View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
15 April 1920

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPER
QUESTION
- COMPENSATION ON DEATH OF SOLDIERS
QUESTION
- EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC WORKS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE CANTEENS FUND BILL
- Second Reading
WAR GRATUITY BILL
- Second Reading
BANKS TO PAY CASH FOB. BONDS
WAR GRATUITY

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

page 1162

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Papua Act. - Infirm and Destitute Natives Account - Statement of the Transactions of the Trustees, 1918-19.

page 1162

QUESTION

COMPENSATION ON DEATH OF SOLDIERS

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence if his attention has been called to a paragraph appearing in this morning’s newspapers, stating that the owner of a racehorse was awarded £3,675 damages because the horse was killed by placing its foot in arabbit hole owing to the negligence of a racing company having charge of the course on which the animal was raced. If £3,675 is estimated as the value of a blood horse, at what rate will the Minister compensate the dependants of soldiers who have lost their lives?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Parliament, including the honorable senator, has already decided that question.

SenatorBakhap. - The honorable senator is the first member of the Senate to compare a man to a horse.

Senator GARDINER:

– Arising out of the answer to my question, I ask the Minister for Defence if, in view of this additional information as to the value of a blood horse, the Government and the honorable senator will give Parliament an opportunity of assessing the value of a soldier’s life proportionately?

Senator Pearce:

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

page 1163

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Will the Government furnish a. statement setting forth -

the total amount of Commonwealth public works expenditure in each State of the Commonwealth since the inception of the present form of Federal Government;

the amount of such expenditure per head of the population of each State of the Commonwealth, the number of the population being that estimated by the Commonwealth Statistician at the date of furnishing the statement?

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Since the abolition of the bookkeeping provisions of the Constitution on 31st December, 1910, State distinctions have disappeared from Commonwealth accounts. The Treasury is, therefore, not in a position to compile the information suggested.

page 1163

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT

fares and Freights.

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

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

Does not the existing agreement between the Postmaster-General and the contractors for the mail service between Melbourne and Launceston and Melbourne and Burnie provide that the contractors will not without the

Postmaster-General’s approval increase passenger fares or freights?

Have such fares and freights been recently increased, or is it intended that same be increased shortly?
By the action of the Shipping Controller or by that of the contractors?
Has the Postmaster-General’s approval been granted?
When?
On what grounds?

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

– The answers are : -

Such provision is made in the agreement relating to the new steamer of the Loongana type, but that agreement does not come into operation until the new steamer leaves Melbournefor Launceston upon its first trip. In the meantime the 1912 agreements remain in force, and they do not contain any provision regarding fares or freights. 2 and 3. I have no official information on the subject. 4, 5, and 6. See answer to No. 1.

page 1163

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Earle) agreed to-

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator Mulcahy on account of urgent private business.

page 1163

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE CANTEENS FUND BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

It will be within the knowledge of honorable senators that during the war canteens were established in connexion with the Australian Imperial Force. I wish to take this opportunity of publicly acknowledging the services that were rendered to the Commonwealth and to the soldiers by a number of gentlemen throughout Austraila who, although busy men, gave their time gratuitously in the general management of those canteens. I should like particularly to acknowledge the services rendered by Mr. Lockyer, of the InterState Commission. He rendered service that was very valuable, not merely because of the time he devoted to the matter, but because also of the great ability he displayed in establishing the canteens and in generally overlooking their management. A number of other gentlemen in each of the States rendered valuable service. Accountants in each State gave their services in an honorary capacity in the supervising of the accounts of the canteens.

I think it must be admitted that the canteens were of substantial benefit to the soldiers. They enabled them to conveniently obtain in the camps in which they were stationed certain articles of good quality at below the usual retail prices. It was a very much better system than that which obtained at the beginning of the war, when all sorts of traders were allowed into the camps, and, as we know, were in some instances guilty of very peculiar practices. The establishment of the canteens rendered it unnecessary to continue that objectionable system.

Senator Foll:

– This applies only to camps in Australia ?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes. An extension of the system took place in the establishment of canteens on board ships and also in Egypt, and I think I may say that they were generally successful.

Debate (on motion by SenatorFoll) adjourned.

page 1170

WAR GRATUITY BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The gratuity payment that is proposed to be made under this Bill, let me say at the outset, is not a matter of right, but is a gift from the people of the Commonwealth in recognition of honorable service. No undertakingwas given to members of the Australian Imperial Force that any gratuity at all would be paid them. It is somewhat interesting to look back over the history of gratuities paid in connexion with war services. The first of which we have any record was known as “batter money.” How the term originated I do not know, but it was proposed in connexion with the Peninsular War, when Wellington, anxious to deter his soldiers from looting captured towns, promised them that if they abstained from looting, they would, at the conclusion of the war, have “batter money” paid to them. That course was followed at the conclusion of the Peninsular War, and has, I believe, been followed at the conclusion of each war in which Britain has since been engaged. No such thing was contemplated in connexion with the Australian Imperial Force, and I am sure that no such inducement was needed in order to restrain Australian soldiers from looting any town they might take.

I want to say, in justice to myself, that the question of the pay ment of the gratuity was not overlooked, as has been suggested in some quarters. In 1918, before I left for England, I gave instructions to the Defence Department that inquiries should be opened up with the British. Government and the Governments of the various Dominions of the Empire to ascertain what they proposed to do in connexion with the gratuity. My colleague (Senator Russell) will remember that whilst I was in England I cabled to him intimating that I had had numerous inquiries from members of the Australian Imperial Force as to what was going to be done in the way of the payment of a gratuity. Senator Russell had these inquiries followed up, and when the question came to be faced by the Government, we were able to give the result of our inquiries as to what was proposed or was being done in this connexion in other parts of the Empire.

It will be of interest to the Senate to compare what is proposed by this measure with what is being done in other parts of the British Empire. I have here a comparison of the gratuity payable in the different parts of the Empire. For instance, in the case of a soldier who left Australia in November, 1914, and. was killed in April, 1915, at the landing on Gallipoli, the amount of gratuity paid would be-: -

In the case of a man who left Australia in November, 1914, was wounded at Gallipoli, returned to Australia, and was discharged in November, 1916, the gratuity paid would be: -

The rate of payment in Canada is six months’ pay and allowances for three years’ service; five months’ pay for two years’ service; four months’ pay for one year’s service; and three months’ pay for any service of less than one year. In New Zealand the rate is1s. 6d. per day for service abroad only. For home service Canada allows three months’ pay for three years’ service; two months’ pay for two years’ ser- vice, and one month’s pay for one year’s service or less. In New Zealand no gratuity is paid for home service. In Canada the gratuity is paid in monthly instalments. In New Zealand it is paid principally through the banks.

The total estimated cost of the proposed gratuity to Australia is £28,000,000. Of this sum, £6,000,000, it is estimated, will be required to meet the cash payments provided for under various clauses of the Bill. Arrangements have been made with ‘the banks by which this sum of £6,000,000 will be made available as an overdraft to the Commonwealth upon which interest will be charged at the rate of 5^ per cent.

I wish briefly to deal with the contention that the gratuity should be paid in cash, and with some of the arguments used in support of that contention. As one of the arguments, and the one most frequently used, for a cash payment, and as indicating that the necessary . cash is readily available, critics quote the figures showing the deposits in the banks, comparing 1914 with 1919. According to these figures, the deposits in the banks in 1914 amounted to £186,600,000, and in 1919 they amounted to £280,000,000, showing an apparent increase of £93,400,000. These figures are illusory if quoted to indicate a corresponding increase of -wealth. Money to-day is not a true index of the quantity of goods or the real wealth available.

I invite the attention of honorable Senators to some very interesting figures, which will be found in No. 12 of Mr. Knibbs’ Commonwealth Year-Book to illustrate this. It is shown there that in 1901 we exported goods, exclusive of gold and specie, to the value of £35,348,396, and in 1917-18 our exports were valued at £74,912,489. But the value in each case is in terms of the prices ruling in those years, and if our exports in 1917-18 were valued on the basis of the price levels of 1901 they would have amounted to only £35.946,491. The significance of this is that, notwithstanding the fact that our population meanwhile had increased by 33 per cent., the real wealth available for export in 1917-18, when compared with the export of 1901 on the basis of the prices ruling in that year, indicated an increase in the value of our exports of less than 2 per cent.

I can’ give honorable senators some figures illustrating the same point in connexion with the value and weight of imports into the United Kingdom, where an account is kept of weight as well as of value. In 1913 the value ‘ of the imports into -the United Kingdom was £659,200,000, and their weight 54,500,000 tons. In 1919 the value of the imports was £1,467,600,000, and their weight only 40,000,000 tons. Those figures show ‘that it cost the consumers of Britain £808,300,000 more on war values for 14,500,000 tons less weight of imports.

Senator Bakhap:

– Why does the Minister make a comparison of imports for the United Kingdom, and of exports for the Commonwealth?

Senator PEARCE:

– For no particular purpose, except to show that the same thing applies to imports and exports. I have some figures, also, in respect to exports from the United Kingdom which, perhaps, will satisfy Senator Bakhap. In 1913, Great Britain exported piece-goods to the extent of 7;000,000i,000 yards, valued at £97,000,000 ; and in 1919 she exported 3,500,000,000 yards, which were valued at £178,000,000 - one-half the quantity estimated at double the value.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Does the,, honorable senator argue that if we get higher prices for our produce, that does- not bring more wealth to the country ?

Senator PEARCE:

– I do,” under the conditions I am now going to state. ‘ The fact is that the figures quoted do not indicate an increase of wealth, but the decreased value of money, owing to the inflation of values because of the gigantic borrowing for war purposes, and to decreased production. I think it is clear from the figures I have given that those who loosely argue that because of an apparent increase in the deposits in banks, which every one knows is due to the tremendous amount of paper circulated in the Commonwealth by reason of our war borrowing, the country is in a position to meet the gratuity as an immediate charge, are arguing on false premises, and take a mistaken view of what the figures they quote really represent. Fa, from indicating that the country is better able to pay, when their true significance is taken into consideration, they indicate that the country is less able to pay; and it would be far better if, instead of an increase in the deposits in banks, we could show an increase in production, which is the only true test of our ability to pay.

There is another phase of the question which I think I am justified in bringing under the notice of the Senate and of the public. I refer to the undertaking which the Commonwealth has already shouldered, and is shouldering, in connexion with the quite proper and legitimate obligations to the Australian Imperial Force. The interest and sinking fund payment and war pensions, it is estimated, will represent an annual charge on the Commonwealth of £27,000,000. That will remain an annual charge until the Commonwealth is in a position to re place these bonds, not with other bonds by fresh borrowing, but with goods or real wealth produced. Until we are able to do that, this amount must remain an annual charge upon the shoulders, of our 5,000,000 of people.

Let us consider the expenditure that ‘ has already been either undertaken or to which Parliament has already committed the country on behalf of the returned soldiers. I am absolutely in sympathy with the objects for which that expenditure is to be incurred; but it is very desirable, when considering any extension of the scope of the measure, that we should know just what aTe the Commonwealth commitments. I have here a statement bearing upon that point. The figures aTe - ;

If to the above we add the total recurring liability in the form of interest on out war loans, the amount is £49,584,336, representing expenditure on our soldiers and their dependants up to the end of the present financial year.

In regard to the qualifying service for war gratuities, I may briefly set it out as follows: - On the military side, those who embarked for service overseas, ls.. 6d. per day from date of embarkation to 2Sth June, 1919; those who enlisted, but did not embark, ls. per day from the date of reporting for duty until the date of discharge, but not to exceed six months. For the naval service - ls. 6d. per day for members of the Naval Forces who served in a sea-going ship after the 4th August, 1914, and before 11th November, 1918, or who during that period were borne for pay on the books of one of His Majesty’s Australian ships; ls. per day for members of the Naval Forces other than members of the auxiliary service who did not serve . in a sea-going ship in the period mentioned; ls. 6d. per day to men of the Naval and Military Expeditionary Force to New Guinea from the date of enlistment to 28th June, 1919 ; and ls. 6d. per day to Imperial reservists who embarked from Australia before 10th November, 1918, for service overseas.

The gratuity will be paid in. nonnegotiable bonds, with certain exceptions for classes of cases as indicated in clause 13, for which cases cash payments may be made. Provision is also made for the investment of the gratuity in approved companies comprised of returned soldiers or their dependants ; and deductions from the amount of gratuity to be paid may be made in cases where fraud and deception have been practised upon the Commonwealth. It is not proposed to give authority to deduct an ordinary debt due to the Commonwealth; but where it is clear that fraud and deception have been practised, the Government think it only right that the amount -involved should be deducted from the amount payable to the recipient.

Senator Foll:

– That relates to Australian Imperial Force pay, -I presume 5

Senator PEARCE:

– And any other payment made by the Commonwealth to the soldier. It includes payments by the Repatriation Department. There is provision to set up a prescribed authority to determine the period of disqualification. The Bill provides that in certain cases men will be disqualified from participating in the gratuity; but there may be only a partial disqualification, and it will be the duty of this prescribed authority to investigate and make recommendations as to the period of disqualification. This authority will also have power to determine the destination of the gratuity in certain cases with which Senator Gardiner, who at one time was associated with me as Assistant Minister for Defence, will no doubt be familiar. At that time the same question arose in connexion with the payment of separation allowances. In certain cases it would ‘be an injustice to pay this gratuity to the beneficiaries under the will of a deceased soldier, by reason of the fact that there were other dependants or relatives who had a prior claim. This gratuity is not in the same category as the ordinary assets of an estate, because it is a gift by the Commonwealth, and, therefore, Parliament, is entitled to provide that, where the facts are clearly established, certain relatives of a deceased soldier shall be provided for.

I have no doubt that there will be a natural desire on the part of certain honorable senators to endeavour to include other classes of cases within the scope of the Bill, because during the war so many persons rendered excellent service to their country, although not on the battlefield. But we must draw the lino somewhere, and I venture bo say that if any attempt is made to extend the scope of the Bill, other cases on the border line will also be entitled to consideration. If we could have stopped at those who went overseas, our difficulties would have been eased considerably, but as a result of the conference with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Association the Government decided not to draw the line at those who actually went overseas, because the claims of other men seemed to be almost equally strong. We decided, however, to limit the payment of the gratuity to the fighting Forces that were available and could have been used by the Government for this purpose; whether we have succeeded logically in doing that is a matter for the Senate to determine. We feel we have. If honorable senators are inclined to widen the scope of the measure and include other cases, I invite them to think of the next allied class of case to that which they desire included. They will then realize how difficult it is to stop until they include every group which was in any way associated with the armed Naval and Military Forces of the Commonwealth. If the measure is to be extended to include those who helped to take our soldiers to the field’ of action, and the men who worked in the munition factories to provide the munitions of war, it may also be argued that the men engaged on our coastal steamer service to bring our soldiers from Western Australia to Victoria for special training should be provided for, because to a certain extent they were exposed to as much risk as were men engaged on steamers conveying troops from Melbourne to Port Said. In the early stages of the war, when our soldiers were being brought down from Queensland, or over from Western Australia, to Liverpool, Broadmeadows, or Seymour camps for special training, German ships were within striking distance of our shores, whereas later in the war period, when transports were taking our soldiers to Egypt, there was no known enemy ship anywhere in the Indian Ocean. Men engagedon transports on the Pacific route, taking ships through the Panama Canal, also ran a certain risk but in the issue of war zone medals for seamen the Pacific has not been recognised as a war zone, and, therefore, medals have not been issued to seamen engaged on that route. I warn honorable senators that if they seek to include all classes of cases they will find themselves in an interminable morass. There are two main classes of men to whom this gratuity should be paid, namely, the sailors and soldiers who actually went to war, and, having provided for them, I think that, taking the situation by and large, we have done all that we could be fairly asked to do.

