6th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 6314
– Has the Minister of Defence yet obtained a report from the State Commandant as to the practice alleged to prevail in Sydney, by which recruits, having been enrolled and vaccinated, are then turned adrift for a fortnight?
– A report has been received from the Military Commandant, New South Wales, regarding the action of certain men, who, after enlistment and prior to entering camp, sought accommodation at the Sydney Night Refuge, to the effect that -
Men are not compulsorily sent away after enlistment. The men referred to by Senator Millen must have acted in ignorance of the fact that accommodation was available in such cases at the Victoria Barracks, Sydney. The custodian of the night refuge has been requested to send to the barracks any such men who erroneously apply to him for accommodation.
-Isthat an answer to the question generally, or only to the specific case I brought forward?
– It answers the question generally, because it says that men are not compulsorily sent away after enlistment.
– That is wrong.
page 6314
– In view of the fact that there are many young women getting instruction in first aid in the Commonwealth, has the Minister of Defence considered the advisableness of placing a number of them under the charge of one or more skilled nurses on the transports? They would probably be able to give the attention necessary in such circumstances, and a policy of that kind would have the effect of liberating a large number of ablebodied men who could go to the front?
– The question of utilizing partially-trained or untrained women in place of trained nurses has been considered, but the medical authorities have advised me that it would be unsound to employ them so long as a sufficient number of trained nurses is available. The question of supplying sufficient trained nurses is under consideration now, but up to the present we have experienced no difficulty in obtaining them. It is, however, possible that the demands of the Department may in future exceed the supply, and a conference of medical officers has recently been sitting to consider the question of increasing the number available. The honorable senator’s suggestion, that women could be sent to take the place of men on transports, has not been considered, and I am prepared to put it forward for consideration; but at first sight it seems to me that the work which the men are called upon to do is not work that women could be ‘asked to perform. However, I will put the suggestion before the medical authorities.
page 6314
SenatorDE LARGIE.- Has the VicePresident of the Executive Council received any reply to the questions I put some time ago regarding the alleged infringement of the Thermite process of welding rails?
– No; but I shall endeavour to obtain a reply.
page 6315
– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General give a reply to the following questions I asked last Friday: -
– An interim reply was given on the 27th August. The full reply is as follows: - 1, 2, and 3. No delay took place in the fortnightly payments. The first of these is reported to have been made on 13th August, and the next payment was not due until the 27th idem. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, reports as follows: -
As the result of representations made by the men, it was decided to revert to the weekly payments, and an instruction to that effect was received at this office on 19th August (Thursday). Arrangements were at once made for the time-sheets to be furnished by the Electrical Engineer, and the pay-sheets were prepared. It was, however, impossible to pay the men before the 23rd idem (Monday), as they cease duty at 12 o’clock on Saturday, and many of the gangs are working in remote localities. No increased cost was involved in this distribution, and there should be no delay in payments being made in future.
page 6315
Employment of Masseurs
– Is the Minister of Defence able to give me the information I asked for recently regarding the employment of masseurs and masseuses in connexion with the Expeditionary Forces?
– Five males and nine females have proceeded on active service as a special massage staff. In addition, several males have been enlisted in Medical Units now at the front, and several nurses are also qualified masseuses. Arrangements are being made to send another eighteen.
– Are any arrangements being made to engage the services of masseurs for the troops invalided back ?
– Wherever the medical officers consider massage necessary, arrangements are made to bring a masseur in for the purpose.
page 6315
The following papers were presented : -
Bounties Act 1907-1912. - Return of particulars relating to Bounties paid during financial year 1914-15.
European War. - Intoxicating Liquors: Correspondence relative to the Measures taken in certain Foreign Countries for the Restriction of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors since the Outbreak of War. - Paper presented to British Parliament.
Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908-1912. - Statement re Pensions for the twelve months ended 30th June, 1915.
Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914. -Re- turn showing Penalties accruing through late payment of tax which have been remitted, in respect of assessments for the financial years 1910-11, 1911-12. 1912-13, and 1913-14, during the period 1st July, 1914, to 30th Juno, 1915.
Manufactures Encouragement Act 1908- 1914. - Return of Bounty paid during financial year 1914-15.
Public Service Act 1902-1913. - Promotions, Postmaster-General’s Department -
page 6315
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
page 6316
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
Will Dr. Ramsay Smith, as a military officer, have the right (should he so desire), on his return to Australia, to demand a court martial or inquiry in order to clear his character of any disgrace that may attach to his recall?
– The answer is -
Lieut.-Colonel Ramsay Smith will not be entitled to demand a court martial or a court of inquiry. Officers of the Australian Imperial Force hold their appointments therein during the pleasure of the Government, and in time of war cannot demand a court martial or court of inquiry before removal therefrom. With regard to this particular case, an inquiry has already been held in Egypt by the Imperial authorities at the request of the Minister, and the decision to return this officer to Australia was arrived at on the recommendation of the Army Council as a result of the inquiry, the papers in connexion with which are not yet to hand.
page 6316
Motion (by Senator Pearce) agreed to-
That leave of absence for the remainder of the session be granted to Senator Lt.-Colonel O’Loghlin, absent on public service.
page 6316
Debate resumed from 27th August (vide page 6201), on motion by Senator Pearce -
That this Bill be now read a second time.
– This is a very small measure so far as its size is concerned, but I venture to say that in far-reaching importance it is not exceeded by any measure to which this Parliament has given consideration. I listened with great care to the Minister of Defence when he introduced the Bill on Friday last. I realize to the full that thehonorable senator feels that it is necessary that the Government should be strengthened in the manner proposed. The object of the Bill is to strengthen the Executive in connexion with securing the public safety and defence of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, although this is not a lengthy measure, the words “securing the public safety and defence of the Commonwealth “ appear several times in it. The most important provision of the measure is contained in paragraph b of clause 2, which gives the GovernorGeneral , in Council power - to confer on the Minister power, by warrant under his hand, to detain any person in military custody for such time as he thinks fit, if he is satisfied that such detention is desirable for securing the public safety and the defence of the Commonwealth.
It will be noticed that that provision may be enforced, not merely against an alien enemy, or a person of alien enemy extraction or association, but against any member of the community.
– Against a member of the Opposition.
– Yes, or against a supporter of the Government. I refer to this in order that honorable senators may see the possible universality of the application of this measure. In effect, it will take away from a person against whom this power is used any redress in the way of the assertion of his liberty. The liberty of the subject is one of the fundamental rights of every person in the community. In connexion with the Wallach case, to which the Minister of Defence referred, the appellant was enabled, temporarily at any rate, to assert his liberty by invoking the Court. In the invocation of the Court, honorable senators will remember that references were made to theHabeas Corpus Acts and to Magna Charta. It cannot be too well understood that the Liberty of the British subject does not rest upon either a Habeas Corpus Act or Magna Charta It goes back beyond any of those instruments. It is coeval with the law itself. Magna Charta. and the various Habeas Corpus Acts that have been passed did not create or originate the right known as the liberty of the subject. They have only enunciated that right. Magna Charta enunciated the right of the liberty of the subject, a right known to exist, and known to have been enforced, before Magna Charta - a right coeval, as I have said, with the law itself. Subsequently, Habeas Corpus Acts, the Act of 1623, the Act of 1640, the Act of 1679, and again the Habeas Corpus Act of 1816 have dealt only with the remedies to insure the enjoyment of that right. In effect, these Acts have only affected to determine the procedure of the Courts which have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and thus enforce the right of the liberty of the subject. These Acts are solely aimed at regulating the remedies for enforcing a right which is as old as is the law itself. Under these Acts persons who have been imprisoned have at various times succeeded in asserting their liberty, and the Courts have exercised powers under them in maintaining the liberty of the subject. To persons outside the realms of British justice, that power has appeared extraordinary, and as admirable as extraordinary. In thus maintaining the liberty of the subject, the Courts have the power to keep the Executive within the law. They have the power to restrain the Administration from all excess which may impair the liberty of the subject. They have the power to restrain the Executive from developing beyond the strict letter of any Statute the penalties against liberty which that Statute may impose.
– And the Court is above Parliament?
– Nothing of the sort. In so acting the Court is the guardian of the sovereignty of Parliament. The Court is above the Executive, Parliament is above the Executive, and the Court guards the authority of Parliament over the Executive. If we choose to declare in any measure that a person shall be punished, and shall have no recourse to a Judge, the Court cannot go beyond that. Parliament is sovereign.
– Not under our Federal Constitution.
– The power of controlling the Executive, and of preventing it from setting up “ act of State “ as a defence for the wrongful detention of any person, is one of the, characteristics of British law, which has compelled, not only the astonishment, but the admiration of the world.
– But the honorable senator is arguing from the stand-point of a Unificationist.
– This Parliament possesses absolute power to enact the legislation that is embodied in this Bill. It can by this measure deprive any subject in the Commonwealth of his liberty. It possesses as great powers in that respect as does the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The result of the Wallach internment did not arise from any Federal constitutional defect or from any want of power residing in this Parliament. It arose just as it would have arisen in England - just as it would have arisen in the case of a person who was a British-born subject. The Courts have always asserted the power to go behind and review the causes alleged for the arbitrary imprisonment of any person. Even in cases where persons have been imprisoned under cover of naval or military authority, the Courts have asserted their power to investigate the reasons for such imprisonment, and if those reasons did not seem valid, to discharge them. In illustration of my contention, I may mention the celebrated case of Wolfe Tone. When he was detained it was alleged that he was detained on naval or military grounds connected with the defence of the country. But the Court exercised its authority to examine those grounds. In Wallach ‘s case the Executive did not feel it expedient to put before the Court the grounds upon which he was interned. The defence urged by the Commonwealth was “ act of State.” Now, the whole principle underlying the Habeas Corpus Acts is that the Executive cannot rely upon an “ act of State “ to deprive a subject of his liberty.
– The principle of the’ Habeas Corpus Act was stretched in the case of Wolfe Tone.
– The Habeas Corpus Act was not stretched, but Wolfe Tone was arrested, and his rights were asserted under the Habeas Corpus Act. So, in other cases, the Grown has been restrained from exercising, under an assumed necessity of defence, the right of imprisoning a subject.
These remedial measures known as the Habeas Corpus Acts have been from time to time suspended. In effect, though not absolutely, if this Bill be passed there will be a partial suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act for certain persons and for certain purposes. I repeat that in the Old Country the Habeas Corpus Acts have been suspended on more than one occasion. They were suspended from 1794 to 1801 - the period during which the celebrated Gordon Riots occurred. At that time there was a good deal of commotion in England. They were suspended again in 1817. Once more they were suspended in 1866, but only in respect of Ireland, and for the purpose of dealing with the Fenian rising there. In 1881 an extraordinary Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament, which also suspended Habeas Corpus so far as Ireland was concerned, and invested the Irish Executive with extraordinary powers. That Act was renewed annually until 1906, when it was finally repealed. Honorable senators know that we are accustomed to refer to these Acts as Coercion Acts. Now, in connexion with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Acts, it has always been the practice to make their suspension an annual one. For example, their suspension was renewed year by year from 1794 to 1801. It has also been the practice, before the suspension finally ceased, tc» indemnify Ministers and other persons who have acted under the authority given to them by the suspending Act.
I.u dealing with this question, I would like to draw the attention of honorable senators to some passages contained in The Law of the Constitution, by Dicey. At page 222 he thus summarizes the position of the Executive -
Suppose, for example, that a body of foreign anarchists come to England and are thought by the police on strong grounds of suspicion to be engaged in a plot, say, for blowing up the Houses of Parliament. Suppose, also, that the existence of the conspiracy does not admit of absolute proof. An English Minister, if he is not prepared to put the conspirators on their trial, has no means of arresting them or of expelling them from the country. In ease of arrest or imprisonment, they would at once be brought before the High Court on a writ of habeas corpus, and unless some specific legal ground for their detention could be shown, they would be forthwith set at liberty. Of thu political, or, to use foreign expressions, of the “ administrative,” reasons which might make the arrest or expulsion of a foreign refugee highly expedient, the Judges would hoar nothing; that he was arrested by order of the Secretary of State; that his imprisonment was a simple administrative act; that the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary was prepared to make affidavit that the arrest was demanded by the most urgent considerations of public safety, or to assure the Court that the whole matter was one of high policy, and concerned national interests, would be no answer whatever to the demand for freedom under a writ of habeas corpus.
That is precisely so in the instance we have had recent experience of -
All that any Judge could inquire into would be whether there was any rule of common or of statute law - and statute law would properly apply, whether it was Federal or State - which would authorize interference with a foreigner’s personal freedom. If none such could be found the applicants would assuredly obtain their liberty.
That is precisely the kind of case we have. But, that being the position, Parliament is sovereign, and can pass a measure of an extraordinary nature. Later, Dicey says -
The actual or possible intervention, in short, of the Courts, exercisable for the most part by means of the writ of habeas corpus, confines the action of the Government within the strict letter of the law; with us the State can punish, but it can hardly prevent, the commission nf crimes.
Senator Guthrie interjected just now with regard to the supremacy of the Court. That is not the position. Dicey deals at some length with the long-continued controversy which went on, and resulted in the passage of the Habeas Corpus Acts - the controversy between those who, on one side, asserted the prerogative of the Crown, and those who, on the other, upheld the authority of the Courts to enforce the inherent right of every British subject to be free. At the end of this paragraph, Dicey says - The parliamentary leaders -
That is, those who fought against the upholders’ prerogative - on the other hand, saw more or less distinctly that the independence of the Bench was the sole security for the maintenance of the common law, which was nothing else than the rule of established customs modified only by Acts of Parliament, and that Coke, in battling for thu power of the Judges, was assorting the rights of the nation; they possibly also saw, though this is uncurtain, that the maintenance of rigid legality, inconvenient as it might sometimes prove, was the certain road to parliamentary sovereignty.
– Yes; but be was writing of the British Constitution, not of the Australian.
– The position of this Parliament with regard to this measure is exactly the same.
– It is quite another thing.
– I am not going to be diverted into other directions. There is no question as to our competence to pass this measure. The question is whether Parliament, in the exercise of its undoubted sovereignty in this matter, will, in effect, suspend the habeas corpus - will, in effect interfere with the inherent right of the liberty of the subject - and, if so, to what extent, and under what circumstances.
– Is not this also an Indemnity Bill in itself?
– It is not necessarily an Indemnity Bill. I am inclined to think that, before the measure ceases to operate, it will be necessary to pass an Indemnity Bill in order to prevent any action being taken against those who may exercise the powers given in this Bill.
– If this measure is valid, an Act of Indemnity will not be necessary.
– An Act of Indemnity invariably follows a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
– Will not this measure, by virtue of its provisions, be an Act of Indemnity?
– Not necessarily. As I said before, the application of the measure will be universal. It may affect aliens, naturalized subjects, and naturalborn subjects of the King.
– It is universal in its application.
– The Act which was passed by the British Parliament in 1881 does, in effect, though not in express terms, suspend the Act for certain persons. Dicey says, at page 227 -
Under the Act of 1881 (44 Vict. c. 4) the Irish Executive obtainedthe absolute power of arbitrary and preventive arrest, and could, without breach of law, detain in prison any person arrested on suspicion for the whole period for which the Act continued in force. It is true that the Lord Lieutenant could arrest only persons suspected of treason or of the commission of some act tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. But, as the warrant itself to be issued by the Lord Lieutenant -
This is to be noted, because we are not taking any such power in this Bill - was made under the Act conclusive evidence of all matters contained therein, and therefore (interalia) of the truth of the assertion that the arrested person or “ suspect “ was reasonably suspected, e.g., of treasonable practices, and therefore liable to arrest, the result clearly followed that neither the Lord Lieutenant nor any official acting under him could by any possibility be made liable to any legal penalty for any arrest, however groundless or malicious, made in due form within the words of the Act.
– That is this position.
– No. Under the Act of 1881 a person might be arrested who was reasonably suspected. The Act said that every allegation contained in the warrant of his arrest was conclusive evidence, and could not be questioned.
– They did not ask for any reason here.
– Exactly. Under the Act applying to Ireland, the mere statement that a person was a suspected person was conclusive proof that he was. Here, the authority is that if the Minister is satisfied; and it is for such a reason that an Indemnity Act always follows a suspension of the HabeasCorpus Act. But an Indemnity Act did not have to follow the Act applicable to Ireland, because the warrant was the beginning and the end of the whole transaction, and nobody could examine it or dispute its allegations.
– The beginning and the end of the matter is when the Minister says that he is satisfied ?
– Yes ; in this Bill.
– So that no Indemnity Act will be wanted there.
– My honorable friend may venture to say no, but I am inclined to think that, before this measure ceases to operate the question of passing an Indemnity Bill will have to be taken into consideration.
– I hope that you are right.
– On page 228, Dicey says -
Reference has already been made to Acts of indemnity as the supreme instance of parliamentary sovereignty. … It is easy enough to see the connexion between a Habeas Corpus. Suspension Act and an Act of Indemnity.
On page 231, Dicey says -
An Act suspending the Habeas Corpus Act which hasbeen continued for any length of timehas constantly been followed by an Act of Indemnity. Thus the Act to which reference has already been made, 34 George III., c. 54, was continued in force by successive reenactments for seven years from 1794 to 1801. In the latter year an Act was passed, 41 George HI., c.66, “ indemnifying such persons as since the 1st day of February, 1793, have acted in the apprehending, imprisoning, or detaining in custody in Great Britain of persons suspected of high treason or treasonable practices.” It cannot be disputed the so-called suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, which every one knows will probably be followed by an Act of Indemnity, is in reality a far greater interference with personal freedom than would appear from the very limited effect, in a merely legal point of view, of suspending the right of persons accused of treason to demand a speedy trial. The Suspension Act, coupled with the prospect of an Indemnity Act, does in truth arm the Executive with arbitrary powers.
Then he deals with the political effect of the prospect of an Indemnity Act. But, in any case, even if persons acting under this measure were legally free from successful claim on the part of any person who deemed himself aggrieved, it might be desirable or politic to pass an Indemnity Bill to prevent any such actions from being “entered,” so to speak.
– As a further precaution ?
– It would prevent such actions being launched in any case. The invariable practice has been to pass an Indemnity Bill before the Act suspending habeas corpus ceased to operate, the one exception being the Act of 1881, which was applicable to Ireland, and in that case it was not necessary, because of the very extraordinary provisions inserted in that Act, and to which I have referred.
– That is the case here.
– I do not know that it is so, but if for no other reason than to prevent future actions, I think it will probably be found to be desirable to pass an Indemnity Bill, which would obviate the possibility of any person approaching the Courts to recover redress for fancied injuries or grievances.
– What about real grievances ?
– I will deal with that aspect of the case a little later on.
– You left it out.
– My honorable friend might allow me to deal with a matter which is somewhat complicated in my own way, and in proper sequence. I do not propose to leave that out. As a matter of fact, I intended expressly to refer to it.
Realizing, as I do, what the Minister has said as to the necessities of the occasion, I think it is desirable that something in the nature of extraordinary powers should be given to the Minister. The question whether this measure takes us too far or not is, of course, another matter. It seems to me we are confronted with certain alternatives to this measure, and possibly the Bill is less innocuous in its offensiveness to the general sentiment than of them. The first alternative that appears to be suggested is to have a measure expressly dealing with persons who are aimed at in this amendment of the law. The persons aimed at are the enemies in our midst. In many instances they are persons of alien birth, but we must remember that there are persons in the community of alien birth, but who are probably not enemies at all. In many instances the persons, aimed at are those of alien birth, others are persons born in Australia but of alien extraction, while others are persons born in Australia and elsewhere but of alien association. It is very difficult in a measure of this kind to frame a phrase or expression which will comprehend all of these different persons. By making every person of alien enemy birth subject to this Act, we would be attacking the innocent as well as the guilty.
– But we are making them subject to it now.
– We are making everybody subject to the Act, but if we were to adopt discriminatory language, and make persons of alien enemy birth alone subject to this measure, we would be attacking the innocent as well as the guilty.
– But you are attacking the innocent now.
– No. There is a difficulty of discrimination. Suppose we inserted in the Bill a provision that persons of alien enemy birth would be subject to the measure, as I have shown, there are persons resident in Australia of enemy birth who are no more enemies in sentiment than anybody here. If we include all persons of alien enemy origin the same difficulty will confront us, for included amongst those persons will be found many as loyal to the Empire and as much interested in Australia’s success as any of us. Then again, we might provide that the Bill should apply to those persons who are not of alien enemy extraction or birth, but who, perhaps, have been born here or in neutral countries, and are alien in their association. We want some power vested in the Administration to deal especially with these suspects, because they may do us more harm than those who are more readily recognised as not being in sympathy with us. That alternative, I think, is altogether out of the question.
Another alternative that suggests itself is that before a person is interned under this Bill, there should be some authority beyond that of the Minister; that is to say, there should be some judicial authority, perhaps a Justice of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, invested with judicial discretion in these matters. I do not know if this would be conducive to that celerity of action with which a measure of this kind should be administered, if the Minister, before being able to intern a suspected person, had to have recourse to any judicial tribunal or any judicial officer, however summary the procedure might be.
– Reverse the position.
– I am coming to that, which is the third alternative that is suggested. We might give the Minister power under this Bill to intern persons when he deems that course necessary for the safety and defence of the Commonwealth. , And we might include some provision that such persons should, under certain circumstances, have their case heard, but in camera
– In camera ?
– Yes. They should not be allowed to remain under arrest, and when the Act has ceased to operate, be able to come forward and make a claim that they were wrongly dealt with. I would give to such interned persons, under strict limitations, the right, or as Senator Gardiner well knows it, the “ opportunity, of being heard.”
– Publicly?
– In the prescribed manner, and within the prescribed time. Speed and energy are essential in the administration of this Bill if the Minister is to have power to deal effectively with suspects. If a suspected person were interned, and had anything in the nature of a bond fide reason to show why he should not be under arrest, he should have some means by which he could assert his right to be heard. I would not say that every person interned should be able to demand his liberation, but there should be some means, by regulation, perhaps, by which a person might be given an opportunity of having his case investigated.
– Do you suggest that it should be in camera 1
– There is that opportunity now, but it is not a right.
– I am aware of that, and I think we might have some provision under which an interned person could have the right to be heard within a certain time. Senator Guthrie seems to object to the proceedings being in camera It might be necessary that the Minister, or somebody on his behalf, should come forward to justify the detention. In justifying it he would be* disclosing information which might be useful to other enemies in our midst. That is the only reason why I advocate in camera. It is not that I favour a star chamber practice, but that the information may be given in confidence to the Judge, and not become public property enabling other suspects not already arrested to ascertain the means by which the Minister has obtained information against their friends.
We must empower the Minister to act speedily and energetically in the case of a suspect. Realizing the extent to which the measure goes, ] would urge the Minister to act with the utmost discretion in exercising the powers given under it, and also to give consideration to the advisableness of adopting some means by which those interned may have not only a chance, but the right, to be heard, provided always that, in asserting it, they conform to certain conditions. I trust that honorable senators will realize the gravity of the measure, and give it corresponding consideration.
