Senate
31 August 1925

9th Parliament · 3rd Session



page 2028

QUESTION

FIRST DEBATE ON 31 AUGUST 1925

In committee:

Clause 3 (Oath to be taken by Peace Officers).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– By meeting on Monday morning, the Senate is do’-ng what it should always do, and now that we have ample time, the Minister (Senator Pearce) and his supporters will, I hope, allow the committee to discuss the bill in a reasonable manner. It will, I think, be admitted that on Saturday honorable senators on this side did not display ‘any desire to unnecessarily delay the passage of the bill. This clause, in common with others already passed, bears the stamp of hasty drafting. For instance, the number of peace officers to be appointed has not been limited, neither is the maximum amount of expenditure mentioned. It is contrary to constitutional procedure to vote unlimited sums of money to any government. This is an appropriation bill.

Senator Pearce:

– Money is not being appropriated under this clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– No, but it oan be appropriated under clause 2, which has -already been passed by the committee. I have no desire to delay or aggravate the Minister, but he will surely admit that a provision which enables the Government to appropriate an unlimited sum of money is unconstitutional. As the Government has acted similarly before, this proposal is not contrary to precedent, but in any such measures as this we cannot be too careful about fixing the maximum amount to be voted. I wish to give notice that I intend to move -

That not more than 100,000 peace officers shall bc appointed under this act without the consent of Parliament.

That limits the number to be appointed, and will to some extent limit the amount to be appropriated under clause 2. I do not think honorable senators opposite can say that I am endeavouring to hamper the Government by limiting the number of peace officers to 100,000. Another amendment I intend to move will provide that-

No more than ?25,000,000 shall be expended in any one year on the salaries, maintenance, and upkeep of peace officers.

In these two suggested amendments I have allowed a fairly wide margin, and, therefore, cannot be charged with hampering the Government, or interfering in any way with the administration of this measure when it becomes an act.

Senator LYNcH:

– “Would the honorable senator support the Government in spending that amount?

Senator GARDINER:

– I should not.

Senator Lynch:

– Then why submit such a proposal?

Senator GARDINER:

– Because the honorable senator and his supporters have given the Government power to appropriate an unlimited amount. Under the suggested amendment I have quoted, the expenditure will be limited. It seems that the Rt. Hon. Stanley Melbourne Bruce, the Rt. Hon. George Foster Pearce, and Dr. Earle Page are becoming Australian Mussolinis, and are creating an army of men for their own ulteriormotives. No other construction can be placed upon their actions. We should be supplied with some information as to how this money is to be expended. The suggested amendment fixes a maximum, which the Government has not provided. I have asked for information as to the direction in which the money is to be expended on the appointment of peace officers, and, in a smart and effective way, the Minister replies by moving “ That the committee do now divide.” That is the only intelligent reply that we have received to any questions asked during the discussion of this bill. ‘ I also intend to move -

That the names of the peace officers to be appointed under this act shall be published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette, showing their rank, and the amount of remuneration they shall receive for their services-

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator should indicate where he wishes his suggested, amendments to be incorporated in the bill, and, having done so, should submit, one at a time.

Senator GARDINER:

– That is my intention, and, having appropriated an unlimited sum of money, I think you will agree that all the suggested amendments have a direct bearing on the clause. The suggested amendments could be taken as new sub-clauses; but I am not permitted to submit them in that form. They can be taken as a new clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - As the committee is now dealing with clause 3, I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to that clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– Before proceeding further, I should like your ruling, Mr. Chairman, as to whether I shall be in order in moving the amendments I have mentioned to clause 3 ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will not be in order.

Senator GARDINER:

– One of the suggested amendments provides that the names of the peace officers to be appointed under this act shall be published in theCommonwealth Government Gazette, showing their rank and the amount of remuneration they are to receive for their services. If Parliament is sitting, a list of the namesof such officers appointed, showing their rank and the amount of remuneration they are to receive, shall be laid on the table of the Senate and the House of Representatives. No peace officer under this act should be permitted to carry arms. That is a fairly comprehensive amendment. I have submitted my suggested amendments in the order in which I intend to move them.

Senator Payne:

– I rise to order. I desire to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the honorable senator is in order in submitting the amendments he has quoted at this juncture? It appears to me that they should be in the form of a new clause, and should be moved after the bill has been recommitted for that purpose.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator could move a new clause after clause 3 has been disposed of.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in moving the amendments he has read on this clause. If he desires to submit them in the form of a new clause, he must do so when the committee has disposed of clause 3.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am not sure whether they should be in the form of a new clause or not.

Senator Pearce:

– The suggested amendments are not relevant to this clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I rule that the suggested amendments are not relevant to this clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– A further amendment reads -

No peace officer appointed under this act shall arrest or molest in any way any person recommended for deportation unless such person has been tried by a judge and jury in the courts of Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is irrelevant to the clause now before the committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– Then I give notice that when clause 3 is disposed of I shall move the amendments of which I have given notice as a new clause. That is the simplest way of overcoming the difficulty or of avoiding a conflict with the Chair. In this instance the Government is undoubtedly committing a serious blunder. Here is a proposal to swear in certain persons before justices of the peace. Does the Government propose to appoint persons as justices of the peace in order to avert, possibly, another snub from the Premier of New South Wales who, we have been informed, has refused to allow New SouthWales officials to assist in this matter? From among my constituents I could easily supply a list of 100,000 persons well-fitted for the honour of being able to write the magic letters “ J.P.” after their names.

The CHAIRMAN:

– (Senator Newland). - The honorable gentleman’s time has expired. I point out that the first two amendments indicated by him should properly be added to clause 2, which has been passed. It would be necessary, if he wishes to include them in the measure, to move for the recommittal of the bill at the proper stage. As for the other amendments, I shall be glad if he will indicate where he proposes to have them inserted in the bill.

Senator Gardiner:

– I certainly dissent from your ruling, Mr. Chairman. If there is one thing I have never permitted to pass unchallenged in this Senate it is an attempt to curtail my rights. “With all due respect to you, sir, I contend that as the committee adjourned on Saturday night immediately after the passing of the clause, I am entitled to move my amendments at this stage.

Senator Pearce:

– I submit, Mr. Chairman, that as Senator Gardiner has merely indicated, but has not formally moved his amendments, discussion as to their merits or demerits would be out of order. The only question before the Chair is the clause itself.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the Minister has pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition has not formally moved his amendments. Unwittingly, I accepted them.

Senator Gardiner:

– I agree with the Minister’s statement of the position, and. I thank Senator Pearce for his reminder. As it is the wish of the committee to pass the bill with all expedition, I have no desire to appeal to the President against your ruling. Nor do I wish to move the amendments now, since you have indicated that they will be ruled out of order. However, I shall ask for the opportunity to move them when the clause has been dealt with, and will then test the feeling of the committee as to the rights of minorities in this chamber.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

. -We should not hurriedly pass this clause. I object to the words “peaceofficer” in the first line. It is a misleading designation of the officer proposed to be appointed.

Senator Pearce:

– I rise to order. I submit that the designation of the proposed officers having been decided by the adoption of the first clause, the honorable senator is not in order in raising that issue again.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is reference to “ peace officers “ in this clause, and I shall have to allow the honorable gentleman to proceed with his argument.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It would be a ridiculous title to give any officers appointed under this measure. We all know that there is an international peace movement in progress, and that, associated with it, are some of the world’s most intellectual men and women. This movement has for its objective the disarmament of the nations, and a state of peace on earth and good-will towards all men. This bill is for a totally different purpose. It will prevent industrial peace. No one can, by any stretch of the imagination, say that the need for these proposed “ peace “ officers exists. Consider what an extraordinary position would be created by their appointment. There are police officers in all the States of the Commonwealth. Why then should the Commonwealth Government appoint “peace” officers to carry out duties of the same nature? One would be called a “police” man, and apparently the other a “ peace “ man. How ridiculous it would be when they would both be doing the same kind of work. In any case, we should have some information as to the number of “ peace “ officers to be appointed and the periods of their appointment. Why should there be a blank in the clause? Are honorable senators who support the Government prepared to vote for a clause under which “peace” officers may be appointed for any period? We should not speedily pass legislation that may enable the Government to appoint a considerable army of peace officers for any period that it chooses. There is another aspect of the matter. Those who are appointed will not be allowed to leave the force unless they give three months’ notice of their intention to do so. The Government apparently intends to make permanent appointments. I hope that the Minister will state the number of appointments that the Government has in view, and the remuneration which each man will receive.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That matter is not dealt with in this clause.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Surely I have a right to ask what period the appointments will cover, and what salary is to be paid.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The clause deals with the oath that is to be administered.

Senator FINDLEY:

– You, sir, have permitted me to make a passing reference to certain blanks in the clause. The oath is merely an incidental matter, but the period of appointment is all-important. I, of course, admit that these officers must take an oath before they will be able to carry out their duties. That having been done, an arrangement will be entered into between the Government and the appointees respecting the period of appointment and the salary that they are to receive. We are entitled to have information upon those matters.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That information should properly have been sought on clause 2. The honorable senator cannot now deal with that matter.

Senator Pearce:

– They will be appointed for as long as is found to be necessary.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That explanation does not satisfy me. A similar statement was made respecting another force that was brought into existence by a previous Government. We were then led to believe that only temporary appointments were to be made, but this has become a permanent institution. If this Government is again returned to power it will make a permanent institution of the force that it is. proposed to appoint under this bill. I strongly object to that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is an opportune time -

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no question before the Chair.

Senator GARDINER:

– I desire to move for the insertion of a new clause to precede the next clause in the bill. I think I shall be in order in doing that. I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - 3a. Not more than 100,000 peace officers shall be appointed under this act without the consent of Parliament.

Some motive is actuating the Government, and I desire to know what it is.

Senator H Hays:

– Why restrict the number to 100,000?

Senator GARDINER:

– I am leaving no loophole for the Government to charge me with an attempt to make the force too few in number. I shall welcome from Senator H. Hays an amendment to limit the number to 50. On the present year’s Estimates there is an amount of £9,000 for a Commonwealth police force. I understand that there are 36 members of that force in New South Wales. I do not know what are the numbers in the other States. We are dealing with this measure in the dark. If Senator Pearce will make a full statement of the position, he will not hear another word from me; but I am not going to accept legislation that may be used for any purpose.

Senator Pearce:

– What is the nature of the statement that the honorable senator desires me to make?

Senator GARDINER:

– A statement of the reason for introducing this measure, the number of peace officers that it is proposed to appoint, the salary that each is to receive, and the estimated annual cost.

