Senate
15 July 1915

6^th Parliament · 1^st Session

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
- New Brigade: Reinforcements
PAPERS
QUESTION
- MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS
QUESTION
- SUPPLY OF STATUTES
QUESTION
- DESERTERS: MILITARY FORCES
QUESTION
- TRADING WITH THE ENEMY
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL
- Third Reading
PRIVATE BUSINESS
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL
- Third Reading
POSTPONEMENT’ OF .BUSINESS
EUROPEAN WAR
- Compulsory Military Service
ADJOURNMENT
- Appointment of Officers - Soldiers’ Correspondence - Order of Business

The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4875

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

New Brigade: Reinforcements

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

– By leave, I desire to state that the Commonwealth Government, being in a position to send troops to the front beyond those already provided for, have, with the approval of the Army Council, decided that, in addition to providing another Infantry Brigade with Brigade Signal Section, Brigade Train and Field Ambulances, approximately 5,000 officers and men, the monthly reinforcements for October and November shall be increased from 5,263 to 10,526.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

page 4875

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act 1003-1915. -Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1915, No. 109.

Public Service Act 1902-1913-

Postmaster-General’s Department. - Promo tion of E. P. Ramsay as Superintendent, First Class, Mail Branch, Victoria.

Regulations amended, &c. -

Statutory Rules 1915, No. 103.

Statutory Rules 1915, No. 116.

page 4875

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– The Conference was called by the Associated Chamber of Manufactures, and I understand that through some delay the representatives of South Australia were unable to attend in time, although they intend to be represented.

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– With regard to the subject just mentioned, will the Government consider the advisability of allowing the Chambers of Commerce to manage affairs in regard to trade and commerce and all that sort of thing, and so obviate the need of the Government interfering in those matters?

Senator PEARCE:

– If the inference to be drawn is that the Associated Chamber of Manufactures exceeded what was their function-

Senator de Largie:

– They just step in and take the business of the Commonwealth Government into their own hands.

Senator PEARCE:

– Some time ago, when offers of assistance were made in regard to the supply of munitions, the Commonwealth Government announced publicly that they welcomed all such offers, whether they came from the State Governments, Chambers of Manufactures, Chambers of Commerce, labour organizations, or any other source. The Associated Chamber of Manufactures took action on that suggestion and constituted committees in the States in conjunction with the State Governments, Chambers of Commerce, and labour organizations, all of which I understand are under the proposals adopted yesterday to be amalgamated into one body in each State.

Senator de Largie:

– All that we need to do is to hand over the referenda questions to the Employers Federation.

page 4875

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF STATUTES

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General aware that there is considerable delay in circulating, and some difficulty in obtaining, the Statutes of the Commonwealth ? Is he also aware that a considerable number of persons in the community, mora especially lawyers, are anxious to obtain the Statutes as early as possible, and willing to subscribe for them if a system of that kind is adopted? Will he have inquiries made with the view to having the measures furnished to intending subscribers on reasonable terms as early as possible after they have become law? In explanation, sir, I might say that some Statutes of great war urgency, such as the War Precautions Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act, which have been passed during this session, are unobtainable in some States, even by those who necessarily need to have almost immediate recourse to them.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will have the matter brought under the notice of the Attorney-General. I am not aware that the Statutes are unobtainable. It seems to me to be one of those matters which should be attended to from time to time, and I will consult my colleague on the subject.

page 4876

QUESTION

DESERTERS: MILITARY FORCES

Will the Minister cause to be published, for public information, the names of all deserters from the Military Forces, whether belonging to Home Defence or to the Expeditionary Forces of the Commonwealth, and also hove copies of such publication kept affixed at all military barracks and camps, and at postoffices and Police Courts throughout the Commonwealth?

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

– -That will be done as regards military barracks and camps. The further proposals will be considered, o

page 4876

QUESTION

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

Will he cause lists, for public information, of the names of all firms and others in Australia with whom it is forbidden to trade to be. published throughout the Commonwealth, and to have copies of such lists exhibited at all post-offices and Police Courts within the Commonwealth, and also cause copies of such lists to be sent to all Chambers of Commerce and other public bodies throughout Australia, and to merchants and other’s desiring copies thereof?

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

– The answer is -

The recent proclamation does not apply to firms, but only to companies. A list will be published of companies known to have enemy character, but in the nature of things it cannot be complete, as the full information is. not always available.

page 4876

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 14th ‘ July (vide page 4824), on motion by Senator Gardiner -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEATING:

– This power of the Commonwealth to establish such a line of steam-ships had been challenged.

Senator Findley:

– Never in regard to our own services.

Senator KEATING:

– The absence of any such complete power on the part of the Commonwealth Government was put forward as one of the reasons for some of the proposed amendments of the Constitution when they were submitted on previous occasions. The question, as I have explained, was submitted to the Attorney-General by the PostmasterGeneral of the day, and he gave an absolute unqualified opinion which was tabled in the Library in the terms I have stated. I have mentioned this to show that we have not always realized the extent of our present powers. Because, occasionally, in connexion with the line of demarcation that at present exists, anomalies have arisen, we have been too apt to rush to the conclusion that we are exceedingly powerless, while we have not surveyed the full extent of our legislative powers.

With regard to the second of the. proposed amendments respecting corporations, what I have contended as to the consequences of concurrent power will also apply. It was in respect to these amendments that, some sessions ago in another place, the Liberal party offered the Government of the day to agree to a certain amendment. That offer was not met. That is the matter to which Senator Long referred last night when he questioned me on the subject. There is one of the strongest of objections to the proposed amendment with regard to corporations.

Senator Guthrie:

– Who objects?

Senator KEATING:

– It is an inherent objection. It is an objection that any one may take, and I am taking it now. The inherent objection is that it will bring about a discrimination. The Bill provides -

Section fifty-one of the Constitution is altered by omitting from paragraph (XX.) the words “ foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth,”

We have already realized that our power under the Constitution in that regard is limited as shown in the High Court decision. In one of the cases brought before that Court, it has been shown that that power is limited to a greater extent than we anticipated. Now it is proposed to strike out those words and insert in their stead - “ Corporations,” including -

the creation, dissolution, regulation, and control of corporations;
corporations formed under the law of a State, including their dissolution, regulation, and control; but not including municipal or governmental corporations, or any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain -by the corporation or its members: and
foreign corporations, including their regulation and control.

The part to which exception may be taken, and which I am now taking exception to, is the use of those words “ regulation and control.” If our power extended simply to the creation and dissolution of corporations, I think it would meet all that is required. But now we are asking for a power, not merely in respect of the creation and dissolution of corporations, but for their regulation and control while in existence. I will come directly to the reasons why I think this is objectionable. It is obviously a great advantage for this. Parliament to have the power to make laws with regard to the creation and dissolution of companies, so that the laws may be uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and so that the provisions with regard toflotation, the issue of prospectuses and matters made public by those promoting companies, the registration and the holding of shares, shall, as far as practicable, be one and the same for the whole Commonwealth.

Senator Guthrie:

– You would allow a bad corporation to exist.

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

– I think you are a bit downhearted on this matter.

Senator KEATING:

– I am not downhearted. I have given the matter the most sincere and careful consideration, and I think, honestly, that that is the position in regard to concurrent legisla-‘ t,ion. It is full of pitfalls and dangers of which we may lose sight. There is the difficulty that grievances which require legislation will very often go unremedied, by reason of the fact that either Parliament may be expecting the other to deal with it, or that either Parliament may leave it to the other. If the work be cast on to this Parliament, as some honorable members and honorable senators and members of the public seem to desire, we shall be clogged and congested with work and unable to give it that attention, consideration, and sympathetic treatment that its importance to the community warrants.