I invite honorable senators to consider the various provisions by which the Bill is safeguarded, and say whether, in their opinion, they are adequate or too stringent. We cannot accept any extension of the Bill for the reasons I have indicated. I am one of those who Believe that our soldiers were better paid,better fed, and better clothed than the soldiers of any other country engaged in the war. That is the opinion I hold, and it is supported by all those who have had anything to do with the soldiers. It cannot be contended that the pensions and the repatriation conditions generally are not a fair and just recognition of the claims of the service men. In this respect Australia compares more than favorably with other countries, especially as regards repatriation, and I ask honorable senators not to look upon this measure separately, but to consider it in conjunction with other such benefits.

Senator Gardiner:

– It compares more than favorably just as our soldiers compare more than favorably with others.

Senator PEARCE:

– I ask honorable senators not to regard this as a provision standing by itself, but to consider it in connexion with the other measures adopted for the benefit of our sailors and soldiers who, through their official organizations, have expressed their satisfaction with it. In that spirit, I invite honorable senators to give the Bill a speedy passage, so that the bonds may be issued and the machinery set in motion.

Senator Gardiner:

– What about the members of the Naval Reserve?

Senator PEARCE:

– They are in much the same position as certain members of the Military Forces. In the Military

– Where are you going to draw the line? I would remind the honorable senator that the question of marriage in the Australian Imperial Force in the Old Country when I was there was rather a delicate one. I am afraid that we shall be rather adding to the difficulties of the Treasury if we extend the principle too far.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– Notwithstanding the speech of the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who would give us to understand that this measure has the approval of the members .of the Australian Imperial Force, I venture to say that if a vote were taken, not of the officers of the various associations or at some of the meetings of the associations, but of the whole of the members of the Australian Imperial Force, it would be found that no Bill that has ever been before this Chamber would meet with less approval at their hands than would this particular measure. I have spoken to a very considerable number of returned men, and have never yet met one of them who approved of the idea of paying them in bonds. On the contrary, all I have met are vigorously in favour of the amount feeing paid to them in cash, and at once.

Senator Reid:

– You did not meet very many, then.

Senator GRANT:

– I met very many of them. The honorable senator’s statement is quite incorrect, and he does not know what he is talking about, because I met hundreds and thousands of them. We are informed by the Minister that it is proposed to pay a certain number of classes of cases in cash, the total amount of which will approximate to £6,000,000. We are further informed that many employers are to cash the bonds, and we find from one of the clauses of the Bill that the War Service Homes Commissioners and some other public Departments “will accept the bonds as cash. I do not know how many millions will be covered by those provisions, but I assume that at least another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 may be regarded as being liquidated, so far as the soldiers are concerned, in that way. That would account in all for about £12,000,000. I refuse absolutely to subscribe to the idea that the Commonwealth is unwilling to pay this money in cash. I disagree entirely with . the deductions of the Minister for Defence that this was the issue on -which the recent elections were fought, and that the returned men deliberately voted for the Government in such large numbers as to give them a majority in some oases on this particular issue. There were many other issues which commanded the attention of returned men and electors generally. All those I have come across have been strongly in favour of the payment of the gratuity in cash, and only last night a big deputation of the returned men pleaded with the Prime Minister, if he could not possibly pay the whole amount due to them in cash, to give them at least 50 per cent, of it in cash. When these men went abroad the prices of commodities in Australia were at a certain level. While those who remained on the spot were surprised at the persistent manner in which the prices of various commodities rose, it must have been quite an eye-opener to the men who returned to find the purchasing power of the sovereign had decreased in many cases by 25 per cent., and latterly to a much greater degree.

– For borrowing money, and, if necessary, for expending it, it is surprising to me that the Government cannot be screwed up to the point of borrowing at least another £25,000,000 for the purpose of at once liquidating this claim.

In numerous clauses of the Bill I notice that there is a reference to “the prescribed authority.” This “prescribed authority” is to be vested with very extensive powers, which it will exercise over a considerable number of years. To my mind, it would be far more economical if the Government were to add the £25,000,000 that will be involved in the payment of this gratuity to our national debt, and to pay interest upon it in the ordinary way. Our indebtedness would not be very materially increased thereby. That would be the right policy to adopt.

There is one clause of the measure which seems to be of so obscure a character that it ought not to be passed without honorable senators first ascertaining what it really means. In clause 12 there is a provision which, unless altered, will lead to a very great deal of difficulty and interference. It reads -

A member of the Forces who has married since the date of his discharge.

I have indicated that I had hoped, had my policy in regard to the war been adopted, to have supported the payment of a more substantial gratuity than that for which provision is made in this measure. My policy was not adopted, and it now only remains for me, as a Government supporter, to justify this measure, as I am quite prepared to do, not only in a general sense, but in regard to most of its particulars. I do not think it requires very much justification. We had a meeting purporting to consist almost entirely of returned soldiers, who forgathered yesterday evening on the steps of this legislative building. I understand that that gathering was the outcome of a tremendous meeting supposed to have been held at one of the places of public resort in this city a few days ago. It was set forth that a very large number of people, estimated at 5,000, attended that meeting, and passed a resolution to the effect that this Parliament should pay the gratuity in cash. When we consider that there must be at least 40,000 or 50,000 returned soldiers in the city of Melbourne and suburbs, and when we reflect that it is not alleged that more than 5,000 people of all classes attended the meeting referred to, it will be seen that only a very small percentage of the returned soldiers felt keenly enough on this subject to demand cash instead of bonds.

Senator Gardiner:

– How many returned soldiers were within eight miles of this place last -night ?

Senator Bakhap:

– I say that in Melbourne and its suburbs there must be 40,000 or 50,000 returned soldiers. The honorable senator is aware that Melbourne contains about one-sixth of the population of Australia. One-sixth of the returned soldiers, according to the law of averages, must reside in this city and its suburbs. One-sixth of the soldiers repatriated at present must number at least 40,000, and I ask where were they last night when the alleged deputation was present on the steps of this building intending, I will not say to overawe, but to make some very strong representations to this honorable body? They were represented by 2,000 or 3,000 people, a large number of whom were not returned soldiers.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Many of whom were women.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Yes. The gathering consisted also, to some extent, of volatile youths, whose particular occupation or enjoyment, it seemed to me, was to suggest a bar sinister on the escutcheons of such members of the Senate as have escutcheons, andto invite those honorable gentlemen bearing the bars sinister to come out and address them. I am glad to say that the Senate, with the adroitness and wisdom which characterizes its deliberations, had adjourned that we might discuss this question in the calm atmosphere which surrounds our meeting in this chamber to-day.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator should not attribute the adjournment to adroitness.Was it not due to lack of business?

Senator BAKHAP:

– I saw indications on the steps of this building last night which led me toregret that in early youth I had not embarked in the tobaccoselling business.

It seems to me that, after all, we are splitting a straw in this matter, but I believe that the difference between the two proposals is in favour of the issue of bonds. The bonds will mature in four years’ time. Very many of our young soldiers have at present a very poor appreciation of the value of money, and in four years’ time they will have acquired some sense of the responsibility of citizenship. The money, in four years’ time, will not be like the snows of last year, but will be available on the maturing of the bonds, when these young men’s experience of the world will have increased and it will be of greater service to them then than it would be now.

