that when the Budget and Estimates are before us, those of us who believe that the people of the rest of Australia should keep faith with the people of New South Wales will have a good deal more to say on this particular question unless some definite provision is made to enable us, within a reasonable time, to transfer the Seat of Government from Melbourne to Canberra.
– I must congratulate Senator Thomas upon initiating the debate in a way which will be likely to induce honorable senators to deal with big things. In discussing the subject in a broad way, the honorable senator omitted to state that the chief reason for the adoption of a uniform railway gauge is the safety of Australia. The New South Wales railway watchword of “ Safety first “ should induce every member of the Senate to support a uniform gauge for the railway connecting the capital cities of the Commonwealth, irrespective of the cost involved. New South Wales will pay most towards this work, and honorable senators from that State are as careful of the interests of the taxpayers they represent as are any other members of the Senate. New South Wales will have less to gain from the adoptionof the uniform gauge, except from the national point of view. So large, so prosperous, and so wealthy is the State of New South Wales, that it can well afford to allow “the other States to trade between themselves, and yet be more prosperous than the whole of them put together. In making that statement, I have no wish to give offence to the representatives of other States, but merely to give expression to what is an actual fact.
During the very interesting address by Senator Thomas, an interjection was made to the effect that the contract entered into between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government had not been kept. I wish to say that it has been kept by the Commonwealth in every respect. There might have been some delay in the construction of the transcontinental line, but that was not in any way the fault of the Commonwealth Government. Further, it may be said that during the discussion of the Bill for the construction of the line in the Senate, the alteration of the gauge of the line between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle was unconditionally promised upon the construction of the transcontinental line to link up with Kalgoorlie. Coming from New South Wales as a new member of the Senate at the time, I found a very keen contest in progress. The contest seemed to be between Western Australian representatives who wanted the promise made to Western Australia in pre-Federal days faithfully kept, and representatives of Queensland who desired that a truly national railway should be constructed through the centre of Australia. My judgment and inclination would have led me to support the Queensland section ; but, because of the promise which had been made to Western Australia, and in order that it should be faithfully kept, I supported the fulfilment of that promise against my better judgment. In the circumstances, there can be no quibbling about any promise to Western Australia not having been kept.
Fremantle, Perth, and Western Australia generally, havemore to gain by rapidly linking up with the capitals of the other States upon a uniform railway gauge than has any other part of Australia. Western Australia is nearer than is any other part of the continent to some of our possible enemies, and in the event of attack, must look to the other States for help. Thechief advantage of railway connexion in such circumstances is the facility it provides for the transport of munitions and big guns. I remember going through a military report on this matter at one time, and, speaking from memory, it was stated that the time which would be occupied in transporting troops with large equipment from Brisbane to Perth would be about fifty-three days. We have a huge continent with only a fringe of people on the coast, and we are faced with the problem of preparing for, perhaps, its immediate defence. We cannot afford to quibble over the cost. The linking up of the different States by a railway on a uniform gauge must be brought about some day. If we had adopted a uniform gauge when we constructed the transcontinental railway, I venture to say that the work could have been done 50 per cent, cheaper than it will cost hereafter. I can see no prospect of the cost being less as the result of any delay. I can understand those who say that the time for the aeroplanes is coming, and railways will be dispensed with. But we are still a very long way from that time. The various gauges adopted by the different States are at present a source of immensecost toAustralia. That must beevident to any person travelling between Sydney and Melbourne. Here we have the two chief cities of Australia, and it is absurd that we should week after week and year afteryear continue the railway connexion between themon two different gauges. An alteration of gauge for not more than 189 miles is required, and if New South Wales and Victoria set the example of providing for a uniform gauge between their capital cities the advantage to the commercial world and every one else concerned would be seen to be so great that the other States might follow the example. The linking up of Sydney and Brisbane by a railway of uniform gauge should not be a difficult matter. - No one can doubt that by the linking up of all the States with a railway of uniform gauge the Commonwealth will be made richer, no matter what the cost in-‘ volved may be.
– Queensland agreed twenty years ago with New South Wales to link up at her own expense.
– I realize that the, further we go north the more generous the people appear to be.
– There was no Commonwealth then to ask:
– That is so. Since my attention was directed to the matter some years ago I have never ceased to realize the danger of the break of gauge in the event of a hostile attack. I say that the cost of adopting the uniform gauge should not be allowed to stand in the way of carrying out the work.
I do not, of course, shut my eyes to the awful financial position which we are in at the present time. I do not know whether I am taking a dismal view, but the Commonwealth Government is faced with a financial position which certainly gives room for thought. The Commonwealth Government have been handling the affairs of this country in such a way that their credit is absolutely nil, at any rate in Great Britain.
– What about Mr. Storey?
– He did raise a loan, but Mr. Watt could not. Honorable senators know that I am quite right in saying that the Commonwealth Govern ment have no. credit outside Australia,although I suppose they could borrow money in America at 81/2 per cent, if they desired. The financial position is so serious that I think that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) in introducing the Bill should have taken the Senate and ‘the country into hisconfidence and made a Ministerialstatement concerning the actual position. If he had done that the debate could have been based on his statement, but in the absence of any such information I am initiating a discussion on theseriousness of the position, and drawing attention to the fact that the Commonwealth Government cannot obtain credit, at any rate in Great Britain. This position’ has’ arisen as a result of the manner in which the finances have been handled by this Government.
– The honorable senator, of course, is not thinking of Mr. Theodore’s experience.
– Yes, and I, realize his position, perhaps, more keenly than any one else. The financial magnates in Great. Britain will advance money if we support their ships, and, in the case of Queensland, they will advance money if State enterprises are discontinued.
– That is not so.
– The honorable senator can deny the statement if he desires, but it is true. The Commonwealth credit in Great Britain is worse than that of Queensland,
– Was it not because Queensland repudiated a solemn contract ?
– I think that was the reason.
– Then, if that is. so, I trust that Western Australia will link up with the east-west line, so that, our reputation for keeping contracts will remain unimpaired. The interest of the Queensland Government has been jeopardized by the action of certain large leaseholders in that State who. used their influence against the State. Australia has reached the stage when she must realize that it is time for her to cease’ going cap in hand to Great Britain for money, and that she must raise the money required for developmental work within her own territory. That would probably mean that we would have to experience hardship for a year or two, and that such important problems as a uniform gauge would have to wait; but Australia would benefit to a very considerable extent. Just imagine the Australian nation - and we are now a nation - being told by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer that we would be posted as a defaulter if we could not repay a sum of £8,500,000 which had been advanced for important work. The people should be plainly told by the Government exactly what was said; but their representatives have not had sufficient strength to take up the statement and say that we will pay, and pay quickly. We have more than paid our debts to the Motherland, and the sooner the governing classes of Great Britain and Australia realize that their action is a menace to the link that binds the two great nations together the better it will be for both countries.
– Where are the people you refer to in control?
– In Great Britain. Shall I inform the honorable senator how loans are raised in Great Britain ?
– I think I know.
– The information might be useful to me.
– This is the position: The Australian financier pays his passage to London. The Government cable to the effect that their ambassador is coming to make certain financial arrangements. If he should be a representative of the Commonwealth he interviews the High Commissioner, and if a State representative the Agent-General. After consultation with the London representative he is informed by the High Commissioner or the Agent-General that he will have to see Sir Robert So-and-so, as he is the one man in charge of finance, and that in order to do so it will be necessary to obtain an introduction through the Governor of the Bank of England. The visitor from Australia is under the impression that he can make the necessary financial arrangements without consulting this particular authority; but, after making an attempt, he fails. Later, the Governor of the Bank of England is consulted, and a dinner is given, at which the Governor of the Bank is in the chair, and the guest of honour is seated on his right. Sitting next to the guest of honour is Sir Robert - who shall be nameless - and the whole position is discussed. If the dinner is satisfactory and the business favorably impresses the financial authority, it is an easy matter to raise a loan of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. But if the proposition is not considered satisfactory, the borrower is politely informed that he cannot obtain money in England, and that he had better try in America or elsewhere. That is not an imaginary picture, but it is an illustration of the position in which an Australian representative is placed. If we have to face conditions such asthese, where a few financiers in Great Britain are able to retard the development of this great country, because our representatives do not suit them, the time has surely arrived for Australia to adopt a different policy and raise the money required for important public works in her own territory. If we cannot do it by means of loans we should do it by taxation. Great Britain has set a good example in meeting certain war expenditure, by imposing taxes sufficiently heavy, and, in addition, she is reducing her national indebtedness very rapidly by means of taxation. We are following the old method instead of facing facts, and if we continue as at present shall only drift from bad to worse. Occasionally, efforts are made to arrange for one borrowing authority or for the Federal and State Governments to conbine in order to make the path somewhat smoother; but the only way is by making Australia independent. It may be difficult, and will necessitate certain hardships, but such an experience would do us good. We shall have to do it eventually, and those who follow in our steps will be grateful to the Government for adopting such a policy. This country is wealthy, and its business men are sufficiently capable of managing its affairs if given a fair opportunity. Surely the time has passed when we should go cap in hand to Great Britain, and be told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we will be posted as a defaulter if we do not meet our immediate obligations. I ask the Minister for Repatriation if that is not the position, and in the absence of any denial I shall take it to be a fact.
– Is the honorable senator using it to abuse the British Government ?
– As an Australian I resent it, and as a representative of the people of Australia in the Commonwealth Parliament I resent it. A British Cabinet Minister who uses language such as that I have mentioned, should know that some people at least in the Commonwealth object to his statement, and there is no reason why the- Government should endeavour to keep it from the people. I am speaking as I feel upon this matter, and I hope we are not reaching a stage in our national history when we shall allow ourselves to be dictated to in this manner. I would like the country to realize that if money cannot be borrowed we have to face the other alternative and do without it. If a private individual cannot earn sufficient money to meet his expenditure he has to curtail his outlay and put his house in order.
Now that the war is over there is a magnificent opportunity for the Defence Department, for instance, to put its house in order and reduce expenditure. During the period of the war we trained no less than 300,000 men, and surely it is time for the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) - particularly when money is so scarce - to set an example in economy, as there is ample room for retrenchment in that Department without in any way interfering with the safety of Australia. What do we find? At the Ordnance Stores there were in 1916 three nien employed, in addition to. another three whose salaries were over £1,000 a year. There are some, of course, who will say that although the war is over we do not know what lies before us. I am prepared to support Mr. Kelly in his suggestion that the military clique should be pensioned and sent to Central Australia. If that were done the public would have a certain sense of security in knowing they were there.
As far as I have been able to ascertain there are a good many who were drawing high salaries “who were not worth much when it came to a question of actual fighting. *
– That is nonsense.
– It is not, and I am prepared to give the honorable senator names. There were some who went w far as London, and others who did not get beyond Egypt. Very few were of any use as administrators. We are training men who have done years of fighting and now the war is over, there are some who are anxious to take the positions of those who proved their efficiency. I refer to the warrant officers and non-commissioned officers.
Now that the war is over they find these highly paid men dividing up their, work, and altogether quite an elaborate scheme of spending large sums of money has been evolved. If our financial position is a serious one - and I say it is - there was a splendid opportunity for the Minister for Defence to set an example. Our soldiers, on coming back from the war, received sustenance allowance for a few weeks, and then they had to go on the labour market and find their places in civil life again. It would have been splendid if some of these highly paid officers had also been obliged to find their places in civil life again. But that is not happening. During the war I did not raise my voice once in an attack upon the Minister for Defence. But the war is over now, and I protest when I see the Defence Department growing in costliness from day to day. There has been- no real economy in that Department, which lends itself to the pruning knife with, perhaps, more advantage to all concerned, than any other -Department. There would be no- immediate danger to this country if real economy were practised, because the men who served at the war are fit, and- they could be officered by men who have been equally well trained in’ the school of experience.
The financial position is serious, and yet we have had no mention of the Budget; we have merely a Supply Bill. No doubt the Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) will have something to say on this subject shortly, and then perhaps we may have an opportunity to deal with it. I hope that, before he presents the Budget he will examine carefully the expenditure of the Defence Department.
– I think the services of a good many could be dispensed with.
– No doubt; but it would not do to put any of them out in Melbourne. I am not keen that any man should lose his position. I believe that if a man - has done his duty faithfully he should not be turned away in his old age. The Commonwealth Government must come down with a superannuation scheme for the benefit of officers who have served this country well; but I repeat that we are in a very serious financial position, and it would be well for us, as representatives of the people, to face it squarely. Now is the time for economy.
The first reading of a Supply Bill in the Senate gives honorable senators an opportunity to state grievances, and I wish to direct attention to one or two. Some time ago I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs a question regarding sugar. In connexion with this matter I have a letter from Messrs. James Plowman and Son, a highly reputable firm established in Orange over fifty years ago. They inform me that, under the new agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, they are unable to get supplies of sugar for their customers. I have here a copy of a letter which Mr. Plowman sent to the Comptroller in Melbourne under date 21st July, and I shall read a portion of it for the information of honorable senators -
Re sugar. - I am taking the liberty of appealing to you to relieve my position through my inability to secure any supply of the above. As an established firm of fifty years’ standing. I am being forced out of business by this disability. For many years past we have secured our supplies through the firm of Wright, Heaton, and Co., and, therefore, arenot on any other firm’s sugar list, thus being unable to secure any supply through other wholesale houses.
During the whole of June our supplies slightly exceeded 1 ton, and during July to date we have received one bag - 140 lbs. - as our allotment. For the past two weeks we have been without stock, with the exception of several bags borrowed from competitive firms, and are, at present, the only firm in Orange unable to supply our clients with this commodity. This means ruin to us. The attached letter shows that we have now waited eight weeks without relief from the company, and, as local competitive firms are able to supply, not only their own clients, but, with limited quantities, our customers, this is unfair competition, and we appeal to you to assist us. Our commercial position is, at present, sound, but cannot be maintained under these conditions.
