Senate
2 July 1909

3rd Parliament · 4th Session



The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 749

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

– In its report of what I said, last night on the first reading of the Supply Bill, the Age of this morning credits me with having said that at the end of 1910all that the States could expect to receive in that year was , £4,000,000 at most. That statement is, no doubt, due to a misconception on the part of the reporter. All I desire to say is that I made no such statement.

page 749

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1)

Defence Administration : Case of Naval Storekeeper Critten: Case of Private MacDonnell : Charge against a Military Ofeicer - Military Offices, Adelaide - Rifle Clubs - Military and Naval Defence - Delay in Passing Supply Bill: Dismissal of Temporary Employes - Telephone Exchange, Adelaide - Presentation of Budget to Senate.

In Committee (Consideration resumed from1st July, vide page 703) :

Schedule.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.35]. - In order to direct special attention to my remarks, I beg to intimate that I shall probably conclude by moving a request for a reduction of £100 in the vote for the first subdivision. My reason for selecting that particular item for special consideration is because I think that attention should be drawn strongly and effectively to the manner in which the Department of Defence has been administered.

My remarks will cover the tenure of office of not only the late Government, but previous Governments. I shall have to go back in order that I may put forward such a case that it cannot be answered by haphazard assertions, cannot be contradicted in the absence of documents, because I shall produce documents. I regret that it will be necessary for me to occupy more time than I would willingly do, but I do not intend to give any one the opportunity of alleging that the statements I make are in the smallest degree inaccurate, for I will read the documents here.

H.M.V.S. Nelson, 1st February, 1887.

Memo. for Naval Storekeeper.

Letter No. 2353 authorizes the rating of Naval Storekeeper to be created at 6s. per diem with rations, ranging up to 6s. 6d. per diem with rations. The Naval Commandant . has removed you from the list of Executive Petty Officers, and you are now established as Storekeeper, which rating you will bold as long as you are fit to perform those duties.

J. B. McKail,

Paymaster, Victorian Naval Forces.

A Board composed of Staff-Surgeon Stewart and Surgeons Cheetham and Bryant will please hold a medical examination on C. P. Critten, the storekeeper at the Naval Yard, Williamstown, and furnish Captain Thomas with a report as to the nature and extent of the injuries received by him, and as to whether the injuries are likely to be permanent, and whether they would interfere with the performance of active duties.

Lieut., R.N.

Then follows a letter which is also dated from H.M.V.S. Nelson, 21st January, 1889, and which, I imagine, is addressed to the Minister of Defence in Victoria. It reads -

Sir,

I have the honour to bring before your notice the case of Charles Critten,1st Class Petty Officer in the Naval Forces, who was severely injured in the groin when assisting to raise a gangway when alongside the pier at Williamstown, on the 30th September, 1883.

I pause for a moment to draw attention to the fact that, though this letter was written six years after the accident which befell Critten, he is still referred to as “ a first class petty officer in the Naval Forces.” I maintain that he is still in the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary. The letter continues -

Since that date he has been employed on light duty, and for over two years has filled the post of storekeeper at the Naval Yards in Williamstown.

He has never received any compensation for the injury, and I have to request that you will consider his case with a view of granting him compensation on the scale allowed in similar cases to the members of the Naval and Military Forces who have been injured in discharge of their duties.

I may mention that in addition to the actual injury which has rendered him more or less a cripple for life, he has incurred for medical attendance, medicines, instruments, and appliances, nursing and nourishment, the sum of £100.

He has also been obliged to surrender his house through being incapacitated from walking the requisite distance to work, and has had to remove to a house nearer to* his employment, for which he pays a higher rent. By this means he has incurred further expense of £100. He is well able, however, to perform the duties of storekeeper, and gives me every satisfaction in the fulfilment of his duties. I enclose the report of the Medical Board ordered to investigate hiscase.

I have the honour to be, &c,

B. Thomas,

Commanding Naval Forces.

The next communication is addressed by Captain Collins, R.N., who was then in command of the Victorian Naval Forces, or Secretary to the Victorian Defence Department. I do not know to whom the communication is addressed, but evidently it is an official letter. It is dated 21st October, 1889, and reads -

As you are aware, I have a strong sympathy forBritten, whose serious accident has resulted in great loss to him; but I am afraid I do not see a clear way to the increase of pay in his present position, as 6s. 6d. per diem is fixed by regulations as the maximum for storekeeper. He has this advantage over the others, that as long as he can perform the duties of the position, which is light, his services will be retained, which would not have been the case if he was a Warrant or Petty Officer of the Executive.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Collins.

The author of that letter is the present Secretary of Defence, and the representative of the Commonwealth in London. Four years later the following document was written -

H.M.V.S. Nelson, 1 2th December, 1893.

I would recommend that StorekeeperBritten should be allowed to draw the allowance in lieu of rations, as his injuries render him unable to eat the same, and he has to make a special provision for his food.

He sustained this injury on duty in the service, and is deserving of special consideration. The Gunnery Lieutenant has brought to my notice the satisfactory manner in which he carries out his duty.

Richard W. White,

Captain, R.N.

That document is indorsed “ Approved by the Minister,” and the indorsement is signed, “ Robt. Collins, Secretary of Defence.”

H.M.V.S. Nelson,

Williamstown, 14th February, 1898.

In bringing before the Honorable the Minister of Defence the case of C. P.Britten, first class Petty Officer, I would point out that this man entered the service on 7th January,1878 and was raised to the position of1st class P. O. on the1st August, 1878.

On the 30th September, 1883, he received injuries in the service which made him ineligible for the rank of Warrant Officer. Men junior to him have since risen to the rank of Warrant Officer with increase of salary and privileges due to that rank. At presentBritten is performing the duties of Storekeeper, a position which he has held for the past eleven years; in addition to Storekeeper’s duties, he looks after ships’ papers, &c, in the depot, and does a large amount of clerical work besides.

In view of his long service, good conduct, and ability, I beg to recommend him for the rank of Chief Petty Officer, and also that he be granted 6d. per diem for performing clerical work.

That is Captain Tickell, then Commander of the Victorian Naval Forces. I now propose to quote a little correspondence with the Commonwealth. The first letter in this connexion reads -

Commonwealth Defence Department,

Melbourne,19th September,1901.

Dear Sir,

In reply toyour letter of yesterday’s date relative to the position of Mr. Critten, I beg to inform you that I do not think he need be at all anxious about the matter. So long as there is work for him and he is able to do it, he can remain there.

Yours faithfully,

Robert Collins.

That letter was followed by a still more interesting document in the form of a Ministerial memorandum, to which I desire to draw special attention, because it has been denied that Critten was ever a member of the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth.

In view of the circumstances connected with the retention of the services of Petty Officer Critten in the Naval Forces of Victoria after his permanent disablement (the result of an accident which occurred in 1883) and to the implied undertaking that employment would be found for him, I approve (as a suitable position cannot be found in the Public Service) of the services of Mr. C. P. Critten being retained in the Naval Forces, Victoria, at his old rate of pay, viz., Seven shillings(7s.) per diem.

That letter is indorsed, “ Approved, John Forrest, Minister of Defence, 8-12-02.” Yet the public have been told that Critten was never in the service of the Commonwealth.

Department of Defence,

Melbourne, 3rd November, 1906.

Naval Forces of the Commonwealth. - His Excellency the Governor-General, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, has been pleased to approve the following changes, &c, in connexion with the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth, namely -

Then comes the announcement of the promotion of a young officer. Next comes the heading, “Extension of Service.” Even the Governor-General could not extend the service of a man not in the service.

The services of Charles P. Critten, Storekeeper, Permanent Naval Forces, are retained under the provisions of paragraph 64 of Part II., Regulations for the Naval Forces, for a period of one year, dating from the 31st December, 1906.

This was a man who, we are told, was never employed in the Commonwealth Naval Service. I also have here the Commonwealth Gazette for the 14th November, 1908. As I have said, this man’s services were extended for twelve months from November, 1906. Two years later there was another Gazette notice further extending his service.

The extension of service of Charles P. Critten, storekeeper, Permanent Naval Forces, Victoria, is exempted for a period of two years from the 31st December,1907, from the operation of Commonwealth Naval Regulation 64, which prescribes the age for retirement of members of the Commonwealth Permanent Naval Forces.

Under the signature of the GovernorGeneral this man is proclaimed in the Gazette, as I asserted here before, as a member of the Commonwealth Naval Forces, and this Gazette exempts him from retiring under the age regulation. Who knew what he was talking about now - I, who made this assertion, or the ex-Minister of Defence, who denied it, andwho, I am sure, con

Winced some members of the Senate by the positiveness that he showed that I was not well informed?

Governor-General in Council. I do nol care what the exigencies of the service may be ; no officer in the community, no matter how highly placed, is entitled to set aside the order of the Governor-General in Council, except for so long as may be necessary to report the case to that authority. Not even, the Minister has such power. I am sure that every lawyer will agree that that is a correct statement of the law. But this man - poor fellow, crippled for life, without any compensation, except the promise of employment - has been treated in this fashion. His accident occurred while he was in the employment of the State of Victoria. I have nothing to do with that phase, of the question. But Sir John Forrest, when Minister of Defence, ordered that he should be paid 7s. per day. For years, however, he has only been getting- 6s. per day. In fact, to use a plain, straightforward, phrase, some person has robbed this man.

Melbourne, 16th February, 1909.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your representations relative to Mr. Critten, the Minister would be glad to settle the matter, and to that end suggests that he should send, through the proper channel, a brief statement of his complaint and claim. The Minister will then be prepared to submit the case to an independent Board, composed of the Public Service Inspector, a

Police- Magistrate, and a representative of this Department, not connected with the Victorian Naval Forces, for inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

S. A. Pethebridge,

Acting Secretary, Department .of Defence. Senator Colonel the Hon. J. C. Neild, “Greycairn” Woollahra, Sydney, N.S.W.

Naval Torpedo Depot,

Williamstown, 24th February, 1909.

I have the honour to bring under the notice of the Naval Board the following facts concerning myself : -

I joined the Victorian Navy as an able seaman in January, 1878. I was promoted to a First Class Executive Petty Officer in August, r878. In September, 1883, whilst in the performance of my duty, I had the misfortune to be severely injured internally. I was pronounced by a Medical Board to be unfit for heavy active work for the remainder of my life.. In February, 1887, I was given the position of Naval Storekeeper, with the understanding that I should retain the position so long as I was physically fit to perform those duties, apart from the question of age.

That is all borne out by the Gazette notices -

I appear in the Commonwealth Gazette, by an Order in Council, in November, 1906, and also in November, M08, as Storekeeper.

When I read that statement from the papers the other day I was flatly contradicted. I produced the Gazettes to-day in support of the statement.

I am not now Storekeeper, neither have I the status or pay attached to that position. I have been for 31 years in the Naval Service (30^ years as a Petty Officer). My pay for the whole of that period has been at the fate of 6s. per diem, and I have been trying to bring up a family of nine children. In February, 1898, my rating as Storekeeper was altered from a 1st Class to a Chief Petty Officer. At the expiration of five years from that date, i.e., 1.2.03, I was entitled as per Regulations to an additional 6d. per diem for Service. I have made repeated applications, both verbally and in writing, but up to the present time I have not been successful in obtaining that sum.

I have produced official documents which prove that these statements are true, )’et the late Minister of Defence apparently could not do justice on his own authority. What was he there for ? Did he understand what were the functions of a responsible Minister? He did not deal with a simple matter of this kind, but handed it over to a Board consisting of three persons, one of whom was not under his jurisdiction in any shape or form, since he was not an officer of the Commonwealth, and another of whom has no more to do with the Naval Service than I have with the growing of cucumbers in Mars. I washopeful that something would be done, and I replied to the letter of the 16th February in these terms. The letter was addressed to me at my own residence, and from my residence I replied as follows - “ Greycairn,” Woollahra, 6th March,1909.

Dear sir,

Replying to your letter, No. 946, of the 16th February, re the case of Naval Storekeeper Critten, I beg to say that Critten has, in accordance with the Minister’s proposal, made formal application to the Naval Board, and will be glad to place the facts of his case before the Special Board suggested by Senator Pearce, whom I beg to thank for his promised action.

Meanwhile, I have to express the opinion that, for a petty officer, with nine children to support, to be paid 6s. per diem is a public scandal, as is also the fact that, though he has been entitled to an addition of 6d. per diem for six years, vide regulations, he has never received the money.

Further, it is a scandal that, though he has been twice gazetted as storekeeper, he has been illegally displaced from this position, and denied the pay attaching to it.

No wonder the Defence service is unpopular !

The Tamworth Company of the 4th A.I. Regiment will be coming through Werris Creek attached to the Northern Mail on Thursday night, 16th inst. You can travel with them by reporting to the O.C. on the train, who will have a ticket for you. You must pay your own fare from Gunnedah to Werris Creek. If your uniform, &c, is in Sydney, you must make the necessary arrangements for it beforehand.

That meant that he must send to Sydney for his uniform, because he could not travel on a military pass unless in uniform -

Please hand the attached certificate to the O.C., F Company, Tamworth, so that he will know who you are.

This communication was signed “J. E. F. Coyle, captain and adjutant, 2nd A.I. Regiment.” Here is the certificate referred to: -

This is to certify that the bearer is Private McDonald, of the 2nd Australian Infantry Regiment, who has permission to travel with the company under your command from Werris Creek to Sydney, thence to Liverpool. (Signed) J. E. F. Coyle,

Captain and Adjutant, 2nd A.I. Regt. 7th April, 1908.

Having received that pass and certificate of identification, MacDonnell paid his fare from Gunnedah to Werris Creek, and, taking advantage of the pass, travelled towards the camp, and was involved in the serious accident which occurred on the railway at Murrurundi. He has been rendered a cripple for life. He was desperately ill ; in fact, he was out of his mind from shock amongst, other things. It was notorious that he was off his head for a considerable period. There is no mistake, because this copy has been supplied by the Military head-quarters in Sydney, and bears the central registry stamp, and the handwriting of the clerk, which I know very well. It is a certified true copy, and is initialled “W.B.,” that is, Major Wallace Brown, of the staff. I was told that I did not know anything about these matters. 25 Bennett-street, Surrey Hills,

Sydney,15th December, 1908.

To the Officer Commanding A Company, 2nd Australian Infantry Regiment.

Sir,

In accordance with the Defence Act 57 and paragraphs 130 to 135, Part VI., Financial Regulations, 1905, I respectfully beg to forward this my application for the favourable consideration of the District Commandant. In doing so I beg to state that I was travelling from Werris Creek to Liverpool to attend the Easter Encampment and military manoeuvres, under the command of the Officer Commanding the Tamworth Company of the 4th Australian Infantry Regiment,and got injured in what is known as the Murrurundi Railway Collision on the morning of Good Friday, 17th April, of this present year. After being treated at the military hospital, Liverpool, I was sent from there to the Sydney Hospital, and from thence to this address, where I have remained ever since. I am completely incapacitated, and wholly and totally unable’ to pursue my wonted avocation which is that of high class handsewn bootmaker. I have consulted Alfred Nathan, Esq., solicitor (Minter, Simp son, and Co., Hunter-street). He had enjoined upon me absolute rest and quiet for four months with a trip (an ocean voyage to the Home Country, Great Britain, and Ireland), which, unfortunately, for financial reasons, I am unable to undertake.

Hoping that this, my application, may meet with your favorable consideration.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

The military authorities in Sydney had no right to deal with his application, or to touch it, because he had been gazetted out of the force as incapacitated. They should have sent the application back to the man, and told him to address the Minister or the Secretary of the Department, from whom I know he would have received courteous treatment ; at any rate I have always experienced the greatest courtesy in that direction. I complain of the action of the military authorities in Sydney. By the way, I heard that one officer in a high position on the staff there, not the General, has described me to a non-commissioned officer as being “ an exceedingly dangerous person,” and I know that I am to his peace of mind. At least, I hold my military position as the result of examination, and that is a great deal more than the other chap does, no matter how highly placed he is. MacDonnell, I repeat, sent in his application on the 15th December. On the 10th March later he wrote from the same address the following letter -

I have the honour to state that, on or about the 16th December, 1908, I made an application, adressed to yourself, for compensation for injuries received in the Murrurundi railway collision, to which application, so far, I have received no reply. I would esteem it a great favour if you would be kind enough to inform me if you have received such application, and if you have forwarded same to the proper authorities - also, if they have given the subjectmatter of same their distinguished consideration. Please find stamped addressed envelope for reply in case answer to last communication may have miscarried or been mislaid.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your very obedient servant,

John MacDonnell, late Private, A Company, 2nd Australian Infantry Regiment, No. 2414.

He forwarded a copy of his previous letter. It was some time after that before he got a reply. It was notoriously belated, because the decision in the case was arrived at on the 30th January. It took the staff six weeks to come to a determination, and at the end of a like period it had only been forwarded to the man. What I am about to read is a certified copy, initialed by Major Wallace Brown. There cannot be any reply to what I am saying. There cannot be any excuse offered for the scandalous neglect.

District Head-quarters, Victoria Barracks,

Sydney, 30th January,1909.

Brigadier, 1st Australian Infantry Brigade.

In reference to a communication forwarded from the 1st Battalion, 2nd Australian Infantry Regiment, (09/13), regarding a request for compensation made by No. 2414, Private J. MacDonnell, for injuries received in a railway accident at Murrurundi on the 17th April,1908.

Even the head-quarters, it will be seen, did not take the trouble to specify that the man had left the military service, and was in private life. He had utterly gone from their control, and they had no right to deal with his application.

The Railway Department has notified, in reply to inquiries, that the case was settled through Mr. MacDonnell’s solicitors for the sum of£73710s. All papers filed in this office.

George L. Lee,

Bt. Lt.-Colonel, for D.A.Q.M.G. (absent on leave).

I suppose it will be thought that this man was very well off in getting£700 odd, but I have an interesting document to read.

Holt’s Chambers,121 Pitt-street, next door to Gordon and Gotch, Sydney, 7th December,1908.

Received from Mr. John MacDonnell the sum of£205 in full settlement ofcosts, your self v. the Railways Commissioners, including medical fees and fees out of pocket. With thanks.

J. and J. Hughes.

That is not the well-known firm of Hughes and Hughes, one member of which is VicePresident of the Executive Council of New South Wales, and the other ex-Lord Mayor of Sydney. It is a different firm. I thought it was the same firm at one time, and I do not wish that idea to get abroad. As this man was put to an expense of some£100 for medical treatment he cannot have received anything over£400, and he is ruined for life. My complaint, I repeat, is not against the Minister who was in charge of the Department when the thing occurred. It is not the affairof Senator Pearce at all, but the affair of Sir Thomas Ewing and his officers, so that Senator Pearce need not take to heart anything I am saying. All this occurred before his time. Apparently no letter was written during his tenure of office. What I say - and I cannot be contradicted on these documents -is that the military authorities in Sydney dealt with this matter improperly. First of all they should have returned the application to the man, pointing out that he was not a member of the Military Force, and, therefore, they had nothing to do with him, and that if he wanted compensation he must apply to the Minister or to the Civil Department, which, no doubt, would refer it to the Military Department for report. Since then I have advised the man that he has nothing to do with the military headquarters in Sydney. He has made his application directly to the Ministerial office, and that is undoubtedly the proper position for him to take up. In the whole time, apparently, the matter was never referred to Melbourne, and that is what I am complaining of. If it was referred to Melbourne, then it is to blame ; but I do not think that it was so referred, and I make no charge against the head-quarters service here, neither the Ministerial branch, nor the military branch. But this is a distinct evidence of mal-administration in high quarters in the Defence Department, and it is one of the things which want correcting. There is only one other case with which I will deal, and it is more for the purpose of showing what the true facts are. Some time ago I made a statement here, and I was challenged with inaccuracies all the time I was speaking.I do not propose to state the case at all, but to read the Attorney-General’s statement of the case, and perhaps that will satisfy my honorable friends on the opposite bench.

It appears that on the 18th April last Captain was on duty at some manoeuvres in the neighbourhood of Coogee. LieutenantColonel Cooke, Officer Commanding Volunteer Camp, rode up and formed the opinion that

Captain- was under ‘ the influence of liquor, and not in a fit state to command troops. Lieutenant-Colonel Cooke gave orders that Captain should be relieved of his command, and should parade before him the next’ day.

I have not stated the name of the accused officer, because he has been the victim of an unjust charge, and whilst the publication of his name would do no good, it might inflict great injury upon him. I regret that I have not previously seated how the Attorney-General’s opinion came into my possession. It was forwarded, to me over the signature of Sir Thomas Ewing from the Department of Defence last year.

Next day Lieutenant-Colonel Cooke informed Captain- that he would report the mat ter to a higher authority, and ordered him to leave camp under open arrest. On 20th April Lieutenant-Colonel Cooke reported the matter in writing to Colonel Campbell, Officer Commanding Sydney Forces.

It will probably be interesting to honorable senators to learn that Colonel Gerald Ross Campbell is a barrister, of whom MajorGeneral Hutton wrote very appreciatively, and whom he flubbed a “ hard-headed Scotchman.”

On 23rd April a report was forwarded to the Chief Staff Officer, Victoria Barracks, who, on 28th April, forwarded it to Lieutenant-Colonel - “ for necessary action,” which is to be taken strictly in accordance with Commonwealth Military (Regulations. Meanwhile, on 24th April, Lieutenant-Colonel- informed Captain- of the charge against him and of the decision of the officer in charge, Sydney Fortress, that he must either elect to be tried by Court Martial or asked to be permitted to tender his resignation. He was given till 29th April to comply.

It will be seen that that the officer commanding the Sydney Fortress prejudged the case contrary to all military regulations, because those regulations specially forbid officers to express opinions upon cases in respect of which they may afterwards be called upon to-take action. Yet this officer told the accused that he had better tender his resignation, and gave him till the 29th April to comply with his suggestion. The officer commanding the Sydney- Fortress is an old personal friend of mine, but that does not deter me from discharging my duty.

On 7th May Colonel Campbell held an investigation into a charge preferred against Captain– of being “ drunk while in performance of and on duty.”

Imagine an officer who has prejudged a case to the extent of telling the accused that he must either be court-martialled or resign afterwards holding an inquiry into it - an inquiry against which Captain– was impelled to protest as an illegal one.

Captain— was present and asked for an adjournement. This was refused at that stage.

The facts are that at half-past 9 o’clock upon a certain day Captain– - was ordered to be present with his witnesses at a certain place on the following day at 4 o’clock. I happen to know that his witnesses were scattered over an area of at least sixteen miles.

But after some evidence had been taken (not on oath), and Captain– had made a statement, the investigation was adjourned till 11th May.

Now, if there is one thing more than another that is laid down in the Military Regulations it is that offences must be dealt with immediately. In the case of officers under arrest they must be dealt with the next day. The Attorney-General proceeds -

On that day it was resumed and Captain — called some witnesses, and at the close of the investigation handed in aprotest, in which he complained that he had no time to prepare a defence, and had been refused an adjournment and protested against the illegality of the proceedings upon the following grounds : -

At 9.50 a.m. on Wednesday, 6th May instant, I received notice requiring me to attend at 4.30 p.m. the next day, at the office of the Scottish Rifles, in relation to a “ crime “ preferred against . me “. by Lieutenant-Colonel – , in respect of an occurrence alleged to have happened on the 18th day of April, eighteen days previously.

Being employed in the Public Service it was not possible for me to give either time or attention to the matter until after 4.30 p.m. that day, nor after 9 a.m. the day following.

It was, therefore, impossible for me to obtain legal advice, or to obtain the evidence necessary for my defence.

In obedience of orders received by meI attended at the time and place appointed and applied to. the Officer Commanding the garrison troops (before whom I found myself arraigned) for. one week’s adjournment, to enable me to obtain legal assistance and the evidence necessary for my defence.

The Department occupied eighteen days in initiating proceedings against this unfortunate man, and yet it refused him a slight adjournment to enable him to defend himself. Is that fair treatment to mete out to a citizen soldier? Only the other day Senator Pearce stated that I knew nothing about this case, and that Captainwas a militia man. He was not - he was a volunteer. If any man knows that, I do.

That protest was drawn up by me. I did not choose to embody in it the details of what I regarded as a breach of the law. I kept that up my sleeve. I was not going to bang away all my ammunition at once. The Attorney-General goes on -

There were further adjournments for the purpose of having the witnesses’ statements signed, but Captain — and his witnesses did not attend.

I took good care that they should not attend. It would have amounted to a tacit assent to the whole proceedings if the accused had attended. He had handed in his protest, and they were breaking the law, not he -

Finally, on the 22nd May, Colonel Campbell referred the case to the District Commandant with a report and statement of the evidence. Meanwhile on13th May - that is nine days before Colonel Campbell reported -

Captain— forwarded to the District Commandant a complaint (Commonwealth Military Regulation 224), in which, after a statement of the facts, he complained that he considered himself wronged inasmuch as -

The charge against me was not made, nor the inquiry conducted; in accordance with Commonwealth Military Regulations.

I have been improperly kept under arrest, contrary to section 113 of the Defence Act.

The Officer Commanding Garrison Troops is not a “ Commanding Officer “ (vide Regulation 279), empowered or entitled to investigate the charge.

I draw particular attention to the fact that the officer who conducted the inquiry was not a commanding officer within the meaning of the law, and was not entitled to investigate the charge.

This complaint was, on the 18th May, forwarded by the Commanding Staff Officer to the Officer in Charge, Sydney Fortress, minuted, “ referred in connexion with the inquiry now being held.”

Here is another gross illegality which I should like the ex-Minister of Defence to note. It is laid down in the regulation under which this appeal to the Minister was made for justice, that such complaints are to be forwarded for the consideration of the Military Board and the Minister. What did the officer commanding in New South Wales do? He committed the heinous offence of forwarding this man’s complaint to the officer whose conduct was complained of.

On the 22nd May, Captain– wrote to the Staff Officer, Sydney Fortress, objecting that his complaint had not been forwarded to the Military Board as required by the regulations.

He had held it back from the 13th to the 28th May ; that is fifteen days. That is the way in which justice is rendered in some portions of our Defence Forces.

On 28th May the District Commandant forwarded to the Secretary, Defence Department, the complaint, and also the report of the investigation, with a recommendation that Captain be tried by Court Martial as provided by Commonwealth Military Regulations, paragraphs 226 and 315. Captain— has apparently continued to be under “ open arrest “ up to the present time.

This document is dated 7th August of last year. The officer had been kept under arrest illegally from April to August. This is the Attorney-General’s statement. I cannot be accused of not understanding my case when I produce nothing but official documents from which to prove it. It will be remembered that one of the objections which I took to Colonel Campbell’s action was that the officer commanding the garrison troops was not a commanding officer empowered and entitled to investigate the charge. What does the Attorney-General say as to that?

I am of opinion that the Officer Commanding Sydney Fortress was not the “Commanding Officer” within the meaning of Commonwealth Military Regulation 279, and consequently, apart from the other points taken by Captain— , that the investigation by Colonel Campbell was not an investigation conducted according to the regulations.

My honorable friend Senator Cameron can think as much as he likes, but the deliberately penned opinion of the AttorneyGeneral on a question of law is surely Of more value than what any member of this Chamber may think. The Attorney-General goes on -

The technical position appears to me to be the same as if no investigation at all had been held.

The whole thing was ultra vires, precisely as I induced the accused person to allege in his protest and complaint. There is no difficulty about it. Regulation 279 is an interpretation clause which specifically pre scribes who is the commanding officer and what is his status. From April to August these things had been tied up owing to illegal proceedings in Sydney. But when the Attorney-General booted .the persons out of court in the manner I have described, the ex-Minister of Defence, Sir Thomas Ewing, conceived an idea so extremely brilliant that it is a pity that Gilbert and Sullivan are not abroad in Australia now, to have an opportunity of-

Captain- case. - As explained by the

Crown Solicitor - there is a mistake there, because the explanation was made by the Attorney-General - the irregularities complained of do not affect the rights of the case, which is practically as it was before the holding of the investigation by Colonel Campbell. Neither is the case affected by the contention that its further investigation is barred by the Defence Act, section 109, which applies only to prosecutions, and not to military punishments. See Defence Act, section 104.

That is a question of law which I. shall not labour on this occasion, though if I passed it by without remark it might be assumed that I concurred with the statement made by Senator Pearce. The honorable senator, as Minister for Defence, said that this section in the Act applied only to prosecutions, and not to military punishments. You cannot have a military punishment without a military prosecution in advance, unless the accused pleads guilty.

The evidence adduced at the investigation was presumably the strongest that could be obtained in support of the charge of drunkenness, and was met by certain evidence tending to show that the apparent effects of drink were caused by drugs used for malarial fever. It is doubtful whether any jury would convict on the evidence produced ; under such circumstances, Commonwealth Military Regulation 273 prescribes that an application for a CourtMartial should not be made.

Here is the Minister himself condemning the proceedings in Sydney. The AttorneyGeneral and the Minister condemned them on different grounds. Senator Pearce’s minute proceeds -

The charge against Captain- will not, therefore, he proceeded with, and his release “from open arrest” should be ordered.

Now comes the paragraph, in which I say the ex-Minister has seriously insulted the whole of the Volunteer Forces -

No hardship has been experienced by Captain

What greater hardship could there be than a personal degradation, lasting over six or eight months. The Chairman will, perhaps, permit me to suggest an impossible occurrence as an illustration of the hardship inflicted in this case. Would it not be a’ hardship on Senator Henderson if the Chairman improperly, unwarrantably, and illegally ordered him out of the chamber, and kept him out? That would be no hardship according to Senator Pearce. This is the sentence I have described as insulting to the Volunteer Forces of Australia, and let me say that the importance of the unpaid branch of the Defence Department is sufficiently shown by the fact that the whole of the defence of the principal port and city of Australia, the whole district known as’ the Sydney Fortress, is in the hands of volunteers, not even militia, or partially paid. The whole defence of the metropolitan area of Sydney is in the hands of volunteers commanded by Colonel Campbell, to whom I have referred. Senator Pearce wrote -

No hardship has been experienced by Captain - on the score of delay, inasmuch as this was inevitable under the circumstances, and more especially as it only involved suspension from military duty as a volunteer officer while the charge was pending. 1

So you may insult a volunteer officer. You may order him under arrest illegally, treat him illegally for six or eight months, and there is no hardship because he is only a volunteer. That is what I complain of. The late Minister of Defence did the right thing, but did it in the wrong way, and if he would take back that insult to the volunteers of Australia it would be consonant with his position as a member of this Chamber, and with that which he held as Minister of Defence. I have occupied the attention of the Committee for very much longer than I was willing to do, but that I should go into these matters in detail was necessary, in view of what has happened to me before. There is no statement I have uttered here which I have not proved by the production of official documents. It is impossible to tell me that I do not understand these matters. It is impossible to explain away these cases, as Senator Pearce has endeavoured to do, in this off-hand way, with the object of whitewashing some people who were acting wrongfully. This delay, Senator Pearce says, was inevitable in the circumstances. Why? Because the officers of the Department did not do their duty. That is what caused the inevitable delay; the holding of an illegal inquiry, and the refusal for a fortnight to send on a document which should have gone to the Minister by the first post. That is what caused a ‘lot of the “inevitable delay,” but it was of no consequence, apparently, because the sufferer was only a volunteer officer.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · Free Trade

Senator Neild will understand that in the few remarks I shall address to the Committee I, in no sense, take the slightest exception to his bringing these matters before honorable senators. Indeed I may say that I think that one of the highest responsibilities which rests upon any member of Parliament is when he thinks an injustice has been done to seek for redress of that injustice’ here. But I would like to remind the honorable senator that the cases which he now brings before our attention, though not for the first time, are in their details absolutely new so fat as I am concerned. For that reason it will not be possible for me, nor do I think it necessary to attempt, in view of what I have to say, to follow the honorable senator through the details of the three cases he has referred to. With regard to the last case, Senator Neild will be the first to admit that -it is practically closed so far as the Department is- concerned. That case was decided by the late Minister of Defence, and, so far as the Department is concerned, there is in that matter now no question awaiting consideration. With regard to the case of Mr. MacDonnell, the honorable senator was perfectly right when he expressed the opinion that Ihe particulars in that cast’ had not been referred to the Central Office of the Department. They have there no information of that case officially, beyond a knowledge of the recent utterances of the honorable senator himself. All I can promise is that steps will be taken to place the Head Office of the Department in communication with those in whose hands the papers now are.

Senator Turley:

– Was compensation paid without the Head Office knowing anything about it?

Senator MILLEN:

– No; compensation was paid by the New South Wales Railways Commissioners as the result of a civil suit.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What more compensation could the man have been entitled to?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Symon will see that he is asking me a question upon a matter the facts of which are officially unknown to the Head Office of the Department. I can assure Senator Neild that steps will be taken to ascertain what, if anything, has been done in connexion with this matter. The case of Critten, with which the honorable senator dealt at much greater length, extends, as the Committee are aware, over a long period of years, and Senator Neild addressed himself to a great many details which it would be impossible for any one placed as I am, and hearing the facts referred to for the first time, to attempt to answer. As Senator Neild has said, the case was eventually referred to a Committee for investigation. The Committee has presented its report, which is now before the Minister for consideration and decision.

I submit to the honorable senator that he might reasonably allow the matter to rest at that stage until my honorable colleague has had the opportunity of reading and considering that report, and his decision thereon is made known. He will then be in a position to see the report, and also be in possession of the Minister’s decision. It would be idle and unnecessary, I think, to occupy the time of the Committee now in discussing the merits or demerits of the case, when it is in the condition I have stated. I therefore ask my honorable friend to allow the matter to rest at that stage, with the assurance that the report of the Committee will be placed at his disposal in the course of a very few days.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [12.31]. - The Minister made a sort of suggestion to me, and I conclude that his remarks had reference to an intention that 1 expressed of moving a request for a reduction in the item. I said that I proposed to move for a reduction, in order to give point and effect to my statement ; but I forgot to do so. In view of the Minister’s statement, and of the desire of the Committee to get along with the business, I shall not press the matter.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel CAMERON (Tasmania) [12.32]. - I had no intention to take part in the discussion on this Bill, and, had it not been for the remarks of my distinguished friend, Senator Neild, I should not have risen. On an occasion of this kind, I believe that almost any subject can be discussed. But in view of the very serious condition of things which confronts us, when we have to organize and discipline the Military Forces on which the existence of this great Commonwealth will depend to a very large extent - I deprecate, in every way I can, the discussion of trivial matters here. Speaking from experience, and as one of those who are, to a certain extent, responsible for disciplining the ‘ Military Forces, I unhesitatingly say that it is extremely hurtful to have grievances brought forward in this way before every means have been exhausted departmentally to put matters right. With this protest against the introduction of minor matters- matters of insignificance when all is said and done - I will say no more, except that it is to be regretted that the time of the Senate should be wasted.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has just approved ©f honorable senators bringing forward any grievances which they know to exist. I desire to refer to a state of affairs in the Military Offices in Adelaide, which I think ought to be remedied at the earliest possible date. These offices were built about sixty years ago, and are absolutely out-of-date. They are miserable little places, unfit to be occupied even by a dog or a pig, let alone by military officers.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The honorable senator would not keep a decent horse in them ?

Senator STORY:

– No; not even a dog.

Senator Vardon:

– The offices are absolutely insanitary.

Senator Pearce:

– When I was Minister I said that they were a disgrace to the Commonwealth.

Senator STORY:

– I hope that some provision will be made on the Estimates for remedying this grievance. Another matter to which I think attention should be drawn is the treatment of rifle clubs. In 1902 South Australia had fifty-five rifle clubs, and although to-day it has more than double that number, they have only the same staff on the clerical division to look after that branch of the military service as they had in 1902. The late secretary to rifle clubs in the State, after having endeavoured for a considerable time to get some assistance or redress, threw up the position in disgust, and left the service. The present secretary, in addition to working the whole of every day, has, to my knowledge, had to go back almost every evening of the week for two or three hours, and, on some occasions, in order to cope with the work which devolves upon him, has even to go back to work on Sundays. That is, I think, another grievance which the military authorities, or the Home Affairs Department, should take an early opportunity to remedy.

Senator Pearce:

– That is the result of the Public Service Act. The Minister of Defence cannot appoint a messenger.

Senator STORY:

– Whatever it is the result of, some steps should be taken by the present Government to prevent this deplorable sweating, and to provide decent accommodation for the officers who do our defence work.

Senator HENDERSON (Western Austral [12.40]. - I was highly pleased to hear .Senator Story’s remarks about the state of the military quarters in Adelaide. From a minute personal inspection, I can say that no more disgraceful accommodation is to be found in Australia than there. There are little dens in which I would not put a dog for which I had any respect. Of course, if I had a dog which I wanted to poison with a foetid atmosphere, I would place him in these military quarters, where a most insanitary condition of things exists. It is only fair that the Government should look into the matter, and at the earliest possible date take the necessary steps to provide sanitary accommodation for the men who are supposed to possess health and vigour, to attend to the requirements of the Military Forces. I trust that an improvement will very soon be effected. I am satisfied that were these men civilians, a very strong public protest would be made against the conditions in which they are compelled from day to day to carry on their labours, and work out their existence.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [12.42]. - I am quite sure that my honorable and gallant friend, Colonel Neild, felt last evening that the matters he proposed to deal with were of grave and great importance. Otherwise, I am satisfied that he, as a supporter of the Government, would not have suggested deferring the completion of this Supply Bill for another day. I am also convinced that nothing but the paramount importance of these anticipated matters would have influenced the members of the Government here to defer still further the payment of the 500 postal servants, who are at the point of starvation, with whom we were threatened as a reason for pushing on this Bill yesterday. I make these remarks because our proceedings today illustrate the impropriety of the Minister trying to force a Supply Bill through the Chamber by intimations which are as absurd as I think them to be unfounded. I do not believe for a moment that there was the slightest apprehension in the mind of the Government that these men would not be paid when the money was due. Further, I deprecate it because that sort of thing is often thrown out - I do not think it ought to be - as a sort of taunt to the Labour party, and as something very unpleasant for them to’ hear, if they seek to discharge their duty as, I suppose, they considered they were doing yesterday, under the fear that they may be delaying working men in need in getting their pay. In view of what has taken place to-day, under the plea of my honorable friend, we should not hear again a statement made in order to deprive the Senate of its just and constitutional right to deal in the fullest possible manner with a Supply Bill. With regard to the details of the three cases which Senator Neild has ventilated, I do not wish to say anything ; but about the results I desire to say a few words. I agree with Senator Cameron in deprecating - I do not say as to these or any particular cases - the intervention of either Houses of Parliament in what are literally matters of discipline and procedure in the Defence Forces.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Matters of injustice.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I regretted to hear the Vice-President of the Executive Council say that no possible exception could be taken to the course which has been followed by Senator Neild. I venture to say that we shall never have a well disciplined force in this country - an army worthy of the name - if the Senate is to be constituted a Court of Appeal against the decisions either of Boards or of commanding officers. The thing is ridiculous. I entirely agree with Senator Cameron that the worst possible Court of Appeal in respect of military matters - especially if they are of a trivial character - is this Chamber.In saying that, I express no opinion upon the details of the cases which have been cited. I am sure that my honorable friend, Senator Neild, was moved to take action by the circumstances connected with those cases. But what are they ? The case of Captain– has been settled.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Do not be too sure about that.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– At any rate, the honorable senator himself complimented the late Minister of Defence upon the decision at which he had arrived, so that, except for an apology which he vainly attempted to extract from Senator Pearce, that case is done with. As to the case of MacDonnell, everybody must sympathize with what Senator Neild said in regard to the injury which befell him. But it was not the Defence Department which was liable–

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Read the Act.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I know the provisions of the Act. Another body was responsible for that injury.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Half-a-dozen persons might be responsible for it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is so. But a man must be a perfect glutton if, after having received from one quarter full compensation for an injury which he has sustained, he attempts to extract a bonus from another. If MacDonnell has some other claim, it is a matter which should be dealt with departmentally according to the King’s Regulations.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– They are not the King’s Regulations. The code is framed under our own Act.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– What on earth the Senate has to do with the case of MacDonnell, God only knows.

Senator Turley:

– And Colonel Neild.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I must say that Senator Neild is entitled to credit for exhaustively putting his case before the body whose intervention he seeks. The third case was that of Critten. Again, I say nothing upon the merits of his case. I am not competent to express an opinion upon them. But, boiled down, the position appears to be that for five years Critten has received 6d. per day less than he thinks he ought to have received, and he is of opinion that the arrears due to him should be paid. That seems to me to be purely a departmental matter. Obviously, this Senate is not the best Court of Appeal to deal with the momentous question of whether he should be paid that additional 6d. per day or not. I quite agree that where injustice is being done by a public body, or by any person in a public office, Parliament is the ultimate tribunal in which redress ought to be sought. But that principle does not apply to matters of procedure and discipline in military affairs, and we shall absolutely shatter discipline if we encourage such an objectionable practice. I shall be glad to hear from Senator Neild–

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator want him up. again ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do.

Senator McGregor:

– What about the 500 Post Office employes?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– They have been deserted by the Government. I am not aware that anybody knows more than does Senator Neild about the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. I think that honorable senators ought to be informed what is the condition of our Defence Forces, and I should like Senator Neild to give us his opinion upon that question. I hold very strongly - and I take the earliest opportunity of mentioning it - that the main defence of Australia, assuming the supremacy of the Imperial Fleet, consists in her land forces. Probably we shall have other opportunities of dealing with the question of our naval defence. To my mind, naval defence in the case of Australia is largely a matter of the protection of trade routes- - the trade of the British Empire in which we are so largely interested.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator means that it is a question of keeping open the trade routes?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Yes; and of protecting our ocean borne commerce. Our coastal and harbor defence is more or less auxiliary to what is, and ought to be, the back-bone of the defence of Australia - our land defences, our Military Forces. I should like to know Senator Neild’s .opinion regarding the organization and efficiency of our land forces as they at present exist.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Why they have not a bayonet amongst them. They carry bayonets only for “ swagger “ purposes. They cannot fix them. But the honorable senator must not attack military discipline. That is too dreadful.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I repeat that discipline is the foundation of our Military Forces. But if there is one subject that ought to be debated in this Parliament, it is the military establishment, and the efficiency of our forces. This question ought not to be discussed as a party one.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Why I have been pitching into my own side. I have not attacked honorable senators opposite.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The reason I specially refer to this matter is that I have been informed by an expert in naval matters that the settled portion of Australia, upon which we have to depend, has really nothing much to fear from an attack by hostile cruisers so long as our land forces are thoroughly equipped and efficient.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– How are we going to move them round the continent?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I will tell the honorable senator in a moment. What we have most to fear is the patrol of our coast by a hostile cruiser or two, which might, perhaps, endeavour to plant a few shells in some of our cities. Let me take the case of Sydney, as an example. No expeditionary force of any strength could possibly be landed there by any reasonably anticipated enemy. No such force could effect a landing, with any hope of remaining in occupation, on any settled part of our shores from Brisbane to- Adelaide.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– That is not so.

Senator Guthrie:

– What about Newcastle and Botany?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No expeditionary force has the slightest chance of effecting a dangerous lodgment at such points if our land forces are thoroughly equipped, thoroughly mobile, and properly commanded.

Sentor Colonel Neild. - Not if we have roads or railways to convey troops from one place to another.

Senator Pearce:

– But we have no railway to transport them to Western Australia.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– If there were piratical cruisers about, nothing could prevent them from doing damage to Fremantle if the fort there did not prevent them. Certainly they could not inflict much damage upon Perth, which they would have to shell from a distance of about ten miles. I have mentioned this matter only for the purpose of showing the paramount importance of our land forces. The remarks of Senator Neild in reference to bayonets impels me to make two or three observations which I hope will be taken to heart here just as they have been in England. I wish to quote the words uttered by Lord Roberts in a speech which he made in the House of Lords on 18th May last. He said -

In the first place, I cannot conceive how anybody can suppose we can have an army at all if that army is to be made a party question.

Later on, he said -

The nation does not believe in the army in the very least. In the first place, it looks upon the regular army as something quite apart from itself, with which it has nothing to do, and thinks that the less it sees of the army the better. The people do not like soldiers to come into their neighbourhood. .They think the soldiers are only fit to go abroad and fight their battles. It is a most unfortunate mistake on their part, because soldiers in our days are not what they were fifty or sixty years ago.

Sitting suspended from i to 2.15 p.m.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– There are one or two other references which I should like to make to this subject, because they are very suggestive, and apply very much to ourselves. I feel sure that they will be taken into consideration by the Minister of Defence, who is, no doubt, fully alive to the important points that I am endeavouring to make. . The passage to which I called the attention of the Senate was as to the interest taken in the Army. Lord Roberts says that people in England think that the Territorial Army is not wanted, and that they look upon it as a plaything. I am afraid that what have been referred to as ceremonial parades are rather apt to lead people to the impression that our forces are a plaything. Lord Roberts is not greatly impressed with these parades. I will read a line or two from what he says about them. Only a day or two before he spoke, there was a march of the Territorial Army through the streets of London, which led to this remark from him -

I cannot understand how you can all sit quiet and think we are making an army when we are doing nothing of the sort. We have men marching before the Lord Mayor of London. But that will not make an army.

I am afraid that the spectacular element rather overshadows the real earnest interest which ought to be taken in the force as a body of fighting men. Lord Roberts goes on to say -

While we are all sitting here and taking it all easily and comfortably the danger is coming near to us every day ; and unless you determine to make some inquiry, and not let the people believe they are living in safety, and that we have an army fit to deal with any enemy which may come here, we shall some day come to such utter grief that you will regret your inaction now. It is to me a perfect marvel how anybody can see what is going on all around us throughout Europe and be content with the condition of the army.

Sometimes there are conditions under which our minds are too much diverted from the importance of the efficiency of our land forces to the consideration of naval affairs. Lord Roberts goes on to say -

You cannot get even the limited number of men you have asked for. But men alone will not do. Men in numbers are weakness. You must have trained men. No country in the world will attempt to defend itself with the paucity of men and the untrained men which we have got. I cannot understand how you can all sit quiet and think that we are making an army when we are doing nothing of the sort.

Then he refers to a point upon which I should also like to have some assurance. He said of the British Army -

We are thousands upon thousands officers short. I pointed that out in 1905, but nothing has been done to improve matters.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– For years we have been hundreds of officers short in the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is what makes many people very uneasy. We are satisfied with the plaything, and are not really in earnest as to what the nature of our necessities demands.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– A soldier can be made fairly efficient in three months, but no one who knows thinks that an officer is fit to command until he has had several years’ training.

Senator Guthrie:

– And social position.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Lord Roberts goes on to say -

When I saw the placards on the walls saying, “ Men wanted for the Territorial Army.” I thought of the passage from Bacon, “ Nay, number itself in armies importeth not much where the people is of great courage; for, as Virgil saith, ‘ It never troubled the wolf how many the sheep be.’ “ That is exactly what will be the case with an untrained army. You may double the strength of the Territorial Army, but so long as it is untrained, and so long as it has not got officers who know their duty, it is no use. You must have regular officers and regular non-commissioned officers.

I do not wish to refer to a remark which Senator Guthrie has made, but I point out that there is no suggestion of class distinction in Lord Roberts’ remarks with regard to the training of officers and noncommissioned officers. I wish to give point to what I have quoted in this way. According to all present human probability, the territorial integrity of Australia will be decided in the North Sea. Our title to the enjoyment of the undisputed possession of this whole island continent will, according to present human probability, be put to the test there.

Senator Pearce:

– Does not the honorable senator think that there is a little danger from the Pacific?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

-I am not ignoring that at all. I was speaking of present human probability. I quite appreciate what my honorable friend says. If our title to maintain the integrityof Australia is upheld in the North Sea it will be a good thing for us. But we may have to fight, perhaps not for our lives, but for the northern half of this island continent.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– And for the southern half.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Certainly for the northern half; because nothing is more easily forgotten in this country, nothing is less often realized, than the fact that Australia is not an island like Tasmania, or like the British Isles, or even like New Zealand, but that it is a continent very nearly as large as Europe, where there are not 4,000,000 people belonging to one nation, but fourteen or fifteen different powerful nations with a population of 400,000,000 or 500,000,000.

Senator Stewart:

– Let us get more people, and burst up land monopoly.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I wish to deal with things as they are. Subject to the position to which I have called attention, the only danger that* is to be feared in Australia is an expeditionary force. Now, how many soldiers would require to be landed by an enemy in order to subdue Australia? In my humble judgment, such a thing is really out of the question as far as regards the settled portions of Australia. We know that in the Transvaal, with, a population of, I suppose, about 300,000 people, an army of about 250,000 soldiers was required.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The honorable senator overlooks the fact that the Transvaal war was carried on hundreds of miles from the sea coast; whereas here any assault upon the populated parts of Australia would be upon the coast. Such an assault would be a very much simpler matter.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I quite appreciate what my honorable friend says. But how many men would an enemy require in order to effect an occupation in the settled parts of Australia?

Senator Gray:

– Under present conditions I should say about 50,000.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– r believe that if 50,000 men, even Japanese, were landed in Australia, they would simply be swallowed up. Not a man of them would escape.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The Imperial Defence Committee in London mentioned 50,000 men as being required for the land defence of Australia.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I quite agree that if a nucleus force of 50,000 disciplined, trained, and wellequipped men, with all the proper munitions of war, were in readiness, and were well led, we in Australia could keep out 200,000 mcn. But how many ships should we require? We have to protect ourselves against raiding cruisers. We want, as I am happy to think I have always joined in advocating, a small squadron of ships of our own, which will be effective as an auxiliary for coastal defence, and, if we can manage it, for the purpose also of assisting in protecting our trade routes. Our trade is our life blood.

That is all, in my opinion, that we really do require Now what could a raiding cruiser do if we had such a land force as I have mentioned? Suppose she came to New South Wales. What could she do to Sydney?

Senator Pearce:

– She could hang up all the coastal trade at present.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is so, but what could she do in any other way? Absolutely nothing. She might attempt to throw a shell or two into Sydney, but she would have to do it from miles outside the harbor, and could not see what she was doing. Probably a little damage might be done.

Senator Chataway:

– And r.he would always run the risk of being cut off from her base

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am not an expert as some of my honorable friends are, but it is really amusing when scares are raised to notice the loose talk that is indulged in. Of course, an expeditionary force of comparatively small magnitude might effect a landing in the north, but its presence could only be maintained so long as it was supported by naval force exercising some control over its base of supply. Therefore, looking at the matter in the best way that I, as an humble, citizen of this country can look at it, I say that immense stress ought to be laid upon the value of our land forces, and that we ought not to be unduly diverted from that consideration by the creation of naval soares. We want ships to assist our land forces, and to maintain untarnished and undiminished the supremacy of the sea. But the main thing for us is an effective land force.

Senator Stewart:

– And a land tax.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Probably a land tax would be sufficient to keep an enemy out altogether. Nothing is so calculated to frighten people from settlement as a big land tax. It is not a policy that I am asking for just now, because, as my honorable friends know quite well, we cannot expect anything of that kind vet. When danger does come, I am sure that every honorable senator, without party considerations of any sort, will be glad to assist in formulating a policy for the establishment of an effective system of defence for this country. But what I do ask for, especially in view of the remarks as to bayonets, made by Senator Neild, who like Lord Roberts is perhaps a little pessimistic, is some assur- ance as to the numbers and efficiency of our land forces, and whether the Government are satisfied that in the event of any immediate emergency we might rest content. The best assurance would be the dissemination amongst the public of that confidence which Ministers themselves entertain, I hope, with regard to the efficiency of our forces. I am sure that they are perfectly alive to the situation, but we should like to know that they are satisfied that we have a sufficiency of trained officers commissioned and non-commissioned, and a sufficient force of trained men well equipped and provided with up-to-date munitions of war, so that should any emergency arise and a descent be attempted, it might be dealt with in the most effective manner possible.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [2.32]. - If time permitted, I should be very much tempted to accept the courteous invitation of Senator Symon to say something on the interesting proposition he has submitted. Time does not permit, and I cannot attempt anything of the kind now, but I cannot help remembering that only a few years since, because I had communicated with the press on the subject of the shortage of rifles in Australia, heated inquiries were, made and some silly ass in another place wanted to know if I could not be stood up against a wall and shot before breakfast.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable senator in order in referring to a member of another place as a “ silly ass “ ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No, the honorable senator was not in order, and he should withdraw the expression.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I shall withdraw the expression if it hurts any one. There were three or four points mentioned in Senator Symon’s address which I shall briefly refer to. The honorable senator spoke in a most contemptuous manner of an extra sixpence on a day’s pay of 6s. It would be interesting to know if the honorable and learned senator has the same contemptuous opinion of the extra shilling which follows the pound on a brief, although1s. as compared with£1 is proportionately of less value than 6d. is as compared with 6s. In connexion with another case to which I referred the honorable senator asked of what use it was to bring the matter up here, seeing that the case was at an end. Following the lines of that argument, if a man is hung illegally and unlawfully, one must not say anything about it because the fellow is dead, and to refer to it would be a waste of time. With reference to MacDonnell’s case, Senator Symon dilated vehemently about the impropriety of two compensations. I should like to ask whether the honorable senator has not professional knowledge that actions are sometimes successfully maintained against Railway Commissioners, notwithstanding the fact that those related to a person injured or killed may. have drawn money under an insurance policy. The fact that a man’s life is insured does not. relieve Railway Commissioners or other general carriers of liability for compensation. In this case, the Commonwealth law provides for compensation entirely irrespective of the receipt of compensation from any extra source whatever. I think that on reconsideration Senator Symon will admit that he carried his view in this matter to an extreme that was hardly justifiable. On the general question there was very much in what Senator Symon said that must appeal to any one, expert or nonexpert, who has any information on the subject of Australian defence. I might sum up, as I have often done before, the position so correctly put by Senator Symon, by saying that an armed mob does not make an army. You must have trained leaders . or you will only carry men to destruction as unhappily too often has occurred in the’ history of naval and military operations.

Senator Turley:

– Are we short of trained officers in Australia now ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– From the time that Major-General Hutton reorganized our forces up to the present we have been short of trained officers to the number of between 400 and 500. The matter is one to which for years I attempted to direct attention in the press, because it is the most serious deficiency we have. There arethousands of men in the community who have had some military training, but who have left the service, and such men if brought back to the colours might be licked into fighting form in a very short time. But it is impossible to train a leader in the time within which men may be taught to obey commands. We know that an apprentice out of his indentures can speedily carry out instructions given him, but you cannot make him a foreman or place him in the position of overseer for many a year or until experience and senior training fits him for the giving of orders as well as for their execution.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– In view of the fact that it is possible that the present Government may bring in another Supply Bill before they come to the end of their career, it is very desirable that we should have a definite statement from the Minister of Trade and Customs with regard to a contingency which he indicated last night. I shall ask the honorable senator a simple question, which I hope he will give me a direct answer. Is it or is it not a fact that the payment of the 500 employes to whom the honorable senator referred last night, was provided for under the last Appropriation Act; is their payment made fortnightly, and as a necessary corollary, is any payment due to them before the 14th of this month of July ? Last night was not the first time that we heard that kind of ad captandum argument submitted in the Senate when it has been sought to pass a Supply Bill in a hurry. I am sorry that the Minister of Trade and Customs should have used it last night to induce honorable senators to hurry through with the Supply Bill before them.

Senator Givens:

– Was the honorable senator surprised that the Minister should have used that argument?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am sorry that he should have used it, as I should be sorry to accord -any kind of support to a Minister who would use such an argument here or in any other place. To clear up the matter to which I have referred, I should like the Minister of Trade and Customs to tell us what exactly is the position with regard to the payment of the men referred to. It seemed last night that it would be almost a crime for which every member of the Committee might be impeached if the passing of the Supply Bill were delayed, but the Bill is still before the Committee and the 500 employes referred to have not yet been paid their wages which the Minister of Trade and Customs said were overdue yesterday. We should be told what is the exact position with regard to payments which the Government have to make to persons employed by the different Departments, and the means which the Government may have in hand to anticipate to the extent of a day or two the passing of the Supply Bill. Will the Minister be good enough to say directly when the payments, to which he referred were due.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist

[2.42]. - The members of the Committee were entitled to the information I gave them. It is merely twisting arguments to suggest for a moment that I introduced the statement I made by way of a threat. Nothing directly or indirectly justifies such a suggestion. I stated facts which honorable senators were entitled to be made aware of. On the 30th June moneys appropriated up to that date had to be paid, and moneys unpaid on that date, of course, lapsed. There are hundreds of casual employes in the various Departments. I should say that 500 is an under-estimate of the number of casual employes in the Postal Department. I learned from my honorable colleague that these casual employes are dependent for payment upon moneys which, of course, under the Bill, would be appropriated fox the months of July and August. It was urged that the term covered by this Supply Bill should be reduced from two months to one month. I pointed out that that would involve considerable delay. It meant that the Bill would have to be returned to another place ; that there would possibly be a dispute between the two Houses, that even from the most satisfactory point of view, it would mean a re-casting of the measure. It was in view of the delay which would necessarily follow in the circumstances to which I have referred, that I said that men in the casual employ of the Government would be unable to secure payment for their services. That seems to me to be a reasonable statement to make, and one which should appeal to honorable senators. Every day’s delay after the 30th June is unprovided for.

Senator Stewart:

– The Government do not pay daily.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Of course not, but the honorable senator knows that I was contemplating a dispute which might bring about a delay, the extent of which no one could estimate. So far as payments up to the 30th June were concerned, they were already provided for by the appropriation up to that date. But as regards payments subsequent to that date, they, of course, could only be provided for by this Supply Bill. I am simply reminding honorable senators of something which was obvious in the circumstances. I got a general statement from the Post and Telegraph Department, but, as honorable senators know, it is quite impossible to obtain full particulars regarding the several Departments. When

I was informed that there were 500 casual employes in the Post and Telegraph Department who would be dependent upon the Bill for the payment for their services, it was fair and reasonable to inform honorable senators of the fact. I regret that the words I used in that spirit, and with that intention alone, should have been construed into a threat to the Senate. A Minister with even- a limited experience would be the last man to make a threat, because there ‘is nothing to be gained thereby.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator means that he might have threatened us if there was something to be gained.

Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is another thing.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I cannot help thinking that the Minister had some object” in view in introducing this Bill as he did yesterday afternoon. It is quite apparent now, from the attitude which the party on this side are taking up in reference to the Bill, that there was a little move on by the Government, and that they expected the Opposition to fall into the trap laid for them. So far as I am able to judge, a very seamy side of party tactics* has been exposed by the attitude taken up by Senator Best when the Bill was introduced yesterday. Honorable senators on this side knew the position just as well as the Government did. We knew that a number of men were dependent upon the passage of the Bill for the payment of their salaries. But the Bill was not pushed along yesterday as it might have been. From the manner in which it was introduced, we had every reasonable ground to expect that it would be pushed through last night.

Senator Millen:

– Considering that we adjourned on an understanding with the honorable senator’s leader, that is both ungenerous and unfair.

Senator McGregor:

– The Government did nothing of the kind. I asked the honorable senator for an adjournment, but it was Senator Neild who got it.

Senator Millen:

– I am speaking of last night ; not to-day.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Last night, it was Senator Neild who prevented the discussion from being continued, and it was to him that an adjournment was granted, in order to deliver himself at such length as he has done to-day.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– We are not disputing that.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– A Government supporter was the cause of delaying the passage of the Bill.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Oh, no. By an arrangement with my honorable friends on the other side, I agreed that the Bill would not be pushed through last night.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator did nothing of the kind. We arranged not to sit after half-past 10 o’clock, and when I went to him, he said that he wanted the Bill to be put through.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– If we could.

Senator McGregor:

– : Then Senator Neild got up, and the Minister agreed to #an adjournment.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– That is quite right.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It is quite apparent that the Government had laid a little trap, but the trick did not come off. The net was spread, and everything was ready, and if the Opposition had fallen into the trap, the Government would have had, for several days, a cry that the Labour party had prevented the payment of the salaries of casual workers.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator’s ingenuity is very marvellous.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– It is marvellous how honorable senators on the other side have fallen in. I have proof that this position was known to the Government, and that they expected something of the kind to happen. I hold in my hand a telegram from Senator Lynch, in Western Australia, announcing that twenty temporary employes of the Post and Telegraph Department have been knocked off because there is no money to pay them. Yet the Government, which’ should have pushed this Supply Bill through last night, agreed to an adjournment of the Senate in order to give Senator Neild, of all men here, an opportunity to spread himself out all to-day.

Senator Millen:

– In order to keep faith.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– What has been the result of the discussion to-day? Practically the whole of the day has been taken up by Government supporters when the Bil! could have been put through.

Senator Millen:

– Not the whole of the day, because only one Government supporter has spoken.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I protest against this sort of thing being attempted for party advantages. I hold that the action of the Government, both, last night and to-day, is clear evidence that they were trying to get a stigma cast upon the Labour party by reason of the delay in passing this Bill. The proof is that they knew, or ought to have known, that the men in Perth were awaiting payment.

Senator Vardon:

– What would have happened if the Opposition’s amendment had been carried ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– That would not have stopped the men from getting their pay.

Senator Trenwith:

– The Bill would have had to go back to another place, and that would have meant a delay of one, two, or more days.

Senator DE LARGIE:

– Evidently the, Bill has been “ stone-walled “ here. Was ever a day wasted here in the way in which to-day has been wasted? On behalf of the men who have been cast out of work, I protest against the tactics adopted by the Government on this occasion.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I have asked the Minister of Trade and Customs a simple question, and have been supplied with something in the nature of an answer by Senator de Largie. I do not propose in the present state of things to ask the responsible Minister here a question which I think is important, and then to be satisfied with an answer from a member of the Opposition, nor do I think that that is a desirable state of things. If - in a matter of some importance I ask Senator Best a simple question which demands, as a matter of courtesy, a direct answer, and I find him again resorting to ambiguities of language, to a mere repetition of arguments which barely touch the question, then my dissatisfaction will increase. If it is a fact, as I begin to gather from what Senator de Largie said, rather than from anything which Senator Best said, that any delay in the passing of this Bill would operate injuriously as regards certain temporary employes in the Post and Telegraph Department, it was quite competent for the Minister, a moment ago, when I asked him the question, even if it was not desirable to do so yesterday, to give a direct and straight answer. It is the opinion of every honorable senator, I think, that a moment ago he entirely evaded my question. I am not going to be put aside by a mere collocation of words which have no direct meaning, and which have one object, and that is to hide something and evade giving an answer. The Minister cannot expect that any one will be satisfied with such treatment. With regard to the question of future Supply Bills, I want the matter to be cleared up. I ask the Minister whether, in the case of temporary employes running a risk with regard to the payment of their wages, he will so bring in a Supply Bill as to avoid that risk, and to obviate the possibility of such an argument being again used for party purposes. I ask him to elucidate that point still further. I desire to know if there is no money available, either by way of the Treasurer’s Advance or in any other way, to meet the necessity of paying temporary hands.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– According to the Constitution, no money is, or can be, available after the ‘30th June until Supply has been granted.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I understand that, in regard to all future Supply Bills, we are to be confronted with the necessities of temporary hands, and to recognise when such a Bill is brought in that we have no alternative but to pass it forthwith, without even dotting an “ i “ or crossing a “ t.”

Senator Millen:

– There is only one 30th June in the year, and the honorable senator is applying his remarks to all Supply Bills.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I withdraw the remark so far as it applies to all Supply Bills, and confine it to the present situation.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– According to section 83 of the Constitution -

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I- thank the Minister for reminding me of a provision in the Constitution, but I will still, for a few moments, focus the attention of the Committee, not on all Supply Bills, but on the present one. If, when the Bill was introduced here, Senator Best or Senator Millen knew that the circumstances were such that the Senate had no alternative, except on the one hand to indorse it in toto, or, on the other hand, to accept the full responsibility of delaying payment to casual hands in the Post and Telegraph Department, such a position reflects no credit on this Government, but a considerable amount of discredit. They treated both the Senate and the temporary employes in a way which no Government ought to do.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– I think that my honorable friend admitted that the Government had used the greatest expedition in bringing in the Bill.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I will not admit that.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– But the honorable senator did, yesterday.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The circumstances were such that the Government did not use the necessary expedition, and, what is more, they were not warranted in asking for an adjournment of three weeks.

Senator de Largie:

– Why did they not protest against the adjournment last night?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I admit that last night an incident happened, which, so far as I understand, the Government could not control. I believe that in adjourning when they did last night they were carrying out, rightly or wrongly, an agreement which was made with the Opposition.

Senator de Largie:

– The Government supporters are responsible for delaying the passing of the Bill.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am not concerned so much with what happened last night as with the conditions in which the Bill was introduced here. It was introduced in circumstances which I hope will never be repeated. It. is intolerable and monstrous that the Senate should be put in a position in which it has to face the responsibility of having men thrown out of employment if ittakes a certain course. The Government ought to arrange, and I believe they could have arranged, matters so as to avoid the possibility of such a position arising.

SenatorFRASER (Victoria) [2.58].- If the trouble has been as represented, there is nothing to prevent the Committee from passing the Bill, and putting everything all right. We all know the circumstances now, and if we mean to do what is right, let us go ahead, and pass the Bill.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– There is one aspect of the telegram read by Senator de Largie which, I think, calls for a further reference. According to the statement of Senator Best, no money can possibly be due for payment under the Bill other than the amounts he referred to - a very large amount to Western Australia, and one or two other amounts of a like character. There are no amounts due to casual employes, at any rate, for several days. They are only paid weekly - I am not. sure that they are not paid fortnightly.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator can see at once that any one of the men may be liable to have his services dispensed with at any moment, and that, unless the Bill is passed, there will be no money available to pay him.

Senator PEARCE:

– On the underground tunnelling work in Perth, thirty men, or practically the whole of a shift, have been paid off. Should the necessity havearisen to dispense with the services of these men, it could not have arisen during the current month, until the first payment to them was due.

Senator Millen:

– We might dispense with their services at any moment, and we should then have no money with which to pay them.

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen must know that all the men engaged in undergrounding the telephone lines in Perth are casual labourers. They are either employed by a contractor - in which case the contractor is responsible for their wages - or by the Government. If they were employed by the latter, their wages would not fall due till they had completed their first week’s work in the new financial year.

Senator de Largie:

– The work is being undertaken by the Government.

Senator PEARCE:

– Then no payment is due to them until they have completed a week’s work. No permanent hands are engaged in the undergrounding of the telephone wires in Perth. The undertaking is being carried out by casual labourers, who are employed either by day labour or by a contractor. If they are employed by a contractor, no payment has become due during the present financial year, and the Treasurer had ample funds in his Treasurer’s Advance to have permitted of their payment up till the 30th June last. He could have paid them up till that date, had he so desired. If the reason given for the discharge of these men is that no funds were available with which to pay them,I say that the Treasurer could have paid them up till last Wednesday had he chosen to do so, and that no further payment would have been due until next Wednesday.

Senator Millen:

– Unless their services were dispensed with in the meantime.

Senator PEARCE:

– The plea which has been advanced for the discharge of these men is that no funds were available. If that statement be correct, the entire responsibility rests with the Treasurer in failing to see that his liabilites were met up till the end of June. He could have paid these men out of his Treasurer’s Advance - which I know, from personal knowledge, was ample - up till last Wednesday. These circumstances lend colour to the suggestion of Senator de Largie that the employes engaged in the work of undergrounding the telephone wires in Perth were discharged in order to suit the purposes of the Government.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Does the honorable senator seriously make that charge ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I say that, on the face of it, it certainly looks like that. If the men had been dispensed with because the work had been completed, or because there had been an inrush of water into the tunnels, there would have been no ground for suspicion. But the reason given to them for dispensing with their services - it has been stated publicly in Perth - was that no money was available with which to pay them. That plea, taken in conjunction with the statement of the Government that they require Supply to be granted to enable them to make money available for the payment of these casual labourers, does certainly give rise to suspicion. Under such circumstances, ‘ what impression could be conveyed to the casual labourers in Perth other than that the cause of their discharge was to be found in the action of the Senate in not passing the Supply Bill yesterday ?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– So far as the Government is concerned, there is not a scintilla of foundation for the honorable senator’s improper suggestion.

Senator PEARCE:

– My suggestion is based on the statements made by Government officials in Western Australia.

Senator Millen:

– It is not.

Senator PEARCE:

– The reason advanced .by the employers of these men for dispensing with their services is that no funds were available. I repeat that, taken in conjunction with the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Customs, the suspicion which is entertained of the action of the Government is not without warrant. He practically stated that the Opposition intended to block this Bill, and threatened that, if it did so, our action would result in these casual labourers not being paid. At any rate, the Government ought to see that the men who have been discharged are placed in possession of the real reason for their discharge; otherwise they should be reinstated.

Senator Pulsford:

– Does not all this show the mistake which was made by Mr. Fisher on Friday last, in refusing to allow Supply to be taken then ?

Senator PEARCE:

– That statement is not correct. Before the expiry of last month Mr. Fisher, as the late Treasurer knew, stated that there were sufficient funds in the Treasurer’s Advance to enable him to meet all his obligations. Consequently, the Leader of the Opposition in another place said that there was no necessity to introduce the Supply Bill on that day. Since the 30th June, Mr. Fisher and his supporters in another place have not attempted to block the passing of the Supply Bill.

Senator Millen:

– If Mr. Fisher objected to the introduction of the Bill before the 30th June, how could the Senate expect to receive it before that date?

Senator PEARCE:

– There was no reason why the Senate should have received it before that date.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– If we had received the Bill on Wednesday last, and put.it through upon that day, the difficulty which the honorable senator suggests would no’- have arisen.

Senator PEARCE:

– The difficulty need not have arisen now, and nobody knows that better than does the Minister of Trade and Customs.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Does not the honorable senator recognise that wages currently earned, and not due till Friday or Saturday, could not have been paid, even up till the 30th June; because the Treasurer’s Advance had lapsed?

Senator PEARCE:

– I repeat that the casual labourers to whom reference has been made, have not yet worked a week in the new financial year, and, therefore, no liability exists.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– If their wages had fallen due- on the 1st July, they could not have been paid.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Treasurer could have paid every one of these men up to 30th June out of his Treasurer’s Advance. There is a certain suspicious flavour about this circumstance which is not at all creditable to the Government.

Senator HENDERSON (Western Australia [3.10]. - In view of the mistake which the Government must recognise that they have made, I wish to know whether they are prepared to pay the amount of wages lost by these men through being suddenly displaced from their employment?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– We know nothing about the matter.

Senator HENDERSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Then will the Government take the trouble to inquire into it, and if it be found that these casual labourers, have been suddenly turned adrift as the result of the Treasurer’s failure to provide the necessary money with which to pay them, will the Ministry recompense them for the time which they have lost?

Senator Clemons:

– What has happened to all the other temporary employes in the Commonwealth ?

Senator HENDERSON:

– The probability is that quite a large number have been similarly treated; and, if so, they should be recompensed for the time which they have lost. The Government, having commenced the work of constructing underground tunnels for the reception of the telephone wires in Berth, must certainly contemplate carrying that work to its completion. Undoubtedly the sudden discharge of the men engaged upon that work must create suspicion in the mind of any reasonable man. I trust that the Government will make an inquiry into the matter, and that if it be found that the action of the Treasurer has prevented these meru from earning a livelihood, steps will be taken to recompense them for the time which they have lost.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Free Trade

– The character and purpose of the criticism which has been directed against the Government could not be better illustrated than they were by the remarks of the last speaker.

Senator Needham:

– They were justified.

Senator MILLEN:

– Honorable senators opposite apparently imagine that they are justified in making the vilest insinuations against the Government in reference to this matter. Yet the moment we protest against their action we are told that we are not justified in doing so. Senator Henderson has chosen to give emphasis and colour to the insinuation of Senator Pearce that the Government have thrown a number of men out of employment merely to serve a party purpose. Having criticised the Government for having done what he alleges - and they would have been deserving of criticism if they had done it - he calmly asks “ Will the Government make inquiries into the matter?” What need would there be for inquiry if we had done what he suggests? The Minister of Trade and Customs has already told the Senate that the Government knew nothing about the discharge of the casual labourers to whom reference has been made, nor does anybody in the Postal Department.

Senator Turley:

– Have the temporary employes in Melbourne been discharged?

Senator MILLEN:

– I want to show the absolute insincerity of the criticism directed against the Government. With almost the same breath, we are charged with an offence and then asked whether we will inquire into the matter in question. We must know all about it if we have been guilty of the offence.

Senator Clemons:

– May I remind the honorable senator that a man is not brought to court accused of being not guilty. You accuse him first and then ask him to defend himself.

Senator MILLEN:

– But when you have done that, you do not say at one and the same time, “ We hold you guilty and will you inquire into the charge? “

Senator de Largie:

– Can the honorable senator answer for the Treasurer?

Senator MILLEN:

– No, but I can say that the statement that the Government has” done this thing for party purposes is too contemptible to be entitled to a moment’s consideration from any honest or fair-minded man. Let me deal with a few of the statements of Senator Pearce. Senator Best pointed out yesterday that the financial year terminated on Wednesday. It was, therefore, possible for men to work for a week terminating to-morrow, and yet for it to be impossible to pay them because the vote on account of the work they were doing lapsed with the end of .the financial year. They might work on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, but the wages for them would cease to be available through their not having been paid on the 30th June. Honorable senators know that all votes lapse and fall back into the consolidated revenue on that date. Unless you have an intermediate payment of wages on the Wednesday, which is not a regular pay day, it follows that even that portion of the week’s work for which provision was made on .the previous Estimates could not be paid for. The result is that this Bill is necessary, not only for the payment of wages for the whole week, but also for the payment of wages earned at the beginning of the week. Senator Pearce absolutely denied that when Senator Best pointed out that it was necessary to get the Bill passed as near to the 30th June as possible. Let me also refer to a statement made by Senator Clemons last night. Speaking to-day he said that he had not admitted that the Government had used expedition in bringing forward the Bill, but last night when I put a question to him, and was trying to show that the Government had dealt expeditiously with the measure, he said, “ I do not accuse them of any delay in introducing the Bill.”

Senator Clemons:

– I assert now, whether I said it last night or not, that if the Government knew that last Wednesday was not early enough for the introduction of the Supply Bill, they should not have taken a three weeks’ adjournment.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am inclined to the view that some people think a three minutes’ adjournment was too long. I am pleased to know, however, that the good sense of the Senate agreed that three weeks was a reasonable time to allow to a new Government for the preparation of its policy.

Senator Clemons:

– Undoubtedly, if Supply had not had to be provided.

Senator MILLEN:

– We had a right to expect that Parliament would assist us in getting Supply at the earliest possible moment. Last night we had hopes that the Bill would be put through before the adjournment, but we were disappointed. When the Ministerial statement was first introduced we were met with a reasonable request for an adjournment for a day. What would have happened if the Government had declined to entertain the application ? We should have been accused of want of courtesyto the Opposition. The Governmentfollowed the ordinary political usage, and granted the adjournment asked for. The Supply Bill was afterwards detainedin the other House. It was discussed for three days. It reached the Senate yesterday. I say that there was no time lost. The Government have proceeded as expeditiously as possible with the measure. Blame is now sought to be placed on us, however, because of the position in which some workmen in Western Australia have been placed. But only yesterday, and even to-day, we laid the facts of the case before the Senate, telling honorable senators that this danger did exist. Senator Clemons indeed blamed the Government for having warned the Senate of this danger from delay.

Senator Clemons:

– On the ground of the obvious ambiguity with which the matter was introduced.

Senator MILLEN:

– I venture to say that if the warning had been put with greater particularization the honorable senator would have blamed the Government still more. My colleague, Senator Best, referred to the matter as one of the factors of the case, and if emphasis is laid upon it by Senator de Largie, it only shows that in doing what he did, Senator Best was doing his duty.

Senator de Largie:

– If we had known last night of this state of things, the Senate would not have risen.

Senator MILLEN:

– That remark is very unfair, if it represents the views of the Opposition party as a whole. The position last night was this. The Opposition, through its leader, allowed us to’ suspend the Standing Orders and get on with the Bill. At the same time an arrangement was made that the Senate should not sit late. We know what that means. Sitting late in the Senate means sitting after half-past 10 or 11 o’clock. The Government were anxious to complete the Bill last night, but as we saw thatwe could not do so, it seemed that an adjournment was reasonable.If any honorable senator towards the close of the sitting had said that he desired to speak at length on any subject we should have consented to an adjournment.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think it was quite reasonable for Senator Henderson to ask the Government to make inquiries into the matter that has been raised. But Senator Millen has been trying to make political capital out of the incident. What happened last night was this. Senator Millen and other honorable senators opposite induced Senator Croft to cut short an important speech which he was making, and the honorable senator did so. But immediately Senator Croft sat down, Senator Neild, a Government supporter, rose and said that he had a statement to make which would take him a long time. Thereupon Senator Millen at once agreed to an. adjournment until to-day. I scented something of this kind last night. I thought there was a scheme on to blame the Opposition party for something. Senator Millen asked one of the Opposition to give way, and immediately consented to an adjournment to. enable the new Deakinite,

Senator Neild, to occupy the greater part of to-day’s sitting. If any one of our party had occupied as much time as Senator. Neild has done in “ stone-walling,” the press of Australia would have cried out about it. We can now see through Senator Millen’s manoeuvring. I remind him of the words of Robert Burns -

The best laid schemes o! mice an: men

Gang aft a-gley

And lea’e us naught but grief and pain,

For promised joy.

We have brought the Government scheme to the light. They have been guilty of working a party scheme for party purposes. How was it that honorable senators opposite induced a Labour senator to take his seat last night, and then when a friend and supporter of the Government got up they gave him an adjournment and allowed him to waste the greater part of to-day ? It is a shame and a disgrace. Apparently, the Government have some scheme, but admittedly they did not know what Sir John Forrest had been up to. He occupies an important position in the Government, and had to be sent for to the West to do the engineering necessary to bring about the fusion. If he can do anything to turn the working classes against the Labour party, he may be trusted to do it.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– Does not the honorable senator think that that is a wickedly unfair suggestion?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– No ; I do not. I believe in my heart that it is true, and there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the statement. So far as principle is concerned, a Government like the present would hesitate at nothing. I say that we have not blocked business, whilst honorable senators on the other side have done so.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have not previously taken part in the discussion on this Bill. But I wish now to emphasize the fact which has been made clear by the discussion which has already taken place that the party of which I am a member are in no way responsible for the blocking of Supply, if it has been blocked. Day after day, we have read the accusation in the press that the Labour party in the Federal Parliament has been guilty of obstruction. Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Trade and -Customs practically levelled a pistol at our heads, and said : “ Unless you pass this Supply Bill immediately, a certain number of Post Office employes will have to go without their money.” Honorable senators on this side, in the discharge of their public duty, have protested against such a threat, and they are blamed for obstruction. The Bill was about to be passed last night, when it was blocked by a Government supporter. Senator Neild has exercised his right to bring before the notice of the Committee what he believes to <be the grievances of certain citizens. He has stated their case in his own admirable way, but I desire that it should be carefully borne in mind that the honorable senator has been responsible to-day for prolonging the proceedings on this Bill, and has been instrumental in preventing it becoming law. A telegram has been received from Western Australia to-day.

Senator Walker:

– I suppose that telegram is authentic?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The telegram is signed by Senator Lynch, and its source is as reliable as any that could be suggested.

Senator Walker:

– I have known telegrams to be sent that were not signed bv thepersons whose names were attached to them.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am referring to a telegram signed by Senator Lynch in reference to the dismissal of thirty men who were engaged on the undergrounding of telephone wires at Perth. I have some knowledge of the work at which these men were employed, because during the last recess, whilst in Perth1, knowing there was a scarcity of employment, and that it was necessary that the telephone wires should be placed underground, and that money had been voted for the purpose, I placed myself in communication with the then PostmasterGeneral, Mr. Thomas, suggesting that he should see the Treasurer, and provide funds with which the work might be commenced. I know that the job cannot yet have been completed. When I left Perth, two gangs, each comprising about eighteen general labourers, a bricklayer, a carpenter, and an overseer, were engaged upon the work. I have been here only six or seven weeks, and it is impossible- that in the interval all the telephone wires in the metropolitan area could have been .undergrounded. We learn that these men have been dismissed because the Treasurer has no ‘ money to pay them. They were paid either on the Saturday or the Wednesday. If their pay fell due last Wednesday, which was the 30th June, there was money available for the purpose. If it did not, it will fall due on Saturday, that is, to say, tomorrow, and there is no reason why money to meet it cannot be provided. It is evident that the authorities anticipated something, and I fail to see why the present Treasurer could not have looked to the interests of his constituents as well as Mr. Thomas and the late Treasurer did.

Senator Sir Robert , Best:

– Will the honorable senator permit me to interpose by saying that the wicked suggestion that these thirty men were put off by Sir John Forrest is without any foundation whatever. The right honorable gentleman neither directly nor indirectly knew anything of the matter until he was told about it a few minutes ago.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am not in the habit of making untrue statements.

Senator Sir Robert Best:

Senator W. Russell did so.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I did not say that it was due to the action of Sir John Forrest that these men were dismissed. But I do say that, as Treasurer, he should have looked after the matter just as his predecessor did. I should like to know whether there -are any other casual employes who have been peremptorily dismissed? If there are, I can only again repeat that the members of the Labour party are in no way responsible for the delay which has occurred in the passing of this Bill. The request submitted by Senator McGregor yesterday did not in any way involve the blocking of Supply. It simply meant a reduction in the amount to be voted under this Bill. I should like to say that I see no reason why the Senate should continually be asked to play second fiddle to another place. We have been elected by the people on the same franchise as that on which members in another place were elected, and we have a right to review every line, and every ward, in every Bill that is brought before the Senate. Because we have ventured to exercise a right which is undoubtedly ours, we have been told in the press and elsewhere that we are blocking Supply, and obstructing the business of the country. Senator Neild occupied the time of the Committee for three hours today. I do not know whether the VicePresident of the Executive Council endeavoured to exercise any control over the honorable senator as a supporter of the Government, but if he did, he certainly was not successful. I have nothing further to say now except that no matter what threats are made, I shall, as a member of the Senate, exercise my right to criticise any measure that is brought before it.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I think we are altogether missing the point in this discussion, which is that there is no means by which the men who have been referred to can be paid except by the passing of this Bill. Personally, I knew that, but a good deal of complaint has been made against the Minister of Trade and Customs for mentioning the fact when introducing this Bill, and it is possible that some members of the Committee who have not had a long parliamentary experience were unacquainted with it. At any rate we all know the position now, and there can be no wisdom in continuing the discussion. In order to facilitate the payment of those men who are in trouble, and to prevent the dismissal of any others, it would be wise, I think, for the Senate to pass the Bill as quickly as possible.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I think that in this connexion the Government are as much to be pitied as to be blamed. It will be recollected that in a division taken last night they had a majority of only one. They had to placate a supporter of whom evidently they are not very sure, and that led to the sudden cessation of business.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What does the honorable senator mean by placating a supporter ?

Senator STORY:

– Evidently Senator Neild was not in his usual good humour, but in a most dangerous mood, and the Leader of the. Government, recognising that fact, felt that they must immediately yield to his request, else trouble might ensue. But that is not what I rose to say. I want to enlist the sympathy of the Government on behalf of other public servants. We all sympathize with the unfortunate men who, for some cause or other, have been thrown out of work. But the case I want to ventilate is more serious than the case of the men who have been thrown out of work for a day, or even a week, or perhaps even longer. It is a question affecting the health, and possibly the life, of a number of public officers who are employed at the telephone exchange at Adelaide. Some time ago it -was- decided to build a new exchange. The building is certainly not an architectural masterpiece. It is very ill-ventilated, and in its present condition it is absolutely insanitary. In summer time the weather is extremely hot, and no provision has been made for admitting fresh air. The work on which the telephone girls are engaged is of a very distressing or strenuous character, which frequently, even under favorable conditions, affects their nerves and health. I want the Government, if possible, to take some action before the building is taken over.

Senator Pearce:

– Did the Public Works Department of South Australia prepare the plans?

Senator STORY:

– I have not yet been able to ascertain, but I believe that the plans were prepared in the Home Affairs Department. I want to ascertain whether any suggestions were offered by the Superintendent of Public Buildings in Adelaide, and probably my question on that point will be answered after a certain debate has been concluded elsewhere. It is very evident that the whole object has been to safeguard valuable instruments in the telephone room, at the expense of the health of the operators.

Senator de Largie:

– Is not the fault due to a State servant and not to the Federal Department? L

Senator STORY:

– Undoubtedly the fault is largely due to the designer of the building; but I am under the impression that, some suggestions were offered by the Superintendent of Public Buildings in South Australia. Not long ago I inspected the building in his company. He pointed out that every precaution had been taken to avoid any possible danger to the machinery, the instruments, or the switchboard from fire. He pointed out that on account of the presence of a small timber yard on the western side of the building, it was absolutely necessary that there should not be a single opening on that side, in which certainly there should be some openings to admit a cool westerly breeze in the summer-time to ventilate the room. The roof is very low. I do not suppose it is more than 15 feet high.

Senator Vardon:

– Have they built right up to the western boundary?

Senator STORY:

– Yes; but that is no reason why ventilators should not be put on the western side of the roof, as well as on the eastern side. The only reason for not doing so is to guard against the danger of a fire, which, if it occurred, would destroy the valuable switchboard that has cost so much. I am satisfied that unless some action is taken before the summer arrives, the girls will be falling out of the ranks on sick leave, not by one or two, but by the dozen. The service will become disorganized, and it will cost the Government very much more to employ temporary assist- ants - leaving out of consideration the interest which they ought to take in the health of their servants - than it would to make the building habitable at once. I ask the Minister to have an inquiry made, not by officers who were responsible for the construction of the building, but by an independent authority, and to ascertain whether it is really fit to be occupied in hot weather by a large number of young women engaged in a difficult occupation.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I feel that the Government is entitled to some sympathy in the unfortunate position which it finds itself. One would like to think that a Government starting its business under such favorable auspices as that which we have now in power could begin without muddling. But unfortunately, so far as its financial business is concerned, it appears to have set out to muddle from the very beginning. Apparently, the Treasurer is responsible for the present situation. Every one knows that he is one of the greatest financial muddlers in Australia. It speaks very ill for the new Government that it could not find a man of greater business capacity, greater financial knowledge, and better methods, to fill the office. It must have been known to the Treasurer that money would be required to pay temporary employes on the 1st July. Either he knew that or he did not. If he did know it, it was his duty to introduce this Bill into the other House in time to have it passed before the ist July.

Senator Pulsford:

– He did, but Mn Fisher blocked him.

Senator Turley:

– Was it necessary ? Were there any casual hands to”be paid on .the ist July ?

Senator STEWART:

– The representative of the Government tells us that casual men are being paid every day of the week, and that there was no money available for paying them after Wednesday. 30th June. If that is true, if’ was absolutely necessary that this measure should have been passed by both Houses on the 30th June at the very latest. If he knew that, the Treasurer should have brought in the Bill before he did, but if he did not know it, he should not be filling the responsible position he holds. It is extremely uncharitable on the part of the Government or its supporters to malign members of the Opposition by blaming them for any delay in the passing of this Bill. When did it reach the Senate? It was received from the other House on the ist July. At half-past 2 o’clock on

Thursday afternoon we got a Bill which ought to have been passed by both Houses on the preceding day. And in introducing it here, the Minister of Trade and Customs told us it was absolutely necessary that we should pass it almost immediately. In doing that he was asking honorable senators to pass a Bill for the appropriation of nearly£1,000,000 without any discussion. Was not that insulting every member of the Senate? Was it not insulting the people of the various States? Is that the fashion in which the Government intends to carry on its business? I can assure the Ministry and their supporters that unless the former conduct business in a better fashion, I’ shall make no allowance for them.

Senator St Ledger:

– Did not the late Government ask us to pass the whole of the Estimates within twenty-four hours?

Senator STEWART:

– We are not discussing what the late Government did. It is dead and buried, and a tombstone has been’ erected to its memory. Certainly it did very much better work than its successors are ever likely to do. But the Deakin Government is alive, and therefore it is an object for the criticism of every honorable senator who chooses to assail it. I repeat that all the knowledge to which I have referred was available to the present Treasurer. He knew that after the 30th June he would not have a single farthing which could be utilized for the payment of temporary employes. Yet the Senate did not get this Supply Bill until yesterday. Why was it not introduced here earlier?

Senator Pulsford:

– Ask Mr. Fisher.

Senator STEWART:

Mr. Fisher merely utilized the ordinary forms of Parliament so as to secure effective discussion of the measure. I know perfectly well that Senator Pulsford thinks that every measure brought forward by the Government should be accepted by the Opposition without debate - that we should simply open our mouths, and shut our eyes, and swallow whatever they may choose to send us. To-day we find that owing to the incapacity of the Government, and more especially of its Treasurer, a Commonwealth work in Perth has had to be stopped. I suppose the impression will be spread abroad - both in Western Australia and elsewhere - that the Labour party are responsible for this suspension of work.

Senator St Ledger:

– Does not the honorable senator think that he is protesting too much, like the lady in the play?

Senator STEWART:

– I am not protesting half enough. The Government ought to be able to provide for all these contingencies, and if they have not the capacity to do so they are not fit to be in power. I do not say that the entire Ministry are to blame. It is the Treasurer who is responsible for this lamentable state of affairs. I am really sorry for the menwho have been temporarily deprived of their employment. It is extremely regrettable that the work upon which they were engaged should have had to be suspended for a single hour owing to the gross carelessness, the stupidity, the muddleheadedness of the man who now occupies the position of Treasurer.

Senator St Ledger:

– Would the honorable senator like a dictionary?

Senator STEWART:

– I carry a dictionary, not in my pocket, but somewhere else, and if the honorable senator would follow my example hewould acquit himself very much better than he does.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator who is speaking does not require any adventitious aid.

Senator STEWART:

– No. The theme under discussion is such a fertile one that it naturally suggests the proper figure of speech. I do not wish to delay the passing of this Bill. I merely desire to emphasize the fact that if there has been delay - and I do not say that there has - the Government, and not the Opposition, are responsible for it. Stupidity and lack of business capacity on their part are alone responsible for the present state of affairs. I trust that we shall have an exhibition of better management in the future. As the Treasurer acquires more experience - and he certainly needs it very badly - he may do better. I am not in the least surprised now that we are not to get the. Budget till the end of August. We have a man filling the office of Treasurer who has no more qualification for the position than I have for the office of Astronomer Royal.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not the question which is before the Committee.

Senator STEWART:

– The question before the Committee has reference to the finances of the Commonwealth, to the voting of money.

Senator Chataway:

– It is not the Astronomer Royal’s Department.

Senator STEWART:

– I merely mentioned the Astronomer Royal in a casual way, but it seems to me that whoever was originally in charge of this Bill must have been more accustomed to star-gazing than to the transacting of large financial operations.

Senator Pearce:

Sir John Forrest says, “ What is a million? “

Senator STEWART:

– Exactly. What dees it matter whether a few men are thrown out of employment so long as the Government can lay the blame upon the Labour party?

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

.- Seeing that honorable senators have been discussing this Bill for two days, and that’ most of the talk has emanated from the Opposition, I think I am justified in saying a few words upon it. The Bill reached another place a week to-day, and one day in each House should have been ample in which to pass it. But it was blocked in the other Chamber for four days, and was only introduced here yesterday. I have seen a Supply Bill passed through all its stages by the Senate in one sitting. If the Opposition had sympathized with the casual labourers of Perth, whose services have been dispensed with, they might have exhibited their sympathy in a very much more practical manner. Those men are now out of employment-

Senator Pearce:

– Not because this Supply Bill has been blocked.

Senator SAYERS:

– That I gather from the statement of the Minister is the real cause.

Senator Givens:

– Who blocked the Bill last night?

Senator SAYERS:

– I did not. Throughout yesterday there was continuous talk upon it. Had the Government agreed to sit after the ordinary hour last night, the Opposition would have exclaimed, “We do not desire an all-night sitting.’’ Personally, I think that the Government acted unwisely in yielding to the request for an adjournment. I was prepared to remain here as long as was necessary to put the Bill through. Of course, I recognise that it is impossible to please everybody. The measure was brought forward in ample time to permit of it being passed days ago.

Senator Pearce:

– But this is not an ordinary Supply Bill.

Senator SAYERS:

– It is. Even the §ill which, we passed last year, granting

Supply for three months, was not discussed at such length as the measure now under consideration has been. All the talk that has taken place upon it amounts simply to obstruction, because the Opposition must recognise that the Government have the requisite numbers.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the item under consideration relates to the Postal Department,, which Senator Sayers has not yet mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order.

Senator SAYERS:

– I did mention the Postal Department in connexion with the dismissal of the casual labourers in Perth. Of course, whenever Senator Pearce hears something which he does not like he raises a point of order.

Senator Pearce:

– I wish to get the Bill through.

Senator SAYERS:

– Then the honorable senator has not exhibited his desire in a very practical way. He has done his best to delay its passing. No man has done more.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think that the honorable senator ought to address himself to the question before the Committee.

Senator Pearce:

– The point of order which I raised has been decided.

Senator SAYERS:

– Is Senator Pearce still the Chairman of Committees? I think that he would like to be. ‘ The complaint is that certain employes of the Post Office have had to be dismissed in consequence of this Bill not being passed. The Treasurer has been blamed for this occurrence. He has been called evil names. But the blame does not rest with the PostmasterGeneral or with the Treasurer. I am not here to apologize for either of those Ministers, who are well able to take their own part, but I cannot allow men to be blamed for that for which they are not guilty. We were told in advance that delay would cause certain things to happen. The very people who caused that delay are now blaming the Government for it. In my opinion, a week was ample time for the putting through of a Supply Bill. The men would never have been dismissed if the measure had been passed within reasonable time. We all know that even if there were ^1,000,000 in the Treasury on the 30th June, every vote would lapse on that date, and the money would have to be revoted.

Senator Givens:

– Is that not a reason why the Treasurer should have brought the Bill in earlier?

Senator SAYERS:

– He brought it in a week before the money was required, and that was ample time. Many a Supply Bill has been passed in less than a week. Why should we blame some one else when we know the facts ? . I always endeavour to ecure ample time for discussion, but, at the same time, I enter my protest against blaming one Minister when the whole of Parliament is to blame for what has occurred.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– The present debate arose out of a question asked by Senator Clemons to which no answer has yet been given. The question Was whether it was fair for the Minister practically to hold out a threat , to the Senate that if this Bill was not passed yesterday a number of casual employes of the Post and Telegraph Department would be thrown out of employment. Yesterday I said that if I thought it was my duty to take a certain course, I should take it, no matter what the consequences were. Senator Savers urges that we should put a Bill of this kind through at once, if delay may cause inconvenience to the public. Ido not agree with that view. We are sent to Parliament to look after the : finances, and we ought not to shirk our duty. If we are to be swayed by such a consideration, the Senate might as well be non-existent as far as relates to the criticism of the finances. Would it not be better to introduce Supply Bills in such a way as to allow time for discussion, and, if necessary, for this Chamber to prefer requests to another place without inconvenience being caused to those in the Commonwealth service?

Senator Sir Robert Best:

– It is most desirable, and that was the policy of the Government in this case.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Sir Robert Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia] [4.29]. - It was the intention of Senator McGregor and myself, if we had remained in office, to arrange that when the Budget was submitted in another place, the Budget papers should also be tabled in this Chamber, and some motion moved that would give honorable senators the same opportunity as the members of the other Chamber had to discuss the financial policy of the Government and the measures arising out of it, at a time when the questions involved were live ones, instead of at the end of the session. Will Ministers take the matter into consideration, and announce what coursethey would suggest?

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like to urge upon the Ministry the adoption of some such course as that suggested by Senator Pearce. On a previous occasion the late Deakin Ministry adopted the most unusual course of splitting the Tariff into two, and allowing the first part of it to be debated in this Chamber before another place had dealt with the other part. Some such method might be adopted in regard to the Budget.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I can assure Ministers that unless they want the liveliest time they Have ever had In their political lives, they must give at least the Opposition portion of the Senate an ample opportunity of discussing the financial proposals of the Government. Unless pressure is brought to bear upon them, the Government will simply submit the Appropriation Bill to this Chamber at the very last moment, when every one desires to get home, and, with an election looming, we know that honorable senators will be most anxious to get to their constituents.

Senator Fraser:

– The honorable senator will require all his time in Queensland.

Senator STEWART:

– I am not anxious about my position. I do not care two straws whether I am rejected or elected ; but, while I am here I am determined to do my duty to my constituents, a thing which the honorable senator has never been conspicuous in doing. The Government will be well advised not to follow the example of previous Governments in treating the Senate with something akin to contempt. If they do, I, at any rate, will resent it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 782

PAPER

Senator MILLEN laid upon the table the following paper : -

Public Service Act1902. - Repeal of Regulation 262 and substitution of new Regulation (Provisional) in lieu thereof. - StatutoryRules 1909, No. 68.

page 782

ADJOURNMENT

Personal Explanation

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I desire to draw attention to an interjection which was made by Senator’ Neild yesterday when I was speaking, to the effect that I had signed a requisition to the late Government asking them not to seek for a dissolution. Senator Neild makes many jocular remarks, but yesterday he appeared to be in. dead earnest. A similar statement I had contradicted at the time it was made; and yet Senator Neild repeated it, adding that he did not wish to expose me and my friends who occupy the Opposition benches. I wish to say now most emphatically that there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion, except a very lively imagination on the part of Senator Neild. As a matter of fact, the party of which I am a member, were almost, so far as I know, unanimously in favour of a dissolution ; and I may add that during the recess I addressed a number of meetings, and at every one, I believe, I expressed the hope that the Government would seek a dissolution in certain eventualities. If I did not take this opportunity to contradict the statement made yesterday,. I should be placed in a false position, in view of my utterances during recess. I never signed a requisition or any other document which had for its object the prevention of a dissolution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 July 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19090702_senate_3_49/>.