Senator Pearce:

– I made a full statement of the reasons for the bill last week, when I moved the motion for the second reading.

Senator GARDINER:

– The right honorable gentleman did not state the number of officers that it is proposed to appoint, or the expenditure that will be incurred. Those are important matters.

Senator Reid:

– If Mr. Lang had placed at the disposal of the Commonwealth the services of one policeman, the. whole matter would have been settled.

Senator GARDINER:

– What is the use of Senator Reid trying to pick a quarrel with a man who holds the high and responsible position of Premier of New South Wales? This Government has already enrolled in New South Wales a large body of police officers. How many officers does the Government propose to appoint, and how much money does it intend to spend?

Senator Pearce:

– The answer to the question is, “As many men as may be necessary, and as much money as may be necessary, to enforce the Commonwealth law.”

Senator GARDINER:

– Honorable senators supporting Senator Pearce canjudge for themselves as to the usefulness or otherwise of his answer. The sum of £9,000 is provided on the Estimates for the maintenance of Commonwealth police. I understand that 36 of these officers are located in New South Wales. Why could not they be used if what the Government desires is, as we are told, simply to serve a summons? Why is there need to pass this bill, and so to establish a new department? My whole intention, as a member of this chamber, is to conserve tha people’s money, and to prevent waste. I think I may truthfully say that I am more careful about the expenditure of public money than I am about the expenditure of my own private money.

Senator Lynch:

– Tell us why Mr. Lang will not do bis duty.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know both Senator Lynch and Mr. Lang, and I say deliberately that a more conscientious man than Mr. Lang I do not know. He is a man of high standing and high character. Nothing can be said truthfully against him. Criticism of persons who hold the highest positions in the land will not improve the government of this country. Senator Lynch ought to regard his responsibilities more seriously than to make such charges on the flimsy evidence that is available to him. It is an outrage.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in replying to interjections.

Senator GARDINER:

– I realize, sir, that you are in a difficult position; but you have permitted Senator Lynch to interject, and I desire to reply to his interjection. If I am not permitted to do so, I must request that Senator Lynch be asked to withdraw it, for it reflected upon Mr. Lang’s integrity.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s interjection was disorderly, but I did not understand it to be a reflection upon Mr. Lang.

Senator GARDINER:

– It certainly conveyed to me an insinuation that Mr. Lang will not do his duty, and that hurt me. It is offensive to me, and any honorable senator has the right- to request that an offensive statement/ be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do. not know that the Standing Orders provide for the withdrawal of expressions which honorable senators may think contain an insinuation.

Senator GARDINER:

– My interpretation of the Standing Orders, with all due respect to you, sir, is that any honorable senator may demand the withdrawal of an objectionable statement.

Senator Pearce:

– If that is the rule, I could ask that the whole of Senator Gardiner’s speech be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As Senator Lynch’s interjection was disorderly, I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator Lynch:

– I withdraw it, sir. I am very sorry that I have wounded the tender feelings of Senator Gardiner.

Senator GARDINER:

– As a representative of New South Wales, it hurt me very much that the highest officer in our land should have been referred to in the terms’ which Senator Lynch used. I am pleased also, sir, to discover that honorable senators may exercise their rights in this chamber if they know how to enforce them. I have moved this new clause for the reason that I think a limitation ought to be placed on the Government. It may be said that the Government does not propose to appoint anything like 100,000 peace officers, but, personally, I have grave suspicion as to their intentions. It has been said, “Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.” The Bruce-Page-Pearce combination has gone so far in maladministration that, in my opinion, it .has lost its balance.

Senator Wilson:

– I regard that statement as offensive, and I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw it unreservedly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the Minister has taken exception to the statement, I must ask the honorable senator to withdraw it.

Senator GARDINER:

– In conformity with the practice that has been adopted that anything that an honorable senator takes exception to must be withdrawn, I withdraw it. My own opinion is that the government of the country is in incompetent hands.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the honorable gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Senator GARDINER:

– If you, sir, decide that it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it. The Government is looking round for some means by which it may escape the just .condemnation of the electors. It deserves condemnation, for it has failed in everything it has touched, except, perhaps, in its efforts to assist its friends.

Senator Findley:

– With woollen mills, and so on.

Senator Pearce:

– I understand that the honorable senator has submitted an amendment. Is he in order in discussing, under it, the general administration of the Government?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The administration of the Government does not properly arise under the terms of the amendment.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have no desire to come into conflict with you, sir, but it would have been more in order had you asked me whether I intended to connect my remarks with the subject before the Chair, and in support of my submission that the Government has some ulterior motive in desiring the appointment of these officers. I was pointing out that its past conduct justified me in adopting that view. It must have some reason for pushing forward so hurriedly with this measure. Why will not Senator Pearce tell us how many officers he proposes to appoint, and the salary he proposes to pay them?

Senator Pearce:

– I have already told the honorable senator that the Government intends to appoint as many officers as may be necessary.

Senator GARDINER:

– But surely some limit should be stated. I have suggested 100,000. Perhaps the Government would prefer the limit to be 1 per cent, of the population of each State. It may think that it would be better to say that 1,000 officers should be appointed in each State. Apparently, however, the only speech that Senator Pearce can make is: “ I move that the committee do now divide?” His opportunity for making even that motion will soon be gone. I assure him, however, that when the Labour party is in possession of the Government bench it will, at least, respect the rights of the minority. It will permit the minority to discuss its proposals.

Senator Pearce:

– This drivel is onlya parody on discussion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank Senator Pearce for his contribution to our parliamentary vocabulary. I assure him that I do not desire * his concurrence in any remarks that I may make. My only fear is that he may at some time publicly approve of something I have said. I ask the committee to limit the number of officers that may be appointed.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 12

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 4 -

Every person taking and subscribing any such oath shall be deemed to have thereby entered into a written agreement and be thereby bound to serve His Majesty as a Peace Officer from the day on which the oath has been taken and subscribed until he is legally discharged:

Provided that -

No such agreement shall be set aside, cancelled or annulled for want of reciprocity; and

Such agreement may be cancelled at any timeby the lawful discharge, dismissal or other removal from office of any such person, or by the resignation of any such person accepted by the Attorney-General or other person having the power to appoint Peace Officers.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western. Australia

– I move -

That before the word “ Peace “ the word “ Commonwealth “ be inserted.

We have been told that the bill has been introduced because one State of the Commonwealth has declined to allow its policeofficers to be used in carrying out the provisions of the Deportation Act, a measure which in some quarters is considered to be ultra vires. On the other hand, we know that the Government of the State of Victoria has intimated its desire to render assistance in carrying out the provisions of that act. In these circumstances, unless the clause is amended in the way I suggest, no one will know under which particular authority - Commonwealth or State - an officer who is carrying out the. provisions of the act is acting. My amendment, if adopted, would prevent confusion arising in this way. Whilst I amon my feet I should like some information. On two occasions this morning I have risen to address the Senate, but each time Senator Pearce, the Leader of the Senate, has moved the “ gag.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister has the privilege of being heard before other honorable senators.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I know that he has certain privileges because of the position he occupies, and that under the Standing Orders he can move the “ gag,” but there is also such a thing as courtesy. There is no urgency for this bill, and, seeing that the Senate sat till close on midnight on Saturday, and that we, on this side of the chamber, have not been unnecessarily obstructive, we thought that the usual courtesy might be extended to us this morning without the application of the “gag.” Paragraph a of the proviso to this clause reads as follows: -

No such agreement shall be set aside, cancelled, or annulled for want of reciprocity.

I want Senator Pearce to explain the words “for want of reciprocity.” Clause 3, already agreed to, provides that no person appointed to be a peace officer can’ hold that office until he has taken and. subscribed the following oath : -

I, A.B., do swear that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lord the King in the. office of Peace Officer, without favour or affection,. malice or ill-will, for the period of … . from this date, and until I am legally discharged, that I will seek and cause His Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved, and that Iwill prevent to the best of my power, all offences against the same, and that, while I continue to hold the said office, I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

The clause we are now discussing provides that any person who has taken and subscribed that oath shall be deemed to have thereby entered into a written agreement, which is not to be set aside, cancelled, or annulled for want ‘of reciprocity. If I entered into an agreement to do certain work, I could not be dismissed until I had done certain things. I would not be allowed to leave my employment without giving clue notice and submitting a reason for so doing. That would constitute a reciprocal arrangement, but under paragrapha reciprocity is impracticable. Surely all the protection must not be on one side. The paragraph is one on which we should be enlightened by a member of the legal fraternity, and perhaps Senator Elliott will be willing to explain its meaning. Another clause provides that peace officers cannot resign without the permission of the Attorney-General. They will have to work under whatever conditions may be imposed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the amendment (Senator Needham’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newland:

– The honorable gentleman will not be in order in submitting an amendment at this stage. The question before the Chair is -

That the clause he agreed to.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 0

N oes . . . . 6

Majority . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following new clause be inserted:- 4a. No peace officer appointed under this act shall be permitted to carry arms.

My attention has been drawn to the statement made recently by a gentleman holding a high military and public position that those concerned in this industrial dispute were going to “get it in the neck.” Australians are a peaceloving people. Therefore, when we hear this talk about giving it to the democracy “ in the neck,” we might very well feel concerned if arms are permitted men who, under this measure, may have to carry out the orders of officers unrestrained by parliamentary authority. I wish I could get honorable members opposite to view this situation in the light that I do. For a number of years certain people have had an exaggerated idea of the strength of communists in Australia. They are suffering from a condition of hysteria, and imagine that the communists in this country constitute a danger to the Empire. I stand behind no one who threatens or wishes ill to the British Empire. Neither’ can I stand behind a government which, startled by rumours that are groundless, legislates in this hysterical manner. May I remind honorable senators opposite of what happened during the last State elections in New South Wales. The communists, led by a gentleman of notoriety, Mr. “ Jock “ Garden, who, I may add, is not the wildeyed agitator with pistols in his, belt and knives sticking out of his boots that some people would have us believe he is, but, on the contrary, is an exPresbyterian minister of the gospel-

Senator Wilson:

– But he slipped, I think.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think he did. Probably he was under the impression that the Presbyterian Church was not moving quickly enough in the direction of Christian principles.

Senator Pearce:

– Is it not a fact that he is also an ex-employee of the Defence Department? At one time the honorable senator was associated with me in the administration of that department. He might explain why Mr. Garden left it.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sure that the Minister does not wish me to use my public position to make any reflection upon Mr. Garden as to the way in which he carried out his duties while in the employ of the Defence Department.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator might explain the circumstances under which Mr. Garden went out of the department.

