Senate
1 August 1917

7^th Parliament · 1^st Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
PAPERS
QUESTION
- ENEMY ALIENS
QUESTION
- INTOXICATING LIQUORS
QUESTION
- DISCHARGE OF SOLDIERS’ EATHER
QUESTION
- ENLISTMENT OE J. S. GARDEN
QUESTION
- SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS AND HOUSE RENTS
QUESTION
- SOLDIERS’ PENSIONS AND INCOME TAX
QUESTION
- ENEMY SUBJECTS: INTERNEES
QUESTION
- MEAT IN COOL STORES
QUESTION
- STORAGE OF FLOUR
AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Sectarian Pamphlet’s: Censorship of Correspondence - Price of Onions - Differential Treatment of Soldiers
- Sir,-

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

page 634

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported: -

Appropriation Bill 1916-17.

Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill 1016-17.

Unlawful Associations Bill.

Wheat Storage Bill.

page 634

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Public Service Act 1902-1916.-Promotions-

Department of Defence -

H. Evans.

Mitchell and J.E. Allen.

A. Stinson.

Postmaster-General’s Department -

L. Sullivan.

page 634

QUESTION

ENEMY ALIENS

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Defence aware that last week, at a conference of recruiting delegates, a resolution was passed to the effect that “ this conference urges, in the interests of recruiting, that the Federal and State Governments should take further action in regard to enemy aliens in our midst”; and, if so, will he make a statement on the matter, as I understand that there is a considerable amount of public anxiety?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I have not seen the resolution, and I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question.

page 634

QUESTION

INTOXICATING LIQUORS

Form of Questions

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether, in view of the action of our ally, Russia, in prohibiting vodka from the commencement of the war, which action was followed by the general prohibitionof all intoxicants, thereby adding greatly to the productivity of labour and military and naval efficiency, and leading to the encouragement of thrift, and improvement in the condition of the people-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is going outside the limits of a question, and is making statements. The rule has been laid down here that questions must only be asked for the purpose of obtaining information, and that the replies must be couched so as to give information only. Following that rule, it is not permissible for an honorable senator to make a statement of fact, or alleged facts,’ or anything else, but simply to ask for information.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– May I finish reading the question now?

The PRESIDENT:

– If it does not transgress my ruling.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I will leave that’ bit out. Further, in view of the adoption of prohibition by the people of eight out of the nine Provinces of Canada, either permanently, or for the period of the war and demobilization, will the Government exercise its powers to stop the manufacture, importation, and sale of intoxicating liquors in Australia for the remaining period of the war, and the time of repatriation and demobilization? That is in order, I take it.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– With regard to the question by Senator Thomas, I know that the Standing Orders do not permit an honorable senator, in asking a question, to put forward arguable matter; therefore, I ask, sir, that, before this question is allowed to appear on the notice-paper, you will censor it so that there shall be nothing going forward which may not be replied to by somebody else.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is always done. No question which does not comply with the Standing Orders is allowed to go on the notice-paper.

page 625

QUESTION

DISCHARGE OF SOLDIERS’ EATHER

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

– Has the Leader of the Senate any information regarding the question I asked about a week ago concerning a person named Yates, who was discharged from the Public Service!

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– If the honorable senator will repeat the question at a later hour, I shall be able to give him the information desired.

page 625

QUESTION

ENLISTMENT OE J. S. GARDEN

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Gardiner, I desire to know if the Minister for Defence has answers to certain questions I asked the other day in reference to a gentleman named Garden ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– On Thursday, 26th July, in replying to Senator Gardiner’s inquiry concerning the case of J. S. Garden, I stated that questions 9, 10, 11, and 12 had been referred to the Auditor-General. The answers are now as follow: -

The Audit Inspector of Stores, who -was then, and is now, on loan to the Department of Defence, made a special examination of the Clothing Accounts. He knows nothing of any suggestion made from any official quarter as to testing stock.
No. It is not the duty of the Auditors to take stock.
The Auditor Examiner, from time to time, examines the accounts. The audit is not continuous. See also reply to question No. 10.
The stock of cloth was taken by the departmental officers. The Audit Inspector of Stores examined the result of stocktaking of khaki and barathea cloth as at the end of July, 1916. A special inquiry as to stocks of cloth was commenced some time ago by the Defence Department, and is still proceeding.

page 625

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS AND HOUSE RENTS

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Is it the. intention of the Government to introduce legislation to prevent the raising of rente by landlords to soldiers and their relatives during the period of the war?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The matter is at present! receiving consideration.

page 625

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ PENSIONS AND INCOME TAX

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer if any action has been taken with regard to the question I raised some little time ago, namely, the exemption of soldiers’ pensions from income tax ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The subject referred to by the honorable senator is at present under consideration by Cabinet.

page 625

QUESTION

ENEMY SUBJECTS: INTERNEES

Senator PRATTEN:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What is the number of internees in the various enemy concentration camps throughout the Commonwealth, distinguishing between males and females ?
What is the number of unnaturalized enemy subjects in Australia not interned, giving numbers for males and females separately T
How many internees have escaped from internment camps since they were established, and how many such escapees have been recaptured ?
How many enemy subjects have been required to report to the police throughout the Commonwealth, and how many have failed so to report T 5.’ What is the number - of enemy subjects who have left Australia since the war began, giving males and females separately?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are: -

Approximately 5,040 males. Females are not interned, but, 101 women and children sent to Australia from overseas live with their husbands and fathers at Bourke.
Approximately 4,260 adults are recorded in the lists kept by the Department of Defence. Total of females has not been compiled. 3. (a) Number of internees who have escaped from Holdsworthy since the establishment of internment camps, 39; (b) number of escapees who have been recaptured, 24.
All the 4,260 adults, with very few exceptions, are required to report to the police. Number who have failed to report is not recorded. Those who fail to report are interned.
This information has not been tabulated, and as it would involve considerable time and expenditure to tabulate same, perhaps the honorable senator will not press the question.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Arising out of the Minister’s reply to question No. 3, am I to understand that the. number given refers to the total of escapees from the whole of the camps in Australia?

Senator PEARCE:

– The answer given refers specifically to Holdsworthy Camp, which is now practically the only camp in Australia, although there is a small camp In Berrima, and another at Trial Bay. In the early stages of the war there was an internment camp in each State. I take it that the answer refers t’o the number of escapees from Holdsworthy Camp.

page 626

QUESTION

MEAT IN COOL STORES

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

In view of the report of the Commonwealth Meat Inspector that meat in large quantities is held in cool stores by Angliss and Company, will the Minister exercise the powers conferred on him by taking immediate and effective steps to release this food, and place it within reach of Australian consumers at reasonable prices!

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– My colleague has already on two occasions informed the honorable senator that inquiries are being made into the matter. I may add that it is practically impossible to fix the price of meat unless the price of live stock is also fixed. The interests of the community in this matter will be most carefully safeguarded by the Government.

page 626

QUESTION

STORAGE OF FLOUR

Senator KEATING:

asked the Honor ary Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that provision is now being made, by way of building and otherwise for the storage in Australia of flour for export?
The extent (if any) to which the Federal Government is or is to be financially responsible for same?
The locality or localities of such storage provision ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yes, storage for 400,000 tons is being provided.
So far as storage of flour up to 400,000 tons is concerned, the Imperial Government will ibe responsible.
The localities of the provision have not yet been determined.

page 626

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 27th July, vide page 596) :

Clause 12 -

On which Senator Lt. -Colonel Bolton had moved by way of amendment -

That at the end of sub-clause 1 the following words be added: - “Each of such Committees shall consist of eight persons, half of whom shall be returned soldiers within the meaning of this Act.”

Amendment negatived.

That after the word “ Committee,” in subclause 2, the words “ shall have power to raise and control funds for the district,” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ shall prepare all cases for repatriation within district area of such Committee, and submit same with recommendation to the State Board.”

Some reference has been made to patriotic work in connexion with Red Cross and War Chest Funds. No man has a higher appreciation than I of the splendid services rendered in this direction by many large-hearted men and women in this country, and no man knows better than the Minister in charge of the Bill that this patriotic work is something apart and distinct from the ameliorative work and the repatriation of returned soldiers. If the Minister carries out his intention, as. outlined in the Bill, it seems to me that patriotic work will become a national industry, and that thousands of pounds will be expended in printing, advertising,, management, and in other directions. As a matter of fact, we shall be establishing another and an unnecessarily expensive system of raising funds which might very well be undertaken by the elaborate machinery of the Taxation Department already at the disposal of the Government. The Minister has expressed the belief that if we discontinue this patriotic effort we shall dry up the wellsprings of public generosity. If the Government were to establish one general fund under Government control, the effect would be to create confidence in the minds of the public and to stimulate rather than restrict public generosity.

I have previously referred to the inequality of sacrifice in connexion with contributions to patriotic funds. I have here a statement of facts proving my contention in this respect. lt has reference to cases in Victoria. I have names and particulars, but I do not propose to give the names.

