The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 5501
QUESTION
COAL STRIKE
Senator McGREGOR: SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– In view of the reported difficulty in connexion with the coal-mining industryin New South Wales, and the likelihood of it extending to other industries, and also in view of the reported willingness of the miners to enter into a conference with the mine-owners, have the Government taken any steps to see whether such a conference can be brought about, or are they prepared to do anything to avoid the difficulty which otherwise may arise in connexion with an industry of such national importance?
Senator MILLEN: Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Free Trade
– I need hardly assure the honorable senator that the Government are keenly alive to the seriousness of the position which has arisen, and would willingly do anything to ward off, even now, the serious trouble which threatens. The Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, will be only too pleased to take any action which the circumstances may warrant.
page 5501
PAPERS
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST laid upon the table the following papers-
Report by Director of Fisheries on Fishing experiments carried out by the F.I.S. Endeavour for period 12th March to 7th September, 1909.
page 5501
QUESTION
TRADE MARKS ACT
Senator PEARCE: WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -.
Does the Commissioner of Patents also administer the Trade Marks Act?
Does section 46 of the Trade Marks Act provide that a person opposing a trade mark application if he resides outside the Commonwealth may be called upon to lodge security for costs?
Is it a fact that the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks recently decided in an opposed Trade Mark case (La Saciete Anonyme le Ferment v. The Australian Milk Ferment Profrieiarv) that before the applicants could obtain the benefit of section 46 of the Act they must lodge security for costs to the amount of £60, on the ground that they reside outside the jurisdiction of the Victorian Courts, i.e., in the State of New South Wales?
Is it a fact that in delivering a judgment in connexion with the above case, his Honour Mr. Justice Isaacs used the following words : - “ In view of the importance of the matter I think I ought to take this opportunity of saying that the distinction upon which the Deputy Registrar founded his condition was quite erroneous, and is not even supported by the case relied upon. The analogy to English jurisdiction for this purpose is not State but Australian juris diction……. This distinction amounts to this : that upon a general provision in a Federal Statute, the section itself differentiating only between the Australian and non-Australian residence of the opponent, an applicant may be subjected toa special disability merely because he Hoes not reside in one particular State. It is very arguable whether such a decision is a hearing and determination at all according to law”?
Will he take such steps as will prevent the recurrence of decisions of this nature by the officer administering the Act?
Is it a fact that in consequence of the patent attorney who represented the Australian applicants in this matter quoting to the Registrar the above words from the judgment of Mr. Justice Isaacs and making some further comments on the Registrar’s decision, the Commissioner for Patents called upon the said patent attorney to show cause why his name should not be removed from the list of registered patent attorneys for “disgraceful professional conduct”?
Does not Statutory Rule No. 14 under the Trade Marks Act provide the Registrar of Trade Marks with adequate means for dealing with an agent whose conduct is in his opinion improper ?
In view of the above and of the further fact that any person, whether a patent attorney or not, may practice as a Trade Marks agent, has the Commissioner for Patents any power to remove from the list of patent attorneys the name of any person who in connexion with a Trade Mark matter before the Registrar may write him a letter which he (the Registrar) considers objectionable?
Will he instruct the Commissioner for Patents as to what are the powers and duties in this connexion conferred upon him by the Patents Act?
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
The passage referred to is not contained in the report of Mr. Justice Isaacs’ judgment, but I am informed that words to that effect were spoken by him.
The Registrar’s judicial decisions are controllable only by the Courts, not by the Minister.
The Commissioner for Patents called upon the patent attorney to show cause why he should not be struck oil the roll for disgraceful professional conduct in his practice as a patent attorney - not because of his quoting expressions used by Mr. Justice Isaacs, but because of expressions of his own. Upon the unreserved withdrawal of the letter objected to, the matter was allowed to drop.
Regulation 14 of the Trade Marks Regulations is adequate for the purposes of the Trade Marks Act.
The Commissioner has power to remove a patent attorney f rom the roll for disgraceful professional conduct connected with his practice as a patent attorney only.
It is not considered that the judicial discretion of an officer whose powers and duties are defined by statute should be interfered with.
page 5502
QUESTION
STAMPS BRANCH
Supernumerary Staff
Senator HENDERSON: WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
Has any action been taken by the Govern-, ment to redress the complaints of the female employes engaged in the Commonwealth Stamps. Branch as per my questions and the Minister’s answers of 20th October, 1909?
Is it a fact that, since the questions and answers referred to were tabled, the female employes have had their hours of labour increased by two hours per week?
If so, will the Government immediately advance the wages of the said female employes to the Commonwealth minimum of ^110 per annum, in lieu of the present allowance of j£i per week?
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
– The Public Service Commissioner reports: -
These temporary employes are enjoying exactly the same conditions as they did under the State, and, as promised in a previous reply on the same subject, it is intended to review the position and strength of the staff when the Commonwealth has had twelve months’ experience of the work.
Yes; they have to conform with the regulations generally governing the service. The hours of work have been made the same as those of other employes of the Commonwealth, and there is no reason why any differentiation should be made in their favour.
No; a-)d as already stated, the position of the staff is to be reviewed, at the expiration of twelve months from the date the Commonwealth took over stamp printing.
page 5502
MAKINE INSURANCE BILL
Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with a message, stating that the Senate’s amendments had been agreed to.
page 5502
SUPPLY BILL (No. 4)
Procedure on Supply Bills - Accommodation for Senators’ Papers - Advertising Editor - Australian Timbers - Old-Age Pensions, Administration - Stamps Branch : Wagesof Employes - Public Service : Temporary Employes : General Division,. Grading.
Bill received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator Sir Robert Best) read a first time.
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist
[2.37]. - This is a Bill to appropriate the sum of ^340,912 for the ordinary services of the Government.
Senator Givens:
– Can the honorable senator move the second reading of the Bill to-day without a suspension of the Standing Orders?
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
– To-day I gave notice that to-morrow I would move the suspension of the Standing Orders for the purpose of enabling the Bill to be passed through all its stages without delay ; but for reasons which I shall explain by-and-by, I am going to ask honorable senators to be good enough to pass the Bill to-day. At present I am about to move the second reading.
The PRESIDENT:
– The honorable senator cannot move the second reading of the Bill to-day unless the Standing Ordershave been suspended.
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
– For reasons which I shall explain presently I intend to ask honorable senators to be good enough to suspend the Standing Orders today.
The PRESIDENT:
– I understood that the honorable senator was attempting to move the second reading of the Bill without first having the Standing Orders suspended.
Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
– I am sorry if there has been any misapprehension as to my intention. The Bill, which appropriates the sum of ,£340,91? for ordinary services, contains no contentious matter, and I trust that honorable senators will see their way to suspend the. Standing Orders tq-day for the purpose of facilitating its passage. In ordinary circumstances Monday would be the next pay day, but in some States that will be a holiday, and the previous Saturday is regarded as a sort of dies nott. It is, therefore, desired that all payments shall be made on Friday . next. The amount which the Bill appropriates is less than the amount which was voted for last month, and, as I said, it contains no contentious matter. In these circumstances I move -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Hill from being proceeded with and passed through all its stages forthwith.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [2.42]. - I should like to again record my protest against the method which is adopted of dealing with Supply Bills. Of course, every one of us will assist to secure that adequate Supply shall be obtained at the earliest possible moment. But we have a standing order which puts us, to some extent, in a position corresponding with that which the members of another place enjoy with regard to the ventilation of grievances. On the first reading of a Bill of this character it is competent for honorable senators to deal with all grievances in the same way as the members of another place can do on a motion to go into Committee of Supply. It has been the practice - and I think that Senator Best will bear- out my recollection - for the Minister in charge of a Supply Bill to make his explanation on the motion for its first reading, and not to submit “ that motion formally, as in the case of an ordinary Bill. That was certainly the practice at a time which I remember very well ; and it was always desirable, because, as the Minister would wish to do, it called the attention of the Senate to the fact that it was a Supply Bill. On the motion for its first reading honorable senators are allowed to discuss, not merely matters connected with the measure, but also matters not strictly relevant thereto. I am not sure, but I think that Senator Best was the first to change the practice, and to make the explanatory speech on the motion for the second reading.
Senator Sir Robert Best:
– No, it was the other way round. I initiated the practice of making a full explanation on the motion for the first reading, but my honorable friend objected.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– My honorable friend is mistaken.
Senator Sir Robert Best:
– I do not think so.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– The whole object we have in view is that on the motion for the first reading the attention of the Senate shall be called to the fact that it is an occasion on which the ordinary practice in regard to Bills is departed from.
Senator Sir Robert Best:
– May I suggest that my honorable friend should look up the procedure which was adopted two or three months ago, when I introduced a Supply Bill?
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– What my friend has in mind are the details connected with the matter of Supply. It was to the discussion of those details to which exception was taken on the occasion in question. I should be glad to eulogize the Minister of Trade and Customs, if the position is as he has put it, and to express regret that to-day he should have departed from his own practice.
Senator Sir Robert Best:
– There was nothing to say to-day
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– I am quite aware that it is not usual to proceed with Supply Bills in the same way as other Bills are proceeded with. I presume that my honorable friend intends to say something upon the motion for the second reading of the measure.
The PRESIDENT:
– I would point out to the honorable senator that he is really going over ground which has already been traversed. The first reading of the Bill has been carried, and the question now under consideration is whether or not the Standing Orders shall be suspended to enable the Bill to be passed through all its stages to-day.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
– With very great deference, that is the matter with which I am dealing. I am protesting against the suspension of the Standing Orders at a stage when honorable senators will be deprived of the opportunity to ventilate grievances. I think that we ought all to be keenly jealous of the privileges of the Senate, and not to permit any departure to be made from established practice, except for reasons of urgency. In- “ deed, no question of urgency ought to justify the surrender of a- privilege which we secured only after very great trouble.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [2.47]. - During the eight or nine years that the Senate has been in existence, speeches similar to that which has just been delivered by Senator Symon have been delivered in connexion with almost every Supply Bill that has come before us. On the present occasion, I think it would be well not to take advantage of the exigencies 5504 Supply Bill [SENATE.] (No.4) of the Public Service by blocking the grant of Supply. But the time must come when that course will have to be adopted - it may come in connexion with the next Supply Bill. Why should we not let Ministers know now-
Senator McGregor:
– That they are not to do it again ?
Senator Colonel NEILD:
– Exactly. Why not let them know that the Senate will not continue to stultify itself by entering utterly useless protests against a system which we all reprehend and deplore? One Ministry is no worse than another. The present Ministry appear to be worse than their predecessors, because, under existing circumstances, they have to ask for Supply every fortnight.
Senator Givens:
– Only once a month.
Senator Colonel NEILD:
– The excuse which is always put forward is that the passing of Supply Bills is a matter of urgency, on the ground of the fortnightly payment of salaries.
Senator Givens:
– Anything will serve the Government for an excuse.
Senator Colonel NEILD:
– While 1 raise no objection to this Bill being proceeded with, I think I am justified in saying that on another occasion I shall not be disposed to be so complaisant. There must be a stoppage to the system of voting millions of money every year without the smallest consideration being accorded to these Bills. When the Appropriation Bill comes before us, it is the custom of every Treasurer to say, “ Parliament has already voted the sums provided in the Estimates. Therefore, what is the use of making a fuss about it now?” By countenancing the system of monthly Supply Bills, the Senate has lost every element of control over the public expenditure. I shall take no exception to the present Bill being proceeded with, but I beg very respectfully to intimate that I may not be in quite so good a humour when another Supply Bill comes before us in like circumstances.
Senator STEWART: Queensland
– I agree with every sentiment that has been uttered by Senators Symon and Neild, but while they are willing to defer taking action, I am prepared to take action now. It ishigh time that this practice of protesting without doing anything - of making a mere pretence of protestation - came to an end. It is not our fault that there is very little time available between now and the fortnightly pay day of our public servants. That is the fault of the
Government. If the. discussion of this Bill occupies so much time that the public servants are unable to get their salaries on the usual pay day, the Government will be responsible. The members of the Senate have nothing whatever to do with it. Our duty is - if we find that course necessary - to criticise the items of the Supply Bill irrespective of what may be the result to our public servants.
Senator Pulsford:
– Question.
Senator STEWART:
– We are not overburdened with business in this ChamberLast week the Senate had to adjourn because it had no business with which it could proceed. The Government had not sufficient business to keep us even half employed, and it seems to me to be indecent for them to now ask us to suspend the Standing Orders and to rush through a Bill authorizing the expenditure of £300,000 or £400,000. without any criticism whatever. I am sorry that I was not in the chamber when the motion for the first reading of the Bill was submitted, because, if I had been, I should have had something to say upon it. There were one or two matters upon which I desired to speak. But I fully expected - as was suggested by Senator Symon - that the Minister of Trade and Customs would have explained the measure upon the motion for its first reading, so as to afford honorable members an opportunity of airing grievances. But that course was not adopted. The first reading of the Bill was rushed through, and I think that the Senate ought to protest against this method of conducting the public business. Senator Neild very properly pointed out that the Senate has lost all control over the finances. That statement is quite true. I do not think that either branch of the Legislature has any control over the financial administration of this country.
Senator Colonel Neild:
– That is practically a fact.
Senator STEWART:
– The whole administration of the finances appears to be in the hands of the Government, without let or hindrance. Honorable senators are not afforded an opportunity to indulge in effective criticism. That is a condition of affairs for which they themselves are responsible.
Senator Colonel Neild:
– Quite true.
Senator STEWART:
– Of course the object of the Government is to get their measures through Parliament as quickly as possible, and with as little criticism as possible. On the other hand, it is the duty of honorable senators to see that the affairs of the country are administered as they ought to be. Upon a motion of this kind 1 am not permitted to discuss details. If I were I should point out that the Departments of the State are in a ridiculous condition - every one of them - owing to bad administration.
The PRESIDENT:
– I am afraid the honorable senator is transgressing a rule which he says that he recognises.
Senator STEWART:
– That is’ a very good reason why we should not rush measures through Parliament. I hope that Senators Neild and Symon will think over this matter, and instead of threatening to do something on a future occasion will take action now. I intend to divide the Senate upon the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Senator Pulsford:
– Regardless of consequences to the Public Service.
Senator STEWART:
– I am not responsible for those consequences. My duty, and that of the honorable senator, is not to the public servants, but to the whole public.
Senator Givens:
– To the whole public, including the public servants.
Senator STEWART:
– Exactly. If our public servants suffer, honorable senators who discharge their duty will not be to -blame. The fault will be that of the Government, who have failed to perform their duty by delaying the introduction of this measure until the last moment. I shall divide the Senate upon the motion, and if there is a feeling in this Chamber that our Standing Orders ought not to be suspended, honorable senators will have an opportunity of voicing it.
Senator GIVENS: Queensland
– I should not have risen, but for the very pointed interjection of Senator Pulsford, who implied that if Senator Stewart divided the Senate upon this motion, he would do so regardless of the consequences to our public servants. I wish to point out that we ought not to allow any such consideration to influence us. I would remind Senator Pulsford that to-day is only the tenth of the month, and that the fortnightly payments to our public servants will not become due until Saturday next.
Senator Sir Robert Best:
– Salaries must be paid on Fridays. They are never -paid on Saturdays.
Senator GIVENS:
– They can be paid on Friday without any suspension of the Standing Orders. This Bill can be passed to-morrow, and can receive the assent of the Governor-General the same evening, or at the latest on Friday morning. Consequently, the insinuation that honorable senators, in refusing to accede to a suspention of the Standing Orders would be sacrificing the interests of our public servants, is entirely beside the mark. I agree with Senators Neild, Symon, and Stewart, that this Chamber ought not lightly to part with its control over the finances of the Commonwealth. It is the most important duty that we have to discharge.
Senator Gray:
– In what way are we parting with that control?
Senator GIVENS:
– Senator Gray must know that our Parliamentary procedure has been adopted as the result of years of experience, in order to conserve the rights of the people’s representatives, and to prevent the Government - which, after all, is merely a Committee of Parliament - rushing through business irrespective of their desires. Our Standing Orders have been framed largely with that object in view. If we suspend those orders, honorable senators will be foregoing their power to indulge in that full criticism to which every matter of public interest ought to be subjected.
Senator Gray:
– At any time the Senate has the power to criticise any matter which may be brought before it.
Senator GIVENS:
- Senator Gray is exceedingly innocent when he wants to be so. It is impossible to have proper discussion and criticism unless opportunities are given for the consideration of such a measure as this. How can there be due consideration when we are asked to suspend the Standing Orders before we have studied the Bill?
Senator Gray:
– The Bill was circulated last week.
Senator GIVENS:
– It is true that we received copies of the Bill when it was circulated in the other- House; but it is not the practice of the Senate to give much consideration to Bills until they are sent up to us, because we do not know what alterations mav be made in them elsewhere. For the purposes of discussion we received this Bill only two minutes ago.
Senator Gray:
– How much better off would the honorable senator be if the consideration of the measure were postponed until to-morrow ?
Senator GIVENS:
– I should then have an opportunity of looking into the details, and of considering the administration of the Departments for which we are asked to find the money. We ought to have better opportunities for controlling expenditure than we have under our present practice.
Senator SAYERS: Queensland
.- Ever since I have been a member of the Senate it has been customary to suspend the Standing Orders to enable Supply Bills to be passed. Although I have protested from time to time, no action has been taken. Ministers have been lulled into thinking that there is no occasion to hurry such measures forward. But at present we are in a difficulty. We cannot postpone this Bill. The money has to be paid on Friday next, as Monday is a public holiday. We have not had proper time to consider this Bill any more than we had time to consider other Supply Bills sent to us. But Ministers have now been publicly warned, and not by honorable senators on one side of the chamber only, that unless they give ample time for the consideration, of Supply Bills we shall refuse to suspend Standing Orders to enable them to be promptly disposed of.
Senator Gray:
– What does the honorable senator call “ample time”?
Senator SAYERS:
– I am aware that the Bill was distributed to the members of another place last week.
Senator Sir Josiah Symon:
– It would have been quite sufficient if notice had been given that the Government intended to move the suspension of the Standing Orders.
Senator SAYERS:
– The Government should have given notice of their intention last week. But I do not wish to prevent the public servants from being paid on Friday. There was an outcry in Western Australia because the last Supply Bill was delayed. I trust that the Government will take notice of the warning that has been given to them, and will have more consideration for the Senate in future.
