6th Parliament · 1st Session
The President took the chair at 3 p.m,. and read prayers.
.- By leaveIn connexion with the speech delivered in the House of Representatives last night by the Postmaster-General, referring to matters of administration of the Department of Home Affairs, the Government proposes to arrange for the appointment of a Royal Commission. If possible, the Commission will consist of a Judge, and the Acting Prime Minister will arrange for that. The Commission will be asked to take as the basis of such inquiry the Hansard reports of the speech above referred to and the speeches delivered since the re-assembling of Parliament by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, dealing with administrative matters in the Home Affairs Department, and also statements and answers to questions dealing with the same matters made by the Minister of Home Affairs in the House of Representatives .
– Has the Minister of Defence information about the reported arrival of Bulgarians at Broken Hill?
– In view of your ruling yesterday, Mr. President, and as my answer is rather explanatory, I ask leave to make a statement.
– On the 2nd March, 1916, the Secretary of State for the Colonies cabled to the Commonwealth Government, intimating that an arrangement had been made with the Bulgarian Government, on the basis of reciprocity, not to detain in the United Kingdom or the British Empire, or in His Majesty’s Overseas Dominions, Bulgarian subjects who were under seventeen, or over forty-five years of age on the date of the declaration of war between Great Britain and Bulgaria, nor to intern Bulgarian subjects of any age so long as they are able to provide for themselves, unless there are special reasons of a military character which would render internment desirable. The Secretary of State expressed the hope that the Commonwealth Government would concur in this policy. The Minister for Defence issued instructions to the Commandant of each Military District in accordance with this notification from the Secretary of State, and instructed each Commandant to go through the lists of Bulgarians interned from his district, to ascertain who on these lists conformed with the notification of the Secretary of State, and to communicate with the Commandant of the Concentration Camp where the Bulgarians were interned, who had been instructed to liberate those recommended by the District Commandants. Commandants were also informed that, in considering future cases of internment, they should be guided by the above arrangements. In the 4th Military District, South Australia, forty-seven Bulgarians were affected by the arrangements set out, and the Commandant of the Concentration Camp was instructed that they were to be released on condition that they reported to the police of the place to which they were proceeding. He was further instructed to provide railway warrants for their return to Adelaide. If a large batch of them desired to travel together the Commandant was informed that it would be wise to defer their release until he had an escort going to the State in question. No instructions were issued from headquarters that any of these Bulgarians were to be sent to Broken Hill, nor for any military guard to be sent to Broken Hill in connexion therewith; and up to the present the Department has no information as to how it came about that they were sent there. Inquiries are, however, being made. The guard which escorted these Bulgarians from the Concentration Camp is now in Melbourne, on its return to New South Wales. The officer in charge of the guard states that his orders were to take the men to Adelaide, and hand them over to the authorities there. This he did. There is no reply yet from the Commandant in Adelaide. The authorities were rung up this morning to expedite matters.
Report (No. 6) presented by Senator Barker.
The following papers were presented -
Defence Act 1903-1915. - Regulations amended, &c. -
Statutory Rules 1916, No. 73.
Statutory Rules 1916, No. 80.
War Precautions Act 1914-1915. - Regulations amended, &c. -
Statutory Rules 1916, No. 81.
Statutory Rules 1916, No. 88.
Concessions toUniversity Students.
asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers are -
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers are -
Army Medical Corps Commissions - Letters and Parcels from Soldiers - Razors Supplied to Claremont Camp.
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are -
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
Is there any truth in the statement to the effect that thousands of letters and parcels from members of the Australian Military Forces serving abroad, and now in the Melbourne General Post Office, are not to be delivered, but to be destroyed? And if true, what is the reason for such?
– The answer is -
The following information has been furnished by the Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, viz. : - No. So far as letters received from members of the Australian Military Forces serving abroad are concerned they receive preferential treatment, and are delivered at the earliest possible moment after arrival at the General Post Office. The major portion of these letters is sorted en route in the sorting van by the staff of sorters which is sent to Adelaide to deal with the English and Expeditionary Forces mails on the return journey.
asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– The answers are - 1 and 2. There is no contractor for the supply of razors to the Claremont Camp. Supplies of razors of the same quality as issued to the British Army were obtained some time ago from the War Office for general issue, and recently the Military Commandant was authorized to requisition local stocks in Hobart. The source of supply of the razors issued to troops at the Claremont Camp is not known, but inquiries are being made, and the honorable senator will be further informed when the information is received from the Commandant.
