Senate
23 January 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
QUESTION
- REINFORCEMENTS
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- NEW ZEALAND CONSCRIPTION
QUESTION
- CAPTURED GERMAN COLONIES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF JAM
QUESTION
- SOLDIERS’ PARCELS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH POLICE
SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18
HOUR OP MEETING
PAPER
ADJOURNMENT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The resolution of the Senate has been noted, and will be dealt with in the statement of Government policy to be. made on the resumption of Parliament.

page 3351

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON

Senator BAKHAP:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Government taken into consideration the resolution of the Senate in regard to the representation of Australian interests at Washington, U.S.A.; and, if so, what is its intention in regard to the matter?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answer to the previous question equally applies to this one.

page 3351

QUESTION

EXPORT OF JAM

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs -

What is the total quantity of jam ordered by the British and American Governments from Australia for shipment this year?
What proportion of these orders has been allotted by the Customs Department to each State, giving particulars of firms, quantities, sorts, and prices in each case?

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

– The information is being obtained.

page 3351

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ PARCELS

Senator PRATTEN:

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

Are any soldiers’ parcels now being forwarded from Australia to Europe?
What restrictions, if any, are imposed upon the contents of such parcels?

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The answers are -

Yes.
There are no restrictions other than those applying generally to the parcels post.

Senator PRATTEN:

– A paragraph appeared in the daily press a month or two ago to the effect that, should parcels for soldiers in England contain sugar, they would probably be confiscated, as the sending of sugar was prohibited. That statement was made by Colonel Oldershaw, and I ask the Minister whether it was correct.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Will the honorable senator give notice?

Senator PRATTEN:

– I give notice for to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The time for giving notice has passed.

page 3352

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

How many Commonwealth police have been appointed for the State of Queensland?
What is the nature of their duties?
What are the expenses entailed to date?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

Forty-six.
To assist in the enforcement and carrying out of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Approximately, £1,427.

page 3352

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18

Land Values Taxation - Finance: War Expenditure : Compulsory Levy on Wealth : Interest on War Loans : War Profits Tax : Repatriation - Administration of Public Departments : Co-operation of Business Men - Amalgamation of Commonwealth and State Taxation and Electoral Machinery - Maternity Allowance - Defence Department : Administration: Stores Discrepancy - Motion for Expenditure - National Party : Caucus Rule - Ministerial Pledges - The Governor-General : Exercise of Powers - Reinforcements Referendum: Senator Ferricks’ Vote : Disfranchisement of Citizens : Queensland Prosecutions and Internment of Mr. Schache : Party and Sectarian LiteratureTreatment of Returned Soldiers - Soldiers’ Pay-Increased Cost of Living - “ Liberty “ Loan Subscriptions - Commonwealth Police Force - The Prime Minister: Attacks on: Militarism: Paris Economic Conference : Senator Earle’s Speech - War Policy of Labour Party - The Minister for Defence and Militarism - Northern Territory Administration : Land Settlement : State Hotels :

White Australia Policy - Adjournments of Parliament - Conduct of the War: Voluntarism and Conscription : Contribution of Canada and Australia : Freight and Foodstuffs : Shipbuilding - Russian Revolution and Peace Terms - Shipbuilding in Japan - National Party and Industrial Disturbances - German Writers on Australia and Australians - The War and National Development: Minerals.

Debate resumed from 22nd January (vide page 3350), on motion by Senator Millen -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– As an indication of the importance of the question of land values taxation - which has been repeatedly mentioned in this chamber, I should like to quote a statement by Senator McDougall, when speaking on the Address-in-Reply, in 1910, as follows -

I now come, Mr. President, to the proposal to impose a tax upon the unimproved value of land. This may be regarded as the main question on which the appeal was made to the people. I think, Sir, that the one question which stood out above all others was the determination of the public to break up land monopoly, and I feel sure that we are on the eve of a new era here, when those who want land will be able to get it; when that doginthemanger policy, which has characterized many of our large land-holders, and that policy of spoliation of the people by the taking of unearned increment, will be done away with. It is by these means, and these means alone, that an effective policy of immigration can be carried out.

I desire briefly to point out that what has been done in Australia since then has been quite ineffective as a measure of reform. It was the main question then, and it is the main question to-day. Before detailing what has been done in Australia by the municipalities, State Governments, and the Commonwealth, I want to quote from a small pamphlet published by the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, 11 Tothill-street, London, S.W., to show that this question concerns not only Australia, but. Great Britain, and, indeed, the entire universe. The pamphlet refers to native labour problems in British East Africa, and contains extracts from the evidence and report taken by the East African Protectorate Native

Labour Commission of 1912-13, as follows -

British Bast Africa has been discovered to be a white man’s country. It has an area of 189,838 square miles, and a population of 4,000,000, of which some 3,200 are Europeans. It lias a Labour problem - the exact opposite to our own. With them it is never a question of finding jobs for men, but always of finding men for jobs.

White men interested in the development of the country recognised that nothing was possible without a plentiful supply of labour. They were concerned about what they were pleased to call the laziness of the nigger, and in order to discover some satisfactory solution of the problem, the Commission was appointed on the suggestion of the Land Holders Association to inquire into the’ reasons for the shortage of labour. Honorable senators might be interested to know what Lord Delamere, the owner of 150,000 acres, had to say on this question.. I might add, in passing, that Lord Delamere never had any intention of doing work of any kind, in the= way of production, himself. Evidently he does not believe in interfering with another man’s job. There are some Lord Delameres in Australia, too, although they are not known by that name. This is what he had to say - ;

If the policy was to be continued that every native was to be a land-holder of a sufficient area on which to establish himself, then the question of obtaining a satisfactory labour supply would never be settled.

Lord Delamere realized that if men were given the right to produce for “themselves, naturally it would be difficult to get them to work for the Lord Delameres the Fairbairns, and people of that type, who must then either shift for themselves or starve. Lord Delamere stated further -

He considered the soundest policy would be to curtail the reserves, and although it might take a few years before the effect on the labour SUPply was apparent, the results would be permanent. In other words, so long as the native has free access to land he is under no obligation to work for another for wages, and cannot be compelled to do so; deprive him of that access, and “ the results would be permanent.”

It appears that Lord Delamere quite understands the question. He realizes that the only way to force the niggers to work for land-holders in East Africa is to divorce them from their own country, because so long as the natives have free access to the land they are not under any obligation to work for other men. Mr. T. Howitt, another witness, and a landowner, who gave evidence, said -

He did not favour the idea of natives being taught better methods of agriculture in the reserves, on the grounds that, if they were taught to work on the reserves, the tendency would be for them not to come out at all.

I do not wonder at that. Why should they have to work for such men as Lord Delamere? Who is he that the niggers should be compelled to work for him If they can find their own “ tucker “ in the bush, and provide for themselves in that manner ? Why should not Lord Delamere find his own “ tucker “ ?

Senator Crawford:

– Are you advocating that we should all go back to the bush to live?

Senator GRANT:

– I do not wish to quote the whole of the evidence, so I will content myself with the conclusion arrived at by the Commission -

The reasons for the shortage of labour we considered from the evidence to be the following:

The wealth of certain tribes arising from the large quantity of land at their disposal, the natural -fertility of their reserves, the possession of large quantities of stock, and the profits of trade. It is clearly recognised that there are . practically no natives who need to work for wages in order to live.

That is the condition of the affairs in East Africa. The white men obtained possession of the land, but instead of working it honestly for their sustenance, desired that the niggers should be compelled to work for them for a mere pittance, so that the Lord Delameres, the Fairbairns, and others, may be kept in affluence. The sooner the people of Australia realize that land monopoly is at the bottom of all our troubles the better for all of us. It is said by some that a tax on land values can be passed on. Lord Delamere and other large land-owners do not share that view. They think that the tax cannot be passed on and that land-owners themselves must bear it. That is why it is so easy to secure the imposition of Customs and Excise duties and all other indirect taxation as compared with the imposition of a land values tax. Dealing with this question, the editor of the Standard, Mr. A. G.

Huie, who is an authority on the subject, writes -

We would invite attention to the following points: -

Will a tax on all unimproved values increase the selling price of land?

Of course it will not.

If it can be passed on, clearly it must add to the price of land. Ask any owner of land waiting for a buyer whether the certain knowledge that the buyer will have to pay a tax will incourage him (the buyer) to pay the exorbitant price the seller wants.

Will the tax, which the speculator must pay until he gets a buyer, encourage him to hold on to the land? Many a man will hold land if no expense is attached; but when it is taxed it becomes unprofitable, like the fat horse in the stable when the owner has no work for him. 3.If the tax on land values can be passed on, why do land monopolists in Upper Chambers desperately resist it? They willpass all other sorts of taxes, more or less willingly, but become desperate, even to the extent of flouting a newly-elected popular Chamber, when it is proposed to tax land values. They are men of knowledge and experience, and are able to see how to look after themselves.

Senator Shannon says, “ Hear, hear !”

Senator Shannon:

-Well, it looks like it.

Senator GRANT:

– Land-owners certainly know how to look after themselves. Such men are prepared to support the imposition of Customs duties, income tax, war-time profits taxation, a tax that will fall on widows who visit picture shows; and, in short, any taxation except a land values tax. They know that while they hold the land values they are in a position to compel the rest of the community to remain, in effect, their industrial slaves. The article continues -

All Customs taxes, stamp taxes, income taxes, war profits taxes, &c., are crowded on to the people occupying and using land. Vacant land is exempt. Now suppose we spread thetax evenly over all land in proportion to its value, and remit other taxes, is it not obvious that fully-used land pays less, and idle, or partly idle, land pays more? The latter clearly cannot pass it on, and the former have no occasion to try.

That summarizes in a fairly effective manner the fact that a tax upon land values cannot be passed on, and hence the objection of large and small land-owners alike to such an impost.

What might fairly be described, in colloquial language, as the “dizzy limit” has been reached on the Western Front, according to the following quotation from the Standard -

Land Owning on the Battle Front.

Our contemporary Progress has the following in its December issue: - “Mr. Holman, Premier of New South Wales, has lately returned from visiting the soldiers in the firing line in France and Belgium, and has been giving his experiences and impressions. Commenting on these, the Sydney Bulletin of 8th November says: - “‘War isa queer business; but the queerest aspect of it came under Mr. Holman’s notice in the payment of rent for the ground where Billjim has his little dug-out. “ ‘ The Belgian and French farmers and landowners, instead of going to their own Governments and making claims, which would be settled with the British Government, personally came to ‘the British adjutants, or other officers on the ground, and begin to haggle about the trench rents and rent for other occupied territory. So Australia pays its share to the British Government. The Belgian and French peasants are sometimes grasping, and show themselves in the worst lights. “ ‘ Holman found a few things that made him wonder whether the organizing genius he had heard about wasn’t a myth; but he reckons this method of settling the rent payable for a battlefield is well able to hold its own for foolishness.’ “

Senator de Largie:

– That sort of stuff is fit only for publication in a single-tax newspaper.

Senator GRANT:

– Is it not a fact that our soldiers occupying the trenches in Flanders have to pay rent to the local land-owners? The paragraph continues -

Should any of our readers - we send a few copies to the Front - be able to throw additional light upon this matter we would be glad to hear from them.

We hear a good deal concerning grasping land-owners in Australia and elsewhere, but when Belgian and French peasants compel Australian taxpayers to pay rentals for the dugouts and trenches occupied byour soldiers, I think they reach the limit.

Senator de Largie:

– It is a ridiculous statement.

Senator GRANT:

– This is a statement made partly on the authority of Mr. Holman, Premier of New South Wales. 1 have not been to the Front, and am unable to say whether it is correct or not, but I should not be surprised in the slightest degree to learn that it is correct.

Senator Lynch:

– Supposing you owned Mouquet Farm, that was fought for and won by the Australians at the Front, how would you feel ?

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– You would not vote for anything less than a £5,000 exemption ?

Senator GRANT:

– I am not dealing with that point at the present moment, though I may do so if I have time.

I should like to show how difficult it is to interfere successfully in the slightest possible way with land monopoly. It will be remembered by Senator Thomas, and probably by Senator Millen, that when an effort was made in New South Wales to impose a nominal land tax of one penny in the pound,’ it involved the fate of the State . Ministry. The then Prime Minister, Sir George Reid, had to appeal to the country; and when he was returned, backed by the Labour party, he did impose land taxation to that extent.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– With an exemption ?

Senator GRANT:

– Yes, an exemption of £240; no exemption of £5,000 was mentioned at that time. It remained for those who have since left the Labour party to engineer a £5,000 exemption, so as to make ib more costly and difficult for the poor man to obtain a piece of land.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Are you speaking for the party?

Senator O’Keefe:

– Senator Grant is speaking for himself, and not for the party.

Senator de Largie:

– Senator Grant had better reconsider his whole position.

