Senate
22 January 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
QUESTION
- SHIPBUILDING IN TASMANIA
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE TRUNK LINES
QUESTION
- SALE OF SHIPS TO FOREIGNERS
PAPEES
- Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association
- Commonwealth Postmasters’ Association
- Postal Sorters’ Union of Australia
- Australian Letter Carriers’ Association
- Public Service Act 1902-1916: - Promotions, Postmaster-General’s Department -
- Prime Minister’s Department -
QUESTION
- ONION CROP
QUESTION
- WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SEEVICE BUREAUX
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH SHIPBUILDING SCHEME
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- RETURNED SOLDIERS
QUESTION
- BALSILLIE RAIN EXPERIMENTS
QUESTION
- PURCHASE OF RABBITS AND RABBIT SKINS
QUESTION
- ESTIMATED WAR EXPENDITURE
QUESTION
- RETURNED SOLDIERS AND CONSCRIPTION
QUESTION
- WIRELESS MESSAGES
SALE OF INTOXICANTS IN WAR TIME
SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3295

QUESTION

DEFENCE ACCOUNTS

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Defence seen the statements in the report of the Auditor-General concerning the irregularities in the Defence Department’s accounts? If so, can the honorable gentleman say what action, if any, is intended to be taken in the matter!

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have, of course, seen the report of the Auditor-General, but I am not in a position to answer the second question, which I shall bring under the notice of my colleague.

page 3295

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING IN TASMANIA

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

– A few days ago I addressed to the Leader of the Government a question concerning the utilization for shipbuilding of the well-known resources of Tasmania, and asked if the programme of the Government extended to the construction of ships in some part of the island. The Minister has kindly notified me that he has information on the subject, and I shall be glad, therefore, to hear his reply to the question.

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I have been supplied, through the Prime Minister’s Department,with the following memorandum: -

With reference to your memorandum of the 12th instant, covering an extract fromHan- sard, on the subject of the Commonwealth shipbuilding proposal, I am directed to inform you that the Prime Minister has publicly announced that negotiations are now proceeding with the Tasmanian Government for building ships in that State. Mr. Curchin, Chief Executive Officer of Commonwealth Ship Construction, will visit Tasmania at an early date.

page 3296

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TRUNK LINES

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General tell me, what was the revenue of the SydneyMelbourne trunk telephone line on Sundays for the three months previous to the imposition of double rates, and the revenue for the three months following their imposition? Will the honorable gentleman also let me know the number of telephonists employed in connexion with the work of the line during the same periods?

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

– The following communications supply the information for which the honorable senator asks, as well as information about the MelbourneAdelaide trunk line. The first memorandum is dated the 11th January, and was addressed to the Secretary, PostmasterGeneral’s Department, by the Acting Secretary to the Representative of the Government in the Senate. It is as follows : -

I am directed by the Honorary Minister (Senator Russell) to forward you the attached extract, from Hansard of the 26th September last, and to request that the matter referred to by Senator Thomas may receive consideration.

I may add that the Minister desires, in particular, information which will constitute a reply to the following question: - “What was the revenue received on Sunday telephones for three months prior to the double rates, and three months afterwards. Does this include O.S. payments?”

I should be glad. if the information in question could be furnished to me for the use of the Minister by the timethe Senate meets to-day, namely, 11 a.m.

To that, this reply was received: -

Replying to your communication of this date, I am directed to inform you that the remarks of Mr. Thomas, as contained in Hansard of 26thSeptember last, did not include a request for the information now asked for. That information would be difficult and expensive to obtain, and in any case the retention or otherwise of the present practice is not dependent Upon the revenue question, so far as this particular class of the Department’s work is concerned, but on the policy of the Department generally.

Alater memorandum from the Secretary to the Postmaster-General, dated 22nd January, was as follows: -

Replying to your communication of the 19 th inst., forwarding a letter addressed by Senator Josiah Thomas to Senator Russell asking for the following information: -

The revenue of the Sydney-Melbourne trunk line on Sundays for three months prior to the double rates coming in, and the revenue for three months on Sunday since the double rates came in, excluding all O.S. messages.

The number of telephonists employed on the Sydney-Melbourne’ line on Sundays under the old rates’ and those under the new ones.

I beg to give hereunder the information desired. I also give similar information regarding the Adelaide-Melbourne trunk line, which Mr. Thomas recently expressed a wish to have. In addition to the three months succeeding the introduction of the double Sunday rate, I have also given information for the three months of last year corresponding to the three months prior to the introduction of that rate: -

The above revenue includes all paid business, whether “ O.S.” or otherwise.

With regard to the telephonists employed, I am advised that in neither Sydney, Melbourne, nor Adelaide has the work, either before or since the introduction of the double rates, required the full . time of one telephonist.

Justinian Oxenham.

page 3297

QUESTION

SALE OF SHIPS TO FOREIGNERS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Prime Ministerseen the report in the press that at least two Australian ships have recently been sold to foreigners? Is it the intention of the Government to take steps to prevent further sales of Australian shipping to foreigners ?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– I have no information on the subject, but I shall bring the question under the notice of the Prime Minister.

page 3297

PAPEES

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1911 - Orders (dated 18th October, 1917) of Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and other documents, in connexion with variation or further variation of Awards of the Court on plaints submitted by the following: -

Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association

Commonwealth Postmasters’ Association

Australian Commonwealth Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association (three cases ) .

Postal Sorters’ Union of Australia

Australian Letter Carriers’ Association

Federated Public Service Assistants’ As sociation (two cases).

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund Act 1910. - Report by Auditor-General on the Accounts of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Fund and of the various State War Councils.

Commonwealth Railways Act 1917. - By-law No. 1.

Finance: Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts . and Expenditure during the year ended ‘ 30th June, 1917, accompanied by the Report of the Auditor-General.

Lands Acquisition Act 190G. - Land acquired at South Head, Sydney - For Defence purposes.

Public Service Act 1902-1916: - Promotions, Postmaster-General’s Department -

E. Fidler.
A. Gunning.
James.

Prime Minister’s Department -

H. Conn.
A. Cronin..

War Precautions Act 1914-1910. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1917, Nos. 289, 317, 325.

page 3297

QUESTION

ONION CROP

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the 16th

January, 1917, I informed Senator Bussell of the manipulation of the onion crop by a combine. No notice having been, taken of my letter, I ask whether the same thing is not being repeated this year?

SenatorRussell. - Will the honorable member give notice of the question?

Senator McDOUGALL:

– No.

page 3297

QUESTION

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

Prosecutions under Regulations.

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice -

What was the cost to the Government of the recent Court proceedings taken against public men, the press, and others, under the War Precautions Regulations during the recent referendum campaign, showing -

Professional costs, and to whom paid?

Witnesses’ costs, and to whom paid?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– It is necessary to obtain this information from other States. This is being done.

Senator GRANT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

How many newspapers published in the Commonwealth have been proceeded against under the provisions of the War Precautions Act or regulations thereunder for the publication of articles or advertisements since 1st November till 31st December, 1917?
What arc the names of such newspapers?
What is the total amount of fines imposed, and to what extent have they been paid?
How many actions are pending?
How many editors or managers of newspapers have been proceeded against for similar reasons?
How many have been fined?
What was the name of each person fined?
What is the amount of each fine?
What is the total amount of such fines?
How many actions are still pending?
What are the names of the members of -
1. the Senate;
2. the House of Representatives;
3. the Legislative Assemblies;
4. the Legislative Councils;
5. and of private citizens (excluding editors and managers of newspapers) who, since the passing of the War Precautions Act and regulations thereunder have been proceeded against for making statements contrary to the provisions of the said Act and regulations.

The name of each person fined, and the amount in each case.

The total amount of such fines?

How many persons are now in gaol for offences under the War Precautions Act and regulations thereunder ?

Senator MILLEN:

– I suggest that the honorable senator move for this information in the form of a return.

Senator Grant:

– I shall do so.

page 3298

QUESTION

NATIONAL SEEVICE BUREAUX

Senator BARKER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What was the cost of establishing the late National Service Bureaux?
What was the number of persons offered employment, engaged, and employed in the several States?
What was the cost, and did the Federal Government pay same?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

The Commonwealth Government has paid £1,035 10s. Cd. up to the present. Further claims in connexion with the bureau in Melbourne have been received, and are at present the subject of correspondence between the Commonwealth Government and the State Government as to the allocation. I am not aware of the cost to the several State Governments concerned. 2 and 3. Bureaux were established in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. In New South Wales and Western Australia, they were controlled solely by the State Governments, who bore the whole of the expenses. No particulars are in the possession of the Commonwealth Government.

page 3298

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Issue of Free Passes

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

Have any free passes been granted on the transcontinental railway since the opening?
If the answer is in the affirmative, what is the number of free passes issued?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : - 1 and 2. The Commonwealth Railway’s Commissioner states that no free passes have been issued. Only the usual official passes to officers who are required to travel on duty, and the customary privilege passes to three or four railway employees travelling on leave of absence, have been granted.

page 3298

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPBUILDING SCHEME

Senator GRANT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the present position with regard to what is known as the Commonwealth shipbuilding scheme?
Have any contracts been let, and if so, to> whom, and at what cost?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

It is proposed to lay down two vessels at Williamstown, and two at Walsh Island, and others at sites to be decided upon. The preliminary arrangements are well advanced, ‘and the actual work of construction will shortly be commenced.
The following contracts have been let for material for six ships, which is at present unprocurable in Australia, viz.: -

In Great Britain -

Cable chains - 2 sets with Dudley Round Oak Works; 2 sets with Samuel Taylor; 2 sets with Brown Renox.

Wire ropes. - With Hood, Haggle.

Boiler parts. - With Babcock and Wilcox.

In the United States of America -

Steel plates. - With the Steel Corporation (6,000 tons).