Senator GARDINER:

– Much depends on the view taken concerning the action of a man while in the service of the department. The proposed peace officers should not be armed, because so many people believe that peace to make it stick should be “ druv in with bagonets “ as Lowell said. I was about to explain what happened at the last State elections in New South Wales, when “Jock” Garden led his communists into the political arena. They presented candidates for’ the waterside seats - the strongest of the Labour divisions - and also the coalfield seats. I have not the exact figures, but I can state definitely what happened.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newland:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing that matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– My amendment seeks to prevent the Government from arming this proposed peace force, and I wish to give my reasons. If I am allowed to pursue my line of . argument, in all probability 1 shall not occupy even the quarter of an hour allotted to me by the Standing Orders. I have stated that there is an exaggerated fear of the communists in Australia. I believe that this fear of revolution from any action which the communists may take is entirely without foundation; that it exists only in the minds of people who suffer from hysteria. Unfortunately, they have become the victims of confidence trick men.

Senator Pearce:

– The attitude of honorable senators o’pposite towards this measure is the best evidence we could have of the strength of the communists in Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not agree with the Minister. I listened to Senator. Guthrie on Saturday, and . I should like to say that usually the honorable senator is not altogether insane.

Senator Guthrie:

– And I can very nearly return the compliment.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry if I have hurt the honorable senator’s feelings. What I meant to say was that .1 do not think that Senator Guthrie would declaim against communists, or speak of the danger of revolution, if he did not think that a danger threatened the Commonwealth.

Senator Guthrie:

– I am sure there is danger.

Senator GARDINER:

– Every leader of labour has had to submit to the vilification of people who ave opposed to labour. As I have already stated, at the last election in New South Wales, the communists, led by Mr. Garden, contested a certain number of selected seats where democracy is most firmly entrenched, and the fact that the twelve candidates representing communistic principles polled less than 800 votes should be a sufficient guarantee that no danger need be apprehended in Australia from that source. It is as well that the Government should know that a certain person has been receiving money from the employers’ organizations by pretending to disclose conspiracies that may lead to revolution. Men of the type of Senator Guthrie should know this; they should be brought to realize that the confidence trick men are exploiting another source of income.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator has not given us the name of this individual.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am simply stating what has been done. I can assure Senator Duncan that he will have to wait a long time before I use my public position to make a charge like that against any mau, but I think that the Government should know that the confidence tricksters have opened up another avenue of profitable employment by pouring into the willing ears of manufacturers and others alleged plots of a revolutionary nature.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator knows this and will not expose it.

Senator GARDINER:

– If there is anything in these! allegations about revolutionary schemes dangerous to the community, the most effective course for the Government is to make a full statement to Parliament and take the people into its confidence. No section of sensible men is going to be led off the track of constitutional reform by specious pleas of wildeyed agitators with some proposal for a short cut to reach the millenium. There is no graver danger to a democracy than the creation of an armed force. I am afraid - perhaps I am becoming as nervous over this bill as Senator Pearce and his colleagues have become over the alleged threatened danger - that unless some satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to the need for this extraordinary proposal, grave trouble may confront the Commonwealth. As the Minister would not accept my proposal to limit the proposed force to 100,000 men, we may assume that there is to be no limit to the number constituting the force, and, therefore, I warn the Government to refrain from arming it. We have gone through many stirring times when feeling has run high, but with the exercise of a little patience and a little toleration, we have got back to normal again. Some people would like the Australian democracy to move forward smoothly with no harsh words and no clashing of interests. I would not. 1 prefer that a democracy, whilst climbing to a higher social plane, should be active, virile, and forceful.

Senator Pearce:

– But these men for whom the honorable senator is speaking spurn democracy. Their objective is dictatorship by the proletariat.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly. For that reason, we should prove to them that democracy, secure in the justice of its claim to govern the people, can beat them with its own methods. To meet them with their methods, is to admit that one of our bulwarks - constitutional government and the enforcement of the laws by the properly constituted courts of this country - has failed us. I refuse to admit that, and that is why I want to restrain the Government from arming this new force that it proposes to call into existence. Surely honorable senators opposite do not believe that they must blindly follow Senator Pearce. I have not often a kindly wordto say of the right honorable gentleman, but because of my long association with him, I make bold to congratulate him upon his capture of the enthusiastic and unquestioning support of the whole of his followers. I look upon that as the conquest of mind over matter.

Senator Pearce:

– Bird lime.

Senator GARDINER:

– No fear. I would not say anything offensive of the men whose support I wish to gain. When I returned to this Senate, after a short absence, I found that what was formerly a doubtful, questioning support by those who follow Senator Pearce had been turned into a loyal, unquestioning support. Apparently honorable senators opposite are now prepared to say, “We will stand with our eyes bandaged and our mouths open waiting for anything that Senator Pearce may care to give us, whether it be agreeable or disagreeable.” Senator Pearce is to be congratulated upon his illustration of the conquest of mind over matter. Ill-advised though it may be for the Leader of the Opposition to say anything nice of the Leader of the Government, . I take this opportunity to express admiration of his skill in having so overcome the scruples of his followers that, instead of being questioning supporters, they now do his bidding unquestioningly.

Senator Needham:

– It is only a temporary transformation.

Senator GARDINER:

– If is not temporary. The hand of the mesmerist hasbeen at work, and they are prepared to follow him wherever he leads. The opportunity is now given to them to say that in this law-loving, peaceful Australia of ours we do not want a greater armed force than we now have.

Senator Guthrie:

– We do not want a greater number of Walshes or Gardens than we now have.

Senator GARDINER:

– The type- will always be with us.

Senator Guthrie:

– Not that type: there are very few of thosé in’ Australia.

Senator GARDINER:

– If this legislation has not been designed to punish those men, the Government should be condemned for permitting that rumour tobe so widely spread. If, on the other band, summonses have been or are to be issued against them, the Government should have taken steps to ensure that their- case was not prejudiced before it was brought on. Senator Guthrie, in his calm moments, must realize how ‘wicked it is to traduce any man who has been charged with an offence. That is getting right away from the principle that underlies the British system of justice. I do not know whether Senator Guthrie’s name indicates German, descent, but Carlyle has said that Scotsmen are nearly all of German descent. Whether Senator Guthrie com.es from Scotland or anywhere else, he is taking up a most un-British attitude when he desires to have men condemned and convicted before they are tried. We, on this side, have always been held up as the representatives of a section of the community that is un-British. I admit that I place Australia so far ahead of other countries that sometimes that charge may appear to have been reasonably levelled against me. But I have never yet advocated for an Englishman, a Scotchman, or an Irishman, a law different from that towhich I was prepared to submit myself. We want to follow all that is good in the British Constitution.

Senator Guthrie:

– Is that why the honorable senator is following Walsh?

Senator GARDINER:

– We want to have that consideration for the rights of every person, but particularly of minorities, which will enable us to deal with them according to our properly enacted laws, and not according to hysterical laws that have been passed by highly nervous people who have become overstrung by imaginary difficulties. I know that the Government is anxious to get the measure through, so I shall not detain thecommittee any longer.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Home and Territories · NAT

– I move-

That the committee do now divide. Senator Gardiner. - That is a most intelligent reply.

Question - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the new clause (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

New clause negatived.

Clause 5 (Penalty for personating peace officers).

Motion (by Senator Pearce), “ That the committee do now divide “ - put, The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 11

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 11 - Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Three months’ notice of resignation shall be given).

AYES

NOES

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Mr. Chairman-

Sitting suspended from 1.5 to 2 p.m.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed - That the committee do now divide.

Senator Gardiner:

– On a point of order, I wish to make an explanation. Immediately clause 5 was passed I rose in my place and called you, Mr. Chairman, but apparently you did not hear me. It was my intention to move a new clause. I now ask that the usual courtesy be extended to me of permitting me to move my clause before clause 6 is put. If the new clause is not in order, you, of course, will not accept it.

Senator Pearce:

– Let the honorable senator tell us the terms of the new clause he proposes to move.

Senator Gardiner:

– If the clause is not in order the Chairman will say so. I am addressing the Chair. I ask that the ordinary courtesy that is extended to honorable senators be extended to me. Surely I have not put myself beyond that consideration.

Senator McHugh:

– Should I be in order in asking a question?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newland:

– After clause 5 was passed I called clause 6, and then said that the committee would adjourn for lunch. I do not think that I ought to withdraw my call now.

Senator Needham:

– On a point of order, sir, I should like to say that I confirm what Senator Gardiner has said. You called on clause 6 before the adjournment, but you did not call either the Minister (Senator Pearce) or Senator Gardiner. You simply said that you would resume the chair at 2 o’clock. As Senator Gardiner was on his feet I submit that he ought to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have called clause 6. and I shall not go back on my call.

Senator McHugh:

– Should I be in order in asking the Minister a question through you, Mr. Chairman? This is a serious matter. I should likethe Minister to explain-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in asking a question.

Senator McHugh:

– I should like the Minister to tell us what is the difference between a police officer and a peace officer? I object to the policemen of this country being insulted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! .

Senator Findley:

– I, also, should like to ask a question.

Senator Pearce:

– Surely all this is out of order.

Senator Findley:

– I wish to ask a question that is pertinent to the matter before us. Are we to understand that it is the intention of the Government to stifle all discussion? If the Minister proposes to “gag” everything, we may as well leave the chamber.

Senator Pearce:

– If the discussion is reasonable, the “ gag “ will not be ap- , plied.

Question - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question proposed -

That the clause stand as printed.

In the Senate :

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– On the report of the Chairman, I ask Senator McHugh to take the proper course, which is to withdraw and apologize to the Chairman for having persistently disregarded his orders.

Senator Gardiner:

– The position ought to be fully stated to you, sir. It arose after the committee decided to divide on the clause. Possibly I contributed to the disorder, if such it may be termed, by rising to ask Mr. Chairman for permission to move an amendment in the shape of a new clause before the division on clause 6 was taken. The Chairman ruled that I could not move the new clause at that stage, and I resumed my seat. Senator McHugh then rose and inquired whether he could ask a question or move an amendment. I venture to say that the Chairman is mistaken in thinking that Senator McHugh did not resume his seat when called to order.

Senator McHugh:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Gardiner:

– The Chairman seems to think that some withdrawal is necessary. The records will show that my statement of the position is correct.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have consulted the Clerk as to the actual business that was before the committee, and I am informed that the committee had decided to divide. At that stage questions of any kind are not’ permissible, and if Senator McHugh or any other honorable senator persisted in attempting to ask them or to interject he was disorderly, and the chairman was justified in reporting him. There is a very simple way out of the difficulty, and I ask Senator McHugh to take it.