The same applies with regard to trusts. I can only repeat the arguments I have previously used as to the extension of our power over industrial matters. One could deal at length with any one of these questions, but I am taking each of them .briefly and broadly, speaking, as I said earlier, only in order that it might not be thought that silence on my part meant acquiescence in their passage through Parliament.

It will be noted that the railway disputes provision is in terms the same as it was in 1913. It was proposed then that this Parliament should have power to deal with conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in relation to employment in the railway services of the States. The High Court has decided that we have not that power under the Constitution as it at present stands, because action on our part in that direction would be interference with a State instrumentality. We are endeavouring now to have inserted in the Constitution an express power to deal with that State instrumentality in relation to conciliation and arbitration. We were asked to pass that in 1913 in, I think, the same words. Singularly enough, when, in 1913, we were asked to amend the trade and commerce provision, those who drafted the amendments’ inserted the limitation to which I referred last night - trade and commerce generally, but not including trade and commerce on railways the property of a State, except in so far as it was Inter-State or external trade. All we could infer from that was that, when dealing with the trade and commerce amendment, the Government hesitated at taking a trade and commerce power which would affect trade and commerce on the State railways, and that at some later date, or, at any rate, at some different date, in dealing with the conciliation and arbitration power, that consideration did not appeal to them or was overlooked. When addressing the electors in 1913, I said the Government had shown a reasonable and justifiable hesitation in dealing with trade and commerce on the State railways, but that, perhaps because they did not give attention to the conciliation and arbitration amendment at the same time or under similar circumstances, that consideration had, in regard to industrial disputes on State railways, apparently escaped their attention. The Government have now harmonized the two proposals, because we are asked to pass an amendment giving the Commonwealth Parliament full power over trade and commerce without limitation. Obviously that is the corollary to adopting an amendment such as is now before us in relation to conciliation and arbitration on the State railways. This goes to show that between 1913 and 1915 the need for an amendment of the provisions then submitted has again in this case suggested itself, and such need will continue to suggest itself periodically so long as we follow this method of amending the Constitution.

Senator Watson:

– Have we to wait until we have reached the summit before we begin to amend the Constitution ?

Senator Russell:

– Does the honorable senator not think that he ought to be more closely in touch with them in Australia than he is?

Senator KEATING:

– That is not the point. We are dealing with Federal, and not with State, matters, and I made my assertion in reply to an interjection by Senator Watson, who seemed to think that the strength of Parliament should be regulated by the population.

I have given very serious and earnest consideration to the Constitution, whilst it was being framed and since that time. Only last week-end, when in my office at Launceston, I was going through the more recent reports of the High Court; and noting the effect of their decisions -upon different Commonwealth legislation and upon the Constitution, I could not but be struck with the number of judicial decisions that there have been in connexion with the exercise of its powers by this Parliament. It must always be that the High Court will be the interpreter of our Constitution. When these amendments are adopted - if they be adopted - the High Court will be the interpreter of them. It will not be for this Parliament, but for the High Court, to say what they mean. That is the reason why the greatest care and attention should be given to any proposed^ amendment of the Constitution. It has been repeatedly said during the course of this debate that those who framed the Constitution found, when they came to work under it, that this Parliament has not the powers which they believed it had. It has been our experience to find certain legislation of this Parliament set aside by the High Court as not being within the competence of this body. All these decisions should warn us that every proposal of the present kind should receive the greatest care and the closest possible attention. All the talent, industry, and ability of the community should be devoted to proposals for amendment of the Constitution just as they were to its original formulation. The people themselves should be interested in any proposed amendment from the beginning to the end. I spoke last night of the position in relation to the introduction of legislation such as this to bring about ah amendment of the Constitution. What I said applies to such proposals, no matter what Government may happen to be in power when they are made. It has to be remembered that all proposals for the amendment of the Constitution must go to the people from this Parliament; even though we established a Convention for the consideration of those matters, this Parliament would still have the final decision as to sending them to the people. They would not be sent unless they were agreed to by both Houses of this Parliament. What I hope, and believe will eventually be decided, is that before the Federal Parliament reaches the stage that we have now reached in connexion with these proposals, the most exhaustive care and attention will be given to every proposed amendment of the Constitution. The work is so important, and its consequences may be so far-reaching, that it should, as far as possible, be accurate. If we do not adopt the plan of a Convention to deal with such matters, we should at least have a special session of the Federal Parliament whenever any amendment of the Constitution was proposed - a session in which the members of the Parliament would apply themselves solely to that very important work. I should not personally discountenance the. idea of bringing to the assistance of this Parliament the advice and counsel of outside authorities. We have before in the history of this Parliament secured the assistance of the Judiciary in connexion with legislation which we have passed. On such an important matter as the amendment of the Constitution we should not disdain such assistance. I think, in fact, that we would do well to invite it, not to frame, mark you, recommendations as to amendments, but to assist this Parliament to put into form its wishes with regard to amendments. I do ‘not suggest that the Judiciary should be invited to originate the substance of amendments, but to help us to effectively express what we have already decided in substance as necessary amendments of the Constitution. Senator Findley last night quoted a list of cases decided by the High Court. Immediately . the High Court gives a decision affecting our legislation the first step taken is to remedy the defect by amending legislation. In some instances the amending legislation has failed to achieve the object aimed at. When in regard to matters of less importance we have already had the assistance of the Judiciary in framing legislation I do not see why in regard to such an important matter as the amendment of the Constitution we should not, and could not, secure such a system. We ought not to ask the Judiciary to recommend amendments, but, having decided the substance of amendments which we consider necessary, we might well get the assistance .of the Judiciary with regard to the form in which they shall be expressed. The High Court will continue to have the decision of all questions arising out of the Constitution. No matter what amendments we may pass, it will still be the duty of the High Court to interpret their meaning, and. its views as to our amendments will ultimately decide their scope and effect, and the limit of the powers acquired by this Parliament.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Surely it will help the Court to decide what are our powers if they are put in plainer and clearer language than that in which they are now expressed.

Senator KEATING:

– I was just about to say that by putting these words in we may find that the High Court will say that our powers are less- clearly defined than they are at present.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Anything is possible. “

Senator KEATING:

– I am inclined to think that the High Court may so decide. We have to remember that it is not this Parliament, but the High Court, that is the ultimate authority as to its powers. . That is why I think that in regard to this’ , most important matter the assistance of the High Court might have been invoked in a proper way.