In our town lives a Mrs.- , the mother of two boys who came with the 4th Reinforcements for the 8th Battalion. They were two good soldiers. They both served right through Gallipoli, and then went to France, where one - tlie elder - was killed. The other boy is still serving in France.

This is what I should like to direct the particular attention of honorable senators to, as proving the inequality of sacrifice to which I have made reference: -

Their father, a labourer, died .when they Vere very young, and left their mother with five children - three boys and two girls - in very poor circumstances. The mother got two or three cows together and sold milk, the< kiddies delivering the milk. She brought the family up well. When the war started, two boys and a daughter were earning money and living at home, and the mother had given up selling milk, and they were quite comfortable. The boys, though young, volunteered early. They allotted their mother all except ls. a day each. The mother has banked every penny of the allotment for the boys, saying, “ They will need it when they return,” and has milked cows and sold milk to provide for her two little ones, who are still at school, and it is a wellknown fact that Mrs.- always has a shilling for any patriotic effort that may be on, and is always a free and willing giver.

In the same district we had two very wealthy men with large grown-up families. One had two eligible sons, who have not volunteered. Ho died recently - two months ago - and after having made over farm lands and town property to his family, his estate was valued for probate at £18,000. Over half was- in cash.

My wife used to collect 6d. a week from the wives in the part where Mrs.- lives, and the last time she called for the 6d. from the wife of the man just referred to, she told my wife that she could not afford it any longer, and would not give her the 6d.

This refers to the wife of a man who died leaving £18,000: -

Another man in the same district owns much land and about half of the town. He has five sons, all eligibles, none of whom have volunteered. The father has made over a farm to each of the boys to save probate, and he is reputed to be worth still much more than the other man was. The family never contribute to anything if they can help it, and I will give £10 to the Repatriation Fund if it is proved that the two families to whom I have referred have given f10 during the war to patriotic funds. I will wager that the poor widow, Mrs.- , who has given both her sons, has given more in cash than the two rich mcn together, whom her sons are fighting for. You can use these notes, and you can use my name with them.

I am satisfied that this is typical of thousands of similar cases in Australia to-day, and, therefore, I say that some means should be adopted in connexion with these funds other than that proposed of placing them in the hands of voluntary committees in different districts for distribution within those districts. The Minister has said that he has a guarantee from a certain man, whose guarantee is worth having, that he will give £10,000 if he is permitted to spend it in a certain district in his own way. Why should this man limit his generosity to those in an area of a few miles in a particular locality ? By the course he proposes to follow he would, I do not say intentionally, but inevitably become a little tin god in his own district That is nob the kind of generosity that u required in dealing with this great national question. What is required is a spirit of generosity as wide as the confines of the Commonwealth itself, and an atmosphere of benevolence as pure and free as the air we breathe. Selfish action such as has been suggested should nob be tolerated in connexion with this great national question of repatriation.

I hope that in the circumstances honorable senators will agree to set aside the idea of giving local committees power to raise funds to be dispersed in the way proposed in the Bill. My amendment, if agreed to, would make suitable provision for carrying out work of a very important character. The local committees, under my proposal, would initiate the work which has really to be done by the State Boards. These committees, by reason of their local knowledge and their knowledge of individuals and their circumstances, would necessarily be in a position to supply the most accurate information with regard to any case of repatriation. This should be the special duty of these local committees. as previously suggested, their areas should represent one or more battalion areas of a military district. In these areas there should be some institution or building which would become the centre of their activities. There should be some building in which a paid official would be located to attend to the requirements of returned soldiers and their dependants. These institutions should form a centre for applications by returned soldiers or their dependants in a particular area. Let me invite the attention of honorable senators tosuch an institution which at present exists in Ballarat. It has leased a building, and has in attendance a paid secretary, who acts as an official medium between the returned soldiers and the citizens of Ballarat and district. As he is a man familiar with the procedure, I venture to say that he attends to hundreds of cases of pay, pension, and amelioration on behalf of returned soldiers and their dependants which require attention and which, but for his services, would not receive the attention they deserve. This institution employs five or six returned soldiers, and is almost self supporting. It has a man in charge of a tobacconist shop, a hairdressing saloon, a billiard saloon, and there is also the caretaker and secretary. All these men are returned soldiers.

SenatorFoll. - To what institution does the honorable senator refer ?

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– First of all, I wish to point out that the honorable senator’s proposal is not really an amendment of the words of the clause. It is a proposal to strike out words which would enable a local committee, if it so desired, to raise funds, and to substitute words which have no relation whatever to the question of funds. The honorable senator wishes to insert words which set out what shall be the duties of the local committees.

Let me deal first with the question of funds. I ask honorable senators to recollect that under this scheme the Government propose to take upon their own shoulders the repatriation of our returned soldiers. But even if the Government did that work twice over, there would still be a number of citizens in this country, who, in addition to the contributions which they will make as taxpayers, would be anxious to do something for the returned soldiers in their midst. If the honorable senator really holds the view which he has expressed, he must go to the extent of saying that he will make it a punishable offence for a private citizen to be guilty of anything in the nature of private generosity, in the direction of helping a returned soldier. I do not go so far as that. The Government will take upon their shoulders the financial responsibility of this work, but we will not prevent either an individual or a group of individuals from supplementing that work. I am not prepared to impose a prohibition on any citizen who desires to supplement the efforts ofthe Government on behalf of our returned soldiers.

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

– It is another matter if they put their money into the central fund.

Senator MILLEN:

Contrast that plan with the alternative I offer. Nine-tenths of the complaints that we hear arise between the time the soldier is discharged and the time we get in touch with him with a view to repatriation. I am confident that we can effect the soldier’s registration for repatriation purposes before discharge, although there will be difficulties in the way. “ Tt can be done on the transport, and I believe it could-be done before he leaves England. At any rate it is worth trying. I believe we could get, before he leaves England, information as to what he wants, and his capabilities and resources.

Senator Fairbairn:

– Would you allow him to change his mind ?

Senator MILLEN:

– Even honorable senators do that occasionally. We should be helped to this extent, that on getting his registration card in advance of -the man we should have a few weeks to prepare for him. He may say he wants to go on the land, and state his preference for a certain form of holding. We can then get to work, as his gratuitous and friendly agents, and see if it is possible to meet his views. The result in the majority of cases would be that, when he landed here, we could approach him the moment he was discharged, and ask him to look at the proposition which we had got ready for him. That system would eliminate that dangerous period of delay and idleness which to-day is doing more harm to th» returned soldier than any other influence at work in Australia. Senator Bolton’s system requires the discharge of the man and his return to his locality before we can do anything with him.

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

– Who says so? I did not say so.

Senator MILLEN:

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

– I wish to say a few words about what I consider the most admirable idea of the Vice-President’ of the Executive Council, and that is that some one, who I suppose will be called an agent, shall go to the Old Country and come out with tlie returning soldiers in the transport. There is, however, a good deal in what Senator Bolton said. With an energetic young man on board, there is no doubt that he may hold out such magnificent inducements to the men that he may be able to attract into other walks of life a great many who, otherwise, would re-settle themselves in the ordinary way by returning to their friends or going back to their old jobs. I wish to put in a word of caution as to the personnel of the men. who are to be employed. My idea is that they ought to be men of discretion and tact, particularly tact. They must also be men of common sense, -who will not overstate facts or paint too glowing a picture. My opinion is, and I think it is shared by most persons in Australia, that the main way in which we must expect to have our soldiers restored to civil life is by their return to their old homes and districts, where they can seize any opportunity of settlement that presents itself, or to their former billets. I know that hundreds of billets are being kept open for soldiers on their return. It would be a great pity if, through the energy and enterprise of agents on the ship, soldiers were prevented from taking up these appointments on their return. Therefore, I think that there is something in what Senator Bolton said, and which ought to be guarded against. We desire to do the best thing possible for our returned soldiers, and that I believe will be to get them back to their old positions, because if anything like 50 per cent. of them should require assistance from the Government for repatriation, it will be an undertaking which, in my opinion, is beyond Australia’s power to carry out in the way we would like. I am hopeful that not more than 10 per cent. of the men will require assistance from the Government, and then they can be thoroughly looked after. I hope that the Minister will take the greatest possible care in the selection of, and give the most explicit directions to, the officers who are to travel with the returning soldiers to look after them and register them.

Senator Lt.-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [4.5]. - The Bill refers to patriotic funds, and ib would be interesting to the Senate to learn something of the manner in which they are administered. I have with me a copy of a letter dated 18th August, 1916, addressed t’o the Secretary, Returned Soldiers’ Association,. Melbourne, and containing copy of a letter which appeared in the Melbourne press. It is as follows: -

In answer to “ Soldier’s Wife,” you advise as follows : - “ Apply to Patriotic Fund, Melbourne Town Hall, and state your financial difficulties.”

I read this, and was in doubt whether to laugh at it asa good joke or to weep at its bitter irony. You will not have cause to seek far for the cause of my conflict of feeling if you refer to the published return of the fund’s operations in the press of yesterday. The total receipts were given as £180,664 15s. 3d., and for its primary objects the amelioration of the condition of our fighting men and their dependants. What do we find?