Senator McHugh:

– What am I to do?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator knows what he ought to do.

Senator McHugh:

-What do you want me to do?

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator to put himself right with the Senate.

Senator McHugh:

– I know you would cut my head off if you could.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator McHugh has not only disobeyed the order of the chairman, but he is now disobeying my orders. I name him, but before I call upon the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) to take the usual course,I will give Senator McHugh another opportunity to put himself right. He must withdraw and apologize.

Senator McHugh:

– I withdraw. Is that what you want me to do?

Senator Reid:

– Is there to be no apology to the Senate?

Senator McHugh:

– There is to be no apology to the honorable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator McHugh, as a new member of the Senate, may be excused if he is not fully conversant with the requirements of our standing orders. I ask him now to withdraw and apologize.

Senator McHugh:

– I withdraw and apologize - a heartfelt apology.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following new clause be inserted:- 6a. The peace officers appointed under this act shall not ‘arrest or molest in any way any person recommended for deportation unless such personhas been tried by a judge and jury in the courts of Australia.

This clause’ will test the feeling of the committee as to whether any person should be deported without a trial by jury. The bill itself is an attempt to undermine Magna Charta, the great buttress of British liberty for the last 700’ years. There is no guarantee that within the next six months there will not be a Labour Government in office. If laws are now enacted to punish labour leaders, honorable senators who pass them cannot object if, when our turn comes, we use those laws to punish anti-union people. Nothing is more inclined to degrade Australia in the eyes of the world than legislation of this kind. I want to prevent this Government, just as I would prevent any government of which I had hopes of being a member, from trying to undermine that bulwark of liberty, trial by jury. I do not know why some people should become incensed at the actions of leaders of unions. The struggle that is now taking place is simply a dispute on British ships which happen to be in Australian waters. The seamen on those vessels are resisting an attempt to reduce their wages by £1 a month. Honorable senators opposite are always most ardent in their desire to participate in any attempt to reduce wages. If there are people in this country whose actions are calculated to injure its trade and commerce, and to prevent the maintenance of peace and good order, they ought to be punished, but not in a way which is contrary to the principles of British law. It is said that certain individuals are objectionable. I have been termed a wrong-doer, although I claim that my chief aim in every action I have taken in the industrial and political field has been for the good of the community. It is not an offence to resist a reduction of wages. I venture to say that if any proposal were made to reduce the salaries of members of the Commonwealth Parliament we should fight most vigorously to defeat it. I measure every man by my own bushel. British seamen, who were being paid £9 10s. a month, find that their wages have been reduced to £8 10s. a month. What do the old-time labourites, Senator Reid, Senator Plain, Senator Lynch, think of such a proposal ? They were more intimately associated with the industrial struggle than I have ever been. The part I played was small compared with theirs. Senator Lynch was one of the wildest leaders of the industrial section in his day. No matter how far he may have fallen from grace, there was a time when he found favour in the eyes of the unions because of the enthusiasm with which he espoused their claim for better conditions. The other day he justified some of his earlier conduct by saying that the conditions obtaining then warranted any attack on them. Do not the conditions obtaining to-day warrant an attack upon them? Compare £8 10s. a month, which the seamen are getting, with the wage Senator Lynch was getting as a waterside worker in days when the cost of living was very much lower than it is to-day.

Senator Lynch:

– I did more work for less pay than workers receive to-day.

Senator GARDINER:

– Men to-day display more intelligence. The work a man does is commensurate with what he gets. . If he is not getting a living wage, he cannot be expected to do a fair day’s work. If he is not getting a wage with which he can maintain himself and his family in accordance with the best conditions of his class, I do not think it is fair to ask him to slave himself to death. The motto of the working classes is “ a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.” The working classes are not selfish. They are taxing them-‘ selves to the extent of £40.000,000 a year in order to encourage manufacturers in Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is getting away from his proposed new clause.

Senator GARDINER:

– I believe 1 am. Honorable senators will agree with me that no man should be molested unless he has first been given that which was given to the barons of England by Magna Charta, the right to a trial by a jury .of his peers. That is not asking too much. Some of us are sufficiently well informed to believe that the gift bestowed by Magna Charta has been of considerable benefit to- the people of Great Britain.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable senator’s supporters in the Northern Territory sent men away without a trial.

Senator GARDINER:

– Like the party with which Senator Lynch is associated, the party with which I am associated is calculated in times of excitement to do wrong things, but there is this difference between us - sometimes by accident we do the wrong thing, whereas the honorable senator and his colleagues never even by accident do the right thing. I am asking that before any man is sent out of ‘ this country he shall have the right to a trial by jury. Honorable senators opposite claim to be the props, stays, and supports of the Empire. I heard Senator Pearce on Saturday declare in unmistakable terms that a man born in England, Ireland, or Scotland could never become a full citizen of Australia. In other words, once an immigrant always an immigrant.

Senator Crawford:

– I think the Minister was quoting & statement by Mr. Justice Isaacs.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and apparently with great vim. I do not care who was responsible for the statement, “ Once an immigrant always an immigrant “ may be the position in the eyes of the law, but I repudiate the sentiment. A British-born citizen of Australia, being a citizen of the Empire, should have the same privileges and rights, no more and no less, than a citizen of the Empire born in Australia. This is a sentiment that will hold the Empire together. The refusal of Australia to trade with Great Britain, and now this refusal to give Britishers “ the privileges they have enjoyed since their birth, is in the spirit that makes for independent states and the disintegration of the Empire.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– These are the Empire wreckers.

Senator Duncan:

– And honorable senators opposite stand as the friends of the man who said, “ To hell with the Empire.”

Senator GARDINER:

– I repudiate entirely any sentiment of that kind. I repudiate any man who attacks, directly or indirectly, the Empire of which we form a part. I object, also, to this whittling away of rights and liberties of Britishers. I object to this proposal to deport a Britisher who has been resident, in Australia for so many years, has married in Australia, and has had children born to him in Australia. This attempt to put him on a different footing in the eyes of the law from an Australian-born citizen is an Empire-wrecking proposal. Honorable senators are supposed to be calmly deliberating on the policy of the Government, and, apparently, they intend to agree to a proposal that will make for tyranny in administration, which is worse than the tyranny of the law. Imagine Senators Lynch and Plain voting for a measure under which they, as British-born citizens of Australia, men who have done something for Australia, could be arrested, and without trial in a properly constituted court of justice, could be deported and the children born to them in Australia left behind parent- less or compelled to go into exile with them. This is the last time, as far as I am concerned, that I shall attempt in this measure to preserve that uniformity of conditions between Britons and Australians, which I think it is the duty of this Parliament to preserve.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the proposed new clause (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 7 - Powers and authorities to cease upon dismissal or resignation.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the committee do now divide.

Question - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 8

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 7a. (1) The names of peace officers appointed in pursuance of this act shall be published in the Commonwealth. Government Gazette, showing their rank and the amount of remuneration they are to receive for their services.

If Parliament is sitting a list of the names of such officers so appointed, showing their rank and the amount of remuneration they are to receive, shall be laid on the table of the House.

It is to be regretted that the members of the Ministry and their supporters have permitted themselves to be worked up into such a state of hysteria.

Senator Pearce:

– On a point of order, I ask what connexion there is between the state of mind of ministerial supporters and the amendment before the committee ?

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not very often that we have the pleasure of seeing Senator Pearce hysterical.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must confine himself to the question before the Chair.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– When we see legislation of this sort forced through-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator isreflecting on the committee, and I ask him to withdraw his statement.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The reflection on the committee is withdrawn, but I object to legislation of this description being passed through in this manner.

Senator Crawford:

– Does the honorable senator know of any other Government that has not adopted this course?

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do. I am a careful observer of such things. Fortunately, on occasions like the present, the press of this country is prepared to report some of the remarks of honorable senators on this side. A clause such as I have moved should certainly be embodied in the bill, as we have a right to know to what extent the revenue of this country will be. liable in order to carryout this hysterical legislation. Although this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this measure, when I rose the Chairman saw the Minister, thus enabling him to apply the “gag.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw that reflection on the Chair.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said only that you saw the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is reflecting on the Chair.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have no intention of doing that, because while you are in the Chair you are supreme. For many years I was under the impression that any- man who was born in any part of the British Empire had a perfect right to remain in any part of that Empire that he desired.

Senator Payne:

– What has that to do with the amendment?

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Everything. I am not like honorable senators opposite who, parrot-like, repeat the arguments of their leader. I want to embellish the arguments that have already been advanced. When I was interrupted by Senator Payne, I was saying that for many years I was under the impression that any person born in the British Empire had a right to go wherever he chose in that Empire, but I now find that as soon as any portion of the Empire detaches itself from Great Britain, one of the first things that it does is to assume the right to say who shall, and who shall not, enter or remain in its territory. To that principle I am bitterly opposed. I contend that I have as much right in Australia as any one who was incubated in this country.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This clause does not deal with incubation. I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the clause.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The clause which I have moved deals with the financial aspect of this important question.’ We, as representatives of the people, have a duty imposed on us to see that lie revenue of the country is not drawn on to excess to carry out this legislation. What is the cause of this hysterical legislation? Has it been introduced because some British seamen have gone on strike? Is there any trouble with the Australian seamen? Have the police in the various States refused to do their duty? Is it necessary that a special Commonwealth police force be organized and superimposed upon the police forces of the States? There is no justification for the action of the Government, From my study of this measure, it appears that it is proposed to clothe these so-called peace officers with very extensive powers. The number to be appointed is problematical; there may be thousands of them. Is it intended to entirely supersede the police forces of the States? If so, the Government ought to give us some indication of its intention. The members of the police forces in all the States are capable of performing the duties of their office. Yet we are told by the Leader of the Government in the Senate that a new Commonwealth police force is necessary. Is that because the work which they will be required to do is of such a despicable, reprehensible, and contemptible character?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the clause which he has moved.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was under the impression that my remarks had reference to that clause.. This clause gives no indication of the expense that will be incurred by building up a new police force to carry out work that has previously been very efficiently done, excepting possibly in the one instance of issuing new summonses under a measure that was recently passed. The existing Commonwealth police force, as far as I_ know, has been prepared and willing to carry out its work in an efficient manner. We have had no evidence whatever from the Minister, and are not likely to get any, that the police force of New South Wales refused to do its duty. This Government is not prepared to trust the police forces of the various States. It wants a new force to be, I suppose, a replica of the force that was established under the War Precautions Act, and some members of which, I believe, are yet in the service of the Commonwealth.