At times I have heard certain honorable senators, though certainly not very many, in referring’ to the High Court, speak; in a tone of resentment of its authority in the interpretation of the Constitution. I have heard it urged that this Parliament itself should properly determine the limits of its jurisdiction. I remind honorable senators who entertain that opinion that throughout the history of our institutions the judicial and legal body has always played a very important, if not the most important, part. I do not say that because I belong to the legal body. The other day I came across a reference in a book well known in Victoria, and, indeed, throughout the British Empire, a book called The Government of England, by Professor W. E. Hearn, sometime Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne for some years. His name is well known outside Australia, and his authority, too, in these matters is recognised. “Dealing with this subject in his preface, he refers to the position occupied by the Judiciary in connexion with all constitutional struggles. It will be remembered by honorable senators that many landmarks in the history of English liberty have been disputes purely of law, and not of rhetoric, and I think the position which the High Court occupies under this Constitution, and will continue to occupy here, cannot be better expressed than in Professor Hearn’s introduction -

As Lord Macaulay has observed, in the great debates of our history there is not a word about Timolcon or Aristogeiton, about Brutus the Elder or Brutus the Younger. When the Lords and the Commons held their famous Conference respecting the vacancy of James the Second’s throne, and the fate of England was trembling in the balance, Somers and Nottingham disputed as if they were arguing a demurrer. Eighty years earlier Bacon and Hakewell, in the House of Commons, argued in the same spirit the great grievance of the impositions. Nearly four centuries before, in the hour of their distrust and disquiet, every doubt was quelled”, and every wavering resolution was confirmed, when the patriot Primate produced to John’s exulting barons the forgotten charter of their rights under the seal of Henry Beauclerc. That charter had itself been won, not by any abstract argument, but by incessant appeals to the “ good laws of the Confessor.” -

Parliament. There is in South Africa no such division of powers as we have, and the powers of the Provincial Councils are very small, compared with those of our State Parliaments. By section 90 the Union Government practically has power to make Ordinances for the Provincial Councils, because when a proposed Ordinance has been passed by a Provincial Council, it must be presented to the Governor-General in Council for his assent. The Governor-General in Council has to declare within one month that he assents to the Ordinance, or withholds his assent, or reserves it for further consideration. The State Governments in South Africa are only glorified municipal councils, and the whole power to govern the people in the things that matter is vested in the Union Parliament. That is the -arrangement in the most recent Federation amongst the Englishspeaking people, which was formed in the light of the experience of the Canadian Federation for many years, and of the blunders which we had fallen into in our short experience. As Senator O’Loghlin aptly interjects, Mr. Deakin, who was then Prime Minister, and had played a large part in framing our Constitution, implored them not to make the same mistake as we had done, by limiting the Federal powers and extending the State powers, particularly in regard to trade and commerce. Senator Keating is afraid that if the Federal Parliament’s power over trade and commerce is extended it will lend to a great deal of litigation, but we must trust the people to some extent. Nearly all the other provisions in section 51 of our Constitution are based on trade and commerce. In the other two Federations - the only two with which wc may reasonably compare our own - the trade and commerce power is not subject to the limitations and restrictions imposed by our Constitution. In Canada, just as in South Africa, although not to the same extent, the distribution of the powers between the Federal and Provincial Parliaments leaves the great powers with the Federation, and only such powers as are expressly set out in the written Constitution to the Provincial Parliaments. Section 2. gives the Canadian Parliament full power over the “ regulation of trade and commerce.” That covers everything, and is unrestricted. We should leave the regulation of trade and commerce in this country to the Federal Parliament, without those useless and expensive restrictions which now exist. As to concurrent powers leading possibly to litigation in the future, nobody can say. They may do so, but we know what has actually happened. A great deal of litigation has been caused through the powers being so mixed up to-day, and the difficulty of deciding where the Federal power ends and the State power begins. We have evidently made mistakes in several Acts we have passed, and ‘ it is a singular fact that amongst those who had a hand in framing those Acts were several who also had a hand in framing the Constitution, and yet did not know the actual powers inherent in it. A great deal of litigation lias been caused through the delineation of the respective powers being so vague, and the trade and commerce relations of the people are anything but what they ought to be. Senator Keating and and others have missed the main point, by failing, intentionally or unintentionally, to state that we are asking simply that the people shall have submitted to them the question of whether they will give the Federal Parliament the same powers as are possessed by the Federations of South Africa and Canada. Senator Keating is very much afraid of a congestion of business in the Federal Parliament if these extended powers are handed over to it. That is a situation which can be well met when it arises. We should not meet trouble half way, but we know that the people are crying out for these powers. Practically ha.lf the electors only a little over a year ago said they wanted to give them to the Federal Parliament. We are simply making the reasonable request that the people should again have the opportunity of saying whether they wish them to be given to the Federal Parliament or not. We do not read of any congestion caused by the extended powers in Canada or South Africa. Even if we get the powers asked for in these six Bills, we shall still fall far short of the functions vested in the South African and Canadian Parliaments. Even then, all those things not expressly stated in our Constitution will be left to the States, whereas in those other Federations everything not expressly left to the provincial bodies comes within the power of the Federal Government. Here the

States will still have plenty to do, and the Federation will not have too much to do. The cry of congestion is therefore absolutely futile.It is almost a childish cry to raise at this stage. Senator Millen yesterday, in urging that these Bills should be dropped on the ground that they were party measures, appealed to the sympathies and feelings of honorable senators and of the outside public by stating that the shadow of a great trouble was over us all. Let me remind him that there is also the substance of a great trouble over Australia. We should nob think only of the shadow, and forget the substance. The substance is that the people are fighting not only the enemy outside, but the enemy within the gates. The ghouls - I can call them nothing else - in our trading world, who are always waiting to take advantage of any crisis such as we are passing through now to enrich’ themselves at the expense of the people, are operating amongst us, as must be well known to all those who are opposing these measures. To say that we cannot successfully prosecute our share of this war, and at the same time do something to protect the people within the Commonwealth, is simply to declare that we are children with no powers of initiative. Nothing can prevent Australia doing all that is necessary to take its part in the proper conduct of the war as it is doing to-day. The recruiting figures for Victoria for the last few days - and in the other States the recruiting campaign has not yet begun - are sufficient answer to Senators Millen, Bakhap, and others, who declare that we cannot properly assist in prosecuting the war and at the same time go on with self-government. It is absurd to say that we should stop doing anything to protect our own people. I admit that the position to-day is far more serious than it was when the war broke out. At that time the cry to stop party government was not heard from the other side. In looking through a number of papers, I discovered a significant little paragraph which amused me so much at the time it was published that I cut it out. It shows that the president of the Australian Women’s National League, an organization which is a particular friend of Senator Bakhap, made this appeal to the people of Australia at the time of the outbreak of the war : -

I do not wish to minimize in any degree the paramount importance of the war, and its grave issues at stake. We bear in mind, also, that the political leaders on both sides have sunk all differences of opinion, in order to unite in a magnificent demonstration of expression of loyalty to our Throne and the Empire. The war will go on, and may God grant Britain the victory. But on 5th September the issue to be decided in Australia is of tremendous import to Australians. In. the face of the new and necessary call now made upon our time, money, and energy, let us not forget the urgent duty we owe to Australia, letus not diminish in the smallest way our efforts on her behalf. There is barely one short month between now and the elections, when the great question must be decided - if for the next three years Australia’s Government is to be under Caucus and Trades Hall domination, or to be ruled by a Liberal and free Government, with equal opportunities for men and women of all classes and creeds.

– In regard to the opinions expressed by the Age and the Argus, I wish to point out that those journals only wield an influence in Victoria. Outside this State they are absolutelypowerless. Unfortunately, however they have succeeded in so swaying a number of Victorians that the Labour party have been left out in the cold.

– There is only one party so far as the war is concerned.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

.- - That is so, and I am contending that it is wrong to divide the people by submitting these proposals for the amendment of the Constitution at so inopportune a time.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– We say that that will not interfere with the proper prosecution of the war. There is a difference of opinion between us on that point.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– Perhaps Senator O’Keefe will say why the Government have put the Tariff on one side?

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

– The Tariff is in force. We are collecting revenue under it, and protecting industries by it.