Senator Millen:

– What fund is this?

Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON:

.- The patriotic fund.

Senator Millen:

– Of this State?

Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON:

.- Yes. The letter proceeds -

In two years there has been advanced to the dependants of soldiers the munificent sum of £104 12s., i.e., £97 6s. per annum, almost enough (with strict economy) to provide for two persons; and against this excess of generosity we catch sight of the item, “ Salaries for inquiries, £364 19s. 4d.” (presumably into the bona fides of the applicants who received the before-mentioned £194 12s.). When we come to the item, “ Returned soldiers’ account, £127 10s.,” our faith is further shaken in the administration of this and other funds which a generous, nlbeit a careless and uncritical, public have supplied to assist (as they supposed) our defenders and their dependants. Apart from the salaries for inquiries referred to, there yet occurs another small item, namely, “ Salaries, staff, £517 10s. 2d.,” making a total of £900 in salaries for the distribution of, approximately, £300 in the direct objects of the fund as understood by the subscribers.

Senator Bakhap:

– What was the sum total at the disposal of the fund ?

Senator Lt Colonel BOLTON:

.- At that time it was £180,664. I know of another case in which those administering a State fund had actually lent £200,000 to the Government. Of course, they were receiving an income in the way of interest, but I would point out that the £200,000 donated to that fund was given for the definite purpose of helping returned soldiers and the dependants of those men who are fighting for us at the Front. The fund was not established to produce interest, and so minimize its value as far as returned soldiers and their dependants were concerned.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided -

Aye’s … … … 3

Noes … … … 21

Majority … … 18

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– With regard to the point raised by Senator Senior, I would like to inform him that it will be provided for in an additional clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 -

The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister, appoint such officers as he thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act.

Senator Lt.-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [4.15]. - I move -

That the following words be added to subclause 1 : - “ such officers to be returned soldiers within the meaning of this Act.”

If my memory serves me aright, the Minister said it was intended to appoint civil servants to carry out a good deal of the work to be done under this scheme and the Act. I would suggest that out of the 20,000 returned men in Australia today, a number of whom are already civil servants, it should be possible t’o find plenty with the necessary ability and energy to discharge the duties satisfactorily. The amendment will only make the Bill conform to the principles enunciated, by the Government, and I shall be glad, therefore, to see it included in the Bill.

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

T4.17]. - I ask the Committee not to agree to the addition of these words. I have already stated that it is the intention of the Government to start the new organization with returned soldiers, and every effort will be made to give effect to this promise as part of the Government policy. But’ to say that under no circumstances are we to employ officers except from the ranks of returned soldiers might deny to the new organization the particular assistance it needs, and we might be obliged to carry on the work with men who, perhaps, are unfitted for it. I have no doubt that in the ranks of returned soldiers there will be found many qualified men for positions under this scheme, but I do say that it would be a fatal mistake to insist on the employment only of returned soldiers. Senator Bolton might accept .the assurance from the Government that while it is intended as far as possible to apply this principle, it is advisable to leave the Minister in charge of the scheme free to select the best men available. As far as possible, preference will be given to returned soldiers, providing suitable men can be obtained from their ranks.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [4.19]. - I intend to support the amendment. The excuse given by the Minister will not. bear examination. It appears to me that out of the 20,000 returned soldiers we will be able t’o get the comparatively small number of officials required to carry out the scheme. The amendment is only a guarantee of the principle which the Minister himself admits, and I think it would give general satisfaction tb returned soldiers, in whose interest the Bill has been drafted. If returned soldiers can satisfactorily fill these positions, they should be given the opportunity of employment.

Senator Lt.-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [4.20]. - The assurance of the Minister is all very well so far as it goes. We have had a similar assurance before. It has been stated that returned men would be employed in many positions for the carrying out of amelioration and repatriation work, but I assure honorable senators that during the last year or more there has been a very great deal of discontent amongst returned soldiers, owing to the fact that a great many officials employed in connexion with amelioration and repatriation work have been not returned soldiers but men eligible for active service. In the light of what has happened in the past the returned soldiers are justified in asking that such a provision as I submit should be included in this Bill.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– It seems to me that one or two paid positions will be necessary in connexion with the work of each of the local committees. A greater number will be required to carry out the work of the State Boards, and a still greater number for the work of the central Repatriation Commission. I agree with those0 who contend that amongst the returned soldiers it will be possible for us to find men qualified to attend to the details of repatriation. This should be an occupation right into their hands. We can be satisfied that they will be disposed, so far as their efforts are concerned, to sympathetically administer this measure. I should personally like to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister who, I believe, will in every case, or in nearly every case, secure the services of returned men to fill the positions which will be created under the Bill.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is it not the policy of the Government to give preference for employment in the Public Service to returned soldiers ?

Senator GRANT:

– That is the policy of the Government, and I do not believe that any Government will be disposed to reverse that policy. In view of the lenient way in which the Government have been treated in the consideration of this measure I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council might without any sacrifice of principle agree to the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Bolton.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I hope that the Minister will stick to his Bill. I believe that it is impossible for Australia to do too much for the returned soldier. I am, therefore, anxious thathe should have the best assistance and advice it is possible to give him in connexion with any occupation he may undertake to follow. I am satisfied that in the operation of this scheme many of the officials associated with it will be to a large extent advisers to the soldiers in connexion with their settlement in various parts of the Commonwealth. It will be necessary that they should know something about the working of whatever enterprise the returned soldier may desire to engage in. As an illustration, I take the case of a village settlement, which would doubtless be under the control of a local committee under this Bill. The committee will require an officer to take charge of the work, and the right person to appoint to such a position would be a man having a knowledge of irrigation and of fruit culture, or whatever other form of agriculture the returned soldiers might decide to go in for. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to debar experts in such matters from employment under this Bill, and it might not be possible to find a sufficient number of returned soldiers qualified to fill such positions.

There is another phase of the question to which I should like to direct attention. There are many men in this country who have sent three; four, five, and in some cases, six sons to the Front. They are themselves well up in years, and they may be well qualified to fill one of the positions which will be created by the operation of this measure, and the returned soldiers would benefit immensely from their services. I am sure that Senator Bolton would not desire to debar such men from employment under this Bill. Men who may have lost half of the sons they have sent to the Front should not be absolutely excluded by an Act of this Parliament from applying for a position under this measure. We want good men and qualified men for all positions in connexion with the repatriation scheme, and the choice of the Minister should not be restricted to returned soldiers. I am satisfied that no Government would be likely to overlook the special claims to employment of returned soldiers. I believe that if any mistakes are made in this connexion it will be in the direction of leniency to returned soldiers. Men may possibly be appointed to positions under this Bill, merely because they are returned soldiers, and not because they possess special qualifications to fill the positions for which they apply.

The Minister has repeatedly told us that this matter is largely experimental. We are all well aware of that. The purpose of the Bill is to bring into line for the first time in the Commonwealth all tihe disjointed efforts which the people have put forward since the war began.

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

– The Bill does not. provide for the consolidation of the funds.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No; but it provides for the linking up of all the disjointed efforts, and the control of the work of repatriation by the Government.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The trouble is that the Bill does nob link up all the funds.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It does not link up all the funds, but it does link up the various repatriation schemes, and for the first time puts the whole matter under Government control. It may be found after experience of the operation of the measure that some amendment is necessary. I have no doubt that Parliament will be prepared to make whatever alterations in the carrying out of the repatriation scheme as may be found to be desirable. No Act of this Parliament should, in my opinion, restrict employment in connexion with the scheme entirely to returned soldiers and debar from employment in connexion with it men, who have sent sons to the Front, and who are almost as deserving of consideration as are returned soldiers, if they possess the necessary qualifications for the positions which will be created under this measure.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

.- I move -

That the following new sub-clause be inserted: - “ (3) An officer of the Commonwealth Public Service or of the Public Service of a State who becomes an officer under this Act shall retain all his existing and accruing rights.”

There are to-day in the Public Services of the Commonwealth and of the States men of the A.I.F. and outside of it. If it were desired to take one of these men into the new organization under this Bill, it could only be done at the sacrifice of any rights existing or accruing to them as members of the Public Services of the Commonwealth or of a State. It is, therefore, considered necessary that any officer appointed from the Public Service of the Commonwealth, or of a State, to the new organization shall have his rights conserved, just as at the commencement of Federation the rights of officers taken over from the Public Service3 of the States were continued to them.

Amendment agreedto.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I move-

Thatthe following new clause be inserted: - “ 18a. Any moneys advanced by the trustees of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund or by the Repatriation Commission or a State Repatriation Board or a Local Committee shall, in the event of the bankruptcy of the person to whom the money was advanced, have in bankruptcy the same priority with respect to the payment of debts as if the money had been advanced by the Crown.”