Senator Payne:

– What- has that subject to do with the amendment?

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am sorry that the honorable senator cannot see the relevancy of my remarks.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! If the honorable senator is out of order, I myself shall call him to order.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We should be very careful that we do not enact legislation which would probably be most detrimental to the people of this country. To my mind, the introduction of this bill is a most condemnatory indictment against the police forces of the various States, which apparently for years past have satisfactorily carried out the work of the Commonwealth. A police force is now to be organized, ostensibly to make effective the deportation provisions of the Immigration Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is again straying from the clause.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was not very far away from it. This Government does not hesitate to invite people to this country at an expense of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That subject has nothing to do with the clause. I shall not again warn the honorable senator.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am giving my reason why this chamber should not for one moment consent to the enactment of a measure that will have a most damning effect upon the people of this country.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is again straying from the clause.

SenatorJ. GRANT. - It is the bounden duty of the members of this Parliament, who have the power to impose unlimited taxation upon the public, to see that the revenue so collected is not needlessly expended. I am convinced that this legislation is opposed by 99 per cent. of the people, and that the establishment of a new police force will be a wicked waste of our slender financial resources. We have a right to know from the Minister how many officers it is proposed to appoint. Is it not a fact that the members of the Commonwealth police force now number about 40, of whom 35 are in New South Wales ? There is no necessity whatever to appoint more members to that force. Since the Government, without any rhyme or reason, has determined to appoint a new police force, we have a right to know what expense it will entail. When I introduced a small bill the other day, proposing to exempt a number of widows from the operation of the estate duties taxation, I received no support from the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the new clause (Senator j. Grant’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 18

Majority … . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 8 (Power to appoint special peace officers).

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 7

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GIBBS:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following newclause be inserted : - 8a. Peace officers appointed under the preceding clause shall not take action against any person resident in Australia unless under warrant issued by the High Court of Australia.

In my opinion clause 8 gives too much power to any peace officers appointed under this measure. I have a very vivid recollection of the Commonwealth Police Force which was established during the 1914 conscription campaign. Officers enrolled in that body visited, without warrant, the houses of citizens at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, frightening women and children, merely because they suspected that certain persons had transgressed the war precautions regulations. Large and competent police forces exist in all the States, and they are quite capable of seeing that law and order are preserved. There is no necessity to appoint a new police force.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The bill deals with peace officers, and not with a police force.

Senator GIBBS:

– The Government may call them peace officers, but the public will give them their proper designation and call them police officers.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This committee must confine itself to the language of the bill.

Senator McHugh:

– The Government say that they are not police.

Senator GIBBS:

– No matter how much Ministers may endeavour to camouflage the position, the people outside will read into this measure what it really means. The Government proposes to constitute a new police organization in order to carry out the nefarious objects that it has in view.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable senator to withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary.

Senator GIBBS:

– I withdraw it. Although the preceding clause refers to peace officers, I maintain that the intention of the - Government is to create a new body of police. The public will not be deceived. I regret that on account of illness, I did not have an opportunity of taking part in the secondreading debate. There are many things that I should have liked to say in regard to the attitude adopted by the Commonwealth Police Force in 1917.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will not be in order in referring to it under this clause.

Senator GIBBS:

– I should like to have said particularly-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is now defying my ruling.

Senator GIBBS:

– I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you do not know what I am about to say. My intention is not to repeat my previous observation.I was going to say that I regret that I did not have an opportunity previously to refer to the attitude adopted by honorable senators opposite while the second reading of the bill was under discussion.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator cannot make his second-reading speech now.

Senator GIBBS:

– I am not endeavouring to do that, but I desire to submit one or two arguments in support of the new clause that I have proposed. The good sense of honorable senators on both sides should cause them to admit that some provision of the kind is necessary. I regret exceedingly that the proposal submitted by Senator Gardiner was not accepted by the committee. I have no doubt that clause 8 and the preceding clauses are a distinct contravention of the principle of trial by jury. Having been brought up to believe that trial by jury is one of the greatest principles embodied in the British Constitution, I enter my emphatic protest against any attempt at its abrogation.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the new clause (Senator Gibbs’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 9 (Regulations)

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the clause stand as printed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: -

The remuneration of the peace officers shall be subject to a majority vote of both Houses of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newland:

– I cannot accept that amendment.

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 9a. This act shall not come into operation until the 1st day of January, 1927.

If this clause is inserted in the bill, the workers of our community who are seeking to settle this dispute will have a reasonable opportunity to achieve their object. The Government has shown, by its incompetence, that it is not fit to manage a fish-shop, let alone use the tremendous powers that will be conferred upon it if this bill is. passed. By the 1st January, 1927, the people of this country will have placed a different government in power, for I have no doubt that when an opportunity is afforded them to express their opinion of the total failure of the present administration in practically every direction they will be emphatic. The Government, by including the deportation provisions in the recently-passed Immigration Bill, indicated quite clearly that its deliberate intention was to cause industrial strife. Leaders in the industrial movement in Australia, who are not cloaked with anything like the authority and power of the Government, are working strenuously to settle the British seamen’s dispute, but the Government, by this proposal to appoint policemen, is endeavouring to. bring about a revolt. It is worth recalling that during the recent Australian seamen’s dispute not one worker committed an offence that would justify his prosecution in a law court. The same is true of the workers concerned in the present dispute. If the Government really desires this dispute to be settled it ought to “keep off the grass.” I am quite satisfied, however, that, with malice aforethought, it desires to extend the trouble. Even those who may not believe that can hardly disagree with me when I say that it has adopted the best possible course to achieve that end. Its policy during the last month or six weeks is calculated to antagonize every worker in the country. It apparently desires to tie up not only the British and Australian shipping, but also all foreign vessels that come here. I invite honorable senators who consider that they represent the farmers to bear in mind that the result of this must be that all our primary products will be left on our piers and wharfs indefinitely, and will not reach the world’s markets. Even at this late stage I ask the Government to abandon this policy, which is inciting the workers to revolt. In spite of the persistent endeavours of the Government in this direction. I am hopeful that the reasonable, experienced, and courageous leaders of the industrial movement in Australia will settle the British seamen’s dispute as effectively as they settled the Australian shipping dispute a few weeks ago. The officers who will be appointed in pursuance of the provisions of this bill are described as peace officers. In my opinion, they could be accurately called Nationalist political organizers. This measure is the meanest form of political propaganda, and, as I have said previously, it is additional evidence of the absolute incompetence of the Government.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the committee do now divide - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the proposed now clause (Senator Hannan’s amendment) be inserted - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Title

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is not the honorable senator out of order in stating that honorable senators have been guilty of tedious repetition?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already called Senator Lynch to order for his disorderly reflection on the work of the committee.

Question - That the title be the title of the bill - put: The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title agreed to.

Question - That the bill be reported without amendment - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clauses 1 to 8 inclusive, and the consideration of proposed new clauses.

I am asking the Senate to adopt this course, because in the committee stages of the bill honorable senators were denied a reasonable opportunity to give expression to their views. Throughout the discussion in committee we were up against the motion submitted by Senator Pearce, That the committee do now divide.” Nevertheless I am optimistic enough to hope that even honorable senators who, by their support of the Government, so consistently prevented free discussion in committee, will yet see that there is some merit in the amendments which I desire to submit. This bill should have had the treatment usually accorded to other measures passed by this Parliament. There can be no need for hurry now. If we are to believe reports in the evening newspapers the offenders, whom the Government are so anxious to bring before the board, have already been served with summonses. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has maintained an air of secrecy about the whole business which I fail to understand. Perhaps I should be pleased that he has been so anxious to pass a law which may deprive him, after the next election, of the companionship of such distinguished ministerial colleagues as Sir Neville Howse and Mr. Pratten. As for Senators Plain and Lynch, they may pay the penalty of their attack upon union leaders if the electors of Australia a few months’ hence declare that they will not tolerate legislators who supported measures of this kind. We can, of course, understand the irritation that must have been caused to Mr. Bruce, Senator Pearce, and Dr. Earle Page through having to accept British-born people as Cabinet colleagues. When the Government came into office it was boasted that all its Ministers were Australian born. It was a purely Australian government. But there has been a change. Whether this change was due to the capacity of, or, shall I say, intimidation by Mr. Pratten, who had .captured the National Association in New South Wales, I cannot say, but it can no longer be claimed for the Cabinet that it is Australian through and through.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– Order! There is nothing in the bill referring to the constitution of the present government. It deals only with the appointment of peace officers. The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the purpose of the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– If you, Mr. President, had had an opportunity to consider the bill at length, you would realize, as we do, that these peace officers are to be appointed to give effect to another measure. Surely I am not out of order in showing that if we pass this bill, the purpose of which is to give effect to the deportation law, it may create a great number of vacancies in the Senate and the House of Representatives by the deportation of gentlemen who hitherto have been regarded as good citizens. The motion for the adoption of the report, I take it, covers every clause of the bill, and therefore offers more scope for debate even than the motion for the third reading of the measure. I desire the bill to be recommitted for the amendment of certain clauses and the addition of others which, in my opinion, will prevent British-born citizens of Australia from being deported. The Minister has made no statement as to the number of peace officers to be appointed under this bill. I endeavoured to limit the number t» 100,000, but the Minister, by his silence and opposition to my amendment, is determined, apparently, that more than that number may be appointed. I also endeavoured in committee to prevent the Government from arming these peace officers, but the Minister and Government supporters, it would appear, are prepared, if necessary, to give effect to the threat uttered by the distinguished soldier in another place, who said that the persons concerned were likely “to get it in the neck.” What does this mean ? It means, of course, that, if necessary, the Government will “lay out” the democracy unless they bow the knee to gentlemen who, “dressed in a little brief authority,” are for the time being governing this country. It is a sorry day for Australia when the Government of this country is composed of men who are prepared to force through legislation of this character. For over twenty years this Parliament has maintained the reputation of being able to manage the affairs of this country in accordance with principles to which the people of Australia have been accustomed. One such principle is that in the eyes of the law all men are equal. The administration of justice has never been contaminated by making the judge on the bench a party to conviction.

Senator Findley:

– Is there a quorum present? [Quorum formed.’]