I can speak of my own knowledge regarding this firm, for as far back as my memory will take me they were doing business on almost the same site as today. It is extraordinary that at a time like the present they should be unable to obtain sugar. Some honorable senators say that a matter like this may very well be left to departmental officers for adjustment; but I contend that depart mental methods are too slow. I want the Minister to give his attention to it. ‘
– When you say that their supply of sugar has been cut off, what do you mean ?
– They have been in the habit of getting sugar at the rate of about 1 ton per week, and during July were able to get only about 140 lbs.
– Then you mean that they have not been able to get the quantity they want.
– Yes ; and that being so, I say their supplies are cut off .
– I do not in terpret the statement in that way.
– Well, I do.
-Do not forget that the Australian Workers Union are partners to that agreement.
– If I had known that before, I would have gone straight to the Australian Workers Union, because they generally do things.
– Wright, Heaton, and Company would be customers of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, and they, in turn, should supply their customers.
– Then there is very good reason why this matter should be settled quickly.
– There has been a general shortage of sugar all over Australia.
– Not in that particular district. But I do not’ want to go into that aspect of the complaint, because it might call for a great deal more explanation than at present I am prepared to give. I want the Minister in charge of the Department to see that the interests of this firm are not jeopardized, and to make it a principle of administration that reputable business people shall not be placed at any disadvantage under this agreement.
– No one firm is disadvantaged as against another.
– Well, that is all I am asking for. I shall have no hesitation in handing the letter which I have quoted to the Minister for his guidance. I would not have mentioned the matter but for the fact that I have good reason to believe that a number of other firms are in a similar position. (Now I wish to direct attention .to another subject. This afternoon, I asked a question of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) concerning the statement made ‘by him, about a fortnight ago, with regard to the deportation of Father Jerger. The most dramatic par in his speech was the assertion that heaven and earth and the other place were being moved to ascertain who supplied the Department with the information upon which it acted against Eather Jerger. There was no difficulty at all, for the simple reason that all the information came out in the inquiry before Sir Robert Garran. I presume that there is a record of that inquiry, and I would like to know now if it will T)e made available to honorable senators. The Minister declared that the individual who gave the information against Eather Jerger had been deported, and’ then insinuated - and the insinuation was more significant than the actual statement - that his deportation had not been carried out by the Government. The information at my disposal- and I accept it as correct - is to the effect that Father Peter Paul McDonnell, the priest referred to, left Australia as a military chaplain’. If that is so, the Minister cannot be excused for his insinuation that other influences were brought to bear to get Father Paul out of the way. This is no new case sprung upon the Minister. He has been inquiring into it week after week and month after month; and if he was misinformed when he hinted that Father Paul’s supporters had deported him, then he should set himself right with the public, and own up at once. I take my information from a statement in the public press, published the morning following the Minister’s speech, to the effect that Father Paul left Australia as a military chaplain. I have made other inquiries from people who are in a position to know, and I have been informed that this statement is quite correct. My allegation that Father Paul left Australia as a military chaplain is based upon a statement which was published in the Sydney press the morning after Senator Pearce had made his speech in this Chamber, and also upon the results of diligent inquiry which I. made myself. I am also led to believe that the evidence given before the investigation which was conducted by ‘ Sir Robert Garran into this particular case will confirm my stater ment. I ask the Minister for Defence to inquire into this matter, and if he finds that his insinuation was without foundation to withdraw it.
– Does not the honorable senator think that that is a good principle to apply to everybody?
– Yes, and it is one that I have never overlooked. 1
– It is one that the honorable senator has never adopted.
– I challenge anybody to confront me with a statement based upon wrong information which I was not most willing to withdraw. % recognise that it is quite easy for one te be misinformed ; quite easy for one te make a statement with which he afterwards finds the facts do not square. But it is not so easy for one to own up in the classic language of’ the Assistant Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Ryrie) that somebody has “sold him a pup.” AH that remains for Senator Pearce to do, now that he is confronted with a denial of his insinuation, is to with drawit. His statement left quite a false impression upon the minds of the general public, and that false impression ought to be removed. I bring the matter forward at the present juncture so that the Minister may have the fullest opportunity of withdrawing his statement. The whole business connected with Father Jerger’s deportation constitutes one of those disgraceful episodes of which Australia has a right to be ashamed. One man has written to me telling me that he is quite sure that Father Jerger was guilty of disloyalty. If that be so, why not give him a fair trial ? Why not- let the world know that he was guilty of the offence charged against him, by placing him upon his trial in open Court? I have met many other persons who have talked of the way in which Father Jerger was hurriedly spirited away from New South. Wales just when an appeal was being made on his behalf to the Courts of Law. Similar tactics were pursued in Victoria, in. South Australia, and in Western Australia. It cannot be denied that in this particular case the sound system of trial by jury was departed from. I understand that even those who have been convicted by military Courts in. Great Britain may appeal to the civil Courts now that the war is over. There the sacredness of civil law is so great that a person convicted by a military Court has a right of appeal to a civil trial.
– The honorable senator is quite wrong.
– I am surprised that any honorable senator should deny the accuracy of my statement.
– I, too, say that the honorable senator is quite wrong.
– Then I hope that the honorable senator will bring forward his proofs.
– The honorable senator makes an assertion, and then demands that proofs shall be given that it is wrong. It is he who should produce proof in support of his statement.
– I will submit proof, make no mistake about that. What I have stated is well known.
– Everybody denies it.
– I know that. People will deny almost anything to which they are unaccustomed.
– But upon this matter some of us have a little more knowledge than has the honorable senator.
– Perhaps. I happened to have this matter brought under my notice by a practising barrister in London. That circumstance caused me to look into it, with the result that I put a question to Senator Pearce-
– I thought that the honorable senator did not approve of London?
– The honorable senator has never heard me say a single word of antipathy to London. I certainly put Australia first, but nobody has ever heard me say anything disparaging either of London or of the Empire.
This may, perhaps, be an opportune time for me to mention a case upon which I sought to obtain some information last session. It was a case in which one of our own distinguished soldiers had been convicted of an offence in London, It was a conspiracy case which had all the appearance of a “ frame-up.” I asked the Minister for Defence if he would do what was being done in England, namely, give this man the benefit of a trial by a Civil
Court. The honorable gentleman did not accede to my request, but he agreed to look into the case. With what result? Some six months was taken off this young man’s term of imprisonment. He was liberated on the 1st July last, and I now have a letter from one of his friends stating that he has been given a clean discharge, that his decorations have been restored to him; and that he has been given to understand that he will receive his gratuity money and his medal. This was a case in which I held strongly that the man had been wrongly convicted. I venture to say that the sound system which obtains in Britain, and under which a man convicted by a military tribunal is permitted to appeal to a Civil Court, is one which we may well adopt here.
I wish now to impress upon the Minister in charge of the Department, which is responsible for the issue of gratuity bonds, the necessity for doing something to deal more effectively with these bonds than has been done hitherto. There are numberless causes for complaint; innumerable cases in which men possess bonds which are quite useless to them. I would like the Government to pay for the bonds in cash, even if the adoption of that course necessitated the increase of our note issue. I gather from an intimation in the press that we now possess a gold reserve of 41 per cent., and, as the original gold backing for our note issue amounted to only 24 per cent., it will be seen that we still have a margin of 17 per cent., which is sufficient to wipe out the whole of the gratuity bonds.
– That margin would not be sufficient.
– Yes it would. I suppose that the Government have already paid gratuity bonds to the value of £6,500,000, and there were only about £28 000,000 worth issued. What is the position of many of the holders of these bonds ? Take, for instance, the case of a soldier with a bond for £90. He wishes to buy a piece of land, valued, perhaps, at £70, on which to erect a home. But he cannot purchase that land with his bond. Even if the vendor is willing to take the bond in exchange for the land, and to give him the difference, he is not permitted to do it. Take the case of another soldier, who desires to purchase a horse and cart, in order that he may follow his usual method of earning aliveli- hood. He cannot cash his bond, although I think that he is at liberty to buy furniture with it.
– If the vendor of any article is willing to accept the bond, there is nothing to prevent him doing so.
– I think that there is. Failing payment in cash, what harm could arise if we allowed our soldiers to sell their bonds in the open market? Under the present system we are playing into the hands ‘of crooks. Of course I . recognise that the gratuity bonds, if sold upon the open market, will come into competition with war bonds already in circulation. But the position of our soldiers is such that they desire something with which they can trade. I do not complain of the action of the Government in seeking to protect these men against the wiles of the unscrupulous. But I fail to see that any injury can be done to them if they are allowed to sell their bonds upon the open market. A soldier would not part with his gratuity bond for any amount considerably below the price at which war bonds are selling. I am strongly of opinion that we shall do more harm than good by preventing our soldiers from trading openly in these bonds.
– Is it fair to issue a bond of £100 to a soldier if he can get for it only £90 upon the open market ?
– He is not obliged to sell it upon the open market. He can get its full value by holding it until the date of its maturity. But there are many of our soldiers to whom £92 to-day would be worth a great deal more than. £100 four years hence. The open market for these bonds - that is, the Stock Exchange, where the rates appear in the press every day showing what securities are worth - would he a better and greater protection to the soldier than any imaginary safeguard that you can put round him.
– A lot of them have been taken down already.
– Yes, under the present system, and many will continue to be, because it is the take-downs in finance that are looking for them and will find them. I bring this matter before the Minister in the sincere hope that he will give it the fullest consideration. I do not know whether it is because my friends ex-Senators McDougall and
Grant used to do most of that kind of work before, but I have had a large number of men coming to me on these matters recently, and my interviews with them have convinced me that the soldiers have a real grievance on th© subject of their bonds, and that there is urgent need for the Government to deal with the subject. I hope the Minister will look seriously for some other method of dealing with the bonds so as to give some relief to the holders. When they get them, they think they can do something with them, but they find themselves restricted by the conditions under which they are issued. This is particularly the case with bonds for small amounts. A man with a £20 bond receives after all only . a small amount of interest, even for the four years, and he may think that he can put the money to “much better use, but he finds that it is tied up.
I have taken advantage of this opportunity to uphold our old and good system of ventilating grievances before Sup’ply is granted. I have spoken of the uniform railway gauge, a subject brought u,p by Senator Thomas. This is the most important, the most “urgent,” and the biggest thing in public life to-day, with the exception of the establishment of this Parliament at Canberra. I began by following the big lead that Senator Thomas gave me, and I shall finish by dealing with the biggest thing that this Parliament can do. I hope that the Ministry will so arrange affairs that after a very brief recess this Parliament will meet at Canberra. At a cost of a little inconvenience, temporary buildings could be provided there for both Houses of Parliament. This would only mean the construction of a couple of ordinary halls to begin with. They need not be so elaborately furnished as this chamber is, although after ten years on these benches I can put up with a good deal of comfort.
– Perhaps the internment camp at Canberra might be utilized ?
