Senate
5 December 1918

7^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP
- Proposed Select: Committee
PAPERS
QUESTION
- CASEOFW.F. GANSEN
QUESTION
- PERTH MEDICAL OFFICER
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS
QUESTION
- PEACE TERMS
QUESTION
- NAVY
QUESTION
- GARRISON MILITARY POLICE, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- HENDERSON NAVAL BASE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- TATTERSALLS ‘SWEERS
QUESTION
- APPLE BOUNTY ACT
AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION BILL
MILITARY RECRUITING EXPENDITURE
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP
- Proposed Select Committee
- Noes … …16
- Majority … … 4
WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT
STATUTORY RULES . 1918, No. 301
QUESTION
- R. FERGUSON,
BEER EXCISE BELL
NEW STANDING ORDER
- Time Limit of Speeches
QUESTION
- WHEAT CULTIVATION AND MARKET CONDITIONS
QUESTION
- SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTOXICATING LIQUOR
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 8778

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP

Proposed Select: Committee

SenatorPRATTEN.-I ask the Leader of the Senate with a view to testing the accuracy of statements contained in the matter read in the Senate yesterday in reply to my statement relating to the tin scrap position in Australia, and in view of my desire toassoon as possible acquaintthe Senate withthetrue position, will he give me an opportunity to-day, or to-morrow, or next week, to movethe motion standing in my name for the appointment of a Select Committeeto inquire into the matter, and which now ap-: pears last on the list ofprivate members’ business, without the delay necessarily imposed by the forms of the Senate?

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

– The opportunity . which the honorable senator has to proceed with his business isthat which he enjoys in common with other honorable senators. I have no desire atall to delay the consideration ofthehonorable senator’s motion, but I remindthe Senatethat there is on the business-paper a list of a considerable number of measures presented bythe Government : for its consideration. I am notprepared topush those aside for the purpose indicated, but I will see during the next day or twoif it be possible, without encroaching upon the steady progress- of Government business, to create the opportunity which the honorable senator seeks.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senatewhether he is prepared to permit Senator Pratten’s motion to go as formal ?

Senator Millen:

– I am not prepared todo that.

The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order ! This isanticipating discussion.

Senator Gardiner:

-Was my question not in order?

The PRESIDENT:

– . No. The opportunity toconsider the matter will arise immediately the business is called on.

page 8778

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

War Precautions Act 1914-1916.-Regula- tions amended - StatutoryRules . 1918. No. 301.

Lands Acquisition Act. 1906-1916. - Land acquired atMelbourne, Victoria - for Defence purposes.

page 8778

QUESTION

CASEOFW.F. GANSEN

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Some days ago I addressed to the Minister for Defence certain questions relating to the case of one Jenssen. I should like to know if the Minister is now in possession of the information for which I asked ?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– On the 19th November, Senator Needham asked the following questions: -

Is the Minister for Defence aware whether, in July, 1918, a man named Jenssen, or Jensson, falsely reported to the police that he had. been tied up and badly, beaten by two men?
Is he awarewhether, in connexion with this case, a man named Gwynne was charged and tried for murder?
Is he aware whether when Jenssen, or Jensson, was questioned by a detective, he admitted bis story was false and that he was a German “unnaturalized”?
Is he aware whether Jenssen, or Jensson, was taken to Perth and handed over to the Military authorities on 1st August and interned?
Is be aware whether, on Saturday, 26th October, 1918, he returned to Baker’s Hill, and is now in the employ of his old employer?
If So, what is the reason for his release from internment?

The answers are -

A man named William Frederick Charles Gansen did falsely report that he had. been tied up and maltreated on the 25th July, 1918.
George Gwynne was tried,not in connexion with this case, but for the wilful murder of one Thomas Mann, andwas found not guilty.
Gansen admitted the story was false. He is an unnaturalized German.
He was interned on the 7th August, 1918.
He was released on the 26th October and returned to his former employer.
He was released because it was considered therewas not sufficient military reason for his continued internment.

page 8774

QUESTION

PERTH MEDICAL OFFICER

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

What is the established practice for the filling of such positions as that of the office of Commonwealth Medical Officer at Perth?
Was the recent appointment there made in conformity with such practice?
Was the officer who performed the duties of Commonwealth Medical Officer for six years, amongst other applicants of high professional standing, passed over in. favour of an applicant new to the service and unfamiliar with the duties of the position; and if so, why?
If the officer in question was rightly adjudged unfit for the position, is it a fact that he was retained for the space of six years without a single complaint about hia capacity or performance of his duties? ‘
Is the Minister aware whether the appointment has caused surprise and disappointment amongst the medical profession -of Perth the belief being that the claims of the several applicants did not get that fair and impartial consideration which their qualifications merited?’

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

The Public Service Commissioner invites applications through the local press, selects the applicant he considers, after full inquiry, will best serve the interests of the Commonwealth Public Service, and recommends his appointment for the approval of the Prime Minister.
Yes.
The doctor appointed had previous experience in the duties of the position.
It is assumed Dr. Blanchard is referred to. He was not regarded unfit for the position, but the doctor selected was considered to be the more suitable.
No. The claims of all applicants received the most careful consideration, and professional advice was sought before a determination was reached. .

page 8774

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

How many boards were established by the Commonwealth Government under the War Precautions Act?
How many have ceased to exist and what were the names of such?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The information desired by the honorable senator will be supplied as soon as possible.

page 8774

QUESTION

PEACE TERMS

Indemnity for Australia

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Minister representing the Acting PrimeMinister, upon notice -

Has the Government informed the British Government that it is the desire of the Australian people that the defeated Powers reimburse Australia to the full amount of Australia’s war expenditure?
Will the Government give the Senate an opportunity of discussing this question, and inform the British Government the result of such discussion?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The answers are -

This matter is, of course, onefor settlement at the Peace Conference, and the honorable senator may rest assured that the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Navy, who are fully seized of the whole question, will see that Australia’s interests are properly considered.
The suggestion contained in this question will be considered by the Government.

page 8775

QUESTION

NAVY

Punishmenton “ Australia.”

Senator GRANT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - .

Is it a fact that any boys on board the Australia have recently been caned?
Is the use of the cane stilla recognised method of punishment on the ships of the Australian Navy? ‘

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are -

Not so far as is knownin the Department.
No.

page 8775

QUESTION

GARRISON MILITARY POLICE, SYDNEY

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Privates Cain and Monk, of the Garrison Military Police, were sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment without the option of a fine for brutally ill-treating Private Everett, a returned soldier and a hospital patient, at Sydney last week?
Is it a fact that they were defended by Major Bowie Wilson?
Is it a fact that an appeal is to’ be lodged against the magistrate’s decision?
Willthe costs in the case of the appeal be defrayed by the Department?
If so, why?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– Inquiries are being made, andthe honorable, senator will be informed as soon as possible.

page 8775

QUESTION

HENDERSON NAVAL BASE

Suspension of Work

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Min ister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Is it theintention of the Federal Government to suspend operations at the Henderson Naval Base, Cockburn Sound, Fremantle?
If so, when will such suspension take place ?
What will be the number of employees affected?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers are - 1, 2, and 3. Pending the visit and report by a British Admiralty expert, it has been decided by the Government that works at Henderson

Naval Base should be stopped except such dredging and other related works as are considered necessary to preserve the work which has been done. Arrangements have not been quite finalized, but it is expected that the suspension of most of this work will take place at the end of this month. . The number of men. whose services will be dispensed with cannot at the moment be stated.

page 8775

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Short Payment of Men Demobilized

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

If it is true that the men lately in training at Broadmeadows, or. any portion of them, when discharged, were paid for two days less than the time they served in camp?
And if such is true, what is the reason for such short payment?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– All men lately in training at Broadmeadows were paid for every day they served in camp, plus fourteen days’ furlough from and including date of release.

page 8775

QUESTION

TATTERSALLS ‘SWEERS

Postal Embargo

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the. Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

If, in view of the fact that “ Tattersall,” a legalized institution in the State of Tasmania, is now a special contributor to the revenue of the Commonwealth, the Government will take steps to remove the embargo placed upon “ Tattersall’s “ correspondence by the Postal Department?

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

– The Government do not approve of the suggestion contained in the question of the honorable senator, and are not prepared to authorize the removal of the postal embargo.

page 8775

QUESTION

APPLE BOUNTY ACT

Extension of Operation

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In the event of a contemplated shortage of shipping space for the export of Australian apples to Britain during the 1919 season, will the Government take steps to extend the operation of the Apple Bounty Act 1918, to cover evaporated apples to be exported during 1919?

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

-The matter is receiving attention, and on receipt of information sought by cablegram from the Imperial authorities, the question of extendingthe operation of the AppleBounty Act will receive the consideration of the Government.

page 8776

AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION BILL

Bill read a third time.

page 8776

MILITARY RECRUITING EXPENDITURE

Motion (by SenatorEarle) agreed to-

That a return be laidupon the table showing the total expenditure on military ‘recruiting since the 1st of November, 1916.

page 8776

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP

Proposed Select Committee

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the statements made inthe Senate and the whole of the circumstances in connexion with the prohibition of the export of metals, ores, alloys, and tin scrap, and that such Committee shall consistof Senators Crawford, Fairbairn, Newland,O’Keefe, Needham, and the mover.
That such Committee have leave to send for persons, papers, and records in . connexion with the inquiry and toreport to the Senate, from time to time,the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee.
That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 18th December.

In support of the motion I maysay that- -

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! A motion declared formal cannot be discussed.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I was quite under a misapprehension, Mr. President, when I declared this motion to be formal.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!I cannot help that. The motion having been declared formal must not be debated. Is the motion seconded?

Senator Keating:

– I second the motion.

Question put. The Senate divided, Ayes … … … 12

Noes … …16

Majority … … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 8776

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

Disallowance op Regulation: Public Meetings.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [3.26].- I move-

That Statutory Rule, No. 301 of 1918, Regulation under the War Precautions Act1914-16, be disallowed.

I must preface my remarks by thanking the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) by laying this StatutoryRule upon the table of the Senate to enable meto deal with it without any undue delay. In order that honorable senators may understand the purport of mymotion, I willread the Statutory . Rule in, question. It is as follows-: -

page 8776

STATUTORY RULES . 1918, No. 301

Regulation Under the War Precautions Act 1914-1916.

I, . the Governor-General in and over the Commonwealth of Australia , acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulation under the’ War Precautions Act 1914-1916 to comeinto operation forthwith.

Datedthisthirteeth day of November, 1918.

page 8776

QUESTION

R. FERGUSON,

Governor-General

ByHis Excellency’s Command,

F. PEARCE,

Minister of State for Defence

Amendment of War Precautions Regulations as Amended to this Date.

After regulation 27c of the War Precautions Regulations, the following’- regulation is in.serted : - “27d. (1) The Minister or a competent military authority may, by order in writing under his hand, prohibit the holding of any public meeting which is, in his opinion, prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the Commonwealth. “ (2) An order under the last preceding sub-regulation may prohibit the- holding of a public ‘meeting within any period: or in any place specified in the order. “ (3) Any “person attending any public meeting, the holding of which has been prohibited under this regulation, shall be guilty of an offence. “ (4) If an order is made in pursuance of this regulation prohibiting the holding of any public meeting in any premises, any officer of- police and any person thereto authorized in writing by the Minister, or by. a. competent military authority,, may, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the order, enter if need be by force and search or occupy the premises referred to in the order.”

There is no occasion for me to make a long speech in asking honorable senators to assist me to carry the motion. This regulation was issued after the signing of the armistice, and when peace, for all practical purposes, had arrived. It is dated 13th November, ^ whereas the armistice was signed on. “the 11th November. Here is a Government who, notwithstanding that Parliament is in session, and that all its functions are at their disposal,, deliberately lay themselves out to interfere with what I regard as one of the most ancient privileges of Britishers - the right of public meeting. In the Bill of Rights itself, the right of public meeting is provided for. ‘ Here is a Government, whose members not only prohibit the holding of public meetings, but make it an offence for any person to attend them. If there were anything to warrant the Ministry in taking, to themselves powers of this kind, I could understand it. But the war is over,, so that even that excuse has departed. It may be said”, however, that, in the absence of such a regulation, pub lic meetings might be held, at which adverse criticism might.be indulged in - criticism which would affect, the peace terms’, and which, therefore, ought to be suppressed. But if Ministers’ were wise1, instead of attempting to prevent public discussion, they would invite it.

I recognise, as does everybody who is acquainted with public feeling throughout the world that there is the spirit of revolution abroad. That spirit is never fostered in an atmosphere of free speech. It grows under the oppression of Governments. When Governments forcibly endeavour to prevent men expressing their views, the latter will naturally appeal to force in order to express them. We all know that we ‘have in Australia the most law-abiding people in the world. They have given the Government no cause for complaint during four and a half years of war, when, had there b.een any num.? ber of dissatisfied persons in. the community, they . might have occasioned untold’ trouble. During . the whole of that period ‘the Government have had to encounter no difficulties, nothing in the . shape of dissatisfaction, discontent, or revolution. Yet here we see a Government going out of their way to trespass on the rights of a free people in the holding of public meetings.

Not only have. . the. Government said that public meetings shall not be’ held, but this regulation is so framed that any military officer may be authorized to issue an authority that a meeting shall not be held. I am not prepared to hand over the freedom of Australia to even the best of our military officers. We have been under a deep debt of gratitude to our military officers during the past four years ; but that gratitude is npt of such .a nature that we should be ‘prepared to put the civil rights of the people at the disposal of the military.

The only reason that I can advance by way of explanation of the action of the Government in drafting this regulation since the signing of the armistice is that they must be preparing for some action which will cause- the- people- to hold public meetings; wherefore- the- Government are getting ready. The War Precautions Act is to be extended, with the help of servile majorities in both branches of the Commonwealth Legislature, practically for “ as long as the- Government desire. The first extension proposed is to cover a period of six months after the signing of peace. Any man who is looking for the signing of peace within the next six or twelve months must be of avery hopeful disposition. I can see prolonged discussions being’ carried on over many months before peace will have been signed.