Senator ALBERT GOULD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– I can hardly agree with that opinion, for T find the petition states -

That the knowledge that the people are to be called upon to vote for or against the Referendum Bills must inevitably divide them into hostile political camps. Instead, therefore, of unity among our people, we shall have discord and party strife; and instead of all ranks and classes of our people co-operating with all their might to finish the war, we shall find much of their energy dissipated in bitter party discussions and conflicts.

I ask honorable senators whether that is not a perfectly legitimate thing to place before the Senate. If the petitioners consider that their facts are correct, there is no question of impropriety in regard to this particular statement.

Senator Russell:

– Nobody said there was.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– But one of your leaders went out to a political meeting, and said that the Prime Minister and honorable members of our party were like “ tethered goats.”. Surely that is party fighting ?

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The honorable member surely cannot hold me responsible for any uncomplimentary remarks that may be made concerning his party. This petition states further -

That by the time the Referendum Bills could .be voted upon by the electors there will probably be at least 100,000 of the bravest and the best Australian citizens absent, either at the seat of war or on their way to it: and since the survivors of these 100,000 soldiers, besides a large number of medical men and women nurses, will have to live under whatever Constitution is determined by the referendum, it is only just that those who arc absent should have at least an equal voice with other citizens in deciding upon any changes in our Federal Constitution.

– I submit that any reference to the petition must, be in order, because the petition specifically refers to the subject now before the Chair, and that subject was before the Chair before the petition was received.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - It does not appear to me that the motion on the notice-paper has anything to do with 1?he discussion now taking place. The petition is certainly relevant to the discussion, and the honorable senator is quite in order in quoting from it.

Senator Lt Colonel Sir ALBERT GOULD:

– The next representation made in the petition is -

That to send political pamphlets and ballotpapers to the men in the trenches and the hospitals, and to ask them to give - perhaps during the progress of a battle, or when suffering from mortal wounds - deep and serious attention to all the complicated questions involved in the proposed changes in our Australian Constitution, would very materially interfere with and weaken military efficiency, would often be a refinement of cruelty to the wounded, and would tend to make Australia ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world.

– The people can transfer each and every power that is now exercised by .the State Parliaments to the National Legislature if they so desire.

Senator Findley:

– Oh, no! If Mr. Glynn told the honorable senator that, do not listen to him.

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator Pearce:

– What is the amendment? We are in breathless anxiety to hear it.

It whs muchless easy to answer the chiefs of the Opposition when they set forth the danger of breaking down the’ partition which separates the functions of the legislator from those ‘of the Judge. “ This man,” it was said, “may be a bad Englishman, and yethis cause may be the cause ofall good Englishmen. Only last year we passed an Act to regulate the procedure of the ordinary Courtsin cases of treason. We passed that Act because we thought that, in those Courts, the life of a subject obnoxious to the Government was not then sufficiently secured. Yet the life of a subject obnoxious to the Government was then far more secure than it will be if this House takes on itself to be the supremo criminal judicature in political cases.” Warm eulogies were pronounced on the ancient national mode of trial by twelve good men and true; and. indeed, the advantages of that mode of trial in political cases are obvious. The prisoner is allowed to challenge any number of jurors with cause,and a considerablenumber without cause. The twelve, from the moment at which they are invested with their short magistracy till the moment at which they lay it down, arc kept separate “from the rest of the community. Every precaution is taken ‘to prevent any agent of power from soliciting or corrupting them. Every one of them must hear every word of the evidence and every argument used on either side. Thecase is then summed up by a Judge who knows that, if he is guilty of partiality,he may be called to account by the great inquest of the nation. In the trial of Fenwick, at the bar of the House of Commons, all these securities were wanting. Some hundreds of gentlemen, every one of whom had muchmore than half made up their minds before the case was opened, performed the office both of Judge and jury. They were not restrained, as a Judge is restrained, by the sense of responsibility; for who was to punish aParliament? They were not selected, as a jury is selected, in a manner which enables a culprit to exclude his personal and political enemies. The arbiters of the prisoner’s fate came in and went out as they chose. They heard a fragment here and there of what was saidagainst him, and a fragment here and thereof what was said in his favour. During the progress of the Bill they were exposed to every species of influence. One member might be threatened by the electors of his borough with the loss of his seat; another might obtain a ‘frigate for his brother from Russell ; the vote of a third might be secured by the caresses and Burgundy of Wharton,In the debates arts were practised and passions excited which are unknown to well-constituted tribunals, but from whichno great popular assembly divided into parties ever was or ever will be free. The rhetoric of one orator called forth loud cries of “Hear him!” Another was coughed and scraped down. A third spoke against time in order that his friends, who were supping, anight come in to divide. If the life of the most worthless men could be sported with thus, was the life of the most virtuous man secure ?

I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later hour of the day.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8p.m.

page 4907

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to -

That the notices of motion, and Order of the Day, private business, be postponed to a later hour of the day.

page 4907

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Third Reading

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– After this outburst of oratorical fervour, we may get down to the prosaic consideration of the proposals now before the Senate. It is not my intention to speak at any length upon them, for the ample reason that the subjects with which they deal have been exhausted in the past. So much has been said in support of these measures for the amendment of the- Constitution that there is little left which can be said appropriately on the present occasion. Still, there are a few points which have arisen since these proposals were first submitted to this Parliament to which I should like to direct attention. The proof that the arguments in support of these measures have already exercised a marked influence on the public mind is the best justification for submitting them to Parliament and to the people again. They were first presented to Parliament and to the people in 1911, and by 1913, when they were submitted to the people on the second occasion, a change in public opinion had occurred which amounted almost to a political phenomenon. Whilst in 1911 these proposals were rejected by the enormous majority of 250,000 votes, that majority in the course of two years was cut down by 200,000. That result sufficiently bespeaks the merits of the proposals, without further argument in their favour. I am sorry that they should be before us at the present time, for reasons which have their origin in the action of the party opposite. In 1914 the Senate had these measures under consideration for the third time, and we looked in vain to the Constitution for some solid ground on which to stand, regarding that instrument as one guaranteeing to this Chamber some power, dignity, and authority in the community. We looked in vain, because the Government of the day, which is represented now in the Senate by five stalwarts, took upon themselves to override the Senate and its power and authority under the terms of the Constitution to pass these measures, and by so doing take the first step for their reference to the people. If that Government had been alive to their duty to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution, it would have been unnecessary for the Senate to consider these proposals on the present occasion.