– It might be. 1 understand that things were made very comfortable there, because I know that the Minister for Defence was particularly keen on making things comfortable for the internees. There - is now a promise ten years overdue to the people of New South Wales. Some one recently told the press that on a visit to New South. Wales he found the people there not much concerned about ft. I think that in public life a man becomes somewhat of an expert at finding out what public opinion is, and my experience is that there is a strong current of feeling throughout New South Wales agains., the continued breaking of that promise. A train is not a bad place in which to ascertain public opinion, and my experience is that if ever the question crops up, there is an expression of contempt and disgust against the Federal Parliament for not having kept the word which Australia gave to New South Wales. It was not a promise given by one man, but a promise given by the electors of Australia at the poll when the Federal Enabling Bill was adopted. If the electors of New South Wales had not voted in favour of the Bill, there would have been no Federation. I believe that if the-clause regarding the Federal Capital had not been put into the Bill, Federation would still have come, although, perhaps, not so quickly. Still, it would have come within the next year or two anyhow. But when we remember that the whole of the people agreed to the Bill, and that it became the law of the land. we are in a very poor position to sneer at those who tear up scraps of paper, if we tear up that scrap. The sooner the Australian Parliamentrealizes that New South Wales for years has felt that she has not been fairly dealt with by this Parliament, the better. The silence of -the people of New South Wales on this matter cannot be taken as an indication that they agree to what is happening. The members of this Parliament are not accepting sufficiently” seriously the promise given by the people of Australia when Federation took place. It was understood at, that time that Melbourne was to have the Capital for ten years. She has had it now for nearly twenty years, and will have it for more than twenty unless the Ministry move quicker on this subject than I have ever known them to move on anything else. Melbourne has had the Capital twice as long as she was entitled to it. I should not have cared at that time if the Capital had been fixed in Melbourne, although I would rather have seen it in Sydney, which is the natural Capital of Australia, from its position, the immense resources of the country behind it, its coal supplies, its possibilities as a manufacturing centre, and its increased and increasing trade. Those factors must make Sydney the
Capital of Australia, until, perhaps, -at some distant date Queensland, on account of its mighty resources, may overtake it. Some one has suggested as a compromise that the Capital be moved to Sydney, but I should be no more satisfied with the Parliament sitting in Sydney than in Melbourne. A promise has been made, and that promise should be kept. Some one may say, “ What about the money V I have been talking of saving money, but I venture to say that, in view of all the hundreds of thousands of pounds already spent at Canberra, the sooner the Parliament is established there, the sooner we shall be getting a return for our money. I fancy that Senator E. D. Millen on one occasion said in this Chamber that a company would be prepared to take a lease of the Capital for ninety-nine .years, and put £100,000,000 into its development. There is good money in the development of the Capital there to make up for the initial cost. Think what the increased land values would amount to. If land there is worth £5 an acre now, it will go to £25 and, perhaps, £100 a foot when a city is built there. Those would be values created by the community which will be drawn to the place and centred there. The business man of Melbourne who fears the collapse of his city if Federal influences are withdrawn from it will find himself, quite mistaken. When the great army of voters who work in the Defence and other Departments are translated to Canberra, Melbourne may for the time being lose another member in the House of Representatives, but when Melbourne ceases to depend on artificial upkeep and to live on the Commonwealth money expended within its boundaries, it will begin to adopt the up-to-date business methods followed by the people of Sydney, and then probably progress just as fast, and, perhaps, even faster. I am not at all concerned for the future of Melbourne, because it is assured. It may be that for the last twenty or thirty years Sydney has been making .strides - first overtaking Melbourne, then passing her, and now distancing her, but that is only what was to be expected. Melbourne still has its future possibilities. Although some of those who take a narrow view imagine that Melbourne will come to an end when the Federal Parliament ceases to sit here, and to give Melbourne the “ tone “ which it acquires from being considered the Capital of Australia, I do not agree with that view for one moment. I think that Melbourne will have its own substantial growth and development as a great city’. We are on the eve of great developments if we can only manage our own financial business, and not go on borrowing money from the other side of the world, because the man who borrows money is always sure of a snub sooner or later. The building of the capital at Canberra is the best investment that the Commonwealth can undertake. I should like to see it established there, at least to such an extent that the next session of Parliament could be opened there. In ten years’ time a handsome revenue would be coming in from the city and its surroundings, which would more than pay interest on the money already invested and to be invested, and, in addition, give a splendid return to the people of Australia. While’ we stay in Melbourne the reverse is the case. We have to pay rent, and are always being called upon to find new offices, and all this expenditure must end in nothing, so far as Australia is concerned. I urge the Government to make a beginning with the most important work of linking up the railways on a uniform gauge for the protection of. Australia, and to end up with the other great undertaking of establishing the capital at Canberra. Only by keeping Australia’s word to New South Wales can they maintain the honorable reputation of the Australian people. The time for the Government to move is here and now. I am told that they were at their wits’ end to get a vote through another place last Friday, and that finally the Treasurer gave a promise that an amount would be put on the Estimates for the capital when the Budget was brought down. I am not inferring that that promise was made with any ulterior motive, but ‘I am assured that the Government were pretty near the edge of things until Sir Joseph Cook gave it. I hope it will be kept. I should not like the Government to be driven into doing this thing, and, when I say that, honorable members know what a bitter party man I am. I have not a sufficiently strong following in this Chamber to coerce them, although I am told that a majority of both Houses is in favour of the capital being established at Canberra. Still, I do not think it can be made a party issue here of sufficient seriousness to drive the Government from office.
– That would be paying too big a price, even for Canberra.
– I believe Canberra would survive even that. We hear talk about Canberra being a bush capital, but so were Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, and Sydney when they were first started. I was recently reading up the old records of Sydney. I read how the first Governor (Captain Phillip) set the line on which the future city of Sydney was to be built, from the head of Darling Harbour to what we call Woolloomooloo Bay. If his foresight had been honoured, we should have had a city beautiful for Australia for all time. His plan was to reserve the whole of the land for. public purposes, but years after he had gone the speculators got to work. At Canberra the future values to be created by the population will belong to the Commonwealth. The Government should make the move quickly. They should take the stand that this thing has been delayed quite long enough already, and decide to establish Parliament at the new capital temporarily next session.
– Next session?
– Yes ; I am not in a hurry, because I fully expect the Government to have a fairly long recess. I expect them to keep this Parliament working very closely until about a week before the return of Mr. Watt. When Mr. Watt’s boat approaches Melbourne, we shall go into recess, and then we shall find the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) and others taking a run through the Pacific Islands in those cabins which are being constructed for the convenience of Ministers and their friends upon our warships - another instance of economy.
– Are you going ?
– I have not been asked, and am not likely to be. We shall then have a fairly long recess. T may be altogether wrong in that forecast, but I am not far out in what I say about the Navy Department “ saving money “ by building cabins on the decks of the warships. One has only to use his eyes to see what is going on there. Of course, if this Parliament is to be responsible for the government of the Pacific Islands, the more we know about them the better. There is nothing so dangerous as people legislating about things they know very little of. It might be a good thing to take the whole of the members of this Parliament to see the Islands. I should not mind if we were able to hold the next session of Parliament at sea. The Senate might sit on board the Australia, to be’ in keeping with its dignity.
– And the other House in a submarine.
– Just so. The Minister has led me into an inaccuracy. I had intended to suggest that the other House might be accommodated on a destroyer. I do. not know that we could hold a session of this Parliament outside the 3-mile limit from .the coast of Australia, but we might ‘be getting our business ready, and could complete it when we landed on any portion of our territory.
I should like the Minister who is charged with the administration of the Nauru Island Agreement Act to state whether the promise of the Government that moneys for the purchase of the island are to be voted by this Parliament is to be kept. I have seen in the press many statements to the effect that moneys have already been paid under the .agreement. “When the Bill was under consideration in the -.Senate we had a distinct promise given by the Government that no money would be paid in connexion with Nauru Island until it was voted by Parliament. We passed , a Bill confirming the agreement, but we did not vote any money. ‘I am still sufficiently a believer in our parliamentary system to hold that any moneys expended by the Government should first of all be voted by Parliament, particularly in connexion with a questionable purchase. I dealt with the Nauru Island agreement at considerable length when the Bill was under consideration. I quite agree that Parliament was committed to the agreement by the passing of the Bill, but my information is that the Government have purchased not only Nauru Island,, but Ocean Island as well, and the purchase of Ocean Island was not provided for in the agreement to which I refer. We know that Governments have often been turned out of office for expending money that was not voted by
Parliament. To prevent wasteful expenditure it has been at times found necessary to teach a Government a severe lesson for adopting the extreme course of using the funds of the community without first getting the sanction of Parliament.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address myself to this Supply Bill. I hope that when the Estimates are tabled the Government will go right on with their consideration, and we shall have no further Supply Bills submitted. I have always held that there need be no more trouble in getting the Estimates through Parliament than in getting a Supply Bill passed. It would be a saving of many valuable days to the Senate if, when the Estimates are presented, the Government would set to work to deal with the financial part of the business of the session, that the decks may be cleared for the transaction of other work.
– I desire to thank the Government for the reply given to the question I asked in connexion with the sale of khaki cloth by the Defence Department to the public at 15s. per yard. Knowing as we do how rampant profiteer ing has been in the clothing trade for some years past, it may be regarded as satisfactory that the Government should sell some surplus cloth to the public in suit lengths at what appears at first glance to be. a very reasonable price. I wish, however, to state that, although the price at which the Government have sold to the public is but half the price charged by the Flinders-lane profiteers, it is, in my opinion, much too high, because the cost to the Government of manufacturing the khaki cloth to which. I refer, under the very favorable conditions which, they enjoy, having the first choice of Australian wool at originally appraised prices, amounts to from. 6s. to 7s. 3£d. per yard. The cost to the Defence Department of testing and distributing the tweed is, I know, very low, and the Department must be making a net profit on this khaki cloth of nearly 100 per cent. That is a very bad precedent for the Government to establish. In answering my question the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) quite correctly pointed out that provision had been made for returned soldiers. He explained that the Government are manufacturing good tweed at the Federal woollen mills for from 6s. to 7s. per yard, and that 70 per cent, of the total output of the mills was being made available to returned soldiers. This is wise and just; . but I respectfully point out that the output of the mills is sufficient only to provide 130,000 suits per annum, and therefore is not nearly sufficient for the present requirements of the whole of our returned soldiers, who have not been able to get suits at anything like reasonable prices. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to take immediate steps to install sufficient extra machinery at the Federal woollen mills to double the output. The sooner that is done the better, not only in the interests of our brave returned soldiers, but in the interests of the public generally.
Though I am a Protectionist, and keenly in favour of the manufacture in Australia of all our requirements, I should like to point Out to honorable senators the extraordinarily favorable treatment meted out to the woollen manufacturers of Australia under the wool purchase scheme. Australian manufacturers have been getting the first pick of the best wool in the world at- originally appraised prices, which have not represented the average price of 15-Jd. at which the wool is sold to the Imperial Government ex-seaboard ‘warehouses on a greasy basis. The Australian manufacturers have been getting the whole of their requirements - and some of them have received more than their requirements - at an average price of 12.44d. per lb., and as there is only 7 lbs. of greasy wool in the average woollen suit the Australian wool-grower has been getting only 7s. 3d. for what we, the long-suffering consumers of Australia, have been paying shopkeepers’ and tailors from 700 to 1,800 per cent. more. The Government, securing their wool under similar favorable conditions as other Australian manufacturers, have proved that it is possible for them to manufacture tweeds at from 6s. to 7s. per yard. It takes from 3£ to a maximum of 3^ yards of cloth to make a suit of clothes. It is, therefore, very obvious that the Flinders-lane magnates and the large shopkeepers of Australia, generally have been profiteering in connexion with the woollen trade. I suppose that there are streets as wicked as Flinders-lane in Senator Gardiner’s city of Sydney.
– But not in Adelaide.
– And in Adelaide also. What I have said proves that profiteering has been rampant in the woollen manufacturing and distributing trade throughout Australia. I do not at all approve of the Government selling khaki cloth to the public at 15s. per yard. I say that there should be absolute preference given to returned soldiers, and they should get the khaki cloth manufactured by the Government at cost price.
– For how long? Indefinitely? ;
– I understand that the Government have not an, indefinite supply. I should say that until they have sold out their so-called surplus the Government should allow returned soldiers to get the cloth at cost price. When they can manufacture more than sufficient to meet the requirements of the returned soldiers, they might consider the price at which they will permit the cloth to be made available to the public. At the present time, selling this cloth at 15s. per yard, the Government are making 100 per cent, profit, and that is a very bad precedent for a Government to establish.
– I was not aware that Supply was to be discussed this afternoon, but I cannot miss the opportunity to “reply to the suggestion by Senator Thomas that a railway should be constructed from Port Augusta via Broken Hill to Sydney.
– What about the other line I suggested?
– The other line is even worse. I thought I would let the honorable senator down lightly. To-day we have a railway on the 3-ft. 6-in. gauge from Petersborough to the Barrier, and if at any time the mining industry ceased operations-
– South Australia would cease to be.
– Nb ; South Australia would still go on, but that State would cease to lose a great deal of money on that railway if the Commonwealth Government took it over. If Broken Hill ceased to bo, or the mines were riot working, there is nothing that would justify the running of that railway, yet Senator Thomas puts up a proposition to-day for practically the duplication of a line which, without the mining industry, would not pay, and a line wh ich would be of no use in any shape or form to the mining industry at the Barrier. It would have only one advantage, and that would be that, by its use, overland passengers might be landed in Sydney at the same time of day as they are now landed in Melbourne. I say that as soon as we get shipping back to normal conditions, we may say good-bye to passenger traffic on the transcontinental railway.
– Quite right; owing to the breaks of gauge.
– I believe that no one will take on a five or six days’ railway journey through the. centre of Australia unless he has a very urgent business reason for doing so.
– It is not a five or six days’ journey.
– I am discussing the journey between Perth and Sydney. I agree with Senator Thomas that the time has arrived, and in fact is many years overdue, for the building of railways by the different States upon a uniform gauge. I suppose that since Federation has been established we have had hundreds of miles of railways built in every one of the States on different gauges, and that is not very much to the credit of those responsible for this railway construction.
With regard to the other railway suggested by Senator Thomas, from Adelaide through Long Plains, it was started as a connecting link with the east-west railway. I understand action is being taken by the Federal Government to prevent any further railway extension until the question of a uniform gauge has been definitely settled. A line to connect Adelaide with Port Augusta has been commenced in the 5-ft. 3-in. gauge, which will mean another break at Port Augusta. As only about 30 miles of this line has been con- structed, surely it is time for the State and Federal Governments to come to a. definite decision and arrange for the whole of that line to be built on the 4-ft. 81/2 in. gauge, thus avoiding another break. Reference has been made by Senator Thomas to the annual loss incurred on the east-west line, which, like all other concerns managed from one centre, does not show up to greatadvantage. Stock-owners on the east-west line experience considerable difficulty in obtaining the necessary trucks, and only yesterday or the day before a deputation from stock-owners on the east-west line waited’ upon the South Australian Government to see if stock could not be despatched more expeditiously. The stock-owners are urgently in need of improved facilities, and as the country is undoubtedly good, surely an arrangement could be reached whereby the line could be conducted in a businesslike manner with due regard to its users and the taxpayers.
Like Senator Gardiner, I believe Australia is big and good enough to face the difficulties confronting it; but I do not. support him in his contention that our financial difficulties should be made public. I am not in favour of abusing the men, to whom we have to go whenin difficulties; but atthe same time I am. not prepared to admit that we should be compelled to go cap-in-hand to the financiers in any country. There is a differencein going cap-in-hand and going respectfully to those to whom we owe so much for the development of Australia. I believe the interest on our national debt approximates 2s. per week per head of population, and that is not a very great burden for a young country. We merely have to put our backs to the wall and increase production; but if we pay increased wages we cannot afford to have decreased efficiency. In scores of Australian industries wages have risen from 7s. to 10s. per day to 15s. to 16s. per day; but notwithstanding the higher wages production has decreased. I know that is the position in certain industries with which I have been associated. There is an incessant demand by a certain section of the community for a six-hour day, and if it is to be a question of workingonlywhen it is absolutely necessary, there are not many who would be prepared to work between meals. The primary producer is the one who works twelve to. sixteen hours a day, and he it is who makes it possible for the city worker to live in comparative comfort by working eight hours a day. It is time the producers awakened. Much has been said concerning what the producers receive, but if they were paid according to the time they worked their position would be much easier than it is to-day. The difficulty throughout Australia is not only to obtain men, but to secure the services of those who are prepared to give a fair return for the wages they are paid. In the mining and other important industries the supervision expenses are enormous, as every shift has to have a man in charge to see that the men perform their work in a proper manner. Senator Gardiner has the honour of representing a prominent political party, and, with him, I admit that unionism has done a lot for the workers of Australia; but unionism can be abused if it is badly led.