The purpose of this new clause is obvious. Honorable senators are aware that when the Crown advances money to a person who becomes a bankrupt the Crown’s claim takes priority. The effect of this clause will be to give a similar priority to the repatriation authority where money is advanced by it. If a certain sum is advanced to a returned soldier, and he becomes bankrupt, his ordinary creditors will not be able, under this clause, to step in and participate in money made available by a. repatriation authority. The repatriation authority will, as it should, have the first claim upon the estate, to secure the money furnished by ft, and by means of which the assets in the estate were created.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

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

.- I desire to move the insertion of a new clause, which will, I think, meet the point which has been raised by Senator Senior. It reads - “ 19a. Subject to this Act, no person shall, without the approval in writing of the Commission or a State Board (proof whereof shall He upon the person), invite subscriptions or organize any scheme for raising money for the repatriation of Australian soldiers, or for any purpose connected therewith.

Penalty: One hundred pounds.”

The effect of this provision will be that, with the consent of a State authority or of the central Commission, private efforts can be launched, but not otherwise.

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

– Does the Vice-President of the Executive Council refer to amelioration as well as repatriation?

Senator MILLEN:

– The clause does not cover amelioration. I doubt if we have jurisdiction over that matter. Today these funds are covered by State law. I am not certain that our action is not open to challenge, but I propose in this particular case to take unto ourselves the power I have indicated, and to allow those to challenge it who will.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 20 -

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which, by this Act, are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for giving effeot to this Act, and in particular for providing for the granting of assistance and benefits to Australian soldiers upon their discharge from service, and to the children of deceased or incapacitated soldiers.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– I move-

That after the word “ particular,” line 6, the words “ for the prohibition of treating Australian soldiers with alcoholic liquors and be inserted.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I understand that a proposal has been circulated to insert after “ children “ in clause 20 the words “ wives, widows or other dependants.” I favour that proposal, as it would increase the powers to be conferred on the Government. A tremendous amount of annoyance has been caused throughout the Commonwealth by the action of the Defence Department in trying to collect from widows and mothers moneys overpaid under the separation allowance. It is true that the regulation has been amended since the first of last month.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I Could not accept the amendment to which the honorable senator refers, because the matter has already been decided by the Committee on clause 8.

– At any rate, I am taking the proposal as it stands. I consider that it is the duty of the Government to acquire land for this purpose, where it is not given free, under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act. Instead of buying the land, let the Government take it under the powers of that Act, offer a certain price to the owners, and, if the offer is not accepted, leave the matter of price to arbitration. The new clause is, I submit, well worthy of the consideration of honorable senators. It is not inconsistent with the object of the Bill, and if it is incorporated it will only mete out tardy justice to the dependants of men who have laid down their lives on the battle-field.

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South “Wales · NAT

– I do not see my way clear to accept this amendment. I feel almost disposed to resent the suggestion contained in the remarks of one or two honorable senators who have spoken to the amendment as if it were a mere question of sympathy or otherwise for these dependants. I submit that it is nothing of the kind, , because if sympathy alone were considered, honorable senators who share my views on this matter can1 claim to have just as kindly a regard for these dependants as those honorable sena tors who support the amendment. I want to remind the Committee of the position in the United States of America to which reference has been made. The great scandal in America did not arise out of anything which she did for the men who fought for her. It was all done under the head of dependants. It is continuing today, some sixty years after the Civil War occurred.

Senator Bakhap:

– It is the easiest thing in the world to reproduce that position here.

Senator MILLEN:

– Exactly. I ask the Committee, whatever its feeling may be as to what these people deserve, not to adopt this form of giving expression to that generosity. A good deal has been said, especially by the last speaker, about the widows and children of those soldiers who have fallen. Children are already provided for under the Bill. * There is ample provision made at the discretion of the repatriation authorities to do whatever they regard as necessary on behalf of the children of soldiers who will never return. When we come to the case of a widow without children we find that she is dealt with under the Pensions Act. If it is thought by an honorable senator that the pension allowance to a widow without children is insufficient, the correct thing for him to do is to move to get the allowance increased, and not to call upon a Repatriation Department to supplement work being discharged by another Department.

Senator Grant:

– The honorable senator is mistaken; I did nothing of the kind.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– This is not the Bill in which this matter should be dealt with. To include such a provision in this measure would but hamper the repatriation scheme. The Minister, in objecting to the proposed new clause, may have gone further than there was any justification for, but there was much force in. the objections he urged. I am opposed to the proposed new clause. Although in favour of the principle of it, I do not think it should be included in this Bill.

– I know; and I believe many experiences will be revealed before we have finished with this subject. I agree with the Minister that this Bill is not the final word. No doubt, time will show the necessity for improvement, and the Government will doubtless be open to conviction in that direction. Where the necessity for a proposal of this kind is shown to the Senate, I hope a much more satisfactory scheme will be placed before us. No one seems to understand what this proposal means, or where it will carry us. We are nob told what dependants are to be provided for, and the Government cannot be expected to incorporate so farreaching a proposition in the Bill on the mere ipse dixit of the mover. I quite Believe that Senator McDougall is in sympathy with us, heart and soul ; but he must know in his own mind that this proposal is impracticable.

Senator McDougall:

– It is not impracticable in New South Wales. It is in actual operation there.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Whilst I should very much like to assist in giving the utmost consideration to the dependants of Australian soldiers, a very pronounced limit can be reached. The specific aim of the Bill is to repatriate our soldiers, to absorb them again into our ordinary everyday life, and not so much to look after their domestic interests. The new clause proposed has a special social significance. It proposes to give free lodgings to the widows of fallen soldiers, and to their dependants, without number and without stint. Those dependants make a formidable list, for a start, and the honorable senator did not tell us what his proposal will mean to the taxpayers. Neither did Senator O’Keefe nor Senator Needham.

There is force in Senator de Largie’s remark that it is strange how senators adjust their attitude and conduct according to their geographical position in this chamber, that is to say, according to whether they sit on the left or right of the chair. When the War Pensions Bill was before us, the -position of dependants was specifically considered, and that was the opportunity for honorable senators like Senator McDougall and Senator 0:Keefe to show whether the Government proposals were adequate or not. Honorable senators on your left are now making a laudable attempt to introduce into this Bill a proposal absolutely foreign to its purpose and scope - a proposal which should have been put forward on the previous occasion, instead of being the subject of an eleventh-hour conversion, or a death-bed repentance.

Senator O’Keefe:

– May we not profit bv experience?

Senator LYNCH:

- Senator O’Keefe does not bother now about the burden he would impose on the taxpayers. He did at one time. I do not suggest that he has changed his attitude because he has changed his position from this side of the chamber to the other; but it is significant that when he sat on this side his opinions on that point w.ere totally different. I do not know what has come over him. When war pensions were being considered, he was very concerned about the burden to be imposed on the taxpayers. When he assures the Chamber, on his honour as a senator, that we should adopt this course, I am entitled to examine his reasons from every angle, in order to find out the nature of the change that has come over him. He is not at all concerned to-day about the burden to be imposed upon the taxpayer; but I can refer the Senate to the report of his remarks on the War Pensions Bill, when he had a chance of attending to the wants of the widows and dependants of soldiers. On that occasion, instead of treating the widows with due care and solemnity, he was quite jocular, and referred to “ eleventh -hour marriages “ - which was a grave reflection on the widowsof our soldiers. He said the women who took part in those “eleventh-hour marriages” were not entitled to much consideration. How is it that he has become so suddenly reconciled to those marriages, and to the impost which Senator McDougall’s proposal will place on the general taxpayer? There was no equivocation about the honorable senator on the previous occasion. He had a tender regard for the taxpayers then. He has none now. Why? Surely the interest of the taxpayers should be vital to an honorable senator, whether he sits on your left or on your right. The honorable senator now asks, “What is a million?” and even Senator McDougall does not tell us what his proposal will mean to those called upon to pay the bill.

SenatorFerricks. - Senator Millen asked, “What does £60,000,000 matter?”

Senator LYNCH:

– I am pleased to hear the honorable senator’s voice. He has been silent so long that I thought he had lost the power of speech.

When standing sponsor for a’ proposal that goes perilously near transgressing the Standing Orders relating to relevancy, Senator McDougall should have given the Senate some idea of the financial burden involved, if only for the sake of his colleague Senator O’Keefe, who previously was so sympathetically tender towards the taxpayers’ interests. What did Senator McDougall say when the War Pensions Bill was submitted in 1915, or when the amending Bill was going through in 1916? Where was the boy who stood on the burning deck? He was, just like Senator McDougall, not there. By the amending Bill the war pensions were increased by 50 per cent.; but I search in vain through the Tecords of the debates for the words of these new champions of the “ eleventh-hour widows “ and mothers and dependants of soldiers. Senator O’Keefe certainly pointed out the imperious obligation on the people of this country to look after the dependants of their soldiers, but he emphasized, at the same time, the need to conserve the interests of the taxpayers. The two things were so finely balanced in his mind, that he adjusted himself in a marvellous way to the occasion, and voted for the Bill. He had misgivings, because he did not like some of the soldiers getting married so hurriedly, and hehad a particular grievance against “ eleventh-hour wives.” But now they can be all eleventh-hour widows without a protest from him. The “ eleventh-hour widow “ was just the same last year as she is now. The interests of the dependants of the soldier were just the same in 1915 as they are to-day. Why, then, this remarkable tenderness on the part of Senator O’Keefe towards the soldiers’ dependants? Why his newfound anxiety aboutthe soldier’s widow?