No doubt Senator Pearce will promise that the Government will employ the added powers granted to them by this regulation with all discretion. We have had examples of such promises; for instance, in relation to military censorship of political matters. Actually, there was a case in Sydney recently of the censoring of the Sermon on the Mount. A certain newspaper writer was so disgusted at the censor’s mutilations of his contributions that he copied out the Sermon on the Mount from the Scriptures, and tendered that to the censor. But the latter would not allow it to be published.

Senator GARDINER:

-^ Just as ‘ the honorable senator would wish, I too would like to avoid judgment until the last possible moment, because I know what each of us would deserve. At the same time, I do not think the quotation would -be interpreted by the honorable senator as meaning that we are not to form judgments. We can well judge this Government on the experience of the past two years; and, surely, we would be merely using our intelligence if, going upon those experiences of the past, we expected certain specific things in the future. Senator Pearce will argue, no doubt, that there will be cases and occasions when it will be necessary for the Government to avail themselves of the new regulation, despite the fact that the war is virtually over. Why should not the Australian Parliaments exercise all the powers that may be desired, under our ordinary Constitutions ? There is now no need to exercise extraordinary powers under the War Precautions Act and Regulations. That Statute was only passed for the preservation of the realm during the time of war; and, if there are causes still for the drastic government of the people now that the war is over, it should be the duty of the Parliaments of Australia to pass . adequate laws ‘ in the ordinary course. In time of peace it is not the duty of the Government to take to themselves such powers, nor are .our Parliaments called upon to grant such authorities.

The War Precautions Act was passed by this Parliament to deal with the enemies of the nation. It was definitely laid down that it would only be employed in cases where _ the ordinary laws could not be adequately applied to deal with the enemies of the country. Under this Act we have witnessed the sad spectacle of the most loyal men in Australia undergoing persecution. There never was a more fitting opportunity than the present for Parliament to express disapproval of the actions of the Government under the War Precautions Act and Regulations. Possibly the intention of the Government may be to break up public meetings of their opponents at the next general elections. Those elections may be held about sixteen months hence. If peace is signed within the next six or eight months, and the War Precautions Act is extended for six months after that time, we shall be within reasonable distance of polling day. During the campaign the Government may use this regulation wherever their opponents are holding meetings, and are revealing facts to the people which mr.y threaten the life of the Government. It may be that a military officer will be authorised to issue an order, whereupon public meetings will become illegal, and the people will be prevented from attending them. Of course, the Government may disclaim any idea of such a procedure.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator himself does . not believe we shall use the regulation for such a purpose.

Senator GARDINER:

This statutory rule is the worst attack upon the people’s liberties that we have had. since the war ceased. I could quite understand that Senator Pearce, in time of war, carried away by nervousness, due probably to the great responsibility which he carried, may have imagined dangers from certain quarters, and taken all kinds of precautions to prevent them. He may have gone to excess in his desire for the safety of the realm while the war was on, but now that thewar is over, nowthat peace is signed, he and other Ministers, and the members of their party, take power to prohibit the holding of any public meeting which in his opinion is prejudicial to the public safety or’ the defence of the realm. Let us suppose an election going on, and the honorable senator facing the electors, as he will have to do within, I suppose, another eighteen months. Suppose a regulation of this kind is in force, and the public meetings are enthusiastic in their condemnation of his administration. Probably by that time the war and his war administration will be forgotten. He may then consider those public meetings to be a grave danger to the nation, and a simple note under his hand can prevent and prohibit them. Senator Senior smiles broadly as if I were drawing upon my imagination ; but when the last election took, place Senator Pearce went to Western Australia and actually started an immediateprosecution against one of the most loyal men in that State, on- the hearsay evidence of bitter partisans. I refer to Mr. Collier, who was taken before a Police Court, before bitter partisans, merely for the political purposes of the Minister for Defence. I heard those statements made, and honorable senators may read them in the official report of the Recruiting Conference which met at Government House at the invitation of the Governor-General. It was shown there in deliberate speeches how vindictively Senator Pearce had used his powers as Minister to prosecute a political opponent. I am not inclined, now that the war is over, to give Senator Pearce extraordinary powers when we know, how he- used the powers he possessed in the past.

Why is this regulation put forward if the Government do not want these powers for some motive that is not apparent on the surface? No fair-minded senator can say that there is any justification to-day foi- giving a military officer power to prohibit a public meeting. The very term “ public meeting” conveys the idea of more wisdom than is possessed by the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister, or any military officer. The fact that the meeting is public presupposes that a number of persons will be gathered together, and where that happens no oneman can claim such superiority of intelligence that he should be the judge of whether the meeting should be held, or not. That being the case, the Government would be well advised to let this kind df legislation rest, especially now that they have lost the support of that section of the community who would back them up in their most drastic measures so long as -the war continued, saying, “ In the conduct of the war, no matter how much we disagree with the Government, we are prepared to support them.” Now that the war has passed away, the sooner the Government get back to-normal conditions and deal with the Australian public in a normal way, the better for themselves, and the better for the good and peaceful government of this country. In times of peace-, the people will not stand what they have stood in time of war. A free people will not permit its rights to be trampled on. They will- not tolerate a. military officer riding roughshod over their rights, or a military censor interfering with the writings of a free people. All that kind of thing must stop now, and the sooner it stops the better for the good feeling, good government, and the peace and welfare of the Commonwealth.

I am venting my. indignation: on this regulation because it has been, passed since, the war terminated by a Cabinet and Executive deliberately meeting right in a time of peace. Senator Pearce might have some information of. dangers confronting the nation. If those, dangers are real, this is not the kind of means to save the nation from them. If they are- real, this is the kind of thing that will create support even for . a. discontented few. Any cause that can show oppression by a Government when no oppression is necessary will win sympathy. If there . is discontent, dissatisfaction, or’ disloyalty in the country, the way to beat it is to leave the persons who are trying to rouse those feelings ‘without, a grievance. That is the way to govern a free people. If you give them . a grievance, so that they may claim that their liberties are taken from them ; if you decree that the old British right of public meeting, which has been preserved “from ‘the Bill -of Rights down to the present day, can be taken away by a Minister or a military officer ; if you decide that a police officer, or any one authorized by a military officer, may by force enter any place where a meeting is to be held, you are only creating the very trouble you wish to avoid. What will happen if force is indiscreetly used? Let me suppose that in some quiet country district I am addressing a meeting of the most lawabiding people in the Commonwealth, who have sent me to this Parliament, and some military officer, for his own purposes, declares that meeting illegal, and brings force to end it. What would be the result? We should meet force with force, and that would be good-bye to good government in this country. We can only have good government in this country by never testing the force which the Government have, and by trusting in the confidence which the public have that the force behind the Government will never be used for an improper purpose.

Because of the speed at which the Government will probably move, Ministers will very likely secure the surrendered German vessels, as I suggested yesterday, to bring our men back from the Front, and we may have within the next six months 50,000 of our soldiers returning. Suppose that they are returned under the conditions under which soldiers’ wives are brought to this country, as set out by Senator McDougall, upon a motion for the adjournment of the Senate, recently. They will probably desire to protest against such conditions. The Government may decide that a meeting of returned soldiers for such a purpose would be absolutely dangerous to the realm, and they -might send a military authority, first of all, to declare it illegal, and then to suppress it. That would be challenging force without the force necessary to support the challenge. That kind of thing wants nipping in the bud. Owing to the crowding of a great many men on ‘a vessel, the conditions under which the ‘soldiers will be returnedwill probably,at the best,be intolerable, and we mustexpect thatmanyofthemwillbe grievously disappointed. They may desire to hold a meeting to protest against their treatment,and under this regulation one of their own officers might be employed to declare the meeting illegal,though its only purpose . might be to let the public know how badly returning soldiers were treated. Their own officers might desire to” prevent the meeting in order that the public should ‘not. know what the men have had to put up with, and in orderthat their grievances mightbe hushed up, exactly as honorable senators opposite would hush up the inquiry into the tin scrap scandal.

It is possible to hush things up with the aid of a majority and of military force for a time, but not for all time. Murder will out, and so. will tin scrap scandals, and Government authority based upon force. I have frequently said in this Chamber that the cause that rests upon force alone is doomed. The force to whichwe should appeal in Australia is the intelligence of our liberty-loving people. We want no such regulations as this to control the people of this country. The more we leave them to the exercise of their civil liberties, and the more - we permit them, shall I say, to ventilate their grievances, the less likely’ are those grievances to create a discord in the community.

The Government have been concentrating their efforts for so long upon matters connected with the war that now, when peace has come, they are looking forward to the. continuation of war conditions. The issue of a regulation of this kind shows their desire to dominate public thought in the community. What will the Minister for Defence say” is the reason for the issue of this regulation? There was a public meeting to be held in Brisbane, and it was necessary for the Government to stop it. I am told that the military authorities did stop that meeting, but they permitted the National party immediately afterwards to use the same building for the opposite purpose. It was not right for one party to hold a publicly-advertised meeting in a certain building, and sothe military authorities were called in toprevent it, -and , -yet the same building . was used . immediately afterwards by other persons to. put the other side before the public. That -kind ofthing may go -on -for avery brief periodof time -until -the public become alive to -what is happening, , andthen there-is. areaction, due to public feeling. The idea is (gaining ground everywhere that the presentdiscreditedGovernment are usingthe . forces they possess . toprevent the causes which have broughtthem into discredit becoming public.

Regulations ofthis kind are usedto prevent the spread of. public opinion. People in Australia . are rapidly being driven to public meetings andthe public platform to put their views and grievances before the public. The Government control the press. Shall I say thatthe Government own the press, or that the press own the Government, or is there a combine amongst them for their mutual benefit? This renders public meetings only more necessary than ever if our rights and liberties are to be maintained.

The motion which I submit will, at any rate, give this branch of the Federal Parliament an opportunity to say whether it approves of the continuation of the tyranny of the present Government or not. Honorable senators, on this motion, will have it in their power to say whether they approve of the continuation of the government of this country by regulation or not. They are now afforded the opportunity to say whether they do not desire any longer to have constitutional government under constitutional law, but to have the government of this country carried out under Executive authority over which Parliament has lost all control. I have used my opportunities in the Senate to take the responsibility from the shoulders of the Government and place it upon the shoulders of honorable senators. They can exercise a choice in dealing with my motion.

Honorable senators opposite may say that, as loyal supporters of the Government, they must support the regulation to which I take exception. I say that they are, or they should be, loyal representatives of the people of Australia, and for the Senate to approve of a regulation of this kind would be to brand the people of Australia with a reputation that they do not deserve. The most loyal and lawabiding people in the world are treated under this regulation as if they were a danger to the community. A military officer or a police officer, without any authority but his -own will, may, under this regulation, enter any place .by force and break up a public meeting. That is a nice condition of affairs at this time of day; but that is what honorable senators opposite, by their votes on my motion, must approve or disapprove. I submit the motion trusting that even the section of the people that I have designated as a servile following of the Government in Parliament and out of it, will be found to have some spark of manhood remaining, and will decide that these acts of tyranny should now cease. There cannot be a tittle of excuse left for the continuation of this kind of tyranny now that the war is at an end.

Senator NEEDHAM (“Western Aus motion, but I do not desire to do so formally. The Senate and- p.eople of Australia ‘ should be grateful to *Senator ** Gardiner for the vigilance he has shown in discovering the recent issue of this Statutory Rule 301, which otherwise might have escaped notice. It is well known that since .the passing of the War Precautions Act Statutory Rules - have been issued under it a’s easily and as frequently as sausages ‘ are put through a machine. It has been a most difficult matter even for the members of this Parliament to follow the numerous regulations issued under the Act. I thought that when the armistice had been agreed upon there would have been a cessation of the continuous outpouring of Statutory Rules under the War Precautions Act, and particularly in connexion with the military authorities. It strikes me that certain people iri this country having for a time enjoyed military dominance, and having established what might be termed a military caste, are now eager to perpetuate those conditions. If proof of this were wanting it is found in the fact that this Statutory Rule 301 was agreed to by the GovernorGeneral in Council on the 13th November, 1918. On Monday, the 11th November, word was flashed across the British Empire that the armistice had been signed. On Tuesday, the 12th November, the people of the Empire and of the Allied countries were rejoicing in the fact. We in Australia thought that at least we would have, no more of the domination of the pernicious War Precautions Act,- and that we would hear no more of it, but two days after the signing of the armistice the GovernorGeneral in Council met to give further power to the military for the purpose of deliberately preventing free speech.

I can quite realize that during the time of the war it was necessary to do many things which could not be approved of under normal conditions. Here and now I plead guilty to the fact that my vote was cast in favour of the War Precautions Bill when it was passed by the Senate. .

– Nor are members of the Opposition.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Whilst a few dissatisfied Government supporters criticise the Ministry very severely , they hesitate to take a certain step, fearful lest it might force them before their masters, the electors.

For what purpose can this particular regulation be used ? It can be used to prevent public meetings of citizens in any part of Australia who, in exercising their citizenship rights, determine to , criticise the Government. That is where I see the danger. There is a vast amount of discontent throughout Australia with the present Government. Only last night, or the night before, in Melbourne, and within a stone’s throw of this Legislature, police constables came along, and took the names of speakers at a public meeting. Again, last night, we saw mounted constables in the street dispersing people who had been to a meeting. Probably that action was all right in time of war, but I see no necessity for the perpetuation of this military dominance now that the world is, at last, thank. God, at peace.