Sectarianism is rampant throughout Australia ; and, so far as I am personally concerned, I do not care which road a man takes to Heaven, as my only anxiety is to get Where myself.
– I do not think the honorable senator .need worry, as his chance -is hopeless.
– Senator Gardiner is, perhaps, speaking for himself.
– And for his _ party.
– Perhaps, if he went where the members of his party were not. he would be lonely. So long as I am in public life I ‘hope I shall always be big enough to oppose the introduction of sectarianism into public questions, -as it is only right to take a stand in .such matters. I .congratulate the Government on their attitude towards disloyalists in the immediate past.
– Would the honorable senator mind telling me what a disloyalist is ?
– I prefer not to go into that question at this juncture, as my remarks may be. considered somewhat personal. Surely the Government are right in deporting disloyalists? I .am proud that the Government have taken such a firm stand, as it will be the means of teaching others a lesson.
I listened with a great deal -of interest to Senator Gardiner’s speech, and I agree with a good deal of what he has said. I, too, am -of the opinion that the time has arrived for exercising stringent economy in the Defence Department. Senator
Gardiner said that there were numbers of military men in Melbourne who should have ‘gone to the Front; but I do not know why he should have specially referred to Melbourne, and not to the whole of Australia. During the short time I have been a member of the Senate, I have learned that the discussions on all important matters seem to be based on Melbourne versus Sydney, or Sydney versus Melbourne, and the Garden City is omitted altogether. I trust, that economy with due regard to efficiency will be practised in every direction without unnecessary delay.
From time to time, attention has been drawn to the unnecessary expense incurred by the overlapping of public Departments. I understand that there is a desire to have one taxing authority; and when one realizes that the State and Federal Governments are practically covering the same ground at a heavy expense, and the poor .unfortunate taxpayer has to foot the bill, it- is time a change was made. Such issues as this should be referred to men who are competent to judge on questions of efficiency, and when reliable inf ormation is .submitted the Government should not hesitate to act. It is useless to appeal to the head of a Department to submit proposals for effecting economy, because he is always afraid of action being taken that would be detrimental to his own interests. At present, State and Federal Taxation Depart- ments, .Savings Banks, and Electoral Departments are doing similar work, and such overlapping, should be -dispensed with to insure greater .efficiency .and reduce the expenditure.
There has been a good deal of discussion recently concerning the great bush Capital. I am not in a position to speak of the financial success of Canberra in the same strain .as Senator Thomas does, as he is an experienced politician and I am merely a beginner. Before I commit myself in this matter, it is my desire to spend two or three days in the Federal Capital Territory to. enable me to make a reasonable inspection before coming to a decision.
– .When the honorable senator has had a proper dose of the Melbourne climate, he will be easily converted.
– I know that the Melbourne climate is distasteful to those coming from Sydney and further north; but I am not prepared just now to say whether I shall support the removal of the Seat of Government to Canberra or not.
I am exceedingly pleased that the Government have introduced a measure to prevent public meetings being held in the vicinity of Parliament House, as it is only right that the representatives of the people should be able to express their views without any intimidation from a howling mob outside. As a rule I am not a nervous man, but a few nights ago, when I was about to leave this building, I was advised not to go out by a certain door because of the likelihood of trouble, though there did not appear to be the element of trouble the previous night when I heard Senator Gardiner deliver a grand speech to the crowd. He did not appear to be nervous.
– I was merely breaking the War Precautions Act in the hope that the Government might make a martyr of me.
– Well, we have since passed through ‘ the Senate a measure which will give all honorable senators the right to pass in and out of this building without risk of interference. It will always be my ambition to give of my very best to the making of laws to govern this country, and the Government may rest assured of my support for all measures which I believe to be in the highest interests of the Commonwealth.
– I do not intend to delay the Senate for long, but I desire to say a word or two, by way of criticism, of some opinions expressed during the course of the debate. The first reading of the Supply Bill gives honorable senators a wide field for discussion, as wide, indeed, as the scope allowed to a London “University lecturer, who was advertised to speak on the “ Universe and Collateral Subjects.” The first reading of a Supply Bill properly gives to every member of this Chamber an opportunity to speak - I do not say at random, far from it - with freedom upon every question of public importance. We are all agreed, I think, that the theory of discussion is to hold up a given proposition, allow the light of reason to play upon it, bring common sense - rather an uncommon commodity sometimes - to bear upon its merits and adopt that aspect of it that most appeals to the majority.
The debate this afternoon has “been interesting in parts. We had Senator Thomas taking advantage of the opportunity to advocate a direct railway through New South Wales at the Federal expense, thereby invoking the aid of the Federal Treasury in the development of New South Wales, the most prosperous State in the Commonwealth, according to the Leader of the Opposition. Then we have had also a dissertation by Senator Gardiner upon the question of Australian financial independence. I invite honorable senators to look where they will and tell me of any nation, in ancient or modern history, that has been in this position. It may be said that Russia is independent, but what is her condition to-day? What is the value of her circulating medium ? I do not want to see Australia fall to the level of Russia, if by seeking for financial independence we are likely to be led into the same awful plight.
I am in hearty accord with many statements made by honorable senators this afternoon. As for the Federal Capital, I am willing to get away from any location on the coast. I have always advocated decentralization, if by that is meant the settlement of our people in the. interior rather than on the coastal fringes of this country. In my opinion it will not cost the Commonwealth a brass farthing to give effect ‘to the promise to establish the Federal Capital in New South Wales, and so I am in favour of an early movement to shift the Seat of Government into the Federal Territory. I am not in favour of any perambulating Federal Capital, first in one city and then in another.
This afternoon I endeavoured, somewhat in a facetious manner, to direct attention to a certain phase of our industrial and economic life, namely the position of what I would term the two sets of industries : the one set depending upon the continental area for the dumping of its products, or the disposal of its services, and the other set, not being in such a happy position, being obliged to hawk its goods in the world’s market and thankful to get any price offered there for them. Between these two sets of industries there has grown up an impossible state of affairs, impossible in the sense that if we are to expect Australia, primarily a producing country, to progress, we must do something to’ encourage men to go out and produce. It is idle to put upon our political placards a plank affirming our belief in the policy of encouraging primary industries, unless by action we keep faith with our word.
What is happening ? I intend, if possible, to elaborate seriously the position as stated in my question this afternoon. On the one hand we have a clamour about the increasing cost of the necessaries of life - we have complaints about house-keeping bills rising higher and still higher from day to day - and on the other hand, as I had an opportunity of. demonstrating in Sydney quite recently, we find a remarkable competition for that very necessary household commodity - butter. I tried to get a pound of butter in halfadozenof file leading emporiums of Sydney, and finally had to be content with J lb. at 7½d. Now that is typical of the position in our ‘ cities. What about the country ? As a matter of fact in Queensland, which State I visited quite recently, dairy farms are hard to sell. While some people in our cities are languishing for butter, almost at any price, we cannot induce a sufficient number of people to go into the country and produce. Take sugar as another example. As we all know it is double the price of a few years ago. But does this fact induce people to go out into the country o grow it? Far from it. The sugar industry in Australia is about stationary. Some sugar areas in Queensland are reverting to the jungle state. While this serious position is developing we are told that what is wanted in this country is a policy to encourage people to go upon the land. Any honorable senator who has had an extensive experience in the development of Australia knows that thirty years ago the first thing a person did on landing, if he wanted to progress, was to make for the country. Where would he go to-day? The stream is moving towards .the cities. The people are coming in from every side.
I have stated two examples as illustrating the trend of affairs, and if 1 were asked to attach blame for it, I would not care to blame one (political party more than another. But I do place blame upon that party which, in the face ofthings as they exist to-day, is clamouring for a forty-four and a forty hour work-, ing week. I entirely agree with Senator Wilson. I would like to meet the man who could work a farm on those principles. If he attempted te do go and persisted he would finish in the Bankruptcy Court. Therefore it is the duty of the leaders of thought in this country to tell these men who are advocating a forty-four or a forty hour working week where their insane policy will land us. They have dropped entirely the principle of an eight hours day, which I believe was a reasonable proposition. For some occupations eight hours is rather long;but for others it is not long enough if the person engaged in them is to do a fair thing as a unit, in the com[munity Thirty years ago the cry to the youth of this country was “ Get back.” They got back to the land and they made good. To-day the opposite experience is met with. The miners of Kalgoorlie, and, I believe, of every other metalliferous area in the Commonwealth, are, on the average, getting less to-day in the way of wages than they were getting twenty -five years ago. But what is the position in the other parasitic industries of Australia? Tram conductors, motordrivers, and men engaged in other similar occupations which, during the war was proved to be women’s work, are getting their 12s. per day, whereas men working in the metalliferous industries, which are shortening their lives, not gradually, but rapidly, are not getting as much as a quarter of a century ago. It is about time we asked ourselves if this state of affairs has in it the elements of fair play when the economic effects . are so fatal to the welfare of this young country. My hopes have been . damped when I have read awards given by Mr. Justice Higgins and others of the Arbitration Court, beL cause I know the sequential effect of those awards upon other industries.
– Have you read any of McCawley’s awards?
– I believe he is even worse. I would like to get some of these men who frame such fanciful awards out into the wilderness, and, on their own awards, set them the task of carving a farm out of the primeval forest. I have no hesitation in saying that men in these subsidiary and ‘coddled industries of. thecities, have; by these awards, been encouraged to “ dump “ their wares or services on to the market in Australia, and that they are getting an unfair advantage oyer those engaged in other industries which have no such remedy. What is the position in the sea-faring industry? Thirty years ago I was getting £8 per month, and had to work hard, too. To-day, men are getting nearly double that wage. What would have happened thirty years ago if one of the men had torn up an award?. - Would not some one have said, to them : “ Anyway you are getting quite enough.” When the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), adjudicated in that case he was far too indulgent, and. did not take into consideration the position of ‘ men in this country who can never get the terms of the award which he gave. Again, I invite anybody to visit the Golden Mile to-morrow and double the wages of the miners without closing down nearly every mine there. The same applies to the farmers of Australia. Let us’ hold the scales of justice evenly, but do not let- us fatten one section of the parasitic industries of this country to the positive disadvantage of others. Can we afford to shut down the Golden Mile, with its 25,000 inhabitants, by giving the. men who- are employed there more wages such as others have been getting ? The stern economic conditions which confront us compel us to say “ No.” Does anybody mean to tell me that when the Australian mine-owner puts his ounce of gold on the world’s market, it is any recommendation for him to say to prospective purchasers, “ I pay. high wages.” Their reply would be, “A fig for you and your high wages. We can get gold cheaper elsewhere.” Again, take the case of the wheat-grower. We know how he fared in this country prior to the war period. We are accustomed to hear a lot about the workers in Australia. My own opinion is that in . order to support those workers a number of people have to be slaves. If we assess the earnings of those who are engaged in wheat production in Australia,- we shall find that instead of getting 2s. or 2s. 6d. per hour, as other workers do,- they do not even get 6d. As a matter of fact, calculations have been made which show that they get much less than that amount: Pair - play is bonnie play, and I shall not support a policy “which will mean*: fattening either one set of operators, in the field of industry at the expense of a second set of: unfortunate wretches who’, cannot help., themselves at all. Whenever we increase wages,, unless we can show that we shall, not be impoverishing’ another section of. the community,, we are doing an unjust thing. The miners of Kalgoorlie are just as much entitled to consideration as are the seafaring men of this country,; the coal miners and city employees.
Quite recently the marine engineers of Australia went out on strike, and. made “ smithereens “ of an Arbitration- Courtaward. For so doing they obtained a lot of sympathy from some people; but they did not get it from me. I offered to help man the ships, and I would do so again. These people were never true Laborites.. If they were tossed out in the open market to-morrow, instead, of getting the wages they receive to-day they would get ever so much less. But they- are securely entrenched behind the barrier which their, own organization has erected. They represent a close preserve of labour, and, they acted in opposition to the best interests of this country when they violated an award of the Arbitration Court, and thereby inflicted misery and. loss upon, many thousands of their- fellow-citizens.. In Cairns not long ago I saw a, man who had . £800 worth of fruit lying upon the wharfs awaiting shipment to Melbourne. After, years of struggle in a tropical climate he had obtained this crop, which he was desirous of marketing, in order that h» might liquidate his obligations. But thi fruit could not be shipped because th« engineers were on strike. They took Mr.Justice Higgins’ award and tore it to: fragments. The man who will justify their action does not understand the very rudiments of any policy which is calculated to advance the true interests of this country. .
– But . unionists would argue that the fruit-grower was a capitalist.
– A capitalist! I have seen the man. His >is only, one of many . such instances which might be quoted.. From the Commonwealth YearBoole I learn that during last year the number of days lost to workmen on account of: strikes was in the neighbour-! hood’ of- 5,000)000. Calculated at- the rate of . lOs. per day,, that means that .tha workers lost in wages alone £2,500,000. But how much has .been- lost by’ reason of the dislocation of business, and of the national drain upon our production, because of the uncontrolled strikes which have occurred, from time to time? The outstanding r feature of the entire position is that, unless conditions are altered, production cannot continue.
