Senate
24 August 1922

8th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 1635

QUESTION

MEAT

Sale in London.

Senator GARLING:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement said to have been made yesterday by Mr. A. K. Trethowan, M.L.C., at a meeting in Sydney,” That the blame for the unsaleability of Australian meat in England is attributable to the Australian Government authorities’ in England”? If so, whether he will say what foundation there is for this charge as regards the Commonwealth Government? If there is no truth in the charge, will the Minister take steps to have this made known? If there is truth in the charge, will the Minister take steps to remedy the situation?

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

– I have not seen the paragraph to which the honorable senator refers, and I can suggest only that the foundation for the statement rests entirely in the imagination of the man who made it.

page 1635

QUESTION

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Seeing how important a knowledge of the AuditorGeneral’s report is to a satisfactory and thorough discussion of the Budgetpapers, I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer when that report is likely to he in the hands of honorable senators?

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

– I cannot now answer that question, but if the honorable senator will give me an opportunity to ascertain from the AuditorGeneral when he will be in a position to furnish the report I shall do so.

page 1635

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

War Service Homes Act - Land acquired at Waratah, New South Wales.

page 1635

PRICE OF VICTORIAN NEWSPAPERS

Senator LYNCH:

– Seeing that we are living in an age when a pretended effort is made to stop every kind of grab, and that the supply of newspapers in this part of the Commonwealth is sold to the housewives of Victoria at 100 per cent. above pre-war prices, and 100 per cent. more than is charged for newspapers be the housewives of New South Wales, and seeing, further, that on the basis of the circulation claimed by one of these journals, namely, 500,000, and cutting that down by one-fifth, it is clear that the newspapers in the State of Victoria are extracting from the housewives of the State about £390,000 per annum-

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– The honorable senator is going beyond the limits of a question.

Senator LYNCH:

– I realize that, butI wish to ask whether, in view of these facts, the Leader of the Senate, as representing the Government charged with the duty of seeing that the country is well and wisely governed, will take into consideration the imperative need of subsidizing the introduction of New South Wales newspapers into this State, sothat thepeople of Victoria may have an ample supply of cheap and reliable news, and may not be called upon to pay for their newspapers 100 per cent. more than prewar prices.

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

– I think I need not answer the honorable senator’s comments upon the newspapers of this city.

Senator Lynch:

– I am quite serious,

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

– So am I. I thinkI need not answer the honorable senator’s comments further than to say that those newspapers are like the peace of the Lord, that “passeth all understanding.”. As to the honorable Senator’s suggestion to subsidize the press, I am, personally, entirely opposed to that. I have seen very little in the. action of the press to justify a subsidy.

page 1636

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH WOOLLEN MILLS

Proposed Sale

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does not the authority of the Senate, sought and obtained for the creation of an instrumentality like the Commonwealth Woollen Mills, involve the right of the Senate to say what shall become of those mills without ‘the Government appropriating to itself the sole right of’ doing so?
  2. How do the Government propose to supply the growing needs of the several Departments under ite control when those mills are sold.?’
  3. Will the Prime Minister reconcile the proposed sale of those mills with his oft-repeated declarations that he “ is a Socialist,” that be “believes in Socialism,” that “not a brick in the temple of Labour is to be displaced,” and so on?
  4. Does the Prime Minister remember that this particular brick has saved the taxpayers of the Commonwealth hundreds of thousands of pounds, according to Ministerial statements, and was moulded by the first Fisher labour Ministry?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The answers are -

  1. I gather fromthe honorable senator’s question that be is asking for an opinion on a point of constitutional law, and I regret that I am unable to advise him.
  2. By utilizing the resources of the woollen mills of the country. 3 and 4. In view of the fact that there was not sufficient work to justify the expenditure involved in overhead charges, &c., there was no option on the ground of economy but to close the ‘mills.

page 1636

BUDGET, 1922-23

Order of the Day read for the resumption of the debate on the motion by Senator E, D. Millen -

That the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1923, and the Budget-papers 1922-23, laid on the table of the Senate on the 18th August, 1022, be printed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Senior) adjourned.