Senator GARDINER:

– If the bill be recommitted I propose to submit amendments which will have the effect of insuring a perfectly fair trial for all persons who may appear before the board. I am anxious that justice shall be administered without favour to every section of the community. I should like the Govenment to postpone the consideration of the measure until the authorities ascertain whether it is true that the gentlemen whose scalps they are after have been already served with- summonses to appear before the board appointed specially to convict them. On Friday night there may have been some reason for the sitting of the Senate on Saturday, and on Saturday night there may have been some reason for an adjournment until to-day to pass this new-fangled legislative experiment of first formulating a charge against certain persons, and then appointing a board to convict them.

The PRESIDENT:

– All this has nothing to do with the question before the Chair. The honorable senator has moved for the recommittal of the bill. He must confine his remarks to reasons why his amendment should be adopted.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry that you do not view the matter as I do, Mr. President. I can assure you that if the bill be recommitted I intend to submit certain new clauses in the direction I have indicated.

The PRESIDENT:

– Perhaps the line of discussion which the honorable senator is taking will then be in order; it is not in order at this stage. He is entitled to advance reasons why the bill should be recommitted, but he may not discuss the general principles or the details of his proposed amendments on the motion for the recommital of the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I presume, then, that I shall be in order if I indicate the nature of the amendments which I propose to submit. One is that for any offence against the laws of the Commonwealth the person charged shall have the right of trial by jury.

The PRESIDENT:

– That amendment would not be in order, because the bill is for the appointment of peace officers.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry that in my haste I did not fully state my proposed amendment, which is to the following effect :- “ That peace officers shall not molest, arrest, or interfere with any one in this country unless they have had a trial by jury.” This projected amendment, I hold, gives me the right to discuss the principles of the measure. I realize, of course, that it may be most objectionable to supporters of the Government to have to discuss in Parliament these secret methods of governing, which will have the effect of depriving Australian citizens of their rights under the Constitution. This bill is for the purpose of raising a force to give effect to their nefarious intention. I moved an amendment to limit that force to 100,000 persons, but the Ministry and its supporters voted against it. Surely, if these men are to be peace officers in the same way as are the police officers of the States, 100,000 men would be sufficient for the purpose. Time after time I have asked the Leader of the Government in this chamber for information on that aspect of the question, but without result. In this legislation I see an attempt to try and bring about secretly what the Government dares not attempt openly. An attempt is being made to establish a secret police force, composed of men who may be armed. I want this bill recommitted in order that I may again appeal to the calm judgment of honorable senators opposite. Hitherto honorable senators have been dragged at die heels of Senator Pearce, like dumb driven cattle. Those honorable senators have been led away by the eloquence of their leader. I have never heard Senator Pearce speak so eloquently as he did on Saturday and has done to-day. Moreover, the honorable senator has not departed from the one theme - “ I move that the committee do now divide.”

The PRESIDENT:

– That has nothing to do with the motion.

Senator GARDINER:

– I certainly intend to avoid getting into an argument with you, sir. If it had not been for the action of the Minister in so frequently preventing discussion by- moving “that the committee do now divide,” I should not now be asking for a recommittal of the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate has no knowledge of anything that took place in committee, except what has been reported to the Senate by the Chairman of Committees, and it is not permissible at this stage to discuss at length what occurred in committee.

Senator GARDINER:

– I am sorry, Mr. President, that for the moment I overlooked the difference between the Senate and the committee. It must be painful to you, sir, to hear me refer to what occurred in committee, because such statements must shock the susceptibilities of any man who has any sense of decency left in him. I certainly shall obey your ruling, and shall not persist in bringing this objectionable matter before the Senate. The Senate is too dignified a chamber even to know of such discussions. Because these things have happened, and debate stifled-even discussion of the most reasonable amendments having been refused - surely it is competent for us, having returned to the Senate, to move amendments that will give us the opportunity to let the Senate know that there are certain things in connexion with the bill that we consider should be discussed, and for which we desire that it be recommitted. I am now speaking without any deep feeling so far as the bill itself is concerned. I realize that when the methods that we have experienced during the last day or two, not only in this Parliament, but throughout Australia, are being adopted by the Government, it is a clear indication of the Government’s incompetency and incapacity, and of its knowledge that it is discredited in the eyes of the people, and is looking for some means of avoiding defeat at their hands. In- its extremity, the Government has not been above degrading Parliament in an endeavour to get out of its difficulty.

The PRESIDENT:

– That has nothing to do with the recommittal of the bill. A general condemnation of the Government may be in order on. some other occasion, but it is not in order now.

Senator GARDINER:

– Surely if the conduct of the Government has the effect of degrading the Parliament of tlie country, I am in order in referring to it, in the hope that honorable senators may yet agree to the recommittal of the bill. I cannot attain my desire that it be recommitted unless I can convince the majority in this chamber of their wickedness up to now, and cause them to repent. I hope that to do so will be in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The only arguments permissible to the honorable senator at this stage are those which give reasons for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall endeavour to follow your suggestion without attempting to evade it by roundabout methods. I shall commence by saying that this bill makes a distinction between Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Australians.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have read the bill carefully, and there is nothing in it to say that it refers specifically to Australians, Hindoos, Chinese, or Britishers.

Senator Findley:

– We should at least see that the members of the police force are Australian-born citizens.

Senator GARDINER:

– I think that you, Mr. President, will agree that this bill is complementary to another measure. In Another place a Minister admitted that it had been introduced to punish certain individuals. The Government has not only taken out summonses against those individuals, but it has endeavoured to condemn them in Parliament. If I say that the bill should be amended so that these peace officers may not molest, arrest, or interfere with men because they were born in Great Britain and not in Australia, that the officers - supported by the Government - may not put their hands on the shoulders of an Englishman, Irishman, or a Scotchman, under conditions under which they would not be permitted to lay their hands on the shoulders of an Australian, surely that is permissible?

The PRESIDENT:

– There is nothing in the bill to say that may be done. The bill makes no such distinction as that which the honorable senator has suggested. I remind the honorable senator that at the second-reading stage he availed himself fully of the opportunity to speak.

Senator GARDINER:

– I availed myself of the opportunity to attack those aspects of the bill that appeared to me to Vie the most pernicious. In another place, to which I am not allowed to refer, a detailed discussion of the bill was denied me. Having been denied my rights there, I lake this opportunity in the Senate to move that the bill be recommitted to discuss those aspects of it which I consider to be most objectionable. I consider it to be objectionable to call into existence a body of peace officers, and to arm them with warrants that can only be served upon one small section of this community. The population of Australia is 85 per cent. Australian, the remaining 15 per cent, being composed of persons who are British-born or of other nationalities. Why should 85 per cent, of the people permit a body of men, who are to be called peace officers, to be appointed to serve writs or summonses upon the 15 per cent., while they themselves are allowed to go free because they have been born in Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am concerned only with what the bill says. It makes no such distinction. I ask the honorable senator to get right down to his reasons for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was doing that, Mr. President. I was contending that it is a pity to call into existence a body of men for the purpose of assisting to carry into force a law which can only operate in respect of 15 per cent. of the community. I am anxious to include in the bill an amendment to provide that the officers to be appointed shall have no greater powers to interfere with Englishmen than they have to interfere with Australians. Do you rule that I cannot argue that way?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is in order in indicating that as a reason for his motion, but he is not now in order in arguing the position generally. If the Senate agrees to the re-committal of the bill, the honorable senator will have his opportunity to argue the matter.

Senator GARDINER:

– When the bill is recommitted my opportunity to discuss it will have passed. The only opportunity available to me is while you are in the chair in the Senate. In committee, opportunities for free speech do not exist.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator had a monopoly of the discussion in committee; he has been talking all day.

Senator GARDINER:

Hansard will show who had a monopoly of the time of the committee. The Minister closed the debate on eight clauses of the bill in less than 8 minutes.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator himself has occupied eight of the ten hours that the billhas been under discussion.

Senator GARDINER:

– The position in which I have been placed is not a new experience to me. I have endeavoured to place my viewsbefore the Senate. I prefer that the Government and its supporters, who are in the majority in this chamber, shall use all the forms of Parliament to smother the right of free speech, rather than close my mouth, because the bill is objectionable. The bill is objectionable in that it treats Australian citizens who were born in England differently from Australian citizens who were born in Australia. Senator Pearce has said that, despite a residence of 30 years in Australia, one who came here as an immigrant is an immigrant still. .

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator’s remarks are not relevant to the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– You, Mr. President, are one of the most reasonable presidents that have occupied the presi dential chair in this Senate, and, therefore, I shall endeavour to make my arguments so convincing that even you will agree with me. IfI am in order in moving in committee that these peace officers shall not arrest, molest, or interfere with any Englishman or Britisher who has not had a trial by jury, it is in order to discuss it now.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is perfectly in order in indicating the nature of his amendment, but he is not in order in discussing it at length at this stage.

Senator GARDINER:

– Unfortunately, I have not, like you, sir, been blessed with the ability to say, in a few brief words, exactly what I moan, but the electors who sent me here know that when I cannot make my meaning clear in two or three words or sentences, I shall persist in trying to do so until even you, sir, understand my meaning. I hope that you will take no offence at my remark, but I do resent that, just when I have been able to get that clear line of thought which would enable me to present my views in such a way that honorable senators will see exactly what I mean, I find myself interfered with by your failing to understand exactly where my roundabout methods are leading.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am concerned only that the honorable senator’s remarks shall be relevant.

Senator GARDINER:

– I ask that when the 60 minutes allotted to me under the Standing Orders have elapsed you will deduct from my time the minutes occupied by yourself in participating in this debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator’s remarks had been relevant, I should not have participated for one second in the debate.

Senator GARDINER:

– I suppose, sir, that you are doing your duty as you see it, even as I am doing my duty as I see it. I have indicated one of the amendments which I propose to move, namely, that these peace officers shall not treat a person born in England in a different manner from that in which they shall treat Australian-born citizens. I shall now indicate an additional amendment, namely, that these officers shall not be armed. Surely, if they are to be peace officers there is no occasion to arm them! Recently, when a Labour government was in office in Victoria it discovered that, secretly and silently, a Victorian Tory government had armed certain citizens. In dealing with a measure of this character, we surely can expect the Minister to say whether it is intended to arm these officers, and whether they are to be authorized secretly to draw the sword, or to shoot down Australians, and, if so, under what conditions. An amendment of such importance should be considered. I have asked Senator Pearce to deny that that is the Government’s intention, but he has not denied it. If that, is not the intention, why does he not say so ? If the Minister will say now that it is not intended to arm these officers, that they will not form a secret organization, I shall be satisfied. We have been told that this bill is the result of discussion between the Prime Minister and Mr. Archdale Parkhill, an organizer of the National Federation. The Prime Minister did not deny that. I should like Senator Pearce to say whether he discussed the situation with Mr. Archdale Parkhill.