Our cities are being unnaturally and unwholesomely pampered. . Our industrial and economic legislation has tended to the further pampering of what Thomas Jefferson designated “these -festering- sores of civilization.” It is about time that we altered our policy.
We talk about price-fixing, as if we were going to remedy a real grievance. May I repeat a very old truism, “.You can fix prices until you are black in the face; but you cannot compel a man to produce at those prices.” We need men in this country who wish it well, to tell the workers that they must keep their contracts. The man who .is afraid to do this is no man. Only the other day I read in the Sydney press an’ announcement of a threatened strike by a number of employees of Metters and Coy. These men were told in very plain language by the -union- officials that if they put their threat into execution they would be fined and expelled from the union, also that if they obtained employment elsewhere the union would see that they were discharged from their jobs. That is the way to talk. That is a healthy -sigh of the return to honest and honorable dealing in the ranks of labour. Whilst we have an arbitration system in vogue the men must abide by the awards of the Court if we are to make any progress. If we continue much longer our insane method of managing this country, industrially and economically, less and less production will most certainly be .the result. That is the reason why we cannot get butter or sugar at the present time. There aTe any number of persons here who can produce butter and sugar, if only the scales are held evenly between urban and rural interests - if only those who have to do with the framing’ of awards see that the men in the country get a fair crack of the whip. Then we should not have a constant stream of population from the country -towards the city. Talk about being lost’ in. the ‘bush; why the danger to-day is that’ of, being lost -in the city. And as to the use to which we are putting this country, what is happening? Just as in the early days- our forefathers thrust aside the primeval owners of Australia, and- told them they were not putting it to its best use, so, if we continue upon the course which has been pursued during the past few years, we shall warrant ‘ a’ sturdier Tace bearing down upon us and telling us that they intend to judge us “by the same standard as that by which we judged the aboriginal inhabitants of this country when we thrust them upon one side. The position is quite plain- !
– It may be plain to the honora’ble senator, but other honorable senators can scarcely see it.’
The, PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T., Givens).- Order ! Will the honorable senator resume .his seat. Owing to the failure pf the lighting of . the chamber, I shall vacate the chair until such time , as it has been restored.
Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m.
– My purpose in directing attention to the development’s that have occurred in this country in t¢ years, especially in the economic and industrial spheres, was to sow seeds o’f wisdom by the wayside, where some may germinate and. some may not. Looking upon this Chamber as an integral part of the Legislature, T am of the opinion that a Government nowadays has a very material influence in shaping the policy and progress of a nation. Time was when ‘ the popular conception of a Government was, as Thomas Jefferson said, that it was merely an institution that kept the ring, allowing all the activities within the sphere of its territorial authority full and free play. In other words, Governments in those days existed merely for the preservation of order. A Government nowadays, according to some views, is a vastly different thing. There are men in this Parliament, and out of it, too - and many of the latter consider themselves even better than those who are in - who think that a Government should be a kind of agency whose influence and authority should extend and ramify down to the minutest details of everyday life. I am flatly opposed to any such conception of government. I hold a position midway between Thomas Jefferson’s idea and that extravagant view of how far government should go. I believe that the time has come, owing to the curious development of our industrial and economic life, when a Government should take a hand in most of the everyday affairs of life without at the same time killing or undermining individual initiative, which, after all, is the basis of advanced society.
In this continent, so far as I can gather from the reading of history, we have the last word in human freedom. I can imagine no freedom that can surpass that which we enjoy in this dear land of Australia. That freedom was gained “for us, not by the. efforts of present generations, but by the sturdy defenders of, and fighters ‘for, liberty in generations gone by. Having gained that liberty without any effort of our own, we should never be found wanting in appreciation of what we owe to the cumulative efforts of our sturdy forefathers.
Another question we should ask ourselves when we look round on this country is, “What are we doing with it?’’ So far as development within recent years is concerned, we have been going on wrong lines, and unless we ‘ take stock of the position immediately, we will simply pave the way for another Power to pour down on us, saying, as we said to the aborigines, “Get out of the way; we will show you how to put this country to better account than you are doing.” I have given some illustrations about the shortage of the products that we require. I have pointed to the shortage of sugar and butter in the leading cities of the Commonwealth; and I believe the same is true of other cities. Witness, too, the increasing price of meat, an essential commodity,, which is selling here, I believe, at ls. 9d. per lb. as the result of the latest fad, driven almost to the point of insanity, of fixing prices in this country now that the war is over. The one thing responsible for all this rise in price is scarcity; and the one thing at the root of scarcity is that sufficient inducement is not offered to men to make the countryside their home and abiding place, and multiply production. If production could be increased, the normal balance would again be struck between production and consumption, whereas now there is no balance. It is perfectly evident that there is a shortage, and we, as a Government, with our supplementary aids in the shape of Arbitration Courts and governmental agencies, by interfering in disputes are simply adding to those influences the cumulative effect of which is to drive people into the congested cities from the countryside where they ought to be. I am against that, and always will be. So far as the equity of the situation is concerned, I am surprised that men of normal balance should ever justify a policy that means the creation of such an unfair relationship between urban and rural interests. I have given as an illustration the case of a Kalgoorlie miner on the Golden Mile - as good a citizen, or rather a ten times better citizen, than ever inhabits our city areas - who is today on the same mark as he was twentyfive years ago. He is entitled to more consideration than any city dweller ever deserved, because if we had no Kalgoorlies or Charters Towers or Mount Lyells we should have very few cities round our coast line.
– You could have protective duties.
– I have great faith in protective duties, but I never claimed that their influence was equal to that mighty power described in the book of Genesis, which said, “Let things be,” and, of course, they were. When we get down to “brass tacks,” as the Americans say, and honestly try to hold the scale fairly between town and country, and between one industry and another, we must admit that we have been on the wrong track, and need to take heed of our course, lest we end in disaster.
I owe an apology to Senator Thomas for having unintentionally misrepresented his attitude on the question of railway construction. He said that New South Wales, always to the fore in every selfsacrificing effort, would be prepared to build the railway he outlined to the South Australian . border provided that the Federal Treasury paid for the building of the other portion. He did not tell us what it would cost the Federal Treasurer to do so. I misrepresented the honorable senator to the extent of saying that New South Wales on this occasion was not going to depart from her traditional role of a benevolent Mother State, or, as I some- times like to call her, the Mother-in-law State, and, of course, fathering every: thing.
– That is very Irish !
– I should say mothering everything. I admit that I did not correctly interpret that part of the honorable senator’s speech. New South Wales is no more opulent than the resources of this continent make her. She gained her financial pre-eminence and her opulence by virtue of Federation, when people far afield became buyers in her markets, and poured into her coffers very much of the money that I hope she will not boast too. loudly about.
To return to the illustration I was giving on the need of holding the scale fairly between one industry and another, and between - one set of employees and another, I repeat that a metalliferous miner in any part of the Commonwealth is as much as, and even more than, any other operative entitled to consideration, because he is going to his death at a much surer rate than any other operative I know of in this country. We are all familiar with the effects of the use of the rock drill on the health of miners, yet owing to the inexorable economic conditions in this country the men engaged in metalliferous mining are virtually on the same mark as they were years ago, whereas those engaged in the subsidiary industries, that come in for all the sympathy, all the beslavering, all the noise, and all the clamour, and then exist only because the other industries existed before them, have had their wages increased by nearly 100 per cent. I call a halt on that, and say, “ It is not progress at all.” It is not fair to defend the claim of the engineers or the seamen or the sugarworkers of North Queensland or the coal miners or the collieryowners of New South Wales for increased pay, if we cannot at the same time give an increase to the miners and to those engaged in the industries which have to shift their products into the world’s markets for sale.
If there is any trouble in the production of coal in New ‘South Wales the employees pour down on the Federal Government with a demand for assistance. They did this twice during the war period. It was well known that’ the country was then in a serious position. We did not know whether we would win or lose our liberty, but the coal miners, having the key of the position, and being the only ones able to supply coal to shift our ships to the centre of action on the other side of the world, twice got from the Federal Government everything ‘they wanted. And they are coming again. If they get their demands conceded, as apparently they are in the habit of doing, the price of coal is raised to the consumer in Australia, and every increase in the price of coal is reflected in the cost of everything down from a plough to a needle required by the people of this continent. Twenty-five years ago the nominal selling price of Newcastle coal was 8s. a ton, whereas it is now 18s. What inherent right has the New South Wales coal miner to be put in so privileged a position? Where does his manhood come in? I would say to Mr. Willis, if I met him: “ Where does your manhood appear in asking for privilege after privilege when you cannot give the same rights to other men further afield whom you have the audacity to call comrades?” My idea of a comrade is a man who shares and shares alike with me. Comradeship should not imply advantage on one side and disadvantage on the other. The history of the last twentyfive years shows that the New South Wales coal miners and the men in the maritime carrying trade have had their wages nearly doubled, whereas the men for whom I am now speaking have not had a brass farthing added to their wages. Is not one set of employees as good to this country as another? The men for whom I am pleading are infinitely better men, measured in the scale of human work, man for man, than those in and around the cities who have been so long pampered. What is there different in the work in a New South Wales coal mine, or in the Great Cobar mine, or in the New Chum at Croydon, or in the Mount Lyell, or the Great Boulder mine? When it comes to one set of men using their economic and industrial position to levy blackmail, because that is what it amounts to, against the less protected sections of this country, it is. up to this Government and Parliament to say, “We shall hold the scales fairly, and allow other men to get a fair crack of. the whip, without your positions being enhanced or your getting fat salaries at the expense of the rest of the workers of the Commonwealth.”. Senator Gardiner is a man who can do things, and one who, particularly, can say things. If he were to go to the Golden Mile to-morrow and say to a man working there, “What wages are you getting?” the answer would be that he was getting the same wages as he received at the time I have stated. The honorable senator might then say, “That is not fair; I am going to double your wages,” and the following morning every mine on the Golden Mile would be closed down, and 25,000 people would be looking for work elsewhere. ‘ If the honorable senator went to a farm on the same mission, nearly the same thing would happen. I say, therefore, that when we have this clamour amongst bodies of workmen who take special advantage of their privileged position to gain an increase of wages at the expense of some one else, every fairminded man who wishes this country prosperity should be prepared to tell those men who look for such undeserved advantages what he thinks of them. I have been tired of telling such men what I think of them. Many have been brought to my way of .thinking. The workers are not all fools; very far from it. I venture to say that if you talk “ straight griffin “ to a body of Australian workmen any.where in ‘the’ Commonwealth you will find amongst them enough of manhood and -a sufficient sense of justice and fair play to induce them to listen to you, and to give a verdict in your favour. .
There are men who say this and that to the workers merely in order to secure their favour and votes on election day, because if they lost their votes they would lose their seats in this Parliament. My estimate of the parliamentary job does not reduce it to that level. I have had the honour of contesting a seat in Parliament before now. I have the honour to represent a section of the people of this country who need yield to none from the point of view of democratic advancement and matured thought. The way in which Western Australia shaped during the course of the war is a standing testimony to the superiority of the people of that State to those of any other State of the Commonwealth in the matter of public spirit. They are people who do things and do not bother about the results, and they are responsible for the attitude- of the western State during the war period. I claim that from ,the point of view of seasoned and advanced thought and the desire to mount, higher on the ladder of civilization, the people of Western Australia need not play second fiddle to those of any other State in the Commonwealth. I do not say this for the purpose of attracting attention to my own position, because my colleagues in the representation of that State are in the same boat, and they also talked plainly to the people. I was asked my policy repeatedly, and my reply was, “ Go and do some honest work.. That is policy enough for you.” I said that more than a hundred times, and those to whom I spoke apparently thought that I gave them good advice when I told them to do some honest work. These . democrats are men who read and study. They have forgotten more than some of the city denizens ever learned, and they returned my colleagues and myself to this Parliament with the simple message to which I am giving a very imperfect utterance at the present time.
I have directed attention to. the unequal position of industries dependent upon. the world’s market and those which are practically in a position to dictate their own terms. . The coal-mine owner, under pressure, gives increased wages to his employees and advances the price of coal; the ship-owner likewise gives increased wages to engineers and firemen, and ‘follows that up with an increase of freights and fares; but the wheat-grower and the metalliferous miner must carry the products of their labour to the world’s market and accept whatever is offered for them there.’ The impossible policy we are pursuing, under which one set of industries is specially favoured whilst others are allowed to shift for themselves, will never make for the pro7gress of this country. The result of such policy is reflected by the illustrations Z have given.
Senator Gardiner mentioned the sum of £8,500,000 that is due to the Imperial Government, and I believe that he contended that the Imperial Government should find no fault with its non-payment. I understand that the sum mentioned forms a portion of the debt incurred for the purpose of equip- ping and, paying our soldiers. If £8,500,000, or any other sum, is due to the Imperial Government, I see no reason why it should not be paid without demur. I am of opinion that the British Government were helped remarkably well by Australia. At the same time, this country, stood to lose as much as the British Government if the fortune of the war had gone against us during the titanic struggle in which we were engaged.
– We should, in that case, have been receiving the Crown Prince of Germany instead of the Prince cif Wales.