When the War Pensions legislation, introduced for the special purpose of safeguarding the interests of our soldiers, was going through, the honorable senator sought no improvement, but he referred, I am sorry to say, to the “ eleventh-hour widow” of the soldier. That, I think, was a grave reflection upon women who married soldiers on the eve of their going away to the war. As regards the taxpayers, when the War Pensions Bill was going through the Senate, Senator O’Keefe said, on page 5612 of Hansard, volume 78 -

There are big financial problems ahead of Australia, and if we can by any means minimize the burden which the people will be ealled upon to bear, it is our duty to do so.

Why does not the honorable senator say that now?

Senator O’Keefe:

– I do.

Senator McDougall:

– We all say that.

Senator LYNCH:

– No. Senator O’Keefe, in 1915, said, “ Let us lower the burden,” but now he says, “ Let us raise the burden mountain high.” What kind of sympathy is that? Was it the sympathy which was overflowing like the perennial spring? To-day, without any regard for taxpayers’ interests, he takes up another attitude. I object to this spasmodic display of sympathy. Sympathy wants to be uniform and consistent. It ought to be universal, like mercy. That is the kind of sympathy I prefer, and I would appreciate far more a man who would come and sympathize with me when I was in a lowly condition, dependent, homeless, and friendless, than a man who would come when I was up in the stirrups and successful.When we find Senator O’Keefe making reflections about widows, I cannot understand why widows are entitled now, according , to the honorable senator, to be regarded as dependants, and to merit a free home, if they should live to be as old as Methuselah. I am at a loss to trace this remarkable change of front on the part of the honorable senator. As emphasizing further the sensitive feeling which he had in 1915 for the taxpayers of Australia as against the dependants of the soldiers, he made this weighty statement -

It is the liability which is cast on the taxpayers of the Commonwealth that concerns me.

What does he say to-day ?

Turning to another honorable senator, we find that the prime mover of this proposal is silent. The War Pensions Bill went through without a word of comment from the honorable senator. Yet on this occasion he has not vouchsafed to the Committee the faintest idea of what his proposal would mean to the taxpayers - a thing about which Senator O’Keefe was so impatient in 1915. Before we vote on an important proposal of this kind, we are entitled to know what it means. The Minister has told us as nearly as he could ascertain from the calculations of his officers what the Bill in its original form will mean to the Treasury. But along came Senator McDougall with his proposal, and we do not know where the outlay will end. It might mean an expenditure of £1,000,000 or £30.000,000. But what is the sum of £30,000,000 to Senator O’Keefe or Senator McDougall nowadays ? It is nothing. This proposal is made simply because those two honorable senators have changed ground in the Chamber. When they were in a position to do things, why did they not act ? The War Pensions Bill went through the Senate while Mr. Fisher was their leader. They had more influence with the Fisher Government than they have with the present Government. Why did they not act then? Why do they exhibit this marvellous new-found sympathy? I would not dream of suggesting that there is any ulterior motive for their present day attitude, such as that there is a general election in the distance. Oh no! - these men tower above such paltry, sordid, mean, contemptible motives as that ! They live on the mountain top. They lived there when they stooped down and tried to cut off my head.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable senator connect his remarks with the question before the Chair ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I beg pardon, sir. In 1915 the friends of the soldiers and of their dependants had a chance to act if they never had one before, but they were as silent as a tomb. An Egyptian mummy was nothing in comparison with these bold warriors who now stand forward as the bright champions of the dependants of the soldiers. In 1915 Senator McDougall did not avail himself of the opportunity to stand here and say to the Minister - “ These pensions are insufficient. I shall stop here until I drop from exhaustion rather than see such a glaring inadequacy of provision as this paltry measure go through; I am McDpugall, the champion and the friend of the dependants of soldiers.” That is what the honorable senator should have done in 1915 and 1916. He was as silent then as a petrified log, and now that he is in a helpless position on the other side, he wishes to help the dependants of the soldiers. He might as well be beating the air. What is the cause of all this new boiling sympathy ?

This Bill is for the repatriation of our soldiers, and has nothing to do with the purpose for which Senator McDougall moved his amendment. Does the honorable senator’s action amount to an exhibition of kite-flying ? No ! These gentlemen surely would never descend to that level !

Senator Ferricks:

– Your kite-flying about the Northern Territory was not successful.

Senator LYNCH:

– Has this gentleman gob speech at last? I understood the Queensland junta had muzzled him, because he has been for so long silent. We are pleased, however, to notice that speech has been restored to him, despite the attitude of the Queensland junta.

Senator Ferricks:

– Well, your junta fixed you up over the Northern Territory, anyhow.

Senator LYNCH:

– As I have already pointed out, the War Pensions Act of 1915 and the amending Act of 1916 provided for the dependants of soldiers in a way vastly superior to the consideration given to soldiers’ dependant’s in any other country in the world. I make that statement without fear of contradiction, and I do it with pleasure, because I was a supporter of the Government which brought’ in those proposals. The honorable senators opposite were also supporting the Government then, and they did not then object to what they now term the “inadequacy” of these proposals. Is their change of front now due to the fact that they are sitting on the other side in the Senate? I do not know, but they should be called upon to show cause for their novel position.

-Under the Pensions Act of 1915-16, provision is made for a pension, in the case of a widow with three children, amounting to £3 12s. 6d. per week. If the family is larger, as it may be in most cases, the provision made for the dependants of the deceased soldier must be regarded as very fair indeed. Itis easy to imagine, although it may seem somewhat harsh to say so, that with the provision which this Parliament has already made, the widow and dependants of a deceased soldier, in a financial sense, may in some cases find themselves better provided for than they were while he was alive. I do not say that in any ‘harsh spirit at all, bub in order to show the effect of the Pensions Act which honorable senators opposite supported, and to which some objected on the score of its liberality. We are giving the dependants of our deceased soldiers treatment more liberal than is provided for the dependants of deceased soldiers by any other country in the civilized world. I supported the War Pensions Act in the first instance somewhat grudgingly, but in the hope that its provisions would be liberalized, and I lived to see the day when they were liberalized by the amending measure which was passed last year.

– Yet they ask us to take the serious responsibility of carrying a provision which may involve the country in an expenditure the extent of .which they are unable to estimate. It is not for the Committee to take this foolish and ill-considered step by accepting the amendment submitted by Senator McDougall.

I know that what I am saying hurts, honorable senators opposite. They do not like to be reminded of their inconsistency, of their shuffling hypocrisy, and of the time when, with the opportunity to do something in this direction, they failed to take advantage of it - of the time when they were so false to their trust.

Senator BARKER:
VICTORIA

– So so!

Senator LYNCH:

– Senator Barker would treat this matter with levity, but I am pointing out to him, and those who, with him, are supporting the amendment, that when the proper legislation was going through they had their opportunity to make it more effective if they thought that necessary, and that they failed then to stand up to their work. They turned a deaf ear, and steeled their hearts against the dependants of the soldiers. Now they clamour for more consideration for them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator is repeating himself.

Senator LYNCH:

– I say that the finances of the country must be considered. We have been three years at war, and, in addition to what can be extracted from the people by way of taxation, our war bill is in the neighbourhood of £150,000,000. It is quite plain that we cannot go on in this way much longer without taking stock of our financial position. It is much worse to-day than it was in 1915 and 1916, when the war pension measures to which I have referred were passed. Yet we are told by honorable senators opposite, with joyous indifference, that we must go further in .this direction.

The only object of these honorable senators is to win votes from the country at the next election. I will say that now. They are prepared to turn their backs upon the opinions they expressed a year or two ago, for the purpose of winning votes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– I am where I always .have been. No elector has ever taken me at a false valuation. I have never courted the votes of the electors, and I am not going to begin to do so now. But these vote chasers opposite dream of nothing else but their seats in- Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! This has nothing to do with the clause before the Committee.

Senator LYNCH:

– So far as the financial aspect of the matter is concerned, we had better wait to see how our existing legislation pans out.- If the provisions of the existing law are found by experience to be inadequate, to leave .the dependants of soldiers less provided for than the dependants of other citizens, to place them beyond the galling conditions of poverty and want, .then no one will be found more eager than I to do whatever may be necessary in order to treat these people handsomely. Unlike these Johnnycome.latelys, who desire to gain popular favour by trifling with the finances of the country, I take up on this measure the stand which I took up in 1915 and in 1916. In view of the fair measures which, according to our resources, we have already passed to deal with the dependants of our soldiers, there is no justification for the amendment. I am opposed to it, and I again request and demand those who are supporting it to explain why they have somersaulted upon the position which they took up in 1915 and 1916 on this question.