Senator Pearce:

– I certainly did not discuss it with him or with any other person outside this Parliament. The honorable senator is merely adding to an already long list of inventions.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister should thank me for . giving him the opportunity of denying that statement. When the same charge was levelled against the Prime Minister, he did not deny it.

Senator Pearce:

– He did.

Senator GARDINER:

– He merely asked for proof of the statement. Another amendment that I shall move provides that when a summons is drafted, even though it has not been served, the Government, who formulates the charge, shall be prevented by law from trying by public utterances to prejudice the case of the person whom it intends to bring before the secret board. In this Senate and in other places the Prime Minister and Senator Pearce have tried to discredit Mr. Tom Walsh and somebody else. One stinging statement was to the effect that Tom Walsh was the worst citizen that had ever been in Australia. It would appear that in the opinion of some people his actions are even more atrocious than the misdeeds of brutal murderers and molesters of children. What can be thought of Min isters sworn to administer the affairs of this country who first issue a summons and’ then try to discredit the person against whom it is issued before he is brought to trial? I wish to put in the bill an amendment to prevent that kind of thing. I know that, we can do nothing to interfere with the privileges of Parliament, but this is the first time in my long parliamentary career that T have known a government to set out to prosecute a person, and to condemn him by public utterances before he is brought to trial.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator’s remarks are not relevant to the motion for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator GARDINER:

– This bill cannot be considered .apart from the Immigration Act. I venture to say that this extraordinary sitting to-day is due to the fact that a State government would not carry out certain work for this Government. The Peace Officers Bill has there fore been introduced. I could understand its introduction in a time of crisis, when the business interests of this country were threatened. I realize that the task of the British shipping companies in reducing the seamen’s wages is being made very difficult, and that this Government is most anxious to help the British shipping companies. Honorable senators opposite are lining themselves up with Inchcape and Company to bring about a reduction of £1 per month in the wages of British seamen.

Senator Crawford:

– That is absolutely untrue.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Crawford to withdraw that remark.

Senator Crawford:

– I withdraw. I also ask for the withdrawal of the statement that honorable members on this side are lining themselves up with Inchcape and Company for the purpose of reducing the wages of British seamen.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is entitled to say that the statement to which he objects is incorrect.

Senator GARDINER:

– I accept Senator Crawford’s denial. I may be wrong, but I have formed a definite conclusion that the new police force is to be brought into existence to assist Inchcape and Company. I should like to see a list of the shareholders of this combine, to find out to what extent the Government is interested in it.” During the war this company’s methods of collecting enormous profits were condemned even by the Chancellor of England.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator would probably find that some of the shares in the combine are held by men interested in the Labour movement.

Senator GARDINER:

– I was always told that when a brick was thrown among a number of snapping dogs that the one that howled was hit. I do not think that I am the most vindictive man in this country.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator makes the most reckless statements.

Senator GARDINER:

– The Minister is most careful in his statements. I heard him to-day, in committee, make at least twenty harmless speeches, every one of which was - “I move that the committee do now divide.” .This Government is so anxious to assist the British shipping interest that it has introduced a bill with the object of appointing officers, the number of which is unknown. Can I, therefore) be blamed for imagining that the Government is acting in collusion with Inchcape and Company? No special legislation was introduced when the Commonwealth Government Shipping Line was held up. Why is there any necessity to introduce special legislation now that British ves”sels are held up? The Ministry should inform the Senate and the public of its intentions. We should know if this new force is to be armed, and whether it is to be used to “bull-doze” the unions. All we know is that the whole of this mighty force is to be used to arrest Tom Walsh and Jacob Johannsen, who are the elected leaders of the Seamen’s Union.

Senator C W GRANT:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1932

– Has the honorable senator read the statements which those persons made in the Sydney Domain yesterday ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and I re- pudiate any statements of that kind. I hall always repudiate any sentiment that -aims at interference with or injury to any portion of the British Empire. J cannot but conclude that a secretly armed organization is to be formed to assist the power-holding classes to crush unionism and its aspirations. The most dangerous thing to have in existence is a suspicion of wrongdoing when wrongdoing does not exist. If there is wrongdoing, and the offender shows that none was intended, the matter ends there, but a grave suspicion of wrongdoing iD the minds of the community cannot be readily removed. The press of this country have deliberately enlarged upon the dangers of communism. I pointed out in committee that about a dozen’ communist candidates stood at the last New South “Wales election, and polled Jess than 800 votes. That surely shows that their influence in this country is very small.

Senator Pearce:

– The best indication of their strength is the fight that the honorable senator is to-day putting up in their interests. It shows that he is proud of them.

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Pearce has deliberately tried to misrepresent me, but I have been so long in this Senate and in the public life of this country that I am not afraid of mud thrown like that sticking to me. I have on more than one occasion offered my opposition to any pro-, posalof any section of the communists to act on other than constitutional lines. The Labour party, of which Senator Pearce was at one time a distinct ornament and useful member, has always stood solidly foi constitutional methods and procedure. If the Minister thinks that I stand for revolutionary methods, and would be a party to any measure that takes from Britisher’s the privileges handed down by » Magna Charta, or that takes from Australians that clear charter of liberty given under the Commonwealth Constitution, all that I can say is that he has grown weaker than I have ever known him to be. The Labour party is not fighting for the communists, but against the degradation of this Parliament through having such measures as this put on the statute-book. We are now fighting for further consideration of this bill, realizing that governments are strengthened by wise measures and weakened by unwise legislation. If the Minister reads the newspapers he will see that the unions have been fighting Walsh and Johannsen, but persistence in legislation of this nature will drive them into one camp. It may not be very detrimental to the interests of the community to have Walsh and Johannsen fighting for revolution, which they believe in, but this bill, side by side with measures already adopted by the Government, will prove a greater menace to the liberty of the people than all the revolutionary agitators in the country. Liberty will be at an end when citizens are liable to be arrested by these peace officers and brought before a board appointed to convict them. All that the Labour party says is that citizens shall not be molested unless they are to be given a trial by jury. Of course, there are other aspects of the bill with which we desire to deal. We want to know what the board will cost, and what wages will be paid to the peace officers. It is reasonable to contend that Parliament should determine the expenditure necessary, andthat the payment should not be made merely on the Governor-General’s warrant. Whether the force is to be great or small, Parliament should be consulted as to any necessary disbursement of public funds, for it has always enjoyed that prerogative. I wish the bill to be amended so that the Government will be required to make known exactly how much is to be spent on this force, by laying on the table a list of the men enrolled, and the salaries to be paid them. I ask this, not for my own benefit, but as one who claims to be a protector of the public purse. I foreshadowed an amendment limiting the expenditure to £25,000,000, and I suggested that the number of the force should be limited to 100,000. The committee showed its disapproval, and I saved honorable senators’ time by not moving amendments to that effect. Honorable senators opposite have an exaggerated idea of the Government’s powers if they think that this matter will be left to the will of the Governor-General. They will find that they are making a serious mistake. They may proceed on these lines for six months, but next April they will have to face the electors, who will remind them that they supported this bill, although the Government refused to state how much was to be expended under it, and Parliament was denied an opportunity to consider the cost with a view to either increasing or reducing it. I can imagine Senator Guthrie saying that Tom Walsh threatened the community with a revolu tion, and Parliament was forced to adopt strong measures. The electors will reply - “If any persons were acting against the peace, order, and good government of the country, the proper thing for the Government to do was to prosecute them in the courts of the land. This Government has been in office for two years and six months, and I have not heard of its haling any of these persons before the courts. There may have been a few trivial charges brought against them, but I think that the prosecutions have generally fizzled out. Now an alteration in the whole principle of the law is proposed. Although the Opposition realizes that it cannot prevent the passage of the bill, it intends to make it as difficult as possible to give effect to a measure that differentiates between a citizen born in Great Britain and one born in Australia. I want Australians to be first in all things, on their merits, and not because of special privileges conferred upon them by Parliament. I stand here to-day as the outspoken champion of the British Empire. I want to see British people held together by bonds of love and sympathy, and I wish to prevent this stupid Government from passing a law which will differentiate between Britishers.

Senator Elliott:

– Is the honorable senator sure that he is not speaking with his tongue in his cheek all the time?

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank the honorable senator for that. I do not think that it will be said that cunning deceit is one of my outstanding characteristics. Senator Elliott is too outspoken to be accused of that, but I do not know about Senator Guthrie. I have not summed him up yet.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator is unable to.

Senator GARDINER:

– I have almost finished what I have to say.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator has nearly exhausted his hour.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not think that I have once occupied the whole of the time allowed under the Standing Orders. I again appeal to the Government . not to proceed on these lines. It is a wrong step to take, and it is not calculated to benefit anybody in or outside Australia. The measure is bound to injure the reputation of the Commonwealth. What will the people of England say when they know that men of the type of Senator Guthrie are advocating that Englishmen should be placed on a different footing before the law from men of Australian birth?

Senator Guthrie:

– Jacob Johannsen is not an Englishman. His name is not Johnson.

Senator GARDINER:

– He gave evidence upon oath in a court of law that his name was Jacob Johnson. Whatever his name may be, surely Senator Guthrie is broadminded enough, to know that, great as the British Empire is, there are decent men belonging to other nations. 1 daresay that we should find in Senator Guthrie’s home a photograph of William of Holland. 1 do not desire to reflect upon the House of Brunswick, but nobody is in the habit of taking exception to those whose name was Wettin and is, I think, now changed to Windsor. Whether a man is a union secretary or not he is entitled to respect. I have great respect for union leaders. They always have to bear the brunt of the criticism levelled at their unions, and many a time they have to advocate, proposals with which they personally disagree, for the simple reason that they are loyal to the men who put them in their positions. If some of these men have conducted themselves as Senator Guthrie suggests, why has this wicked Government not brought them to justice before? It is one thing to punish wrongdoers, but it is. an entirely different matter to devise un-British ways of bringing them to book. I merely ask that the bill be recommitted, so that we may reconsider clauses 1 to 8, and have an opportunity’ of proposing certain additional clauses, so that the courts of justice will be open to Australians and Englishmen alike. I hope that Senator Guthrie, particularly, will bear in mind that the high respect in which the courts of Australia are -now held is due to the fact that the judges have acted fairly as umpires, pointing out what the law is, but not participating in the verdict. This board and these peace officers will be partisans, and how can the board’s verdicts be received with respect? Such a proposal can only minimize respect for the law in the minds of all right-thinking men and women.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator Pearce:

Mr. President, has the question been put?