Let us turn to another nationf or an example of what should be done. The United States of America has rendered valuable assistance to the world in connexion with’ the titanic struggle that has just ended, and, like other nations engaged in the war, deemed it then incumbent to pass certain measures of a similar nature to our War Precautions Act and Regulations. But in the press of yesterday there appeared a report of President Wilson’s speech to Congress, stating that while it had been necessary to harness up the nation so that the United States of America might bear its full share in the struggle, as soon as the armistice was signed they were -released from the harness by the removal of the “restrictive measures to which I have referred. In Australia we take pride in our Democracy, but now we are perpetuating the very thing which millions of men nave laid down their lives to destroy, namely, the military dominance of Germany. A few people here have been able to strut about in military clothes’, dressed in a little brief authority, and perhaps they regret that the war is over, because, like Othello, they fear their occupation is gone, and per medium of this War Precautions . Act, and per medium of a pliant Government, they are seeking to perpetuate this objectionable state of affairs.

Senator Reid:

– You are indignant!

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Indignant ! The time has long ‘gone by for one to be indignant. As far as I am concerned, I am going to support the motion for the disallowance of this regulation, and I shall’ vote for the disallowance of any other ‘regulation of a similar nature, now that the war is over, so that we may at once revert to .the position we occupied - prior to the 4th August. 1914, when our freedom was untrammelled by such regulations as ‘the one under notice. .Senator. PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [4.12].- Senator Gardiner, in his usual fashion, has torn a passion to tatters* and has imagined. all sorts of vain things in connexion with this regulation. But he himself .applied the touchstone which disclosed the . insincerity pf his attitude when he said that the Government, with Parliament sitting, had promulgated this particular regulation. If the Government had any. such vile intention as he suggests, they would indeed have been fools to take this action with Parliament sitting, when, on present - appearances; we were within a few weeks of the time when Parliament will not be sitting. The fact that the regulation was promulgated whilst Parliament was sitting is a clear indication that the Government had no ulterior motive. It is quite true, as Senator Gardiner has suggested, that, if this country were governed by imbeciles, all the mad things which he has suggested might be done under this regulation. So they could under almost any law on our statute-book. Every law and every regulation passed, if administered by people who are without their wits, could, turn this country, into a place that would be impossible to live in. But nobody, not even Senator Gardiner himself, suspects that the Government are going to do- anything of .the kind. The Government brought in this regulation,, with Parliament sitting, knowing full well that they had the support of Parliament. They knew that Parliament would not permit the holding of meetings for the purpose of stirring up strife in the interests of Germany, and in order to prejudice this country with our Allies prior to the Peace Conference. We were perfectly satisfied that in this action we had the support, not only of Parliament, but of the people of this country. The Government have not the slightest intention of using the regulation in any -way” to interfere with the political or religious freedom of any people in the Commonwealths What we. are prepared to do is to prevent licence, in this country, being used in the interests of our enemies.

This regulation has been in force for a few weeks now, and has been used on one occasion. Senator Gardiner referred to that occasion. He could not have produced a better example of the use to which the Government intend to put this regulation. . A meeting was proposed to be”’ held in Brisbane by those elements, those very self-same elements, which, in the case of Russia, played the game of Germany, and destroyed the Russian rer volution. The real Russian revolution displaced the Czar, and was proceeding to put’ in place of the monarchical Government a democratic form of government, but the paid agents of Germany, paid by German gold, got to work in Russia, and destroyed the revolution. Those elements which succeeded in destroying the Russian revolution had the audacity to propose holding a meeting in” Brisbane to . celebrate their victory. But we were determined, and were prepared to take responsibility for our action, that such a meeting should not be held in Australia-

We bad no misgivingat all in this matter: We have full proof of what was intendedtobe done.

Senator Long:

– Are those people still at large?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– They are.

Senator Long:

– Then you ought to be ashamed to say . it.

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator, by his vote, no doubt, intends to record . his disapproval of the regulation which seeks to prevent these people from propagating their . noisome doctrines throughout Australia, and yet he expresses indignation that they are still at large.

Senator Lt Colonel O’loghlin:

– B - But how have you got along for four years without this regulation ? my seat,I shall give instances to show that probably it would have been better if we had had this’ regulation in force at an earlier period of our history, because the activities of this country in the war were to a large extent sapped by propaganda of the kind that destroyed’ Russia.

Senator Gardiner drew a fancy picture of. myself as a candidate for election using this power to preventpublic meetings being held in opposition to myself and the Government. That would be the act of a lunatic. Any action of that nature would make the success ofour friends opposite a certainty, and Senator Gardiner; when he drew th’e_picture, knew quite wellthat the Government would not be so foolish as to. attempt anything of the kind, even if we had the will and we have not the will.

It is said that this regulation will only affect those elements in the community that are animated by a grievance, and thatthe way to prevent trouble is to remove the grievance. One of their grievances is that this country is under the British flag. Another is that the Empire, of. which this country is a part, has defeated Germany, and is now going to the Peace Conferenceto dictate terms to Germany: Well, we have no intention of removing that grievance. Honorable senators are not soblind to what, has been transpiring in thiscountry as not to know that these elements have been vocal. Senator Gardiner, in the course of his remarks, used an argument “that was employed by the Premier of Queensland; and, if I may be permitted to say so, it was about the most foolish and childish argument against the action taken by this Government in regard to the Bolshevik. element that I have ever heard. Wo prohibited the Bolshevik meeting - a meeting convened by Russian Bolsheviks - for that very purpose, and the Premier of Queensland thereupon said that . we allowed a party of loyalists to hold a meeting in the same hall. Of course, we did. That is the best possible proof that allof Senator Gardiner’s harangue this afternoon is quite beside the question. This regulation is not intended to . interfere with loya] men. But it is intended - and I make no- apology for the statement - to prevent meetings being held to advocate Bolshevism in this country. We knew who were the instigators, and what were the objects, of that meeting, and we had had plenty of indications from prior experience as to what would be. the statements made at that gathering.

Let me give a few examples of the kind of freedom with which this regulation may interfere. Here is a sample of the use. which was made at a critical juncture in the war of the right of public meeting. It will berecollected that the German offensive commenced in March last, and that in Mayit hadreached its maximum. Up till then it. had experienced no check anywhere. . The German armies at that time were within gun range of Paris, and it looked as if theAllied cause was lost. Onthe 1st May, 1918; in the city of Brisbane, a meeting was called by the International Socialists. . It. was described as a “May Day Meeting..” The chairman was”Comrade” J. S. Collings: I intend to quote from the report of that meeting which was published in the Brisbane Courier of 2nd May last. Before calling upon the speakers, I find that the chairman offered a few remarks in reference to the day they were celebrating, and -

The secretary expressed -the hope that next year the. workers would go off for the May Day demonstration -without any notification to the bosses, and the suggestion was applauded. He also . tendered the opinion that’ if they wanted to win anything they would neverget it as they were at present. Freedom would only be gained by fight. He deplored the fact that men were going overseas to fight the workers of other lands.

In other words, he-deplored the faot that our troops were going overseas to fight for freedom and liberty. The report continues -

One of tha features of the evening was, apparently, to hare been the presence of a Herman “ comrade,” but in this there was disappointment. The announcement was made by “Comrade” Collings, who told of the intention to have had “ a speech by a German comrade in German.”(Loud applause).

A letter from the German thanking the convenors for the invitation to speak ‘ was ‘ then read by the chairman. The writer said he waa sorry that he was not in a position to comply, as he had had more than one warning from the authorities, and for the. sake of his family, he was not prepared to risk internment. That, said the German, was what militarism, and a spurious militarism at that, bad brought us to in Australia. (Voices : Shame.) “ Shame “ that a Gorman because of hia attitude towards this country and’ the war had been warned that if he persisted in that attitude he would be interned. This man was the “comrade” of those who were present at this meeting, and of those who were killingour troops in France at that very moment!

Addresses in Greek and English by “ Com rade “ Sargeant and by Miss Hotson were the. ensuing items, and then it was announced that “ Comrade “ Collings, on Saturday, would speak an “Shall this War Continue?” The person who made the announcementanticipated the answer. ‘ He said he was sure it would be “ No, it’s time this bloody madness ceased,” and there was loud applause:

It was time for the war to cease . when Germany was on the winning side! “ Comrade “ Stewart took- advantage of the opportunity to applaud the I.W.W., which, he said, had been declared an illegal organization; because in the eyes of the capitalistic classitwas an international organization that barred no man, whatever his colour might be. . ‘ . . . . “ Comrade “ Collings -

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Who is “ Comrade” Collings? .

SenatorFoll. - He is a. leading man in the Official Labour party.

Senator PEARCE:

-“ Comrade” Collings continued -

From the moment their comrade was interned, the Queensland Government had done all it could to force the hands of the Federal Government, and, so far, had not been successful.

That is the report of a meeting held by those who spoko of our German enemies as “comrades,” and who . deprecated men from this country going overseas to fight. Those men were going overseas to ‘ fight, in the defence of the flag of. this country and of its liberty.

Senator Gardiner:

– Will- the honorable senator say how that meeting has any bearing on this regulation?

SenatorPEARCE. - These same people are still in Queensland, and that same spirit is still there, and in other parts of the Commonwealth. As these individuals played the game for Germany during the war, so they will attempt to play it prior to the Peace Conference. The way in which they will attempt to play it is obvious. The interests of the Allies will be diverse. Many points will arise upon which a division of opinion may take place. Many of those who were prepared to play the game of Germany during the war are now prepared to continue to’ play it, by endeavouring to promote dissension and to prejudicethe cause of the Allies when the latter meet at the Peace table. That is the only direction in which the Government intend to. exercise this regulation, and in that direction they will fearlessly exercise it. In doing so, they will be merely making a just, lawfid, and proper . exercise of the defence powers of the Commonwealth.

Until.peace has actually been signed, we must remember that the state of war has not passed. To-day, there is an armistice only, and the various opposing powers are manoeuvring for position. Nobody who is a student of history can doubt for a moment that Germany and Austria are to-day manoeuvring to get into a position of advantage-

Senator Long:

– That is why they gave up their fleet.

Senator PEARCE:

– They gave up their fleet because they were compelled to do so.

Senator Long:

– And by the same process they will accept terms of peace.

Senator PEARCE:

– But the power of compulsion on the part of the Allies depends upon the solidarity that is behind, their determination. Anything which tends to weaken, that determination, to set the’ Allies one against the other, will he & weakening of their cause at the Peace table, and a strengthening of the cause of the .enemy. Just as the Government used the War Precautions Act to prevent the enemy dividing us,’ and playing his game here as be played it in every other .country on ‘earth, we have a right to see that he has not a” free hand to exercise, his powers in Australia in the way in which he has shown himself to be so capable of exercising them elsewhere. I give honorable senators an assurance that the Government, have not the slightest intention, nor have they the will, to use this regulation in any other way Chan that I have indicated,’ namely, to prevent by public meeting the’ propagation of views emanating from our enemies - . views which are intended’ to divide the Allies, and to prevent them doing what they, think is right at the Peace (able. 1 invite honorable senators to support the Government in the retention of the regulation.

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

, - 1 very rarely ‘ address the Senate for the reason that I recognise the futility, of. doing so, in view of ite present composition, whenever I. know that the. Government have made up their minds upon any question. But upon this occasion, I feel impelled to make a few. remarks, because the Minister for -Defence (Senator-.Pearce) has imported into - this debate the question of the peace ‘terms which will Boon have to be settled. He has suggested that a. Tew persons in thiB remote portion of the Empire may possibly hold a public meeting at which views may be expressed, the dissemination of which may have the effect of dividing the Allies at the Peace Conference table. A more extraordinary argument .1 cannot imagine.. The thing is so ridiculous that only those who are seeking for’ something more than appears upon the surface, would venture to - Use an argument of that description. . I have been connected with the public, life, of this State, for more than thirty years. During that time, iE baa been my privilege to combat attempted inroads upon liberty - inroads upon free speech,’ and the right of public .meeting. By means of public meetings, we have been able to attack many abuses, and by the publicity given to those gatherings, we have been able to secure redress of many grievances.-

Hitherto the enjoyment of freedom, of speech has been the boast of every.. Englishman. No matter how much theopinions expressed may have been - opposed to the views of the Government of the day, the right of free speech has always been recognised as something- in the nature of a safety valve. We know that the. political exiles who went to England, were allowed freely to promulgate their views there. No attempt was made to coerce them, or to suppress their meet- ings. The Minister for Defence has assured us that this regulation will be used only in certain emergencies. We are now permitting the Government to become .a sort of military police, so that they may have the opportunity to determine what meetings shall be held and what class of meetings shall be prohibited, and so that they may say. whether the people shall or shall not attend meetings, and whether, if they do, they shall’ or shall not be deemed guilty of. breaking the law. I can scarcely imagine the people tolerating such a situation. Anything that may be termed disloyal should naturally be controlled by the Government. But peace is in sight’; fighting is oyer. » Why should the Government now seek this additional power? The explanation of Senator Pearce does not justify the Government. Let us consider the meeting which was held in the Princess Theatre an evening or two ago. Did that disturb the peace of the community? Did the meeting which was held’ at the Auditorium disturb the peace? Did the expressions of the speakers upon those platforms disturb the peace ? . Could they . influence the minds of the men who are to determine the conditions of peace at .the Conference in Europe ? Could ‘ anything be said by anybody at any public meeting here which would carry any weight with those -who will gather around the Peace table? Could anything that may be said in Australia have influence with the President of the United States, or with the Prime Minister of England, or of France? We would ‘be labouring- the- question if we were to assume that a few people” who might be gathered together at a meeting here, and who might pass a resolution, could be/so powerful in the expression of theirviews that they might divide the Allies’ representatives at the Peace. Conference. There are some people who are probably not responsible for’ their utterances.They may make wild statements; but what value is. placed upon them? To attach value to what some people say would be to ascribe worth to something which is valueless of itself.