Senator Lt.-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [8.38]. - If sympathy were of any use to Senator McDougall, he has had plenty of it expressed by nearly every one who has spoken on his amendment. But when honorable senators are asked to put that sympathy into practical effect by voting for it, they are not prepared to do so. I rise to bring before the Committee the views entertained on this matter by the returned soldiers themselves. A meeting of returned soldiers was held here to-day, at which resolutions bearing upon this very matter were passed. Honorable senators may have read them, but I wish to put them on record. I find that at a meeting of the Victorian Returned Soldiers and Sailors League, which considered the matter of widows being excluded from the operation of the Repatriation Bill, Sergeant J. W. McKenzie, speaking to his fellow returned soldiers, said: -

Boys, to every soldier I say this : I would sooner see all the boys in the room excluded from the Bill than that the widows of my comrades should be excluded.

Then ‘ the following motion was unanimously agreed to: -

That the Victorian branch of the Returned Soldiers and Sailors’ Imperial League enters its strongest protest against the exclusion of the widows of deceased soldiers from the Repatriation Bill now before the Federal Parliament, and urges Parliament to take into serious consideration the injustice thus done to dependants of men who have made the supreme sacrifice. It further requests the Government and Parliament to include a clause in the Bill which will bring soldiers’ widows within the scope of the Act.

I think we are entitled to consider the views of the men in whose interests this Bill has been devised. I do not believe we can have a stronger pronouncement on the matter now before the Committee than that which I have, just read. I have no desire to quote at length from the report of the meeting in question, but it goes on to say that the Association has had communications from Tasmania and elsewhere strongly indorsing its attitude in regard to including widows within the scope of the repatriation scheme. What does it matter what was said or done by any one of us either one year or two years ago? The question which we have to decide is, “ Is this a fair proposal in the in- . terests of the widows of our soldiers and of their dependants?” If we neglected to make adequate provision for them on a former occasion, rt,hat is no reason why we should repeat our error now. .Let the Minister accept the principle that is embodied in the proposed new clause, let him put it into proper form and place it on our statute-book in the interests of the dependants of our deceased soldiers.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– We have just listened to a long speech by Senator Lynch which was made up of two parts - one a personal attack upon myself, which only amused me, as it did other honorable senators, and the other consisting of wearisome repetition. I take back nothing that I said in the speech recorded in Hansard, vol. 78, page 5612, which was quoted by the honorable senator. I ventured to say in that speech that it was foolish for the Defence Department to countenance and encourage hasty marriages by men who remained in camp for only a week or two after they had enlisted, because such marriages must inevitably increase the financial obligations of Australia. Because I expressed that view, Senator Lynch took an hour in repeating my speech, and, in doing so, mentioned my name about 170 times. I take back nothing that I said on the occasion in question, and, further, I affirm that it does not affect the sincerity of my attitude now.

Senator Lynch talks about inconsistency. This wild man from the West, who went all over Australia like a bowling -Dervish, endeavouring to induce the people of this country to send every man to the Front, whether against his will or not, and who wished to create more widows in Australia - this man ventures to come here and chide others with inconsistency. He has declared that some honorable senators are supporting Senator McDougall because of geographical considerations - because they happen to have changed their places. I have not changed my opinions if I have changed my seat. But Senator Lynch has, and that is why he could not discuss the merits of this clause, but occupied about an hour in personal abuse of others, and in wearisome repetition. The honorable senator need not worry about geographical changes. I am on this side of the chamber because of my consistency. I did not profess certain opinions to gain’ Ministerial office for a few months, and then get kicked out. My reward is the approval of my own conscience. I know that I have adhered to my opinions. But because Senator Lynch, in the company of his new-found friends and supporters, finds himself with such a large following, he ventures to tell the minority in this Chamber that they must say nothing and do nothing. Even if the votes which I cast two years ago, or six months ago, were wrong, is that a reason why this Committee should continue to do wrong?

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator admits it, then?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I do not. I said then, and I repeat now, that it was far better for the Defence Department to discourage the creation in Australia of more and more widows than to shirk its responsibility to those who have already been made widows by the war. My idea is that fewer married men and more single men should have gone to the Front. But Senator Lynch and his friends would send, not only all the single men, but all the married men, and thus make more widows. Then Senator Lynch would shirk his proper responsibility to the widows who are left here.

When we have a measure before us, we ought not to spend all our time in digging out what somebody said on a former -occasion, ‘ as reported in Hansard. Rather ought we to debate its merits, and if we can offer any valuable suggestions to offer them freely. That is what the Vice-President of the Executive Council asked us to do.

Senator Bakhap:

– But he did not ask honorable senators to wade in with a lot of proposals, quite apart from the main principle of the Bill.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The main object of this Bill is to provide for the repatriation of our soldiers. But does not that carry with it the duty of providing in an equally generous fashion for the dependants of those who will never return?

Senator Bakhap:

– We have measures in actual operation dealing with that phase of the matter.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– What chance would this “miserable minority,” of which. Senator Lynch spoke, have of bringing forward an amendment of the “War Pensions Act ? No chance whatever. I am sorry that we have to provide for so many widows; but that circumstance makes me all the more determined to provide properly for them. I am not like Senator Lynch, who would make thousands and thousands of additional widows in Australia, and then shirk his obligations to them. Yet this is the gentleman who stands up here and twits other honorable senators with a dereliction of duty; and with having changed their views. I repeat that we have stuck to our opinions. We did not change them for personal advantage, as some honorable senators did.

We have been asked by this “Daniel, come to judgment,” to put forward some sound and reasonable arguments in favour of this amendment. I say that the amendment carries its own justification. It is intended to provide for the widows of deceased soldiers, and also for their dependants up to sixteen years of age.

Senator Lynch:

– Thehonorable senator would not do that.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That is only another observation of the kind that usually proceeds from a man who was always unscrupulous, and who does not ‘hesitate to descend to the well-known trick of tearing a few lines from the text of a speech by an honorable senator-

Senator Lynch:

– Readthe full text. Hansard is there for the honorable senator to quote.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will Senator O’Keefe be good enough to address the Chair?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– I will do so; but I would remind you, sir, that, during the whole time. Senator Lynch was on his feet, his speech was practically a tirade of abuse of honorable senators. The reasons which have been put forward by Senator McDougall and others are the sound and solid reasons in favour of the insertion of this new clause. Those reasons are good enough to commend them- selves to a majority of the people of this country, and, consequently, there is no need for me to detain the Committee by elaborating them.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– Very briefly I wish to refer to one phase of this question which has already been mentioned. Doubt has been cast upon the practicability of the scheme outlined in this new clause, and in this connexion I wish to mention what is already being done in the State of Queensland. As evidencing that the proposal embodied in the clause appeals to the people as a whole, I may say that in Queensland bands of voluntary workers have been organized, and these have set about the task of erecting homes for the widows of soldiers. One person will donate an allotment of land, a timber merchant will provide the timber, a plumber will furnish the iron, and a painter will supply the paint. Then carpenters, plumbers, painters, and labourers go out at stated periods and erect these homes free of cost. When completed, they are handed over to the widows of fallen soldiers.

In the course of his second-reading speech upon this Bill, to which we all listened very attentively, the VicePresident of the Executive Council did not attempt to discuss any of its details. He said that at that stage it was quite impossible for him to do so, and that he intended merely to set out the broad outlines upon which the repatriation scheme is to be carried out. He added thathe could not even say the’ amount of the expenditure that would be involved in it. Yet because Senator McDougall could not supply all this information, Senator Lynch has found fault with him. To my mind, that was an unreasonable attitude for Senator Lynch to take up. Prior to the honorable senator’s speech I was under the impression that this Bill was a non-party measure, as it certainlyshould be.

Senator Bakhap:

– So it is.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Will any unbiased senator say that Senator Lynch’s speech was a non-party deliverance? From beginning to end it was one tirade of abuse of honorable members upon this side of the chamber and of their policy. Bracketing Senator de Largie with Senator Lynch, I say that it is merely history repeating itself. It has been our experience throughout the Labour movement in Australia that when a man leaves the Labour party, or is enticed away by a figure head of the Labour party, and is eventuallyleft in the soup he does not blame the man who led him away, but blames the Labour party for not being caught with him. The wild and windy oration of Senator Lynch to-night was not only not informative, but did not touch the main question. His gyrations would have been betterperformed out in the Queen’s Hall.

With regard to the necessity for the amendment, is there any more, sad sight than a widow with perhaps a young family left to fight the battle of life ?

Senator Millen:

– That case will be provided for under this Bill.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Partial provision is made in the War Pensions Act, which many members of the Labour party of that day endeavoured to widen. I challenged Senator Lynch just before the dinner adjournment to quote my remarks. He ploughed through Hansard, but did not do it. When the War Pensions Bill was going through, I advocated that when a pension was being paid there should be no discrimination between the widow of a private and the widow of an officer. I said that as 6 feet of earth made the colonel and the private the one size, so the widow of each should be on the same basis with regard to pension receipts.

The Pensions Bill was a very good firsb step, which the Labour party can claim credit for having introduced, because, if we are to accept statements made in the Senate, the members of the Labour party forced it from the then Government, but it must not be regarded as the last step. Surely we can progress as time goes on.