Senator GRANT:

– As there seems a real desire on the part of honorable senators to know something about the £5,000 exemption, I should like to quote some remarks of Senator Pearce, when he was a member of the Labour party, at the Commonwealth Trades Union Congress held in Sydney in November, 1902. Senator Pearce, on that occasion, moved -

That this congress, recognising the justice of land values taxation, recommends that action be taken to secure uniform taxation on that basis in every State.

In submitting that motion Senator Pearce said that there were large tracts of land in one of the richest districts of Australia held by two or three people. The motion was seconded by Mr. Riley, the present member for South Sydney, and supported by Mr. W. T. McGrath, of Victoria, the latter of whom said that by imposing taxation on land values something might be done towards bringing back to the people some of the wealth which had gone into the pockets of the few. That motion was carried. Then at the conference of the Labour party held in Melbourne in 1905 Senator Pearce again moved -

That an unimproved land values tax without exemption be a plank of the Federal fighting platform.

It. was to be a plank, not of the ordinary platform, but of the fighting platform. Senator Pearce said -

He believed that feeling was growing in this direction even with the farmers. This question was at the root of the social system. They should not merely he satisfied with Factory Acts and Arbitration Acts, but should do something that would find work for the unemployed. A great demand for labour would be created by the unlocking of lands which would follow.

Mr. Frazer seconded the resolution.

Mr. Grant was strongly in favour of the proposal, and believed in the system as above all others for raising revenue.

Mr. O’Malley, M.H.R., would favour the resolution if the words “without exemption” were knocked out. They did not want to touch the little bantams; it was the big gilded roosters of the brahmapootra order they wished to get at.

That the existing land taxation he amended so as to provide that the graduation shall not apply to different portions of the values of large estates.

His idea at the time was that, for instance, in the case of an estate worth £65,000, the graduations should apply, not from £5,001 upwards, but over the whole value of the estate. He said -

He desired the tax to apply to the whole of the land that was taxable. Whilst believing in a graduated land tax, he did not believe in the graduations applying to particular estates. He quoted the case of an estate valued at £65,000, in which the owner escaped on the first portion of the value, and only paid the tax on the last portion. He wished the land-owner to pay the tax on the whole taxable value of the estate. In the case of a £65,000 estate, the sum of £60,000 was left as the taxable value, and this, at the rate of 3d. per £1, produced a tax of £750, whereas under his proposal the estate would be taxed on its whole value at the higher rate of 4d. in the £1, and would thus have to pay a total tax of £1,000. Then, again, an estate valued at £35,000 would be taxed at the present rate of 2d. per £1, whereas under his proposition, which was the original proposal of the Labour party, such an estate would have to pay at the rate of 3d. in the £1, and would thus yield a total tax of £375, instead of £250 as at present.

Senator Givens appeared to have a glimmer of intelligence at that time, because he said -

The taxation of the land was the most equitable method of raising revenue for the Commonwealth, but the main object in imposing the Federal land tax was to burst up the big estates. He held that the estates which had hindered closer settlement were those which were valued at from £30,000 to £40,000, and were situated in or near the settled districts. Closer settlement was not hindered by the bigger estates, valued up to £100,000 or so, and which were situated way back. It was absolutely necessary that theformer class of estates should be burst up in order to facilitate the development of the country. The landlords at present could afford to pay the tax and laugh. He held that the tax should be effective in its operations.

Mr. Cornell, from Western Australia, at the same Conference, moved -

That in the opinion of the Conference the exemption clauses in the existing Federal Land Tax Act should be deleted, and the Act amended in the direction of levying a tax on the unimproved value of all land.

Here was another. Labour man moving at a Labour Conference to abolish the £5,000 exemption, and secure the imposition of taxation upon the land values of the Commonwealth. Senator Givens temporarily withdrew his amendment to enable the Conference to discuss Mr. Cornell’s proposal. Mr. Cornell said -

He had been sent there with definite instructions in regard to this matter. In Western Australia the organization which had sent this resolution along had advocated, in season and out of season, a land tax without exemption. They were pledged to it. Over there they <fid not look on the land tax from the point of view of expediency, but as a matter of justice, and they held that there should be no exemptions. All that gave a value to the land was the community, and he hoped that the Conference would agree that the unimproved value of land should be used in the interests of the community that created it, by placing it in the revenue of the country. It might be said that the small land-holder would be hit hard by such a land tax.

Of course, that is an entirely erroneous idea, because if it were true that the small land-owner would be hit heavily by a land tax, it is equally true that the 4,000,000 of our population who own no land would not be hit at all. Mr. Cornell went on to say - lt might be said that the small land-holder would be hit hard by such a land tax, but he contended that it would be the large holder who would be hit by it. Every laborite should have in front of him the ultimate taxing of the whole of the taxable value of the land. He knew that the motion would not be carried, but he asked that a division be taken on it.

– I am obliged to the honorable senator. I was thinking more of what occurred at the conference held in Adelaide in 1915, from the report of” which I now propose to quote. Mr. Jackson, a prominent Labour man of South’ Australia, moved -

That the exemption under the Federal Land Tax be abolished.

He said -

The values given to land by community enterprise either belonged to the people or it did not. If it did, Governments should get the benefit of such revenue. The Federal land tax had not broken up large estates into small areas to the extent which had been hoped for when it was put forward. Estates of £100,000 might have been brought down to £70,000 and £50,000, but this did not mean that the land had been put to its ‘best productive uses. With a proper land tax in operation, many men now unemployed would be enabled to get land and bring it into use. If the motion were carried no evil results need be feared.

Mr. Arthur Rae, a prominent Labour man of New South Wales, observed -

There never was a time more opportune, or likely to occur again, than the present one in which to abolish the Federal land tax exemption. It had been thought at the time that this £5,000 exemption was made in the Federal platform it would give an opportunity to the States to exercise their taxation powers up to that amount, but the States had not fully done so. Whilst the Federal land tax had done something towards reducing very large estates, the number of large estates was now far too great. All sorts of inducements were held out for the bogus partition of estates so as to evade the tax, and that should not be allowed. The present war necessitated large additions to the revenue, and a tax without exemption would fall equally on all, and he believed in all landowners contributing in proporion to the benefits they enjoyed.

The remarks of Senator O’Keefe, of Tasmania, on the motion were: - .,

They had to look to the different kinds of lands and the varying climatic conditions. It might, to meet that, bc necessary to have different forms of taxes, according to the States, but he was against a no-exemption tax applying throughout Australia as a whole. Besides, the States needed all the revenue they could get at present, and it would not do for this source of revenue to be taken from them.

The honorable senator there suggested that, because the Commonwealth taxes land, that source of revenue is thereby removed from the operations of the States. Why, at the present time in some cases water and sewerage rates, loan rates, general municipal rates, State land tax, and Federal land tax are imposed upon the same land, and in certain instances two Federal land taxes are imposed. Mr. Sumner, of Queensland, said : -

The amount of unimproved land values under £5,000 might very well be left to the States. If the Federal Government took the exemption portion away from the States, he thought they might just as well take the lot, seeing how it would cut inon revenue raised by local bodies. The remedy, he considered, would be to increase the tax, but not to take away the exemption.

Mr. Lamond moved as an amendment a motion submitted by the Townsville (Queensland) branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers -

That the exemption under the Federal land tax be reduced to £500.

That is a great drop from £5,000, but it was regarded as quite correct on the part of Mr. Lamond at that time to move it. In doing so he remarked: -

The land values of Sydney to-day were colossal.

He might well say that the land values of Sydney were colossal. They amount to-day to between £35,000,000 and £50,000,000, yet we are told by some people that any estate which does nob exceed £5,000 in value should not be called upon to pay anything towards the cost of the war. Mr. Lamond went on -

They still had land monopoly rampant in their midst, and the failure of the land tax to realize the hopes of its advocates had been foreseen. The enormous increases in land values had made the valuation fixed for land taxation purposes a mere fleabite, owners being very easily able to pay the taxation by reason of the great rise in prices brought about by the public works and enterprises initiated and expanded by the Governments.

– I would annex its annual value for Federal, State, or municipal purposes. During the debate from which I have been quoting, ex-Senator Ready, of Tasmania, moved the following motion, submitted by the Tasmanian Workers Political League -

That the existing land tax be amended so as to provide that the graduation shall not apply to the different portions of the values of large estates.

That’, in effect, is the exact language used by Senator Givens at the previous conference, when he desired to amend the platform : -

That the maximum of the tax be not less than1s. in the £1, whilst maintaining the present exemption of £5,000.

The second portion of the motion was carried after debate, and later, on the 3rd June, the first part was agreed to. That is what I was thinking of a little while ago when I said that Senator Givens’ motion was carried. As a matter of fact it was defeated by a very small majority when Senator Givens moved it, but when Senator Ready moved it in 1915 it was carried and stands to-day as part of the Federal Labour platform. It is quite true that whilst Senator Givens, ex-Senator Ready, Mr. Lamond, ex-Senator Rae, and many others have endeavoured to secure the striking out of the £5,000 exemption, I, too, have moved in that direction. At the last annual conference of the Political Labour League, I moved that the matter be referred to the next Inter-State Labour Conference for its decision, and in a lucid moment the former body agreed to the adoption of that course.

Senator Long:

– The Inter-State Conference is the only body that is competent to deal with it.

Senator GRANT:

– Exactly. My desire was to have the question remitted to that conference for its decision. . Unfortunately, for some reasons which have never been made public, repeated efforts were afterwards made, and ultimately with success, to review the resolution arrived at by the conference of the Political Labour League, with the result that it was eventually rescinded. I have dealt with the question of the £5,000 exemption at some length because I feel that the only way out of our present difficulties is to be found in making land readily available for settlement purposes. It is idle to make it available to the ordinary working man in blocks that are valued at £30,000 or £40,000. Smaller blocks must be provided. Under the Victorian Land Tax Act there is no exemption whatever. Under that Act the rate of the tax starts, I think, at½d. in the £1; on estates in excess of £5,000 it is increased, and if the owner be an absentee, an additional 20 per cent. is imposed. In Queensland, although there is a Labour Government in office, instead of a straight-out flat rate being operative, a graduated tax has been imposed commencing on estates of less than £500 value at1d. in the £1.

Senator de Largie:

– What more could the honorable senator expect from the Ryan Government?

Senator GRANT:

– I have expected a good deal from the Ryan Government, and I have not been disappointed. The best measure for which that Government is responsible is the Queensland Land Tax Act, which was assented to on the 29th December, 1915. It applies to all lands within Queensland. The rates imposed under it are as follow : -

The Act under which these rates are levied is the best measure that has been enacted at the instance of the Ryan Government. Unfortunately, an exemption of £300 is included in it. It provides that -

In the case of an absentee or a company, the total sum of the unimproved value of each parcel of the land, if such total sum exceeds three hundred pounds;
1. In the case of an owner, not being an absentee or a company, the balance of the total sum of the unimproved value of each parcel of the land, after deducting the sum of three hundred pounds.

It appears from that provision that every land-owner is entitled to deduct £300 from each parcel of land which he owns, and to that extent he escapes taxation. But no doubt the Ryan Government, if kept up to the mark by the outside’ Labour conferences, will ultimately remove the exemption, and thus compel people who desire to purchase land of less than £300 value to contribute their share to the land tax.

Senator Crawford:

– Does the honorable senator know there has been a great reduction in land settlement in Queensland since that land tax was imposed ?

Senator GRANT:

– No. As evidencing how easy it is to operate a land tax of this kind I need only mention that the whole of the regulations for the administration of the Act are contained in five printed pages. But we have books running into many hundreds of pages dealing with the various mathematical graduations under our Commonwealth Land Tax Act, and its provisions are thus placed beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that the ordinary member of this Senate will find it impossible to compute the amount which he is liable to pay under it. Similarly, I have just been furnished by the Commissioner of Taxation with an elaborately-printed and carefully-bound volume, covering 172 pages 1 of closely typed matter, detailing how the wartime profits tax is to be computed. Cannot any honorable senator see that all this involves the employment of a vast amount of unproductive labour 1 . If the war-time profits tax, the entertainment tax, and the tax upon single men were repealed, and a flat rate on the land values of the Commonwealth were substituted, everybody would be able to tell at a glance how much he had to pay.

Senator Senior:

– Is the honorable senator in favour of abolishing all taxation other than land taxation?

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator’s curiosity will have to’ remain unsatisfied for a few days, although, if a later opportunity presents itself, I may enlarge upon that aspect of this question.