Secondly, we notice that, when an appeal was made in 1913, the party opposite had (heir efforts supplemented in a very remarkable way. They had unlimited funds at their disposal, but, notwithstanding that, the referenda proposals were defeated only by a narrow majority, comparatively speaking. It is a matter for surprise to those who advocated the acceptance of the measures that they made such progress, considering that they had no money at their disposal, while unlimited funds were at the .command of their opponents. We have had the testimony of the mouthpiece of one company - the Colonial Sugar Refining Company - to the effect that they subscribed either more or less than £50,000 to defeat the referenda. We do not know how much was subscribed, but we have the evidence of the chief spokesman to the effect that it was either more or less than £50,000, and it is worthy of note that immediately the proposals were defeated in 1911 the price of sugar rose from £21 per ton to £23 12s. per ton - or about 15 per cent. - although the sugar crop during that year was the best that we have ever had in the Commonwealth, and the imports were the smallest. The party opposite could have helped us on that occasion if they had only set about getting a reasonable expression of opinion without allowing the employment of so much cash in carrying on the struggle. Those of us who advocated the acceptance of the measures had no money. The balance-sheets of all the organizations in the Commonwealth are open to public inspection, and .they will stand the keenest scrutiny in this respect. Gas. the same be said of organizations which supported- my honorable friends opposite? Can their balance-sheets be inspected? “No, and for the simple reason that they supplied so much money to defeat the measures. It is not disclosed just how much money was expended by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but Mr. Knox, when put to the test, admitted that his company had given either more or less - -he would not say whether it was more or less - than £50,000. If our opponents had any desire to get a fair and reasonable expression of opinion they could have helped to get it, and it would probably have meant obviating any reference to the people on the present occasion. I believe myself that if the electors then had not been victimized in a sense, and had not been cajoled and deceived, the result would have been very different. As a sample of what the electors were told, I might state that in Western Australia one reason why they were asked to vote against the referenda proposals was that Western Australia would be controlled exclusively by a Governmen t on the other side of the continent - by a Government at Canberra - ‘and, on the other hand, people in the eastern States were told that “She regulation - of the railways ‘and the control of municipal corporations would be at the mercy of the voting power of Western Australia. In this way many votes were turned against the proposals. I understand that it is the desire to get a vote on these measures to-night, so I do not want to waste any time, but I would like to point out that there is ample warrant for the submission of these measures to the people again.

During the last twenty years there have been very harmful and sinister developments in the industrial and commercial activities of this country. Twenty years ago, when our Constitution was being discussed, and when public thought on the subject was being shaped, there were no such things in this country as some of the evils we see surrounding us to-day. If we throw our minds back to about 1895, when public thought was being agitated as to whether or not a Federation should be created, these industrial dangers which now ‘threaten the welfare of the people did not then exist. We .had not, for instance, .a .Shipping Combine <at that time. The companies then engaged in the -maritime carrying trade did observe some form of rivalry in their business. The ‘Colonial Sugar Refining Company has now -almost an exclusive monopoly in the -supply to Australia of that very ‘necessary product, sugar; but twenty years ago there was at least some form of competition in ‘the supply of this article. To-day, however, we have one institution, one company, supplying almost the entire needs of the Commonwealth, and fixing the prices for ‘this commodity as it pleases. There is a tendency -everywhere for small companies to come together to wipe out competition, with the result that the people who have only the Government to look to for relief, and who are being charged higher prices for every article they require, have no money. Compare the position to-day with the position as it was in 1895, and we will see that there is every warrant for submitting these proposals; for, by the action of a small section of the community, burdens are pressing very heavily on the vast majority of the people. It is about time we remodelled our ideas of -the Constitution, and asked ourselves if, by any means, it has helped in the way expected. It has been well said that every human action is more or less regulated by the dominant thought of the period, and if we recall the conditions in the early nineties, or from 1895 to- 1900, just prior to the consummation of Federation, we will recognise, as an outstanding fact, that industries then were being conducted on much the same lines as they were during the previous fifty years, or even since the foundation of settlement in Australia. There was no ‘material difference right up to about 1900. It was only since then that a radical alteration has taken place both in the field of industry and the field of commerce, and seeing that such a radical change has come, we should take stock of the position and utilize our powers of government to give the -people that maximum of relief which, a Government alone is capable of giving. That is the real purpose of these proposals. We want to set about the remodelling of our Constitution, and clothing the Government with power to enable it to confer the greatest benefits upon the bulk of our people, who are being victimized to-day.

Wei hame had a discourse- from Senator Keating as to the nature of these proposals. The honorable senator referred particularly to the Canadian example, and I want to say that we can refer to that with a great deal of advantage to our present purpose. U.p to 1867 the different Provinces in Canada were under an independent form of government, just as were the States forming the American Union in 1786, and when the question arose of wiping out the barriers that separated them, the North American Provinces, forming the North American Confederation, had the example alongside of the United States Constitution and its working. They had at least one hundred years’ experience of the working of the American Constitution, but, instead of taking that as a model, as we, in Australia, foolishly did, they broke away, and framed the Canadian Constitution in a vastly different form ‘ for the benefit of the people of Canada. Senator Keating called it a Confederation, but if he refers to any text-book or authoritative work, he will find it is referred to as a Federation, and as nothing else. It is rather curious to note that when the Canadian people were about to erect for themselves a form of government, they did not take the model that was so close to their hands, but struck out on original lines, and instead of leaving the Provinces as they then existed, with a large share of autonomy and power, they stripped them of much more of that power which the States alongside them enjoyed. The result is reflected in the Canadian Constitution,, which gives to the Central Government every power that is now sought for the Commonwealth Government under these referenda proposals. It conferred upon the Dominion Government, exclusive powers over every single subject which is included in these measures now before the Senate, and if we ask ourselves how the Canadian Constitution is working, we find it clearly answered in the prosperity of the Dominion, and in the way it has forged ahead’ during the last fifty years.

The Constitution of the Dominion has not led to a harvest of litigation, as Senator Keating would lead us to believe; but, on the contrary, in Canada to-day there seems to be no friction between the Federal Government on the one hand, and the federated Provinces on the other. The Canadian High Court is not glutted with work in the way that Senator Keat ing; would have us believe.. In the United States), according, to- the .reports of the Law Courts, there are at least 400 cases before the Supreme Court and the InterState Commission, centering round the intricate and knotty problem of; where the1 power- of Congress ends and that: of the individual States begins.. These cases have been there for the last four years, and are likely to remain, there for the next ten. We have slavishly copied that particular portion of the United States Constitution-, which has been- the- main source of all this litigation, trouble, and confusion. It has been well said’ that the commerce power in the United States Constitution has been productive of’ a twilight zone, in which no person- knows exactly where he stands; the- States do not know their authority, nor does the Central Government know where its authority begins or ends. It has produced a very profitable time for the lawyers, and the result is shown in the enormous piling up of cases. The American Constitution sets forth, as our Constitution does, that the Central Government shall have power ‘to regulate trade and commerce among the States and with foreign countries. There are additional words regarding trade with the Indians, which in our case were not. necessary, but the framers of our Constitution seem not to have originated anything- new, nor to have- been guided by the experience of the United States. They took, word for word, the particular clause which has been such a prolific source of trouble, annoyance, litigation,, dissatisfaction, and friction between the Central Government and the States. We should be warned by such a development of events, and yet the party who. oppose these proposals would have us continue in the same old groove prepared for us- 128 years ago, for it was then that the American in=strument of government was designed. America had at that time about 3,000,000 people) and thirteen independent States, all jealous of each other. They had just emerged from a war, and were so jealous of their power and authority that they framed the Constitution in such a way as to give the Central Government a minimum, while reserving to themselves a maximum, 6f power.

In those days trade was confined within well-defined limits. There were no corporations or companies operating beyond the boundary lines of one State, and in other respects trade and commerce was of a comparatively primitive nature. It was not the huge complex thing it is to-day in Australia. We are interdependent on one another in this country. The consumers in the west are the customers of those who are making their requirements in the east. The consumers in the north are dependent for their commodities on the people producing them in the south. Commerce to-day is a perfect network, so complex that it is entirely unlike what it was 128 years ago. We have apparently not had originating power enough to get away from the ancient example which was set before us, but we must get away from it if we are to reap any benefit from the Federal form’ of government. We know that we need not look to the States. So long as their separate Constitutions exist in the present form we know that the people’s interests will not be promoted in the State Parliaments. The more the Central Government is tied up and its power circumscribed, the greater will be the inclination on the part of the people to strengthen it, and to look with increasing confidence towards it for relief. I tell those who are opposing this measure that if these proposals are defeated on this occasion it will only whet the appetite of the people for a future effort at no distant date when the Bills will be carried by an overwhelming majority. I am certain the proposals will be referred to the people when a reasonable opportunity presents itself. I am aware that if a choice could have been made, it would have been better not to refer them to the people on the present occasion, but there is no help for it. The people are now being as much victimized as at any period within the last five years, and those disposed to victimize them have not shown the least intention to treat them fairly. Therefore, although we are engaged in a war which is absorbing the thought of every man, we need to put our own house in order, and particularly to keep in check the enemy within our midst. We must prevent the men who are prospering at the expense of their fellow citizens from despoiling them further. I support the proposals, and hope a reasonable and favorable opportunity will be taken to refer them to the people, when, instead of meeting with a reverse, as they did in 1913, they will be carried by an ample majority.

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · ALP

– I am rather pleased with the debate that has taken place, for I think members of the Senate have done credit to themselves by debating these serious propositions in a serious way. My only regret is that the offer of the Government, made in both Houses, to accept the assistance of the Opposition in so moulding these measures as to give the Commonwealth all the necessary powers, was not accepted. I issued that invitation in my second-reading speech, following the example of the AttorneyGeneral in another place, with the full intention of accepting any reasonable amendment that would give effect to what we desire in better language than we had put forward. If honorable senators had any doubt of the sincerity of my offer, they needed only bo cast their minds back to a little more than twelve months ago, when I suggested on the eve of the election that Senator McGregor, that worthy man whose place I so unworthily fill, and Senator Millen should across the table devise the measures necessary to give the Commonwealth Parliament the requisite powers. I listened with a good deal of attention and interest to Senator Keating’s speech, and gathered that he had detected a few changes in the measures since they last appeared here. I wish to make it clear that, in a few words I used on that point in my second-reading speech, I indicated that changes had been made. I said -

No less than four times already this Chamber has passed, if not these identical Bills, almost similar measures, and yet they have not been finally disposed of.

Therefore, although I did not go into the details of the changes, I directed attention to the fact that the Bills were nob identical with those passed before, and I was rather interested, not to say amused, by the care with which Senator Keating pointed out that some of the changes followed on the lines suggested by him when dealing with the proposals fromthe platform in Tasmania in the previous campaign. If Senator Keating can suggest amendments in that round-about fashion, why does he not use his power in this Chamber to put before us and the country such amendments as will give us the exact powers that he thinks should be given? That is a fair and reasonable request to make of any honorable senator. But we are told that extraordinary powers are being sought. For instance, nearly the whole of Senator Bakhap’s speech was directed against me, in answer to a speech that I never made. He made out that I advocated the fixing of prices as a way out of the present difficulty. I made no such statement. All I have asked for on the public platform is that the Commonwealth .Parliament should be given the power to deal with the trusts and combines which are now fixing prices. I believe the greatest virtue of these powers will be exactly the virtue of the Defence power - that is, if you have guns and men to defend your country, you are not likely to be attacked.

Senator Bakhap:

– Does the Minister say that the Commonwealth, if given these powers, will not attempt to fix prices ?

Senator GARDINER:

Senator GARDINER:

– I am asked to say why we did not give ourselves the power. I intend to show my honorable friend that we have done so in an unmistakable and indisputable manner. The section of the Constitution proposed to be amended by this Bill reads -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to -

Trade and commerce with other countries and among the States.

The words “with other countries and among the States” limit our legislative power. Therefore, we submit to honorable senators a Bill to strike those words out of the paragraph, so that we may have the power to make laws for the good government of the Commonwealth with respect to trade and commerce - not only trade and commerce with other countries, but also trade and commerce within each individual State. But the honorable senator says that that amendment will not prevent us from intercepting New South Wales if it wants to take next year’s wheat crop, or Queensland if it wants to take next year’s sugar crop, or Tasmania if it wants to’ retain all its fine potatoes and apples. Let us see if it will not do so. Where the Constitution gives this Parliament full authority to deal with any subject, and a question arises as to whether the power of a Stat© or the power of the Commonwealth shall predominate, section 109 makes the Commonwealth law superior to the State law. But in section 51 there is something which, I feel sure, Senator Bakhap must have overlooked, else he would not have imagined that the proposed additional powers will be insufficient. I have shown that under paragraph i. of section 51, as proposed to be amended, we shall have the power to deal with trade within the States or within any one of them, or any trading under the jurisdiction of Australia. Under paragraph XXXI. of section 51 this Parliament has power to legislate with respect to -

The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament lias power to make laws.

– I have heard the interjection that we had the power to do what we did in that connexion. Fortunately we did have that power, and we say that, as a Government, we are responsible for our actions. But we have not the power to protect the people in the various States. We can buttress that assertion by a reference to the opinions expressed by men of the calibre of Sir William Irvine, Mr. Glynn, and other men high in the public life of this country, who are agreed that we have not, in this Parliament, the power to deal with trusts and combines. It is because we believe that a Parliament elected by the whole of the people should have these powers that we propose these amendments of the Constitution. I do not expect any great results to follow from a power to fix prices. I do not imagine that that should be regarded as the be-all and end-all of everything. But I earnestly believe that when we are possessed of the power to deal with trusts and combines - and I look forward hopefully to the time when this Parliament will be intrusted with that power - there will be no combines to deal with, because it will not be profitable for men to attempt to set up nefarious business amongst a free people who can combat them, not in this State or in that, but from one end of the Commonwealth to the other.

Question - That the Bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 4

Majority … … 27

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– The result of the division is, thirty-one “ Ayes “ and four “ Noes.” The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate voting in the affirmative, as required by the Constitution, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 4920

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The Senate divided. Ayes . . . . . . 31

AYES: 0

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 27

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– The result of the division is, thirty-one “Ayes” and four “Noes.” The question is, therefore, resolved in the affirmative, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate voting in the affirmative, as required by the Constitution, I declare the motion carried.

Bill rend a third time.

page 4920

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INDUSTRIAL MATTERS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) pro posed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 2-7

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

Bill read a third time.

page 4921

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRUSTS) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 4

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

– The result of the division is, thirty-one “ Ayes “ and four “Noes.” The question is, therefore, resolved in the affirmative, and there being more than an absolute majority of the whole Senate voting in the affirmative, as required by the Constitution, I declare the motion carried.

Bill read a third time.

page 4921

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (RAILWAY DISPUTES) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) pro posed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Question put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 31

NOES: 4

Majority … … 27

AYES

NOES

The PRESIDENT:

Bill read a third time.

page 4921

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Gardiner) pro posed -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– I formally move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the consideration of clause 2.

I propose to move to make the proposed new section read as follows.: - 51a. (1) When the High Court lias decided on plaint made to it by the Commonwealth that the industry or. business of producing, manufacturing, or supplying any specified goods, or of supplying any specified services is the subject of a monopoly detrimental to the Commonwealth, the Parliament shall have power to make laws for carrying on the industry or business or specified service by or under control of the Commonwealth, and acquiring -for that “purpose, on terms to “be arranged by arbitration, any property used in connexion with the industry, business, or service.

This section shall not apply to any railway, tramway, power, water, lighting, or marine transport service carried on by the Government of a State, or any public authority constituted under a State.
The Government of a State or -any public authority constituted under a State shall not acquire by forced purchase, Or take over compulsorily, any commodity produced or manufactured within “the boundaries of the State.
The Government of a State or any pub- lie authority constituted under a State shall not, by virtue of its possession- or administration of any railway, tramway, or marine transport service, wilfully impede -the free passage of commodities between the people of the States and Territories of the Commonwealth.

AYES: 31

NOES: 4

Majority

.. 27

AYES

NOES

Bill read a third time.

page 4923

POSTPONEMENT’ OF .BUSINESS

Motion, (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-

That the remaining Orders- of the Day (Government business) be postponed until after1 the consideration- of private business.

page 4923

EUROPEAN WAR

Compulsory Military Service

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania.

., - I move: -

That in order to afford the greatest; most sustained, and systematic- measure of assistance to the Empire in the prosecution of the> war;, wad to distribute- the burden oS sacrifice over all. the suitable : male- population of the Commonwealth in equitable measure, the: Senate is of opinion that compulsory service to augment, and reinforce- the- ranks of the Expeditionary Forces should; Do at once instituted, aa it. believes that the inflexible determination of.’ the Australian, people to. aid in securing victory for the Empire and its, Allies in- the present possibly- long-continued struggle will’ be thus fully declared, confirmed, and: practicality’ effected.
That- the- foregoing, resolution-, he transmitted to the House of Representatives for itsconcurrence..

As the motion is. most important, , and has the most, intimate, relationship to the defence of the Empire, at this juncture, and the. advancement of the. causa of the- Empire, and its Allies, I purpose: addressing myself to it in no. drama-tie or emotional way,, but hope to deal, with the principle embodied in; it as. I. would attempt, to deal with, a mathematical problem,. It- is with, some- pleasure- that I discuss- the terms of. the, motion and argue for its principles,, because it, is not a party motion,, and I. anticipate- getting/ very substantial! support’ from: honorable- senators who are opposed to me on many matters at; issue between the two parties-.

Senator FERRICKS:

– The honorable senator is in for a disappointment if he expects that.

Senator- BAKHAP. - I. have- no hesitation in. saying that I am. going to get from the benches opposite a measure of support which. I very highly respect and- value.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable-, senator thinks, that they will, do better than they did in connexion with the Referendum Bills.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I think that they will stand the assay on this question with a great deal of satisfaction to myself. I imagine that I shall find some metal in the crucible. I have had occasion to discuss this question several times previously. I have availed myself of the opportunity of ventilating my opinions upon it when Supply Bills have- been under- consideration. I have referred to- the fact, that recruiting in this,, my native State, of Victoria,, has not: been- as satisfactory as all concerned- with the- success of the Empire’s cause could hope. Whilst I am an unswerving believer in, the principle of. conscription, for national” defence, and’ while I believe it is vital to us in the present crisis), in?, the Empire’s; fortunes, I am not ungenerous to the extent that- 1 would fail to give expression to my satisfaction in, regard to the recruiting: which, has taken place; in Victoria-, during? the- past nine, or ten days. If there, has been any slackness* any remissness,, any lukewarm^ ness in regard to supplying recruits, for our Expeditionary Forces in this State,, in a very large, measure that imputation^ has been removed by the great rush to the colours which has, occurred, in- Melbourne and in the principal towns of Victoria during the past few days. That circumstance, however, does, not deter me- from, advocating- the principle of compulsory service, and the undertaking forthwith of the preparation that, is necessary for the establishment of such service, in order that we may systematically provide reinforcements for our Forces who are now fighting, on European battlefields - reinforcements which they- must have- if the Empire’s cause- is to decisively triumph in the near future. I would not like to refer in disparaging, terms to the recruiting method’s which-, have been’ employed- during the past few days;, but undoubtedly they are not- such as aire consonant with the Empire’s- fortunes and with the systematic performance of Australia’s part in the present great struggle. I. have not been alone- in my animadversions, for-, singular to say, I. have learned during the past three or four weeks that many of the arguments employed by me. in advocating the principle of compulsory service have been repeatedly used by prominent, men in- the Old Country,, and by politicians in the Australian States. To illustrate- my meaning,, let me read something which

Mr. Carmichael, a prominent politician in the Labour ranks of New South Wales, says. Under the caption, “ With the back to the wall,” he says most appositely -

One cannot read the cables from day to day, with news of Russian reverses, of industrial troubles in England in connexion with the supply of munitions, without feeling that the Empire is fighting with her back to the wall. Yet, while the fate of the world hangs in the balance, we are content with coaxing and cajoling and trying to persuade our men to enlist by an appeal to their emotions, which at the best are ephemeral. I cannot help but think that the somewhat spasmodic response to the appeal of the Minister of Defence savours too much of a revival meeting, where the temporary emotion frequently sways the whole congregation, while the effects are lasting with a few. We must now strike the stern note of national duty.

I And that an enormous amount of money is being spent in issuing the most extraordinary series of advertisements ever authorized by a Government. In every newspaper and on every wall there appears variegated appeals, not only to men of military age, but to the wives, mothers, sisters, employers, friends, and acquaintances of men of military age. Some of these appeals are so extravagant that a visitor from Mars might be pardoned for believing them to be the handiwork of desperate men with whom rhetoric had got the better of reason. Many of them are apparently intended to create a feeling of shame in the minds of unrecruited young men. The masterly advertisement writer even went the length of addressing “ Four questions to the Women of England,” the third and fourth of which read as follows : - “ Do you realize that the one word ‘ Go ! ‘ from you may send another man to fight for our King and country? “ “ When the war is over, and your husband or son is asked, ‘ What did you do in the great war ? ‘ is lie to hang his head because you would not let him go ? “

To which was added : - “ Women of England, do your duty ‘ Send your men to-day to join our glorious army ! God save the King ! “

This indiscriminate appeal to married women, mothers, and others to tell their husbands and men folk to go for soldiers is not a very pleasant thing to contemplate. Is & “ volunteer “ shamed into going by such appeals really equal to “three pressed men,” and when the employer of a man-servant is moved by official advertisement to discharge a footman so that urgent need should make that footman a soldier, is the process entirely admirable?

While I have the greatest respect for the patriotism of the men who are volunteering in such considerable numbers, I nevertheless do not favour the system, because of the absolute lack of method about it. Can anybody say that any discrimination is being exercised as to how many married men are being recruited, or as to how many men whose services might be much more valuable in Australia are being retained here. As a matter of fact, all that is being asked of volunteers is whether they are physically fit. If a man can pass the medical examination, no regard is paid to anything else. Some little time ago I stated that, to my great astonishment, I had found that more than one-half of the men recruited for Lord Kitchener’s new armies were married men. I regard that as a very injudicious move. - a very lamentable feature of’ an otherwise admirable response to the call for men by Lord Kitchener. I spoke quite independently, because it seemed to me that there was a very great want of system and a very great wastage of the national resources involved in allowing such recruiting to take place. I have since found that Lieut. -Colonel A’court Repington, the military correspondent of the Times, stated quite recently that many blunders had been made, and that one particularly large blunder had been committed owing to the unsystematic recruiting which had been indulged in. This writer says -

We need men in the fighting line and for home defence. There is nothing to substantiate the plea for the intermixture of volunteers and conscripts, which would result in the disorganization of the Army. We are said to have enlisted more than 50 per cent, of the married men. The unlimited enlistment of married men has been a blunder, and is opposed to modern military science.

I find in military publications statements to the effect that 70 per cent, of Lord Kitchener’s new army are married men.

I am very sorry indeed to learn that this is so. To my mind it more than justifies the strictures of the military correspondent of the Times, and constitutes a warning to us to adopt a system of a different character in the enlistment of men throughout the Commonwealth. I need not refer to the fact that there are in Australia practically 500,000 single men of ideal military age. Surely I need not demonstrate the uneconomical system involved in the recruiting of married men when such a large number of single men are available for service. The readiness of the young men of any country to fight and, if need be, die, for the ideals of their people, is the true test of national greatness according to one of the greatest historians of the German Empire. I refer to Mommsen. I heartily indorse every word which has been uttered in this connexion. The young men of a country can only claim to be great if they are ready to die for the interests and ideals of the people to whom they belong. We all know that the present struggle is not merely a fight between armed forces - it is also a war of resources. If a young man is slain in a battle, he has no wife or children who require to be maintained. Very properly, we have instituted a considerable pension scheme in connexion with the war, and yet we are still enlisting married men. The Minister of Defence will remember that very early in the history of the struggle I persistently asked him what percentage of married men was being enlisted. After considerable delay he furnished a return, showing that about 12J per cent, of the troops enlisted in our first Expeditionary Force were married men. Subsequently he informed me that a large number of married men had enlisted as single men.

Senator Millen:

– Did that 12? per cent, of married men apply only to our first Expeditionary Force?

Senator Pearce:

– It applied up to the date that I furnished the information.

Senator BAKHAP:

– It had particular reference to the first 20,000 despatched from these shores. There has been no attempt made to restrain married men from enlisting and to enlist single men in lieu of them. On a previous occasion I had something to say about the necessity which exists for economizing. When I spoke about conscription in the first instance, that is months ago, I spoke to a somewhat derisive Chamber, but now we have Mr. Asquith telling us that we must economize. We have Mr.- Fisher most properly saying that we must economize. Did not Lord Kitchener tell us at the beginning of the war that in all probability it would be a protracted struggle? Did he not emphasize that opinion the other day, and once more give it to the world ? In the face of those facts, is it not absolutely essential for us to so order our military house as to enable us to conduct with all our force this national struggle for any time, until we arrive at a position which will justify us in claiming a decisive victory on the part of the Empire to which we’ belong and its Allies ‘( Economy should be the order of the day, and the recruiting of married men is most wasteful. I ask honorable senators if, in view of Lord Kitchener’s declaration, any one of them has the hardihood to say that the struggle is likely to come to a successful conclusion, so far as we are concerned, inside one year ? I know that the VicePresident of the Executive Council said only a few minutes ago that no man could reasonably assume that the struggle was now going to be a short one, dating from the present time. I indorse what he said. It is very likely to be a long struggle, very much longer than any one anticipated at the beginning of the year. But we have Lord Kitchener’s warning, and with that admonition ringing in our ears should we not make the greatest effort of which we are capable at this juncture * Australia, I maintain, has more to gain and more to lose in connexion with tho struggle than any other people on the surface of the earth. We are the only people claiming possession of one of the world’s continents. It is absolutely essential for us to retain possession of the whole of the territory of the Commonwealth to enable us to carry out those ideals of government which are dear to us, irrespective of our political differences. If our Empire is forced to make a peace which can be characterized as the result of a draw, our position, precarious in the extreme, will become doubly precarious, perhaps, if we, one of the most important Dominions of. the King-Emperor inhabited by a white race, do not put forth our whole strength, our systematized efforts. Lord Kitchener, it is stated, has recruited in the Old

Country nearly 3,000,000 men. He asked a little time ago for 300,000 more; he asked again the other day for men, and yet more men. Our population is equal to a tenth of the population of the United Kingdom, and, seeing that we have, by virtue of the Home Country’s protection, the unchallenged possession of one of the most important Dominions in the world, it is incumbent on us to make the greatest effort of which we are capable. We have to keep in view the prospect that we may have to put forth the whole of our “male population capable of bearing arms. I believe it is estimated that the greatest effort of which a modern nation is capable is to put 10 per cent, of its population in the .field. The greatest effort of which Australia is capable would be to put half-a-million of men in the field. I believe that we will have to face the contingency of putting at least 200,000 men in the field. If the contingency is admitted, if the possibility of the necessity of the effort is not challenged, should we not make the most complete preparation now? There are some gentlemen - some in the Labour ranks and some in the Liberal ranks - who say, “ We must have registration; we must have a proper tabulation of the nation’s resources. We agree with all that;. but conscription is not necessary yet.” If it is admitted that there is a possibility of conscription being necessary at any time within the next few months, at any time within the next year, the proper time to conscript is now, because the men whom we must send forward within the next twelve mouths, perhaps within the next two years, ought to be in training. The Minister of Defence should know the numbers available to him, and they should be sent to the front with that steady regularity which is the greatest and best earnest of victory. I ask permission, sir, to resume my remarks on a future occasion.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 4926

ADJOURNMENT

Appointment of Officers - Soldiers’ Correspondence - Order of Business

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- In moving -

That the Senate do now adjourn,

Tell them to take a fool’s advice and stop where they arc. It is not all beer and skittles, and there is a lot to put up with.

Their principal complaint is that they cannot get the letters which are addressed to them from their home in Tasmania. I am not speaking in a captious spirit. It may be that there is a reason for all this, but to me it is utterly inexplicable. ‘ I hand the correspondence to the Minister, which, of course, he will regard as confidential so far as names are concerned. I hope that he will address himself to the Minister in charge of the Post and Telegraph Department and endeavour to have this state of things remedied at the earliest possible moment.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Perhaps the Minister of Defence will supplement the statement he has made regarding the business to come before the Senate, so far as to say whether it is intended to bring before this Chamber a Bill to provide for compulsory voting, which, I understand has been considered by the other branch of the Legislature?

Senator Pearce:

– That isso.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Minister might say when the Senate may expect to be called upon to deal with it.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

.- Senator Russell, who has-charge of the Compulsory Voting Bill, is temporarily absent from the chamber. Notice of fie introduction of the Bill will probably be given to-morrow; but we can then only take the first stage.

Senator Millen:

– As it involves a new principle, we should have a reasonable time to discuss it.

Senator PEARCE:

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s remarks under the notice of Senator Russell. ‘With regard to what Senator Bakhap has said, I may inform him that the matter to which he has referred will be looked into. The fact that the men to whom he has referred have not received correspondence addressed to them may be due to some neglect on the part of the Post Office, or to defective arrangements at their camp.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is very detrimental to the peace of mind of the men at the camp.

Senator PEARCE. _ Undoubtedly. The matter will be fully inquired into.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 July 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150715_senate_6_77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 July 1915

EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

New Brigade: Reinforcements

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

PAPERS

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MUNITIONS

Senator PEARCE:ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

Senator de Largie:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator de Largie:

QUESTION

SUPPLY OF STATUTES

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator GARDINER:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

DESERTERS: MILITARY FORCES

Senator PEARCE:ALP

QUESTION

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

Senator GARDINER:ALP

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (TRADE AND COMMERCE) BILL

Third Reading

Senator KEATING:Tasmania

Senator Ready:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Ready:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Ready:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator KEATING:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Senior:

Senator KEATING:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator KEATING:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Senior:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Senior:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Russell:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Findley:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Watson:

Senate
15 July 1915

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Defence · Western Australia · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator GARDINER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
ALP

Senator GARDINER:
ALP

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · ALP

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA · PROT; LP from 1913

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA · ALP