Senator MCGREGOR: South Australia
– - I am sorry that the harmony of the Senate has been disturbed by a difference of opinion regarding the Supply Bill. I am particularly sorry that Senator Stewart was not present when the first reading was taken. Had he been in his place he would have had an opportunity of ventilating his grievances. Had I had grievances to mention, the second reading: would not have been agreed to without debate.
Senator Stewart:
– The Bill was not: mentioned on the notice- pa per, and I did not know that it was coming before us.
Senator McGREGOR:
– The honorablesenator ought to have premonitions. Heought never to trust the Government, and should always be ready, no matter what, circumstances arise. It is not because I trust the Government that I am going to do all I can to facilitate the suspension of” the Standing Orders. But I point out that the course now proposed to be taken doesnot mean that the Bill must be passed today. It means that it will be dealt with without permitting other business tr> intervene. If honorable senators haveany complaints to make regarding the administration of the Departments theywill be at liberty to make them in connexion with the details of the Bill. T canassure my honorable friends that if they are not ready to ventilate grievances, andif the complaints which they have to makeare of such a character as to justify detaining the Senate, I will assist them by stone-walling until they can go to the Library or elsewhere and obtain all the information they want. But I do not care to block the suspension of the Standing Orders seeing that every member of the Senateis as anxious that the Bill should pass asare members of the Government. If afterit has been disposed of, Ministers have no business to proceed with, they will be toblame. It is not, however, the duty of the Opposition to stone-wall in order togive the Government time to get freshbusiness ready.
Senator ST LEDGER: Queensland
– I do not wish to minimize thecriticism which has been directed against the practice pursued in dealing with Supply Bills in the Senate, but I agree with theLeader of the Opposition that we have not lost our opportunities of dealing with any matters affecting the administration of theGovernment. The complaint which Senator Stewart has made is hardly justified. It was his own fault if he was not present when the Bill was read a first time,and his excuses do not make his case anybetter. There is an old French saying,, that he who excuses himself accuses himself. In face of the criticisms which have been hurled against the Government, I wish to point out that they were the-
*Supply Bill* [10 Nov., 1909.]_(No4)._5507 first Ministry to give the Senate an opportunity of discussing the whole financial policy of the Government. When the Budget was introduced in another place, Ministers in the Senate, under cover of an informal motion, afforded facilities for the consideration of the financial situation. I am not aware that an extraordinary amount of attention was devoted to the larger financial issues, but I may be pardoned for reminding honorable senators that I took advantage of the opportunity to direct attention to certain alarming features. So that in some respects the Government have done better than their predecessors did in giving us the privilege of considering the financial policy at an early stage of the session. I trust that that course will be followed in the future. I also hope that in future the Government will see that ample notice is given when it is intended to proceed with a Supply Bill.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Minister of Trade and Customs - Victoria.) [3.14]. - I must thank **Senator St.** Ledger and **Senator McGregor** tor anticipating me in so capably explaining the real points at issue. As **Senator McGregor** has said the suspension of the Standing Orders will not result in curtailing by one minute any discussion of the Bill which may take place hereafter. When the second reading is moved the whole Bill will be open for full consideration, and the debate may range over all the items contained in it. **Senator St.** Ledger has accurately observed that when the Budget was launched in another place the Government laid the Estimates before the Senate, together with the Budget papers and inaugurated a general debate upon the financial situation. I also desire to indicate that there is nothing contentious in this Bill. The amount provided for is less than one-twelfth of the amount contained in the Estimates. The Bill contains no extraordinary features, but simply provides for the ordinary services of the Commonwealth. We are already committed to payments for these annual services, and must vote the money whether we care to do so or not. I hope that honorable senators will not press any fanciful grievance, but will be content to adopt the practice followed in another place, and, I believe, in every Parliament within the Empire, of agreeing to the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable a formal Supply Bill of this char acter to be put through without delay. In the circumstances, I suggest to Senators Stewart and Givens that they should not press their objection to the motion.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- The objection is that the opportunity to discuss grievances has been taken away from honorable senators.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- That is not my fault.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- It has been the practice for the Minister introducing a Supply Bill to address himself to it on the first reading.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I initiated that practice when I thought I had something to say with respect to such a Bill, and several honorable senators took exception to that course, and held that the Minister should defer what he had to say until he moved the second reading. I had nothing of a special character to say in this instance, and so contented myself with formally moving the first reading of the Bill.
Question - That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being proceeded with and passed through all its stages forthwith - put. The Senate divided. '
AYES: 20
NOES: 6
Majority ... ... 14
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [3.21]. - I move -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
The amount provided for on the Estimates of expenditure for 1909-10 in the ordinary votes is *£5,092,289.* A five months proportion of that amount would be *£2,121,787.* The amounts included in Supply Bills, including that now before the Senate, total *£1,980,100,* 5508 *Supply Bill* [SENATE.] *(No.* 4). and will meet requirements to the end of November. Honorable senators will therefore see that the total amount which will have been voted, if this measure is carried, will still be under the proportion for the year. The amount asked for in this Bill is simply to meet the expense of the ordinary annual services. I am assured that it contains no extraordinary items, and nothing of a contentious character. I believe, therefore, that honorable senators will see their way to vote the amount asked for.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
*In Committee -*
Clauses1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule,
{: #debate-5-s7 .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART: Queensland
. On the vote for the Parliament I wish to go back once more to the old question of the necessity for providing accommodation for the papers, correspondence, and documents with which honorable senators have to deal in carrying on their Parliamentary work. Every member of the Committee will agree that the convenience at present afforded for this purpose is wholly inadequate. For lack of a place in which to put them, honorable senators are often obliged to pitch valuable public documents into the waste-paper basket, and, consequently, their efficiency for the performance of their Parliamentary duties is largely interfered with. I have on several occasions previously brought this matter under the notice of honorable senators. Two attempts have been made to assist us in this direction, but I find that the accommodation now provided is as deficient, from the point of view of an honorable senator who wishes to keep in touch with everything going on in the Commonwealth, as it ever was. I can easily understand that members of the old Legislative Council of Victoria were satisfied with one small box in which to place their correspondence and papers, because the business done by them was of very small moment indeed. Their correspondence was very limited, and the number of papers coming before them very small. They did not take any particular interest in the measures before the State Parliament unless in some way they affected their own particular privileges. There was, therefore, no need to make special provision such as I ask for to enable them to carry on their work. I should like the President, the House Committee, or the Government to provide hon orable senators with adequate accommodation. I did intend to keep all my papers and bring them into the chamber some day, and deposit them on the table, so that honorable senators might see the number of public papers and documents which I consider it absolutely necessary to keep if I am to do my business as it ought to be done. I should like to know what the Government intend to do in the matter. Perhaps they are waiting until the new Federal Parliament House is erected in the Federal city, but it will be some tenor twenty years, I assume, before this Parliament will sit in Yass-Canberra.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Lt Col NEILD: NEW SOUTH WALES · FT
**-Colonel Sir ALBERT** GOULD (New South Wales) [3.29].- **Senator Stewart** should bear in mind that the House Committee has, from time to time, provided additional accommodation for the convenience of honorable senators.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator Stewart:
-- That provided is not yet sufficient.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Lt Col NEILD: NEW SOUTH WALES · FT
**-Colonel Sir ALBERT** GOULD. - It may not be sufficient in the opinion of the honorable senator. The matter which he has brought up is one with which the House Committee should in the first instance be asked to deal, and if that body failed to take reasonable action then it would be a proper thing for the honorable senator to bring it under the notice of the Senate. Instructions are being given for a meeting of the Committee to be summoned for to-morrow, and if the honorable senator will send a short note to me, as chairman, it will be submitted for consideration, and no doubt his trouble will he very much alleviated, if not entirely removed.
{: #debate-5-s8 .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator KEATING: Tasmania
-- I desire to know whether any provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of an advertising editor for a publication relating to Australia, and, if so, what steps have been taken in that direction. I particularly desire to know what qualifications the Government deem essential for the occupant of the position, and the exact nature of the work to be performed in connexion with the publication, which, I understand, is to be issued periodically from the Department of External Affairs.
{: #debate-5-s9 .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: Minister of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist
[3.33]. - Applications have been invited by the Public Service Commissioner from persons competent to fill the' position of advertising editor at a salary of from *£340* to *£450.*
The time for the receipt of applications has not yet closed. The qualifications for the occupant of the position are set forth in the advertisement, but, unfortunately, I have not a copy of it at hand.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- One of the conditions is that he must be already in the Public Service. Where can a suitable man be found in the service?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- If there is no suitable person in the Public Service the Act will allow an outside person to be appointed.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- What is to be the nature of the publication?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I do nol know that it is intended that a publication shall be issued, but the duty of the officer will be to edit advertisements to appear in other publications.
{: #debate-5-s10 .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator KEATING: Tasmania
-- I desire to know what steps have been taken by the Department of Home Affairs to give effect to the expressed desire of both Houses that there shall be established a system by which Australian timbers may be preserved every year for use in connexion with the construction of public works. Some time ago, when I had the honour of being at the head of the Department, I inaugurated a scheme for the conservation of Australian timbers from year to year, so that, say, seven years hence, and onwards, the Commonwealth would have in stock seasoned timber suitable for structural purposes. A sum was voted on the Estimates for the last financial year, and I think that a similar sum is set down on the Estimate! for the current year. Quite recently the ex-President of the United States, as well as his successor, drew the attention of public bodies and others interested to the desirableness of conserving all the natural resources of the Union. He has gone to the extent of inviting representtative nations throughout the world to send to an International Congress accredited persons, for the purpose of consulting as te the waste of natural resources which goes on in different countries, and the best means of conserving them for future generations. The scheme I inaugurated was only an elementary step in the like direction, but one which might result in very great advantage, not only to Victoria, but also to the other States of the Commonwealth. I shall be glad if the Minister can state what steps have been taken in the direction of effectuating the will of Palrliament, and how far, and when, it is anticipated that those steps will be successful.
{: #debate-5-s11 .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE: Western Australia
-- The scheme to which **Senator Keating** has referred is one which, if it is energetically followed up, must result in a considerable saving to the Commonwealth. In Western Australia, jarrah timber is improved in quality by being seasoned. In that State, it is the practice of not only the Government, but builders and contractors, to buy considerable quantities of native timber, and keep it for a number nf years while it seasons. Otherwise, when they had a big contract, and there was no seasoned timber in the market, they would have to buy green or partially seasoned timber, and stand the risk of having very heavy penalties imposed upon them. Of course, if a Government contractor could show that no seasoned timber was available, the Minister would be a very hard man who would not allow the contractor to proceed with the job, but would enforce the penalties.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- It was the almost invariable experience with contractors which led me to adopt the system of seasoning timber.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- A Minister finds himself in this position, that he has to do what is practically an injustice to the contractor, or waive the penalty, and allow him to use unseasoned timber. The only way out of the difficulty is that in each State stacks of timber should be seasoned. For instance, the Postal Department ought to be able to closely estimate the quantities of timber which it will require. In each State there should be established a depot where the timbers for contracts could be seasoned. It is known that the Commonwealth will require a quantity of certain timbers during every year. Flooring timber, for instance, must be seasoned before it can be used. In the case of jarrah, the companies cut the timber to a size for the purpose of being seasoned, and, as it is required, the seasoned timber is put through the machines, and milled, whereupon it is put down. When the Government of Western Australia decided to erect Parliament House, their first step was not to get out plans and specifications, but to buy a quantity of jarrah timber for the purpose of being seasoned. In the case of the Mint, too, the timber was purchased by the Mint authorities, and seasoned several years before the contract for the erection of the building was let. Hitherto, the Commonwealth has done nothing in that direction. No doubt, the late Minister of Home Affairs often found himself in a difficulty, and so realized the necessity of inaugurating a system for the seasoning of timbers. In view of the fact that Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia possess large quantities of native timber of very great value, the Government of the Commonwealth should take steps to lay down a seasoning plant.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [3.42]. - There is no doubt that **Senator Keating** initiated a most valuable scheme when he was Minister of Home Affairs. I think it will be gratifying to him to learn that since he left office it has been pertinaciously pursued. The Departments have been requested to furnish estimates of the quantities of timbers which they would require to be seasoned annually, and when that information is supplied, it is intended to establish certain experimental works at a cost of £3,000. In the meantime, sites for stores are being secured. I shall bring under the notice of my colleague the representations which have just been made by Senators Keating and Pearce to-day, together with the report of the Victorian Conservator of Forests for the year ending 30th June last. In that report, I find this paragraph : -
>A close investigation is being made into the merits of the various systems of artificially seasoning timber. Hitherto many of our best hardwoods have been used only for ordinary building and construction, while their fineness of grain, figure, and general fitness for the work of the cabinetmaker and joiner have been entirely overlooked. . . . In view of the enormous supplies of this line timber in our forests its preparation for market is of the first importance, and, therefore, the proposal of this Department to establish an experimental seasoning plant for the treatment of our hardwoods is of interest to sawmillers as well as to purchasers of these timbers.
It is intended to secure a similar plant for the Commonwealth at a cost of £3,000.
{: #debate-5-s12 .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE: Western Australia
-- - I desire to know whether the Minister has yet received any report regarding the administration of the Old-age Pensions Act in Western Australia. As he is aware, a number of complaints have been ventilated here, and it seems to me that sufficient time has since elapsed to enable the Minister to obtain a report upon them. Is he now in a position to tell us the result of his investigations?
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [3.46]. - Some reports have been received from Western Australia in regard to the complaints to which the honorable senator has alluded. Amongst other things, the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions in that State says -
>The claims for old-age pensions here have been dealt wilh in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act and Regulations and the rulings and instructions received.
He further says -
>In this State the old shipping records were destroyed some years ago, except in the cases of convicts, and it is only during the last few years that ages have been shown in connexion with certificates of marriages and births. The absence of this information, it will be readily understood, caused more trouble in verifying the length of residence and age of applicants than would be the case -where such information is obtainable. Still, every possible assistance has been given to claimants in this matter, in fact, they have been assisted in every possible way in connexion with their claims.
>
>The staff of officers dealing with the claims in Perth has been sufficient for requirements in the circumstances, and a larger staff was not, in my opinion, justified.
He adds -
>I would state that since the inauguration of the pension work I have devoted the whole of my time to it to the extent of, on an average, 12 to r4 hours per diem, and in addition to the clerical work have daily attended the hearing of claims, in the capacity of Registrar at the inquiries.
>
>I might state that so far as the Perth claims are concerned they are practically complete, that is to say, excepting such claims as might come in from day to day and those that may have been before the . Court' there are no claims in hand. I am not in a position to say how the Registrars outside Perth are situated, but their claims are coming to hand in a more satisfactory condition than hitherto, and I do not anticipate any particular trouble in finally disposing of such claims.
I hold in my hand a list of the claims made in various districts as at 15th October last. It sets forth the number of claims received, the number dealt with by magistrate or withdrawn, and the number on hand. I need only refer to two or three districts, but the complete list is available to any honorable senator who may wish to peruse it. In Perth, the number of claims received was 1,144, the number dealt with by 'magistrate or withdrawn was 1,042, and the number on hand upon date mentioned was 102. At Midland Junction, the number of claims received was 129, the number dealt with by magistrate or withdrawn was 93, and the number on hand was 36.
At Fremantle, the number of claims received was 337, the number dealt with bymagistrate or withdrawn was 134, and, on 15th October last, there were 203 claims on hand.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- Has the Minister any information of a more recent date?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- Yes. The total number of claims received, up to 15th October last, was 2,595, the total number dealt with by magistrate or withdrawn was 2,029, and the total number on hand was 566. In the Albany district, which has been the subject of some attention by my honorable friends opposite, 60 claims were received, 48 were dealt with by magistrate or withdrawn, and the number on hand, on 15th October last, was 12.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- Can the Minister give us any information in regard to the Kalgoorlie claims ?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBER1 BEST:
-- At Kalgoorlie, 120 claims were received, of which 88 were dealt with by magistrate or withdrawn, and on the date mentioned there were 32 claims on hand.
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGregor:
-- Could not the number dealt with by magistrates, and the number withdrawn, be given separately? At present the information is rather confusing.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- The number of claims withdrawn would, I understand, merely be nominal. The total claims received in Western Australia up to 5th November was 2,309, of which 1,560 had been granted, 219 rejected, and 69 withdrawn. The number pending consideration was 461.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- Has the Minister any information in regard to the Registrar of the Arbitration Court ?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I have not that information here, but I will make a note of the honorable senator's question.
{: #debate-5-s13 .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator HENDERSON: Western Australia
-- I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Trade and Customs to an inconsistency in an answer which he gave to a question put by me to-day, in reference to the female employes in the Stamps Printing Branch. I understand that the Branch is under the control of the Treasury, and, therefore, I presume that I have a right to refer to it here. Upon the 20th October last I asked the Minister whether it was a fact that some female employes, who "had been engaged in that Branch for eighteen years, were receiving the munificent wage of *£1* per week. His reply was that there were females who had been employed for the term indicated who were in receipt of only *£z* per week, but that the Branch had only recently been taken over by the Commonwealth, which was continuing the conditions that had previously obtained in Victoria. To-day I re-, minded the Minister of that reply, and asked him whether it was a "fact that since my previous questions were put the hours of labour of these female employes had been increased by two hours weekly. In reply, the Minister said that that was so. I gather from his statement that their hours have been increased so as to make them conform to a public service regulation which prescribes the hours of employment within the Branch. In reply to a third question which I put to him, as to whether the Government intended to imme-' diately advance the salaries of these women to *£110* annually - the recognised minimum under the Public Service Act - the Minister stated under cover of some other regulation that at the end of twelve months the Government might readjust the conditions obtaining in. the Branch, and declare the wages which they would pay and the number of employes whom they would retain. That is to say, they require twelve months to ascertain whether they need the Stamps Printing Branch, which has been working in Victoria for so many years. If at the end of that period they decide that they do require the- Branch, they will then take into consideration the necessity of complying with the Public Service Act by paying these female employes the minimum wage prescribed under it. It would appear that these women have been working under conditions which gave them an advantage of two hours weekly over other employes. That condition existed, I presume, when the Government took over the Branch. They at once increased the hours of labour of these women, but, apparently, it will take them twelve months to ascertain whether these employes, who are now receiving only ^52 per annum, shall be advanced to .£110 per annum. The inconsistency of their action is exceedingly reprehensible. If it is just for the Government to increase the hours of labour, surely it is equally right that they should .pay to these women a wage sufficient to keep *body* and soul together. Evidently the "miserable pittance of Per week is not sufficient for people who have for eighteen years occupied positions in which their experience has made them really expert. If the regulation under which the Government take shelter enables these female employes to be compelled to work the same number of hours as male employes, the bitter irony of the position is such as to stir any man's heart. If the Government have a means of raising the hours of work of these girls to the number worked by men, why cannot they find a means of paying the girls the same wages as men are receiving? But to raise their hours by two per week, and then take shelter under the paltry excuse that the position is to be reviewed at the end of twelve months, is to admit that the treatment of the girls is indefensible. The Government should have found out whether the Stamps Branch was necessary before taking it over from the State of Victoria. If the Branch is necessary, the women engaged in it should receive the minimum payment of £110 per annum. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that it is the intention of the Government not to keep these girls groping along for twelve months before deciding to pay them a more liberal wage than £1 per week.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [4.5] - I shall, of course, deem it to be my duty to bring the representations of my honorable friend, **Senator Henderson,** under the notice of my colleague, the Treasurer. But the position, as explained to me, is this : A number of temporary employes are engaged in the Stamps Branch. They were taken over from the Victorian Government on exactly the same conditions under which they were previously engaged. There is but one exception to that statement, and that is that their hours of employment have been increased by two per week, in order to make them uniform with the hours worked by others in similar employment. The class of work is very simple, namely, that of placing paper in a machine and superintending its perforation. The Public Service Commissioner has a most difficult task to perform, and we are fortunate indeed in having an honest, fearless, and straightforward officer in his position, discharging his duties, on the whole, with complete satisfaction. The Commissioner has to assess the value of the work done by the several employe's. So far as he has had an opportunity of looking into the question, he has arrived at the conclusion - and we must accept his honest judgment - that the work done does not warrant the payment of a greater wage. But he has also undertaken to review the whole position after the Branch has been under Commonwealth control for a period of twelve months. In the meantime, he will be able to acquire greater experience. Surely the Commissioner is acting on a sound principle when he says that these people were content with the wages they received in the Victorian Government service, and that he sees no reason at present for assessing the value of their work at a higher figure. It is quite true that upon the representations of the head of the Branch the hours of work have been made uniform with those worked generally in the Federal service-. In that matter the Commissioner did what was right. But as we have his assurance that he will review the position after a period of twelve months, we may fairly accept his intention in that regard, especially bearing in mind that the Commissioner, as a rule, is inclined to err on the side of generosity if he errs at all.
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator de Largie:
-- Does the Minister say that the Commissioner has erred on the side of generosity in this instance?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I am speaking of our general knowledge of him. He seeks to do what is fair and right towards all our employes.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator Needham:
-- Is not twelve months a long time?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I do not know that it is. The work is of a simple character, and the Commissioner thinks, as at present advised, that' it ought to be assessed at not more than £1 per week, as was the case while the Branch was under the Victorian Government. I think that he is justified, under the circumstances, in asking that the existing conditions may continue for the present.
{: .speaker-JU7}
##### Senator de Largie:
-- That is an excuse that any sweater would put forward.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I do not think that the Public Service Commissioner can be accused of sweating. I urge honorable senators to leave the matter for the period mentioned in the Commissioner's hands. I will, of course, bring under the notice of my colleague the representations which have been made.
{: #debate-5-s14 .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator HENDERSON: Western Australia
-- I feel very keenly on this matter. I have had some experience of the excuses advanced by employers of labour, and have now come to the conclusion that the Government are imbued with precisely the same notions as the ordinary sweater. They are trying to effect a saving that is in itself somewhat dishonorable ; for to me, as a member of this Parliament, it is dishonorable to be connected with a system that pays no more than *£i* per week to women who have been engaged in the service for eighteen years. The "simplicity " talked of by the Minister is all Tommy rot.
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGregor:
-- It is a simple thing to a watchmaker to make a watch, because he knows how.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator HENDERSON:
-- The work done by the employes may be simple to them, because they have become experienced in it. By the way of protest against the conduct meted out to these long service employes, I move -
>That the House of Representatives be requested to reduce the vote, Department of the Treasury, £3,175, by *£1.*
{: #debate-5-s15 .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH: Western Australia
-- I shall vote for the reduction of the item proposed by **Senator Henderson.** Within the last four or five weeks, since that honorable senator has drawn attention to the matter under review, there has been ample time for the Government to put an end to the practice of sweating which has been carried on in connexion with the Stamps Printing Branch. That employes who have been rendering services for the past eighteen years should be receiving no more than *£1* per week is nothing less than a positive disgrace to the Commonwealth. There are actually unfortunate women in the employ of this Government who are receiving no more than 7s. per week. What has the Minister to say to these facts? Surely the determination of such questions ought not to be left to the discretion of the Public Service Commissioner. After all, the Government have a wide discretionary power, and do not need to go to the Commissioner for a recommendation. Many things can be done bv Ministerial authority. The Government themselves are responsible. I am surprised that under the circumstances that have been revealed, the Minister of Trade and Customs should have made excuses for the Commissioner. The Commonwealth Government are in an entirely different position from that of any private sweater. They are not engaged in competition with rival institutions. It is true that the Minister is the custodian of the taxpayers' money, but if there is a taxpayer in Australia so mean as to consider a wage of from 20s. to 7s. a week sufficient to support body and soul of an employe in a Branch of the Treasury Department, he is unworthy to live in this Commonwealth. The Minister of Trade and Customs has said that the work performed by these women is merely the perforation of stamps. That is highly important work.' The official engaged in it must attend closely to the perforating machine, and must make no mistakes. But there is other work done by these employes. They are engaged in the printing of postal notes and money orders. It must be admitted that this is work of a highly responsible character. A dishonest official charged with this work might very easily defraud the -taxpayer to almost any extent. The Minister of Trade and Customs referred to the simple employment of working a perforation machine, but he said nothing about the highly responsible work of those engaged in the. printing of postal notes and money orders, and whose salaries range from 20s. down to 7 s. per week. Let us consider also what is the prospect in front of these employes. It has been stated, in evidence given before the Postal Commission, that these supernumeraries - and, by the way, the high-flown title does not find them in bread and butter - are employed at from 20s. down to 7s. per week. It is in evidence also that the manager of the Branch contemplates the use of ;i machine which will do away with the labour of the persons who are employed at this sweated wage. They will certainly not lose very much, but they have no prospect of advancement, and it is certain that when the proposed machine is installed, they will be thrown upon the labour market, and deprived of even the small wage they are now getting. The wages paid in this Branch deserve the strongest condemnation. An additional burden has been placed on the employes since they have joined the Commonwealth service. Their meal time has been reduced from one hour to half-an-hour, and their working hours have been increased. **Senator Vardon,** as a printer, will agree that it is most unfair to increase the working hours of these employe's, and, at the same time, reduce their meal hours, while continuing to pay them the very low wages they have been receiving since as far back as eighteen years ago. They are getting from 20s. down to 7s. per week.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- That is misleading.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- That has been brought out in evidence.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- :Not at all. None of those who have been for eighteen years engaged in this work are getting 7s. per week.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- No; those who have been eighteen years at the work are receiving the handsome wage of 20s. per week.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- I did not mean to convey the impression that those who are only getting 7s. per week have been eighteen years in the service. Public attention has been directed to this iniquity, and no action is taken by the Government to put an end to it. I shall vote for- the request in the hope that the Commonwealth Treasurer will be brought to a sense of his duty in the matter. If any attempt were made to interfere with his interests, **Sir John** Forrest would be the first to resent it.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- The right honorable gentleman has no more power fo interfere in this matter than has the honorable senator.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- Has the right honorable gentleman no discretionary power?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- No.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- Could not the Public Service Commissioner forward a recommendation to him?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- The honorable senator said that my honorable colleague, the Treasurer, could take action in the matter.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- He could take action in the matter if he chose to do so.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- He has no legal power to do so.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator LYNCH:
-- If there is a sufficient sense of justice and humanity in this Committee, we have the power to request a reduction of this vote, and so bring the matter, under the notice of the public, and force the Government to do their duty to these public servants who are being sweated.
{: #debate-5-s16 .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE: Western Australia
-- The Minister of Trade and Customs said that the Treasurer has no power to deal with this question. This Parliament has expressed its opinion in the Public Service Act that every adult in the service of the Commonwealth should receive a minimum salary of £ito per annum. There is a condition that he must be three years in the Public Service, but every one knows that the spirit of the Public Service Act is that a public servant entering the service at from sixteen to eighteen years of age, and having served a probationary period of three years, shall,, on reaching the age of twenty-one, receive a salary of at least £11.0 per annum.
{: .speaker-K9T}
##### Senator Vardon:
-- Would the honorable senator employ a man to work a perforating machine?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- If this is not the work of a man, a man should not be employed upon it.
{: .speaker-K9T}
##### Senator Vardon:
-- That is so.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- If **Senator Vardon** employes a man upon any work, he pays him a man's wage, and if men or women are employed in this work, they should be paid a living wage for adults. There has been a certain amount of quibbling in connexion with this matter, whether by the Public Service Commissioner or by the Treasurer, I am not going to say. The fact that these employe's have only recently been transferred to the service of the Commonwealth is seized upon by the Public Service Commissioner or by the Treasurer as a justification for complying with the letter, and not with the spirit of the Public Service Act. If these employes had been engaged in a transferred Department their service under the State Government would count as service under the Commonwealth, but as they were not transferred to the Commonwealth service when the Post and Telegraph Department was transferred their service for eighteen years under the State Government is not counted as service under the Commonwealth.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator St Ledger:
-- How long has this grievance existed?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- The wages complained of were paid to these employes during the whole of the time they were in the employment of the State. For that we are not responsible, but we are responsible for continuing to pay them such wages. It is altogether opposed to the feeling expressed in this Parliament that adults should be asked to work for such a rate of wages. The minimum wage provisions of the Public Service Act were generally approved by all parties in the Commonwealth Parliament when they were proposed. The simplicity of this work is a very poor justification to put forward for the low rate of pay. Under the State Factories Act, if private employers desire to employ youths or girls under a certain age they are obliged to pay them a specified wage, and if they ' desire to employ adults they must pay a higher wage. The private employer is obliged to arrange the management of his factory accordingly. If a particular work is so simple that it might readily be performed by a youth he will not employ an adult to do it. There is a responsibility thrown upon us in the administration of the public Departments. I do not know what the character of the work done' by these employes is, but 1 say that no matter what it is, if adults are employed upon it they should be paid the wages of adults.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- Does the honorable senator suggest that these employes should be dismissed?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- I am not suggesting anything of the kind, because 1 do not know the character of the work in which they are employed.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- The work could be done by girls fifteen or sixteen years of age.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- The Minister would not trust a girl of fifteen years of age with the printing of postal notes.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- If the Government employ adults at this work they should pay them the wages of adults. The wages now paid in this Department are a disgrace to the Commonwealth. I shall support the request, because the wages paid to these employe's are opposed to the spirit of the Public Service Act. If the Treasurer intimates to the Public Service Commissioner that in his opinion these employes should receive the benefit of the minimum wage provision of the Public Service Act, and the Public Service Commissioner refuses to make the necessary recommendation, the time has arrived for the Government to come before Parliament and ask that the wings of the Public Service Commissioner should be clipped. It would surprise me very much to learn that the Public Service Commissioner, if he knew it was the desire of the Government that these adult employes should be paid adults' wages would not accede to that desire.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator Stewart:
-- Has he any control over these employes?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator PEARCE:
-- I think he has. I think it is correct to say that no Minister can raise the wages of a public servant without a recommendation from the Public Service Commissioner, but if in this case the ' Minister were to give the Public Service Commissioner to understand that the Government desired that these employes should receive the wages of adults he would make the necessary recommendation. I think the Government should take that stand. If they did so, and were defied by the Public Service Commissioner, the feeling of Parliament and public opinion on this question are such that prompt steps could be taken to bring the Public Service Commissioner to a sense of what is fitting.
{: #debate-5-s17 .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER: Queensland
-- That girls or adults should be paid wages of from 7s. to 20s. might in some circumstances be a great hardship, and, no doubt, the Public Service Commissioner, as well as the responsible Minister, would be prepared to deal with the matter. But if I understand the question aright, the grievance complained of has existed for some time.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- Of course it has.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- It has occurred to me during the discussion that if this grievance and this iniquitous injustice to some women, which **Senator Henderson** suggests has continued for some time, I might ask the honorable senator how it is that the Treasurer of the late Government did not attend to the matter?
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- The hours of labour were increased since the 20th October last.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- That is no answer.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- That is the point I wish to get at.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- The matter was revealed by the inquiries of the Postal Commission. It was not brought under the notice of the late Government.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- The position is that the matter was not known to the late Treasurer, and was unearthed by the Postal Commission. But one important aspect cannot be overlooked by the Opposition, and that is that the Public Service Commissioner was appointed as a sort of arbiter to deal with a matter of this kind. It has been admitted by honorable senators on the other side that he has gone into this case very carefully, but, notwithstanding that fact, **Senator Henderson** is not satisfied with his decision, and appeals to the Senate for a reconsideration. He is beginning to institute a principle which, I hope, he will seriously consider before he calls for adivision on this request, because the Commissioner was intrusted by Parliament with certain statutory powers.
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGregor:
-- What possible justification can there be for sweating these persons ?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- That is not the question. Is it imputed that the Commissioner has not impartially investigated the case, or that, having made an investigation, he has reported that he cannot see his way to alter the existing arrangement? Am I to understand that this request is intended as a direct attack upon him ?
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator Needham:
-- No.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- How do I know that my honorable friends do not intend to construe it into an attack? In his concluding remarks **Senator Pearce** suggested that it might be necessary to clip the wings of the Commissioner. I regret the use of that expression, as I am sure the honorable senator will do on reflection. He confessed that he had no knowledge of the rights or wrongs of the case, but he took it for granted that possibly **Senator Henderson's** statement of it was correct.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- The Minister admitted that it was correct.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
**- Senator Pearce** was informed that the attention of the Commissioner will again be directed to the matter. But in his concluding remarks he suggested the possibility of clipping his wings.
{: .speaker-K3G}
##### Senator W RUSSELL: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
-- Yes, if necessary.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
**- Senator Pearce** confessed that he knew very little of the case, and suggested that unless a complaint affecting a few individuals was attended to in a certain way the wings of the Commissioner mustbe clipped. I resent the use of that expression very strongly. Surely honorable senators will admit that we must have discipline in the Public Service. The Minister has fairly met the position submitted by **Senator Henderson.** He has gone so far as to say that the attention of the Commissioner will again be drawn to the matter. From what has been said on each side of the Chamber it is evident that there are two sides of the. question. When a suggestion is made that perhaps the wings of the Commissioner should be clipped, the Minister will, I feel confident, give careful attention to all that has been said by **Senator Henderson.** Of course, we agree with the honorable senator on the broad principle which he has put forward. But no Minister ought to be asked to call upon an important officer to reconsider his decision when the communication is accompanied with the suggestion that it might be necessary to clip his wings.
{: #debate-5-s18 .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGREGOR: South Australia
-- I do not think that there was any necessity for **Senator St.** Ledger to get excited. He has put an erroneous interpretation upon what **Senator Pearce** said with respect to clipping the wings of a public officer. We on this side are prepared at all times to do everything we possibly, can to support the Public Service Commissioner when he is acting in accordance with the Public Service Act. I wonder what the honorable senator's ideas on a question of this kind would be if he were familiar with the debates that took place on its provisions. No matter whether he or his sister or his aunt is prepared to work for£1 a week, the intention of Parliament when it passed the Act should be respected. What was the principle embodied in the Act? It was that when a person had served for three years and attained the age of twenty-one years, he or she should receive a salary of £110 a year. It may be said that the women who are engaged in the Stamps Branch have not been in the Commonwealth service for three years. If the Branch was taken over by the Commonwealth, and if previously they had served therein for years at the samekind of work, the Public Service Commissioner should consider their position. If he does not, it must be owing to a misunderstanding of the law. That is all that **Senator Pearce** meant when he stated that the Commissioner's wings might have to be clipped. What he meant to convey was that it might be indicated to the Commissioner that he was to take into account the services which these persons had rendered to the Branch when it was under the State. Whenever a Department has been taken over by the Commonwealth the services of any officers therein under the State have 'been taken into consideration, and that rule should be observed. That is all that any one on this side is contending for. As a protest against any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the intention of Parliament, we intend to support the request for a reduction of this item by £1. To cut the Supply short is, of course, a very peculiar method to adopt when our desire is to secure proper wages for these public servants ; but that is the only course which is open to us. If a division is called for we shall be compelled to vote in that direction. But I think that the wisest plan for the Minister to adopt would be to invite the Commissioner to administer the Act in accordance with the intention of Parliament.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- Does the honorable member say that these persons should get *£110* a year whether the work they do is worth that sum or not?
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGREGOR:
-- The work has nothing to do with the matter.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- The statutory minimum is ;£no a year.
{: #debate-5-s19 .speaker-K1U}
##### Senator PULSFORD: New South Wales
-- I think it is generally recognised that the Commissioner is ai man who tries to do his duty in a fair spirit to public servants. Certainly some of the remarks which I have heard suggest that some hardship has been inflicted on certain persons. But this is a new species of employment. I suggest that if the Govern ment would ask the Commissioner to send in a special report of the circumstances and undertake to present it to the Senate in the course of a few days the request might very well be withdrawn.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (VictoriaMinister of Trade and Customs) [4- 43]- - I hope that **Senator Henderson** will see fit to withdraw the request, because I do not think that anything is to be gained by pressing it. The representations which have been made will, as I have already stated, be fully taken into consideration by the Treasurer, who, no doubt, will bring them under the notice of the Commissioner. All round the Chamber we are agreed that in that officer we have an honest, courageous man. He has reported that in his opinion the work is reasonably paid for at present rates, which, I repeat, were fixed by the Victorian Government.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- It is a misinterpretation of the Act.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- We are not ignoring the provision of the Act which allows the payment of ^110 a year in certain circumstances. That sum is only paid in those cases where the work is worth *£110* a year.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- The Minister is absolutely wrong.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- I think that I am right in making that statement.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- No. there is no limitation.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- At all events, that has nothing to do with the present case.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator Needham:
-- It has a lot to do with it.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- The provision relating to the payment of *£110* annually applies only to permanent employes, and these females are not permanent employes.
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- The Minister of Trade and Customs knows very well that that is a mere shuffle. It is not honest.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- The honorable senator has no right to make an improper suggestion of that kind. I am stating a fact.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- The payment of a salary of ^110 annually depends upon three things, namely, that an officer shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, that he shall have been three years in the service, and that he shall have proved his efficiency.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- Exactly. Further, it does not apply to temporary employes, and these females are merely temporary employes.
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGregor:
-- They have been temporary -employes a long time.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- That may be so. But let me point out to **Senator Henderson** the alternative of retaining them in that capacity. Does he desire that these women shall be dismissed, and that girls of sixteen or seventeen years of age shall be introduced to do their work?
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- It would be a scandal on the Commonwealth if that were done. Does the Minister of Trade and Customs shelter himself behind that alternative ?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST:
-- It is idle for the honorable senator to talk in that way. I am merely relating the facts from the stand-point of the Public Service Commissioner. Surely I am entitled to properly represent him in this connexion ? He has pointed out that these female employes perform only simple work, that the Branch has been established but a short time, and that within a brief period he will be prepared to review the position. I will undertake to bring, this matter under the notice of my colleague. I will specially draw his attention to the representations which have been made", and I will invite him to see the Public Service Commissioner and to discuss the question with him. Of course, my colleague has no power to act in this matter, which is one solely within the province of the Public Service Commissioner. Under these circumstances, I ask the honorable senator to withdraw his request.
{: #debate-5-s20 .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS: Queensland
-- The Minister of. Trade and Customs is entirely wrong in the interpretation which he has placed upon the Public Service Act. Indeed, he is culpably wrong, because, in the first place, he is charged with the administration of a. Department, and, in the second place, he is a legal gentleman from whom we might expect a more accurate knowledge of the provisions of the Public Service Act than he has exhibited. He has made two statements which will not bear the light of examination, and which are directly contrary to the meaning and the verbiage of the Act itself. In the first place, he said that the payment to an offi- cer of the minimum salary stipulated in our Public Service Act was dependent upon his fulfilling three conditions, namely, that he has been three years in the service, that he has attained the age of twenty-one years, and that the service which he is rendering the Commonwealth is worth
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- No ; the third condition is that he proves his efficiency.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- That is what the honorable senator himself said, and I am quoting what was said by the Minister of Trade and Customs. The Act imposes no such limitation. It provides that any person who has been three years in the Public Service, and has attained the age of twenty-one years, shall receive£110 annually, if he or she is only engaged in scrubbing floors. Then the Minister attempted to shelter himself behind the statement that the employe's alluded to by **Senator Henderson** have not been three years in the Commonwealth service. That statement is quite true. But what provision does the Public Service Act contain in that connexion? Sub-section 5 of section 8 reads -
>For the purposes of this section,an officer ofa Department of the Public Service of a State which has become transferred to the Commonwealth shall be deemed to be an officer of the class or grade as determined by the Commissioner pursuant to this Act.
Under that provision, State officers when the Department in which they are employed becomes transferred to the Commonwealth must be rated as if they had been three years in the Commonwealth service.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- That provision does not apply to temporary employes.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- But these women in the Stamps Printing Branch have been employed there for years. As **Senator Henderson** has said, the statement of the Minister of Trade and Customs is a mere shuffle.
{: .speaker-KKL}
##### Senator Fraser:
-- They will always be temporary employes until they are placed on the permanent list.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- **Senator Fraser** is only a temporary occupant of this sublunary sphere, although he has reached a fine round age. Has anybody ever contended that these females are not permanently employed by the State. If they were permanent employes of the State, the moment that the Department was transferred to the Commonwealth, they became permanent employes of the Commonwealth.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- But this is not a transferred Department. A transferred Department must be a Department which has been in existence in every one of the States. This is merely a Branch of a Department which has been assumed by the Commonwealth. The transferred Departments are specified in the Constitution.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- As a matter of fact, **Senator Keating** has raised a difficulty which must disappear from his own legal mind - which is always on the alert for technicalities - when he recollects that there are similar Departments to this in all of the States.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- Have they been transferred to the Commonwealth?
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- No, but they maybe to-morrow.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- We have six Meteorological Departments in the States, but not one of them has been transferred to the Commonwealth. Instead, the Commonwealth assumed responsibility in regard to the whole subject of meteorology.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- If we took over any one of the State Departments the conditions of the Public Service Act would at once apply to the transferred officers.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- But we have not done so. We have merely created a new Branch.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- If we take over State officers with any Department, they become transferred officers, and, as such, are entitled to all the consideration which the PublicService Act extends to the Commonwealth public servants. I wish now to quote the provisions of that Statute relating to the minimum salary payable, with a view to showing that the limitation placed upon it by the Minister of Trade and Customs is non-existent. Sub-section 6 of section 21 reads -
>Every such officer shall be entitled, if of the age of twenty-one years, to a salary of One hundred and ten pounds per annum, provided he has been employed for a period of not less than three years in the Public Service, of which one year has been in such Division, and shows by passing the prescribed examination that he is capable of doing the work of an office to which the salary of that amount is attached.
{: .speaker-K9T}
##### Senator Vardon:
-- That provision scarcely bears out the honorable senator's contention.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- It requires an officer to fulfil only two conditions, in order to become entitled to the salary of *£110* per annum. The first of these is that he shall have been three years in the Public Service, and the second that he shall have attained the age of twenty-one years. He cannot occupy his position if he is not qualified to discharge its duties. The *Act* imposes no such limitation as the Minister suggested, namely, that his work must be worth ;£no per annum.
{: .speaker-K9T}
##### Senator Vardon:
-- The honorable senator would not like to run a business upon those lines.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- In running a business I have never found that it is an advantage to employ any person who is not worth the full wage that is paid to him. **Senator Vardon'** s experience, I am sure, would testify to the soundness of that doctrine. A salary of .£110 per year represents only about *£2* 2s. per week. Surely that is a sufficiently small sum to constitute a living wage, and the Commonwealth is pledged to pay its employes such a wage. I wish to know why an exception has been made in the case of women in the Stamps Printing Branch. I agree with **Senator Henderson** that the Public Service Commissioner has not acted in accordance with either the letter or spirit of the Act.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- **Senator Pulsford** suggested that we should obtain a report from the Commissioner upon this case. I shall be very glad to comply with that suggestion, and to circulate the report amongst honorable senators if the request be withdrawn.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- I merely _ wish to emphasize the fact that sub-section 5 of section 8 of the Public Service Act distinctly states that in connexion with trans ferred Departments, service by an officer in a State shall count as service under the Commonwealth. There are only two conditions attached to the payment of the minimum salary of £110 annually - first, that an officer shall have been three years in the Commonwealth service, and, secondly, that he shall have attained the age of twenty-one years.
{: .speaker-K9T}
##### Senator Vardon:
-- And shall have passed an examination.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- That is not one of the conditions attaching to the payment of the minimum salary. It is one of the conditions precedent to the employment of an officer.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- Only two conditions attach to officers in the General Division, but three attach to officers in the Clerical Division.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- Speaking generally, only the two conditions which I have specified attach to officers in the Commonwealth Public Service. A man is not employed at all until he has demonstrated his efficiency. *The value of* the work which he performs has nothing whatever to do with the payment of the minimum salary provided under the Act.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- It has nothing to do with the case of these women, because theirs is general employment.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- The Public Service Commissioner has probably overlooked the provision which 1 have quoted.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- He has not overlooked section 20 of the Public Service Act, even if the women were permanent employes, which they are not.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- Section 20 reads-
>Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Commissioner, fix by order the rate of salary to be paid to an officer occupying any particular office at any sum within the limits of his class or grade and such sum shall be the salary attached to such officer while he holds such office.
That provision does not empower the Commissioner to fix the salary at less than the minimum which is stipulated" in the Act. Will the Minister of Trade and Customs tell 'me that an officer _ of "any class or grade" is to receive less than *£110* per annum? There is no such power. The Public Service Commissioner merely has power to fix wages within the limits prescribed bv the Public Sendee Act.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator Stewart:
-- Are these employes exempt from the Public Service Act?
{: .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator Henderson:
-- If they are not in the service, what has the Commissioner to *do* with them at all?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- The Commissioner has control over temporary employes.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- We find ourselves in something like a fog with reference to the technicalities which have been raised. Apparently, the Minister himself does not know the Act under which he is working.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- If the honorable senator can upset what I have told the Committee, he will be pretty clever.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator GIVENS:
-- I have shown that the Minister was beside the mark when he said that the class of work performed had something to do with the minimum wage. It has not. With regard to the application of section 20, I have also shown that the Minister had not an inch of ground to stand upon. The power to fix wages is defined, within certain limits, in the Public Service Act, and the policy pursued by the Government regarding these employes is a miserable piece of cheese-paring. If the Committee wish to see the Act passed by this Parliament upheld, it should vote accordingly.
{: #debate-5-s21 .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM: Western Australia
-- I should not have taken part in the debate except for the fact that the Minister, in his concluding remarks, threatened the dismissal of the employes in question if the amendment moved by **Senator Henderson** were agreed to.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- I did nothing of the kind.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- The honorable senator asked whether the dismissal of the employes was desired, and practically told us that if the Government were compelled to pay the statutory minimum wage they would employ girls at the age of 15 or 16 years. I decidedly object to any Minister practically saying: " If you vote in a certain direction, certain people will be penalized." Such considerations should be left entirely outside the scope of our debates. SenatorHenderson has moved a reduction of the vote on account of the Treasury by £1, in order to enter an emphatic protest against the way in which the employes in the Stamps Printing Branch have been treated. During the discussion we have heard a great deal about technicalities affecting the question whether the women concerned are temporary or permanent employes. Apparently, we have to choose between observing technicalities and starva tion wages. The women in question, who have given eighteen or twenty years' service, are not concerned about the interpretation placed upon a statute. What they want is fair treatment, and we ought to secure it for them. The Minister has also stated that the Public Service Act does not stipulate that these employes shall be paid a certain wage. He argued that their services are assessed according to their value, and that the nature of their work is simplicity itself. **Senator Givens** has entirely refuted that argument. The employes are certainly over twenty-one years of age, and they are not receiving the£110 per annum provided for by the Public Service Act. In common fairness, they should receive that wage. It has been urged that the amendment is a veiled attack upon the Public Service Commissioner. It is nothing of the kind. **Senator Henderson** simply desires, as do those who are supporting him, that fair and equitable treatment should be meted out. I again enter my protest against the manner in which the Minister has levelled a pistol at the heads of the members of this Committee by stating that, in the event of the amendment being carried, the result would possibly be the dismissal of the employes.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- -I never said anything of the kind.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-The Minister did.
{: #debate-5-s22 .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGREGOR: South Australia
-- The further the debate proceeds, the more confused is the situation becoming. In the first place, as I understand the matter, these women were taken over by the Commonwealth Government from the State of Victoria for the purpose of carrying on certain Commonwealth work. But the Minister tells us that they are not in the Public Service. Well, either they are in the service, or they are not. That is one question which we wish to have answered. We want to be certain of their position. If they are in the service, they are in the general division.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- There are eleven of them; three are in the service, and are receiving *£68* per annum ; the remaining eight are not in the service.
{: .speaker-KTF}
##### Senator McGREGOR:
-- If the remaining eight are not in the Public Service, they were at any rate in the employment of the State of Victoria when the Stamps Printing Branch was taken over. They are permanent employes now. Yet they are not getting£110 per annum as provided by the Public Service Act. **Senator Henderson,** and those who support his amendment, have no wish to embarrass the Government or to harass the Public Service Commissioner. We simply wish to see fair play. We desire the Public Service Act to be carried out in its spirit, and in its entirety. I should like the Committee to understand that position thoroughly. It would be wise for the Minister to give an undertaking that a report shall be obtained from the Commissioner, and presented to the Senate as speedily as possible. In that way, everything could be cleared up. If the Minister will promise to obtain a report immediately, a great deal of trouble will be saved, and I have no doubt that **Senator Henderson** would withdraw his motion.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [5.11]. - I appreciate the suggestion that has been made by **Senator McGregor** and **Senator Pulsford.** Honorable senators are entitled to the fullest information. As I have said by way of interjection, eleven employes are concerned ; three are getting *£68* per annum, and the others are temporary employes. I shall be very happy to obtain a report from the Public Service Commissioner for the information of honorable senators,_ on the' understanding that **Senator Henderson's** request is withdrawn. I will ask my colleague to obtain the report without delay.
{: #debate-5-s23 .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART: Queensland
-- The facts of the case are not quite clear even yet. According to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Customs, three of the employes in question are permanent officers of the Commonwealth. They are each receiving *£68* per annum. We should like to know whether they are under twenty-one years of age, and how long they have been in the service. Can the Minister indicate the ages of the three permanent employes?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- They are distinctly over twenty-one years of age.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- 1 think the Pub: lie Service Act ought to be interpreted, not according to its strict letter, but according to the spirit of it. The spirit of the Act is that any person in the Commonwealth service who has been so employed for three years and upwards, and is over twenty-one years of age, shall receive a salary of at least *£no* per year. I gather that these three officers were in the' employment of the State of Victoria, before being transferred to the Commonwealth, for a far longer period than three years. It appears to me that they are morally, if not legally, entitled to the salary of *£110.* With regard to the- temporary employes, so far as I can gather, the Public Service Commissioner has no control whatever over them. I should like to know if that is the case.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- He has some control. He makes regulations dealing with them under sections 40 and 80 of the Public Service Act.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- Reading now from the. Public Service Commissioner's re port, I find that he says -
>During last year the Postmaster-General's Department employed no less than 14,063 separate individuals, either as exempted or temporary employes, over whom the Commissioner had no controlling power.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- That may be a reference to another matter where certain repairs are necessary, or it is necessary that certain temporary work should be done. The Deputy Postmasters-General are empowered to employ temporary hands for such purposes.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- Apparently, the " Public Service Commissioner has no controlling power over temporary or exempt employes. I quote further from his report -
>Moreover, as pointed out in previous reports, it is very desirable that the Public Service Act should be amended so as to place the control of temporary employment in the hands of the Commissioner as all powers vested in the Commissioner with regard to the staffing of departments must necessarily become seriously weakened if temporary employment can be utilized to a degree only limited by the appropriations by Parliament for this purpose. Under the existing law the Commissioner may prevent the undue expansion of the permanent staff of a department but his efforts in this direction may be neutralized by the departments freely exercising their powers of appointing temporary hands.
What I wish to be clear about is whether the salaries of these temporary hands are fixed by the Public Service Commissioner or by the head of the Department in which they are employed. The Commissioner disclaims all responsibility for them. He says he has no control over temporary employes. I take it that that means that he cannot interfere with their employment.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- I do not think it means that.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- Then what does it mean?
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- Lists of persons eligible for temporary employment are made out, and once persons are selected from those lists they come under the immediate direction of the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, or, of course, his officers.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- But the Public Service- Commissioner says that he has no control whatever over them.
{: .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir Robert Best:
-- He does not say he has no control over their employment; but once they are employed he has no control over them.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- He cannot prevent those in charge of a Department from employing as many temporary hands as they please. 'I assume that his statement goes further, and that he cannot interfere to fix the salaries paid to persons temporarily employed.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator St Ledger:
-- The honorable senator is supporting the Commissioner in one position and opposing him in another.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- I am trying to find out what his position actually is, and I have great difficulty in getting the information I want.
**Senator Sir ROBERT** BEST (Victoria - Minister of Trade and Customs) [5.20]. - If the honorable senator will permit me, I can give him some explanation. I have told him that regulations have been framed with regard to temporary employment, under sections 40 and 80 of the Public Service Act. I find that regulation 121 reads -
>Whenever in the opinion of the Minister the business of a department renders temporary assistance necessary the permanent head or the chief officer shall select in order of registration as far as possible having regard to the nature of the work from the persons whose names are upon the register in the State in which such assistance is required such available person or persons as appear to be best qualified for such work, and shall forthwith supply the Inspector with the names of those selected together with the rate of remuneration to be paid. If the Inspector considers the rate of remuneration excessive or inadequate he shall refer the matter to- the Commissioner who shall determine the rate to be paid. Provided that wherever the Inspector shall have previously notified the chief officer or permanent head of his ability to provide assistance from other departments or from the lists of successful unappointed candidates at an examination selection from the register shall not take place without previous reference to the Inspector. For the purpose of temporary employment all successful unappointed candidates at an examination shall during the period of their eligibility for permanent appointment be deemed to be registered for temporary employment in the class of work for which they have qualified.
>
>The Commissioner may empower an Inspector to authorize on his behalf the extended tem porary employment of a person for not more than three additional months as prescribed in section 40 (4).
{: #debate-5-s24 .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART: Queensland
-- I begin to see daylight in this matter now. Apparently, the fixing of thesalary of temporary employes is, in the first instance, in the hands of the head of the Department employing them. If the Public Service Inspector thinks the remuneration given them is either excessive or inadequate, he can refer the matter to the Public Service Commissioner, who, in the last resort, fixes the salary to be paid. That is what I gather from the regulation which the Minister has read. We have had no information, so far, that the Public Service Commissioner has been asked to fix the remuneration in this case. Apparently, the inspector is satisfied that the pay given is sufficient. So far as I can discover, he has not complained that it is either excessive or less than it ought to be. I think that the responsibility for these low rates 'of wages has now been brought right to the door of the Government, and they can, if they please, advance the salaries of these employes to something approximating to a decent living wage. If the Public Service Inspector objects, and the matter is afterwards referred fo the Commissioner, and he fixes a lower rate of pay, the responsibility will have been taken off the shoulders of the Government; but meanwhile it appears to me that the Government are responsible for the salaries now paid to these employes.
{: #debate-5-s25 .speaker-KOS}
##### Senator HENDERSON: Western Australia
-- In view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Customs to the effect that he will bring this matter before the Treasurer, and, through him, under the notice of the Public Service Commissioner, and will call for a report in connexion with it, and in view also of the fact that an opportunity will still remain during the present session to have something definite done, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw my request. I do so only because of the statement made by the Minister, and of the fact that I can take action at a later period if I am not satisfied.
Request, by leave, withdrawn.
{: #debate-5-s26 .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART: Queensland
.- There are one or two matters connected with the administration of the Post and Telegraph Department to which I should like shortly to refer. One is the very matter which has been discussed at such length this afternoon. In his fourth report the Public Service Commissioner says, at page 7 -
>It will be seen that the employment of exempt persons in the Postmaster-General's Department is assuming large proportions, the number of such persons drawing pay during last year being 11,290, as compared with a permanent staff of io,8g8. A portion of the former number were,
>
>Of course, not continuously employed during the year, but it must be recognised that under the exemption provisions of the Act a ready means exists, unless the matter be properly safeguarded, Of undermining the object of. the Public Service Act, by placing appointments under political or other patronage. During last year, the PostmasterGeneral's Department employed no less than 14,063 separate individuals, either as exempted or temporary employes, over whom the Commissioner had no controlling power, while an expenditure of over £225,000 was involved in this employment. The greatest necessity exists for curtailing the enormous amount of employment of this character, otherwise it is only a matter of time when the Public Service Act will be ineffective in controlling appointments and the expenditure thereon. Moreover, as pointed out in previous Reports, it is very desirable that the Public Service Act should be amended so as to place the control of temporary employment in the hands of the Commissioner, as the powers vested in the Commissioner with regard to the staffing of Departments must necessarily become seriously weakened if temporary employment can be utilized to a degree only limited by the appropriations by Parliament for this purpose. Under the existing law, the Commissioner may prevent the undue expansion of the Permanent Staff of a Department, but his efforts in this direction may be neutralized by the Departments freely exercising their powers of appointing temporary hands.
I want to know whether the Government intend to take any steps to alter this unfortunate state of affairs. A number of permanent employe's in the Post Office have complained to me that these temporary employes are a continual source of trouble to them. When a new man is brought into the Post Office he is immediately handed over to one of' the permanent hands for instruction. The consequence is, that not only has this particular officer to do his own work, but he has to exercise a certain amount of supervision over the work of the man temporarily employed. The permanent employes assert, and I believe the statement is quite true, that this additional responsibility interferes with their efficiency and renders the general running of the establishment much less effective than if the whole of the work, or nearly the whole of it, were done by permanent officials. That is- the point of view of men who are working in the Department. In his last report, the Secretary to the Department refers to the question of temporary employment. On page 12 he says -
I am quite in agreement with the remarks of the Commissioner as to the pernicious effects of employing temporary hands for lengthened periods in cases where permanent appointments are justified - indeed, I am inclined to go further and say that such employment is mischievous in the extreme, and causes both inefficiency and unnecessary expense in connexion with the work of this Department.
I ask the representative of the Government who is now present to pay particular attention to that remark of the responsible head of the Department.
{: .speaker-K3G}
##### Senator W RUSSELL: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
-- There is only one senator on the other side now. I beg to call attention to the state of the Senate. *[Quorum formed."]*
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- In his report, **Sir Robert** Scott says that such employment is mischievous in the extreme, and causes both inefficiency and unnecessary expense in connexion with the work of the Department. That agrees in every particular with the statements addressed to me by some permanent employes, and also with the opinion expressed by the Public Service Commissioner in his report. If that is the case, the Government ought to bend its attention immediately to this very pressing question. During the past financial year we had no fewer than 14,000 temporary officials passing through the Department, as opposed to 12,000 permanent officers. If it is necessary to give temporary employment, ranging from probably a few days to six months at a stretch, to 14,000 individuals, there is a necessity for a much larger permanent staff than exists at present. That would be better for the Department, because the efficiency of the officers would be higher, they would be much better satisfied with their positions, the service rendered to the community would be more satisfactory, and I believe that there would be a saving of money to the country. In addition to what he has already pointed out, the Secretary says in his report -
If is impossible to peruse the Public Service Act without coming to the conclusion that it was never contemplated that temporary hands were to be employed except for temporary work; otherwise it would not have been provided that temporary employment should not extend beyond three or six, or at most, nine months. The work of this Department requires trained, officers, and to take a man off the street, train him for six months, and just as he is becoming useful turn him away and commence the training of his successor to the point of utility, only to dispense with him again, is almost too absurd [or words. It must also be borne in mind that temporary employees have little or no inducement to exert themselves in the service of the Department, as zeal cannot be rewarded, the rate of payment and the time of employment being both inexorably determined by law. The letter from the New South Wales Postmasters' Association attached shows how casual and temporary employment is regarded by the officers primarily responsible for the efficient working of the post-offices in that State, and the opinions therein expressed are shared not only by all postmasters, but also by this Department.
He refers to an appendix, which reads as follows -
New South Wales Postmasters' Association,
Park-road, Marrickville, 8th October, 1907.
**Sir,**
In connexion with the question of casual and temporary employment brought under your notice by representatives from the New South Wales Postmasters' Association on the 5th inst., I desire, on behalf of my Council, to make the following statement : -
Postmasters feel the pinch of casual and temporary employment more than those in other branches of the services for the reason that their work is direct with the public.
Mails have to be despatched to time; telegrams cannot be delayed; and the public must receive prompt attention at the counters.
These are duties which are occurring throughout the day, and in every instance demand immediate attention. They cannot, as in some branches, be postponed- for another day, or be allowed to accumulate, and yet what do we find? We believe we are correct in stating that there is scarcely an office in the State, certainly none of any importance, which has not one or more casual or temporary employees for a large portion of the year. You will perhaps be surprised to hear that it is not an uncommon thin); for a postmaster to have three or four of these lads under his charge at one time, and the number, we have been told, has been as high as half-a-dozen. We ask, is it reasonable to expect that, under such conditions, a satisfactory and efficient service can be given? To take a raw . lad from the streets, during the absence of the postmaster, telegraphist, or assistant, for periods from one to six months, and even for a longer time, seems to imply that the office affected was either overmanned, or, during the absence of the official, the remainder of the stall must work unduly long hours to perform the same amount of work.
Postmasters are a loyal body of ' servants, and, speaking generally, endeavour to the best of their ability, and very often under trying circumstances, to perform their duties in a satisfactory manner, alike to the Government and the general public, but there is a growing feeling of discontent apparent. Their duties and responsibilities are being added to continually, but there is no corresponding increase in t'.ie assistance provided or in the remuneration paid, while frequently they have to work their offices short-handed or with casual or temporary assistance, and have to remain on duty long hours to satisfactorily get through their work.
With the man who always has a grievance we have little or no sympathy, but we desire to assure you that there are some genuine grievances which postmasters have had to submit to, and this question is one of the most urgent.
It is admitted that the Public Service Commissioner has from time to time removed some of the restrictions surrounding the employment of this class of labour and made it less irksome, but there is a strong tendency to increase its employment.
It is stated that, for the first four or five months of 1906 the number of casual and temporary hands exceed the total number for the whole of 1905, and it is understood that at the end of the present month the vote for the whole of 1907-8 will have been exhausted.
My Council respectfully submit that the appointment of an adequate relieving staff is the only means by which a proper and efficient service can be maintained, and fhe employment of casual and temporary hands kept within reasonable bounds.
Every one will admit, I think, that the case against the employment of a large number of temporary hands is so strong that i need not add to what has been said by myself, and to what I have quoted from the report of the Public Service Commissioner and that of the Secretary to the Department. In his report the Commissioner seemed to throw the onus of this large employment of temporary hands upon the permanent head of the Post and Telegraph Department. But the latter replied to that statement in these terms -
>A recent instance will show to what a small extent this Department can exercise any, even the most ordinary control over the provision of a sufficient number of permanent officers for carrying out the rapidly increasing work it is called upon to perform in the public interest.
>
>The Postmaster-General, **Mr. Chapman,** was so strongly impressed with the necessity of providing permanent officers to cope with the abnormal increase during the financial year 1906-7 that he caused instructions to be issued to all chief officers that a sufficient number was to be provided for on the Estimates for 1907-8 to take the place of temporary employees who were filling positions that must be made permanent, and also to cope with the further increase anticipated during -the current year.
>
>Provision was made accordingly in the draft estimates, but the Treasury could not see its way to allow of the necessary provision being made, hence in the closing days of 1907 no less than 883 temporary hands were being employed in New South Wales alone, and it became absolutely necessary to ask the Treasury to make, or allow to be made, provision beyond that included in the Estimates for the temporary assistance reported to be indispensable if the work was to be performed at all.
>
>It has since transpired that the Commissioner, fearing a drought, had advised the Treasurer not to largely increase the number of permanent hands in this Department. Fortunately for the Commonwealth, no drought occurred, and the business of the Department has recently grown beyond all expectations, as evidenced by the rapidly increasing revenue. Even during the late protracted and general drought, the business of the Department steadily increased, and in the early stages of a drought there is usually increased activity in all the branches of the Department's work.
>
>In dealing with the question of staff, it must ever be remembered that all the revenue of this Department has to be earned by manual work, and also that the sums individually collected are very small, generally to be counted in pence, and that with lowered rates and greater facilities more work has to be done for less money. Hence an increasing revenue always demands a proportionate increase of the staff, which, if not provided for permanently, must be largely, expensively, and inefficiently provided for by increased temporary employment.
I do not wish to say any more on that subject. The evil is so glaring that it is high time the Government took steps to secure the appointment of a much larger permanent staff. If the matter rests with the Public Service Commissioner a gentle hint should be given to him as to the course which the Government expect him to pursue. The matter is of such importance, not only to the employes in the Post and Telegraph Department, but also to the community, that I hope the Government will take early action .in the direction which I have indicated. The other matter to which I wish to refer is probably of as great importance as that which we have just been considering. It relates to the grading of officers in the general division. Under the present arrangement an officer has to serve about twenty-five years in the general division before he can obtain the maximum salary of that division. This means that he will probably be well on to fifty years of ae;e before he receives £150 per annum. The position which I take up is that if a letter carrier or a sorter or any other officer of the general division be worth *£150* per annum at fifty years of age, he ought certainly to be worth that amount at thirty years of age.
{: .speaker-KMT}
##### Senator Gray:
-- Why not say that he is worth it at twenty -fi ve years of age?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator St Ledger:
-- Put the proposition the other way by asking, "If he is worth £150 a year when he is twenty-five years of age, what ought he to be worth when he is fifty years of age?"
{: #debate-5-s27 .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- The work of the Department is largely . mechanical, and a man may thus reasonably be expected to be as efficient at thirty years of age as he "will ever be. If he is worth *£150* a year when he has attained fifty years of age, he ought certainly to be worth that amount when he is thirty years of age. The maxi mum salary of the division should be reached by an officer when he is about thirty years old.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator St Ledger:
-- Would the honorable senator keep him at the maximum of his division ?
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- I would unless he were promoted.
{: .speaker-KMT}
##### Senator Gray:
-- It is merely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence.
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- I quite agree with the honorable senator. There is not a member of this Committee who will object to my contention upon the ground of principle. In most instances a man at thirty years of age is better fitted to perform mechanical work than he is at fifty years of age. That being so, why not apply the principle which I advocate? No doubt, it would involve a larger expenditure, but the fact remains that in the meantime we are depriving a large number of men and women of money which they actually earn for a period of over twenty years. There is another aspect of this question to which I should like to direct attention. It is extremely desirable from a national stand-point that our public servants should receive the highest salaries payable in their particular divisions as early in life as possible. We require more population, and I want to encourage our voting men to marry. The best way in which to do that is to provide them with a living wage at an age when they will be tempted to marry. I think that every man ought to be married as soon after he has reached twenty years of age as possible. He ought to be encouraged to marry by permitting him to obtain the highest possible wage when he is not more than thirty years of age.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator St Ledger:
-- Is the honorable senator raising the question of the marriage tie?
{: .speaker-K7D}
##### Senator STEWART:
-- I believe that what disrupts the marriage tie more than anything else is poverty. If we provide our officers with decent salaries at a comparatively early period of their lives, they will marry and' settle down respectably. For these reasons, I advocate that the employes in the Postal Department and in the general division of our Public Service, should be permitted to receive the maximum salary of their class at as early a period as possible. I suggest this as another line of reform which the Government might adopt in administering our public Departments.
**Senator Colonel NEILD** (New South Wales) [5.54]. - I thoroughly indorse most of the views which have been expressed by **Senator Stewart.** In reference to the question of temporary employment, there is one matter which I would ask the Government to take into consideration, if they intend - as I presume they do - during the approaching recess, to look into the Public Service Act, with a view to its amendment. **Senator Stewart** has spoken of the evils which occur in the Postal Department consequent upon the temporary employment of persons who, in many cases, are engaged only long enough to enable them to obtain the merest smattering of their duties. I wish to emphasize that this system of creating a large body of persons who live on the off-chance of securing a few months' work in the year, is a most pernicious one. I cannot conceive of anything which is more absolutely destructive of the characteristics of good citizenship. A man may get a chance out of the lucky bag, and he may not. How these temporary appointments are made is one of those mysteries which nobody can fathom. Political influence is sometimes used, and in the other cases, the selection is left to blind chance. A number' of names are forwarded by the Public Service Inspector to any Department which may require temporary hands, and the head of that Department makes' a selection from them. Either private influence or blind chance determines his selection. Then the poor fellow who has been hanging on the skirts of Providence for some time may get employment for perhaps a week. Some years ago, I brought forward a case in which competent clerks and accountants in the Customs Department had been dismissed to avoid one day's payment being made to them on account of a holiday. I do not know whether the same evil course is being pursued to day. But I do know that verv often the saving of a few shillings is effected at the cost of principle. A man may get temporary employment ranging from a week to nine months - very often it is for an extremely limited period. He then becomes a hanger-on to the skirts of Providence, loitering about the streets looking for a job, and praying for a crust. That is not the way in which the Government should conduct our public Departments. It is opposed to good service to the public, and absolutely results in the destruction of many men's lives. Such a course of procedure ruins them instead of benefiting them. I feel so strongly upon this matter that I would urge Ministers to take it into consideration, and in every Department, to see whether temporary employment cannot be limited. It is a festering sore on the administration of the Commonwealth, and has been so for many years. No charge can be made against any Ministry in this connexion. I do nor know that any Government has encouraged it. But it has occurred under the pressure of additional work in the Post Office and other Departments. It occurs there in a rampant form every Christmas, when men are given employment for a week, or perhaps a fortnight. I hope that the few words which have been uttered upon this subject will have a determinate interest to the members of the Cabinet, and that during the recess they will take some action with a view to removing this most undesirable condition of affairs in connexion with the administration of our Departments.
{: #debate-5-s28 .speaker-JPC}
##### Senator Sir ROBERT BEST: Minister . of Trade and Customs · Victoria · Protectionist
[6.0]. - I have listened to the representations of my honorable friends who have addressed themselves to this question. So far as the reports are concerned, they are new, and they are certainly important. The administration of the Public Service Act is in the hands of my colleague, the Minister of Home Affairs. I will specially draw his attention to the matter of temporary employment, and no doubt he will give my honorable friends' representations careful attention ; and, in due time, will bring them before the Cabinet for further consideration.
Schedule and title agreed to.
Bill reported without requests; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
{: .page-start }
page 5526
{:#debate-6}
### DEFENCE BILL
{:#subdebate-6-0}
#### Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5th November, *(vide* page 5424) on motion by **Senator Millen** -
>That this Bill be now read a second time.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s0 .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER: Queensland
-- When, on Friday last, I obtained permission to resume my speech to-day, I was about to lead up to an important point in the criticism directed by **Senator Pearce** against the policy of the Government. I make no apology for having asked for further time to deal with the matter because the honorable senator raised two very important questions; one in answer to an interjection which I made, and one in the course of his own speech. In answer to my interjection the honorable senator said that it was now a plank in the Labour Socialistic platform that the defence of Australia should be provided by compulsory conscript service.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- I did not say that. I said, " Compulsory universal training."
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- My question referred directly to adult universal service. I put my question with a desire to understand whether the Labour party committed itself to conscript service, and the honorable senator said that I was right in my interpretation.
{: .speaker-K7L}
##### Senator Story:
-- He must have misunderstood the honorable senator's question.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I wish to be quite clear on the point, because I intend to drive it home. I do not know whether **Senator Pearce,** after making that declaration, will welcome **Senator Story's** effort to come to his relief by pointing out that I misunderstood his answer. I do not desire to have any quibbling about words. I will put the question again to **Senator Pearce,** whether or not adult compulsory service for the defence of Australia forms a plank of the Labour platform?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- In the next Parliament, yes.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- How can the honorable senator answer for what the next Parliament will do?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- It was also a plank in the platform of the Fisher Government.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Is it binding upon the members of the Labour party in the present Parliament?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- Not on the party now.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- What is the distinction ?
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- The programme drawn up at the Brisbane Conference does not bind the members of the Labour party in the present Parliament. It applies to those who seek election at the coming elections.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- What is the use of beating the air in that way? How can what was done in Brisbane bind those who will seek election? The honorable senator knows as well as I do that no Conference of his party can bind a future Parliament.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Apparently the Conference_ did not bind those who were present at' it.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Apparently not. The position is, at all events, that the Labour party is now pledged to what I regard as conscript service.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- I cannot see what the honorable senator is driving at.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I am sorry for the honorable senator's intelligence. It is clear that the Brisbane Conference could not bind a future Parliament.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- But it could bind the members of our own party. I never said anything about binding Parliament.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I take it that **Senator Pearce** now concedes the position that the resolution with regard to compulsory service which was adopted at the Conference in Brisbane, and which is now a plank in the platform of the Labour party, is not intended to have the slightest effect upon the form or the details of this Bill.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- So far as my Labour pledge is concerned, I am free to support, or to oppose this Bill.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I understand that. I also understand that the resolution adopted at Brisbane embodied a determination that the whole of the party opposite will, at the next election, force the issue of conscript service on the people of Australia.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- Of course, we shall force our programme on Parliament if we get a majority.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Then I take it that the Labour party are determined to carry out that resolution and to ask the people of Australia at the next election to enforce conscript service.
{: .speaker-K8T}
##### Senator Trenwith:
-- That was not part of the military scheme of the Labour' party for this session.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Even if we are relieved for the present from a. proposal to establish what I consider to be one of the greatest evils that could be inflicted upon a people, the power "of the Labour party will be used in the next Parliament to enforce the policy of conscript service. **Senator Pearce** directed some criticism to the training provided for by the Bill. He said that it provides for only eighty or ninety days' actual training. I think that his statement is incorrect. As I understand the Bill, it provides for from 140 to 150 days at least of actual training. I think **Senator Pearce** could not have taken into consideration all the provisions for training from the time a lad is enrolled as a junior cadet until he is attached to the Militia. It appears to me that, under this
Bill, for the first time in Australia, our trainees will have the advantage of between 140 and 150 days of actual training. That will be a good deal for those who are compulsorily trained as cadets, as well as for those who join the Militia, and it. should result in a great advance in military efficiency. What is contemplated is that, between the ages of twelve and fourteen, junior cadets shall have not less, and possibly more, than ten days' actual training in each year. Between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, the Senior Cadets will have not less, and possibly more, than twenty days' training. Between the ages of eighteen and twenty years, members of the Citizen Force will have not less, and possibly more, than thirty-two days' actual training. When the trainees have reached the age of twenty years, they may be attached to the Militia Forces, and possibly other arrangement may be made affecting them, and they may have an additional fifty or sixty days' training. Altogether, the Government have provided in this Bill for at least 144 days' actual training.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- Does the honorable senator think that is sufficient to make an efficient soldier?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Everything depends on what the honorable senator means by the term " efficient soldier."
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- Much of the training to which the honorable senator has referred is merely physical training for cadets.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- That is true, but it will be the most useful preparatory training for military purposes. It must be considered as part and parcel of the military training. I do not pretend to have sufficient technical knowledge of the subject to be able to say whether or not, in the opinion of military experts, the amount of training provided for under this Bill is sufficient, but, considering the intelligence and activity of our Australian youth, I say that, with the training they will get in our elementary and primary schools throughout Australia as junior cadets, and the military training they will receive from the age of sixteen to the age of twenty in our secondary schools, and in our Citizen Forces, and the additional training they may receive when attached to the Militia, they are likely to become amongst the most efficient militiamen in the Empire.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- **Senator Cameron** said that even the Militia were not effective soldiers.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I intend todeal with what **Senator Cameron** said. Though I should naturally defer, in dealing with military questions, to the opinions of a man of the reputation .and service of **Senator Cameron,** that will not deter me from quoting the opinion of experts on these important matters. It seems to me that, to some extent, **Senator Pearce** tried to disparage the training provided for under the Bill, and I have shown that it provides for from 140 to 150 days of actual training. Apart from political feeling, which I hope will not be introduced: into the discussion of this question, it may be admitted that, in the matter of training, the Bill makes provision for a great advance upon anything we have had previously in our history.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator Needham:
-- There is no party feeling in connexion with this measure.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- There have been a few party utterances.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- We shall have to be very careful if some party feeling is not to be introduced into the matter. I hope none will be.
{: .speaker-KLS}
##### Senator Givens:
-- Why, the honorable senator was challenging honorable senators on this side only a few minutes ago.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- It is true that 1 have attacked the party on the other side, in connexion with the prospective policy, which I think they are bound to adopt > but beyond that, I do not propose to treat the question from any point of view as a party one. I hope I may venture, without, presumption, to criticise -some of the statements made by the ex-Minister of Defence, and that it will not be thought that I havedone so from any party motive. I presume that the honorable senator, and those associated with him, agree with honorable senators on this side that, within the limits of our resources, we should secure the most effective defence possible for Australia. **Senator Givens** has reminded me that **Senator Cameron** made some remarks, with which I entirely disagree, on the subject of conscript or compulsory military service. I differ entirely from the honorable senator, for political reasons which, to my mind, are sufficient to justify the view I take ; but I intend to quote expert opinion which is absolutely adverse to the adoption of such a system', not only by ourselves, but alsoby the United Kingdom. When my speech was interrupted on Friday last, I intended to quote this opinion in opposition to the views expressed by **Senator Cameron.** The opinion I intend to quote, at some length, is that of a military expert, who is acknowledged to be one of the foremost in the Empire. It is the opinion of Colonel Henderson, who was Chief of the Intelligence Staff in the Boer War. He was selected by Field Marshal Lord Roberts to accompany him from England to South Africa to plan and carry out the campaign which ended with the struggle of Paardeburg, anil the entry of the British Forces into Bloemfontein and Pretoria. Colonel Henderson is recognised throughout the Empire as one of the leading authorities in military science and strategy. He weighs the question most carefully, on both sides, in one of the most important and useful books for military students; and I intend to quote his opinion of the relative merits of conscript and voluntary services.
*Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.*
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- From the work entitled *The' Science of War* I shall proceed to quote an extract in which the *pros* and *cons* of the vital principle contained in this Bill are weighed most carefully by an expert authority. At page 37 Colonel Henderson says - liven the baldest and briefest discussion of the vast subject of war would be incomplete without some reference to the relative merits of professional and unprofessional soldiers. Voluntary service still holds its grounds in the AngloSaxon States ; and both the United Kingdom and America will have to a great extent to rely, in case of conflicts which tax all their resources, on troops who have neither the practice nor the discipline of their standing armies. What will be the value of these amateurs when pitted against regulars? Putting the question or *moral* aside, as leading us too far afield, it is clear that the individual amateur must depend upon his training. If, like the majority of the Boers, he is a good shot, a good scout, a good skirmisher, and, if mounted, a good horseman, and horsemaster, he is undeniably a most useful soldier. But whether amateurs, *en masse* - that is, when organized into battalions and brigades ~are thoroughly trustworthy, depends on the quality of their officers. With good officers and a certain amount of previous training, there is no reason why bodies of infantry, artillery, or mounted infantry, composed entirely of unprofessional soldiers, should not do excellent service in the field. Where they are likely to fail is in discipline ; and it would appear that at the beginning of a campaign they are more liable to panic, less resolute in attack, less enduring under heavy losses and great hardships and much slower in manoeuvre than the professionals. To a certain extent that is inevitable; and it has a most important bearing on the value of the citizen soldier, for, as we have already seen, the beginning of a campaign is a most critical phase. In short, troops who are only half trained, or who have been hastily raised, may be a positive danger to the army to which they belong; and,the shelter of stout earthworks is the only place for them. Yet the presence of a certain number of experienced fighting men in the ranks may make all the difference; and in any case, it is probable that battalions composed of unprofessional soldiers, the free citizens of a free and prosperous State, are little, if at all, inferior, as fighting units, to battalions composed of conscripts. But it is to be understood that the men possess the qualifications referred to above, that the officers are accustomed to command, and that both have a good practical knowledge of their duties in the field. A mob, however patriotic, carrying small bore rifles, is no more likely to hold its own to-day against well-led regulars than did the mob carrying pikes and flintlocks in the past. A small body of resolute civilians, well armed and skilful marksmen, might easily, on their own ground, defeat the same number of trained soldiers, especially if the latter were badly led. But in a war of masses, the power of combination, of rapid and orderly movement, and of tactical manoeuvring is bound to tell.
In another passage Colonel Henderson discusses the value of the work done by unprofessional soldiers in the great drama of the battles of the Civil War. I would request the attention of **Senator Dobson,** who has so dogmatically pronounced against the principle contained in the Bill.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- No, I am for the principle contained in the Bill, and against voluntary service.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- May Task the honorable senator if he understands exactly where he is? It may be my. fault if I misunderstood him, but I certainly understood him to say, in answer to an interjection in which I pointed out that the voluntary service of the Militia had stood the Empire for centuries, " Why that position is not arguable." It was in consequence of that remark that I took the trouble to look up the opinion of the leading military expert in the Empire.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- **Senator Dobson** also said that the voluntary system had broken down.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Yes.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- It has broken down.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Will the honorable senator listen while I quote the foremost expert opinion in the Empire on the point? The voluntary system has not broken down, nor will it break down under the Bill. On page 229, Colonel Henderson says -
>In the preceding pages I have said little of the good qualities of the American soldiers. I am none the less convinced that in some respects they were superior, as every army of volunteers will always be, to the conscript levies of European States; and I am of opinion that only sounder training is required to make our own citizen soldiers fully equal to the troops of any possible invader. This is a bold assertion. But if a strict system of rejection were to eliminate from the ranks all, whether officers or men, whom indolence, indifference, or physical incapacity renders unfit to bear arms, leaving only men of the same stamp as those who now, whether at schools of instructions, brigade camps, Easter manoeuvres, and the meetings of technical societies, seize every opportunity to increase their knowledge, we might endure without anxiety even the absencee of a large part of the regular army beyond the seas. The zest with which good volunteer officers undertake their duties is, in itself, sufficient to ensure the rapid mastery of these duties. With work which is half a pastime wherein they find relief from the routine of their ordinary avocations, monotony has no place. The very freshness of their obligations is attractive of zeal and industry. Nor are they burdened with the thousand details of interior economy which occupy so largely the time and energy of the professional soldier. They can give almost every hour which they devote to their military duties to preparing themselves for the business of a campaign. They can bestow their whole attention on what is assuredly the most interesting, as it is the most important, part of the profession of arms, the leading of troops on the field of battle.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- When was the book published?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- It was published in 1905, shortly after Colonel Henderson had returned from the Boer war, where he was head of the Intelligence Staff. He says further -
>The volunteer force, at present constituted, is an excellent school of physical training, but this is scarcely the purpose for which it is maintained. Give it capable officers, trained company leaders, and an educated staff, raise the standard of efficiency, exact a physical test, and it will become the strong arm of a free people, a safeguard against invasion, and an efficient substitute for conscription,
I shall now quote another passage in which Colonel Henderson deals with foreign criticism, especially with German criticism, on the efficiency and power of the Militia system as applied to the building up of the Army in the United Kingdom. He is replying to the storm of criticism which emanated from Germany in derision of the Anglo-Saxon system.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- Do not forget the speech in which the German Emperor took back all that he had said on the subject.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- My anxiety is to convince **Senator Dobson** of his error.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Over and over again I have read of the voluntary system hav- ing broken down, and nothing will convince me that it has not.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- For the edification of the honorable senator I am quoting the foremost military expert . in the Empire, who says that the voluntary system will stand over and over again.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- What is the use of the honorable senator going into that matter when the Bill deals with universal training ?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Surely the honorable senator, who was very emphatic on the point when I made my interjection, will not squirm under the expert criticism which I am quoting?
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- The honorable senator is criticising a principle which is not before the Senate.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I am criticising a principle which is strongly indorsed by the author whom I am quoting, and that is quite sufficient for my purpose. The honorable senator feels so unsafe that he would like me to fight him on his own ground. But for the present I shall try to get him to fight me on the ground which I have chosen, and that, it is said, is one of the first principles in strategy and tactics.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Does not the honorable senator realize that we shall- have far more volunteers than conscripts, but that they will have to undergo a little universal training ?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- It will not be long before the honorable senator will be applauding every word that I have uttered. I am glad to see him coming round to my view. Dealing with the subject of foreign criticism, Colonel Henderson says, on page 377 -
>It would have no doubt been exceedingly gratifying to those who have to sing the virtues of the conscript had the Anglo-Saxon system of voluntary service proved a broken reed ; and the depth of their disappointment is to be measured by the malevolence of their abuse.
Again, after refuting- the criticism that militia and volunteers could not stand fire and comparing the desperate work which they did in the Boer war compared with Napoleonic wars he says on page 379 -
>What foreign soldiers cannot, or perhaps will not, see, is that the war in South Africa, like the war in the Peninsula, and the Civil War in America, is a triumph for the principle of voluntary service.
What has **Senator Dobson** to say in reply to the criticism of Colonel Henderson, which was written after thorough experience, for the instruction of the students in several colleges in England. Continuing, this great authority says -
The *moral* of conscript armies has always been their weakest point; and it is the hope that the *moral* of the volunteer is no longer of a higher type that accounts for unwarrantable inferences and the unscrupulous manipulation of flimsy evidence. For ourselves, we are content to know that the manhood of the race shows no signs of deterioration.
My honorable friend, with others, has talked about how the Anglo-Saxon race was degenerating, and using that as a reason for adopting almost drastic compulsory service. But here we have the foremost strategist in the Empire saying, as the result of his experience, both before and during the Boer war, that he is convinced that in that respect the race shows no sign of deterioration. He continues -
>If an army composed, not of regulars alone, but in a great part of men with little or no special training, has proved capable, in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, of conquering a territory as large as Central Europe, bravely and cunningly defended, we need not yet be ashamed to speak with our enemies in the gate.
The next quotation which I shall make deals with the conduct of the War of Secession in the United States, and with the behaviour of the soldiers and their officers. He sums up the question of voluntary service in these terms -
>The War of Secession affords the most ample evidence of the truth of the old proverb that one volunteer is worth three pressed men. " 1 pause to observe that, when **Senator Cameron** was referring to the ineffectiveness of the voluntary system, he alluded to the War of American Independence. Thereupon, I interjected that he had made a mistake, and that possibly he had some, other war in his mind. But he brushed my interjection aside by asking that he might be permitted to make his speech in his own way. It is with much pleasure, therefore, that I quote Colonel Henderson's remarks upon the voluntary system -
>
>At the outset the regular regiments were undoubtedly the staunchest' troops in either camp. As the war went on, and the ranks thinned under the fearful slaughter of many battles, both Unionists and Confederates were compelled to adopt the ballot, but the conscript soldiers, as well as those who had sold themselves for enormous bounties, fell short in every single respect of the volunteers; they were more liable to panic, less forward in attack, more prone to insubordination, less stubborn in defence, and it was a common opinion in the North that they were even inferior to the negroes. The soldiers of Great Britain, moreover, whether regular or volunteer, British or Colonial, were heirs to proud traditions. The glories of their predecessors, of the regiments of Marlborough and of Wellington, of Raglan and of Clyde, fell upon them like the prophet's mantle. The memories of daring enterprises and great conquests achieved by stern endurance not less than by superior skill, had left an abiding impression upon the national character. The men of Badajos and Albuera did far more than give the death blow to the ambition of Napoleon ; they set an imperishable example of unyielding fortitude, an example which was to influence the coming generations, not only of their own islands, but of far distant continents, of Canada, of Australia, and of South Africa. The determination to prove themselves worthy of their sires, to uphold the honour of the race, burned, often unconsciously, in every breast; and those who were soldiers only for the war were not less resolved to conquer, not less ready to accept the sacrifices by which victory is appeased, than those who were in the ranks of some historic regiment. The moral discipline, then, of the Imperial Army could hardly have been bettered; and, in addition to their common attributes, each of the several contingents was possessed of characteristics which were peculiarly its own. To the patriotism of the regulars not the less ' strenuous of their foes offered voluntary tribute.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- But the honorable senator does not seriously attempt to contrast those historic regiments with the hastily-formed volunteer regiments in the various States?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- I am not dealing with the individual merits of speciallytrained conscript regiments as against volunteer or militia regiments. I am merely pointing out that one of the foremost military, experts in the Empire is of opinion that the Militia and Volunteer system combined is sufficient to insure the maintenance of the integrity of every portion of the Empire.
{: .speaker-KMT}
##### Senator Gray:
-- But in every case the Militia and Volunteers have been blended with' the regular troops.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- This Bill does not prevent that being done. In addition to the central fighting line, it contemplates the admission of trainees under the cadet system. That is the system which has prevailed in England, and which has saved the Empire. To urge that the Militia, and Volunteer system has broken down, without advancing a tittle of evidence in support of the allegation, is, to my mind, mere podsnappery. It is worse than Jingoism. I object to the violent whirlwind of condemnation which has been heaped upon the Bill by **Senator Cameron.** _ For him to airily brush aside professional opinion upon this question, and to declare that the Volunteer system has broken down, is, I repeat, mere podsnappery. I come now to his objection to the measure on the ground of its defective provision for training our citizens. 1 have already pointed out that he has absolutely underrated the period of training for which the Bill provides, so far as the men are concerned. His criticism of the training which it will provide in the case of officers, is equally unsound. He spoke in derision of the peripatetic character of the Military College. He could not have studied the Bill, or he would have noticed that in one line, clause 147 makes provision for the establishment of a Military College, for the lack of which he denounced the measure. It says, "' There shall be established a Military College." What more do **Senator Cameron** and other critics desire?
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- But the Minister of Defence has stated that it will be of a peripatetic character.
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- If honorable senators will give the measure the most superficial attention, they cannot fail to recognise the position. But I wish now to deal with the interjection of **Senator Dobson.** In the first place, the Bill declares, in the plainest possible language, that a Military College shall.be established.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel Neild:
-- What does it matter if the College does perambulate?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- Exactly. It would not be effective if a portion of its staff were not of a peripatetic character, so that it might carry instructions to soldiers in outlying districts. How can our young men expect to benefit by the establishment of a central Military College, unless a staff is organized, and arrangements are made, whereby the commissioned officers and the men may receive instruction.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- Is the Military College to be established for the benefit of the service, or is the service to be established for the benefit of the Militarv College?
{: .speaker-K78}
##### Senator ST LEDGER:
-- That is exactly the position. If the College were not of a peripatetic character, it would absolutely fail to achieve the purpose for which it is to be created. Consequently, to criticise the measure upon that ground showed an improper conception of its scope. I repeat that the Bill provides for the establishment of a Military College, and I have no doubt that Parliament will vote the necessary funds- for that institution. What more could the Minister of Defence do than declare that a Military College shall be established? For a military gentleman to stand up in this Chamber and to affirm that the Bill is entirely inadequate to our needs, because it only provides for the establishment of a peripatetic Military College, is to utter the veriest nonsense. I need not say any more to expose the weakness as well as the danger of that sort of criticism. In addressing myself to this measure on Friday last, I pointed out that we are bound to consider the possibility of the invasion of Australia, and also the extent of that invasion. I emphasized the fact that history affords no record of a . force of 100,000 being transported over more than one sea. No nation, except Great Britain, has transported more than 200,000 men over one sea. I cannot discover any evidence that any single power or combination of powers could transport 100,000 men over two seas, and establish an effective landing, because it must be remembered that the failure of any power to keep its base secure would mean death to the expedition, and the termination of the war. That circumstance ought to be evident to strategists of the established reputation of **Senator Cameron.** I need scarcely recall the fact that, not withstanding that the United Kingdom had an invincible Navy at her command, and was in a position to rapidly transport troops to South Africa on the occasion of the Boer War - in addition to which there was not the slightest possibility of her being attacked at her base of operations - a welltrained army, composed entirely of volunteers - there was not a single conscript Boer in the field - which did not at any time exceed 40,000 men, was able to meet 250,000 of the finest militia and volunteer regiments in the world. As no nation is likely to attempt to land in Australia more than from 40,000 to 60,000 men - and in order to do that we must assume that our Navy is temporarily disabled or absolutely annihilated - I ask what would a force of from 40,000 to 60,000 well-trained Australians be able to accomplish ? I am of opinion that the task of invading this country is utterly impossible, and is so chimerical, that no single power - -not even Japan - and no combination of powers, would dream of attempting it. Under this Bill, in seven or eight years hence we shall have an army approaching 180,000 or 200,000 men, who will be fairly well trained, and who will possess an admirable transport equipment. Surely such an army will be sufficient to repel any invasion with which we may be threatened ? We must recollect that, whilst we have a right to see that Australia is adequately defended, it is also our duty to prevent undue burdens being placed upon the taxpayer in order to provide a military force which is unnecessary, and whose equipment would lae utterly useless in the hour of need. With regard to the possibility of an invasion of Australia, I will make a comparison with the possibility of invading the United Kingdom. For that purpose I will quote an opinion expressed by a former Minister of War in the House of Commons, the Minister responsible for the efficiency of the British Army to repel invasion. **Mr. Arnold** Forster, speaking in the House of Commons on the Army Estimates on 28th March, 1905, said -
>The Prime Minister **(Mr. Asquith)** has already, on more than one occasion, given expression to his own views of the situation, and he has simply echoed what is, so far as I can ascertain, the view of every 'single naval and military authority of any competence whatever upon this question of invasion. He has said that the question of invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or threaten our independence is impossible. In that he speaks with the undivided and absolute authority of the Committee of Defence, and I want to know who is the honorable member who is going to question it. ... I have seen it stated, that provided our Navy is efficient the greatest anticipation we can form in the way of a landing of a hostile army would be a force of 5,000 men. I should be deceiving the House if I said that represented the extreme naval view. The extreme naval view is that the crew of a dinghy could not land in this country in the face of the Navy.
There we have a former Secretary for War speaking of the possibility of an invasion of Great Britain in the then state of efficiency of the Navy, as being so impossible that there was not even a risk of a dinghy full of armed men being landed on British shores. I do not wish to give countenance to any pessimistic view of our position. I do not wish the public of Australia to be led astray by hysterical jingoism, as they might be by the awful assumption of our opponents that unless compulsory military service is adopted the country will be in danger. The Bill now under consideration provides a more effective system of military defence than we have ever had before. We have the assurance of the Minister to that effect. I am satisfied that he has been guided by the advice of expert officers. Regarding the situation from that point of view, the scheme of the Bill offers a complete rebuke to jingoism and to such off-hand criticism as that to which we were treated last week. It has been frequently said that Germany contemplates an attack upon Great Britain or her Dependencies. But if honorable senators who are inclined to entertain that opinion will turn to the last number of the *Contemporary Review,* they will find there a statement from a German professor of history at Berlin who completely refutes the idea that the military policy of Germany is directed towards an ultimate invasion of Australia or some other part of the British Empire. This critic points out that it would be foolish for Germany to undertake such a line of action. If she contemplated striking a blow at Great Britain at all, he says, it would be better for her to aim at the heart of the Empire and attack Great Britain herself, because then success would carry with it the rewards of conquest over other parts of the Empire. He holds that the British Colonies need have no fear that Germany will be so stupid as to contemplate an enterprise of that kind. Nevertheless, I believe that it is our duty to m?.ke reasonably sure, so that in case of any crisis or unforeseen emergency we shall have at our disposal such a force as, in numbers, training, and equipment will be able to put up a fair fight. I think that this Bill provides for so much. The public of Australia have also this security - that if, after the experience of a few years, it is found that a considerable number of the trainees do not complete their training, if it is found that the security offered by the Bill is not sufficient, we can re-cast our system. We shall then know that it will be necessary to spend more money, and to adopt more drastic measures. But surely when we are taking this strong step forward, involving the expenditure of about ;£ 1, 7 50, 000 - when we are asking the taxpayers of Australia to carry so heavy a burden, as I am satisfied they will willingly do - we have a right to ask our critics to allow this experiment to be tried before we resort to the extreme measure of compulsory military service. I have no doubt that **Senator Neild,** who, I understand, is to follow me, will have something to say concerning the technical features of the Bill. At any rate, I express the hope that we shall have some constructive criticism from him. To' summarize my arguments I would say that compulsory military service is the heritage of despotism. It may toe necessary sometimes to meet' a despotism with a despot's weapons. But there is no necessity for that in Australia yet. I contend' that the manhood of Australia, de- scendents of the face which followed Wellington and Nelson to victory, will in case of need do their duty by their adopted land as willingly and as nobly, as their sires did their duty by the Old Country. I beg the Senate to remember that a European army contemplating the invasion of Australia would have to travel over two oceans, whilst a Japanese army would have to travel 9,000 miles before it could touch our shores. Before we ask the people of Australia to sanction a larger expenditure than is contemplated by this Bill, and before we ask them to compel ever adult male to undergo training in the Army, I contend that our critics should show on expert authority the soundness of their contentions. I cannot touch, nor do I think it is necessary to do so, upon the complement to the Bill now before us, namely, a measure relating to naval defence. The naval defence proposals of the Government must be embodied in a Bill to be introduced either this session or very early in the next Parliament. So far as we know at present, the naval policy of the Government is a very sound one. When carried out as a supplement to the military defence provided for in this Bill, Australia will have taken one grand step forward in proclaiming to the rest of the world that, not only are we able to hold our own effectively on our own shores, but that, should the Empire be threatened in any part, we shall have such a force at our disposal as will be able to co-operate with the Old Country. I am satisfied that in case of need we should co-operate heartily and willingly, just as we are assured that Great Britain would, to the utmost of her resources, help us in time of danger. When this policy is carried out we shall stand shoulder to shoulder with the Mother Country in defence of the liberty, the progress, and the civilization which are the heritages of our race.
**Senator Colonel NEILD** (New South Wales) [8.28]. - I have been so very busy lately that I have not in any shape or form prepared a speech; but there are many aspects of the measure to the second reading of which we are invited to agree to which I propose to address myself, with perhaps no very great concinnity, but I hope not without some evidence of interest. I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the Vice-President of the Executive Council in introducing the measure, but I have read it as recorded in *Hansard.* It is an interesting speech. The honorable senator did not enter into many particulars in connexion with the Bill, recognising that -details are more properly discussable at the
Committee stage. I intend to follow this example. I do not propose even to go into the question of the lengths of training provided for. But there are, nevertheless, certain aspects in drawing attention to which I think I am justified in trespassing upon the time of the Senate. I have not had an opportunity of reading the speech of my comrade, Colonel Cameron, last week. The number of *Hansard* containing it is not yet available. But I understand from **Senator St.** Ledger that **Senator Cameron** was very strongly in favour of the wholesale enrolment of the manhood 'of the Commonwealth. If we are to have a compulsory system, I think it should include the whole of the manhood of the Commonwealth. But that does not mean that the whole of the manhood should serve, because. we should have, under those circumstances, a force utterly out of all proportion to any contingency that could arise. We should have a force so enormously large that to maintain it, to arm it, to clothe it, and to drill it, would mean an expenditure that would be impossible. There is no country in the world which, in its time of greatest stress and strain - not France in the last throes of the Napoleonic period - ever attempted to arm everybody. They were only drafts. Some had to serve and some did not serve. The same thing applies to the monumental struggle in the United States. Every man there was liable to serve, but every one did not serve. In my view, if we are to have a system of compulsion in Australia, which should include the whole of our manhood, after drawing to make up the necessary number of active soldiers, those who would not have to serve should pay a certain sum per head - honorable senators can call it a. poll tax if they please - and by that payment participate directly in the defence of the country. '
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- **Senator Cameron's** point was that young men of eighteen years of age should have a whole year's training instead of sixteen days, as proposed by the Bill.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- If I fail to touch upon that point later, I shall be obliged to **Senator Dobson** if he will remind me of it again. I may here make a reference to the speech of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The honorable senator said that Major-General Hutton had, in his report of 1904, considered the possibility of 50,000 men being required to resist an invasion of Australia. He will not be offended if I tell him that, in putting down that figure, Major-General Hutton merely repeated a recommendation *of* the Colonial Defence Committee of, I think, 3895, and of certainly not later date than .1896 - a recommendation which was considered of sufficient importance to be published *in extenso* in the New South Wales Government *Gazette.* I am sorry I have not a copy of it with me, but I have no doubt it could be readily found in the Library. That recommendation laid down 50,000 as the necessary number of troops to secure protection for Australia in the event of invasion. If that was the opinion of the Defence Committee of the Empire, a dozen years ago I admit, that the numbers might reasonably be increased now, because in these days there are greater facilities afforded for the transport of troops. Suitable steamers for use as transports can carry to-day a much larger number of troops than could the transports of a dozen years back. Consequently, if 50,000 was a. sufficient number of troops to protect Australia against invasion twelve years ago, we might now fairly increase the number by 50 per cent., and say that 75,000 would be sufficient for the purpose to-day. I think that documentary military authority in existence would pretty well corroborate that statement.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- Could the 50,000 troops be concentrated at any particular spot in Australia in a given time?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- Certainly not. We could not concentrate troops at any one portion of Australia in under something like three months.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- - -I said in a given time
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- It could, of course, be done in a given time. If we admit that for the protection of Australia to-day a force of 75,000 troops would be sufficient, as we have a population of service age in Australia of, say, 750,000, it is clear that we should require the service of only one man in ten of the population. I suggest that if compulsion be proposed, we should make the rest contribute a certain sum per head towards the cost of defence as their share of the work of defending the country. Assuming a compulsory system, I say that, suppose **Senator St.** Ledger were to draw an unlucky ticket, and to be obliged to do " Tommy Atkins," and that my esteemed and learned friend **Senator Dobson** - assuming service age in every case - did not draw an unlucky number, why should not the latter honorable senator join with the former in the defence of the country directly, the one by service and the other by contribution? In that way it would be possible to bring the whole of the manhood of Australia into the defence of the country, while, at the same time, we need not have an unnecessary and unwieldly force.
{: .speaker-K3G}
##### Senator W RUSSELL: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
-- Should not the capitalists find the money, or a part of it ?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- **Senator W.** Russell, as a capitalist, no doubt desires to contribute largely to the defence of Australia. But I am suggesting a scheme of universal application. The capitalist might have to serve in the ranks; or to assist by means of a contribution. There is something more in a man's duty to his country than is concerned with the ownership of a piece of property. We know what the Mexican phrase is for a mine. I believe they term a mine " A hole in the ground owned by a liar," and, in many instances, that is, no doubt, an appropriate and accurate description. A man who owns a hole in the ground may be wealthy, but there is something higher and nobler in a man's duty to the country than is concerned with the ownership of a piece of property, whether it be on the surface or underneath the ground. There is a man's duty to the mother who bore him, to the wife who is his partner and the mother of his children, to his sister and his sweetheart.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Wife and sweetheart?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- My' honorable friend must entirely have forgotten incidents in his own career, where the sweetheart preceded the wife.
{: .speaker-KRZ}
##### Senator Lynch:
-- And where the wife is the sweetheart still.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- A wife ought to be her husband's sweetheart all her life. That is the source of truest happiness in domesticity.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Does the honorable senator approve of a man under sixty years of age being allowed to purchase freedom from training?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- If we make sixty years the service age, yes. If every man between eighteen and sixty years of age is to be liable to serve, I say that we should make those whose service is not required contribute something.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Would the honorable senator allow a man under sixty years of age to buy freedom from training?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I do not see why a man should not buy a substitute if lie cares to do so. That is done all over the world. It is not a new idea. .
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- It would not be a citizens' army then. It would be a poor man's army.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- Not necessarily.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Not necessarily, but the tendency would be in that direction.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I cannot go into all these little details. I pass from the question of compulsion, because at the present juncture we have before us a Bill which does not propose anything like general service, and at this stage of the session 'it would be merely playing with the question of defence to attempt any material alteration of the measure. To attempt any large changes would be suicidal if we wish to see some definite action taken in the matter of Australian military defence. **Senator Dobson** referred me to **Senator Cameron's** attitude on the subject of compulsion. **Senator Cameron,** before he became an Australian citizen, was an officer in the Regular Army of Great Britain. Necessarily, professional soldiers favour compulsion. They like to have a stronger power than they can exercise over a force that is not under such complete control as a conscript force would be. I have no doubt that there is a professional bias - not an unworthy bias of course, but a. certain . professional "bias - in this matter on the part of **Senator Cameron** and men of similar experience.' This brings me to the question whether we are altogether wise in paying too much attention to the opinions of professional soldiers. At one time and another we have had British officers out here. I do not think that they have all been absolutely beyond criticism, even on the score of military knowledge. For instance, I have a certain document, which I could not produce, because the date upon it would indicate the officer who caused it to be printed. It shows that a British General, with handles to his name front and rear, apparently could not remember less than a dozen and a half orders required to be given at a ceremonial parade on the Monarch's Birthday ; and so had them printed in block type on a. little card which he could carry in the opening of his bridle glove, so that he might be able to read the orders -he had to give without using glasses. I have the card, which was printed in the Victoria Barracks military printing press. I do not say that because the gentleman could not remember a> dozen and a half orders of a stereotyped character he was not an admirable man inother respects. But these little incidents convey to one's mind the impression that a man may be a professional soldier, and may not know everything, or be always the safest of guides. I could cite one case after another of British General Officers serving in Australia in command of troopswho showed so much weakness in the main tenance of discipline as to have been absolutely a trouble to regimental commanders.
{: .speaker-KPE}
##### Senator Keating:
-- Was not the printed card to which the honorable senator has referred intended for officers in charge of troops in extended formation ?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- No; when I say that the card began with the words " The Division," I need go no further. There was only one man who could give that order, and the card was printed for the benefit of one man only. I have known cases where British professional soldiers displayed a timorousness in dealing with, insubordination which has caused anxiety to regimental commanders. A very remarkable matter has been discussed here and in another place with reference to the last British General which the Commonwealth had, Major-General Hutton. It was of so serious a character that I am justified in bringing the matter to the recollection of honorable senators, so that they may see that a professional soldier, and a British General at that, is not always a safe guide. Before I refer to the case, however, let me point out that eighteenmounted regiments of Australia have never been fully armed. They have only rifles, and ever since Federation it has been contemplated that they should be armed with a second weapon. The sword, the lance, and1' the revolver have each been discussed in turn. But Major-General Hutton endeavoured to brow-beat, worry, and bully the Minister of Defence into adopting that which is against all military wisdom, and against the recommendation of the military authorities in the Old Land, namely, the purchase of a weapon made by a private firm, and which would not carry any service cartridge used in the British Realm. It was not a revolver, but an. oldfashioned 1 single-barreled pistol. The British military authorities have laid it down an the most emphatic manner that the Colonial Governments should only have weapons ot a calibre which could be used for service ammunition.. The reason for that course is as plain as the nose on a man's face. In the event of war, how could we rely. upon a single firm at the other end of the world to supply ammunition? No service ammunition in the whole of the Brtish Realm would fit the pistols which this British General insisted that we ought to huy. It is to the credit of the Minister of the time, ex-Senator Dawson, that he withstood the proposal. I have heard senior officers state that it was little short of a crime for a man to try to force the purchase <rf such a weapon in connexion with Commonwealth defence. There, again, is a case which shows that we cannot rely absolutely upon professional advice. As regards the professional advisers of the Government, we are utterly in the dark as to how much they have advised and how much Ministers have advised them. I shall take the case of **Sir Thomas** Ewing's kindergarten army of a year or so ago, when the existing forces were to be destroyed, and a parcel of legal infants was to be intrusted with the defence of Australia. I do not know whether the Minister of the day recommended that to his advisers, or whether they recommended it to him ; but in either case this very remarkable proposal served at least one turn. It achieved a distinguished title for the politician by whom it was trotted out. Afterwards we had a proposal which was of a very similar character, but which I cannot discuss, as it was not given in quite as much detail. That came from the Ministry of **Mr. Fisher,** and it proposed something of the -same sort. This has gone, and now we find that, apparently, there is still a difference of opinion between the professional advisers of the Minister and himself, because, as was shown by **Senator Millen's** speech, it is not yet determined whether the Bill is not to undergo a change in connexion with the enrolment, training, and -uniforming of the Junior Cadets. Even there we find a lack of that complete settlement of important aspects of defence. It behoves us to be a little careful as to what we shall and shall not accept. I think' that the best feature of the Bill is undoubtedly the fact that it proposes to retain the services of the fine bodies of men who constitute the Defence Force of Australia.. That it proposes to increase them, rather than to reduce them, is also an ad mirable proposition, because to throw aside 20,000 men, many of whom have had lengthy training and are admirable - many of the officers being equally admirable - to throw them to the four winds and start a Defence Force of legal infants would have been a deplorable thing. I hail with great satisfaction the feature of the Bill which proposes to retain the existing forces and augment their numbers. But the Bill does not show me the smallest chance of escaping a great difficulty, and that is the officering of whatever force we have. Due to the remarkably destructive policy of Major-General Hutton, the forces of Australia, which numbered between 28,000 and 29,000 strong when he took command of them, dwindled in two years to 17,000, and only between 15,000 and 16,000 of them were efficient. I am not speaking now from personal knowledge, but quoting returns which have been laid on the table of the Senate from time to time. Although the forces had shrunk so terribly, yet there was a greater waste and a greater destruction behind, and that was the shortage of officers. Years back] when defence was the most unpopular subject which a man could discuss, or a Chamber could listen to the discussion of, time in and time out - here, in the press, and on the platform. - I drew attention to the shortage of between 25 and 33 per cent, of the officers provided for in the military establishment. And over and over again, with a damnable reiteration, I have no doubt I pointed out that you could train a man in the ranks and make a very fair soldier of him after three months' continuous work; while an officer could not possibly be made into a capable commander or leader except by the taking up of a vastly longer period, because the experience of obedience to orders is more easily gained than is that of the planning out of military work and the giving of proper orders to secure its execution. I am speaking without the figures before me, but I think that for years our Defence Force has been short of about 350 officers. I know that for a long time the shortage stood at 344 officers. It may be a fewmore or a few less, but it may be taken that at least 25 per cent, of the required officers for the existing force do not exist, even on paper. If that is the case with our forces to-day, what is it going to be when at least 2,000 officers are required for the 'young folk force which is to be brought into being under the Bill ? Where we are to get them from I cannot exactly form an idea. College training will make it more difficult, not easier, to get officers. We have had one gigantic reform, I know, in connexion with the obtaining of officers, and that is the doing away, in the interests of economy, with the use of box. spurs by young officers. Apparently, those who were responsible for that silliness overlooked the fact that it is senior officers who wear them. The saving of 6s. 6d. for a pair of box spurs which would last a man his life time was one of the stupendous military reforms which have made some persons stare, others laugh, and others use language scarcely appropriate to a Sunday school. That was done in the interests of the young officer, who, as I have said, does not wear box spurs. Even the holding out of that advantage has not induced the youth and manhood of Australia to rush into the commissioned ranks. How this difficulty is *to* be met I do not know ; it is one of the problems of the future. The Bill proposes, or the Ministry propose, that the existing Militia and Volunteers are to be drawn upon to supply 2,000 commissioned and non-commissioned officers for the new force, and that their places are to be filled from somewhere, although there is a present shortage of about 25 per cent, of officers for the whole force. If any honorable senator thinks that I am exaggerating, he should go to the Library and consult the officers' list, where he will see awful gaps in the officering of many regiments. It is to be found in some more than in others. It is to be found, I admit, in volunteer regiments and corps more than in the partiallypaid or militia, where a ,man does receive something which compensates him for the necessary outlay connected with his position. No man can undertake a position of authority and prominence without incurring expense. It is imperative that he should put his hand into his pocket. The question of officering is a very serious one. and I should like to know how it is going to be met. As I said just now, there is to be a Military College, which will make things more difficult. There must not bc too much heed paid even to the value of a college training. Some of England's greatest soldiers of to-day never had the advantage of a Military College training. I am informed, on professional authority, that Lord Roberts, England's great little Field Marshal, never went through a Mili.:Il College. I believe that neither Lord Kitchener nor **Sir Ian** Hamilton did. We also know that a collegiate education does not always turn out to the advantage of those who receive it. In our travels through the backblocks of Australia have we not more than once come across senior wranglers who can make no better use of their high training -than to discharge the humble *role* of billiard markers? Are there not crowds of men who possess the highest collegiate training for the bar and for the solicitors' branch of the legal profession, who never achieve anything at all? It is true that they have passed their examinations, but there is evidently something lacking in them which leaves them stranded in the world. In the same way we may establish as many military colleges as we choose, but we must not imagine that every individual who passes through them will prove a military hero. Many a brilliant young man has his constitution sapped rather than built up by the system of cram which he has to adopt to enable him to pass certain examinations. Many a brilliant life is even lost by too much effort in the direction of gaining a knowledge, which, when gained, is useless to him who has striven for it. I do not wish anybody to imagine that I am opposed to the establishment of a Military College. Quite the contrary. But I do not see how such an institution can be worked, unless a portion of its staff travels round to impart instruction in the different States. We cannot bring citizen officers from all parts of Australia to one centre, whether that centre be Melbourne or Canberra. Therefore, instruction must be given to officers in each State. I see no possible objection to the peripatetic aspect of the Military College to which exception has been taken. I am sorry - and this is the only word of regret which I have to utter in regard to the speech of the VicePresident of the Executive Council - that he should have splashed across an otherwise placid prospect, the Japanese bogy. I do not think that any good can result from such ill-timed references to a nation which for good or ill has been for some years the solitary treaty ally of Great Britain. Some day England and Japan may come into conflict, but God forbid. Meanwhile, let us hope that existing treaties will continue to safeguard Australia, as they have done for some years. There is no doubt that so long as Japan is the ally of Great Britain Australia will occupy a much more secure position than she would do if the reverse were the case. The Minister of Defence has told us that under this Bill it is estimated that our expenditure upon defence will be at once increased by 80 per cent., and that as the years go by it will be increased by 1. io per cent. He affirms that it will spring up from .£800,000 per annum to .£[,750,000 per annum, or only £50,000 short of the addition of £1,000,000. These figures are so important that I cannot ignore them. They show more completely than any lengthy statement could do the very seriousness of the fact that at the present time our military expenditure is actually £1,000,000 per annum less than what is immediately necessary. A great many officers and a great many members of this Parliament have foreseen difficulties ahead. For instance, it has taken us nearly a year to get two or three ammunition carts built. We have been unable to hold military camps because there is not a sufficiency of tents or of water-proof sheets, the need of which is recognised by every person who has any regard for the health and lives of the men who enter those camps. Not only is that so, but although we have an army approximating that of the United States a few years ago - an army of about 20,000 men - the Commonwealth does not contain a solitary bayonet which will fit a single rifle. We are short of this, that, and the other article to an extent which is simply appalling. I do not pose as an alarmist, but the position is calculated to get on one's nerves, because we have known all about it for six or seven years past. The large sum of money which must be expended, if we are to have anything like a valid force, had better be spent as quickly as is consistent with obtaining a suitable return for our outlay.'.
{: .speaker-K3G}
##### Senator W RUSSELL: SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
-- Shall we not first require to raise the money?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- At present we are not discussing how the money shall be obtained, but only what it is necessary to expend. The Minister has stated that our garrison troops number 10,000, and that these are required for the defence of the leading ports and the capital cities of Australia, 15,000 field troops being retained for moving about - I suppose sometimes to support the garrison troops - and at others to be over the hills and far away should an enemy put in an appearance. I should like to direct attention to one feature connected with our large number of mounted troops. These we may safely put down at approximately 8,000, and upon paper that looks a very decent number. But we have to recollect that if these men went into action there would be only 6,000 in the firing line, because the rest would be discharging the duties of grooms. One man would be required to attend to each four horses - his own and three others. It will thus be seen that one-fourth of our mounted troops would not be in the firing line, but would be at a convenient distance from it discharging the necessary duties of grooms. Our mounted force, therefore, is not so large as it appears to be. Certainly 6,000 mounted men would entirely outmanoeuvre an equal number of infantry. I note that the Minister of Defence has stated that it is proposed to increase the 10,000 garrison troops by 6,000, and to establish them in six different centres - that is to say, in each State of the Commonwealth. But I wish to draw the attention of the Vice-President of the Executive Council to the fact that after a senior cadet has reached the apex of his periods of training he will be free to continue as a compulsory soldier, who will have very light duties to perform, or to join a rifle club, a militia regiment, or one of the volunteer regiments for which provision is made in the Bill. When a senior cadet has reached the age at which he will no longer be required to give large service-
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Did the honorable senator use the words "senior cadet"?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I was referring to a young man who has reached the age of twenty years.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- That will be two years after the senior cadet period will cease.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- That is so. The senior cadets' training will finish at eighteen years of age. When -a lad has reached the senior cadet's' probationary age he will have attained the general service age of the Militia and Volunteers. This is what I suggest to the Vice-President of the Executive Council is bound to follow : Instead of remaining under any kind of compulsory service the best of these men when they have reached eighteen years of age, will enter either a militia regiment, in which they will receive small pay, or a volunteer regiment, in which they will receive no pay at all. It is -inherent in -the disposition of the British people that they prefer to serve as their forefathers have served all the years that there has been an England, a Scotland and an Ireland, and they will wish to continue voluntary service. As a result, there will be such a rush of lads of eighteen years of age for positions in volunteer regiments that it is extremely likely that the Bill will defeat its object, and that the defence of Australia will actually be continued by regiments which are voluntarily recruited.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Has the honorable senator overlooked the possibility of preventing men who have completed their term of service from enlisting in volunteer regiments ?
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- That might be done, but as it is not intended to get rid of any suitable available man, a good many years would be required to work out the existing Defence Force.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Only three or four years.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- How does the Minister make that out?
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- If a prohibition issued now prevented the men from joining the Militia regiments until they were twenty, it would be only two years.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- In that way, it would be so ; but, of course, the prohibition will not be issued. My honorable friend is setting up an hypothesis that does not affect the discussion. I should have liked to say something about the remarkable clauses of the Bill providing for the abolition of institutions that are to be found at every British military post throughout the world - namely, canteens. I know that **Senator Dobson** is disastrously enthusiastic on this subject. Some three years ago, he was one of the nine senators who paired or voted for a Bill that had nineteen opponents, and which, therefore, necessarily went down. I do not think that he is likely to succeed on this occasion.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- A provision abolishng canteens is in this Bill ; let us leave it there.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- The clause will not be left in the Bill. If I thought for one moment that it would make for the sobriety, the morality, and the good order of the Defence Forces, I would vote for it as freely as **Senator Dobson** intends to do.
{: .speaker-JVC}
##### Senator Dobson:
-- Does the honorable senator forget that the Bill provides for the training. of boys of eighteen and nineteen years of age? Do we want them to have liguor,
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I shall not enter into that subject iusf now, but I wish tomake my own position clear. If my reading, my study, and my personal experience gave me the slightest reason to believe that the sale of light wines and light beers, under proper control, would lead to insobriety and insubordination inthe forces, I would gladly and enthusiastically vote for the retention of theclause to which I refer. But the whole of my knowledge leads me to exactly the opposite conclusion. Therefore, I do not consider that when the time comes for dealing with the question I shall be justified in giving a vote against the retention of a clause which, speaking from considerable personal knowledge, I am quite sure would have an entirely different effect from that which is evidently imagined by its supporters. One of the excellent features of the Bill is that it proposes the retention of the existing Defence Forces. It does not propose the aggregation of a uselessly large and widely expensive mob rather than an efficient army. I take it that it is a measure designed to give to Australia a good military machine. As such, I shall! give to the second reading my warm support, believing that at this stage of our history, and at this stage of the session, the Bill supplies us with a good proposition.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- That is not what thehonorable senator said in Western Australia concerning a similar measure. Hespoke of " legalized infants."
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I have used' the same phrase to-night; but my honorable friend must see that there is thisenormous difference between the measure now before us and the one to which he alludes - namely, that provision is how madefor the maintenance of the existing aduit Defence Force. I emphasized that point when I began to speak, and I cannot takeback a word of what I said. If this Bill' were a measure that did not retain our existing forces, but merely gave us a force of legal infants, I would not vote for the second reading of it, even though it werebrought in by a Ministry which I support.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- The other Bill provided for voluntary enlistment also.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I think my honorable friend will do me this justice. He is speaking about the contents of a Bill that I never saw, and that I think theworld never saw.
{: .speaker-K0F}
##### Senator Pearce:
-- The honorable senatorcondemned the Bill without seeing it.
{: .speaker-JXT}
##### Senator Colonel NEILD:
-- I undoubtedly condemned it. as far as my knowledge of it went. That I did- not know all about it did not make my condemnation of that which I did know any the less effective. If my honorable friend's Bill really contained a similar provision to the one to which I have referred as being contained in this measure, I should not have condemned it wholly. I do not praise this Bill wholly, but I like that particular feature of it. I think it is an admirable feature. There are other provisions of the Bill which are good. There are some which I shall be found trying to alter in Committee. That is only fair, unless a man is so enamoured of whatever is put before him that he is prepared to bolt it. I am not prepared to bolt this Bill, but I am prepared to bolt the second reading; and I shall vote for the third reading of the measure whatever is in it, because it is the essential duty of this Chamber to pursue the course that has been carried through in another place, and to lay down, for the first time in the history of our Commonwealth, a military system which makes for the proper protection of the Commonwealth. I congratulate my honorable friend, the Vice-President of the Executive Council,, on being in the happy position of having charge of this measure, which I have no doubt will, with some alterations, pass with acceptance to the members of the Senate, with acceptance to the ibices themselves, and with acceptance to the people of Australia at large.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s1 .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM: Western Australia
-- I welcome the Bill now under consideration. I do not think that there will be the slightest attempt on the part of any honorable senator to discuss its provisions from a party stand-point. Several speeches have been made since the second reading was moved by the Minister in charge in an admirable address. We had a speech from **Senator Pearce,** the exMinister of Defence, a gentleman who, while he held that position, was not one who simply talked defence, but who took every opportunity of putting his ideas into practical operation. After he had con-, eluded, we had the unique experience of listening to a man who has proved himself to be a capable and practical soldier - **Senator Cameron.** I think that every honorable senator will agree with me that we listened to him with very great interest. I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting the second reading of the measure. I approach it from a non-party stand-po;nt. Whether the Bill is perfect' and whether it goes as far as I should like it to do, is not a matter of immediate concern. Its defects can be remedied in Committee. The motto of Australia, as **Senator Millen** said, is, and must always remain, " Defence, not Defiance." That is an accepted fact. I hope the time will never come when that motto will be changed. 1 should not like to see Australia become seized by any fever of territorial aggressiveness. If we are prepared to pay for the defence of our own shores, and, if necessary, help the Empire, that is sufficient. As to the urgency of the Bill, there can be no doubt.' Some five years ago, the Commonwealth Parliament dealt nationally with the industrial question. That is to say, we passed an Arbitration Act. Just as there was a necessity then to deal nationally with the industrial issue, so there is a necessity now to deal nationally with defence. My only regret is that the Bill did not come before us earlier. I do not wish to traverse arguments that have been addressed to the Senate by other speakers, but, to my mind, there are two reasons' why we should at once establish an efficient system of Australian defence. The first reason is our isolated position. We are the most lonely outpost of the British Empire. We have 8,000 miles of coastline to defend, and we do not know the moment at which we may be invaded bysome foe. There is still a greater reason why we should at once put our house in order. It is because we in Australia today are determined to hand down to future generations the heritage of a White Australia, which we now possess. The very proclamation of- our White Australia policy to the world is an invitation to our nearest coloured neighbours. They may regard it as a cause of irritation, and if there were no other reason, this in itself is, to my mind, all sufficient. I find that the Minister said that he thought Britain's supremacy of the sea was not only unchallenged, but unchallengeable. I would it were so. So far, Britain's supremacy of the sea has been unchallenged. But I should not care to be so optimistic as to say, with my honorable friend, that it is unchallengeable.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- I did not say so.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- The honorable senator had better read his speech.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- I have done so. But the honorable senator evidently has not.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- I have taken the words verbatim from the *Hansard* report.
Senatorde Largie. - That is hard on *Hansard.*
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- No ; but the honorable senator has taken one or two words out of my speech, and has torn them from their context.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- I am not attacking the honorable senator at all. He will find, before I have finished, that I am very much in accord with his views. I say that the supremacy of Great Britain at sea is not unchallengeable. There is a neighbouring power that desires to wrest from Britain that supremacy of the sea. I do not care to mention the name of that power, because at present Great Britain is friendly with all powers. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that at the present time there is one European power that is vieing in her ship-building programme with Great Britain, and in doing so, probably has the intention to become the overlord of Europe.
{: .speaker-K1U}
##### Senator Pulsford:
-- The honorable senator will not tell us which power that is.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- I do not think that I need tell the honorable senator.
{: .speaker-KUL}
##### Senator Millen:
-- Will the honorable senator permit me to give the quotation which I say he has distorted? I said -
>Until recently the British Navy was always regarded as, not only unchallenged, but unchallengeable. I believe it to be so to-day.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- 1 accept the honorable senator's correction. I may have misquoted him ; but if 1 did so, it was not because 1 oppose his sentiments. I regret the fact that to-day the supremacy of Britain at sea is challengeable. And therein lies our danger. I should like to have seen the introduction of this Bill prefaced by the imposition of a tax on the unimproved values of land. 1 know that I should not discuss that question - it may not be in order to do so - but I can say, without being out of order, that the questions of defence, immigration, and land values taxation are inseparable. Until we have a sufficient population, we cannot have an efficient defence force, and until we have a tax imposed on the unimproved values of land, we cannot expect the population we desire.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- The honorable senator would not defend the country unless a land tax were imposed.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- That is not the point. I say that we cannot effectively defend this vast continent without a much larger population than we have at present.
{: .speaker-K6L}
##### Senator Chataway:
-- The honorable senator said that the questions to which he has referred are inseparable.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- I say we cannot have that larger population until the big landed estates in this country are broken up. Some people who object to compulsory military training consider that, by passing this Bill, we shall be introducing something in the nature of militarism. 1 do not think trie Bill proposes the introduction of militarism. In my opinion, it is the duty of every citizen of a country such as this, in which we enjoy the benefits of a free Constitution, to be at all times ready and willing to defend his privileges as a citizen. I think it was **Senator Dobson** who said that the Australian youth is not anxious to avail himself of opportunities for training, in order to equip himself for the defence of his country. So far, I do not think that our Australian youths have been given many, or the proper, opportunities to equip themselves in that way. Notwithstanding the fact that young Australians are fond of football, cricket, and other forms of sport, I think that if they were given fair opportunities to equip themselves for the defence of their native land, they would be found ready to avail themselves of them. I have only one other remark to make in connexion with this Bill, and it bears upon the naval defence of Australia. Colonel P oxton, who was the Australian delegate to the recent Imperial Defence Conference, has returned to this country. We are somewhat in doubt as to what will be the real character of the proposed Australian Navy. I find that in an interview reported in this morning's newspapers, Colonel F oxton endeavours to assure us that Australia will have full control of the Australian Navy. I hope that is so ; but I am waiting for a further official statement in connexion with the matter. If the British Admiralty can at any time command the service of the Australian Navy, and send our Fleet to any part of the world they think fit, I say it will not be an Australian Navy at all.
{: #subdebate-6-0-s2 .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- I ask the honorable senator not to go too far into that question, because it is not dealt with in the Bill.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- It has been touched upon by other honorable senators.
{: .speaker-10000}
##### The PRESIDENT:
-- I do not mind a passing allusion to it ; but the honorable senator should not go into it at length.
{: .speaker-JXJ}
##### Senator NEEDHAM:
-- The Bill refers to naval and military defence. Our military defence may be made as perfect as we can make it ; but it is impossible to forget that our first line of defence must be our Navy. The Bill we are now discussing refers to naval, service ; and I say that once Australia loses control of the proposed Australian Navy, its establishment will .represent merely an increase in the existing naval subsidy. I had intended to apeak at greater length ; but as the VicePresident of the Executive Council was splitting hairs at twenty-five minutes past 9 o'clock, and would not grant an adjournment of the debate. *I* shall content myself with the remarks I have already made. I hope to give assistance in Committee to make the Bill much better than it is at present.
Debate (on motion by **Senator W.** Russell) adjourned.
Senate adjourned at g.43 p.m.
Cite as:Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 November 1909, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1909/19091110_senate_3_53/>.