– No. The honorable senator’s statement is typical of allegations made by honorable gentlemen opposite during the recent campaign. They might be able to circulate those fallacious statements broadcast in the newspapers, but, when made in this Senate, they can be nailed down at once, so that we should hear no more of them here. The honorable senator’s statement is quite incorrect. J. want to point out that what the Bol- sheviki have done in Russia, even if effective for the moment, will not result in a permanent reform. ‘ It would be of no advantage to me to remove some landowner who has compelled me to pay rent for the privilege of living on his estate, if, after removing him, I allowed halfadozen other landlords to step into his position. And that is what will happen in Russia. In Ireland, also, the so-called settlement of the land question will be only of a temporary character, because it will result in the creation of a large number of landlords in places where, before, there was one big landlord. In Russia it appears that the Bolsheviki have “outed” their landlords, and have put themselves in the position of the landowners; so it is probable that in a few years there will arise a large number of land-owners, who will exercise just as much rack-Tenting, and perhaps a little more, than the landlords of the big type. That is’ the position everywhere. I do not advocate the forcible removal of landlords in the WaY adopted by the Bolsheviki, although I would never shed tears about their sudden removal, with the idea of instituting reforms. Permanent reforms can only be obtained by the taxation of unimproved land values, thus compelling the owners to pay into the public Treasury the full rental of lands in their possession.

I am aware that there are other matters which might well receive consideration during the discussion on the Bill before the Senate, and I should like to refer to the various State land taxes in operation in Tasmania, Western Australia, and right throughout the Commonwealth; but I presume that senators coming from the different States are fairly well acquainted with them. The States have failed tocompel land-owners to make the best possible use of their land, but the Commonwealth” Parliament has power to bringabout this very necessary reform, if it sodesires. The statement made by Senator McDougall some years ago about the importance of this question is “ as true today as it was on the day of its utterance ; and whatever may be the opinion of other honorable senators on this question, I am firmly convinced that no other subject is of more importance than that of securing land for the people who require to use it. I am aware, of course, that a number of people do not require, and have no desire, to use land; but, on the other hand, tens of thousands of people would he very pleased indeed if they could get sufficient land around their homes to make themselves comfortable. It is almost impossible for a man living in Melbourne or suburbs to secure enough land to grow even a few rose trees, let alone establish a vegetable garden.

Senator Fairbairn:

– You mean in Collins-street, I presume.

Senator GRANT:

– No; I mean in and around the city of Melbourne. The same may be said of all the other capital cities of Australia, as well as many villages and towns throughout the Commonwealth. It ought to be the aim of this Parliament, seeing that the State Parliaments refuse to take action, to see that every man in the Commonwealth can obtain sufficient land - an acre, or perhaps two or three acres - upon which to establish a decent vegetable and flower garden.

Senator Crawford:

– You would have to pull down a lot of buildings to make that possible.

Senator GRANT:

– It would not do very much harm if large areas in some of our cities were pulled down. I remember the Sydney newspapers a few years ago reported that certain large areas in that city had become so insanitary, and that the allotments were so microscopic in character, that the City Council was obliged, in self-defence, to pull down large numbers of buildings and re-build on somewhat modern lines. They have not gone far enough, and could go much further with advantage.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– As Senator Long says, it was a revised card system, making, I suppose, for greater efficiency. The fear amongst the workers at the time was that the Taylor system would be introduced. The only account I have seen of the Taylor system was that given in the Age a few Saturdays ago, and it. was most interesting. I was surprised to see that, in the United States of America, the men, far from being agitated or displeased with the Taylor system, were working under it in a most harmonious way. I have no knowledge of the system other than that description in the Age, but I gather that it was introduced in order that each worker, by trained movements, might be able to do more efficient work, and do it at greater convenience to himself. It is not a pleasant outlook to a man that he must spend his whole life in one of our modern factories; but we have to do the best we can under the circumstances. In the old days, when we had cottage labour, and the bootmaker and the tailor performed every branch of work in his calling, a pride was taken in the work, and there was something, as it were, to live for. Under the modern system, however, a man becomes simply a cog in a machine; and the question is how we are to improve the conditions. The only way, in my opinion, is by increasing the efficiency of the workers; and to that end there must, in some way) be a card system introduced. But I think the worker is entitled to share in the returns from any increased efficiency that may result; and his share, in addition to any extra money that may be earned, ought to take the shape of lessened time employment. Speaking -as a very old employer, I think that somehow or other we ought to make more bearable the lives of the men who work in our great industries. As I have already said, a man or woman who goes into one of our big factories knows perfectly well that they are there for life. We cannot change that system; but, by increasing efficiency, we can, I think, shorten the time that has to be worked. In addition, profit-sharing would give the worker an interest in the output of his particular workshop, because, under that system, he becomes partly an employer, and regards the success of the factory as, to some extent, the result of his own personal work. In this direction, I think, lies the solution of this most complex problem.

– I hope the Ministry will not go, because, with all hia faults - and I admit he has many - the Prime Minister stands out amongst the people of Australia as typically the most patriotic man we have - a man whose patriotism and whose desire to win the war are in no’ doubt. He may go further than, perhaps, some of us like to see him go, but there is no doubt as to his patriotism; and on that score I am proud to follow him.

– I think that we on this side are the Labour party, but by whatever name the party opposite may bo known, the suggestions I have made are worth considering. Nothing but harm to the Commonwealth comes out of these continual disputes; and it is perfectly obvious that the solution is not to be found in arbitration and wages boards. These are only palliatives, ‘and we require something more. I am not afraid to’ make these suggestions; but I think the first applications of them should come from the men themselves, or their leaders. We have already tried to show the world an example in industrial legislation, but have merely succeeded in producing a blazed trail of strikes; and I think that the only course now left to us is such as I have indicated.

– Yes, and if it is not found the States will be swept away.

I have previously called’ the attention of the Senate to the possibility ‘of saving the money which is at present being expended on the maternity bonus. Last year the Commonwealth spent in this way £658,285, but notwithstanding that huge expenditure, the Death and Invalidity Committee reported -

The’ benefits conferred, however, by the present system have not apparently been such as to produce any noticeable decline in the maternal mortality rate.

The National party has agreed that during tlie currency of the war no stone of the temple of Labour is to be interfered with. If the maternity bonus is one of the stones it is a very bad one, for the money expended in connexion with it could be applied to a much better purpose. In New Zealand the mortality amongst infants has been reduced from nearly 7 per cent, to 5 per cent, by the Plunkett system, and the cost to the Government has been only £3,000 per annum. This system has saved an enormous number of young lives, and if. we had it in operation in Australia not only could we save a big sum of money to be applied in other directions, but we might reduce the death-rate amongst infants to the same extent as has been done in New .Zealand. The number of babies born in Australia in 1915 was 134,871, and of these 9,430 died during the first year of their life. If we could save 2 per cent, of these infants, we would do an immense service to the community. It is our duty to see that this £658,285 is spent to far greater advantage. “We shall not soon have a big population in Australia, but we should aim at quality, if we cannot get quantity. We should see not only that all the babies are conserved, but also that boys and girls at school are properly looked after.

Senator Henderson:

– Does the honorable senator mean that he would repeal the Act which established the maternity allowance ?

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– I have not gone into the details of the matter sufficiently to say that ; but I hold that if the Commonwealth have £658,285 to spend in this way, we might expend it to greater advantage to the community. At any rate, a committee of medical men have reported that the allowance has done no good, and their report is backed up by Miss Henderson, head of the Ladies’ Benevolent Society in Victoria, who says that it has done more harm than good. Though the States are hard up, and have no money to spend in any direction, they are very anxious to look after the health of children ; and I suggest that some of the money now spent upon the maternity allowance should be given to the States, on the distinct condition that they must spend it on the proper inspection of school, children. In that direction, we would be doing a great deal more good than by spending the money on a maternity allowance, when we know that a good deal of it is wasted, some of it going for the purchase of bangles, and some of it being spent on having a good spree to celebrate a birth. Those are not directions in which the taxpayers’ money should be spent. If the country has the money to spare - and apparently it haswe could use it to far greater advantage in having the health of school children thoroughly looked after.

– It is a small matter, but it is one in which the honour of the whole of my party is concerned. If a man takes sixpence that does not belong to him, he is doing a great wrong. I would like to see the matter thoroughly looked into, so that not a single gibe can be thrown at the Nationalist party in this regard..

I hope that the Nationalist party will reign long in Australia. The little disputes that have occurred will only have the effect of welding it in a way that a continuance of fair weather would,’ perhaps, never do.

Senator Long:

– You do not know Mr. Austin Chapman.

Senator FAIRBAIRN:

– I do know him. There will always be stormy petrels. No doubt, the disputes we have had will only serve to weld the party and make it a magnificent one capable of governing Australia for a long time to come. I do not wish to take up any further time, because we are anxious to get into recess as soon as possible in order to enable Ministers to settle down and do a little real administrative work. Of late they have been harassed and hunted about the country, and they have hardly had the opportunity of getting together in Cabinet and having those consultations which are so indispensable to the proper business management of the country. If we want to win the war, we must keep Australia’s finances straight. Ministers are mainly responsible for our finances, and it is only by allowing them time to devote themselves to the administration of the country? as we hope, to see it administered, that they can keep the finances straight. We are bolstered up at present by an expenditure of £ S0,000,000 on the war, of which amount £56,000,000 is being spent among a population of 5,000,000 in Australia. What will result when that expenditure ceases? The effect will be tremendous. If we are not very careful, and if the -finances are not very ably handled, there will be enormous distress. Australia is a great producer of foodstuffs and wool, and will probably be enabled to weather the storm better than any other country - if it is properly handled - but we must give the Government the opportunity to do something in that direction. For that reason I will not take up any further time.

Senator NEEDHAM (Western Australia [3.11]. - While there are many portions of the speech just delivered with which I cannot agree, there were one or two suggestions in it which are deserving of very serious consideration. For instance, the suggested amalgamation of the Federal and State Taxation Department is well worthy of consideration. Not only would a considerable expenditure be saved, but also a vast amount of irritation might be avoided. Senator Ferricks has interjected that there might also be an amalgamation of the Federal and State Electoral Departments, which would” lead to a further saving in expenditure.

Senator Farbairn might have gone further, and suggested the necessity for the abolition of the employment of temporary hands in the Taxation Departments, because the continuance of the employment of temporary men does not give to the taxpayer, and particularly to the trading concerns of Australia, that sense of security and protection which they should have regarding their business secrets. Men employed in these Departments have access to the innermost secrets of the business community. I make no allegation in regard to the matter, but simply say that if the men who are called upon to investigate such matters were placed on a permanent footing, it would give the public a greater feeling of security and of confidence.

– As a matter of fact, from beginning to end of the campaign, he hurled these insults against those of us who determined to do what we could to prevent the conscription of human life in Australia. To show how far the Prime Minister can be relied upon, he stated a little while ago that only when he saw the wreckage of the British Navy floating in the North Sea would he re-introduce the question of conscription. Thank God, there is no sign of the wreckage of the British Fleet in the North Sea. That day will never come. The Prime Minister’s statement was published broadcast, and, according to his dictum; he should not hive re-introduced the ques- . tion of conscription.

– Accepting that correction, if the Russian debacle and the

– I am speaking in reply to the charge that voluntarism has failed. ° It has not failed in Australia. Upon this question I propose to put into the witness-box another man, who is not present - I refer to the Director-General of Recruiting, Mr. Mackinnon. Here are the statements which, according to the Melbourne Herald, he made on the 4.th January of the present year -

Addressing a recruiting meeting in the luncheon hour at the Town Hall to-day, Mr. Mackinnon, Director-General of Recruiting, scouted the idea that the voluntary system had failed.

Senator Millen:

– Then there is a reason for it - a reason for the failure of the voluntary system?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No, it occurred prior to that. The original intention was not to borrow more than £20,000,000 under the conditions I have named.. We should not exempt war : loan investments from taxation; in this view I am supported by the Chairman of Directors of the National Bank of Australasia Limited. The bank’s Board of Directors consists of Sir John Grice, chairman ; and Messrs. Edward Trenchard, Hugh M. Strachan, and J. Newman Barker. In moving the adoption of its report for the last half year, the chairman pointed out that the bank’s deposits amounted to £12,445,000, or £650,000 more than in March last, and he went on to say -

Leaving now my references to the figures in the balance-sheet before you - in addition to the bank’s subscriptions in London to various British Government issues for war purposes, it may interest you to know that the bank has, in common with other Australian banks, supported liberally the war loans issued by the Federal Government.

Now this reference to the Australian war loans brings under consideration a very important matter, which, in the opinion of this Board, must most seriously affect future taxation in Australia. Business people have been discussing whether the time has not arrived for a reconsideration of the interest terms’ of these loans, and, in view of what seems their very far-caching ‘ results, we, your directors, deem it our duty to place before you our wellconsidered opinion. . . .

Including the present issue of £20,000.000, the Commonwealth war loans, apart from those issued in London, amount to £100.000,000, and we are told by the Treasurer that another £40,000,000 must be subscribed within the financial year, thus making a total of £140,000,000, all of which (if the present system is pursued for the remaining £40,000,000) will be capital removed from the area of Australian taxation. Whilst considering this question, there must also be remembered the State borrowings in Australia, the interest on which has a similar immunity from the obligation of contributing to the expenses of the Commonwealth.