– If I am asked to express an opinion with respect to the payment of this trifle of £8,500,000, all I can say is that we are assured of our liberty foi a continued period at least, and I set a much, higher price upon that glorious asset which cannot be expressed adequately in language than to suggest that there is any warrant for quibbling about the payment of the sum mentioned. It should not be a matter of any difficulty to us to make such a payment if we put our necks properly into the collar. Everything depends on that. If we do not fiddle over our heritage as we have been doing of late years, we can discharge our indebtedness arising out of the war to the last farthing. I beli«ve the figures have been given in this Chamber previously, but let me say that America, after the Civil War, had an indebtedness of something approaching £100 per head of the population. That was the only war in human history responsible for such a huge debt. It is quite true that the Napoleonic wars cost the British a vast sum, but our war indebtedness, up to date, is not to be compared with the American debt after the Civil. War. The American debt, as we know, was incurred merely for the purpose of compelling a brother in the Southto shake hands with another brother in the North, whereas, we, in this country, have had assured to us that liberty which was at one time trembling in the balance.. Having lost that, we would have lost everything. Therefore, it ill-becomes us, in the circumstances, to find fault with the payment of £8,500,000, or. even a much larger sum, to the British Power.
I speak of the British Power with qualifications. One qualification is that I want to see that Power deal out evenhanded justice to Ireland- the country from which I come. I am not, and neverwill be, one of. those who stand for a policy that, means cutting the painter from the Imperial Power. I stand, with O’Connell, with Isaac Butt, and with Pannell,, in demanding .that Irishmen within their own island territory shall have the rightto control their own affairs.
– The’ honorable senator stands for English justice in Ireland.
– I stand for justice in. all. lands, I hope.
– Does the honorable senator want English justice or Irish justice ?
– My policy on this question has been proclaimed more than once in this: Chamber. I have stood to it on the public platform, and I am prepared to stand to that test again. I say, so far as the British Power is concerned, that this country is dearer to me than any other. If any other country were dearer to me than this I should leave for it. I am here with those who belong to me. I have rambled about the world and have lived under other flags. I came back, to this, country to find that the very Union’ Jack, which used, in my boyhooddays, to be to me the symbol of tyranny and. oppression, has been to me in this country the symbol of my freedom and security.. Having found that, I am prepared to fling aside all prejudice and to say, with a due sense of the importance of my statement, that this country still owes a debt for the security it received down the weary years from that Imperial Power. If it had not enjoyed the protection of that Power it would have been in a most perilous and exposed position indeed.
I believe that the time is coming when we shall have to stand very firmly together to preserve our social order. Some one has said that the war is over. I hope so, but, looking at the condition of Europe to-day, and, noting the onward march of the Red army of Russia, it is; hard to say whether the war is over or. not. It may be .a moot, question whether the social order in this and in other countries is secure. To those who regard Bolshevism as an exalted social state I would say that, if they want anything better or higher in the social order’ than is enjoyed in Australia to-day, I implore them, for goodness’ sake, not to go to Russia for it: The burlesque freedom in Russia is not to be compared with the freedom we enjoy in Australia. We hear stories for and against the position in Russia, but, as men claiming to possess common sense, we should be able to estimate the difference between Russian social order and Australian social order. I shall give my vote for the preservation of the social order we have here, because I believe it represents the last word in human freedom yet spoken. My thoughts instantaneously go back to the reflections of Plato, when he said that social order is not a static element. It is one of those things liable to constant change. We know that in his writings Plato clearly sets out that there are arcs in the circle of human social order, and that the changes proceed from the most besotted tryanny to the purest democracy. In this country we cannot expect that we shall escape the inevitable progress of events, and that there will be no change. The time will come when there will be a change, and not a change for the better, unless we bring to their bearings those who seek to subvert the order that prevails here now.
I conclude by asking the Government to take into consideration the wisdom of appointing a commission or standing committee, whose duty it will be to thoroughly investigate the principal industries in this country, so that we should know which are flourishing, stationary, or declining, and the operating causes. I am so thoroughly convinced that there is no need for the existing conditions that I impress upon . the Government the wisdom of taking action in the direction I have indicated. I have consulted statistics on this subject, and although the volume published by Knibbs is ponderous, running into nearly .1,200 pages, it does not contain all the information I desired to get. On a previous occasion, when I went to considerable trouble to ascertain the numbers of people earning a livelihood in different occupations in Australia, 1 found that those engaged in agriculture totalled 234,000, and were easily at the top of the list, while those connected with the wool industry, which from the point of view of the amount of money it brings in is regarded as the leading industry of Australia, number only 90,000, while those engaged in mining total only 6.0,000. My feeling is that no properly’ constituted authority is in a position to. tell us definitely what is the actual financial and social position of those engaged in any particular industry, with the result that at present we are haphazardly extending sympathy to those who perhaps do not need it, and in some cases do not deserve it, and incidentally by our action we are crippling certain other industries. W[hat is urgently required is some agency to tell us that such and such an’ industry requires assistance, or that some other industry is opulent, or is getting an undue advantage, so that we may be able to exercise our judgment and frame our legislation accordingly. I have given the numbers engaged in the agricultural industry as showing its importance, and in order that we may take stock of our immediate position, and do something to stifle that influence which is making for the congestion of population in our city areas, and so working grievous, harm to the country generally. The Government, in great measure, have power to remedy this state of affairs. I do not say they have all the power that is necessary, but at all events they have in their hands the- power to set the fashion, and above all they have an opportunity to show, in a moral, if not in a legal sense, what is necessary to be done to divert population from the cities back to the country areas, and so right the balance between production and consumption.
I leave this subject with the suggestion that, although we have had many commissions in this country advising Parliament to do this or that for the righting of industrial wrongs, up to date, so far a3 I know, we have had no comprehensive commission charged/ with authority to declare the real position in any particular industry and its relation with others, and until we have information on( this point, it will be futile for Parlament to attempt to mete out even-handed justice between all industries. For my part I am using my own judgement. My influence will always be ia the direction of helping the under dog - not those who, in an industrial sense, are secure in their position and forgetful of the lot of others not so favorably situated.
.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Government a number of matters affecting the State which I have- the honour. to assist in representing. The first subject to which I desire to direct attention is land settlement for returned soldiers. Under an arrangement with the States the Commonwealth Government have agreed to advance £625 to soldier settlers, but as the cost of land settlement differs in the various States, the position is not an entirely satisfactory one from the soldiers’ point of view. The case of two soldiers who recently obtained a grazing property in Gippsland, Victoria, was brought under my notice recently. The area allotted to them was slightly over 800 acres, for which the Settlement Board paid £3 per acre, without stock or implements. The mortgage on the property was consequently very heavy, whereas, if these men had been given an opportunity to take up land of the same carrying capacity in Queensland, they would have been on a much better wicket.
– Did they not have that opportunity?
– I shall come to that point directly. In my opinion, the administration of land settlement, so far as soldiers are concerned, has been carried out in a very parochial manner, each State Board doing what it can to retain as many soldier settlers as possible within that State, although the Commonwealth Government are backing the scheme financially. Queenslandcould probably absorb the whole of, the men who may desire to settle on the land, and, with the exception perhaps of certain parts of Western Australia, could settle them more cheaply than any other State of the Commonwealth. But the policy seems to be to settle in Victoria soldiers who enlisted from this State, in New South Wales soldiers who enlisted in that State, and bo on in all the States. So far as I can gather, there is no interchange of information between the State Hoards for the guidance of men whom ay desire to settle in some State other than that from which they enlisted, so that, instead of being placed on expensive land, as in the case Of Victoria, and being obliged to start off with a heavy handicap in the way of a big mortgage, they might have an opportunity of starting in Queensland or some otherState under much more favorable circumstances.
– Would you also tell the settlers about your industrial Courts in Queensland?
– I am not dealing with industrial Courts just now. I am merely drawing attention to the splendid opportunities for land settlement offering in Queensland. I view this matter, not as a Queenslander, but as an Australian. I should like to see all State barriers swept away, so that any facilities offering in Queensland would be available, not only for Queenslanders, but for any exmember of the Australian Imperial Force. I suggest, therefore, that more information might be made available by the various State Boards.
There is another matter in connexion with land settlement to which I desire to call attention, although I do not know if it is possible for the Minister to take any action. In Queensland a soldier settler desiring to obtain a larger sum than the £625 advanced by the Commonwealth Government may obtain an additional £625 from the State Agricultural Bank, which takes over the Commonwealth mortgage, but requires the soldier to pay, say, 5 per cent, for the full amount, whereas, the interest on the Commonwealth advance is only, say,41/2 per cent. This matter, I think, should beb rought under the notice of the Department.
When the war gratuity scheme was launched, and the Government decided on non-negotiable bonds, I supported them, but since then several instances of schemes under which soldiers are being robbedI use the word advisedly - have been brought under my notice. I think Senator Gardiner’s suggestion, that the bonds should be placed on the open market, should receive earnest consideration. I called the attention of the Minister to this matter not long ago, and T understand it is now being dealt with. It appears that some soldiers who desire to obtain cash may go to certa in furniture warehouses, which agree to cash the bonds if the soldier undertakes to take out a certain percentage in furniture. If he is in need of cash, the bondholder will buy perhaps £50 worth of furniture which he does not want, and which subsequently he may send to the auction market, and will obtain the balance of the bond in cash from the firm with whom he is dealing. Butif many of our soldiers cash their bond.- in this way, I would much prefer to see the suggestion of Senator Gardiner adopted and the bonds placed upon the open market. Then if the rice of them were quoted at £95 a soldier would know exactly what he would receive for his bond. But under existing conditions if he is in need of money he is obliged to lose, perhaps, £10 or £20 on his bond. Senator Gardiner is not the only member of this Chamber who has had cases of this kind brought under his notice. 1 have had my attention drawn to many such instances, and rather than countenance a continuance of the existing system, under which our soldiers are robbed, I would prefer these bonds to be saleable upon the open market. Considering the amount of money that is available at the present time it can hardly be urged that an addition to it of £23,000,000 would be likely to cause a slump. Within the next few months another £20,000,000 worth of peace bonds will be in circulation. Consequently, although I was strongly ia favour of the gratuity being paid to our soldiers in non-negotiable bonds, I now recognise that there is much to be said in favour of the position laid down by Senator Gardiner. Therefore, I commend these matters to the attention of the Minister.
– I am sure that honorable senators will not expect me to deal with the many matters which have been discussed this afternoon. The subjects touched upon have ranged from a philosophical view of history, to a trip to the Islands, and from a deal in sugar by a merchant in Orange to the return of Mr. Watt. I can hardly be expected to cover the whole of the ground that has been traversed by those who have preceded me. But there are one or two matters to which I must make some reference. It seems a convenient starting point for me to challenge one statement which has been made by Senator Gardiner. He complained that upon moving the first reading of this Bill there had been no presentation of the position of Commonwealth finances. Senator Gardiner knows perfectly well that this is neither a fit nor a proper opportunity for dealing with that subject. The motion for the first reading nf a Supply Bill is designed to present to honorable senators the opportunities which are afforded to members of the other branch of the Legislature by what is known as “grievance” .day. With the exception of Bills of this kind the motion for the first reading of any measure presented to the Senate is regarded as a formal matter. It cannot be discussed. But upon Bills of this character debate is allowed for the express purpose of permitting honorable senators to discuss any matter that they may choose. It is not intended, however, for the discussion of Commonwealth finances. It is merely designed to afford honorable members an opportunity to bring forward any matters which they may deem of sufficient public importance. I do not know Whether Senator Gardiner hoped ito impress honorable senators who are new to this Chamber with the idea that some great iniquity or discourtesy had been done to them. We have followed the recognised course, and the course which is always followed upon occasions of this kin’d. Another reason why the present is not a fit time to place a financial statement before the Senate is that this is a Bill dealing with our domestic accounts, with the .payment of wages for the services of the country, and with our ordinary monthly transactions. This is not a time to bring under review the whole financial position of the country. That opportunity will rightly be presented when the Budget is submitted.
Having said so much, I wish now to deal with a few of the matters which have been mentioned by honorable senators. I think that the Senate appreciated the references by Senator Thomas to the need for the unification of our railway gauges and to other matters incidental thereto. Probably the honorable senator knew that the Government have recently been endeavouring to bring about one of the essentials to success in that direction, that essential being co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth. In justification of that policy, if justification be required, I need only remark that the longer we delay the work the more it will cost us, and therefore it becomes a question - great as the cost may be to-day - of whether it is not advisable to incur the expenditure that is necessary to a unification of the gauges, rather than delay action for a period of years with the knowledge that, by so doing, the cost of the undertaking will be’ intensified and the inconvenience rendered greater. Every day some of the States are extending their railway lines. The statement was made this afternoon that South Australia is extending ‘ her 5-ft. 3-in. .gauge, and we know that recently certain railways have been constructed by New South “Wales on the 4-ft. 8-^-in. gauge. Clearly, every new line laid down before some common policy is adopted, means an additional and wasteful expenditure later on. Consequently, the whole question of the advisableness of adopting a uniform gauge requires no discussion. What has to be discussed is the most economical mean3 of carrying out the work, and we have also to ask ourselves whether, having regard to the other obligations with which we are faced, we can shoulder the cost that is involved in the undertaking. Recently the Government have held a Conference with the State Premiers and other State Ministers upon this matter, and, as a result, a definite agreement has been arrived at. That agreement in regard to a trial of the thirdrail device is set out in the following resolution : -
That a complete test shall be jointly conducted by the New South Wales, Victorian, and Commonwealth Ministers for Railways.
There is an agreement that a complete test shall be made under the control of the New South Wales, Victorian, and Commonwealth railway authorities, as to the efficacy of the third-rail device, the cost of which test is to be shared on a per capita basis. Another resolution adopted by the Conference reads: -
That this Conference is of opinion that two experts from outside this country should be appointed, along with one Australian outside, the railway services of the Commonwealth and the States, to consider and report upon the unification of the gauges, the question of what gauge it is desirable to adopt, and the question of the cost- of conversion.