Senator de Largie:

– And when £1 will be worth twenty shillings.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Let us hope so.

Senator Gardiner:

– On the same argument, it would be of still greater service twenty years hence.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Had my line of policy been adopted, I confess that I was in favour of paying any war gratuity which might have been determined on by the Legislature in cash, but I am not above learning something with the progress of the years. I have in mind certain instances - and I am sorry to say they are rather numerous - in which soldiers going to the battlefield and inspired by filial affection, which, perhaps, had lain somewhat dormant for years, made substantial allocations out of their pay in favour of their aged parents. Those parents, with a love and devotion which, I suppose, characterized them from the time of the birth of their children, instead of spending that money, saved the whole of it, and had substantial sums awaiting the returned soldiers, amounting in one case within my personal knowledge to £200. When their sons fortunately returned from the scene of action after peace had been arranged by the victory of their arms and of those of our Allies, their parents presented them with the money that had been saved; but I am sorry to say that I could give instances in which the young fellows, not having had before so much money in their lives, dissipated the whole of it. They derived no benefit from the money saved for them, and at the present time they are doing pick-and-shovel work instead, perhaps, of being successfully established in a business which £200 in capital might have secured for them.

I think it will be admitted that the honorably large percentage of soldiers repatriated, and who have fitted themselves already into the grooves of civilian life, and are earning sufficient to keep them in an honorable way, are not in immediate want of the cash. A man who has been satisfactorily repatriated, and has been provided with employment in which he is earning £3 or £4 per week, is not in need of spot cash. If the young soldier who has had very little experience of the world save what he gained on the battlefield, were given his gratuity in cash, I believe that he would have very little of it before the four years during which the proposed bonds will be current have expired.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Gardiner) will see that those of our soldiers who served almost right through the war had in many cases substantial accretions of pay, because of the allocations which they made to relatives who in quite an honorable majority of cases saved the allocations for those who happily came back from the Front. Such men are not in immediate need of the money which would be available from the sale of the bonds. In the case of the younger and more irresponsible men who enlisted after th’e war had gone on for two or three years, the amount that would be available to them in cash would be comparatively small, and would not be of any material benefit in the hands of young men of twenty-one or twenty? two years of age. It will be better, in all the circumstances, that the gratuity should take the form of a deferred payment, so to speak. I really honestly believe that if Australia were in a position to pay cash at this moment, having seen what has happened in the case of some of our soldiers who have returned, I should feel myself bound to vote tor the payment of the gratuity in bonds instead of in cash.

I will admit that there is a specious force in the argument used by some of those who, in order to curry favour with the small section of soldiers demanding cash, ask the Government to pay the gratuity in notes or specie. They say that had the war gone on, we would have been, obliged to finance it, and that, consequently, we should be able to finance the £28,000,000 or £30,000,000 required to pay this gratuity in cash. But honorable senators who take this view are poor psychologists. A nation fighting for its life, with the hand of the enemy at its throat, is very much in the position df a boxer in the ring, called upon to endure right, through a twentyround contest in the hope of securing victory in any one of the twenty rounds, if he can. During that contest, he must strain every nerve, watch every move of his opponent, evade punches that may be fatal, and generally act, while in the ring, at high pressure to stand a chance of victory. That is what a nation has to do in time of war. Oau any sensible man with a knowledge of human nature say that what a nation can do> in war time it can do in times of peace? Human nature cannot stand the strain, and so the argument that because we would have been obliged to provide a large sum of money had the war continued, we should now provide cash for the war gratuity, has very little point in it so far as I can ascertain. I wished to see Australia endure to the end so as to secure that high moral position, which pomes to a nation victorious in war, especially a just war, but I never was one to ‘ ‘ slobber ‘ ‘ over our soldiers, so to speak. I thank no young man for having gone to” the Front and fighting for his country. It was his duty. But as even duty should point the way to glory, and be recognised, although it is duty, I now cheerfully vote for a measure like this, and say to any representative of the soldiers who may be in the gallery, that if our Treasury were full to overflowing, and if we had received the full portion of our expected indemnity from Germany, in the interests of a considerable portion of our returned men, I would vote for bonds instead of cash, so that by a system of deferred payments, they would receive the cash four years hence, when they will be older citizens, and when the money will, I believe, be of more benefit to them.

This about ends what I intended to say on the measure. Our soldiers were victorious, and I have assisted to welcome large numbers of them on their return. I hope they may never have occasion to leave again to fight for our liberty. To those who sleep upon the field of honour, no words of mine, and no eulogy, are necessary. They died gloriously at the post of honour, and I hope that the traditions which they have established will endure, and be the best bulwark of our nation for generations to come.

There are, however, one or two points upon which I should like information from the Minister for Defence. I believe that the measure is well designed, but I think provision should be made for certain perfectly legitimate transactions that have already taken place. A large number of our boys who showed filial respect both before and after they went to the war, have, on the anticipated value of bonds coming to them, obtained cash from their parents for the purpose of entering into certain business arrangements or other enterprises which, perhaps, cannot be classed as business concerns. The bonds are non-assignable, but I think some reservation should be made in favour of members of a soldier’s own family who are willing to advance the amount of money due to him in the form of bonds, and that they should be permitted to hold the bonds as security.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– That will open the door very widely.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I do not think it will. The filial relationship between most Australian soldiers and their parents has been admirable. The fact that many of them believed they were going to make the supreme sacrifice on the battle-field aroused in them a long dormant sense of respect for their parents.

Clause 9 seems to be rather indefinite.

It reads -

Where a person to whom a war gratuity would have been payable has died before payment of the gratuity (whether before or after the passing of this Act) the gratuity shall not form part of the estate of the deceased, and shall not be claimable by the executor or administrator of the estate, but may be paid to such one or more of the following persons, and in such proportions, as the regulations prescribe or the prescribed authority approves, namely: -

Any person who -

is beneficially entitled under the will of the deceased to any part of his estate; or
is, or would, if the deceased had died intestate, have been entitled to a share in the distribution of his intestate estate, and who is either the widow, or a child, parent, step-parent, foster-parent, or dependant of the deceased.

Not being a lawyer, I may not be able to construe the clause correctly, and so I want to know if the beneficiary cannot be a person outside those mention in paragraph (b) ?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes. The clause provides that if other persons have a prior and moral claim upon the amount of gratuity, we shall have the right to pay it to them and not to any beneficiary under the will. For instance, the father of a deceased soldier may not have supported the family at all ; the burden may have fallen upon the mother. In that case we should have authority to pay the gratuity to the mother, although the f ather may be the beneficiary under the will.

Senator BAKHAP:

– Then I should like to know the reason for the omission of the word “ sister “ from the clause. Many of our soldiers have been brought up by elder sisters, and I see no valid reason for the exclusion of sisters from the list of eligible persons to whom the gratuity may be paid. I know that any amendment we make will mean that the measure must be reconsidered in another place, but I cannot waive my right - and I hope this Chamber will never waive its right - to review a measure, even if despatch is so much to be desired.

Senator Pearce:

– That will not be urged as a reason here.

Senator BAKHAP:

– I am sure it will not.

Clause 15, I notice, provides that the war gratuity shall be inalienable except as prescribed -

Except as prescribed, no interest in any war gratuity, or in any Treasury bond issued or to be issued in payment of any war gratuity, shall be alienable, whether by way or in consequence of sale, assignment, charge, execution, insolvency, or otherwise howsoever.

I suggest that in Committee some reservation be made in favour of parents who are prepared to advance money on the strength of the gratuity bonds due to a returned soldier, their son.

Having referred to the only two clauses which I intend to challenge in Committee with the hope of amending them, I content myself by supporting the measure in principle and in detail.

Senator Gardiner:

– What about the Naval Reserve men?

Senator BAKHAP:

– The Minister has sufficiently indicated his attitude, and I do not feel called upon to further discuss the matter on the second-reading stage. I promised to be brief, and I am going to redeem my promise.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I realize that the Bill should be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and I shall follow the example: set by Senator Bakhap, and be brief. I thank the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) for his consideration in permitting me to continue the debate at a later stage, but I shall not press my request. I like to approach the discussion of the Bill irrespective of party considerations or what has been done in another place.

I congratulate the Minister upon the ability he displayed in moving the second reading, and the skill with which he anticipated objections to the limitation of classes as participants in the gratuity. In his off-hand way, the Minister said that if we endeavoured to include another section of men, whose claims for the gratuity appear to be almost as strong as those of the members of the fighting Forces, we would find still another section with claims almost as strong, and that once the door were opened we might go on extending the scope of the measure indefinitely. . But I would’ like to put Parliament, in relation to this Bill, in the position of a father with a number of children around him, and to whom it is his intention to distribute gifts. This gratuity is a gift. It cannot be claimed as a right, and we, as the representatives of the people, .are in a sense the directors in the allotment of this gift. Let us say, then, that a father has drawn his sons around him, and says to one, “ I am not going to pay you for your splendid exhibition of courage in this late incident, but in the fulness of my heart I am going to make you a gift. Take your seat there.” Another boy he pats on the head, and says, “I am not going to reward you for the dangers you encountered and the death which you faced, but I am also going to make you a gift for the way you comported yourself in this late incident. Take your seat there.” Then we will assume that a third son is waiting to be called upon. He also volunteered his aid, and although he was willing, and perhaps more anxious than either of the other sons, to take his part in the late incident, his services were required in another place. Imagine his feelings, then, when gifts were handed to other, and perhaps less deserving, member’s of his family while he was overlooked.

As the Minister for Defence addressed himself to this point, I wish to make a quotation. The Minister, when in Perth, said that he had telegraphed to the Prime Minister, and had received confirmation of the report that an arrangement had been made with the banks for the cash redemption of the bonds.

Senator Pearce:

– What paper does that appear in?

Senator GARDINER:

– It appears in the Age, and is headed “ Defence Minister on the Gratuity.” It reads -

Perth. - In his speech on Tuesday night, Senator Pearce referred to the war gratuity. Se said that the financial conditions of the country made a cash payment impossible, but that he had telegraphed to the Prime Minister, and had received confirmation of the report that an arrangement had ‘been made with the banks for the cash redemption of the bonds.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is why the honorable senator is hero. He owes his election to the profiteers.

Senator Senior:

– Why is the honorable senator here?

Senator GARDINER:

– Clearly, I am here by the design of Parliament. Nothing else can account for my election. The organization of the National party was so complete, and our electoral machinery was so effective in preventing the Labour party from securing representation here, that my return seems little short of a miracle.

An honorable senator said just now that I was not quoting from a newspaper. But I extract the following from a report published in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7th November last: -

Mr. Curtis saidhe had received a statement from Mr. Hughes to read to the meeting in regard to the gratuity. According to this, Mr. Hughes promised -

Immediate distribution of bonds on the assembling of Parliament.

Bonds will be taken by banks and Repatriation Department as the equivalent of cash in purchase of land and houses.

Cash will be paid in all urgent cases, and where a soldier marries or a soldier’s widow remarries.

The Government will redeem in cash by May, 1921, not less than £12,000,000 sterling.

Mr. Hughes pointed out that the bonds cashed by the banks andRepatriation Department would probably amount by that date to £10,000,000, so that the Treasury would have to arrange for the redemption of over £20,000,000 in this period.

– If the honorable senator will send me a copy of it, I will preserve’ it as a curiosity, because a reliable newspaper on political matters in Australia is worth keeping. Under the heading of “ Cash Promised,” I find the following in the journal which I have mentioned : -

– It is a charge which I make as a representative of the people. Mr. Hughes was going to .pay in cash. Let me repeat his statement -

The Government has made arrangements with the banks whereby the soldiers who want cash for their bonds can go and get it. (Thunderous applause.)

With that stuff published in every newspaper in Australia, what can honorable senators opposite think will be the opinion of the soldiers concerning them when they persist, as Senator Senior and others do, in saying that the soldiers were never offered cash?

Senator GARDINER:

– The soldiers now know the type of men who misrepresented our attitude. They know that the men who now say that they never promised the gratuity in cash are persons whose word cannot be trusted for five minutes. They will know that in this Parliament they have had the audacity, in the face of the printed statements in their own newspapers, and uncontradicted by the Prime Minister or the Minister for Defence, that the bonds were to be cashed wherever they could be cashed, to continue to deny that cash was offered.

– I thank the Senate. This is the first occasion on which I have accepted an extension, and I do so only because of the importance of the measure under consideration.

I find I have occupied a considerable amount of time over the argument as to whether the recent election was fought by the Labour party standing for the payment of the gratuity in cash, and the Nationalists for the payment in bonds, and I propose now to quote extracts to show that the Nationalist party and the Nationalist press from one end of Australia to the other declared that bonds would be paid and that they could be cashed immediately. The Sydney Daily Telegraph on 12th November, 1919, made the following statement in a telegram from its Adelaide correspondent : -

page 1194

BANKS TO PAY CASH FOB. BONDS

ADELAIDE, Monday.

Addressing a crowded meeting of returned soldiers called by him in the Adelaide Town Hall to-day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) announced that arrangements had been concluded with the banks to give cash for the gratuity bonds.

Mr. Hughes said: The Government have made arrangements with the banks whereby the soldiers who want cash for their bonds can go there and get it. (Thunderous applause.) The banks will hold these bonds exactly as they hold war loan scrip. They are the best security in the world, that is if you have faith in yourselves and the Commonwealth.

A Voice: When will these bonds be delivered?

Mr. Hughes: When Parliament meets.

In order to be perfectly fair to the Prime Minister I shall now quote an extract from the Sydney Evening News -

Questioned at Ballarat to-day concerning the war gratuity, Mr. Hughes said that he was not correctly reported at Adelaide in saying that he had made arrangements with the banks to cash war gratuity bonds. What he did say was that he would make arrangements with the banks, and not that he had.

The Sydney Sun, on the same date, published the following statement from the Prime Minister -

I did not say that I had made arrangements with the banks to cash the bonds. What I said was that I will make arrangements with the banks, and most certainly I will.

On the 7th November a returned soldier, Lieutenant Cortis, is reported by the Sydney Evening News to have made the following statement: -

Lieutenant Cortis this morning said with regard to his negotiations with Mr. Hughes and the gratuity question: “The Prime Minister gave us a lot of his valuable time yesterday, and took the trouble to secure the advice of leading bankers, who said they were prepared . to accept the bonds as collateral security against their client’s account in the purchase of houses, land, &c. This to my mind, makes the bond equal to an order for goods.”

The Gratuity Bonds

Banks Will Pay

Prime Minister’s Announcement

Bonds will be issued which will be reserved for repatriation purposes. The banks will also receive bonds as collateral security.

That was not enough, so the Daily Telegraph printed the following in bold black letters -

The Government have made arrangements with the Savings Bank and all the associated banks by which the soldier who wants to cash his bond through other than the Repatriation Department will be able to go to the banks and get cash for it.

The following statement appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20th November -

The Treasurer is proceeding with negotiations with the banks, and it is hoped that a still more liberal system of cashing bonds will be arranged in the course of the week.

I need not quote any further, seeing that I have produced statements in the leading newspapers’ of the Commonwealth to dispute the statement made by Senator Senior. The Melbourne newspapers stated, while the election campaign was in progress, that the gratuity would be paid in bonds that would be redeemable by the Government up to a certain amount in 1921, by the Repatriation Department, and by business firms; and I could quote a long list of business men in my own State who have given an undertaking to cash the bonds. If in the .face of these quotations Senator Senior, Senator Pearce, or the Prime Minister will persist in declaring that the issue at the recent election was cash or bonds, and that the election was won by the Nationalists on that issue, all I can say is that I despise their mental attitude. The Labour party made it quite clear that if returned to power it would pay the gratuity straight out in cash, and the Nationalist party said that they would pay in bonds, which would be as good as cash, because they would be redeemable immediately.

– One has only to meet the men to realize that- they believe that the nation has made a promise and should keep it.

Senator Pearce argues that the money in the banks is not an indication of the wealth of the country, and that the stocks of the warehouses will need to be replenished before we are financially sound. The Minister argues that good’s must be imported and paid for.

Senator Pearce:

– The banks hold the paper. -Senator GARDINER. - There is over £300,000,000 sterling in the hands of 15,000 people.

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– How much has the honorable senator?

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Gardiner:

– I will give you a challenge if you are game to accept it. Put my statement and’ yours side by side, and if you can find one judge, even on your own side, who will say that my statement is inaccurate, I will resign if you will do the same.

Senator SENIOR:

– The honorable senator would not ask me to gild refined gold, because it needs no gilding. He would not ask me to paint the lily, because the lily is already white enough. When I put side by side with’ what Senator Gardiner said to-night the statement of the Prime Minister, over his own signature, of what he did say, Senator Gardiner should be convinced that he is wrong, although I know the old saying that-

A man convinced against his will Is of the same opinion still.

Senator Gardiner:

– I challenge you to test my statement of what the Prime Minister said on the public platform, and your version of it, pick what judge you like.

Senator SENIOR:

– The honorable senator, for instance, says that on every platform so-and-so was said. To prove that that is a rash statement, he must have been present at every platform, or he cannot say what took place there. He, forsooth, sets himself up as the selfappointed judge of what is hasty and inaccurate, yet the first of his statements that I quote convicts him out of his own mouth of both hastiness and inaccuracy. He was not in South Australia, and cannot say what was said there. I believe he was not out of New South Wales, yet he asserts that “ on every platform” certain things were said. He brings no proof, and expects us to accept what he says as gospel truth.

I promised that I would read what was issued over the Prime Minister’s own signature for the advantage of speakers during the recent campaign. It is dated Melbourne, 18th November, 1919, and signed by W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister.

Senator Barnes:

– Put the whole of it on record.

Senator SENIOR:

– I shall do so-

page 1199

WAR GRATUITY

The Terms

Senator SENIOR:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator SENIOR:

– Some stayed in Australia. We might .continue to put forward cases of this kind ; but I say that the line must be drawn somewhere, and Senator Gardiner has .not ^proved that the limit set by the Bill is an unjust one. There are many emitted that I should like to see included ; but I recognise that, in agreeing to -this measure, I am not proposing -to part with -my -own money, but with the money of the taxpayers, of whose purse I am sent here to be the guardian. I am prepared to adhere to the limit of the Bill. There may in time be some revision of the measure when strong reasons may be given” for the inclusion of other persons; but we must deal with what is before ns, and to do more than is proposed in this measure would be to do an injury to ourselves as well .as to our soldiers.

If Senator Gardiner wall -compare the statement I have quoted, signed by Mr. Hughes as Prime Minister, with -the provisions of this .Bill, he -will see that this measure faithfully ‘Carries out to the letter the promises made by -the Prime Minister. I wish it a speedy passage through this Chamber, and I hope that when it becomes law it will be helpful to the soldiers. I .recognise that there are many purposes to which the gratuity bonds may be devoted. There are soldiers living in houses built for them under the War Service Homes Act, who may have been neglectful in meeting their obligations. Such men will be able to present their gratuity bonds to meet their instalments under that Act. The bonds will be as good as cash to them, and I ‘believe that in practice it will be found that this measure is more liberal than on the face of it it appears to be. I trust that its bitterest opponents will yet recognise that it is a useful measure, and one that stands to the credit of Australia.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I thought that it would not be necessary for me to follow my honorable colleague from South Australia (Senator Senior), who has done so well in replying to certain statements made in the Senate this afternoon. I was under no delusion, when this Bill was first introduced. I had no doubt that it would be fought in this Parliament as bitterly as were the elections, and I am not at all surprised, therefore, at the statements which have been made in discussing it in this Chamber and in another place. I am not surprised at the v’iciousness that has been exhibited in attacking members of the National party and in attempting to show that they fought the elections with the help of a bribe to the returned soldiers. That statement has “been made often, and doubtless will be made again. ‘ No matter what may be said here or in another place, the charge will continue to be levelled at members of the National party that the war gratuity was offered to the soldiers as a bribe for their votes. Senator Gardiner asked to-night why the gratuity was not paid prior to the last election, but he knows just as well as anybody else that it was not paid because Parliament was expiring by effluxion of time, and the Government felt that they had no right to deal with the taxpayers’ money without a fresh mandate from the people. Had the gratuity been paid before the last election., the charge now made by Senator Gardiner about the bribing of returned soldiers might have held good.

I am not going to wade through all the arguments brought forward by Senator Gardiner to-night, but I may remind him that, although he quoted newspaper extracts with all the conviction of a man who believed in them, he ought to be the last member of this Chamber to depend’ on newspaper extracts, for on other occasions he has told us that he does not believe what the newspapers say, and that all along they have been systematically unfair to him. Yet, when statements are made in the press concerning the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) the honorable senator repeats them here tonight with the object of ‘securing publicity in the press, if they care to publish them, and certainly through the pages of Hansard, thus making it appear that they are actual facts. But the Prime Minister does not need defence at my hands, nor is there occasion for me to defend the Government. I am going to justify my attitude, and that of those associated with me, in South Australia. Whilst an this subject I may add that, so .far as my recollection goes, on only one occasion during the whole of the election campaign - and, with the exception of Sunday nights, I addressed an audience somewhere every night - was the question of the gratuity referred to, and that was in the form of a question. I asked the questioner to stand up, so that I could have a look at him. He did so, and- then I asked him where his returned soldier’s badge was. He was not wearing one, so I took it that he was asking the question out of sheer curiosity, and not because of any prospective benefit to himself. In the- circumstances I refused to answer it. I did not refer ±o the gratuity all through the election campaign, but nearly all of the candidates opposed to the Nationalist party based their speeches practically upon this one question.

Senator Gardiner:

– But your soldiers in South Australia believed that the Prime Minister had arranged with the banks to pay cash.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The soldiers of South Australia are the same type of men as are those in New South Wales. They are Australians. The honorable senator himself professes to be an Australian, so I should have thought that of all men he would have been the last to make any comparison between the soldiers of any one State and another. For my part, I can only se© Australia. All the men who went away fought as1 Australians.

The honorable senator said something about the gratuity being a bribe to the soldiers, and quoted extracts from the Prim© Minister’s speeches in Adelaide. I want now to quote what Captain Dyett, the Federal president of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League, said upon this subject. Captain Dyett not only fought at the Front, but during the voluntary recruiting and conscription campaign worked strenuously to send help to the mates whom he had left over yonder. Like a good many others, he was misled by the reports that had appeared in the press concerning the Prime Minister’s statements in Adelaide. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister was interviewed in that city, and delivered an address to returned soldiers. To this Captain Dyett took exception, holding the view that the Prime Minister should not have gone behind the executive of the Returned Soldiers Association in regard to the payment of the gratuity. The Prime Minister, in his address to the soldiers, made some reference to an organization with which he had been connected as having* been hobbled by another organization, and remarked that he was not going to take it lying down if the returned soldiers were going to allow their organization to be hobbled by some one else; and Captain Dyett, in his reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, said -

To be consistent should he not have been adVised by the decision of the executive of the South Australian branch of the League, which refused to call the meeting concerned for the purpose of hearing the Prime Minister, because in doing so the League’s constitution would have been deliberately violated?

Concerning the Prime Minister’s references to the hobbling of the organization, Captain Dyett said -

The statement by Mr. Hughes naturally made the executive indignant, because right throughout the interviews we have maintained strict neutrality. The League is not hobbled, and, while I am president, shall not be hobbled, but shall pursue a definite course of neutrality.

Here, then, is a statement by the official mouth-piece of the Returned Soldiers Association, repudiating entirely the suggestion mad© by the Prime Minister that his organization was being hobbled. On the third point in the Prim© Minister’s statement, namely, the arrangements made by the banks for the negotiation of the bonds, Captain Dyett said -

The third point is that Mr. Hughes, when referring to the bonds being negotiated by the banks, said “I will,” and not “I have,” yet, according to an announcement made by Mr. Pearce in Western Australia, on Tuesday, Mr. Hughes despatched a telegram confirming the report that arrangements had been made with the banks for the cash redemption of the bonds.

The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) has explained that this statement was a misprint. He has told us that he sent a telegram to the Prime Minister, asking if certain statements mad© by him in Adelaide were correctly reported ; and the Prime Minister, not knowing what the Minister for Defence was referring to, replied that they were correct. Subsequently, however, when the matter was explained to the’ Prime Minister., he declared that the statements appearing in the press were wrong. The Minister for Defence repeatedly repudiated the statement, and Senator Gardiner is taking a very unusual course in declining to accept the denial.

Senator Gardiner:

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The whole statement was a mistake, due to a misprint, and Senator Pearce has told the Senate the circumstances under which the telegram was sent.

Senator Gardiner:

– But he does not contradict the accuracy of the report.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– No ; and the omission of any reference to what Senator Pearce had wired to the Prime Minister gives colour to the belief that the latter had made the statement, although Senator Pearce has since given the fullest publicity to the whole of the circumstances. Captain Dyett also said -

Now, while I regret the necessity for this explanation, I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without referring to the question of the gratuity bonds. At the previous interview to the one at which the suggestion was made regarding the issue of interest-bearing, nonnegotiable bonds, Mr. Hughes definitely stated that it was impossible to pay a cash gratuity.

I emphasize the fact that the question of the gratuity bonds was mentioned at a previous interview, presumably the first which the Prime Minister had with the executive of the League, and at which he declared it was impossible to pay the gratuity in cash. Captain Dyett on this point said -

Mr. Hughes definitely stated that it was impossible to pay a cash gratuity. He declared that the money was not in the country, and that we should have to deal with it on a paper basis. On the assurance given by Mr. Hughes, which was supported by information confidentially imparted, concerning the financial situation of the country, its obligations, and the impossibility of raising the money by loan, the soldiers’ executive had no alternative but to consider the question of paying the gratuity on a paper basis.

The suggestion ‘relative to the war bonds was made because it was considered that the interests of Australia would be protected on the one hand, and because it was thought that the majority of the soldiers, in view of the financial position of the country, would accept them.

– Why does the honorable senator say that the Labour organizations would not allow it?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

- Senator Gardiner claims that the organizations represent the Official Labour party, and” I say that neither Senator Gardiner nor Senator O’Loghlin represents the whole party. I know they went on the recruiting platform, and deserve every credit for the work they did. I have correspondence that came into my possession as chairman of .the Recruiting Committee in South Australia, showing that the Trades and Labour Council, as the representative of the Labour party in South Australia, refused absolutely and definitely to send a delegate to the Recruiting Committee to help with the work.. I have also statements of those who reported the Recruiting Committee for using recruiting platforms for political purposes,, notwithstanding that I had expressly forbidden their use for such purposes. A notice was conspicuously posted on all platforms that they were not to be used for political purposes. I have a statement covering three or four foolscap pages of matter prepared in the Trades Hall in Adelaide reporting me to the Director-General of Recruiting for having used these platforms for political purposes. These statements were deliberate falsehoods, because I never uttered a word concerning, politics, and I did not permit any recruiting officer to make statements a second time that had a political significance. These organizations did not act in this way with the idea of. helping recruiting, and it is futile for honorable senators opposite to tell me that they did, because, as chairman of a Recruiting Committee, I put in two and a half strenuous years in connexion with that important movement.

I have abundance of proof here and elsewhere to show that the Labour movement never made the slightest attempt to assist the returned soldier. I have every right to say that. The Labour organizations failed in their duty to the soldiers at a time when assistance was urgently needed.

Senator Gardiner:

– That cannot apply to organized labour. The honorable senator is not telling the truth.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator can apply it to whom he likes. He takes credit for/the large number of workers who went to the war; but they went, not with the advice of the executive of the organizations, but in spite of it. I do not apply the accusation to Senators Gardiner and O’Loghlin, because I know they did assist; but the Labour party as an organization was opposed to sending men to the Front, and it is futile to say that resolutions were not carried in theterms I have indicated.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is not true.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is true. I do not wish to place on record the letters I have in my possession; but it will require very little inducement to make me read the whole of them to show where the organizations in South Australia actually stood. The South Australian organizations were well in line with those in other parts of Australia. I regret exceedingly having to say these things, because I would like ‘the Bill to go through without recriminations. But when these charges are made, I am not going to allow the party to which I belong to be slandered without offering strong protest. In connexion with questions of this kind, it is usual for honorable senators to slander one another until their time has expired, and very often the Bill under discussion is quite, overlooked.

– I am glad tohear it. I think that the father or mother ought to be entitled to the gratuity, .’even if the young, woman gets: everything else.

– It is in the best interests of the soldiers themselves that they should become members either of existing organizations or of organizations which may be formed in the future. The honorable senator is not speaking in the best interests of the men themselves when he uses language which is calculated to create dissatisfaction with the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League.

Under this Bill, I note that a man who was injured in camp is entitled to an allowance of ls. per day.’ I know of one case in which a man who was in camp was injured in a bombing accident; as the result of which he lost the sight of both eyes and also sustained the loss of one hand. In such cases I think the full amount of the gratuity should be paid* In regard to other men who entered camp for a time and were discharged suffering from minor disabilities, I do not intend to move an amendment. But those who were permanently injured in camp are, I think, entitled to enjoy the full benefits conferred by this measure. I should like the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), in his reply, to deal with the question of the soldiers who are entitled to receive the gratuity in cash consequent upon their having married. . I have been asked by people in Queensland whether the measure means that those members of the Australian Imperial Force who have married since their return from the Front are to receive the gratuity in cash, or whether it refers only to those who may marry after the Bill becomes law. This is a burning question, and one I would like the Minister to answer. The scheme which has been adopted in South Australia in connexion with the soldiers’ co-operative movement is one which should be extended to other States. The sum of money, involved iD the .payment of the gratuity is so large that if it be kept intact a great deal of good may result to our soldiers. If through their own organizations they will form co-operative associations and establish- new industries whereever they can be established, instead of the money proving a drain upon the taxpayers of this country, it will prove a boon to them.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I do not think there is anybody in Australia who objects to granting our returned ‘soldiers the gratuity which the Government propose to give them under this Bill. There are, of course, differences -of opinion in regard to the scope of the measure, ‘and I know that great dissatisfaction exists amongst quite a large number of persons in Australia who are entitled to consider that they did all they possibly could towards winning the war. They offered their lives to the Government in an endeavour to achieve that objective, and it was no fault of theirs that the Government did not accept their offer. Many of these people consider that they are entitled to this gratuity, and I am inclined to agree with them.

The Labour organizations of this coun- try have been criticised for their attitude towards the conduct of the war, and in this connexion I desire to recallone or two matters which appear to have an important bearing upon that question. If there be any bodies in . Australia who are entitled to claim that they stood wholeheartedly for the . gratuity proposed to be paid to our soldiers, it is our trade union . organizations. In 1916, when a conference was held in Melbourne to devise machinery for the purpose of opposing conscription, two resolutions were carried. Quoting from the official record of the conference, the first resolution reads -

That this congress is firm in . the belief that the system of voluntary military servicehas been successful, and if supported by the financial resources of the nation it will be most effective, while it will leave no machinery, as would conscription, to be used after the war to crush the aspirations of the workers.

The conference which carried that resolution was representative of 280,000 members of organized labour. The second resolution demanded -

An increase of pay to the private of 10s. per day, with a corresponding increase of separation allowances to apply to all dependants.

We are thus entitled to claim that we supported the payment of this gratuity wholeheartedly.

– Before we were being pushed back the enemy offered us terms and we would not accept them, though we accepted, after all, terms that were no better than those that were offered. Two .years before the fight was finished, terms were offered to the Allies, and they were rejected twice. We knew that, and we said that it was time that some one spoke out, and that Labour would do so .if no one else did. We said that there should be no more recruiting, so far as organized labour was concerned, until our people were prepared to state the terms on which they would be willing to finish the fight. Yet now we have honorable senators putting forward statements of this hind in the endeavour wilfully to try to mislead the people of the country and themselves as to the meaning of the Perth resolutions.

I say that Labour has nothing to thank the Government for. They have not to thank them even for this .gratuity. It was put forward, in the first place, by the ‘gentlemen, who engineered the Peace terms as an election bribe in other countries, and the Government were not slow to adopt the same measure for Australia.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator’s party offered to .go one better, and pay the gratuity in cash, and then they did not win.

Senator BARNES:

– I tell the1 honorable senator that we were justified in offering to pay the gratuity in cash. The organizations of Labour in Australia desired that the soldiers should be paid 10s. per day. , And if the Government were proposing to give the returned soldiers, not ls. 6d. per day, but 4s. 2d. per day, as is being given in the United States of America, they would be coming nearer to what the Labour party desired. I .am of opinion that the cash payment of the gratuity could be arranged. While we are going through ,-great financial stress in this country, I -say, as other honorable senators have said, that had the war continued for some time longer, and our men been abroad, we would have had to feed and clothe them, and supply them with munitions of all kinds. This country would have done so if the war had lasted for another year, and the cost to Australia would have been four or five times as much as the gratuity will cost us now.

Senator Foll:

– But that money is now being spent on repatriation.

Senator BARNES:

– I am aware of that, but that is altogether outside the gratuity. The repatriation scheme is one thing and the gratuity is another. I say that £2S,000,000 in cash, if that is the sum required to pay the gratuity to the soldiers, could be raised by this country if the Government were in earnest in the matter. That could have been done, too, without any disturbance of the industrial affairs of the country.

I remember that during the election some gentleman asked me how I proposed to pay the gratuity. I have forgotten the exact figures now, but I told him that there were so many hundreds of millions of pounds more in the banks to-day to the credit of some persons than there was before the war. I asked what was wrong with taking that money from the profiteers, who were evidently the only persons who were accumulating money, and depositing it in the banks- I asked what was wrong with taking £2S,000,000 of that money from those people who had robbed the soldiers’ wives and children while our men were fighting abroad, and giving it as a gratuity to the soldiers in cash. The other fellows could have been given bonds. That would not have disturbed the industrial affairs of the country. The only difference would have been that while the money would still be in the banks, it would be to the credit of the soldiers. If they spent it, the men with whom they spent it would put it in the banks. Whatever was spent by the soldiers would have found its way back to the banks, to carry on the industries of the country. The only difference, as I say, would have been that the money would be in the banks to the credit of the soldiers instead of to the credit of the profiteers. But the Government would not take that on, because the profiteers were paying their election expenses. They were very gentle with them, and stroked their hair, although the Prime Minister, when he came back to Australia, talked of shooting them.

Senator Foll:

– It seems to have paid the honorable senator to advocate a “ No” vote at the referendum.

Senator BARNES:

– The honorable senator is wrong, because I advocated a “ Yes “ vote.

Senator Foll:

– The honorable senator’s party did not do so.

Senator BARNES:

– Most of the members of my party did so. Whatever was done in the State from which Senator Foll comes, I know that in this State we advocated a “ Yes “ vote, and carried it. I say that the soldiers, after all, belong to the class of people who are mostly to be found in the ranks of organized labour.

Senator Bolton:

– I do not admit that.

Senator BARNES:

– I am not concerned about whether the honorable senator admits it or not. I state what, so far as I know, is a fact. Whatever we can do in the way of giving the soldiers a gratuity will be a means of settling them, and will enable them to. continue to be an asset in the country as they have always been, for future wealth production and the propagation of the race. I do not know that any one objects to that. I shall endeavour, when the Bill is going through Committee, to have certain clauses of it amended, so as to extend its operation in the direction I have indicated to include some people who think, and I agree with them, that they have a just claim to be included amongst those who will be benefited by its operation.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

.- I shall occupy but a very few minutes in reply to the debate. I do not propose to follow the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner) through his long oration, because I think it has been well disposed of by Senators Senior and Newland. I took the opportunity during the dinnerhour to place the statement which Senator Gardiner made with regard to the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) before him. I told him that Senator Gardiner, speaking in the Senate on the War Gratuity Bill, said that the Prime Minister at the conference with the executive of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League, in regard to the gratuity, made the grant of the gratuity conditionalupon the returned soldiers supporting the Government at the election, and that he had said, “ This is not to bo a one-sided bargain.” I am authorised by the Prime Minister to give that statement a flat denial, and to say that it is absolutely incorrect, and contrary to fact. I shall leave the people of this country to judge between the Prime Minister and Senator Gardiner in this matter, and I have . no doubt at all as to what their judgment will be.

Senator Foll raised the question of the gratuity being paid in cash to those who marry. That applies to those married after discharge from the Forces. As regards men injured in camp, I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that they are entitled to a war pension. This is not a Pensions Bill or a measure to provide payment for injuries received. The men to whom the honorable senator referred receive consideration under the War Pensions Act. In addition, if they enlisted in Australia, and did not leave the Commonwealth, they will bo paid at the rate of1s. per day. The other points raised in connexion with the measure can be best considered in Committee, and I therefore do not propose to detain the Senate further at this juncture.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 April 1920, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1920/19200415_senate_8_91/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 April 1920

PAPER

QUESTION

COMPENSATION ON DEATH OF SOLDIERS

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC WORKS

Senator BAKHAP:TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

TASMANIAN MAIL CONTRACT

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

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

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE CANTEENS FUND BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator Foll:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Rowell:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Bolton:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Bolton:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GRANT:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator de Largie:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Henderson:

Senator Reid:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Foll:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Bolton:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Rowell:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Shannon:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator O’Loghlin:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

WAR GRATUITY BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator Bakhap:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’LOGHLIN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Foll:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Bakhap:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Reid:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Foll:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Reid:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senate
15 April 1920

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
TASMANIA

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

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

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator BAKHAP:
Tasmania

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GUTHRIE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917