It is, of course, known generally, though not perhaps in detail, that the immunity thus afforded benefits chiefly the wealthy class, whose incomes, if derived from other invest- - ments, would be liable to be taxed on the higher scale, and that the wealthier the individual the greater the advantage gained by investments in the war loans, or in State Government loans.

There is therefore this anomaly, the Commonwealth Government declares with one voice that graduated taxation (which means the wealthier the taxpayers the higher the tax) is equitable, and most people in these days of war and high prices, even those paying taxes on the higher rate, agree with these views, provided they are not carried to extremes, and that the lower incomes also pay a moderate amount of taxation. The other Government voice, speaking in regard to the war loan, virtually says: “There shall be no graduated taxation in regard to this form of investment.” This second decision makes the war loan at 44 per cent., with exemption from taxation, a splendid investment for the very rich investor, for, though he would be quite willing to be patriotic and to make sacrifices in such times as these in order to help his country, no sacrifices are asked from him. On the other hand, the investment is not equally good for those with only a modest amount of capital. It will make my remarks clearer if I go a little into detail and give the varying returns of respective income.

A tabulated statement beside me shows that to persons residing in Victoria investments in the war loan, with exemption from taxation, compare with an investment on mortgage subject to both Federal and State taxation, as follows: -

To an investor -with £500 per annum, the 4i per cent war loan is equal to £4 14s. 6d., or nearly 4 per cent, received from interest on mortgage.

To an investor with £1,000 per annum the equivalent of £4 19s. 2d., or nearly 5 per cent.

To an investor with £3,000 per annum, £5 10s. 5d., or just over 5i per cent.

To an investor with £5,500 per annum, £6 0s. 8d., just over (J per cent.

To an investor with £10,000 per annum, £6 0s. 9d., say, 6* per cent.

And by the time we reach a man with £30,000 per annum, it is equivalent to £6 18s. 4d., or nearly 7 per cent. ^

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I was not thinking about that at all. I used this statement during the recent campaign, and as I have said, the figures are not mine at all, but were supplied by the Commonwealth Treasury in the one case, and the Electoral Department in the other.

I should like now to direct attention to a statement made by the Minister for Defence in New Zealand, a conscript country, to the effect that no drafts from New Zealand were to be sent to the Front during December of last year and January this year. The original draft of 2,500 per month has also been cut down to 1,900 per month. We must presume that the New Zealand Government get the same advice as the Commonwealth Government from the Imperial authorities in regard to war matters; and if it is absolutely imperative that we should provide 7,000 men per month by conscription, according to the doctrines of our friends opposite, will they explain why New Zealand has not been sending any drafts at all in December and during this month?

Senator Lynch:

– Perhaps it is because of the shipping difficulties.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Then if New Zealand is faced with trouble in regard to shipping, we must be in the same position, for we have wheat rotting on our shores because we cannot transport it to England, where there are meatless days, and where, as the Food Controller now states, the food bullet is much more valuable than the silver bullet.

Senator Bakhap:

– We must not forget that the human bullet, to use a Japanese term, is also required.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I admit that, but the men are there.

I want now to quote a statement made by the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Joseph Cook) in connexion with conscription. When speaking in Sydney on the 20th October last year, the Minister said -

All things considered, Australia has done well in enlisting 40,000 men in twelve months. It is doubtful if Australia can supply many more troops than this annually, even with conscription, without risk of a serious collapse.

What did the Minister mean by that? He must have meant, of course, that up to the 20th October, the voluntary system was doing all that was expected of it, although honorable senators opposite are trying to make out that it has failed. If the conscription proposals of the Government had been carried at the last referendum, we would have sent overseas 84,000 men a year, although the Minister for the Navy said that we could not send more than 40,000 without risking a serious collapse. He did not mean, of course, a collapse of British arms or the arms of the Allies. Nothing was further from his thoughts. There was, however, a danger of a, collapse in the industrial world if we sent abroad men who should be engaged in production to supply food for troops overseas.

Senator Guthrie:

– But we cannot get it there.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– For the same reason we could not get greater numbers of troops there.

– Even if we could not obtain in Australia the marine engines we required, there is no reason why. we should not have completed by now the hulls of several vessels.

Let me make now a very brief reference to the Commonwealth police force which was established as the result of the battle of Warwick. The only missile fired in that battle, I believe, was a rotten egg, and, in the words of Mr. Anstey, “ Out of a rotten egg has sprung the Commonwealth police force.” If such a force was necessary, it should have been established on 27th October, 1916, when at Albany a band of about 1,500 New Zealand conscript soldiers was let loose and charged my humble self. Rotten eggs were thrown then, but we heard no talk of establishing -a Commonwealth police force to protect a little chap like me. But because another little fellow, Mr. Hughes, while spending twenty minutes on the Warwick railway station, had a rotten egg thrown at him, this force was established. The creation of such a force is one of the greatest farces in modern history. I am surprised that honorable senators opposite should be prepared to support such, an administrative act on the part of their famous leader, before whom Senator Earle last night practically knelt down and expressed his adoration of him.

Senator Guthrie:

– A leader whom the honorable senator himself followed for years.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– While he was on the right track. I had no hesitation in striking out for myself when he loft that track.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator was frightened to leave the old track.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I do not know what fear is. It has been said that if the Government of Australia were handed over to the Commonwealth Labour party we should be governed by outside Labour organizations. I saw in the press the other day a report of a meeting of the Grand Council of tlie National Federation of New South Wales, at which a motion calling upon Mr. Hughes to resign the leadership of his party was moved. It was further reported that Messrs. Holman and Hall led the attack, but that at the request of Mr. Cook tlie matter was adjourned until a Federal Minister could be present. There we had an attempt on the part of an outside organization to control the National Government and its leader. And yet we are told that if the administration of the affairs of the country were handed over to the Labour party the Government would be controlled by outside Labour organizations. As to the attack made on Mr. Hughes by Mr. Holman and Mr. Hall, I can only say that it is the most contemptible of which I have ever heard. Messrs. Holman and Hall were Mr.

– Some of the greatest critics say that America would not be able to do much until 1919.

Senator PRATTEN:

– One grave fault of the Defence Department has been the omission to co-opt some of the business men of Australia in order to help in its organization. It has been recognised in England, though somewhat tardily, that the war organization should be divided into two parts - that fighting men should take charge of the. fighting operations, and that questions concerning the commissariat of the Army, transport, and the supply of munitions are matters that business men are peculiarly fitted to control. That Mr. Lloyd George has accepted this principle is shown by many of the appointments that he has made during the last twelve months. It is late now for us to follow his example, but better late than never. I consider that the Defence Department should co-opt some of the business brains and instincts of Australia rather than leave the square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes we see all over Australia.

– I will ask for information regarding those vessels. There are other matters upon which certain members of our party are not satisfied.

I am simply saying now, in a spirit of kindliness, that this is the kind of work that lies nearest to the hand of the National Government and the National Parliament. We have just passed through a time of turmoil, but there are two years before us in which we can do good, solid work for the nation and the Empire. There is a responsibility on the National Government to do that work and to deal with the various problems that will crop up from time to time. I do not wish to weary the Senate with further criticisms on this Supply Bill, but honorable senators have the right to express their opinions. There are very big problems to be dealt with by the Defence Department, the Home and Territories Department, and the Treasury. Things are not altogether as satisfactory as they might be, looking to the future as well as at the present. We must not allow matters to drift. I believe that with the passing of Old Father Time things will settle down again, and we shall realize that it is not profitable to be continually bickering or criticising, and that it is our duty, as representatives of the people, to help win the war, to help the Empire, and to help Australia.

Senator FERRICKS:
Queensland

– I was rather interested in the reference of the last speaker to the introduction of Patagonians into the Northern Territory because it brought to my mind the occasion on which I protested in this chamber that opportunity was not offered to the people of Northern Queensland to work on the railway construction in the Northern Territory. We could have got 500 Australians or Queenslanders to work on that railway at the same rates and under the same favorable conditions as were offered to the Patagonians.

Senator Needham made reference to the inactivity displayed in regard to shipbuilding. Some of my colleagues from Queensland seemed to doubt the honorable senator’s statements ; but, for their benefit, I may mention that I have it on unimpeachable authority that Walker’s Limited in Queensland have been prepared during the last six or seven months to lay down the keels of three vessels of 3,000 tons each. They built ships many years ago, and they are ready to make a start again straightway. I realize that the Government cannot undertake to do all these things at very short notice, but I feel that shipbuilding should have been begun in Australia before this.

Senator Russell:

– Where could we have got the steel plates?

Senator FERRICKS:

– Walker’s Limited always have a supply of steel on hand, and seeing that boats are constantly going backwards and forwards, plates could have been obtained from America.

Senator Russell:

– Yes, at a price. It is now possible to get them, because the American Government has fixed the price of steel plates for Australia at the same rates as are fixed for America.

Senator FERRICKS:

– These interjections show what a good thing it would be if the Minister would give the Senate some information in regard to these matters.

Senator Needham:

– We are getting it in dribs and drabs.

Senator Reid:

– Can Walker’s Limited build marine engines?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I am not prepared to say that they can do so, but the engines could have been got from America. Work on the vessels could have been commenced in the meantime.

Senator Fairbairn hoped that Parliament would go into recess as quickly as possible, and remain in recess for some, length of time, in order that the Government might have the opportunity to formulate a settled policy, particularly in regard to the war. I was amused at his words.

Senator O’Keefe:

– The Government have been in recess ever since the elections.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I have searched Hansard in order to find the record of the Governments led by Mr. Hughes, including the Ministry behind which members of the Labour party sat. Mr. Hughes was appointed Prime Minister on. the 27th October, 1915. Parliament then met, and remained in session, for two weeks and two days, and adjourned on the 12th November, 1915, for six months. Anticipating a question that might come from some people - “ Why did you not object then ? “ - let me say that I did object. When it was proposed to adjourn for six months, or some unstipulated period, in order to allow Mr. Hughes to go on what I considered a self-invited trip to Great Britain, I took strong exception to it in this Chamber. However, Parliament was in recess for six months. It met again on 9th May, 1916, sat for fourteen days, and adjourned on the 23rd May for three months and one week. It was called together on the 30th August, 1916, sat for four weeks and four days, and adjourned on the 3rd October for one month three weeks and one day. It was called together again on the 29th November, 1916, sat for three weeks, and adjourned on the 20th December for one month and three weeks. It met again on the Sth February, 1917, sat for seven days, and adjourned for seven days. It met again on the 22nd February, 1917,. sat for three weeks and three days, and adjourned on the 16th March for three months three weeks and three days. Meeting again on the 14th June, 1917, it sat for one day, and adjourned for one month and six days. Meeting again on 11th July, 1917, it sat for two months and. ten days, and adjourned on the 26th September for three months and two weeks. Meeting on the 9 th January of this year it sat for one minute, and adjourned for a week and a day. It is now sitting intermittently, and the Supply Bill before us intimates that we are to adjourn immediately until the middle of April. After sitting for two or three weeks, weadjourn for three months. I ‘am dealingwith lunar months; it is appropriate when referring to the Prime Minister. When we meet again, Parliament will’ have been in session for seven lunar months out of thirty-one months since Mr.( Hughes became Prime Minister, and will have been in recess for twenty-four months. Yet a responsible senator, representing the State of Victoria, urge3 Parliament to go into recess in order toenable the Government to have sufficient time to formulate a policy.

I commented previously on the fact that the House of Commons sat almost continuously since the outbreak of the war. But in Australia we have a National Government of the Commonwealth meeting Parliament during about only one-fourth of the time that has been spent in recess. Our record in this respect is not a good one. People outside may have been led. to believe that members of this Parliament have had a very easy time of it. But that is not the case, because ever since the outbreak of the war there has been a continuous uncertainty as to when Parliament would assemble, or for how long it would adjourn. Members of this Parliament have not known what position they would be in. They have been un-‘ able to make their domestic arrangements, and have been almost continually travelling from State to State at the maximum of expense and inconvenience with the minimum of service rendered to the country.

During the course of this debate, not merely in Parliament, but also in the press outside, there have been many references to the fact that the Prime Minister and his Government have broken » pledge made by Mr. Hughes at Bendigo. I may say candidly that the breaking by Mr. Hughes of a pledge given by him to the people at Bendigo or at any other place was not a matter of surprise to me. He has broken so many pledges, verbal and written, that what would have surprised me would have been to learn that he had kept his pledge. As a result of the action which the Prime Minister has taken we are faced with a peculiar political situation. This is very apparent from what is at present appearing in the newspapers.