– If, eighteen months ago, any member of this Chamber had been asked if he would ever vote to place in the hands of a Minister the right to arrest anybody in the community, and throw him into custody, and keep him there as long as he thought fit, without granting any trial, or right of trial, until, in the picturesque language suggested to me by Senator Stewart, he rotted there, not one of us would have entertained the suggestion for a moment’. The idea is so repugnant to the notions of everybody who has had the privilege of living in a British community that it would have been at once scouted. We have now to consider whether the circumstances of the last few months would justify the Senate in going back upon all its previous beliefs, and the traditions which it holds so dear. We are asked to strike away the right by virtue of which each of us can live, and have hip being, and move about the streets free from the fear of anybody. We are asked; as Senator Keating pointed out, to repeal the Habeas Corpus Act by placing in the hands of the Minister the power to throw into military custody anybody whom he chooses to suspect - and the difference between military and other custody offers no comfort. The power is simply enormous, and it is idle to say that it will be used only when circumstances justify it. No doubt a similar argument was’ used when star chamber practices were first established. Before any Ministry can ask Parliament to confer such immense arbitrary and ‘autocratic power on any-of its members, it should be able to come forward with the clearest possible proof that the power is necessary. I do not propose to go into the legal aspect of the case which has given rise to this amendment of the Act. I wish to deal rather with the larger view of the question. I regard the Bill as one of the most obnoxious proposals that we have ever been invited to consider. It is repugnant to all our feelings. The very thought of placing in the hands of any one man the power to low anybody else up, and deny him the right to go to some tribunal to prove whether he is properly in custody or not, is foreign to all the ideas that we have entertained since we arrived at a thinking age.
– Then the parent Act is open to the same objection.
– One person seized under the parent Act was able to go to the Court.
– What is the difference between the Judge and the Minister ?
– The Judge proceeds with a legally trained mind, and the capacity to weigh evidence, and acts only after inquiry. The Minister, in this case, is the prosecutor. Is he also to be made Judge and executioner?
– Do you suggest that all cases dealt with under this Act should be heard by a J udge and jury ?
– Whilst it may Ve necessary, at a time like this, to give extraordinary powers to the Government, I deny the necessity to give them power to keep a man in custody indefinitely without an opportunity pf proving his innocence. The Minister has kindly placed in my hand a copy of the regulation under which he says the interned person has the opportunity of presenting his case to some tribunal. If that is so, my objection to the Bill disappears, because I recognise that the Minister must have power to arrest immediately any one he thinks is doing, or about to do, a public injury; but having seized him and secured the public safety I deny the necessity for keeping the man in custody for an indefinite period without an opportunity toprove his innocence.
– He has the opportunity to prove his innocence before the High Court.
– This Bill denies him the right to go to the High Court cr any where else to prove his innocence. Whether it is necessary to pass Hie measure or not is one question, but it is quite another thing to shut our eyes to what it really means, and it undoubtedly gives the Minister power to throw into gaol any person he suspects and keep hun there as long as he likes. The Minister is given power to detain any person - not any alien person - in military custody “for such time as he thinks fit,” which may mean for eternity -
– The whole measure expires with the war.
– Then, at any rate, during the duration of the war, “if he is satisfied that such detention is desirable for securing the public safety and the defence of the Commonwealth.” I do not suggest that the Minister will be satisfied, without some evidence being put before him, and my objection to the proposal would, be just as strong if somebody else occupied the office, but it would be no new thing to discover that Ministers make mistakes, because they are only human. In any case, the Minister having secured the public safety by incarcerating the person he suspects, some reasonable time and opportunity should be given to the suspect to prove his innocence. The regulation which the Minister says in some way safeguards the liberties and rights of individuals is as follows -
Whenever a person is arrested on the Minister’s warrant, he should be supplied with a statement, in writing, of the evidence against him, and he should be informed that the Minister may, if he so requests, authorize an inquiry to be held under the Suspected Persons Inquiry Order l!)lo. The statement should follow as nearly as possible the language of the statutory declarations on which his internment has been recommended, but the names of the persons giving information should not be given, and, if neccessary, the language of the statement should, be varied, so as not to disclose who were the informants.
But under this measure a statutory declaration will not be necessary, for all that is required is the Minister’s declaration that he suspects the person. The rest of the regulation as it stands means .that the Minister, having found a suspect and locked him up, may then if he likes order an inquiry, but it all rests with the Minister. The person incarcerated will not be in a position to say, “ I am innocent and claim the right to go, before some tribunal to prove my innocence.” That right is absolutely denied to him, and the Minister, his mind having perhaps been prejudiced by the information upon which he acted, may be disinclined to sanction an inquiry. He may say, “I know he is guilty,” and may honestly think he is guilty, but whether he does or not it does not get over the difficulty that we are taking away the right, which we have always regarded as an essential of justice, from a person to have an opportunity to prove his innocence. I should much prefer that provision should be made in the Bill, not leaving it optional with the Minister, that within a certain space of time the opportunity should be given to the incarcerated person to be heard before some tribunal other than the Minister. Unless that is done we shall leave with the Minister, who is the complainant or prosecutor, the right to say whether the suspect shall be heard or not. I am not certain what the “Suspected Persons Inquiry Order 1915 “ is, but I cannot see that it offers much comfort to the suspected person. I observe that the authorities authorized under it to inquire are the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Defence, and the Chief of the General Staff of the Commonwealth Military Forces.
– Or some person appointed by the Minister.
– “ Or persons authorized in writing under the hands cf any of those persons,” which simply means that they may delegate their powers. Thus, four officials are indicated to hold the inquiry. One is the Minister, who will have been the chief instrument in causing the suspect to be incarcerated, and at least two of the others will have had the papers before them before they went to the Minister, and probably will be the very gentlemen upon whose advice the Minister acted, and therefore in the same boat as himself. Thus they will, already have had their minds influenced and have formed an opinion, otherwise they would not have caused the incarceration to take place.
– Somebody authorized under the Act must have the right to appoint, and where an appointment has been made it has been of somebody outside the Department altogether - such, for instance, as a magistrate.
– The regulation leaves the whole matter optional with the Minister. Great as my objection to the Bill is and must remain, it would have been very much minimised if the measure had contained some provision by which a suspect, having been incarcerated, could claim, being convinced of his own innocence, the right, never denied in a British community, to prove it before a properly constituted tribunal. That safeguard is absent from the Bill, and the responsibility must rest with the Minister, for, knowing the extent to which it asks us to go, I view it with the greatest repugnance. Whilst, as Senator Pearce has said, the power sought may be necessary. I know of ‘ no reasonable excuse for not having safeguarded the exercise of the power by a provision for some such inquiry as I have suggested. I have one word to say with regard to a remark made by Senator Keating, who seems to think that an Indemnity Act will be necessary. I hesitate to express an opinion against that of a lawyer, but, having listened to the honorable senator’s remarks concerning the Irish Coercion Act, to which he referred as being practically on all-fours with this measure, I point out that, under the Irish Act, the declaration of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on a warrant had to be accepted as proof, and could not be called in question. The Lord Lieutenant having acted and signed a warrant, there was nothing more to be said. It is the same under this Bill, but the Minister has to make no declaration setting forth why he acted. He has only to be satisfied of a certain tiling. In his warrant he need only say, “ I am satisfied that in th« interests of public safety this person should be arrested.”
– D - Does the honorable senator not see the difference between th, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of those times and the Minister of Defence in Australia to-day in dealing with such a matter?
– I see no difference, so far as this matter is concerned, between the time when history first commenced and to-day.
– The Coercion Act to which I referred was in force comparatively recently, from 1881 to 1906.
– I cannot see the difference which Senator O’Keefe. suggests. I am quite sure the honorable senator views this measure with as much repugnance as I do. It violates the right’ for which all the historic fights in connexion with the British Empire have been waged - the maintenance of a Court as, the one shield to stand between the humblest individual and the arbitrary power of Government. While it may in present circumstances be necessary to remove that shield in the Commonwealth, I say that this measure might be rendered less obnoxious if, within its four corners, there was some provision giving a suspected person an opportunity, within a reasonable period, to appear before some properly constituted tribunal to demonstrate the innocence which he may possess, and which, in any case, he should have the right to have tested by a proper procedure according to law.
. - Whilst it is true that I view this Bill with repugnance, as does Senator Millen, I view with greater repugnance the necessity which has given rise to its introduction. Senator Millen says that all action under this measure will rest practically in the discretion of the Minister of Defence, who, by it, is constituted a military autocrat, and is given the authority to delegate his autocratic powers to other individuals. I can speak for myself, but I feel sure that other honorable senators, also, in ordinary circumstances, would not dream of accepting any measure giving a Minister such powers. However, we are dealing with a time of war, and, no matter how great our reluctance to give the Minister the autocratic power to lock up a person without stating his reasons for his action, we are bound to recognise that there are dangers in Australia, and we must trust to the discretion and good sense of the Minister not to exercise this tremendous power unless he is absolutely satisfied of the necessity for enforcing it. It is not because Senator Pearce happens to be in the position of Minister of Defence that I support this measure at this time. In the circumstances I should just as readily support it if Senator Millen occupied the position. We must not forget for a moment that behind the Minister stand the people of Australia, and if he does anything wrong under this measure he will have to answer to them for it.
– The Parliament is behind the measure, also.
– Tha That is so; and the Federal Parliament is a very effective watch-dog. If, exercising this power wrongfully, the Minister does an injustice to any person in the community, he will soon be brought to book by the people of Australia.
– And will be hounded out of public life.
– Yes Yes. Senator Millen contends that a suspected person should, within a reasonable time after his arrest, in accordance with the principles of justice, be given some opportunity to answer the charge against him. That would be in accordance with all our ideas of justice, if it were possible to give the suspected person such a right without running risks.
– What are the risks?
– I - If the suspected person arrested under these peculiar circumstances were given the right to a trial, what kind of a trial should it be; and should he have the right to take his case from Court to Court, as was done in a case heard recently?
– Have the trial in camera
– Would the honorable senator disclose to a possible spy of the enemy our secret intelligence, or the source from which we received our information ?
– The There would, of course, be that difficulty; and such reasons have been given for these very drastic proposals. I am satisfied that the Minister of Defence would take action under this Bill with as great reluctance as would any member of the Senate.
– Where will the Minister get his information?
– W - We have to depend on the common sense and discretion of the Minister not to accept untrustworthy information.
– The Minister is not going to give away the source of his information.
– Does Senator O’Keefe not know that if an Intelligence Department cannot discover a real trouble, it will manufacture it?
– I - I do not know anything of the kind.
– Then the honorable senator has not read history.
– I - I know, of course, what some Intelligence Departments have done in the past.
– They are doing it now in Australia.
– I - I do not think we have in Australia an Intelligence Department that takes action only to justify its existence. I do not believe that we have men. in our Intelligence Department who are prepared to supply evidence to manufacture an offence where one does not exist.
– Who are they; do they belong to the military?
– They are citizens of Australia, like the honorable senator himself.
– I - I am quite ready to believe that we have officials in our Defence Department who may make mistakes.
– One cannot believe a word that they say.
– I - I do not go as far as that.
– We see evidence of it every day.
– W - We do not see evidence every clay of what the honorable senator suggests.
– Then I will say every two days.
– T - The honorable senator suggests that there are officials connected with our Defence Department who, if they have a suspicion against a person, and cannot find real evidence to support it, will manufacture it.
– Of course they will.
– I - I have a higher opinion of the officials of the Defence Department, and of the sense of fair play of every citizen of Australia, than to believe anything of the kind.
– Did the honorable senator read what the Attorney-General said about the police?
– T - The AttorneyGeneral has been very active, and I have not had time to read all that he has said lately.
– I read it, and took a note” of it.
– If If the police have done something in the way of manufacturing evidence that has nothing to do with this Bill. I am in this matter placed in the same position as are other honorable senators. We must say that we will not give these drastic and unusual powers to the Minister of Defence, or we must trust to the common sense and discretion of the Minister. I say that, no matter who the Minister of- Defence may be, while the war lasts, I shall feel myself justified in giving him and the Government of which he is a member powers that I would not dream of giving them in times of peace.
– I wish to say one or two words in reply to the debate. First of all, I have to thank Senator Keating for his very clear exposition of the difficulties with which any Government must be confronted by the necessity nf dealing with this question, and also for pointing out to- those disposed to cavil at the provisions of this measure the alternative with which they are faced. Senator Milieu’s criticism amounts to this : He objects to the measure because he says that it is different from our ordinary legal procedure. Admittedly it is, but the conditions under which we are legislating in this way are entirely different from ordinary conditions.
– That is the honorable senator’s setting of my criticism.
– The- honorable senator has spoken as though we could take action to preserve the safety of the Commonwealth in time of war in exactly the same way as we might prosecute people under peace conditions.
– I did not. I said that the Minister might have the power to lock a man up instantly.
– And an inquiry must follow?
– Yes.
– If there must he an inquiry after arrest, it might just as well precede the arrest.
– No; because you would have the suspected person in custody.
– Senator Millen must know that, by permitting an inquiry, we should probably prevent ourselves from ever after being able to lay by the heels people who were doing’ things that were against the safety of the Commonwealth. We have to remember that we must take into consideration not only persons of enemy origin who may do something detrimental to the safety of the Commonwealth in connexion with the war, but the fact that there are traitors in every country, and that there are people of every nationality who are prepared to sell their country. Senator Millen says that, because a suspected person is of British nationality, we should treat him in just the same way as if the war did not exist.
– No; I say lock him up first.
– The honorable senator says that we should proceed in the ordinary manner in accordance with recognised legal procedure.
– That is not accurate. The Minister would have power under this Bill to lock up a suspected person first. That is not ordinary procedure.
– I think that it is. The police arrest a man before he is tried.
– This Bill gives the Minister power to do so.
– All that Senator Millen proposes is that the Minister should be given power to arrest a man, and try him afterwards. The police have that power in times of peace. The honorable senator proposes to put the Minister in dealing with war conditions in the same position as he would be in times of peace. If honorable senators shut their eyes to the fact that the war exists, and that the agents of our enemies are in existence, and have been demonstrated to be active in Australia, and prepared to use methods detrimental to the safety of the country, Senator Millen’s argument is good, and must enlist the sympathy of all. Bub we cannot shut our eyes to these facts. They exist, and stare us in the face. Their importance is emphasized by the fact that we are fighting two countries, one of which has organized its spy system and secret service system better, and with more determination and persistence, than any other nation on earth has ever done. Yet Senator Millen would propose that, in dealing with war conditions, we should adopt the ordinary civil procedure of times of peace.
– It is not my proposition.
– Having arrested him, we are then to disclose to him the means by which we discovered him, so that he may be in a position to warn all his colleagues throughout Australia to avoid certain channels, because it was through those channels that we were enabled to lay him by the heels. Is not that a lovely proposition? With what joy it would be welcomed by the German Secret Service if it were adopted in France, England, or Russia? One can understand how the chief of the Secret Service in Germany, upon learning that Senator Millen’s proposal had been adopted by England, would rub his hands with glee, and exclaim, “ These English are bigger fools than I thought them to be, and I thought that they were very big fools indeed.”
– How is the position being met in England ?
– In much the same way as we are meeting it here.
– They have not the same powers there.
– The Imperial authorities have as great powers as will be conferred by this Bill, and what is more, they are exercising them.
– I - If a suspect has to be granted a trial, the Minister will be obliged at that trial to divulge the source of his information.
– Exactly . If we have to disclose to the suspect bow we have obtained our information-
– Not how the Minister obtained it.
– Then how can we prove our right to arrest him ? I know of certain individuals, and I know that if I am compelled to disclose how we have obtained information in respect to them, we will not catch any more of the same class - persons who are a menace to the Commonwealth. Tlie channels through which we obtained our information will be closed, and’, they are the only channels through which we can catch these people. After all, we have to recollect that any
Minister is primarily responsible to Parliament. Secondly, these prisoners are not confined to a place where they are denied access to anybody. Their friends may see them, their solicitors mav visit them, and in such circumstances, if injustice be done, is it conceivable that this Parliament will not promptly intervene? So far, the criticism directed against the Minister has been that he has not used his powers widely enough. There has been no complaint that I have not used them wisely. There has been strong criticism because there has not been a wholesale internment of persons of alien origin. That criticism is being continually voiced by the Liberal daily press throughout Australia. I ask honorable senators to believe that no Minister who is imbued with any sense of justice will accept the mere ipse dixit of an officer. When Senator Stewart impugns the honesty of the officers who have been acting in these matters, I wish to tell him that the great majority of them are men who, prior to the outbreak of war, occupied civil positions in Australia, and who have since been called up for duty. What object have they to serve by going out of their way to manufacture evidence in order to cause people to lose their liberty?
– I do not know anything about them.
– Then the honorable senator ought not to have made the interjection which he did.
– I know what intelligence men have been in the past.
– The honorable senator must recollect that our Intelligence Department consists of ordinary citizens of Australia - decent, respectable men who, at the inception of the war, offered their services to the Commonwealth, and were called up for duty. They are discharging their duties, I believe, with a desire to assist their country, and not with a wish to injure anybody. Till I see something which will warrant me in taking a different view, I shall continue ‘to hold that the remark of Senator Stewart was entirely uncalled for. These officers must be credited with honesty of purpose, and not with vindictiveness. If they should entertain suspicion concerning an individual, they are charged with the duty of ascertaining whether there is any substance upon which to base that suspicion. They must then bring the matter before the Minister. They must convince him that there is sufficient substance underlying their suspicion to justify him in depriving the suspect of his liberty. Up to the present no natural-born British subject has been deprived of his liberty.
– Does the honorable senator say that under the provisions of the principal Act no natural-born British subject has been deprived of his liberty ?
– I cannot think of any case in which a natural-born British subject has been deprived of his liberty by way of internment. But the Minister, when called upon to deal with a situation like that, would not only be very foolish, but would act very wrongly indeed, if, before taking such a drastic step, he did not have very strong justification for so doing. Equally, when dealing with naturalized aliens, he must satisfy himself that he has good grounds for taking action. If a naturalized alien may be deprived of his liberty where there is good ground for suspicion, it is even more necessary that, in similar circumstances, a British-born subject may be deprived of his liberty, because he is far more dangerous to the community. If he be a traitor, the British-born subject, by virtue of his birth, is much more dangerous to the Commonwealth than would be a person of foreign birth. I am aware that this is a very big power to place in the hands of any man - certainly, it is too large a power to put into the hands of any individual, except in time of war, for the purpose of safeguarding the Commonwealth. In my opinion, although these specific words do not appear in the principal Act, that Act and the regulations thereunder may be construed in such a way as to give the- Minister power to deal with other than unnaturalized aliens.
– The Government believed that they had that power when they introduced the principal Act?
– Undoubtedly. The regulations were framed in that belief. I feel sure that Parliament thought that we had that power. In this connexion I would refer Senator Millen to the regulation that has “been drawn up in connexion with the Alien Instructions Regulations, and which vests in the Minister power to grant to any person an inquiry after he has been interned. That is a power which the Minister, in certain cases, might exercise. But it is a power which ought to be used at his discretion, and an interned person ought not to have a right to an inquiry. For instance, there might be a case in which the Minister could grant such an inquiry without in any way assisting the enemy. On the other hand, there might be a case in which the granting of an inquiry would unquestionably assist the enemy.
– Is there not a danger that the Minister may refuse to grant an inquiry to an interned person in order to cover up his own mistake?
– I do not think so. I admit that, to me, this is the most distasteful part of Defence administration. If I could see any chance of granting an inquiry without doing real harm to the Commonwealth, I would certainly welcome it. What would such an inquiry mean ? It would relieve the Minister of all responsibility - it would dissipate the feeling that he is personally responsible for having deprived a man of his liberty. If that remark applies to a person who is a naturalized subject, how much more does it apply to a natural British-born subject? It is wise, therefore, that the power should be a discretionary one. I said just now that, so far as I knew, there had been no case in which a British-born subject had been deprived of his liberty. I find that my statement was not quite correct. There has been one case in which a British-born subject, of German parentage, has been deprived of his liberty.
– That is very satisfactory.
– I can give the Senate my assurance that in the future, as in the past, a case will have to be clear and overwhelming before a Britishborn subject will be deprived of his liberty. The Bill will be applied with justice and, at the same time, with firmness in the case of naturalized aliens. But I ask honorable senators to recognise that we are dealing with a very delicate question - that we are dealing with it in a very difficult time -and that if this measure be placed on the statute-book it does not appear likely that we shall have occasion to use it more widely than we have already used the principal Act. But we never know how the tide of war may swing. We do not know that the time may not arrive when it will be necessary to use the powers conferred by the principal Act and by this Bill to a much wider extent. But Parliament has control of the Government, and the Govern ment is susceptible to public opinion, so that every safeguard exists against the infliction of injustice on any individual.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 -
Section 4 of the principal Act is amended
By inserting in sub-section (1.) thereof, after paragraph (d), the following paragraph : - ” (da) to confer on the Minister power, by warrant under his hand, to detain any person in military custody for such” time as he thinks fit, if he is satisfied that such detention is desirable for securing the public safety and the defence of the Commonwealth; or “ ; and
Section proposed to be amended -
The Governor-General may make regulations …
– Unfortunately, I was unavoidably absent from the chamber during the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. But I entered in time to hear most of the remarks of the Minister, and also had the pleasure of listening to Senator Keating for a while. I regretfully have come to the conclusion that there can hardly be a half-way house in this matter. I am dealing particularly with paragraph 6 of clause 2, which gives the sough t-f or power to the Minister, and which, I take it, is the pith of the measure. I had thought of asking the Minister if it was possible to discriminate in any way between natural-born British subjects and those residents of the Commonwealth who are of alien extraction; but I can see a difficulty in the way, and although the issue is not one of domestic disturbance, it has been brought to the front because of our conflict with foreign Powers. It may be, as the Minister says, necessary to apply the provisions of this measure, unfortunately necessary, to Britishborn subjects. It is exceedingly gratifying to find that, so far, it has not been found necessary to apply the power which the Minister thought that he possessed in the principal Act to any Britishborn subject, with the single exception of the one individual to whom the Minister has referred, and who has turned out to be of German parentage. I suppose that there is no honorable senator who is not acting very reluctantly, and properly so, in connexion with the soughtfor power. It is an instance of how humanity treads in a circle after all, for this thorough-paced Democracy . of ours, elected on the widest possible franchise, has found it necessary to revive that much-declaimed-against privilege of casting into the Bastille once exercised by the entrenched and privileged classes of Europe in ancient times. There may be only one thing said in defence of the exercise of this power, namely, that it is to be used in the interests of national safety. We for a time suspend the privileges attached to a state of liberty in order to insure the continuance of liberty itself. I suppose we may say that it is necessary at times to drape the statue of liberty to prevent it from being profaned. It may oven be necessary to take it down from its pedestal, and put it in a national citadel, as we do in the provisions of this measure. This legislation can be a worthy instrument in regard to national defence if exercised with wise discretion by the Minister. The Habeas Corpus Act is, in effect, to be suspended, for it can be suspended at the will of the Minister. If he can arrest the course of justice, or in effect suspend the application of justice in regard to any unit of the community, then the Act must be conceded to be of complete and general application. There is a difference between a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act as we, in effect, suspend it, and its suspension in ancient times by despotic monarchs, and it is that the power is now being exercised by a Democracy in the interests of a Democracy. Anciently a power such as this was exercised by a privileged and despotic monarch on behalf of privilege and despotism. It is now to be exercised in tho interests of the national safety, and a moral can be drawn which would be of service to people who, in the next few months, probably in the next few years, will ask that the conditions we set up in time of war may be perpetuated in time of peace, and that methods of government which are absolutely essential to the national safety in time of war ought to be applied to the general course and conduct of the community in time of peace. When we take into consideration the fact that it is with the greatest reluctance that we permit this process to be availed of in time » of war, we can with benefit to ourselves draw the moral that we want to be particularly careful when we argue in favour of the application of warlike measures to the industrial and ordinary processes of the community in time of peace. I have reluctance in supporting the principle, but nevertheless I must concede” that I did think that the original measure conferred on the Minister the power which he had occasion to exercise. If an occasion did arise a few weeks ago for the exercise of the power, and if the Minister - in whom the people and the Parliament still repose their confidence, because we are all at one in connexion with the prosecution of this war - thinks that the exercise of the power is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the nation, I fail to see how any member of the Legislature who consented to the passing of the original measure can refrain from giving his assent to the passage of this clause, which is the pith of the present Bill, and which will confer beyond all reasonable or judicial doubt the power which the Minister seeks to exercise. I do not suppose that there is any honorable senator who is glad that we have to pass such a measure. I give my assent to it with very great reluctance. As a lover of democracy and liberty, I regret the occasion for the passing of the measure, and I am pleased that it is not an occasion for domestic violence which constrains us to pass it, but that it is imposed upon us by the necessities of the world conflict in which we are engaged, and which we are waging for the benefit of those principles of liberty the temporary suspension of which will assist us in upholding. I had thought that perhaps a middle course could be devised, but I do not think that any satisfactory middle way can be found. The discretion of the Minister must be trusted. He is elected by a Democracy; he is selected by the best democratic principles and according to the latest democratic method. It is incumbent upon him - and I have no doubt that he realizes his responsibility - to wield his power with discretion, and sparingly, and to avail himself of tlie ordinary processes of the Courts unless those processes are to his mind not sufficient, because of the peril in which the nation may find itself, because of the wandering at large of certain people who are inimical to our imperial supremacy, and inimical to the predominance of the principles of liberty. I do hope that if it is found necessary by the Minister to intern persons, and if he feels that the position is so delicate that he cannot come forward and give reasons before a Court of justice for their internment, he will recognise that there is a considerable difference between the ‘ position of those persons and that of those who can be duly charged and convicted of offences against the nation. Senator Keating has said that it will probably be found necessary to ultimately pass a Bill to indemnify the Minister because of any action he may take under the -measure. I hope that he will add to his reputation by a discreet use of this power, and that those people whom it may be found necessary to intern in the interests of the nation will be treated with that magnanimity, correctness and general tolerance which surely must be exhibited in cases when we feel that we are not competent to avail ourselves of the ordinary processes of the law to justify their imprisonment or internment. Reluctantly, and only because I believe that we cannot qualify this power; because I believe that the exercise of it may be absolutely essential in the interests of the nation; because it is asked for by a Minister in a democratic Parliament, do I give the measure my support.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 -
All regulations made prior to the commencement of this Act, purporting to be regulations under the Principal Act, shall be of equal validity as if they had been enacted in the Principal Act.
– I move -
That after the words “shall be,” line 3, the following words be inserted: - “ deemed as from the date of the making thereof to have been.”
We wish to make it quite clear that the regulations ‘now issued and those which will be issued under this measure shall be deemed to be regulations under the principal Act. This Bill deals with more than one principle of the main Act, and it will necessitate the making of additional regulations, as well as the amendment of some of the existing regulations. It is thought necessary, in order to clear up any doubt that may exist as to their validity, to insert this amendment in the clause.
– This amendment has only been circulated since the Senate assembled to-day. It seems to me that its object is to provide that all regulations now in existence under the War Precautions Act shall be deemed as from their date. - that is, the date when they were promulgated - to be of equal validity as if they had been enacted in. the principal Act; in other words, that they shall have exactly the same force as if they had been in the Act itself from their own date. The amendment is, I think, also retrospective in its effect and operation, and, that being so, what will be its effect on the regulation which the Supreme Court of Victoria held to be ultra vires of the principal Act? Will it not have the effect of validating that regulation as from its date ? If the measure is passed this week, and the matter comes before the High Court next week, what will be the position of the High Court in that regard ? It seems to me that the effect of the amendment will be to validate a regulation which the Supreme Court of Victoria has decided was ultra vires of the original Act, and against which decision an appeal is pending in the High Court.
– In the case against the officers at Sydney they are arguing that very point as to whether retrospective legislation is valid.
– Apart from that question, we are asked to make valid, as from its original date, a regulation which has already been ruled to be ultra vires of the principal Act.
– Does the honorable senator say that the effect will be to prevent the matter at issue between Wallach and the Commonwealth Government from being decided by the High Court on its present merits?
– If this Bill is passed with this- amendment as proposed, and if Wallach’s case came before the High Court, that Court would then say, ‘ This is now only a case of academic interest, because the regulation which wa9 declared to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Victoria has been validated by the subsequent Act as from the date it was promulgated.”
– Wallach’s case is before the High Court.
– Yes; but if this amendment is passed, the argument will then be reduced to one of purely academic interest.
– Assuming that this Bill has been assented to.
– Yes ; I am assuming that it will have received the
Royal Assent before the arguments are heard in the High Court.
– Is not that what we want to dot
– The argument will then be simply knocked on the head.
– Yes. The case might just as well be withdrawn, because the regulation will have been validated; and I would like to know if that is what the Committee desire.
– I - I would like to see the question decided on its merits.
– It does not follow that the High Court will agree with the decision of the Victorian Supreme Court.
– But if the Bill is passed,- and this Bill with this amendment is assented to, the High Court will say at once that the regulation has been validated. I do not know that that was what was intended.
– That point is being argued now.
– The point now being argued is the subordinate question :ls to whether certain of our legislation will have the effect of retrospectively validating certain regulations. I think the Minister on Friday last, in reply to Senator Bakhap, said this Bill would not affect, and was not designed to affect, the decision of the High Court in any way. I indorse that view with regard to the Bill as it then stood; but the position is different if this amendment De inserted.
– I indicated that if the High Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court, this legislation would put us in a position of being able to hold possession of persons interned.
– But the Bill now goes further. It says -
All regulations made prior to the commencement of this Act- that includes the regulation in question - purporting to be regulations under the principal Act, shall be deemed as from the date of the making thereof, to have been of equal validity us if they had been enacted in the principal Act.
That is to say, we are purporting to make a regulation which has been declared to be ultra vires as valid as any regulation under the principal Act, and from the date that it was made. If that be the case, and the proceedings now pending in the High Court come to the stage of argument, the answer will be that it is no good arguing this matter at all, because it will be of purely academic interest, as Parliament subsequently validated the regulations that were in question. This Bill will thus have the effect of converting the Wallach appeal from a living issue to one of purely academic interest. The main effect that we are seeking to achieve by this Bill will be attained all the same by paragraph b of clause 2, because if the High Court uphold the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Minister will still have power to deal with the case. We ought to hesitate, I think, before we proceed to validate, as from the date of the making thereof, a regulation which one Court has already declared to be ultra vires, and which is now before the High Court on appeal.
– The point raised by the honorable senator is of particular” interest; but I would point out that the Supreme Court of Victoria liberated Wallach on two grounds: (1) that, the regulation was bacl, and (2) that the Minister was required to show reasons. The High Court may disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court on both grounds, or it may agree with one or both of them. Bui; Wallach was not released by the Supreme Court merely on the ground that, the regulation was bad. Even if the regulation were good, the Supreme Court, would still have ordered his release. That is clear from the judgment. There are two points to be considered. The regulations made under the principal Act have been challenged, and are still open to challenge. Suppose that after Parliament has adjourned another regulation is challenged, and the Supreme Court, or even the High Court, held that the regulation was bad, very serious consequences would follow, because a large number of naturalized alien persons might be given their liberty when it was extremely desirable that they should not be released.
– Would not this amendment give you the power to issue regulations straightway ?
– This Bill will put beyond all doubt the legality of those regulations.
– Will it establish the legality of acts done prior to the gazettal of these regulations?
– I would hesitate to give an opinion on that point. We are giving these regulations statutory form by this Bill, and if, subsequently, any are challenged in any Court, the Court will hold that they are good because they will have been validated by this amending legislation. I would point out, in answer to SenatorKeating’s objection, that we should not seek to validate a regulation that has been challenged, that this amendment does not apply only to one but to all of the regulations under the principal Act, and it does not do away with the second point upon which Wallach was released, namely, that the Minister gave no reasons for his internment. Therefore one point, at any rate, of the judgment of the Supreme Court will be unaffected if this amendment is carried. There is the further point that this Bill may not be assented to before judgment is given in the appeal before theHigh Court, and I would suggest to the Committee that I bring this point under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral.
– I would suggest that provision be inserted saving existing rights.
– I will bring the suggestion under the notice of the AttorneyGeneral. I want to remind the Committee that another regulation dealing with recruiting has been challenged in. one of the minor Courts. It will be seen, therefore, that if Parliament has adjourned, and if any one of these regulations are successfully challenged, it is possible that persons who have been interned may slip out. The other regulation I referred to was that dealing with persons making use of statements calculated to discourage recruiting. In that case the magistrate held that it was ultra vires.
– The Government are appealing, I presume?
– It is almost certain that there will be an appeal on that judgment. I think no harm can be done by passing the Bill, and, as I have said, I will bring the point raised under the notice of the Attorney-General with a view to action in the direction indicated.
. -I realize that individual interest must be subordinate to the public interest in this matter, and I would suggest that some provision be inserted in the Bill limiting the last clause so that it will have no application to any rights at present being litigated. There is a common form of provision to be found in many of our Statutes, which directly obviates the possibility of the Statute applying to cases then pending in the Courts. It is a familiar form, and I think if it were inserted here the Minister’s end would be achieved, because regulations that have been challenged would not be affected. Those cases would be determined apart altogether from this general provision. This provision might be inserted at the report stage, or, at any rate, before the Bill finally passes through Parliament.
– There seems to be a good deal of tenderness shown towards Wallach.
– There is no tenderness towards Wallach at all. I might with just as much logic say that the honorable senator who interjected is showing a great deal of harshness and injustice towards Wallach; but I do not say that.
– I would have had him interned long ago.
– The question is whether we are going to adopt a measure of this kind, known as ex post facto legislation,without any regard to existing rights. The Minister has told us that several other regulations have been called into question. I presume other persons are affected by them, and I am asking that this Bill shall not affect proceedings now pending.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 6332
TheWar : Defence Administration : Expeditionary Forces - The Liverpool Camp : Mr. J ustice Rich’s Report - Nurses’ Outfit.
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and sessional orders suspended .
– I move -
That this Bill he now read a first time.
As this is a measure on the first reading of which honorable senators may discuss issues not relevant to its subject-matter, there are one or two questions with which I propose to deal at this juncture. It is only right that at this stage I should make a statement to Parliament regarding the training of the Expeditionary Forces being sent to the front. “Dp to 14th August, 124,094 persons had been enlisted, and were in course of training for the front. They were raised in military districts, as follows: - First Military District (Queensland), 14,618;- Second (New South Wales), 37,069; Third (Victoria), 46,504; Fourth (South Australia), 11,492; Fifth (Western Australia), 9,953; Sixth (Tasmania), 4,458.
– Do the figures include the numerous desertions we hear of?
– No; they represent the net numbers in training. The military districts do not exactly follow the State boundaries. Portion of the northern- rivers district of New South W ales is in the first military district ; the Broken Hill district of New South Wales is included in the South Australian military district, and portion of the New South Wales territory on the Murray border is in the Victorian district, so that the figures are not to be taken as representative of State enlistments.
– Is it possible to get returns showing the number from each State?
– Not from the States. If twelve months ago anybody had said that Australia would by to-day have had 124,000 men in training, he would have been laughed at, although there are people who tell us that we can do a great deal more even than we have done. Australia had not provided for this war in the way of laying by equipment for its troops, and practically the whole equipment, with the exception of field artillery and some portion of the rifles, has had to be created in the Commonwealth. Owing to the fact that we have not the power to send our organized Military Forces out of the Commonwealth - and I am not saying that we should have it - the organization represented in these troops has had to be created, in addition to the organization for carrying on the ordinary military training. Practically, therefore, this army as a whole has had to be created. For a country that was providing annually for from 20,000 to 30,000 troops, to provide in one year, in addition, for 124,000 troops on a war footing is no mean performance, especially with our conditions and resources, but we have, as always, the critic amongst us. It is said that critics and fools are ready-made. I believe it. Criticism of any system is easy, but what a glorious field for the critic this undertaking offers! This is a matter of war and operations oversea on a big scale, in which we are practically trying our prentice hand. What a splendid opportunity for the critic to come forward afterwards and tell us what ought to have been done, and how much better he .could have done it ! On the kerbstone of many of the streets of Melbourne we can find scores of people who consider themselves better Generals than either Kitchener or Joffre, and who, taking them at their own valuation, could settle the war in about three months. I come now to some of the criticisms of the camps and the conditions in them. These are not the first camps we have had. We have had a long experience of them. Tha Leader of the Opposition had camps during his term of office, and when the war broke out during his administration of the Defence Department, the men for the Expeditionary Forces were put into camps, which were exactly the same as we used to have under the citizen training system. The camps of to-day have ten times the equipment and consideration that the ordinary citizen camp had. Where was the critic when the citizen soldiers’ camps were being held, and where was he when my honorable friend put the first division into camp? He was silent. Why did he not wake up then, and tell my honorable friend what he ought to do ? Why did he not point out that the camps would probably be here for Rome time, and that, therefore, the men must be given additional blankets and other comforts? All the wiseacres who know so much now were silent then, but ready-made critics are to be found everywhere to-day, in Parliament and out of it. They can tell us everything that ought to be done, and how much better they could do it than anybody else, but is it not strange that when the campaign was beginning they could not be found ? Some of the criticism that has been put forward I regard as honest, sincere, and prompted by a desire to do the right thing for our soldiers and the country, but other of it is prompted by a desire’ to score party political points against the Government that happens to be administering the Department to-day.
Whenever any point has been put forward in the way of honest, sincere criticism, directed to seeing that our soldiers get the best possible training under decent conditions, the Government have always been found ready to act upon it, and willing to give effect to it. But to show that what I have said about the other kind of criticism is true, it will be found that some criticism and charges emanating from the same people are mutually destructive. For instance, we are charged with a tremendous waste of food from the camps. Let us see where that so-called waste emanates from. First of all, we lay down a dietary scale - so much bread, so much meat, and so much of everything else per day per soldier. We have so many thousand soldiers in camp; and the food to supply them is ordered on that dietary scale. We know, from our own experience, that a man does not eat the same amount of food every day. The dietary scale is based, as it must be, upon the maximum that a healthy man would eat during a day,, otherwise the healthy hungry man would have to go short. Obviously, each day there will be a percentage of the men in a camp who will not eat the maximum on that particular day. There will, in such a case, be more bread supplied than will be eaten. Suppose we have 200 or 300 loaves of bread left over from a particular day, and we carry that surplus over to the next day, and issue it to the soldiers, the self-same critic will bob up in Parliament or elsewhere and declaim about giving stale bread to the troops.
– Suppose the supply were 200 or 300 loaves short, I wonder what would be said.
– What has to be done is that the surplus bread supplied must be sold as refuse. In the sense that, as it cannot be issued to the troops, and must be sold as waste bread, there is waste; but in the sense, attempted to be conveyed by critics, that the surplus bread is destroyed, there is no waste, because every article of refuse from the camp is sold, after offers have been invited for the purchase of all the offal and waste of the camp, and the money is paid into the Consolidated Revenue. Yet the critic who makes a charge one day of waste will come up a few days later and declaim about the bad feeding of the troops, the shortage of supplies, stew for breakfast, stew for dinner, and bread and jam for tea, and will depict as awful the state of affairs that is the lot of the men in camp.
– My lad objects, not to the jam, but that it is not Tasmanian jam.
– I have visited, many of the camps, and have met many thousands of the soldiers, but I have not. heard the soldiers themselves complain. I have heard more complaints from people outside the camps than I have heard from those in the camps. I have visited some of the camps, not as Minister of Defence, but as an ordinary citizen, and have asked questions of men who had not the slightest idea who I was, or why I was there. I have visited camps in districts where I am unknown, and I have heard some complaints made by soldiers; but they are not voiced by the majority of the men in the camps. A visit to any military camp will convince honorable senators of that. What becomes of the testimony of scores of men who came from comfortable homes in Australia, who have been to the front, gone through the rigours of the campaign, and returned wounded to Australia ? We saw in yesterday’s newspapers more than one letter from such men, saying that they had had a good time, and had been treated well throughout. What about these men? Are they liars ?
– Does the honorable senator refer to men at the front ?
– I refer to men who have come back from the front. If the honorable, senator will look at yesterday’s newspapers, he will find letters appearing in them from men who went through camps here and in Egypt, and who have been to the front, and yet testify that they have had a good time, have been well treated, and want to get back again.
– Have not some of them said that they have gained over a stone in weight in camp ?
– I have seen that statement made, also. Are the men who give this testimony liars ? They have had only the same diet as other men, the same camps to sleep in, and have been subjected to the same discipline. There are honorable senators here who have had a little experience of life, and have had to mix with their fellow-men, and they know that there are grumblers in every walk of life. I shall not be disclosing any secrets which should be preserved when I say that I have heard men grumble in our parliamentary refreshment room at the food supplied there, and I very much doubt whether they would get a better meal in their own homes. I have heard men grumble when travelling by the magnificent steamers that trade between Western Australia and Victoria. They have been on their annual holiday, and during the rest of their lives have to be satisfied with very moderate circumstances, but I have heard them grumbling and quarrelling about the food, the sleeping accommodation, and everything on board the ships, although they are practically floating palaces. But, coming back to the soldier in this war, let me inform honorable senators that one of my colleagues, Senator Russell, has letters in his possession, which I have seen, from two men in the same company, who went to Egypt in the same ship One, of them said that the place was a hell, the food was rotten, She officers were “ something “ cows, and so on through the whole gamut, and he only wished he was back again in Australia. The other man said that he never had such a time in his life, and “that it was as good as an excursion trip, that he had gained a stone in weight since he went into camp, and that it was the finest game he ever took up. These very different pictures are painted, as I have said, by two men of the same company. What is the explanation ? Each may believe that he is telling the truth, but the fact is that we have to consider the temperament of a man and his point of view. We can go into a training camp anywhere, and, no matter how good the food supplied is, we will find some men grumbling about it. If we go into the dining-room of an hotel anywhere we shall find men who find -fault. We can go into our own refreshment room, and discover men who will find fault with the food supplied there. Surely it is only reasonable to expect that in a camp of from 8,000 to 10,000 men we shall find a percentage of grumblers. There are grumblers in every walk of life, men who grumble about their food, their sleeping accommodation, their work, and are we to say that we should not find such men in military camps? Of course, we shall find them there. The soldiers are human, like the rest of the society from which they are drawn, and so we find grumblers amongst them. I am not saying that the administration of all the camps has been right. I do not claim that, but I do say that when our critics are prepared to take up the tale of every grumbler, publish it in the front page of a newspaper, voice it in Parliament, and give it tongue wherever they can, and, at the same time, shut their ears to the fact that there are many thousands of the men who are not grumbling, and who are satisfied with the conditions, they show a desire to injure the Administration rather than to benefit the men living under camp conditions. We have to bear in mind that the great bulk of Australians live under very comfortable conditions. We are very glad that it is so. We must remember at the same time that war is carried on under very uncomfortable conditions, owing to difficulties of transport and the fact that we cannot keep a very big supply of food and clothing. These things have to be cut down to the minimum. Nothing must be carried but what is absolutely indispensable, and because of these conditions men have to live and be trained under what to citizens living in the ordinary way may seem to be uncomfortable conditions. We have to remember further that these men are taken in the heyday of youth, and what to old age or middle age is a hardship, to youth in full physical vigour is merely an incident of life. There are many honorable senators who have done some little pioneering in their lifetime. I am one, and I have gone through experiences in my goldfields days which to the ordinary city dweller hearing of them would seem to constitute very great hardship to me or to any other man. Did I feel them? I enjoyed them. I look back upon that period now as the summer time of my life, the best time I ever had. Yet the food I lived on was damper and tinned “ dog,” the roof I slept under was the blue sky of heaven, with my blanket and my tent over me. It was not hardship; it was a picnic to me and to the other young fellows who were with me. It is not difficult to paint an awful picture in describing conditions of life to persons who are not familiar with them. I have read harrowing letters in the Melbourne Age, and in the Sydney Morning Herald, written by soldiers for the edification of their friends in Australia, to show the terrible hardships they are undergoing in the awful desert of Egypt. Many of us who have read those letters have laughed at them, and at the idea of there being any hardships associated with the life described. So it is possible to paint what may perhaps be a not untruthful picture of the conditions of life in a military camp which may seem awful to those who do not understand what the conditions really are. The hard fact remains that these men know that they are being trained for the grimmest game on earth, a game which calls for the highest standard of physical endurance, and to deal with them in such a way as to soften them would be the greatest unkindness we could show them. The camp and field of training must have some relation to the battlefield. We must give the men some training not merely in drill, but in the way in which they will have to march, eat, and sleep when they enter upon the battlefield. My idea may be a mistaken one, but I believe that while we should not have in our military camps in Australia the conditions of the battlefield, they should represent a half-way house between the average citizen’s life and the experiences of the battlefield. We should endeavour in our camps to gradually break in the recruit to the conditions of the life he will have to live as a soldier when he is on active service.
– Could we not harden them in Australian camps instead of in Egypt?
– I am pointing out that there are people who say that we should not harden them anywhere. They think that we should pack them up in cotton wool and take them out of the wool only when we set them up against the enemy. That is not my idea. I do not believe that we should put men to unnecessary hardship. We should feed, house, and clothe them well, but I do say that in our Australian military camps we should begin to accustom the men to the life they will have tq Jive when they are called upon for active service.
– Could we not complete their training here, instead of having an intermediary place like the camp in Egypt?
– The difficulty in the way of doing that arises from the fact that we must have a base from which to supply our armies actually in the field. Fortunately, perhaps, I should say, Australia is too far away to be our base for operations in Gallipoli. The base for supplies for the front must be much nearer than is Australia to the actual scene of operations. But if a more suitable site is available we are hopeful that it will be found. We have already made representations to the Army Council that, in our opinion, Egyptis not the most suitable place for a base. Recognising as I do that we may have amilitary camp in existence for fourteendays - the ordinary citizen soldier’s camp - under one set of conditions, and that those conditions may be absolutely unsuitable for a continuous military camp authority was long ago given in all the military districts to convert our campsinto semi-permanent institutions. That is to say, huts have been substituted for tents, and the other conveniences connected with our camps have been ordered to be made of a more permanent character than they would be in the case of ordinary military camps. I have already dealt with the question of food. I ask honorable senators to recollect that theAustralian eats more food per day - certainly more meat - than does any other person on earth, and that altogether there have been in training within the past twelve months 124,000 men. When they recall these circumstances they willrealize that the fact that there has beenso little grumbling about the food supplied is a pretty sure indication that we have struck the happy medium between sparsity and waste, and that is what we should aim at.
– What is the average cost of the food supplied per mair per day?
– I cannot say offhand. If the honorable senator will turn up the financial statement of the Prime Minister he will find the figures there. I come now to the question of housing. Obviously in a country like Australia, where we had a military force of only 25,000 men, the number of tents in our possession was extremely limited. Further, the quantity of material out of which those tents were made was only proportionate to the annual consumption of it. Consequently, when, within six months of the outbreak of the war, we were called upon to put more than double the number of men in camp that had been gathered in our citizen camps, well ad to provide tents out of all proportion to the demands formerly made upon it. Within twelve months 124,000 men - a force six times as numerous as that contained in the whole of our Citizen Forces only a few years ago - had to be provided with tents and other accommodation. In the matter of clothing, we know that Australia is young as a manufacturing country, and that her woollen manufactures are practically in their infancy. Suddenly the tremendous task of providing the woollen cloth, the cord, and the other material required for 124,000 soldiers was thrown upon our factories. The woollen mills worked night and day. Our factories have not been always able to keep up with the demand for uniforms and all the1 other articles of equipment, such as buckets, ropes, pocket-knives, razors, brushes of all kinds, and the other paraphernalia that goes to make an army complete. Let honorable senators realize what that means, in addition to fulfilling the demands of the civil population for their ordinary supplies. At times, I admit, there has been a little delay. A contractor has not been able to supply all the breeches or the overcoats that he undertook to supply. Here and there these garments have not been issued to some of the soldiers. The critic has at once arisen and has exclaimed, “Look at that. There is a condemnation.” Eighty thousand men have been supplied with overcoats, but no credit is given to the Department for that. Any fool could have done it! Two hundred men are without overcoats, and, consequently, the efforts of the Department are characterized as a failure. That is exactly the position. But I ask, “ Is that a just verdict, when all the circumstances of the case are taken into consideration?”
– It is good political capital.
– Is that what the honorable senator terms Mr. Justice Rich’s report?
– Mr. Justice Rich’s report was based upon evidence, and I have pointed out what is the character of that evidence.
– And he refused to take evidence.
– I have nothing whatever to say against Mr. Justice Rich. His report is based upon evidence. But I say that wherever there are 8,000 men gathered together I will undertake to get 200 grumblers, who will come along and say, “ The food is rotten,” and who will find fault with everything that is done in the camp. All that Mr. Justice Rich had to do was to decide on the evidence which was submitted to him. In other words, he decided on the testimony of men who had cause for complaint, who were without overcoats, and to whom only two, instead of three, blankets, had been issued. I ask our critics to say how they would have met the situation. We did all that we could. We utilized the maximum output of our mills, and when we found their maximum insufficient, we imported. We placed contracts everywhere - contracts based on the known demand. We were enlisting at the rate of 2,000 or 3,000 a month, and then suddenly in one State 20,000 enlisted within two months. At once the critic exclaimed, “ Why were von not prepared for that rush ? Any fool could have seen it coming.” But when a similar recruiting campaign was initiated in New South Wales it did not result in the addition of 20,000 men to the ranks. Why could not any fool have told the people of that State that it was useless to institute such a campaign, because they would not be able to secure 20,000 recruits as they had done in Victoria? It is so easy to be wise after the event. Let me deal now with the question of the sick. Already we have gone through one winter and through the summer which preceded it. What is our record of sickness ? I venture to say that it is a record which will bear comparison with that of any army in camp in any part of the world. Here is a feature about which the critic has never said a word. We have had 124,000 men in our military camps. How many cases of typhoid and enteric have there been ? I have not heard of one. Does the critic give us any credit for that? Oh, no! Does he say “ Well done” ? No. He makes no mention of the fact. But suddenly cerebro-meningitis breaks out amongst the civil population. It has been in the State for years, but by inference, because it spreads from the civil population to our military camps, the military authorities are responsible for it, and we are asked, “ What are they going to do about it?” We are told that it is a reflection on their medical arrangements, and so on. Because inoculation was made compulsory and general, and because the sanitary conditions of our camps are so good that typhoid and enteric - those scourges of all camps where men gather together, whether they be railway camps or shearers’ camps - have been banished from them, are we given any credit? Certainly not. Our critics say : Do not talk about typhoid. What about cerebro-meningitis ? What about pneumonia? Although the medical men of Victoria will admit that there never was a winter like the present in which so many cases of pneumonia supervened on influenza, by some stroke of legerdemain the military authorities ought to have been able to prevent -it developing amongst our soldiers. I have heard many criticisms of the Defence Department in regard to cerebromeningitis, but never a word, by way of criticism, of the Health Department of Victoria, which it primarily concerns. The disease has been in existence here for years. On the present occasion it originated amongst the civil population. Yet it is the Military Department which is called to the bar of public opinion. Of course, everybody is determined that on this question of the war we shall present a united front to the enemy. Everybody is agreed that, by every means in their power, the Administration shall be supported. Everybody says that there must be no division of opinion, and our critics evidence their earnestness in this connexion by pin-pricking the Defence administration on every conceivable occasion. They neglect no opportunity of giving their criticism the first place in Parliament, and the front page in the newspapers. That is the way in which they show their determination to make a success of the war. Our doctors have had to face this outbreak of cerebro-meningitis amongst our military camps, and they tell us that those camps are a congenial soil for such a disease, because it is a disease that flourishes on overcrowding. Now a military camp is always overcrowded from a civilian stand-point. In civil life one would not dream of allowing a similar number of men to sleep in the same confined area as are crowded together in a military camp. The medical authorities tell us that if we are to grapple with this disease we must spread our camps, we must distribute our men. But as soon as we do that, the critic arises, and says, “ Oh. another camp is to be established in the back-blocks of Victoria. How is it that Victoria can get these camps, but New South Wales cannot? Is this a case of State favoritism again? Why is it that Victoria is treated so generously in the way of country camps, and that such camps are not to bo distributed about New South Wales and Queensland?” It is no defence to say that it is being done on medical ad vine, in order to deal with cerebro-meningitis Our critics retort, The kind of gitis which you have been afflicted with is Melbourne-gitis, and you are doing this in the interests of Victoria, with some condign influences at work, and to the detriment of New South Wales and other States.” So the critics go on.
– B - But you are doing more ship work in Sydney than io. Melbourne, are you not?
– We are doing more ship-building.
– T - The injustice is to Melbourne.
– The injustice is turned round the other way, and I suppose that it is the Minister for the Navy who is suffering from Sydney-gitis and responsible for that position.
– He looks well on it, all the same.
– He looks very flourishing. We hear horrible stories of cruelty - I use that word advisedly - of neglect, of shameful administration by the medical authorities in dealing with the sick. Who are the doctors who deal with the sick, in any State you like? Take the State of Victoria. Go down to the military hospitals, and read a list of the names of the men who are dealing with the sick, and it will be found that they are men who, for the last tan years or more, have dealt with the sick in the principal Melbourne hospitals. In those times there was never a word of criticism; the doctors were perfectly competent, according to public opinion. But during this year, under the blight of a Labour Defence administration, they have suddenly developed a hopeless incompetence, a spirit of cruelty in dealing with patients, a callousness for the relatives, which is most astonishing, and can only be accounted for by the fact that they are working under a Labour Minister. So long as those doctors were under a Tory State Minister administering the hospitals they were perfectly competent, and there was nothing to complain about. The men about whom no word of criticism was used, and against whom no finger was pointed when they were under a Tory State Minister, come under a Labour Minister in a military hospital, and suddenly they become callous, indifferent, cruel, hopelessly and helplessly inefficient. Yet we are all determined that we shall face the war united; that there shall be no party division, and that we will take no party advantage.
– Do you mean to say that, because of that, we must not bring up matters such as the case of the Liverpool Camp?
– No. I am saying that, because of that, our opponents ought to tell the truth. They ought to deal with these questions from the same standard as they dealt with them before the war.
– Patriotism is a cover for a party attack.
– “Was Mr. McGrath’s patriotism a party attack?
– I do not care whether it is Mr. McGrath or Senator Millen.
– You cannot say that it is a party attack.
– My reply to-day is an answer to a series of pin-pricks and attacks, some of which consist in picking out every little paragraph written by an obscure journalist in Sydney, quoting it on the floor of this chamber and asking what is the answer to it. Whether it is Senator Millen or
Mr. McGrath
– Yes, that is Senator Millen who will have something to say on the matter.
– I am dealing with the whole question. I come now to the matter of the training of the men and the general administration of the Department. Twelve months ago the Defence Department was generally admitted to be by no means perfect, but at that time it had all the men of long training and long experience in administration. It had the pick of the military officers, men who had been trained up in administration, and trained in every walk of military life. From that time onward the services of those men have been needed. The best of them were picked first and sent to the front; then other men with less experience and less training were> brought in to take their place, and gradually the new men were sent away, and others brought up to take their places. The military administration in time of peace twelve months ago was admittedly inefficient, but now, in time of war, with men who have not had the experience of those who administered it twelve months> ago, it must be tested by a fiercer fire of criticism than it was then. Things which, twelve months ago could be overlooked P and for which an excuse could be found,, are not excused to-day. The critics must, judge as if every man in the administration was highly experienced, thoroughly trained, and had been carrying out for years the duties with which he is charged! to-day. What is the position ? Owing to* the fact that we have sent to the war our best, oldest, and most experienced officers, we are carrying out the administrations to-day with a bigger load to stagger under than we had to bear twelve months ago. We are carrying on the administration with the juniors, many of them filling important positions who have only had a training for a year or two, and many of them being called up from private avocations because they were militia officers, and put into positions to enable the other men to go away. But let one slip or mistake be made by a junior. Is there any mercy shown; is there any consideration of the fact that the officer is a young fellow, tackling a job a long way too big for him, and for which he has not had a training? No, no mercy is shown. The cry is, “Down with him; bring his name out in the press and in Parliament; crucify him ; deal with him as if he ought to have all the knowledge and experience which come from a long association with the duties.” That is the way to encourage a young fellow to do his best, and if he makes a success of it the critics say nothing about it. Have we not heard that the military officers are wasting the country’s money, and making a horrible bungle in connexion with the contracts for the Defence Department? If those critics would only take the trouble to inquire they would find that the contracts are now being made by civilians, and not by military men. Nevertheless it is as good a stick as any other to hit a military dog with. If he does not deserve a hit for that he probably deserves it for something else, so shy it at him !
– How long has that been the case ?
– It has been in force since I repealed the order which was issued on the honorable senator’s instruction when he authorized the mobilization orders at the commencement of the war, and by which the District Commandants were given power to make purchases in every State. It was repealed by me after the scandals in ‘connexion with the district office in New South Wales arising over the Kidman case.
– Then it is quite recently that you have done this?
-‘ Not Not recently, but months back.
– It is not months back since the Kidman case occurred.
– Yes; as soon as we found out the scandal in connexion with the case the order was repealed. I recognise that in this matter our difficulties are growing, because the numbers of those we have to handle have increased, and our capacity to deal with them has decreased, because of our men of experience having gone away. If there was a genuine and honest desire on the part of everybody to assist the Defence administration, consideration would be given to those facts, and much of the criticism would be tempered by a reference to the existence of the difficulties under which the Department is staggering. But how seldom do we see that consideration shown? How seldom do we find any of the persons who bring these points forward give consideration to the fact that in Victoria alone, to-day, we are clothing, feeding, and equipping more men than my honorable friend opposite was dealing with in the whole of Australia when I took over office from him. More than we were dealing with in the whole Commonwealth three months after the war began, we are dealing with today in Victoria. Yet because mistakes are made, as I admit, because shortages occur at times, no consideration is given to the great mass of good that has been accomplished, but those cases are held up as indicating a breakdown of the whole military system. No Minister has the right to expect to escape criticism, nor do I. Indeed, I welcome criticism.
– But you resent it.
– I welcome criticism if it is directed honestly to help to better matters, and not to shake the faith of the country in the administration of the Department. That is the difference.
– T - That is what it is in the Age and Argus to-day.
– Undoubtedly the newspapers of this State have for months continued a campaign of misrepresentation and criticism in order to weaken the faith of its people in the administration of the Department.
– That is characteristic of the press of this State; you need not seriously worry about it.
– I do not worry about it, but I think that the time has arrived when, so far as my voice can reach them, the people of this country should know that there is an answer to such misrepresentation. They should know, too, that we realize the humbug and hypocrisy which are behind much of the criticism here.
– Intern a few cf them .
– I have no need to do that, for I “believe that the people of this country know a great deal more than the newspapers and some of the politicians give them credit for knowing. Thousands of men who are going through the camps have relatives and friends scattered throughout the length and breaddth of the Commonwealth. Do honorable senators believe that if the men are so badly treated as some persons would make us believe, the people of this country would remain silent under it? The mothers and the fathers are meeting the men constantly, and know that the latter are not receiving the scurvy treatment which some of our critics would try to make us believe they are getting.
– They get their information from feather-bed soldiers.
– The critic opens his mouth and swallows the story of the first grumbler, who meets him without digesting it. Persons who hear these stories ought to inquire whether there is anything in them or not, and there is a way by which a story can be tested and tried. I am glad to say that not only members of this Parliament, but many members of the public, have, before taking action on stories they have heard, come to me or to the Department and asked for the facts to be verified. If the facts cannot be rebutted anybody has the right to ventilate a case in the press and criticise Hie administration for the shortcomings which the investigation reveals. I come now to the question of the training of the men and their discipline. It is said that the Australian does not take kindly to discipline. That I think has been disproved. It has been proved that the Australian will take kindly to discipline when he is shown the meaning of that discipline, but it has to be an intelligent discipline. He will not take kindly to the old style of military discipline, which consisted of making a man into a sort of mechanical treadmill. But he will take kindly to a discipline which is going to lead him to exercise his intelligence and make him an intelligent soldier ; and more and more are our military officers beginning to grasp that fact. At the same time I recognise that rigid discipline has an important value on the battle-field. If that is recognised generally, the Parliament, the press, and the public owe the men a duty, and that is not to encourage the grumbling spirit of the critic who finds fault with the least excuse, and who voices his complaint where the great mass of the men are contented and satisfied. If it is noted that it is the grumbling minority who get all the limelight, that will be the quickest way to kill any spirit of discipline which I can think of, and to create in the great majority a feeling of disaffection, a feeling that, after all, a man will get along a little better if he is dissatisfied, disloyal, and undisciplined than if he is one of the contented and quiet parties. It is all very well to give voice to the grumbler, and those who are associated with him; but when these men break away from necessary discipline, those who have so encouraged the men that they got into the trouble, are the first to demand that they should be rigidly dealt with. I do not propose to go into the question of the transport services just now, except to say that I believe the transport work has been well and faithfully carried out, and that it constitutes a record of which the Navy ought to be proud. The history of it has not been written, and it cannot be written yet, but when one considers the number of ships that had to be provided, the officers and crews that had to be furnished, the coaling arrangements that had to be made in nearly all parts of the world, and the freight arrangements to be settled ; and when one considers further that all this has been carried out without the loss of a ship, without a serious accident to any ship, and without any serious trouble with officers or crews, hurriedly brought [rom all parts of Australia, 1 think it is a record of which Australia might well he proud. Concerning the arrangements in Egypt, we know that a great many people in Australia do not yet realise that the conduct of this war, so far as the army at the front is concerned, is laid upon the British Government, and under it. the Arm)’ Council. We give our soldiers to them. We cannot have the separate Dominions each controlling its own army and fighting the war on an independent basis, because that would be to court disaster. Therefore, when our troops go to Egypt they go automatically under the control of the Army Council, and if we attempted to set aside or interfere with that arrangement we should invite failure. We must be loyal to and support the Army Council. I think it was Sir Henry Parkes who, when a young member of Parliament told him that he intended to support the Government when they were in the right, replied : “I want people to support me when I am in the wrong.” Perhaps that is an exaggeration of what should be expected, but, at all events, we must support the Army Council in this war.
– Right or wrong.
– Yes; they are in it, and must see it through. They are responsible, because they are closer to the scene of action than we are. I must say that whenever we have made suggestions they have been treated with courtesy and consideration, and I am hopeful that the adoption of some of our suggestions will make the lot of our troops in Egypt lighter. I have been prompted to make these remarks because I feel that there has been growing up a spirit of fault-finding for fault-finding’s sake, of endeavouring to magnify every little trouble that has occurred. I do not deny that there have been troubles. I admit them; but I say that, instead of bringing them forward for the purpose of rectification, there has been a disposition to bring them forward for the purpose of magnifying them and fault-finding. That is what I object to, and I hope it will cease. It is necessary that there should be giveandtake, and some consideration shown to those who are carrying the burden of this war.
– No one can take exception to the Minister’s remarks concerning the magnitude of the task that is confronting the Defence Department. He is fairly entitled to every sympathy in the performance of that duty, but I resent, and take strong exception to, his remarks concerning criticism of the administration, and especially his statement that this criticism in many cases is intended merely to harass the Department. The Minister has told us that he is always ready to welcome honest criticism, but I want to know when any such criticism has been regarded by the Minister as honest, and when he has not suggested that it has been prompted by party feeling? The charges made regarding the military camps has been entirely borne out by Mr. Justice Rich’s report, which the Minister would now have us believe was based upon the evidence of grumblers. If those complaints merely emanated from the grumblers in the camps, I would like to ask how is it that the Minister is now giving effect to the recommendations contained in that report? I would also like to ask the Minister how is it that Colonel Stanley and Senator Gardiner, after Mr. Orchard had made his charges, should have advised him regarding the condition of the camps, and told him that everything at the Liverpool Camp was entirely satisfactory?
– I say now that the Liverpool Camp was the best I looked at.
– The honorable senator may say that. He wired down to the effect that he had inspected the camp, but his denial of Mr. Orchard’s charges is not substantiated by the report of Mr. Justice Rich. _ The Minister also referred to a question I asked in this House regarding the enrolment and the vaccination of recruits, and then turning them adrift. I pointed out to the Minister that this practice had been having a deterring effect on recruiting in my own State, and I asked him to inquire into the whole matter.
– I inquired into one of the cases, and I found it was not correct.
– Although the Minister promised to inquire into the complaints, it has taken him fully three weeks to obtain a report from his officers in New South Wales. I have no desire to harass the Minister over this matter, but the practice is still going on, and I think some steps should be taken to have it thoroughly inquired into. In connexion with these matters the Minister has done me a very grave injustice, because he knows that on more than one occasion I have seen him privately, instead of ventilating grievances in this Chamber. In the face of all this it is a little extraordinary that the Minister should now tell those who are seeking the successful prosecution of the war that when they bring forward any suggestion for an improvement in the administration of the camps or otherwise, they are not doing their simple duty, but that they are harassing the Department.
– There should not be an attempt to try and re-open the Tariff question.
– Surely I am not trying to re-open the Tariff question!
– They tried to do it in the other House last night.
– I do not know that we can refer to what has occurred elsewhere as being an . attempt to reopen the Tariff question, and besides that movement had the approval of both sides of the House. If, as the Minister says, the charges with regard to the military camps are based on the evidence of grumblers, how is it that there has been no evidence in rebuttal given by the officers or anybody else? Mr. Justice Rich’s report shows that the charges were substantiated. If they were found proved, as they were on the evidence submitted, the fact that there was no evidence in rebuttal on many of the points must be taken as an admission by the officers at the camp that it was not possible to rebut them.
– Do you not know that Mr. Justice Rich would not allow them to bring evidence forward ? He said that he had heard enough.
– Who wanted to bring it forward?
– The Commandant.
– Mr. Justice Rich never turned down any evidence.
– He did. He said the Commission was not going to last for ever.
– Quite right; but when he sent for some of the officers they did not attend. Does Senator McDougall intend to challenge the Judge’s findings?
– lt is absolutely correct that he refused to hear evidence in rebuttal.
– Let me first deal with the charges. The first is - “ General insufficiency of equipment, in particular as to clothing, uniforms, and overcoats.” Remember that these are the charges he found proved.
– The Minister gave the reason why they could not get the coats. The contractor could not supply them.
– Every charge made by Mr. Orchard Mr. Justice Rich says has been proved, with one exception, and that had to do with the leave granted to officers. The Minister tried to show that out of all the thousands of men at the camp only about 200 had been short of overcoats. That statement is not supported by the evidence given before the Judge. He says in his report -
The evidence clearly establishes that the supplies of clothing, uniforms, overcoats, and bedding were, particularly during the month of Tune, wholly inadequate. Numerous instances were given by uncontradicted evidence of recruits sometimes having to wait several weeks before being supplied with articles of issue, such as dungarees, underclothing, cardigan jackets, overcoats, and proper bedding.
It appears also that in the Light Horse lino there was a shortage of overcoats to such an extent that even the guard and piquets were in some cases not supplied with them at all, and in other cases only with overcoats which were in a very bad state of repair, often unclean, and sometimes verminous.
The Minister said he did not believe in wrapping the recruits up in cotton wool. Does he believe in wrapping them up in vermin ? Would he defend such conditions? Apparently he would, when he denounces those who .bring them before Parliament as the only means of getting redress, and as part of their public duty, as seeking merely to “ pin-prick “ the Ministry. They took the only course open to them when they criticised those responsible for what was going on at the camp.
– Will not vermin find their way into the most cleanly conducted camps ?
– Will the honorable senator go to a recruiting meeting, and say, “ Boys, are you willing to go into a camp where you will have to lodge with vermin ?” when he knows that ordinary precautions will prevent such a disgusting nuisance ? Senator Long cannot be serious in making such a suggestion. While vermin are often an accompaniment of camps, they are not a necessary one. When a Judge reports in this way about the camp conditions, the Minister altogether exceeds the limits of decency in denouncing the member of Parliament who brings the facts forward, as doing it not to improve the conditions at the camp, but merely to pin-prick the Administration. With regard to the Minister’s statement that there were only about 200 overcoats short, the following paragraph in the report is interesting : -
A return prepared by the camp quartermaster showing the requisitions made by him, and the extent to which they were executed, shows that during the month of June there was a shortage of 4,500 pairs of socks out of a requisition by him of 6,000 pairs, a shortage of 3,000 singlets out of a requisition of 4,000, and a similar shortage of flannel shirts.
– That shows that definite instructions were given to them, at any rate.
– What is the use of instructions if they are not carried out? What is the good of the Minister saying that there are only a few grumblers at the camp, and denouncing as party critics those who appeal to Parliament to bring about a better state of affairs?
– Are you making allowances for the unexpectedly large recruiting that took place in all the States ?
– I - I am making all allowances, and should not have mentioned the inquiry but for the Minister’s remark that the complaints were made, not in the interests of the men in camp, but merely to harass the Government. The report further states -
It appears also that an order was given on the 11th March last that every man coming into camp should be supplied with an overcoat, and yet, long after that date, there were instances of recruits being kept waiting for three weeks or a month without overcoats being supplied to them. A reference to the return A. 33 will also show that requisitions were made in May and June last for 2,000 and 500 overcoats respectively, and of the total number requisitioned, only 500 had been supplied up to the 22nd July.
The Minister said that the complaints were made by only a few grumblers in the camp.
– Do you say that there were 2,000 men without overcoats, or does Mr. Justice Rich say it?
– He says what I have quoted.
– He does not say that 2,000 soldiers were short of overcoats.
– Nor did I say it; but for the Minister to say that only 200 men were short of overcoats would be equally wrong. As a matter of fact, the honorable senator does not know how many were short.
– Your statement regarding the short delivery of socks requisitioned does not prove that any soldier went short of socks all the same.
– Perhaps not; but Mr. Justice Rich shows that there was a distinct insufficiency of clothing.
– The statements he refers to may have come from those few who came forward to give evidence.
– Why did not the authorities put in rebutting evidence?
– We did. We showed that at the time that was said there were 4,000 overcoats at head-quarters in Sydney. There was no evidence that at that time any number were without overcoats.
– What use- would overcoats at head-quarters be to men on picket or sentry duty? The Judge says that numerous instances of recruits without overcoats were given by uncontradicted evidence. Are we to suppose that the camp officials were struck dumb and supplied no evidence in contradiction, if the statements were not true ? The trouble is that they were true.
– I said you could get a few men in every camp to come forward and say they were short of equipment.
– It is idle for the Minister to say that the complaints came from only a few grumblers in the camp. Men in the mass are sports enough to see that a fair thing is done, and if the bulk of the m’en at the camp had thought that a few grumblers were giving evidence regarding camp conditions that could not be supported by facts, they would have come up without any intimation from their officers to give rebutting evidence.
– Why should men who have nothing to grumble about come forward?
– The Judge was there, and every one knew about the inquiry being held.
– It was not their business.
– Is it not the business of the officers?
– The fact remains that the men at the camp presented Mr. Orchard with an illuminated address last week, and if the Minister had been at the camp he probably would not have been listened to.
– I should not have referred to the report had not the Minister so strongly denounced those who had come forward and criticised his administration. I agree that no idle criticism of the administration should be tolerated; but, on the other hand, the Minister makes it extremely difficult for those who honestly desire to help forward the work he has in hand by the petulance withwhich he receives any suggestion that something is not quite as it ought to be. There certainly should be reciprocity in a matter of this kind. If the Minister wants suggestions making for improvement, he must assure those who make them that they will receive at least respectful consideration; but I have never known anybody venture to say that everything was not quite right in the Defence Department without the Minister immediately getting on the lofty pedestal that he attained this afternoon, and ta.king it almost as a crime against the Commonwealth for any one even to suggest that everything in his Department is not all that it should he.
– Did you, as Minister, grant every requisition that came before you?
– The question of what I did as Minister is not before us at present.
Sitting suspended from 6.S0 to 8 p.m.
– I was dealing before dinner with what appeared to me to be a remarkable conflict between the statement of the Minister of Defence, that the evidence tendered to Mr. Justice Rich was only the testimony of a few grumblers, and his statement that he knew of the defects in the camp, and that orders had been given to remedy them before Mr. Orchard made his charges.
– Not in that camp alone, but in all the camps in Australia.
– I have since had an opportunity to look up the statements which the Minister made in the Senate at the time Mr. Orchard brought forward his charges. It is most curious that if he knew the defects existed, and steps had been taken to remedy them before Mr. Orchard spoke, the honorable senator, in announcing the appointment of the Royal Commission, should have done so in these words. Speaking of the Government, he said -
They had decided to communicate with the Chief Justice of the High Court, asking him to nominate a Judge of the High Court in order to give Mr. Orchard an opportunity to justify before him the allegations he had made.
If the defects were known and steps had been taken to remedy them, what was the necessity for a Royal Commission to give Mr. Orchard or any one else an opportunity to prove the allegations?
– Did not Mr. Orchard say that the men were treated like dogs?
– I do not know. I am dealing with the case before Mr. Justice Rich.
– That was one of the charges made, and the honorable senator will not find anything in Mr. Justice Rich’s report to show that it was true.
– I am prepared to make the statement on the authority of the report that the men were in some respects treated like dogs. The statement is made in the report that soldiers were going about the camp in a verminous condition. What more does Senator Gardiner want than that? Does the honorable senator think that to prove that they were treated like dogs it was necessary that it should be shown that they carried about them other insects besides vermin ? If the defects were known to the Minister, and steps had been taken to remedy them, all that he need have said was, “We know that, unfortunately, owing to the troubles which have como upon the Department in such increasing numbers, these things exist in the camps, and steps have been taken to remedy them.” As a matter of fact, the charges were denied by the Minister on the strength of the report from the Quartermaster-General and from his colleague, Senator Gardiner. At the time Senator Pearce was making the statement to which I have referred, his chief in another place made this statement -
The ground for the inquiry is that the allegations strike at the very vitals of our Defence system.
The Minister of Defence told us that the defects were known to exist, and were being remedied, and yet, because Mr. Orchard made the statement that they existed, the Prime Minister told the people of Australia that his allegations struck at the very vitals of the Defence system. Of what use is it for the Minister of Defence to turn round now and attempt to make it appear that these matters were then being remedied ? I say again that if they were known and were being remedied, the honorable senator had only to tell the Senate and his leader in another place that he knew that the defects existed, and was doing his level best to remedy them, and had given instructions that steps should be taken for that purpose. The statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence are, to all intents and purposes, a denial of the allegations made by Mr. Orchard. If they are not, let us consider the words in which Colonel Stanley communicated with his departmental chief. In his report, which was read to this Chamber, he said -
A series of careful inspections during Thursday, Friday and Saturday of last week has made it clearly manifest that the statements concerning the unsatisfactory conditions alleged to obtain at Liverpool Camp are wholly and entirely unsustained, with the exception that a number of newly-joined men have not been served out with greatcoats as ordered by Headquarters.
Again, assuming that the defects were known, and steps had been taken to remedy them, why did the QuartermasterGeneral, who was primarily responsible for seeing that everything necessary in camp was attended to, report that everything was satisfactory? If everything was not satisfactory - and we have been told by the Minister that it was not, and that steps were being taken to remedy what was unsatisfactory - I say that there was at that time, and until Mr.Justice Rich’s report found its way on to the table of the Senate, a very stupid attempt - I can call it nothing more nor less - to make it appear that there was nothing wrong at Liverpool. Even now the Minister of Defence, instead of doing the right thing, as I expected he would do, and saying that, in view of the report, he regrets the disclosures, and will do his level best to see that such an unsatisfactory state of affairs is altered, attempts to belittle the report, suggests that it is founded on the evidence of a few grumblers; and, in addition, attempts to create a prejudice against Mr. Orchard and others who, in the discharge of their public duty, have thought fit to bring these matters before Parliament. I will refer to one or two ‘ more details of the report. I have dealt with the question of clothing. I propose to deal now with the questions of housing and health. These matters have additional importance from the fact that they were specially referred to in the reports of the Quartermaster-General and of Senator Gardiner. I find that at page 11 of this typewritten report, a printed copy of which is not yet available, Mr. Justice Rich makes certain statements with regard to the huts, and the effect of their condition upon the men. Here I should like, first of all, to direct attention to what Senator Gardiner had to say about them -
Tuc lints arc large and roomy, and, being new, are quite clean. The floors are tongued. and grooved boards. The framing is Oregon; the walls and roof arc of corrugated galvanized iron. The ventilation is an air space between the top plate of the wall and the roof, which, extending over the walls in bungalow fashion, keeps out the rain.
Senator Gardiner’s report would lead one to believe that everything was entirely satisfactory, so far as the housing accommodation for the men was concerned. Colonel Stanley says in his report -
The huts are well and faithfully constructed, and, though full provision for ventilation is provided, it depends entirely on the occupant ns to whether pure air is admitted into the habitation in volumes, or they choose to exist in a practically hermetically-sealed atmosphere.
Here is what Mr. Justice Rich has to say about it -
I have come to the conclusion that the huts are draughty, and that the draughts, in many cases, were the cause of serious colds. Other contributing causes wore that, after wet weather, water was often allowed to remain under the huts, and in pools about the streets and. passages about the camp; that the blankets used by the men were not sufficiently aired and sunned; that the clothing supplied to the mcn was at times insufficient: that no provision was made for drying clothes, and that the arrangements for washing and bathing were inadequate: tha.t after inoculation the system is lowered, and men become susceptible to sickness.
T venture to say that, unless one is going to take up an attitude towards this report which no one in this chamber is likely to adopt, he cannot read that without .coming to the conclusion that, not only was the housing accommodation unsatisfactory to a degree, but that its unsatisfactory condition contributed largely to the sickness that prevailed in that camp. Now let us go a little further - and here, again, I wish to draw attention to the difference between the reports submitted to this Chamber and that supplied by Mr. Justice Rich.
– What does the honorable senator mean by the reports submitted to this Chamber ?
– The reports by Colonel Stanley and Senator Gardiner, read in this Chamber by Senator Pearce. Senator Gardiner was quite eloquent when dealing with the arrangements made for cooking.
– Let the honorable senator read what I said. What I said I saw.
– No, there is something here that Senator Gardiner did not see. When dealing with the arrangements for cooking the honorable senator’s report made us almost wish that we could go to the camp to live. He wrote:
I then strolled through the lines, talking to groups of men here and there, and, as the mid.day meal was being served, I had the opportunity of observing both the quantity and quality of the food supplied. It was well cooked, of first-class quality, and comprised roast beef, baked onions, boiled potatoes, bread, and tea.
Later I visited the kitchen, where the cooks were preparing a warm evening meal for the men, who were having a field day. That meal consisted of beef, vegetables in ample quantity - potatoes, onions, and carrots. As there was an abundant supply of good, wholesome food, I was satisfied there was no room for complaint on that score.
– Hear, hear !
– I mark the word “wholesome,” which the honorable senator used. Any one reading that statement would naturally conclude that everything was satisfactory. I now come to what the honorable senator failed to see. and that is what was unsatisfactory, and I turn to Mr. Justice Rich’s report to fill up the gaps left by Senator Gardiner. The Judge reports -
The preparation of the food for cooking, the cooking itself, and its distribution as rations, leave much to be desired. In the first place, the cutlery supplied to some of the butchers is wholly unsuitable and inadequate for the purpose of severing the portions of the carcass. In most cases all that is supplied to the butcher is an ordinary dinner knife of inferior steel, and tables unsuited for the purposes for which they were intended. Again, tlie butchers and cooks ave called upon to work in the evenings after dark and in the mornings before daylight. In some cases the only lighting available is supplied by candles, while at most the supply is from hurricane lamps.
The cooks up till now, in the Infantry Camp, have had to perform their work in the open, and in bad weather the disadvantages of this practice are obvious. In justice to the authorities, however, I should point out that ordinary field kitchens were in course of construction before the Commission Bat, and appeared to contain adequate provision for the proper preparation of the food.
The distribution of the food is very unsatisfactory. There are no mess-sheds, and the men are not supposed to take the food into the huts. The dixies are brought to the men as they squat about the ground. In some cases there is a scramble for the food, with the result that the Inst to come is the least served. Pannikins to which soil or sand is adhering are dipped into the dixies, with unwholesome and insanitary results.
The method of cleaning the dixies and eating utensils in vogue may very easily have constituted one of the chief causes of illness at the camp. It appears that hot water and soda were available for the purpose in quantities which it was impossible for me to ascertain definitely; but it is undoubted that the general practice prevailing in the camp was to clean these articles with cold water and sand. The sand used must in many cases have been impregnated with urine and expectoration.
That is the state of affairs which Mr. Justice Rich declared prevailed in the camp, while according to Senator Gardiner and Colonel Stanley everything was satisfactory.
– Boiled down, what Mr. Justice Rich reports is that hot water and soda were provided in quantities, but were not availed of.
– No; what Mr. Justice Rich reports is that they were there in quantities which it was impossible for him to ascertain, but the general conditions were as he has stated them. If I am to understand from the honorable senator’s interjection that he suggests that it was a stupid love of dirt on the part of the men that made them resort to these practices rather than make use of the ample supply of hot water and soda provided, what has he to say about the conduct of the officers who tolerated that kind of thing, and whose duty it was to see, not only that there was a supply of all the things necessary for the preservation of the health of the men, but that they should be utilized ? It is marvellous to me that the Minister of Defence should not have been the first to recognise the value of Mr. Justice Rich’s report, not only in the interests of the men now in camp, but of those who will be in camp in the future so long as recruiting is continued, which I presume will be while the war lasts. Senator Gardiner said that he reported only what he saw, but he did a little more than that. In one portion of his report he said -
Upon inquiry I learned that every man engaged on night duty was supplied with a greatcoat.
He did not see that.
– No; I was not there at night.
– Mr. Justice Rich says that every man on night duty was not provided with a greatcoat. Senator Gardiner made inquiries of men as he strolled through the lines of the camp. He tells us that he has experience in camp life himself, and that I readily believe. He knew exactly the kind of men he was talking to, and how to put questions to them. He was no new chum, and on inquiry he was informed that every man engaged on night duty had a greatcoat.
– Colonel Stanley said that was so except in the case of a few men who had just come into camp.
– Colonel Stanley and other officers could have given evidence before Mr. Justice Rich, and the fact that they did not do so must lead any sensible man to the conclusion that they could not prove that statement. I am sure that Senator Pearce does not wish us to believe that Mr. Justice Rich presented a biased report.
– He said that he was not going to be there always.
– He did not shut out any evidence, but when it came to a question of multiplying the same evidence he may have said that he did not want any more of the same evidence. Am I to conclude from the interjections of Senator Pearce and Senator McDougall that the intention is to decry Mr. Justice Rich’s report and suggest that it is biased or based upon insufficient evidence?
– He was appointed by the present Government to make the inquiry.
– That is so. He was appointed to enable Mr. Orchard to prove the allegations which he had made, and which, in the language of the Prime Minister, “ struck at the very vitals of the Department.” What attitude would the Department have adopted if Mr. Justice Rich had declared that Mr. Orchard had failed to substantiate his charges ? This report would have been waved throughout Australia as a strong denunciation of the attitude of those who criticised the Department. Mr. Justice Rich also stated -
The failure to supply proper bedding in the huts appears to be due to nothing less than’ a failure on the part of the authorities to recognise that a proper supply of bedding was necessarily involved in any ordinary consideration for the comfort of the men.
Can honorable senators imagine any stronger denunciation of the callous disregard of the interests of the men than is contained in that report? The Minister stated this afternoon that he did not intend to wrap men up in lavender. But surely it is going to the other extreme when we are told that -
The failure to supply proper bedding in the lints appears to be due to nothing less than iv failure on the part of the authorities to recognise that a proper supply of bedding was necessarily involved in any ordinary consideration for the comfort of the men.
– Does the honorable senator think that things would have been different in the Liverpool Camp if he had remained in office as Minister ?
– Had I remained in office the Liverpool Camp would not have been located at the present site. Bub I am not now dealing with what would have happened had I been Minister. As a matter of fact, I would not have referred to this question at all but that the Minister has attempted to make it appear that those who criticise the Department are animated by party feeling, and have no desire to consider the interests of Che men, or of the Forces that we are sending abroad . I resent that accusation very strongly, and that is why I am dealing with this question at some length. Mr. Justice Rich’s report also contains a paragraph in reference to the hospital - a paragraph which points out the quite inadequate character of the utensils supplied therein, and one which states that jam tins were supplied to the patients both for purposes of expectoration and of urinating in at night. That is the hospital in which, according to the Vice-President of the Executive Council, everything was all right.
– I shall quote some evidence given before Mr. Justice Rich on that point.
– The honorable gentleman may quote as much as he likes. Rut the fact is that we have to take the finding of Mr. Justice Rich on the whole report.
– I will quote the evidence that Mr. Justice Rich himself called, and which fairly bears out my statement.
– But the VicePresident of the Executive Council must quote not only the evidence of particular witnesses, but the evidence of the whole of them.
– Not on the expert evidence.
– I do not know what the honorable senator calls expert evidence.
– I call Mr. De Burgh an expert.
– On housing? Is there any evidence in defence of the practice of cleaning dixies with sand that has been impregnated with expectoration and urine? What is the use of endeavouring to belittle the report of the Judge, who was appointed by the Government to. inquire into the conditions that obtain at the Liverpool Camp?
– The man who washed a tin with that kind of substance ought to be dealt with.
– But when men are told that they must clean their dixies1 in that way, it is not for them to determine whether the sand is sanitary or not. Military officers have ample authority to prevent the men from doing things which they ought not to do.
– It seems incredible that an officer would command, a man to clean a utensil with such a substance as that to which the honorable senator has referred. I hardly think that a man could be got to do it.
– It is inconceivable that a man would do it, knowing the sand to be in such an insanitary condition. But it is quite conceivable that when men are told to do things they will obey orders.
– Does the honorable senator say that they were told to clean the utensils in thi! way?
– I am basing my remarks upon the report of Mr. Justice Rich.
– There is no evidence as to the honorable senator’s allegation that they were told to clean them in that way.
– I refuse to believe that Mr. Justice Rich has stated without warrant that the dixies were cleaned with saud impregnated with expectoration and urine.
– But the honorable senator has said that the men were told to do it.
– I said that they must have been told.
– Has the honorable senator any evidence that they were told?
– Of course I have not, but in a camp of that sort men are told off to do certain things. The fact remains that that was the practice at the camp, on the authority of Mr. Justice Rich. It was the duty of the officers to see that every arrangement connected with the camp was sanitary.
– That is quite a different matter from the men being told to clean the dixies in that way, which is the charge the honorable senator makes.
– Senator Needham is apparently going to hang on to that little word. I say that the men must have been told to clean the dixies in that fashion, or they would not have done it.
– Did Mr. Orchard make any charge of that kind ?
– Here are the charges made by Mr. Orchard, as summarized by Mr. Justice Rich.
– The novice who told a man to do that sort of thing would meet with a refusal. He ought to be court-martialled and shot.
– But there is such a thing as criminal negligence, and if those in charge of the camp did not take steps to prevent the practice - and on the authority of Mr. Justice Rich they did not - they should be held responsible.
– That is a different matter from saying that the men were ordered to do it.
– I have never said that the men were told to do it by officers who knew the nature of the stuff with which the dixies were being cleaned. Now I wish to deal with other matters. In the first place, I desire to direct the attention of the Minister to a subject upon which I, in common with other hon orable senators, have a strong grievance. In spite of the honorable gentleman’s declaration the other day that the War Committee have nothing whatever to do with the arrangements in our camps, his colleague in another Chamber is still giving colour to the idea that those camps are under the control of that body.
– That they have power to visit them.
– Yes; only the other day, in reference to a previous statement by the Minister for the Navy, I asked the Minister of Defence whether it was a fact that the War Committee have the power to inquire into the arrangements at the Liverpool and other camps. The honorable gentleman replied that they had not. Now Mr’. Jensen has made a further statement to the effect that the War Committee have the power to inquire into the conditions obtaining at those camps. It is just as well that the public should know that that body is only entitled to consider matters which are specially referred to it by the Government. As the arrangements at our camps are not one of those matters, I. take strong exception to the statement of the Minister for the Navy that the Committee are in any way responsible for something which has not been referred to them. As the result of Mr. Jensen’s statement, I have been asked why the War Committee do not intervene in reference to our military camps. I object to the impression getting abroad that the Committee have a right to roam all over the Defence Department, and ought, therefore, to shoulder the responsibility if anything goes wrong. I strongly protest against the action of the Minister for the Navy in making the statement of which I complain, a second time, after the Minister of Defence had denied its accuracy.
– The second statement of the Minister for the Navy qualified his first statement. He referred to the question of recruiting.
– The first statement was a definite one, that the Committee had power to inquire into camp matters. His second statement was -
I have been advised that the War Committee was having referred to it certain questions regarding recruiting by the Minister of Defence. I should think this would include the camps.
Now, the Minister for the Navy had no right to make that statement, and, seeing the close relationship which is supposed to exist between himself and the Minister of Defence, he ought to have known exactly what are the functions of the War Committee.
– The War Committee do not accept any responsibility.
– But I take strong exception to the suggestion that its members have to deal with any matters which have not been specially referred to them. Then I notice in this morning’s newspapers a statement to the effect that steel manufactured at Newcastle is being sent to the Melbourne University to be tested. As time is an element in this matter, why is this steel being sent past the Sydney University i
– It cannot be utilized until it has been rolled, and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s Rolling Mills are not ready. Consequently that company has made an arrangement for the steel to be rolled in Melbourne. Subsequent tests, however, will be made at the works themselves.
– That is quite a satisfactory explanation. But I may tell the Minister that there is a little heartburning on the part of the Sydney University authorities because of the feeling that that university is being given no opportunity to render service to the Defence Department.
– The statement that the steel is being sent to the Melbourne University to be tested is incorrect. It will be tested at the works by our own inspectors.
– I have no desire to decry either the competency of the professors of the Melbourne University or the efficiency of their plant. But I would remind the Minister that there is a university in Sydney which possesses equal facilities and equal capacity. While I do not wish to pit one university against the other, I say that, in the light of the newspaper statement that steel was being sent from Newcastle to Melbourne, it did appear as if the Minister had overlooked the Sydney University, and also the offer which it had made to him. A little time ago, the Minister will recollect, I brought forward here the failure to utilize the members of the National Rifle Association for the purpose of training recruits. The Minister then told me what was being done, and I assured him that up to the Saturday prior to the day on which I spoke it was not being done. He stated that he had given orders that it should be done, and had looked into the matter. He found that the orders had been given, but, for some reason or other, they were not being carried out. He then, I believe, gave fresh orders. At the same time, similar orders were given to the State of Victoria.
– The orders were given to all the States.
– I believe that 1 am correct in saying that the orders were acted on in this State. It is some months since the Minister gave his first orders in New South Wales. They were acted on, I believe, for a few weeks and dropped, and nothing was said to him about it. Some weeks ago, he sent his later instruction to act on the orders, but they are not being acted on yet. In the meanwhile, they are being acted on in Victoria. What are the authorities in New South Wales doing to-day? Seeing that the Minister has now given a very definite instruction that the orders shall be carried out, they have communicated with the National Rifle Association, and stipulated for such conditions as they knew beforehand no rifleman could comply with. I ask the Minister to- see whether this is not another attempt on the part of his officers to carry out their own policy as against the Ministerial decision. If it is possible in Victoria to devise such conditions that the National Rifle Association can help, why should different conditions be imposed in New South Wales? Why, in addition to rifle capacity and skill, should the men be required, before the military authorities will accept them, to have military training and knowledge? What is good enough in Victoria ought to suffice there. But it is of no use to disguise the facts. The history of this case, to my mind, makes it quite clear that the officers at Sydney are resolved that they will not avail themselves of the assistance of the riflemen in order to teach recruits if they can help it. They have already flouted the Minister’s decision by having nominally complied with it for a few weeks, . and then dropping the practice. And when he reminded them of his instructions they set to work to surround the acceptance of the offer with such conditions as would nullify it. Whatever may be thought of the proposal to utilize the services of expert riflemen, I am per- fectly certain that the Minister can have no sympathy with officers who, in that flagrant way, are attempting to set on one side his decision. 1 ask him to look into the matter, not merely because it seems to me a species of insubordination on the part of officers, but because we know, not only from the result of the inquiry, but from other factors, that the amount of rifle training given in the camps is altogether insufficient. Not a single day ought to be lost in trying to make good that deficiency. Weeks have been lost owing to the action of the authorities in New South Wales. I certainly hope that the Minister will look into the matter to enable him to decide whether it is not necessary to take more peremptory action. Another matter which I brought up here was the position of the nurses. The Minister admitted that, as the result of his inquiries, a circular had been found directing the nurses to apply for their uniforms to a particular firm in Sydney. He said that they could not discover by what authority the circular was issued, and he was till prosecuting inquiries. We have not heard any more about the matter. It seems to me a most extraordinary state of- affairs that a circular, having the appearance of being official, is sent out addressed to nurses whose services are accepted, and telling them that they must go to a particular firm to get their uniform, and that no one can discover who sent it out.
– I have not been able to find out yet where the circular came from.
– The Minister spoke of a newspaper paragraph I brought forward. Those are two of the matters to which I called attention, and concerning which I am sure the Senate is waiting for some information. I do notknow whether he calls these pin pricks animated by party feeling. I did not bring them forward in that spirit. I challenge any one to say that they were not matters fit and proper to bring forward. To my mind, there is no other course open with regard to the utilization of the services of expert riflemen. I have been at that matter for months, but we are no further forward now.
– I did not refer to that, as you know. I did not think that your questions were founded on newspaper paragraphs.
– I quoted one on the practice of turning men adrift after being inoculated. I tell the Minister, although he read the report, that there is behind the paragraph something more than appears on its face. I wish to come to a larger matter connected with the Defence Department. I must admit, that what has transpired to-day leaves me in an almost unsettled condition of mind as to what I ought to do. I can see in the Department to-day what, in my opinion, is a very serious weakness indeed. But if one ventures to make a suggestion, he is always open to the imputation, or the accusation, of trying to bring forward a matter to secure a party advantage. The foolishness of that charge, if the Minister had only stopped to think, would have been shown by the fact that in the last few days two of the most strongly worded speeches delivered in Australia against the administration of his Department have come from members of his own party. I refer to the utterances of Mr. Finlayson and Mr. McGrath.
– Do you take them seriously ?
– I do not know that my honorable friend takes anything seriously.
– I did not take them seriously, nor did the party either.
– I think that Mr. Finlayson has a great deal to say on behalf of the view that he puts forward. The matter I desire to bring forward is what I call the business side of the Defence Department. Since the war broke out we have heard a great deal about organizing the resources of the country. If I understand the term, organizing for war means that every man in the community who can render any service likely to assist in carrying on the war should be put to that service, and in any capacity in which a man can serve he should be invited, if necessary coerced, to serve. In other words, it is- every man for the job he can do best. That is how I interpret the phrase. I should like to know what has been done to organize the resources of Australia.
– What have you been doing on the War Committee?
– The question of organizing the resources of Australia has not been submitted to that body. I am not saying that it is not doing useful work. It does seem to me that we are not utilizing the resources of this country as we ought to do. I am coming, as I have said, to what appears to me to be not only the big drawback with which the Department is confronted, but, as the result of that, the tremendous handicap imposed on the people of this country. The business side of the Department, I ask honorable senators to recognise, can be, and I think ought to be, clearly dissociated from the military side. The two branches, are so interwoven that it is always difficult to determine exactly where one begins and the other ends, but it is not difficult to understand that the military side - that is, the training of men - is quite distinct from the business side, which should be engaged in securing the supplies needed for the men. We have in the Department to-day the same men at both jobs, and I think that as the result of that we are getting, not only an inadequate service, but a very costly one. I do not want to say a word about the officers on the military side; I think that they have done, not only as well as could be expected of them, but possibly better. We have to remember the enormous expansion which has taken place ; the fact that we have had to make offiers, so to speak, almost while you wait, and put them to the responsible work of training others. Whilst we may reasonably recognise that slips have been made here and there, T think, on the whole, that the officers on the military side have done well. But when we come to the business side I wish to draw a big distinction. There is nothing particularly secret or sacred about the business side. A military officer may be able to turn a layman down when one goes to deal with the mysteries of the goose step, but when it comes to a question of buying boots or blankets there is nothing special about the business of the Department which renders it impossible for a layman to consider and deal with it. Let me ask honorable senators to recognise the position with which the Department is confronted. I do not intend to deal with any individuals, because I have no fault to find with the individuals, only with the system. Who are the men dealing with the millions we are spending to-day? Twelve years ago the Department was spending about £750,000 a year. The men who had the handling of that money were drawn from the States where the biggest sum expended probably did not exceed £250,000. After twelve years the expenditure of the Department has grown from £750,000 to £50,000,000. In one year it has grown approximately from £5,000,000 to £50,000,000. Therefore it represents not only a tremendous addition to the work, but a tremendous addition to the responsibility. It is not merely that we are doubling the work of a man, but that we are increasing the difficulties necessarily connected with so big an operation. Who are the gentlemen who are called on to expend this money ? A few years ago they were handling quite modest sums, and we have to recognise that they did not join the Forces professing any business aptitude, or looking for business. They joined because the soldierly instinct was strong in them, and they made that part their special study.
– But the soldiers do not buy our boots.
– Pardon me, our soldiers do.
– No.
– The Minister may say that they do not; but they do, in fact.
– They do not.
– Until quite recently they did.
– The contracts branch does not contain a soldier. The men have military titles, but they are not soldiers, and they place the orders for boots. They are civilians.
– I venture to say that .if a junior went in and did not address one of them by his title, and give the salute, he would know whether he was a soldier or not.
– They have honorary military titles; they are not soldiers, and never have been.
– I ask again who are these gentlemen that they are competent to handle £50,000,000? A few years ago, I repeat, the senior men were handling quite small amounts, and to-day they are called upon to handle £50,000,000. Am I doing them an injustice when I ask them to show credentials for handling a business enterprise of that magnitude ? It would be impossible to assume that these gentlemen have had that varied experience or the opportunity to show business capacity to enable them to satisfactorily carry on what to- day is undoubtedly the biggest business concern in the Commonwealth.
– They are buying the cheapest and best boots worn by any soldiers fighting for the Allies.
– That statement from the Minister does not count for anything. Suppose that they are the cheapest and the best boots, what does it prove? It means that the Allies are not purchasing under the same conditions as are our officers. The point is whether we are getting the boots at as low a price as we could, or whether there is any leakage in the Department owing to the want of business capacity.
– It costs New Zealand 17s. a pair for boots, whereas the boots for our troops cost 12s. 6d. a pair.
– What is the point?
– If any one of us to-day had a small business he might be content to leave its management in the hands of a man whom he thought competent to deal with it. but if he suddenly multiplied the business by fifty times, running into enormous figures in twelve months, he would ask himself whether the man competent to manage a branch store was quite fit to take charge of a big distributing depot. An honorable senator suggests that there have been additions to the staff. On the contrary, there have been depletions, as the Minister admitted to-day when he said that the most experienced officers had gone to the front.
– It was military men whom I was talking about there.
– And there are military men on the staff of the QuartermasterGeneral who have been sent away. In spite of that, I make the statement, and I will furnish proof, that on the business side the Defence Department is in an unsatisfactory condition. I am not mentioning names, or dealing with individuals in any way, .but I want to bring before honorable senators the fact that the men who joined our Military Forces did so, not because of their business capacity, but because of their desire for military work.
– You did not effect much improvement in the business method of buying horses.
– Now, my honorable friends, who themselves complain of pinpricks, never interject except with the object of pin-pricking, and the honorable senator is now endeavouring to show that, while I was in the Department, I did something that I should not have done. The system was in existence when I went there, and is in existence to-day; and I repeat that, so far as the business side of the Department is concerned, there is not a single member of this Chamber who would care to intrust the expenditure of £50,000,000 to men who had not been specially trained on the business side.
– Has not the honorable senator something to say about the organization for the purchase of horses?
– If the Minister has anything to suggest, let him say it openly, so far as that matter is concerned.
– I am not holding the honorable senator responsible; but I am saying that the business method was wrong.
– Now, every honorable senator knows that the task I was faced with was to get horses for the Expeditionary Forces with the least possible delay. I asked the officer who was responsible for this duty how long it would take to get the remounts, and he replied, “Six months.” I informed him that I would not stand six months’ delay, because we might then just as well put up the shutters and go out of business. He replied, “You cannot do it before then,” and I asked, “ What is going to stop us? “ He replied, “ Do you know how many horses will be required? We shall want 8,000.” My reply to that was that we had to get those 8,000 horses within six weeks. There was only one way to do it, and that was to smash up all- the regulations, and tear up all the red-tape of the Department. I had to utilize every buying agency that I could get hold of anywhere. I knew perfectly well that possibly there would be unsuitable horses among the 8,000 ; but I realized that the most important part of the business was to secure the animals within the time, and I am pleased to know that Mr. Anderson, in his report, stated that the transaction turned out better even than I expected it would.
I have not brought these matters forward in any party spirit at all, nor do I make any accusation against the Minister; but I am mentioning them in order that honorable senators may familiarize themselves with the idea that there are two branches in the Defence Department - the military and the business side - and whilst I would leave the military men with the fullest possible liberty to carry out the duties for which they are equipped, the business side, in my opinion, should not be touched by them.
– A military man is not dealing with the business side at all.
– It is in the hands of the Quartermaster-General.
– He does not buy a pin.
– He is the man at the head of the Department.
– He does not do any buying. He simply indicates, for instance, how many boots are required, and the Contracts Branch gets them.
– The Minister may be dealing with some organization which he established quite lately, but I am dealing with the practice of the Department as it was until quite recently, and, so far as I know, as it exists to-day. The Quartermaster-General’s Department is responsible for the finding of all supplies for the Army, and until quite recently it was the custom of the QuartermasterGeneral to undertake these transactions. It is conceivable that some body, called the Supply and Tender Board, does call for tenders, but does the Minister suggest that that is an alteration of the system? In an ordinary business system the policy is to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest, and if that system were applied to two men under equally favourable circumstances, I will undertake to say that one man, with proper organization, will make a fortune, while the other, who lacks the capacity for organization, will go bankrupt. That is as I see the system in its application to the Defence Department. The Minister himself says it is admitted that most of the experienced officers have gone to the front.
– Did he not say, also, that he referred to the military side ?
– Some of the most experienced men in the office of the Quartermaster-General have also gone. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Defence Department is spending about £50,000,000 a year as far as I can gather from the statements made by the responsible Minister. I do not know how much of that goes in payment to the men and how much in supplies, but I am assuming that at least half of it is being devoted to the purchase of supplies necessary for the Army, while the other half represents pay to the men. Honorable members will agree with me, I think, that the difference between competent and incompetent business management in relation to an expenditure of £25,000,000 could be modestly stated as worth at least 5 per cent. It may be worth 10 or 20 per cent., but I am on perfectly safe ground when I say that the difference between competent and incompetent management is 5 per cent. That is a mere supervising charge, but it represents a saving of one and a quarter millions sterling. I was asked by Senator Senior just now what evidence I had of incompetence in the Department. I do not know whether the honorable senator wants me to quote General Sir Ian Hamilton’s report, which was written in times of peace, but I would remind the honorable senator that General Hamilton pointed out several serious defects in the system in Australia, and said that it would not stand a fortnight of war. Perhaps the honorable senator will respect General Hamilton’s opinion if he doesnot respect mine.
– Has the system stood a fortnight’s test of war?
– That can best be answered after the closest examination of the accounts of the Department, but in this connexion I do not wish to be misunderstood.
– You were there for the first month.
– I am aware of that, and I am also aware that I would not like to see a continuance for twelve months of the conditions as they were during the first few months of this conflict, when, like a lightning flash, the intimation of the declaration of war came upon the Department. Since then Ministers have had twelve or thirteen months’ experience, and in that time it was reasonable to expect that some system would have been devised to place the Department on a satisfactory footing. The fact seems to be ignored that in the first month of the war everything had to be done with the greatest possible speed. Let me read what General Hamilton said on the departmental methods -
As a rule, the horn leader of men, assumingthat he has time for administrative detail, has little aptitude for it. Even in a professional army, where men devote their whole lives to military work, specialization in all matters pertaining to the art of war and to troop training has, under modern conditions, proved to be necessary. How much more, then, must it be necessary under a militia system.
General Hamilton is arguing there for the specially trained man for military work, and the specially trained man for the business side of the Department. We have no such specially trained men on the business side.
– Do you approve of the school in which General Hamilton was brained ?
– I do not know what school- he was trained in.
– I do. I have read reports on the British system.
– I know that General Hamilton is leading a tilt against the British system, upon which our system is founded.
– The British system is the most expensive in the world.
– There are two schools, as Senator Russell calls them, in the British Army. One - and I believe Lord Kitchener is at the head of it - maintains that you must have military men to do the whole of the work, and the other is represented bv Lord Esher’s Committee.
– The British system of contracting- is- neither effective nor efficient.
– I have not- the slightest doubt that the heads of the War Office would be very much obliged to Senator Russell for his opinion regarding the British system, upon which ours is founded. General Hamilton went- on to say -
Good business aptitude and business training are the real qualifications, when they can be found, coupled with just so much military knowledge as to enable their possessor to meet military demands with intelligence and sympathy. The supply of such men- in a militia army will never equal the war demand, unless the principle of specialization is applied in peace, so that a certain number of them are gradually evolved by normal processes.
We do not evolve these men in times of peace.
– Did not General Hamilton condemn the Australian military system as compared with the military organization in Europe ?
– What has that to do with this subject?
– It suggests that if he was wrong with regard to the military side of our Department he would also be wrong with regard to the business side.
– That has nothing to do with the matter I am referring to now. Senator Senior seems to think that if a member of the Opposition deals with a matter of this- kind he is doing so because of party feeling, and he therefore feels himself under an obligation to rebut any statement. I am speaking on this matter without party feeling. Senator Pearce found the system- in operation when he took office, and it has been going on ever since, but I think circumstances will sooner or later compel a change to be adopted. General Hamilton also stated -
As a business proposition, too, the need is obvious for specialized training for the man who has himself to carry out important commercial transactions in peace and war,, and has to gauge and report, on the capabilities- of his business subordinates.
He went on -
I have no hesitation in advising that the institution of a business department in the Army, under a business bead, is essential to efficiency and economy. The personnel of this department should be homogeneous and interchangeable as between the various sections into which the department should be divided. In this way only will it be possible to produce, in time, men fitted to be placed in charge of administration in all its branches.
I emphasize the words “in time.” A great deal is being said about decentralization, and I think Mr. Anderson refers to some of the evils existing in the Department as being due- to centralization, but the talk about decentralization seems to ignore one very important fact. We all believe in it theoretically, but if the Minister were *te** attempt to introduce any considerable instalment of it at once the effect would be only to make matters worse than they are. It is clearly laid down in General Hamilton’s report that before you can decentralize you must train the men to handle the responsibility you propose to throw upon them. He practically tells us that we have not got the men. Those we have have been trained for years in the red-tape process. To use my own words, but practically to sum up what General Hamilton means, if we were suddenly to throw on these men the responsibility of acting for themselves in these large business matters, we should bring about a condition worse than that which exists to-day. I am compelled by my experience of the ‘Department to say I believe that to be- true. Decentralization must be a gradual process. You must train your men by degrees, and ‘ instil into them business methods, before you can expect men in distant parts of the Commonwealth to accept big drafts of very serious responsibility. With the staff as it is to-day, consisting of men who have had no opportunity to acquire the business training that is essential under any system of decentralization, the Minister should consider whether he might not with advantage adopt that recommendation of General Hamilton’s, which was certainly made with regard to peace conditions, but which, if it was desirable when we were expending £5,000,000 per annum, must be increasingly desirable when we are spending £50,000,000. That recommendation was that, as an initial step towards creating as a separate branch of the Department a business side, a civilian business man should be appointed temporarily with the duty of organizing the business part of it, and be withdrawn after having trained the men there to the duties and responsibilities which would fall upon them. I suggest to the Minister that something of the kind might be clone to-day. No one can believe that in the hurry and scurry of war, and with a large number of men of quite limited experience dealing with these matters, we are getting the best results possible from the expenditure of our money. I do not like to call what is going on waste, because the term implies negligence, and it is due, not to negligence, but to hurry and to want of business capacity on the part of the men handling the expenditure, but we are certainly paying more than we need pay under proper business supervision. It is worth while trying to save that amount. The fact that the war is costing us £50,000,000 per annum, and that it must go on whether we like it or not, is no justification for spending 25s. where £1 is sufficient.
– Can you give any case where this is being done?
– No.
– Then why assume that it is done ?
– Is it assumption when I speak from my own knowledge of the Department and with General Hamilton’s report in front of me 1 I cannot be expected to give any case to show that I know all the details, but I know the men and the methods of the Department, and I have General Hamilton’s report here. To ask me to give a particular case is to suppose that I know a specific contract where a mistake has been made. I do not.
– Does General Hamilton say that we are paying 25s. for £1 worth ?
– He points out the’ costliness and waste of the system. To say 25s. for £1 worth is a figurative way of speaking. Does the honorable senator want to nail me down to those figures ?
– I saw a pair of boot* on Sunday that had been nearly all round the world for eleven months, and that cost originally 12s. 9d.
– That does not prove anything.
– It is a concrete case.
– If the honorable senator is going to argue from a single pair of boots that the Defence Department is conducting its affairs in such a way that there can be no possible improvement, he is not doing himself justice.
– I gave just one more pair than you did.
– I am speaking, not of concrete cases, but from my own knowledge of the Department.
– Take a suit of clothes. -
– I do not want to. “ Even if the honorable senator brought me a suit of clothes which he had got as a bargain it would not prove that he was a splendid business man. Any one who has been in the Department as I have been must know that there are hundreds of little cases where, for want of business aptitude and business grip, little leakages are going on all the time.
– And there are evidences of special business ability.
– My honorable friend seems to have the business craze. I never yet heard it said anywhere that a defence department in any part of the world was a good business concern. Had the Quartermaster-General’s branch of the Defence Department in Great Britain been a good business concern, there would never have been a Coalition Ministry there. There has never been a war in which Great Britain has been involved, or any other war as far as I can ascertain, in which it has not been the business side of the Department that has left much to be desired.
– As a business proposition the clothing of the men in Australia is superior to anything we could get under contract.
– I am not comparing contract and Government work. A Government factory may be managed on business lines, or mismanaged, and the same applies to private contracts, but there exists that very tangible entity that J call business capacity, and the men in the Defence Department have not had the training to enable them to handle these large sums.
– They are doing wonderfully well.
– Within the limits of their capacity. There is m business concern in this country to-day of the magnitude of the Defence Department. There is £50,000,000 of money going through, and honorable senators know a number of the gentlemen who are handling it. I do not want to decry the loyalty of their service, or the hearty way in which they are rendering it, but we are up against a business proposition which is far too big to leave entirely in their hands.
– I - If the cost of the clothes and boots for the soldiers is not greater than it would be under private enterprise, where does the advantage of “ business methods “ come in ?
– When I speak of the introduction of a business man, I do not mean that he should come in in the shape of private enterprise. He would come in as an employee of the Government. The Ministry recognised the necessity for something of the kind when they called in Mr. Anderson to go through the Department and advise. I am asking them only to go a little further. I am astonished that any honorable senator should think I am discussing the matter from a stand-point which compels them to show opposition.
– I - I am given to understand, and you have practically admitted, that the cost of the clothing and boots is very satisfactory.
– I do not admit anything of the kind ; I do not know. The question is not whether the price paid is lower than that paid in other countries.
– I - Is it lower than the price that ordinary citizens are giving?
– The Government is a wholesale buyer, and the ordinary citizen buys retail. The difference must always be considerable. When the Government take the whole output of a factory they must get it at a much lower rate than if it went from the factory to a retail shop.
– Is not that an evidence of business ability?
– No, the Government could not help themselves in the matter. There was no capacity there. Does the honorable senator suppose that the Government are going round buying single pairs of boots in shops? The Government have bought in the only way possible. In fact they have had to commandeer the output of whole factories in order to get supplies.
– I - Is the cost greater per pair than it would be if we were getting them from outside firms?
– The honorable senator is wrong in supposing that the boots are being made at a Government factory. The only factories we have are the Harness, Clothing, Cordite, and Small Arms Factories.
– W - We are getting them at 12s. 6d. a pair, which is a low price.
– It is, but we are also spending £50,000,000 per annum, and the best business brains of the country could not be ill-employed in controlling such a large expenditure. I deny that we have the best business brains in the country in the Defence Department.
– Do you assert thai we have made mistakes?
– The whole system in the Department is chaotic. This is the first time for years that I have heard it denied.
– Would it not be better and more up-to-date to quote from Mr. Anderson’s report?
– The honorable senator will find nothing to comfort him in that, because Mr. Anderson points out the defects in the Department in language as strong as that used by Sir Ian Hamilton, and makes recommendations to alter them. No honorable senator reading his report could possibly pretend that the business side of the Defence Department is perfect. My point is that we have to organize the resources of the nation for war, but we are not doing so when we allow brains competent to handle this money to go unutilized. No private concern would be content to leave £50,000,000 of expenditure under the control of the men who are handling it to-day in what is by a long way the biggest concern in Australia. They would want, as the Department needs, to get the benefit of brains and experience which have been in the habit of dealing with big business concerns, but we have not got those qualities in the Department.
– Do you suggest the appointment of a Board ?
– No; I suggest that the Government should, as an initial step, adopt Sir Ian Hamilton’s suggestion to put the business side of the Department in charge of a business man who, after having got a grip of it, could organize it on business lines, and then give the Minister advice as to what further steps should be taken. There is no one in the Department competent to do this to-day. It must be quite obvious to honorable senators from the way in which I have dealt with this matter that I have not brought it forward as in any way an attack upon the present Administration or upon the Minister of Defence. The system has been there for years. It was there when I was in charge of the Department, and has continued while Senator Pearce has been in charge. I offer the suggestion as one which I think would afford the Minister relief from many business worries. It would save the country a large sum of money if we could have in this Department the superior business capacity which is available in the community, and which the officers of the Defence Department have never had an opportunity of acquiring. They have never had the experience necessary for the conduct of a business concern of the magnitude of the business side of the Defence Department. I strongly urge upon the Government the expediency of adopting the suggestion. I wish I could think that the war was over, and in that case there would be no urgency for its adoption. But, so far as I can form an opinion, the war is likely to last as long as it has already lasted, and many millions will go out of the Commonwealth Treasury before peace is declared. If that be the case every penny that can be saved must be of value to a country that will be heavily pressed by taxation to meet the demands of the war. There is only one thing that I know against the adoption of the suggestion, and that is that there is always found in every Department a strong prejudice against bringing into it any outside assistance. Every officer on the staff of a Department seems to think that, if it is suggested that some one from outside should be brought in to assist, that is a reflection upon his capacity. That feeling is probably stronger in the Defence Department than in any other. I can understand, and to some extent sympathize with that feeling, but the position is too critical, and the amount of money being expended is too great to permit such a feeling to restrain the Minister of Defence for one moment. I leave the suggestion for what it is worth. The Minister of Defence must himself have discovered by this time that the business system of his Department is not all that could be desired. If he looks at General Hamilton’s report in the light of facts which must be within his own knowledge, he must come to the conclusion that it is desirable to still further dissociate the business from the military side of his Department. He should create a distinct business branch, which could work independently of the military side of the Department, be free from its traditions, and bring to the aid of the Government at the present moment some of the business capacity that is available, and without which the Defence Department is bound to make a series of financial mistakes.
– No one could take exception to the closing criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition; they were couched in the language in which we might expect reasonable criticism to be expressed. So far as the business side of the Defence Department is concerned, I venture to say that, huge as the expenditure is, it is not really beyond the capacity of ordinary business men when each particular article supplied is whittled down to the lowest possible cost. I take, for instance, the supply of boots, which involves an enormous sum of money. If by tender we find that a pair of boots of first class quality can be produced at a given price, say 12s. or 12s. 9d., we give an order to many different firms for thousands of pairs at that price. With practical common sense men as inspectors, who are doing this work satisfactorily and well - and this is proved by the wear of the article supplied - I venture to say .a man of ordinary .business capacity could be trusted to supervise the expenditure thus incurred. If we take .clothing, and find that we can turn out jackets at a given price, discovered by the competitive system of the earlier days, and that certain factories can supply a .good article well toned out at the price, and we spread the orders for these jackets throughout the Commonwealth, although the total expenditure may amount to a very large sum, it will be admitted that there is not much room for waste or for further economy. I could enumerate other articles supplied in the same way. The magnitude of the development of the business of the Department during the last twelve months has, of course, been beyond all expectation. We have had many grave difficulties to contend with, and the gravest, per-, haps, has been that supplies have been very difficult to get, and have had to be requisitioned in some cases when, as might be expected, the prices charged have been higher. That was a difficulty which could not be overcome. It is not enough to say that because of the high expenditure of the Defence Department the employment of some one from outside possessed of great business capacity is necessary. Senator Millen has said that the employment of such a person would result in the saving of 5 per cent. I take a number of separate articles, such as boots, clothing, overcoats, blankets, woollen goods, shaving brushes, and razors, and ask whether a business man from outside could be found who would be able to save 5 per cent, on the purchase of those articles.
– Yes.
– The honorable senator might be able to find such a man, but I may say that these matters have come under my direction to some extent recently, and I should very much like to meet the man who could save the Commonwealth 5 per cent, on the purchases. Neither the eyes nor the ears of the Government are shut to any proposal that will bring about a distinct improvement. I take the magnitude of the expenditure, and the business method of dealing with the purchase of each separate article of supply, and I venture to say that there is not much room for cheaper buying or for securing a better quality in the articles we are buying. I accept Senator Millen’s criticism in that regard in the spirit in which it was made. There is a little matter on w<hich the honorable senator would like to have some more information, and that is the nurses’ uniforms purchased from David Jones and Company, of Sydney. I tried to get information on that subject when I was in Sydney, because the insinuations made in another place against the firm of David Jones and Company came as a shock and a .surprise to me. It must have surprised any man knowing the reputation of that firm to learn that they had been accused of being public robbers.
– Not hy me.
– I said “in another place,” .although “the honorable senator’s statements were to the effect that the inquiries being made led the public to believe that nurses were compelled to go to David Jones .and Company and pay an exorbitant price for their uniforms.
– So they were, as a result of the circular that was sent out.
– So far as I can learn, that circular was sent out by Matrons Creel .and Gould, but arrangements were made with this firm by the Army medical authorities, seven, eight, or nine years ,ago, to supply these uniforms in accordance with a sealed pattern.
– The circular was sent out recently.
– That is so; but the sealed patterns for the uniforms were placed with David Jones and Company seven, eight, or nine years ago. I got that information at David Jones and Company’s stores from the two young men who are managing this part of the business. They were only too anxious to lay before me the whole of the transactions, and the firm invites the Minister of Defence to have an inquiry into them made, because there is at stake the reputation of a firm that has been conducting business in Sydney for seventy-eight years. It has been stated that this firm has been given a monopoly of the supply of these goods, and are using their advantage to make undue profits out of our nurses who are going to the front.
– The blame, if they have a monopoly, rests, not on the firm, but on the Department that gave it to them.
– I do not care where the blame rests. I say that the sealed pattern for these goods -was placed with this firm several years ago. I believe that Surgeon-General “Williams would be the officer responsible, but he is at present away from Australia.
– Would not the Quartermaster-General be responsible]
– No ; this was a matter for the Army Medical Corps. I went to the premises of David Jones and Company with the intention of following up the complaints. They produced their books and accounts, looked up the uniform made for a certain nurse, showed me the amount of material and its value, the amount of labour and its cost, the gross profits, and the estimated net profits. It did not require a man of more than average capacity to go through a dozen examples of the supply of individual uniforms to discover whether the firm was making a straightforward statement in the matter or not. In view of what Senator Millen has said concerning my report on the Liverpool Camp, my judgment in this matter, after investigation, may have little weight with the honorable senator. But I believe, from the books shown me by the two young men at David Jones and Company’s premises, their statement that there was not a net profit of 5 per cent, in the supply of these uniforms. It is said that the issue of the circular caused nurses to go to David Jones and Company ‘for their uniform, but it has been withdrawn for some time now.
– It had not been withdrawn when I asked my question on the matter.
– At that time the Minister of Defence was under the impression that such a circular did not exist.
– It did exist, and itwas seen only a week before I asked my question.
– I wish to deal with the matter fairly and honestly, and since the circular has been withdrawn, I venture to say that a hig percentage of the uniforms supplied to nurses are still being manufactured by David Jones and Company. I make these statements in the endeavour to protect the reputation of a firm that has stood high amongst business firms in Sydney for many years. Nothing is more desired by that firm than that there should be the closest investigation into the whole of the details of this mat*ter. I do not wish to make any further reference to the subject, but the speeches made in another place, and the insinuations and innuendoes, have misled the public into believing that this firm was overcharging nurses for their uniforms. The young men with whom I discussed the matter made another statement and offered to produce their books to prove it, but I did not put them to the trouble of doing so. They said that nurses who got their uniforms from David Jones and Company were allowed to have any other goods they required at 10 per cent, less than the ordinary prices. If that be so, and I have no reason to doubt the statement, it was a generous thing for the firm to do. I wish now to deal with the Liverpool Camp, and in this matter I am personally interested.
– The honorable senator would do well to keep away from the Liverpool Camp, because there is meningitis there.
– Let us consider the matter of the Liverpool Camp in a fair and straightforward way. Senator Millen has twitted me upon the report I made after a visit to the camp. I propose to tell honorable senators exactly what happened. I read the report of Mr. Orchard’s charges, as published in the newspapers. What were those charges? They were that the men were treated like dogs. That was the worst charge the honorable member made. A further charge was that owing to the influence of a man of German parentage with a German name, and who had been guilty of disloyal utterances, several sick men were compelled to wait for a considerable time before they were attended to. This was due to the frightful influence of this man with a German name. It was charged also that the clothing issued was insufficient to protect the men from cold, and that there were no overcoats supplied to men employed on night duty. I summed these charges up in this way : With respect to the hospital, I asked the question whether the men were properly treated there. With respect to the food, I asked whether it was good, clean food, well cooked. With respect to the housing accommodation, I found it was stated that owing to the draughty condition of the huts, the men suffered from colds, and sickness was prevalent. I observed the conditions which prevailed at the camp with the eye of a man who had been through seven camps. Notwithstanding that Senator Millen has placed Mr. Justice Rich’s finding in opposition to my own report, and has held me up to ridicule because that finding does not coincide with my own opinion-
– That is unfortunate for Mr. Justice Rich.
– I do not wish to put it in that way. Mr. Justice Rich may have viewed the camp from the stand-point of one who is accustomed to all the comforts of a first-class hotel like Menzies’, or the Grand, or the White Hart, whereas I viewed ib from my experience of seven camps.
– What does the Vice-President of the Executive Council mean by the experience of seven camps?
– In the old days I sewed with the militia from the time I entered it as a private till I reached the rank of sergeant, and, in passing, I may remark that the position of sergeant was about as high a position as a man without influence could then attain. The experience of seven military camps which I thus gained enabled me to form a fair judgment as to how the Liverpool Camp compared with them. Mr. Orchard stated that I went through the Liverpool Camp with Colonel Stanley, asking for complaints from the men. There is only one good English word which will fitly answer that allegation. It is a lie. While I was inspecting the camp Colonel Stanley was not present. As my words will probably reach the public-
– Not many of them. The Vice-President of the Executive Council will not get reported.
– I know that. One newspaper in this city devoted a leading article to showing that Colonel Stanley and myself attempted to hush things up.
– lt did look like it.
– As a man who occupies a public position, I claim, therefore, that I am entitled to have my reply to that charge published.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council is surely referring to a misleading article.
– I wish briefly to recount exactly what prompted my visit to the Liverpool Camp. I read the attack which was made by Mr. Orchard in another place. I caught the 11 o’clock train- from Sydney to Liverpool, and reached the latter place before midday. From the Liverpool post-office I despatched a wire to the Minister of Defence intimating that I had gone to the camp to see the position for myself. I entered the camp, and saw Colonel Kirkland, the officer in command. It was then just 12 o’clock. I told him who I was, and said that I would have a look through the camp. He replied, “You had better have lunch first.” I remarked that as the men were then having lunch I would take a stroll round. I walked through the lines, and with the ease of an old campaigner entered into conversation with the men. For the next two or three hours I was thus engaged. I then returned to the Liverpool post-office, and despatched a wire to the Minister, in which I stated that there was very little room for complaint as to the conditions obtaining at the camp. The food supplied to the men was exactly of the character described by me in my report. It consisted of well-cooked roast beef, potatoes, onions, bread, and tea. I again visited the camp while the men were preparing the evening meal. The food on that occasion was good, wholesome food - as good as any man could want. I asked the men if they had any complaints to make. Their chief complaint was that they had to pay their railway fares to and from Sydney. I have no hesitation in saying, in view of all the improvements which are to be made there, that the camp at Liverpool is the best that I ever sf,w. Colonel Stanley says the same thing. Senator Millen would shut him out, and so would the Argus, because he is a military man.
– I did not shut him out. I quoted his evidence here to-night.
– But the honorable senator would not accept his evidence. I say that Colonel Stanley joined the service as a master gunner, and after an honorable career achieved the position which he holds to-day - that of QuartermasterGeneral. In the light of his statement, before Mr. Justice Rich, that the Liverpool Camp is the best camp that he has ever seen, I am free to admit that I am not ashamed of the report which I made. Of course it may be urged that he is a military man, and wishes to hush up things. But why should he desire to do so ? Personally, I feel that I am on my defence. I say that if the report I made to the Minister and to this Chamber be not true, I am not only unworthy of my position as a Minister, but as a member of this Parliament. When I visited the Liverpool Camp I looked for anything that might be wrong with the food, with the housing conditions, with the hospital arrangements, and with the men themselves, and I found nothing to complain of.
– The VicePresident of the Executive Council did not find a dirty dixie.
– No. When Senator Millen quoted portions of my report to-night, in which I stated that conditions were satisfactory, what did he urge was wrong ? That the men were cleaning their dixies in a filthy fashion. Now if any man had gone through that camp as I did, would he believe that our Australian soldiers would be so crassly ignorant as to clean their utensils in the dirty way in which we are told they cleaned them ? Two of the things of which I boast are the resource and initiative of our soldiers. The thought that men can be found who will clean their dixies in the way alleged, comes as a shock to me, especially in the light of the Commissioner’s statement that hot water and soda were available. I say, candidly, that I never inquired into conduct of that kind. Neither Mr. Orchard nor Senator Millen made any statement which would lead to an inquiry of that character. We have been told” that all Mr. Orchard’s accusations have been borne out. I say that the two allegations which prompted that inquiry were made by Senator Millen in this Chamber, and by Mr. Orchard elsewhere, and that those statements were withdrawn. They were statements as to the wrong management of the hospital by a man possessing a German name. Senator Millen made that statement here. Why did he not substantiate it? As a matter of fact, it was upon his statement - so Mr. Orchard declared at the inquiry - that the latter based his speech.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council is dealing with only one aspect of the case - that concerning Dr. Schlink.
– Even if that doctor’s parents were Germans, I am not ashamed to speak a word for him. After he had been attacked on the floor of this
Chamber, and in another place, when the opportunity presented itself for his attackers to prove their charge, they withdrew it and slunk away. Now, they wave flags and affirm that they have proved every charge that they made. I say that they have proved themselves unworthy of their manhood unless, in their places in this Parliament, they publicly withdraw the accusations which they made against Dr. Schlink.
– Mr. Justice Rich’s report states that every charge bar one was proved.
– I am not going to comment on Mr. Justice Rich’s report. He viewed the conditions which obtained at the Liverpool Camp from the standpoint of a gentleman who is accustomed to the luxuries of a fine home, or of fine hotels, whereas I viewed them from the stand-point of a man who was accustomed to camps. That statement will reconcile any differences that may exist between us. Now I am going to ask honorable senators to cast their minds back to the origin of this trouble. What was the cause of the inquiry ? It was the allegation that a doctor with a German name was making, the lives of the men at the camp miserable - that he was treating them like dogs.
– Then why was the inquiry not granted until after Mr. Orchard had made his main speech ?
– On the first occasion upon which the question was raised it was put in the softly insinuating manner that is characteristic of Senator Millen, and which always leaves open tohim a way to withdraw. Then before any action could be taken, before the Ministerhad an opportunity of ascertaining what grounds existed for the charge, Mr. Orchard made his attack in another place- - an attack which, according to his own confession, was based on Senator Milieu’s statements.
– Did Senator Millen give evidence before Mr. Justice Rich?
– No; he was wanted to do so-
– He was not wanted.
- Dr. Schlink asked that the honorable senator might be called.
– Dr. Schlink knew where to find me.
– If the honorable senator will permit me to finish my sentence he will see that I have no desire to put him in a false light. Dr. Schlink desired him to be called, but Mr. Justice Rich said that there was no charge of disloyalty against the doctor. That is the reason why the honorable senator was not called. I repeat that the origin of the inquiry was the statement that the men at the Liverpool Camp hospital were not getting the attention to which they were entitled because of the German doctor who was in charge of it. Senator Millen, in this Chamber, when speaking of the matter, said -
Passing to other matters, there is in charge of the Liverpool Camp a doctor with a German name and of German descent. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that on that account a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction exists in the ranks of the volunteers. I do not wish to give the name of the doctor publicly, but I will give it to the Minister privately. It is reported on excellent authority that in the early days of the war the doctor was giving expression to sentiments which did not indicate a whole-hearted adherence to the cause of the British Empire.
– What were they?
– When a medical gentleman in his club expresses a very grave doubt as to whether the British Empire is going to win, and says, “ Don’t be too certain ; Germany is not beaten yet,” his conduct is open to grave suspicion, when it is coupled with the fact thathe is of German descent. Thank God, there is only one doctor of that kind at the Liverpool Camp, and if the Minister will get the names of the medical officers there, he will learn to whom I refer.
I join issue with Mr. Justice Rich when he states that there was no charge of disloyalty against this doctor. Mr. Orchard repeated the charge in another place. The most serious accusation of all was that Dr. Schlink holding the high position that he did, had been treating the men in a way that they ought not to have been treated.
– I did not say so.
– Perhaps I speak quickly, and, as a result, do not express myself clearly. I say that Mr. Orchard repeated the honorable senator’s statement in another place, and, in giving evidence before Mr. Justice Rich, affirmed that it was Senator Millen’s statement which prompted him to make his attack.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council is aware that, in giving evidence before Mr. Justice Rich, Dr. Schlink said that he might have used that expression.
- Dr. Schlink went into the witness box, and swore that he had made no statement which would bear a disloyal interpretation. Either they are charges against his loyalty, and the way he treated the patients, or they are not. If they are charges they should have been proved by the men who made them when the opportunity was given. I will be no judge in a matter of this sort; but I say in all earnestness, that when a man holding the position of Dr. Schlink is held up to ridicule and contempt by Senator Millen and Mr. Orchard, and when an inquiry is held they fail to take full advantage of the opportunity to prove their statement, there is only one manly way out, and that is a full withdrawal of the statement, and the tender of an apology.
– Do you propose, then, to withdraw your statement?
– I propose before I sit down to show the honorable senator that highly competent men not only agree with me, but prove my statement to be true. I intend to quote the evidence given by competent men on oath before Mr. Justice Rich.
– Some of them.
– I will base my reputation for making truthful statements on the evidence, and place myself side by side with men who are not interested so far as the military are concerned, and if the Senate and the country are not satisfied to believe that I spoke truthfully, or if my honorable friend will get Mr. Justice Rich to say that any one of my statements is not true, I shall withdraw it. The Judge says that no charge was levelled against Dr. Schlink, and that he did not inquire into the statement because Mr. Orchard withdrew it. What is the Use of Senator Millen or Mr. Orchard saying that all their charges have been proved to the hilt? The real charge was cleverly withdrawn. Why ? Because the man who made it could not prove it. I want to connect Senator Millen’s statements which I have just read with those of Mr. Orchard, because they are based on the same evidence.
– There is no charge in my statements, anyway.
– I have read the statements, and honorable senators can judge for themselves. Mr. Orchard said -
I earnestly suggest that one of the huts should be lined and placed near the hospital.
Of course, they would be much more comfortable if lined. Referring to the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Schlink, he said -
It is said that this doctor, who is of German parentage and sympathies, is endeavouring to make the work of the Army Medical Corps as ineffective as possible at the front.
I ask honorable senators to listen to this extract, because Mr. Justice Rich said that there was no charge in this speech -
What opinion can honorable members hold of the military authorities who have selected for such a highly important position as that of Chief Medical Officer a man who has already been reported for disloyal utterances at the Australia Club, and who, according to a letter which Senator Pearce said in the Senate last week he had received, has relatives fighting against us on the German side.
The men at the camp have been through the hospital, and have seen this doctor’s demeanour and methods, and have arrived at the opinion I have expressed.
That is Mr. Orchard’s charge, and, to my mind, the gravest charge made with regard to the hospital management. What could be more serious than a statement that a German doctor, or a doctor with a German name, was making ineffective the work of the Army Medical Corps? The charge against the doctor is grave and serious, but the evidence given before the Judge not only disproves the charge, but proves Dr. Schlink to be one of the most able and effective administrators we have yet had there. It proves that he found the hospital conditions of the camp disorganized, and established a system out of chaos.
– Do you call jam-tins a system?
– The honorable senator asks me if I call jam-tins a system.
– If you appeal to Mr. Justice Rich’s finding on one count you must not flout his findings in regard to others, you know.
– No.
– Which you are trying to do.
– I am aware that I am a heated speaker, and although Mr. Justice Rich occupies a very high position, still, I think that one can differ from his findings without trying to flout them. I have read the charges which were made against Dr. Schlink. Let us see what the Judge said about that matter, because it is worth reading -
No charge was made against Dr. Schlink of disloyalty, or of having been at any time identified with German sympathies.
I have read from Hansard what Mr. Orchard said. Would any honorable senator say that no charge was made against Dr. Schlink? Would Senator Millen say that no charge was made against the doctor 1
– I say that so far as I am concerned I made no charge.
– You made the charge, but did not mention the name of the doctor.
– I made no charge.
– You made what was worse - an innuendo.
– Here is more of what the Judge said on that subject -
Dr. Schlink admittedly has a German name and is of German parentage. The evidence also clearly proves that some of the men believe that he had German sympathies.
After referring to the evidence which proved that, he continued -
The impropriety and inexpediency of the appointment in war time of a person of German name and German parentage to a position in connexion with the defence of the country is so apparent as to call for no comment.
I intend to comment on that statement. I ask the Leader of the Opposition through you, sir, if he approves of a statement of that kind?
– I think it is highly indiscreet to do it if the Minister does it knowingly.
– It is a wonder that the honorable senator did not think it was highly indiscreet when he was sending to the front Australians with German names, or of German parentage.
– I knew what you were going to say, but you have to show that I acted knowingly.
– It is a wonder if the honorable senator, when he reads the names of Australians with German names who have been killed or wounded at Gallipoli, can stand to a statement of that kind, even though it was made by a Justice of the High Court. Let us take the simple statement that it is an impropriety or an inexpediency to appoint a doctor with a German name to a position in the military service during the time of war. Is there an honorable senator here who will indorse that sentiment? If it is a fair statement, let us withdraw from the front Australian soldiers with German names. We cannot restore to the Australian mothers who, in time of peace, married German husbands, the sons who have shed their blood for Australia. Although men may take the position of officers and soldiers, and die fighting for Australia, yet positions are not to be given to them because they have German names, and are of German parentage. That is repugnant to my sense of British justice, and, what I value more, to my sense of Australian fair play.
– When I look at my own name, I am glad that we are not fighting against France.
– That brings homo the injustice of a statement of that kind. We are engaged in war against a foe, many of whose acts have moved every one of us to the deepest feeling and the strongest anger. The use of poisonous gases, the torpedoing of vessels carrying defenceless women and children, and all that kind of thing makes a man’s blood boil when he thinks of what is fair fighting. But that fighting is quite as fair as that which some persons would like to adopt, of hounding down every man in the country with a German name and of German descent. As a Britisher, and as an Australian, my desire is that nothing shall be done which will be regretted after the war is over. Nothing will do us more credit when the war is over than the statement that we treated even our relentless and unscrupulous enemies with an even-handed justice which will reflect honour on us and the nations we are associated with. I am aiming for that. Justice is something more than that which can be bought in a Courthouse. It is a feeling that all our dealings with people here may bear the closest scrutiny even of the enemy. I beg here publicly to differ from the statement of Mr. Justice Rich, notwithstanding the high position he occupies, and to express the opinion that in the interest of Australian fair play we want something broader, wider, and deeper than that before we attempt to condemn the appointment of a man with a German name and of German parentage.
– You interned a lot of them because of their German names, you know.
– My honorable friend has heard to-day that only one person other than a naturalized or unnaturalized German has been interned. On the Government rests the most serious responsibility of determining not only who shall be interned, but who shall be left at liberty. If things had happened which at times some persons thought were likely to happen, I venture to say that not only the Government, but every one else, would have stood condemned if we had been lax in any way in protecting the public interest. Occasionally, when a mau is interned, an act of injustice will be done, but the public safety demands that such a measure should be taken. Honorable senators are aware that the Hague Convention provides that if a doctor from a German Force is captured by Britain, France or Russia, he has to be found employment or paid the salary attached to the position he holds. Dr. Schlink was born in Australia of German parents and reared in Australia. He is an enthusiastic Australian. He is not a personal friend of mine. I had not set eyes on him before this complaint was made. I had heard of him, of course, because he holds a very distinguished position in the medical world of Sydney. In order to prove my statement that the Liverpool Camp was a good camp, I propose to quote from a report written on the 4th June, before these charges were made, by Dr. Wall, of Burwood. He, I may mention, has partly given up his practice to the military, and holds the position of captain in the Army Medical Corps. What did he say in his report when he filled the position of Command Sanitary Officer -
After careful inquiry into the statistics, I consider the health of the camp good, with the exception that there is, owing to the cold weather, a marked prevalence of respiratory complaints. Much of these would be prevented if the men were transferred to huts.
Mr. Orchard said that the huts were responsible for the sickness of the men because they were draughty, but Dr. Wall reported on 4th June that much of that sickness would be avoided if the men were transferred to the huts. The huts were then being built to get the men out of the tents, because the figures show that sickness was greater in the tents than in the huts. Let us see how Dr. Wall concluded his report, which is interesting, because it was made before the Liverpool Camp became a subject of public debate -
The latrines are well kept, but if the pan system is to be continued I recommend that
– What date was that; was it before Mr. Orchard spoke?
– It was about the 4th of June. Let me get along -
Finally, I found cook houses, meat shops, grease traps, horse lines, incinerators, and soakage pits in remarkably good order.
The report goes further. Dr. Wall states -
On the 4th July, 1915, I made an exhaustive inspection of the Liverpool FieldHospital, and made myself conversant with the facts and statistics regarding its past development and its present condition. In view of the storm of public comment and criticism raging about the A.M.C. and its commanding officer, I deemed it advisable to place the statistics, together withmy own observations, on record.
I would have no hesitation in reading the whole of the report, but in order not to weary honorable senators I am picking out the parts that bear on the report that I made to the Senate as regards the hospital arrangements. The honorable senator quoted me as saying that it was what I would have expected to find in a modern, well-equipped hospital. Dr. Wall’s reputation is as much at stake as anybody’s, and let me read to the Senate what he had to say -
The total recorded admissions to the various A.M.C. hospitals at Liverpool to date are approximately 3,500. To realize what the handling of this number of indoor patients means it is only necessary to state that the field hospital is passing through more patients than either of the two big metropolitan hospitals - the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Sydney - institutions which have permanent structures situated in the heart of the city, and have taken years to perfect their organization and equipment, where, moreover, the staff, which includes in either over sixty of the ablest men in the profession, is permanent and experienced in the treatment of the sick and disabled.
I have read that to show what the hospitals are doing. The report goes on to state -
The mortality has been exceedingly low. There hove been up to date of writing eleven deaths and about 3,500 admissions. This works out at approximately . 3 per cent.
Let me interpolate - about one in 300.
Nine of these deaths occurred from bronco pneumonia following measles, and two from meningitis of influenzal origin. I have made the fullest inquiries, and can definitely state that deaths could not have been prevented by any hospital staff in Australia.
– The honorable gentleman -is not quite right in his arithmetic. It would be one nine- tenths of a man per 300.
– I quite agree that mine is a rough and ready calcula tion but I spoke of it as . 3 in order that it might not be quoted as 3 per cent., because the deaths in the general hospital, run from 14 to 20 per cent., and in thishospital, which they claim is badly equipped, the death rate is astonishingly low. Let me get on -
I visited each ward, and inquired personally of the patients as to whether they weresatisfied, and received always an emphatic “ Yes.” Every patient had an iron bed and a mattress and a pillow. I learnt that Captain Schlink, by dint of perseverance, had secured’ 250 iron beds with the same number of mattresses and pillows. Prior to taking charge of the hospitals nothing but Norton’s stretchers were in use. The equipment of the wards inother respects equalled that of other hospitals of which I had had experience. Bed pans, screens, sputum mugs, and, in some cases,, even lockers, were provided.
I appeal to the honorable senator whether that does not bear out all that I have tosay about the hospital. There was also something said about the dispensary, and Dr. Wall reports on that as follows : -
I found this supplied with an abundance of the best drugs included in the British Pharmacopoeia, ample supply of dressings, bottles,, splints, and provision made for sterilizing instruments for surgical dressings.
I could quote the whole of his report, butI will content myself with this conclusion -
Aftermy very exhaustive inquiries and observations I am astounded that the field hospital has been conducted with such markedsuccess and so little friction.
That is all about the hospital so far as Dr. Wall is concerned, but there are some remarks concerning Dr. Schlink that I will read a little later on. Here is some evidence that was taken before the Commission. I am using the report which appeared in the Sydney Sun newspaper of Monday, 19th July -
Dr. Armstrong, senior Medical Officer for
Health in New South Wales, said that at the Commissioner’s request he had inspected the camp hospital this morning. The site chosen was a good one, the position being high and the soil absorbent. The arrangements for receiving patients and their treatment afterwards struck him very favorably. The reception tent was capable of holding 150 men comfortably. The sanitary arrangements in the A.M.C. were very good, and, in fact, the best he had seen in any camp. The methods for disposing of refuse could not be better, and the incinerator was excellent. The hospital tents were very comfortable and cosy. There were spring beds, beds with mattresses, and plenty of blankets. The dispensary seemed to bewell stocked.
Now I appeal to honorable senators whether I am to accept Mr. Justice Rich’s opinion against my own, based on what I saw with my own eyes and upon the evidence of the people that I spoke to -
In answer to Mr. Stephen, the witness (Dr. Armstrong) said he considered it an extraordinary thing that in a camp with from 5,000 to 7,000 men continually in it there should not have been a single case of typhoid in six months. It indicated that the sanitary arrangements were good.
Before commenting further, I want to call attention to the fact that Dr. Armstrong is the head of the Health Department of New South Wales. He was called upon by Mr Justice Rich to report, and this is what he said in answer to Mr. Orchard -
He spoke to a number of men in the hospital, and none of them had any complaints to make.
That bears out word for word what I said. With regard to Dr. Armstrong’s evidence, I marked everything for use that was in the Sun newspaper, as I had not a copy of the original evidence, nor have I yet received it. The report in that paper stated -
Private John Gunnell, a school teacher, said he had been a patient in the camp hospital for seven days, and had attended the inquiry to express his satisfaction at the treatment he had received. “ I did not hear one word of dissatisfaction in any shape or form.” The witness added - “ I considered it only right that men who do their duty well should get credit for it. The treatment, we received was excellent, and the arrangements highly commendable.”
I leave that, and turn to see what Mr. E. A. Scott, a Sydney architect, had to say with regard to the kitchens.
– Did Mr. Justice Rich have these men before him as witnesses?
– Yes.
– And others.
- Mr. Scott was asked by His Honour -
Did you look at the new kitchens.?
The witness replied -
Yes; I think they are highly satisfactory, but they should bo covered in with gauze wire.
I give now the opinion of another gentleman holding a high position, as reported in the Sun -
Sir Thomas Anderson Stuart, the chairman of the Prince Alfred Hospital, said he visited the field hospital on 4th June to lecture. He also went over the hospital. Considering its temporary nature, the arrangements, organization, and equipment were good. ‘
I am quite prepared to allow my statements regarding the camp to stand side by side with those made on oath by Colonel Stanley and the other witnesses to whom I have referred. I appeal to honorable senators. Can I turn that evidence down? The similarity of the statements by the witnesses proves the correctness of my opinion as far as the hospital arrangements were concerned. Now let me say something with regard to Dr. Schlink, a man who occupies the highest rank in his profession, and who has been most cruelly treated over this business. Dr. Schlink is in the first flight of the rising surgeons and physicians of Sydney, and it is extremely cruel to say that he must be hounded out of his position, and out of the country, after years of service in this Commonwealth, and months of service given to the Defence Department in this hospital, during which time his losses have amounted to considerably more than any of us have contributed to the war fund. [ will now take the opportunity of quoting from testimonials that were presented by him when applying for a position in the Sydney hospital two years previously. I could quote the whole of them, but honorable senators will scarcely require that to demonstrate that he is one of the leading physicians of that city.
– Are these testimonials as regards his medical qualifications ?
– Yes.
– As far as I am concerned, they are quite unnecessary, because Dr. Schlink’s ability is so well known.
– A great many people are probably not aware of Dr. Schlink’s high qualifications, and of the unjust manner in which he has been treated. The first testimonial which I desire to read is as follows -
Wyoming, 175 Macquarie-street, Sydney.
Dr. H. Schlink has had a distinguished career, and is thoroughly competent in his work. His long residence in the hospital has given him facilities which are exceptional, and his work is well known. Gynaecology cannot be carried on now without a good pathologist, and I have had the greatest benefit from his voluntary assistance. He is keen and able, and well fitted for any position,
Foreman,
Lecturer on Diseases of Women,
Sydney University. 20th November, 1912.
Here is another written much in the same strain, only a little more lengthy, by
Edward Thring, F.R.C.S. (England) ; another by Mr. H. C. Taylor Young, M.D., CM., both speaking of Dr. Schlink’s high qualifications. Here is another - 313 Macquarie-street, Sydney, 18th November, 1912.
From personal observations of Dr. Schlink’s work during the past six years at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, I am persuaded that he not only knows his work, but it will be difficult to find one who would do it in a more earnest and thorough manner.
Fourness Barrington,
Assistant General Gynecological Surgeon, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
Sir Alexander MacCormick, M.D., who stands as high as any other member of his profession in Sydney,writes - 185 Macquarie-street North,
Sydney.
I have much pleasure in expressing my favorable opinion of the professional acquirements of Dr. Herbert Schlink. This gentleman joined the staff of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in 1907, and he has successively held the appointments of house surgeon, house physician, medical registrar, assistant superintendent, and medical superintendent, so that his practical training has been a very extensive one, and, in my opinion, he has taken advantage of the opportunities that were afforded him, and is very thoroughly qualified for the practical work of his profession. I have no doubt that whenever he may engage in practice he will show himself to be thoroughly efficient and trustworthy in all his professional undertakings.
Then there is one from Dr. Hinder, and another from Dr. Maclaurin, who writes as follows - 155 Macquarie-street, Sydney, 16th November, 1912.
I have very much pleasure in giving a testimonial to Dr. Schlink, whom I have known intimately during his student life and his term of office at the Prince Alfred Hospital. I need hardly say more than that he is a man of quite exceptional ability and tact, combined with perseverance and knowledge of his profession. I feel convinced that great success is in store for him, and he thoroughly deserves it.
Lecturer in Clinical Surgery,
Sydney University.
Dr. Schlink has a long list of qualifications, and gave up a splendid practice, or greatly neglected it, to give his services to the Liverpool Camp ; yet, because of his German name, he is thrown on one side. If his work at the Liverpool Camp was good, it deserved a favorable report. If it was indifferent, it should have been reported on ; and if it was bad, we should have known it. The following extract from the Sanitary Officer’s report shows what his work really was: -
When Captain Schlink took command of the field hospital, it was a very small concern, and provided tentage for less than forty beds. There was a small dispensary tent, and a store tent which acted as orderly room, quartermaster’s store, and pack store for patients’ clothing. The officer in charge, by his untiring energies, has established a field hospital, the like of which, I say without fear of contradiction, has never been seen in Australia.
This young man, who in a few years had. reached almost the head of his profession, gave his time, abilities, and energies to the camp, and in three months organized the measles compound, the venereal compound, and the hospital, and organized and took over two cottage hospitals, furnishing one of them before he got the consent of the Department, and takingthe risk of having to bear the cost himself if ho did not get that consent. His. reward is to be held up to ridicule and. contempt by Senator Millen and Mr. Orchard because he, unfortunately, has a. German name. Questions are asked in an insinuating manner, reflecting upon him in such a way as to injure him professionally and privately.When the opportunity was given to those gentlemen to prove their charges, where were they? Mr. Orchard withdrew his. What doesSenator Millen propose to do? The charges were made in Parliament. Have they yet been withdrawn in Parliament?” The insinuations were made in Parliament in the teeth of the evidence in Dr. Schlink’s favour. Are they going to be withdrawn in Parliament? Unless there is something more beneath and behind this they should be withdrawn. The men who made them have nothing against him now except that he has a German name. His organizing abilities, the skill and capacity he has displayed, go for nothing. His German name condemns him in the eyes of certain honorable senators, who are crying “ peace,” and saying, that they are not actuated by party feeling, but who, while flying the white flag, are firing from under it at every opportunity.
– Who believes that anybody on this side has a special animusagainst Dr. Schlink because of his German name?
– Honorable senators opposite have seen a chance of hitting the Labour Government because of a doctor with a German name, and have taken a mean advantage to do it. The honorable senator can say “nonsense “ as much as he likes, but the facts prove it.
– Did you not appoint a Judge to inquire into the matter, and are you not acting on his report?
– Of course we are; and we are not complaining of his report. What I am complaining of is that certain persons had not the manhood to make the chief part of the charges before the Judge, but made them under the cover of parliamentary privilege.
– It is nonsensical to allege that we have an animus against any Australian because of his German name.
– Then the honorable senator does not agree with the Judge in that matter?
– The Judge does not find against Dr. Schlink because of his German name.
– He speaks of the impropriety of appointing a man with a German name.
– Because of many other surrounding circumstances, and of the very prominent position in which he was placed.
– I have gone out of my way to deal at length with Dr. Schlink. I do not know him personally.
– You have been supplied with his testimonials.
– I obtained a pamphlet with his testimonials, not from him, but from a friend of his. I hope if ever any one in this Senate, by charge or cowardly insinuation, attacks any worthy private citizen of this country, I shall be supplied with the real facts. If I am, the attacked will find in me a champion, as far as I am able in my humble way, to put his case. This man has no chance of speaking in Parliament for himself. He has given his great abilities to the service of his country, and suddenly finds himself pursued with malignity of personal resentment and malice, let loose upon him as a public enemy.
– Where is the evidence of all this malice?
– In the honorable senator’s insinuations, before he had a chance of proving his charges.
– All this is one of your clever dodges to get away from the major portion of Judge Rich’s report.
– So far as that is concerned, the improvement in the latrines was foreshadowed by our officer a month before. The covering of the latrines was approved by the Minister in March, and was not carried out because the months of April and May, in particular, were devoted to equipping and getting on board the ships a huge body of recruits. Other things had to wait, as is often the case with reforms.
– Do the men who build latrines put the recruits on board troop-ships ?
– All the energies of the Department were devoted in those months to the work of getting the men away. Senator Millen ‘had a chance of proving that part of his charge relating to the doctor with a German name, but did not take advantage of it. He made the charge here, and it is up to him to withdraw it here. If it is not withdrawn in an open and manly way, it will stand, and adversely affect a loyal Australian in his private capacity. I see. no reason why, when the chance of proving the charge was given, the honorable senator did not take advantage of it.
– Dr. Schlink had the chance of calling me as a witness if he wanted me. I spent a day in Sydney waiting to be called, and he would have called me if he had wanted me.
- Dr. Schlink asked through hig counsel that Senator Millen should be called. The Judged answer was that the charges of disloyalty against the doctor had been withdrawn, and that, therefore, there was no occasion to call the honorable senator. If the honorable senator could have proved them, it was his duty to the country to go and do so.
– I made no charge there. I brought the matter before the attention of the Minister in this Chamber in order that inquiry might be made into it. .1
– If there was no foundation for the charge, what does the honorable senator say now?
– - I say nothing.
– That is characteristic of the honorable senator’s methods.
– Neither Dr. Schlink’s efforts nor your methods will cause me to say anything.
– I am speaking on behalf of a man who ought to be defended. One Melbourne paper puts Colonel Stanley and myself before the public as people who want to hush things up.
– You have done your level best to hush up nine-tenths of Mr. Justice Rich’s report by concentrating all your attention on a matter with which he does not deal.
– Did Mr. Orchard say anything about the improved cooking conditions, the hot water for soldiers, and the engine for the dryingrooms ?
– Mr. Justice Rich said that all Mr. Orchard’s charges but one had been proved.
– Did Mr. Orchard say anything about the concreting, or the flushing, or the water-taps for washing? All these are matters referred to in the Judge’s report. Nearly all the matters that he reported on are things that the sanitary officer reported on months ago.
– Then why did you not do them?
– Because other and more pressing work was engaging attention.
– If your own sanitary officer was recommending these things, why did Mr. Fisher declare that Mr. Orchard’s charges constituted a vital attack upon the Department?
– Because the chief allegation was that we had in charge of the camp a medical officer who was treating the sick in a way in which they ought not to be treated. Is there a single line in Mr. Justice Rich’s report bearing out Mr. Orchard’s statement that the men were being treated like dogs?
– I am not surprised, but am rather glad in a way that you are trying to belittle Mr. Justice Rich’s report.
– If I have done that, I hope to be forgiven, because I did not mean to do it.
– The more you belittle his report, the more you strengthen the impression that you are trying to go behind it.
– The honorable senator said that every charge made by Mr. Orchard had been proved.
– Mr. Justice Rich says so.
– I have been unable to find in his report anything to bear out Mr. Orchard’s statement, as recorded in Hansard, that the men were treated like dogs. The Judge may not have considered that those words constituted a charge, but can the honorable senator, find a line in the report to show that the statement was proved by Mr. Orchard ?
– All this neglect of their wants and needs was treating them like dogs - giving them insufficient clothing, food, and housing.
– The less the honorable senator says about that the better. Mr. Orchard’s statement was that there were only twelve or thirteen overcoats in the camp among about 2,000 men, whereas Mr. Justice Rich reported that there were 500 overcoats in the camp.
– Two thousand short.
– But the public were led to believe that there were only thirteen overcoats in the camp.
– Mr. Justice Rich did not say there were 2,000 overcoats short.
– He said the number requisitioned for was 2,500. That requisitioning would be for the troops that were expected to come in.
– You could not supply the troops that were there; but you got the coats in anticipation of the troops yet to come. Is that the statement?
– The public were led to believe that there were only about thirteen overcoats, in a dreadfully filthy condition, for the use of all the men there.
– Not filthy, only verminous.
– What is the difference ? I am not surprised, because that is nothing new in camp life, and the man who pretends to be shocked at the fact that men gathered together in large numbers become verminous has no experience of camp conditions. That is one of the main difficulties that have to be contended with in dealing with large bodies of troops. So far as all these criticisms of the camps, and the new method of having a permanent staff to take charge of the work are concerned, I venture to say that to teach the men how to adapt themselves to camp life is as important to our success in battle as to teach them to use the rifle.
– Then why alter the conditions if you believe them to be so good?
– The conditions have been vastly altered since the present Government came into office.
– But Senator Gardiner is now defending the old system.
– I suppose that is because of my old Tory instincts. I hope the men trained under the newer conditions will give an even better account of themselves than did the men trained under the old. If they do, Australia will be doubly proud of them. The men who have been sent oversea went through all this; but it was very much worse in the honorable senator’s day. I do not blame him for it, but when he was at the head of the Defence Department camp life was infinitely worse.
– Who says so?
– Everybody.
-Nobody looking at the improvements made since can doubt it for a moment. Considerable improvements have been made, and when I say that the conditions were infinitely worse in Senator Millen’s day, and that the men trained under them have done all that we expected them to do, I hope the men trained under the new conditions will prove even better soldiers. If the new conditions enable the men to adapt themselves to camp life as soon as they go into camp, to make themselves comfortable under any difficulties, and to adopt clean sanitary methods of keeping the camp wholesome, it must lead to better results ; but if not, we shall get worse results than we had previously.
– Why should the Department adopt a system which will give worse results?
– The honorable senator wants to speak about something that is in his own mind. I have taken a good deal of latitude this evening, but I do not apologize, because the subject was worthy of lengthy consideration. I have done so chiefly in defence of a man with a German name. Cautious men would say that I should not in any way connect myself at the present time with a man with a German name. I was never cautious, and never pretended to be cautious, and I am glad to have an opportunity of exhibiting in my place in Parliament a wiser, better, and higher spirit in dealing with people at German names than is suggested in Mr. Justice Rich’s report. I can differ from His Honour in that matter without belittling his report, and in doing so I am satisfied that I will earn the good opinion of nine-tenths of the people of this country, who will be prepared to admit that, it is the antithesis of justice to say that a man shall not be given promotion because he happens to have a German name.
– I do not think that any one has made such a statement.
– The honorable senator does not think so because he is so innocent, but I do think so, and I venture to say that it is due to the fact that some persons who desire promotion for their friends feel that they cannot secure it unless this highly capable man is first got out of the way.
– That is a mean and cowardly thing to say, but it is entirely worthy of the honorable senator.
– I am glad that Senator Millen made that interjection before I resumed my seat, because it enables me to say that unless the honorable senator is prepared to withdraw the charges he has made, he has in mind something more mean and cowardly than anything I am capable of.
Debate (on motion by Senator Bakhap) adjourned.
page 6371
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a message intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this Bill.
page 6371
Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by. Senator GARDINER) read a first time.
page 6372
.- I move -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 o’clock a.m. to-morrow.
We wish to proceed with business, so that we may be able to adjourn this week.
– Would the honorable senator mind indicating what business the Government propose to take ?
– There will be the Supply Bill, on which several honorable senators still desire to speak. There will be the Constitution Alteration (Senators’ Terra of Service) Bill. We hope to have the Income Tax Bill here to-morrow, and, if so, we shall have a full day’s work before us.
– The question is what business the Government propose to do before the adjournment?
– There is the business I have indicated, and one or two other small measures.
– Can we do all this business and adjourn on Thursday?
– I think we can if we all pull together, and make up our minds to do the business.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 August 1915, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1915/19150831_senate_6_78/>.