page 1636

NEW GUINEA BILL

Second Reading

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This isa very short and simple measure, with which I anticipate the speedy concurrence of the Senate. Under the existing law there is a provision requiring that Ordinances issued on the authority of the Government in respect of New Guinea shall be “notified” in the Commonwealth Gazette. The legal interpretation of that provision has been taken to involve the actual printing and publishing of the Ordinances in the Gazette. That has been, and is, deemed an unnecessary expense. This Bill is intended to provide that a notification in the Gazette of any specified Ordinance as setting out where copies of the Ordinance can “be obtained shall be a sufficient compliance with the law. If the Bill is passed, instead of being under the expense pf publishing the whole of these Ordinances in theGazette - and many of them are very lengthy - a mere notification that an Ordinance has been made, and an indication of the places at which it can be purchased, will be regarded as sufficient.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Ordinances).

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– Inhis second-reading speech, the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) pointed out that previously the Ordinances had been printed in full in the Gazette. It seems contradictory that subclause 2 should state that the section shall be deemed to have come into operation at the commencement of the principal Act, . which was passed in 1920. What purpose is to be served by dating the Bill back two years?

SenatorE. D. MILLEN (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) [3.11]. - I am unable to discover any good reason why the words in sub-clause 2 should remain. All the previous notifications have already appeared, and therefore there seems to be no possible economy in saying that a simpler course might have been adopted. If the Committee desire it, I am quite content to have the words struck out.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– It would be establishing a bad precedent to strike the words out.” They are always used where an Act is made retrospective. Their inclusion does not interfere with the principle of the Bill in any way, and they are simply put in as an ordinary safeguard. They are there for reasons that have endured practically for centuries.

Senator HOWELL (South Australia) [3.131. - I noticed in a telegram from the Northern Territory, relating to a case brought before the Court there some time ago, that the local Judge mentioned that a certain Ordinance had never previously come under his notice. Surely such an official as a Judge should be kept in touch with these matters.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I understand that these documents are distributed, in the case of New Guinea, to which this Bill applies, to all the principal officials. They are also on sale, and there is a Gazette notice officially announcing the issue of Ordinances, copies of which are subsequently sent to the officials. It is possible that such an oversight as Senator Rowell has referred to occasionally occurs, but I am unable to say whose fault it would be.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– There is a possibility that subclause 2 will conflict with the principal Act itself. To say that the clause “ shall be deemed to have come into operation “ two years before may be a legal phrase, but it is not an actual fact, and the fact must necessarily predominate over the phrase.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– The same phraseology as that to which the honorable senator has taken exception is contained in the Lands Acquisition Act. In the majority of cases where amendments are found to be necessary it is because of something that has arisen between the time of the passing of the original measure and the time when the necessity; to amend it becomes apparent. It would be absurd to omit the words, because they are quite necessary to avoid possible trouble which might arise in the future out of some omission in the past. .

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1637

TRADE MARKS BILL

Secondreading.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a very simple measure. Section 9a of the Trade Marks Act 1905-12 extended the provisions of the Act to Papua. It has now been found necessary to extend them to other Territories, such as Norfolk Island and the Mandated Territories of New Guinea.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2-

  1. For the purposes of this section -

    1. any reference in this Act to a State

Trade Marks Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any Act or law of that Territory relating to the registration of trade marks.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I desire to ask the Minister whether there are any State Trade Marks Acts with which this one may conflict? I would like to know from the Minister what the paragraph is intended to cover.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– The clause simply repeats what is already in the principal Act; hut in the principal Act tie section applies only to the Territory of Papua. Paragraph b is a repetition of paragraph b of section 9a of the principal Act. The need for it arises because there were certain trade marks given under State law, and the object is to include them. The clause will cover the Mandated Territories in the same way as the original Act covers Papua.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I would like the Minister to inform the Senate whether this proposed extension of the Trade Marks Act to the Mandated Territories is in substantial’ keeping with the terms of the Mandate. There are certain reservations, if I remember rightly, in the terms of the Mandate, which had reference to the nations which signed the Treaty; but as the United States of America was not one of them, and as it has been shown by the Washington Conference that that country desires to take a very strong hand in the trade and commerce of the Mandated Territories, I want to know whether the extension of the Act to those Territories is in keeping with the spirit of the terms of the Mandate. I should also like to know where such countries as the United States of America would stand in relation to the operation of this law.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– As the island of Nauru is jointly managed by Great Britain, New Zealand, and the Commonwealth, would the Acts of these other countries also be operative in that Territory? In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Acts of the different countries, what would be the position?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western. Australia · NAT