In connexion with the situation which now exists, I might make some passing reference to the part which the GovernorGeneral has played in quite recent times. The ordinary constitutional course in the circumstances which arose was, as the Leader of the Labour party in the Senate has pointed out, for the Governor-General, upon the resignation of the Prime Minister, to send for the Leader of the Opposition and commission him to form a Ministry. Had that been done, and had Mr. Tudor refused, or expressed his inability, to form a Government, the Governor-General would have been quite justified in resorting to other means in the endeavour to find out the possibilities of Parliament in the matter of the formation of a Government. But to recommission the retiring Prime Minister without giving an opportunity to the Leader of the constitutional Opposition to form a Government was a breach of constitutional practice. Ever since this gentleman has been in Australia we have had evidence of peculiar decisions on his part. Those decisions have occasioned much food for thought. He played a very discreditable part in what is known as the Senate scandal, and is otherwise known as the Ready-Earle incident. Recent events have led me to consider how conveniently the Governor-General happened to be in Sydney about the time that Senators Gardiner and Russell and Mr. Higgs refused to approve of a certain regulation underthe War Precautions Act. A Cabinet meeting was hastily convened in Sydney at the time to proclaim the regulation, and the Governor-General very conveniently happened to be there. I have obtained from the Sydney Worker of 25th October, 1917, the following very excellent summary dealing with the sudden retirement of ex-Senator Ready from this Chamber, and the substitution in his place of Senator Earle. It shows the lightning change that took place -

Great Display of Speed.

Just here it is interesting to note the rapidity with which the following machinery moves were made - all between 6.1 p.m. and midnight on 1st March: -

Beady resigns his seat as senator in Federal Parliament.
President announces same in Senate and officially notifies GovernorGeneral.
Governor-General officially notifies Governor of Tasmania of Ready’s resignation.
Mr. Earle in Melbourne resigns his State seat in Tasmania. Resignation to go to Tasmanian Speaker.
Governor-General notifies Tasmanian Governor that he has attested Earle’s signature and resignation, which was written in his presence.
Tasmanian Speaker takes steps to fill vacancy. Matter reported to Tasmanian Government.
Tasmanian Governor brings matter under notice of Tasmanian Premier to call meeting of State Executive Council convened to appoint a senator to fill the vacancy until the next election.
Earle has to be officially asked and to accept nomination for position of senator.
State Cabinet has to elect him.
State Premier notifies State Governor.
State Governor of Tasmania officially certifies to Governor-General in Melbourne that Senate vacancy has been constitutionally filled.

What master hands must have been at work to accomplish all these things in so short a time, and in such a way that they fitted one into the other with dovetail accuracy?

This all happened between 6.1 p.m. and midnight of 1st March, 1917.

Senator Earle:

– There is nothing wrong about that.

Senator FERRICKS:

– It is an excellent illustration of a lightning change. There is nothing of the go-slow policy about it. I think that the attention of the people of Australia should be called to the attitude which the present Governor-General has adopted in connexion with what may be termed domestic affairs, apart from his constitutional position. I take this - opportunity of protesting against what I may say is the partisanship which he has displayed in this connexion. The best evidence that Mr. Hughes was not able to give the Governor-General an assurance of any weight or worth that he could carry on the government of the country is to be found in the developments that have taken place since the present Administration was formed. Two statements on the present position appeared in the newspapers to-day : one from Mr. Austin Chapman and the other from Sir William Irvine, which give no assurance of solidarity in the Ministerial party, but quite the contrary. The present division in the Nationalist party is the most damaging commentary upon the decision of the Governor-General that could possibly be imagined.

Senator Barnes:

– They have to stick together, like the forty thieves.

Senator FERRICKS:

Senator FERRICKS:

- Mr. Hughes travelled throughout Queensland, and the statements he made gained numberless votes for those who were opposed to conscription. At Ipswich, Toowoomba, and Brisbane he made the statement, “ I have the power, and have had it ever since 5th May last, to conscript every one of you, men and women. I could conscript you at ls. per day and send those eligible for military service overseas and send others to trawlers and mine-sweeping at ls. per day.” He did not mention the other members of his Government or the party behind him, but said that he personally had the power, and might have put it into execution at any time since the 5th May, which was but a poor compliment to the other members of his Government and the party behind him. The people hearing such statements naturally came to the conclusion that if he really possessed that power it was a very dangerous power for any man to have in Australia,, and it would be very unwise to give him any further power. I think that the judgment of the people of Australia, and of ^Queensland in particular, as expressed ab the referendum, was right.

We have been told ever since tlie outbreak of the war that it is necessary to conscript Australians and send them 12,000 miles away to fight for honour, freedom, and liberty. I want to say that when Australia, on the 28th October, 1916, and on the 20th December, 1917, turned down conscription for oversea service, it did more in the interests of honour, freedom, and liberty than all the armies of all the nations have done or will do on the field of battle since the . outbreak of tha war. In my view, the decision of Australia in this matter will have a lasting and beneficial effect on the history of tlie world, not only for generations, but for centuries to come. Does it not occur te honorable senators that if Australia had adopted conscription the militarist powers of the world would have said, “There is Australia, the most advanced Democracy in the world, with adult suffrage, embracing conscription? What is good enough for the leading Democracy of the world is good enough for an Autocracy,” and so militarism would have been everywhere to stay. In my opinion, Australia’s example will be the commencement of an agitation for the abolition of conscription in every country in the world, and that will take place perhaps sooner than some of the sceptics imagine. Generations who come after us will bless those who voted “ No “ for preserving inviolate the freedom of Australia from military despotism and tyranny.

Senator Senior:

– It is singular that Germany should approve of it.

Senator FERRICKS:

– Germany approves of militarism, and that is why we do not want it in Australia.

– We do not know that.

President Wilson was the first man to knock the stuffing out of the great reputation Mr. Hughes obtained at the socalled Economic Conference in Paris, because, in almost his first official statement he said that one of the terras of the settlement of the war was a universal association of nations to retain inviolate the security of the high seas, meaning, of course, freedom of the seas. What becomes, then, of Mr. Hughes’ idea of no trade with Germany for years after the war? As recently as a fortnight before the last referendum no less a person than Mr. Asquith–

– Is that not too silly to repeat?

Senator FERRICKS:

– If it had not been true action would have been taken against those who published it. It is, therefore, -fair to ask whether, if the rents were not .paid, our soldiers would be evicted from their trenches and dugouts. It also opens up the grave question, from the Australian stand-point, whether Australia is to be committed to the war until Alsace-Lorraine is returned to France, without any plebiscite of the residents being taken.

Then there is the question of indemnities. When the peace settlement arrives, no country will be able to pay indemnities because they will be too great. They must be put out of our minds. The freedom of the seas will be guaranteed. Then comes the question of disarmament. The point has also been raised of reparation to Belgium, Servia, and other small nations. Well, if the nations of the world agree to a policy of disarmament, and there is no reason why they should not, after peace is declared, they will save enough in five years to rebuild Belgium and Servia five times over. If they cease their nightmare or lunatic expenditure on war machines, the nations can easily come to terms along the lines I have indicated.

Senator Senior:

– The honorable sena.tor is very kind to Germany, I must admit.

Senator FERRICKS:

– I note with satisfaction that quite a change has come over the tone of honorable senators opposite. Only a brief twelve months ago, if one had dared to speak on such themes as that which I am now discussing, he would have been almost howled down. It is good to witness the spread of the spirit of tolerance. To-day anticonscriptionists are able to express their opinions unmolested, whereas only a year ago their utterances would have been howled and jeered at.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator would not have expressed such opinions prior to the elections of 1914.

Senator FERRICKS:

– For the edification of the Minister for Repatriation, I propose to outline the attitude which I adopted prior to the elections in 1914. I said that I regretted the war, and hoped that it would soon be over. I declared that if I had my way, I would put those who had made the war in the front of the firing line, with the workers back on the hills waving flags and singing “ Rule, Britannia.’

As an evidence of the intolerance which has obtained until quite recently,- let me explain how the authorities in Queensland endeavoured to heap indignity and contumely upon those who dared to oppose conscription and the dominance of militarism generally. I have lived in the subdivision of Windsor, in the electorate of Lilley, for the past nine or ten years, and I am fairly well known there. Our families, I suppose, which must number between fifty and sixty members, are pretty well known throughout Queensland. There is not a drop of German blood in any of them. I do not mention that fact with any degree of pride, because I would sooner shake hands with an Australian-born,if he is a man of principle, even if he were of German descent, than I would with an industrial “ scab “ or political renegade who was born in Australia either of English, Irish, Scotch, or Welsh parents.

Senator de Largie:

– Who are the political renegades?

Senator FERRICKS:

– I leave that for the honorable senator to say. On the occasion of the recent referendum, I was compelled to answer a number of questions which were put to me under Regu- lation 25 of the War Precautions Act. First, I was asked whether I was a naturalized British subject. I replied, “ No,” adding that I was Australianborn. I was then asked where my father and mother were born. I replied that my father and mother and their progenitors, back to the time of the Spanish Armada at least, were born in the county of Mayo, Ireland. It is sometimes suggested, I know, that we have Spanish blood in our veins, because of our dark complexion. However, I saw that the challenging of my vote was merely an attempt to heap indignity on me, so I smilingly answered all the questions that were put to me. I added, “ I suppose that this is a sample of the freedom for which we are asked to conscript Australian soldiers 12,000 miles overseas to fight - a sample of the Prussianism against which we are alleged to be fighting.” Seeing that I am the last of a family of twelve who have been reared in Australia, I was surprised the other day to receive the following communication: - [Regulation 25(8)

Commonwealth of Australia.

Military Service Referendum 1917.

To Myles AloysiusFerricks, of Old Sandgate-road,

Eagle Junction,

Brisbane.

In connexion with the referendum held on the 20th December, 1917, the ballot-paper issued to you was indorsed “Regulation 25,’’ and placed in the prescribed envelope (which was fastened) and has been forwarded to me in such (fastened) envelope for the purpose of scrutiny.

In order that I may be in a position to satisfy myself as to whether your ballot-paper is to be accepted for further scrutiny, or rejected, I hereby require you to furnish information so as to reach me on or before 17th January, 1918, as to whether or not -

you are a naturalized British subject who was born in an enemy country within the meaning of the War Precautions (Military Service Referendum) Regulations 1917; and
your father was born in an enemy country within the meaning of the aforesaid Regulations.

If you fail to furnish me with information as aforesaid on or before the said date, the ballot-paper may be rejected. Dated the 9th day of January, 1918.

Geo. E. Driver,

Divisional Returning Officer for the Division of Lilley.

Address - Albion.

I thought that as I had satisfactorily answered all the questions put to me, my vote should have been allowed without further question, but, presumably because I had taken a prominent part in the anti-conscription campaign in Australia and Queensland, an attempt was made to heap indignity upon me.

I think that the action of the Government in disfranchising Australian-born citizens on the occasion of the recent referendum was unworthy of any Ministry professing to be imbued with a sense of fairness, and I believe that it deprived the “Yes” side of quite a lot of votes. I am of opinion that many of those who, at the previous election, voted under section 9 of the Electoral Act, and who were disfranchised at the recent referendum for various reasonsvoted “ Yes “ at the first referendum. Those reasons, from the German stand-point, can be readily understood, and I think that one of them was fear. They feared that if their votes were placed in sealed envelopes they would be interned. They also thought that German districts in Australia would benefit if many thousands of our soldiers were sent overseas. But, whether the Government lost or gained by their action, it was a scandalous thing to deprive Australian natives of a vote, many of whom were better Australians than the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) ever was or ever will be. A man who is so obsessed with Imperialism as he is will never become a good Australian, even if he attains to the age of 100 years.

– We listened to the honorable senator reading - was it an elegy, a panegyric, or an epitaph of the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) ? According to the honorable senator, the Prime Minister is a super-man; he is something divine. He might well have summed up the qualities of this wonderful man in much briefer terms. He might have said of him, “ This man is as great as Caesar as wise as Solomon, as eloquent as Demosthenes, and as good as the prophet

Elijah.” That would have covered the six pages of eulogy of the Prime Minister which Senator Earle read last night.

– Neither I, nor any honorable senator on this side, says that

Senator Reid:

– It was denied the other day by leading Canadian statesmen.

Senator LONG:

– My authority is a much better one than Senator de Largie, being the Times cable news which comes to us through a Melbourne newspaper. I feel very strongly on this question. There is a desire amongst the representatives of what is called the National party not to dp justice to this grand country of ours, or to the men and women who have made such great sacrifices. The Leader of the Senate asked, “ Who has paid this money?” I am ashamed to say that for almost the last three years we have had to go cap in hand to the Old Country for the money necessary to take our place in this war; indeed, it would require, not a cap, but a bag to hold all we have received in that way.

– That is what the Government are doing now. I submit that before the House has the adjournment until April, the Government ought to make some declaration as to how they propose to raise even a fair proportion of the money necessary to meet our huge indebtedness in connexion with the war. We went into this conflict voluntarily, and we are determined to see it through ; and every man, if he is at all acquainted with the subject, knows that just as soon as you borrow, or not long afterwards, the tax gatherer comes round.

Another scurrilous production issued during the campaign was the Anti’s Creed, but’ although it contains statements of which honorable senators on the Government side ought to be ashamed, I do not take the same strong view of it as I did of the sectarian attacks. It is stated in the Anti’s Creed that members on this side believe in tlie sinking of the Luisitania, in murder on the high seas, in the Industrial Workers of the World, in the massacre of Belgian priests, in the murder of women and baby killing, that -Nurse Cavell got her deserts, that treachery is a virtue, and that disloyalty is true citizenship. These leaflets were distributed by millions all over Australia.

Senator Millen:

– And “ The Blood Vote” and “ The Lottery of Death “ by tens of millions.

Senator LONG:

– Possibly. When statements like these are disseminated, can we wonder that there is division amongst the people?

Senator Reid:

– That publication never reached Queensland.

Senator LONG:

Senator LONG:

– They have never had 6,500,000 men.

Senator Barnes:

– According tb Mr. Holman they had that number.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - These interjections are out of order.

Senator LONG:

– When the people came to realize how they must have been misled twelve months previously, can we wonder that they rejected the latest proposition with scorn ? Courage is the surest road to safety. Had the party opposite taken that road - had they been prepared to stand up and fight for the principles they advocated °to the bitter end - they might still have been defeated on the conscription issue, but they would have retained the respect of the people of Australia.

Senator LONG:

– The return is as follows: -

This Parliament has not given the important subject of shipping the attention it deserves. I sincerely hope that a very few months will see all the facilities, limited though they may be, which this Commonwealth is able to place at the disposal of the Government utilized to the utmost capacity. I hope I may say, without being accused of blowing the trumpet of my own State - for I have never been a parochialist, but have always claimed to be an Australian - that, if Tasmania can offer facilities in the building of ships equal to those of other States, everything else being equal, I strongly object to the concentration of such a great work in any one State. Most honorable senators who have visited Tasmania will have seen, in the south, north, and northwest, the very fine shipbuilding facilities that exist there.

Senator Guthrie:

– On the Tamar?

Senator LONG:

– Yes, on the Tamar, which has a very big rise and fall.

Senator Grant:

– Is it true that Launceston has imposed a poll tax of 2s. per head on all Australians entering or leaving that port?

Senator LONG:

Senator LONG:

– Just listen to what that gentleman says will be the effect of this Bill on ‘ the wealth of this country, as represented by the great financial institutions, the metal companies, and the shipping companies. He says -

Senator LONG:

– And I may meet the fate that has befallen many a good ‘man. In consequence ofthe numerous but friendly interjections of honorable senators opposite, I have occupied more time than I had intended to occupy. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall be obliged to cut out many kindly references to my honorable friend.

I shall conclude with the expression of the hope that, by the time we meet again, after an adjournment of some months, we shall be able to congratulate each other on the fact that the war has ended in a decisive victory for the Allies, or, if that is not to be, that it has been terminated by an honorable peace, and that the results gained will be proportionate with the tremendous sacrifices that the Allies have made in this great struggle. Perhaps when the war is over a good deal of the bitterness that now exists may disappear, and something may be done to bring into existence a Government under which peace, goodwill, harmony, and justice will prevail, and there will be developed all that is best and right, all that is most generous and patriotic in Australian men and women.

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

– The Prime Minister of Great Britain has within the last few days spoken in the gravest terms of the peril of the Empire and the Allies, and even the humblest of us must judiciously weigh any utterance which he may contemplate regarding the war position. Beyond all doubt the situation is perilous in the extreme. We have read during the last two or three days that, in the city of Sheffield, English people have been rushing to shops established there by Belgian refugees for the sale of horse flesh. We read that rationing is in contemplation.

Senator Needham:

– It is in existence.

Senator Long:

– It is to come into existence on the 25th of this month.

Senator BAKHAP:

– When the Prime Minister of Great Britain made his speech, compulsory rationing was incontemplation, but was not in force. If it now is in force, my remarks are the more apposite. Mr. Lloyd George has warned us that a Democracy, if it will not endure to the end, must perish. He has told us that we must either “ go on or go under.” He has said that if the men in the trenches are not satisfactorily reinforced they will be almost justified in following the Russian example in walking out. Recrimination is being indulged in by the public men of the Empire as to the sharing between the politicians and the soldiers of the responsibility for the military position.. We are told that a great many of the inconveniences that have attended the contemplated advance of the Allied Forces have been caused by the lack of sufficiently large and timely drafts of men. The eating of horse flesh has been hitherto associated in the minds of the people of the United Kingdom with beleaguered fortresses, with towns around which lines ofcircumvallation have been thrown. When we hear of these things it behoves us, as one of the most important Dominions of the Empire having a white population, to consider the remarkable pass to which the Empire has come.

It will be well in this connexion to cultivate a sense of proportion. We have been discussing many matters which, though fairly important in themselves, are small in relation to the general issue. My principal concern is for victory. It is victory that I want, and it is victory that is essential to the cause of the Empire and its Allies, which, beyond all cavil and doubt, is the cause of humanity. Apart from what Lloyd George may say, or what sentiments this or that league may express, or even what may be the opinion of so great a man as President Wilson, I declare in all sincerity and with all conviction that victory is essential to the cause of the Empire and its Allies. Day and night with me there is a feeling of fear that we may be misled, that the leaders of the Empire, or the chiefs among our Allies, may foolishly be led into making with the enemy an inconclusive and unsatisfactory peace. A peace made in the present temper of the ruling classes of Germany would to all intents and purposes be the equivalent of a German victory. Every man who wishes to do justice to himself will endeavour to school his mind to a proper appreciation of the facts; if he wishes to get a proper sense of things he will refrain, to use colloquial Australian, from “pulling his own leg.” I subscribe to the deliverance of one of the best-known writers on the war situation, who has said, “ The enemy thing unbroken is incompatible with us. Either it lives and we die, orit dies and we live.” If, after the war, the German is able to go about the world smacking his chest and saying, “ The whole world was against us, but we kept the soil of Germany inviolate, and imposed our will on our enemies,” then the disintegration of that great Empire of which we are proud to be citizens is within measurable distance. It is essential that the leaders of Labour, and the political leaders too, shall understand that we are at the parting of the ways. If our will to war becomes paralyzed before that of the Germans, we shall be defeated. It is idle to say that the Ger mans are suffering greater privations than the people of our Empire. If they intend to endure longer than we are prepared to endure, the fact that they are suffering more now matters little, because, enduring longer, they will secure the victory, and we shall experience the defeat.

It is essential for us to recognise that differences of opinion in regard to the desirability of making peace have caused conflict among the people of our Empire in other wars. It is always because the ruling classes of the Empire have shown a tenacious spirit, like, that of the old Romans, the determination to hang on, to achieve victory at all costs, that the Empire is what it is to-day. Now: I very rarely indulge in anything like prophecy, and I remember that Mark Twain has very wisely advised us never to prophesy unless we know; but I do take the responsibility of declaring that if the people of this great democratic Empire of ours - we are all interested in the preservation of our liberties - have sufficient resolution to endure this year, victory is certain, because the insidious German peace propaganda keeps in view the fact that, before long, the organizing genius and inventive ability of 100,000,000 people across the Atlantic Ocean will be brought to bear. They know quite well that once America’s strength is exerted, nothing can save the German Empire from a pretty substantial defeat. And during the recent referendum campaign a most singular use was made of the fact that America is our ally. But I warn the people that this is the crucial year, and that? on the confession of Mr. Frank Simmonds, who is recognised as America’s greatest writer on military subjects, we must not entertain .any illusion about America’s military effort during 1918. In an article in Land and Water, he says that the troops or assistance which America can provide during this year must be regarded rather as an earnest of her intention than anything else, and that we had better understand that American armies will not be sent into the field in anything like substantial numbers before 1919. Therefore, every English-speaking man, every citizen of the Empire, who entertains a real and loyal hope that its prestige may be preserved, must understand that this year will be the real trying and testing time. Let us endure. Let us preserve our will to war unimpaired during 1918.

If we do this, we may rest assured that victory, with all its compensations, can be promised. I have no hesitation in saying that if the British people do not become “wobbly” at the knees, but will equal and surpass, the Germans - in endurance during this year, the ultimate and comparatively speedy success of our cause will be insured. But it will be incumbent on British people in all parts of the world to endure during 1918. If we get over this year, if we withstand the insidious efforts on behalf of a peace which would be equivalent^ a German victory, we shall, during 1919, be able to bring about peace imposed by the victorious arms of our. Empire and our noble Allies.That is the ideal we must keep in view. These are times when all public men have a profound responsibility and great duty resting upon their shoulders, and I say that, in this crucial hour, it is their sacred duty to animate and inspire the people with hope and an inflexible determination to endure until victory is achieved.

I may say that I am greatly disappointed, but not very much surprised, at the result of the recent referendum. It is probable that, had other action been taken, something better might have been achieved. I am sorry that, in a demo;cratic community like ours, the referendum was decided upon without some submission of its terms to the National Parliament. But regrets are vain. It is to the future that we must turn our attention. Nothing will be gained by whining over the past. The people of Australia had a great opportunity available to them in 1916, and they had another on the 20th December last, but, unfortunately, a kind of dementia, which I can only compare to that derangement of mind which afflicts unfortunate people occasionally, and which sometimes impels unhappy men to emasculate themselves, overtook the people of Australia, who in a sense emasculated themselves by voting “ No,” and thus to a large extent fettered any future Administration in regard to Australia’s war efforts. The people very unwisely, in my judgment, voted “No.” A very large number voted “ Yes,” but I am sorry to say that my opinion of the referendum as an instrument of government and for ascertaining popular opinion has been very considerably impaired by what was discovered by me during my attempts to assist in securing * satisfactory “ Yes “ vote.

I found that most remarkable motives and most singular reasons inspired some people to vote one way or the other. On one occasion I met a sensible woman who was at the time in the throes of a breach of promise action with some swain who had deserted her. She was a most enthusiastic “Yes” voter,, and when I laughingly asked her for her reasons, she expressed the hope that conscription would be carried, so that this gentleman who had breached his promise would be sent to the Front and killed. Another friend of mine whose entire, household would vote “ Yes “ had some sort of a quarrel with the head of a Department, and he told me that he would vote “‘No” in the hope that it would lead to a change of Government and the dismissal from the Commonwealth employment of the departmental head referred to. If in a great national crisis like this fairly intelligent people have their opinions determined by considerations of the ‘ kind I have mentioned, one must re-adjust one’s ideas concerning the referendum as an instrument for ascertaining the public will. Even in those well-conducted Democracies where the referendum has been used for some years, it has come to be regarded as a Conservative instrument. I venture to say that Parliaments are nearly always more progressive than and considerably in advance of the great body of electors whose opinions are asked by medium of a referendum, for “whenever a direct question involving personal interests is submitted to the electors for their judgment they will invariably vote on the Conservative side. The referendum, therefore, is recognised by nearly all political writers ‘ of any great status as a Conservative instrument, and it is rarely used. Honorable senators will, of course, remember’ that the referendum has been employed on several occasions since the inception of the Commonwealth, and that in regard to only two or three trivial and impersonal matters have we secured an affirmative vote.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Federation itself was brought about as the result of a referendum.

Senator BAKHAP:

– At the- second time of asking, as the honorable senator knows.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– A majority of the people voted “ Yes” at the first Federal referendum.

Senator BAKHAP:

– But the majority was not nearly so large as that polled ir favour of Federation at the second time of asking. This illustrates the correctness of my argument.

I had no very great hope of the second conscription referendum being carried. I thought that, in the circumstances, and with the full knowledge of the fact that the position of the Allies was certainly more perilous than in October, 1916, a sufficiently large number of electors might have changed their minds to enable us to secure a bare “ Yes “ majority. But the campaign had hardly opened before I recognised that the position was very nearly hopeless. I had always considered it perilous, even before the publication of the result of the voting at the first referendum. When I saw that over 100,000 virile, or assumedly virile, Australians who had been called into camp, who were of fit military age, and who had been declared medically fit, had, to the extent of about 95 per cent, of their numbers, applied for exemption, I contemplated the future of my country with very doubtful feelings. The fact is that nearly 100,000 men called into camp in 1916 applied for exemption, and T think it can reasonably be stated that the great majority of them voted “ No.”

I encountered the most amazing and most unnecessary candour on the part of some of these young men. I was surprised at the attitude taken up by many who had been friend’s of mine since their early childhood, and by many I had known almost since their birth. In the most friendly way they stated to me at street corners that they would not go to the wai’; that if the referendum were carried they would have to be bound with ropes and transported by main force to the scene of action. When I reasoned with them - when I asked, “ Why this unnecessary solicitude about the issue of the referendum ? Why this unnecessary fear about going to the field of battle and fighting as so many of your countrymen are fighting? “ - they told me, in very plain Australian, that they were afraid they would suffer from an infirmity which I can best characterize by the use of an expressive phrase culled from the fertile pages of the elegant Plutarch, who, describing a general who suffered from the same infirmity, says, “His bowels used to lose their retentive faculty.” I explained this to these young men, and told them that their candour did not lead me to believe, as they imagined it would, that they would not make fair soldiers. It was a very stout general whom we read of in the pages of history, and, despite the affliction which always overtook him on the day of battle, he accomplished some very great military deeds. He was an eminent warrior - in fact, one of the greatest generals of Grecian antiquity.

Senator Barnes:

– But that description of his infirmity was not “ plain Australian.”

Senator BAKHAP:

– Quite so-; I am construing the “plain Australian” into the elegant language of classical writers. These men probably were very much better material than were those bie commercial men - Owners of big businesses here - who, while leading the “Yes” speakers to believe that they were going to vote “Yes,” were marshalling their entire households to vote “No” at the polls. If I had sufficient knowledge of military tactics I should not be afraid to lead into battle the men who confessed to me at street corners that they were afraid, for I believe that they would prove good soldiers. They only feared that they would be afraid, and the probability is that they would do as well as any of their countrymen, who have fought so gallantly on the European battle fields. The referendum was defeated by the selfishness of those classes of the nation who ought to have known a great deal better. It was defeated by men who ought to have risen to a sense of their duty, but did not recognise the responsibility that rested upon them because of their citizenship in one of the greatest Empires in history. The referendum was defeated by the insidious opposition of many who professed to be its supporters.

I regret that we were not allowed to deliberate here on the details of the referendum, because I recognise that in it’ we had probably the last opportunity that will ever present itself for obtaining most interesting information in regard to the psychology of the Australian nation. I wanted the ballot-papers polled by voters of the two sexes to be placed in separate ballot-boxes. I wanted to know, whether the vote was an affirmative or a negative one, which sex was responsible for it. The voters on the Commonwealth rolls are classified by letters indicating their sex, and I am very sorry that opportunity was not given for the casting of the ballot-papers into what I might call sex ballot-boxes. We would have known then whether the lack of fibre was in the male or the female portion of the voting population. I am sorry to say - and this again fills me with greater doubt than ever as to the future of this country - that the figures I have in connexion with two of the seventy-five electorates for the House of Representatives into which the Commonwealth is divided, show that in one of them the number of female votes polled was more than 1,300 in excess of the male votes, and that in that electorate there was a substantial “Yes” majority, whereas in the other, where the male voters who exercised the franchise were over 1,000 in excess of the female voters, there was a “ No “ majority of nearly 1,000. Unlike many others who have investigated this matter, I am of the opinion that it was not the women who lacked soul or fibre - that it is not our women* who are unworthy of being compared with the Spartan mothers - but the decadent manhood, the too great pleasure-loving manhood of Australia remaining behind here, that was responsible for the’ “ No “ vote. I attribute the result of - the referendum to a large negative vote on the part of male electors. In the two electorates the statistics of which are at my disposal, I am able to show that where there was a preponderance of female voters there was a majority of “ Yes “ votes, and where there was a large preponderance of male voters there was an almost equivalent majority of “ No “ votes. That speaks little for the virility of the Australian men who have remained behind.

Senator Gardiner:

– It speaks very well for them._

Senator BAKHAP:

– Of course, the honorable senator will differ from this view. j

Senator Gardiner:

– By what authority does the honorable senator sit in judgment upon those who constituted the majority at the referendum poll?

Senator BAKHAP:

– The authority that I owe to my self-respect. I am here, in one of the legislative chambers of the nation, to express my honest opinions.

No tope of cajoling the electors, no hope of “ smoodging “ to them - to use an Australianism - no hope of pandering to them, or of ingratiating myself with them because of anything I may or may not say, will prevent me from saying anything that I believe it to be my duty to say at this juncture in our national fortunes.

I must say that the Official Labour party’s attitude, since it got into Opposi-‘ tion, compares very unfavorably with that of the Liberal Opposition during the first two years of the prosecution of the war. During those two years, as we have heard from the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), the then ‘ Government received the loyal assistance of the Liberal Opposition. I venture to say that in the House of Representatives the Liberal Opposition was conspicuous for the loyal assistance it rendered to Ministers in regard to all their measures for the prosecution of the war. Circumstances, which we did not compel, and over which we had no control, caused a split in the Labour party. Since then, I venture to say, that section of the Labour party that has gone into Opposition has been conspicuous for nothing else but a constant attempt to thwart the efforts of the Administration to continue to do the best possible in the prosecution of the war.

Senator GARDINER:

– The records of Parliament prove that the Opposition has given every assistance to the Government in connexion with their war measures.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not think so. The records of Australian politics, since a- section of the Labour party went into Opposition, simply teem with evidence that the Administration has had to face incessant attempts to thwart its best endeavours. There is this to be said - and honorable senators who sit in Opposition must know I am telling the truth - that, bereft of the most scientific, democratic, and equitable way of raisin? troops for reinforcements, the possible efforts of any Ministry must be regarded as seriously impaired. It is true that much can be done in the way of providing shipping, as -Senator Pratten suggested, and in the stimulation of the production of .metals and ores and in the establishment of factories for munitions within our Territory. A thoroughly enthusiastic effort may secure great results in these .directions ; but in regard to the vita! essential of men, beyond all doubt the Australian people, by their referendum vote, have seriously impaired the efforts of any Administration that may be in office. It is as well to recite these facts, and honorable senators opposite know them as well as I do.

When I went down into the city today, I found the cajoling system in full operation. The bands were playing, men “ spruiking “ from platforms - the splendid voluntary system ! All the circus methods of Wirth and other promoters of such pageants, are in full use by the military authorities of this great Dominion of the Empire. Blow your trumpets ! Beat your drums ! Drag in the services of politicians, and get women to meet young men individually and shame them into enlisting. It is a misuse of the word “ voluntary “ ; it is not the voluntary system at all. Why do you call for speakers, and for the establishment of recruiting committees ? Why should there be all these things in connexion with the voluntary system? It is a system of cajolery; that is all it is. It depends on the war-like enthusiasm of those youths who are approaching their majority, and on the indignation of men really past the military age, who, in their righteous wrath, tell untruths in order to get themselves accepted by the enlisting authorities.

If I have erred since the beginning of the war in advocating compulsion I have erred with the somewhat laggard authorities of Great Britain - with Asquith, with Lloyd George, with Roosevelt, with Wilson, with the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, who, the other day, would not allow an appeal in a case where a wealthy man had been sentenced to fine and imprisonment for having stigmatized conscription as slavery. The very fact that that man had the effrontery, in the free-born community of America, to stigmatize an equitable, democratic effort, instituted by the Legislature, as slavery; cost him a term of imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 dollars. The impeccable and unimpeachable authority of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal and allowed the conviction to stand. If I err, I err in company in which I am glad to be.

I do not plead guilty to having used one offensive or vituperative term during the prosecution of the two referendum campaigns in which I assisted. I admit that for good or ill - perhaps for. ill - this is a Democracy; and when a question is relegated to a Democracy for decision, it is implied that there are two sides to it, and vituperation and invective in connexion with the arguments for and against are entirely out of place. I have never accused a “ No “ voter of being disloyal or of being a traitor, but I have said, as I shall say now, that those who voted “No” were beguiled and misled, and, in a national and Imperial sense, came to an essentially wrong, and possibly, fatal decision.

I had not intended to speak, and would not have spoken, had it not occurred to me that it would be well if I incorporated in Hansard certain extracts from German publications which ought to serve as a terrible warning to tie people of Australia in regard to their international association with the people of the German race. What I am going to quote might, perhaps, be regarded as the production of pan-Germans, or jingoistic Germans, of a somewhat ignorant class, but, as a matter of fact, educated Germans, belonging to the professorial class, are responsible for the opinions expressed. I venture to say that, although the people of the British race are not impeccable - although they have their faults - it would be impossible to get a series of British publications embodying threats or suggestions such as these in regard to dealing with the -people of the German race if we should fortunately prove victorious. Some honorable members may think that I am a jingoistic kind of man. Not at all. I would not advocate the retention of the German colonies captured by the Australian troops, if I did not think it was absolutely essential to the safety and welfare of Australia, and of our children in the days to come. Honorable senators know that I have taken certain action in a certain direction, and that action has secured the almost unqualified indorsement of the Senate. If honorable senators will favour me with their attention for a moment they will be well repaid; and if the Australian electors, or such of them as read Hansard, will peruse carefully what they will find in its pages within the next few days, and will, as a matter of patriotism and of justice to themselves and posterity, spread the knowledge and intelligence amongst their fellow-electors, both men and women, they will do the country a service. This is the first extract -

Our expenses of war will bc paid by the vanquished; The black, white, red flag shall float over all seas and on Austral land. The whole .world shall stand open to us to develop the energy of the German nature in unhampered competition. We must break the tyranny with which Britain, by the assistance of the Australian Fleet, would rule the world. We will yet see our navy and army quartered in Australia, where we will develop -its hidden wealth, known to us, and unknown to the people of Austral land, whom we shall keep busy - through our agents - at war among themselves. The domination of Australia will be our greatest joy.

The gentleman responsible for this is Professor Otto von Gierke, doctor of jurisprudence, philosophy, professor at Berlin University, and holder of an honorary degree of Harvard University, United States of America. The extract is from pamphlet No. 2, page 23, Deutsche Reden in Schwerer Zeit (“German speeches in difficult days”), a series of pamphlets by the professors of Berlin University. I come now to the future of our women, according to another German writer: -

Why do the young women of Oceanica carry cupids in their peggy-bags and as charms on their breasts? They used to bear teddy-bears; now it is upon the cards they will not carry any images when we, as rulers, dominate the land of the Southern Cross. - Kurd von Strantz, page 27, Dos Wirkliche Australian. (“The Ileal Australia.”)

Other extracts are -

A hundred times more glowing than our steel shall the mark of our contempt be branded upon the British. Wander, thou Australian scum, as a lonely Ahasuerus, restless and unhappy, over land and sea. And if thou sayest I have flung the firebrand of hell from Earth to Heaven, over sea and land, I have struck God and mankind in the face, and must now bear all their curses, an everlasting stigma seared with fire; then shalt thou speak the truth for the first time.” - Otto Riemasch, page 49. (“Hurrah und Hallelujah.”

When our party visited Oceanica we keenly observed everything in Austral land. We had a liberal allowance for travelling expenses, and hence the womenfolk literally threw themselves at us. We anticipate a swift time when we return to the land of the Southern Cross in the role of conquerors. Omar the Persian will be outdone. Decameron will not be read again after our chronicles are published. - Ernst Moritz Arndt, Jnr., in Zur Characteristik der Australier. (“ Australian Characteristics,” page 23.)

When we come to Australia we do not anticipate any difficulty with the younger generati’on. They have proved themselves to be the most arrant cowards. The young males are spineless jellyfish. The only people they bully are their aged parents, to whom they should be a blessing in their old age, but are a curse. It would have been better for the world had they been strangled at birth. They only speak truth by accident, or only when a lie will not serve their purpose. They have no respect for the aged. The only time they go to church is when divine service is ended, and then for the purpose of waylaying the young maidens, who, for outward appearances and respectability, attend the evening devotions. Their only ambition is to workin a dry-goods store, an office, or emporium. They have not any desire to exercise their intellect. We will put them in gangs on the roads, and making fortifications, locking them in stockades at night.

– The honorable senator will not throwme off my argument by any reference to Critchley Parker. I despise Critchley Parker’s efforts so much that I am not even going to refer to them. I have my own way of protecting myself, and my own way of presenting my private grievances. I do not propose to mention them in Australia’s highest national chamber at a time when the Empire is in very grave peril.

I wish to say something about shipbuilding. In his Bendigo speech, which I have had the pleasure of quoting onmany platforms during the election campaign of April and May last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) said that freight was a vital factor in regard to winning the war, but, unfortunately, it was one that was beyond our control. I subscribe to the truth of the statement that freight is a vital factor, but I certainly protest against the idea that it is altogether beyond our control. Very early in the campaign of last year I said that I thought a very vigorous policy of shipbuilding in Australia would be one of the very best things a Winthewar Ministry could undertake, and that, . by building ships - we ought to be able to build them with the resources of a continent at our disposal - and by arranging for convoys, just as in the eighteenth century the East India Fleet had to be convoyed by the British men-of-war, we could combat the submarine menace. The pirates of Barbary were almost as big a menace to commerce in the eighteenth century as the German submarine is to-day, and British men-of-war were frequently under the necessity of going as far south as the line in order to convoy the East India fleets to the shores of Great Britain. I pointed out during the campaign that a very satisfactory method of combating the submarine menace would be for all the component parts of the British Empire to address themselves individually and collectivelyto a vigorous policy of building ships - wooden ships; any sort of ships - that would take cargoes to the Home Country.

I am somewhat surprised at the statement that the Prime Minister has ordered the building of fourteen wooden ships in America. I applaud the actual administrative act, but it squares most unsatisfactorily with the attitude ofthe Prime Minister towards the proposal to build wooden ships in Australia. I understood from those who were commissioned to investigate the matter in Tasmania, and whom I had the pleasure of accompanying, that the Prime Minister was opposed to the building of wooden ships in Australia. If he has given orders for the building of wooden ships in America - I speak with only a partial knowledge of the facts, because they have not been even moderately disclosed to us - he should also have arranged his shipbuilding policy in such a fashion that we should have begun the building of wooden ships in Australia months ago. We have built wooden ships in Australia that have made the ocean voyage to London. Tasmania is now getting its supplies of wheat from the mainland in wooden sailing ships. Only a week ago there was at the Launceston wharf a wooden vessel - a converted missionary craft - which had been built in England, and which is now engaged in taking wheat from New South Wales to Tasmania, that mainland wheat which is necessary for the operations of the Tasmanian millers. If a vessel which was built in England, and which has made the stormy ocean voyage to Australia, is actually engaged in the Australian wheat transport trade, cannot we, setting aside all our political differences, address ourselves enthusiastically, even at this late hour, to the building of ships - ships of any sort, rough ships, if you like, so long as they are seaworthy and will carry substantial cargoes - to help to mitigate the unfortunate position of the people of Great Britain? Undoubtedly, we can do so. Surely this is an item of policy with” which no one will disagree. While I applaud what the Administration has done already, I say that it has not done nearly sufficient in this particular, and if there is such incongruity in its. shipbuilding policy in the direction I have mentioned, my surprise at the lack of proportion is increased - for, if we are to pay for American wooden ships with good Australian money, surely in an insular continent, with vast forests at our disposal, we should be able to build wooden ships here ? In fact, some of them ought to be well on the way to launching at the present time. We all know that the Prime Minister and the Administration have been confronted with considerable difficulties, but I must say there has been a lack of that dash, that enthusiasm, that fever of shipbuilding, to which Senator Long has referred. Even at this late hour amendment is possible, and I sincerely hope that the Administration, purged somewhat by the fire through which it has passed, will address itself with tenfold energy to the question of increasing the Empire’s mercantile marine.

A constructive war policy that will really assist is badly needed. As I said in my opening remarks, I am sorry to say that we are forced back on the most unsatisfactory method of providing men, but forced back on it we are, and men of the world deal with things as they are; they deal with facts, and not with suppositions, and they do not indulge in vain regrets as to what might have been. It seems to me our mineral production will have to be greatly stimulated by encouraging enterprise. While I thoroughly agree with the policy that those who are enjoying large incomes at the present time should pay proportionately to the cost of the war, I question very much whether the war-time profits tax is likely to prove anything but a brake on the energies of the people of Australia. Human nature being what it is - and every politician should be a bit of a philosopher - we must recognise that we cannot get men to put money into productive enterprises when they are liable to have their profits taken from them to the extent of 50 per cent, or 75 per cent. There are other avenues in which they can employ their money. As honorable senators suggest, they may even put it into the war loans, where it may be of service, but there they will not be running the risk of having three-fourths of their profits taken from them. I am not going into the bare ethics of the question, nor do I argue that patriots ought not to be willing to sacrifice every shilling which they possess. Theoretically, they ought to be willing to do so, but human nature being what it is they will not do it. Our friends are talking about raising the pay of Australian soldiers, implicating and insinuating that it is necessary to ‘ raise the pay before men will come forward in increased numbers to fight. I do not say that it is necessary, but undoubtedly that is the logical implication. We must stimulate mineral production here. I believe that if the production of metals and ores is vital, as it undoubtedly is, for the successful prosecution of the war, and the maintenance of our part in the struggle, it will be found desirable, as it was found desirable in New Zealand, to revert to the income tax form of raising money and to let the war-time profits taxation go by the board.

I am sure that it will be found by the collection of the war-time profits impost that in Australia war-time profits on the scale on which they are made in the United Kingdom do not exist. Yet the presence of this bugbear in the path of enterprise will, I feel sure, do much to check our reaching a consummation which wedevoutedly wish, namely, the great stimulation of Australian production.

I have not the ability to epitomize my remarks as Senator Pratten has done, but in his short and well-considered speech he alluded to the necessity of our greatly stimulating production of every kind. He referred to the production of metals, the building of ships, and the manufacture of munitions of war. If we undertake all this work, recognising that we shall always be geographically an isolated continent, and our people the population of an island, it may be that this war, great as its drain upon the resources of the Commonwealth in men and money has been, will, in after years, because of the prosperity resulting from the stimulation of our industries, be recognised as a blessing in disguise. It may possibly be that it will result in the planting in Australia of the roots of industries which, like the grain of mustard seed, will eventually bloom and flourish into tremendous industrial trees. As we are restricted in the way of providing men, we should exhibit all the more energy in the development of our resources, the building of ships,the growing of produce, the rearing of stock, and the systematic production of ores and metals.

I am not one. of those who care to make too long references to things that are past and cannot be mended.

Senator Millen:

– Plutarch has passed.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes; but Plutarchthough dead yet liveth and speaketh still. His body may be dead, but his utterances are immortal. I suppose that it is almost impossible to speak on the Supply Bill without making some reference to the political position quite recently created by the unfortunate and unnecessary pledge on the part of the Prime Minister. I am not going to criticise nor am I going to absolve. I feel that as I am one of the contemporaries of the Prime Minister, I am, perhaps, unable to judge him as dispassionately and correctly as he may be judged by posterity. Every one knows that I am not inclined to indulge in fulsome praise of the right honorable gentleman. I have a keen sense of some of his defects and limitations. Nevertheless. I say that his political career and his political fortunes are identified with the fortunes of our Empire. He stands for all that is

– As Senator Henderson somewhat jocularly interjects, it is to be hoped not. I do not think it could be reasonably contended that such a pledge would apply to the rank and file of the Nationalist party. Mr. Hughes made a pledge, and has got out of it in a way satisfactory to himself, and I am not ‘going to comment upon it at this juncture.

I do protest, however, against the - I will not say disloyal - but somewhat sneering, and almost unchivalrous. references which have been made to His Excellency the Governor-General. Let any honorable senator imagine himself placed in the position of the Governor-General repre:senting the Imperial authorities, whose one care is tlie proper and satisfactory government of Australia in this time of crisis, and what would he do? Honorable senators must remember that the Governor-General has no concern with the individual or . collective pledges of members of this Parliament. His concern is to see an Administration in office supported by a majority of the members in the popular chamber. That is his concern. Everything else set aside, he must go about that business. It is his . duty as the King’s representative to keep the King’s government going.

Senator Needham:

– And to follow constitutional procedure.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I remind the honorable senator that, once a Ministry has resigned, the Governor-General is his own judge of what is constitutional procedure.

Senator Needham:

– Then, why did heseek so much advice?

Senator BAKHAP:

– It will not be held against the Governor-General as a crime that he failed to seek advice. Weknow that he sought the advice of a number of gentlemen. I think that whatever criticism may be directed against the attitude of the Prime Minister in connexion” with the matter, the Governor-General must, by every loyal, sensible, and chivalrous man, be held to have done what was undoubtedly the right thing from the - stand-point of the King’s representative, namely, the securing of fi stable government for the Commonwealth of Australia at a time of great Imperial strain. The Governor-General is well qualified to defend himself, and I am not taking up therole of his apologist. I merely say, as a member of the Senate, that I think- that, whatever’ may be the attitude adopted in another place, the senatorial attitude towards the Governor-General ought to’ be chivalrous, and should indicate a recognition of the difficulties imposed upon him arising from a political crisis. That is all that I desire to say about the matter.

Honorable senators know that I havebeen a conscriptionist from the beginning of the war. I have been a conscriptionist, not because of the necessity of gettingenough men. I should be a conscriptionist now if we were getting a sufficient number of men, because I hold that conscription is equitable, democratic, and scientific. The war authorities should know how many men they can depend on, and that they can depend upon a regular supply. That is possible only under conscription. That is why students of the military art have always been advocatesof -conscription.

Senator Needham:

– Even at ls. per day.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I have had to run the gauntlet. a good many times since I made that statement, and have received more votes since than ever before. I havehad my hand shaken by returned veterans,, who have confessed to me that- my attitude was the right one, and that had my scheme been adopted, we should not havebeen giving maimed, blinded, or partiallyblinded, and certainly considerably inca- pacitated soldiers, pensions which, after all are not sufficient to do more than keep bodyand soul together. Under the system we have adopted, nearly £50,000,000 of Australian money has been spent on foreign soil by Australian soldiers in a way that has brought them little or no benefit. Had conscription been introduced, with a scale which permitted of only a nominal monetary payment to the soldier himself, while providing ample allowances for the keep of those dependent on him, and allowing a much more amplified fund for the payment of pensions, something very much better would have been instituted than the system which we are now carrying on to the detriment of our national effort.

Senator Needham:

– That was not your statement in the Senate.

SenatorBAKHAP. - I have been under the criticism of my electors two or three times since then, and have returned. I fancy I would return again to-morrow without any difficulty if another election occurred. I have been a conscriptionist because of the equity of the system. Every man who understands the military art knows that it is the only system under which satisfactory reinforcements for armies can be depended upon. That being so, it will come with a certain amount of grace from me to suggest that we ought to bury the hatchet with regard to recriminations about this matter. Many mistakes were made on both sides. Pamphlets were published by very indifferent directors of public opinion on both sides, which posterity will regret were ever sent broadcast among Australian people. Lot us all address ourselves now to the problems facing us, rightly or wrongly, straightforwardly or otherwise, according to different view-points. A Government is in power which has the confidence of the majority of this Legislature in both Houses. If it peacefully, but energetically addresses itself to the organization of Australia’s resources; if it is allowed to do so without unnecessary recriminations, something may be achieved; but if we fritter away our internal strength by continual bickering over matters which, after all, will not be regarded as worth a jot by the historian of fifty years hence, we shall be doing a very unwise thing, unbefitting the legislators of one of the most important of the King’s overseas Dominions. After all, there are 5,000,000 almost purely British people in Australia, and there are only 67,000,000 of white people in the whole British Empire. Therefore, the percentage of responsibility on our shoulders is very heavy. It is our duty, all other considerations set aside, to allow this Administration, which ought reasonably to have two years of office before it, to address itself to the question of what can be best done on Australia’s behalf. I hope before election time comes again we shall have surmounted the Alpine heights and landed on the other side, where we can fully survey the broad meadows of unqualified and measureless victory. When we do get such a victory - and I believe we will, if we are sufficiently enduring - we can all look back on this time of trial as one not likely to occur again during our lifetime, and I hope not within the lifetime of two or three generations of our descendants.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Keefe) adjourned.

page 3427

HOUR OP MEETING

Motion (by Senator Millen) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 11 a.m. to-morrow.

page 3427

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Customs Act 1901-1916 - Regulations amended, &c. - Statutory Rules 1918, Nos. 10, 11.

page 3427

ADJOURNMENT

Coaling of Ships at Sydney.

Motion (by Senator Millen) pro posed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I wish to bring under the notice of the Minister representing the Prime Minister a statement of the utmost importance, that the hospital ship Kyarra, the troopship Ayrshire, and one BritishIndia ship, have been held up in Sydney Harbor since 14th January, for want of coal, although 600 coal lumpers are willing to load the coal ; that the Cool Board refuses to permit the stevedores toemploy the men unless they repudiate their own union, and go through the channel established by the New South Wales Government. If that statement is correct, this victimization of the Coal LumpersUnion should -absolutely cease, and steps should be at once taken by the Government to have the ships coaled by members of the union.

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

– The only step I can take at this juncture is to ask the honorable senator to let me have the statement from which he was evidently reading. By that means, he will put me in possession of the alleged facts quicker than I shall get them by waiting for the appearance of Hansard. I shall then make inquiries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 January 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19180123_senate_7_84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 January 1918

QUESTION

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

REINFORCEMENTS

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND CONSCRIPTION

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

CAPTURED GERMAN COLONIES

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON

Senator BAKHAP:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

EXPORT OF JAM

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

SOLDIERS’ PARCELS

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

Senator PRATTEN:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator PRATTEN:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator MAUGHAN:QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:NAT

SUPPLY BILL (No. 5) 1917-18

Senator GRANT:New South Wales

Senator Crawford:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Shannon:

Senator GRANT:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GRANT:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Lynch:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Lynch:

Senator GRANT:

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Millen:

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senator GUTHRIE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GRANT:

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator de Largie:

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator GRANT:

Senator Crawford:

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator GRANT:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GRANT:

Senate
23 January 1918

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator RUSSELL:
Honorary Minister · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MAUGHAN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FAIRBAIRN:
Victoria