Enemy Shareholders’ Exemptions
asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -
– The answers are -
Motion (by Senator Gardiner) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Trading with the Enemy Acts 1914.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Motion (by Senator Russell) agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Motion (by Senator Ferricks) agreed to -
That there be laid on the table of the Senate a return showing the value of importations by the Federal Government and the respective State Governments of the Commonwealth, of materials for, or of, dredges, bridges, sugar mills, and locomotives, respectively, during the past ten years.
.- I move-
That in the opinion of the Senate the name of the Federal Capital should be changed from Canberra, and the capital re-christened “ Anzac.”
I have to congratulate myself on having such a favorable opportunity to present this most important motion for the consideration of the Senate. It will serve a double purpose. In the first place, it enables me to invite the Senate to consider what, in my opinion,is one of the most important propositions ever placed before it, and, in the second place, it will provide work for honorable senators at a time when, but for a combination of circumstances in another place, they might be employed in the consideration of ordinary Government business. It would appear that even the Fates have conspired to afford me a fitting opportunity to deal with this most important question. I know that in making a request for a change in the name of the Federal Capital, I am engaging in no light task.
I feel that the greatest care and foresight must be applied in the selection of a name for anything if it is to do us justice and credit. In the sphere of the family we are always very careful as to the names we select, because those names remain a test of our judgment in after years. As we think of such names from day to day we are reminded in some form or other of the care and prudence brought to bear in their selection. Even in the naming of domestic animals we are equally circumspect. If it be only a horse that we have to name, we feel some pride in thinking that the name we give will not be the subject of unfavorable comment or ridicule by our neighbours. When we consider the naming of the Federal Capital we have to bear in mind that we are giving a name to a place that will .last for all time, and be the citadel of the country’s liberty and country’s law making. We should, therefore, be careful to select for it a name which will do justice to the people of the Commonwealth. I am aware that in asking the Senate to agree to a change of name for the Federal Capital, I shall be up against the influence of old opinions, though in this case they are not older than about three and a half years. In proposing this innovation, I feel that even the passing of three and a half years is quite enough to constitute for some people a reason why the action taken originally should not be reviewed, and the name then selected for the capital changed to some other name. In submitting my motion I have to be on my guard against the influence of preconceived opinions as to the name which should be selected, even though they should have been formed only three and a half years ago, and also against a feeling which may be present in this chamber that the action I propose is of such a violent character that it will nob reflect the wisdom and judgment of the Senate. I feel that I have to steer, so to speak, between Scylla and Charybdis, two dangers not so very far from the Dardanelles, which were a menace to the mariner of old, as by trying to avoid strikthe one with hia frail barque, he was in danger of being sucked down by the other. It would appear, from hints that I have heard dropped, that my proposal may have to run the gauntlet which the ancient mariner had to run when he had to steer his barque between the two perils I have referred to. Be that as it may.
I am quite content to let the motion rest on its merits, as before I conclude I hope to submit sound reasons sufficient to convince every member of the Senate not only that a change of the name of the Federal Capital is necessary, but that it should take place as soon as possible. Honorable senators will remember that when about three and a half years ago, “ Canberra “ was revealed to the world as the name by which the Federal Capital would be known, it was neither in accordance with the inclination, the assumption or belief of the people that such a name was chosen. What would be a suitable name for the Federal Capital was canvassed in the press, not for one or two, but for several years. Several names were suggested, according to the tastes of those making the suggestions. These names had a political or national significance, and some had reference to the part which the hardy and daring pioneers took in the early history of the country. Some names suggested had merely a geographical significance. Honorable senators will remember that such names as “ Parkes,” ‘ Barton, “ “ Cook, “ “ Leichhardt, ‘ ‘ “ Kingston,” and others were suggested. It is rather strange that some name was not selected that would be a perpetual reminder to the people of the Commonwealth of the special admiration merited by some outstanding figure in the development of our country in the past. The wisdom of the Government of the day apparently went in the direction of ignoring all that had been done in the past in the industrial, political, and pioneering spheres of the activities of our people, and they came down to the plain, prosy, monotonous level of choosing a name which, so far as inquiry and research have gone, indicates nothing, points nowhere, and does not appeal to the imagination of any person in the Commonwealth.
– And leads into the bush.
– That is so. It is surrounded by the bush at present. With due respect to the action of the Government of the day in selecting “ Canberra “ as the name of the Federal Capital, we have had an opportunity to look around since that selection was made, and in the meantime have had the record of an event which revealed in a marked degree the true type of the Australian character. The obligation, I think, is cast upon us to review our action, and to endeavour to find some more suitable name than “ Canberra “ for the Federal Capital, that is to be not for to-day or next day, but for all time.
I said just now that the origin of “ Canberra “ is not clear. It is quite true that students of etymology and the archives stored here throwing some light on place-names were consulted in the past, but without result. The word “ Canberra,” so far as I can learn, has no significance worth speaking about. Colonel Miller, who is Administrator of the Federal Territory, is one authority I consulted. He thinks that it is a form of the word “ Canbury,” a place mentioned in some church records at the Federal Capital. This is merely a brilliant guess as to the probable origin of the name. I have tried by researches in the Library of this Parliament to discover the true origin of the word, whether it be an aboriginal name or an English name that has undergone some change of form, but the conclusion to which I have been forced to come is that “ Canberra “ has no real significance historically, geographically, or aboriginally. It is merely a chance word, the history of which was not important enough to be handed down to us by the aboriginals, if it be an aboriginal word, or by those who were associated . with the change from “ Canbury “ to “ Canberra,” if the latter be its true origin. It is not unreasonable now that three years have passed since the christening of the Federal Capital, that we should consider whether any warrant exists at the present time for a change of the name. It has been said by one authority that human action is mostly shaped in accordance with the current thought of the time, and really if that test of human action be applied to the selection of “ Canberra,” it is justified, since it indicates nothing, and the selection was made during a very placid period of this country’s history, when nothing in particular was happening.
– Will the honorable senator tell us what “ London “ or “ Paris “ signifies?
– I shall try later on to enlighten the Senate on those points. According to the authority of the learned publicist I have quoted, human action is mostly influenced by the current or dominant thought of the period, and in accordance with that maxim, “Canberra” fills the bill. It explains nothing. It is a term of accidental origin which has no bearing whatever on the national life of the country, the character of its people, or the development of its resources. I think that something has happened during the last twelve months to warrant a change of the name. An event has occurred which has a bearing on the character of our people, and which, in my view, justifies the change I propose in this motion. Senator de Largie has asked me what is the meaning of “London.” Delving in the musty and misty records of the past, it is very hard to find out what is the true meaning or origin of the word “ London.” So far as the authorities consulted throw any light on the subject, I find that the word “ London “ is of Celtic origin, revealing the fact, which is already known to those acquainted with the subject, that the Celtic character has ever been noticeable in the vanguard of civilization and pioneering work everywhere. “London,” according to the authority I consulted, Longman’s Gazetteer of the World, 1902 edition, is derived from the Celtic name ‘ ‘ Linndun “ or “ Llyndun,” “Llyn “ meaning a pool or marsh, and “dun” a fort erected over it. It would appear that even this word of Celtic origin was used to indicate the place out of regard merely for the physical features of the site. It was a marshy place with a mound or hill on which fortifications of a rude kind were erected. There is nothing in the use of the word “ London “ to indicate that those responsible for its selection looked for a name which would reflect the genius or character of its people. They were concerned only to give the place a name which indicated merely its physical or topographical features. That is not elevating at all. Those who have the power to give names, should, I think, select such names as will have an elevating and inspiring effect on the mind. That is the sum and substance of my effort this afternoon. With regard to the other national capitals, according to the authorities I have looked up, I find that the people of Germany were not at all fortunate in the choice of a name for their capital - Berlin.
– We shall change that in the next few months.
– I hope so. If the derivation of the name “Berlin” is correctly stated, and after all it is only conjectural, it means “uncultivated land, or a ford-crossing place.” “Paris” comes next, and that name is derived from the Roman names “Parisii” and “Lutetia Parisiorum.” I suppose that it commemorates some Roman character of the early misty past, when the sway of the Roman eagle extended throughout the known world, and embraced all the western part of Europe, and even the British Islands.
– Not all of them.
– No, I believe they did not get into Ireland, the only unconquerable spot, or into Wales. Madrid is named from an Arabic word meaning a wind current. We know that Rome is called after its legendary founder, Romulus, but whether he existed or not has not been clearly established. Lisbon is from the Phoenician “ Alis ubbo, meaning “ delicious bay.’*’ Venice is from the Latin “Veneti,” a maritime people. This selection comes more closely to my idea since it has some reference to the character of the people. The name “Venice” was chosen apparently out of respect for the calling in which its people were engaged, as they were a sea-faring people. .Vienna is derived from “ Vindobonia,” a word of Celtic origin, meaning “white castle.” The origin of Brussels is doubtful, but the oldest form of the word is “ Bruxella.”
So much for the names of the capitals of the Old World. The records are preserved which show how the capitals of the new world were named, and the origin of their names. The greatest example is that of the United States of America, where the capital is named after the national hero and deliverer Washington. In the case of Canada, Ottawa, the Seat of Government is not named after any particular characteristic of the white races there, or to commemorate what they did in subjugating that large Dominion. The capital of Canada is called “ Ottawa,” after a native tribe. Then we have “ Cape Town,” which has no particular significance. The capital of New Zealand is certainly named after a warrior whose name stands high in military history, but it does not indicate in any way what the New Zealand people have done in colonizing that island Dominion. There is nothing in the word “Wellington” to indicate that the people of New Zealand on their own account have any special claim to or interest in it. The capital is called after a warrior who was certainly great and bold, and won a worthy reputation, but the word has no local significance to which the people of New Zealand may look up in the future.
Reviewing in brief the origin of the names of national capitals from ancient times until now, it would appear that in only one or two outstanding instances has the selection made reflected any credit on those responsible for it. Athens, the ancient capital of Greece, took it name from “Athene,” the Goddess of science, arts, and arms. I look upon that as a worthy selection of a classic people. It is a name which specially appeals to all the beautiful tastes, habits, inclinations, and imagination of the people. “ Washington,” as the name for the capital of the United States of America, appeals to me also, and I trust that, following the temper and spirit of that worthy example, as a result of my motion the action taken by the Senate will cause “Anzac” to be substituted for “ Canberra “ as the name of the Federal Capital. .So much by way of the origin of names.
We have a much stronger reason to name our Federal Capital “ Anzac “ than the Americans had to call their capital “ Washington.” The Americans had a long struggle for independence from the time when the first shot was fired at Lexington until the last was fired at Yorktown. A mighty effort was made by three and a half million of people, and it was fitting that when at last they secured their independence, and’ the new American nation was born, Americans should turn to the one man who had made it possible for them to achieve national success and greatness. They immortalized him by naming their capital after him. When I speak of “ Anzac,” however, and refer to it as the appropriate name for the Federal Capital, I would urge that it has a wider significance than “Washington,” because it represents, not the struggle for freedom by the people of one country only, but the effort put forward by our sons at the Dardanelles for the freedom of all the nations at present associated with the Allies’ cause.
– It is not a word. It is only a combination of five letters.
– I am aware of that, but I hope the honorable senator does not object to it on that account. The accidental grouping of the letters, to my mind, will always stimulate .thought, and in the future be an incentive for inquirers to ask something about it. When the Americans called their capital “ Washington,” they had in mind the thought which, I hope, will be in the minds of every honorable senator when they exchange the word “ Canberra “ for “ Anzac.”
– Yes; when they do.
– The word, as I have already indicated, has a much wider significance than “ Washington,” because it stands for the effort made by Australians and New Zealanders on behalf of the liberties of thos© civilized nations fighting for the cause of the Allies, whereas “ Washington “ indicates only the name of a man who led the people of his country in a successful fight for freedom. The word “ Anzac “ applies not to a military leader, as does the name of the Capital of the United States of America, but to the first draft made on the manhood of Australia and New Zealand in the fight, on a foreign battle-field, for the freedom of civilization.
– But might there not be greater exploits than the Anzac landing before the war is over ?
– I am assuming from the interjections that there is not a friendly feeling towards the change of name, and I would point out that “ Canberra,” for all practical purposes, might just as well be called “Potberra” or “ Billyberra.” I may remark also that an ingenious contributor to the press has suggested that in the early days when the aboriginals had dealings with the first settlers, they had then, as now, a taste for alcohol, and when they came down to the settlers’ camp, they asked, “ Got em can, got em beer?” Prom that time on, according to the press correspondent I have referred to, the site of the Capital City was called “ Canberra.” That is just as likely to be the origin of the name as any other, and
I ask Senator Blakey is there any reason why that name should stand for all time just because it was selected in no particularly ingenuous way, meaning nothing and signifying nothing ? Is it not our duty, if we can, to place on record, in the manner I suggest, those brave deeds done on the shores of Gallipoli by Australia’s sons ? If we wish to erect an imperishable monument to their memory, we can best do so by giving to the Federal Capital a name that will for all time call up a mental picture of those gallant exploits.
– But before the war is over might there not be greater exploits ?
– I hope so.
– Then will you rechristen the Federal Capital?
– It is right that we should record our due appreciation of the efforts of our men. We have all read accounts by eye-witnesses of the landing of the Third Brigade. That brigade, whose daring.has not been equalled in the annals of military history, embraced men from all over Australia. Then, after the landing came the events at Lonesome Pine. We have been told that, in that engagement, when the mules at length arrived with water for the men in the trenches, the soldiers, so thirsty were they, sprang out of the trenches on to the leadswept parapet, and with their tongues sucked the moisture from the water bags on the mules’ backs. Those brave fellows were down to a pint of water, under that sub-tropical sun, before they made that historic charge. Then what is to be said of the charge of the Light Horse Brigade, which has been well described as the greatest feat ever performed on Turkish soil, not excepting even thos© exploits of the Hellenic armies in the early days of history in that part of the world ? Even those classic exploits, so we have been informed, did not excel in bravery the charge made by the Light Horse Brigade on the slopes of Gallipoli. This great event stands out by itself as showing what could be done and what was done by Australians when they were called upon. All those incidents go to make up the magnificent effort made by Australians at the Dardanelles.
I believe I am correct in saying that every soldier who yielded his life at Anzac was perfectly satisfied to do so, and if it were given to him again, he would gladly yield that precious inheritance in defence of the cause that took them from Australia. It has not always been so with other people. My own countryman and patriot, Patrick Sarsfield, who, after he had fought the battles of his country, and had compelled the British forces of the day to come to terms with him - terms which were afterwards broken - met Ms fate subsequently on the battle-fields of Europe. “When his life blood was. oozing away, he dipped his fingers in it and said, “ Oh, that this were for Ireland !” The Australian soldiers dying on the battlefields of Gallipoli did not have such discomforting thoughts. They were willing to do a dozen times over what they had done in the same cause. When we find the exploits of our people at the Dardanelles recorded by eye-witnesses in terms that confer immortal honour upon our men, surely it is our duty to take some action to perpetuate their memory! “ Canberra “ can remain. Yes ; but what does it signify? Put the word “Anzac” there and what would it signify? It would signify for all time the exploits of our soldiers on a foreign field in the fight of freedom and civilization, and would keep fresh in the people’s memory the incidents connected with that great struggle in the Dardanelles. When, in the future, a child asks its mother what the word “ Anzac “ means, she will be able to reply, assuming we adopt the name for our Capital city: “‘Anzac’ means the going out from this country of some 50,000 of our best manhood to fight, against great odds, the battle of freedom and civilization on a battlefield in an alien land. Eye-witnesses declared that their exploits were never equalled in military history. Thousands of them lie to-day in nameless graves, but the Federal Parliament thought fit to perpetuate their memory by giving the name “ Anzac ‘ to the Federal Capital, so that it might remain for all time as an imperishable monument to their bravery.” That is what an Australian mother will be able to say to her child in the years to come if we adopt this motion.
Shall we be able to draw such an inspiration from the word “Canberra”?
Certainly not, because “Canberra” has no history and no pedigree, so far as literary research takes us. It has nothing to recommend it except that it is a sweetsounding name - a mere collection of alphabetical characters with an agreeable phonetic effect. It expresses nothing, leads to nowhere, and fails to kindle any pride or inspiration as is the case with 1 ‘ Anzac. ‘ ‘ “ Anzac “ grips the mind with the significance of what it stands for, and in the future it will be a stimulation to the young Australian of an inquiring mind to ask what it means. I do not intend to delay the Senate much further, because I feel that this motion may be debated, perhaps lengthily, although’ I would rather see a decision come to today. I wish, however, to point out that if we apply the name “ Anzac “ to the Federal Capital we will be doing honour to our sister Dominion in the Southern seas, and will link that Dominion with the Commonwealth more closely than could otherwise be done. It is a compliment that has been justly earned by New Zealanders in association with Australians at the Dardanelles. I do not claim originality for the word. There is nothing new in it. I have seen references to it in the press, both here and in Western Australia, and before the debate closes I shall be pleased to give the origin of the name. In submitting this motion I do, in all sincerity, ask the Senate to make the change. I want the word adopted, not for the sake of changing the name of the Capital, but so that it may stand as an evidence of our gratitude to those men who sacrificed their lives in the fight for freedom. I want also to give to our Federal Capital and Territory a name that will appeal to the imagination, the national pride and instincts of the people, and be a stimulus to our countrymen in the future to do similar acts of bravery. Above all, I want it to be a standing appeal to the men who will be sent to “ Anzac,” there to frame the laws for the government of this country, to be Anzacian in name as well as in deed, by enacting laws that will insure the true welfare, complete and widespread, of the people of this country. I hope the motion will have the hearty approval of the Senate. I ask honorable senators to cast aside the thought that because “Canberra,” as a name for the Federal Capital, was adopted over three years ago, no change should be made now. There is nothing in “ Canberra,” as a word, to justify ite perpetuation. I repeat that it means nothing, has no father and no pedigree. If, on the other hand, “ Anzac “ be adopted as the name of our Capital city, it will, for all time - until the book of fate is sealed up, and the story of human destiny is fully written - stand for the glory and gallantry of the exploits of Australian and New Zealand soldiers on the slopes of Gallipoli.
– The Government regret that they are not able to agree with Senator Lynch as to either the necessity or the desirability of the change which he proposes. It is true that “ Canberra “ has no great historical significance. Its generally accepted meaning is “meeting place.” So far as I have been able to ascertain, it is not a native name, but it has been associated with the district for a considerable time. Senator Lynch was very eloquent in pleading for a name distinctively Australian, which would appeal to the minds of the people, but the first weakness of that suggested by him isi that it does not belong exclusively to us, and that it would be rather selfish and unfair of us to claim an absolute monopoly in it. We are as proud of those who fought with the Australians at Anzac as we are of our own boys, because if they were not Australians, they were, at all events, Australasians, but the fact remains that the New Zealanders have a distinct share in the name. Other events may happen later in which Australians alone will take part, and for which we can claim a name distinctively our own. I do not say that any deeds can be done in the future superior to those achieved at Anzac, because I do. not believe that to be possible; but it should be remembered that, while other places have been named after great leaders and great warriors, it is impossible to transfer the deed by transferring the name, and so long as the bones of Australians and New Zealanders lie buried at Anzac, Anzac will be in Gallipoli, in spite of any attempt to transfer the name to Australia. Anzac also should not be used as the name of our Federal Capital, because it will be always associated with the arms and deeds of Australians; and no matter how many centuries have rolled by, if, in the future, Australians are forced to engage in warfare again - and I hope they will not - every soldier in our Armies will strive to reach the standard set by the Australian lads at Anzac in 1915. So that, for the present at all events, we- should leave that place enshrined in the memories of the people. The fact that Australians so distinguished themselves as to write pages of history on Gallipoli is no sound reason for changing the name of the Federal Capital of Australia. If the war took a turn in favour of the Allies, as we all hope it will, and it fell to the glorious good fortune of our troops to be the first to enter Berlin, that would be no argument for giving the name of Berlin to our Capital. This is a matter about which we must be very careful. The war has not yet concluded, and although we do not hope to excel the glorious deeds of Anzac, we believe that our soldiers will still make for themselves, in other parts of Europe, a reputation worthy to stand side by side with that historic achievement. We are indebted to Senator Lynch for his review of the titles of the world’s capitals, but all that is really beside the question. We fixed Canberra as the Capital after debates extending over a number of years, and, personally, I should not like to see a division taken on a motion of this sort. No member of this Chamber, however undesirable he thinks the change proposed by the honorable senator to be, would care to have his name recorded as voting against any proposal to perpetuate the memory of our heroes, of whom we are all so proud. I would, therefore, suggest that the honorable senator should withdraw the motion for the present. Opportunities will occur later to discuss even a better name, and if the honorable senator will not withdraw the proposal I trust that he will at least postpone it. I indorse all that he said with regard to Anzac, and assure him that the Government share the pride which the people of Australia take in that name, but we regret that we are not able to agree to the proposal to change the present title of the new Capital.
Debate (on motion by Senator Ready) adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 4.7 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 May 1916, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1916/19160518_senate_6_79/>.