– Regarding the point raised by Senator Lynch, there is no doubt of the extent of ourpowers under the Mandate, while it lasts. These powers have the backing, first, of the Treaty of Peace, and, secondly, of the League of Nations. It is true that the United States of America has made a reservation; but that applies only to that nation. She has reserved the right to negotiate with Great Britain as regards the Mandated Territories; ibut that does not affect our powers, which are clearly set out in the Peace Treaty. ‘The Mandate has been given to us in accordance with theterms of the Treaty. The United States of America has announced, however, that she reserves any rights she has as one of the associated Powers in regard to the Mandate.

In reply to Senator de Largie, I would point out that sub-clause 1 says -

This Act shall extend to such other Territories under the authority of the. Commonwealth (including any Territory held under a Mandate) as the Governor-General, by Proclamation, declares.

I understand that whilst Nauru is jointly held in. regard to the exploitation of phosphates, the administration at present is under the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Administrator is appointed by the Commonwealth Government. The three nations are in the position of a company working thephosphates. While the Commonwealth appoints the Administrator, it can, by proclamation, bring Nauru under this law; but it does not follow that, because we take that power, it will be exercised. I cannot conceive that there will be any need for a trade marks law in Nauru ; but if it should be so the Act can be extended to that Territory.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1638

JURY EXEMPTION BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is disclosed in the second clause, which proposes to exempt from service on juries persons who are employees of theCommonwealth Railways Commissioner under the Commonwealth Railways Act. I believe that a similar practice exists under the State laws, and one can readily understand that there is a good reason why we should have power to exempt from service on juries certain railway employees, the selection of whom might throw the whole railway system out of gear.

Senator Rowell:

– Are State railway employees exempted ?

Senator PEARCE:

– They are under the State law.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- While this Bill, no doubt, conforms to the existing practice to some extent, it has occurred to me that in a railway town like Port Augusta, for instance, where the great bulk of the citizens are railway employees, if they were exempted fromservice on juries, quite a considerable portion of the population would be shut off from any participation in one of the chief duties of citizenship, which would be a serious matter.

Senator Pearce:

– The State law exempts railway employees.

Senator LYNCH:

– That would apply to the larger centres of population, but I am speaking of the position that might arise in what may be regarded as purely railway towns, and unless the situation can be safeguarded in some way by allowing railway employees exemption only in the event; say, of serious inconvenience being threatened to the working of uhe railway service, I see no special merit in this Bill. If a railway man is told off for duty to take a train out or to look after his business and keep the service running, that ought to be ample excuse for exemption under the Jury Act as it stands. But to exempt, by one clause in this Bill, the whole of the Commonwealth railway employees, seems to me to make possible an anomalous condition of affairs, because in certain towns a very large section of the population would be prevented from serving, and thus discharging one of the duties of citizenship..

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- I should like to know from the Minister (Senator Pearce) whether the Jury Act does not contain provision for the exemption of officials, such as railway employees, wihose attendanceon a jury might result in the disorganization of the railway system at any particular point. Would not the situation be met if the Bill were made to apply to the running staff, or to those officials whose attendance on a jury might result in serious inconvenience to an important public department? In any case, every man who is asked to serve on a jury does so at some personal inconvenience either to himself or to his firm. To exempt, by one stroke of the pen, the whole of the railway employees from service upon a jury is rather a serious matter, and I feel dubious about supporting the Bill unless I have some assurance from the Minister that this course is essential. If difficulties have been experienced, I should think that some remedy less drastic than that outlined in the Bill could be suggested. I understand that the Jury Act makes provision for exemption in some cases where it can be shown that serious inconvenience will result from the attendance of a person summoned to act as a juror.

Senator Pearce:

– No.

SenatorFOLL. - Then, I believe, this provision is contained in some of the State Acts.

Senator Rowell:

– A person summoned to act as a juror, if he wishes to be excused, must appear before uhe Court and be granted an exemption. That would be no good in the case of a railway employee.

Senator FOLL:

– If the Minister is prepared to amend the Bill so as to include only the running staff, the objection put forward by Senator Lynch will be met.

Senator PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– What about the signalmen and the maintenance staff?

SenatorFOLL. - They are connected with the running staff. Why should it be necessary to exempt, say, a railway clerk employed in the Melbourne office? Surely his attendance on a jury would not cause more inconvenience than that of a man taken from a big firm like Dalgety’s, or the Home and Territories or the War Service Homes Departments.

Senator Rowell:

– If all the State Acts contain this provision, why shoulc it not be included in the Commonwealtl law?

Senator FOLL:

– The mere fact that the State law exempts railway employees is no reason why the provision should be included in the Commonwealth law.

Senator Earle:

– If we exempted all the men in the running staff of the railway service, how many would be left?

Senator FOLL:

– If the Minister knew anything about the railway service, he would realize that a very considerable number of men are employed in other branches, and they could be liable for service on juries. I would like an assurance from the Minister on the point that has been raised.

Senator GARLING:
New South Wales

– I may be displaying my ignorance, but I have to confess that I was not aware that the New South Wales Jury Act exempted railway employees from service, but if there is any such exemption I can only say from long experience of the work of summoning juries that there is absolutely no occasion for such exemption, because I have never known of any man with a genuine excuse being mulct in a fine or subjected to any inconvenience for not attending. At most jury sittings applications are received beforehand from jurors who have been summoned, asking to be excused. There is no occasion at all for a man to attend in order to be granted an exemption from service, if his excuse is reasonable, and in the case of a railway employee his excuse would be so reasonable in many circumstances that no Judge would dream of refusing to accept it, especially if the man belonged to the running staff. There appears to be no urgency for the exemption of this class of employees. I speak from practice. The acceptance of the Bill will withdraw an eminently respectable body of men from duty as jurymen in trials, and unless the Minister can give a very much more definite reason why the Bill should be passed, I shall not vote for it.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– It seems to me that the only reason for objecting to the measure is that advanced by Senator Lynch. In certain centres the course of justice might, possibly, suffer through the exemption of a large section of the population, as in the case of a railway town, from service on juries. I have in mind one particular town through which I pass frequently. If all the railway employees were exempted, it would be almost impossible to empanel a jury there. Owing to the fact that the trains have to climb to a very high altitude at that point, the little township at the foot of the range is composed largely of railway employees who have various duties to perform in working trains over the range.

Senator Foll:

– There are also such places as Ipswich.

Senator MacDONALD:

– Yes. There are important railway work-shops there, as there are at Newport, in Victoria.

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

– But Courts requiring juries would not sit at little townships such as that to which the honorable senator has referred.

Senator MacDONALD:

– No. But’ there are other places at which inconvenience might be caused. For instance, at Port Augusta, an important railway centre, mentioned this afternoon by Senator Lynch, a jury might be required. Apart from the points submitted, I can see a great advantage from a safety point of view in exempting railway employees from’ serving on juries. It is quite conceivable thatwhen a man is called in to do another person’s job, with which he may not be fully conversant, certain elements of danger would be present, owing to the work not being satisfactorily performed. If drivers, guards, stationmasters, and signalmen were taken from their duties the Department might be seriously inconvenienced, and although the introduction of this measure may be somewhat belated, there is no reason why it should not have our support.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- The Jury Exemption Act of 1905, to which I invite the attention of Senator Foll, exempts certain specific persons. It does not give a general exemption; tout amongst those who areexempted are the officers of the Public Service of the Commonwealth, so that we have recognised in our legislation that officers of that Service shall be exempt.

Senator Lynch:

– Cannot a Judge grant an exemption?

Senator PEARCE:

– If a person appeared at the Court and gave a reasonable excuse he would not be called upon to serve. If the officers of the Commonwealth Public Service are exempt, surely there can beno reason why the officers of the Commonwealth Railway Department should not also be exempt. This matter has not been brought forward in a haphazard manner and submitted to Parliament, simply because a draftsman may have said, “ Here is an opportunity to draft a Bill.” The Commonweal th Railways Commissioner has represented that such exemption is necessary, as at Port Augusta, for instance, officers have been called up for service to the inconvenience, and possibly to the danger, of the Department and the travelling public. The officers of both Government and privaterailways in Western Australia are exempt from serving on juries. In South Australia, certain classes are exempt; but if we were to exempt those mentioned by Senator Poll there would be a very small number left.

Senator Lynch:

– There are four or five hundred employed at Port Augusta.

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes, but if we exempted stationmasters, guards, enginedrivers, firemen, and signalmen there would not be many who could be called upon to serve. It must be remembered that those engaged in the work-shops, such as electricians and mechanics, are also performing essential duties, and I do not think it would be wise to limit the provisions of this Bill to the running staff. I have not had an opportunity of perusing the New South Wales law, and as there is really a need for this measure I ask the Senate to agree to its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment; report adopted.

page 1641

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a measure of three clauses, the first of which is purely formal. Clause 2 adds a new section to the principal Act of 1901-1912, which is, in effect, an amendment of paragraph 6 of sub-section 3 of section 18 of that Act, which reads - Such justices of the peace may -

  1. admit the person to bail, on such recognisances as he thinks fit, conditioned to appear at an appointed place in the State or part of the Commonwealth in which the warrant was issued, and answer the charge or complaint to be dealt with according to law.

Supposing the conditions of the recognisance upon which a person is admitted to bail are not complied with, what is to happen? The principal Act provided for no sanction or penalty to cover this omission; but the Bill provides that, failing compliance with the conditions of the recognisance, the justice of the peace may declare the recognisance forfeited, and the payment of any sum due shall thereunder be recoverable as a fine. The Department of the Attorney-General in Sydney has had several cases where it has been unable in cases of default to recover recognisance under the Act, particulars of which I shall be pleased to submit to any honorable senator. Clause 3 of the Bill follows very much on the lines of similar Bills we have been dealing with, and provides for the application of the principal Act, as amended by this Bill, to New Guinea and the Mandated Territories. The non-application of the Act to the Mandated Territories is causing inconvenience. I do not know if any honorable senators desire to give the measure closer consideration; but if they should, I have no objection to agreeing to an adjournment of the debate. On the other hand, if they are satisfied with its provisions I am quite prepared to go on.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Under clause 3 the principal Act will be applied to the Mandated Territories?

Senator PEARCE:

– Yes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Forfeiture of Recognisances).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Perhaps it is like rushing in where angels fear to tread for me to question this clause, but I find that itproposes to vest in a justice of the peace the extreme power of forfeiture of recognisances. Whether this is right or not I do not know, but so far as some justices of the peace are concerned, I think it may be admitted that it would be as well to vest this power in at least two of them. If a serious step is to be taken it is better that it should be with the approval of two rather than of one, in view of the old saying that two heads are better than one.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 1642

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 6th September, 1922.

I submit the motion in these circumstances : As honorable senators are aware, the Government business first on the notice-paper to-day was the resumption of the debate on the motion for the printing of the Budget-papers. But when it was called on. honorable senators apparently were not desirous of continuing the debate to-day. I submit my motion on the assumption that they will not be desirous of continuing it to-morrow. If they do wish to continue that debate tomorrow, when it would be the only business which the Government have ready for consideration, I am prepared, with the sanction of the Senate, to withdraw my motion. If, however, honorable senators require a. little longer time to consider the Budget-papers before discussing them, there is no reason why the Senate should not adjourn until Wednesday week. If honorable senators are not ready to continue the discussion of the Budget-papers it would be useless for us to meet here to-morrow.

Senator Lynch:

– When will the Government want Supply?

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

– It will be required on the 14th of next month.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am always ready for a spell, I candidly admit, because I want one. According to some authorities in this city we should never get a spell. If we happened to be members of a Legislative Council we might take a spell and there would be no talk about it, but being members of the Senate there will be something said, as usual, if this motion is agreed to. The Minister has proposed an adjournment for a week, because there is no business before us. We have passed some leaflet legislation which, no doubt, has been very necessary; but the Government, in my opinion, should have seized the opportunity to use this Chamber as one in which a number of the measures referred to in the Governor-General’s Speech might be initiated. If those measures had been in such a state of preparation as to be placed before the Senate in sequence, we should not be brought to a stand-still.

It is the duty of the Government to have ready for our consideration measures which might be originated and carried through in the Senate. So far for the position of the Government, but how do honorable Senators stand ? . Those of us who come from distant States, if given a week’s holiday, cannot get to their homes, as representatives of Victoria may do, who can jump on a train and reach their destination the same evening. The Commonwealth covers a vast area, and is by no means confined to Victoria. Some people consider that that is a good job, too. This will not save us from the criticism of those organs that pose as our guides, philosophers, censors, and friends, and would tell us what to think, what to say and do. We shall be told by these good people that we are doing wrong in adjourning, but I say that the Minister is doing wrong in not giving representatives of distant States a chance to go to their homes, gust as the editors of these journals can go to their homes every night. Their troubles about public duty! What is my position ? When I leave here Iroll my bones over the stones” for five days before I can reach my home. That is a part of my duty as a legislator in this country, butwhat sympathy do I get from those editors? When my time comes it will be said of me, as it has been said of many another public man, “ He was a good fellow, but a fool to himself.” Thatis the average verdict on public men in this country, from Sir Henry Parkes downwards. If we adjourn for only a week it will take me the whole of that week to get to my home. Coming from the West, I suppose I should not have a home or a business. No one knows anything about the dividends returned by the newspapers, because they are so large that the proprietors are ashamed to tell the public what they really are, but it would be an easy matter to tell the public what my dividends are, and easier still to tell them my losses. I wish that some of these editors would takeon my farm and do some useful work for the first time in their lives. That is the way to talk to them. They are not used to being talked to in that fashion, but it should do them a world of good. The Government could well afford to give us a fortnight’s leave, so that some of us may get home and, playing “ tig “ on the wife and family, say, “ I saw you,” and then come back again. Our little grey homes are in the West, but according to the critics of this Parliament we should not have any homes or businesses at all. That is virtually what they say. If there is any humanity in the make-up of Ministers, and they have any compassion for honorable senators coming from distant States, who are not continuously employed here, as Ministers or as public Commissioners are, they might give them an opportunity to reach their homes, and they can only do so by an extended adjournment. The Leader of the Senate has said that Supply will not be required until the 14th of next month. He asks that the Senate should . adjourn until the 6th. If we add seven days to that we can assemble here again on the day preceding, that on. which Supply willbe necessary. We have complained in the past that we have been given only one day in which to consider a Supply Bill, and what I suggest would not alter our practice in that regard. I suggest that the Government might give some consideration to poor wayfarers, who happen to have homes in distant States, and propose an adjournment for a fortnight, that we may go back to what, after all, are the onlyplaces in this country, or in the world, that have any peculiar attraction for us, namely, our homes. I ask the Minister to reconsider his motion and propose the adjournment of the Senate for a fortnight, in view of the fact that such an adjournment would still give us the usual time for the consideration of Supply.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

. -With every desire to meet the convenience of Senator Lynch and other honorable senators, I am not in a position to fall in with his suggestion. So far as I can learn, there is every possibility of the Bill providing for compensation to military officers whose services have been dispensed with under the new Defence proposals being dealt with finally in another place next week. I assume that the gentlemen who have left the Defence Department are anxious to get their money. Most people I know who have any money coming to them are rather anxious to get hold of it. I submit that we should not be doingour duty, and that it would not look well in the eyes of the country, if we were on holiday whilst these men outside were waiting for their money. I ask Senator Lynch not to press his suggestion for an adjournment for a longer period than that mentioned in my motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.3. p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 August 1922, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1922/19220824_senate_8_100/>.