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot put the question until the motion has bee L seconded.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the motion. Senator Gardiner has not had sufficient time to set out fully the reasons why the bill should be recommitted, and I desire, therefore,, to give additional arguments in support of his contention. I find that the power to appoint peace officers, instead of being given to the Minister for Home and Territories, is to be delegated to the Attorney-General. In New South Wales I understand that the appointment of the police force is exclusively the function of the Chief Secretary. In that State every possible step is taken to see that the men appointed to these responsible positions are fully qualified by reason of both age and physique to discharge their duties efficiently. Under this bill, however, it is proposed to give the Attorney-General the appointment of these men, and he is to be clothed with power to delegate his powers to some unknown . authority. I should like to see the bill recommitted for the purpose of amending clause 2, with a view to removing from the AttorneyGeneral the power that it is proposed to confer upon him to appoint these officers, and to invest that power in the Minister for- Home and Territories. It is a proper function of the Department of Home and Territories to attend to the internal affairs of the nation. These proposed appointees will have to carry into effect the provisions of” an act that was recently passed by the Parliament, and they ought to possess special qualifications. No provision is made in the bill that they shall pass an examination, or possess any qualification. The Senate . passed recently a measure dealing with the salary of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner. No hesitancy was shown when it came to specifying the salary that he should receive. The Northern Australian Bill also provided that the members of the proposed commission should receive a salary up to, but not exceeding, a certain sum. There is no such provision in this bill. The salaries of members of-

Parliament and officers of the Public Service are well known. Why should there not be a schedule to the bill setting out the conditions of appointment, and the salaries of the proposed peace officers? It is intended merely to give the AttorneyGeneral the power to appoint these men and pay them any salary that he thinks fit. I strongly condemn a policy that will lead to the singling out of any individual for special treatment. All men in Australia should be subject to the operation of the same laws. These officers will have almost unlimited powers, and their duties will be of a very responsible character. At present 85 per cent. of the population of Australia is native-born. Why should that 85 per cent. arrogate to itself the right to” deal in a more drastic way with those who are born outside Australia than with those who are native-born. Why should we blazon forth to the people of Great Britain the fact that if they come here they will not be treated in the manner in which Australians are treated? That is clearly set out.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– It is not set out in the motion, to which the honorable senator must confine his remarks.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If I cannot destroy this bill, and the legislation of which it is complementary, I want to make them as innocuous as possible. The amendment that I have foreshadowed is designed to secure a clear statement of the salaries that the Government proposes to pay, and of the number of officers that it proposes to appoint.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has already said that two or three times. I ask him not to repeat it.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is another reason why I desire that the bill should be recommitted. When a member of the Public Service wishes to resign he does not experience very great trouble in doing so. If he hands in his resignation, or if he is discharged, his connexion with the Public Service abruptly ceases. This bill, however, proposes that no peace officer shall be at liberty to resign his office, or to withdraw from the duties thereof, unless expressly authorized so to do by the Attorney-General or the person thereto authorized in writing by the Attorney-General, or unless he gives the Attorney-General or the authorized person three months’ notice in writing of his intention to so resign, or withdraw; and any peace officer who so resigns or withdraws without such previous permission or notice shall be guilty of an offence for which the penalty is £50 or imprisonment for three months. Such a provision should not be countenanced for a single moment. When the bill is recommitted, I propose to move an amendment under which appointees will have the right to resign on giving 24 hours’ notice. A member of this Parliament can resign at a moment’s notice. One did so recently. His resignation was placed before the President, and accepted immediately. The position of a member of this Parliament is very much more important than that of a proposed peace officer.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is entitled to use. those arguments if the bill is recommitted. He can now merely give reasons for the recommittal ; he may not discuss each clause of the bill.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was endeavouring to impress upon the Senate the desirability of recommitting the bill. The’ Minister should be invited to advance reasons for the retention of the provisions requiring appointees to give three months’ notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has unnecessarily repeated that statement three or four times.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Another amendment that I think ought to be made is one which will provide that no regulation under the act shall come into operation until it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The power to make regulations that has been conferred by clause 9 is too comprehensive, and at the same time too vague. The clause will not give members of this Parliament an opportunity to know what the Government is doing. The Executive is appointed to carry out the work of the Parliament, but at the same time Parliament should know what is is doing.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable member can discuss that matter in committee if the bill is recommitted. He has dealt with it sufficiently long to indicate that he regards it as a reason for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is necessary to make these references in order that members of the Government may be convinced of the desirability of recommitting the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have allowed the honorable senator to make those re ferences.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support Senator Gardiner’s amendment. My desire is to improve the bill. The Government will be making a very great mistake if it persists in its present attitude.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) - That the Senate do now divide - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clauses 1 to 8 inclusive and the consideration of proposed new clauses - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Senator Crawford) - That the Senate do now divide - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the report be adopted - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 19

NOES: 7

Majority 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator NEEDHAM:
“Western Australia

.- Our standing order 217 reads -

Amendments may be moved to such question by leaving out “now” and adding “this day six months,” which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the bill; or the previous .question may be moved.

In accordance with that provision, I move the following amendment: -

That the word “now” be left out, with a view to adding to the motion “ this day six months “.

I move the amendment in consequence of the great eagerness of the Government to place the measure on the statute-book. It was believed that the provisions of the Immigration Act gave the Government complete power to deport persons on certain grounds. I could understand that there was some measure of reason in the Government pressing forward this bill if there was any sign of a serious or grave industrial dispute in Australia, but that is not so. I would suggest, therefore, that the bill be shelved. I do not like to anticipate trouble, but I feel sure that the passage of a measure of this description will cause an industrial disturbance No honorable senator desires that. I do not wish it to be thought that honorable senators on this side of the chamber have opposed this bill because they countenance anything in the nature of industrial disturbances.

Senator Duncan:

– That is just what honorable senators opposite are doing.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I deny that.

Senator Duncan:

– It is too late now to hedge.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– We have opposed this bill because we object to any interference with our British liberties. Our existing law courts and machinery for the administration- of justice are quite sufficient to deal with any persons in the community who break the law. We object to the creation of tribunals such as that constituted under the provisions of the Immigration Act. If the Standing Orders had permitted me to do so, I should have moved to insert the words “ this day week “ instead of “ this day six months,” for I believe that the dispute to which the Government intends to apply the machinery which will be created in pursuance to the provisions of this bill will in a week’s time have been amicably settled. As Senator Hannan stated this afternoon, the industrial leaders in Australia and Great Britain are working hard to achieve that desirable end. It is well within the memory of honorable senators that, notwithstanding the aggravation caused by the introduction of the Immigration Bill during the Australian seamen’s dispute, a few weeks ago, our industrial leaders were able to effect a peaceful settlement of that trouble. I believe that their efforts will be equally successful in the British seamen’s dispute. In view of the professions of Senator Pearce, that he desires to maintain industrial peace in Australia, I cannot see how he can do other than accept the amendment. Apart from that, however, we ought to postpone further consideration of this bill for the reason that the Government has given us no information whatever as to the number of men it proposes to appoint, nor the salaries it proposes to pay. These are important aspects of the subject. This morning’s press informed lis that the Government was determined to force the passage of this bill, irrespective of whether the British seamen’s dispute was settled. Why should it be necessary to have a measure like this on the statute-book when there is no need for it? Wise and sound advice has been sent to the British seamen to obey the orders of their executive. Knowing all this, why should not the Government accept my amendment? The trouble will be disposed of within a few days. I want again to refer to the threat which, according to the press, has been made by Ministers, that, whether the dispute is settled immediately or not, they will, go ahead with, the enforcement of the deportation provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act. Evidently, any person not Australian-born who takes part in any industrial trouble is to be sent out of Australia. But, if that is done, Ministers cannot avoid being themselves the creators of industrial strife. We are also told in the press that the board appointed under the provisions of the Immigration Restriction Act held a meeting yesterday, which was Sunday. I believe that before hearing any evidence it has made up its mind to deport certain persons from Australia. But that will not be the end. I ask Senator Pearce whether any resident of Australia can be deported on a decision of this board without having the right to appeal to the highest tribunal in the land.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:

– As the honorable senator is aware, this bill cannot affect any citizen’s rights in the courts of law.

Senator NEEDHAM:

-I realize, Mr. President, that if I stress this point I shall be, perhaps, trespassing on your patience, but if I am allowed incidentally to refer to what I call the Deportation Act, I can show that, if it were not for the passing of that measure, this bill would not be needed.

The PRESIDENT:

– Beyond a passing reference, the honorable senator is not entitled to discuss the other measure.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I am anxious to prevent this bill from going through hastily. My reasons for seeking to postpone the third reading I can briefly state. The most important reason is that we should refuse to be panic-stricken and driven into a state of hysteria merely because the Government of the day happens to have got into such a state. Another reason is that what is happening outside is not as serious as the Government thinks it is. Endeavours are now being made to bring the strike of British seamen to a successful termination . Another reason is that the Government has not seen fit to tell us what expenditure will be entailed in administering this measure. We have had nothing hut a general statement from Senator Pearce that whatever expenditure is necessary will be incurred. Parliament should not be asked to come to a decision blind-folded in this way. 1 should like first of all to be told what it will cost the country to embark upon something which may be and is, in my opinion, unnecessary. We should have an indication as to the number of Commonwealth police officers, or, to give them the more dignified term, peace officers, likely to be appointed. We should know what their standing will be, and who they are. We should be told if they are to be recruited from the public service. Will the Government call upon certain members of the public service to undertake this work at the risk of losing their positions, or their chances of promotion, if they refuse? Will the members of the police force created in 1916 be used for this purpose? If those men are to be employed, we should know who they are and what remuneration they will be paid.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now divide.

The PRESIDENT:

– The amendment not having been seconded, the main question before the Senate is “ That the bill be now read a third time,” to which Senator Pearce has moved “ That the Senate do now divide.”

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rose to second the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the Standing Orders any senator is entitled to intervene with the motion “That the Senate do now divide.” In the exercise of this right, the Minister intervened before the amendment was seconded.

Question - That the Senate do now divide - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 7

Majority 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the bill be now read a third time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . , . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2064

ADJOURNMENT

Pairs

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator J GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to say that while Senator Cox, to whom I had given a pair was absent, I inadvertently voted on one occasion, forgetting that I had arranged for a pair.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at6.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 August 1925, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1925/19250831_senate_9_111/>.