Senator Senior:

– Are you considering the Pensions Act now, or an entirely different measure?

Senator FERRICKS:

– The question of the welfare of the widow of a soldier is inseparable from the question of the repatriation of our soldiers, and if the pension scheme is not before the Senate, this is the place to make the necessary provision. Some of us perhaps more than others realize what the battle of life means to a widow with children.

Senator Millen:

– If the woman has children the present Bill will meet the situation.

Senator McDougall:

– But it will not put a house over her head.

Senator FERRICKS:

-Will it meet her case in regard to accommodation ? Only to-day, Senator Newland, who, with Senator Lynch, is a follower of the Government, asked Senator Millen, without notice, whether the Government would take into- consideration the exorbitant rents charged by landlords throughout Australia. Senator Millen replied that that very important question was under the consideration of the Government. Here then is a chance for the Government to put that consideration into practical effeot. We have all read in the columns of the daily press that there are rings or combinations of landlords, particularly in the capitals, and more particularly in Melbourne, who have notified their house agents that they will not have the wives or dependants of soldiers in their habitations as tenants. What is to become of the widow of a soldier if that sort of thing becomes general? What consideration will landlords have for the widow of a soldier who has lost his life fighting 12,000 miles away ?

– Senator Ferricks put forward a very fair request. Seeing that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with in the Pensions Act, he asked what opportunity would there be of amending the Act. I can promise the Senate that a Bill to amend the Act will be brought down, and although the amendment will not cover ithat position, an opportunity will be given to honorable senators to introduce any amendment they like into the Act. I am not taking the responsibility of proposing an amendment, which, in effect, would mean an increase of about 60 per cent. all round in the scale of pensions. If honorable senators are going to start out on a scheme of that kind, they will pass from the principle which I think animated us all, of doing a fair thing to our returned soldiers and their dependants in trying to meet their cases according to the necessities - they will pass from that principle and go into a lavish scheme, which would not only involve almost impossible financial responsibilities, but would, I venture to say, prove; in very many cases, more harmful than beneficial.

Question - That the proposed new clause be added to the Bill (Senator McDougall’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 16

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

.- After the rejection of the first of my series of proposed new clauses, I do not intend to flog a dead horse very much. I move -

That the following new clause be added to the Bill:- “ 24. Employers promising to keep positions open for those who enlist shall register such promises with the names of men enlisting to whom it applies, and shall be compelled to honour their contracts upon the soldier’s return. This is also to apply to all public authorities.”

Some firms have not kept their obligations to returned soldiers. Men find themselves back again in employment, not at the salary which they formerly received, but at a lower grade. The Prime Minister has referred to . this matter in very strong; terms. I do not intend to refer to it in stronger terms than he used. I want to see embodied in this Bill in black and white a provision which will compel unscrupulous employers to keep their promises to unfortunate soldiers. I hope that we shall never have a repetition of what we have had here to-night. In all honesty and fairness, I moved the insertion of a new clause; and though you, sir, made a brave attempt to defend me against the abuse of an honorable senator, the Leader of the Senate did not intervene.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I have every possible sympathy for the point of view expressed by Senator McDougall in this amendment; but I am going to ask him to consider whether it will be possible to give effect to it, even by a provision in an Act of Parliament. Many of these promises were given; there is no record of them, and unless a record was made at the time, I venture to say that one would have very great difficulty in proving in a Court the existence of a promise.

.- I see no difficulty whatever in requiring employers to register their promises. The proposed new clause will not be retrospective in its effect, and the intention is to deal with unscrupulous employers. I “admit that some employers are honorably fulfilling their obligations, and I think the amendment will do a lot of good, as well as help recruiting, because if men know that their positions will be kept for them on their return, they will have a greater inducement to enlist. I know of three cases in which employees of the Federal Government lost their positions when they were called up under the Military Service Proclamation of last year; but I am glad to know that when I brought the matter under the notice of the Minister, they were replaced. It is a fact, however, that those men lost about two months’ work. I will be able to give the Minister, not one, but dozens of cases, in which men have been subjected to this form of tyranny. We shall be doing something’ for the benefit of our soldiers if we pass a law calling upon employers to honour their promises to the men who go out to fight their country’s battles.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- It appears to me that the clause has been moved for the purpose of killing time, because if a returned soldier does not desire to resume his former employment, the employer will not be exempt, from prosecution by the Government. Then, in the case of a returned soldier, perhaps maimed and on that account unable to follow his old occupation, there is nothing in the clause to release the employer of a promise he may have made. It is unreasonable to insert a clause compelling an employer to redeem a promise irrespective of the possibility that a returned soldier may not desire to follow his former occupation, or be unable to do so.

Question - That the proposed new clause be added to the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Amendment (by Senator McDougall) negatived -

That the following new clause be added to the Bill: - “ Employers as well as public authorities promising inducements such as making up pay, insurance, &c, shall be compelled to register such promises and carry’ them out under Government supervision.”

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following new clause be added to the Bill:- “26. In order to protect returned soldiers from the sweating arising from “ freedom of contract” and “individual bargaining” and to protect trade unionism from any attempt to disrupt it by unscrupulous employers, all returned soldiers receiving preference ok employment shall receive full standard trade union wages and shall become members of the union of the trade calling into the employment of which he enters.”

The effect of this clause will be toprotec returned soldiers and trade unions from unscrupulous employers, who may desire to use returned soldiers for the purpose of breaking down the trade union system, which has been of such benefit to the workers of this country. So long as returned soldiers get the standard rate of wages, trade unionists will not object to their receiving preference in employment.

Senator de Largie:

– Can you expect a crippled soldier to receive a standard rate of wages?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– No ; but wo would not expect a crippled soldier to be asked to follow his ordinary trade. I know a crippled soldier could not work at my trade, and I do not think he would be able to work at the trade which the honorable senator followed. There is an idea amongst trade unionists that unscrupulous employers will be tempted to use returned soldiers to break down trade unionism. Huge stacks of coal have been stored from one end of New South Wales to the other, but I have had an assurance from the Minister that this coal has been stored for war purposes. I am perfectly satisfied with that assurance, and I believe, also, that the men would be satisfied if they knew, but there is a certain feeling of distrust concerning these coal stacks. It is feared that they might be used to injure the cause of trade unionism, and that returned soldiers will be exploited for the same purpose.

Senator Foll:

– Do you not think that returned soldiers have some backbone themselves ?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– I believe they have; and I noticed, some time ago, that returned soldiers refused to load coal in New South Wales during a dispute. But, as I have said, there is a feeling in trade union circles that soldiers may be used to injure unionism. I do not think they will myself. They are standing loyally by those awards, but they have a feeling that something injurious to them may arise, and I submit this amendment in order to dispel that impression.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I have been rather surprised to hear Senator McDougall’s remarks, as to my mind they throw some reflection upon the returned soldiers. He says that there is a feeling in trade union circles that the returned soldiers may in some way or another allow themselves to be used for the purpose of pulling unionism down. It used to be claimed by my honorable friends opposite that a large percentage of the men who went to the Front were unionists. If that be so, is it conceivable that, having gone to the war and proved themselves fully qualified members of the best and noblest union that has ever existed in Australia, they should turn their backs upon unionism, and lay iconoclastic hands on the unions they helped to support ? Senator McDougall will allow me to say that) fear as to the use which may be made of our returned soldiers is not the reason for the proposed new clause. It is not fear that the returned soldiers will become breakers of unions that is at the bottom of this proposal; The reason for the amendment is to be found in the latter portion of it. It is not that the returned soldiers will be used to beat down wages, because that is impossible since the wages are fixed by arbitration tribunals.

Senator McDougall:

-It is felt that unscrupulous employers may use them.

Senator MILLEN:

– They cannot use the returned soldier to break down wages fixed by an award any more than they can use for that purpose a man who has never been to the war at all. By a conspiracy between employer and employee an award may be evaded, but that is a danger which, if it exists at all, exists to-day, and with just as much force as applied to the workman who is not a returned soldier. The real purpose of the amendment is set out in the last two lines of it. That is to say, that this is a proposal to compel the returned soldier to become a unionist. That is the real purpose of the amendment. The proposal is that we should de liberately rope in the returned soldier, whether he wishes it or not, and compel him to become a member of a union. To agree to the amendment is to say that preference to the returned soldier is a myth, that while we have talked about it it does not mean anything, and that he must become a unionist before he can get any preference. To accept the amendment would be to nullify altogether the policy of the present Government, which is to give preference to the returned soldier above everybody else. Having stated the simple issue involved in the amendment, I leave it to the Committee.

Question - That the proposed new clause be added to the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Amendment (by Senator McDougall) proposed -

That the following new clause be added to the Bill : - “ 27. Where assistance to returned soldiers is necessary to establish them in civil life, the amount required to enable them to support a family shall not be subject to payment of interest or repayment of principal.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I merely intimate that I am unable to accept the amendment, and leave it to the Committee.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the following new clause be added to the Bill : - “ 28. (a) No disabled soldier or sailor shall be discharged except at his own request or when equipped for and provided with work.