The Commonwealth and the Premiers of the States agree to appoint a Railway Commission, and affirm that the Ministers for Railways of New South Wales, Victoria, and the Commonwealth shall select the two members of the Commission who are to be appointed from outside.
The Commonwealth and the States agree to abide by the decision of this tribunal.
The cost of this Commission is to be shared by the Commonwealth and the States, upon a per capita basis. Those resolutions indicate not only that the Commonwealth is seized of the importance of this question, but that it is taking business-like steps to insure that when we move we shall do so in the right direction and upon sound lines.
Another matter to ‘ which Senator Thomas referred was our possible departure from this not uncomfortable building to the simple life at Canberra which was sketched by Senator Gardiner: I can promise honorable senators that, very shortly, an opportunity will be given them, of testing the sincerity of the Government upon this matter, and of expressing their own views respecting the proposed move. But it is ridiculous - and I use the word without any qualification - to assume that it is possible for Parliament to meet in Canberra next session. It is easy enough for Senator Gardiner to rise and talk of the removal of the Seat of the Government to Canberra in that brief period; but he has sufficient knowledge of the difficulties of building to know that within that time we could not erect the accommodation that is required for Parliament alone, much less for the officials who must be established there in order that Parliament may carry on its work. We must view this matter reasonably, and whilst honorable senators will recognise in the announcement which will be made in connexion with the Budget that the Government desire to make a move in the direction suggested, they will also realize that it is idle to expect a move at such an early date.
Passing from this subject, Senator Gardiner referred to the case of a merchant in Orange who had sent letters to him in regard to the difficulty he experienced in obtaining a supply of sugar. If the honorable senator will furnish my colleague (Senator Russell) with those letters, I have not the slightest doubt that he will look into them very .promptly, and furnish the honorable senator with a reply, if a reply be needed; whilst if, through inadvertence, some irregularity has occurred, steps will be taken to remedy it.
Senator Gardiner also raised the question of a statement made by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) as to whether or not a certain priest had been deported. May I remind the honorable senator that he already has a question upon that subject on the business-paper for to-morrow? Obviously, my colleague asked for notice of the question in order that he might furnish a complete answer to it. It seems peculiar, therefore, that Senator Gardiner should ask me to reply to it now. He may rest assured, however, that he will receive an answer to his question to-morrow.
During the course of his remarks, Senator “Gardiner also made a statement which I ventured to contradict. Upon thinking the matter over, however, I am inclined to believe that we were somewhat at cross purposes. I understood him to say that Great Britain had granted a trial by civil courts to those persons who. during the war period had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, or otherwise punished. I interjected at that stage, and denied the accuracy of his statement. But probably he was referring to men who had been convicted of military offences. If so, he may or may not be right. There is, however, a great difference between a soldier who has been convicted of a military offence, and an alien who has been convicted of disloyalty: I invite the honorable senator to bring forward a single case in which Great Britain, having interned an alien for reasons which were deemed to be good, has afterwards given him a trial before a civil Court.
Leaving that question, I come to an effort by Senator Gardiner to enter upon the dangerous field of prophecy - a field which is not new to him, but in which, I am afraid, he will not be more successful on the present occasion than he has been in the past. The honorable senator made two predictions : First he predicted that if a visit of inspection were arranged to the islands, it was not likely that he or members of the Opposition would be invited to join in it. I ask honorable senators to exercise a little patience, and to judge for themselves how far Senator Gardiner is a success as a prophet. He also ventured the astounding prediction that as the vessel bringing Mr. Watt to Australia approached our shores, the Government would hasten into recess. Sir, that is bluff. Senator Gardiner knows perfectly well that the Government will not do that for two reasons - first, because there is no need for it ; and, secondly, because there is sufficient business demanding our attention to keep us here.
I could not follow the honorable senator’s logic in dealing with the position which has arisen in Great Britain owing to the hardness of the money market. He seemed to take a delight in the fact that, in the future, Australia will find it difficult to raise money in London. I” see no cause for jubilation on that ground. I agree with him that in future we should rely more upon our own and less upon outside resources. At the same time I should regard it as a . source of satisfaction if whilst we were able to raise the money we require locally, we also knew that we could get it elsewhere. If Senator Gardiner believes that we ought to be compelled to live upon our own resources he ought to be extremely grateful that the British money-lender is not prepared to help us to adopt any other course. In other words, the British money-lender is adopting the very course which the honorable senator, like Mr- Theodore, the Queensland Premier, wishes to see adopted. Yet Senator Gardiner is angry. Like Mr. Theodore, he is disposed to be angry merely because the British moneylender is not prepared to trust his money to a jurisdiction over which Mr. Theodore reigns.
– The Commonwealth cannot’ get money in London either.
– We have not tried yet.
– The Government did try. It sent a Minister there for that express purpose.
– One who left his job.
– Because he could not get the money.
– Was that the reason?
– It was one of the reasons.
– The honorable senator was eloquent of the rights of Australia in this matter. I stand for the rights of Australia just as strongly as does any man.’ But I do not forget that the British’ money-lender also has his rights, and if he sees that the legislation of any country in which he is invited to invest his capital is calculated to destroy the security upon which he is asked to make an advance, he would not be a Britisher but a fool if he did not take the course which he has taken. What has been the difference in the past between the. credit of countries like Australia and that of some of the South American republics? The difference has been that money was advanced to Australia because of the belief in thebona fides of its people, whilst it was refused to the republics which I have mentioned because the British money-lender lacked confidence in them. It will be a lamentable day for any country when the British investor entertains a doubt as to whether the assets upon which he is asked to make an advance are going to be impaired by the breaking of a contract at the instance of any Legislature. It is idle to assert, as Mr. Theodore has done, that there has been an attempt in London to interfere with the self-governing rights of Queensland. The British money-lender has made no such attempt. He has merely said, in effect, “ You. may govern your country just as you please, but if you break a contract which has been entered into, do not ask me to lend you any more money.”
– Tell us what he said to Mr. Watt.
– The honorable senator is apparently in closer touch with Mr. Watt than I am.
I come now to the subject . of war gratuity bonds, which was mentioned by Senators Gardiner and Foll. They overlooked one very important factor, viz., that the Government did not offer nonnegotiable bonds to our soldiers merely because it wished to withhold cash from them, but because it felt that the financial position of the country would be made increasingly difficult if an attempt were made at this juncture to pay cash. Broadly speaking, there are £28,000,000 worth of these war gratuity bonds. Do honorable senators seriously contend that it would make no difference to the loan which it is now sought to float if £28,000,000 worth of negotiable paper were thrown upon the market? Obviously if these war gratuity bonds were thrown upon the market to-day, they would be saleable only at a discount. The bonds in one of our war loans are now quoted at £92 7s. 6d., and it is obvious that gratuity bonds, with a currency not dissimilar, could be sold only at a discount. In such circumstances, how could we expect the public to subscribe the additional £25,000,000 which is now needed?
– The Government have the means to make them subscribe.
– Alternatively, that is so. But if we are going to offer inducements to men to invest in other directions, we are going to make it increasingly difficult to raise the new loan of £25,000,000. I am sorry to say that a number of our soldiers are undoubtedly being taken down. But against the one genuine case of hardship there are nine cases in which our boys are being taken down becauseof their own feverish haste to get cash. Only yesterday, the press recorded two cases in which men who had secured cash for their bonds had brought upon themselves a lot of trouble. I do not believe that there is a large percentage of our returned soldiers who are seriously perturbed because of their failure to get cash for their bonds. Taking them as a whole, I believe that they were correctly represented by their league when it told the Government that the soldiers would be satisfied with a bond proposition because they did not desire to still further add to the difficulties of the Commonwealth by demanding payment of their war gratuities in cash.
– But we want to stop the men being robbed.
– It is very difficult to provide means by which we can prevent robbery, even in the form in which it is now taking place. It cannot be denied that there are some men who, in order that they may get a little ready money, are prepared to do almost anything. As a result, some of our boys are being badly taken down. There is no doubt of that.
I come now to the remarks of Senator J. F. Guthrie, who advocated that the Government, in addition to selling to the soldiers at cost price any woollen cloth which it has on hand, should extend its activities as a manufacturer of cloth. I donot know whether he meant that the Commonwealth should start out as a wholesale manufacturer of everything. But if he advocates that the Government, outside of the factories which it is already running, should immediately multiply its manufacturing activities, I venture to differ from him. I do not think we ought to consider the establishment of industries outside of those which are necessary to provide the Government with its own requirements. That is the legitimate field of private enterprise, and I am looking to private enterprise to accept the opportunity which is now presented to it. I do not pretend that we cannot serve a public need by utilizing factories which were started for one purpose, when that purpose has been served, in such a way as to make their surplus products available to the general community. But we ought not, without very grave consideration, to embark upon a course of action which would commit us to becoming a manufacturer of all sorts of commodities that the community requires.
Senator Wilson made a very emphatic and interesting speech. In the course of his remarks he made one statement which, I am sure, will be accepted without any reservation by honorable senators. It was the statement that he was not nervous. There is no reason why anybody should be nervous in a House of this character.
– I was not alluding to my nervousness in this House, but outside.
– I cannot conceive of any situation in which the honorable senator would be nervous. He referred to the overlapping of Federal and State activities, particularly in electoral and taxation matters. Everybody agrees with him, but his address would have been much more properly made to the State Parliaments.’ The Commonwealth Parliament in placing the electoral law upon the statute book gave an open invitation to the States to come in and work with one roll. Tasmania has accepted that invitation, but the other States have not done so. That is the fault, not of the Commonwealth, but of the other States, among them being South Australia. The honorable senator might play the missionary in that regard. Other things besides charitymight begin at home, and a little lecture delivered by him in Parliament House, Adelaide, might help to bring about the result which he desires. As regards taxation, an agreement was arrived as the result of the recent Conference of Premiers in Melbourne to adopt one schedule and one collecting authority.A commission’ consisting of the Federal Taxation Commissioner and the Victorian Taxation Commissioner, with the Honorable J. Ashton, a well known public man of New South Wales, as the third member, has been appointed to revise the schedule in order to meet as far as possible the needs of the Commonwealth and States.
– Have the Premiers agreed to that?
– Yes. I think we can congratulate ourselves that that is the first practical step towards eliminating the duplication which has undoubtedly been going on.
– Is there not any hitch in regard to the electoral rolls ?
– The Commonwealth sees none, and the fact that Tasmania has fallen in with our suggestion indicates that the difficulty is not insuperable. There are no difficulties so far as I know, although it is alleged that the franchise is not exactly the same in all the States. Whilst that is a drawback it does not present an insuperable difficulty to the utilization of one roll.
– One Commonwealth electorate comprises several State electorates.
– There may be little inconveniences, but I never knew anything worth having that did not cause inconvenience somewhere. I think the failure to adopt the Commonwealth proposal has nob arisen from any difficulty in the scheme, but from a sort of fear that if a State accepted it it was being over-shadowed by the Federal authorities. I cannot help thinking that that has a good deal to do with the failure of the States to take advantage of the opportunity for uniformity offered by the Federal Act.
Senator Foll referred to certain land matters and stressed the point, with which I have a measure of sympathy, that the whole of Australia ought to be open for land setlement to any soldier who desires to settle. That is the position to-day so far as the Commonwealth Government and many of the States are concerned. It is quite true and natural that the States desire to retaintheir own men. It would be a poor State- that did not, but behind that there is a strong desire on the part of the men to remain in their own States. There has even been a pronounced demand that they should be located in their own districts. I can quite understand a young man wanting to settle near his home town, and his home people, and his home girl, and that desire has been so strongly marked as to induce certain State Governments to purchase land in particular districts, whilst they have had other and cheaper land in other portions of their own States. I do not know that the Commonwealth can do any more than it is doing in this direction. As the result of a new agreement arrived at at the Premiers’ Conference, we have undertaken to advance to the States, by way of loan, a flat rate of £1,000, for every soldier they place upon the land. Obviously that is going to be a great advantage to Queensland, which can settle men on the land for less than any other State can. But, having treated all soldiers alike so far as we are concerned, nothing the Commonwealth can or ought to do can prevent a State from saying, “ In order to oblige our own men who wish to settle here and keep our own) population within our borders, we will supplement the Commonwealth’s advance of £1,000 by an amount which we take the responsibility of raising.” That is what is going on to-day.
– There is nothing in that arrangement to prevent a soldier going from one State to another.
– No, .there is not. The Commonwealth Government view Australia as a whole, and most of the State Governments do not discriminate between returned soldiers from different States. Some State Governments, however. have taken up the attitude that their .first responsibility is to their own men.
– In Queensland the returned soldiers are given only a leasehold, whilst they are given a freehold in the other States.
– That is true, but that is a matter over which the Commonwealth Government can exercise no control, under the Constitution.
– Queensland offers perpetual leases, I suppose.
– They may be called perpetual leases, but the honorable senator must remember that Mr. Theodore alters land laws.
– Can a returned soldier go to the Lands Department in Mel-‘ bourne, and secure information as to the conditions of land settlement in Queensland ?
– I do. not think that he can.
-If he could he would be in a position to compare the terms offered by the different States.
– Something might be done by Queensland in the way of publicity of the terms offered there. I suggest to Senator Foll that if Queens-, land is as anxious for these men as her representatives say she is, the State Government might reasonably take the same responsibility with respect to returned soldiers as they take with regard to immigrants, and undertake the duty of explaining to returned soldiers here the terms they offer to attract them to Queensland’s ample areas.
Another matter to which Senator Foll referred was the rate of interest charged by agricultural banks. I think the honorable senator was not quite correct in what he had to say on this matter. The £625 made available by the Commonwealth for the returned soldier is not advanced directly to him, but to the State in which he settles, and the rate of interest on that amount is definitely fixed. What the State charges for the amount in excess of that, and which it lends to the returned soldiers from its own resources, is a matter for the State Government to decide. I think that in Western Australia the State Government advance up to £2,000 through the Agricultural Bank. Of that amount the Commonwealth advances £625. If the State Government of Western Australia, through the Agricultural Bank, advances to the returned soldier £1,375 in excess of the amount advanced by the Commonwealth, it is clearly their right to dictate the terms upon which they make that further advance.
– They also charge the extra rate of interest on the £625.
– That is not so. It is rather characteristic of the Queensland Government if they have done what I think they have done. I believe they have averaged their rate of interest. Our rate being a low rate they average the rate over the whole sum advanced in order to disguise the fact that they are charging more for the money they advance than is being charged for the money advanced by the Commonwealth. The rate of interest’ on the £625 is fixed at the same rate ‘ all over Australia.
– Have not the Commonwealth Government also given a guarantee against a certain percentage of loss on advances?
– We make a rebate for the first five years of 2i per cent, interest on money advanced, and the States in turn rebate something to the soldier. The soldier receives a loan for which he pays 3 -per cent, the first year, the rate rising each year by J per cent., until he is paying 5 per cent., the rate which we are charging the States for the money. But the Commonwealth is allowing a rebate of £25,000 on each £1,000,000 advanced.
I wish honorable senators to realize how difficult it is for-the Commonwealth Government, whatever its views of land settlement may be, to impress those views upon six different State Governments, each having different systems of land settlement, and each responsible for the machinery to give effect to their ideas on the subject. For instance, I do not agree with the leasehold tenure, but what would our friends in Queensland say if the Commonwealth Government said that they would only advance money to the Queensland Government on the condition that they would consent to grant freehold tenures to’ returned soldiers in Queensland ? They would not stand that for a moment. However much their policy may be mistaken, I recognise their right as the Government of a Sovereign State to carry out their own policy.
– I do not agree with’ the leasehold tenure, but the Commonwealth Government are carrying out that policy in Canberra.
– I am not dealing with Canberra just now. I do not say that I am in favour of leasehold tenure there. The honorable senator should not hold me responsible for everything that appears on the statute-book of the Commonwealth. Some of my friends here will bear witness that, on more than one occasion I exhausted myself, if hot the Senate, in trying to prevent some of those measures becoming law.
I have not intentionally overlooked any observations which seemed to me to require notice. But there is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and which was raised by the very interesting speech we have had from Senator Lynch, in connexion with which I must compliment the honorable senator upon making a “ bull “ which, I venture to say, will become historic. The honorable senator opened up some very interesting matters, which could not be disposed of by discussion for an hour or two here.
– I think my propositions are self evident.
– The honorable senator’s proposition, broadly, was that something more should be done to stimulate production in the rural portions of the country. He alleges that some undue favoritism, concession, or assistance is extended to workmen in the towns, and that it is time that the policy was reversed,’ and that a little more was done for those who work in the country districts. I think he is aware that the Government, so far as its constitutional power will permit, are anxious to give effect to what he proposes. It is recognised by the Government, and by the people, urban as well as rural, that the time has come when a special effort should be made to stimulate primary production, though not to the exclusion of secondary production. I agree with that, and the Government have shown their approval of that by their enunciation of policy.
I was a little unable to follow the reasoning of the honorable senator on one point. He said that the high prices of things to-day aTe due to their scarcity. That goes without arguing. Things are dear because they are scarce. He says that the cure for dearness and scarcity is increased production, and that also goes without arguing. But the honorable senator followed that up by saying that production at present high prices does not pay, and I point out that to speed up the production of things which are now produced unprofitably will not pay. The honorable senator cannot have the argument both ways.
– I should like to have an opportunity of replying to the honorable senator.
– If the scarcity of things is responsible for their high price, and the cure of high prices is to increase production - which is most desirable from the consumers’ stand-point, - this must mean the further ruin of the producer, if it does not pay him to pro- duce at present high prices. How is he to produce profitably at the lower prices which must follow upon the increase of production if it does not pay him to produce at the present high prices ? Senator Lynch is usually logical, but he seems to have omitted some facts in submitting this argument. I think that if we can speed up production we shall do all that is necessary. The man on the land has lately had some rather unfortunate experiences. In my own State, he has had the experience of a very severe and prolonged drought. This left him, I will not say disheartened, because after the rain he has turned to in a most commendable way, and we are now anticipating something like a record crop. The men on the land have had to put up with hard times; but, in my view, it is neither safe nor correct to preach the doctrine that they cannot produce at present prices. If they cannot do so, there is no future for Australia, because prices are abnormally high to-day. I think that they can produce at present prices, and that by increased production they can secure a larger profit, even at lower prices. We might argue the economic question at greater length than I propose to do tonight, but I say to Senator Lynch, and those who listened to him, that within the limited sphere left open to them by the Constitution, the Government will willingly do all that they can to stimulate rural production. I do not mean to say that they will try reckless experiments, but there are certain sound lines upon which it is competent for us to tread which will make for the advantage of the primary producer in the first instance, and later on of the general community.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
page 3213
– I move-
That the Senate do now adjourn.
In submitting the motion, I wish to invite honorable senators to complete the consideration, of the Supply Bill tomorrow. I anticipate that there will be no objection to the adoption of that course. Honorable senators have had a fair opportunity to debate the first reading of t the measure, and to-morrow they will have every opportunity they may require to deal with its details. I ask that this course should be adopted in order that money may be available for the payment of the public servants and others on Friday.
.- I take advantage of the opportunity which the motion affords to voice what I believe to be a very serious grievance to at least one of the members of the Australian Imperial Force. I do not know whether there are many cases similar to that to which I intend to refer, but I have heard that there are some, such cases. Briefly stated, it is the case of a married man who had been separated from his wife for about five years previous to 1915, during which time there was no responsibility on his part for her maintenance. According to his statement, she, .of her own free-will, decided to leave Tasmania and come to Victoria. For the five years previous to 1915, there had been no communication between them. , The husband then enlisted in 1915, and made an allotment of his money to his mother, with the understanding that she would, save the money for him until his return from the Front. Immediately upon his enlistment, his wife made application for this money, and the Defence Department, without consulting him in any way at all, acceded to her request, with the result that some £200 of her husband’s money has been paid to this woman without his being consulted in the matter. The following brief statement of the case has been submitted by him : -
When I joined the Australian Imperial Force in July, 1915, I made my allotment to my mother (not dependent), so as I would have money on my return from active service, if lucky enough. During my absence, after about twelve months, my wife, whom I had not seen for five years approximately, and who had left to reside in Victoria, put in a claim, for the allowance. This was granted. I waa in no way consulted at all .in the matter. The first intimation I got of it was the alteration in my pay-book. This T resented, and made repeated appeals to the military authorities in London and Melbourne to explain my case. This T did in writing; but no notice was taken whatever. Tn one instance I waa debited to the extent of £55 18s. 9d., and reduced to 2s. per day, to make good an error of the Military Department, which they cannot deny. I also wish to draw your attention to the fact that I have never seen or had one line from my wife for it must be now ten years. I refuse to support her living in another State, but yet the authorities take the responsibility on their shoulders of distributing my money as they like. I say, again, 1 was never consulted in the matter. The amount paid out which I object to amounts to over £200. It is what I was entitled to, and no one else, without my authority.
I submitted this man’s grievance to the Minister, but the only reply I received was the following letter from the Secretary to the Defence Department : -
With further reference to your representations regarding Mr. C. E. Thompson, ex-No. 2514, 12th Battalion, of Telegraph Branch, Railway Station, Hobart, I have now toinform you that this case has been exhaustively investigated, and has again been brought under the personal notice of the Minister, who, however, cannot see any reason to vary the decision already given in the matter. It might be pointed out that the soldier’s mother offered no objection to transferring the allotment payments to his wife.
If this is the only reason that can be advanced in support of the action of the Department it is a very arbitrary manner of dealing with a soldier’s allotment money. It is quite right, of course, for the Department to protect the wives of soldiers who may have desired to desert them, but when two people separate by mutual consent and then one - in this case, the wife - attempts to get something to which she is not entitled the Defence Department is entirely wrong to assist her by what I regard as illegal means, because I believe this man would have a case in equity against the Department, even if the general law were overridden by the military regulations.
– In this case there does not appear to have been a mutual separation. Apparently the wife left her husband.
– Was there a family ?
– Apparently they had no family. Of course, I am accepting the man’s statement. I have not yet heard what the wife has to say. According to his statement he was prepared to establish a home in Tasmania, where he was employed, but his wife preferred to live in Victoria. Surely in such circumstances it was no. part of the Defence Department’s duties to pay over this man’s allotment money until the wife had established her legal claim to it. I bring this matter under the notice of the Minister in the hope that justice may be done to this man.
– I wish to say a word or two in regard to this matter. As one who has had as much to do with returned soldiers as perhaps any man in Australia; I know that a great deal of hardship has at times been caused to soldiers who, during their absence, and without having had an opportunity of explanation, have been judged guilty. Cases of this nature are usually settled by the issue of an order from the Paymaster in the State from which the man has enlisted. The fiat has gone forth and the man has been obliged to accept the departmental decision.
– According to this man’s statement he cannot get a hearing.
– It appears that he has had no chance of stating his case. I know of one man who, upon returning home one night, found that his wife had cleared everything, with the exception of his personal belongings, out of the house. There were three children, and naturally he thought his wife had taken them too, but to his utter astonishment a week later a policeman called on him and charged him with neglecting his children, who were found wandering about the streets. The father put them in a Government Home for Neglected Children, paying for their maintenance, enlisted, and went abroad. As soon as his wife, who was living with another man, found that he had enlisted, she put in a claim for his allotment money and separation allowance. He was brought before his . Commanding Officer and ordered to sign the ordinary requisition. This he refused to do, and was thereupon threatened with a court-martial for refusing to obey orders. Then, nodoubt, in the hope of beingable to live in peace, he finally signed the authorization. I recognise the difficulty encountered by the Department which, no doubt, had to deal with just as many cases of men who, by enlisting as single men, attempted to desert their wives and children ; but in the case reported by Senator Earle the Department might, even at this late period, give the man a chance of appearing before a responsible officer and stating his case, as has been done in cases of overpayments by the Department. In the interests of justice the Department should not penalize this man “without at least giving him an opportunity of establishing his case.
– Senator Earle would be the first to admit that, as I did not know he was about to mention this case, I am unable to deal with it on its merits; but obviously on the letter which he received from the Department, either I or one of the Assistant Ministers personally investigated the file before auhorizing the reply, and believed that the right course had been taken. I need hardly remind honorable senators that the settlement of cases of domestic unhappiness was a most thorny and difficult undertaking. Senator Russell and Senator Gardiner know this. Very early in the war period the Department, realizing that all men were not angels, and that a number of those who enlisted saw in this procedure a convenient opportunity to evade their responsibilities to their wives and families, promulgated a regulation for the protection of these women and children. This regulation authorized the Minister to make compulsory allotments in cases where this course was thought to be necessary. One has only to be human to realize the necessity of taking some such action. Obviously the administration of such a power was a matter of extreme difficulty, because one of the parties was overseas; but the usual procedure was to require the wife or other relative concerned to make a. statement. Full inquiries were then made, generally by means of the police. In no case was a compulsory allotment made on the unsupported statement of the woman herself. In many instances the woman was able to produce letters showing that tho husband had .promised to make an arrangement for the allotment money, or had done so, but, as a matter of fact, the man had gone away without making these necessary arrangements, in the hope, probably, that she had been successfully bluffed, and he would thus be able to evade his responsibilities. In all cases where it was proved that the woman had established a claim, the Minister took the necessary action. In the instance mentioned, by Senator Earle, I cannot, of course, without looking at the file again, say upon what evidence the
Department acted, -but I am pretty confident, from the general procedure adopted both by myself and those gentlemen who acted as Assistant Minister, that this case - came up for Ministerial consideration; and I have no doubt that the file will disclose evidence in support of the woman’s claim.
– But why does not the man get a hearing?
– He says that he put his- case before his officer, and probably the file will disclose what he had to say. The case mentioned by Senator Foster appears to .be similar to that brought forward by another honorable senator from Tasmania.
– Mine was not a Tasmanian case.
– In .the case to which I refer it was alleged by the soldier that his wife was living with another man. An investigation by the police not only disproved his statement, but elicited the fact that she was supporting the children, and that he had practically deserted her and enlisted as a single man, with the object of evading his responsibilities. None of these cases, I repeat, are settled on the unsupported statement of either side. Therefore,. I ask honorable senators not to pass judgment on the case mentioned by Senator Earle until I have’ had an opportunity of perusing the file again. It is not- likely that any Minister’ would do an injustice to a soldier overseas. It has to be remembered that marriage entails a legal responsibility on the part of the husband to support his wife. If he desires to relieve himself of that liability there is a legal method by which he may do so. But if he fails to avail himself of that method ho is still under a legal obligation to support his wife, -and if she chooses to take action she can compel him to do so.
– Not if she deserts him.
– No; but it may be that he has deserted her, or that he has given her just cause to conclude that she cannot live with him. In such cases we have always endeavoured to place ourselves in the position of a civil Court. We have asked ourselves, “What would a civil Court do in such circumstances - would it grant the woman maintenance?” If the answer to that question has been “Yes,” we have given the woman the allotment money.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at9.47 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 August 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200804_senate_8_92/>.