Contracts for sectional steel and steel plates procurable in Australia are now the subject of negotiation. Inquiries have been issued for prices for steel castings and forgings.

page 3298

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What is , thc number of the staff in the Minister’s Department?
The names of the officers, their salaries, and their duties?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Repatriation Department, nineteen officers, including four officers on loan; Repatriation Board of Trustees, eight officers.
I will lay a list containing those particulars on the table of the Senate.

The Staff at Head-Quarters of the Repatriation Department includes a number of officers who are engaged in work- controlled by present Repatriation Board of Trustees. The work of the two sections are interrelated, but they are shown in separate columns. In addition to those mentioned, at the desire of the Government, Mr. N. C. Lockyer, Inter-State Commissioner, has temporarily takencharge as Comptroller until the preliminary work of organization is completed. The services of Mr. L. F. East, Chief Clerk, Customs Department; and Mr. R. Ovington, of Prime Minister’s Department, have also been secured temporarily to assist in connexion with the more important requirements. Mr. C. W. Peterson, and Railways, is acting as Private Secretary who is an officer of the Department of Works to the Minister.

page 3299

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS

Pensions for Wives

Senator REID:
for Senator Poll

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that at the present time a returned soldier who marries after his return to Australia, and applies for a pension for his wife, is only granted same from date of application, and not from date of marriage?
Is he aware whether many soldiers who have been away from Australia for some considerable time, are not cognisant of the regulations; and, if so, will the Minister give instructions that in future these pensions are to be paid from date of marriage, on production of marriage certificate.
Failing this, will he issue instructions that when a soldier is granted a pension, he be informed of the regulations, so that, in the event of his marrying whilst still on pension, he may apply in time for a pension to be granted his wife from date of marriage?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answersare -

No. Such pensions are granted from date of marriage, if applied for within a reasonable time. 2 and 3. Every publicity has been given to the fact that pensions are granted to the wives of incapacitated soldiers who marry after their discharge, and the Department ‘assists the soldiers in these matters as far as possible.

page 3299

QUESTION

BALSILLIE RAIN EXPERIMENTS

Senator LONG:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What is the total expenditure of the Federal Government in connexion with the Balsillie rain experiments?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The information will be obtained and laid upon the table of the Senate.

page 3299

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF RABBITS AND RABBIT SKINS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

asked the Honorary Minister, upon notice -

What profit have the Government made outof the purchase of rabbit and rabbit skins?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answer is -

The Commonwealth Government purchased the 1917 rabbit pack on behalf of the British Government, and has made no profit for itself.

From April, 1917, to the end of the year, the net profit to the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the purchase and sale of rabbit skins was, approximately, £230,000.

page 3299

QUESTION

ESTIMATED WAR EXPENDITURE

Senator LONG:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What is the actual and estimated war expenditure of the Commonwealth Government up to 30th June, 1918?
The annual interest thereon?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are-

?214,880,673, of which ?2o,S34,916 was paid out of revenue, and ?189,045,757 paid out of loans.
?8,747,214.

page 3300

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS AND CONSCRIPTION

Senator BARNES:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Are returned soldiers being dismissed from employment because they have worked against conscription ?
If so, are the Government doing anything to protect them from such treatment?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– Not so far as I am aware. If particulars are furnished in respect of any such case inquiries will be at once instituted to ascertain the facts, and any’ requisite action will be taken

page 3300

QUESTION

WIRELESS MESSAGES

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Are long-distance wireless messages which contain important information relating to the war received at stations in Australia?
If so, are any such messages or parts of them censored?
If they are censored for reasons of safety, would it not be possible that members should have confidential access to such censored parts, so that they would bo armed with valuable knowledge in considering questions relating to the war?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Long distance wireless messages are received. The information is relatively unimportant.
Yes. They are received in England also; are censored there, and released for publication.
The censored parts cannot, in the public interest, be disclosed.

page 3300

SALE OF INTOXICANTS IN WAR TIME

Motions (by Senator Thomas) agreed to -

That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the effects of intoxicating liquor onoutgoing and returning soldiers, have leave to report its minutes of evidence from time to time.

That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the effect of the sale of intoxicating liquor to outgoing and returning soldiers, have leave to adjourn from place to place.

page 3300

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18

Reinforcements Referendum - Ministers’ “ Pledges “ - Resignation and Re-acceptance of Office by the Ministry - War Precautions Regulations - Disfranchisement of Australianborn Electors : Prosecutions under War Precautions Act - Marshall Islands - National GovernmentThe National Party and the New South Wales Railway Strike - Sir William Irvine - Charges by ex-Senator Watson - Number of Men in Australia Eligible for War Service - Voluntarism and Conscription - Dominions’ Share in the War - Labour Party and Labour Movement: Outside Control - Soldiers and Dependants’ Pay and Pensions - Conduct of War: British Labour Views - Work of Mr. Hughes: Organization of Primary Industries and Disposal of Products : Purchase of Ships, and Shipbuilding - Construction of Cruiser “ Adelaide “ - Revenue for War Purposes: Land Values Taxation.

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I move -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

I have no intention to ask the House to put this Bill through with any undue haste; but it is possible that, at a later stage, after the House has exhausted the discussion, it may be desirable to proceed immediately from one stage to another.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– [3.25]. - I am surprised that the Minister in charge of the business should move the first reading of a Bill of this importance without one word of explanation of what the Government have done during the very long period since we had an, opportunity to discuss public business. It would not have been out of place if the Government’s representative here had told the Senate and the country what the Government have been doing to carry out their pledge to win the war; for that pledge is the only reason why the present Government find themselves in office. The Minister, I think, might well have put before the members of the Senate some reasons why the Government, of its own volition, without calling Parliament together, and without discussing the matter at all, subjected the people of the country to turmoil such as we have gone through in the recent referendum campaign. However, it is quite in keeping with the whole conduct of the Government that the Leader of the House, in introducing this Supply Bill, should merely move that it be read a first time, and say no more about it - it is quite in keeping with the evident determination of the Government to dispense with parliamentary services altogether. If the country will submit to the Government taking out of the hands of Parliament such an important matter as a referendum, and if the Government will violate a pledge made, not on one platform, but on a hundred, and reported not in one newspaper, but in every newspaper in the Commonwealth, that if they were not given the powers sought, they would cease to govern the country, we may expect such treatment as we are now receiving. I cannot help expressing my surprise, however, that the Minister should throw this measure before us without a word of explanation, or without a word to condone the conduct of the Government; though, perhaps, as he is a member of such a new Government he thinks that he and his colleagues have nothing to answer for. I have one or two things to say ‘to the Government, because, despite all their lightning changes - despite the fact that they have degraded the Ministerial office in Australia to a level never before reached - and that into this degradation they have drawn, not only themselves, but the representative of His Majesty, the Governor-General, I can quite understand that, when the subject has been dealt with at length, honorable senators now behind the Government will remain there as complacently as they have since they were elected to the Parliament. There is only one course to which honour points. No matter what a man’s views may be, or what his pledges to his party may be, no one sitting in this Parliament can put hia loyalty to party in place of his personal honour. The personal honour and repu tation of all members of the party opposite who did not disclaim the Ministerial pledge to resign demand that they should vote the Government! out of office.

Senator Bakhap:

– We know how to take care of our own honour.

Senator GARDINER:

– There are no half measures; and if honorable senators opposite sneer, it is only what one might expect. I should like to commence my remarks by placing on record that excellent epigrammatic description of the leadership of the present Prime Minister, by our old friend, ex-Senator Rae, who said, “ In twelve months he (Mr. Hughes) forced the Labour party to surrender its power to retain its honour, and in less than twelve months he has forced the. National party to surrender its honour to retain its power.” That, I think, deserves a place in the pages of Hansard; and if I said no more the Government would be well dealt with. They are welcome to that power. I intend to read to the Senate the pledges given by Senator Millen and the Minister for Defence as to what would follow if certain things happened. While this war lasts the most important member of this Parliament is the Minister for Defence, and I think we are at least entitled to know why his position is vacant to-day.

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– Perhaps his absence is the forerunner of his exit from the Defence Department.

Senator GARDINER:

– It may be that he is on his way to another country. It may be that, with the secrecy with which public business is dealt with, and of which honorable senators seem to approve, the Minister for Defence has received another appointment.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator approved of some of his party leaving the country.

Senator GARDINER:

– If the measure I apply to others were applied to me it is quite possible that faults in my conduct could be found, but ever since I have been a member of Parliament I have tried to adhere to what is right and proper, and have endeavoured to induce Parliament to insist upon that straight course of conduct which Parliament has a right to expect from the Government, who are a committee managing its affairs for the time being.

Senator Pratten:

– Can you give us the figures?

Senator GARDINER:

– Before I am finished, I will give you some figures, but first let me show how this thing worked out when the ‘ ‘ No ‘ ‘ side were using figures. When Mr. Rae, on figures issued by the Statistician, said that there were not 60,000 fit single men in Australia, he was dragged before a magistrate; but two gentlemen, Mr. Percy Hunter and Mr. Archdale Parkhill, members of the National party, were allowed to issue a document headed “Think!” and state that there were -

Nearly a million men of military age left in Australia.

Why were they not brought before a magistrate ? Will any one say that their statement was not a great deal wider of the mark than Mr. Rae’s?

Senator Millen:

– What does the honorable senator say as to the number of men of military age in the Commonwealth ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Married and single ?

Senator Millen:

– Yes.

Senator GARDINER:

– The number might approach 300,000.

Senator Bakhap:

– The Statistician said that there were over 1,000,000 men available, according to the classifications of the Defence Act.

Senator GARDINER:

– I challenge the honorable senator to produce his authority upon the floor of the Senate. For the moment, I am merely pointing out the different treatment meted out to the two parties. Though Mr. Rae was brought before a magistrate for having said that there were not 60,000 fit single men in Australia, Mr. Percy Hunter and Mr. Archdale Parkhill were allowed to issue a statement that there were nearly 1,000,000 men of military age in . Australia. It was not that the Government did not prosecute them because thev had not heard of the matter.

When they made this statement, Mr. John Bailey, of the Australian Workers Union, instructed his solicitor to send this letter, dated 10th December, 1917 -

McHutchison, Esq.,

Commonwealth Crown Solicitor’s Office, Sydney.

Sir,

I have been instructed by Mr. John Bailey, of 321 Pitt-street, Sydney, the vice-president of the Australian Workers Union, to apply to you for your consent to the prosecution of Percy Hunter and Archdale Parkhill, both of Sydney, under the provisions of the War Precautions Regulations (Military Service Referendum) for publishing a handbill entitled “ Think,” containing a false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their votes. I enclose a copy of the pamphlet.

If you will advise me at your earliest convenience, Mr. Bailey will at once attend at your office, or before a magistrate, to lay the information.

C. Roberts.

Another letter was sent to thesame address next day in these terms -

Sir,

In my letter of yesterday’s date re Percy Hunter and Archdale Parkhill, I omitted to refer you to the particular false statement, viz., “ There are nearly 1,000,000 men of military age in Australia.”

You will notice I underlined the words in the handbill.

C. Roberts.

Mr. Bailey’s solicitor, in reply to this cor respondence, received the following letter, dated Sydney, 11th December, 1917 -

Albert C. Roberts,

Eastwood Chambers, 19a Elizabeth-street, Sydney.

Dear Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 10th inst., also your letter of even date euclosing handbill entitled “ Think,” and asking that I should consent to a proposed prosecution under the provisions of the War Precautions (Military Service Referendum) Regulations.

The application is addressed to me in my official capacity.

I do not consider my authority extends so as to entitle me to consent to the prosecution proposed without first referring the matter to the Department.

I am accordingly taking that course, and will advise you further so soon as instructions are received.

McHutchison

This is another letter received by Mr. Roberts from Mr. McHutchison, dated 14th December -

Dear Sir,

He Hunter and Parkhill.

I am in receipt of your letter headed as above, dated to-day. As soon as I get the instructions of the Department I will advise you.

McHutchison.

Later still, this letter, dated 17th December, was received by Mr. Roberts -

Dear Sir,

He Hunter and Parkhill.

I refer you to our previous correspondence in connexion with this matter touching the request that I should consent to a prosecution.

My, instructions are that where private persons desire to take proceedings under the War Precautions Act, application should be made in writing to the Hon. the Attorney-General direct in the usual way.

My discretion does not extend to cases of the character mentioned by you.

McHutchison.

Here is another letter dealing with this matter, dated from Eastwood Chambers, 18th December, 1917-

The Hon. the Attorney-General,

Commonwealth Buildings, Moore-street, Sydney.

Sir,

He Hunter and Parkhill.

On the 10th inst. I applied to Mr. S. McHutchison, of Commonwealth Solicitor’s Office, on behalf of Mr. John Bailey, of 321 Pitt-street, Sydney, the vice-president of the Australian Workers Union, for his consent to the prosecution of Percy Hunter and Archdale Parkhill, both oE Sydney, under the provisions of the War Precautions Regulations (Military Service Referendum) for publishing a handbill entitled “ Think,” containing a false statement of fact of a kind likely to affect the judgment of electors in relation to their votes. I enclosed with this letter a copy of the handbill, in which I underlined the words constituting the false statement, viz., “ Nearly 1,000,000 men of military age left in Australia.”

Mr. McHutchison at first expressed doubt as to whether his authority was sufficient, and stated he had referred the matter to the Department, and in a letter of yesterday’s date he states, “ My instructions are that where private persons desire to take proceedings under the War Precautions Act, application should be made in writing to the Hon. the Attorney-

General. My discretion does not extend to cases of the character mentioned by you.”

I refer you to the correspondence and handbill forwarded Mr. McHutchison, as I have not another copy of the handbill.

I am instructed to ask that you give your consent to the prosecution of the above-named persons for the offence above alleged.

If you see fit to give this consent, Mr. Bailey will attend at the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor ‘s office, or before a magistrate, to lay the information as may be required.

C. Roberts.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I hope this debate will proceed without any personal allusions or ill-feeling. My whole anxiety is so to direct it that it will not be marked by any such incident.

Senator GARDINER:

– When led off the track by the interjections, I was about to refer to certain statements made by Ministers. I shall preface my reference to them by quoting from a letter written by Sir Edward Goschen, then British Ambassador at Berlin, to Sir Edward Grey. In order to make it intelligible to those who may read the report of my speech, let me explain that this letter contains the memorable statement of the British Ambassador at Berlin in regard to what is known as the “ Scrap of Paper “ interview with the German Chancellor. Writing of his interview with the German Secretary of State, he goes on to state that -

I then said that I should like to go and see the Chancellor, as it might be perhaps the last time I should have an opportunity of seeing him. He begged me to do so. I found the Chancellor very agitated. His Excellency at once began a harangue which lasted for about twenty minutes. He said that the step taken by His Majesty’s Government was terrible to a degree; just for a word - “Neutrality,” a. word which in war time had so often been disregarded - just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than to be friends with her. All his efforts in that direction had been rendered useless by this last terrible threat, and the policy to which, as I knew, he had devoted himself since his accession to office had tumbled down like a House of cards. What we had done was unthinkable; it was like striking a man from behind while he was fighting for his life against two assailants. He held Great Britain responsible for all the terrible events that might” happen. I protested strongly against that statement, and said that, in the same way as he and Herr von Jagow wished me to understand, that for strategical reasons it was a matter of life and death to Germany to advance through Belgium and violate the latter’s neutrality, so I -would wish him to understand that it was, so to speak, a matter of “ life and death “ for the honour of Great Britain that she should keep her solemn engagements to do her utmost to defend Belgium’s neutrality from attack. That solemn compact had to be kept, or what confidence could any one have in engagements given by Great Britain in the future? The Chancellor said, “ But at what price will that compact have been kept? Has the British Government thought of that?” I hinted to His Excellency as plainly as I could that fear of consequences could hardly be regarded as an excuse for breaking solemn engagements. But His Excellency was so excited, so evidently overcome by the news of our action, and so little disposed to hear reason that I refrained from adding fuel to the flame by further argument.

I have made that quotation for a definite purpose. Every one of us on reading that letter, which was broadcasted by the Government, soon after the war broke out, felt his heart beat with pride in the knowledge that Great Britain had entered this war on a higher moral plane than had Germany. We realized that Great Britain went into this war with her eyes open as to what would be the result of her action. Knowing the awful cost, knowing that it would mean a perfect holocaust of human lives, she was yet determined to keep her word. I, as a unit of this Empire, felt a thrill of . pride when I read this statement; and realized what British statesmen were prepared to do in order to keep their word. And I, as an Australian, am now going to place on record a few facts that will serve to show how Australian statesmen keep their word. Mr. Hughes gave some pledges during the recent campaign; he practically gave, in fact, a fresh pledge at each place at which he spoke. Speaking at Bendigo, as reported in the Argus of 13th November last, he said - . . We who were elected on a Winthewar policy tell you plainly that thu situation in Russia and Italy is such that without the power to insure reinforcements we cannot give effect to the policy which you approved with such enthusiasm last May.

I tell you plainly that the Government must have this power. It cannot govern the country without it, and will not attempt to do so.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator GARDINER:

– There is nothing wrong with the statement. But I ask the honorable senator whether he, as. an honorable man, is satisfied with the way in which that promise has been kept. Then, again, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster), as reported in the Age of 6th December last, addressed a large audience at Yass in favour of an affirmative vote, and -

He declared that if the referendum were not carried the Ministry would resign within twenty-four hours, with the result that the government of the country would he handed over to strikers, disloyalists, and Industrial Workers of the World and Sinn Feiners.

The Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Watt), speaking at Malvern, said, as reported in the Argus of 14th November last -

The Ministry, on this question, did not say, “This is our proposition; take it or leave it.” So earnest, did it feel that it was prepared, as it should he, to say, “We stand or fall by the verdict of the people.” That promise was not to be lightly given. After so clear a mandate from the people on 5th May, it was not an easy thing to say, “ If you do not agree with our propositions to help or to save this nation, we can no longer continue in office.” The Ministry, however, felt that it was its duty to conscientiously impress upon the people the gravity of that issue by that declaration.

I do not think I should give Sir William Irvine precedence over our own Ministers in making these quotations. I am not inclined to do so.

Senator Millen:

– Yet he has been more useful to the honorable senator’s party.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall make a few references to statements made by him.

Senator de Largie:

– The honorable senator will show his gratitude to him.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no feeling of gratitude towards Sir William Irvine, Indeed, I regard hia utterances during the campaign as those of an enemy to Australia. Speaking at Bathurst, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Millen) was asked what would happen if the “‘No “ vote were carried, and it is reported that, “ The Minister declared, amid applause, the Government would go out of office.” Do I still see Senator Millen sitting at the Minister’s table, or -

Do I sleep? Do I dream?

Do I wander and doubt?

Are things what they seem?

Senator Reid:

– Did he send for you?

Senator GARDINER:

– I happen to hold a position in a section of this Par liament where Governments are neither made nor unmade, and His Excellency had only to wait till the House met to hear my opinion. As I have said, I am not going to applaud the statesmanlike qualities of Sir William Irvine, when, after all the positions he has occupied in public life, we find him in the present crisis without a following. That is certainly nothing to the honorable gentleman’s credit. If he has the parts and abilities that those who acclaim him say he has, why does he cut such a poor figure at a time like this? There are, however, matters on which I would take him as a guide. Living in the aloof atmosphere of a man who cares for no one’s opinion but his own, he is, perhaps, a particularly good exponent of codes of honour. Speaking at Wagga, the honorable gentleman said -

The Government has declared in language which admits of no shadow of ambiguity that it will not attempt to continue governing this country without the powers asked for in this referendum. That is a clear, definite, and welcome assertion of the truth of Government responsibility in an issue vital to our national honour and safety. No other course would have been possible. The Government says, in effect - “You must choose between our party with conscription and the Official Labour party without conscription.” In this pledge the Government must not be allowed to stand alone. All members sitting behind the Government are hound by it in honour, or they cease to be Government supporters. Hence no Ministry can be formed on the Nationalists’ side of the House which will attempt to carry on the Government, without conscription. It is clear, therefore, that should the electors decline the responsibility of sanctioning conscription by a direct vote, one of two things must happen - either the government of this country must be handed over to Mr. Tudor’s party, or the Nationalist party in Parliament must take the full responsibility of its policy even should that necessitate an appeal to the constituencies.

No one will disagree with that. That was a clear statement of the position that the Government assumed when they made their political lives, and their positions in the Cabinet, depend on whether the referendum was carried or not.

I do not claim that an adverse vote should have called on the Government to resign, but the Leader df the Government, and, as I believe, every member of it, pledged themselves individually and collectively that if the vote went against them they wouldno longer govern. Sir William Irvine declared that in the case of an adverse vote the Government would refuse to conduct the affairs of the country. He not only said that the Government would resign, but that no -section of the National party would accept office. In fairness to Sir William Irvine, I must say that he has since stated in the House that he did not mean his remarks to apply to those who disagreed with the pledge and publicly announced the fact, but only to those who acquiesced in it.

Senator Millen:

– Obviously, he could not bind anybody but himself.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course. Although I refuse to take Sir William Irvine as a guide in most matters that require foresight and judgment in dealing with the Australian people, he may, in this particular phase of public life, be relied on to distinctly point to a course of honour ; and that course required, not only that the Government should resign, but that Mr. Tudor should be sent for.

Senator Guthrie:

– He was.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept Senator Guthrie’s statement. Mr. Tudor was sent for, and expressed a willingness to form a Government. It was reasonable to suppose, I think, that in the present grave’ crisis there would have been enough patriotism on the other side to enable Mr. Tudor to carry on had he brought forward a war policy worthy of support.

I turn now to another distinguished lawyer, a man of very much political experience, and one whom I hold in perhaps more contempt than Sir William Irvine. I refer to Mr. Holman, the Premier of New South Wales. He saw clearly that the straight and constitutional course for the Government to adopt was not only to resign, but to place the Opposition in office. Honorable senators have reminded me that the GovernorGeneral sent for quite a number of men, and sought their advice. There was no occasion for him to seek such advice. Never was a clearer issue put before a Governor-General or a reigning monarch. The issue was so clear that there was only one proper thing to do. When the Government, representing the whole of the Nationalist party, expressed by their resignation their unwillingness to continue to conduct the affairs of the country, the only course for His Excellency to adopt was to send for the Leader of the Opposi tion. Senator Guthrie has interjected that the Governor-General did send for Mr. Tudor. He did; that fact makes worse this pretence and make-believe. When the Leader of the Opposition was sent for, whether he should be intrusted to form an Administration or not depended upon what he said. If he was prepared to undertake the task of forming a Ministry it’ was for Parliament to say whether his Cabinet should remain in office or not. Such a decision was not in the domain of the Governor-General His Excellency may be a very high constitutional authority ; he may have some excellent qualities, but he has no right to interfere between the political parties of this country when the right path is. so plain that no man could fail to see it. If Mr. Tudor was wrong when he expressed the opinion that he could form a Cabinet to carry on the Government - and I say there were reasonable grounds for thinking that he would be able to carry on-

Senator Guthrie:

– Let us hear those grounds.

Senator GARDINER:

– I. will read the opinion of a Nationalist whose opinion is entitled to respect. Mr. Holman said -

I am certain that the Tudor Ministry would obtain at the hands of the present Nationalist party in the Federal Parliament every measure of patriotic consideration, and would obtain support in every step sincerely taken in the interests of voluntary recruiting. If, however, Mr. Tudor and his friends find that they can only live as a Government by listening to the counsels of the extremists amongst their followers - if they feel bound to give effect to immoderate resolutions carried by irresponsible conferences - if they forget that they represent the majority only on one point, and permit themselves to imagine that they represent it on all points, then it seems to me that this healing compromise, such as I and others are hoping for, will fail, and we shall have to return to a newly constituted National Govern- . ment.

We find not only in the statements of Sir William Irvine and Mr. Holman, but also in the speeches of almost every Minister who, prior to the vote, dealt with the question, that all were agreed that the one clear course, if the Government resigned, was that the Leader of the Opposition should be sent for. Such a procedure would be in accordance with constitutional practice.

Senator Guthrie:

– We do not go to a State Minister for decisions on Federal matters.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know that; but I am quoting the public utterance of a Nationalist to show that there were reasonable grounds for believing that in the present grave crisis any Government coining forward to carry out a strong war policy would receive the support of Nationalists in the Senate and in another place. If they did not receive that support so much the better for Parliament; the Government could have been removed from office within a couple of minutes if the Opposition had so desired, and no time would have been lost. The Nationalists have not got rid of their trouble by the white-washing process they have adopted.

– Seeing that the Government consulted the electors on the subject of conscription, they cannot properly be charged with menacing the people’s liberty.

Senator GARDINER:

– A Prime Minister must be taken to speak for his party, and, after Mr. Hughes had been through Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland, and New South Wales, and knew how the vote was going, he said, at Goulburn, at Junee, and at other places, “ I tell you, young’ men, that you will have to fight, whether ‘ Yes ‘ or ‘No ‘ be carried. Parliament will make you.”

Senator Reid:

– Did the honorable senator hear him say that ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I followed him at different places, and turned up the local newspapers to read what he had said. At Junee, the statement was made, “You will have to fight. Parliament will make you.” There is no mistaking the’ reply to that threat. As I said, if “ No “ Avere carried, and the Government persisted in conscripting men, or if “ Yes “ were carried by the faking or fixing of the soldiers’ vote, and Mr. Hughes said that he would make Australians fight, he would get all the fight he wanted here in Australia. If Ministers and their followers are Avise, they will not persist in flying in the face of the people whose opinion they have asked. They will deny this dream of a mind that is, I shall not say diseased, but very excited, and will take steps to remove the suspicion that has been created. Imaginary grievances are more dangerous than real ones.

I have ammunition here for a very long speech, but I have no desire to occupy time longer, though I ‘make no apology for the length of my remarks. Every member of the Ministry pledged himself to leave office, and Ministers have come back a discredited Government, having degraded the public life of the country by the breaking of their solemn word. No dressing up in new suits, no resigning and accepting office again, gets rid of the fact that they have been responsible for the most discreditable proceeding in Australian politics. . It would be wise if, instead of trying to cover up their tracks, and offering the extremists what they want, they Avould give up their idea of still” forcing conscription. Unless, when the Leader of the Government sits down, there has been a clear reply to my statement, I shall continue to spread the belief that they are still forcing conscription. I am making that statement repeatedly, in the hope that Ministers will have the good sense to give it the emphatic denial to which it is entitled, if it is wrong.

Senator Millen:

– You would not be lieve us.

Senator GARDINER:

– No ; because I know you too well. The honorable senator, speaking at Bathurst, said that he and his colleagues would go out of office if the “ No” vote were in the majority. The Prime Minister said at Bendigo that the Government would not, and could not, continue to govern unless they secured the power they sought. Every member of the Government gave practically the same pledge, and when, notwithstanding that pledge, I see them still in office, they must pardon me if I refuse to accept their word.

Senator Millen:

– Then why plead for yet another “ word.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I am pleading to the Minister to make a statement that will satisfy the minds of those who do not know the Government as I know them.

Senator Millen:

– And if it is given the honorable senator will go about the country trying to cause them to be dissatisfied.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am dissatisfied and grievously disappointed. I have put before the Senate a quotation showing that a high regard for honour on the part of British statesmen has cost Britain thousands of lives, and an expenditure of many millions of money in this war. They knew what the keeping of their promise to Belgium would mean; but they kept it, and Avhen I am confronted with a Government who give us a pledge to-day and break it to-morrow, I feel constrained to speak with warmth and feeling, in the hope that there may be at least one member of their party who will differ from the view they take of the duty of the public men of Australia.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.- The motion before the Chair is for the first reading of a Bill to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue a sum not exceeding £2,284,037 for the services of the present financial year; but although I listened very attentively to the speech just concluded by Senator Gardiner, I certainly failed to hear him make any reference to it. While he expressed the hope that there would be greater cooperation and unanimity on the part of political parties in this Parliament in carrying on the government of Australia during the present war, I can conceive of no utterance more calculated than was his speech to widen the breach, or, at all events, to perpetuate the political bitterness existing between political parties today.

I may be permitted very briefly to refer to one or two of the statements made by the honorable senator. In the first place, he declared - and the statement seemed to cause him the greatest anxiety - that there were not in Australia more than 60,000 eligible single men who could be called up should a system of compulsion be adopted. As a matter ofprinciple that point is not of very great importance to the- main question. If there were only 60,000 eligible single men who could be called up under the compulsory system’, then only60,000 would be called up. I should be very sorry to learn, however, that Australia’s manpower did not: exceed that number. I doubt very much the honorable senator’s figures. I prefer to take those advanced by the Government Statistician, although he does not vouch for their absolute accuracy..

Senator Gardiner:

– There cannot be very much wrong with the census figures..

Senator EARLE:

– No. They are correct. We have to remember, however, that some time has elapsed since the census enumeration. The figures now presented by the Government Statistician in regard to this question of eligibles are more or less approximate and of a guesswork character ;. but he should bein a better position to make an accurate guess -if I may use that expression - than any honorable’ senator, not excepting Senator

I strongly advised the members of the then Labour party to carry out their pledge. I’ took an opportunity to go direct from Hobart to Sydney to meet the Prime Minister on his return from the Old Country, in order to get from him, at first hand, his impressions regarding the progress of the war, and the need for further effort on the part of Australia. I have always been convinced that, excepting, perhaps, Canada, the Dominions, and particularly Australia and New Zealand, will not have done their share until they have done all that is humanly possible, and the war is over. Everything that we possess, and all the great potentialities of the future, depend on our success in the war. Canada is in rather a different position, because she has at her back the great American nation, and there is not much danger of German power ever entering the Dominion. Apart altogether from the duty which Australia owes to the Mother Country and to the Empire, she has the great incentive of absolute self-preservation. Therefore, I repeat that Australia will never be able to fully do her partuntil she has done all that is absolutely possible-

Senator EARLE:

– That is so. Beyond the people I have mentioned there is also the malcontent, who is against all parties : no matter who is in power he is opposed, to constituted authority. On this occasion constituted authority asked the people to vote “ Yes,” and accordingly he voted “No.”

Another section which counted very effectively Icomprises the soldiers who did not agree to assistance being sent to them by means of compulsion. Many soldiers argued that as they had sufficient love for Australia to offer their lives for her, they would not accept assistance from men who had to be compelled to go to the Front. They failed to recognise that Australia was the only important section of the Allies that did not have conscription;. and that they were fighting side by side withconscripts iron Great Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, and New Zealand. They failed to recognise that practically all the men who were fighting for the continuance of the world’s freedom were conscripts. There was another section among the men on active service comprising those who, having gone through certain hardships, felt that it would be unfair to force others to undergo the same. They were a self-sacrificing class of men who did not complain of their own lot, and although they recognised that it was important that more men should go to assist them, they would not ask for them to be compelled to go. No man recorded an affirmative vote for the pleasure of doing it. I venture to say that not one person put a cross opposite the word “ Yes “ with any pleasure.

Senator Long:

– Thehonorable senator is joking now.

Senator EARLE:

– Ifthe honorable senator can imagine that any person would find pleasure in any of the circumstances connected with the war, his opinion of humanitydiffers from mine.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator EARLE:

– I was pointing out that it is impossible by a referendum to obtain the real opinion of the people on such a question as compulsory reinforcements for the defence of the country. I have referred to a number of conflicting interests which prompted the electors to vote “No,” while on the other hand there are not more than two reasons why on such a question an elector should vote “Yes.” One reason is love of country and patriotism, and the fear of the loss of the freedom of the country, and the other, which may be associated with the first, consideration for a father, son, or friend, who might be serving at the Front. No man or woman, for the mere pleasure of doing so, voted “ Yes “ at the referendum to compel men to serve their country. Every man and every woman who voted “ Yes “ realized that it was an unpleasant duty to the State to do so. The odds and the interests on the “ No “ side were so great that the appeal was entirely one-sided, and it was thus impossible to get a fair expression of the opinion of the jpeople on such a question by the method adopted. The principle of the referendum is entirely inapplicable to such a question. War is not democratic. It is the very antithesis of all that is democratic. If all the nations of the world were Democracies we might take siteps to prevent war and avoid that state of madness into which the worldis at present thrown, and prevent the horrible outrages that are being perpetrated in the present struggle. But while one country is ruled by an autocracy or a bureaucracy, those nations who desire to enjoy the privileges and advantages of Democracy must themselves institute an autocracy in order to protecttheir democratic privileges and advantages. A referendum is qf the very essence of Democracy - rule by the people. Even if it were practical to obtain a sound judgment from the people on such a question as reinforcements by means of a referendum the very necessity to reveal information which should not be allowed to reach the enemy in order to enable the people to understand the true position is of itself an important reason why the question of war should never be decided by a plebiscite. Giving such information to the electors it is impossible to avoid giving it to the enemy. One question, for instance, which had to be dealt with during the last referendum campaign was the number of Australian troops in England. When dealing with millions of men the number Australia has supplied for the conduct of the war is comparatively insignificant, but an important principle was still involved. Those opposed to an affirmative vote at the referendum, in order to induce people to vote “ No,” repeatedly stated that there were in England at least 121,000 Australians who might be used as reinforcements. That statement had to be met, and it was necessary to give official figures to show that the actual number of Australians in England was only 71,000, and that that number included post-office officials, hospital attendants, orderlies, and all the rest.

SenatorBakhap. - And wounded men being patched up to be returned to Australia.

Senator EARLE:

– I have no desire to get rid of the honorable senator.

In my opinion, it would be foolish to betray the electors of this country by placing the government in the hands of the Official Labour party. Concerning the pledge given by the Prime Minister, I want to make it clear that I did not approve of it in any way, and I am satisfied that the interests of Australia would not be protected if that pledge were carried out in thespirit. Nor would it be honoured by the selection from the National party, other than the present Ministers, of aGovernment to carry on the affairs of this country. That pledge could only behonoured by handing over the government to the Tudor party.

Senator Long:

– What areflection on the other members of your party.

SenatorEARLE. - No, it is not. There are sufficientmembers in the National party to form half-a-dozen Governments,but if that course had been taken the pledge would not have been honoured any more thanby the resignation of the late Government and therecommissioning of the Prime Minister to form a new Government consisting of the same members.

Another grievance I have with members of the Official Labour party is that, while they profess to believe in the voluntary system of recruiting, there has not yet been any whole-hearted effort on their part to co-operate with the National party in giving effect to that system. When the last referendum was decided upon, and a special effort was made in my own State to press forward the voluntary system of recruiting, Senator Ready, a pronounced “ No “ voter, accepted the position of Chairman of the Recruiting Council ofTasmania, and, from that hour, dated his downfall. Members of the Official Labour party, either in State or Federal politics, rendered practically no assistance.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Who was Senator Ready’s bitterestopponent? Was it not the Hobart Mercury ?

Senator EARLE:

– That is nothing. I was one of his greatest friends, and strongly urged the Director of Recruiting to appoint him, because I realized thatthe members of the National party (had done all they could in the interests of voluntary recruiting, and had advised the adoption of the compulsorysystem. Then, surely, the proper thing, if they were sincere, was for those who had advised the people to vote against conscription to become prominent in advo- cating the voluntary system. Under these circumstances, honorable senators opposite will excuse me if I say that it isa tax on my credulity to ask me to believe that they are anxious to recruit men for the reinforcement of those at the Front.

I wish, now, to quote shortly from a pamphlet of which, probably, every honorable senator has received a copy. It was written by a member of the British Labourparty, Mr. J. A. Seddon, who has occupiedvery important positions in the industrialorganizations of

Great Britain, and expresses himself on this war in a ‘manner which it would be greatly to the credit of Australian Labour men to emulate. Mr. Seddon says -

Before tlie outbreak of the great war, organized British labour was wholly pacifist. We were ^opposed to militarism, in every shape amc! form. We fought the increase of armaments. We did our best to allay .anything which might be likely te promote the growth of the fighting spirit among our people. We looked to see the spirit of international friendship spread till all nations wore united in world peace.

Those are splendid sentiments - they do credit to a democratic leader. He continues -

This war was Germany’s work, and Germany’s purpose was to secure world domination. British labour was opposed to war. But British labour was, and is, infinitely more opposed to the establishment of a system that would place the nations at the mercy of Prussian bureaucracy. Better many years .of war than this. We realized that Prussianism and freedom cannot exist side by side.

Again -

What of the conscientious objectors? What of the people in England who refuse to fight? There are not many of them, but there are a few. We trade unionists regard the conscientious objectors as national blacklegs. They accept the protection provided by the nation, and the security established by our fighting men. They receive the benefits of .our national organization, ‘and are trying to escape from paying their fair .dues. Trade unions, get rid of “blacklegs. I would clear these national blacklegs out of the land.

The course of the war is bringing about farreaching changes in British 3abour, changes the full effects of which are, as yet, scarcely realized. All classes have commingled in the trendies, and have, perhaps, learned -to understand one. another better. The mcn of the overseas forces, who have come among us an their hundred thousands, have helped the British -worker to realize the Empire. Men horn in Toronto and Melbourne have fought side by side with men born in Liverpool and Sheffield.

The progress of the war, and my experiences during a visit to France, helped to convince me that, until international disarmament comes and the character of the German ls transformed, we must guard ourselves by national service against future dangers. The so-called voluntary system cost us dearly. Witness the destruction of so many of our first Expeditionary Force in France because we had not the trained men to send to their support. . . .

Terrible as .this war has been, and heavy as is its cost, I am yet profoundly convinced that it is bringing us new vision, new hopes, .-new life. A common sorrow over our lost ones is helping to “break down many old barriers. The sense of a common fellowship is uniting us.

I wish I could hear honorable senators opposite giving utterance to sentiments of that kind. It would redound to the credit of the leaders of Labour in Australia were they to take up the same attitude, realizing that it is absolutely imperative that, if we are to be a united people in a great ‘Democracy, forming part of the Empire, every one of us “must do his utmost to cripple for all time the Prussian bureaucracy, -which depends upon force of arms for world power.

Senator EARLE:

– A section, it may be. In the record of national work done since the Honorable W. M. Hughes first took office will be found the explanation c:f our prosperity to-day, and the guarantee - so far as we have it now - of our future welfare. As a monument to one man’s initiative, capacity, ‘and energy, it stands unrivalled. in the history of Australia, and possibly the world.

The organization of our great primary industries with the object of marketing the whole of the “produce was a colossal undertaking. None could foresee, and few can yet appreciate, its ramifications. Pools were formed of almost all the producers in the country; the Government made the sale, provided the freight, obtained and -distributed the money. At a time when so many of the world’s producers were unable to find markets, the Commonwealth Government stepped in and relieved the Australian farmer of .all responsibility and risk. This action saved Australia ; without it our position to-day might well have been worse than that of any .other belligerent.

But the Government’s first move brought in its train a load of great and grave responsibilities. New conditions arose daily; new problems had to be £ faced. As the Prime Minister had undertaken to sell .and transport the wheat, on him fell the onus of wheat storage, wheat bagging, and finance. He grappled- firmly with each in turn, and with the aid of the

– The scheme is evidently further advanced than I was aware. Each new .step has been the logical sequence of some preceding one.

In other directions, also, fresh difficulties were encountered. To assist the fruitgrowers, the Government secured large orders from Britain and ‘ America for jam and tinned fruits, but the jam manufacturers then clamoured for cheaper sugar and tin plates. The Government solved the sugar problem, and by bringing their influence to bear on the Munitions Departments in England they gradually arranged for supplies of tin plates. This increased local manufacture created a demand for machinery, and again the Government were called upon to plead with the British authorities. Special permits had to be obtained for such, articles, for in many cases their export from Great Britain was absolutely .prohibited… Honorable senators will realize how disastrously private enterprise would have fared., and .how vitally important was the action taken by the Australian Government. The shortage ox’ freight led to a shortage’ of imports, and, to prevent monopolies and exploitation of the people, tlie Government created a Prices Board. Then, to stimulate local production and encourage industries, it established a Science and Industries Bureau. This Department has not yet begun te bear fruit, but I expect important developments from it in the very near future.

The dependence of one industry upon another, the relation of one problem, to another, have thus gradually’ extended the scope of the Government’s operations until at this moment they practically hold the whole of the industrial welfare of the country in their hands– On their administration, not only in the political, but also in the purely business sense, rests the welfare of the nation alike with that of the individual.

Some idea of the magnitude of the transactions in which the Commonwealth lias been involved since the outbreak of the war, will be gathered from the following tables showing, the moneys that Great Britain has, expended, on our account, and. paid to. us directly im cash.. I am sure these figures will inr terest honorable, senators. Iel’ -order to, maintain our soldiers at the Front, Great Britain, has. paid £100-, 750,000.. She haspaid for wheat £51,095,000, for wool £64,000,000, for butter £4,5.’3Q,000, for jam £3,000,000, for rabbits- £1,500:000 and for metals £19,000,000;, or a total, paid to. us of £2.43,875,000,. much of it for- material which has not yet been- delivered. Those figures are by no means exhaustive.-. In, addition-, there were several smaller purchases: by Great. Britain which increase- the total, considerably. For this year alone no less- a. suan than £76,750,000- will be required to- finance the primary producers^.

The total quantity of wheat pooled of. the 1915-16 crop was 162,250y000bushels, and of the 1916-17 crop 138,000,000 bushels. These figures exclude “seed wheat and a certain quantity of feed wheat. The magnitude* of the scheme can be gauged, and thehelplessness of the Australian growers realized, if they had- been, dependent, upon, the usual marketing channels. This beneficent- monopoly may be- described, as’ the- greatest co-operative venture in the world. It has given rise to the largest single wheat transaction recorded hi history, namely, the sale of 3r000,000 tons by the Government of Australia to the Imperial Government for a sum of £26,.600,000. A further quantity of. 200,000 tons was sold to France. For the 1915-16 crop, the farmers have already been paid 4s. 6d. per bushel,, less rail freights and agents’ handling charges, the total payment amounting to £31,920,000. For the 1916-17 crop, growers have been paid, so far, 3s. ‘per bushel, involving an amount of £2.0’,262,000. In regard to the 1917-18 crop,, arrangements have now been made for an advance of 3s. per bushel, involving an amount estimated at £15,750,000. Up to date,, no, less a sum than £51,095,000 has been paid for wheat; and as Great Britain paid fon the bulk, of the grain.- before delivery,, the Government were able to: guarantee- the- farmers- 4s.. per bushel for the 1917-18 crop, though the possibility of transporting it overseas, was more- than remote-. The importance of the steps taken- by the Prime Minister in. regard to wheat cam scarcely be- realized.. Had there been no guarantee, or. had Great Britain insisted on delivery before- payment, thousands, of. acres of wheat-bearing la-nd would have gone out of production,, thousands of: farmers would have been bankrupt, and millions, of pounds: now circulating in. our midst: would never have entered Australia..

The whole of tlie wool clip has been handled’ by a central committee in much the. same way as wheat. The task may be. gauged^ by the figures for the 1916-17 clip. Of this tlie quantity appraised under the Imperial Government’s purchase was, of greasy wool,. 323-, 748,376 lbs.; and scoured, 34,310,645 lbs. Nearly 300,000 separate and independent valuations were made of wool classified into 381 types. Foi- the wool appraised in 1916-17 an. average price of 15.£.d. per lb. was realized,, or a total of £25,340,540; of this’ Great Britain paid £24,268,127. Almost the whole of this clip was paid for before delivery, and arrangements have now been made with Great Britain to purchase the 1917-18 clip for approximately £40,000,000..

The operations of the butter pool established in: May, 1917, have resulted, not only in a. profit te the producer, but also in a saving to the consumer. The average price ruling in Australia from June to August, in 1917, was ls. 7d. per lb., whereas the average price ruling for the same months, over a series of years. ranged from ls. lOd. to 2s. per lb. Thus the pool assured to the Australian, consumer an adequate supply of butter and a financial saving of some thousands of pounds. The total value of the butter handled by the pool was £8,500,000. In October, 1917, the Prime Minister completed arrangements for the sale to Great Britain of 30,000 tons of butter at 151s. per cwt. f .o.b. for first grade - 90 points - ls, less for each grade downwards, and ls. more for grades above 90 points, the total amount involved being £4,530,000. In addition to the above prices, Australian producers share in any profits made by the sale of the butter in Great Britain.

The shortage of refrigerated space and tonnage generally threatened the fruit industry in Australia with almost total extinction, but prompt action by the Prime Minister and his Government saved it. Mr. Hughes sold to the British Government 12,000,000 lbs. of assorted jams at 5£d. per lb., and some thousands of tons of dried fruits; also, in order to enable the fruit-growers in Australia to compete in jam-making with other countries, the Government made arrangements by which cheap sugar, at £24 per ton in bond, was made available to- the manufacturers, and assured a supply of tinplate which otherwise would not have been obtainable. In addition to the jam sold to Great Britain, 3S,000,000 lbs. were sold to the United States at 5£d. per lb.- or £1,093,450 over all. Altogether it is estimated that the amount of jam sold since the beginning of the war is valued at £3,000,000. Another order for 100,000 tins of canned fruit was received from Great Britain at prices ranging from 7s. 6d. to 8s. 3d. per dozen, but so far only 35,000 tins have been offered. In addition, 105,000 2-lb. tins of pineapple were placed at 7£d. per lb., and 1,800 cases of evaporated apples at 7 dr. per lb. These three orders alone represent approximately £131,000. Apart from the matter of export, the Government have financed the fruit-growers of Australia in a scheme for marketing their surplus products within the Commonwealth.

Another industry which some are apt to despise - the rabbit packing and export industry - has also been considered. In February, 1917, the Government sold to the British Government .the whole of the rabbit pack, valued at over £1,000,000, and representing over 30,000,000 rabbits. This deal in itself is remarkable, for it amounts to double the quantity exported in any previous year. A further contract has been made for the 1918 pack, of which Great Britain is prepared to take no less than 20,000 tons.

The Prime Minister’s action in ridding the metal industry of all German influence, and then organizing the production and sale of metals on a national basis, is known throughout the world. In November, 1915, he first established the Australian Metal Exchange, and since that date over £19,000,000 worth of metals have been sold to Great Britain alone. In addition to the sale to Great Britain, extensive valuable postwar contracts have ‘ been made with Belgium and France, which will place the metal industry on a basis far sounder than it has ever occupied. The importance of this action cannot be too greatly emphasized, for control of Australian metals is of vital importance not only to the whole Empire, but also to Great Britain’s Allies.

The Government have also sold the whole of the present season’s exportable surplus of cheese, which may be estimated at 3,000,000 lbs., at 9d. per lb. for first grade. The transaction involves approximately £75,000.

Most of the problems which confront Australia’s producers arise from the shortage of ‘shipping. The serious condition of affairs in Australia in this connexion will be seen in the fact that during June of last year not one bushel of wheat was shipped from the Commonwealth, although at the time there was awaiting shipment sufficient cargo to fill fifteen refrigerated vessels and 548 general cargo ships of an average tonnage. The steps taken by the Government to relieve the strain which they foresaw would come are now fairly well known. Freight was organized, vessels chartered, and others taken over from the enemy. Fifteen steamers were purchased in 1915 at a price of £2,062,000, a transaction which is now regarded everywhere as a masterly stroke. ‘Although under the Government freight scheme, Mr. Hughes kept down freights to the lowest point, these ships have already earned enormous profits, and. could to-day be sold for double the price paid for them. Fourteen new ships are now being built in America for the Commonwealth Government, and will shortly be engaged in transporting Australia’s products overseas.

In addition, a comprehensive shipbuilding scheme, which I have already alluded to, has been launched in Australia. Experts have been engaged, agreements made with unions concerned, sites chosen, material provided for, and everything done essential to the successful launching of this great industry. The building of ships will commence forthwith. The importance of this scheme, not only from the stand-point of freight, i.e., of tonnage independence, out also in relation to the metal industry, will be readily recognised.

Had nothing been done bv the Prime Minister but the organization of tonnage at a time when the shipping problem was the most vital to the Empire, he might well have been satisfied with his. work, but taken in conjunction with the organization of primary industries, and the sale of produce to Great Britain, it forms but a link in one of the greatest national achievements of any statesman of the present day.

Senator Russell:

– Before the honorable senator leaves the question of freight, he might emphasize the point that the Commonwealth ships are carrying wheat for £6 10s. per ton when the world’s rate is £15 per ton.

Senator EARLE:

– I was no’t aware of that, but I do know that freights have been considerably cut down as a result of the employment of the ships purchased by the Prime Minister.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Is this a Ministerial statement?

Senator EARLE:

Senator O’Keefe:

– All the same, big prices paid for skins must involve big prices for rabbits.

Senator EARLE:

– I should like to remind Senator O’Keefe, who is interested in a hop-growing State, that a Hop Board was appointed, which made recommendations leading to the almost total prohibition of imports, and which will insure the utilization of all the hops grown in the Commonwealth at a satisfactory price to the grower. The value of hops under this scheme is, approximately, £110,000. This matter now depends very largely upon the co-operation of the growers of hops in Victoria and Tasmania.

In connexion with sugar, the Government action was the most important and’ far-reaching of any whichconcerned the local market.

Senator Needham:

– I rise to a point of order. For the past fifty minutes Senator Earle has been reading a paper. I want to know whether or not he is reading his speech, and if he is, whether he is not contravening Standing Order 406’,. which provides that no honorable senator shall read his speech? I should like, sir, to have your ruling as to whether the honorable senator is reading his speech as a guide for other members of the Senate.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator wish to censor Senator Earle?

Senator Needham:

– I am not attempting to do so. I am asking for a ruling from the Chair:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - If Senator Earle were reading his speech in the course of an ordinary debate he would be distinctly out of order, but the Standing and Sessional Orders having been suspended, I think hecan do practically as he likes..

Senator O’Keefe:

– Did I understand you, sir, to say “ if “ the honorable senator were reading his’ speech ? Are you in any doubt about it?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Yes.

Senator Needham:

– I do not know whether the Standing Orders have been suspended or not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- The Standing and Sessional Orders have been suspended to enable the Bill to pass through all its stages without delay.

Senator Needham:

– And do you, sir, rule that because the Standing and Sessional Orders have been suspended an honorable senator may do exactly as he likes ?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT . - No ; an honorable senator may not do as he likes.

Senator Needham:

– I understood you, sir, to rule that as the Standing and Sessional Orders have been suspended, Senator Earle may do ashe likes. If that is your ruling we can all please ourselves as to what we do.

Senator EARLE:

– The fact that I am quoting from such copious notes-

Senator O’Keefe:

– You have had a pretty good run.

Senator EARLE:

– And I thank honorable senators for it. Honorable senators might: very properly doubt whether I was justified in quoting from the copious notes which I have found it necessary to prepare in order, to assist my memory in presenting a statement that I wanted to make as carefully as possible.

In sugar the Government’s action was the most important and far-reaching of any other which concerned the local market. The entire sugar crops of Queensland for 1915-16 and 1916-17 were purchased by the Commonwealth-, and thesugar sold to the consumer at the pre-war price of 3½d. per lb. Before the war the miller received £’13 per ton. Under the Government’s scheme he received £18 for the 1915-16 crop, and £21 for the 1916-17 crop. The value of the sugar handled under the scheme was about £8,000,000 for each crop.

The amount of national wealth actually handled or controlled by the Prime Minister is enormous. Probably no corporation in this world has ever in its history been responsible for the business management of so much wealth. Yet, despite the fact that the way was beset with countless problems arising from the state of war, this great national business undertaking has resulted in triumphant success. Better profits have been paid to the producer, better wages to the worker, and last, but by no means least, the consumer has been safeguarded to a very great degree from exploitation. The value, ire round numbers, of the commodities sold, handled, or controlled by the Government - which some say is doing nothing to assist in winning the war - during the past year is as follows : -

It must be remembered that most of the measures introduced by Mr. Hughes for the betterment, if not the actual salvation, of Australia were bitterly opposed by his political enemies. His action in leaving the Labour party made him the persona] target of the extremists. Every conceivable method of discounting or hindering his work was resorted to by unprincipled politicians and private citizens. The farmer was told that the Wheat Pool robbed him; the primary producers were everywhere deceived by the grossest lies concerning the actions taken to safeguard them; voluntary recruiting was definitely hindered by sections who merely desired to see the Hughes Administration discredited. Never in the history of Australia have so many vital problems been ‘faced by a Prime Minister, and never has he been confronted by so much open and concealed hostility. The deepest criticism came from those who most benefited under the scheme; no one seemed to appreciate the absolute futility of proceeding along the usual channels. The success which has attended his truly great efforts is nothing short of remarkable in the light of the difficulties to be overcome. TEat the public of Australia, who have benefited - and all have benefited - by his actions, will appreciate to the full the work done, is more than one can expect, but at least it is reasonable to ask that its value shall not be submerged in criticism over something political, which even had it been successful would have contributed nothing to the economic welfare of Australia.

The problem of raising recruits was one of the most important that confronted the various Governments led by Mr. Hughes. On his’ accession to office in

October, 1915, recruiting was falling gradually away. The first excited rush to the colours following the declaration of war had stopped. Recruiting had developed into a slow laborious business, and the Government set about a definite business scheme of organization. Committees were established throughout the Commonwealth, and branches formed wherever it was possible to form them. All the volunteer assistance obtainable was organized, and every device of the volunteer system exploited to the limit. Its possibilities .were exhausted. Never before in the world’s history, possibly, has the system been given such a trial. The demands for men, however, more than overtook the supply, and resulted in the two conscription referenda which the people rejected. Although the Prime Minister was the most earnest disciple of compulsory reinforcements, during his term of office no less than 189,802 enlistments were obtained under the voluntary system.

We live to-day in what London newspapers term a “Paradise of Plenty.” The phenomenal fact that we do so is due to the foresight, energy, and indomitable perseverance of the one man against whom the barbed darts of venomous criticism, both inside and outside Parliament, have so recently been ruthlessly launched?

I make this special reference to the Prime Minister - first, because he deserves it; secondly, because he is the one person in whom the venomous hatred of Australia’s enemies is centred. May he be granted health and strength to long guide the destinies of Australia in the manner in which he has been doing for the last few years. I pray that some vein of reasonableness will be tapped from which honorable members on the opposite side may be replenished. Simply because they disagree with him on one subject, they should not blind themselves to the great and good things the Prime Minister has done. They should try to be more equitable in their criticism of a man who has done more for this country and the Empire, as well as for his fellow workers, than can be credited to any other person in any country in the world.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I .find, upon looking over the results of the recent referendum in the

States named, the following were the results : -

Informal, 54,923. Majority for “ No,” 164,895.

– Of course, we approved of it. I was in favour of it, because I knew how the country would vote vhen it realized the effect of conscription. I am not sure that the branches of the Labour movement to which I have referred were not justified in adding the names Hughes and Holman to the list of those mainly responsible for the defeat of the referendum proposals.

I have no hesitation in saying that the recent strike iu New South Wales was engineered by the New South Wales Nationalist Government. They made Mr. Fraser, Chief Commissioner of Railways, their instrument to bring about a dispute.

Senator Guthrie:

– The wharf labourers in Melbourne were out on strike before the railway men in New South Wales struck.

Senator GRANT:

– In my opinion, the strike at the Randwick work-shops was engineered by Chief Commissioner Fraser, at the dictation of the New South Wales Government, at a time when they knew that that would dislocate the trade of the country and adversely affect the conduct of the war.

Senator Guthrie:

– Who engineered the Melbourne wharf labourers’ strike? Adela Pankhurst!

Senator GRANT:

– After the wharf labourers’ strike had been almost settled, the Steam-ship Owners Association, because of a difficulty in manning the

– I have taken part, in many campaigns, but I have never experienced so much personal abuse as was indulged in by the other side - from the Prime Minister downwards - during the recent referendum. It may not have been intended to arouse antipathy to members of the Nationalist party, and to stir up strong opposition to the principles they were advocating, but it certainly had that effect. I am glad that in the Senate, at all events, statements that are uncalledfor, and not in accordance with fact, are not permissible under the Standing Orders, and must be withdrawn.

– Senator Barnes, who is a prominent member of the Australian Workers Union, to which the rabbiters belong, assures us that the Government have shorn them of £230,000 as the result of the agreement under which rabbits are being sold to the British Government. That will not stand to their credit. Thev have robbed the rabbiters of money to which they are entitled.

Speaking at Manly the Minister for the Navy said -

The Government will not attempt to carry on the government of the country if “ No “ is voted.

The Prime Minister, speaking at Uralla on 2nd December last, said -

If it (the Government’s proposals) were not agreed to, lie would refuse to carry on, and any Government which might then come into power would be entirely free from responsibility to keep the pledges he had made.

Speaking at Her Majesty’s Theatre on 4th December, he said -

And I declare that unless the Government of this country has this power it is asking for, it will not - cannot, indeed - attempt to govern.

Many of the unsophisticated people of Sydney who heard, or read, these statements, believed that the Government would refuse to carry on if the “ No “ vote were successful, and would at once make way for another Administration. We know that the Government did not do so. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Webster), speaking at Yass on 5th December, said -

If the referendum is not carried, the Ministry will resign in twenty-four hours, with the result that the government of the country will be handed over to strikers, disloyalists, and I.W.W., and Sinn Feiners.

I wonder he did not say they were Bolsheviks; and I have no doubt he had the name in his mind. The Prime Minister, at Goulburn, on 6th December, said -

In effect, what the people of Australia have to determine on 20th December is what ideals they stand for . . . by whom they intend to be governed.

At Junee, on 7th December, he said -

If you reject the reinforcements referendum proposals I shall hold myself free to do that which I think necessary to be done. I have said that this Government will not retain office unless you approve of these proposals. This is so.

The Minister for the Navy, at Willoughby, on the 11th December, said -

We are deliberately taking the risk, and we say we shall not be doing ourselves justice as honorable and honest men if we did not put our all to the hazard in the hope of getting these mon. So far from there being any ulterior motives, it is really we who are making the sacrifice, and we mean to return with a triumphant majority. And we say, “ Unless you do that, some one else can have the chance of carrying on the Government.”

Senator de Largie:

– From what paper are you quoting.

Senator GRANT:

– The Daily Telegraph of 5th January. I suppose the hon orable senator is anxious for me to quote from the Standard, and ! shall do so presently. The Postmaster-General, at Brisbane, on the 12th December, said -

If you vote “ No “ the Government will not remain in office twenty-four hours.

The Minister for the Navy, at Summer Hill, on 15th December, said -

If our proposal is not carried we will ask to be relieved from the responsibility of conducting the war.

The Prime Minister, at Bathurst, on 17th December, said -

So far as this Government is concerned, I repeat that unless it has the power it seeks it will not attempt to govern this country.

Personally, I was all the time of the opinion that, no matter what happened, the late - or the present - Government would find ways and means of holding on to office. I sometimes thought that they might make some slight alteration in the personnel of the Ministry, but, on the whole, I felt that they would not relinquish their positions; and in this I was not disappointed. Many people, of course, were of opinion that the members of the Government actually meant what they said; and, in determining to hold on to office, the Ministry have brought the words of public men into greater disrepute than has any other event that has happened in the Commonwealth. In view of the f actthat , the Government and their supporters in another place number fiftythree as against twenty-two Labour men, and about twenty-four as against twelve in the Senate, it seemed plain to me that they would necessarily remain in office; but these definite promises, threats, or pledges were repeated by prominent men in the Ministerial rank, not only in the few cases I have quoted, but all over the Commonwealth throughout the campaign, and the impression was left on the minds of a great number of electors that, unless there was a majority vote for the referendum proposal, they would not attempt, either as that Government or any other, to carry on the business of the country. However, they, have broken their pledge in word and deed, and, as I say, have brought the public’ utterances of public men into more disrepute than any other action could have done.

Senator Shannon:

– Did the Government resign ?

Senator GRANT:

– They did.

Senator Shannon:

– Then they carried out their pledge.

Senator GRANT:

– A resignation of that kind is a mere flimsy pretext, unworthy of honest and honorable men. It would have been far better had no pledge at all been made; but it was made, and that was part of the blundering work of honorable senators on that side.

– Never mind about the past; let us deal with the present position. Is it fair that the Prime Minister should receive £2,400 per year, and that members of this Parliament should be paid £600 per year, while the men who are fighting in thetrenches are paid only 6s. per day? I do not wonder at the

– I should start straightway, and I should not mind if the increase were made retrospective. Nothing is too good for the men who went to the Front, as I expect they will let us know when they return and become properly organized. I have suggested one means by which the Government lean substantially increase the number of recruits. There is so much distrust of the present Government among those who are eligible to go to the Front that the number of volunteers is decreasing day by day. The decrease may not be due to the fact that the present Government are in office, but that is my interpretation of the position.

– I am not speaking of State land taxation.

Senator Russell:

– I thought the honorable senator was speaking of the taxation of the land-owners of Austrafia,

Senator GRANT:

– -I am putting forward the necessity of getting the owners of Australia to pay the taxation, or most of it, required to carry on the war. The total amount they are to be called upon to pay thiB year is only £2,110,000. As honorable senators are aware, the Senate was good enough to enable mc to obtain a return of the total value of the lands of the Commonwealth. They were returned as worth £445,000,000. I do not say that that valuation is quite accurate, but it was as near as could be supplied from the information disclosed by the wealth census cards. I believe that the people who own land worth £445,000,000 are not called upon to pay enough for its defence when they are asked to contribute only £2,110,000 a year. What are our men fighting for ? They are fighting for” Australia. Let honorable senators listen to . what Mr. Outhwaite, M.P., said at a conference held in Glasgow on 4th December, 1916,- when the.hall was packed to overflowing with from 700 to 800 persons -

Lately wa have had some measures of land reform in the House of Commons. We have had a Small Colonics Bill, which was a Bill to purchase land at the high inflated war prices and put the soldiers upon it. That means, if you buy the land on the high-price basis, and put the men on it, they will pay a high rent and rates and taxes, and it means making such men the slaves of the soil. To the man who fought to save this land. ‘from German possession you SHY, “ Before you can use an acre, you have to pay £50 or £60 an acre to the landlord for permission to do so.” That is the fate of the soldier who goes to fight for’ Great Britain. If he comes back and desires to produce anything, he has first of all to interview one of the* friends of honorable senators opposite, one of the landlords of Great Britain, and plead with him to let him purchase some. of the land he has fought for. He has not the right to produce anything at al) unless he first of all agrees ,to pay the landlord £50 or £60 an acre for the land he requires. Where is the returned British soldier .to get that money out of his pay of ls. per day ! He must get a mortgage, .or something of the sort, and remain an absolute slave upon the land for the rest of his life. Mr. Outhwaite went on to say -

Well, you may accept that position - I don’t think this audience will, and I think tho soldier himself will have something to say.

Honorable senators will agree with me that when the soldier from Great Britain goes into Flanders, and fights, there for Great Britain, he should get better treatment on his return than to have to pay £50 or £60 an acre for’ the right to produce something whereon to live. Is there not the same state of affairs in Australia 1 What becomes of the returned Australian soldiers 1

Senator Guthrie:

– We are doing the best we oan for them.

Senator GRANT:

– .No, we are not. We are doing practically nothing for them, and no one knows that better than does Senator Guthrie. The only way in which we can do anything of permanent value for our returned soldiers is to make it impossible for Australian land sharks to hold their lands unless they put them to the highest possible productive use. The only way in which we oan do that is, as I have remarked before in this chamber

Senator Guthrie:

– Many times.

Senator GRANT:

– Tes; I have many times said that the only way is to make all land subject to a land value tax so heavy that no man will be able to afford to hold on to land and do nothing with it. All ‘the talk about repatriation can lead to nothing so long as the lands of the country are held out of use as they are to-day.

However unpleasant it may be to honorable senators opposite, and however much they may be afraid of the* landlord’s vote, I remind them that in Australia, with its population of approximately 5,000,000, there are 4,000,000 people who do not own any land ‘at all.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– We have 370,000,000 acres of Crown lands in Queensland.

Senator de Largie:

– There is double that area in Western Australia,so we could afford to give the people a good deal of land. I could get a farm of 1,000 acres in Western Australia for the hono rable senator for next to nothing.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator might do so if I were willing to take up land along the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, where there is an average rainfall of 6 inches a year, and where in some years it does not rain at all. That is the place where, when Senator de largie waa a member of the Labour party, it was said that he held a magnificent estate comprising 10,000 square miles, or 10,000 miles square. When the honorable member was a member of the Labour party he was said on that account to be the champion land monopolist, but since he went over to the other side we hear nothing more about it. There is, no. doubt, plenty of land to be obtained along the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, where the rainfall amounts to only 6 inches a year, but’ I do not think that land will be rushed for many years to come. The fact remains that there aro plenty of good lands in the Commonwealth easily accessible to the markets of the country which are being purposely held out of use , in order that the owners may later on secure an enhanced price for them. We hear, almost every year, of proposals to tax lands within 20 miles of a railway because they are held out of use, but nothing conies of them. The result is that we send men abroad to fight for Australia, and when they return they find it almost impossible to secure suitable employment. There are thousands of men who are not returned soldiers who also find it difficult to secure suitable employment. This is mainly, if not entirely, due to the fact that we have been foolish enough to practically imitate here the land laws of Great Britain. I ask leave to continue my remarks at the next sitting of the Senate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3350

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 o’clock to-morrow morning.

page 3350

ADJOURNMENT

Gold Passes fob Ministers.

Motion (by Senator Millen) pro posed -

That the Senate do now adjourn. ,

Senator GARDINER:
New. South Wales

– In this morning’s papers appears a statement headed “ Gold Passes for Ministers. Mr. O’Malley’s Last Act.” Any one reading it would be led to believe that Mr. . O’Malley issued those passes of his own volition. As a member of the Cabinet which agreed to it, after detailed consideration of the whole business, brought properly before it by Mr. O’Malley, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Railways, who was also a member of the Cabinet, is it not a fact that the matter was considered By the Government in a proper way, and agreed to ?

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

– I have not had an opportunity of seeing the statement, but before the debate closes I shall make some reference to the matter.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is most unmanly for the Government responsible for it to allow a Minister to be blamed for what the Government did.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 January 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19180122_SENATE_7_84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 January 1918

QUESTION

DEFENCE ACCOUNTS

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING IN TASMANIA

Senator LONG:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TRUNK LINES

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

SALE OF SHIPS TO FOREIGNERS

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

PAPEES

Australian Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association

Commonwealth Postmasters’ Association

Postal Sorters’ Union of Australia

Australian Letter Carriers’ Association

Public Service Act 1902-1916: - Promotions, Postmaster-General’s Department -

Prime Minister’s Department -

QUESTION

ONION CROP

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McDOUGALL:

QUESTION

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Grant:

QUESTION

NATIONAL SEEVICE BUREAUX

Senator BARKER:VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPBUILDING SCHEME

Senator GRANT:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS

Senator REID:for Senator Poll

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

BALSILLIE RAIN EXPERIMENTS

Senator LONG:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF RABBITS AND RABBIT SKINS

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

QUESTION

ESTIMATED WAR EXPENDITURE

Senator LONG:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

RETURNED SOLDIERS AND CONSCRIPTION

Senator BARNES:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

WIRELESS MESSAGES

Senator O’KEEFE:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

SALE OF INTOXICANTS IN WAR TIME

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18

Senator MILLEN:Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Bakhap:

Senate
22 January 1918

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator LONG:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BARKER:
VICTORIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator REID:
for Senator Poll

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’KEEFE:
TASMANIA · ALP