The Nation shall educate and equip such soldiers or sailors to earn their own livings.

The Nation shall provide means by scientific methods of overcoming disablements.”

In speaking on the second reading of the Bill I explained why if is desirable that such a clause should be included in it. It is unnecessary to go over the same ground again. I have no doubt that the Committee will see the wisdom of doing something in this direction. Some of the men are discharged before they should be, and some are not as well equipped to carry on their occupations as they might be. Some of our medical men admit today that we have not got the best scientific methods of overcoming disablement.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I point out to Senator McDougall and the Committee that what the honorable senator isaiming at in regard to the education and equipment of these men is, as I thought I made clear when introducing the Bill, provided for. It is quite true that these facilities do not exist today. That is recognised, but I was able to tell honorable senators that already initial steps are being taken to establish workshops in connexion with hospitals, and that these will be followed up by more elaborate institutions to provide returned soldiers with necessary instruction. As I can assure Senator McDougall that the objects he has in view will be met, I ask him to allow the amendment to be negatived without a division.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time;

page 663

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

.- I move-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until

Wednesday next.

I submit this motion, because, owing to the commendable expedition with which this Chamber invariably proceeds with the despatch of public business, we find ourselves a little ahead of the work in another place. I anticipate that by Wednesday next another place will have sent forward sufficient business to keep us employed. Meanwhile, I see no advantage in asking honorable senators to meet here when we have a practically empty business-paper.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– Whilst I have no intention of opposing the motion on this occasion at any rate, it seems to be somewhat unsatisfactory that the Senate should be called upon to adjourn so early in the session when there is business on the paper that can be discussed. I may remind the Vice-President of the Executive Council that I have two motions on the business-paper which I have not the slightest intention of allowing to be completely overshadowed by the forms of the Senate, or the desire of the Government to adjourn from time to time. While on this occasion I shall not oppose the adjournment, I certainly think that these two motions are of sufficient importance to warrant their discussion at an early date with a view to arriving at a decision upon them. I ask for some assurance from the Leader of the Government in this Chamber that if there be not sufficient Government business, to keep the Senate in session honorable senators will, during the next week or two, be afforded an opportunity of arriving at a decision in respect of private members’ business.

Senator Lt.-Colonel BOLTON (Victoria) [9.51]. - I wish to direct the attention of honorable senators to an inaccurate statement which appeared in the press of the 30th July.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator cannot do that.

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

– In reply to the remarks of Senator Bakhap, I have no desire to push on one side such important private business as that which stands in his name. But he must recognise that there are certain constitutional limitations imposed upon the powers of this Chamber, and it is inevitable, therefore, that from time to time it must be left without business. In submitting this motion, I was not actuated by a desire to consult the convenience of the Government, but rather by a desire to consult the convenience of honorable senators. I say atonce that if it is the desire of honorable senators that we should meet to-morrow for the purpose of proceeding with private members’ business I will willingly withdraw the motion.

Senator Bakhap:

– Is there not any

page 664

ADJOURNMENT

Sectarian Pamphlet’s: Censorship of Correspondence - Price of Onions - Differential Treatment of Soldiers

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I desire to revert to a subject which I was about to mention on Friday afternoon last, when I was prevented from doing so by the Standing Orders. I am sorry thatthe Minister for Defence is not in his place, but I am sure the Vice-President of the Executive Council will take a note of my remarks,’ and see that they are referred to him. The matter to which I wish to allude has reference to the statement of the Minister in connexion with the Critchley Parker pamphlets.

Senator de Largie:

– Have we not had enough of that?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Perhaps we have. The Minister for Defence stated that the editor of the Tribune did not wish to publish a letter which passed between the Catholic Federation and the Department of Defence, dated 27th March last. Now here is a letter written by the editor of the Tribune, which was published in the Argus of 27th July of this year. It is headed “ Official Correspondence,” and reads: -

To the Editor of the Argus.

Sir,-

It was stated by the Minister for Defence, in reply to Senator Needham yesterday, in dealing with the refusal of the censor to allow the publication in the Tribune of a certain correspondence between the Catholic Federation and the Defence Department anent the Critchley Parker pamphlet, said, “There was a rule that official correspondence should not be published without permission. The Tribune had not asked for such permission.”

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator is now referring to a previous debate which is not in accordance with the Standing Orders. As I understand the position, he is quoting from a debate which took place here a short time ago.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am reading a letter which appeared in the Argus on the 27th of last month. The portion that I have read does refer to a previous debate. Do you, sir, rule that I am out of order ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Certainly. Under standing order 414, no honorable senator is at liberty to read extracts from newspapers or documents, excepting Hansard, referring to debates of the same session. Yet the honorable senator is now attempting to read from a newspaper an extract which refers to a debate which took place during the present session.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am quite aware of that Standing Order, but I was not aware that it applied to a motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, an honorable senator is at liberty to speak on matters which are not relevant to the particular motion, but he is not entitled, under cover of that motion, to refer to matters which are otherwise out of order.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I wish to bring a matter under the notice of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. The other day I asked a question in reference . to an article which appeared in the Age relating to the high price of onions. I . asked if the Minister controlling foodstuffs had had any warning of the cornering of this product, andhe replied, “ No.” I think that his answer was unfair, seeing that on 16th January, 1917, I wrote to Senator Russell as follows : -

Dear Sir, -

I have been informed that large contracts arc now being, or have been made, for the exportation to America and Canada of most of our coming onion crop.

If this is the case, it will mean that we will have to import onions for our own use from abroad. As you know, the dearth of tonnage will make the cost of importation almost prohibitive, and the people will be called on to pay dearly for this substitute for their own crop.

I would suggest that inquiries be at once made into the matter, and, if necessary, the exportation of our own crop prohibited.

The reason given is that the American onion crop has been a failure.

Awaiting your reply,

Faithfully yours, (Signed) ALLAN McDOUGALL.

Events have since confirmed the prediction which I then made. In a statement which appeared in the Melbourne Herald the other evening, a merchant is reported to have said - “ It is not a boom. It is not even abnormal. Prices were much higher some years ago. I think they touched £29 10s. a ton.

Fewer onions are held in Melbourne than in any previous years. If more are arriving, they are being distributed as fast as they come to hand. Our export trade to America has been the largest on record. “ New Zealand is a large consumer. Orders were held up because there was no freight Now that difficulty is being overcome, and we are filling New Zealand orders received as far back as May.”

To the question as to whether a false market existed, he gave an emphatic denial. “ Twenty-five to 30 per cent. of theGippsland onions that are coming to hand,” be affirmed, * are rejected, and the remainder are of pour quality. The Western District crop is not so large as was expected.”

My complaint is that I was given an- answer that was not correct. On 16th January I gave warning of what would take place, and this merchant shows that my prediction was absolutely correct. The price of this food product is still rising. I believe onions are now £14 a ton, and likely to go up further. If the Minister in charge of foodstuffs had taken the slightest notice of my warning six months ago, this would not have occurred to-day.

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Colonel O’LOGHLIN (South Australia) [10.5]. - I wish to direct attention to ‘the very unfair treatment which the Commonwealth accords to those of its employees who enlist to fight for their country. In South Australia the Government makes up the difference, if any, between a man’s pay as a Government employee and as a soldier, and I believe the same rule applies in the other States; but the Commonwealth treats its employees much less liberally and generously. I am officially informed thatthe Commonwealth employee who enlists to fight for his country has to bear any pecuniary sacrifice involved. If his pay as a Commonwealth servant- is greater than his pay as a soldier, he loses the difference. That is most ungenerous and unfair treatment to mete out. to our soldiers. The Commonwealth should be at least as fair to its employees as the State Governments are to theirs. As the Minister of Defence is not present, I trust the Leader of the Senate will bring the matter under his notice, and under the notice of the Cabinet, so that this glaring anomaly may be rectified. I do not think any one can justify a policy which mulcts a man in a pecuniary penalty for serving his country, when he takes a risk of his life, severs his home ties, and makes other sacrifices.

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

– I shall bring the matter mentioned by Senator O’Loghlin under the notice of the Minister for Defence.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.8 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 August 1917, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1917/19170801_SENATE_7_82/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 1 August 1917

ASSENT TO BILLS

PAPERS

QUESTION

ENEMY ALIENS

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

INTOXICATING LIQUORS

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

DISCHARGE OF SOLDIERS’ EATHER

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

ENLISTMENT OE J. S. GARDEN

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ DEPENDANTS AND HOUSE RENTS

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ PENSIONS AND INCOME TAX

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

ENEMY SUBJECTS: INTERNEES

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

MEAT IN COOL STORES

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

STORAGE OF FLOUR

Senator KEATING:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

Senator MILLEN:New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Fairbairn:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel Bolton:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SENIOR:South Australia

Senator GRANT:New South Wales

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator GRANT:

Senate
1 August 1917

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator MILLEN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator Lt Colonel O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

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

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

Senator MILLEN:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council · NAT

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

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia