8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 8164
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration ,(Public Service) Act. - Regulations. - StatutoryRules 1921, No. 71.
Quarantine Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 48- No. 76.
Treaty of Peace(Germany) Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 85.
page 8164
Stores at Seymour: Promotions in Clerical Branch.
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are: -
asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are:-
page 8164
Promotions
asked the Minister; for Defence, upon notice -
Will the Minister obtainfrom Australian Imperial force records and lay on the table of the Senate the rules and regulations in force during 1918 relating to the promotion of officers in the Australian Imperial Force?
– The answer is “ Yes.”
page 8164
Introduction of Mentally Defective Persons
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
In view of the fact that large numbers of immigrants are. arriving here, what measures, if any, are taken to prevent mentally defective persons entering the Commonwealth?
– The Immigration Act 1901-1920, section 3, paragraphc, prohibits the entry into Australia of “ any idiot, imbecile; feeble-minded person, epileptic, person suffering from dementia, insane person, person who has been insane within five years previously, or person who has had two or more attacks of insanity.” The precautions taken to see that this law is enforced are briefly as follow: - (a) All. assisted immigrants coming from the United Kingdom are medically examined before setting out for Australia; (b) the master andmedicial officer of oversea ships bringing passengers to Australia are required by the law to make and sign a statement in writing as to whether any of the passengers are suffering from insanity, mental deficiency, &c. ; (c) on the arrival of every vessel from overseas, all the passengers (if any) and members of the crew are examined by a medical quarantine officer, who reports any cases where action is necessary to restrict the persons under the Immigration Act ; (d) in a very few cases, mentally defective persons have been admitted under exemption certificates for limited periods, and subject to substantial guarantees for maintenance being furnished; but, should any person of this class gain admittance without authority, thereis power to deal with him as a prohibited immigrant, and, if necessary; to deport him at the. expense of the person or shipping company responsible for bringing him into Australia.
page 8165
Proposals of the Government.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) announced the receipt of a message from the House ofRepresentatives, inviting the concurrence of the Senate in the following resolution
That this House approves of the issue of a Proclamation under the Customs Act 1901-1920 prohibiting for a period not exceeding six month’sthe exportation of wool from the Commonwealth unless -
Provided thatthe price agreed upon as the official reserve inrespect of wool of each type shall be such a price as will produce an average price of 8d. per pound for an average Australian wool clip, and that such official reserve shall be determined by the British Australian Wool Realization Association Limited in accordance with the principles upon which the prices of wool were determined by the Central Wool Committee during the period of sales to the British Government.
– I ask the concurrence of the Senate to proceed to the immediate consideration of the House of Representatives message and to the taking of any action consequent upon its consideration(Leave granted.) In order to give effect to the resolutionI move -
That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted by message from the House of Representatives.
Honorable senators have before them a copy of the resolution with which our concurrence is sought. I do not propose to traverse the position which has arisen, and which has rendered it necessary in the opinion of the Government to take the action outlined in the resolution. We debated the matter so recently that it would be a useless consumption of time were we to again traverse the arguments used in the debate. On the last occasion when the matter was before the Senate, many honorable senators expressed the view that to proceed by regulation alone without some authorising approval on the part of Parliament would establish an undesirable precedent. In consequence of that objection, I gave the Senate the assurance that either by a Bill or by a resolution honorable senators would be given an opportunity to assent to whatever power the Government proposed to exercise in dealing with the matter. Having conferred with our legal advisers, and considered the whole of the circumstances, we have deemed it advisable to proceed by resolution. The resolution sets out clearly what it is that the Government desire to do. . The way in which it appears before the Senate is proof that it has been approved by another place.
I should like to say with regardto it that an alteration was made in the form in which it was originally introduced in another place. In paragraph a there did not at first appear the words “and not consigned for sale overseas.” Before those words were inserted a doubt existed as to whether the resolution would not permit of some interference with the purchase and sale of wool in Australia. The insertion of the words referred to has, I think, made it quite clear that this will not be the case. It is only with exported wool that we are dealing, and in respect of exported wool one of two guarantees must be given. Under paragraph a of the resolution, buyers of wool purchased here for consignment direct to a factory overseas are asked ‘to give an assurance that the Bawra price was paid. If that assurance were not given, it would defeat the whole purpose for which Bawra has been formed, and for which this resolution is submitted. If people could purchase here at below Bawra price and ship direct to their factories in England or other countries, such localpurchases effected at lower than Bawra price would tend to break down the effort made by Bawra to stabilize the market. On the other band, in respect of the other class of wool, which might be gathered up by purchasers here, and which they can buy at whatever price the vendor is willing to take, a guarantee must be given if it is consigned for sale overseas in foreign markets that it will not be sold for less than the Bawra price plus charges. That also is necessary if it is intended that Bawra shall be given the opportunity it desires to secure that the market shall not be broken down by an overplus of offerings.
I do not know that I need detain the Senate any longer in explanation of the matter, in view of the fact that we discussed it fully in the early portion of this week.I submit my motion withthe reminder that time is a very important feature in the settlement of this question. The next wool sales are listed for the 9th of this month, and it is obvious that if the proposal embodied in the resolution received from the House of Representatives is to become operative in time to be of any value for the next wool sales, it must be considered and decided by the Senate before the close of the present sitting.
– What is it intended to do with regard to the subsidiary industries ?
– The honorable senator refers to fellmongering and cognate industries?
– Yes. Is it proposed to go back to the conditions that prevailed before the wool control expired?
– There is nothing in the resolution to interfere with the free trading of the industries referred to within Australia. I told the Senate the other day that the Government recognised the peculiar position occupied by those industries, and the peculiar circumstances surrounding them. I explained that we were then consulting with experts as to the best means of insuring, side by side with the efficacy of the proposal contained in the resolution now before the Senate, some means which would relieve the industries referred to from the difficulties which otherwise they would have to face.
– It occurred to me that, under paragraph b of the resolution, we should revert to the war control with regard to every thing connected with the wool industry.
– That is not so. It is merely provided that the same method of assessment shall operate under the resolution , as operated in connexion with the Imperial purchases, the only difference being that under the resolution 8d. per lb. is to be the average price as against15½d. per lb., the price previously fixed. The resolution will not carry us beyond that. I ask honorable senators to accept my assurance that it is the intention of the Government, by means of the regulations which will have to be issued, tosee that no hardship or injustice is done to the industries to which Senator Pratten has referred. At the same time, as every honorable senator will recognise, it is not easy to say, in a few hours, what ought to be done. I think the Senate will accept the assurance I have given that the position of the industries referred to is recognised, and that steps will be taken to protect their interests.
– Will the Minister say whether it is proposed to revive the whole of the wool regulations, or to issue independent regulations ?
– To what regulations does the honorable senator refer as being existent?
– To the regulations that were in existence before 30th June, 1920.
– They disappear unless they are revived.
– It is not proposed to revive them?
– It may be found necessary to revive some of them.
– It is not proposed to revive them en bloc.
– I should say not ; but as the Senate will be meeting on Wednesday next, and the regulations will be promulgated before that date, honorable senators will, in the next few days, have an opportunity of considering those regulations, and, if they think it necessary, of vetoing them, or suggesting amendments in them.
– To which regulations is the honorable senator referring?
– Senator Pratten has asked whether it is intended, if this resolution is approved, to revive en bloc the regulations issued under the wool control scheme. It appears that it will be necessary to re-issue very many of those regulations, but what number I cannot say. They cannot be operative unless they are re-issued, which means that they will have to come before the Senate on Wednesday next.
– Those regulations will not be dependent upon this motion.
– No, but they must be in conformity with it.
– We are not giving authority under this motion to adopt them.
– Certainly not. Someof the regulations will, I presume, be similar to those which were in existence some time ago.
– They must depend upon the same authority as the previous regulations.
– Yes; but they cannot beoperative until they are re-issued. It is perfectly safe for us to move in this direction, because we meet on Wednesday next, and any regulations issued in consequence of the passing of this motion will have to be tabled in the Senate. Honorable senators will then have an opportunity of objecting if they so desire, so that no great harm can be done. In the meantime, and on the. assumption that the regulations will be in conformity with the motion, I ask the Senate to allow it to have a speedy passage in view of the great urgency, and of the fact that the Senate will meet again on Wednesday.
– If the matter is of such urgency why was it not introduced before ?
– Urgency arises, because circumstances change very rapidly, and that is what has happened in this instance. If Senator Thomas wants the Government to admit that we should have acted more promptly in this matter, and looked perhaps a week or a fortnight ahead, I desire to say that this is not the Government’s “ pigeon “
The business has been handled by men outside, and the question raised by Senator Thomas by interjection should more properly be addressed to Sir John Higgins and his confréres who are dealing with the whole question.
– Will the Minister recount the circumstances which led up to the introduction of this motion ? Is it not a result of a private deputation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) a fortnight ago?
– I would have no objection to detailing the circumstances if the Senate thought it worth while. But I may explain that it is only recently that a concrete proposal was placed before the Government.
– By whom ?
– Originally by Sir John Higgins. I recited the circumstances which led up to the present position, and tabled a memorandum showing the organizations and bodies which were closely associated with Sir John Higgins in this matter. The Government considered the question, and decided on their present course of action. The point I am making is that if there has been any delay the Government cannot be held responsible.
– How long is it since the proposal was submitted to the Government ?
– About two weeks. A deputation embracing accredited representatives of every branch of the wool industry brought the matter forward.
– Yes, that was shown in a documentI presented to the Senate. From my recollection of the paper I tabled the first conference was on the 14th April, and negotiation continued until the 29th April.
– Until a day before the Prime Minister left for England.
– Without fixing the date honorable senators will see that the Government has not been responsible for any delay. These matters are obviously very complex, and the Government, like all other human, institutions, requires some little time to weigh the pros and cons.
– We have not had sufficient time.
– I thought that this was aChamber of review, so that legislation or such motions as this could be carefully considered.
– Did we not adopt this proposal on Wednesday ?
– The Senate approved of the general principle on Wednesday, but by carrying this motion the Government will have a more specific direction. That is what we are asking for.
– Mr. President, on a question of privilege, will you inform honorable senators what their rights are in speaking on a motion such as this? What time is an honorable senator allowed, and how often can one speak? During my experience as a senator no such motion as this has been before this Chamber.
– The point raised by Senator Pratten is very easily answered. This motion comes within the purview of our Standing Orders in the same way as any other motion or question which is before the Senate, with the exception of a few limitations, which are provided for in our Standing Orders. Honorable senators can only speak once on the same question - in Committee that is not so - and their time, unless by leave of the Senate is limited to one hour.
– In concluding his statement, the Minister forRepatriation (Senator E. D. Millen) said, “The Senate approved of the general principle.” I understood that the Senate agreed to await a motion or a Bill which the Government promised to bring in, and I am quite satisfied that the Government have fulfilled their promise by introducing this motion. But what principle did the Senate agree to? The proposal of Bawra, or the method - shall I say the pernicious method - which the Government propose to adopt is to do something under the Customs Act regulations in a way they have no right to do. There are two principles at stake in connexion with the wool trade, and I suppose I am safe in saying that it is generally believed that the Government are endeavouring to do what is best in the interests of the wool industry.ButI am not going to be a party to what I consider is illegal. What are we asked to do ? To agree to a motion which will give the Government power to issue regulations to prevent the export of wool from Australia. The Government can issue regulations under the Customs Act, but they cannot issue illegal regulations, and a motion such as this, even if it passes the Senate and another place, does not make their own action legal. The motion has already been carried in another place, and will doubtless be passed by this Chamber ; but the Government will have to shoulder the responsibility. I understand that regulations’ can only be issued in accordance with the Act under which they are framed. Section 111 of the Customs Act relates to the exportation of goods, and reads - 111. No prohibited exports shall he exported.
Penalty: One hundred pounds.
Section 112 of the same Act reads - 112. The following are prohibited exports, namely: -
All arms, explosives, military and naval stores the export of which is prohibited by proclamation, including any article which the proclamation shall declare to be military or naval stores, or to be capable of being converted into them, or of being made useful in increasing the quantity thereof.
The proclamation may prohibit the exportation or carrying, coastwise of the prohibited goods either generally or to any particular country or place, and the prohibition shall have effect accordingly.
SenatorDrake-Brockman. - But that Act has been amended.
– There was a Customs Act passed during the war.
– There was one in between.
– That was a war-time measure only, and I shall refer to that in good time if the honorable senator will allow me to put it in my own way. It is clearly and definitely laid down in the Customs Act what are prohibited exports. To come to the system which the Government are following, I may mention that I happened to be a member of the Government during the early portion of the war period, when it was necessary to do certain things which the Government now desire to do; but we passed an Act to give us the properauthority. We were justified at that time, because it was during the war period when we could, I suppose, act somewhat illegally under regulations; but that is one of the prerogatives of government. During the war we were allowed to do almost anything, but we preferred the system of doing it in a constitutional way. On the 17th December, 1914, an amending Customs
Act was passed, sections 1 and 2 of which read - 1. ( 1 ) This Act may be cited as the Customs Act 1914.
The Customs Act 1901-1910, as amended by this Act, may be cited as the Customs Act 1901-1914.
That was a time of extreme urgency, and we were justified in adopting extreme measures. The Minister now pleads that this is a matter of urgency. I have read every word of the Act we were asked to pass in time of war to prohibit the exportation of certain goods, but there is less in that Act than in the motion which we are asked to pass.
The other evening, when discussing this question, I pointed out very emphatically that the Government were establishing a bad precedent. Under normal conditions, and when everything is running smoothly, it is very desirable to avoid all irregular practices, and it is necessary to be on the alert to see that Parliament does not allow anything irregular to pass unless that irregularity has become a custom. The Government are now asking us to carry this motion, which will, to some extent, justify their action in issuing regulations under the Customs Act to prohibit trade, and to interfere with the trade of other States. I ask honorable senators who claim to be representative of States to consider the position in which we are placed. We are here to protect State interests. What would the framers of the Constitution have said, if they had been informed that within the first twenty years of the existence of the Federal Parliament the Government would deliberately lay themselves out to interfere with the trade of the States by regulation ? Section 51 of the Constitution provides that the Commonwealth shall have the right to interfere with trade and commerce with other countries and among the States, but trade within the States is left, shall I say, sacred to the State. The Minister will see that this is interfering with the trade of a State. The Government are using one power to interfere with another power. Will any one say that the passing of this motion, which prevents a man from New South Wales from selling his wool, is not an interference with the trade of the State? It is most seriously interfered with.
– To their advantage.
– It may be.
– You might as well say that trade is interfered with by an import duty .
– Perhaps, but we want to look at this question fairly. The course now proposed is really designed to coerce the 5 per cent. of the wool-growers who are standing out ofthe scheme by saying to them - “ If you do not come in, you will not be able to send your wool outside Australia.” These powers were never intended to be used in this way. We have no constitutional right to do this, and the Government should not attempt to do, in an indirect way, what they are prevented from doing directly under the Constitution. They are moving, in an indirect way, to do something that will interfere with the trade of New South Wales.
– With the export trade of New South Wales.
– Can any one imagine that, when the Constitution was framed, the powers vested in the Commonwealth Government would be so used to interfere with the trade of any State ?
– Can you export a single pound of butter from New South Wales except under certain regulations? That is not prohibition. It is restriction.
– This proposal is restriction of trade within a State.
– No.
– The Government, by means of these regulations, will certainly interfere with the trade within a State when the time comes to deliver the, goods, because the purchaser will be prevented from exporting except under certain drastic conditions imposed for the purpose of retaining wool prices.
– If the Government are wrong, why not restrain them by an injunction ?
– I do not know that any one will be anxious to do that, even if the Government make a glaring mistake, because it will involve considerable legal expenditure.
– I have informed the Senate that the Government took counsel of their legal advisers.
– I realize that the Government are following the advice of the law officers of the Crown, but would they be confronted by greater difficulties if they sought to do, by means of an ordinary Bill, what they are now attempting to do by regulations under the Customs Act?
– If this course is unconstitutional, a Bill likewise would be unconstitutional.
– Exactly. I believe both courses are unconstitutional, but ‘there is this difference: If the Government brought in a Bill, honorable senators would know how far they’ were expected to go in conferring power by means of regulations under the Bill; whereas this resolution gives the Government a free hand to go as far as they like. The Minister has promised that the regulations will be brought down next Wednesday; but if certain other regulations are asked for by the Board controlling the wool business, would they not be issued under the authority of this resolution, and perhaps when the Senate was not sitting?
– The same objection might be urged against regulations framed under a Bill.
– With the difference that regulations framed under a Bill would have to be in accordance with its provisions.
– Likewise regulations made under this resolution must be in accord with it.
-BrOckman. - And with the Customs Act.
– I hold the view that the proposed regulations will not be in accordance with the Customs Act; that they will be of no effect, and that the Senate is participating in a huge bluff’ to preserve the wool market. The Senate should not be used in this way. The Government are setting up a bad precedent, and the position will be so much the worse if it is supported “by the Senate. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that if regulations under the Customs Act to maintain the price of wool are indorsed by the House of Representatives and the Senate it would be quite competent one day for a Government comprising the party to which I belong to make similar regulations to maintain the rate of wages. There will then be precedent to encourage a Government to make regulations providing, say, that no goods shall be permitted to leave Australia in ships that will not pay the union rate of wage. I do not want the authority of the Government to be used in this underhand way at all.
– But it would be just the same if regulations were made under a Bill.
– Then why not have a Bill 1
– The honorable senator knows why.
– I am suspicious of the manner in which the Government are proceeding, and I can see future dinger. It is bad for a Government, by means of the Customs Act regulations, to close ports against export trade even for a very good reason, because by doing this the door is opened to similar action on other occasions when the proceeding may not be so justifiable.
I am going to vote against this proposal to assist the wool trade in this way. 1 am opposed to the creation of a combine or trust to maintain the high price of wool because the principle is bad. It is a bad proposition for the Government to say that certain things shall be done to benefit one section of the community, even if the wool growers do represent . 80,000 or 100,000 of our population.
SenatorFAIRBAIRN. - You must include their employees too.
– We may include every person directly benefited by the measure.
-You ought to apply that reasoning to actions of your own party.
– I do, and I may tell the honorable senator that never yet have we been able to ‘ do anything contrary to the law to help our trade unions as it is now proposed to help the wool producers union, at the expense of a certain number of growers who have not seen their way to agree to the principle. This section of the wool trade to which I refer consider that their interests would be better conserved if they were not compelled to trade through a wool combine created by the Commonwealth. We are supposed to be a free people living under a free Constitution, but what greater interference with trade could there be than for a Government to issue regulations under the Customs Act, as is now proposed, providing that in certain circumstances our wool growers may be prevented from sending their products to England or America ? It is a pernicious principle to interfere with trade in the interests of one section. I admit that it is a large and wealthy section. I admit also that wool is the foundation of our prosperity. It is our great staple industry, representing millions of money easily produced.
– Easily produced ?
– Yes, easily produced. It is the most primitive form of production.
– It employs more labour than any other industry in Australia.
– I suppose by the time the wool is converted into cloth it does employ a large number of persons.
– No; before that.
– I admit that the industry is the very foundation of our national wealth, but those most intimately connected with it now find that prices obtained during the war are falling, and so they are making frantic efforts to maintain the market. Nothing is said about the war-time profits, and all the other profits made by them during the war period, and for which the poorer sections of the community had to pay.
– Because you made a profit last year, is that any reason why you should submit to an avoidable loss this year?
– It will be a considerable loss this year.
– The loss will only be avoided by using the wealth and credit of the community for the woolgrowers’ ends, and not for the benefit of the people generally-. The community did not participate in the huge’ profits that were made by the wool-growers during the war period.
– The Taxation Department collected a large proportion of those profits.
– There will be no profits this year.
– I realize that with falling prices there will be less profits, and, of course, less , revenue from taxation from the wool-growers. I realize also that with the falling market many things are going to happen, but this Parliament, largely Nationalist in character, has made no special effort on behalf of those who find it so hard to provide clothing at existing extortionate prices’.
– There has been no extortion on the part of the woolgrowers at 5s. 3d. for the wool in a suit of clothes.
– I admit that, under our existing social system, with private enterprise in. control, it is difficult to place the blame for existing high prices on the right shoulders, but it is a remarkable fact that in a country which produces 25 per cent, of the world’s wool, prices for woollen goods have been prohibitive for many years to the poorer sections of the people. It is equally remarkable that during all this time there has been no attempt, by means of legislation in this Parliament, to improve the position. But as soon as a wealthy and influential section of the community, representing less than 100,000 of our people, is confronted with difficulty the whole machinery of Parliament is brought into action to maintain the wool market. As members of the Senate we represent all classes, and I say that, if there is one thing more pernicious than another it is this practice of hurriedly rushing to the rescue of any one section. We should legislate for all the people.
– And we are legislating for all in this proposal.
– For everybody in Australia.
– I venture to say that if I were to come down with a proposal to benefit the whole of Australia by increasing the purchasing power of the working classes through an increase in wages, honorable senators would not be so
Unanimous.
– That is a fallacy right at the bottom. A rise in wages does not increase the purchasing power of wages.
– “Would a Bill to increase the wages of the Mount Morgan miners help the community very much?
– I think it would. The higher the standard of wages-
SenatorCrawford. - The lowerthe prices of commodities.
– The higher the standard of wages, the greater the purchasing power of the community. And as for the situation at Mount Morgan, or any other mine which may he concerned, I hold that the proposition can be worked just as profitably on a high-wage payment as upon a low one. No one, at any rate, can say that it is the lower wages of other countries which have reduced the price of the products of Mount Morgan.
As I pointed out the other day, the Government are doing wrong in not introducing a Bill under which they may issue the necessary regulations to govern the wool position. I believe that they cannot issue a regulation to interfere with, or prohibit, the export of goods except by bringing to bear the specifically prohibitive sections of the Customs Act. The Government will not be helping the wool-growers by their proposed prohibition.
– The intention of the Government is to restrict, and not to prohibit.
– The facts shouldbe faced. If I possessed wool which I wanted to send to Englandtomorrow, the regulations proposed to be promulgated by the Government would prevent me from doing so, unless I sold my holdings at a price fixed by the Government.
– Is the honorable senator opposed to Parliament taking some action that will stabilize the wool industry?
– No. I realize the importance and the value of the industry. At the same time I perceive that we cannot benefit the wool industry in the manner proposed and escape the responsibility of being called upon subsequently to benefit other industries. The value and importance of the wool industry in relation toallouractivitesandfinancial institutions is obvious. But the importance of Parliament proceeding in accordance with its traditions is, to my mind, even greater than the need, at this stage, for conserving the welfare of the wool industry. The Government, in their haste to take ill-considered action for the relief of wool-growers, are “red-raggers. “ Just as the Government tell ourindustrial community that they should refrain from direct action and be content to in voke the Arbitration Court, I tell the Government that they also should refrain from direct action and be content to wait until they can adopt proper legislative procedure. But they will not accept my advice. They are “redraggers, advocates of direct action; they are “I.W.W.” when the wool industry is at stake. They see red and plunge right ahead. The wool industry is confronted with the fact that the Bawra scheme, recently inaugurated, has practically failed. It has been stated by one critic that there would have been little surplus wool to-day had Bawra conducted its business as the ordinary individual conducts his. Another sapient critic has said that the difference between Bawra and business lies in the fact that the business man having wool to sell looks forpurchasers, while Bawra is content to sit back and let purchasers look for it.
– That is not correct.
– I think there may be something in it.
– Bawra has already sold wool to Poland and Austria, on terms, and is finding markets every day; and it is not a month old yet.
– I have heard criticism from a man-
– Who has an axe to grind.
– A very big axe is being ground now, when the Government and the Parliament can be successfully persuaded to come to the rescue. The action taken by the Government really calls into being a trust tokeep up the prices of wool. The Government are deliberately using . the legislative machinery to strengthen and maintain the prices of wool.
– Not high prices.
– We are asked to acquiesce in the creation of a combine.
– Not to maintain high prices, but merely to pay wages.
– This Legislature is silent while the people who need woollen goods cannot get them because of the exorbitant prices. The Government are adopting a wrong practice and establishing a bad precedent, and the support which Parliament is giving amounts merely to acquiescence in an illegality.
– In reply to the various comments of honorable senators, I wish to deal very briefly with one or two points. The foremost of these has to do with the question of the constitutionality of the course proposed. The Government did not form their ideas, concerning the constitutionality of their intended procedure, merely upon their own judgment.
– May I ask, Mr. President, whether the speech of the Minister will have the effect of concluding the debate ? There are several other honorable senators who desire to speak.
– I cannot help that. I purposely gave honorable senators an opportunity by waiting for an appreciable time before putting the motion. And, as no honorable senator rose, Iput the motion. Then, upon the Minister for Repatriation rising, I said in a loud tone, “ The honorable the Minister in reply.” Still no honorable senator sought to intervene, and I naturally invited the Minister for Repatriation to proceed. It is too late now for any honorable senator to seek to address himself to the motion.
– As an outcome of the brief debate, there are, as I have just indicated, only one or two points to which, I think, I need refer. The first has to do with the legality of our proposed procedure. All that the Government can do with respect to the question of constitutionality is to accept the guidance of those having special qualifications to tender advice. I refer to our own legal advisers. The Crown Law authorities have assured the Government upon this point. The other matter to which I feel I should allude has to do with the question of how far the Customs Act gives the authority desired. Senator Gardiner may be. quite right in hie warning that the Government’s procedure by regulation may be overthrown upon appeal to the Courts. But, again, we have consulted and been assured by the Crown Law authorities. I would point out, first, that under section 112 of the Customs Act, “ the GovernorGeneral may, by proclamation, prohibit the exportation of any goods the exportation of which would, in his opinion, be harmful to the Commonwealth.” The Governor-General, in acting upon his opinion, occupies a position which is not traversable by any Law Court. Sub section 2 of section 112 - I am dealing now with a question which has been raised chiefly in another place, concerning whether the Government could apply these conditions to export - states -
The power contained in sub-section 1 of this section shall extend to authorize the prohibition of the exportation of goods generally, or to any specified place, and either absolutely or so as to allow of the exportation of the goods subject to any condition or restriction.
I emphasize that there is, first, the authority to prohibit the exportation of goods, the export of which would be, in the opinion of the Governor-General, harmful to Australia, and that there is then the authority to allow that export to be prohibited either absolutely or subject to conditions. Those provisions embody full authority for the action which the Government propose to take.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 8173
In Committee (Consideration resumed from 5th May, vide page 8106) :
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 (Cadets).
. -This clause provides purely drafting amendments. When the Defence Act was first passed, both the Naval and Military branches were under the control of the Minister for Defence. The two havesince been separated, andthe training of naval cadets is somewhat different from that of military cadets. As section 62 stands at present, its effect is somewhat hampering. It does not specifically place military cadets under the military authority, or Naval cadets under the Naval Department. Hence the necessity for these drafting amendments.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 (Conveyance by railway and tramway) .
. -This also is really in the nature of a drafting amendment. The abolition of the appointment of district commandants and the substitution of the appointment of divisional commanders renders the repeal of section 66 and the inclusion of a new section imperative. At the same time, opportunity hasbeen taken to secure better drafting. It has been hitherto necessary for military officers, when travelling in the course of their duty, to be in uniform. That requirement is no longer insisted upon. Clause agreed to.
Clause 22 (Supplying inferior provisions, or equipment).
– During the war we had a great deal of experience in dealing with contracts in connexion with which a huge expenditure was involved. On the whole it was a fairly satisfactory experience. I think that no Dominion of the Empire got better value for its money than did Australia in this connexion. Still, certain cases occurred which led to litigation, and as the result of .our experience the law officers considered that the section of the present Defence Act dealing with contracts should be put in better form to give effect to the experience we gained during the war. That is the purpose of this clause, and it represents merely a drafting amendment.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 23 postponed.
Clause 24 (Refusing information or giving false information).
– The purpose of this clause is to amend section 74 of the principal Act to provide that information may be required respecting service as well as enlistment. The absence of the word “ service “ from the existing section has been found to limit its utility, and the purpose of this clause is to provide for the insertion of the word.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 (Unlawfully disposing of arras, &c).
.- The purpose of this clause is to make some drafting amendments in section 79 of the principal Act. For instance, the words “ or military “ are struck out, aaa.d the words, “military or air force” are inserted, because since the passing of the principal Act arrangements have been made for the establishment of an Air Force. There is provision in the existing section for a penalty of £20 for an offence against the section, but .some doubt has been expressed by magistrates as to whether the penalty can be imposed if the goods have subsequently been delivered up. That is not intended, and it is proposed by this clause to. insert the words “ in addition, may, when the article has not been delivered up,” to remove all doubts upon the matter. Another amendment is made to include a reference to. the Territories of the Commonwealth.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 (Falsely representing to be returned soldier or sailor).
– The purpose of this clause in omitting the words “ any war “ is to apply the term “ returned soldier “ to a soldier who served in any war and not merely in the recent war. There are, of course, decorations given for other wars, such as the South African and the Egyptian wars, and the alterations proposed by clause 27 will include decorations of those wars. The clause will apply to any person who falsely represents himself as being entitled to wear a decoration of those wars.
– What is the necessity for the omission of the words, “ any war “?
– I have explained that. The new definition will apply the term “ returned soldier “ to soldiers who saw service in any war. At present the definition of “war,” honorable senators will find, means the war between His Majesty the King and the German Emperor, which commenced on the 4th August, 1914. The proposal is to include in the. definition any war in which His Majesty is or has been engaged.
.- I suggest that the Minister should adjourn the discussion of the Bill until such alterations have been made in it as have been rendered necessary by the abandonment of the intention to incorporate the Army Act. We have not now before us a fair copy of the Bill as- it must be amended on that account.
.- I dealt with, that matter in the honorable senator’s, absence., I explained that I thought the Committee should go through the Bill as it is now, postponing all clauses referring to the Army Act. The
Committee will still be in possession of tlie Bill, and it will be possible then to recommit the clauses it is necessary to amend in view of the decision of honorable senators on the proposal to incorporate the Army Act. There is no reason why we should not now consider all clauses that are not affected by that decision.
– It is difficult to follow the Bill if it is not before us as it must be amended to give effect to the Committee’s decision.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 28-
Section 80b of the principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2) thereof and inserting in its stead the following subsection: - “ (2) For the purposes of this section any ribbon appropriate to be worn with a military decoration shall be deemed to be a military ‘decoration.” Section proposed to te amended. - 80b. (1) A person shall not, unless lawfully entitled thereto (proof whereof shall lie upon him), wear or make use of any military decoration.
Penalty: Twenty pounds.
Nothing vn this section shall prevent a female relative of the person upon whom a military decoration has been conferred from wearing the decoration after the decease of that person.
.- This is a rather important clause. Sub-section 2 of section 80e impliedly confers upon a female relative of a person upon whom a military decoration has been conferred the right to wear the decoration after the decease of that person. The grant of orders and medals is the prerogative of Hie Majesty. They are. not granted by the Government of a Dominion. The conditions under which they are granted are set out in the grant. It has been the practice in all the Dominions, including Australia, to follow the regulations accompanying the grant of a decoration. Legislation was passed in 1919 in the British Parliament making it an offence for an unauthorized person to wear a military decoration. In a recent case, a nurse was convicted for wearing the military decoration of her doceased nance. The proposed sub-section 2 extends the offence to the unauthorized wearer of the ribbon of any military decoration. It is often the ribbon, and not the medal, that is worn. Tt hae to be remembered that military decorations are granted to females as well as to males7For instance, there is the Red Cross, andi a number of other decorations to which> matrons and nurses have become entitled. If section 80e remained in force any female relative of a nurse or matron entitled to a decoration would be entitled on. the decease of the latter to go on wearing the decoration. Why should such a privilege be granted to the relativeof a nurse., .or matron or to some other .person who might be absolutely unworthy of it, and who certainly might never . have done anything to justify the wearing of the decoration ? The decoration is intended to honor the person upon whom it’ is conferred. It is true that the person entitled to wear a decoration may’ bequeath it to any person he pleases, but he cannot bequeath the right to wear it. It would altogether destroy the meaning of the decoration if that « were permitted. I know that there is a sentimental aspect of this matter which Senator Elliott raised at a public meeting, and for which he gained great applause. The honorable senator submitted an extreme case. He said that the mother of a deceased soldier should be entitled to wear the decoration, of her son. That is purely an appeal to sentiment. That is not the only class of cases that has to be dealt with. If( in the opinion of the Committee, the mother of a deceased son should be entitled to wear his decoration, that should be provided for, not. in this clause, but by .regulation. Even those who would give to the mother of. deceased soldier the right to wear, a medal or decoration would not give to the sister, or perhaps tq a cousin - who might have rendered service as a nurse and who., did not-r-the same right. Surely there..’ is no reason why a cousin should have the right to wear the highest decoration that might be awarded to a nurse. Even on the grounds of sentiment- -and that is what Senator Elliott’s statements are based on - if a mother is allowed to wear the decoration of her deceased son, it should not be so general as it is in the Act to-day. Even in the case quoted of. the mother and son it is really a misuse of the decoration. A decoration is not given to the relative at all, but is intended to be a mark of the nation’s esteem granted to the soldier for service rendered. The Government have recognised that the nation should give some testimony of its feeling towards the mother, and we have initiated the mother’s badge, which I know from the countless letters received is very highly esteemed by the mothers and widows of deceased soldiers. It is decorative, but not a military decoration, and quite in keeping with the sentiments wished to be expressed. “ It is a badge that is wellknown throughout Australia, and I believe it is very highly valued by those who possess it, and perhaps more than amedal which was not given to the mother but to her son.
– Much more.
– I believe it is, be-‘ cause it is the nation’s tribute to that mother or widow and cannot be worn by’ any one else. On the grounds of sentiment some may be swayed to say that the » mother should wear the medal of her deceased son, but it must be remembered that apart from the distinctive mother’s badge there is the next of kin badge, which is not only given to the mother or widow, but to the near relatives of a soldier. These are the nation’s testimony to the sacrifice made by these women, and the decoration should be regarded as a tribute of the King to his soldiers for service in the field. Those who are by law entitled to the estate of a .deceased person will, of course, still be able to retain it as an heirloom, and that is the proper way in which these medals should be regarded by any man or woman in possession of them. They are intended to be kept as treasured family relics, but -the relatives are not entitled to wear them, :because they are given to them for seTvices rendered. I trust we will not be so -swayed by sentiment as to interfere -with .the real meaning of a decoration. We -should keep it for the purpose for which “it is intended, and not destroy its value :tbv allowing its indiscriminate use.
.”The Minister foi- Defence (Senator Pearce) denied point-blank that it was the intention of the Government to interfere with the present position.
– I said that I felt that if what was suggested was to be done, it should be done by regulation to enable u« to make a discrimination.
– I have not traced the genesis of the section to be repealed, but I believe it was framed at the time when an endeavour was being made to appeal . to .the sentiments of the people who had lost their relatives at the war. I remind honorable senators that relatives have been given the right to wear the decoration of a deceased soldier, and that principle was first established when his Majesty the King conferred .the privilege- upon the late Lord Roberts to wear his son’s V.C. when the son was* killed at Colenso. The section we are now asked to repeal was inserted at a time when the Government were appealing to the sentiments of the people and when we wanted to win the war. It may or may not have been good policy, but how the right has been conferred, such as it may be, there is the strongest reason why we should not take it away. It is quite possible that mothers or widows may in ignorance -of the repeal of the section wear the ribbon or medal of a deceased soldier, and in consequence be liable to heavy punishment. I am strongly opposed to anything of that nature being done. It may, perhaps, be advisable as time goes on and these people die out, to withdraw tn right, but it seems to me that we are breaking a promise that we made during the war period. The Minister seems to be hurt because I drew the attention of the people to the matter, and said that the Government were going to deprive relatives of deceased soldiers of the right to wear their decorations. The Minister seems perturbed because there were cries of “shame” when I made the announcement. In acting as I did I thought I was benefiting my party, because if it had been left to the Leader of the Oppo- .sition to call attention to the matter after we had withdrawn the right, the unpopularity would have affected the whole party. This right has been given to people, and because I do not think it. should be taken away I shall oppose the clause.
– I am very muchobliged to Senator Elliott for having directed attention to this matter. In my early and vigorous days in this Senate I helped the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) to pass a Bill to interfere with the sale of property belonging to other people. The Minister seems to think that because a decoration has been given to a soldier for services rendered that the decoration is still under the controlof the military authorities. I deny that. If a man wins a decoration it is his, because his labour, effort and courage secured it for him. It is his to do as he wills, and if it becomes the legal property of any one else they have the right to use it if they so desire. This provision can affect the holder of a Victoria Cross and prevent him from passing it on to his relatives or from selling it . I do not for the moment recall when the Victoria Cross was first issued.
– It was during the Crimean War.
– I believe it was; but why should the military authorities endeavour to interfere with heirlooms of this character ? What right have they ?
– Because the indiscriminate use of them would reduce their value.
– These decorations are the property of the individuals, and by passing legislation of this character we are only exhibiting that military desire to create a sentiment contrary to the sentiment of the people.
– Is the honorable senator in favour of passing a decoration on, so that any one can wear it?
– We have no right to make any regulations to prohibit or interfere with property that came to people as a reward for services rendered. If I read the provision correctly, it means that a man who won a decoration at Waterloo cannot sell it, or to quote an extreme case, pawn it to purchase a loaf of bread.
– I thought the honorable senator was dealing with the wearing of decorations.
– The action we are now taking, if the clause is passed, will result in people being prevented from selling or pawning their decorations if they so desire. In my early days I helped the Minister in the direction I have already indicated; but when the military authorities assumed command the Minister took advantage of that feeling and put his old-fashioned ideas into practice. At that time the windows of the secondhand shops were full of military decorations.
– Thereare even Iron Crosses in a shop across the road.
– I suppose there are. I wonder if a military decoration conferred upon a soldier by the ex-Kaiser could be dealt with under this Bill. I do not think any one would wear a decoration that had not been conferred upon a near relative. Is there any reason why a woman should not wear a sister’s or a brother’s decoration in the form of a brooch, because, after all, it would only be regarded as an emblem of affection, and could not do any harm to the military authorities? There is a widespread feeling in the community that such decorations should be worn by the next of kin. In proportion to the number of soldiers who went from Australia, the number of Victoria Crosses was not large.
– There were about sixty.
– If there were that number, I suppose it can be regarded as large in proportion to the number of men who went abroad, because these distinctions are not given too freely, otherwise they would lose their value. In a number of cases the relative of the winner of a Victoria Cross would treasure that decoration more than any other of his possessions, and he would naturally desire to wear it on someoccasion.
– Would he not be. posing as the winner of the decoration?
– I do not think so.
– The honorable senator is suggesting that he should have that right.
– Surely a man should be allowed to wear such a decoration on his watch chain.
– A female relative, not a male relative, would be permitted to wear it.
– Why should not the father of a son who, say, has been awarded that emblem of extreme valour, the Victoria Cross, be allowed to display it on his watch chain? We ought to deal with this matter of military decorations in such a way as to avoid punishing those who may be innocent of any intent to defraud. We all object to any one attempting to pose as the winner of any honoured distinction, but surely mothers should be entitled to wear, in the form of a brooch, military decorations won by their sons. It is very desirable, I think, that this practice should be allowed, but the military authorities say otherwise. I do not think they should he permitted to interfere with the private life of the community in this way. They go out of their way to look for trouble. : >>(
– There is, at the present time, before the Courts a case’ in which a man has been getting money on the strength of the military decorations which he was wearing. As a matter of fact, he is not entitled to wear any of them.
– T- thought I made it clear that I would have no objection to punishing any person who posed as the winner of a military., decoration. No one has any time for fraud,* and persons guilty of this offence in connexion with military decorations sh’ould be adequately punished. But why go from one extreme to the other? Why should hot, the mother of a deceased soldier who has won a military decoration, or why should . not .a sister or near relative, be permitted to wear it, providing it is worn so as not to mislead the general public?” That is the essence of the whole ques- tion. I ask the Minister to postpone the clause, with the object of framing an amendment that would give effect to the wishes of the Committee, and provide punishment for those persons who improperly display military decorations.
– I will give the honorable senator an undertaking that we will not push the clause to a division; but I would like to hear further discussion on the point raised.
– While I am anxious that every precaution should b& taken to prevent any one from posing improperly as the winner of a decoration, I desire the clause to be sufficiently wide to allow the near relatives of a deceased soldier the privilege of wearing any decoration that may have been awarded tip- him.
– I can see. that this question “is surrounded with ascertain amount of difficulty created by senti-ment, which is a very good asset in patriotism and as a means of keeping’ the Empire together. “It “cannot very well be disregarded, but I” think it is a pity to permit the indiscriminate wearing by women of decorations won by their male relatives. If this is kept in mind, honorable senators will see that there is more in it than appears on the surface.
In the late war, many women won military decorations, and I think” that His Majesty the King decided recently that even the Victoria Cross could be awarded to women. During the war, a great many women were awarded the same decorations as were given to men. Particularly does this refer to the Military Medal; so we will have this position arising unless something is done : A great many women who have won this decoration, and are entitled to wear it with all the pride that goes with its possession, will find that other women, who themselves did nothing during the war, are entitled to wear the same decoration because it had been awarded to some near deceased relative.
– Might we not provide that it shall be worn in a different way?
– I think so.
– Is there not a regulation stating that a decoration won by a deceased relative must be worn on the right breast, so as to distinguish the wearer from a person who has actually been awarded the decoration?
– I do:n6t think so, but it is objectionable that female relatives of deceased soldiers should be permitted to wear decorations without any control.
– There is nothing to prevent a regulation being made directing’ how these decorations shall be worn.
– I agree that regulations could be so framed as to control this matter in a very effective way, having regard to the sentiment attaching to the possession of these decorations.
– That is what I indicated in my second-reading speech. If sub-section 2 is struck out, we could issue a regulation. There is no prohibition in the Act.
– The necessary regulation could be so framed as to meet the undoubted sentiment that exists throughout the country. As I have already pointed out, it is undesirable that women- who have not won decorations should be allowed to wear them as if they had, when there are other women who have won the same decorations and wear them with all the pride of achievement.
If no women were entitled to wear the same decorations as deceased soldier relatives, there would be little objection; but women have won them, and are wearing them; and we do not want the unfortunate happenings of mothers displaying, as on last Anzac Day, the decorations won by their sons, being prosecuted for so doing.
Senator PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence [12.42].- Before the Committee deals with the amendment of which Senator Elliott has given notice, I should like a further discussion upon this point. I do not think that the whole of the sections dealing with the military decorations are contained in the memorandum which has been circulated among honorable senators, so I should like to direct their attention to section 80e, which reads as follows: -
Penalty : Twenty pounds.
It is proposed to eliminate sub-section (2) and insert instead the following: -
For the purposes of this section, any ribbon appropriate to be worn with a military decoration shall be deemed to be a military decoration.
If the clause which I am proposing is accepted, and the sub-section which entitles a female relative to wear a decoration is deleted from the Act, it will still be possible, under the section which I have just quoted, for the Government to make regulations. In fact, there are regulations in existence in regard to the wearing of decorations, and it is those regulations which now lawfully entitle a person to wear a decoration. If it is the wish of the Committee that we should not go so far as to strike the whole provision out of the Act - as the clause proposes to do - and if it is, rather, the general desire that Parliament, having given the right, should now restrict it to the mother or widow of the soldier concerned, then the Government can introduce a regulation to that effect.
– Which could provide also that the decoration should be worn only on the right side.
– Certainly. We could get over the difficulty, probably, in another way by leaving out the words “ female relative “ and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words, “ mother or widow.” I am anxious to learn the view of the Committee. My own feeling is that if a decoration may be worn by other than the person who actually won it, the privilege should not be extended beyond the mother or the widow.
– I quite agree with the Minister. We should be very jealous with respect to the honours won by our soldiers. 1 would object to any extension of the privilege further than to the mother or widow. It may be asked, “ Why should not the sister be permitted to wear it?” The phrase “ female relative “ is altogether too wide. It permits the wearing of a soldier’s decoration by a connexion who may not have been friendly to the soldier prior to his departure for the war, or who may have opposed or been indifferent to his enlistment. We should be extremely careful not to cheapen a military decoration. I had thought, at one stage, that a father might be permitted to wear his son’s medal; but I perceive that that would not be fair to many old soldiers who value above all else their medals and ribbons, bespeaking, as they do, honorable service in earlier campaigns.
– I lookupon the soldier’s decoration as symbolic of bravery and sacrifice, and I would be loath to cheapen it in any manner. But there are many sisters who would value the right to wear a brother’s decoration.
– Many of them would like to flaunt it for the sake of sheer vanity.
– That may be so in many cases, but it is not true of the great majority of sisters, who are deeply devoted to their brothers’ memories, and for whom the decorations are the strongest possible sentimental tie. I do not think a decoration should be worn by a relative in a manner that might confuse it with the honours of women who have personally gained them for war service. Regulations could be framed to provide for all these things. I suggest that women should be permitted to wear decorations of deceased soldier relatives only as brooches or pendants.
– And, for preference, in miniature.
– No: that would not be quitethe same. I abhor pretence, and the miniature is only a small imitation of a big thing.
– The honorable senator does not understand that the miniature of a decoration is a recognised military distinction.
– And if a woman were to wear one or two medals they would tear her dress. She would need to have a piece of leather underneath.
– The right to wear a decoration should be given to a mother or widow; but if the mother and widow are deceased I do not see why a sister should not then have the right. I hold that it would be wiser to retain the clause. A regulation could be framed to the effect that if a decoration is worn by a relative it should not be worn so as to convey the impression that it is one which has been won by that person.
– Would the honorable senator go so far as to permit any female relative to wear it?
– No.
– That is what the clause provides.
– Then, I would suggest that the privilege be restricted to the father or mother or widow, and that, if the parents and widow are deceased, a sister should have the right.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.
.- During the luncheon adjournment the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) submitted to me an amendment which he proposes to move in the clause under consideration, in lieu of that which I had intended to move. It appears to meet all my objections, but some honorable senators may desire to amend it so as to make provision for other cases. A sister and brother, who are orphans, may be very greatly attached to each other, and if the brother were killed in the war his sister would naturally be the person who would most treasure any decoration he had won.
– I move -
That the words “ by omitting sub-section 2 thereof and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - (2)” be left out and the following inserted in lieu thereof. ” (a) By omitting from sub-section (2) the words ‘ a female relative,’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ the mother or widow ‘ “ ;
by adding at the end of that sub-section the words ‘ under such conditions as are prescribed ‘ ; and
by adding at the end of the section the following sub-section: -
(3)”.
.- I am very glad that the Minister has submitted an amendment which meets much that honorable senators advocated before the luncheon adjournment. It does not give effect to the suggestion I made, and I therefore move -
That the amendment be amended by adding the following words: - “Provided that the wearing of a medal or military decoration as a brooch or pendant shall not be an offence under this Act.”
We are going on the wrong track when we propose to enable the long arm of the military to be stretched out to prevent a sister, or some one even dearer than a sister, wearing on her breast a decoration won by a soldier whom she loved. The military have no right to do anything of the kind. To wear any of these decorations in such a way as to make no claim that the wearer is the winner of the decoration is no offence. If the father or brother of a deceased soldier wears as a pendant on a watch chain the Military Medal won by that soldier, how can that be regarded as an offence? There can be nothing worse in legislation than to make offences of practices that are not offences at all. Why should we legislate to punish people for doing something that, so far from being an offence, is in accordance with the sentiment ofthe community?
– Where there is no law there is no transgression.
– Exactly ; and the more we avoid creating purely legal offences the better for the community. What injury will be done to the community by a sister wearing the Military Medal awarded to her brother?’ Senator Duncan drew a fine distinction between the( love-of- a’ mother and of a sister; but all ‘ that has been said about sisters applies, in some cases, to mothers. The military: authorities, not content with dealing with matters pf defence, are hero proposing to regulate the dress and ornaments of the community. They have no right to’ do so. If a medal has. been won by a soldier, and, after he has made the great sacrifice, is returned to his mother, what could be more natural than that she should say to his sister, “We shall havethis made into a brooch, and you can wear it”? . We are being asked to make an offence of that kind of thing, and we ought not to do so. There can bo no genuine objection to people wearing decorations as pendants or ‘ brooches. Why should” Parliament propose to regulate the conduct of people in this direction?
– The honorable senator’s amendment would apply to anybody.
– Yes; and I say that unless a person who is not entitled to do so is wearing a military decoration as though he had won it, we have no right to interfere. Before going to the Front a soldier may have proposed to make a girl his wife. He may have won the Victoria Cross, and may have sent it to the girl, and aTe we going to say that she is- not to be allowed to wear it ? That ‘ would he interfering with one of the deepest sentiments of human nature. The only thing that should be -regarded as air o’ffence is the wearing by any person of a military decoration as though it had been conferred upon him, when Se did not win it. In the case of fraud guilty persons should be punished.
– A man in ‘ Sydney was recently fined £5 for wearing female attire.
– Exactly. There is a very good reason why we should prevent fraud being perpetrated on the community such as the wearing of the dress of the opposite sex, because serious consequences might result. There - is no analogy between the case mentioned by Senator Thomas and that of some one innocently and rightly wearing a decoration to which he or she is entitled. A medal that’ has been awarded to a man for service, or for conspicuous bravery, is surely his own property, and he should have every right to pass it on to a relative if he so desires. We have no right to interfere in such- cases by saying what shall be done with the property of individuals. The Belgian Cross, which is a neat little decoration, was. conferred -on thousands ; if I am wrong as to the number perhaps Senator Cox will correct me.
– Not a great many.; I do not think there were more than 100.
– Even if there were only 100, they must not be over.looked. Let us take any similar decora tion won by an individual for individual bravery, ‘ and consider the action which this Nationalist Government are taking - I am rather glad it is a Nationalist Government) making such a proposition, because if it were a Labour Government it would be said that we were against the war, against the nation, the flag, and everything . else, and ‘ we would be told how it affects innocent people. If a decoration is of value to a relative as an ornament, why should its use ‘ not be allowed ? Relatives are proud of the honours which have been won by their brothers or sisters, and are naturally anxious to display them. If a person is wearing a ‘ distinction that rightly belongs to some order of which he is not a member, that , is fraud, and should be punished ; but it is repugnant to common sense to introduce such a proposal as this, and I am not going to support it.
– Some of those decorations are so heavy that they are not’ likely to be worn as brooches or pendants.
– The Belgian Cross is not very heavy. The military authorities have the right to punish any action contrary to military discipline, but it would take & lot to convince me that there is anything contrary, to military discipline-, or any way detrimental to the interests of the community, in wearing a decoration in the manner I have suggested. It is only common sense to allow the wife of a -man who won a decoration to wear it, but it is’ ridiculous .to suggest that the woman whom a man intends to make his wife cannot. Perhaps only the trained military mind can draw the distinction, and perhaps one would have tobe a Minister for Defence or a general to make any distinction at all.
– Does the honorable senator think that the country is interested at all?
– I think the people feel the position’ keenly, because these decorations are prized very highly. Let us take the case of a woman who has adopted a child. Will she be’ permitted to. wear the decoration?. The boy is not hers, but she is the only mother he e vear knew, and ‘should be entitled to consideration. “ There is the. case of the daughter’ who has really been the mother of the household because her mother has been taken, and the Government are going to make it an offence if such a woman wears a decoration won by her brother. In my opinion, that is not an offence, and I object to creating new ones, because we already have enough. I do not intend to assist in passing legislation of this character, and have endeavoured in the amendment I have proposed not to interfere more than is necessary with* the members of the community. The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap). - I purpose making the honorable senator’s amendment appear as proviso d.
.- I intend to support Senator Gardiner’s amendment.
– I have to direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that the amendment of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) must first be disposed of.
– I understand that it is the intention to add the amendment moved by Senator Gardiner as paragraph d. . .
– The question that has to be decided before we can proceed is whether certain words proposed to be left out be left out.
-I shall address myself to the amendment, and in doing so shall support Senator Gardiner in his endeavour to . add to the amendment moved by the Minister for Defence. I quite realize that an effort should be made and sustained to prevent reducing the value of military decorations which have been won by Australia’s sons at the war. The amendment proposed by the Minister accomplishes that, so far as is necessary, as under it only widows and mothers of deceased soldiers will be permitted to officially wear the decorations or medals won. There are many instances, however, in which a soldier, after long association, feels that he would like to pass on his decoration to a companion as a mark of esteem, and which would, of course, be worn as an ornament. It would, of course, be an offence if he became possessed of it illegally, but there cannot be any valid reason for stringently restricting the wearing of medals in the way Senator Gardiner suggests; The “Minister has provided for the prevention of wearing medals officially, except by the widow or mother of a deceased. soldier. I quite agree with what-Senator Gardiner has said, that we are creating restrictions which in their turn create offences, and for that reason I shall support his amendment.
– I am very astonished at this amendment being submitted, but om more astonished at its receiving the support of those who were in favour of restricting the use of medals. The amendment of Senator Gardiner - I do not know whether Senator Earle realizes it - actually goes further than the provision in the existing Act.
– I do not think it does.
– Section 80s of the principal Act provides that a person shall not make use of any military decoration as a brooch or a pendant; but Parliament at that time also thought it necessary to provide the following: -
Nothing in this section shall prevent the female relative of a person upon whom a military decoration has been conferred from- wearing a .decoration after the decease of that person.
Senator Gardiner’s proposal is to allow any person to wear such a decoration.
– That is not making use of it. The honorable senator’s suggestion is that it should be worn as an ornament.
– I can assure Senator Foster that I know what the section means, because- we have had to take proceedings under it. Under that section, il; is not lawful at present, for any one to make a brooch or ornament out of a decoration, and it was intended to prevent them being converted into ordinary medallions for decorative purposes. I can see no objection to a brother wearing it; but the honorable senator’s amendment does not confine- it to a brother.
A man’s mate might be entitled to wear a decoration. Even one of those gallant gentlemen who stood in the breach, preventing recruits from going to our men when they were so hard pressed,, would be able, under Senator Gardiner’s amendment, to display a Victoria Cross, simply because he happened to be the relative of some deceased soldier to whom a distinction had been awarded.
– Can the Minister say who will be entitled to wear these distinctions if the clause is passed as it stands !
– Yes; after the decease of a soldier his mother or widow.
– Nobody before his decease ?
– No. At present the only persons entitled to wear the decorations after the decease of a soldier are his female relatives. How far this definition may be extended I do not know. I trust the Committee will not agree to Senator Gardiner’s radical amendment; and, if I rightly judged the temper of the Senate during the secondreading debate, it will not.
– I agree with the Minister’s amendment. I would prefer to see the provisions narrowed rather than widened, because of the sentiment attached to these decorations. But I have in mind the case of a young woman who made a home for destitute children and reared two little lads, who, . when they were grown up, went to the war. If one of those boys had gained some military distinction and unfortunately had lost his life, the present provisions with regard to military decorations would not meet the case of that woman.
– There is, in the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act, a definition of the word “ mother,” and that would bo applied in the case mentioned by the honorable senator. Senator’ SENIOR. - I was diffident about mentioning this particular case at all, because I do not want to widen the provision unnecessarily. I would prefer that the possession of any of these decorations should be regarded as a symbol of courage and distinguished service. Things that are precious are usually the things that are rare. These decorations are very precious to the mother or widow of a soldier.
– Or the sister.
– No doubt; but there is a great .deal of difference between a sister’s and a mother’s love.
.- The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) has come to the conclusion that my amendment goes beyond the provisions of the original Act.
– So it does.
– No doubt ; but, to my mind, the Defence Act is designed to regulate and control the Defence Forces, not the civilian population of the Commonwealth. Why should the authority of this Act be extended to the community generally in this way by interfering and preventing some one from wearing military decorations? A decoration won at the battle of Waterloo will come under this provision. In fact, by means of this provision, .the military authorities will be able to regulate the conduct of the general community to such an extent that people will not be able to hang on their watch chains decorations won by some friends of theirs. I can imagine what a dreadful thing it would be, according to some honorable senators, if some person who was opposed to the war dared to wear on his watch chain a Victoria Cross won by one of our soldiers, since deceased. What a dreadful thing! In what sense would it be dreadful? It would be dreadful only if the wearer pretended that he was the winner of the’decoration. My point is that we cannot, restrict the wearing of these decorations in the manner proposed without inflicting an injury upon a large section of the community. To reserve this privilege for a soldier’s widow or mother is altogether too narrow. It may be that the amendment which I have submitted is too wide to meet honorable senators’ views. But I deliberately moved it, because my view of the position is that the Defence Act should deal with defence matters only, and not provide penalties for those who wear military decorations. We cannot prevent people from wearing these distinctions, and if we attempt to do so, the only result will be to cause more of them to be worn. The fact that a .case comes before the Courts opens to me immense possibilities of prospective advantage in organizing. Let the sister of a soldier Who gained a. distinction, and lost his life in the war, be fined for wearing a decoration conferred on her brother under a law passed by this National Government which says that these things must be kept out of sight, that they are too sacred for eyes to behold, and, as an organizer, I can see possibilities of future advantage.
– Perhaps the honorable senator would advocate replica3 being made of all military decorations, so that every member of a family could wear them.
– No. I leave absurd suggestions to the honorable senator. No doubt he is quite capable of giving effect to them. It is not absurd on my part to ask the Committee to agree to my amendment, which, after all, would merely entitle people to do as they like with their own property. Does not the honorable senator know that the greatest distinction a soldier can gain, the Victoria Cross, is often conferred after his death? And does he say that this decoration must be hidden away somewhere, and that this bit of gun-metal, which may be all that the father has left to remind him of his lad, may not be- worn by a proud old man upon State occasions? I have made it as clear as I possibly can that drastic punishment should be meted out to those who improperly display these decorations; but the proposal of the Government will go a long way towards crushing out the sentiment that is in the heart of the community in regard to these military distinctions. Honorable senators will make themselves absurd if they assent to this provision. I shall stick to my amendment, and if I can get another honorable senator to call for a division we shall have it. I want the father of a deceased soldier to have the right to display any distinction that may have been conferred upon his son.
– ‘That is not your proposition. You propose to allow anybody, even some one who may have stolen a decoration, to wear it.
– The distinction is that my proposition would permit the wearing of these decorations, whereas the Government proposal makes it an offence.
– The present Act makes it an offence.
– And here is an opportunity to amend .the Act. It should not be an offence.
– The honorable senator was here when that provision was placed in the Act.
– And on Senator Senior’s reasoning I suppose I must be charged with the responsibility for the present position. I do not know what is in honorable senators’ minds with reference to this particular matter, but I shall
Welcome any reasonable amendment “upon my amendment if it meets with the views of those who cannot go the distance I am prepared to go. The Government proposal is more limiting in its scope than the provisions of the 1917 Act. The question of wearing these military decorations is no new thing with me. When a Labour Government came into power in 1910 I was then a new member, and I very much worried and harassed the pre- sent Minister for Defence by trying to prevent him from legislating in connexion with the wearing of these decorations. For a fortnight Senator Rae and I held the breach pretty effectively; but after the war came, the persistent Minister got his opportunity, and, supported by the war feeling, he placed upon out statute-book this most absurd proposal. It is false sentiment to say that a mother or widow may wear a soldier’s distinction, but that no one else may do so. I would certainly seek to prevent the fraudulent wearing of a decoration; but if the Government were to provide the death penalty in the case, for example, of a sister wearing her dead brother’s medal, the practice would still go on.
Senator PRATTEN (New South Wales) r3.17”. - If the.clause had not been in the’ Bill the law would have stood as hitherto, and any female relative of a soldier, either before or after his decease, would have been permitted to wear his decoration. The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) now proposes to prevent any female relative, other than the mother or widow, from wearing a decoration. I understand that Senator Gardiner desires to make the privilege absolutely free. ‘ In my view, it ‘would be well to let the section stand as it was.
– After the words which my amendment proposes to delete have been left out, the Committee can decidewhether to insert what I have further proposed, or what Senator Gardiner desires, or what airy other honorable . senator may suggest.
– Or, alternatively, we may negative the clause, the effectof which action would be to leave the Act asit stands. I support the principle that the near relatives of a deceased soldier should have the right to wear his decoration.
Question - “ That the words proposed to be left out, be left out,” resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment (by Senator Senior) proposed -
That the amendment be amended by inserting aftertheword “mother,” in paragraph (a), the words “ foster-mother, step-mother.”
– I have no objection to the proposed additions, for the reason that the amendment is consistentwith the phraseology of other Acts. A foster-mother and a step-mother are recognised as a mother with respect to war pensions and repatriation matters.
– Would the Minister also agree to the inclusion of “ motherinlaw “ ?
– No.
– If the Minister is willing to extend to a deceased soldier’s step- . mother or foster-mother the privilege of wearing his decoration, then why not also to his sister 1 Provided that such decorations are worn as ornaments, and not in any sense so that they maybe confused with war decorations actually won by the wearer, why should there be these close restrictions ? The Government could frame regulations - much as I abhor them - setting forth how decorations may be worn, as well as by whom. And, while the Committee is considering the privilege, and is basing its consideration upon the degree of affectionate affinity, why should not the right of the unmarried wife be also recognised?
– Our Repatriation Act recognises the unmarried mother.
– The practice would not do here.
– That shows the folly of restricting the wearing of a decoration at all, save in regard to the proviso which I have just indicated. I propose to move to amend Senator Senior’s amendment by further adding the word, “ sister.”
– I suggest that the honorable senator should allow the Committee to dispose of Senator Senior’s amendment to that of the Minister for Defence, and that he then move his amendment.Otherwise the issue may. become confused.
– My sole desire is to broaden the privilege. I would like to give the right to the mother-in-law as well as to a sister. Indeed, the only exclusion which I would suggest is in respect of a person to whomthe soldier himself, had he been alive, would have objected to concede the right to wear his decoration. After all,why should the Government seek to restrict the wearing of a soldier’s medal? Is it not his own, and inno sense the property of the Government ? Surely the person to whom a soldier bequeaths his decoration should be . permitted to wear it.
– It is given as a military, and not as a civil, decoration.
– It is not a birthday present.
– It is not a decoration given with a string to it by which those who give it may pull it back at any time. It is a reward for something done.
– And is put on the watch chain of a man who did not do it.
-Ihaveseen hundreds of these decorations in pawnshop windows.
– That is one of the things we wish to prevent.
– The honorable senator is wrong in saying that there is no condition attached to the grant of a decoration. Although it may be given to a man in the Army as a reward, possibly for bravery, in the event of his misconduct it may be taken away from him.
– That is news to me. I should be very much astonished to find that that is so.
– It has been done on more than one occasion.
– It might be done while the winner of the decoration is under military control, but when he returns to civil life, I doubt very much whether the military could take his decoration from him because he happens to offend against a civil law. The Act as it stands is too narrow, in my opinion, and
I would have availed myself of any opportunity to widen it.
– At present the honorable senator is preventing the Committee from widening it.
-When Senator Senior was speaking-, I mentioned that he ought to include a sister in his amendment. If that had been done, I would not have had anything more to say.
– The honorable senator would then have asked that a brother should be included.
– And why should not a brother be included? If a sister or a stepmother can wear a decoration, what harm is there in a brother of a soldier swinging across his watch chain a decoration won by that soldier ? I say that honorable senators are trying to do the impossible. The Minister andthe military may fill the country full of spies, who may discover many persons wearing medals as pendants or Brooches, and may get many Court cases. I hope they will.
-.We might get a decoration out of a pawn-shop, and let the honorable senator wear it.
– I have had a decoration conferred on me by the people who conferred a similar decoration on Senator Cox. I wear it, and am proud of it.
– But the honorable senator is not allowed to give it to his mother -in-la w .
– I may say that I also wear a decoration conferred upon me by His Majesty, and if I felt disposed to have it made into a brooch, and let my daughter wear it, are honorable senators going out of theirway to prevent my doing so, by legislation? I can tell honorable senators that all the military attempts to encroach upon the liberties of the general public will fail. I realize that Australia . has to be defended, and that our Defence Act must be made popular. Why should honorable senators endeavour to make it a little more unpopular than it already is by denying to one person the gratification of wearing a medal?
– We have not passed a clause for some hours.
– The Minister’s interjection astonishes mo. Before lunch the honorable senator was inviting discussion of the clause to get the sense of the Committee.
– I realize that I made a mistake.
– But surely the Minister will not put the blame onme. Since half -past two o’clock, we havehad under consideration an amendment submittedby the honorable senator himself which is bigger than the clause with which we are dealing. He was good enough to give me beforehand a; copy, of that amendment. I have endeavoured to point out that Senator Senior’s amendment does not go far enough;
SenatorSenior. - Let us pass it, and we can then go further.
-I am afraid that if I do not support the honorable senator’s amendment strongly enough, the Committee will not pass it. When Senator Senior’s amendment is dealt with I shall moveto include the word” sister,” and we shall have the whole of this discussion over again. If Senator Senior had consented to include the word in his amendment we might have discussed’ the matter on the one amendment.
– The honorable senator mentioned the mother-in-law, but he will want the sister-in-law included also.
– I mentioned the mother-in-law, because of the deep feeling of love and reverence’ I have for mothers-in-law.
– I direct the attention of the honorable senator to the fact that the time allowed him under the Standing Orders has expired.
– I regret that I have been drawn off the track so much that I have so far said nothing about the amendment I desired to discuss.
Amendment (Senator Senior’s) agreed to.
Senator GARDINER (New South Wales) [3.41). - I move-
That the amendmentbe further amended by inserting after the word. “ step-mother “ just inserted the word “ sister.”
I seriously think that this amendment should be agreed to. When it is dealt with, I shall move to further extend the operation of the clause. I do not propose to link two or three relatives together in one amendment, as an honorable senator who might he willing to include a sister, might not support an amendment which would include also a motherinlaw.
SenatorEarle. - I am afraid the honorable senator has lost his only supporter.
– I am aware that I have lost the support of Senator Earle. When he announced that he would support my amendment, I was sure that I had lost his vote. If the honorable senator says that anything that is proposed in this Chamber is right, we may be sure that, on mature consideration, he will alter his opinion.
– The honorable senator knows that that is unjust.
– I need go no further than to refer to what occurred last evening, to prove the justice of my statement. The estimate I have formed of the honorable senator is that when he hastily says that he will do a certain thing,’ he subsequently deliberately does the reverse.
– The honorable senator cannot sustain that statement.
– Order!
– Senator Gardiner is not going to say that I give inconsistent votes, without having his statement challenged.
– I have no de- sire to be offensive to the honorable senator, but I can assure him that if I hear him say that he is going tovotein a given direction, I look for his name in the division list on the other side. There are manycases in which, owing to the death of a mother a sister becomes practically the mother of a family. The family cares may fall uponher shoulders at an early age. Such a case is frequent in the life of our community. Honorable senators are proposing to deny to such a sister the right to wear one of these decorations, although they would confer it on a stepmother who might have driven her son to the war; because, with her there, war with all its’ horrors was nothing to home. Many young men went to war because of the treatment they received at the hands of stepmothers. We have said that a stepmother, irrespective of her virtues or failings, may wear a decoration, and surelywe can say thesame of a sister? There are many young women who have been responsible for the conduct of a home and the upbringing of the younger members of the family, and who would prevent such women from wearing a deooration which a stepmother is entitled to wear? I do notthink we should, and that is why I have moved in the direction. I have. It may be as Senator Duncan stated, that there are sisters who are unworthy; but it can be alsosaid with equal force that there are stepmothers who are equally unworthy. We are not to be the judges.
– Is not the honorable senator advocating that such decorations shall be worn officially?
– No.
– That is what the amendment means.
– It does not
– I am still supporting the honorable senator’s first amendment that any one may wear them.
– Senator Earless interjection makes me believe that his reading of the clause leads him to think that the people will be permitted to wear them officially.
– It may be prescribed that they be worn on the right breast
– I have moved the addition of the word “ sister,” and in all earnestness I appeal to honorable senators to carefullyconsider the question, and to give the amendment their support Is it not reasonable to suggest that a woman, whose brother has bean killed at the Front or who has died since his return, should be allowed to convert a decoration into a brooch or a pendant? It is, but the Government are deliberately saying that it shall not be done.
.- There is a good deal in the amendment moved by Senator Gardiner that should commend itself to honorable senators. The Department have officially recognised the fact that certain female relatives of men who have won a decoration may wear them, and a sister should be entitled to the same privilege.
– I move-
That the Committee do now divide.
-Order! The honorable senator is not in order in submitting such a motion when an honorable senator is addressing the Committee.
– I regret that Senator Cox should have moved such a motion, because an Honorable senator who is not present is anxious to speak on this clause. I t is very unfair of the honorable senator, who regards himself as a champion of the’ soldiers’ interests, to endeavour to “ gag “ me in such a way.
SenatorCox.- I was trying tostop the abuse of soldiers.
– I was not abusing the soldiers or their dependants, but was merely supporting a. fair proposition. Senator Gardiner, in quoting a number of striking illustrations,has mentioned several extreme instances, and one cannot shut one’s eyes to the fact that there is a good deal in what he has said. In some cases there may be a brother and sister who have lost their parents, and if the brother had lost his life at the Front surely the sister should be entitled to wear any decoration which was hie.
The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce)could tell us that there were quite a number of cases of a similar nature which arose when the next-of-kin badges were issued. Quite a number were brought under my notice in which female relatives who were much more to the soldier than those which the regulations cover, were desirous of securing the nextofkin badges, but because the regulationswere so stringent it was impossible to extend to them any consideration.I think it was during the early stages of the issue of the next-of-kin badges that I brought the matter under the notice of the Minister, and, as a result of certain overtures,the regulation was amended so that others could be included. I think it would be desirable if the Minister would bring in an amendment covering many of those which are to be brought forward by other honorable senators.
– Why not knock the clause out altogether?
– I am not altogether opposed to the clause; but I believe it is possible to make the provision even better than that contained in the principal Act. In these circumstances it would be better to report progress, so that honorable senators who have amendments to move may have an opportunity of perusing the principal Act, to see what effect they will have.
-The hour of 4 o’clock having arrived, it is imperative under the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate on Fridays, that I now put the question -
That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.
Motion agreed to; progress reported.
Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 May 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210506_senate_8_95/>.