The Government are trying to clothe themselves at this stage, when the war has ceased, with powers which transcend even those that they took to themselves during the war. I havebeen going down to the Yarra Bank regularly for years; and what has been the result of all the meetings held there? Meetings are still held along the Yarra Bank every Sunday, and thousands of people listen to the. views of various ‘ speakers, on . all manner of subjects. After all, it is the only opportunity for the people to give expression to their opinions; and what harm do they do? Those meetings are merely safety valves, and to suppress them and their like would be to shut down the safety valves. The curtailment of freedom - -not licence -of speech always re-‘ acts against those in authority. It is the boast of the Briton that once he has con- . quered his enemy he treats him in a fair and manly way. If’ there areenemies still among us, the Government . should have dealt with them long ago. They have had the power to do so, and they do not require this added power’. They should have put such personsin the only fit and proper place, namely, somewhere out of the daylight; and they should have done so long before now. I cannot believe for a moment that there are still such dangerous people among us. The great bulk of our people, are loyal, and have shown themselves truly loyal. This. drastic regu-: lation is intended to deal merely with a’ few folk. .

Years ago Sir William Irvine, when Premier of Victoria, brought in a’ Coercion Act to suppress therailway strike. It waseven worse than the Coercion laws of Ireland. Its object was to suppress meetings. . . Even if half-a-dozen persons get together and were talking aboutthe strike among . themselves the authorities could demand admittance, and, -if it was not gran ted, they couldforce their way in and arrest those, persons and hold them in. durance at the pleasureof the Government. . Those who’ were, responsible for bringing into being such a law were soon ashamedof it . and of themselves. The Commonwealth Government will soon be ashamed of this. new regulation and many others under the War Precautions Act. I raise my protest against it. The Government should not endeavour at this time to secure- more arbitrary powers than they already possess;Theycan only bring upon themselves the deservedopprobrium of a free people.

SenatorGRANT (New South Wales) [4.44]. -I listened carefully to the remarks of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), but his arguments carried no conviction.. The Government have full power, in almost every direction, at present to deal with persons who may make disloyal statements. : That being so, this new regulation is unnecessary’. The Government must havesomeother objective. What it is I do not -know. It is all’ very well for the Minister to point out that the ‘Government would not’ have drafted this regulation after Parliament had. adjourned, -and’ that they have afforded members of ‘Parliament an opportunity to discuss it. “ ‘But the Government “have a working majority,, which will agree -to whatever proposition is placed before them ; so they know that it actuallymat ters little - whether this regulation had been placedbefore Parliament nowor at a later date.

Had’ members . of the Commonwealth Legislature realized, when the War Precautions’ Bill was before them originally, what was tobe the outcome of it all, it’ would never have seen daylight in the form in which it was passed. Parliament was prepared to give the Government full power to deal with enemy subjects in our midst, and to suppress any word or action which might have tended to interfere with the success of the Allies. But we know that the War Precautions Act has been usedfor many other purposes. The censoring ofpress articles -and. the prohibition ‘of thereportsof public speeches were never contemplated when the Act and its’ regulations first came before -the Commonwealth Legislature.

The illustration of Senator Pearce with regard to a meeting in Brisbane appeals to me as very good electioneering material for the Nationalist party; that is, if the statements are true. But does any one believe that such statements are likely to interfere with the success of the Allies at the Peace Conference? . I would suggest, now that the war is over, that it would be far better for the Government to withdraw this regulation, and to let the public know day by day of the withdrawal of other regulations which may be done away with. - While the war is not yet technically over, it has practically ceased, and the Allies are. victorious. If I bad my way, I would abandon, not only the War Precautions Act, but all the regulations thereunder. Almost every day we bear of. a new Board being appointed to conduct some phase of Government business. I understand that quite an army is still being employed in the Defence Department in censoring newspaper articles. How much longer are those gentlemen to continue their unnecessary and valueless work, at very high’ salaries? How much longer are the workers of the country to submit tamely to providing those salaries, in order that censors shall lead lives of affluence and semi-idleness?

It can scarcely ‘be said that there is any danger of a revolution occurring in. Australia. Although such outbreaks have occurred in Russia and Austria, and, to a certain extent, in Germany, there certainly should be no fear of similar disturbances in the Commonwealth. In the best interests of Australia, the Act and all its regulation should be at once rescinded.

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

.- I suppose it is vain to hope that any of the Government supporters, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two, will have the courage of their convictions, to- an extent sufficient to cause them to vote for Senator Gardiner’s motion to disallow this regulation. I doubt if there are any on -the Government -side of the chamber who have- made- themselves familiar with the terms of the regulation, and the effect it is likely to have on the liberties of the people. I shall read it once more, so that its real effect may find lodgment in the minds of honorable senators opposite. During the whole four years of the most tragic struggle in the world’s history it was never found necessary .to enforce a regulation of this kind. To-day Germany and its militarism are as effectively crushed as ever they will be, and. no one knows it better than -the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce). The last bridge that the Germans had was burnt by the most ignoble surrender of their fleet into the custody of the British nation. All the precautions necessary to - secure the world against the possi-bility of another German outbreak will be taken by those who, on behalf of the Allies, and more especially on behalf of the British- Empire, have successfully conducted all the mighty problems involved in this great war. For the Minister to tell us now that there is a section of the community that wants to play the Germans’ game is so much camouflage, and if it did not come from a Minister I would be inclined to describe it as so much bosh.

The Ministry, on behalf of a little bigoted section, have been looking for some one upon whom to visit the wrath of that little sectarian- group. After some years they were able to lay hands on some old-age pensioners who, they said, had designs for the disruption of the British Empire, and had sent £20 overseas to buy battleships, equip armies, &c. That is the worst example of sedition that the Government, aided and abetted by that miserable little sectarian section outside, have been able to raise to justify some of the drastic- actions they have taken in the past. Their actions have been directed at one section only, and only at one political party. When the Government are asked for proof s, they say, “ These men have been doing, this all along.” . When’ we ask who they are,- the Government do not know. - All; they do” knew is that- it is good political pabulum to go on with this kind of camouflage. There were meetings in the Auditorium last night,, and a week or two ago, that were calculated, if any meetings could be, to create disunity amongst the. people, but no attempt was made to suppress them. It did not suit the Government to do so because the promoters were supporters . of theirs. There we had a miserable insect of the Palmer type, and craven . insects of the Snowball type, saying that the whole responsibility for the war rests on the” Pope, and a person like Palmer saying that he knows for a fact that in every village throughout Victoria the word was passed round, “ Let the Protestants enlist, and let the Catholics take their good positions.” The Government make no attempt to suppress meetings where such diabolical utterances are made and published, because those .responsible are their supporters. If they hold any more meetings of that kind, the effect, which the originators desire, will be to create a mighty lot of disorder in the community, and, in my judgment, they will get more disorder than they are looking for. If that section. of the community, who have .made such noble sacrifices for the Empire and the Allied cause, are not to be protected from the diabolical slanders of those people, they will protect themselves, and the Government “can look out for some fun in the future.

do not suppose we are likely .to change any opinion on the opposite side of the chamber. ‘ Those on the Government side have earned the name of “ spectators,” and are no longer representative of the people. Having received instructions from the Ministry, they are not likely to vote with Senator Gardiner to- wipe out this diabolical regulation, which is aimed at the most sacred privilege that for centuries has been the right of all Britishers. If anything further Were needed in the nature of a whip with which to flog the Government at the next elections, we could have nothing better than this. If the Minister for Defence searched the records of Prussia he would doubtless find there regulations under its wretched .military system that would be on all-fours with this, but I guarantee that in no other self-govern- ing part of the British Empire’ would a regulation of that kind receive even a moment’s consideration at the hands of it representative body of legislators. T doubt if there is any prospect of the motion being carried, but I hope that will not prevent us from registering our emphatic protest against the passage and enforcement of such a regulation as that against which the motion is directed.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.- I had not seen this regulation until this afternoon, and when I read it over it appeared to me outrageous. I wondered what justification would be given for it,-, and, therefore, I paid the greatest attention to the justification offered by the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce). I must confess that I have seldom heard a weaker case put up by a Minister. Doubtless the Minister is a very capable man, and if any one can put up a case he can. If he fails, we can be satisfied that there is not much of a case to put up. We must all have been struck by the futile weakness of the Minister’s argument, that if a few people held a meeting and advocated “disloyalty, the news would be - sent to the Peace Conference, and the representatives of the Allied countries would believe that that little coterie was voicing the sentiments of the Australian people. Ivo one within hearing of my voice would pay the slightest attention, to such a poor, weak argument, yet that was the whole burden of the Minister’s speech. “News of that sort,” he said, “would be carried to the Peace Conference, and would influence the delegates to do something that would be against the interests of the Allied countries.”

– If the man was competent to be authorized to act as a censor I should imagine that the Minister would think enough of him to intrust him with the power contained in this regulation. The people of Australia would be in a very sorry mess if an ^officer .of that kind were given power to suppress a public meetings”

Everybody knows what .has happened in connexion with the censorship. In nearly every case where prosecutions have taken place they have been directed against the supporters of one party, who have been heavily fined, even where “it has been proved that there was no evil intent, and that anything done was done inadvertently. Almost every prosecution against newspapers has been directed against papers that supported the Labour party in .politics. Recently a newspaper in Tasmania supporting the Government issued a very scurrilous circular in connexion with which they failed to carry out the law requiring the printing of the name of the publisher. That went, on for months, and nothing was done until in the Tasmanian Parliament some one asked whether it was not time that the persons responsible for the issue of this circular should be prosecuted.

Senator Pearce:

– That was an offence against the State law.

Senator GUY:

– The persons responsible were taken to Court, but whilst th*> proprietors of newspapers supporting the Labour party were when they were prosecuted fined £20, £30, or £50, the proprietors of this newspaper were fined only 10s.

Senator Pearce:

– That action waa taken under the State law, and not under the Federal law.

Senator GUY:

– It -is quite evident that action, was not always taken under the State law. One could not but observe that the War Precautions Act was administered in a strong partisan spirit.

If, as suggested by the Minister for Defence, there is to any large extent a spirit of disloyalty amongst the people of -Australia, I must say. that I am surprised to hear it. I have not met any body of disloyal people wherever I have been. There may .be a few people here and there who give voice- to sentiments which in time of war may be considered disloyal, but for the most part such people are somewhat unaccountable for their actions, and are considered by the rest of the community as cranks. If honorable senators ‘go down to the Yarra Bank, where the Minister for Defence used to go once upon a time, and where he delivered some very fine speeches, they, will find that the crowd, after listening to a man for a time, will move away with the words, “ Oh ! this fellow is a crank.” After all, it is a safety valve for the community to let such people “blow off” steam. They do no harm. I .do not think that there is any danger that any British community, much less the Peace Conference, will be influenced by the sentiments expressed by a few cranks.

I could not help noticing, whilst the Minister for Defence was denouncing some persons in Queensland, that the speeches which he quoted were very much like speeches of his own in connexion with the Boer war which I remembered to have read. If the honorable senator was justified in making those statements at that time, the people whom he condemned to-day had just about the same justification for what they said. We know that the members of the Society of Friends do not believe in the shedding of blood, but no one will say that they are disloyal; because on that subject . they express sentiments akin to those voiced by their brethren in other parts of the world, and of other nationalities. I agree with Senator Long that this regulation is a piece of camouflage, but I hope that we shall hot put such power into the bands of any man as will enable him- to suppress public meetings of the citizens, of Australia.

– Mr. Collier is the Leader of the Labour party in Western Australia, and any one who is acquainted with him will know that he was not opposed to the war. If any person in Western Australia helped recruiting, it was Mr. Collier. He makes certain statements, which I quote from page 92 of the “ Proceedings , of the Recruiting Conference,” convened by His Excellency the Governor-General -

It certainly means that I oppose conscription ; but. I took the recruiting- platforms until I was practically driven off them by- the ‘ attitude of the Minister for Defence.-

Mr. Collier went on to say

As a matter of fact, whilst I had two summonses in my pocket at the. beginning of the year,. I received a pressing invitation from the officer in charge of* recruiting in Perth to address a public meeting in that connexion, in the Perth Town Hall.

Mr. HOLMAN. ; Summonses for what?

Mr. COLLIER. For offences, against the War. Precautions Regulations. One summons was for having made statements likely to prejudice recruiting, and the other was based upon a drag-net regulation, under which almost any man in the Commonwealth may ‘be prosecuted. I went to the officer in question, and told him that I .should be very .pleased .to accede to his request, that T had ‘been addressing recruiting meetings ever since the commencement of the’ war; but, if there was any justification for the prosecutions which had been launched against me, my presence on the platform would have the very opposite effect to that which he desired. In other .words, I should be hindering, rather than assisting, recruiting.

Mr. TUDOR.. What was the result of the prosecutions?

Mr. COLLIER. ; One was dismissed, and upon the second charge I was fined ?25. Whilst upon this matter, perhaps I may be pardoned for giving members some information. The prosecution arose out of a meeting which was held on .the 16th July of last year. Upon that date a meeting was held at Kalgoorlie, :at which about 1,000 people were present, for the purpose of protesting against profiteering, or the high cost of living. The gathering was addressed by Mr. McCallum and myself, and notes were taken of our remarks. The statements we were alleged to have made were presented to the officials upon whom rests the responsibilities of taking action if there has been any breach of the law. They decided that there was no cause of action. That decision was arrived at about three weeks after the meeting was held. Thus matters remained from the first week in August until the middle of December last, when Senator Pearce arrived at Kalgoorlie on his way to Western Australia to take part- in the referendum campaign. Upon his arrival there these notes were revived, notwithstanding that the military authorities and others had previously set them aside. Upon .their presentation .to him - and I make this assertion notwithstanding that lie has denied its accuracy - Senator Pearce, without reference to, and without the advice of, the Commonwealth solicitors, issued instructions that summonses should be taken out,’ and that prosecutions should be instituted.

Mr. TUDOR. Five months afterwards?

Mr, COLLIER. ; Yes1; and right in’ the middle of the referendum campaign. Mr. Holman and other members of the legal profession will, I think, admit that it was part of the duty of the Commonwealth solicitors to frame the charges against me.

Mr. HOLMAN. ; Ordinarily, that is so.

Mr. COLLIER.; But, in this case, ite charges were drawn up and handed .to the solicitors, who were instructed- to “ Issue summonses against -Collier, and these are the charges to be laid.” The solicitors had nothing to’ do with the matter beyond handing the summonses to me. That is the assertion which I make, and which I can prove. I challenged Senator Pearce in West: ern Australia to prove otherwise, but he failed to do so. In a statement which he subsequently made to press representatives here, that gentleman said, “ The remarks that- Mr. Collier made were shown to me, in .addition to which a newspaper report of his speech was presented to me, and I read it.” Now,. as a matter of -fact, not one line of what I said at that meeting -appeared in any newspaper in

Western Australia, and I challenge Senator Pearce to produce any newspaper containing, such a report.

Mr. HOLMAN. Perhaps he had seen a report. which hadbeen suppressed ‘by the censor.

Mr.COLLIER. That is impossible, because no shorthand reporter was present, and no notes of the speech were taken. The Commonwealth solicitors were instructed to get out these summonses, the intention being . that the hearing should take place prior to the 20th December last, the day upon which the referendum was to be taken. However, the authorities were unable to locate me in time, as I was travelling about the country, and, as the hearing could not be fixed before the 20th December, it was fixed for the 21st December. But, having farled to get the cases heard before polling day, the authorities evidently said, “ We need not bother about the matter at . all now,” and the hearing did not come on till March of the present year. When I inquired what was the cause of the delay, 1 was informed that the matter had been, referred to Melbourne.Prosecutions against other men charged with offences under the War Precautions Act have been launched within a few days after the commission of the offence. But my case “was referred to Melbourne, and on the 8th March last I was fined ?25 for an alleged offence which was committed nine months earlier.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK. Who fined you?

Mr.COLLIER. A magistrate; but I do not wish to say anything about that.

– I think I have shown that there was something very extraordinary and unusual in the action of the Minister. Any Minister who instigates prosecutions without the advice of the Crown Solicitor is running amok. Senator Pearce, while travelling through Western Australia, and in order to get a little political advantage for his party in connexion with the referendum campaign, issued instructions for a summons to be taken out against a* man who stands as high in the public life of Western Australia as any other man in that State - against a man who had used all his energies’ to get recruits.

I have dealt with this matter because it is a clear case of a War Precautions regulation being used for political purposes, and because the Government are asking for further powers in the regulation now under notice. We can quite expect that Senator Pearce, and possibly some of his colleagues in the other States, will ‘ attempt to use the same powers of coercion given to them under this regulation as the powers were used by Senator Pearce under the regulation to which I have referred. Notwithstanding Mr. Collier’s position and the esteem in which he is held in Western Australia, Senator Pearce issued instructions that he should be proceeded against, in the hope, no -doubt, that he and the cause he was then advocating would be discredited.

Senator Pearce has referred to the proposed meeting in Brisbane, but he has taken his information from a tainted source, the Courier, which, I think, occupies a lower position even than the Argus, if it is possible for any paper to get lower in regard to the manner in which it” treats its political opponents. The Minister quotes the Courier’ s_ statements as a reason for the action of the “Government. If I had been - in Senator Pearce’s position, and I had been informed that statements were to be made at a meeting rendering it necessary to take certain action, Iwould have waited, and then taken good care to’ intern the persons. I would have placed them where they could do no harmto this country. We all know, of course, that Senator Pearce has caused other men to be interned on. the most flimsy grounds. Take the case of Mr. Scott, of The Circulating Sovereign. iHe was interned on the biased statement of a partisan. He never uttered the sentiments with which he was charged. Any honorable senator who reads the evidence from beginning to end will agree that that man was interned on the most flimsy pretext. It is absolutely preposterous that the liberty of men shall be taken away from them in this way.

This regulation was not required when the war was on ; but now, when the war is over, we aTe told that it is necessary, in order to prevent rash statements being made at public meetings. When submitting my motion, I said that the Government had prevented one political party or organization from holding a meeting in a certain hall in Brisbane, but had permitted their opponents to hold a meeting there. .Senator Pearce admits the soft impeachment. He says he did prevent a meeting that was going to be held, because he had reason to believe that the persons attending the- meeting were going to say disloyal things, and that the people at the other meeting were going to say loyal things. That was the difference.

Senator Senior:

– No. He distinctly said that one partywere disloyalists, and the other were loyalists, and that he allowed the latter to hold the meetingbecause they were loyal.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am prepared to accept SenatorSenior’s correction. The Minister said, usimg Senator Senior’s words, that he refused one party, who wanted to hold a meeting, because they were disloyal, and allowed the otheT party to meet, because they were loyal.

Senator Lt Colonel O’Loghlin:

– L - Loyal to the Government.

Senator GARDINER:

-But can Senator Senior justify the action of the Minister who, not waiting’ for men to speak at a meeting, but anticipating that disloyal utterances would be made, prevented them from holding a meeting, while he allowed his friends to hold a public meeting?

– That was a public meeting “held in May, and this regulation was not given effect to until the 13th November, so it could not have been meant for that meeting. There has been no justification for the action of the Government, and the Minister will be well advised not to continue the exercise of this power.

Reference hasbeen made to the fact that we are living under the British flag, but I point out that the virtue of the British flag lies in the fact, not that it is abit of bunting, but that it flies over free men.

Senator Barker:

– And allows free speech.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is a flag; that protects the right of free speech, the right to hold public meetings. These are the things that have given virtue to the flag, and which have caused millions, of men to fight for it in order to keep it afloat. Take away these virtues andthere are none so poor as to do it reverence. Senator Pearce and his Government are doing those very things that will bring discredit upon the flag.

Senator Pearce:

-if that crowd had their way it would not fly for very long.

Senator Reid:

– It is the red flag they want, not the Union Jack.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am merely answering the statement made by Senator Pearce about the British flag. I am trying to impress on the Government that its virtues consistin the fact that it stands as the emblem of freedom in all British communities, and particularly in law-abiding Australia. It is petty -tyrants like Senator’ Pearce who seek to deny us our freedom by these War PrecautionsRegulations. Such men are just as great a danger to the community as that greater tyrant the Czar of Russia, who finally paid the penalty of tyranny. The. same end comes to all tyrants.

Senator Pearce:

– Russia has a worse tyrant now in the Bolsheviks.

Senator GARDINER:

– Their end will come - the Minister for Defence need. not worry about that.

Here is a Government, governing the freest and most law-abiding people in the world, whose members desire to introduce the methods of Russia to suppress freedom of speech, to tyrannize over liberty, and to say to the populace, “ The things you have enjoyed for years, if not for centuries, you shall enjoy no longer, because we fear that the freedom which has made the nation what it- is has now reached the stage when.it is calculated to disrupt it.” What was there in the report quoted by the Minister for Defence which, affected anybody in the community? Had the honorable gentleman and his . colleagues desired to do anything less than fool the people, instead of giving wide publicity to the statements of such irresponsible individuals, they would have suppressed them.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize, sir, that I have been drawn off the track by this constant cross-firing.

If a copy of this regulation were sent Home for the perusal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George), he would be able to state that, with all the dangers which have threatened Great Britain, the Government have had too much respect for British liberty to bring in a similar regulation.

Senator Pearce:

– They have had such a law in existence for years.

Senator GARDINER:

– The The Minister cannot produce an Act or regulation issued by the British Government which sought to prohibit public meetings just as the regulation under discussion is intended to do. The very cause of Britain’s unpreparedness at the outbreak of war was the national antipathy of libertyloving Britons towards the military caste. Now that the nations which have been fighting each other are to sit down at the Peace table, this Win-the-war Government would do well to ‘try to avoid military methods in Australia. The control of public meetings by a military officer, or by the Minister for Defence, should never be tolerated. If an officer in Brisbane wished to stop a meeting, which was to be held in the Exhibition building, and Senator Pearce despatched a wire to him to the effect that a proclamation had been signed, and if copies were nailed to the doors of the building, every person entering through those doors would be liable to punishment. That is too serious a possibility to be permitted to pass unchallenged, in view of the fact that the war is virtually over. We should return as quickly as possible to normal conditions. But the Government, intoxicated with the powers which they have exercised under the War Precautions Act and regulations, not only added this final insult, two days after the signing of the armistice, but they propose, at the same time, to extend that Act for a further term. If they secure the desired six months’ extension after the war is over, what is to hinder them from asking their majority of followers to grant a f further extension ? The Government have the power, and they have the following, and that following will accept any excuse which the Government may advance.

Ayes … … … 9

Noes … … … 16

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 8801

BEER EXCISE BELL

Bill read a third time.

page 8801

NEW STANDING ORDER

Time Limit of Speeches

Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 8683), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the following new standing order be adopted by the Senate: -

No senator shall speak : for more than one hour at a time in any debate in the Senate, except that in the debate -on the AddressinReply, or on the first reading of a Bill which the Senate may not amend, or in moving the second reading of a Bill, he shall be at liberty, to speak for one hour and a half. Any senator may move that the limit of one hour or of one . hour and a half may be extended for thirty minutes ; such motion shall forthwith be put without debate.

In Committee no senator shall speak for more than a quarter of an hour at any one time, or more than twice on any one question before the Committee : provided that no limitation shall apply in Committee to a senator in charge of a Bill, or to any senator during the proceedings in Committee on the Tariff,or to a Minister of the Crown, in Committee on an Appropriation or a Supply Bill, in regard to the number of his speeches in connexion with any Departments which he represents.

The proposed standing order is to prevent individuals monopolizing too much of the time of the Senate.

Senator Pearce:

– It is socialistic; it provides for more equal distribution.

Senator GARDINER:

– It is, in my opinion, tyrannical. There is nothing socialistic about it. It is the panic legislation of an overwrought Government - of a Government who, harassed by moderate criticism, are trying to adopt means to prevent even the small measure of criticism to which they have been subjected in the past being levelled at their measures. I have carefully obtained some .figures which will show that, instead of. having to complain of any delay in the passing of business in this Chamber, it has been carried through at a speed which is unexampled in any other legislative chamber in the world. Let us consider what is proposed. In Committee on . a clause an honorable senator will, if this standing order be passed, be permitted to speak only twice for a quarter of an hour each time. Suppose that a Bill, which requires some legal knowledge for its proper consideration, is at the Committee stage in the Senate, I ask honorable senators to imagine Senator Keating being tied down to two speeches of a quarter of an hour each on a clause of an important measure of that kind. The honorable senator might call attention to a grave danger which would not be apparent ‘ to honorable senators not possessed of his legal training and expert knowledge of the law. I ask leave to continue my remarks on the resumption of the debate.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 to 8 p.m.

page 8803

QUESTION

WHEAT CULTIVATION AND MARKET CONDITIONS

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That, inasmuch as the financial stability and progress of the Commonwealth arise from and depend upon the corresponding prosperity of the various industries being carried on, and since wheat raising stands out conspicuously as the leading rural industry in point of production and volume of labour engaged in it, and as the returns obtained over .an extended period bear no just or equitable relation to the amount of capital and. toil expended in that industry, the Senate is of opinion -

That a thorough investigation should be made into and report obtained upon -
1. The whole question of wheat cultiva tion, including the cost of land, cost of cropping and land transport, and cost of fertilizers and other acces- sories necessary to the maintenance of the industry.
2. The disposal of that portion of the crop that goes into home consumption, including marketing, milling, and storage.
3. The disposal of the exportable surplus including handling, transport, methods and conditions of sale’ in oversea markets.
4. The opening up of oversea markets other than those ait present availed of and the development of such markets.
5. Any causes whether local, industrial, economic or governmental that have contributed to - making wheat raising standing by itself, one of the most unattractive and unprofitable of all the staple industries in the Commonwealth.
That as this matter is one of exceptionalurgency, theGovernmentshould give immediate effect to this resolution in order that whatever remedial’ measures subsequently discovered or suggested, may be considered and put into operation for the purpose of giving relief to an overwhelming- section of the population who have borne their burden over long wiith commendable patience.

The purpose of the motion is to direct attention, not only in this Chamber, but in the Commonwealth Parliament, of which this Chamber forms a part, to the position of the wheat-growing industry in Australia to-day. In this age. Governments have largely forsaken the accepted role they once occupied, namely, that of simply performing the functions of government largely in the matter of preserving civil order. Governments must do more nowadays than merely keep the ring, so to speak, and let each industry fight its own battle. To-day there is every warrant for any Government, if they wish to see the industries of the country progress, and with this- progress the welfare of the people to improve,to extend a helping hand to industries that may need assistance.

Wheat-raising, in point of production and the number of personsengaged in it, has occupied pride of place in the Commonwealth during the last two years. In 1915-16 and 1916-17 the value of the product was no less than £74,000,000, wool-growing,- which hitherto has been instrumental in advertising Australia throughout the world, occupying second place. No other industry remotely approaches that of wheat-raising from the point of view of production and number of persons engaged in it. According to Mr. Knibbs’ estimates in 1911 there were 235,000 farmers and employees engaged in farming, the chief activity of which is wheat growing ; the pastoral industry employed 90,000 persons, dairying 56,000 persons, fruit-growing 14,000 persons, and the sugar industry 5,000 persons. There is however, an explanation with regard to the last-named. When the census was taken of the sugar industry, no account was made of the large number of labourers, employed intermittently, and so acomparatively small number of persons engaged in that’ industry was shown in the official figures. Wheatgrowing employs more thanall the other industries puttogether. As far as my recollection serves me, there have been special inquiries into the iron, sugar, fruit, flax, shipping, and many other industries, but this is the first time that any - special attempt has been made to throw some light upon the life and surroundings of those engaged in raising wheat in this country. The Government, in my opinion, should occupy a paternal position’ in relation to this industry, if they desire the country over whose destinies they are presiding to keep pace with other countries of the world, where special care is taken to extend a. helping hand even to the point of lavishness to all industries that can establish any claim for public assistance.

Wheat-raising is a white man’s industry, I am glad to say, and when we remember the overwhelming proportion of people dependent upon this industry directly and indirectly, it is quite plain that it is of no small importance to Australia. It has been calculated that every person engaged in a basic industry, such as wheat-growing, can reasonably carry five other persons on his back. The truth of this is demonstrated >y the Mildura .settlement. There y on will find in an isolated community a comparatively small number of persons directly employed in fruit-growing, but a large proportion supported by the industry in other walks of life, both in the town and elsewhere, handling the products of the Mildura settlement. It ‘will be seen, therefore,- that the claim that every person engaged in this basic industry of wheat-growing supports five others has some semblance of truth and soundness about it. It -is, as I have already stated, a white man’s industry, but se far no attempt has been made by the Govern– ment to assist it to the extent of a brass farthing, either by means of s bounty or through the Customs House. And yet’ wheat- growers hold their own in “the markets of the world under the most trying and adverse conditions. They are hard against the compe’tition of countries where ill conditions and low- - paid, servile labour obtain, and yet hold their place. But this has been done at the heavy outlay of hard and continuous toil, denying themselves many of the necessities of life, and sending their children out into the” world to fight their battle,’ but ill-fitted to fight it for want of skill and education.

– In regard to the men who have been successful, I, do not blame them if they were able to put aside a little for. a rainy day after their long years. of waiting, struggle and privation. On the contrary, I say, “ Good luck to them.”.

I am now dealing with wheatgrowing as a white man’s industry. Here, in Australia, it is exposed to all the blasts that blow from the four corners of the earth, including the coloured labour countries. Wheat grown here has to take its place alongside the products of India, df Egypt, and Russia, where men are employed under conditions that resemble those . of serfdom. I desire to improve the conditions of our wheat-growers, who, so far, have succeeded in holding their own, in order that they may be able to enjoy a decent standard of comfort, ease and civilization. The industry is one which lends itself to the decentralization of population in a most commendable manner. To the student of political or sociological questions to-day, there is nothing so ‘ appalling as is the tendency of our Australian population to drift into large centres, to the disadvantage of the country. In at least two of the States - South Australia and Victoria - more than 50 per cent. of the population is to be found within the metropolian areas.

Senator Shannon:

– Within two miles of the General Post Office.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes. In this connexion, I would remind honorable senators that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of American Independence, said, “Big cities are the festering sores of our civilization.” Realizing that from the physical, moral, and national stand-point, big cities as centres of population should be discouraged, it will be at once evident that we can best achieve our purpose by encouraging those industries which will lead people away from our cities and into the country. If a wise and determined public policy will not create conditions to beckon people on to the country side rather than clustering in congested areas, then all our efforts will be in vain in turning the tide of population to urban instead of rural life.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Where does the distributor come in?

Senator LYNCH:

– He sticks to the city. We cannot have “it both ways. We cannot have unnatural attractions around our metropolitan’ areas without drawing population more and more to the cities. The figures relating to the’ past six years disclose that an alarming percentage of the people has drifted to the cities.

I wish to focus public attention upon the wheat industry in order that we may discover how the lot of the persons engaged in it here compares with that of the people who are engaged in it in other countries. Then we must remember that wheat growing is one of the industries which fulfils a most importantrole in the industrial life of this country. It helps to unite the capitalist, on the one hand, and the man who complains of capitalism and of its evils, on the other hand, in the most happy fashion. The first stage on the journey of the individual who is endeavouring to get away from his position as a wage earner is that of a share farmer. Share farming at present undoubtedly throws a fierce light upon this industry. It is a branch of it which does not adequately recompense the share farmer as compared with the land-owner. The lattergets the better of the deal.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Not always.

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe that circumstances lean more towards him from the stand-point of advantage than they do towards the share farmer.

This industry, too, offers a chance of solving the problem of what we are to do with the capitalist. It opens to the individual who wishes to engage in a primary industry a path, the treading of which will, at least, give him a chance of success. The man who engages in wheat farming, after he has succeeded in saving a few hundred pounds, is the type of citizen that we wish to encourage. We desire to insure that intelligence and labour applied to this industry shall guarantee to him just as much progress as would be assured if he devoted his skill and labour to the earning of a wage. So that wheat growing, to a great extent, offers a solution of the labour problem, because it draws from the ranks of labour those who have been thrifty and adventurous and affords them a chance to earn a livelihood by becoming masters in their own homes. That is an additional reason why we should give the best assistance that we can to this industry.

Our position in Australia, so far as wheat raising is concerned, is certainly not a favorable one. We are situated relatively at the extreme end of the globe from the consuming centre. Our wheat to-day has to stand a maximum charge. The freight upor? our wool, for example, represents a charge of 4 per cent. upon the value of that commodity in the overseas market. I think that a half-penny per lb. has been - the normal freight over a number of years. Dairy produce occupies a very similar position. The freight charge upon it amounts to about 4£ per cent, of the value of the article. But in respect of wheat, we occupy no such favorable position. To-day, even at the prevailing pre-war freight charge of £2” per ton, that impost represents from 33 to 40 per cent, of the value..of this staple overseas. It- will be seen therefore, that wheat, as compared with wool or dairy produce, occupies a most disadvantageous position. Now, the question naturally arises, “How can we help the industry?” My purpose is Jo stimulate an exhaustive inquiry into it with a view to affording our wheatgrowers a better chance of succeeding than they have had in the past. The wheat-grower in Canada and the United States of America stands in a markedly better position than does the Australian wheat-grower. The man in the Argentine, from the point of view of freight charges, is even better off, with the added advantage that the cost of labour and land there is not nearly so high as it is in Australia. It is evident, therefore, that while we in Australia stand at the opposite end of the world, at the remotest point from the consuming centre, we are obliged to pay the highest freight upon our wheat, and the- best wages in the world, in addition to a higher price for the accessories which are essential to the progress of the industry, than is paid by the wheat-growers in any competing country. In these circumstances, a solemn obligation rests upon this Parliament to inquire into the position, with a view to placing the wheat-growers of this country in a better position than they have occupied hitherto. The wheatgrowing industry cannot continue to bear these handicaps unless those engaged in it are to be condemned to a life of impecuniosity and drudgery, with every chance blotted out of their being able to afford their children any reasonable opportunity of improving their positions or fighting their battle, as they should do, with success. There are men who have made fortunes at this occupation, and who are making fortunes to-day. But, as is the case with every other industry, side by side with men making their fortunes there are those who are eking out a bare existence. The vast majority of wheat-raisers are’ unable’ to make ends meet, and are not in a position to give to their children the schooling they should get. As Henry Lawson has said, these men are engaged in “ an everlasting struggle with the elements.”

On the question of costs, it may be asked, in what position is the wheatraiser of the country? In Australia, he stands in the most disadvantageous position of any wheat-grower in any part of the world, in that he is the farthest from the consuming centres. He pays the most for the things he requires. He pays the highest, perhaps, for wages; and,, as to the wage paid to the farm labourer, I might add that I desire the industry to be kept at a high, level, in order that the farm labourer of to-day may be the farmer of to-morrow. As for the position of the industry here, it may be best shown in the report of a Commission which was appointed in’ New South Wales to inquire into the rural, pastoral, agricultural, and dairying industries, with particular reference to share-farming. The report was tendered last year. There are a multitude of matters dealt with, but in regard to bags, .the price was some years ago 5s. per dozen. Now, according to the report, tho cost is 12s. I know that in Western Australia we are paying lis. The Commission went exhaustively into the subject of wheat raising, in New South Wales, and calculations of the cost varied from as low as lis. 8d. to as high as £2 18s. 4d. per acre. If we strike an average of those extremes, the average cost of production for that State would be £1 15s. an acre. The yields for the past ten years, inclusive of 1916, averaged “ 11.4 bushels to the acre, and the average price was 3s. 4d. The Commissioners, in commenting on those figures, added that if a further 2d. per bushel was deducted for the middleman’s profits, wheat in New South Wales, on the yearly average, has been produced at the rate of 2s. 3d. per bushel, or 36s. 5d. per acre. Summed up, the’ average cost per acre has been £1 15s., and the value of -the average yield, £1 16s. 5d., -which, leaves a credit balance of ls. 5d. per acre. The Commissioners, in their report, mentioned that though wheat-growing has been extended in its operations, it does not necessarily mean that the industry has been carried on profitably. They added -

It probably means that farmers on their own holdings have pulled through because of other operations carried on in conjunction with wheat-growing, and by .the increase which has taken” place in the value of their lands; and in the case of share-farmers, that they have been able to engage their plants and their labour, or their labour only, in other forms of occupation in the off seasons.

It is most significant that a Commission should have to admit that if the industry has been established on sound lines, it is only because of the fact that farmers have engaged in other industries to “keep the pot boiling” while growing wheat at a loss.

The “position in Victoria is much the same as in New South Wales. I find from the records in the Agricultural Department of this ‘State that working costs are similar to those in New South Wales. I have before me” a table of costs for working an acre in the Mallee country, and it runs out at £1 9s. 4<L; that is to say, from the moment of putting a plough into the land until the farmer has carted the last bag to the market. The costs include everything, not ‘forgetting the rent of the land. . In the Wimmera district the costs, amount to 46s. 6d. It must be emphasized that all the undertakings of a farmer are not included within an eight-hour. day. I do. not know of any farmer who works an eight-hour day. If bis occupations were carried on upon that principle he. would not, in my opinion, be getting 6d. an hour for his labour. The farmers must work very much longer if they desire to make ends meet, and we should ask ourselves whether it is right that, in an industry occupying the activities of 200,000 men, scattered all over Australia, they must work ten - and twelve hours, and even longer, Sundays included, in order -to make an average profit of ls. 5d. an acre. Surely, such being the case, inquiry into the whole subject is warranted.

The experience in South Australia is much the same as in Victoria. Mr. Brinkworth, who is a prominent farmer who occupied second place in the election for a farmers’ representative upon the Wheat Board - which in itself .shows that he is a man of standing - has estimated that for working an acre in South Australia the total costs amount to £2 12s. 2d. And those working costs must bear the same ‘relation to returns as in the other two States which I have quoted.

Regarding Western Australia, I can speak from personal knowledge. . At present there are numbers of farms untenanted. They were taken up for wheatgrowing, and have been abandoned. ‘ In certain instances the reason may be given that the war occurred, and men, finding themselves heavily embarrassed, simply walked out and left the burden to be carried on by the mortgagees. Scores of wheat farm’s can be secured in Western Australia to-day practically for the asking. I call Senator Grant’s attention to that fact, It is well that a man who wants to place a tax upon land should get his own neck into the collar, and know where the blister is, and then he will wince when anybody puts forth a suggestion for the imposition of taxes on such a doubtful proposition.

With regard to wheat-growing in America, it should be remembered that that country is the formidable rival of Australia in the world’s market. We produce only 2 per cent, of the wheat of the world. America’s proportion is relatively very high. ‘The percentage grown by Canada, I understand, is about 4 or 5 ; but that Dominion has great geographical advantages over us. I shall quote figures published by the American Bureau of Census and Statistics. Details were secured from no less than 5,000 correspondents all over the Union ; and returns were tabulated for 1911 regarding how much it cost. to work an acre of land under wheat production, and what were the average returns. When 5,000 acute minds give their opinions, and those views are tabulated officially, we may take it that we are dealing with facts. In the matter of production, the items are set out in detail, and they cover every cost, from beginning to end of the industry. The expenses as tabulated, include fertilizers - which item was set down at 2s. 5d. per acre - preparation of land; seed; planting; harvesting; preparing for market, including threshing; miscellaneous costs; and land rental, or interest on land value. The total expenses were £2 6s. 6d. per acre in the year 1909.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Theyget their fertilizers cheaper than we do.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes. Ours cost 3s. 3d. per acre. The wheat-growing area of the United.. States of America is divided into five parts - North. Atlantic, South Atlantic, South Central, East North. Central,West North Central, and far Western - and owing to this minute subdivision the returns are most thorough and reliable. According to the same authority, the average value of the return per acre was £3 8s. 7d., leaving a net gain or profit of £1 2s.1d. per acre. The yield per acre was 15.8 bushels all over the union, which is much higher than the average result obtained by the Australian grower.

Senator Colonel Rowell:

– Because in Australia we plant so much in districts where wheat should not be planted.

Senator LYNCH:

– I can quite believe that. I could also give figures for Canada and the Argentine, ‘ but as my time is overrun, I have quoted sufficient to show that, if we want the wheat-raising industry in Australia to hold its own, and the people engaged in it to live decent civilized lives, we must do much more on their behalf than has been done up to date: This Parliament has done nothing on behalf of the wheatgrowers. The industry carries on its back half-a-dozen other industries, if not more. The man who goes out prospecting for iron, who opens up an iron mine, and produces iron from the ore, gets so much protection upon his product. When it goes through another process, another Customs duty is imposed to protect it, and finally, when it is. converted- into farming implements, still further protection is afforded to it. The farmer, there fore, in the iron industry alone, bears a number of special imposts in that and his other requirements.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does that apply to all protected industries?

Senator LYNCH:

– I should imagine so. He has to pay his share of the triple tax without getting one farthing’s benefit from it. It is so in the case of the farmer. It is not fair to allow the great number of people engaged in the wheat-growing industry to be subjected to the conditions which are their lot today. It is a staple industry, and yet it is a parasitic industry, dependent on other industries to keep -it alive, and, further, is saddled with all these imposts, and there is little or no chance of the burden being lightened. This Parliament should, therefore, come to the rescue of the wheat-grower by putting him- on a more solvent and satisfactory footing. Mine was no new-born sympathy for the farmer’s grievance. I raised my voice in this Parliament on his behalf when the farmer did not want to see me here. I may be told that men have made fortunes out of wheat-growing, but in every industry the two extremes’ are to be found, and this industry employs scores of thousands of people whoeke -out only a bare existence instead pf being happy and prosperous. The industry is a leading one ; our prosperity is based on it, and we, as a Parliament, who have been so eager to help other industries in the past, should at least cause an inquiry to be made in order that thisparent of industries should be put on a more solvent and satisfactory footing.

Debate (on motion by Senator de - Largie) adjourned.

page 8809

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTOXICATING LIQUOR

Progress Report

Debate resumed from 23rd May (vide page 5011), on motion by Senator Thomas -

That the progress report from the Select Committee of the Senate on “ Intoxicating Liquor - Effect on Australian Soldiers and best method of dealing with sale “ presented to the Senate on 1st May, 1918, be adopted.

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

.I should have much preferred to have the complete report and recommendations of the Committee before us for discussion rather than the progress report only. When this debate was adjourned some months ago, I naturally thought that when it was resumed the complete report would be before us, and that we should be able to deal with the whole matter in the one discussion. My personal views * on the question are well known. Although I suppose that, politically, I suffer because of those views, I shall never jettison my convictions for the sake of popularity .or gain. In the work of the Committee, I endeavoured, as far as possible, to sink my own views, and be guided in my conclusions by the nature of the evidence that I heard. When the appointment of the Committee was first moved for, we were told briefly that there was a necessity here, that the necessity had been felt in Great Britain and other Allied countries, for considering how far intoxicating liquors were preventing “the people from doing their best in the task before them, and that great disabilities were suffered in countries where liquor was fairly free for the use of the publicAfter the case had been put to the Senate, the Senate unanimously agreed to appoint the Committee, which would justify the conclusion that the Senate was seized of the importance of the question, and of the need for an inquiry.

The Committee examined a very .large number of witnesses in every State, and the anti-shouting recommendation was supported by every unbiased witness. About fifty-six out of the seventy witnesses examined up to the time the progress report was made definitely pronounced in favour of anti-shouting, and of the balance only about five were opposed to it. The others were not asked the question. Most of the five were engaged- in the trade, and were, naturally, pecuniarily interested. One could not help being struck by the serious manner in which some of the witnesses gave their evidence. They were impressed by the evil that was being caused by intoxicating liquor, and honorable senators who read the report will find that the great majority believed that that evil was preventing us from » doing our best in the struggle in which we were then engaged. When I took my seat on the Committee, I did not expect to get the evidence that we did get. I did not expect to find people so pronounced regarding the evils wrought, by intoxicating liquor. If any one had told me at the outset that from 75 to 80 per cent, of those examined would definitely pronounce in favour of anti-shouting, I should have very much doubted it; but it was so.

As we went round the Commonwealth I found that public opinion was fairly strong on the question, not only at the Committee meetings, but outside. Public men approached me, and, without any invitation from me, stated that that was the biggest question that had ever been before’ a Committee or Commission in Australia. These men were not total abstainers, and in previous years had not been in favour of drastic legislation on the subject, but .they were very, seriously considering it now. I am glad the war is over, and recognise that these recommendations, if we adopted them in full, could not very much affect the war; but we still have to deal with the serious problem of repatriation. Practically every doctor that we examined, every chaplain but one, many of the inspectors of police, and many of the State Commandants, pointed out the difficulty of the problem in dealing with the returning men with practically unrestricted facilities for obtaining liquor in Australia. One could not but be struck with the sympathetic and earnest appeal made by -matrons of hospitals and persons in charge of places where returned men received accommodation and assistance, that the Parliament should do what it could to keep drink out of the reach of such men. It was stated of many of these men that only one drink might possibly send them mad. I shall read a few extracts from the evidence, but will not detain the Senate at length in doing so. I wish to give honorable senators a sample of the kind of -evidence which was submitted to the Committee. It will probably be agreed that* the various State Commandants are men of an impartial character. Some were not so pronounced in this matter as others, but practically all admitted that the use of alcoholic drink was preventing Australia doing its best in the war.

Senator Millen:

– Of course, the honorable senator understands that the Commonwealth Government could not carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee except under the War Precautions Act.

Senator GUY:

– Yes, I . understand that.

Senator Millen:

– Then the honorable senator is in favour of the continuation of the operation of the War Precautions Act?

Senator GUY:

-I will deal with that when I come to it. Brigadier-General Lee, when asking the question whether the efficiency of our Army had been lessened by a number of soldiers taking drink, said -

Yes, certainly, just the same as in civil life. Soldiers who take more drink than is good for them are not nearly so efficient as those who do not.

When asked -

Do you think that these men who do drink have, to some extent, interfered with our efficiency in the war? he replied -

Yes, I do, because they influence others.

He was asked -

Does drink interfere with efficiency? and his answer was -

As I said before, drink does interfere with efficiency.

Brigadier-General Williams, when asked a similar question, gave this evidence -

Any man who takes drink unduly or immoderately, loses his efficiency, whether be is in the Army or out of it.

When asked, further, if a percentage of men, when on leave of an evening indulged in drink, they would be as fit next day for drill as if they had not done so, he answered distinctly, “No.” Colonel Clark, of Tasmania, when asked if drink had been the cause of that State losing 1,191 men of those who enlisted in Tasmania, and who failed to embark, said that he would be inclined to think so. When asked to what extent, he replied -

To the extent that it made them slack. However, I cannot prove that.

That was his opinion, from his personal observation. He also gave the following evidence : -

Do you think that drink has in any way interfered with the Tasmanian quota, or lessened its efficiency in any way? -I think so, but not to any considerable extent.

Do you believe that total prohibition would enable Australia to make a greater supreme effort in a military direction than could be done without it? - I think it would.

Brigadier-General Forsyth, State Commandant of South Australia, gave the following evidence: -

You think that drink does affect the efficiency of the soldier? - As regards efficiency, it is the worst enemy of the soldier.

You might state your views from your personal experience on the question of the effect of drink upon efficiency?- I say emphatically that I consider that drink is the greatest enemy to discipline and fitness that there is. lt goes without saying that even a man who gets slightly drunk or muddled is not as good a soldier as he would be if he remained sober. During my service I have had experience of some very hard drinkers; and, though I cannot prove it, I have often stated my belief that 90 per cent. of all the trouble and “ crime “ that comes to the soldiers comes to them through drink. I have here a statement supplied to me from the camp just before I came away, which seems to substantiate tbat.Ours is not’ a big camp, but I find that during the last six months we have had 588 cases of absence without leave, some for short periods and some for months. The Commanding Officer of the camp says that the records show that about 60 per cent. of these cases were due to drink. That is the percentage due to drink in the case of that one “ crime “ alone of absence without leave. In minor cases of absence without leave I find that the excuse which the men most frequently give for not coming back to camp is that they got “ tight.” In Egypt, most of the “crime” in my regiment when I had only aregiment’ was due to drink. I know that, because I tried all the cases myself. In my brigade, while I commanded it, I fought drink tooth and nail, as I had done in my regiment. I consider it the unpardonable sin in a soldier, whether officer or man, to be drunkat the Front.

I might quote a great deal more to the same effect from the evidence of BrigadierGeneral Forsyth, but Ipass to that of Colonel Courtney, the State Commandant of Western Australia. When he was asked whether of those eliminated as undesirables from the number enlisted before embarkation, many were turned down because of drink, he replied -

Quite a number. At least 70 per cent. of what the Army calls “ crime is due to drink.

When Brigadier-General Irvine, State Commandant of Queensland, was asked whether, in his opinion, drink interfered with the efficiency of our soldiers, and prevented us putting forward our maximum effort in connexion with the war, his answer was -

It has affected the efficiency of our Forces in only a few cases.

I have quoted the opinions of all the State Commandants, and it will be seen that, while Brigadier-General Irvine said that drink affected efficiency in only a few cases, the other witnesses were more pronounced as to its effects. The evidence of the doctors examined by the Select Committee was more pronounced- -still as to the evil effects of drink than was that of the State Commandants. Dr. Bird, who was, I think, the first medical witness examined, said -

Alcohol diminishes a man’s efficiency. If I had special work to do myself, I would not touch alcohol. I never take any liquor before performing an operation. I think that te do so would be a great mistake

When he was told that it was stated by some people that total abstainers who were invalided or wounded made quicker recoveries than men who were not total abstainers, he said that, speaking generally, he thought that was true, and he went on to say - ‘

General Birdwood, with whom I was very friendly, was much criticised by the older men for having knocked off the rum ration during the hot weather in Gallipoli. He was quite right while the hot weather lasted. I have been told, on the other hand, that this tot of rum supplied to men in- the trenches in France is very beneficial, and that, to quote their own words, “It is the little . bright spot in their whole damn day.” … If, however, it is supplied before a long day’s work, beneficial results are not likely to follow. The rum ration in certain circumstances does seem to put new life into the men, especially in cold, weather.

He also gave this evidence -

Then” do you think the problem of repatriation will be rendered more difficult by the continued use of alcohol in our community? - I should say that without alcohol the difficulties you mention would be decreased undoubtedly. … I might add that experiments made recently on human beings as regards the effects of alcoholic drink have shown that a man with an absolutely clear brain may send an impulse down to move his little finger almost instantaneously with the will to move, whereas a man with even a little alcohol exhibits slight hesitation. This shows that alcoholic drinks have an injurious effect on the individual.

I might quote at length in similar terms from the evidence of Dr. Bird. James Henderson, Deputy Controller of the Department of Repatriation, Queensland District, gave the following evidence: -

Have you _any knowledge of the probable percentage of “the undesirables returned because of excessive indulgence in alcohols’ - In my unit, I should say about 40 per cent, of those returned as undesirables were alcoholics, and the rest were returned because of physical defects.

When asked whether drink bad- interfered to any extent with his work, he said that it had interfered to a great extent with it. He referred to twelve men who had to be sent to. an Inebriates Home. On this point he gave the following evidence: -

You say that twelve men have been sent to the Inebriates Home. Were .any of these men ever in the firing line? - I should say half of these men have been actually under fire. The other half were men “had a trip to Egypt,” and who did very little except make a nuisance of themselves.

I should like now to quote something from the evidence given by Professor Mclntyre. He spoke with force, and one listening to him could not but be convinced of the earnestness of the man. He had had very considerable experience, as he was Director of Recruiting in New South Wales for some time. On the question of anti-shouting, he said that if thisParliament failed to put an anti-shouting Act upon the statute-book it would fail in a very obvious duty. Speaking of early closing, he said it bad effected an enormous amount of good; and be went on to say -

It seems to me that one of the most practical measures that could be taken would be the passing of an anti-shouting law. I take it upon myself to press very earnestly upon the Com1mittee the necessity for such a measure, applicable not only to soldiers - as that, I think, would be unfair - but to the whole community. … I do not know whether I am entitled to say it, but I want to say that, in my opinion, if an anti-shouting law is not passed, Parliament will have almost criminally failed in its recognition of the true interests of Australia.

That was a pretty strong statement, but on another occasion he said - 1 am more than ever in favour of an antishouting law. You must enact it or deplorably fail your country. I cannot put it any plainer.

– Well, I have never made any, and I have been fighting the drink ever since I was a child. On the contrary, I have lost money, but I am prepared to go on doing that.

I should like now to quote from the evidence given by Mrs. Shoobridge, matron of the Hobart Hostel, and one of the most earnest witnesses we had in Hobart. Her whole soul seemed to be wrapped up in the interests of the returned soldiers. She was asked -

Has drink interfered with some of those with whom you have to deal?

These men, I might say, are all returned soldiers, and in her reply she said -

It is impossible to say that it has not. Drink has a very bad effect on the men. Returned men get large cheques when they draw their deferred pay at the barracks, and there are people who are on the look out for them, hotel touts, and all sorts of men who want to be treated. They shepherd the returned soldiers, and some of them never leave them until their cheques are all gone.

You know that for a fact? - Absolutely. Young fellows who have received their cheques have been brought to the hostel by a couple of companions, who have taken them out of an hotel and brought them to me in such a state of intoxication that they could hardly walk. They have said to me,’ “ I know that he has money on him, because we have searched him.” [ have said, “How much have you got? “-and he has said. “Look.” I have taken up to ?20 from some young fellows, and locked the money up in’ the safe, and put them to bed. Next morning we have called them early to catch the train, and sent them away awfully grateful that they have been taken away from the hotels and sent home with their money in their pockets. That thing occurs dozens of times.

Mrs. Shoobridge. continuing, said ;

I was at a conference the other day, called by the Commandant. Things were painted in too rosy a light. I went home from the meeting to find a man at the hostel suffering from delirium tremens. He had to be taken from the hostel to the cells. I have been trying for weeks to keep him from the public houses. He was anxious to be pulled up. He caine back to me two days after with his brain cleared, and cried. He said that he was never going to fall again. Of course, lie did. He says that he is going to re-enlist, but lie is not tit to go to the Front. I have had, I cannot tell you how many, cases of men who did not want to drink, and whom I pulled up and secured employment for. One man, who suffers from shell shock and cannot speak above a whisper, comes back to me again and again. He is a sailor, but he ‘cannot go on a big boat because lie has no voice. He gets employment on the river barges, and though he does not want to drink, he gets drunk. On the Saturday night after the’ conference called by the Commandant there were a dozen men at the hostel, all drunk. It was after pay day, and they were all ashamed of themselves.

Subsequently, in answer to my question if she could say what proportion of those who had passed through her hands fell under the influence of .drink, she said -

I should say that about one-third -of the .men are pretty well slaves to it. Tt is no use shutting one’s eyes. Because they do not happen to make a disturbance and go before a Police Court or their superior officers, it docs not say that they are not drinking.

The good lady, of course, did not know what we knew, namely, that” the police had been given instructions not to notice drunken soldiers. This evidence was given to us over and over again by police authorities. She added -

Many of the men who are habitual drunkards do not care whether they work or not, but there are numbers of men - and this is a very grave side of the question - who drink enough not to care whether they get employment or not. We are losing to the country a great deal more than we are ever gaining by the sale of intoxicating drinks in what I call ineffective man-power.

I should like, if time permitted, to quote further from this lady’s evidence. She was burning with enthusiasm, not necessarily for the temperance cause, but with a desire to help the soldiers. I think that her people had given up their home for a hospital, now known as the Roseneath Hospital; and, if I am correctly informed, she has no interest in it whatever, her one desire being to see the soldiers are well cared for. If I were to repeat the whole of her evidence honorable senators would see how deeply she is interested in the welfare of our soldiers. She declared most emphatically that, generally speaking, the soldiers did not want drink, but that the temptation was so often in their way that, in their shell-shocked and nervous condition they fall victims to it. I am in full accord with the statement made by Dr. McIntyre that, if we fail to pass some legislation to prevent these men being subjected to temptation, we shall fail in our duty to our country and to all those who have gone away and have done so much for us.

I propose to quote now some extracts from the evidence given by Mr. John Yale, the district secretary of the Independent Order of Rechabites in Victoria. His statements are simply irrefutable. The society which Mr. Vale represents has sent over 4,000 men to the Front, and each benefit member has had his life insured by the society. Therefore, Mr. Vale had to keep a specific record of the doings of every man, and for that reason his evidence was as complete as that of a statistician. Mr. Vale was asked -

Are you of opinion that drink in any way is interfering with the maximum effort which we as Australians could put forward in this war ?

In his reply, he said -

I think it has done so. To some extent the evil has been combated, but undoubtedly drink has hindered our putting forth our best effort in this war. The best evidence I can give as to that is in regard to the experience of Rechabites who have enlisted. I have an impression, derived from many conversations with soldiers and others, but, so far as my personal evidence is concerned, the most valuable is in relation to our own Rechabite members. The Rechabite Order is composed of totalabstainers. When the war began; we decided that we would pay the contribution of all members who had enlisted. Subsequently we reinsured them with the Government for the sickness benefit. More recently we have taken advantage of a provision of the Victorian law which enables us to suspend the- payment of the contribution of absent members, to be refunded subsequently; the object being to havea lighter levy spread over a long period. We have to return to the Government Statist every quarter a list of the members still away and still on active service, and whose contributions are in part suspended. We have also to furnish a certificate of the auditors of every branch concerned that the statement is correct. We have also to deal with another agent, the re-insurance agent - a State Government officer under the ‘ re-insurance scheme. We pay every year a premium of £35s. 9d. for each man who has enlisted, and the Government pay the sick pay on account of those men. We have to furnish that officer’ with lists from time to time. Up to the end of May of this year, 3,480 of our benefit members had enlisted.I am speaking of the Victorian district only. There were also about 1,000 hon- orary members, but we do not have to keep “their records. They are not entitled to benefit. The Commonwealth Chief Justice stated that, up to 31st December, 1917, there were 68,937 enlisted men who did not go to the war. Some had died, some had deserted, and some were discharged.

I want to draw attention to the great difference between the total abstainers and the bulk of the men that comprise the Australian Imperial Force. The comparison is hardly a fair one to the Rechabite Order, because there are in the Australian Imperial Force a number of total abstainers not connected with the society.

That number represents 17.7 per cent. of the total enlistments. Assuming that our Rechabite experience had been equal to that - if we had had our share of the deaths, desertions, and discharges - it would amount to’ a total representing something over 600. I am able to find out of the total who enlisted only twenty-seven of whom I have records, showing that they did not get away. In the early days of the war, conditions in camp were bad, and there was a great deal of sickness. Seven of our members died in camp. One. other was killed by accident on his final leave; nineteen were accepted and, while undergoing training were deemed to be physically unfit, and they did not go away. That makes a total of twenty-seven. There may have been some other instances which have not come under my notice; but I believe, at any rate, that the very large majority have come under my notice. However, even if you double that number, and then add more, it would work out that, if the whole force had come up to the Rechabite experience, at least- 60,000 out of the 68,937 would have got away. That is where the chief advantage of our abstinence principles came in- that the number rejected after enlistment was very small indeed. And we are not aware of any desertions. Reference has been made to about 11,000 men who returned without having fired a shot. Up to 31st October, 1917, the men who returned represented altogether 14 per cent, of the total number of our Australian troops who had embarked. Up to that time, the Rechabites who had returned represented 7 per cent. Senator Pearce, in Sydney, recently gave figures regarding embarkations and returns, and it would work out that, up to 30th June, the returns were 21.9 per cent, of the men embarked. Right up to date, the Rechabite returns - there are 541 who have come back - would represent 15.5 per cent. The Rechabite percentage who have returned represent half of the average of returns of the whole Force. It follows that, as we go on, the difference would be less, because the ineffective men are weeded out first, and . the comparison, as you continue, is with the men who endure. Taking Senator Pearce’s figures up to 30th June last, the total number who returned after having embarked from Australia, represented, roughly, 22 per cent, of those who had embarked; and, right up to date, the Rechabites who have returned number 541, representing 15.5 per cent. My point is that the total abstainers endure longer than the “ average; and that, I think, is borne out. When the war began there was an appeal, issued by some famous medical scientists at Home, to all men about to serve the Empire, and they set forth certain things which drink did. Among them item No. 5’ stated that it lessens resistance to disease and exposure; and No. 6 said that drink increases shock from wounds, and so on. We had many thousand copies of that appeal printed, with the pledge form on the back, and we got them into camp and on to transports. A large proportion signed the pledge as the result of that appeal. I am trying to convince yon that our Rechabite experience has confirmed the judgment of the scientific men at the beginning of the war. We pay sick pay, and we even pay to relatives, if we have the authority from the men themselves, who, for example, may be in hospital in England. They send out a declaration, and instruct us to pay their next of .kin. So far, we have .paid out in death and sickness benefit, £32,000 to our members; so that, based upon that business, we have a fairly wide experience. I find that a large .proportion of our members who have been wounded have recovered and returned to the fighting line. That is borne out by the fact that their returns to Australia are fewer. They stay on. Early last year figures were published to the effect that of the original Anzacs there were 25 per cent, still on service. Of our members who went away with the First Division, there were, at that same date, more than 50 per cent, still on service.

Had we been a teetotal nation, we would have been able to do more with the men we sent away to the Front? - I think so. I put abstinence as one of the factors. A man who is a total abstainer may have strong moral principles generally, and is less likely to get into other bad habits. As to the question of further steps which should be taken by the Commonwealth, my recommendation would be war-time prohibition; but especially .with a view to preparing for the return of the great body of our men.

I thought- it wise to read that statement, because it shows very clearly that if all the men who went to the Front had been members of the Independent Order of Rechabites, not only should we have sent more men overseas, but less would have been returned as the result of illness, whilst many less would have died from wounds or sickness.

Senator Senior:

– How far did the evidence obtained in other States agree with that testimony? ‘

Senator GUY:

-In none of the other States had the members of the Independent Order of Rechabites been insured. It was that which compelled Mr. Vale to keep the record which he did. He had to furnish certain necessary information to the Statistician.

Senator Senior:

– It is reasonable to suppose that a good many members of the Independent Order of Rechabites enlisted from other States than Victoria.

Senator GUY:

Mrs. Shoobridge remarked, they do not want to drink. But in their weak condition they are easily tempted, and one drink may drive a man mad. What is more, the effect of the drink does not depend on its quality, but on the state of the men’s nerves. I strongly support the recommendation contained in the progress report; and, when the full report is under discussion, I shall support the dissent of the minority, and shall urge prohibition.

Debate (on motion by Senator Foll) adjourned.

page 8817

ADJOURNMENT

government control of metals : tin Scrap.

Motion (by Senator Millen) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

– Owing to the forms of procedure of the Senate I was unable this afternoon to say a few words in connexion with the division taken upon my motion for the appointment of a Select Committee.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Shannon). - The honorable senator will not be in order in discussing a matter which has been already debated to-day.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I desire to make a brief reply tothe statements read by Senator Millen yesterday from Sir John Higgins, Colonel Oldershaw, and Mr. Knowles. An attempt has been made, in the replies to my statement in the Senate last week, to have the Senate believe that, with regard to the complaint which I made against the administration of the war powers of the Government, that complaint was exclusively a charge against the personal honesty’ of Sir John Higgins and Colonel Oldershaw. Thereby the whole gist, the gravamen, of. the complaint which I brought forward has been camouflaged. The purpose of my remarks was to demonstrate that the bureaucratic system of control of industries was open to abuse and had been abused. I did not attack the Protectionist policy of the Government. With that policy, and with the creation of new industries for Australia, I cordially agree. I hold, however, that the method by which that policy has been carried into effect in these particular instances is in violent conflict with the purposes of the Government, and with the best interests of the country. Sir John Higgins occupied a vast amount of space in discussing the real purport of my complaint; but he wholly ignored the gravamen of my charges, namely, that the effect of his administration has been to cause a large sum of money to be lost to the wealth of the nation.

Senator de Largie:

– I rise to a point of order. I notice that Senator Pratten is reading his speech from a statement in print, and I ask if that is in order?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– It is not in order for an honorable senator to read his ‘speech. I was not aware that Senator Pratten was doing so, since I was engaged at the moment in referring to the Standing Orders. I ask Senator Pratten not to read his speech. He may refresh his memory by looking at notes, but he may not read a speech or read from a written document.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I have not a complete statement before me, but a fairly liberal supply of notes. I am making a statement which is very important. I am weighing every word which I utter, and I object to the reflection that I am reading my speech.The honorable senator who has taken objection is sitting next to me, and I invite himto watch me as closely as he may care.

The effect of the administration of Sir John Higgins has been to cause the loss of a large sum of money from the nation’s wealth, and to cause thousands of tons of a valuable commodity to be cast on the tip; and, with no other object in the shape of good than to bolster up an industry of trifling importance. I probably would not have made a statement tonight had it not been for the fact that the names of two life-long friends in Melbourne have been imported into the business by the statements of the officials concerned. The names of Mr. Ambrose Pratt and Mr. A. W. Palfreyman, and of Messrs. Dalgety and Company, have been brought in through the official replies.

Senator Millen:

– And another name - Neuendorf.

Senator PRATTEN:

– That is so; but I have referred to life-long friends. Messrs. Pratt and Palfreyman are my friends. Mr. Neuendorf I do not know. In fairness to my friends, I must traverse a few statements reflecting upon them. I have before me a library in the replies which have been made by the officials concerned. It is, of course, utterly impossible to traverse all those statements in detail now. But for the information of the Senate,- 1 wish to pick out just a few of the statements, and to indicate what they amount to. Colonel Oldershaw states, in paragraph 12 of his reply -

Senator Pratten asks why a highly.placed Government official is concerned in outside business at all. I know of no reason why I should not, in common with the rest Of the public, take shares in a limited company.

Senator- PRATTEN. - I exceedingly regret it, but I acknowledge at all times your fairness in the Chair. I am sorry that an opportunity has not been given to me-

Senator Millen:

– You closed your own mouth this afternoon when you called “ formal “: to your own motion.

Senator PRATTEN:

– Yes, in order to bring the matter on, and to get a division. Apparently that was the only chance I had of getting a decision.

I wish to inform the Government that, on the question of Boards, Committees, and Controls, the commercial section of the community, both in Sydney and Melbourne, is seething with indignation at the unfairness that is being perpetrated in some directions. I come from Sydney; I know what is going on there, and I hope the Government will take the matter into their serious consideration. I was pleased to see in this morning’s paper’ that they have. given up the idea i>f licensing imports. - That is something in the right direction, and I urge them in the most friendly way, now that the war is practically over, to subject the commercial and manufacturing community to the minimum control possible. Patriotic as they have been, they have been seething with indignation for years, ‘putting up, while the war was on, with these controls, which, in many directions, have been unfairly exercised;, but the people will not stand it- very much longer. I called attention to this. matter, not. for any personal reason, not to attack persons, or to attack the Government, but to bring forward an illustration of how this power - can be abused, innocently, if you like, but still abused. Many other illustrations have come under my notice, which may be right, or may be wrong; but I do urge upon the Government that this bureaucratic control by Boards and Committees should be jettisoned at the earliest possible moment.

Senator Plain:

– The Government have already promised that.

Senator PRATTEN:

– I hope that promise will be redeemed at the earliest possible moment. Representing very largely the commercial community in the queen city of Sydney, which haa a population of three-quarters of a million, I say deliberately that a large number of these people are dragged over from Sydney, week after week, and month after month, in connexion with these controls. They can do practically no business in Sydney, because reference has always to be made to Melbourne. I protest against the continuance of these things now that the war is practically over. I tell the Government in the most kindly manner that they should seriously consider what I have said.

I rose to-night to endeavour to traverse a few statements that have been made here, and to show that they were inaccurate and untrue. I regret your ruling, but the matter will have to rest there. I was actuated by three reasons. The first was to show that the gravamen of my charge - the autocratic use made of the powers that have been delegated by the Government - had practically not been touched upon. My second reason was to point out that two life-long friends of mine had been accused of making threats, and were willing and anxious to deny that accusation on oath. My third reason for rising was to point out that the charge does not affect persons so much as the principle of these controls, which the business community will be glad to see. the end of at the earliest possible moment. They will not cry if they cease to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 December 1918, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1918/19181205_senate_7_87/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 5 December 1918

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP

Proposed Select: Committee

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

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator Gardiner:

The PRESIDENT:

PAPERS

QUESTION

CASEOFW.F. GANSEN

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

PERTH MEDICAL OFFICER

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

PEACE TERMS

Senator GARDINER:

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

NAVY

Senator GRANT:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

GARRISON MILITARY POLICE, SYDNEY

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

HENDERSON NAVAL BASE

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator GUY:TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

TATTERSALLS ‘SWEERS

Senator EARLE:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NAT

QUESTION

APPLE BOUNTY ACT

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION BILL

MILITARY RECRUITING EXPENDITURE

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF METALS : TIN SCRAP

Proposed Select Committee

Senator PRATTEN:New South Wales

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator PRATTEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Keating:

Noes … …16

Majority … … 4

WAR PRECAUTIONS ACT

STATUTORY RULES . 1918, No. 301

QUESTION

R. FERGUSON,

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

Senator GARDINER:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Senior:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Senior:

Senate
5 December 1918

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

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NAT

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
New South Wales

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BARKER:
Victoria

Senator LONG:
Tasmania

Senator GUY:
Tasmania

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales